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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
I think I’m out of the loop here… What does Taylor swift have to do with an airplane?
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.
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.
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.
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.
At a moment’s notice? Are you referring to the well planned tours?
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.
Ah hahahaha. Thanks for explaining it to me :)
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.
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:
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!
All good. These kinds of things get off into the weeds all too easily hahah. Take care.
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…