I think this is more appropriate for the new Starbucks CEO.
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
951 points (90.7% liked)
memes
10149 readers
2040 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Billionaires gonna billion.
Starbucks ceo is richer, and a ~~men~~ man, we should make more memes about him.
Every difference in treatment between two people based on gender is sexism
And exclusively focusing on Taylor when there is recent examples of others doing much worse is a great example of this. Such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Leonardo DiCaprio who all use their private jets in just as wasteful horrendous ways. Much like how all the star wars fans decided Kathleen Kennedy or "Darth Kennedy" was the main reason the new movies were bad, ignoring the directors and writers with more control.
I'm not here to defend Taylor, couldn't care less about her, not at all a fan and fuck all billionaires. But you have to ignore centuries of history, gender discrimination and patriarchal control to cite sexism like this. There is a rich history of double standards and women being criticized for the exact same thing men do. The overwhelming majority of private jets are used by men in their 50's, but somehow Taylor Swift is the eternal meme fodder for it?
Yup. So many shitty billionaires out there, but they focus on one of the decent ones.
https://abc7chicago.com/taylor-swift-gives-bonuses-eras-tour-bonus-truck-drivers-net-worth/13588228/
My idea is that: 100 billionaires make bullshit with their private jets: I sleep. Taylor swift make buillshit with her jet: Real shit?
We are only clowning on the women billionaire and ignoring all others who do similar shit.
(and about the men vs man thing, english is my second language, I meant man)
The glaring difference to me is that Taylor tries to project an image of being a better billionaire. And, in a lot of ways, she IS, so it's more glaring when she shits the bed with something as dumb as a private jet. She does philanthropy, she fights back against the music industry's bullshit, she's even pretty outspoken about the climate, but she can't ground her jet unless absolutely necessary?
She's still a billionaire. She still sucks. But she does marginally better than the rest. Now step up the rest of the way. Until then, criticisms are valid.
Regarding man vs men, the singular vs plural doesn't matter. It's that none of this is gendered. Starbucks CEO (I think it's telling that I don't respect him enough to know his name) sucks. Gates sucks. Buffet sucks. Swift sucks.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Every difference in treatment between two people based on gender is sexism
That's what I told the gynecologist when he told me to see an urologist to check my testes.
load more comments
(1 replies)
More recent too.
I just had this shared with me somewhere else and posted it unchanged.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Por que no los dos?
I'm a one-hate one-love machine. I can't hate multiple people at the same time. My heart just gets confused if I try, and then starts flirting with nihilism.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I usually suspect bots whenI see reposting highly upvoted memes from several months back, but OP doesn’t appear to be a bot.
Can someone explain
There was an early criticism of celebs like Taylor Swift using private jets, because of the ecological effects / fuel usage; claiming it’s hypocritical because she’s pro-environment.
Honestly, given the equipment / celeb focus (and that people all around the world want to hear her live), the use of a jet isn’t that wasteful imo, but the continued meme of having her take a jet for minor trips is silly enough it’s fun anyway.
There was someone on Instagram or TikTok criticizing her for flying from LAX to another airport like, three minutes away. As though she were on what was almost certainly a repositioning flight. I doubt she has a hanger at LAX.
People are kind of silly.
What, how does she hang her clothes there? Stack them like a pleb?
The original meme, started because a cultist (fan) started tracking her flights(public information).
She takes a LOT of private flights, it turned out many weren't her but friends/family using the planes. She got flak because she's pro environment.
Hence a meme was born.
load more comments
(1 replies)
These did not become numerous enough. We need more, always.
They fit the Starbucks stuporcommuter better.
Tbh, would you want to be in the airport the day Taylor Swift is flying on a regular flight? First, all the seats would be taken by Swifties. Plus of course just her entourage. Second, all the seats on planes that depart from the same terminal would be taken by Swifties who just want to see her through Security.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I think I'm out of the loop here... What does Taylor swift have to do with an airplane?
I thought that loop was done months ago. But she did use her jet to go to the other side of a city to avoid traffic
An overlooked part of that article.
it is unclear if she was personally traveling to St. Louis, where part of her extended family originally hails, or if the flights were for maintenance or testing.
Though, reading on from there, her trying to stop people from tracking her flights through lawsuits is just as bullshit as Musk trying to shut down the kid who was tracking his private jet flights. It's public data and they chose to be public figures. They can both suck it up and deal with the consequences.
She's notorious for using private jets going anywhere, even for short trips that's perfectly doable by other modes of transportation. There's even a subreddit dedicated for tracking her jet.
