politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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?
She provides nearly no reasoning for her perspective.
She's rich, a marketed character. She shouldn't be trusted by default.
This ridiculous comparison, and being outright incorrect in it, is why your questions weren't answered. I've rectified that.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Assuming disagreement and bad faith is even worse than assuming me and idiot, particularly when you're not asking any questions.
Wow. Thanks for doing all my work for me. Keep talking.
OP posted a screenshot here:
https://lemmy.world/comment/12292155
Thank you.
She states her conclusions with nearly non-existent reasoning. As it sits it deserves very little respect.