Disagree. If someone does know their number of senators in their state’s congress, their doesn’t become more valid. Likewise, imagine talking about why you think abortion rights should be protected and someone says something inane like “which federal court of appeals is your state in? If you don’t know, you have no right to support abortion.” Like wtf these “political trivia” questions are irrelevant in the grand scheme.
I feel like it's saying, "If you don't know this exact number, you don't get to criticize when famous rich people participate in white feminism and you should shut up." It reads as though it's written by somebody who is really upset that their favourite celebrity is getting warranted criticism.
This is how I feel too. Especially in regard to the political actions of a pop star. I imagine the intention is to shut down men who are mad about these women being "woke" but frankly... a lot of the politics put forth by celebrities is performative and hollow. When a billionaire is championing women's rights and then proceeding to work with known abusers, endorsing Kamala but then hanging out with known Magats, or refusing to practice anything other than white girlboss feminism... We deserve to criticize that.
Billionaires deserve to be criticized even if they're pretty. Billionaires deserve to be criticized even if we like their music and their makeup/skincare lines.
For a moment, I thought it was about how many senators each state in the US has in the federal Senate, which is two each. I forgot that US states have their own senates as well.
I'm confused by this post. Is it saying "complaining about female pop stars being a political disappointment?" As in "girl WOKE and BAD" or "complaining about female popstars being a political disappointment" as in "She's a billionaire who only practices white feminism, and makes personal friendships with magats"
My state has 33 state senators.
Edit, because I've gotten a few comments about this which were later deleted: My state has 33 STATE senators. These are different from the number of US/Federral senators, which is 2 for every state. Not every US state has senators or a bi-chambered legislative branch, my state does. To my understanding, it is fairly common for each state to have its own senate, just as every state has its own Supreme Court which is not the US Supreme Court.
Is not knowing the number of state senators apathy? I vote in all of my local elections, even my county elections. I know my district's senator (I voted against him). I nearly volunteered at my election commission on polling day, the only reason why I didn't was it was happening on my last day of work and it would've been a dick move to ask my bosses for the day off. But I have no control over what is happening in a district eight hours from me at the other end of the state.
Controlled for extenuating circumstances that makes a person unable to read and retain such information, not having basic knowledge of civics demonstrates a level of apathy about how your government works. Do you disagree that there’s a significant lack of meaningful civic engagement among adults who are capable in the United States?
If I had to list the 100 most important things for someone to know to understand civics in America, the number of state senators in their particular state isn’t on that list. Why would it matter? Is someone in a state with 10 state senators going to have a different ability to critique celebs than someone in a state with 20 state senators?
My point isn’t that memorizing the number of seats is important, but if you can’t approximate the number your state has it demonstrates a lack of familiarity with who is making laws where you live. I guess I’m confused why advocating for people to be more civically engaged is such a controversial take. I constantly have to remind myself not to get complacent in a world where it’s easy to give hot takes online while never bothering to call my local lawmakers about the bills they’re introducing.
We’re all good with advocating for more civic engagement. We’re not going to make it a requirement to comment on the ethics or celebrities, public figures, or other elites.
Your comment seems to be defending the post—which is implying that not knowing that trivial fact means someone’s opinion on an unrelated position is invalid. Maybe you don’t agree with the meme, but it comes off like you’re arguing for it and that’s how it looks like other people are interpreting your comment chain as well. If that’s not your intention, then I think something was lost in figurative translation.
The person I responded to asked who is complaining, a person giving a bad take or person giving a good take and I merely pointed out that it honestly doesn’t matter if I agree with the person’s opinion, if they’re unaware of that fact it’s worth exploring. After the 2024 US election we all could use some self-reflecting on our levels of engagement here.
But you can be well informed about local politics without knowing random civics trivia. How about: What is the role of your state senate in passing laws? Which party is in the majority? Are your senate districts fairly drawn or gerrymandered? Who are the state senators in your district? What issues did they campaign on?
It’s a screenshot of a quippy social media post meant to get people to think about their own engagement with politics. Besides, number of senators for your state isn’t some obscure trivia fact meant to trip you up. It’s the most basic information about your local government and if you’re regularly engaged in local politics it’s pretty easy to give an approximation.
If somebody is using politics to mask sexism ask them how many state senators their state has and laugh at them when they don't know because they are the real disappointment.
