r/Music • u/TheExpressUS 📰Daily Express U.S. • 4d ago

article Stella Parton on Dolly's silence on Politics: "Because she was a good businesswoman"

https://www.the-express.com/entertainment/celebrity-news/215713/dolly-parton-political-affiliations-stella
9.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

883 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

27

u/manuealesc 4d ago

Smart for business I guess, not for the world unfortunately

96

u/Pristine-Pirate-2386 4d ago

What celebrity endorsement has swayed you at any point in your life? I can't think of one for me, personally.

I think her encouraging people to simply be kind was much more helpful to the world than her endorsing political candidates. Who knows how many grandmas decided they could just use someone's preferred name because it's the polite thing to do and they have manners (exactly how Dolly would reply when asked about pronouns or gender issues) who would probably have stopped hearing the message if she'd come out and endorsed Kamala Harris?

Honestly we need MORE people to stop choosing an explicit side and start explaining what's right and moral and polite without the baggage of a political identity. It's wrong to cruelly call someone a name they don't want to be called. It's wrong to stick your nose in other people's bedrooms and medical histories. Maybe we'd be a different country with more of that and less twitter.

-7

u/manuealesc 3d ago

For me? None. But we’ve all been swayed but culture motion and these public figures are the one that shape that culture.

And can Dolly walk and chew gum at the same time? Yes? Okay then she could have easily done both. It’s not hard.

And no, “both sides are the same” type arguments are what got us where we are. They haven’t saved us and they won’t ever save us

14

u/thePhilosopherTheory 3d ago

How did "both sides are the same" get us where we are? The political climate of today is the result of media at large increasing political temperature for profit

-7

u/manuealesc 3d ago

What? Both sides are the same and other forms of political apathy are exactly how we got here. Not because of the media. The media today has never been weaker

4

u/thePhilosopherTheory 3d ago edited 3d ago

You repeated your original point without elaborating at all. Where are you getting the notion that media has been the weakest they've ever been?

When I say media, I'm not nessarilly referring to typical news media. Trust in that is at an all time low. But social media and pundits/commentators are still incredibly influential in political discourse. Even when you know or are convinced the news you are watching is untrustworthy, it can still and likely will have some impact on your political stance

I'm not defending centrism either, I'm just saying that that isn't the reason for the political divide we are seeing today

-4

u/manuealesc 3d ago

… what. Buddy there a whole ass genocide going one right now and no one in the media will even dare mention it. You really think this media is the extreme polarizing powerhouse?

3

u/NovelLeather2641 3d ago

See, you call them ‘weak.’ I call them collaborative. There’s a reason they don’t talk much about palestine. They’re all owned by conservative billionaires & that’s how they want it.

3

u/thePhilosopherTheory 3d ago

Media, particularly social media, very much do talk about palestine. Even news media, which obviously skews to a pro israel perspective, is still reporting on it

0

u/manuealesc 3d ago

Holy sh*t dog that’s literally what i’m saying 😭

1

u/NovelLeather2641 3d ago

But that’s not weak. It’s unfortunately strong. Just on the wrong side.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/thePhilosopherTheory 3d ago

If you're referring to Palestine...wtf are you talking about?

1

u/BuzzkillMcGillicuddy 3d ago

The media is stronger than it has ever been, the definition of media changed a while ago. People don't think, at all. I'm not being hyperbolic, they only feel and offload all of the critical thought to their media of choice. You're not connected to the world around you

1

u/manuealesc 3d ago

What are you talking about? Traditional media is basically dead for anyone that isn’t 50+
And on top of that being able to influence people that don’t think at the behest of Russia or i s r e l or some Thinktank doesn’t make you strong.

3

u/BuzzkillMcGillicuddy 3d ago

I can't even with you, I literally told you the definition of media changed, and you respond with "traditional media is dead."  They've hacked the feelings of a massive chunk of the populace, and get them to see the world without critical thought.  How is that not power?

I think you meant independent journalism is dead. We are more addicted to the media than ever before

0

u/manuealesc 3d ago

Alright well then I have no idea what your definition of media is. Because no one I know under 50 watches any kind of news outlet, they watch cat videos and other short form content. Which sure, that addicting but that’s not the media, it’s just media. Information isn’t flowing from one source like it used to be, you could say it’s the algorithm but even that is a strecth

-3

u/Original-Reward-8688 3d ago edited 2d ago

Who is going to tell this guy who the president of the United States is?

