F you, Taylor Swift!” shouted Megyn Kelly, “and f all of the people who want to see these children have body parts chopped off.”

For those not fluent in Republican crazy-speak, Kelly’s meltdown was triggered by Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris the night before, barely one hour after Trump all but face-planted on the debate stage. Kelly was especially triggered by Swift highlighting her appreciation for vice presidential nominee Tim Walz’s support of LGBTQ+ rights.

Other right-wing commentators, like Ben Shapiro, took another approach: making fun of Swifties. “Note: if you vote for a particular candidate because your favorite singer is doing so, please don’t vote. You are too stupid to vote,” wrote Shapiro on X. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, the richest man on the planet, threatened to impregnate her.

  • Todd Bonzalez
    link
    fedilink
    12 months ago

    There’s no such thing as objectively good singer.

    I’m gonna stop you right there, chief. Singing ability is measurable, and quantifiable. You absolutely can be objectively good or bad at it. This isn’t a statement of personal taste, it’s a matter of basic observation. It is possible to dislike a song, and conclude the singing is good. It’s possible to like a song and conclude that the singing is bad.

    You can be wrong about a person’s singing ability if you are unable to separate your personal preferences for singing with an objective look at things like a singer’s pitch control, consistency, emotionality, and flexibility.

    Musical preference is a subjective thing, but musical theory is much less so.

    With that said, Taylor Swift is objectively an excellent singer. I’m not a huge fan of her music, but I don’t have to be to know that it’s true.

    • @rottingleaf
      link
      12 months ago

      I could say that singing ability differs between various things that can be called singing in various cultures, and anything depending on spectator’s evaluation (pleasure) is subjective, but these are obvious, so whatever, hold a cookie