• theneverfox@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    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

    • ursakhiin@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 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.