Skip Navigation
196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone spujb @lemmy.cafe

response to recent trends rule

here are some hyper-polluting individuals:

  • the Rolling Stones’ Boeing 767 (5,046 tonnes of CO2)
  • Lawrence Stroll (1,512 flights)
  • Thirty-nine jets linked to 30 Russian oligarchs – (30,701 tonnes of CO2)

relevant quote:

But I will say this, a movement can't get along without a devil, and across the whole political spectrum there is a misogynistic tendency to choose a female devil, whether it's Anita Bryant, Hillary Clinton, Marie Antoinette, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or J.K. Rowling [or Taylor Swift]. And there's always gonna be people who seize on any opportunity to be misogynistic. So I would advise trans people and our allies [or environmentalists] to keep in mind, that J.K. Rowling [Taylor Swift] is not the final boss of transphobia [anti-environmentalism]. She's not our devil. The devil is the Republican Party, the Conservative Party.

—Natalie Wynn (emphasis and bracket text mine)

edit: if you can’t respond to this without using the c*nt expletive it is not helping your case lmao. mods are we okay with this? in any case, please don’t feed the trolls.

edit 2/FAQ: “but why did she threaten legal action against that college kid though?” still shitty, but refer to this comment for a good explanation of the context behind that decision.

She only threatened legal action since those memes started before when her flight movements got the attention of the right in an attempt to make her less credible of a voice speaking out against trump. And knowing how batshit insane trump cultists can be and how she’s basically the single most hated person of his base I’m not surprised that she feared for her security. Those records were public for years but the legal action only happened after someone created that meme and even fox news suddenly cared about plane emissions…

and another good comment

[…] For Swift, this is legitimate fear. I don't know if you've ever experienced actual fear for your life, but it's crippling, and it effects your psyche. To experience that on a daily basis because of an app? You bet your goddamn ass I'm going to talk to my lawyers about what my options are.

sources/timeline for the above:

372

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
372 comments

  • It currently is. It's currently publicly funded. That's how private jet flights work.

    That's the entire context of all of my comments. It's why the majority of the words in my comments here have been on the specific subject of the public expense attached to private jet ownership and infrastructure.

    Her private jet costs taxpayers, most of whom can't pay their own bills without government assistance, tremendous amounts of money.

    It is reasonable for people to resent her, a billionaire, for allowing the public to pick up the tab for her outlandishly luxuriant lifestyle.

    Just like when people did this to Elon Musk, tracking private jet flights is a piece of accountability. There's nothing wrong with tracking their flights, and there is definitely something wrong with them trying to use the their money to force the legal system to silence people who are tracking their flights.

    • Yes, and I don't disagree with what you have been saying.

      It's just that my point had nothing to do with any of it.

      • I think I made it pretty clear that if she's willing to pay the actual cost of her transportation then we would all have fewer reasons to resent her behavior.

        Flying private jets is exclusively the purview of people wealthy enough to value their time more than yours. There's no moral or ethical way to use that infrastructure as long as it's being publicly funded by people who can't afford to go to the fucking doctor.

        The right thing for her to do is opt out.
        Because she is so wealthy, because she is so famous, because she is so influential, she has a greater obligation to actually find some fucking convictions and stick by them.

        If her traveling around makes people unsafe then maybe she should stay put. That's what any other regular person would have to do. It wouldn't be fair, but it would be what they had to do because the system is not going to bend over backwards to accommodate them.

        Taylor Swift is not special.

        • She is special in that her presence in a public airport would cause a riot.

          Hence her being a security risk.

          Hence it making sense for her to fly on private planes when she does things like cross the ocean.

          Does that justify anything else? No. Why would it? She doesn't even have to own the plane. I said in my very first post that she could charter it.

          I really don't understand why you're being so aggressive with me or acting like I'm saying every criticism of her is wrong.

          • I completely agree that she should be using chartered resources. That alone dramatically reduces the amount of selfish waste involved in her jet setting.

            If her presence in a public airport would cause a riot, then it seems like the law and security are ill-prepared to deal with her presence. That seems to indicate that she has inadequate security AND that law enforcement is not handling the crowd with the same sincerity they would any other kind of riot.

            I think the disconnect between you and me comes from what we think the most important issues here are. I think in your estimation she is a security risk to the public in the form of 'potentially inspiring a riot' and that justifies (or even obligates) her use of private plane travel. Where in my estimation there is no ethical or moral use case for a publicly subsidized luxury not available to the public.

            I think she's morally obligated to opt out of a system that is immoral to begin with. I think she's ethically required to speak out as an activist against this kind of luxury being publicly funded. I think she should be going out of her way to make sure that all of the public expense associated with her lifestyle is offset by her directly.

            I don't really think we disagree I think we just have different things that we think are important sources of criticism.

            • How is a chartered flight any more of a publicly funded luxury than a limousine? Both of them are private companies using taxpayer-funded resources. In the case of a flight, an airport. In the case of a limousine, the roads. Both require people to maintain them and ensure they're being used safely.

              What's the difference? Or should limousines also be banned?

              Also, how are chartered flights not available to the public? You can charter one right now yourself. Some of them aren't even very expensive.

You've viewed 372 comments.