9 ms·

These are the kinds of things that annoy me in relation to celebrities. For instance, Taylor Swift/Kanye could raise this issue and probably single-handedly ca

These are the kinds of things that annoy me in relation to celebrities. For instance, Taylor Swift/Kanye could raise this issue and probably single-handedly cause enough upset to have this changed/removed. I wish they worked positive (and sure, sometimes they'll probably get it wrong) policy change rather than quiet charities and token signalling. In terms of the government using it for ransom, well, the other side should absolutely say they'll shutdown government if these privacy overreaches are not removed. Put the pressure back on and vocalise the absurdity of the situation. But hey, it's not a wild guess to say both sides are really in support of the measure and use the 'ransom' as an excuse to pass it.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago
If a celebrity spoke out on this issue, wouldn’t that basically just result in the tabloid press responding with a campaign of “Hmm, what does he/she have to hide?” No surprise if people who already find it hard to live a private, peaceful life don’t want to invite that on themselves.
kmeisthax 3y ago
Celebrities are about as ignorant about the issue as regular people, but there's also millions of people vying for them to say stuff. So much so that it's literally a commodity that they sell. Furthermore, celebrities often get pushback for making political statements, even extremely milquetoast ones like "Israel shouldn't collectively punish Palestine for Hamas". Their job is to be liked by everyone, which means they can stand for nothing. That being said, I know of few people who actually support America's current surveillance apparatus. Liberals hate it because it's corrosive to liberal democracy; Trumpists hate it because it hurt them; and left-wingers hate it because they're the intended target. The phrasing I use for this kind of issue is "anti-partisan": the general voting population hates it, but politicians want it to continue because it's instrumental to other goals that the voting population would support. A key wrinkle is that most anti-partisanism would also disadvantage wealthy individuals if it got its way - i.e. right to repair harms OEMs' god-given right to force you to buy a new one - so wealth tends to rally around continuing the thing we don't want. Celebrities are sort of in the wealth orbit insamuch as social capital and being well known is a saleable commodity, so they also have a tendency to orbit around opposing antipartisan issues. In other words, they don't want the CIA to spy on them, but they also want a neoliberal economy to sell products into, which is growing increasingly unpopular, which requires having a CIA spy on extremists, which means they want the CIA to spy on someone else. None of this is consciously understood or planned, there's no CIA guy telling celebrities to shut up about the spying, it is merely a coincidence of class interests and incentives.
peltier 3y ago
That would require integrity and honesty, something fame rarely allows for. But I agree, but I would refrain from asking Kanye to voice his concerns at this particular issue at this particular point in time.
fyokdrigd 3y ago
[flagged]
hipadev23 3y ago
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 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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
    - trust_bt_verify 3y ago
      You are being downvoted but this cognitive dissonance plays out quite often in discussions about media and coverage of issues all the time.
    - godelski 3y ago
      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)
anigbrowl 3y ago
Celebrities do adopt political causes, but can generally only influence one issue; maybe something broader by endorsing a candidate or party, but with massive dilution. To do more they'd have to become politicians, but those who do almost inevitably end up operating within personality cult dynamics as opposed to responsible statecraft.
lern_too_spel 3y ago
Given how little people on this very forum understand Section 702, why would you think that Ye would understand it well enough to take an informed stand that is convincing to his followers?
mc32 3y ago
I’d rather not have celebrities use their cultish followings to push for any cause, good or bad because they tend to be ignorant on the issues and only superficially attach themselves to some aspect.
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  Mental exercise: what if we then voted on the celebs, voting for and against the causes celebs put up? In my view, you're gripe is that this system would be super shallow. Kind of agreed! What could give it more depth & substance, what could better direct this available energy? Sure, "don't" is a valid answer! But also, what might we try?
  - mc32 3y ago
    Maybe a different take is you vote your tax contributions on the issues voted up for consideration. So by pop vote people vote their favorite causes (schools, roads, homeless shelters, prisons, climate, pensions, etc.) and as a taxpayer you can vote your dollars/currency into any number of causes you can spread your tax contribution among.
  - panarky 3y ago
    > voting for and against the causes celebs put up Thereby turning every issue into a cause célèbre. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_c%C3%A9l%C3%A8bre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_c%C3%A9l%C3%A8bre
    - jauntywundrkind 3y ago
      I feel like you have it backwards. You're saying that democratic involvement would make these issues cause celebres. But celebrities in many cases already have the power to make a cause a cause celebre. That's part of what being a celebrity and using your name & fame is. We already live in the world you describe. I'm proposing here a thought experiment where, rather than letting the public arena and media suss out how to play the story, let the cause go on indefinitely, the public gets a direct vote. My actual hope was the opposite of what you say: rather than leaving the media cycle around celebrities rumble on indefinitely, there'd be some discrete feedback events, checkin points where we can decide whether this de-facto cause celebre is - to borrow from a magazine - wired tired or expired. My hope was democracy might take power back from the 4th estate & celebrities.
mrangle 3y ago
Celebrities depend on media favor for career survival. Their favor on crucial political topics is therefore captured. In other words, most celebrities don't have the effective freedom to be able to advocate for any political cause. Surveillance is de facto permanent.
fallingknife 3y ago
“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” - Senator Chuck Schumer
kornhole 3y ago
Celebrities might present themselves as of the common people and they probably once were. Don't let them fool you. Other than a few exceptions, they are in the upper class and partying with the rest of the owner/donor class. Their interests are aligned to ensure that the common folks never get enough power/privacy.
IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
In ancient Rome actors were so low status they were subject to infamia, which meant that they couldn't defend themselves in court and could even be beaten or killed without legal repercussions. It was considered to be a worthless profession (actors were seen as professional liars) akin to prostitution. Not all celebrities are actors, but my point is that Romans were around for almost 2000 years and that should tell you something. You expect too much out of the profession.
Kevin09210 3y ago
> These are the kinds of things that annoy me in relation to celebrities. For instance, Taylor Swift/Kanye could raise this issue and probably single-handedly cause enough upset to have this changed/removed. Unless of course they are handled by the state apparatus itself: https://www.reddit.com/r/Kanye/comments/ylhm5g/this_text_kanye_got_is_wild_read_the_second/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Kanye/comments/ylhm5g/this_text_kan... >I'm going to help you one of a couple ways.…. First, you and I sit down and have an loving and open conversation, but you don't use cuss words, and everything that is discussed is based in fact, and not some crazy stuff that dumb friend of yours told you, or you saw in a tweet. >Second option, I have you institutionalized again where they medicate the crap out of you, and you go back to Zombieland forever. Play date with the kids just won't be the same. > Harley Pasternak to Kanye via a text. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1588556212102082560.html#:~:text=the%20full%20story...-,His%20Wikipedia%20page,-states%20that%20%22During https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1588556212102082560.html#... > His Wikipedia page states that "During his time at U of T, Pasternak served as a nutrition and exercise scientist at Department of National Defence's Defence and Civil Institute for Environmental Medicine." > [...] > What sort of stuff is researched at DRDC? > "Human systems integration." > "Social and psychological factors that affect the resolution of conflict." > "Psychology of malicious intent." > "Social and cultural factors influencing behavior." > Literal psyops.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago

