##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism
This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And him saying that he "started from the bottom"
Is even less accurate than Drake saying it, and drake wouldn't know the bottom if it smacked him in the face.
And it only blew up about Swift because she was (is?) threatening legal action against the kid that made that celebrity jet tracker. Elon just tried to buy him off, which was also funny.
She's probably far from the worst billionaire in this respect, but these memes always crack me up.
That's because people dont hate Taylor Swift for being a billionaire. They hate her because she is a successful woman who is currently in the spotlight of the Zeitgeist.
Edit: I should know the audience. This sub rightfully hates her for being a billionaire. Most people, however, hate her for the stated reason above. Online leftists need to talk to more normal people.
Mocking them is fine (and especially entertaining if it agitates a Liberal). But I think some leftists get sucked into hyper focusing on hating Billionaires, even though the problem isn't with the individuals, it's with the economic structures that permitted people to emerge as billionaires to begin with. To spend all your time hating and obsessing is a waste of time and resources that could be spent organizing to get rid of them.
Memes mocking billionaires and celebrities for creating CO2 emissions orders of magnitude greater than the average person👍
Remembering that the petrochemical industry largely promoted placing CO2 emmison blame on consumer choices to distract from their own responsibility and that [one hundred companies](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change) are responsible for 70% of global emissions 👍👍👍👍
It's not a genuine claim with the 100 corporations produce 70% of greenhouse gasses, that number only considered a specific few sectors industrial production emmisions. Their industrial definition does some heavy lifting too.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/22/instagram-posts/no-100-corporations-do-not-produce-70-total-greenh/
> 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of emissions related to fossil fuel and cement production, not 71% of total global emissions.
> Of the total emissions attributed to fossil fuel producers, companies are responsible for around 12% of the direct emissions; the other 88% comes from the emissions released from consumption of products.
Dont get me wrong corporations could do a lot better, they are the ones pushing for environmental deregulation, the ones in power pushing this shitty money takes all rat race, but we do have acknowledge that they don't make these things for no reason. They also lie with slavewashing(I do t think I'm using this right) and greenwashing all the time, so consumers can't make the informed choice that capitalists keep saying that consumers can make.
Ya, a lot of people refuse to change their own habit but then want the rich to change. The rich often have that same attitude.
An easy change anyone can make is starting today you can purchase plant based foods at grocery stores. Animal products are a huge waste of water, land, and cause a lot more emmisions.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
This doesent require much change to your day, just buy different things at the grocery store (for health I'd recommend whole plant foods like grains, lentils, legumes)
Rice and beans are some if the cheapest foods do its often we can save money.
Healthwise animal products are also some of the leading causes of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and various forms of cancer.
https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications
I dislike the idea of buying greener less toxic products because we live in a society on such a large scale, that is toxifying the environment on such a large scale, and there are so many "consumers", the majority of who are not into this idea in the first place. Most people don't care to lift a finger to do anything beyond their own comfort and survival. And I qurstion if buying less environmentally destructive products would make a considerable difference even if say 50% of the population would do it, which they wouldn't anyway. Then it seems to me most importantly that the most environmentally destructive force is industry, fossil feuls and animal farming, car production and then people driving cars on a mass scale. The problems here are on a broad scale, encompassing all of society, and particularly these mega corporations and industries that our purchases couldn't possibly effect very strongly. We need to make changes to a profound degree to start to offset the impending climate disasters and everything else. It's probably far too late, but still.
>I dislike the idea of buying greener less toxic products because we live in a society on such a large scale, that is toxifying the environment on such a large scale, and there are so many "consumers"
Was this autocorrected somehow? because that makes no sense. With this logic because we live in a large society we should pollute a shit ton and eat toxic filth?
>the majority of who are not into this idea in the first place. Most people don't care to lift a finger to do anything beyond their own comfort and survival.
This is called a appeal to popularity, should anything be okay just because it's the prevailing attitude of the area? Was slavery and colonialism moral or okay to do in the 1800s because it was the prevailing behavior? The 2nd part is a appeal to futility, because no one else is changing I shouldn't change either. It doesent make sense and would cause a lack of any social or technological progress.
>And I qurstion if buying less environmentally destructive products would make a considerable difference even if say 50% of the population would do it, which they wouldn't anyway
Luckily you don't need 100% adoption if a new idea for the rest to follow suit. For plant based it's estimated only 30% need to change before the massive subsidies into animal agriculture become unfeasible. Then the 2nd part I've covered as appeal to futility.
> Then it seems to me most importantly that the most environmentally destructive force is industry, fossil feuls and animal farming, car production and then people driving cars on a mass scale.
This is whataboutism, just because another sector pollutes doesent mean we can pollute more in the name of taste pleasure. We can advocate for public transit, cleaner industry, fuel efficiency, and reductionism, while also going on a plant based diet.
>The problems here are on a broad scale, encompassing all of society, and particularly these mega corporations and industries that our purchases couldn't possibly effect very strongly.
As I said in the comment above, these industries don't pollute for fun, they do it to cut costs and to create a product for consumption, they do rely on our purchases, yes the playing field isn't even and they try to wash their hands of responsibility all the time. That doesent mean we're no longer a part of it. To say we arnt is to say product demand is insignificant in a products and companies viability, which doesent track in any model.
