The fact that Musk is shit doesn’t make Swift not-shit. But it’s like comparing her cup of shit with Musk’s olympic swimming pool of shit on a warm summer day.
IMHO that critique is fundamentally flawed. She’s selling a service (concerts) and for that she needs to fly. So all that CO2 is caused by the concert goers. Without the concert goers she wouldn’t need a jet. Of course, then it’s also a negligible amount. And presumably she isn’t flying to jets like side by side, but only uses(used) one at a time.
About the other suggestion in that article, I do not want billionaires to use their money for political purposes. This is responsibility of the voters and the government. Ideally billionaires shouldn’t exist but at the very least they should not control our politics with money.
But the real fundamental flaw is that this is a distraction. We need sweeping systematic change and focusing on individuals works against discussing that. Where is the manhattan project to R&D our industrial processes and services to not require carbon? Instead we get this kind of propaganda and “let the free market solve it”. Well what Swift does is the best the market offers. Well maybe she could switch to a Celera 500L. But maybe the concert goers should just go to concerts of local artists instead, or superstars that fly low energy jets. Lol.
I honestly have to give props to FOX news. Or the think tank that came up with this strategy to focus on Swift.
She needs to pollute so she can keep singing isn’t the defense you think it is. If anything it’s evidence of her own selfish belief that the environment shouldn’t affect her money train.
I’m sure streaming residuals and the metric tons of marketing deal money are more than enough for her to slow down and find an ethical way to travel.
She needs to pollute so she can keep singing isn’t the defense you think it is.
No, concert goers are doing the polluting. If Swift retires then you’d get other superstars using Jets instead.
It’s a systemic problem, so the strategy is to distract from the immensity of change needed. We’re not even remotely talking about what would need to be done. Basically focusing on taylor swift isn’t much different from greenwashing or outright climate change denial. Criticizing swift helps PREVENTS action on climate change.
It’s not the person organizing the event and flying people out. It’s those poor peasants that dared attend. What an argument to make.
Someone else would fly the jet is also, not a coherent defense because someone else isn’t doing that. She’s flying her own private jet right now.
It’s a systemic problem, yes. So criticize all aspects of the system to show how inherently flawed it is. All private jet travel by all celebrities should be criticized. Suddenly when it’s not Elon tons of defenders need to tell us how we should look the other way and how there’s nothing important here in this identical situation.
If anyone is trying to prevent anything, it’s Taylor sycophants throwing themselves to defend her from valid criticism.
She’s a billionaire. She could fly first class, rent out an entire train, purchase a fleet of evs or go by bus like a normal touring musician. She has plenty of options and chooses the worst one
Sure, I don’t give a shit about Swift or her music either. My problem is the overly (hypocritical) focus on her, the strong language (“hate her”), the reason why this critique works so well (misogyny) and that it distract from climate action, and that it’s propaganda started on fox news.
This is an example of why we won’t do shit about climate change. We’ll burn every last bit of fossil fuel and do nothing about adaptation and then have a bunch of wars and genocides. These are the mechanisms why. That’s what’s pissing me off.
I thought the saying "there are no good billionaires"was because of the wage theft, unethical labour practices and tax evasion almost all billionaires commit to become a billionaire. AFAIK she didn’t do any of that. I think she is the first ethical billionaire.
While I believe that nobody should be able to wield that much wealth in the first place, arguably being a world-famous artist is among the least unethical ways to become rich as long as the artistic work isn’t bought from ghostwriters. It takes $10 in net profit from 100m fans to make a billion, and I could easily imagine a sizable crowd of her followers genuinely wanting to give her money like that (whereas, for example, I never would have willingly agreed to give Nestlé’s leadership money, even when I used to buy their brands still).
I don’t care about her specifically, but from a “owning the fruits of your own labor” perspective, I think it makes sense for the art itself to be a big part of that.
I hate Elon because he is a capitalist crushing the working class, an alt-right con artist and takes credit for things he didn’t do.
I hate Taylor because she is a performative liberal who espouses progressive politics but doesn’t follow through making her a hypocrite.
I hate both because they are billionaires and neither should have been able to accumulate as much wealth as they have.
The fact that Musk is shit doesn’t make Swift not-shit. But it’s like comparing her cup of shit with Musk’s olympic swimming pool of shit on a warm summer day.
