Taylor Swift endorses Kamala Harris
Taylor Swift endorses Kamala Harris
The musician's endorsement, which had been eagerly anticipated, was signed "Childless Cat Lady."
You're viewing a single thread.
Why do we care what a rich entertainer thinks?
Maybe we don't, but she's got a huge fanbase and they probably do.
Just let her and ja rule decide who's the next president. Why the extra steps?
Why do they assign weight to her perspective?
Because they admire her
Is it wise that they assign her perspective value because they admire her ability to sing and dance?
it's not, but they do anyway
This story has nearly 600 upvotes, so far. Does that imply that we care about winning more than we care about the the wisdom and agency of others?
I care about one thing above everything else -- Keeping Donald Trump away from the levers of power. And I have good reasons for this:
- My wife is a Black bisexual Goth Pagan. That's at least three hates from Team Trump.
- I have Student Loans. I can repay them at 5% of my income, but 10% will become too much of a burden. And I'd really like to get my 120 payments in to get the rest wiped out.
- I care about the future of the planet. Having a guy raging against Solar and Wind for stupid made up reasons in office doesn't support that goal.
- I care about keeping Russia out of Ukraine and Israel out of Palestine. While I also care about keeping Hamas out of Israel, I think Trump is bad for ALL those goals.
And that's just the short list.
I support Biden and his successor Harris on the merits, too. The Chips Act is a great win for really getting microchips made in the US. Biden's done a damn good job on investing in US infrastructure, which is an important thing to me. His attempts to deal with Student Loans are a big part of why I have stopped taking night classes and reentered repayment. And he's doing a damn fine job overall. But again. My goal above all other goals is keeping Trump away from the White House.
- A vote for RFK Jr. is not going to accomplish this. Not only is he an anti-evidence candidate pushing BS conspiracy theory positions and only a few steps to the left of Trump et al, he's also not going to win, and the most he could do is poach enough left-leaning votes with his last name to get Trump in office.
- A vote for Jill Stein is not going to accomplish this. Not only is she a sycophant for Putin and a peddler of disinformation herself (reasons alone to vote against her), her position as an alternative to the Mainstream Left-Most candidate is just another way to steal enough left-wing votes to ... get Trump into office.
- A vote for Cornel West is not going to accomplish this. While I admire the man, the reality is that he doesn't have enough access to have even a remote chance of winning the Presidency, and his run only ensures that votes that would have gone to Harris end up going to him, lowering the threshold at which Trump can steal the Presidency...getting Trump into office.
- Staying home is not going to accomplish this. All it does is lowers Harris' vote count, making it easier for Trump to steal the Presidency...getting Trump into office.
My goal is to ensure my Black bisexual goth pagan wife doesn't get ground under the bootheels of Trumpian Authoritarianism. One of the ways I do this is by debunking posts like this. I don't care about winning. I care about Trump losing. And I don't see wisdom here. I see...well, Rule 3 so I can't say what I exactly see here, but it's not wisdom or any of its synonyms. I see a willing dismissal of truth here, a poster arguing to give the election to Trump because the Democratic candidate isn't EXACTLY what they demanded. And agency? Pal, nobody's holding a gun to your head and saying you MUST vote Harris. Do any of the options I mentioned above, or go ahead and vote Trump, or any other silly 'protest' vote you want. We're just here saying that you're gonna get Trump for all of us and screw over a whole bunch of people you claim to support.
I'm also a triple minority. I'm not afraid of Trump. I've suffered his kind my whole life.
Perhaps the way to progress is to put the platform you want on every Presidential ballot in 2028. You know how that's done, right?
This poster took one bullet point out of four to nitpick on, while ignoring everything else I posted. I wonder WHY, and you should to, dear reader.
Again. My sole goal is to get Trump away from office, and yes, if I have to work with Progressives, Moderates, Mainstream Democrats, Conservative Dems, and even moderate Republicans, I think we make that work. Actual Progressives feel that we've made real progress on a variety of issues, including Student Loans, Green Energy, and minority rights that will be reversed and reversed hard by a Trump admin. Rather than let this poster spew this nonsense unchallenged, I am here articulating where it is wrong and why you shouldn't listen to it. Please keep this in mind as you read our exchanges, dear reader, and remember: There ARE factions out there trying to get you to throw your vote behind a Third Party or stay home, for the express goal of allowing Trump to steal the election and tear down everything you love. Remember that as you read posts that tell you vote Third Party or just stay home.
