• Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Apparently, Taylor Swift has no major blemishes on her record, except that she has lended out her private jet to family members and other close relations for significant and seemingly trivial trips.

        So people are focusing on that.

        She could do something unconscionable soon, statistically, but nothing has happened yet.

        • isthingoneventhis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          9 months ago

          Didn’t she just sick her legal team on the random kid who was tracking her public flight record habits? I was under the impression it stemmed from that (highlighting her frivolous plane usage).

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Yeah, and this sucks to say, but this is a case of different circles. When you’re that rich, you tell people hey, why is this guy…, and then your legal team sends a cease and desist letter.

            It isn’t suing him, it’s telling(telling) him to stop it please, legally.

            She’s so rich that it’s very scary, but it’s basically like a neighbor knocking on your door, with the very important caveat that if her steel toed stuffed animal boot decides to kick your door in, you have no legal recourse, since you can’t mount a proportionally paid legal defense.

            In more free countries that are more supportive of every citizen, this wouldn’t be a big deal. In the United States, since money has been legally transmogrified to free speech, it’s more of an issue.

            • oeverbloem@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              9 months ago

              The USA: where money has been legally transmogrified to free speech.

              You definitely have a way with words!

              • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                9 months ago

                Appreciate it. Most of my literary and scholarly documentation can be found completely disassociated from and highly derivative of Watterson and similar works.

            • Mac@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              Someone wrote about this recently but i can’t find it. May have been a NYT article.

              “When only the ultra wealthy can afford to speak freely
              what does free speech mean?”

              • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                I wpuld assume that goes back to greece or earlier. Bummer how we haven’t found an interim solution.

              • OpenStars@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                It means that only “people” get to speak freely.

                Caveat: if you ain’t rich, then you ain’t people. (literary callback to a phrase that Biden said during his last campaign)

                Oh, and “speech” = $$$ btw (Citizens United).

                Translation: facts be damned, rich people gonna do whatever they want, and the laws will even codify that, despite how that means the literal and precise opposite of what America was first founded upon.

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              It’s the kind of thing that makes me think that when either side of a legal case spends money on lawyers, they should have to donate an equal amount to the other side.

              But that would the require people with power to care about justice.

            • EldritchFeminity
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              It’s also a grey area because she’s such a big public figure that, while the kid is completely within their rights to do this, it presents a pretty big security/privacy concern for Taylor Swift and her family.

              I saw somebody mention recently about this whole thing that celebrities like her use transportation like private jets specifically because of security concerns compared to driving and other, more public forms of transportation. The general public and the scummy paparazzi aren’t all that different sometimes, and the general public is more likely to have some nutjob with an agenda about the Super Bowl or something.

              • Richard@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                9 months ago

                Publicly available data should be accessible to all people, period. Regardless of the personal preferences of any useless billionaire.

                • EldritchFeminity
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  I agree, and I’m not saying otherwise. What I’m saying is that I understand where the C&D letter is coming from because broadcasting said publicly available data poses a security risk. It’s like when famous people are holding a panel at a convention or something. I remember Markiplier and his friends talking about how when they’d go to a convention, security wouldn’t let them walk around the floor because it posed a security risk to them, and to other people due to the crowds they’d draw. It’s not about some billionaire’s hurt feelings; it’s about the crowds of people that might swarm an area if they think they’ll see Taylor Swift there or the dude with a brain smaller than the hemis in his lifted pickup who might see it on Twitter and decide that he’s had enough of her woke football agenda.

                  I’m not supporting the cease and desist, but I get that the kid was adding additional risks that her security detail does not want to deal with. Not that the kid was doing it with malicious intent anyways, because you can get in actual trouble for that rather than just being sent the legal equivalent of “please stop doing that.”

                  I’m sure everybody remembers the story that the Republicans used to rant about of the cake shop that got in trouble for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. But what they conviently leave out is that the shop actually got in trouble for what they did afterward: giving the couple’s info to a Christian hate group who threatened them so badly that they had to leave the state for their own safety. All because they were getting married so that they could adopt the kids of a friend who had died to keep them from going into foster care. The couple’s info was publicly available, but the shop got in trouble because they gave it out with the intent of causing them harm. That’s the kind of thing the security detail is thinking about when they do stuff like this.

  • IndiBrony@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’ve been seeing these memes for days. I’m completely out of the loop on why Taylor Swift and planes are a meme right now, and quite frankly at this point I don’t want anyone to explain it to me. ☕

      • Thrashy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        9 months ago

        I appreciate how quickly this has mutated from a jab about how frequently she flies on her private jet to “Taylor Swift is jet, like if true”

    • 1ostA5tro6yne
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Fox news pulled out the old “rich liberal having a private jet makes them a hypocrite because emissions” nugget they’ve been falling back on since the 2000 election (if not longer, that was the year i started following politics) and now it’s getting astroturfed everywhere like it’s a brand spanking new meme and not the same old conservative media tripe. more meaningless culture war shit, basically.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        On top of Fox News pulling the “hypocrite liberal” stuff, there are also leftists like myself that simply don’t like anyone with a private jet

        • 1ostA5tro6yne
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          while i also feel private jets are bad in general this is a conservative-media-led dogpile meant to smear her as punishment for telling her fans to vote or somesuch. there’s more productive things to do with that drive and energy than parrot literally decades-old Fox News smears. why are we playing their game?

    • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      The Kremlin is pissed that Swift is kind of taking a stand against their candidate for US president. They don’t like it and want to make an example of her to discourage other influential people from standing up for democracy. So, they’re trying to run a smear campaign in social media and apparently this is the best they can come up with.

  • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    9 months ago

    This plane meme once again proves that Tankies and MAGAs are actually more the same than they are different, they just can’t admit it.