222
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
222 points (87.8% liked)
politics
19244 readers
2321 users here now
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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You might not care, but enough of her fans cared enough and were confused by her previous statements that she felt the need to post.
She's famous enough that her approach to politics is news worthy. Whether you feel that's true or not is immaterial because your just an anonymous rando who isn't capable of influencing the zeitgeist at the scale of a platinum selling recording artist is
You missed the point, no one should care. Celebrity worship is rampant and goes too far. Her being famous enough that her approach to politics being newsworthy is a problem. The relationship between entertainer and entertainee should cease when the last track on the album ends. Her being popular doesn't qualify her to speak on these subjects. It's the same hole that Trump crawled out of.
I think that's part of what she's saying. She's been very very open about not wanting to be worshipped. This all started with her saying she didn't endorse either candidate when asked in an interview and she's (rightfully) mad that people have blown that way out of proportions
That's nice, but you're addressing a fundamental flaw of humanity that hasn't been solved in a couple million years and won't be solved by just advocating for a solution. Celebrity worship/innate trust of those popular is quite literally the basis of all complex group human interaction. To solve it would require elimination of all non first-person methods of trust and understanding.
I'm not saying we don't listen to people, or upend all social contracts. I merely suggest we gravitate to the learned and educated for their informed opinions, not whoever this pop sensation is.
We will always disagree with who is educated and learned, especially given everyone we think ha s those qualities today will be the dumbest people tomorrow.
Which is also ridiculous, we should listen to those who know more.
Not really, we should come to our own conclusion regardless of what others say, especially in fields that cannot be solved or even partially explained by science, like politics.
That's a valid point. I got a buddy with a political science degree, so technically learned in this subject, and that guy is fuckin clueless.
And you being a nobody on the internet means your opinion is at least as meaningless as hers...yet here you are trying to convince everyone that your opinion is correct.
At least you agree our opinions should carry the same weight.
That's your take away from what I said? It's like you're trying to prove that your opinion should carry even less weight.
Yes, that's all I took away from what you said.
Well then, there is no combination of "our" in this case where I wouldn't bet on the other person's opinion carrying more weight.
From one nobody to another, cheers to the weightless.
The difference between you and I is that I'm not a nobody hypocritically telling other people to not try and publicly defend their beliefs.
That's all well and good, still a nobody though. Cheers.
I know, I wouldn't have it any other way. The only reason you think that's some kind of dig is because you are hung up about being a nobody yourself.
Nah, I understand my place in the world and nobody suits me fine, I was just trying to be cordial. I must say, you are quite proficient in ad hominem. I even forget the original discussion, was it taxes? In any case, given your predilection for underming lack of discussion with petty insults, might I suggest you take a look at a website called Reddit? I think you'd fit in there.
You're initial point was that she is a musician so nobody should care what she thinks, a straight up ad hominem, and now your whining about as hominems? I might be quite proficient at ad hominems, but your proficiency with hypocrisy puts mine to shame.
Ah, I see your confusion. Advocating for the dismissal of her opinion on grounds of her profession is not a slight on her character. I'm sure she's a very nice girl and a talented musician.
You see, ad hominem is an attack on someone's character to distract from the lack of merit in one's argument. I never slighted her as a person, ergo no ad hominem.
Now if I said she was stupid or ugly or talentless, therefore no one should listen to her, that would constitute an attack on her.
I hope this clears things up.