Curious are you a Russian or Chinese agent? Which one pays you better?
Curious if anyone is fooled by such shallow ad hominem, Xen.
They admire more than that. But, like, there’s an implication in the fact that you are posting on Lemmy that you believe people should assign a nonzero value to your perspective; why is that? I would assume that you make your arguments and believe they have value based on their own merit, regardless of the fact we have no idea who you are. Well, Taylor Swift made a post where she stated her position and gave arguments too. Is there any reason her perspective should not have any value but yours and mine should?
Furthermore, if someone does know who she is and wants to also take into account that they admire her music and songwriting, her personality, her perspective, and/or her various life accomplishments, why shouldn’t they? We’re talking about politics here, where everyone is making it up as they go along. She’s not trying to use her celebrity status to get a paper published in a physics journal or something.
I've done little more than ask questions about why someone should respect her political perspective because she's rich singer and dancer.
Yes, I noticed you were asking that question, hence my reply which took your question into account. If you get a chance, you could try doing the same.
There's so much bullshit here that I acted as if you also posted bullshit. I apologize. I've read your post in full and more carefully.
I can't seem to find her post in full, only snippets of her conclusion. Mass media sucks that way. Do you happen to know where I can find her post, unedited and without making an account?
So you replied to my post without reading, still didn’t address the questions I asked after acknowledging this, and are now shamelessly saying you also never even read Taylor Swift’s post in the first place before making all your comments. And yet your thesis is that there’s no reason to place any value on what she says?
Is there any reason her perspective should not have any value but yours and mine should?
She provides nearly no reasoning for her perspective.
Furthermore, if someone does know who she is and wants to also take into account that they admire her music and songwriting, her personality, her perspective, and/or her various life accomplishments, why shouldn’t they?
She's rich, a marketed character. She shouldn't be trusted by default.
We’re talking about politics here, where everyone is making it up as they go along. She’s not trying to use her celebrity status to get a paper published in a physics journal or something.
This ridiculous comparison, and being outright incorrect in it, is why your questions weren't answered. I've rectified that.
And yet your thesis is that there’s no reason to place any value on what she says?
No reason? I didn't say that. I said the implied reasons to value her perspective aren't meritable.
Now that I've read her post I find I was entirely correct. She's chosen what's safe, politic, and popular: conclusions without reasoning. She could've risked what her conscience should've told her was correct. But, she predictably didn't.
OP posted a screenshot here:
https://lemmy.world/comment/12292155Thank you.
She states her conclusions with nearly non-existent reasoning. As it sits it deserves very little respect.
She's at least as qualified as one of the candidates to have a perspective, and has an edge because she hasn't bankrupted any casinos, sabotaged a nation's pandemic response, or raped any kids that I know about. Not that qualification is necessary to have or state a perspective.
I strongly question the judgement of anyone who questions the judgement of someone advising voting against Trump.
She's at least as qualified as one of the candidates to have a perspective
Your measure of merit is "relative to shit".
I strongly question the judgement of anyone who questions the judgement of someone advising voting against Trump.
You don't care for facts and reason, only agreement.
That's not a perspective that deserves respect.
You have yet to demonstrate any facts or reason.
"Don't vote for the shit candidate" otoh is reasonable.
"Don't vote for the shit candidate" otoh is reasonable
I agree. That's why I won't vote for Trump, Harris, or anyone else that funds their campaigns with corporate money.
You could just as well ask why people assign weight to Trump's perspective, but instead you're asking about Taylor Swift.
I'd rather they not vote at all if they're just basing their choice on what some billionaire entertainer says.
It's about sending a message, setting a signal. People should think for themselves, I agree, but come on. Do you ignore all other forms of influence people experience or what weird world do you live in?
what weird world do you live in?
The one where shitloads of people let celebrities influence how they think.
I hate to break it to you, but Trump himself was a celebrity turned president. So we've no choice but to live in a world where celebrity seems to be important as some kind of qualification. His other qualification was "businessman" aka used-car-salesman.
Yes, my opinion on that is consistent with my previously stated opinion that people should not be listening to celebrities in regards to politics. The same goes for Reagan. Neither of those fuckers should have ever been taken into account but because morons just believe whatever the TV tells them too here we are. Just because the celebrity in question happens to be supporting our side this time doesn't make it a good thing.
