The Taylor-haters shouldn't despise her for refusing to get political, they should ADMIRE her for it (and other celebrities should try it sometime)

?Why does everyone hate Taylor Swift so much?

I don't mean her fans – the 'Swifties' - obviously.

I mean the rest of Planet Earth, which seems to delight in mocking and abusing the woman at every opportunity.

This withering crescendo has soared to record height levels in the past few weeks, culminating in a viral Twitter storm responding to one fan's question: 'Name a badder b*tch than Taylor Swift.'

A withering crescendo of Taylor Swift hatred has soared to record height levels in the past few weeks, culminating in a viral Twitter storm responding this one fan's question: 'Name a badder b*tch than Taylor Swift'

A withering crescendo of Taylor Swift hatred has soared to record height levels in the past few weeks, culminating in a viral Twitter storm responding this one fan's question: 'Name a badder b*tch than Taylor Swift'

She didn't mean a more awful woman.

She meant a tougher, stronger, more empowered female.

The reaction was fast and ferociously furious, with 99% of responses being either resolutely negative or openly hostile to Ms Swift.

It soon became clear that the wider non-Swifties world believes even Dora the Explorer is a badder b*tch than Taylor.

That is their prerogative, and for what's worth I can think of many women who might pip Taylor Swift to that particular title, led by Malala Yousafzai who faced down the Taliban to fight for girls to be educated.

But why the raging anger towards her?

Well, look no further than Charlotte Cylmer, self-styled 'gender-queer' writer and former Army vet.

She tweeted a whole host of names from Beyoncé and Katy Perry to Jennifer Lopez and Lady Gaga that she considered to be a badder b*tch than Taylor Swift.

At the end, she said: '…and every other woman entertainer in popular music who used their platform to publicly support Hillary in 2016.'

So, as with almost everything these days, it's about politics.

Taylor Swift is being vilified at the altar of sanctimony, resentment and blind hatred because of her political stance.

Only here's the twist: she doesn't actually have one.

Or rather, not one we know about.

As with almost everything these days, it's about politics. She's being vilified at the altar of sanctimony, resentment and blind hatred because of her political stance. Only here's the twist: she doesn't have one we know about

As with almost everything these days, it's about politics. She's being vilified at the altar of sanctimony, resentment and blind hatred because of her political stance. Only here's the twist: she doesn't have one we know about

Taylor's apolitical; she doesn't engage in political debate at all, preferring to stick to singing about love and romance.

This strikes me as extremely sensible given the current maelstrom of febrile, toxic political warfare, particularly as she will have millions of right and left wing fans. Why anger a large chunk of them unnecessarily?

During my anti-guns campaign at CNN, several male action movie stars pulled out of doing interviews with me because they didn't want to offend half their audience by expressing an opinion about gun control.

I understood that completely.

They were movie stars, not elected officials.

But by opting for the same stance, Taylor Swift is being demonised in a quite staggering manner – especially by other women.

Marie Claire magazine was first out with the bitchy scalpel.

'We're still waiting for an explanation of Taylor Swift's decision to remain apolitical during the 2016 election,' it tweeted recently. 'Fall of 2016 saw a slew of celebrities get vocally and visibly involved in the political process, supporting candidates and encouraging their fans to get out and vote. After a period of complete silence about the election, Taylor did post on Instagram about the fact she was voting. Taylor is not required to be open about her politics, of course, but it's also fair to question her decision to remain silent in what was a particularly contentious and consequential presidential battle. Whether she likes it or not, Taylor's politics (or her perceived political apathy) are a part of her reputation, and a song addressing or at least acknowledging that would have been impactful.'

It all started with Marie Claire's bitchy scalpel. Swift's culpability was simply that she hasn't denounced Trump in public and didn't support a woman who was a dreadful candidate

The Guardian, Britain's supposedly most cerebral pro-feminism newspaper, followed suit with an even more outrageous attack.

'Taylor Swift: an envoy for Trump's values' ran the headline on an editorial it published last week.

The sub-header spat: 'The world's biggest pop star is not simply a product of the age, but seems a messenger for a disturbing spirit.'

I read on, eager to see what evidence the Guardian had for such an extraordinary claim.