If a celebrity spoke out on this issue, wouldn’t that basically just result in the tabloid press responding with a campaign of “Hmm, what does he/she have to hide?” No surprise if people who already find it hard to live a private, peaceful life don’t want to invite that on themselves.

kmeisthax 3y ago

Celebrities are about as ignorant about the issue as regular people, but there's also millions of people vying for them to say stuff. So much so that it's literally a commodity that they sell. Furthermore, celebrities often get pushback for making political statements, even extremely milquetoast ones like "Israel shouldn't collectively punish Palestine for Hamas". Their job is to be liked by everyone, which means they can stand for nothing. That being said, I know of few people who actually support America's current surveillance apparatus. Liberals hate it because it's corrosive to liberal democracy; Trumpists hate it because it hurt them; and left-wingers hate it because they're the intended target. The phrasing I use for this kind of issue is "anti-partisan": the general voting population hates it, but politicians want it to continue because it's instrumental to other goals that the voting population would support. A key wrinkle is that most anti-partisanism would also disadvantage wealthy individuals if it got its way - i.e. right to repair harms OEMs' god-given right to force you to buy a new one - so wealth tends to rally around continuing the thing we don't want. Celebrities are sort of in the wealth orbit insamuch as social capital and being well known is a saleable commodity, so they also have a tendency to orbit around opposing antipartisan issues. In other words, they don't want the CIA to spy on them, but they also want a neoliberal economy to sell products into, which is growing increasingly unpopular, which requires having a CIA spy on extremists, which means they want the CIA to spy on someone else. None of this is consciously understood or planned, there's no CIA guy telling celebrities to shut up about the spying, it is merely a coincidence of class interests and incentives.

peltier 3y ago

That would require integrity and honesty, something fame rarely allows for. But I agree, but I would refrain from asking Kanye to voice his concerns at this particular issue at this particular point in time.

