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 part of a thread.
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?
yes
Is that moral and ethical?
Is derping to get Trump elected moral or ethical?
Is perpetuating false dichotomy?
It's not a false dichotomy at all. The choice in this national election, like basically all national elections preceding it, is between the two major party candidates.
Since that's the reality, any actions you're taking regarding the election and its discussion can be correctly regarded as support for one candidate or the other.
So I ask you again, is derping to help get Trump elected moral or ethical?
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.
This poster assumed bad faith maliciousness instead of asking questions. They can't tell friend from foe. But, they've certainly lots of words to express the status quo reasoning prevalent among you.
express the status quo reasoning prevalent among you.
🤣
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.
So, let's break down her post, because I'm sure you didn't read it.
- She watched the debate, and asks for all voters to research the candidates and make their own conclusions.
Literally, her first paragraph is an appeal to each and every American to research the issues and the candidates and come to their own conclusions. Nowhere does she opt to tell you how to vote. In fact, she says repeatedly to do your own research and make your own choice.
- An AI DeepFake of her endorsing Trump encouraged her to come out and make her voting choice clear.
She explained the problems with DeepFakes and AI bullshit, and used that as a justification for revealing what is normally a secret ballot. She didn't want to endorse anyone. In fact, it was stated she'd keep her mouth shut about her politics to protect her fans until her current tour was done (elsewhere, not in this thread) which meant she was initially planning on not revealing her choice at all, which most voters actually do, since our ballots are secret and all. But when Trump claimed her (fake) endorsement, she had to stop and set the record straight, despite not wanting to bring the backlash on her fans.
- Her voting choice is for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. She's even listed some of her reasons, including Walz' support for LGBQ rights, women's rights, and other choices he's made for decades, and keeping the chaos of Donald Trump and the GQP away from the levers of power in the US.
She doesn't go deeper into this, admittedly and maybe even unfortunately, just saying she believes Harris/Walz is the better choice to run the country for the next 4 years. She basically just lays out what motivated her to pick the team she did, and why she didn't pick the other team (Team Chaos). But there's a reason for this!
- She implores you to do your research and make your choice, like she did her research and made her choice. She reminds you that whatever choice you make, you need to make sure you are registered, and says she will link registration processes to her story in the future.
Nowhere in any of this does she tell you who to vote for. She doesn't want to. She just asks you to do your research, both on the candidates and issues, AND on how to properly cast your vote this election. I'm sure if you popped up on her thread and said you were going to vote for whatever candidate, she'd say 'good on you, make sure you are making the right choice, and check these links to verify you can actually vote!' She seems to be the kind of person that lets you make your own decisions.
Will Swifties see her voting for Harris as a justification for voting for Harris? Probably. I hope she continues emphasising that people should make up their own minds based on their own research, while advocating for harm reduction and de-chaosing. That seems to be in line with how she functions. And you should never base what your vote is going to be on how someone else votes. I would have liked to have seen a more detailed breakdown of her decision and a link to the sources she made her decisions off of, but let's get real. MANY people don't have an academic background and know how to cite their sources, so...yeah. I won't expect it from Taylor Swift.
In conclusion, she's not giving 'reasoning for her perspective' because she's not telling you who to vote for. She's saying who she's voting for because AI put words in her mouth that the major candidate most opposed to her positions used to claim her endorsement. That's all.
You're assuming I'm dumb. That's an error.
Nah, I'm not. I'm assuming you have an agenda you're pushing, and I'm using the very post you said you read to point out that no, she's not doing anything you're accusing her of, and she doesn't owe you, or anyone else, anything. And I'm doing so not to change your mind, but to inform anyone else who stumbles across your posts that you're not being forthright and honest with your claims, and that she's merely saying "I'm voting for this choice" because some jackwagon with some AI skills made a fake video of her saying "I'm voting for the other choice." That's all.
At this point, I'm not talking to you anymore, just using your words as examples of arguments that get Trump elected.
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.