Good analogy there bud
I’m curious, I thought she wasn’t very political (just basic human decency stuff). What does she espouse and doesn’t follow through with?
Basically she says climate change is a really big issue then flies two private jets while buying carbon offsets that are, at best, greenwashing
IMHO that critique is fundamentally flawed. She’s selling a service (concerts) and for that she needs to fly. So all that CO2 is caused by the concert goers. Without the concert goers she wouldn’t need a jet. Of course, then it’s also a negligible amount. And presumably she isn’t flying to jets like side by side, but only uses(used) one at a time.
About the other suggestion in that article, I do not want billionaires to use their money for political purposes. This is responsibility of the voters and the government. Ideally billionaires shouldn’t exist but at the very least they should not control our politics with money.
But the real fundamental flaw is that this is a distraction. We need sweeping systematic change and focusing on individuals works against discussing that. Where is the manhattan project to R&D our industrial processes and services to not require carbon? Instead we get this kind of propaganda and “let the free market solve it”. Well what Swift does is the best the market offers. Well maybe she could switch to a Celera 500L. But maybe the concert goers should just go to concerts of local artists instead, or superstars that fly low energy jets. Lol.
I honestly have to give props to FOX news. Or the think tank that came up with this strategy to focus on Swift.
She needs to pollute so she can keep singing isn’t the defense you think it is. If anything it’s evidence of her own selfish belief that the environment shouldn’t affect her money train.
I’m sure streaming residuals and the metric tons of marketing deal money are more than enough for her to slow down and find an ethical way to travel.
No, concert goers are doing the polluting. If Swift retires then you’d get other superstars using Jets instead.
It’s a systemic problem, so the strategy is to distract from the immensity of change needed. We’re not even remotely talking about what would need to be done. Basically focusing on taylor swift isn’t much different from greenwashing or outright climate change denial. Criticizing swift helps PREVENTS action on climate change.
It’s not the person organizing the event and flying people out. It’s those poor peasants that dared attend. What an argument to make.
Someone else would fly the jet is also, not a coherent defense because someone else isn’t doing that. She’s flying her own private jet right now.
It’s a systemic problem, yes. So criticize all aspects of the system to show how inherently flawed it is. All private jet travel by all celebrities should be criticized. Suddenly when it’s not Elon tons of defenders need to tell us how we should look the other way and how there’s nothing important here in this identical situation.
If anyone is trying to prevent anything, it’s Taylor sycophants throwing themselves to defend her from valid criticism.
She’s a billionaire. She could fly first class, rent out an entire train, purchase a fleet of evs or go by bus like a normal touring musician. She has plenty of options and chooses the worst one
Bro, she flies home after almost every concert instead of staying in a hotel.
She needs to fly? Sure. She needs to fly this much? Nope.
Sure, I don’t give a shit about Swift or her music either. My problem is the overly (hypocritical) focus on her, the strong language (“hate her”), the reason why this critique works so well (misogyny) and that it distract from climate action, and that it’s propaganda started on fox news.
This is an example of why we won’t do shit about climate change. We’ll burn every last bit of fossil fuel and do nothing about adaptation and then have a bunch of wars and genocides. These are the mechanisms why. That’s what’s pissing me off.
But how is making money off the music she created unethical?
It isn’t inherently unethical to make money off of music.
If you’re implying that she is an ethical billionaire though then I have bad news for you.
I thought the saying "there are no good billionaires"was because of the wage theft, unethical labour practices and tax evasion almost all billionaires commit to become a billionaire. AFAIK she didn’t do any of that. I think she is the first ethical billionaire.
deleted by creator
While I believe that nobody should be able to wield that much wealth in the first place, arguably being a world-famous artist is among the least unethical ways to become rich as long as the artistic work isn’t bought from ghostwriters. It takes $10 in net profit from 100m fans to make a billion, and I could easily imagine a sizable crowd of her followers genuinely wanting to give her money like that (whereas, for example, I never would have willingly agreed to give Nestlé’s leadership money, even when I used to buy their brands still).
I don’t care about her specifically, but from a “owning the fruits of your own labor” perspective, I think it makes sense for the art itself to be a big part of that.