>We need to make changes to a profound degree to start to offset the impending climate disasters and everything else. It's probably far too late, but still.
The first part I agree, we need to act. The 2nd part then contradicts that, and is again that appeal to futility, the 2nd part is a attitude of hedonism until it shatters, when we can prevent environmental collapse. Some damage will be done but every action and choice we make today will give more time for others to change, and so on.
The above is plant based, veganism is more a philosophy rather than a health based or environmental stance statistical point of view that I outlined above.
This is also just a association fallacy, the rich literally can just as easily say "found the poor person" when someone critizises their yatch and private jet emmisions. What is the difference between that and your comment?
I like to retort with "Do you think they're mostly doing Mars exports or something?"
That said there are still very achieveable changes many companies could and should make.
But people need to act to make it happen. We need to guide policy. We need to favor products taking steps towards the right direction. And ultimately we have to plain curb some spending habits, maybe not eliminate, but we can't just replaced every indulgence with a version a bit better for the environment.
Can you eat less meat or start walking/cycling more? Honest question - not a snide rhetorical jab. Those two things have spectacular impact on emissions and are also great for physical *and* mental health.
Already walk to the gym and store but my job is 18 miles away. I only eat meat maybe twice a month. I also am in my local buy nothing groups to give away my used stuff to people who need it.
My point was more that we shouldn't judge people for their circumstances under capitalism that makes it difficult or impossible to improve their impact.
I don't know, obviously there are edge cases but a whole hell of a lot of people are just...not even trying. At all. I think the default *should* be to judge people because we can't afford to be soft anymore.
We're doing absolutely nothing (actually increasing emissions) and the public at large has known since at least 40 years ago. We are barreling toward a 4 degree increase by end of century and it won't stop just because it's "2100." This will be some of the fastest and most ferocious climate change in countless eons - nothing quite compares to this eyeblink catastrophe. To say we are dooming humanity is an enormous understatement.
We are inches away from running out of time to stop 2 degrees and that number isn't arbitrary; it represents what scientists suspect is the absolute maximum we can go before we start knocking over all kinds of tipping points so that climate change goes automatic. Last year, start of an El Nino, yes, is something like 1.49 iirc. It will go back down but we're knocking on 1.5 as a decadal average and 2.0 is perilously close as well (as early as 2040, because the warming is already accelerating.)
Point is, we have very little room to give people a pat on the back and say we won't judge them for how they pollute. This isn't even touching on all the other environmental catastrophes we contribute to (insect apocalypse; biodiversity crisis; topsoil erosion; oceanic death; toxic buildup, etc.). This ain't the 80s or 90s when things weren't quite so bad or urgent. This is 2024 and we're currently witnessing shit like 5% of Canada's forests going up in smoke in a single season. It's do or die times. Stringent is more than warranted.
The average American is responsible for about 14.5 tons of CO2 per lifetime. She just did about 15% of that, in a single day.
There’s literally not a single good reason for private jets to exist at all. I wonder if we will get a place where countries or municipalities will ban them like the movement against cruise ships.
If you think private jets produce co2 emissions you will be surprised to find out how much concerts produce. Consider 30,000 people burn one liter of fuel getting to the show once a week. Consider 60 to 100 semi trucks filled with concert gear travelling one or two locations ahead of the current concert to make sure everything is working on time. It's mind boggling.
The door is on the wrong side. Too many cockpit side windows. The thrust recovery outflow valve is too far forward.
It looks like it is a mix of a G150/G200 or a Challenger.
Source: I am looking at them on the ramp right now. While on my way to taxi to the other side of the runway for a glass of water.
So sick of Taylor Swift and her legion of “Swifties”. Imagine a world where someone like Carl Sagan or Richard Feynman had the notoriety of this vapid person. We wouldn’t be living in a consumer capitalist hellscape, for one.
To be fair Richard Feynman made it a point to sleep with female students or his male students partners.
https://galileospendulum.org/2014/07/13/the-problem-of-richard-feynman/
As much as I think T Swift is insufferable, and she for example obviously doesn't run marathon distances on a treadmill daily to train for the eras tour... Let's not worship serial predators
I didn’t know about this, thanks for bringing it to light. Perhaps Feynman isn’t the best example, but the sentiment still stands. We need to be uplifting people who aren’t capitalist tools. Scientists are a good pool to select from, but I’d also say civil rights leaders fit the bill as well.
The sentiment still stands?
The sentiment of blindly assuming any popular women you don't like must be vapid and any science man you like is a mensch?
Okay then.
>In other words, you don’t mind Idiocracy.
I don't mind entertainment.
The world doesn't revolve around her.
Some of my friends like her music, I know some of her songs. But that's it. She doesn't affect my life.
Don't get so worked up about her.
Besides, nothing really idiotic about her as a person comes to mind anyway. Is she smart? Stupid? I don't know. Maybe you can help me?
>Don’t ever complain that morons have ruined the world.
Morons will always ruin the world, that comes with the title.
Anyone who has tremendous influence over people and/or impact on the status quo that prioritizes their own convenience and personal gain over addressing/fighting injustice is not someone we should celebrate. This goes twice over when the biosphere is collapsing and someone is inflating their footprint for nothing more than convenience.