Ah hahahaha. Thanks for explaining it to me :)
load more comments
(8 replies)
She's starting to gain a lot of political influence with young liberal voters, so conservatives are latching on to anything they can find to try to discredit her with them. The fact that she used a private jet to travel seems to be the only dirt they can find on her.
I vote left (Canadian), and I think she's a menace to the environment. There's this weird logical fallacy going around that if you dislike her, you must be a conservative. SloppyEngineer's article says she shat out 2.8 tonnes of c02 emissions on this 28 mile trip-- it's okay to call out hypocrisy, she doesn't get a pass.
It's nice that she got the GoP finally care about climate change though, haha.
Edit: numbers
For what it's worth it's definitely not just conservatives. While I think she's doing a lot of good compared to others in her wealth bracket, that wealth bracket still should not exist, and anyone in it is a problem.
I can acknowledge that she pays better than most other entertainers. I can acknowledge that she's pushing back against a lot of the BS that the music industry is pedaling lately. I can acknowledge that she does a lot of philanthropy.
I can also acknowledge that she's acquired an inhuman amount of money, which necessarily requires perpetuating suffering. I can acknowledge that she's absolutely a part of the environment problem. All of these things can be true at the same time.
All of these things can be true at the same time.
Absolutely true: I'm also far-Left, and am a scientist working in the sustainability field.
I know I have complicated views on this (shaming her specifically), mostly because there's not the same number of posts shaming CEOs and others making even worse choices.
The way I process it would be as if a major new corporation had a crime segment running nightly, but only showed young Black men who were arrested for violent crimes. Sure, it's not technically incorrect - since they were each arrested - but it's misleading in a way that should be examined, and people would rightly question why they're not showing other folks doing the same things.
To be clear - I'm not equating the folks who share or make these memes with racists, but I am using it as an extreme example of ways in which outsized attention to certain celebrities/public figures can come across. I laughed at this and other memes, but I think it's worth examining why we can name and shame Swift, but not CEOs and others who are more fundamentally responsible for inequities and climate destruction. I'm way-overanalyzing a meme here, since name recognition is doing most of the work (who would click on a meme with the name of some CEO they don't recognize, versus Swift?), but I do think we could/should do more to drag some of the true ghouls out there into the light and start mocking them, in addition to the folks normally raked over the coals.
Also, I understand that part of that is the hypocrisy, but I'm reminded of what the great Norm MacDonald had to say about hypocrisy:
The comedian Patton Oswalt, he told me "I think the worst part of the Cosby thing was the hypocrisy." And I disagree. I thought it was the raping. It's my feeling most rapists are hypocrites. You don't meet many that go "I like raping and I know it's not politically correct but, by god" and people go "well, he's not being a hypocrite and that's the worst part!"
Edit:on rereading I'm basically parroting the same thing you are,I think it's just a matter of how cynical one wants to be with the intent of the OP and other commentors are. Pretty much impossible to quantify without being in their brains,and a perfectly valid thing to be looking out for.
I think the biggest difference between the two, specifically the Starbucks CEO and Swift, is one of visibility. Fucking EVERYONE knows who Taylor Swift is. She lives one of the most public lives. Hers is a name that's often right on the tips of everyone's tongues.
Contrast with the Starbucks CEO. I don't even know his name. I remember reading (largely from memes on here) when he was saying he'd fly across country to work in office instead of working remote. And I remember a HUGE backlash from that here. Another contrast is, I do not remember seeing ANYONE say the Starbucks CEO was actually decent and this is just one thing, or that there's actually a good reason for this choice. Absolutely everyone hated it.
Those died down. They didn't have longevity. Largely because Mr CEO isn't a household name. I'm still pissed at him, too, but it's harder to make the same point as broadly using the nameless CEO than the person everyone knows.
Edit: I think the thing that annoys people about the hypocritical stance is that she has, on multiple occasions, been staunchly for climate conservation. To use the rape quote you provided, it'd be like if Cosby was saying "rapists should be punished. Rapists are the worst. Rapists should be in prison" then he's found to be raping, and suddenly wants some leniency. If you're outspoken about a thing, clearly you know it's wrong, and so I shouldn't have any qualms about the punishments levied.
Yeah we're in agreement, and apologies that my reply was a little meandering! It's hard to reply without sounding contrarian sometimes.
Thanks for a good reply, and I hope you enjoy the weekend!
All good. These kinds of things get off into the weeds all too easily hahah. Take care.
While daddy Musk does probably just as much or more private plane travel, while also trying to publicly go after the guy tracking his jet that is public information…
I like the layout of this house.
view more: next ›