and a men
And why would he desserve more memes if he's a man ?
Every difference in treatment between two people based on gender is sexism
Every difference in treatment between two people based on gender is sexism
And exclusively focusing on Taylor when there is recent examples of others doing much worse is a great example of this. Such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Leonardo DiCaprio who all use their private jets in just as wasteful horrendous ways. Much like how all the star wars fans decided Kathleen Kennedy or "Darth Kennedy" was the main reason the new movies were bad, ignoring the directors and writers with more control.
I'm not here to defend Taylor, couldn't care less about her, not at all a fan and fuck all billionaires. But you have to ignore centuries of history, gender discrimination and patriarchal control to cite sexism like this. There is a rich history of double standards and women being criticized for the exact same thing men do. The overwhelming majority of private jets are used by men in their 50's, but somehow Taylor Swift is the eternal meme fodder for it?
Yup. So many shitty billionaires out there, but they focus on one of the decent ones.
https://abc7chicago.com/taylor-swift-gives-bonuses-eras-tour-bonus-truck-drivers-net-worth/13588228/
My idea is that: 100 billionaires make bullshit with their private jets: I sleep. Taylor swift make buillshit with her jet: Real shit?
We are only clowning on the women billionaire and ignoring all others who do similar shit.
(and about the men vs man thing, english is my second language, I meant man)
The glaring difference to me is that Taylor tries to project an image of being a better billionaire. And, in a lot of ways, she IS, so it's more glaring when she shits the bed with something as dumb as a private jet. She does philanthropy, she fights back against the music industry's bullshit, she's even pretty outspoken about the climate, but she can't ground her jet unless absolutely necessary?
She's still a billionaire. She still sucks. But she does marginally better than the rest. Now step up the rest of the way. Until then, criticisms are valid.
Regarding man vs men, the singular vs plural doesn't matter. It's that none of this is gendered. Starbucks CEO (I think it's telling that I don't respect him enough to know his name) sucks. Gates sucks. Buffet sucks. Swift sucks.
it's the gender bias in attention paid.
when was the last time you thought about the ceos of GE, boeing, Home Depot etc., who have been doing the same shit for decades.
She treats her people decently, something I really can't say for a lot of other billionaires.
https://abc7chicago.com/taylor-swift-gives-bonuses-eras-tour-bonus-truck-drivers-net-worth/13588228/
Every difference in treatment between two people based on gender is sexism
That's what I told the gynecologist when he told me to see an urologist to check my testes.
More recent too.
I just had this shared with me somewhere else and posted it unchanged.
I'm a one-hate one-love machine. I can't hate multiple people at the same time. My heart just gets confused if I try, and then starts flirting with nihilism.
Depends what you mean by adding nothing.
I think nihilism is a pretty concrete position to be in. 2 billion years from now, nothing we've done will matter or likely be remembered. On a cosmological scale, that makes our lives pretty pointless. Thats nihilism.
Nihilism doesn't have to be bad, though. In fact, there's no good or bad in that statement. Just "will matter" and "won't matter". Absurdism is embracing the fact that nothing matters, and doing anyway. Why? Who knows. It tends to be how people stay happy. Do because if you don't, well.. that's pretty much it isn't it?
Cosmologically? yes nihilism makes sense.
On a human scale? No, your actions and inactions have rippling consequences on the world around you, and to reject these consequences is to reject responsibility for sharing a world with others, which in my opinion is a selfish and childish thing to do.
Absurdism seems more rational than nihilism on a human scale, since it admits that the world is chaos and to fully embrace this entropy as a means to not take the consequences of life too seriously.
Absurdism is a fantastic coping mechanism for the harsh realities of life. Nihilism really does not accomplish anything, in my opinion.
True.
I'm very much opposed to and sad about an international pop star and apparent progressive taking a private jet all the time.
But there's two things at play that should be differentiated.
- The role model aspect. She has millions of fans that look up to her. She could lead by example and use different means of transportation.
- She's obviously a unique figure. She's not replaceable or generic in the position she's at. Her "position" cannot be replaced by someone else as would be possible with the Starbucks CEO. She's not "some CEO" taking a Jet to work and thereby normalizing this as a habit for CEOs". Right now there are few if any other celebrities with her status l, so she stands for herself.