You are missing the part where they are judging others for their political discourse and they don't even know the first thing about the politics that directly affect them.
I disagree that the number of state senators directly impact a person in any measurable way in most cases. As I've said, my state has 33. If my state redistricted to have 34 or 32, it would only affect me if my voting district changed or if it would significantly alter the political makeup of my state legislature. My state has 27 republican senators and 6 democratic senators, so having 32, 33, or 34 senators is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is keeping track of elections in my district, so I can hopefully help change the numbers from 27:6 to 26:7.
If a popstar is making political statements, I'm allowed to criticize those statements. Billionaires are not your friend. Celebrities are not your friend.
I'm not going to do capitalist white feminist apologia
I do think it’s dumb to criticize female pop stars for not doing “enough” politically. They don’t owe us that. People on Reddit will criticize someone like Taylor Swift and then not vote in their mayoral election.
I think “silence is violence” is a generally stupid rhetoric and I’m a POC. I understand the original post, it’s annoying to hear people complain who do literally nothing in their own communities.
I think there's a difference between complaining a pop star isn't doing "enough" and criticizing a pop star who puts herself out as a political voice, doesn't say or do anything that's actually helpful, and then cries misogyny when people call her out on her performativity.
I don't need every celebrity to make a statement on Gaza, but if (for example, this one hasn't happened to my knowledge) a celebrity comes out in support of Palestine and then takes a Moroccan Oil brand deal, that person would deserve criticism. If a person keeps presenting herself as a liberal feminist but is a billionaire who is regularly in the company of very right-wing people and sings about wanting an entire block of a neighborhood looking like her white fiancé, that deserves criticism. When Katy Perry went to "space" and released "Woman's World", she was rightfully criticized.
That's my overall point: Celebrities do make political statements, when those statements are performative or self-serving, I'm not going to be silent because she's a woman.
I read it as you have 33 state senators that let Trump stay in power wo pushing back or making sure he’s removed from office, so why are only famous women being held accountable and not you’re actual senators or famous men
I think you're reading too much into it because I can be annoyed at multiple people simultaneously. I don't know how you can assume from my comment I don't criticise famous men, literally yesterday I was in a thread calling Liam Neeson a spineless, willing agent of propaganda.
I'm only talking about pop stars in this thread, because this post is only talking about them. I don't rely on whataboutism and I don't give any billionaires passes. There are multiple musician billionaires. Many of them are men. Many of them are women. I say eat them all.
I've worked for a state representative and still couldn't tell you off hand how many state senators there were. I could probably have named them all, but just knowing the exact number isn't actually useful knowledge.
What he's getting at is they lack basic knowledge everyone should have learned in high school government class. Every single state gets exactly 2 regardless of any factors like population. He's saying he asks and they realize they don't know and exit the interaction.
Terrible take. Music is political - all art is. People who have cultural influence, like pop stars, have an obligation to use that influence to speak up.
If this is intended as gatekeeping, then wow. If I hadn't looked it up just now, I wouldn't have known, either, and it doesn't imply that my vote is discounted somehow or that my voice for political opinions is faulty. I just worry about my own district.
Nor does it excuse famous people who choose to be vague about whether they support human rights to maintain maximum appeal, or mean you can’t criticize them for such.
Easy. Zero, I am Canadian, we don't have "states" here, and we only have an unelected senate at the federal level, it's basically like the House of Lords except the Canadian Senate does not allow for membership to be hereditary.
I shall continue to be a hater for anyone who is silent on fascism.
Not completely related but I ran for state senate (and lost) but at one of the first candidate events I attended in the community, I went in all prepared to answer questions about policies around healthcare, budgets, gun control, immigration, schools etc and the VERY first question I was asked by a voter who raised their hand was about Taylor Swift.
My lesson: meet people where they are at. Fortunately or not people look up to celebrities and often use them as a stand in for culture.
Don't put any hope into anyone - popstar or politician.
How much different is a politician from a popstar? And by this I mean to say, how much of a politicians time is spent on ensuring they remain in power? Kinda like how popstars have to promote themselves to ensure they remain with their power too.
Everyone is allowed to have a political opinion even if they don't understand how they get there - it would be much nicer to speak to them and find mutual ground than speak like you only have ever socialised on the internet.
Anyone who has a position of power in our society is fair to be critiqued for their political opinion.
