response to recent trends rule

iAmTheTot , 3 months ago

Levying valid criticism on someone is not scapegoating. You can criticize more than one person for the same thing.

Geobloke , 3 months ago

You can, but no one is

fhqwgads , 3 months ago

No one memed on Elon when he shut down his tracker? Or Kylie Jenner for the 3 minute flight?

Annoyed_Crabby , 3 months ago

Totally no one memed Jeff Bezos nor Zark Muckerberg nor Tonald Drump. No one.

Spiralvortexisalie , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Taylor has long had criticism for her jet use, the meme explosion is just about the media wanting to use her as hype prop while at the same time her team sued to shutdown the flight tracker kid. Posts that seem obsessed with possible damage to Taylor’s reputation sound like it is coming from a PR firm. Does Op genuinely believe that someone sees a Jet Meme and think differently of Taylor? Is Op against Taylor being the poster child for Aviation reform? I do not understand why an uninterested third party feels the need to prevent Taylor from suffering consequences of her actions merely because other heads should roll first.

ETA: I had to check if OP was a PR FIRM, check OP’s own response to Taylor Jet Memes: https://lemmy.cafe/comment/4651417

kautau , 3 months ago

I agree with you but “lol maybe Taylor herself is a jet, that’s funny” is far from PR material

Spiralvortexisalie , 3 months ago

I viewed it as an answer to my question “Does Op genuinely believe that someone sees a Jet Meme and think differently of Taylor?”, I only saw the post because I checked if it was PR firm.

spujb OP , 3 months ago

thanks for your commentary.

1. taylor swift absolutely should face the consequences for her actions. there is no good billionaire.
2. these memes kicked off in 2022, and Swift reduced jet use (significantly, but not perfectly) in response, something i have never seen from any other individual. she is still worthy of criticism but i question if what she is getting is proportionate.
3. it is now 2024. i am concerned to see that Fox News is using this debacle to discredit her (good and positive) call to increase voter participation.

Droggelbecher , 3 months ago

She isn't getting the most hate because she is the worst offender, she is getting the most hate because she is the most famous and most beloved offender right now. People already hate the likes of Musk. Not saying this is the only reason and there's no sexism etc involved, but it certainly is part of it. And I'd argue if calling attention to rich people's environment sins, it's going to get more attention the more famous and well liked the offender is. It's 'yes ALL billionaires are bad, even the one who's likeable and pretty and makes good music and never says unhinged right wing stuff'.

gmtom , 3 months ago

No one memed on Elon when he shut down his tracker?

Yes they did? When he announced he was buying twitter/everyone/ was miming on him because they knew he was buying it to shut down that account.

spraynpray , 3 months ago

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

gmtom , 3 months ago

No u.

BluesF , 3 months ago

The only reason this has blown up is because she threatened that tracker with legal action. It's the Streisand effect 100%. The same shit happend when Elon Musk shut down the account that was tracking him.

Geobloke , 3 months ago

Gee, it's almost like she's worried about stalkers or something. And I was on the net when elon tried it ands it wasn't like this

beardown , 3 months ago

You're treating her better than Elon purely because she's a woman. That's sexism

Geobloke , 3 months ago

Never said she was better. I am saying boys are treated differently to girls

beardown , 3 months ago

You're saying it's valid and good for her to worry about stalkers. You are not saying the same about Elon. This is purely because she is a woman and he is a man. This is sexism.

Women are not delicate flowers who need to be protected. Men are not tough monsters who do not need protecting.

Billionaires are destructive enemies of humanity - gender doesn't affect that analysis

LainTrain , 3 months ago

You are correct in entirety.

Geobloke , 3 months ago

Lgbtiq have the same struggles as heterosexuals

Coloured people have the same problems as whites

Third world problems are the same as first world problems

Go home mate you're cooked

beardown , 3 months ago

?

spujb OP , 3 months ago

posting this once more for reach—
this is a common misconception i am seeing, where people are getting the timeline reversed.

• December 6, 2023, Swift embroiled in election conspiracy theory, basically making her MAGA’s enemy number one.
• February 6, 2024, news outlets first report on the cease and desist.

The uptick in memes kicked off most significantly in December, and while, yes, the cease and desist was embarrassing fuel for the fire, there is no evidence that it was causal in any way.

Odelay42 , 3 months ago

Objectively and demonstrably false

starman2112 , 3 months ago

Have u ever seen anyone mention any billionaire on this platform?

VaultBoyNewVegas , 3 months ago

Musk gets far worse said about him.

Zehzin , 3 months ago

Nice.

Poppa_Mo , 3 months ago

This isn't wrong, but the uptick in these memes coincides ridiculously with Trumps recent desire to latch on to her name.

The narrative is constantly being spun by these fucking goons.

474D , 3 months ago

The uptick is due to her threatening legal action against the flight tracker dude and being all over TV for football this season. I find it hard to believe the trumpers give a shit about the environment. But I suppose they could hop on the bandwagon if it fits their "enemy"

Stovetop , 3 months ago

They do give a shit about people who give a shit about the environment, at least.

Following the whole Taylor Swift/Travis Kelce/Superbowl nonsense where conservatives were worried it would provide a platform for Swift to be more vocal about her opposition to Trump, this whole "scandal," if one can call it that, is mighty convenient in that it drowns out any other message she would have to say.

Now if she says anything against Trump, anyone can just point to her jets and claim "Democrats are supposed to care about the environment, yet Taylor Swift can't stop flying everywhere in her two private jets. Is a hypocrite someone you should take political advice from?"

spujb OP , 3 months ago

this is a common misconception i am seeing, where people are getting the timeline reversed.

• December 6, 2023, Swift embroiled in election conspiracy theory, basically making her MAGA’s enemy number one.
• February 6, 2024, news outlets first report on the cease and desist.

The uptick in memes kicked off most significantly in December, and while, yes, the cease and desist was embarrassing fuel for the fire, there is no evidence that it was causal in any way.

474D , 3 months ago

Please show me an onslaught of memes even 1/10 comparable from December to this past month. I'll wait. Just because Trump is shit doesn't mean we stop criticizing others who are wrong as well, even if they are against him. Trump is a billionaire asshole, Swift is a billionaire asshole, neither gets a pass.

spujb OP , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

will you actually change your position if i provide the requested information?

because here you go. documentation of an onslaught of conspiracy memes tracing back to September 2023 but continuing into December. and, as you correctly note, it transitions to the airplane memes again in late January 2024.

edit: make no mistake, i do not defend her. just clarifying the order in which things occurred. conservative anti-Swift sentiment was strong well before the Sweeney cease and desist, which provided the strong foundation for recent trends.

474D , 3 months ago

Thank you for providing that first source with no mention of plane memes at all, which is the entire point of the conversation.

spujb OP , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

i mean good news if you are looking for a significant numbers plane memes in December 2023 you are chatting with the choir lol. i don’t claim that those exist in any significant number at that time so i think there was some misunderstanding and we may agree on this point.

my analysis is that a resurgence of plane memes arose out of pre-2024 conspiracy sentiment, to put it shortly. this is in parallel with Pappa_Mo’s comment. i hope we can recconnect and see eye to eye on this. because yeah i do agree that there was a 2024 uptick in memes, though i had originally worded it in a “fuel-to-the-fire” way, your wording is not wrong.

474D , 3 months ago

I'm not denying that conservatives haven't targeted her. I'm saying she drew fire from both sides and it's not fair to write it off as just trumpers because she deserves flak from both sides with her shitty practices.

spujb OP , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

okay excellent! i apologize for originally misunderstanding your position (other commenters have maintained that this is only, happening because of the Sweeny situation) and thanks for hearing me out. it seems we are fully in agreement.

474D , 3 months ago

It seems so, have a good one, my dude.

spujb OP , 3 months ago

likewise 😎

blindsight , 3 months ago

The point is that the scapegoat is usually female. Why is Taylor Swift being singled out for her private jet use? Is it because her use is assumed to be less legitimate because she's a woman?

A quick Internet search brought up this:

Among the most polluting jets covered by the list was a Boeing 767 wide-body aircraft used by the Rolling Stones. It emitted an estimated 5,046 tonnes of CO2, the equivalent of someone taking 1,763 return flights from London to New York City in economy class.

