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)
Ngl, I do agree with this for Swift. Like she has problems with it and now made a dumb comment that broke the camel’s back and now people are meme-ing it, but she isn’t literally the biggest threat.
I’d say the case is pretty different for Rowling though. She definitely did her best to spread transphobia everywhere.
I like Natalie, but also it’s possible to criticize someone (Swift) while also acknowledging that they aren’t the one doing the most harm.
Just be wary which voices you amplify when you throw your argument onto the pile. Perhaps try mentioning other millionaires/billionaires who are also guilty of this behaviour.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I dunno about you guys, but my enemy are billionaires. I feel it’s my duty to do them harm. Taylor has done great things in terms of voting awareness. But the plane thing is a whole different thing for me, and I go after Musk, Bezos and every other billionaire just as hard. In fact I was willing to ignore Taylor’s status as a billionaire and was on her side, until she sued, because at that point she used her billionaire privilege to shut someone below her down, so that’s what I’m gonna judge her on
always remember
swift does not profit from flying planes
oil lobbyists do.
What? She profits from the places she flies to, what’s the difference?
I have a question.
I fully recognize Taylor Swifts privilege. She is a global superstar with millions and millions of fans.
Her job is to entertain. In order to do that - she needs to be able to travel places efficiently.
While I can also recognize that she does make what seem to be, at least from the outside looking in, unnecessary short flights. What other alternatives are there?
What can be done to offset or prevent this?
Clearly it’s a bigger problem than just Taylor Swift and I get it’s meme staus right now, and please don’t think I’m defending her actions - I’m just saying I understand why she’s doing it based on her status. Again - doesn’t make it right, it just is what it is.
What can be done other than breaking down fame worshiping on a global level - is a fleet of buses more eco friendly? Does she move to online only performances? I genuinely do not know what the answer is - but I am curious to hear what she, and others that fly way more than I ever will, can do differently.
There are some companies that make aviation kerosene from carbon dioxide, sometimes from plants or algae, sometimes directly. Airlines don’t want to use it because it’s super expensive. But maybe people like Taylor could use it? That’d be net zero emissions assuming the energy was also green.
This is interesting - obviously oil corps would never allow this to become a standard - but yeah, that would be a cool move on her part because I’m sure she could afford it.
One thing I’ve thought about is that because she’s so mega famous, it’d likely be terrible for her to take any form of public transport. She’d get swarmed by people wanting autographs and paparazzi. So I’ve been thinking that maybe she does it so much because it’s the most private way to travel.
I guess an alternative is just too have a chauffeur drive you when the distance is manageable, but then getting in and out would more likely be at public facing areas rather than somewhere a bit more private like an airport.
I dunno, just what I’ve been thinking. There are stories of people like Keanu Reeves taking public transport, so he must be able to do it done, but he’s also not the ultra-mega-star that Taylor is
This is it. If Taylor took commercial flights she’d have to book the whole plane. People would book and cancel dozens of flights for the chance to be on hers. I’d bet us airlines would blacklist her just from the disruption.
And that’s not even getting into safety issues. The alternative to this is that she travels less and uses buses. This would likely result in fewer concerts. Things already in uber high demand would get more scarce. I doubt her fans would vote for this.
In the end, Taylor creates a LOT more co2 than most people. But she’s not really the problem. The problem are the companies using bad fuel sources and lying for decades about climate change. We need legislation to effect real change, not complaining about billionaire entertainer’s flights. That won’t do shit.
There was a whole movie made about Keanu Reeves taking public transportation. It’s called Speed.
Seriously, I’ll have to look and see when Keanu took public transportation.
On top of being terrible for her, it would actually become a huge problem to organise having fans swarm up an area as soon as she’s spotted in public
please don’t think I’m defending her actions
literally defends her actions and says she has no other choice
I didn’t say she had no other choice - I’m asking what her other choices are.
At the very least doing what all other celebrities are doing, which is flying a lot less than her
That’s not a solution to the question I asked - She needs to travel in order to entertain. Making suggestions of “she should just stop doing it.” doesn’t work because then she can’t do her job. I’m not hear to debate the ethics of her flying - because I agree, it’s incredibly wasteful and exorbitant.
I am asking - Since she must travel, what alternatives can she make to travel that are not harmful to the planet. What can she do to at the very least to offset the carbon footprints she’s leaves with every flight.
A lot of celebrities need to travel to entertain. A lot of those celebrities do not fly nearly as much as Taylor Swift does, and continue to make a living. Knowing these facts, one logical answer to your question is that she could probably fly a lot less than she does and still maintain her career as an entertainer.
It’s not that she shouldn’t travel, which seems to be your takeaway of the criticism of her. It’s that she should fly less, or do it much more efficiently (if she needs to fly, does she need to fly separately from everyone else in her crew that is going to the same location, or can she chart 1 jet for everyone?)
Okay that is fair - flying less is a valid point. Apologies for misreading the prior answer.
Tour busses, guys. Tour busses. They aren’t not harmful, but they are a huge measure less harmful than sending her gear by truck and her by plane so she’s not inconvenienced. But if we were expecting her to be actually not harmful…tour busses that run on biofuel. Artists don’t enjoy being on the road in busses because, yeah, they take longer. But it’s her convenience weighed against the planet.
That’s what I was saying, would a fleet of trucks and buses be any better from an emissions standpoint
Yes. Because the fleet of trucks and busses already exists. Say there are 20 trucks needed for her tour. 20 trucks + 1 plane is worse than 20 trucks and 1 bus. Especially if, as I mentioned, she actually cared and wanted to run on biofuel. She absolutely could. But it’s easier and more comfortable for her to say, “well I bought carbon credits!” while wasting jet fuel for her comfort alone.
Taylor Swift’s Whistle-Stop Tour
There is no such thing as a good billionaire.
