Slavery may have been abolished, but as politics proves, you can buy anyone in the United States.
Also, slavery wasn’t abolished
There you go saying prisoners are people again
Disgusting thinking. Can you imagine
Let’s quickly forget that and go back to joking about prison rape.
Ah, the “except” in Amendment XIII.
…until 1942*
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
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.
That is not slavery, convict leasing was (worse) slavery.
Okay but that still makes Taylor Swift owning Kanye illegal because she is a private person.
I’m sure she could put some of that $700M towards buying a private prison and then bribing the cops, the D.A., and the judge to get him sentenced there.
Hell, for a mentally unwell black man they’ll do it for free.
Horrible site, I know, but…
https://www.restaurantdive.com/news/mcdonalds-kfc-burger-king-wendys-convict-leasing-suit-in-alabama/702375Or is that different because they’re publicly traded companies?
Wait, so if Kanye gets convinced of a crime, T-swift could buy the private prison where he’s serving his sentence and then effectively own Kanye? Is a billion dollars enough to buy a prison? They can’t be that expensive, right?
She could totally own him in Fortnite
At least theoretically.
IDK about you, but I can picture Kanye playing that from time to time and low key kicking ass far more than I can picture her doing it.
deleted by creator
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
I doubt it. People didn’t like him much.
People don’t like Rick Scott but he spent enough of his money to get elected. And Bloomberg is 50 fold wealthier. And Bloomberg seems much more personable. So I don’t know.
deleted by creator
You fool! Now she has 1.4 billion, and can buy him for 100 million. This was her plan all along!
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.
deleted by creator
Yeah no.
Her assets: ~1.5b
His assets:
but after first purchase her assets go up to 1.5bil and his assets go to .8bil
Nope, his assets go to $0, as they belong to her now. What you propose is the economical equivalent of a perpetual motion machine
deleted by creator
I mean, you’re assuming she’s buying him from him, historically speaking there was some violence and a third party involved.
What Taylor wants, Taylor gets.
Why would she want abusive man?
Thank of how many times that song would go platinum.
“I can change him!”
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.
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.
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.
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.
They divorced and he already remarried (kinda)
Haha well that shows how behind the times I am
Honestly, with the modern political climate, maybe somebody did think out the implications.
That sounds like a choice.
Yep, so, when are we eating the rich?
I’m getting hungry, someone fire up the grill.
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.
These tone deaf white girls, man.
He’s the one that said slavery was a choice.
And house slaves thought they and their families would have a better life by supporting the power structure that enslaved them to begin with. That doesn’t belie just how fucked up it is that some shitty Taylor Swift fan account is insinuating that a white billionaire could literally purchase a black man.
deleted by creator
I want to believe that that’s the actual reason, but knowing Musk, you can never be sure…
If this is not on X, what is this on then?
It’s on it but won’t be visible to everyone before more people rate it. Or never if Musk doesn’t want it to, probably 🤷
Why does Taylor get an exception for being a billionaire? That’s a whole lot of hoarding.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Even after kanyes recent craziness i highly doubt hes only worth 400 mil.
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.
Yo, thas rayciss!