Of course, it didn't have any.

Her culpability was simply that she hasn't denounced Trump in public and didn't support a woman who many thought was a dreadful candidate.

Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union admonished Taylor for demanding that a blogger retract an absurd post about her status among white supremacists.

The Guardian called her 'an envoy for Trump's values'. Her culpability was simply that she hasn't denounced Trump in public and didn't support a woman who many thought was a dreadful candidate. The ACLU has even admonished Taylor for demanding that a blogger retract an absurd post about her effectively endorsing racists

The blog, written by Meghan Herning, was titled: 'Swiftly to the alt-right: Taylor subtly gets the lower case KKK in formation.'

It was a preposterous and deeply offensive tirade that effectively accused Taylor of endorsing racists who like her music by not publicly decrying them.

'Taylor's sweet, victim image is the perfect vehicle and metaphor for white supremacists' perceived victimization, Herning wrote, adding that her lyrics have 'dog whistles to white supremacy.'

Think about that argument for a moment.

I imagine there are ISIS terrorists and pedophiles out there who like her music too.

Does Taylor Swift thus have to also denounce all ISIS terrorists and pedophiles now, or be automatically accused of supporting them?

Herning even compared her to Adolf Hitler.

'At one point in the accompanying video (to 'Look What You Make Me Do'),' she wrote, 'Taylor lords over an army of models from a podium, akin to what Hitler had in Nazi Germany. The similarities are uncanny and unsettling.'

It is hard to imagine a more disgusting, defamatory analogy, which explains why Taylor's legal team asked for the blog to be removed.

And, of course, with heavy irony, it is precisely vile nonsense like this that encourages white supremacists to hitch their disgusting wagon to Taylor Swift.

In 2013, a teenager named Emily Pattison began overlaying quotes by Hitler on Pinterest photos of Taylor, prompting another legal letter demanding they be removed, which Pinterest refused to do.

This led to white supremacists lauding Taylor as an icon for their movement.

Yet why is that her fault?

The blame, surely, lies with the idiot who did the Pinterest images in the first place?

I don't get all this hatred for Taylor Swift, I really don't.

She is the No1 pop star in the world, and an incredibly talented singer-songwriter.

Her new album Reputation is the biggest-selling album of the year, shifting a monster 1.23 million copies in its first week in the US alone.

This destroyed her nearest rival Ed Sheeran by over 300,000.

In fact, it sold more than the rest of the Top200 albums PUT TOGETHER.

She works hard, lives clean, doesn't post topless selfies, takes good care of her fans and donates millions to charity.

I don't get it. She is the No1 pop star in the world, her new album sold 1.23 million copies its first week in the US alone. This destroyed her nearest rival (and friend) Ed Sheeran - seen here with over the weekend - ?by over 300,000.  She works hard, lives clean, doesn't post topless selfies, takes good care of her fans and donates millions to charity. Also she's delightful, charming and down to earth

I don't get it. She is the No1 pop star in the world, her new album sold 1.23 million copies its first week in the US alone. This destroyed her nearest rival (and friend) Ed Sheeran - seen here with over the weekend - ?by over 300,000. She works hard, lives clean, doesn't post topless selfies, takes good care of her fans and donates millions to charity. Also she's delightful, charming and down to earth

On the few occasions I've met her, she's seemed a delightful lady – charming, down-to-earth and mature beyond her 27 years.

But that's not enough, apparently.

No, she has to publicly declare her hatred for Donald Trump and love for Hillary Clinton, or she's dead to the world.

Really?

I'd say Taylor is the best kind of celebrity political activist, one who urges young people to vote, but doesn't tell them which way to vote.

'I try to be as informed and educated as possible,' she explained preciously, 'but don't like to talk about politics because it might influence other people.'

In other words, she subscribes to the theory that celebrities should shut the **** up about politics and get on with entertaining us.

Given how many of the Trump-hating liberal stars have been exposed as flaming hypocrites lately, I say hurrah for that refreshing attitude.

It's time people backed off Taylor Swift and stopped this hideous hounding of a thoroughly decent young lady.

She's a singer, not a Senator, and a bloody good one too.?

The comments below have not been moderated.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

What's This?

By posting your comment you agree to our house rules.