porcupine-girl - Tumblr blog

porcupine-girl · 2 hours

Note

What exactly is going on with Taylor swift? Did she do something wacky or just release a shit album that's so bad it's funny?

okay i have done time as a swiftie and i now watch over those weirdos like im david attenborough so you’ve come to the right place.

ur correct about it being an album so bad its funny. but theres more. im very sorry but this will be long.

so basically since like 2016 she was in an apparently steady and normal long term relationship with a blond man called joe alwyn whose only character trait is knowing how to shut the fuck up (and i love him for that)

then in april 2023 it was announced that they broke up while she was on tour but bc the relationship had been uneventful and boring this whole time, the general vibe from everyone was “huh thats kinda sad, oh well”

i might be mixing up the timeline a little here but a couple weeks later there were some articles about how she’s now dating matty healy from the 1975. people were mostly just like “pfft its just tabloid shit it cant be true” and then at the next 1975 gig, marty pointed into the camera and said “this is for you, you know who you are, i love you” before playing a love song. THEN at the next taylor gig she did the exact same damn thing and the swifties hit the fan.

to make a very long fuckin story short, they dug up a bunch of dirt about how this dude is a nasty little racist misogynist rat and he needs to get away from their poor little innocent billionaire princess. some people get kinda heated about whether these accusations are true and tbh id rather eat glass than get into that shit myself

SO, swifties outnumber us all and raised absolute hell online while taylor brought this guy to all her concerts and let him perform with the opening acts. her publicist released some statements saying taylor knows what her fans are saying and she doesnt give a fuck. but also said they’re not super serious and are just having fun together.

during all this, theres a small group of swifties that have decided to break away and become very pro-marty and essentially pit him against aforementioned blond man joe alwyn. their general narrative is that because joe loves being quiet and doesnt really do Celebrity Things, that must mean he was ashamed of his relationship with taylor. this is where we get the beloved He Lets Her Bejeweled meme

this fannade narrative becomes more relevant in a bit

at some point during this relationship she releases the joe alwyn breakup song You’re Losing Me, which just describes some very standard long term relationship breakdown stuff. they have different life goals and they’re drifting apart and the communication is breaking down. she kinda wants him to do something to save it at the eleventh hour but that wouldnt be realistic. very sad oh well.

theres a small amount of kicking off from the fandom about he’s awful for this but only bc they’re addicted to the idea that their favourite billionaire is the worlds most tragic victim and honestly whats new

and here starts the very fucking weird trend of her publicist releasing statements that are very clearly deliberately backing up the weirdo fan theories. a lot of “taylor and matty are showing up for each other UNLIKE HER LAST RELATIONSHIP and he is proud of her UNLIKE JOE ALWYN” like..alright.

anyway ratty and taylor break up after about a month of publicly dating and she sings some sad songs and cries at her concerts but everyone mostly forgets about the whole thing.

about a month later travis kelce asks her out and they end up dating and the white women of america collectively cream. personally i dont get it because i dont know what sports are and the only travis im familiar with is the tractor from bob the builder but i digress. the 35 year old deadbedroom swifties are going CRAZY. they’re saying these two are gonna get married and have ten kids and global superstar taylor swift can finally achieve the only real success for a woman: marriage and motherhood. because football man is the only Real Man she has been with due to the fact that he is tall and wide and bearded.

its severely tragic and vicarious

once again the focus does not remain on the couple. they’re turning on poor puppydog joe alwyn again. this time he’s evil not only for being “ashamed” of her but also for wasting her time by not marrying and impregnating her, because as we have established, thats the only point to life as a woman. how dare he waste all that time locking her away in the six mansions that she owns.

and her publicist does the same shit as before with the “he supports her and shows up for her UNLIKE JOE” bullshit. all of these people are over 30 and have never experienced a real problem.