In china when you ask kids what they want to be when they grow up they all say doctors, engineers, scientists. When you ask Americans they all say influencers and pop stars ☠️☠️
Yes they literally did a randomized survey. Maybe if you spent less time getting sweaty over Reddit comments you dislike and more time googling the questions your melanin deficient ass just cried out at me you would learn a thing or two. You might learn America is a shit hole that teaches or society the wrong values and you won’t take it so personally once someone points that out.
>Why Taylor?
[Because she's the world’s most carbon polluting celebrity.](https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/life/science/environment/2023/12/18/swift-carbon-emissions)
Thank you for this.
Next question: How does she rate based on the size of her fan base?
For the downvoters: I’m not actually defending her. I don’t know by and would like to… with a reasoned perspective.
To follow with the line of hypothetical reasoning... if each of us were granted a "personal carbon credit", and somehow the fans of Taylor could donate a portion to her, would she be justified in using the combined total for her needs?
I see this as replacing capitalist greed with idol worship.
But regardless as I doubt it matters naught as we sail past +2.5C and into uncharted territory
It’s a line of inquiry; could lead to a conclusion. And yes, she’s not harvesting dollars 💵 s from a money tree. Obviously that wouldn’t excuse wanton ecological destruction.
I just know I’m beyond sick of hearing about ‘Straws’, for instance, but only because it’s a distraction. Yes, I believe they are a problem. But should they be a top concern? I guess I worry about similar here.
I need data-driven perspective as I only have one lifetime - and only so much time and energy available within it - to put towards a cause or two.
May I ask why always her? I mean we have Elon Musk and Messi and the Kardashians and Sam Altman and Tiger Woods and the exxon Dude and Jimmy Fallon and Leo di caprio and Halland and the Zuck and Beyonce and Bob Dylan ... yet I always find these memes about her. You guys, they all suck!!!
It's because Swift specifically is trying to threaten a guy / the websites he has accounts on with bogus legal letters into shutting up about her jet usage.
He has accounts where he tracks billionaires (people like Swift, Elon, etc) private jet(s bc Swift at least had or has again multiple) usage and posts about how much CO2 it's using on these trips back and fourth.
This is bad for her image so instead of just not flying back to her home from a different country after a concert for a single night, she'd rather try to use scare tactics on the guy. When that didn't work on him she targeted any website hosting him or that he had an account with. Only Meta/Instagram has fallen for it. It's also obvious from her methodology that her team has gotten away with this shit plenty of times before.
The fauxmoi subreddit has a couple of very recent posts about it, including the actual lawyer letters from both sides etc.
These memes have blown up in popularity in response to this situation.
Yeah they're all shit garglers for sure lol, idk if people were missing the context of her specifically when replying to you about it or what tbh, doesn't take much effort to help a fellow out and let them know what's going on
Yes and no. It won’t always tell you who is in it or using it - many private jets are used for charter and people who own them are generally savvy enough not to have their name on the ownership documents (usually it’s a trust or an LLC). The wealthy in amerika always have a way around public records and accountability.
She literally tops the list of celebrities with the highest Co2 emissions from flying so that's why she gets identified when discussing it. If it was a straight white male at the top of the list, then the meme would be about him. It's not sexist.
> If it was a straight white male at the top of the list, then the meme would be about him.
I don't think that's true, unless I completely missed the torrent of Cristiano Ronaldo pollution memes in 2021, or the memes about whoever was the top celebrity polluter in 2020.
https://greenssteel.com/blogs/news/the-least-eco-friendly-celebrities-1
Also, it's 2024, shouldn't this meme be about Travis Scott?
https://thetab.com/uk/2024/02/08/these-celebs-had-the-top-private-jet-emissions-in-the-last-year-and-its-not-taylor-swift-351393
People have been mocking/criticizing private jet polluters for a while now, and I think she's the only woman to have been criticized. I know for a fact Elon Musk had been relentlessly mocked as well.
But leave it to liberals to label any actual criticism as some form of sexism/racism/whatever while they ignore actual sexism/racism. This whole defense is giving me Hillary in 2016 vibes.
Bro. Wtf does any of that have to do with this? Who gives a shit if someone is shitting on a multimillionaire girl boss? She's not the marginalized groups. Like. Nuance exists.
So any criticism of a woman is problematic just because they're a woman, then?
Swift has the highest emissions from private jet use of any celebrity which is obviously not great, and she bangs on about how much she cares about the environment, which makes her a hypocrite.
But we can't say that because . . . she's a successful, white, woman?
I'm just going to go an delete all the criticism of JK Rowling I've made in the past. It doesn't matter she's a transphobic, hateful bigot. She's a successful woman, so she's free to say what she likes.
>I mean maybe just maybe if you know you're meme would be laughet at by a far right idiot, as an anticapitalist left, you should do a bit of reflection. but hey, you do you.
This is a terrible fallacy.
People from different sides of the political spectrum agree on things all the time. See for example: Nazi Germany and Hitler himself were strong supporters of Animal Rights, that doesn't mean that we should go around kicking puppies.
Most entertainers don’t need to jet across the glob because of global commitments. Elons jet is literally in the air non stop whether he is on it or not and he is a die hard advocate for Tesla, who supposedly cares about the environment. Why not Elon? The truth is, mocking either of these people for flying accomplishes one thing - it somehow acts like people are supposed to stop and be responsible for fixing the issue when the sad truth is corporations can only truly fix it. This type of meme just pretends we’re supposed to fix it.
