Plato Shrimp

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



1/31/2024 6:59 am  #201


Re: The Fuck Happened?

Rock wrote:

I think I’ve willingly listened to only one Taylor Swift song ever.

It was “Shake It Off”.

That's the same answer the Pentagon gave to Jesse Watters.

Btw, aren't these the same people who were so upset about Kapernick "injecting politics" in sports when he took that knee at the National Anthem?  And now I got to get side-eyed about my football picks?  I wanted to see a Ravens-49ers Super Bowl because these two teams were the best I've seen this year.  (The Chiefs struggled a bit before catching fire in the post-season.)  But now, by picking the Ravens, and now the 49ers, I have to get lumped in with the "haters" and the "Tay-crayz".  Just let me watch the game, please.

Since hypocrisy truly knows no bounds, I also have to point out the vague threats coming from FOX (again, the largest news channel in America) against the gall of Taylor Shift in having a political opinion.  Brian Kilmeade: "Why would you tell half the country that you don’t agree with them in this highly polarized time?  You stay out of it!", calling such an action, "the single dumbest thing a megasuperstar could ever do".  Something tells me he wouldn't say the same thing to Kid Rock or Joe Rogan, disagreeing with the other half of the country.  "And Biden isn't worth it."  Ah, I see.  And Trump obviously would be.  All's fair in love and vengence.


 

1/31/2024 8:48 pm  #202


Re: The Fuck Happened?

 

1/31/2024 10:12 pm  #203


Re: The Fuck Happened?

So...non-crazy people are writing about this like this is a legitimate thing that should be discussed?

It seems like the only two words I need to know any more are Stupid and Hate. And I guess you can throw 'fucking' in there somewhere too.
 

 

2/01/2024 6:17 am  #204


Re: The Fuck Happened?

Oh, "The Swifties" are apparently a real thing. I thought you guys suspected you might've had a brush with them before? 

BI June 22, 2023:
Taylor Swift fans sent me death threats, doxxed my family, and accused me of being a pedophile after I criticized her Eras Tour

"When I started receiving harassment, I figured part of the reaction was par for the course. If you write anything remotely negative about big pop stars, you invoke the wrath of their 'stans' — a term for zealous fans that was likely coined in Eminem's 2000's song of the same title, but also has various origins.

But I was shocked and chilled by how far it went."




...all those 'stans,' eh? 

 

2/01/2024 6:35 am  #205


Re: The Fuck Happened?

Before the Chiefs game was this on January 10th:
Fox News ran a conspiratorial segment saying the Pentagon wanted to use Taylor Swift as a psy-op

 I just have to acknowledge the bizarre continuity of this thread, having segued from the previous topic about the Beatles being a Psy–Op. The irony runs thick. 

Jinnistan wrote:

...pure, unpasteurized porn for the unrequited conspiracist.

Last edited by Rampop II (2/01/2024 6:43 am)

 

2/01/2024 7:02 am  #206


Re: The Fuck Happened?

crumbsroom wrote:

So...non-crazy people are writing about this like this is a legitimate thing that should be discussed?

Are non-crazy people not supposed to call out the crazy people now?  Even when those crazy people control one major political party and (I repeat) the largest news operation apparatus in the country?  In an election year?  I think it might be not only legitimate but wise, at the very least so us non-crazy people don't get gaslit into thinking we might be crazy for finding this all deeply disturbing and not at all normal.  And if it's not normal, than it's a legitimate thing to discuss why it's not, nor should it be, normal.  And besides that, discussing crazy shit happens to be what this thread is about anyway.  Hate the game.  I'm just the messenger.


     Thread Starter
 

2/01/2024 7:48 am  #207


Re: The Fuck Happened?

Rampop II wrote:

Before the Chiefs game was this on January 10th:
Fox News ran a conspiratorial segment saying the Pentagon wanted to use Taylor Swift as a psy-op

That's the same Jesse Watters segment that I quoted in last page's post.  And he's the current flagship anchor of FOX News.  More recently, you've had a succession of FOX News personalities like the above Brian Kilmeade ("You stay out of it!"), Jeanine Pirro ("Don't get involved!") and Sean Hannity ("Maybe she should think twice!") - all actual quotes, btw.  And if these threats for some form of retaliation weren't enough, we've had the Trump campaign themselves pledging "Holy War" against Swift.