You don't have to if you don't want.
But whether you like it or no rich entertainers like Taylor Swift get lots of media and views. Which parleys into influence and bringing attention to a candidate or an idea.
This is the reason why anyone that wants to grow a brand and/or an idea will try to get a celebrity to endorse it.
Edit: This doesn't mean they know more than the average joe it's all about marketing
Why do others assign value to her perspective? Is she especially qualified to decide whom others should vote for?
Probably because they feel aligned with her values and see her success as an indicator that she is smart. Therefore, she is someone worth emulating.
Does the rich singer and dancer represent her values honestly, is it marketing, or is there some of both? Is it wise to assign her perspective value?
If people used logic, Trump would never have made into politics to begin with.
If the majority was logical then we'd have been revolting for the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the passing of the Interstate Branching and Banking Efficiency Act.
I think it's far more important to encourage wisdom than pretend to play whack-a-mole with bank-owned politicians.
What do you think?
How do you propose we go about changing this? How do we effectively encourage it?
I think that purely logical thought is impossible, and believing we are a logical person can lead us to assume all our opinions are logical, inherently. Which leads to using after the fact logic to justify initial gut reactions. Is that what you mean by wisdom? The ability to understand your own emotional reaction and decide if it's based on anything useful? Or is it something else?
I think, at this point in time, celebrity culture is important to be aware of. Trump was a reality tv star, after all. I think a better world could be made if society didn't care about celebrities, but that is not where we live, and observing reality seems an important step to understanding it. And understanding it can help us determine if there is a way to alter this. If that's the goal. Is that the purpose to your questions?
Now that the main glut of whatever has passed, I want to express that your post above, particularly your question, made my day. It's perhaps the best question I've been asked engaging with .world. Thank you.
How do you propose we go about changing this? How do we effectively encourage it?
You're witnessing one very small act of praxis right now. But, my best results are always IRL, personal, in a recurring one-on-one or small group discussion. And, I'm not to lead that discussion, instead following where the others lead, the only boundary logical fallacy.
A poor summary would be "Agency at all costs." But, a good answer to your question would require a very lengthy response. My greatest influence in means is Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire (1968). But, there's so many good tools, from the New Testament to the emotional delivery of Malcolm X. Being able to adapt is critical. Perhaps most important is to risk making it personal.
I'm going to take a stab at interpreting Crashhumbc's post.
Politics is a popularity contest. You're imploring Swift to write a fully cited research paper with academic rigor to justify her vote. Most people just go into the ballot box and pick the name that appeals the most to them. You are unrealistic in your evaluation of people, and hold major influencers (aka Celebrities) to standards that nobody else will.
Taylor Swift is a pretty blonde girl with a hot body, and a rocking singing voice and dancing skill to make the most of that hot body. Her original plan was to withhold her voting choice until after the election so she could focus on her current tour and not get right-wing agitators harming her or her fans. But then somebody made a DeepFake of her endorsing Trump, and she had no choice.
She explicitly does not want to tell her fans how to vote. She starts with that, reiterates it throughout her screed, and ends with it. But she makes it clear she's NOT endorsing Trump, but instead, voting against him.
Will her fans change their votes based on what she's said she's going to do? Yes. Unfortunately. They'll not read the three+ times she says "vote for who you think the best choice is, not who I think the best choice is", and only see her "I am voting Harris/Walz." You can't expect her to be responsible for her fans' poor choice in decision making, though. She's not telling you how to vote, and she doesn't want you to vote with her. That's a huge part of why she said she'd not release her voting choice 'until after her tour' (which ends after the election). Had the Deepfakers not made a video of her endorsing Trump, we'd still probably be guessing at who she supports.
She doesn't decide who they vote for.
Why does anyone care what a singer and dancer thinks about political representation?
She's not allowed to or qualified to have an opinion according to you?
My point is that not everyone's opinion deserves respect.
For example, you've resorted to strawman instead of asking a question. It'll be quite difficult for me to respect anything else you've to say on the topic.
Why on Earth would you say that, unless you think your opinion is important and valid and worthy of being heard? Yet you out here arguing other people's opinions aren't. Wow, great mind. Cry about strawmen a bit more.
I say it because it's the truth of your actions. It's an error you're now continuing to make.