Aircraft owned by Lawrence Stroll, the billionaire owner of the Aston Martin Formula One team, recorded a combined 1,512 flights since the start of 2022. His private aircraft, including two helicopters, also made the most journeys of 15 minutes or less.

Thirty-nine jets linked to 30 Russian oligarchs – including Roman Abramovich, Leonid Mikhelson and the recently deceased leader of the Wagner group, Yevgeny Prigozhin – were responsible for 30,701 tonnes of CO2 (equivalent to the total average carbon footprint of around 1,000 Russians).

Source

So, attacking billionaires who are abusing private jets is totally fair, in general, but always singing out the woman who does so is misogynistic.

Where are the Rolling Stones or Laurence Stroll memes?

iAmTheTot , 3 months ago

There have been memes about lots of shit head billionaires. The Taylor Swift ones are popular right now because she Streisand'ed it by trying to get that tracker taken down.

sneezycat , 3 months ago

I mean there was a Twitter account that followed Elon's jet and was banned. That was the first time I saw a big meme around billionaires using jets. And I'm pretty sure I've seen other people criticized for it too. I feel like the focus is on Taylor this time around, but it's just one of many. Although I'm not saying there's no mysoginy involved, but I don't think she's singled out if you think of a couple years timeframe.

LainTrain , 3 months ago

The rolling stones are at least two people (corpses?) which makes their use (presumably to and from an elderly home) at least twice as efficient as taytay

spujb OP , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

thank you for this! your link didn’t work for me but i think this is the one.

and note that posting a taylor meme doesn’t make you misogynist—it just means you are playing into misogynist tropes and unfortunately giving freak MAGA propaganda a disproportionate platform.

not here to call anyone out, just asking us to consider what effects our trends and memes have on the broader world.

reric88 , 2 months ago

This changes everything

TeenieBopper , 3 months ago

I just... I can't bring myself to give a shit about Taylor Swift's airplanes when BP and Shell still exist and capitalism is still the dominant economic system.

spujb OP , 3 months ago

based

DarthFrodo , 3 months ago

BP and Shell only have that much power exacly because people buy fossil fuels from them. If demand would drop, their profits and political power would drop accordingly. As long as we don't even hold the biggest financiers of these companies responsible, how can anything change? Demand drives supply.

It's like saying "As long as hitmans exist, I won't give a shit about the people who pay hitmans, all consumption under capitalism is unethical anyways so anything goes." As long as we ignore those who actually fund the problem, we won't be able to fix anything.

pup_atlas , 3 months ago

No they have so much power because decades of lobbying have made it impossible to get anywhere without traveling on a road in a car— Which uses gas. This is not a problem citizens can feasibly solve, this sort if problem can only be fixed with government intervention.

dumpsterlid , 3 months ago

Maybe this time we can solve our problems by simply just hating a powerful, successful woman though.

SphereofWreckening , 3 months ago

*By simply hating a billionaire.

Some of the criticism levied against Taylor Swift is definitely rooted in sexism, misogyny, and political bias: but not all of it.

To lump everyone criticizing Taylor Swift into the same group as the misogynists and sexists is disingenuous. She deserves criticism and is not free of it just because she's a woman.

She's also one of the most famous people in the world. So of course she's going to get more flack from her visibility alone.

Thus the following can be true: Taylor Swift isn't the only one that deserves criticism from her private jet usage. And there are those that would criticize her in bad faith because of her political alignments/because she's a woman. But even then the criticism she has received is still completely valid.

No billionaire deserves or needs special treatment.

dumpsterlid , 3 months ago

I mean yeah definitely fair, i don’t disagree billionaires shouldn’t exist.

SphereofWreckening , 3 months ago

I appreciate the reply. I feel like a lot of people in this thread are failing to articulate themselves properly. Though there are clearly some commenters that have (very) misogynistic views that need to be checked.

pup_atlas , 3 months ago

My comment has nothing to do with Taylor Swift. In fact, I’m a fan of hers. I’m entirely talking about the companies, BP and Shell.

capital , 3 months ago

Call me weird but when I condemn an action, I do it equally without regard for what’s between the person’s legs.

DarthFrodo , 3 months ago

I agree that many urban areas need a lot more and better public transport, which is a systemic solution.

In rural regions it's not practical to build enough infrastructure to replace private transport though. Electric cars are a good solution there and will also get more affordable in the next years (over the lifetime they are already roughly as cheap as gas cars).

Deceptichum , 3 months ago

I can give a shit about both and more.

Imagine if we could only give a shit about one threat to our existence at a time. We’d be ignoring a billion others.

Bleach7297 , 3 months ago

Imagine replying to a comment that is clearly about relative impacts, and twisting it so that it sounds like the person you are replying to has some sort of fundamental deficiency in how they perceive the world.

How wonderfully ironic!

TeenieBopper , 3 months ago

I mean, kudos to you for having the energy to get so far down the list of things that actually matter about climate change that you reach the one person and a few private jets section of the list, but I'd rather use that brain space to play a board game or something.

Deceptichum , 3 months ago

Yet you have the energy to complain about me doing it.

Psychodelic , 3 months ago

All energy use is equal! Also, nuance does not exist, and actually, it never did!

absentbird , 3 months ago

Taylor Swift isn't a threat to our existence, her plane emits 8000 tons of CO2 a year, roughly equivalent to the emissions of two thousand cows. At least she pays for carbon offsets.

gmtom , 3 months ago

Stop trying to make this about Swift being a woman.

She's getting all this attention about it because her legal team sent a cease and desist letter to the guy tracking her jet threatening him with legal action over priding publically available tracking information.

prole , 3 months ago

How does this make her "actions wrong"? Because you disagree?

Yes, it's legal for him to do what he's doing, but it is also legal (and completely reasonable) for Swift to challenge that right because she fears for her safety. This is literally what our legal system is for.

There are a lot of insane people out there (and most of them tracking Swift's plane at this moment are right wing psychopaths that wish her harm). I really can't fucking blame her for wanting to do something about it.

gmtom , 3 months ago

So you think it's perfectly moral for the ultra wealthy to abuse the legal system to threaten and bully random people into submission because they are ruining the billionaires image?

And again to reiterate, this is all publically available information, anyone who wants to track her jet can do so without the tracker that guy set up. She has no legal standing in her actions.

prole , 3 months ago

So you think it’s perfectly moral for the ultra wealthy to abuse the legal system to threaten and bully random people into submission because they are ruining the billionaires image?

Lol yeah bud, that's what I said.

Dude, I understand it's public information. I understand that current law (probably rightfully) allows air traffic to be tracked, including private jets.

I was simply doing something that you're clearly incapable of, and empathizing (you remember empathy right?)
with her position. A position that is markedly different than Musk's, given that she receives a constant stream of legitimate death threats from people known to be violent; she has valid reason to fear for her life right now. I think I would probably do similar in such a situation.

I don't think it's "wrong" for her to seek to do what she can to protect herself, and that includes this.

The argument that "what they're doing is legal" is pretty stupid too... I'm not even saying that I disagree that it should be legal, but how do you think laws change? The boundaries of them get tested in courts. This is not an abuse of the legal system, this is using it as intended.

Sethayy , 3 months ago

There's no way musk doesnt get nearly a billion death threats per day, but when your job is to be known by as many people as possible, it scales up the good and the bad.

But if either of them are having a bad day I'm sure they can dry their tears with a couple hundred dollar bills and sue some more poor people into dust (completely legally!) to make themselves feel better

prole , 3 months ago

I would bet my next paycheck that Taylor Swift gets at least one order of magnitude more death threats on a daily basis than Elon Musk. At least.

Let's just say there are certain demographics that tend to lash out in that manner, and they seem to overlap quite a bit with Musk fans.

And yeah dude, I get it. They're billionaires, it's hard to empathize. I agree to a point that they should shut the fuck up and just wipe their tears away with $100 bills. But in this case, when we're talking about legitimate threats against her life constantly, by people who have shown to be very capable of carrying out such threats, then I can start to see why she is doing what she's doing. Just because she's got money doesn't mean she doesn't deserve to live a life free from that kind of fear.