The person not being able to answer the question implies that they are not an authority on how the politics that affect them actually work and therefore they shouldn’t be criticizing others’ involvement or lack thereof in politics.
...They're asking for state-level senators. As in, the number of senators a state has in their individual government, not how many senators represent each state on a federal level.
This is the second post I see from this OP saying that female pop stars "don't owe you shit" and that criticising their engagement with politics is somehow antifeminist. I mean, yeah, if you only criticise female popstars for not speaking out, that's one thing, but most people I see criticising Taylor Swift etc *do* call out male popstars as well, so I think they're clinging to strawmen. Overall seem to be more concerned with defending celebrities of all people than anything else.
Imo, refusing to hold women accountable because they're women is the real antifeminist action. I hate the current trend of "She's literally just a girl" when the person in question is in her late 30s. It's infantilizing. It's one thing to harass a celebrity who doesn't really have a social media presence and generally only comes into public to release an album/movie/etc., but if a celebrity does regularly make political statements---I think it's worse to pretend like she must be above reproach because "women don't owe you anything."
Especially when we're talking about billionaire celebrities, I think it is imperative to remember they are not like us. No billionaire is like us. No billionaire really cares about our quality of life. If they did, if they were, they wouldn't be a billionaire.
She’s spoken out against Trump a bunch of times and has exclusively endorsed Democratic candidates for a decade, including an endorsement of Harris last year that was also specifically anti-Trump. What are you talking about?
Edit: Not sure why I'm getting downvoted for stating objective facts?
This is what drives me crazy about her. She refuses to address anything. Other pop singers, who have much less cultural clout, have disavowed ICE and Trump using their music. It doesn't take a lot of work.
I don't believe celebrities need to weigh in on every political issue, but when the government is using your work, presumably without your consent, to support a cause, not speaking out against it looks like being acceptance. She's already a billionaire, it's not like she's at risk of repercussions. "Women don't owe you shit" shouldn't apply to staying silent against fascism. People who stay silent against fascism are complicit.
It also, frankly, drives me crazy how TS is somehow both a lyrical genius and just a girl who didn't intend to have highly racial undertones in her newest album. She is somehow both a woman who is a master at hiding easter egg and clues in her work, yet people are "doing too much" when some of that work appears to have disconcerting imagery because "it was an accident."
I mean there's the concerning racial undertones in Opalite and her close friendship with Brittany Mahomes, who Trump has actively praised. I don't think she's a literal fascist, but I do think she isn't particularly conscientious and cares primarily for herself. She's very much a woman who would uncritically say "there should be more women ceos and more women billionaires!"
I mean, her endorsement for Kamala was a perfectly posed and photograph photograph of herself.
It doesn't make her a Trump supporter, but it definitely means she lacks principles. I wouldn't be able to stay best friends with a Trump supporter who Trump explicitly called out and praised for how well she supports him.
I've ended friendships with people over politics for less. Billionaires are not our friends.
Yeesh this is a good one. I know who my state senator and legislatures are. I know who my state Senate president is. I know quite a few state senators by name. I think that puts me well above what the average person knows about their state politics, but I have no idea how many state senators we have. Couldn't even begin to guess
I mean sure, I just googled it. It’s going to have zero impact on any of my decisions as a voter and activist. If you really feel like it matters I’m guessing you don’t have a lot more to throw around right now.
Except that this is a post DIRECTLY in reference to a current political controversy in the US. Look, I agree with you in general, but this is a bad example for an otherwise valid grievance. This isn’t Americans taking a generalized situation and forcing it to be about the US. From its outset, this post is about the US, it’s reacting to a talking point only stupid enough to exist in US politics, so it’s only natural that reaction be allowed to be about the US as well.
Is this post because Chappell Roan has been getting dragged again for cosplaying LGBTQ culture while refusing to back candidates that protect LGBTQ individuals?
how is she "cosplaying queer culture" while "refusing to back candidates who protect queer people" when she's
a: Literally queer. Kayleigh is a lesbian. She is a lesbian who says that Chappell is her drag queen persona. Queer culture is her culture.
b: Said that her issue with Kamala is that Kamala's policies didn't do ENOUGH to protect queer people, specifically trans women. Objectively, Kamala's policies were also going to hurt queer individuals. Kamala wasn't protecting shit.
c: Said she was voting for Kamala anyway, she just wished the Dems were running with a candidate who would actually protect queer people
Like I'm sorry but as a queer woman myself - I have many of the same reservations about the political candidates in my country, I felt that Mark Carney doing things like eliminating the Ministry of Women & Gender Equality was HORRIBLE policy, but what other choice did I have? The NDP had a snowflake's chance in hell, and the Conservatives are actively fascistic. That's the dynamic Chappell was getting at - being forced to vote for a candidate who is transparently pretending to give a shit because the other option wants you dead.
