Ookami38

Nice alt account bro

We do blame Israel. In the mean time, this piece of technology is actively saving the lives of innocent people. Of all the weird things to be upset about, the one that's explicitly defensive maybe the weirdest.

All good. These kinds of things get off into the weeds all too easily hahah. Take care.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Embrace nihilism full on, and start flirting with absurdism.

ABAB mofo. All billionaires are baddies.

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.

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.