That's all.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Then youre losing your paycheck

prole , 3 months ago

Then go ahead and garnish it from George Soros

TSG_Asmodeus , 3 months ago

I would bet my next paycheck that Taylor Swift gets at least one order of magnitude more death threats on a daily basis than Elon Musk. At least.

I worked in video games, and at one company there were five game designers, one of them a woman, the rest men.

I think she got a death/rape/etc threat once a week. One of the other designers had never even been messaged, and another designer was also the Community Manager. So, despite one guy being the literal face of the company, the single named woman on the design team got almost every single threat.

She left the industry, which is worse for it, but I don't think anyone thought she made the wrong choice.

gmtom , 3 months ago

Lol yeah bud, that’s what I said.

That is in fact, literarily, what you are saying and what you are continuing to say in the rest of your comment.

I was simply doing something that you’re clearly incapable of, and empathizing (you remember empathy right?) with her position.

Oh wont somebody please empathise with the poor billionaires that are using the insane wealth to bully people for criticising their insane over-use of private jets.

You guys are doing actual mental backflips to try and make Taylor Swift the victim here and its honestly just kind of sad.

given that she receives a constant stream of legitimate death threats from people known to be violent

And those people could find that same PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE information even without the guy's tracker. So even if he did take it down, she is in literally no better position when it comes to stalkers.

Literally all getting him to take down the website does is stop people from criticising how much she uses her jet, which hurts her image. Thats it.

Like if she ACTUALLY cared that much about being tracked and her safety she could just charter private jets instead of owning her own. That way no one could track her. But she doesnt, because its not about her safety, its about her image.

This is not an abuse of the legal system, this is using it as intended.

Lmao swift stans are actually neurotic.

prole , 3 months ago

Lmao swift stans are actually neurotic.

FYI (because apparently this needs to be said), I've never once purposefully listened to a Taylor Swift song, and besides maybe two, I couldn't even tell you if a pop song currently playing is her or not. That's how little I care about this person's art/music. My feelings toward her can be described as, at most, ambivalent. I'm definitely neurotic though, but that's unrelated to this subject.

All I'm doing is empathizing with another human being. Billionaires might be (for the most part, though I'm not sure I can imagine a more ethical way to become one than how she has) awful people, but they're still people and they deserve basic human rights such as: not being in 24/7 fear for the lives of you and your loved ones because fascists are mad that she told young people to vote.

I'm not even advocating for taking down the site or making the info no longer publicly available. I'm literally just putting myself in her shoes and rationalizing why she did what she did and understanding that I might have done the same.

We seem to be having two completely different conversations here, which I guess I shouldn't be surprised about given that you clearly can't comprehend nuance. Your clear hatred for this woman is clouding your ability to be a decent human. Do better.

gmtom , 3 months ago

All I’m doing is empathizing with another human being.

And all im saying is you can empathise with her without excusing her doing something immoral like harassing an innocent student.

Also you keep talking about empathy but refuse to even consider empathising with the guy being harassed by a billionaire celebrity.

prole , 3 months ago

Lol yeah dude that's definitely "all you were saying". You're being such a reasonable interlocutor 🙄

She's not harassing an innocent student. I don't think it really matters to her who created it. She is just doing the one thing she can do that would maybe give her a fraction of a feeling of security back into her life. Something that I bet most of us, including you, would do. A student being involved is irrelevant.

And yeah, I do empathize with that guy as well. Assuming they didn't create the app specifically for these types of people to be able to harass and endanger her more easily. Which he may have, I don't really know all the details.

Isn't that crazy? Empathizing with both people in a situation? Wild right?

Also, this pretending that it's about giving her shit because of the environmental impact, give me a fucking break. Let's not waste everyone's time with that bullshit. Conservatives only "believe" in climate change, when they can use it as a cudgel against someone they feel threatened by. Actually a textbook fascist move (this isn't a joke, it really is).

gmtom , 3 months ago

She’s not harassing an innocent student.

and

I do empathize with that guy as well

are contradictory statements

You are bending over backwards to excuse what she is doing. and its really just kind of sad.

She is just doing the one thing she can do that would maybe give her a fraction of a feeling of security back into her life.

Like i said last time. If she actually cared so much, she would just charter a jet instead. That would literally solve her whole problem, no one could track her and she would be perfectly safe. But you keep ignoring this point because it doesnt fit dumbass position you've argued yourself into where Taylor is just an innocent girl whose scared for her life 🥺 and shes just using her vast wealth to threaten people into doing what she wants because shes sooooo scaaaared.

. Let’s not waste everyone’s time with that bullshit. Conservatives only “believe” in climate change

And now you're trying to claim everyone critical of her is a conservative? You dont think there are any leftists out here criticising the billionaire for being one the most directly polluting people on the planet?

prole , 3 months ago

She’s not harassing an innocent student.

and

I do empathize with that guy as well

are contradictory statements

No they're not.

Empathizing with the guy who programmed it: An unprovoked, targeted campaign of rape threats, death threats and harassment (and the media/legal storm that follows) against another person, all because of some little thing you coded for fun in your free time (again, giving benefit of the doubt)? And then being dragged into all of this? Yeah, I empathize like a motherfucker .

You dont think there are any leftists out here criticising the billionaire for being one the most directly polluting people on the planet?

No, I think the only people who give a shit about this are right wing concern trolls.

Based on the way you've been spelling words, it would seem you're not actually from the US. Perhaps if you lived here, you would understand the real and actual danger this kind of stochastic terrorism as we're seeing it every single day. Taylor Swift is a figure who has just recently become a major target of hate and actual legitimate death/rape threats from the right because she encouraged young people to vote (no, I wish I was kidding). I don't think she even endorsed a candidate.

The GOP is so terrified of her; this is a half-assed, stochastic call to violence against a young woman who has done nothing, and this tool has gone way far beyond basic "FAA transparency," and into tool to target and potentially ruin the lives of people who do not deserve it.

(In case anyone didn't see my previous comment: not only am I not a Taylor Swift fan, I don't think I could name more than one or two songs. And if a song of hers came on the radio, I wouldn't be able to know if it was her or not)

gmtom , 3 months ago

No, I think the only people who give a shit about this are right wing concern trolls.

Then you're wrong (to nobodies surprise)

Perhaps if you lived here, you would understand the real and actual danger this kind of stochastic terrorism

We literally had Jo Cox, a sitting MP, murdered due to stochastic terrorism, but go off like you know something.

this is a half-assed, stochastic call to violence against a young woman who has done nothing, and this tool has gone way far beyond basic "FAA transparency," and into tool to target and potentially ruin the lives of people who do not deserve it

Except use private jets so much you're co2 emissions just from private jet travel for a year is over 1,000x higher than an average person's total yearly emissions.

And are you going to have the same bleeding heart response when you learn that this started out as a guy tracking Elons jet?

SphereofWreckening , 3 months ago

I'm from the US, and I can tell you the biggest threat to the US are billionaires and their special interests.

Someone of the billionaire class like Taylor Swift does more environmental damage in a year than the average US citizen does through their entire lifetime. It is completely valid to call her out on this.

But please, continue to disingenuously call all those critical of Swift a right wing troll. Always easier than acknowledging the nuance of a topic.

MotoAsh , 3 months ago

You are insanely pathetic. Thanks for the hilarious reads.

LainTrain , 3 months ago

If she wants security in life she can just stop, change and get a 9-5 job

LainTrain , 3 months ago

Lmao simp. Taylor Swift does not care about you and will never acknowledge your existence.

CooperRedArmyDog , 3 months ago

How is knowing at what airport an airplane is, public information that anyone can just pull up and find without that much know how, a massive risk to safety.

And if it is, hpw is she going to stop them from dping the neglegable research themselves

prole , 3 months ago

It's not about it being public information. There's tons of shit that's "public information," and available to get, but there are steps that need to be taken to get it. Some more steps than others. Kind of like a soft "paywall" of sorts (minus the pay) that makes it so the internet isn't just inundated with data constantly. And sometimes, get this, you can even be denied requests for information that's "publicly available" if, for example, t's deemed that you shouldn't have it for whatever reason. But I digress...

Just because something is "publicly available information" doesn't mean it just gets broadcasted all over the internet to anyone with a Facebook account that the algorithm knows is a hateful conservative.

