[hipadev23]

Imma let you finish, but Kanye is a poor example to make your point. He has one ineffective charity in Chicago and otherwise all public action has revolved around showcasing his own struggles while simultaneously presenting himself as the solution to the world’s problems.

Swift has been fairly vocal and ignited action around LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, sexual assault topics, and drastically improved voter turnout among her fans.

[mrangle]

Re: Swift

None of those advocacies being effectively controversial / MSM disfavored. Essentially, they read as an almost required checklist for establishment darlings. Advocating for them isn't bravery, today. It's common business sense.

The point being that these advocacies aren't a substitute, in any sense, for one that might draw her negative press. If the measurement is bravery, or unusual effort or some such.

[sangnoir]

Do you consider the network with the highest viewership and ratings numbers to be mainstream, or are you using "MSM" as coded language? Taylor Swift's advocacy was disfavored on Fox

[t-3]

"All coverage is good coverage". Being disfavored means you don't get mentioned, not that you're the center of conversation.

[trust_bt_verify]

You are being downvoted but this cognitive dissonance plays out quite often in discussions about media and coverage of issues all the time.

[godelski]

I think they were getting at the concept that there's more refinement between left vs right so placing MSM as a position representing that side of the isle not making a distinction that there aren't those on another side completely that will always be upset. I mean AOC, Bernie, and Biden are fairly distinct politically but all "left."

I do think it is a reasonable complaint that you're not using your platform to be a bit more specific and place a foot down rather than maintaining the air of ambiguity and generalizes. It is reasonable to interpret the latter as a political move rather than one of personal convictions, though they may be honest. But similarly one can see someone like her as having a lot to lose as well as seeing her have nothing to lose. Former because she can lose her yearly profits but latter because she's a billionaire and so fucking rich that it's pretty difficult for her to lose a billionaire lifestyle and it's not like she's going to lose all her fans no matter what she does. Of course she could be sued by her employers... But either way it does say how much she values her own convictions compared to the other things. Messy, but I don't think unreasonable to call her out.

FWIW I don't know anything about Swift but I at least can say I haven't heard of this controversy. That's at least some signal. Not a strong signal. Definite not one that says one of you are right or wrong, but it is _a_ signal ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (I'm definitely not making a claim on knowing what her actual convictions and beliefs are. Woefully unqualified and honestly don't care too much. Just trying to provide a bridge because I see reasonable miscommunication and I think there's probably ground for a good conversation between both of you)

[southerntofu]

> I mean AOC, Bernie, and Biden are fairly distinct politically but all "left."

That's very debatable. I'm not from the US, but from what i gather AOC/Bernie would be considered centrists. Center-left would be the green party pushing actual (moderate) reform. And on the left you would have stuff like the communisty party, IWW and such.

I mean, advocating for moderate social justice and redistribution of wealth is not "left-wing". It's a principal component of social democrats even on the right. Even hardcore fascist rightwingers like De Gaulle or Hitler had to have some sort of social agenda and nobody ever thought to call them left-wing...

[godelski]

I mean parties in the US are more akin to coalitions as you'd see in many European countries. I'm just saying that American parties have high variance within them. Sure, for your country Bernie/AOC may be centrists but in America they aren't. These are always relative terms that are context dependent. Sure, you can call the Democrats right wing but it's just not going to make much of a conversation because these are nationally agreed upon terms. (fwiw, I'm pretty sure I'm fair in assuming American context given the people I'm discussing)

[southerntofu]

Replying to a now-deleted comment

> I see from your post history you are operating with a definition of "fascism" that counts any highly capitalist state as fascist

A definition of fascism is the merger of State and corporate interests (according to Mussolini himself). De Gaulle was very much in that vein, via the Jacques Foccart State mafia (Françafrique) or the nuclear military-industrial complex among others.

From a less economic perspective, De Gaulle was actively involved in heavy repression in the colonies including genocidal policies in Algeria (see for example Frantz Fanon on the topic, or history books about Setif and other massacres), and deadly repression of social movements on the mainland via the police and military, and actual fascist militias such as the Service d'Action Civique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_d%27Action_Civique

Short anecdote of the day, De Gaulle and his government (eg. Maurice Papon, former nazi collaborator and prefect of Paris under De Gaulle) personally orchestrated the killing of hundreds of algerians in Paris on October 17 1961. A few years before in 1958, they went as far as to round up and deport thousands of algerians, in the very same spot the Vichy administration used to round up jews: the vélodrome d'hiver.

I am certainly anticapitalist but i would not equal capitalism with fascism. Adam Smith and other capitalist thinkers certainly envisioned a free-market along with free individuals, which was based on the absence of monopolies/oligarchies and the separation of State and market. The State defending and supporting the industry while letting the people suffer is certainly not capitalist in a traditional liberal sense. For an example of that, see the bank bailouts in USA or Greece where the government saved the banks for billions of dollars while taking from the people, instead of doing exactly the opposite.

I agree fascism is a nebulous concept and subject to debate. I would recommend reading the Wikipedia page on the topic. It may appear that western States usually depicted as "liberal democracies" have in fact more than a few fascistic tendencies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

[SpicyLemonZest]

But there's a definitional problem here. Do celebrities avoid talking about anything controversial, or does anything that lots of celebrities talk about become perceived as non-controversial? You talk about the "MSM" and the "establishment", but quite a lot of news outlets and politicians in the US don't agree with what Taylor Swift has to say about LGBT rights.

[hipadev23]

Swift was advocating for topics she felt passionate about and had some level of firsthand exposure. I’m glad she doesn’t opine on how government surveillance is funded.

Also her reach is far larger than all MSM combined, she doesn’t have to follow what they do, they follow her.

[agentgumshoe]

She doesn't even have to opine, she could just state how important the policy decision could be and make sure people are aware of it.

[Shawnj2]

I really like a lot of what John and Hank green have done with their fame recently, funding healthcare for low income companies and publicly calling out drug companies when they screw extremely poor people over

[agentgumshoe]

That's exactly why I mentioned Kanye. All the influence with none of the outcomes.

Perhaps Swift should postpone a concert until one such disagreeable law is changed...