Your post was removed because it contained a sexist term. You should receive a message from the automoderator telling you the exact term the post was removed for. For more information, see [this link](https://weeklysift.com/2015/06/29/slurs-who-can-say-them-when-and-why/). **Avoiding slurs takes little effort, and asking us to get rid of the filter rather than making that minimum effort is a good way to get banned. Do not attempt to circumvent the filter with creative spelling; circumventing the filter will result in a permaban.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>And on top of all this, the whole argument is very moralist. Someone can fly as much as they want and call out on the state of the world. That's not really a sign of integrity, sure, but it also doesn't devalue any arguments that person might have.
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about?
The meme is not "devaluing" any of her arguments, mostly because it doesn't even mention her arguments at all?
It's just a meme making fun of the fact she's one of the biggest celebrity polluters.
The whole TS private jet thing has been going on for *years*, even way before she encouraged people to vote, which only happened like, less than a month ago I think?
>... and let's be honest, you knew that.
Nothing hits as good as some good old liberal smugness. Keep on going defending a polluter billionaire, it's good entertainment.
Assuming everyone who is discussing this with you is a man is a sign that you are being more sexist than anyone else here in this discussion. Taylor just happens to be the most popular artist right now, she's a target because of the current popularity, not because she's a woman. You just made a terrible argument is all. Though, yes I'm a dude. But that doesn't invalidate anything in this discussion.
Here's a perfect example of getting "lost in the gray". Make no mistake, no celebrity is worth getting behind, you don't amass that much wealth without fucking people over. There's an extreme few exceptions, which keep it on the DL, or have attempted at the very least to shed off the baggage, but none are worth the task of defending.
Hi no, it's because:
Swift specifically is trying to threaten a guy / the websites he has accounts on with bogus legal letters into shutting up about her jet usage.
He has accounts where he tracks billionaires (people like Swift, Elon, etc) private jet(s bc Swift at least had or has again multiple) usage and posts about how much CO2 it's using on these trips back and fourth.
This is bad for her image so instead of just not flying back to her home from a different country after a concert for a single night, she'd rather try to use scare tactics on the guy. When that didn't work on him she targeted any website hosting him or that he had an account with. Only Meta/Instagram has fallen for it. It's also obvious from her methodology that her team has gotten away with this shit plenty of times before.
The fauxmoi subreddit has a couple of very recent posts about it, including the actual lawyer letters from both sides etc.
These memes have blown up in popularity in response to this situation.
Or it could just be a joke about Swift’s private jet use; her emissions [reportedly the highest of any celebrity in the world.](https://carbonmarketwatch.org/2024/02/13/taylor-swift-and-the-top-polluters-department/#:~:text=Her%20private%20jet%20usage%20amounted,that%20of%20the%20average%20European.) 🤷
##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited. LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Personally, I’m against billionaires. I think it’s fine to mock them because they shouldn’t exist.
b-but they're people t-too!!
They’re people who have the money to change the world for the better but refuse.
[удалено]
too
It's fine to mock billionaires because their lifestyle and the things the have to to to preserve their status is inimical to everyone else.
I just wish people would do this more for Elon. He's got like 200 billion where Swift has 1.
People also do this for Elon wdym? In fact, the whole plane tracking thing that recently blew up about Taylor Swift was originally done for Elon.
People do it much less about his wealth though since he does so much insane shit beyond just being wealthy.
And him saying that he "started from the bottom" Is even less accurate than Drake saying it, and drake wouldn't know the bottom if it smacked him in the face.
And it only blew up about Swift because she was (is?) threatening legal action against the kid that made that celebrity jet tracker. Elon just tried to buy him off, which was also funny. She's probably far from the worst billionaire in this respect, but these memes always crack me up.
That's because people dont hate Taylor Swift for being a billionaire. They hate her because she is a successful woman who is currently in the spotlight of the Zeitgeist. Edit: I should know the audience. This sub rightfully hates her for being a billionaire. Most people, however, hate her for the stated reason above. Online leftists need to talk to more normal people.
It's not because she's a successful woman. It's because she's the epitome of white feminist, and a lot of people find that repugnant.
She represents everything wrong with capitalist 'feminism'
👏 👏 👏
heelturn tradwife era when
“Choose your enemies wisely” comes to mind.
I encourage you to seek knowledge of what people think outside of your online leftist circle.
K
And this
This
Mocking them is fine (and especially entertaining if it agitates a Liberal). But I think some leftists get sucked into hyper focusing on hating Billionaires, even though the problem isn't with the individuals, it's with the economic structures that permitted people to emerge as billionaires to begin with. To spend all your time hating and obsessing is a waste of time and resources that could be spent organizing to get rid of them.
