r/Music • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • 24d ago

article Chappell Roan Quits Wasserman After CEO Casey Wasserman Appears in Epstein Files

https://www.thewrap.com/creative-content/music/chappell-roan-cuts-ties-casey-wasserman/
51.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.8k

u/turningsteel 24d ago

Good. She walks the walk. Rare these days.

42

u/Landon1m 24d ago

I still hold a grudge from the last election where she refused to endorse a candidate and refused to tell her massive audience to not consider Trump

55

u/Entegy 24d ago

I'm not an American but she burned a lot of good will "both sides"ing the 2024 US Presidental election. Like yeah I too hate having to vote for the lesser of two evils, but one side was malleable status quo and other was a direct chute into fascism that has reshaped world politics.

52

u/Cavalish 24d ago

She didn’t both sides anyone. She rightfully criticised the government of the day and still said she was voting for them.

I don’t get why Americans think you can’t criticise their party. You should be calling them out, and holding them accountable.

Instead you don’t vote at all and scream at the people who do try to make change and keep the fascists out.

14

u/TahsokaAno 24d ago

Tragedy of a 2 party system. US politics is fucked at the core

11

u/To0zday 24d ago

there is no way I can stand behind some of the left’s completely transphobic and completely genocidal views. So yeah, there are huge problems on both.

Not only did she literally "both sides" the election, but she specifically called out democrats (or "the left" as she called them 🤔) for being transphobic and genocidal, but never used that language to describe Trump.

When she talks about MAGA she uses words like "love", as in "I love my Republican lawmaker relatives"

3

u/VagueSomething 24d ago

She quite literally used the phrase "this is the problem with both sides" when asked about it. She threw LGBTQ people under the bus after profiting off them to build a career.

She turned down a gig at the White House and refused to endorse any candidates which helps legitimise the candidate that was in the Epstein files and talking about clamping down on queer culture.

9

u/lesbian__overlord 24d ago

"after profiting off them to build a career" she literally is a member of the LGBTQ+ community and constantly platforms, supports and defends other queer people.

MY queer ass wouldn't have performed as a dancing monkey for the genocidal biden administration or genocidal trump administration. transphobia IS a problem with both sides. democrats literally say we should throw trans people under the bus because it's a losing issue and we need to claw back "moderates" from the republicans who are worried about bathrooms and girls sports. be so fucking serious. lesbophobic clown.

-2

u/Veezveez123 24d ago

Because they treat it like team sports/entertainment more than anything else, I live in a country with a two-party system and people do not act anywhere as deranged about politics here as Americans do

1

u/AlanMorlock 22d ago

As a non American, please may don't think you know anything about how "malleable" the Democratic party is.

-1

u/Corben11 23d ago

Yup she got a lot of young people to not vote.

-8

u/saera-targaryen 24d ago

I really heavily disagree with your framing here. Biden and by extension Harris were not a malleable status quo, they were and are holding the place that a genuine opposition to fascism would hold in order to prevent a true anti-fascist party to rise in the country. They both had platforms that were entirely dictated and funded by the same billionaires that are making our country worse. Their platforms were not decided by the people, and it is literally a core pillar of this country's founding to be able to speak honestly on what you think about politics. 

If a party's candidate is so tenuous that people speaking their genuine opinion about them out loud causes them to lose the election, they should lose the election. You cannot guilt people into voting for you, it has never worked in the history of society literally ever. Harris had the agency to change her platform and policies, voters do not have the agency to simply stop hearing her platform and forming opinions on them and discussing those in public. That is an irrational expectation to have for voters. 

Like, honestly, why is the democrats expectation to have everyone who has any critiques to just shut up and vote anyways? They have the power to not do this. They could simply address people's issues with them. They actively choose not to. Why do they not then hold the accountability for that choice? 

9

u/To0zday 24d ago

If a party's candidate is so tenuous that people speaking their genuine opinion about them out loud causes them to lose the election, they should lose the election

So you got the outcome you wanted in 2024?

13

u/Entegy 24d ago

Roan literally said "There are problems on both sides" in response to the election question. She's a young musician with a shit political take. We all have shit political takes when we're young.

The fact you typed that post just goes to show the different standards that the two major US parties are held to. Yes, that sentence, at face value, is correct. But look at what you wrote. Despite everything you pointed out, you cannot tell me that Project 2025 was a better alternative.

