this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
973 points (98.4% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26948 readers
3119 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 157 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 85 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Also, slavery wasn't abolished

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 102 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There you go saying prisoners are people again

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 29 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Disgusting thinking. Can you imagine

[–] veloxization@yiffit.net 38 points 11 months ago

Ah, the "except" in Amendment XIII.

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 54 points 11 months 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

[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months 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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I doubt it. People didn't like him much.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] EvilTwin@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What Taylor wants, Taylor gets.

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 20 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Why would she want abusive man?

[–] Jelly_mcPB@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago

Thank of how many times that song would go platinum.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 11 points 11 months ago

"I can change him!"

[–] Cringe2793@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months 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.

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] mob@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months 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.

[–] dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] nomous@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Two shit people get married, nobody is surprised when their marriage is shitty.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They divorced and he already remarried (kinda)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ExMooseBot@lemmy.world 34 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Yep, so, when are we eating the rich?

[–] Plopp@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

I'm getting hungry, someone fire up the grill.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 6 points 11 months ago

I keep inviting people to join my radical and poorly regulated militia but I've only had one taker so far, and he never came to the meetings.

[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today 32 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago

That sounds like a choice.

[–] mriormro@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago (3 children)

These tone deaf white girls, man.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 20 points 11 months 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.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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?

[–] Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months 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.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Epicmulch@lemm.ee 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 7 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] sagrotan@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months 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??

load more comments
view more: next ›