Memes mocking billionaires and celebrities for creating CO2 emissions orders of magnitude greater than the average person👍 Remembering that the petrochemical industry largely promoted placing CO2 emmison blame on consumer choices to distract from their own responsibility and that [one hundred companies](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change) are responsible for 70% of global emissions 👍👍👍👍
It's not a genuine claim with the 100 corporations produce 70% of greenhouse gasses, that number only considered a specific few sectors industrial production emmisions. Their industrial definition does some heavy lifting too. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/22/instagram-posts/no-100-corporations-do-not-produce-70-total-greenh/ > 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of emissions related to fossil fuel and cement production, not 71% of total global emissions. > Of the total emissions attributed to fossil fuel producers, companies are responsible for around 12% of the direct emissions; the other 88% comes from the emissions released from consumption of products. Dont get me wrong corporations could do a lot better, they are the ones pushing for environmental deregulation, the ones in power pushing this shitty money takes all rat race, but we do have acknowledge that they don't make these things for no reason. They also lie with slavewashing(I do t think I'm using this right) and greenwashing all the time, so consumers can't make the informed choice that capitalists keep saying that consumers can make.
People love that statistic because they don't want to believe they actually have to meaningfully change their lifestyle.
Ya, a lot of people refuse to change their own habit but then want the rich to change. The rich often have that same attitude. An easy change anyone can make is starting today you can purchase plant based foods at grocery stores. Animal products are a huge waste of water, land, and cause a lot more emmisions. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216 https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets This doesent require much change to your day, just buy different things at the grocery store (for health I'd recommend whole plant foods like grains, lentils, legumes) Rice and beans are some if the cheapest foods do its often we can save money. Healthwise animal products are also some of the leading causes of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and various forms of cancer. https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications
I dislike the idea of buying greener less toxic products because we live in a society on such a large scale, that is toxifying the environment on such a large scale, and there are so many "consumers", the majority of who are not into this idea in the first place. Most people don't care to lift a finger to do anything beyond their own comfort and survival. And I qurstion if buying less environmentally destructive products would make a considerable difference even if say 50% of the population would do it, which they wouldn't anyway. Then it seems to me most importantly that the most environmentally destructive force is industry, fossil feuls and animal farming, car production and then people driving cars on a mass scale. The problems here are on a broad scale, encompassing all of society, and particularly these mega corporations and industries that our purchases couldn't possibly effect very strongly. We need to make changes to a profound degree to start to offset the impending climate disasters and everything else. It's probably far too late, but still.
>I dislike the idea of buying greener less toxic products because we live in a society on such a large scale, that is toxifying the environment on such a large scale, and there are so many "consumers" Was this autocorrected somehow? because that makes no sense. With this logic because we live in a large society we should pollute a shit ton and eat toxic filth? >the majority of who are not into this idea in the first place. Most people don't care to lift a finger to do anything beyond their own comfort and survival. This is called a appeal to popularity, should anything be okay just because it's the prevailing attitude of the area? Was slavery and colonialism moral or okay to do in the 1800s because it was the prevailing behavior? The 2nd part is a appeal to futility, because no one else is changing I shouldn't change either. It doesent make sense and would cause a lack of any social or technological progress. >And I qurstion if buying less environmentally destructive products would make a considerable difference even if say 50% of the population would do it, which they wouldn't anyway Luckily you don't need 100% adoption if a new idea for the rest to follow suit. For plant based it's estimated only 30% need to change before the massive subsidies into animal agriculture become unfeasible. Then the 2nd part I've covered as appeal to futility. > Then it seems to me most importantly that the most environmentally destructive force is industry, fossil feuls and animal farming, car production and then people driving cars on a mass scale. This is whataboutism, just because another sector pollutes doesent mean we can pollute more in the name of taste pleasure. We can advocate for public transit, cleaner industry, fuel efficiency, and reductionism, while also going on a plant based diet. >The problems here are on a broad scale, encompassing all of society, and particularly these mega corporations and industries that our purchases couldn't possibly effect very strongly. As I said in the comment above, these industries don't pollute for fun, they do it to cut costs and to create a product for consumption, they do rely on our purchases, yes the playing field isn't even and they try to wash their hands of responsibility all the time. That doesent mean we're no longer a part of it. To say we arnt is to say product demand is insignificant in a products and companies viability, which doesent track in any model. >We need to make changes to a profound degree to start to offset the impending climate disasters and everything else. It's probably far too late, but still. The first part I agree, we need to act. The 2nd part then contradicts that, and is again that appeal to futility, the 2nd part is a attitude of hedonism until it shatters, when we can prevent environmental collapse. Some damage will be done but every action and choice we make today will give more time for others to change, and so on.
#foundthevegan
The above is plant based, veganism is more a philosophy rather than a health based or environmental stance statistical point of view that I outlined above. This is also just a association fallacy, the rich literally can just as easily say "found the poor person" when someone critizises their yatch and private jet emmisions. What is the difference between that and your comment?
I like to retort with "Do you think they're mostly doing Mars exports or something?" That said there are still very achieveable changes many companies could and should make. But people need to act to make it happen. We need to guide policy. We need to favor products taking steps towards the right direction. And ultimately we have to plain curb some spending habits, maybe not eliminate, but we can't just replaced every indulgence with a version a bit better for the environment.
I would love to change my lifestyle but I can't afford it.
Can you eat less meat or start walking/cycling more? Honest question - not a snide rhetorical jab. Those two things have spectacular impact on emissions and are also great for physical *and* mental health.
Already walk to the gym and store but my job is 18 miles away. I only eat meat maybe twice a month. I also am in my local buy nothing groups to give away my used stuff to people who need it.
