relying on the media going for the shock factor

Yeah, the shock factor of targeting the painting which is why a headline that says they threw soup at the painting is not click bait. It’s literally exactly what they explicitly and intentionally did. You recognize that, so why argue the opposite?

Yet the law

I said nothing about the law. We are talking about a headline. I absolutely agree that, because they knew they wouldn’t destroy the piece so there was no real intent to destroy it, jail time makes no sense.

Way to miss the point and insult me and my reasoning in the process.

If anyone missed the point, it’s you. If you are arguing that they intentionally argued targeted the painting for shock value, but at the same time it’s misleading the say that they threw soup at the painting, then that requires abandoning logic. This is not an attack on you, but an attack on the argument.

There is a kid on my son’s soccer team (East Coast) who is from Cali. I asked him why his family moved here. Unfased he said some forest fire burned his home down and then when they found a place to live again another forest fire burned it down. I guess is parents were like “fuck this.”

No. But I don’t believe this is even remotely an accurate analogy.

Let me try this way. If it’s no different than throwing soup against a plastic sheet…why didn’t they just hang up a plastic sheet in their home and do it there?

The whole point of this act was to target a famous painting to draw attention. They even say this was their intent.

You literally have to ignore what they said, abandon all reason, and undermine their goal in the process to hold the position that the more accurate description is to say they were just throwing soup at a sheet of plastic.

Is this a joke? They literally threw soup at the painting, but the painting was protected. And you’re calling this click bait and propaganda? I’ve seen some pretty ridiculous whining about click bait, but this might now take the top spot.

That’s the joke, but worse.

I think we would agree on a lot. Even our disagreement here - a weak endorsement vs a non-endorsement - isn’t that far off from one another.

You’re initial point was that she is a musician so nobody should care what she thinks, a straight up ad hominem, and now your whining about as hominems? I might be quite proficient at ad hominems, but your proficiency with hypocrisy puts mine to shame.

I can’t tell if you are actually this clueless or just disingenuous.

She can not vote at all, vote for someone else on the ballot, or write in whoever she wants. There is no forcing here. Certainly she was not forced to announce her decision. You seem to keep ignoring that second part. Your attempt to paint her actions here as “forced like a gun was to her head” is actually as cringe a you claimed my argument is.

And I couldn’t care less if this artist endorses Harris. I had never even heard of her before this and probably wouldn’t have heard about this endorsement if it weren’t for it making it here on lemmy. Your attempts to project your “taking sides” is your issue alone and not mine. I’m not the one who has, not once but twice, tried to paint her position as equivalent to having a gun to her head. You’re the one who feels compelled to make objectively ridiculous arguments in order to defend your position.

Funny, you have now moved the goal posts from “forced” to “she feels pressured” without a single admission that you used the wrong word.

Look, I recognize that it’s a weak endorsement, I’m not pretending it is something it’s not. But, by definition, it’s an endorsement; she publicly stated who she is voting for, revealing that she thinks the best way to cast her vote at this point is for harris. You just don’t want to accept the definition of word of “endorsement” and now “forced.” Endorsement doesn’t mean you’re over the moon ecstatic about the candidate. Plenty of right wings and conservatives have endorsed Harris, not because they agree with her policies but that they recognize what a disaster trump is for the country.

All it means is that you publicly show your support for a candidate…which she literally did by publicly saying she would vote for Harris.

So wait, are you suggesting that she is forced to vote and forced to announce who she is voting for? I don’t follow your response.

And if and when it gets passed, the conservative scotus, which has constantly ruled in favor of states rights being nearly unlimited and that precedent or other writings about the cotus don’t count, will buck both these trends and vote that this violates the cotus based on some obscure writing by some founding father.

I know, I wouldn’t have it any other way. The only reason you think that’s some kind of dig is because you are hung up about being a nobody yourself.

Being forced into making a choice you don’t like, and voicing a public approval of someone’s candidacy?

? We don’t have mandatory voting, she isn’t forced to vote at all. Additionally, she isn’t forced to publicly say who she is voting for. I see the distinction when it comes to being forced to do something, the question I have now is if you understand the word forced because it doesn’t appear that way.

You asked me what I was implying, I told you nothing, then pointed to my explicit point.

The difference between you and I is that I’m not a nobody hypocritically telling other people to not try and publicly defend their beliefs.

It doesn’t. It’s almost like you are wilfully ignorant about thinking critically.

Just so I’m clear:

She is neither being forced to vote for anyone, nor forced to let us know who she voted for. So, no, you’re not clear about it at all.

That’s a lame take. Unless you personally are running, you’re not going to agree with everything a candidate says.

That seems to be almost the exact opposite of saying you have to agree with all of the policies of the left.

Nothing, I explicitly said “we should be as skeptical of that which supports our beliefs as we are of that which contradicts it.” I don’t know how I could have made it more clear.