Taylor Swift's Instagram Post

[Anderton]

1 hour ago, AnotherScott said:

Yes... now, when Taylor Swift fans do their own research, one of the first things they may see is that Trump hates Taylor Swift. Brilliant strategy there.

 

First of all, I was thinking that more PR-friendly statement would be in lieu of "I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT."

 

In any case, it would still be more brilliant than you might think The campaign svengalis would know most people won't do any research at all, they'll just accept whatever spin confirms their biases. That's how we got to where we are, and applies to followers of both parties. 

 

But also consider there is some strategic brilliance, either by accident or design, by making the main topic whether a celebrity endorsement makes a difference, whether Laura Loomer is being boffed, or whether people are eating household pets. It focuses the discussion away from things that actually matter, and creates such a high noise-to-signal ratio that trying to break through that noise for attention becomes just that much more difficult.

 

Remember, I want to keep this thread non-partisan. There's a lot musicians can learn about PR and marketing by watching how campaigns operate.

[analogika]

1 hour ago, Anderton said:

But also consider there is some strategic brilliance, either by accident or design, by making the main topic whether a celebrity endorsement makes a difference, whether Laura Loomer is being boffed, or whether people are eating household pets. It focuses the discussion away from things that actually matter, and creates such a high noise-to-signal ratio that trying to break through that noise for attention becomes just that much more difficult.

 

Yep. They'd much rather have us talking about the latest raging lunacy that was said, or that he's fucking a Nazi while still married to the mother of his youngest son, than discussing the actual policies, judiciary, and government that are being prepared behind the scenes for a fascist takeover. 

[cphollis]

3 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

They're eating the dogs!!

They're eating the cats!!!!!

They're eating the pets of the people who live there!!!!!!!!!!

 

I thought the guy who did that was talented.  It ended up being a catchy tune

[David Emm]

Let's try again. $#@! YouTube often hands you scrambled links. My previous post featured one of them. Try this one. Its hilarious and well worth it. cphollis is right about the guy's talent for this. Dig his little Akai (?) controller and finger drumming.

 

"The Kiffness - Eating the Cats ft. Donald Trump (Debate Remix)"

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BrCvZmSnKA

 

Also... when I set a link, the opening video frame from YouTube rarely pops up. That's more common here. How do you get things to pop up that way? Thx!

[David Emm]

On 9/16/2024 at 12:27 PM, analogika said:

It's rare to have a candidate whose primary occupation is golfing and grifting. Most candidates for high political office tend to already occupy some kind of office that their campaigning takes away from. 

 

One of my evil sisters asked "Do you think he's the AntiChrist?" The other evil sister said "I don't think so; he'd have way better makeup assistants." 

[AnotherScott]

3 hours ago, Anderton said:

First of all, I was thinking that more PR-friendly statement would be in lieu of "I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT."

 

Yes, I realized that.

 

3 hours ago, Anderton said:

also consider there is some strategic brilliance, either by accident or design, by making the main topic whether a celebrity endorsement makes a difference, whether Laura Loomer is being boffed, or whether people are eating household pets. It focuses the discussion away from things that actually matter

 

I think that ignores the impact statements can have on some people. The household pet thing has led to real threats against real people. Taylor Swift does not deserve to be on the receiving end of that kind of attention. I'm reminded of that famous line, something like "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" I don't want to see bomb threats at TS concerts.

[Philbo King]

8 hours ago, Stokely said:

What's weird (though not surprising) is that the same survey or poll was in various news articles and some of them said the exact opposite.

Surveys in particular are weird.  10% of people if asked if they'd eat their children raw will answer "Yes" either because they don't understand the question or just want to be trolls.

Just saw one poll where more than half of Republicans asked believe Haitians are eating pets, case in point.  I prefer to believe polls are just whackadoodle for my own sanity, people really couldn't be that dumb, right? (don't answer that)

I've never been polled, or at least haven't bothered to answer any random request via cell or email or in person.

Her endorsement hurting Harris makes no sense to me--who is going to change their vote, or get out to vote when they weren't planning to, based on that?  But I could also it it meaning nothing in the end.

Going to be a wild ride, buckle up Mr. Toad.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public; it is infinite.

[ProfD]

I remember the days when American politics seemed like serious business. It has become a reality show at the circus.

 

The cast of characters and clowns under the big top is hilarious.

 

No shortage of comedic source material to those who have a sense of humor about such things or find the funny in almost anything.😁😎

[nursers]

10 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

We don't have online voting here either (at least in federal elections); no idea if some local elections in various places allow it. However I think we're only one biometric generation away from turning online voting into the most accurate means of ballot access. We don't make Election Day a holiday here (for mysterious and also, sadly, not-so-mysterious reasons), so there is a real need to ensure access for those who can't get the day off or can't get to the polls. 

 

Absolutely agree - if it's done well it could be transformative....

[Anderton]

2 hours ago, ProfD said:

I remember the days when American politics seemed like serious business.

 

I also remember when people could discuss politics, because they realized they didn't know everything and could learn from discussions. Again, I blame social media and the internet. People think they're experts because they see something on the web and accept it as truth if it fits their biases.

 

In the semi-good ol' days, information was vetted. It was often vetted poorly, but at least there was a process. Nut cases had limited options for spreading crap. Information on the internet has become the online variation of Gresham's Law - bad info drives out good..

[Anderton]

4 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

I think that ignores the impact statements can have on some people.

 

I don't think the people making those statements care. If the price of generating noise is real-world consequences, they accept that as part of the process of maintaining power. Power is their priority.

 

[analogika]

8 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

 

Yes, I realized that.

 

 

I think that ignores the impact statements can have on some people. The household pet thing has led to real threats against real people. Taylor Swift does not deserve to be on the receiving end of that kind of attention. I'm reminded of that famous line, something like "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" I don't want to see bomb threats at TS concerts.

 

Several of her concerts in Vienna were cancelled just weeks ago due to bomb threats. 

[ProfD]

12 hours ago, Anderton said:

 People think they're experts because they see something on the web and accept it as truth if it fits their biases.

 

I've often heard that stupid is hard to fix. 

 

Unless bias especially of the negative variety falls under the umbrella of stupidity, it should be fixable.

 

Whoever comes up with the cure for cancer and stupidity would be revered as a deity.😁😎

[Stokely]

I wouldn't call it "stupidity" but I'm not sure what I would call it.  Maybe "willful unacceptance of messy reality", needs a better short title.

My coworker is very smart (senior data analyst) and deals with people very well (as many analysts have to do).   Yet he'll spout qAnon stuff about vaccines and other topics if he gets going (which he no longer does to me because I was a polite yet unreceptive audience).

Misinformation dressed up as facts and news just messes with our glorified ape brains and emotions.  We are killing ourselves with this crap.  People should seek out facts with which to form their beliefs, not the other way around.  And be prepared to change those beliefs if the facts are shown to be other than initially appeared or new facts emerge (as anyone familiar with science knows...its fluid.)

There's no basis for a discussion about what the facts mean  if you can't even establish what the facts are.