It's a joke that people are pretending that this is about free speech or something, and not about making it easier to constantly harass and threaten.

It's about it being targeted at one specific person, and it's about the people who are doing the targeting (which differentiates it from the Musk situation). No, not the college student who made the app, before you go there to try to undercut this argument. I'm not talking about him.

I'm talking about the people who would use a tool, that they found in their far right/conservative/republican/fascist echo chamber bubble to threaten rape and death to another human being and their loved ones.

And if it is, hpw is she going to stop them from dping the neglegable research themselves

This is kind of the crux of it, isn't it? These people are being whipped into a frenzy by whatever hate-media they consume, and without a Fox News or Tucker Carlson or whomever else to steer that frenzy toward Taylor Swift and this app, then that info would have remained "public knowledge" behind a simple search as it probably should be.

The college kid who made the app is just a tool (witting or not).

CooperRedArmyDog , 3 months ago

No what I mean is the FAA has a very easy registry search, and then I go to any number of FOSS aircraft trackers and I can now find the aircraft by redgistry number. that took me what 10 minutes and I was done? no need for an app. The FAA does it because its public information the plane trackers do it because plain spotting is a genuine hobby (and public information) I am someone who holds this hobby. So taking this app down does basicly nothing, it turns 2 simple steps into 1 simple step

Ontop of this, it is unreasonable to send a LEGAL team out to send a threat when no laws a broken, in some states that is an illegal act, a request from her to stop sure is reasonable (and its reasonable for him to refuse).

prole , 3 months ago

It doesn't matter how easy the search is to you or I... The people who have found this tool (or made it, I don't know. Don't want to accuse the student of anything untoward) are distributing it to people who would have otherwise:

1. never even knew such a possibility exists,

2. had no fucking idea how to even begin finding that information themselves regardless of how simple it may seem to you and I, and,,

3. not have even had the idea to use the information that way in the first place.

This is basic transparency on the part of the FAA. They disseminate this information to keep track of things, and for research purposes. It was never intended to be used in this way.

In fact, if anything significant comes out of this, it would be to limit what info the FAA makes public (and it will skew toward private jets of course). So in the long run this will probably have the opposite effect of what you want.

CooperRedArmyDog , 3 months ago

While yes it will likely remove public access that is more so because that is what capital has been wanting for a while, not only that but I would argue that this is part of the intended use case, to keep track of who is using our air ways and how often. Just because its not often thought of does not mean it is not right proper or intended.

wildginger , 3 months ago

The corporate bootlicking here is insane

Are you also anti union because a unionized stage crew threatens swifts profits and thus her ability to hire security?

Do you think margret thatcher has girl power?

prole , 3 months ago

Lol it's funny how quickly this place became reddit. There were maybe three weeks or so there where people here actually understood and cared about nuance...

capital , 3 months ago

Musk made the same argument.

prole , 3 months ago

Musk isn't receiving credible rape and death threats at nearly the level of Swift (if he is at all, let's be real) by people who are known for following through on such threats.

Look, I even empathize a little with Musk regarding that specific situation. If I were in his shoes, I also wouldn't want an app like that to exist. I don't think his situation warrants any kind of action to stop it because it's really just an inconvenience for him. And he knew that it's just an inconvenience, so how he handled himself from day to day didn't really change.

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.

spujb OP , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

i linked your comment in the original post because yeah. this is the fact that no one gets.

the public information was available for ages and the cease and desist only happened after fox news et al sicced their rabid hoards on her.

we can still debate whether legal action was the “correct” option, but if you think it wasn’t understandable, or counts as “harassment” somehow, it’s because you have never been in the shoes of a woman who lives her whole life in fear.

LainTrain , 3 months ago

And then they ask why men get disillusioned from the left.

hglman , 3 months ago

But its not the left, its the center right.

LainTrain , 3 months ago

True the OP is some lib shit

deaf_fish , 3 months ago

Na, she is getting this attention because some very powerful people, who benefit from producing a lot of greenhouse gases, would prefer that everyone be mad at T Swift instead of them.

gmtom , 3 months ago

Or, the much more likely thing that private jet usage has become a big talking point on the inter etc recently and swift having by far the biggest jet emission footprint of any celebrity.

deaf_fish , 3 months ago

Oh yeah, I agree, it is an interesting talking point. But If you have the goal of reducing green house gas emission, is memeing on T Swift the best target for that? Don't get me wrong it is hilarious. I just get really frustrated when people say they are doing it for the environment, when what they are doing is mostly ineffectual and playing into the desires of the major polluters (who are very wealthy).

So in my mind, either a large group of online environmentalist have decided to be less effective at working towards their goal for no reason. Or there is a significate astroturfing thing going on here. Given that oil companies have done this kind of thing multiple times in the past, I think I have a reasonable assumption. I smell bullshit and I am calling it.

sverit , 3 months ago

This right here. Posts like that are guilty of what they accuse themselfes: Making it about sexism.

anon987 , 3 months ago

Nah she's getting attention because from the information I could gather, she has the 2nd highest carbon footprint of any single person on the planet.

uriel238 , 3 months ago

I assume the jet thing is just an excuse because Taylor Swift is the target du jour of the MAGA movement. They don't care about the jet use of anyone else but are actively making up shit about Swift.

This isn't about principles. It's just about othering.

Hawk , 3 months ago

This is about Swift trying to take down the guy aggregating PUBLIC flight data because it inconveniences her.

Roflmasterbigpimp , 3 months ago

Is it really that bad with the Memes?
It's not like people will see a Plane Meme and go "Time to vote for fascists!".

There are so many of them now because they are new and easy to make, I guess. Sure it's never nice If someone you like I getting memed about for a bad thing he/she did. But just wait some Time and they will turn down and then stop.

spujb OP , 3 months ago

in my view, it’s about directing the attack in the right direction. as we speak, there are dozens of oil and airline lobbyists, conservative scum, who are fully taking the benefit of Swift being the one in the limelight instead of them.

i don’t like giving those capital owners any more freebies than they already get just for existing.

Roflmasterbigpimp , 3 months ago

Okay that's true, tho. Someone should come up with an Meme format about these pricks. It needs to be easy to make and versatile to use 🤔

III , 3 months ago

You really should read up on how people are recruited to the alt right. It literally starts with comments like you just made. It's not a quick jump to "yay fascism" but you have already taken the first step.

ILikeBoobies , 3 months ago

Lol, they didn’t take the first step

They helped someone else take it

Roflmasterbigpimp , 3 months ago

You know what? I wrote an Comment why your Argument is BS. That I'm actively working to get Germanys far-right Party banned, that I'm a Party-Member and organise anti Fascists Rally's.

But I don't need to prove to a random Internet Person like you anything. I can just say:"You are wrong and you have no Clue about what you are talking." And then I just block you! Tadaaa! Much less trouble. :P

boborhrongar , 3 months ago

"yeah you're right but can you be right more quietly, there's other things to be right about"

Really bizarre honestly. This is just how meme culture is, kinda. It's whatever's culturally relevant, and Taylor Swift is culturally relevant.

t0fr , 3 months ago

We already did Elon Musk, now we're on Taylor Swift, the next one? Who knows

Fuctangle , 3 months ago

Billionaires Aren't People

xenoclast , 3 months ago

The best way to make it easy to commit crimes against other humans is to turn them into non people.

I however see no problem in this instance. Carry on.

absentbird , 3 months ago

Corporations aren't people, billionaires literally are; that's the problem, no single human should have such an out sized share.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

I'm really of two minds on the private jet thing, because she undeniably was doing it way too much and for way too short distances, but for longer distances, I can see someone of her level of fame needing to fly privately for security reasons. I doubt Taylor Swift walking through an airport and getting on a Delta flight would be especially safe for her.

I do not like the idea of celebrities traveling in private jets overall, but when you're at Beatles-level fame? The Beatles chartered private flights too. Maybe she should charter, but I can see why flying commercial is a bad plan.

Let the mass downvoting commence.

AFaithfulNihilist , 3 months ago

Maybe we all need to stop subsidizing the airline industry so that these rich assholes who want to fly around all the time for their convenience can pay the entire price themselves. Airlines and airports are publicly funded and utterly unsustainable without massive infusions of government cash and protection at every step along the way.