The precedent of Starbucks CEO commuting by jet is much more of a blueprint that might be applied to other CEOs. Or already is. I don't even know his name FFS. So he's making a precedent that a lot of other people could readily adapt.
I don't want to excuse anything. I just think that it would be more beneficial to attack CEOs for taking private jets. There's a lot more of them. They areuch more susceptible to the pressure if the companies is seen as a polluter than Taylor Swift might be. She's much more independent than any CEO. She doesn't have to worry if the board of directors or the shareholders are going to replace her if her if her habits are becoming a PR problem. So our energy might be more productively applied elsewhere.
I'm still sad about a seemingly progressive and apparently Intelligent pop star like her flying that much.
I usually suspect bots whenI see reposting highly upvoted memes from several months back, but OP doesn’t appear to be a bot.
There was an early criticism of celebs like Taylor Swift using private jets, because of the ecological effects / fuel usage; claiming it’s hypocritical because she’s pro-environment.
Honestly, given the equipment / celeb focus (and that people all around the world want to hear her live), the use of a jet isn’t that wasteful imo, but the continued meme of having her take a jet for minor trips is silly enough it’s fun anyway.
There was someone on Instagram or TikTok criticizing her for flying from LAX to another airport like, three minutes away. As though she were on what was almost certainly a repositioning flight. I doubt she has a hanger at LAX.
People are kind of silly.
The original meme, started because a cultist (fan) started tracking her flights(public information).
She takes a LOT of private flights, it turned out many weren't her but friends/family using the planes. She got flak because she's pro environment.
Hence a meme was born.
MAGATS are angry Taylor Swift won't endorse their rapist felon for president, so they are digging up year old memes to make her look bad.
As fully expected from a shitbag lemm.ee poster. We REALLY need to defederate from that nest of fascists
They fit the Starbucks stuporcommuter better.
Tbh, would you want to be in the airport the day Taylor Swift is flying on a regular flight? First, all the seats would be taken by Swifties. Plus of course just her entourage. Second, all the seats on planes that depart from the same terminal would be taken by Swifties who just want to see her through Security.
The development of a country is measured not in how many of the poor own cars, but in how many of the rich use public transit
Taylor Swift should be getting to her concerts by high speed rail. If she needs privacy, she should book a private car. A service which would be available to anyone willing to pay extra.
Yeah! We need to make it really clear that we don't care about the really big greenhouse gas producers, or the people that are a thousand times more wealthy and more problematic than Tailor Swift.
We just want to sound like we care by targeting someone who is comparatively not doing that much damage.
It's all for the lulls after all.
I thought that loop was done months ago. But she did use her jet to go to the other side of a city to avoid traffic
An overlooked part of that article.
it is unclear if she was personally traveling to St. Louis, where part of her extended family originally hails, or if the flights were for maintenance or testing.
Though, reading on from there, her trying to stop people from tracking her flights through lawsuits is just as bullshit as Musk trying to shut down the kid who was tracking his private jet flights. It's public data and they chose to be public figures. They can both suck it up and deal with the consequences.
She's notorious for using private jets going anywhere, even for short trips that's perfectly doable by other modes of transportation. There's even a subreddit dedicated for tracking her jet.
And she is one of how many ultra rich people out there who have private jets and they use them to go every damn place?
This shit is so damn silly it's not even funny.
Nice whataboutism. Just because others do it too doesn't mean it's suddenly not bad when Taylor does it. They should all stop, and if she wants to keep being a voice for positive change, she needs to be leading the way.
She's been credited with getting a lot of young Americans to vote. She's a pop star. How many things does she need to lead the way on? Why can't that Chipotle CEO who was posted about here last week be the face of this problem? Supposedly he flies his jet every day.
She's been credited with getting a lot of young Americans to vote. She's a pop star. How many things does she need to lead the way on?
Good for her! To be clear, I think she's doing absolutely wonderful things in these regards. You can look elsewhere on this thread for my own unprompted praise of the good things she's done. She doesn't need to lead the way on any of them, she's doing pretty alright.
Why can't that Chipotle CEO who was posted about here last week be the face of this problem? Supposedly he flies his jet every day.
