this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
287 points (90.0% liked)

Canada

7185 readers
674 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


๐Ÿ Meta


๐Ÿ—บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories


๐Ÿ™๏ธ Cities / Local Communities


๐Ÿ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


๐Ÿ’ป Universities


๐Ÿ’ต Finance / Shopping


๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ Politics


๐Ÿ Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Why on Earth would they use Taylor Swift as an example. Seriously?

[โ€“] IMongoose@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Taylor Swift, so hot right now.

[โ€“] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Because Taylor Swift is a billionaire who is politically relevant. She often has been on the right side of things (but not always). Even if she was solely a source for good, that doesn't justify the obscene wealth she has or her lifestyle

And the right doesn't generally worship her the way other billionaires are worshipped because she's woke or something? Whatever the reason, they're more willing to criticize her

She's also far more susceptible to public pressure than other billionaires as an artist

All together, she's a good target to rally around.

Does she deserve to be wealthy? Sure. She actually worked to get where she is, and has done a lot of good.

But she's a billionaire, and we need to discuss limiting all billionaires to reasonable amounts of extreme wealth.

It doesn't matter where the conversation starts, we can't really afford to be picky

[โ€“] ursakhiin@beehaw.org 1 points 8 months ago

I do think the argument of a maximum value to contribution is more difficult to make with an artist as the example. Especially one as prevalent as Taylor Swift.

Art is intended to illicit emotions from people. Music in particular continues to illicit those emotions from years after it is released.

Are we then saying that the value of people feeling joy has a cap?

I don't necessarily disagree with capping the income of an artist. I'm just pointing to the danger of using them as an example.