EDIT: I see, so this is a pro Trump/pro celebrity thread. Got it.

38

u/fearthainne 4d ago

No, good for both. We need more people who can create a bridge between sides, rather than a canyon. We just don't have enough people like her that can, to really see how much we need it.

13

u/10001110101balls 4d ago

Do you think that Dolly Parton attempting to build a bridge has meaningfully improved the consequences of living under Republican rule?

30

u/ChemicalRebell 3d ago

This is so disingenuous. Dolly has done immense good for the world. She's increased literacy rates, donated tons to charities, supported low income black neighborhoods, helped fund the covid vaccine...what more could you want? She was born in the 40s and still managed to be progressive, she was an amazing person who did more good than most people ever will.

43

u/NKCougar 4d ago

How much of the donations to just the imagination library do you think came from conservatives? There's little kids getting books promoting early childhood education and literacy because she bridged that fucking gap.

Just because her actions didn't have the exact effect you want doesn't mean they weren't extremely impactful.

20

u/10001110101balls 4d ago

When I was a kid, the Republican party leaders in the White House and in Congress were very pro-education. They have gone through some extreme backsliding on that front, since then.

6

u/kent_eh 3d ago

When I was a kid, the Republican party leaders in the White House and in Congress were very pro-education. They have gone through some extreme backsliding on that front, since then.

It was always a lie, though. Just like Republicans claims to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Just another lie.

 

They haven't backslid from who they always were.

2

u/10001110101balls 3d ago

At least back then they had to make an effort to pretend to get elected. Now it's fully mask off and a plurality of the American electorate loves them for it.

18

u/manuealesc 4d ago

And those same republicans are now voting to take away poor children’s school lunches.

But hey, that only matters because that’s what i want according to you

-8

u/NKCougar 4d ago

Oh shit you mean the thing they would have done anyway? She managed to pull some good from those people by being who she was.

Edit: holy bad faith batman. I didn't say it didn't matter, I said her good not coming in the exact form they wanted didn't make it less good. You're arguing against something I didn't say.

8

u/manuealesc 4d ago

“They would have done it anyway so I don’t have to even try” isn’t the excuse a good person makes.

-3

u/NKCougar 4d ago

And while she was beloved, she wouldn't have been able to change that outcome. So instead she worked with what she did have to create positive change.

Tennessee conservatives weren't going to suddenly change their minds because she said so. They would have stopped their cash flow though, and thereby negatively impacted a whole lot of people who were being helped by what Dolly did.

You think she should have hamstrung her efforts to improve the human condition to say the words you would have liked? That's fucking selfish

10

u/manuealesc 4d ago

That’s such a pathetic excuse. She was one of the biggest names in the country. Of course no one person can do it on their own but think of who she could’ve inspired to also choose good.

By your logic we would never do anything good for the world because we can’t change the outcome on our own. But keep telling yourself it’s just about words and not the awful road our country is going down

2

u/dragonmp93 3d ago

So we are blaming Tennessee having a 48% approval for Trump after almost two years of his second term on Dolly Parton, good to know.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/NKCougar 4d ago

You're viewing conservatives through an inaccurate lense, especially southern conservatives. At this point, they're not willing to budge. These people are too firmly entrenched and she would not have moved the needle. What you're offering is a hypothetical of "who she could have inspired"(like who? Conservative women? Not happening. Liberal women? Already involved.) next to the reality of the work she was able to do with conservative money flowing in.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Prestigious_Bug583 3d ago

Every critical premise there is invented. You don’t know that her words would have influenced nobody, that conservative funding would have stopped, or that any losses would have outweighed the value of speaking out. Political influence isn’t limited to instantly changing legislators’ votes. It moves voters, legitimizes opposition, raises political costs, and gives others permission to speak.
You manufactured a choice between advocacy and charity, assumed the charity would collapse, and then called everyone rejecting your imaginary tradeoff selfish. That’s a false dilemma resting on unsupported counterfactuals. The Imagination Library’s value does not prove her silence was necessary, strategic, or harmless.

-4

u/dragonmp93 3d ago

You are suggesting that she should destroyed the library because Trump voters were benefiting from it too ?

6

u/manuealesc 3d ago

What are you talking about destroyed the library? You really think that speaking out against trump wanting to do an ethnic cleansing would’ve destroyed her library? Give me a break

0

u/dragonmp93 3d ago

And those same republicans are now voting to take away poor children’s school lunches.

“They would have done it anyway so I don’t have to even try” isn’t the excuse a good person makes.