That blade cuts both ways, so, uhh, I'm gonna continue not caring about middling pop stars who are afraid to stand for anything. Gender doesn't really factor into it for me, but if it does for you, cool.
It says State Senators, not US/Federal Senators. When someone says "State Senator" it always refers to the senate of an individual state, never to the Federal US Senate. If it's a post about the United States senate and it simply says "Senator" or "The Senate", it will refer to the federal level. If it says "State Senator" or "State Senate" is the lower level of legislature.
Disagree. If someone does know their number of senators in their state’s congress, their doesn’t become more valid. Likewise, imagine talking about why you think abortion rights should be protected and someone says something inane like “which federal court of appeals is your state in? If you don’t know, you have no right to support abortion.” Like wtf these “political trivia” questions are irrelevant in the grand scheme.
It has the same vibe as "oh, you like [genre] music? Name every band."
It's good to know about your local politics, but this is just trivia gatekeeping.
Exactly and it doesn't make their vote count less than yours either.
It’s not even “just” gatekeeping, it’s gatekeeping to defend celebrities which…yikes. I think they’ll be okay without it lol
I feel like it's saying, "If you don't know this exact number, you don't get to criticize when famous rich people participate in white feminism and you should shut up." It reads as though it's written by somebody who is really upset that their favourite celebrity is getting warranted criticism.
This is how I feel too. Especially in regard to the political actions of a pop star. I imagine the intention is to shut down men who are mad about these women being "woke" but frankly... a lot of the politics put forth by celebrities is performative and hollow. When a billionaire is championing women's rights and then proceeding to work with known abusers, endorsing Kamala but then hanging out with known Magats, or refusing to practice anything other than white girlboss feminism... We deserve to criticize that.
Billionaires deserve to be criticized even if they're pretty. Billionaires deserve to be criticized even if we like their music and their makeup/skincare lines.
For a moment, I thought it was about how many senators each state in the US has in the federal Senate, which is two each. I forgot that US states have their own senates as well.
I'm confused by this post. Is it saying "complaining about female pop stars being a political disappointment?" As in "girl WOKE and BAD" or "complaining about female popstars being a political disappointment" as in "She's a billionaire who only practices white feminism, and makes personal friendships with magats"
My state has 33 state senators.
Edit, because I've gotten a few comments about this which were later deleted: My state has 33 STATE senators. These are different from the number of US/Federral senators, which is 2 for every state. Not every US state has senators or a bi-chambered legislative branch, my state does. To my understanding, it is fairly common for each state to have its own senate, just as every state has its own Supreme Court which is not the US Supreme Court.
Honestly both because even when the criticism is valid, if the person is apathetic to their own local politics that really needs to be examined.
Is not knowing the number of state senators apathy? I vote in all of my local elections, even my county elections. I know my district's senator (I voted against him). I nearly volunteered at my election commission on polling day, the only reason why I didn't was it was happening on my last day of work and it would've been a dick move to ask my bosses for the day off. But I have no control over what is happening in a district eight hours from me at the other end of the state.
Controlled for extenuating circumstances that makes a person unable to read and retain such information, not having basic knowledge of civics demonstrates a level of apathy about how your government works. Do you disagree that there’s a significant lack of meaningful civic engagement among adults who are capable in the United States?
If I had to list the 100 most important things for someone to know to understand civics in America, the number of state senators in their particular state isn’t on that list. Why would it matter? Is someone in a state with 10 state senators going to have a different ability to critique celebs than someone in a state with 20 state senators?
My point isn’t that memorizing the number of seats is important, but if you can’t approximate the number your state has it demonstrates a lack of familiarity with who is making laws where you live. I guess I’m confused why advocating for people to be more civically engaged is such a controversial take. I constantly have to remind myself not to get complacent in a world where it’s easy to give hot takes online while never bothering to call my local lawmakers about the bills they’re introducing.