Since late last year, these Trump allies have repeatedly discussed how to turn the culture-warrior dial up to 11 if she re-endorses Biden this year, the sources recount. 

“It would be more fuel thrown onto the culture-war fires,” says an official working on the Trump reelection efforts. “Another left-wing celebrity who is part of the Democrat elite telling you what to think.” 

Publicly, members of Trump’s inner sanctum and social circle are already signaling Swift’s prominent position atop their enemies list — a situation that has reached fever pitch now that Swift’s boyfriend will once again be playing in the Super Bowl.

At the very least, there's a kind of delicious desperation to all of this.  Clearly they're scared.  But we should be very clear that the real problematic issue is with the weaponization.  People complain about the left/liberal propensity for "cancel culture" (which sometimes can be obnoxious), but does anyone see a comparable parallel to the types of right-wing orchestrated culture war commercial attacks waged against Disney, Target, Bud Lite in recent years?  Taylor Swift is simply the latest "brand" to take the hit.  And for what?  Telling us who she's voting for?  Does anyone remember what a pathetic joke it used to be that Nixon had Paul Newman on his "enemies list"?  So what FOX News is threatening, however effective or not it turns out to be, is a massive MAGA backlash and boycott against Swift, and it's worth noting that Swift continues to have a lot of fans in Trump country.  Some people no longer listen to Eric Clapton or Van Morrison either, for their anti-lockdown stances, but I don't take those people very seriously either.  People like FOX and the Trump team are eagerly pouring fuel on the culture war fires, and then trying to blame the libs for starting those fires.  (Btw, who's Billy Joel voting for?  Oh right, who gives a shit?) 

As I once said about Trump, he's not crazy, he's craven.  I thiink that, in terms of teams, it's important for a voter to understand what they're supporting, not only policy-wise but ethically.  Because no one believes that Taylor Swift is a Pentagon Manchurian Candidate.  The problem with MAGA is that they don't really care one way or another.  They're happy to accept the useful lie as a weapon, and then blame those of us who care about the truth for being suckers.  This is the core ideology that the history books will identify with Trump.

This probably should go in the 'I Like Biden' thread, but just relevant to Swift, in the above Rolling Stone article, one Trump pollster brushes off the significance of celebrity endorsements for Biden, saying it "won’t matter [since] his disapproval is driving the race".  Biden's low approval rates have become a dogma in mainstream coverage, and, as soft as they are, there are some reasons for optimism, per an Emerson College poll published this Tuesday, showing strengthening numbers from independents and within the Democratic party, and, of particular importance: "this shift is particularly pronounced among young voters, with 66% of voters under 40 expressing their intention to vote for Biden nationally, up from 52% in the previous month".  The "under 40" vote can only increase with a Swift endorsement.  The Pub fear is real.


     Thread Starter
 

2/01/2024 8:43 am  #208


Re: The Fuck Happened?

Jinnistan wrote:

crumbsroom wrote:

So...non-crazy people are writing about this like this is a legitimate thing that should be discussed?

Are non-crazy people not supposed to call out the crazy people now?  Even when those crazy people control one major political party and (I repeat) the largest news operation apparatus in the country?  In an election year?  I think it might be not only legitimate but wise, at the very least so us non-crazy people don't get gaslit into thinking we might be crazy for finding this all deeply disturbing and not at all normal.  And if it's not normal, than it's a legitimate thing to discuss why it's not, nor should it be, normal.  And besides that, discussing crazy shit happens to be what this thread is about anyway.  Hate the game.  I'm just the messenger.

That isn't what I was referring to.

I'm just saying I'm at a loss how we are now in a world where a news organization can be craven enough to create paranoia out of pure insane conspiratorial thinking, either because they are also insane, or because they are cynical enough to think they can sell it, and that a significant portion of the population will eat it up.

I'm at a loss at how because enough people eat it up, relatively legit news organizations now how to respond to it, and discuss the legitimacy of such a thing.

