This is the closest to a likely explanation for the expression I've seen or been able to find. Incidentally, that first link, the Lens search, is where I found the thumbnail of which this post was a screenshot 😁
I see Taylor, so far as my knowledge extends, as being amongst the best of the bad lot. She seems genuine and willing to do the right thing. The few recent legal hiccups screamed lawyers doing lawyer stuff, and she even dialed back the whole plane thing. I mean, I don't expect her to take a sailboat across the Atlantic to get to a show and god knows I wouldn't fly public with her status cause fuck that.
She seems okay and it's probably better to focus on the actual sociopathic wealth hoarding jackasses who we know cause way too much harm right now.
I see Taylor, so far as my knowledge extends, as being amongst the best of the bad lot
I agree on that. The best billionaire is still morally repugnant for being a billionaire, though. Every billionaire is a policy failure on the part of politicians and a personal failure of greed as well as alack of civic responsibility and solidarity.
She seems genuine and willing to do the right thing
I'd agree on that when it comes to being an LGBTQ+ ally and treating those that work directly for her well, for sure. Other than that, though, she seems to have a huge blind spot about how her own hoarding and other rich people behavior is detrimental to the people she owes her success to.
I mean, I don't expect her to take a sailboat across the Atlantic to get to a show and god knows I wouldn't fly public with her status cause fuck that.
Me neither, but she could just do fewer concerts and/or focus each tour on a narrow region to eliminate the need for traveling by jet between each concert.
The slogan "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" is in order of what has the greatest impact and by reducing or even eliminating jet travel she could reduce the amount of harm she does IMMENSELY before she even gets to the money part.
She seems okay
Other than what I conceded at the start, hard disagree.
it's probably better to focus on the actual sociopathic wealth hoarding jackasses who we know cause way too much harm right now.
She causes way too much harm too and its not like I and most other people don't criticize the others more. It's not a zero sum game where you have to either never criticize her or never criticize for example Elon Musk.
The pattern of the wealthy indicates a natural disconnect from others. This isn't an excuse, it's just the pattern. When I say Taylor isn't terrible, I mean it through the lens of recognizing that pattern. She feels more human and more willing to make concessions. I would like it if the larger community stopped dropkicking the few not bad, potentially even okay ones, and started celebrating their positive successes in relation to making a positive impact.
Let's condemn the fuck out of actions that deserve it while also giving a solid thumbs up and recognition when they do good. Instead we universally condemn the existence of these individuals. Which would be fine, except a few of them seem to be trying to do some good. I say we support the heck out of that so they keep doing it. For most of us if we kept trying to do good and kept getting galvanized for it would tell the world to fuck off after awhile. I'd rather reinforce the positive within the conditions of a global society we live in and work from that foothold to grab the change we need.
Not fooled by, no. In support of positive actions, yes. Blindly bashing someone for success, yes within a broken system, will just lead to any goodwill being justifiably dissolved. If all we have to do is come together and yell "That was a good choice!" every now and again to get people just like her to continue making those choices, well hell... I'm all for it.
For the majority though?
Yeah... they're fair game because they've shown they don't give half a shit about others.
She has the money to save the lives of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people through helping them out of poverty, funding food and medical care etc etc
A person deliberately choosing higher numbers in bank and stock accounts over this is a horrible person. Less horrible than actively harming and abusing similar amounts of people but nonetheless horrible. After all, if you see someone hurting and/or dying and make no attempt to aid (provided you have the means to do so), you are nearly the polar opposite of okay.
Material Conditions shape people and thus their ideas, ideas do not shape people and thus their material conditions.
The good news is that this means that as exploitation worsens and Capitalism declines, worker solidarity rises along with revolutionary fervor (not necessarily violent revolution), and grand societal change becomes a forefront.
Material Conditions shape people and thus their ideas, ideas do not shape people and thus their material conditions.
That's just not true. It ABSOLUTELY works both ways.
The good news is that this means that as exploitation worsens and Capitalism declines, worker solidarity rises along with revolutionary fervor (not necessarily violent revolution), and grand societal change becomes a forefront
I wish I shared your optimism, but the world's major institutions, including governments, have insulated themselves against the consequences of social unrest from an abused populace more effective than ever before.
They have most people regarding the very systems and mechanisms used to keep them down as the holiest of holy that can't be violated and are trying even peaceful protest as terrorism, which is bound to have a chilling effect.
After the French Revolution, the ones in charge made the streets of Paris wider to prevent revolutionaries from being able to claim and defend significant parts of the city against overwhelming military supremacy by erecting barricades. All the streets are miles wide now, figuratively speaking.
People are a product of their environment. The Material Conditions they exist in shape the ideas they have, as a direct response to their conditions. Ideas ultimately come from Material Conditions, not the other way around.
Again, Capitalism is in decline. First world countries export machinery and finance Capital to third world countries to super-exploit for super-profits, but this is unsustsainable. The labor force in first world countries enjoy less and less of these super-profits as wages stagnate compared to productivity.
It is in this manner that the Material Conditions have changed, and so too have ideas.
I'm of the mind that she is of use to my current aims so I'm indifferent to her, but at the end of the day she is still probably not on my side completely.
I'll take her essentially speaking against Republicans and being rich if it means Republicans lose because of it.
