But I will say this, a movement can’t get along without a devil, and across the whole political spectrum there is a misogynistic tendency to choose a female devil, whether it’s Anita Bryant, Hillary Clinton, Marie Antoinette, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or J.K. Rowling [or Taylor Swift]. And there’s always gonna be people who seize on any opportunity to be misogynistic. So I would advise trans people and our allies [or environmentalists] to keep in mind, that J.K. Rowling [Taylor Swift] is not the final boss of transphobia [anti-environmentalism]. She’s not our devil. The devil is the Republican Party, the Conservative Party.

Natalie Wynn (emphasis and bracket text mine)

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I think you know there’s a big difference between going outside and being in a crowded airport.

    And, again, she doesn’t have to own the jet. She could charter one. Anyone can charter a short flight for a couple of thousand dollars.

    • myliltoehurts@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yes, an airport limits the amount of people, has a very high coverage of surveillance and a high ratio of security staff as well as an entry barrier and dedicated VIP areas. A generic place outside has none of that. Although feel free to elaborate on how an airport is worse for security than just being on a street, anywhere.

      To your second point, sure she doesn’t need to own them like nobody else does, but the issue (for me) is not primarily that she (or anyone) owns one, but that they [private jets and private airports] exist, and they’re subsidized by us as it was pointed out above. If anything, they should be priced outrageously so using them would come down last resort or emergency situations, and the money from that could help balance the cost of the “public” infrastructure. This is a failure of the government, but equally so of the rich who choose to continue using them for their luxury.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I still don’t see what the difference between a chartered flight and a limousine is other than one is in the air and the other is on the road.

        • myliltoehurts@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          As mentioned above, airport and airlines are heavily subsidized, this includes private airports and jets. For a limo, taxes pay for the road - but everyone can drive on it, so it’d exist with or without them. Maybe a better comparison would be if she had a bus that she travelled in alone, compared to the average person that’d be equally ridiculous.

          The emissions of a limo is pretty much in line with the emissions of a family car. Most people wouldn’t have a small car and a family car for when they’re alone, so even if someone is alone on a limo, they’re probably not doing much more harm than the average person.

          A private jet’s emissions are significantly more per passenger than a commercial plane. Even if a private jet always flies at max capacity - which I’d bet rarely happens - it’ll cause significantly more emissions per person than a commercial plane (it’s difficult to link a source here as I’ve not found an exact number. The estimates I’ve found range between 10 to 43x. Even assuming just 10x that’s quite a difference)

            • myliltoehurts@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              I’m not sure how to respond to this, your answers lack detail or arguments to respond to. What difference does chartered Vs private make for emissions? It’s the same types of jets, just changes who actually owns them. It also makes no difference to the entire tax subsidized argument either.

              As to “how many times”, as I said above I haven’t found a clear answer, but different sources claim between 10x and ~40x, even assuming the very low end of 10x, that’s a big difference. I assume the per passenger emission is hard to measure since the number of passengers on a plane make a big difference.

              Either way, I believe I made my points in detail several times now, and as I said your responses don’t really raise points or include much detail to further things, so I’m going to leave it here.

        • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          You mean, besides the massive reason people are criticizing her for private flights in the first place? If we just forget about the multiple magnitudes of difference between fuel usage of a car vs a plane?

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Do you understand the difference between a chartered flight and a private jet?

            Also, I already said that it doesn’t mean she should fly as much as she does.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Please answer my question: Do you know the difference between a chartered flight and a private jet?

                Because I am talking about chartered flights and you are talking about private jets.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    No… that link was to a private jet being tracked.

                    Charter flights can be tracked, but you can’t tell who has chartered them.

                    Which you would know if you understood that, yet again, chartered flights are not the same as private jets.