That won't work out well for you, not even online. Best of luck.
That's some cringy shit.
You're asking more questions in this thread than anyone. I'd be curious why you care so much about who this celebrity endorses. I'm guessing it has more to do with who they endorse than their lack of political background.
I'm guessing it has more to do with who they endorse than their lack of political background.
That's because it's convenient and comfortable.
I don't care what people choose. I only care about the comprehensiveness and quality of their facts and reason.
You're asking more questions in this thread than anyone.
Isn't it meritable to ask questions?
Isn’t it meritable to ask questions?
not when your questions amount to "why would people listen to her?!?!" when you know full well why - its the same reason Trump already used AI Taylor Swift to endorse himself.
You write like a freshman who has been enjoying debate club starting back up.
I don’t care what people choose. I only care about the comprehensiveness and quality of their facts and reason.
If you ultimately didn't care who they choose, and instead just their line of thinking surely you wouldn't be so riled up by something you knew was coming? The Richest man in the world bought a social media platform that now has a main purpose of getting Trump elected.
Your tired "just asking questions act" would be better suited for Facebook in like 2015
You write like a freshman
I must meet my audience where the are.
Your research is all yours to do, and the choice is yours to make.
Swift quote from the article. She is telling people to make their own decisions, whilst announcing her own choice and making no claims about qualifications. What is wrong with this?
What is wrong with this?
Her reasoning isn't communicated in adequate nuance to earn respect for her perspective. She's chosen what's safe, politic, and popular rather than risk what her conscience should tell her is right.
Oh geez, I'm guessing you are the one who knows what's right and speaks the true wisdom of all our consciences.. Let us all bow down in respect to Sir Derpy of the correct nuance
My standards are high relative status quo and average relative very basic moral and ethical analysis. I'll encourage you to choose to also set a higher standard. As a human you deserve better.
She stated in her post a major motivation for her was the fake AI pictures Trump and Co circulated a few weeks ago, so they definitely care. I actually admire that she is simply stating she plans to vote for Harris, rather than outright endorsing her. Swift advises people to be politically informed and to vote. I think that's a pretty good message for anyone to say.
She stated in her post a major motivation for her was the fake AI pictures Trump and Co circulated a few weekss ago
That's definitely a part she should've left out.
Why? Again it was her motivation for the post?
Inclusion implies that if she'd not been targeted then she'd not have spoken up.
I won't doubt that there is some intention there along those lines. Maybe she wanted it to be read that way. I see it more along those lines than a full-blown endorsement.
I perceive its appeal to MLK's "white moderate".
Why do we care what you think?
Because you subscribed? If you don't care what people think here just unsubscribe and move on.
I don't recall subscribing to sirderpy's Tucker Carlson questions simulator. Where do I unsubscribe?
Because she has a ridiculous number of fans and this may spur some of them to vote that might not have otherwise.
Hopefully she reiterates it shortly before election day to stir people into action.
Is it wise to want others to choose based on propaganda instead of fact and reason?
No, but it's what we get. Reality and what is wise do not often go hand in hand.
Should we attempt to change that or upvote 600 times to propagate the nonsense?
We don't, this is propaganda
Do you even know what propaganda is?
You know, like Trump basically fabricating Swift's support though bullshit AI and forcing her hand
Do you even know what propaganda is?
This post: the government giving money to pop artists to make them more famous and to do ads for them, also the government spending millions to advertise in online platforms.
There's almost 600 upvotes so far. If this is propaganda then that fact speaks for itself.
If you are a fan of this pop celebrity you are most likely a victim of propaganda and marketing.
She's an incredible singer and dancer. I've respect for her talent and hard work. If she ever decides to create content for adults and take some risks in composition then I'd probably even enjoy her music.
But, she's targeting adolescents and young adults. I agree that the majority are victims of propaganda and marketing.
This sub is propagating that nonsense. That's not good.
she’s targeting adolescents and young adults.
Sound like their are more of a salesman than an incredible artist. Do you have any videos of their best performances? So far what i've seen on youtube is far from incredible.
I'm not sure of what to recommend as I'm not a fan. I've only seen a smattering of what was popular over the years. But, I also don't think it's difficult to recognize a strong vocalist or dancer. I admit she's not Whitney or MJ, that "incredible" was exaggeration of my perspective.
I'm also curious. I'd like to see what her fans consider her best.