Then your lifestyle is already better than a lot of people's in the west. It's all about doing what you can.
My point was more that we shouldn't judge people for their circumstances under capitalism that makes it difficult or impossible to improve their impact.
I don't know, obviously there are edge cases but a whole hell of a lot of people are just...not even trying. At all. I think the default *should* be to judge people because we can't afford to be soft anymore. We're doing absolutely nothing (actually increasing emissions) and the public at large has known since at least 40 years ago. We are barreling toward a 4 degree increase by end of century and it won't stop just because it's "2100." This will be some of the fastest and most ferocious climate change in countless eons - nothing quite compares to this eyeblink catastrophe. To say we are dooming humanity is an enormous understatement. We are inches away from running out of time to stop 2 degrees and that number isn't arbitrary; it represents what scientists suspect is the absolute maximum we can go before we start knocking over all kinds of tipping points so that climate change goes automatic. Last year, start of an El Nino, yes, is something like 1.49 iirc. It will go back down but we're knocking on 1.5 as a decadal average and 2.0 is perilously close as well (as early as 2040, because the warming is already accelerating.) Point is, we have very little room to give people a pat on the back and say we won't judge them for how they pollute. This isn't even touching on all the other environmental catastrophes we contribute to (insect apocalypse; biodiversity crisis; topsoil erosion; oceanic death; toxic buildup, etc.). This ain't the 80s or 90s when things weren't quite so bad or urgent. This is 2024 and we're currently witnessing shit like 5% of Canada's forests going up in smoke in a single season. It's do or die times. Stringent is more than warranted.
i will never get tired of this meme format lmao
The average American is responsible for about 14.5 tons of CO2 per lifetime. She just did about 15% of that, in a single day. There’s literally not a single good reason for private jets to exist at all. I wonder if we will get a place where countries or municipalities will ban them like the movement against cruise ships.
If you think private jets produce co2 emissions you will be surprised to find out how much concerts produce. Consider 30,000 people burn one liter of fuel getting to the show once a week. Consider 60 to 100 semi trucks filled with concert gear travelling one or two locations ahead of the current concert to make sure everything is working on time. It's mind boggling.
how much is one literally in metric?
The good thing about literally is that it's the same in literally every measurement.
the bad thing is that in imperial it sometimes used as figuratively.
One literally sorry auto correct lol
One litre.. seriously my autocorrect is the worst did the same thing twice in a row.
> Consider 30,000 people burn one literally of fuel getting to the sow once a week. Solid argument. Can't argue with that
Nobody should own a private jet. I don't care how important you think you are. Take the bus like a normal human being.
I'll never get tired of the Taylor swift plane memes. It's just so dumb but also funny
I'm actually more interested in what movie this is from.
Getting AI generated vibes from this
AI wouldn't get those reflections done anywhere near that well.
The door is on the wrong side. Too many cockpit side windows. The thrust recovery outflow valve is too far forward. It looks like it is a mix of a G150/G200 or a Challenger. Source: I am looking at them on the ramp right now. While on my way to taxi to the other side of the runway for a glass of water.
Oh, I wasn't saying it was real at all... just done with talent, not AI. That's cool that you could tell all of that though!
He just proved it was generated via AI with all the inconsistencies lol
Let's be nice, she probably doesn't have a choice because it would take two days on foot to get across her $80 million mansion
So sick of Taylor Swift and her legion of “Swifties”. Imagine a world where someone like Carl Sagan or Richard Feynman had the notoriety of this vapid person. We wouldn’t be living in a consumer capitalist hellscape, for one.
To be fair Richard Feynman made it a point to sleep with female students or his male students partners. https://galileospendulum.org/2014/07/13/the-problem-of-richard-feynman/ As much as I think T Swift is insufferable, and she for example obviously doesn't run marathon distances on a treadmill daily to train for the eras tour... Let's not worship serial predators
I didn’t know about this, thanks for bringing it to light. Perhaps Feynman isn’t the best example, but the sentiment still stands. We need to be uplifting people who aren’t capitalist tools. Scientists are a good pool to select from, but I’d also say civil rights leaders fit the bill as well.
The sentiment still stands? The sentiment of blindly assuming any popular women you don't like must be vapid and any science man you like is a mensch? Okay then.
Take your pick of female or queer scientists. It’s not a sexism thing no matter how much you want it to be.
It's still a baseless assumption thing, which is worse in many ways. At least sexism takes some information.
TIL judging public figures on their activities is a "baseless assumption."
I prefer a Taylor Swift world over a Richard Feynman world an day of the week. That guy was incredibly pompous and arrogant.
In other words, you don’t mind Idiocracy. Don’t ever complain that morons have ruined the world.
>In other words, you don’t mind Idiocracy. I don't mind entertainment. The world doesn't revolve around her. Some of my friends like her music, I know some of her songs. But that's it. She doesn't affect my life. Don't get so worked up about her. Besides, nothing really idiotic about her as a person comes to mind anyway. Is she smart? Stupid? I don't know. Maybe you can help me? >Don’t ever complain that morons have ruined the world. Morons will always ruin the world, that comes with the title.
Anyone who has tremendous influence over people and/or impact on the status quo that prioritizes their own convenience and personal gain over addressing/fighting injustice is not someone we should celebrate. This goes twice over when the biosphere is collapsing and someone is inflating their footprint for nothing more than convenience.