fyokdrigd 3y ago

[flagged]

hipadev23 3y ago

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 3y ago
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 3y ago
  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
  - trust_bt_verify 3y ago
    You are being downvoted but this cognitive dissonance plays out quite often in discussions about media and coverage of issues all the time.
  - godelski 3y ago
    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)

anigbrowl 3y ago

Celebrities do adopt political causes, but can generally only influence one issue; maybe something broader by endorsing a candidate or party, but with massive dilution. To do more they'd have to become politicians, but those who do almost inevitably end up operating within personality cult dynamics as opposed to responsible statecraft.

lern_too_spel 3y ago

Given how little people on this very forum understand Section 702, why would you think that Ye would understand it well enough to take an informed stand that is convincing to his followers?

mc32 3y ago

I’d rather not have celebrities use their cultish followings to push for any cause, good or bad because they tend to be ignorant on the issues and only superficially attach themselves to some aspect.

jauntywundrkind 3y ago
Mental exercise: what if we then voted on the celebs, voting for and against the causes celebs put up? In my view, you're gripe is that this system would be super shallow. Kind of agreed! What could give it more depth & substance, what could better direct this available energy? Sure, "don't" is a valid answer! But also, what might we try?
- mc32 3y ago
  Maybe a different take is you vote your tax contributions on the issues voted up for consideration. So by pop vote people vote their favorite causes (schools, roads, homeless shelters, prisons, climate, pensions, etc.) and as a taxpayer you can vote your dollars/currency into any number of causes you can spread your tax contribution among.
- panarky 3y ago
  > voting for and against the causes celebs put up Thereby turning every issue into a cause célèbre. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_c%C3%A9l%C3%A8bre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_c%C3%A9l%C3%A8bre
  - jauntywundrkind 3y ago
    I feel like you have it backwards. You're saying that democratic involvement would make these issues cause celebres. But celebrities in many cases already have the power to make a cause a cause celebre. That's part of what being a celebrity and using your name & fame is. We already live in the world you describe. I'm proposing here a thought experiment where, rather than letting the public arena and media suss out how to play the story, let the cause go on indefinitely, the public gets a direct vote. My actual hope was the opposite of what you say: rather than leaving the media cycle around celebrities rumble on indefinitely, there'd be some discrete feedback events, checkin points where we can decide whether this de-facto cause celebre is - to borrow from a magazine - wired tired or expired. My hope was democracy might take power back from the 4th estate & celebrities.

mrangle 3y ago

Celebrities depend on media favor for career survival. Their favor on crucial political topics is therefore captured. In other words, most celebrities don't have the effective freedom to be able to advocate for any political cause. Surveillance is de facto permanent.

fallingknife 3y ago

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” - Senator Chuck Schumer

kornhole 3y ago

Celebrities might present themselves as of the common people and they probably once were. Don't let them fool you. Other than a few exceptions, they are in the upper class and partying with the rest of the owner/donor class. Their interests are aligned to ensure that the common folks never get enough power/privacy.

IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago

In ancient Rome actors were so low status they were subject to infamia, which meant that they couldn't defend themselves in court and could even be beaten or killed without legal repercussions. It was considered to be a worthless profession (actors were seen as professional liars) akin to prostitution. Not all celebrities are actors, but my point is that Romans were around for almost 2000 years and that should tell you something. You expect too much out of the profession.

Kevin09210 3y ago

> These are the kinds of things that annoy me in relation to celebrities. For instance, Taylor Swift/Kanye could raise this issue and probably single-handedly cause enough upset to have this changed/removed. Unless of course they are handled by the state apparatus itself: https://www.reddit.com/r/Kanye/comments/ylhm5g/this_text_kanye_got_is_wild_read_the_second/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Kanye/comments/ylhm5g/this_text_kan... >I'm going to help you one of a couple ways.…. First, you and I sit down and have an loving and open conversation, but you don't use cuss words, and everything that is discussed is based in fact, and not some crazy stuff that dumb friend of yours told you, or you saw in a tweet. >Second option, I have you institutionalized again where they medicate the crap out of you, and you go back to Zombieland forever. Play date with the kids just won't be the same. > Harley Pasternak to Kanye via a text. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1588556212102082560.html#:~:text=the%20full%20story...-,His%20Wikipedia%20page,-states%20that%20%22During https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1588556212102082560.html#... > His Wikipedia page states that "During his time at U of T, Pasternak served as a nutrition and exercise scientist at Department of National Defence's Defence and Civil Institute for Environmental Medicine." > [...] > What sort of stuff is researched at DRDC? > "Human systems integration." > "Social and psychological factors that affect the resolution of conflict." > "Psychology of malicious intent." > "Social and cultural factors influencing behavior." > Literal psyops.