It is indeed, sorry about that. I tried downloading the full pic instead, but I found it via someone else's search and Google's been ass about that kind of thing in recent years..
And I love how neoliberals just automatically assume that there's nobody to the left of them, so all criticism of them and their favorite fellow liberals must be coming from the right 🙄
Yeah, I know. Just because she's not the worst billionaire doesn't mean that she isn't a billionaire and therefore harmful, though. Other than Dimon and Griffin, neither of whom I'm familiar with, I criticize the ones on your list extensively too. In fact much more often than Swift.
There is a certain amount of money that you can't amass and retain without extremely abusive and harmful to society behavior. I don't know the exact number, but it's far less than a billion.
I'm mad at billionaires existing because I'M a progressive, unlike her. She might be good with the LGBTQ+ allyship, but her money hoarding and excessive private jet use are incompatible with progressive values.
Okay, your feelings are valid, but why pick someone who's progressive? There are much better targets for your hatred if you're just mad at billionaires. I'm mad at a billionaires too.
I will happily dunk on Elon musk, bezos, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, CEOs of large companies.
There are so many people with so much more money and so much more power and that are so much more problematic.
With so many other better targets. You're kind of coming off as someone who seems to have a problem with TSwift specifically. Just something to think about.
Edit: The amount of money you have does not prevent you from having a political position.
I didn't actively pick her, I just came across this iteration of the meme elsewhere and thought I'd share it here.
And she's a liberal, not a progressive. The terms aren't interchangeable. There are big and important ideological differences, especially when it comes to economic policy positions.
As for "better targets", I hate on those too. Just because I don't exclude Taylor Swift from my scorn doesn't mean that I don't abhor and criticize all of the ones you mention.
I abhor billionaires whether they're liberals with one or two billions or fascists with a hundred. That I don't arbitrarily exclude your beloved Tay-Tay doesn't mean that I'm fixated on her or that I don't realize that she's not the worst billionaire in the world.
Let's say you are a poor communist. You believe all the communist things in you heart of hearts. Then for shits and giggles, one day you try your luck at the lottery and you win billions of dollars. Now, at that moment when you went from being poor to a billionaire. Does Karl Marx disappear from your mind? Do you lose sympathy for your fellow human being? I would say no. If the answer is yes, then I would say you didn't actually believe in communism in the first place.
Now, that you are a billionaire, is there pressure for you to ditch communism? Ooooohh yes my friend, big pressure! But a person can be strong enough to resist that temptation and maintain their ideology.
I am fine with generalizing most billionaires as not communist, but I think it is very reactionary to say that it is impossible for a billionaire to be a communist.
I still disagree. This is kind of like arguing communists should go live in the woods and disconnect themselves from markets and capitalism. We live in a capitalistic society. Even as leftists we must engage in capitalism.
If a billionaire were to broadcast communist propaganda. Require their workforce to be in unions. Donate substantially to leftist causes. I feel like you could argue pretty strongly that they are a communist.
Again, ideology is not limited by wealth. In fact, you can argue the wealthy can enjoy weirder stranger ideologies that the average person cannot.
The average person engages in capitalism because they have to. Once you have a billion dollars, the only communist-compatible option is to use it to create a better society. Keeping more than you need does not help anyone.
I don't need to counter it, you were trying to debate-bro something you already largely appear to agree with. That's my point, saying a Communist can randomly win the Lottery and be a billionaire temporarily adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
Here's the counter-argument: nobody is saying a Communist randomly gaining a billion dollars is no longer a Communist. This is an argument you invented purely to be a debate-bro contrarion. This is not well thought out or a point worth discussing, bevause it is meaningless.
As for the debate bro stuff. Whether or not you realize it, you are also debate bro-ing. We are both trying to convince others of our thoughts though discussion and arguments. You are also using some of the strategies. I hope one day you will realize your potential and turn into a great debate warrior.
It's a good way to understand others and get closer to truth. Mostly, it helps others to see the arguments on both sides.
Why is that inconsistent? You know there is a difference between what you think in your head vs. what is posted online right?
For example, if a billionaire were to be donating large amounts of money to leftist organizations. I wouldn't go up to them and call them a horrible child slave labor capitalist pig. I can think that in my head of course. But it doesn't help the cause to be antagonistic to people who are supporting it, even if their values are not aligned correctly.
What, like me dunking on Taylor Swift is going to turn her into a raging conservative who hates gays? I mean, if that's all it takes, it was going to happen anyway.
You can dunk on Taylor Swift if you want, but you can't say that you're being an effective advocate for the left at the same time.
In fact, I think this is exactly what I would hear from a conservative pretending to be a leftist. Targeting Taylor Swift is a smart idea. Directing rage at her instead of the bigger more problematic billionaires. Taking down a public supporter of LGBTQ+ people.
Yes, billionaires are problematic Dumbasses. And there are a lot of them. Why are you so interested in dunking on TSwift specifically? Again, she's probably one of the least problematic billionaires.
Nope. She has the option to escape by spending the majority of that dragon's hoard on improving conditions for the struggling majority, though, as do all other billionaires regardless of how they amassed far more wealth than is possible without abusive practices.
And not via the bespoke charity tax shelter loophole like most of them, either.