I'm at a loss at how we have to discuss if the rabid fans of a pop star, have enough political potency to change the course of an election. No, not because the pop star led them towards the light of information and empathy, but because someone may have said something mean about their beloved pop star. And that these fans absurd hostility towards everything that doesn't bow to them is considered to be just as malignant a force as the Trumpian forces that are quaking at the thought of their potential wrath.

How do I say it? Oh, yes, it just rolls off the tongue now: The World Is Broken.

 

2/01/2024 10:09 am  #209


Re: The Fuck Happened?

crumbsroom wrote:

I'm at a loss at how because enough people eat it up, relatively legit news organizations now how to respond to it, and discuss the legitimacy of such a thing.

I haven't really seen much of the latter.  I don't consume a lot of the kind of right-wing media that considers either this particular conspiracy (NFL is rigged to platform Swift's endorsement) or the overall threat posed by Swift's political views as "legitimate".  Much of what I've seen is discussing exactly how illegitimate these views are.  I understand the frustration that it takes up a certain plot of news media real estate, but I think we've learned the hard way that these things don't go away by ignoring them. 

crumbsroom wrote:

I'm at a loss at how we have to discuss if the rabid fans of a pop star, have enough political potency to change the course of an election. No, not because the pop star led them towards the light of information and empathy, but because someone may have said something mean about their beloved pop star. And that these fans absurd hostility towards everything that doesn't bow to them is considered to be just as malignant a force as the Trumpian forces that are quaking at the thought of their potential wrath.

There's certainly a difference in the scale of consequences between a pop star and a potential US president.  But there's some other cultural corollaries which are insightful.  In a way, Trump and Taylor are made for each other, as creatures of our algorithmic reality-TV late-capitalist media environment, and the rabidity of the fans of both of them seem to secrete from similar cesspools of zealotry and grievance.  It would be nice if our news media dedicated a little more of their limited time to maybe discussing what cultural forces are fueling this cultish vengence of the online enraged.

crumbsroom wrote:

The World Is Broken.

Again.  Theme of the Thread.  The Fuck?, Indeed
 


     Thread Starter
 

2/01/2024 11:04 am  #210


Re: The Fuck Happened?

It would be pretty funny if Taylor Swift endorsed a third party candidate right now, ngl


I am not above abusing mod powers for my own amusement.
 

2/01/2024 12:04 pm  #211


Re: The Fuck Happened?


     Thread Starter
 

2/02/2024 2:50 am  #212


Re: The Fuck Happened?

crumbsroom wrote:

It seems like the only two words I need to know any more are Stupid and Hate. And I guess you can throw 'fucking' in there somewhere too.
 

Last edited by Rampop II (2/02/2024 2:56 am)

 

2/02/2024 8:37 am  #213


Re: The Fuck Happened?

I believe it slapped you in the face on live national television, Chris.

We're all beginning to have that same feeling.
 


     Thread Starter
 

2/03/2024 9:10 am  #214


Re: The Fuck Happened?

Jinnistan wrote:

...we've had the Trump campaign themselves pledging "Holy War" against Swift.

Well.... the wording of that Rolling Stone article is a bit of a tease because it doesn't say the Trump campaign is engaging Swift in any way whatsoever; we'd love to see the MAGA Machine take the bait and pull their own pins on this one, but if we analyze that sentence closely, there's no smoking gun to be found:

"Singer-songwriter Taylor Swift hasn’t even endorsed President Joe Biden for reelection yet. That hasn’t stopped members of MAGAland’s upper crust from plotting to declare — as one source close to Donald Trump calls it — a “holy war” on the pop megastar, especially if she ends up publicly backing the Democrats in the 2024 election."

That's a lot of qualifiers and vagaries, and I'm a little disappointed in Rolling Stone, here. Let me just pick this apart with some schoolteacher–style red pen (is this your homework, Larry?)

"That hasn’t stopped members of MAGAland’s upper crust [WHO?] from plotting to declare [plotting to declare???]— as one source close to Donald Trump [WHO?] calls it [hearsay] — a “holy war” on the pop megastar, especially if she ends up publicly backing the Democrats in the 2024 election."