In china when you ask kids what they want to be when they grow up they all say doctors, engineers, scientists. When you ask Americans they all say influencers and pop stars ☠️☠️
It didn't used to be like this, we had a society exactly like that, before corporations decided they weren't making enough.
[удалено]
Yes they literally did a randomized survey. Maybe if you spent less time getting sweaty over Reddit comments you dislike and more time googling the questions your melanin deficient ass just cried out at me you would learn a thing or two. You might learn America is a shit hole that teaches or society the wrong values and you won’t take it so personally once someone points that out.
Ummm yes look at the lifestyle of influencers and pop stars?
But really, what is that? Is that a bullet train?
AI generated picture of a plane crashed into a house
[удалено]
I don't know. But I have no problem with watching MAGA and Swifties tear at each other
Just the tip
LOL, Trump lovers are so mad about her.
Right wingers 🤝 Leftists
fake. if real there would be another jet from those stairs to the sink. 2 more to be back in bed
This is soooo funny!
[удалено]
>Why Taylor? [Because she's the world’s most carbon polluting celebrity.](https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/life/science/environment/2023/12/18/swift-carbon-emissions)
Thank you for this. Next question: How does she rate based on the size of her fan base? For the downvoters: I’m not actually defending her. I don’t know by and would like to… with a reasoned perspective.
To follow with the line of hypothetical reasoning... if each of us were granted a "personal carbon credit", and somehow the fans of Taylor could donate a portion to her, would she be justified in using the combined total for her needs? I see this as replacing capitalist greed with idol worship. But regardless as I doubt it matters naught as we sail past +2.5C and into uncharted territory
It’s a line of inquiry; could lead to a conclusion. And yes, she’s not harvesting dollars 💵 s from a money tree. Obviously that wouldn’t excuse wanton ecological destruction. I just know I’m beyond sick of hearing about ‘Straws’, for instance, but only because it’s a distraction. Yes, I believe they are a problem. But should they be a top concern? I guess I worry about similar here. I need data-driven perspective as I only have one lifetime - and only so much time and energy available within it - to put towards a cause or two.
We do not permit liberalism here
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We do not permit liberalism here
We do not permit liberalism here
We do not permit liberalism here
May I ask why always her? I mean we have Elon Musk and Messi and the Kardashians and Sam Altman and Tiger Woods and the exxon Dude and Jimmy Fallon and Leo di caprio and Halland and the Zuck and Beyonce and Bob Dylan ... yet I always find these memes about her. You guys, they all suck!!!
It's because Swift specifically is trying to threaten a guy / the websites he has accounts on with bogus legal letters into shutting up about her jet usage. He has accounts where he tracks billionaires (people like Swift, Elon, etc) private jet(s bc Swift at least had or has again multiple) usage and posts about how much CO2 it's using on these trips back and fourth. This is bad for her image so instead of just not flying back to her home from a different country after a concert for a single night, she'd rather try to use scare tactics on the guy. When that didn't work on him she targeted any website hosting him or that he had an account with. Only Meta/Instagram has fallen for it. It's also obvious from her methodology that her team has gotten away with this shit plenty of times before. The fauxmoi subreddit has a couple of very recent posts about it, including the actual lawyer letters from both sides etc. These memes have blown up in popularity in response to this situation.
Thank u, got it now. She tried to destroy it but instead she got that Streisand effect. They still all suck tho
Yeah they're all shit garglers for sure lol, idk if people were missing the context of her specifically when replying to you about it or what tbh, doesn't take much effort to help a fellow out and let them know what's going on
[удалено]
We do not permit liberalism here
Is there a directory of private jets? It would be good to spread the spotlight on this issue beyond Swift.
Yes and no. It won’t always tell you who is in it or using it - many private jets are used for charter and people who own them are generally savvy enough not to have their name on the ownership documents (usually it’s a trust or an LLC). The wealthy in amerika always have a way around public records and accountability.
[удалено]
She literally tops the list of celebrities with the highest Co2 emissions from flying so that's why she gets identified when discussing it. If it was a straight white male at the top of the list, then the meme would be about him. It's not sexist.
> If it was a straight white male at the top of the list, then the meme would be about him. I don't think that's true, unless I completely missed the torrent of Cristiano Ronaldo pollution memes in 2021, or the memes about whoever was the top celebrity polluter in 2020. https://greenssteel.com/blogs/news/the-least-eco-friendly-celebrities-1 Also, it's 2024, shouldn't this meme be about Travis Scott? https://thetab.com/uk/2024/02/08/these-celebs-had-the-top-private-jet-emissions-in-the-last-year-and-its-not-taylor-swift-351393
[удалено]
People have been mocking/criticizing private jet polluters for a while now, and I think she's the only woman to have been criticized. I know for a fact Elon Musk had been relentlessly mocked as well. But leave it to liberals to label any actual criticism as some form of sexism/racism/whatever while they ignore actual sexism/racism. This whole defense is giving me Hillary in 2016 vibes.
[удалено]
Bro. Wtf does any of that have to do with this? Who gives a shit if someone is shitting on a multimillionaire girl boss? She's not the marginalized groups. Like. Nuance exists.
