No, I’m disagreeing with the idea that Katy Perry’s thought on a topic impact individual people in any significant way.
OK, I think it’s fairly obvious that this is incorrect. As I wrote in my initial post on the subject, “That’s why they’re constantly being enlisted in support of various causes.”
I guess we’ll have to leave it at that.
Has Katy Perry been enlisted in support of various causes? And did her enlistment have any discernable effect?
I have no idea. As above, I don’t follow her career. But any number of apparently comparable people have been enlisted, so I don’t assume she has any less influence than others of her type.
If you want to know what really “pathetic” and “idiotic”, it’s assuming that any discussion of one aspect of a topic amounts to a declaration that this “is what matters” or that people discussing it are “all pantywaisted” about it.
She was prominent in Hillary Clinton’s campaign to be president, and may have helped her win.
Well unfortunately for you, this thread is about Katy Perry and the impact on individuals of her opinion on world events. The impact that other celebrities’ statements have on individuals is not something I’ve been discussing.
Oh, well, I withdraw my skepticism then 
Having a celebrity or public figure advocate for your product is like Marketing 101. It must have some impact if people are paid millions of dollars a year for endorsements.
From a quick look at Wikipedia it seems that she’s actually pretty active as these things go. UNICEF Goodwill ambassador, various awards for speaking out on LGBTQ issues, endorsed Clinton and spoke at the Democratic National Convention, etc.
She has influence.
Well, you have gone from not being familiar with Katy Perry to thinking she is an influential celebrity on the world stage. So I guess you got me!
Yes, it would seem that way …
I think The Blaze running a “story” on this counts as pathetic all on its own. Hard to argue that they don’t think it matters when they took the time to put together a story and video so people can see and comment on how silly that Katy Perry is on terrorism.
True, though parallel to this conversation, almost nobody admits that (commercial) celebrity endorsements influence them. Similarly I wouldn’t expect any great number to admit they might be influenced by celebrity comments or advocacy on issues.
So it’s not very surprising when silly comments by celebrities are written off as totally insignificant with the counteroffensive gambit that the critics are ignoring ‘the real issue’, ‘blowing things out of proportion’, etc. There’s room to focus a bit of attention on a number of things in a given short period of time for any reasonably intelligent person.
Again IMO the bigger issue this definitely small story points to is the vulnerability of the left to populism where left leaning celebrities insulated from the downside of ‘enlightened’ policies (like mass immigration for example) tell people who aren’t insulated, a lot of the general public, to be more full of love and openness (like the celebrities are, the celebrities seem to say).
IOW while the effect of left leaning politically active celebrities (which KP has been, doesn’t require particularly ‘following’ her to know that) is not zero because nobody cares what celebrities advocate. Rather, the net effect is ambiguous as to whether the hostility they generate has more of a negative effect on the party they tend to be associated with, the Democrats, than the benefit they generate (fund raising, awareness etc) for that party.
There’s also a marked difference between a celebrity being asked a question on a radio show and a bona fide endorsement (commercials, PSAs, political rallies, whatever).
Katy Perry wasn’t putting out an internet video about the bombing and trying to spread her message, she was asked a question during the course of a radio interview. The only reason any of us heard about it was because of people at The Blaze going apeshit over it.
Saying that Perry is “insulated” from the effects of terrorism when a fellow artist’s concert was attacked the day before is just bizarre. Even if not an attack on the artist herself, it’s going to have huge ramifications for security and stuff going forward.
I don’t think Corry El was saying KP is ““Insulated” from the effects of terrorism”. Rather, that she’s insulated from the (downside) effects of the policies that she’s advocating.
Such as terrorism? Because that’s the entire thrust of the Blaze tizzy is that she said (metaphorically) no walls and no borders and now people are going “Oh my God, how can we stop the terrorists with no walls and no borders?!?!”
The topic of this thread is what Katy Perry said about a terrorist attack. The specific policy he mentions is her statement about people needing to come together, and repeating the same misinterpretation that the article makes that she was saying something about immigration.
Not that his post makes sense. Populism is the opposite of what he describes. Populism is specifically concerns about the ordinary people. If she was vulnerable to populism, that would mean she would be more in-tune with ordinary people, at the expense of minorities and the less fortunate.
The left in the U.S. is rather well insulated from populism just by its inherently minority-focused nature. That doesn’t mean it can’t have problems, but those problems won’t be populist in nature. At least, not while the left means what it means in the U.S.
I would argue about whether mass immigration is a problem, but that’s playing into the stupid misinterpretation that was used to politicize Perry’s remarks, when all she did was basically say “be kind and reach across the aisle.”
It seems conservatives are quite touchy when the word “border” comes up.