this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
564 points (92.7% liked)

Canada

7200 readers
355 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 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
[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Taylor Swift is the new posterchild for billionaires, but honestly, she's the least egregious example of a billionaire. She makes a fuck load of money because her concert tickets are like $1000 a pop. She's known to give huge bonuses to her tour staff. If anyone is getting exploited, its her fans, but she's literally just a performer. She's hardly manipulating stock prices and doing pump and dump schemes and not paying her staff a livable wage.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

"1000$ a pop"

I see what you did there.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yeah, I don't care for her music nor her lifestyle but at least she earned her money (or the first millions anyway).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The article had nothing to do with Taylor Swift though.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Taylor Swifts name shows up before the authors name when you click into the article. it's not unfair to bring her up...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That has nothing to do WITH the article, though. The entire comment was on Taylor Swift, which the article had NOTHING to do with. Just her picture used. I am lost as to how it is relevant to the intention of the article, which was a GREAT read. This just derails the conversation to something that wasn't even mentioned.

This shouldn't be hard to logic through.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Ok so even though her name is the first name we see there in text on that page, we're not allowed to talk about her in context to the article ?