top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 156 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Slavery may have been abolished, but as politics proves, you can buy anyone in the United States.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 84 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Also, slavery wasn't abolished

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 54 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    Slavery is still legal in the US now, they just need to be convicted of a crime first. Easy enough to find crimes to put people away for, and you can even selectively enforce laws against the people/race you don't like

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    Good thing the force behind enforcing laws and charging people as criminals is famously good-natured and held to the highest of accountability standards to prevent any possible corruption!

    Oh wait.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Do you think Bloomberg could’ve won last time if he spent all his money?

    With a net worth of $55.9 billion, 2020 candidate Michael Bloomberg is more than 17 times richer than Trump

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 55 points 2 years ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    This ignores legal realities about property and transferring wealth. When she buys him for 400mil, she will briefly place the money in escrow, reducing them to 700 and 400mil. Then, when he becomes her property, Taylor also gains his assets, reaching 1.5 billion when the escrow is released.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 35 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What Taylor wants, Taylor gets.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Why would she want abusive man?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Is Kanye abusive? The only thing I know about him is that he's married to one of the kardashians. And that his kids have weird names.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Didn't heard any story from his ex-spouse but man's a classic example of narcissist, allegedly have toxic working environment in Yeezy, and also spewing hate speech left and right. Maybe not to the point of Chris Brown but doing it mentally also count as abusive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Look at his video with Pete. Dude has issues. And it's not just "art". He was good before his mom passed. Afterwards he has lost touch with reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    I mean he's always been like this, it's just getting worse.

    Before Donda passed, he already had the infamous "George Bush hates black people" thing and already ran up on stage at the EMAs to say he deserved the award, not the winners. I'm sure there's plenty more documented exmaples , and in those days, the spotlight wasn't on him 24/7.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I mean...

    They are divorced, and there was a dispute over several months (or years) to resolve the divorce with several rumors about cheating and other controversies. Not saying that it indicates an physically abusive relationship, but the relationship wasn't great either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [B] 34 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yep, so, when are we eating the rich?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Honestly, with the modern political climate, maybe somebody did think out the implications.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    These tone deaf white girls, man.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Why does Taylor get an exception for being a billionaire? That's a whole lot of hoarding.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Most of that money comes from sales of her art, not from the exploitation of surplus labor, so it's marginally better from a moral standpoint. Though she would still pay more taxes if it was up to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You will find that there are many, many people involved in the music industry not being paid fair wages.

    There are theoretical means to accumulate billions as an artist purely from the distribution of your own work but she certainly isn't using them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago*

    Sure, there is certainly some labor exploitation here, but at the end of the day musicians like her make money because they can do the thing once and sell it an infinite number of times, so that scaling is messy. Most of the professionals involved in actually producing this art do get royalties. So most of the labor exploitation would be on the distribution side - people running the servers and driving the trucks which deliver CDs and whatnot, but where does that line get drawn?

    Do we say that Taylor Swift is also exploiting the labor of the people who make headphones which are required to listen to her music? It's definitely possible to make a worker owned electronics collective, but Taylor Swift likely doesn't have much power to drive consumer preferences towards or away from such a hypothetical resolution, right? Maybe she is actually morally obligated to stand up her own collective and vertically integrate her art with it? If she did that would it actually absolve her from any labor exploitation derived from people choosing to consume her art through other means? Or does the mere act of creating art which might interact with capitalism in any way create some form of moral liability?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    A majority of her art up until recently was not created by her, but rather many professional songwriters. So even the whole, "not from the exploitation of surplus labor" doesn't hold water. She's just like the rest. Hoarding that wealth, when it could be used for the betterment of many lives, is criminal, in my opinion.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago

    Oh no, Kayne has always been for sale to the highest bidder.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I want to believe that that's the actual reason, but knowing Musk, you can never be sure..

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Even after kanyes recent craziness i highly doubt hes only worth 400 mil.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • His valuation as a billionaire was rather notably tied to his sneaker deal with Adidas.

    Of course, as Adidas is at its heart still a Nazi organization, the shoes went on sale this August and it's unclear how much he's making from them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Imagine you bought him. What to do? Put him in the garden with a red pointed cap? Use him as coat rack? Who's got a better idea??

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›