Just so we're clear:
- Taylor Swift makes a song.
- A one liner in the song starts getting virally memed.
- People who don't like Taylor Swift jump on the viral train.
- Because someone else said those words before now people aren't actually quoting Taylor Swift unknowingly.
This is your argument?
It's a weak ass position.
I can only assume that you don't like Taylor Swift and you did this exact thing and now you're doing mental gymnastics as to why you didn't do the thing. It doesn't even matter if an example I give is inaccurate. Nitpicking the fringe of my message doesn't make the message wrong. In fact I provided 2 examples and you've only taken issue with one so far so what was the point of this dialog?
I don't like inaccuracies, and I will point out inaccuracies.
That one liner have been used in memes even before that song man. It isn't something new that just popped out of because it was in the song.
No, I don't feel anything strongly about her. I don't like inaccuracies.
How do you know they didn't know the phrase before her song?
It is like saying plenty of fish on the sea, who am I unknowingly quoting when I use that phrase?
Of course, it does matter. Why would someone care about your messages, if your messages are filled with inaccuracies? Especially, given your tendency to work those inaccuracies even into technical things.
You can't even say, sorry I didn't know the phrase existed before her song and I will remove that part. And if you did know, well then you are adding inaccuracies on purpose which is way worse.
I hope you're not surprised or offended to be treated as an enemy combatant troll when every single comment you write is some obnoxious reply-guy lawyered-up "gotcha" correction that has absolutely no bearing or change to the original narrative being presented, even when you happen to be technically correct on a flimsy subsurface level.
I could go back into the original post and change one word to completely eliminate this falsely perceived inaccuracy you seem to be so stuck on; instead of calling them "quotes" I could just call them "trends" or "viral moments/memes". What you are doing right now is is more akin to nitpicking any pointless technicality you happen to stumble upon, which has very little value to all parties concerned.
I question your motives and your intent.
I do not believe you are interested in making a helpful contribution to this post.
I think you are interested in "being right" and, like so many before you, using social media as some kind of toxic echo-chamber of catharsis where you can position yourself in such a way that your words are somehow superior and inarguable truths. I assure you that's not how it works.
Legit everything has already been said before; it's just a matter of if the person saying it was famous enough to be remembered and attributed to the quote. So right off the bat you are making a distinction as to whether the quote in question was spoken by someone famous enough, which immediately disqualifies it as some kind of set-in-stone fact.
What's the rule here? If I can Google the quote and Google recognizes it, it's a "real" quote, but anything that Google doesn't find is original? That's not going to work, is it? I trust I don't have to explain how easy it would be to discredit and find exceptions within any kind of objective ruleset for this type of thing.
People who do not like this person get unknowingly caught up in the whirlwind that is their influence.
Taylor Swift is one of the world's biggest influencers, whether people like it or not.
That is the point.
That was always the point.
That point has not even been dented in the slightest by this conversation.
The examples given are perfectly accurate within this context.
I don't give a shit if a lawyer would not sign off on them.
Good day, sir.