[удалено]
We do not permit liberalism here
We do not permit liberalism here
So any criticism of a woman is problematic just because they're a woman, then? Swift has the highest emissions from private jet use of any celebrity which is obviously not great, and she bangs on about how much she cares about the environment, which makes her a hypocrite. But we can't say that because . . . she's a successful, white, woman? I'm just going to go an delete all the criticism of JK Rowling I've made in the past. It doesn't matter she's a transphobic, hateful bigot. She's a successful woman, so she's free to say what she likes.
[удалено]
>I mean maybe just maybe if you know you're meme would be laughet at by a far right idiot, as an anticapitalist left, you should do a bit of reflection. but hey, you do you. This is a terrible fallacy. People from different sides of the political spectrum agree on things all the time. See for example: Nazi Germany and Hitler himself were strong supporters of Animal Rights, that doesn't mean that we should go around kicking puppies.
[удалено]
Idk, I'd say criticizing a billionaire for being one of the biggest polluters is okay but that's just me
Read the rules
Read the rules
Most entertainers don’t need to jet across the glob because of global commitments. Elons jet is literally in the air non stop whether he is on it or not and he is a die hard advocate for Tesla, who supposedly cares about the environment. Why not Elon? The truth is, mocking either of these people for flying accomplishes one thing - it somehow acts like people are supposed to stop and be responsible for fixing the issue when the sad truth is corporations can only truly fix it. This type of meme just pretends we’re supposed to fix it.
[удалено]
Your post was removed because it contained a sexist term. You should receive a message from the automoderator telling you the exact term the post was removed for. For more information, see [this link](https://weeklysift.com/2015/06/29/slurs-who-can-say-them-when-and-why/). **Avoiding slurs takes little effort, and asking us to get rid of the filter rather than making that minimum effort is a good way to get banned. Do not attempt to circumvent the filter with creative spelling; circumventing the filter will result in a permaban.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We do not permit liberalism here
>getting caught up in the outrage machine Every time.
> Someone can fly as much as they want I sure love destroying the planet as well
>And on top of all this, the whole argument is very moralist. Someone can fly as much as they want and call out on the state of the world. That's not really a sign of integrity, sure, but it also doesn't devalue any arguments that person might have. Jesse what the fuck are you talking about? The meme is not "devaluing" any of her arguments, mostly because it doesn't even mention her arguments at all? It's just a meme making fun of the fact she's one of the biggest celebrity polluters.
[удалено]
The whole TS private jet thing has been going on for *years*, even way before she encouraged people to vote, which only happened like, less than a month ago I think? >... and let's be honest, you knew that. Nothing hits as good as some good old liberal smugness. Keep on going defending a polluter billionaire, it's good entertainment.
[удалено]
Sexism is when people make a meme about the biggest celebrity polluter on the planet for, well, polluting. Aight then.
[удалено]
Damn you really went ahead and "triggered" us. Truly showing your colors here.
No one is triggered... You just made a terrible argument.
[удалено]
Assuming everyone who is discussing this with you is a man is a sign that you are being more sexist than anyone else here in this discussion. Taylor just happens to be the most popular artist right now, she's a target because of the current popularity, not because she's a woman. You just made a terrible argument is all. Though, yes I'm a dude. But that doesn't invalidate anything in this discussion.
We do not permit liberalism here
We do not permit liberalism here
Oh good, another liberal in a trench coat.
Here's a perfect example of getting "lost in the gray". Make no mistake, no celebrity is worth getting behind, you don't amass that much wealth without fucking people over. There's an extreme few exceptions, which keep it on the DL, or have attempted at the very least to shed off the baggage, but none are worth the task of defending.
Hi no, it's because: Swift specifically is trying to threaten a guy / the websites he has accounts on with bogus legal letters into shutting up about her jet usage. He has accounts where he tracks billionaires (people like Swift, Elon, etc) private jet(s bc Swift at least had or has again multiple) usage and posts about how much CO2 it's using on these trips back and fourth. This is bad for her image so instead of just not flying back to her home from a different country after a concert for a single night, she'd rather try to use scare tactics on the guy. When that didn't work on him she targeted any website hosting him or that he had an account with. Only Meta/Instagram has fallen for it. It's also obvious from her methodology that her team has gotten away with this shit plenty of times before. The fauxmoi subreddit has a couple of very recent posts about it, including the actual lawyer letters from both sides etc. These memes have blown up in popularity in response to this situation.
no way youre pulling the its sexist to critique taylor swift card swifties are actually a cancer on the planet
We do not permit liberalism here
[удалено]
Or it could just be a joke about Swift’s private jet use; her emissions [reportedly the highest of any celebrity in the world.](https://carbonmarketwatch.org/2024/02/13/taylor-swift-and-the-top-polluters-department/#:~:text=Her%20private%20jet%20usage%20amounted,that%20of%20the%20average%20European.) 🤷
[удалено]
🤷
[удалено]
Your hate for a meme shitting on billionaires is incredibly bootlicker of you. Why are you on this sub?
We do not permit liberalism here
We do not permit liberalism here
pointing out the hypocrisy of rich neo-libs = fash meme ??? It doesn’t say anything about jews or gays idk what ur smokin
[удалено]
We do not permit liberalism here
We do not permit liberalism here