We’re all good with advocating for more civic engagement. We’re not going to make it a requirement to comment on the ethics or celebrities, public figures, or other elites.
In what way was my comment stopping anyone from doing anything?
Your comment seems to be defending the post—which is implying that not knowing that trivial fact means someone’s opinion on an unrelated position is invalid. Maybe you don’t agree with the meme, but it comes off like you’re arguing for it and that’s how it looks like other people are interpreting your comment chain as well. If that’s not your intention, then I think something was lost in figurative translation.
The person I responded to asked who is complaining, a person giving a bad take or person giving a good take and I merely pointed out that it honestly doesn’t matter if I agree with the person’s opinion, if they’re unaware of that fact it’s worth exploring. After the 2024 US election we all could use some self-reflecting on our levels of engagement here.
But you can be well informed about local politics without knowing random civics trivia. How about: What is the role of your state senate in passing laws? Which party is in the majority? Are your senate districts fairly drawn or gerrymandered? Who are the state senators in your district? What issues did they campaign on?
It’s a screenshot of a quippy social media post meant to get people to think about their own engagement with politics. Besides, number of senators for your state isn’t some obscure trivia fact meant to trip you up. It’s the most basic information about your local government and if you’re regularly engaged in local politics it’s pretty easy to give an approximation.
Please explain to me how knowing the number of state senators meaningfully informs your voting choices or activism.
Read my other comments
If somebody is using politics to mask sexism ask them how many state senators their state has and laugh at them when they don't know because they are the real disappointment.
Okay, but not knowing that doesn’t make a person a “disappointment.” How does knowing that information affect your choices as a voter?
You are missing the part where they are judging others for their political discourse and they don't even know the first thing about the politics that directly affect them.
I disagree that the number of state senators directly impact a person in any measurable way in most cases. As I've said, my state has 33. If my state redistricted to have 34 or 32, it would only affect me if my voting district changed or if it would significantly alter the political makeup of my state legislature. My state has 27 republican senators and 6 democratic senators, so having 32, 33, or 34 senators is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is keeping track of elections in my district, so I can hopefully help change the numbers from 27:6 to 26:7.
it is saying women don't owe you shit stop harassing popstars start harassing elected officials who do owe you shit
If a popstar is making political statements, I'm allowed to criticize those statements. Billionaires are not your friend. Celebrities are not your friend.
I'm not going to do capitalist white feminist apologia
I do think it’s dumb to criticize female pop stars for not doing “enough” politically. They don’t owe us that. People on Reddit will criticize someone like Taylor Swift and then not vote in their mayoral election.
I think “silence is violence” is a generally stupid rhetoric and I’m a POC. I understand the original post, it’s annoying to hear people complain who do literally nothing in their own communities.
I think there's a difference between complaining a pop star isn't doing "enough" and criticizing a pop star who puts herself out as a political voice, doesn't say or do anything that's actually helpful, and then cries misogyny when people call her out on her performativity.
I don't need every celebrity to make a statement on Gaza, but if (for example, this one hasn't happened to my knowledge) a celebrity comes out in support of Palestine and then takes a Moroccan Oil brand deal, that person would deserve criticism. If a person keeps presenting herself as a liberal feminist but is a billionaire who is regularly in the company of very right-wing people and sings about wanting an entire block of a neighborhood looking like her white fiancé, that deserves criticism. When Katy Perry went to "space" and released "Woman's World", she was rightfully criticized.
That's my overall point: Celebrities do make political statements, when those statements are performative or self-serving, I'm not going to be silent because she's a woman.
I read it as you have 33 state senators that let Trump stay in power wo pushing back or making sure he’s removed from office, so why are only famous women being held accountable and not you’re actual senators or famous men
I think you're reading too much into it because I can be annoyed at multiple people simultaneously. I don't know how you can assume from my comment I don't criticise famous men, literally yesterday I was in a thread calling Liam Neeson a spineless, willing agent of propaganda.
I'm only talking about pop stars in this thread, because this post is only talking about them. I don't rely on whataboutism and I don't give any billionaires passes. There are multiple musician billionaires. Many of them are men. Many of them are women. I say eat them all.
I've worked for a state representative and still couldn't tell you off hand how many state senators there were. I could probably have named them all, but just knowing the exact number isn't actually useful knowledge.