The fact that you can't name him. It doesn't have the same impact. Swift leads a public life, she's one of the most recognizable names in America. And, she's doing absolutely shit in this regard. It's perfectly fair to call her out on that, especially if she wants to be an outspoken climate conservationist.
Do you think doing some good things makes it okay for you to do bad things? That it somehow tips the scales? Like, lets say I put a fire out in an orphanage. Do I then get to kick some puppies to balance the scales? I don't think so, that sounds silly. So why does it balance out for Swift? Because she gets people to vote and because she's a pop star (that one's kinda weird but okay) we can just accept the bad things without criticism?
Here's the problem with your argument. Taylor Swift actually has a reason to use a private jet on a regular basis. She's actively moving around the world doing tours and needs the ability to travel great distances at a moment's notice. However rich douchebags with too much time on their hands like Elon Musk don't have this need. Neither do many of the other ultra rich people out there who own private jets and fly them all over the place.
And to clarify, I'm not a Swifty. I don't really care for her music at all. I just think it's goddamn stupid to criticize someone who actually has a purpose for using such a conveyance while there are others who have absolutely no reason to need such things who are getting a free pass just because they aren't targets of a political campaign that is desperate to neutralize her influence.
I'd posit that every person who owns a private jet uses it to move around the world at a moments notice. That is, after all, the thing jets excel at. So now we're getting into what we consider valid reasons to move around the world.
I'd argue that a world tour, sure. You can use a jet for that. I don't think any reasonable person would counter that. How about just a US tour? A city a day? That's pretty doable without a jet. And yet, she uses it for similar occasions.
I don't disagree that Elon and Mr Starbucks and Gates and all the rest should stop using theirs all the time. That's not, and had never been the argument that I've made, or any other person in this thread. They should stop, and so should Swift, where it's possible.
Do you run company that specializes in musical tours? Do you know what it takes to successfully manage one?
I'm not saying that private jets aren't incredibly wasteful in terms of their CO2 production and fossil fuel usage. I'm just saying that the motivation for criticizing Taylor Swift is less about how much she uses her private jet and more about how much political influence she might wield in the coming months. I think the arguments against her are bad faith arguments made either by people who simply don't like her for the sake of not liking her or are trying to disarm her influence in whatever way they can. And I find that completely silly. And every "yeah but" argument you make and every person who downvotes me just proves me more and more right.
She's starting to gain a lot of political influence with young liberal voters, so conservatives are latching on to anything they can find to try to discredit her with them. The fact that she used a private jet to travel seems to be the only dirt they can find on her.
I vote left (Canadian), and I think she's a menace to the environment. There's this weird logical fallacy going around that if you dislike her, you must be a conservative. SloppyEngineer's article says she shat out 2.8 tonnes of c02 emissions on this 28 mile trip-- it's okay to call out hypocrisy, she doesn't get a pass.
It's nice that she got the GoP finally care about climate change though, haha.
Edit: numbers
For what it's worth it's definitely not just conservatives. While I think she's doing a lot of good compared to others in her wealth bracket, that wealth bracket still should not exist, and anyone in it is a problem.
I can acknowledge that she pays better than most other entertainers. I can acknowledge that she's pushing back against a lot of the BS that the music industry is pedaling lately. I can acknowledge that she does a lot of philanthropy.
I can also acknowledge that she's acquired an inhuman amount of money, which necessarily requires perpetuating suffering. I can acknowledge that she's absolutely a part of the environment problem. All of these things can be true at the same time.
All of these things can be true at the same time.
Absolutely true: I'm also far-Left, and am a scientist working in the sustainability field.
I know I have complicated views on this (shaming her specifically), mostly because there's not the same number of posts shaming CEOs and others making even worse choices.
The way I process it would be as if a major new corporation had a crime segment running nightly, but only showed young Black men who were arrested for violent crimes. Sure, it's not technically incorrect - since they were each arrested - but it's misleading in a way that should be examined, and people would rightly question why they're not showing other folks doing the same things.