So, some unnamed somebody "close to Donald Trump" (the guy standing next to him?) describes what some unnamed "members of MAGAland's upper crust" (Mike Lindell? Elise Stefanik? Zip–Tie Guy?) are "plotting to declare," as holy war. 
Now, let's do appreciate the fact: it is truly funny to imagine that, within the exclusive confines of some other Trumphaven (presumably beneath the putt–putt golf course), Trump really has officiated the title of "MAGAland's Upper Crust," which he ceremoniously bestows upon his most loyal enablers. That sounds like something he would do. But as far as we know there is no such official title. So a "member of MAGAland's upper crust" could potentially be anybody in a red ball cap with deep pockets. 
And these MOMUCs are, allegedly, according to that "one source close to Trump," plotting to declare a holy war? How's that? I mean, you plot a holy war, and you declare it, but do you plot to declare it?  It reminds me of Stephen Colbert's Indecision 2012 Super Pac joke, "Today I am officially announcing that I am forming an exploratory committee to lay the groundwork for my possible candidacy for President of the United States of South Carolina! I'm doin' it! Drop the balloons!"

The official Trump campaign doesn't need to declare holy war on Swift when they can let their minions of MAGAhats do it for them without any prompting at all, just as the Swifties need no prompting to declare jihad on whomever they please. Trump's people would be committing political suicide to attack Swift explicitly, and they know it, especially with this kind of forewarning. It's conceivable that he might go off–script at some rally and take it too far, making his people scramble to put out the fire and walk back whatever blurted out of him. They know they'd be up against more than the Dixie Chicks, this time. Swift wields frightful power, as you guys seem to have experienced firsthand back on Rotten Tomatoes.  

Yes, it is scary and surreal that a singing dancing (formerly) teen pop star can reach gangster–like proportions of power. But it is entertaining, and something to marvel at, if for no other sake than that it is such a wild card, trailing glitter like a comet of perceived unassailable innocence, as if the Republicans were facing down Sailor Moon. A cartoon has jumped off the cereal box to upend the pillars of carnal power. And I haven't even taken

It can't be forgotten that television pop culture is the very same fuel that also propelled Trump to the presidency, and he well knows it. He practically equates television ratings to political capital, and regrettably, he's been proven right.

"Only in America."

 

2/03/2024 11:03 am  #215


Re: The Fuck Happened?

You seem to be taking issue with the use of anonymous sources?  I don't see how RS is deviating here from the industry standards.  Even the Business Insider article you linked cites unnamed "Trump allies".  The Trump administration was notorius for "leaks", and we've learned that reporting from Maggie Haberman (NYT) and Gabriel Sherman (Vanity Fair) had well-placed sources in Trump's camp which gave us consistently reliable information.  Anonymous sources have been used since well before 'Deep Throat', and there is a professional criteria in place for how they are used.  Some journalists have been fired for either inventing or misconstruing these sources.  Maybe that will happen with these RS reporters or not.  I'm guessing this reporting is legit, and it isn't a coincidence that we can see clear evidence of a coordinated campaign among Trump-friendly right wing media (not just confined to FOX) which has been making these aspersions about Taylor Swift and the nature of her relationship.  There's nothing inherently unethical about using anonymous sources, and if a literate reader chooses to take such sources with a grain of salt, that's their prerogative.  You can't have a "smoking gun" in this context if there is no crime involved.  As for whether or not there is an officially designated organization called "Trump's Upper Crust", I'll leave for the Pulitzers to suss.

Rampop II wrote:

Swift wields frightful power, as you guys seem to have experienced firsthand back on Rotten Tomatoes.

Well, speaking of "hearsay"....
 


     Thread Starter
 

2/04/2024 3:08 am  #216


Re: The Fuck Happened?

Jinnistan wrote:

You seem to be taking issue with the use of anonymous sources?  I don't see how RS is deviating here from the industry standards.  Even the Business Insider article you linked cites unnamed "Trump allies".  The Trump administration was notorius for "leaks", and we've learned that reporting from Maggie Haberman (NYT) and Gabriel Sherman (Vanity Fair) had well-placed sources in Trump's camp which gave us consistently reliable information.  Anonymous sources have been used since well before 'Deep Throat', and there is a professional criteria in place for how they are used.  Some journalists have been fired for either inventing or misconstruing these sources.  Maybe that will happen with these RS reporters or not.  I'm guessing this reporting is legit, and it isn't a coincidence that we can see clear evidence of a coordinated campaign among Trump-friendly right wing media (not just confined to FOX) which has been making these aspersions about Taylor Swift and the nature of her relationship.  There's nothing inherently unethical about using anonymous sources, and if a literate reader chooses to take such sources with a grain of salt, that's their prerogative.  You can't have a "smoking gun" in this context if there is no crime involved.  As for whether or not there is an officially designated organization called "Trump's Upper Crust", I'll leave for the Pulitzers to suss.