What he's getting at is they lack basic knowledge everyone should have learned in high school government class. Every single state gets exactly 2 regardless of any factors like population. He's saying he asks and they realize they don't know and exit the interaction.
Every state gets two US senators. But the post says "state senators" which are different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_senator
Terrible take. Music is political - all art is. People who have cultural influence, like pop stars, have an obligation to use that influence to speak up.
Silence is complicity. Stop making excuses.
If this is intended as gatekeeping, then wow. If I hadn't looked it up just now, I wouldn't have known, either, and it doesn't imply that my vote is discounted somehow or that my voice for political opinions is faulty. I just worry about my own district.
Reading this post as someone in a country that doesn't do state senates is very funny because it implies I can be a Little Shit with impunity
Nor does it excuse famous people who choose to be vague about whether they support human rights to maintain maximum appeal, or mean you can’t criticize them for such.
I like to ask who they voted for on their school board any time somebody says voting doesn’t work.
Easy. Zero, I am Canadian, we don't have "states" here, and we only have an unelected senate at the federal level, it's basically like the House of Lords except the Canadian Senate does not allow for membership to be hereditary.
I shall continue to be a hater for anyone who is silent on fascism.
what tf does this mean
Not completely related but I ran for state senate (and lost) but at one of the first candidate events I attended in the community, I went in all prepared to answer questions about policies around healthcare, budgets, gun control, immigration, schools etc and the VERY first question I was asked by a voter who raised their hand was about Taylor Swift.
My lesson: meet people where they are at. Fortunately or not people look up to celebrities and often use them as a stand in for culture.
Ps, I bungled the question.
If you're gonna take gatekeeping seriously, ask someone from NH to name all 400 state reps.
Political trivia isn't the same as ideology
The person not being able to answer the question implies that they are not an authority on how the politics that affect them actually work and therefore they shouldn’t be criticizing others’ involvement or lack thereof in politics.
It's apparent even by these answers that not everyone knows that every state has exactly two senators. Don't know whether to laugh or cry.
😂 State senators. There are more than two lmao
It's me. I'm crying.
We aren't talking about congressional senators
...They're asking for state-level senators. As in, the number of senators a state has in their individual government, not how many senators represent each state on a federal level.
You should laugh so that everyone else is laughing with you, not at you
Holy, and I do say this from the bottom of my heart, moly.
Begone, bot
This is the second post I see from this OP saying that female pop stars "don't owe you shit" and that criticising their engagement with politics is somehow antifeminist. I mean, yeah, if you only criticise female popstars for not speaking out, that's one thing, but most people I see criticising Taylor Swift etc *do* call out male popstars as well, so I think they're clinging to strawmen. Overall seem to be more concerned with defending celebrities of all people than anything else.
Imo, refusing to hold women accountable because they're women is the real antifeminist action. I hate the current trend of "She's literally just a girl" when the person in question is in her late 30s. It's infantilizing. It's one thing to harass a celebrity who doesn't really have a social media presence and generally only comes into public to release an album/movie/etc., but if a celebrity does regularly make political statements---I think it's worse to pretend like she must be above reproach because "women don't owe you anything."
Especially when we're talking about billionaire celebrities, I think it is imperative to remember they are not like us. No billionaire is like us. No billionaire really cares about our quality of life. If they did, if they were, they wouldn't be a billionaire.
I know that my state has 49 state senators AND I know that TS is a spineless maga doll who will bend over for trump.
TS is a white woman living the life of a white man. She has done plenty which is deserving of criticism, but anytime she is criticized, it's misogyny.
She’s spoken out against Trump a bunch of times and has exclusively endorsed Democratic candidates for a decade, including an endorsement of Harris last year that was also specifically anti-Trump. What are you talking about?
Edit: Not sure why I'm getting downvoted for stating objective facts?
What has she said since Trump was elected? Quickly.
She hasn’t said a thing about ICE and Trump using her music.
This is what drives me crazy about her. She refuses to address anything. Other pop singers, who have much less cultural clout, have disavowed ICE and Trump using their music. It doesn't take a lot of work.
I don't believe celebrities need to weigh in on every political issue, but when the government is using your work, presumably without your consent, to support a cause, not speaking out against it looks like being acceptance. She's already a billionaire, it's not like she's at risk of repercussions. "Women don't owe you shit" shouldn't apply to staying silent against fascism. People who stay silent against fascism are complicit.