The fact that we pretend these airline companies and airports are in any way actual businesses Is just a way for the wealthy who get to fly all the time (private jets or not) to offload the cost of their convenient transportation onto the American people.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

I'm fine with government-run airlines, but I don't think that would change the security issue I'm talking about.

AFaithfulNihilist , 3 months ago

I think the security issue is a non-issue, and there's no way to "solve" it without creating greater problems and degrading other people's rights.

The truth is, she doesn't give a flying fuck about the consequences of her wealth getting. In some ways she is opposed to the right wing noise machine, but she is still acting as though she's entitled to special treatment from the government including extra rights just because she's rich.

She only decreased the number of private jet flights she was taking, and decrease the number of private jets she owned because of the public pressure. Her security is not more important than the environment.

She volunteered to take the heat off of Elon. I don't know why she would do that, but she definitely volunteered for a lot of negative attention when she decided to target a private citizen doing something they are legally entitled to do and use her money to intimidate them out of exercising their rights.

That's who she is deep down inside, entitled.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

A non-issue? You think she doesn't get mobbed wherever she goes? I'd call that a huge issue. Unless you think it's okay for fans to paw at her, tear at her clothes, etc. That is what they do.

AFaithfulNihilist , 3 months ago

I think her getting mobbed is not my problem.

She's rich enough that she can afford private security. She's a private citizen who can decide where she goes and where she does not go.

Nothing about anything you've described justifies stripping other people of their rights.

If she's being assaulted in public, that's an actual crime, and she should invoke the legal system then.

The legal system does not entitle her to silence people sharing publicly available information. The person who shared the movement of her private jet is not to blame for her lack of security when she gets where she's going. No one's mobbing her on the tarmac, no one's crowding into the airport past security without a ticket.

She is not special. She's just an American, she's entitled to absolutely nothing extra. Her attempt to use the law as a weapon of intimidation simply because she has money to push it around is exactly why she deserves negative attention right now.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

I didn't say anything about her trying to silence people. This is purely about keeping her and others safe. Her presence in a public airport could literally cause a riot. You must know that.

AFaithfulNihilist , 3 months ago

Yeah I'm not really sure what your point is in all of this. It's entirely reasonable to resent publicly funding this private luxury.

Maybe we publicly should not be subsidizing the private jet industry, private jet infrastructure, and teeny tiny little airports for ultra wealthy people.

If she wants to fly private then she has to accept what goes along with that. It is a very inefficient, environmentally harmful, selfish way to travel. Private jet flights are another great example of wealthy people leaching off the public.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

When did I say it should be publicly funded? Please quote me.

AFaithfulNihilist , 3 months ago

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.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

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.

AFaithfulNihilist , 3 months ago

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.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

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.

AFaithfulNihilist , 3 months ago

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.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

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.

myliltoehurts , 3 months ago

If that were true, there'd be a riot every time a very famous person goes outside for any reason.

I'm sure she'd be approached and photographed and her privacy violated as much as people can get to her in a private lounge, but unless they were to advertise she is going to a certain airport at a specific time, it's incredibly unlikely she'd be mobbed. Ironically, flying publicly would make her movements harder to follow.

She can certainly afford to pay for 10 extra first class tickets for her staff, it'd most likely be much cheaper than owning her own jet. I'm sure the airports would also be thrilled to offer a private entrance and area for her/other famous people to be able to avoid even walking to her VIP lounge. Maybe they could help subsidize the airports instead of average people's taxes paying for their private airports in part.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

I think you know there's a big difference between going outside and being in a crowded airport.

And, again, she doesn't have to own the jet. She could charter one. Anyone can charter a short flight for a couple of thousand dollars.

myliltoehurts , 3 months ago

Yes, an airport limits the amount of people, has a very high coverage of surveillance and a high ratio of security staff as well as an entry barrier and dedicated VIP areas. A generic place outside has none of that. Although feel free to elaborate on how an airport is worse for security than just being on a street, anywhere.

To your second point, sure she doesn't need to own them like nobody else does, but the issue (for me) is not primarily that she (or anyone) owns one, but that they [private jets and private airports] exist, and they're subsidized by us as it was pointed out above. If anything, they should be priced outrageously so using them would come down last resort or emergency situations, and the money from that could help balance the cost of the "public" infrastructure. This is a failure of the government, but equally so of the rich who choose to continue using them for their luxury.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

I still don't see what the difference between a chartered flight and a limousine is other than one is in the air and the other is on the road.

wildginger , 3 months ago

You mean, besides the massive reason people are criticizing her for private flights in the first place? If we just forget about the multiple magnitudes of difference between fuel usage of a car vs a plane?

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Do you understand the difference between a chartered flight and a private jet?

Also, I already said that it doesn't mean she should fly as much as she does.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Do you know what an airport is?

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Please answer my question: Do you know the difference between a chartered flight and a private jet?

Because I am talking about chartered flights and you are talking about private jets.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Chartered flights are still tracked and followed.

As shown by your link you keep spamming

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

No... that link was to a private jet being tracked.

Charter flights can be tracked, but you can't tell who has chartered them.

Which you would know if you understood that, yet again, chartered flights are not the same as private jets.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Unless Im reading the article wrong, Im pretty sure that was a chartered japanese service

myliltoehurts , 3 months ago

As mentioned above, airport and airlines are heavily subsidized, this includes private airports and jets. For a limo, taxes pay for the road - but everyone can drive on it, so it'd exist with or without them. Maybe a better comparison would be if she had a bus that she travelled in alone, compared to the average person that'd be equally ridiculous.

The emissions of a limo is pretty much in line with the emissions of a family car. Most people wouldn't have a small car and a family car for when they're alone, so even if someone is alone on a limo, they're probably not doing much more harm than the average person.

A private jet's emissions are significantly more per passenger than a commercial plane. Even if a private jet always flies at max capacity - which I'd bet rarely happens - it'll cause significantly more emissions per person than a commercial plane (it's difficult to link a source here as I've not found an exact number. The estimates I've found range between 10 to 43x. Even assuming just 10x that's quite a difference)

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

How many more times? There is a difference between a private jet and a chartered flight.

myliltoehurts , 3 months ago

I'm not sure how to respond to this, your answers lack detail or arguments to respond to. What difference does chartered Vs private make for emissions? It's the same types of jets, just changes who actually owns them. It also makes no difference to the entire tax subsidized argument either.

As to "how many times", as I said above I haven't found a clear answer, but different sources claim between 10x and ~40x, even assuming the very low end of 10x, that's a big difference. I assume the per passenger emission is hard to measure since the number of passengers on a plane make a big difference.

Either way, I believe I made my points in detail several times now, and as I said your responses don't really raise points or include much detail to further things, so I'm going to leave it here.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Yes, you have made your point that we should never do charter flights including medical charters and charters where it is the only practical way in and out of indigenous communities.

I have been convinced. Let people die and fuck the Indians.

wildginger , 3 months ago

It literally wouldnt, this handwringing is unneeded for someone who does not care about you and is not doing this for security reasons

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

What part of 'riot' are you missing here? I care about all the other people who could be injured as much as I do here. Why don't you?

wildginger , 3 months ago

What part of "airport" are you missing? People cannot flood into an airport. People in an airport cannot afford to abandon their gates to go mob some random celeb.

This is a made up problem that doesnt happen to any of the equally famous people who fly first class with zero issues.

Youre hand wringing for someone who wouldnt even give you the time of day

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Got it. This never happened.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/taylor-swift-mobbed-by-fans-delays-flights-at-japan-airport/articleshow/47147634.cms?from=mdr

wildginger , 3 months ago

Because of her private flight, you mean?

Oh wait, weird, its almost like taking private flights marks your travel and makes it easier for a mob to follow you, a thing that cannot happen on public flights where you dont publicly own the plane

Kinda weird how a mob cannot spawn out of nowhere when no one in the airport knows ahead of time that youre coming, huh

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

It also can't happen on chartered flights.

Which is still not the same as owning a private jet.

wildginger , 3 months ago

It can and has, which is part of the lawsuit she threatened

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

She has a private jet. That's what was being tracked.