Rampop II wrote:

Swift wields frightful power, as you guys seem to have experienced firsthand back on Rotten Tomatoes.

Well, speaking of "hearsay"....
 



Good point, I should leave anonymous sources out of this; there's nothing inherently wrong with using anonymous sources. The more relevant point has to do with the fact that the so–called "upper crust of MAGAland" plotting holy war against Swift is not said to be the actual Trump campaign themselves. They might turn out to be, but we have no confirmation or even allegation  of that yet. "The upper crust of MAGAland" could just as well be some variant of the same horde of wannabeinsurrectionists that stormed the capitol on Jan. 6th, for example Michael Steele, the Oath Keepers, Ken Paxton... The reason I think that's important to clarify is because there's a world of difference between a bunch of Trump supporters declaring holy war, and the Trump campaign themselves declaring holy war. Those are two very different scenarios. A holy war waged independently by supporters can easily be characterized as fringe fanaticism in which the campaign can deny any involvement, while still benefitting if it were to succeed. A holy war declared by the official Trump campaign is potentially the goal–line: political suicide of the Trump campaign and assurance of another four years of Biden. That's huge. That's one Dewy we don't wanna call too early. Because this "Wussolini," this horse who fired the horse–catcher, has proven waaay too slippery, oozing away from accountability again and again like thin slime through sewer grates, exposing every leaky seal in our precious living document. 

My god, he's the Blob, isn't he. I think that's what I'll call him from now on. 

I admit I'm becoming jaded and highly suspicious of journalism all–around. The way the paragraph was worded sprinkled in so many hypotheticals like how Swift hasn't endorsed the Biden campaign "yet," as though it's expected she will, like shiny bits of tinsel, it just looks like bait, to me, especially when I see so much of it. For example a few days ago I saw the BI headline A China-Taiwan war simulation that assumes a Trump return to office in 2025 warns Taiwan would be 'toast', which is particularly shocking in that it completely contradicts conventional assurances that a military invasion of Taiwan would be disastrous for China. 
Well then I click the fucking thing like a fly to a shiny blue light and find that the simulation in question involved all these other hypothetical qualifiers, like "...in the game, Taiwan couldn't meet the hypothetical demands that China and the US were making, such as a timeline for a unification — in which China and Taiwan would be consolidated — and pressure from the US to spend more on Taiwan's military." Well that's a pretty big fucking set of hypotheticals. Also the study was published by the Kuomintang, who oppose Taiwanese independence. So I was pissed. There was very little of substance consistent with this shocking headline. They had wasted my time almost entirely, raised my sense of alarm, "engaged" me long enough to advertise bent carrot pills, intermittent fasting pills, handbags and whatever, and left me regretting having encouraged their behavior. I mean, plush tardigrades seem kinda cool, but a Serious Man has to prioritize.
Oh, here's a photo to go with that earlier quote about the insanity of all this:


"Only in America"

 

2/04/2024 3:11 am  #217


Re: The Fuck Happened?

... jaded by *today's* journalism all around, I should say, not journalism itself as an institution or philosophy or field of professional practice, you understand. 

 

2/04/2024 4:45 am  #218


Re: The Fuck Happened?

Rampop II wrote:

The more relevant point has to do with the fact that the so–called "upper crust of MAGAland" plotting holy war against Swift is not said to be the actual Trump campaign themselves. They might turn out to be, but we have no confirmation or even allegation  of that yet.

According to the article, this group of "Trump allies" involves "Trump loyalists working on or close to the former president’s campaign, longtime Trump allies in right-wing media, and an array of outside advisers to the ex-president".  This question of whether or not this is some kind of official declaration from the campaign itself sounds like the kind of dissembling that the campaign itself would use to distance itself once the operation goes sideways.  There's always an incentive to keep official fingerprints off of these kinds of media operations.