It also, frankly, drives me crazy how TS is somehow both a lyrical genius and just a girl who didn't intend to have highly racial undertones in her newest album. She is somehow both a woman who is a master at hiding easter egg and clues in her work, yet people are "doing too much" when some of that work appears to have disconcerting imagery because "it was an accident."
No she hasn’t.
I mean there's the concerning racial undertones in Opalite and her close friendship with Brittany Mahomes, who Trump has actively praised. I don't think she's a literal fascist, but I do think she isn't particularly conscientious and cares primarily for herself. She's very much a woman who would uncritically say "there should be more women ceos and more women billionaires!"
I mean, her endorsement for Kamala was a perfectly posed and photograph photograph of herself.
[deleted]
It doesn't make her a Trump supporter, but it definitely means she lacks principles. I wouldn't be able to stay best friends with a Trump supporter who Trump explicitly called out and praised for how well she supports him.
I've ended friendships with people over politics for less. Billionaires are not our friends.
[deleted]
That doesn't mean she had to go to her birthday party lol
I've never been to the birthday party of the spouse of one of my coworkers
Edit: having a pride flag in your banner but refusing to call out the queen of white feminism is a choice
49
Yeesh this is a good one. I know who my state senator and legislatures are. I know who my state Senate president is. I know quite a few state senators by name. I think that puts me well above what the average person knows about their state politics, but I have no idea how many state senators we have. Couldn't even begin to guess
What??? I know my reps, but how tf am I supposed to know how many reps Texas has? ESPECIALLY after the redistricting.
[deleted]
I mean sure, I just googled it. It’s going to have zero impact on any of my decisions as a voter and activist. If you really feel like it matters I’m guessing you don’t have a lot more to throw around right now.
[deleted]
Except that this is a post DIRECTLY in reference to a current political controversy in the US. Look, I agree with you in general, but this is a bad example for an otherwise valid grievance. This isn’t Americans taking a generalized situation and forcing it to be about the US. From its outset, this post is about the US, it’s reacting to a talking point only stupid enough to exist in US politics, so it’s only natural that reaction be allowed to be about the US as well.
ETA: related article
Is this post because Chappell Roan has been getting dragged again for cosplaying LGBTQ culture while refusing to back candidates that protect LGBTQ individuals?
how is she "cosplaying queer culture" while "refusing to back candidates who protect queer people" when she's
a: Literally queer. Kayleigh is a lesbian. She is a lesbian who says that Chappell is her drag queen persona. Queer culture is her culture.
b: Said that her issue with Kamala is that Kamala's policies didn't do ENOUGH to protect queer people, specifically trans women. Objectively, Kamala's policies were also going to hurt queer individuals. Kamala wasn't protecting shit.
c: Said she was voting for Kamala anyway, she just wished the Dems were running with a candidate who would actually protect queer people
Like I'm sorry but as a queer woman myself - I have many of the same reservations about the political candidates in my country, I felt that Mark Carney doing things like eliminating the Ministry of Women & Gender Equality was HORRIBLE policy, but what other choice did I have? The NDP had a snowflake's chance in hell, and the Conservatives are actively fascistic. That's the dynamic Chappell was getting at - being forced to vote for a candidate who is transparently pretending to give a shit because the other option wants you dead.
women don't owe you shit applies to this shit too just FYI
That blade cuts both ways, so, uhh, I'm gonna continue not caring about middling pop stars who are afraid to stand for anything. Gender doesn't really factor into it for me, but if it does for you, cool.
Um… each state has exactly 2 senators. Are we talking about the house too? Those are not senators. Is this a trick question?
Most US states have their own senates as part of their legislatures. This post is referring to those.
Oh, that really wasn’t clear to me. I must be missing something. What about the wording would make that the case?
Q: how many senators does your state have? A: 2
Q: how many senators in xyz state legislature? A: varies
It’s two different questions, and the one being asked here sounds like the first one to me. I hate to be that girl, but… what am I missing?
It says State Senators, not US/Federal Senators. When someone says "State Senator" it always refers to the senate of an individual state, never to the Federal US Senate. If it's a post about the United States senate and it simply says "Senator" or "The Senate", it will refer to the federal level. If it says "State Senator" or "State Senate" is the lower level of legislature.