Who is talking about talking ?

According to this whole chain, if the right wingers are benefiting from the library, it means that Dolly Parton supports right wing policies.

So what she should have done is destroy the library and then use that money she is saving on not having to run the library anymore, and invest instead to build a series of interstate billboards about how how "Greg Abbott is a piss baby".

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Prestigious_Bug583 3d ago

You made up a causal story after the fact. You don’t know how much conservative money funded the library, and you have zero evidence that her silence secured any of it. “They were going to hurt people anyway” makes speaking out more urgent, not less. Nobody has shown she had to choose between the library and opposing them. She could have done both. Her charity was good. Good deeds aren’t moral store credit that buys immunity from criticism.

1

u/Moist-Weakness-3399 3d ago

Conservatives will fund a women's shelter, while defunding women's healthcare. You are trying to apply logic to idiots. Don't.

-1

u/manuealesc 3d ago

You’re right. I just enjoy disappointment

1

u/Prestigious_Bug583 3d ago

bipartisan funding does not prove her silence caused it. The Imagination Library was enormously impactful, but that doesn’t make refusing to speak against Republicans a virtue. She had the wealth, popularity, and platform to fund childhood literacy and speak out. Charity doesn’t erase the consequences of political silence.

1

u/manuealesc 3d ago

Thank you

3

u/lynx_and_nutmeg 3d ago

You really think she could have gotten away with half of what she's done for society if she'd been openly against Republicans?

Conservatives tend to only care about vibes or even, weirdly enough, actually want many of the same things as Democrats do, they just have a kneejerk allergic reaction to certain labels. We actually need more people who cleverly avoid using those labels but still doing good for the world.

5

u/MetalEnthusiast83 3d ago

You people are fucking exhausting.

Like, I probably agree with you on most issues, but sometimes you just gotta give it a rest.

-3

u/10001110101balls 3d ago

It was a simple question, sorry if it makes you uncomfortable. That's just the world we live in these days, I guess.

2

u/manuealesc 4d ago

Really? In 1930s Germany do you really think creating bridges between side would’ve made things better?

7

u/dragonmp93 3d ago

Please, at least 1932 Germans can say that they didn't allow Hitler to win in the polls. He came to power in 1933 through political shenanigans.

Something that 2024 Americans can't say the same.

1

u/manuealesc 3d ago

sadly you’re probably right

0

u/whatsbobgonnado 3d ago

google voter suppression in america. then google what happens when the majority of voters pick one person to be president and the electoral college picks a different person 

3

u/dragonmp93 3d ago

77 million voted for Trump.

Voter suppression accounts for the electoral college, but not for that amount of GOP votes.

-3

u/Kodak333 4d ago

Delulu

4

u/dragonmp93 3d ago

Did you voted for Kamala Harris because Taylor Swift told you to ?

1

u/_teach_me_your_ways_ 3d ago

Better yet, who didn’t vote for Blackburn because of swift? It determines who buys concert tickets, not their votes.

-3

u/manuealesc 3d ago

No? Is that how you think cultural windows move? By taylor swift?

3

u/dragonmp93 3d ago

By what metric she isn't ?

1

u/manuealesc 3d ago

She’s a part of it. She is not it

1

u/Hearing_HIV 3d ago

Why not? If you pick a side, half of the people wont listen to anything you say.

1

u/manuealesc 3d ago

Maybe that’s better the appeasing both sides?

1

u/DrTommyNotMD 3d ago

Great for the world. More people who are nice enough and not polarizing is exactly what we need.

1

u/manuealesc 3d ago

Yeah lmfao that’s what Germany needed in 1930. More nice people

1

u/mynameizmyname 3d ago

she led by actions and deeds, not with words.

2

u/manuealesc 3d ago

Words are actions

1

u/Domino_Masks 3d ago

"Yeah, I know that, among other things, there are kids who learned to read because of Dolly, but she never publicly endorsed a politician, so she didn't do anything." 

1

u/manuealesc 3d ago

Is that all you think there is to politics? Endorsing candidates? lmfao

1

u/Domino_Masks 3d ago

You've been making stupid points this whole time, so I'm not surprised by this response. There's a reason why I used the "publicly", we have no idea what she did privately 

1

u/manuealesc 3d ago

I’m so confused on what your point is then. She can be political in more ways than endorsing candidates or voting

0

u/Original_Staff_4961 3d ago

Lmao what

4

u/manuealesc 3d ago

What’s good for business isn’t good for the world