To be clear - I'm not equating the folks who share or make these memes with racists, but I am using it as an extreme example of ways in which outsized attention to certain celebrities/public figures can come across. I laughed at this and other memes, but I think it's worth examining why we can name and shame Swift, but not CEOs and others who are more fundamentally responsible for inequities and climate destruction. I'm way-overanalyzing a meme here, since name recognition is doing most of the work (who would click on a meme with the name of some CEO they don't recognize, versus Swift?), but I do think we could/should do more to drag some of the true ghouls out there into the light and start mocking them, in addition to the folks normally raked over the coals.
Also, I understand that part of that is the hypocrisy, but I'm reminded of what the great Norm MacDonald had to say about hypocrisy:
The comedian Patton Oswalt, he told me "I think the worst part of the Cosby thing was the hypocrisy." And I disagree. I thought it was the raping. It's my feeling most rapists are hypocrites. You don't meet many that go "I like raping and I know it's not politically correct but, by god" and people go "well, he's not being a hypocrite and that's the worst part!"
Edit:on rereading I'm basically parroting the same thing you are,I think it's just a matter of how cynical one wants to be with the intent of the OP and other commentors are. Pretty much impossible to quantify without being in their brains,and a perfectly valid thing to be looking out for.
I think the biggest difference between the two, specifically the Starbucks CEO and Swift, is one of visibility. Fucking EVERYONE knows who Taylor Swift is. She lives one of the most public lives. Hers is a name that's often right on the tips of everyone's tongues.
Contrast with the Starbucks CEO. I don't even know his name. I remember reading (largely from memes on here) when he was saying he'd fly across country to work in office instead of working remote. And I remember a HUGE backlash from that here. Another contrast is, I do not remember seeing ANYONE say the Starbucks CEO was actually decent and this is just one thing, or that there's actually a good reason for this choice. Absolutely everyone hated it.
Those died down. They didn't have longevity. Largely because Mr CEO isn't a household name. I'm still pissed at him, too, but it's harder to make the same point as broadly using the nameless CEO than the person everyone knows.
Edit: I think the thing that annoys people about the hypocritical stance is that she has, on multiple occasions, been staunchly for climate conservation. To use the rape quote you provided, it'd be like if Cosby was saying "rapists should be punished. Rapists are the worst. Rapists should be in prison" then he's found to be raping, and suddenly wants some leniency. If you're outspoken about a thing, clearly you know it's wrong, and so I shouldn't have any qualms about the punishments levied.
Yeah we're in agreement, and apologies that my reply was a little meandering! It's hard to reply without sounding contrarian sometimes.
Thanks for a good reply, and I hope you enjoy the weekend!
While daddy Musk does probably just as much or more private plane travel, while also trying to publicly go after the guy tracking his jet that is public information…
Doesnt work anymore. Maybe if this is about the Starbucks CEO. Swift at least responded to criticism and swore to use less flights. I'm not sure the CEO cares at all.
It's almost like these are bullshit posts with an agenda.
I'm sorry, when did we say only certain billionaires are appropriate candidates for criticism?
All billionaires pose a moral dilemma to humanity.
Look at the size of it, there isn't even enough space for a human to sit in there, let alone walk
Oh look another lemm.ee user stirring up Taylor hate.
Are you sad she won't endorse your fascist pig for president?
Buncha haters! If I were as rich as her I'd take a private flight to 7-11 down the street if I could. I would take a flight to another country just to eat dinner and come back.
•
Private jets used by the ultra-rich and boiling us alive. We are the frog in the pan and climate change deniers can't tell that the temperatures are rising, even though scientists are screaming at them.
Yeah that .9% of all CO2 emissions is really the reason. You should probably also stop using phones and computers and electricity. Did you know factories that produce most of the things you use on a daily basis create more pollution than private jets. Boiling us alive lol.
It's low-hanging fruit.
We can cut nearly a percent from asking 1:1,000 people not to use their private jets.
In 4 hours a private jet introduces as much CO2 as the average person does from all sources in a year.
By banning private air travel we can reduce carbon emissions dramatically with virtually no social cost.
I don't disagree with you at all. It's just not realistic. Private jets will never be outlawed. The people who vote on that are donated by rich people who fly private jets exclusively. Will never happen. I think the only thing that COULD happen is a maximum amount private jets can fly a year. A few different ways that can be accomplished but we don't need to go into that here.