Here's what matters: 1) the Trump team ("team" definied as the strategists who have access to Trump personally, including some who are "working on his campaign") are scared about the likely prospect that Taylor Swift will endorse Biden, as she did in 2020, the difference being that in 2020 Swift wasn't coming off of a year of being the top pop star in the world.  And 2) This media coordination strategy is pre-emptive.  What those FOX hosts are doing, as well as those other Trump media surrogates, is issuing a threat to Taylor Swift, warning her to "stay out of it", "don't get involved", "think twice", and suggesting that the price for her endorsement will be a MAGA backlash that could potentially cost her commercially from losing her remaining conservative fanbase.  This is the "declaration of holy war", clearly hyperbole because that's how Trump people speak.  But the hyperbole is also an illustration of the extremity of the politics, the "throwing fuel on the culture war fires" (quoted from a person "working on the reelection campaign"), using accelerationist and incendiary rhetoric to rile up the base.  In fact, it's exactly like what you then proceed to dismiss:

Rampop II wrote:

"The upper crust of MAGAland" could just as well be some variant of the same horde of wannabeinsurrectionists that stormed the capitol on Jan. 6th, for example Michael Steele, the Oath Keepers, Ken Paxton... The reason I think that's important to clarify is because there's a world of difference between a bunch of Trump supporters declaring holy war, and the Trump campaign themselves declaring holy war.

There seems to be a bit of confusion, and I don't know exactly who you're referring to here.  "Michael Steele", an ex-RNC head, is an anti-Trumper who had zero involvement in Jan. 6.  "Ken Paxton", the current Texas Attorney General, is a Trump ally but, as far as I've seen, had zero involvement in Jan. 6.  As for the Oath Keepers, yes they did, and they also had clear connections with Trump insiders like Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, and, in fact, Trump himself, via his chief of staff, was communicating directly with Stone and Flynn the evening before Jan. 6 while both Stone and Flynn were accompanied by members of both Oath Keepers and the Proad Boys.  Yes, the "wannabe insurrection" was also a pre-emptive intimidation tactic - to scare Pence and Pubs into refusing to certify the election - and a tactic which the Trump team has been denying having anything to do with despite all of the evidence that they not only knowling incited it but had planned it out.  This is a central allegation in Jack Smith's case after all.

Rampop II wrote:

For example a few days ago I saw the BI headline A China-Taiwan war simulation that assumes a Trump return to office in 2025 warns Taiwan would be 'toast', which is particularly shocking in that it completely contradicts conventional assurances that a military invasion of Taiwan would be disastrous for China.  Well then I click the fucking thing like a fly to a shiny blue light and find that the simulation in question involved all these other hypothetical qualifiers,....

Interesting example.  That article is reporting on a New York Times op-ed, which is definitely a little shady, perhpas a way of laundering an opinion piece across the border between editorials and reportage.  I probably would have stopped reading the article as soon as I saw the name "Nicholas Kristof".  The article though, to its creidt, does divulge this fact, as well as the source of the simulation being the anti-independence opposition party in Taiwain, pretty early on (3rd and 4rth sentences).  As for hypothetical qualifiers...that's what a simulation "war game" is, a map of specific possible contingencies.  But, yes, it looks like someone took one of these war game simulations and passed it through interested parties to get written up as an alarmist opinion piece by a noted neoliberal hawk which then gets second-hand reported like it was some kind of official study.  I take a different tack.  It's better that you bothered to read the article than it would have been to simply have taken the headline as a matter of fact.


     Thread Starter
 

2/04/2024 8:20 pm  #219


Re: The Fuck Happened?

Ah shit, you're right, I meant Roger Stone, not Michael Steele. Derp.

 

2/08/2024 2:19 pm  #220


Re: The Fuck Happened?

Rampop II wrote:

Ah shit, you're right, I meant Roger Stone, not Michael Steele. Derp.

My point stands.  Roger Stone is not merely some Trump supporter, but a major strategist and insider to the campaign.  There is no "world of difference" here.


     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum