Hacker News Reader

Comment by calcifer | Hacker News Reader

I think they explain why a high profile celebrity's position - or lack thereof - on modern day issues is a concern. They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo and, since the status quo is Trump, they find it wrong for the "worlds biggest pop star" to take that stance.

View on HN

> 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.

> 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.

Please 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.

What 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.

But 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.

58.9% 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?

America 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.

I 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.

"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.

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality."?

A 'moral crisis' for the Guardian's editorial board is not a moral crisis for a 20-something popstar.

Dante's Inferno is not actually a good source of morality.

You meant "moral panic" right?

"They're burning all the witches even if you aren't one..."

The status quo is actually hating on Trump and attempting to shove politics down every last crevice of the universe.

I think in fact The Guardian and most other "journalistic" outlets are a tad bit jealous of Taylor Swift, as she is one of the very few public people/entities these days who seems to be able to garner attention, and importantly rake it shit tons of money, without resorting to daily Trump outrage spam and culture war nonsense.

I guarantee you rags like The Guardian are shaking in their boots at the eventual prospect of Trump being out of office. They might want to take a lesson from Ms. Swift and learn to create actual quality content to prepare for that coming day of reckoning.

Yeah I get that. It’s not crazy. It’s just a world away from the kind of thing I can engage with. If that means I’m on my way out in terms of relevance I’d accept that. I’m not cross about it...I just can’t take it seriously.

Celebrity drama - political or otherwise - seems daft and boring to me as well, but I think people who think so are on their way out (in terms of age, if nothing else). So if the idea is to reach a younger audience in a language they'd understand / in a way they find appealing, I'm all for it.

Its a stupid stance, and rather easy to refute. Good reasons for Taylor not to say anything: she doesn't want to.

Nobody complains about my stance of not talking about unicorns as being pro unicorn. Complaining about Taylor Swift not taking a stance on trump as being pro trump is a failure in logic at the most basic level.

How about we stop caring so much what celebrities think instead?

> since the status quo is Trump

Why would a British newspaper think that?

It's an international newspaper, which has significantly invested in their US presence [1] in the past decade.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_US

Not in print though, and the linked article is from the UK version, so statements about the status-quo in the UK edition are still relevant.

Unfortunately, the opinions of a sitting US president on any given issue has relevance not just for the US, but for the world as well. As long as that remains true, status-quo being Trump is a concern for everyone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com