NielsBohron

You're definitely right; maybe someone like Dolly Parton would have been a better comparison, but even Dolly doesn't really capture his big Swift is.

Really, my first instinct was to go with Neil Young because he's one of my favorite artists of all time, and I do think that a lot of his biggest hits weren't really overly political, probably split about 50:50 even if we remember the more political stuff now. For every "Ohio" and "For What It's Worth," there's a "Heart of Gold" and "Helpless."

But really I'm splitting hairs because I like talking about music and playing the devil's advocate. Your initial point that Swift isn't known for writing protest music is absolutely correct.

Taylor Swift definitely has some political songs like "The Man," which is focused on the double standard faced by female celebrities, or "You Need to Calm Down," which is explicitly pro-LGBTQ+, etc.

I'm just pining for a better yesteryear that may have never actually existed.

I mean, Neil Young and Joan Baez were encouraging people to vote back in the 60's, so it's been at least 60 years that popular music has been closely involved in youth culture's voting habits

It's not 40K, but I thoroughly enjoyed Mordheim: City of the Damned, despite some bugs and rough AI in places.

"Wait, it's all projection?"

🌎👨‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀

"Always has been"

In all honesty, I think it's likely a simple mistake.

The object that artists use to hold their paints is actually a third homophone, spelled palette.

It could be that the word choice was intentional and is referencing the character's bed, but I find it more likely that it was simply lost in translation from the original Japanese

That's just the synesthesia talking.

... But you're not wrong

It's always worthwhile to be self-aware and to be conscious of the parts of your personality that others might be annoyed by or take offense to. I'm not going to change that part of my personality just to please others, but I don't think it's annoying to acknowledge that others might not appreciate that part of who I am.

But hey, you do you. If being your authentic self means not caring about how your words affect the feelings of others, then that's just who you are, I guess.

blown out ~~pallet~~ palate

FTFY. A pallet is a small bed or an object used for carrying things, a palate is part of the mouth or one's ability to taste things. Pretty pedantic, I know, but I have this compulsion to correct misused homophones, so... Sorry? You're welcome? Either way, have a great day!

You seem unable to distinguish between nuance and pedantry, so it's unlikely that we will be able to have a productive conversation on a topic that revolves around nuance.

Have a nice day.

Fair. I could have been more accurate by saying "they are exhibiting behavior that has been reinforced by certain positive responses," but that's a little wordy.

Do all of us experience ennui for that matter? Envy, to the same level as one another?

As noted elsewhere, this is an ongoing philosophical discussion called The Problem of Other Minds. I'd link it, but since you can't be bothered to read the links already present, I don't think there's much point.

Which leads to a paradox of how one defines a conscious, human mind at all, if it were indeed based only on what emotions are present when presented with a similar stimulus.

You're missing the point that all humanity, collectively, as a species has largely the same senses, evolutionary history, and brain structure. Therefore, despite experiencing the emotions differently and to different extremes, we are mostly capable of experiencing the same emotions. Take away that shared brain structure and shared evolutionary history, and it's a very large, unfounded assumption to think that other species have the same emotions.

Further, I’m noticing that you’re focused on dancing around “are they human”, not “are they conscious”

No, I literally agreed with you that consciousness is a spectrum and that most life falls somewhere on that spectrum. Buy hey, go ahead and ignore that so you can build yourself a strawman. I never said anywhere that I eat meat, so you're just imagining things so you can build an argument against a statement I never made.

Do you think animals are capable of being curious, even when there’s no impetus for them to be? I certainly do.

This sentence right here is everything I need to know about your stance. You're either not willing to consider or able to understand that different species experience consciousness and emotion as an evolved trait, and when the evolutionary drivers are different, the emotions are different. Any species that evolves the ability to be curious will have done so because it's an evolutionary advantage, but if the evolutionary pressure and the senses and the literal brain structure is different, then the emotion of "curiosity" will be different. Assuming that other species experience curiosity the same way as humans is exceptionally close-minded.

You're not doing other species any favors by anthropomorphizing them; you're just limiting your own understanding.