But yes, I still understand that you think a chartered flight and a private jet are the same thing.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Aight so lets just ignore that the 2015 mobbing happened on a chartered flight

You understand that a chartered flight doesnt stop the exact problem with the private flights? She isnt planepooling a chartered flight. Youre arguing for her to solve a problem she doesnt have with a solution that keeps the actual problem

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

The problem that private flights shouldn't be a thing? I'd say it does.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Oh good lord, do you think the problem with private flights is that the plane belongs to a single person?

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

No? I think the problem with private flights is that they exist when chartered flights would be fine.

wildginger , 3 months ago

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.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

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.

wildginger , 3 months ago

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?

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

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?

wildginger , 3 months ago

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.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

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?

wildginger , 3 months ago

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

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

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.

wildginger , 3 months ago

"Uh oh! Someone criticized taylor swift! Better accuse them of hating a minority for using planes for necessary travel!"

Ok racist

Fucking riot for you to call me bad faith. Fuck off dude, go suck swifts toes

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

I knew you weren't going to explain either what your problem is or what the solution is. In other words- not here in good faith.

You can get mad at me for guessing that you don't care about indigenous people because you want to ban all charter flights, but, again, since you won't explain the issue or the solution, all I can do is guess.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Or you could read what I wrote, and not drag actual human minorities like a meat shield into an argument about wasting resources on unnecessary personal plane trips.

I cannot out-explain bad faith racist bullshit.

"Oop! I said something reeeeeeaally racist and now no one wants to talk to me! They must be BAD FAITH. I will not think critically about this ever! Yipee!!"

I am not swifts toes. Fuck off.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

I did read what you wrote. And I have no idea what you think the actual problem is or what the solution would be.

And since I've asked you to tell me and you refuse, I don't think you actually know. Hence you being here in bad faith.

By the way, I can name precisely two Taylor Swift songs, I've only heard one of them, and I didn't care for it. But I'm sure you'll say that's a lie.

wildginger , 3 months ago

argument about wasting resources on unnecessary personal plane trips.

*argument about wasting resources on unnecessary personal plane trips. *

**argument about wasting resources on unnecessary personal plane trips. **

***argument about wasting resources on unnecessary personal plane trips. ***

You clearly are not reading, as you keep lying about me not explicitly telling you what the problem is.

Just checked the mirror, racist, still not swifts toes. Fuck off.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

I'm not reading?

My very first comment:

she undeniably was doing it way too much and for way too short distances

So if you've agreed with me the whole time, why have you been arguing?

wildginger , 3 months ago

If you cannot grok my literal first comment to you, youve been arguing in bad faith this whole time.

Im. Not. Swifts. Feet. Fuck. Off.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Again, we're in agreement. Why are you arguing with me?

I don't get it. Do you want me to not agree with you?

wildginger , 3 months ago

What is it with racists that they continue to harass people who tell them to fuck off?

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Believe it or not, I don't have to do what you order me to do.

Also believe it or not, you can stop replying to me at any time. That you haven't proves that you don't actually want me to fuck off.

We'll see if you continue to prove that. All you have to do to show I'm wrong is not respond.

On the other hand, you could explain why you're arguing with me when we agree.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Cool, so the racist mod is now intentionally harassing me. Fun.

Fuck off

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Thanks for proving me correct. I'm not a mod in this community. I'm not sure why you think I am.

Also, please quote the racist thing I said. Unless that was a lie, of course. Personally, I think it was a lie. You can prove me wrong on that one too.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Cool, so now the racist mod harassing me demands I stop bringing up the racist things they said, while they harass me.

Fuck off

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Are you actually trying to gaslight me into agreeing with you that I'm a mod on 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone and that I'm a racist? Because this is pretty pathetic.

wildginger , 3 months ago

What part of fuck off do you not get

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Again, you can stop replying to me any time you want.

And I'm still not a mod here:

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5547916f-564f-46ba-91bf-8836cae758cc.png

Note the word 'mods.' Note my name isn't there.

Are you going to continue this silly gaslighting?

wildginger , 3 months ago

Wjat part of fuck off do you not get

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

I'll make a deal with you- I will happily fuck off just as soon as you explain why you lied about me being a mod and a racist.

Until then, I will not fuck off. Sorry. I've got a lot of time on my hands and apparently so do you, so I guess this will go on for a very long time.

Unless you explain why you lied of course.

wildginger , 3 months ago

What part of fuck off do you not get

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

I know you think if you keep pasting that, it will work, but it won't.

I also know you wouldn't keep pasting that if you weren't enjoying this. After all, there is something very simple you can do if you want me to fuck off and you refuse to do it.

You like me.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Cool, Im just gonna contact the mods about you straight up saying you will not stop harassing me despite repeatedly acknowledging you understand I do not want you messaging me anymore.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

I thought I was a mod.

Should I contact them and let them know you've been lying about me? Calling me a racist and lying about me being a mod? Because that would be trolling.

LainTrain , 3 months ago

Please touch grass

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Sure. As soon as I get that quote where I said something racist and an acknowledgement that I'm not a mod... or an explanation for why those lies were told about me.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Could you report them for me? My app keeps sending the reports to my instance admin.

They also mod a community on world, Ive contacted people over there. This is insane behavior for a mod to have

Stamets , 3 months ago

Do I agree with Squids stance here? No. I have a different opinion and take on the entire Swift situation, at least I think. This entire thread has been wildly unclear. So while I disagree with Squid and think that he should have dropped this, it's only because you're a blatant troll. You have not adequately laid out any argument or opinion you have here. You keep expecting people to assume based off of previous comments but those comments are just as unclear.

Finding out your opinion is essentially trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle without the front cover. I have no idea what I'm supposed to be looking for. What I have found, however, is incessant piss baby behavior. You keep screaming that he's racist for literally no reason, keep just saying "mod" without clarifying that he's not a mod here, and spammed the same message over and over again when you should have blocked.

You need to grow the hell up and act like a fucking adult.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Cool, the harasser sent more harassers, awesome

Stamets , 3 months ago

No. You did when you came into my private messages and started harassing him and questioning his behavior on a completely unrelated community.

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/dbfb26fd-fbaf-41bd-9a01-6d47fb169772.png

Unlike you, I have the capacity to block someone, especially when they're a blatantly obvious troll. Bye!

wildginger , 3 months ago

Fuck off

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Sure. I will happily fuck off just as soon as you explain why you lied about me being a mod and a racist.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Fuck off

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

I will happily fuck off just as soon as you explain why you lied about me being a mod and a racist.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Fuck off

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

I will happily fuck off just as soon as you explain why you lied about me being a mod and a racist.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Insane anyone made you a mod, fuck off you creepy stalker

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Why are you still lying about me being a mod? And now you're lying about me being a stalker.

So now I will only fuck off if you also explain why you're lying about me being a racist, a mod and a stalker. You probably should stop piling on the lies if you want me to fuck off.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Fuck off, leave me the fuck alone

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Sure. I will happily fuck off if you explain why you're lying about me being a racist, a mod and a stalker.

thecrotch , 3 months ago

Exactly, she's a victim. A victim of the life she chose and worked really hard to achieve. I bet she cries herself to sleep every night on her Scrooge McDuck style piles of cash.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

No, she's not a victim, she's a security risk. Are you not reading what I'm writing? Do you think she would be the only one hurt if there were a riot?

thecrotch , 3 months ago

I think Paul McCartney is/was a much bigger star than taytay and has been taking busses his entire career

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

I'm pretty sure he can't take a bus from London to New York. And I would be very surprised if he flies commercial when he crosses the ocean.

Obviously if she can get there without being so wasteful, she should. That was not my point. In fact, I specifically referenced The Beatles flying on a private plane when they first came to America. That would include Paul McCartney.

thecrotch , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Idk how any of that is relevant. If Paul, at the height of his fame, could ride a bus without being mobbed then Taylor Swift can fly commercial with an entire airport's worth of security watching her back

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Are you under the impression that he was going to gigs on a Greyhound?

It was a private bus.

thecrotch , 3 months ago

He takes public city busses in NYC, London, and probably other places. Of course he's not taking a city bus on tour with him it's weird you would even imply that's what I meant

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/paul-mccartney-enjoys-taking-bus-find-grounding.html/

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Looks like he rides the bus in Liverpool where he grew up and in New York where they're used to seeing famous people on public transportation.

