5 ms·
> They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo No, they are assuming that everyone must have an opinio
by stfu 9y ago
> They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo
No, they are assuming that everyone must have an opinion. It seems outside of their reality to accept that people don't care about the things they care about.
Just because I don't voice my opinion on which days I prefer the garbage collection truck to arrive doesn't mean I am a big fan of them arriving on Monday. I just have other things in life going on.
- calcifer 9y ago> Just because I don't voice my opinion on which days I prefer the garbage collection truck to arrive doesn't mean I am a big fan of them arriving on Monday. Sure, you may not be a fan of it, but you don't find it a big enough problem to complain to the city. For the editorial in question, the subject is Trump and their opinion is that finding Trump not big enough a problem to complain about is not an acceptable position for someone of such wide social reach. You may not agree with that assesment, but I think it's a fairly normal position for an editorial board to take.
- m00g00 9y agoPlease link me to any other article from The Guardian complaining about one of the scores of other popular music artists who have also said nothing about Trump.
- stfu 9y agoWhat they are doing is advancing the politicizing of everything and driving an agenda of divisiveness. Why is an artist is not allowed to be an artist anymore but needs to be an political activist? Even worse, because TS doesn't follow the Guardian's absurd logic, they are trying to shame her with their imaginative interpretation. That's not journalism, that is a 6-year old's fantasy world, who dreams up stories about celebrities and why they are their imaginary friends/enemies.
- mitjak 9y agoBut everything is already political? They're saying that _this_ specific person should have a more explicitly political stance, and not taking one is a political stance still.
- stfu 9y ago58.9% of Americans voted last election. Has the Guardian already lost that much touch with reality to accept that those 41.1% of the population exist who don't care about their outrage theater?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mitjak 9y agoAmerica is not the world but that's not even the point. You're claiming they're politicizing the world. Election numbers don't represent willingness to make something political or whether it is. Not voting is a political decision.
- stfu 9y agoI am only talking about the US situation here and treating the situation as if the Guardian were a US publication. That whole 'foreign media trying to meddle with US politics' narrative has reached an ironical meme status that is not worth arguing over any more.
- m00g00 9y ago"Everyone is jumping off cliffs therefore so should you" This is nothing but grade-school peer pressure coming from adults and supposedly legitimate news organizations.
- nasredin 9y ago"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality."?
- stfu 9y agoA 'moral crisis' for the Guardian's editorial board is not a moral crisis for a 20-something popstar.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- benchaney 9y agoDante's Inferno is not actually a good source of morality.
- m00g00 9y agoYou meant "moral panic" right? "They're burning all the witches even if you aren't one..."