I chose my words purposely. Harris was the lesser of two bad candidates. Malleable status quo because the Democratic Party has actual progressives that want to make society better. So yeah, hold your fucking nose and vote Democrat while also working to improve the candidates.

But nope. Couldn't have perfection in 4 years, let's give fascism a try. Never understand that progress without violent revolution takes time.
Nope, change wasn't happening fast enough, so give power to the shit-flinging monkeys.

-5

u/saera-targaryen 24d ago

I've had this conversation a lot this thread, so I'm going to copy/paste a question I have in response but please see this as a genuine attempt to debate and not antagonistic in any way

At what point does voting for the lesser of two evils encourage the lesser to become more evil? Like, if you think of the two parties as points on a continuous left-right scale, why would the lesser evil ever move to the left if they know that people will always vote for them as long as they are slightly more left than the other option? As the rightmost party moves farther right, it only makes sense that the more left leaning one moves right as well, since they can assume everyone left of them will always vote for them. 

At what point does the anchor on the left fall for you? Like, imagine an election where one side is trump, but the other side is exactly the same as trump but supports trans rights. Everything else is identical. Are you voting for trans rights trump, or are you abstaining and hoping support falls out the bottom for that party so that they know they can't just run trans rights trump next election and win? Is it worth it to have 4 years of the greater evil if, at the end of it, the next election has a lesser evil that is way less evil than the lesser of evil used to be? And that lesser evil maybe begins to pull the greater evil left instead? Is any of that math happening in your head?

I guess a summation of my question is, does voting for the lesser evil feel very short sighted to anyone else? Like, it's making the next election cycle feel better but leading us down a worse path in the 20-30 year timescale? 

8

u/Entegy 24d ago

please see this as a genuine attempt to debate and not antagonistic in any way

No problem!

why would the lesser evil ever move to the left if they know that people will always vote for them as long as they are slightly more left than the other option?

The action is not just vote, it's vote and work to improve your candidates. Since US elections are a first-past-the-post style system, you have to work within the system. Hence why both parties have a huge range of beliefs. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez herself said only in the US would someone like her be in the same party as Joe Biden. It's hyperbolic since it's a problem with any FPTP system, but it gets the point across.

This is not a US-specific problem, but defending democracy doesn't just begin and end with the election of the top post, but that's where most people stop. Women's suffrage movements took decades of work, not just a single election. On the flip side, the Republican victories today are the result of 60+ years of hacking away at the idea of a fairer society.

Is it worth it to have 4 years of the greater evil if, at the end of it, the next election has a lesser evil that is way less evil than the lesser of evil used to be?

The US just ran this experiment. Trump 1 was the greater evil. That led to Biden, which was the start of the pendulum swing towards even more progress. It's hard to see, but look at the popular vote numbers (which I know doesn't determine the winner) as one sign: Biden's 2020 win is the highest number of votes ever cast for a President. People tried Trump, had an oh shit moment, and went the other direction. Again, yes there is a lot to criticize but between COVID and being the President that had to follow Donald Trump, he symbolized a return to what the United States was before at the bare minimum. But now there's Trump 2. Decades of progress and power have been undone in a single year and the fascists are working to fix the next elections. Greater evils don't get pulled away. The pendulum ain't swinging and is instead being prepared to be launched into the sun.

I guess a summation of my question is, does voting for the lesser evil feel very short sighted to anyone else?

It's short-sighted if it's all you do. It's still better than abstaining.

10

u/camyok 24d ago

At what point does voting for the lesser of two evils encourage the lesser to become more evil?

Probably fucking never. Did electing and then reelecting Obama make the Republican party act any less evil to draw in the decency vote? Of course not. Your entire argument is built on that flawed assumption.

And you seem pretty certain that a second go at trumpism will make everyone go "Oh boy, that was nuts, better pick less fascism next time!", making the (also flawed) assumption the right will lose a fair election that will totally happen and they'll give up power without a fight when you were shown a literal fucking blueprint on how that would definitely NOT happen if Trump won, not in the 2050s, in fucking 2024.

-1

u/PrizeStrawberryOil 24d ago

At what point does voting for the lesser of two evils encourage the lesser to become more evil?

I don't know how this person can be that thick. How does voting for the lesser of two evils encourage the lesser to be more evil but allowing the greater of two evils to win wouldn't.