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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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
I must meet my audience where the are.