So not, say, Kansas City.

thecrotch , 3 months ago

And if he, a much bigger star, can reguarly ride a public bus around Manhattan without being mobbed I am confident that Taylor Swift could handle going through VIP checkin at Laguardia surrounded by armed security just like scores of other celebrities do.

Here's a list of 8 of them.

https://www.thethings.com/stars-who-fly-commercial/

And here's another list of 26 more

https://www.tmz.com/photos/image_jpg_20231020_8da245f0707046bfbaf7ceb51208e721/

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Or she could charter a flight. I still don't see what is so bad about chartering a flight. Do you think if she didn't charter a flight, the thousands of other charter flights wouldn't happen? This is like complaining about limousines.

thecrotch , 3 months ago

She could also fly commercial, there's no reason not to

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Apart from, you know, the security risk I was talking about.

I'm not even talking about something hypothetical here.

https://bigeye.ug/taylor-swift-shuts-down-japans-airport/

The only reason that wasn't worse is because Japan is a polite society overall.

Cataphract , 3 months ago

In all of your fervent defending of a non-issue, have you ever wondered why people go crazy to cause a security issue? It's because they all want to see their carefully curated bff tay-tay, an image created and maintained by Swift Inc. This is their own problem, and they do it to feed the fanatics that pour every penny they have into an imaginary persona. How the hell is everyone not realizing she's a BILLIONAIRE, where do you think that money is coming from? It's the same people that are now "security threats" apparently.

This is like getting mad at the news for showing black friday purchase riots. You're completely ignoring all of the situation to defend the poor companies being swarmed with customers.

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Are you ever going to acknowledge the difference between a private flight and a chartered flight?

Cataphract , 3 months ago

Are you just a troll? Do you even check who you're replying too? Lol after seeing the rest of your circular arguments on here I'm not getting into one of your repeat conversations.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Are you typing from the mad max universe?

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Yes, in my Mad Max universe, rock stars take private buses across the country when going from gig to gig. That would never happen in the real world.

wildginger , 3 months ago

And people spawn out of nowhere high on meth in airports whenever celebs are around, apparently.

Its like youve never even seen an airport, just heard about them in myths

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Yep. Again. Never happened ever. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/taylor-swift-mobbed-by-fans-delays-flights-at-japan-airport/articleshow/47147634.cms?from=mdr

wildginger , 3 months ago

Right, on the private flight that publicly announces her destination and time of arrival, which tells people where to plan to all congregate.

Wait, you mean thats only a thing for private flights? GASP

FlyingSquid , 3 months ago

Exactly how many times do you need to be told that there is a difference between a chartered jet and a private jet?

spujb OP , 3 months ago

wait, airline subsidies also go toward private jets? TIL if true.

i would love a source for further reading if you have one :)

AFaithfulNihilist , 3 months ago

Airports and the entire airline infrastructure is dependent upon government subsidy and protection. You're paying for other people to fly whether or not you ever fly, and private jets benefit more from this per seat and per flight than anyone else while paying the least to support it.

there's a high public cost to private jets

spujb OP , 3 months ago

holy shit thank you 🫨

drunkosaurus , 3 months ago

Remember when Taylor Swift urged her audience to go out and vote? I can't escape the feeling that riffing constantly on her carbon footprint is a retaliation for that. They finally found something about her to latch on to.

mods_are_assholes , 3 months ago

The entire campaign started as a chantard response to her vote statement, fully gamergate equivalent. The old meme engines never stopped memeing the entire time.

gmtom , 3 months ago

No, this started because she sent a cease and desist letter to the guy that's tracking her jet and threatened to sue him even though he's done literally nothing wrong.

mods_are_assholes , 3 months ago

Oh my sweet eternal september child...

Master , 3 months ago

It was going before that.

spujb OP , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

emphatically but with understanding, this is not how things started. it might be when you became aware of it but you are getting the timeline out of order by quite a bit.

gmtom , 3 months ago

It's why the memes started.

Or if you want to go back further this started with Elon Musks jet being tracked.

spujb OP , 3 months ago

see the original post text, i have updated it with sources which clarify the timeline :)

gmtom , 3 months ago

Respectfully and sincerely, those links show you don't know the timeliness as well as you think you do.

Her jet usage has been a topic of controversy for a while now.

https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/taylor-swift-private-jet-carbon-dioxide-emissions-study-1235120514/

That article is from June 2022.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElonJet

Then ElonJet was around since 2020 and blew up in 2021 when Musk offered the kid some money to take it down.

spujb OP , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

i don’t really like that you phrased this as an would-be insult, especially as i am very aware of these dates and articles and that they only reinforce my position that taylor swift has been under scrutiny for this long before the Sweeney cease and desist.

thank you for these links, i’ll incorporate them into the post timeline :)

prole , 3 months ago

Yeah no shit. They're terrified of her, and her influence over young people.

The GOP knows that their only viable strategy is to get fewer people to vote, and the easiest way to do that is to disenfranchise young voters. So they see Taylor as a direct threat to their only means of validly winning an election.

iAmTheTot , 3 months ago

I just don't understand this. In any reasonable conversation, these two things have nothing to do with each other.

Who is reading Swift memes and thinking "Man, I was going to vote, but seeing how much she jets around has really made me not want to anymore."

Sweetpeaches69 , 3 months ago

You all Swifties are as conspiratorial as the QAnon folks.

casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Wtf does this have to do with her gender? Are you claiming she does not top the charts in celebrity carbon emissions, but is being used as the scapegoat instead of a man?

The Conservatives aren't attacking her because of her gender, it's because of their her influence. Misogyny has nothing to do with it, they'd do the exact same with any celebrity of any identity/orientation because they're influence conflicts with their agenda, not because of their gender.

This smells a lot like ground-laying for radical feminist arguments, I can't find any other reason you would be here making a mountain out of an imaginary anthill. Moreover, I can't understand why anyone upvoting this would care to see a non-humorous PSA in a "hello fellow teens" vaporware frame on a surrealist/(whatever it's called) shitposting community unless it is meant to be satire.

edit: gendered a pronoun to make it concise who the subject was

LainTrain , 3 months ago

Exactly, this smells of TERF rhetoric.

Pohl , 3 months ago

I’m not sure I fully understand the criticism to be perfectly honest. Is it actually possible to have a mega pop star of that type without them having a more intensive carbon footprint? Like she can’t really fly commercially for a lot of reasons. Tour schedules are one thing but can you imagine the scene it would make?

Fame is really just letting one person, who we consider special for some reason, use the resources of many. They get to live an extravagant lifestyle and we get the cultural benefit their work.

Bottom line: private jet travel seems to me like a requirement of her job. I’m not about to sit here and shame everyone for the carbon output that their job requires of them. She is not some capital class, passive income, leech. The lady works.

FWIW, I don’t really think I could name or identify one of her songs. Everything I know about her is what bleeds through into my media sphere. She could be a real shitheal for all I know.

kautau , 3 months ago

The issue isn’t that she has a private jet or uses it, it’s
that it’s used for 13 minute flights.

https://www.newsweek.com/taylor-swift-private-jet-jack-sweeney-flights-1868272

And also, that someone built software to show publicly available data on how inefficient the use of her jet is, and then her team threatened legal action against them

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/02/06/taylor-swift-jet-tracking-legal-threat/

Her jet was 28 miles from it’s destination, the president of the United States still travels that destination by vehicle (granted it’s a motorcade) but still far more environmentally friendly than burning fossil fuels in a jet to hop over to the next airport

Pohl , 3 months ago

Meh, sometimes I drive places a really should have walked. Same shit different scale. I am not moved to anger by this. Eliminate fame or accept that it’s resource intensive.

iAmTheTot , 3 months ago

different scale

Yeah that's kind of the entire point.

GnomeKat , 3 months ago

Meh, sometimes I drive places a really should have walked.

sounds like you are part of the problem

wrath_of_grunge , 3 months ago

really that depends on a number of factors. like how big the jet is, etc.

some of those planes are pretty small.

my friend and i worked with a guy for many years, that was also a pilot. he was a pretty frugal dude, but was fairly smart with his money. flying his small plane was a bit of a hobby for him. he owned a store location in the city we were in, but also had another store location about a hour/hour-and-half drive. sometimes he would take his plane, as it was actually cheaper and faster to go to the airport, get his plane prepped, fly out, do whatever he had to do, and fly back.

undoubtedly he was using this as an excuse to fly his plane a bit. but i definitely know he wouldn't have been doing it if it was costing him any significant amount of money. he wasn't loaded, and was always about saving some money.

