response to recent trends rule
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…
[…] 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:
- mid 2022, the media begins scrutinizing Swift for her flying patterns
- in response, Swift’s jet drops from 19 to just over 2 flights per month
- her flights pick up slightly with the start of her massive Eras tour but still significantly less than pre-July 2022
- December 6, 2023, Swift embroiled in election conspiracy theory, basically making her MAGA’s enemy number one.
- January 30, 2024, Taylor Swift gets rid of one private jet
- February 6, 2024, news outlets first report on the cease and desist.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Oh good lord, do you think the problem with private flights is that the plane belongs to a single person?
No? I think the problem with private flights is that they exist when chartered flights would be fine.
Chartered flights do the exact same thing that is the issue with private flights.
So, yes, you do think the problem is that the plane is owned by one person.
You do know that there are many examples where commercial airlines are not practical, right?
Medical flights, for example.
Then there are indigenous communities in Alaska where chartering a flight is the easiest way off the island. I suppose we should fuck them over like we usually do.
You understand that swift isnt a doctor or someone living in a remote island town right? You grok that using charter does exactly nothing to change why she is getting criticism, yes?
Or do you think that because there is some acceptable ways to use a plane, that means all ways that use the plane must be acceptable via the transitive property?
Or are you seriously trying to call me a fucking racist because you think alaskan natives take charter planes for 15 minute car ride distances?
Got it. Since Taylor Swift isn't a doctor or on a remote island, end all charter flights.
Are you a racist? No. Do you care about indigenous people? Clearly not since you want to end charter flights due solely to Taylor Swift no matter how much it hurts their community.
As for the 15-minute distances, I said that way way too short in my very first post, and repeatedly said so other times, so you must not be only talking about 15-minute charter flights because otherwise you either didn't read what I wrote or are gaslighting me. Which of those three is it? I'm guessing it's the "ban all charter flights" one since you have suggested that multiple times. Which, again, means you don't give a fuck about indigenous people.
Also, it sometimes only takes 15 minutes to island-hop. Say... between one indigenous community to another. But since that is a bad thing, fuck them. Right?
Right, because when someone says swift shouldnt be chartering, that secretly means end the concept of chartered flights.
Lile how when your mom told you that you werent mature enough for a puppy, what she really meant was strangle all dogs to death, forever.
Really really really gross to use minorities as a meat shield for a billionaire, there, reject reddit mod. Fascinating that you think you can island hop in a car in 15 minutes, btw.
You said the issue was chartered flights, not Taylor Swift taking chartered flights.
But fine, let's ban Taylor Swift personally from taking chartered flights. I'm not shielding her. Problem solved?
Nope! Learn to fuckin read dude. I said swift changing from private to chartered does not change the problem that swift is being criticized for.
At no point at all did I make a single statement about the concept of chartering, outside of the actual topic of why swift should be using public flights.
You have spent this entire thread defending billionaires, and you threw fucking alaskan natives in front of you like a rug to walk on to do so. So, no, sorry reddit mod. Youre lying there too.
Glad you got to squeak in a little racist spew tho! Fucking freak
Nope. I did not defend billionaires once. First I said there was a security risk, then I said chartered flights should be allowed.
Also, since you have never actually explained your issue with chartered flights, I can only guess at what it is.
Is it that there should be an upper income cap on who should be allowed to take chartered flights? Is that there should be a limit to the number of times someone should be allowed to take a chartered flight? Is that you should only be allowed to take chartered flights a certain distance? Is it that rich people deserve to walk? I honestly don't know. You've brought up the climate, but none of those issues would change the necessity of chartered flights, so the climate would still be at risk from chartered flights.
So, again, what is the issue here? And how would you solve it?
I don't hold out much hope for you to answer any of that because I don't believe you're here in good faith, but feel free to prove me wrong.