HerbalGamer , 3 months ago

ok but I don't think many billionaires are out there flying Cessnas to save a bit of money.

theneverfox , 3 months ago

There's no way that was a jet. A jet is in an entirely different class than a little prop plane... It's like comparing a motorcycle to a tank

ninpnin , 3 months ago

For the short trips, there's literally no reason not to have a car and a chauffeaur.

Pohl , 3 months ago

How does car get to the place the jet landed? Another bigger jet full of cars? That’s how the presidential motorcade works. Seems really consumptive, but it’s one person who leads a nation of 350M, so it also doesn’t make me angry.

ninpnin , 3 months ago

jesse what the fuck are you talking about

VaultBoyNewVegas , 3 months ago

A swiftie who's being really fucking obtuse.

wrath_of_grunge , 3 months ago

different cars in different locations.

for example if she flys into a airport on the Eastern side of the country, you'd just contract out a car there. many airports even have multiple car rental companies on site to handle such things. for more upscale stuff, there are usually smaller flight companies around the airport, and they handle all the details.

you just fly the people in, they get the car at that location, and then drive to wherever they're going.

in the case of musicians, if they're on tour they usually have busses they charter, along with large semi trucks to drive the gear and stage stuff.

gmtom , 3 months ago

How does car get to the place the jet landed?

She rents one you smooth brain.

Pohl , 3 months ago

Sigh…

People who have enormous fame or import like miss swift can’t exactly travel public roads in an unmodified car from fucking Avis. Not only is fame a tremendous distraction on the road, but she is also a lightning rod for insane people who are known to be heavily armed.

I mentioned the president’s motorcade because she has some of the same problems. She and the president share security problems you don't have. Those security problems have expensive and carbon intensive solutions. You’re not smarter than all the people who work on the problem. I promise.

Now, before you start name calling on the internet why don’t you flip that dog’s breakfast of yours into the on position.

gmtom , 3 months ago

can’t exactly travel public roads in an unmodified car from fucking Avis

Eye roll.....

Yes they can and they do. I work for one of the big 3 and when I was an intern I had to do things like book travel for artists, including one of the biggest artists in the world, and they literally do just take an Addison Lee to the studio, or talk show or whatever they're doing.

Taylor Swift doesnt need a fucking motorcade and we dont need to bend over backwards to accommodate pop starts like they're fucking royalty.

Now please, take a moment before commenting on something you know literally nothing about to think if stating your irrelevant opinion as if its fact is worth anyones time reading it.

TimewornTraveler , 3 months ago

How does car get to the place the jet landed? By... driving there? What's the confusion? Why are you so concerned that someone will John Lennon her yet Keanu Reaves can take the subway?

Sprokes , 3 months ago

Few centuries ago special people (who have power) have slaves but things have changed. Maybe they shouldn't do concerts every week all over the world, they shouldn't fly over the country to assist to the opening of some store,....etc.

You know things change and we should adapt.

LainTrain , 3 months ago

Bleh, she's a brand, not a person, she doesn't work she's just a part owner of the brand, and celebrities need to be abolished anyway.

Flumpkin , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

That Thank you for putting this so well. Now we're entering the next phase, progressives arguing and attacking each other while climate inaction continues uninterrupted :D

LemmyKnowsBest , 3 months ago

That you?

Flumpkin , 3 months ago

You have my deepeds thats for pointing thank out

LemmyKnowsBest , 3 months ago

You're giving me a headache

Evil_Shrubbery , 3 months ago

Well ... this meme format ... such was the style at the time, but we didn't post pics on the internet back then. Why use millions of times more data bandwidth than is necessary (pic vs ascii)?

spujb OP , 3 months ago

this is such a great question, and one I am interested in myself.

you have to consider engagement and reach. let’s look at the numbers:

• raw ascii size of the meme text is ~625 bytes
• size of the image: 787 KB

so your estimate of “millions of times” is already not quite accurate. its just a little more than 1000x.

from experience on the internet, i know that people are more likely to read something if it looks pretty. advertisers and marketers are aware of this too.

so am i getting 1000x more reach than if i just did a text post? well, without empirical evidence, my guess is actually probably, or at least in that ballpark. especially considering the context that this is c/196 and no one really wants to read text posts on here :)

Evil_Shrubbery , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Oh, thx for the numbers.

And I do apologize for the poetic 'million', it was, as everything else in that reply, a joke (I'm saying that I was in fact not wondering why we post pics, nor think we should text format all the things - I mean, we have video blogs, that's just ascii with unnecessary human bits :D (again, joking)). I mean, I look at memes hours per day & shitpost them around, I understand sharing images.

The main point/reference/nostalgia I was trying to make was putting together classic windows theme (starting in dial-up era) and how impractical would have been to use images back then.

(Also, not that it matters in the million, I was thinking uncompressed png vs ascii.)

AdmiralShat , 3 months ago

Is this because she's a woman or because she's a billionaire? I feel like we make fun of plenty of men too

emptiestplace , 3 months ago

• I'm quite confident that, more often than not, women face greater challenges than men.

• This post is fucking weird.

AdmiralShat , 3 months ago

Yeah, I'm not doubting the validity of the statement that women definitely have hardships men don't, but I really feel like that's not why she's being memed.

gmtom , 3 months ago

It's because she's threatening to sue the guy that tracks the jet.

deaf_fish , 3 months ago

She is getting this attention because some very powerful people, who benefit from producing a lot of greenhouse gases, would prefer that everyone be mad at T Swift instead of them.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Tin foil hat take

deaf_fish , 3 months ago

Looks like the oil company representative found me :)

wildginger , 3 months ago

Its adorable you think swift sent lawyer threats at the request of an oil company

deaf_fish , 3 months ago

I never said that. You should practice reading more. Don't worry tones of people have overcome illiteracy. I believe you can too.

wildginger , 3 months ago

tones of people have overcome illiteracy

What did they do about overcoming irony?

Shes getting this attention for the same reason musk got it. She sent legal threats to someone legally pointing out public data about wasteful private flights.

Theres no secret cabal of oil magnates puppeteering internet memes. She is being mocked for trying to threaten someone over public info of her wastefulness.

deaf_fish , 3 months ago

Yeah, I agree, I think some of this is due to the streisand effect. And I think T Swift is dumb for trying to sue that reporter. But Elon got way less shit than this when he tried to silence the reporter tracking his flights.

As for the secret cabal of oil magnates, your right, they don't exist. There is a public cabal of oil magnates. They have done several astroturfing campaigns in the past that are now well documented.

wildginger , 3 months ago

...... Elon got so much shit for this he directly contacted the former twitter CEO to try and get the guy banned, and has privately said it was one of the driving factors behind his initial bluff at buying twitter, so your conspiracy theory is yet again slapped down by reality

deaf_fish , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

A quick Google shows that Elon finalized the Twitter purchase in October of 2022 and the Elon jet Twitter thing started in December.

Was there another jet tracking incidents with Elon? Otherwise, it seems like you're confused about the order of things.

Edit: Turns out I had a Google fail. The December date was a second account at the journalist created. My information is not correct here.

wildginger , 3 months ago

Uh my guy

"Musk had also unsuccessfully petitioned Agrawal [CEO of Twitter at the time] to remove a Twitter account that was tracking his private plane,"

"The billionaire started buying Twitter shares shortly after Agrawal denied his request."

This took me 10 seconds to find.

deaf_fish , 3 months ago

Ah, I messed up. I should have dug deeper instead of reading the google summary. This is what I found on Wiki:

On December 22, 2022, Sweeney started the new @ElonJetNextDay Twitter account

But...

"the handle @elonjet.[10]

The Twitter account, created in June 2020, "

Sorry about that, I trusted too much in googles summary.

Was there a lot of meming about this on twitter when it was happening, or did Elon see like one or two memes and decide to buy twitter?