this creates a cycle that is honestly kind of concerning, where the fans invent a strange theory, the publicist backs it up, the swifties add to the theory, the publicist back up the new additions, and so on. taylor continues dating travis and they go to each others concerts/games and act like a relatively normal honeymoon phase couple. the narrative has massively broken away from the reality.

so this continues, people hyping up travis and hating joe. at this point i want to note that taylor and her team have spent a lot of years crying about how the nasty misogynistic media only ever cares about her relationship drama and ignores her art because they hate powerful women or something. the irony is that just about every bit of publicity she’s done over the last year+ has been directly linked to whatever breakup or boyfriend she’s going through currently. they’re definitely not hiding that this is the PR direction they’re going with.

so, with the weird fan rumours continuing to reinforce themselves, the swifties become very confident that their imaginations are telling the truth. they stalk joe alwyns social media presence, of which there is very little. but if you go out looking for mess you never come back empty handed. they find that he has been around women. because he is an actor. and some other actors are women. anyway they fully believe this is proof that he cheated, and they launch harassment campaigns against these relatively small actors, who end up having to private their accounts. then the swifties find another woman to harass for being “the other woman”. it goes on.

then the abuse and domestic violence accusations against joe alwyn are created. not from taylor or anyone close to the situation. only from the fans. her PR team have at least stopped reinforcing the fan theories at this point, but the ball is already rolling.

when she announces her new album, the swifties ERUPT with joy that finally she is going to end joe alwyn, the man who im pretty sure has just been chilling in his house this whole time. the harassment of anyone and everyone deemed in any way guilty continues tenfold. they are openly tweeting about finding him in london and physically attacking and/or killing him (he’s not a huge celebrity and is often just hanging around alone with no security team or anything. im sure these threats arent serious but they feel kinda more dangerous when the target essentially just hangs around as a private citizen)

the album promo is pretty much just.. “hey i dated this dude and he made me sooooo sad isnt that interesting, swifties?” over and over again. each new post brings a bigger wave of joe harassment. they’re champing at the bit for taylor to tell them all the many ways he hurt her so dreadfully.

then the album leaks and its all about matty healy, which is very funny on the dismayed swiftie-violence front but also just..terrible in that she used the harassment of joe as an album promo tactic when the album barely mentions him. the only thing she really says about him is that he suffers from depression and it made their relationship difficult.

..and yeah, the album is about how she’s been obsessed with marty for over ten years and she fantasised about him while in her long term relationship, and theres maybe some overlap of the two relationships. the irony. all the “this man hurt me so much!!!”-type lyrics that were released to promote the album were actually about matty, not joe. a lot of the swifties are continuing to double down on hating joe bc they cant accept that the matty relationship even happened. theres a song about how much she hates her fans for hating her relationship with rarty. its called but daddy i love him. its a whole embarrassing mess for everyone involved, including me for typing all this out.

and after all that most of the songs fuckin suck

#did not know literally any of this was going on wow #except the Travis Kelce bit bc I’m from KC and go there to visit family regularly #taylor swift

3K notes · View notes

porcupine-girl · 5 hours

Text

Antitrust is a labor issue

I'm touring my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me SATURDAY (Apr 27) in MARIN COUNTY, then Winnipeg (May 2), Calgary (May 3), Vancouver (May 4), and beyond!

This is huge: yesterday, the @FTC finalized a rule banning noncompete agreements for every American worker. That means that the person working the register at a Wendy's can switch to the fry-trap at McD's for an extra $0.25/hour, without their boss suing them:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes

The median worker laboring under a noncompete is a fast-food worker making close to minimum wage. You know who doesn't have to worry about noncompetes? High tech workers in Silicon Valley, because California already banned noncompetes, as did Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington.

The fact that the country's largest economies, encompassing the most "knowledge-intensive" industries, could operate without shitty bosses being able to shackle their best workers to their stupid workplaces for years after those workers told them to shove it shows you what a goddamned lie noncompetes are based on. The idea that companies can't raise capital or thrive if their know-how can walk out the door, secreted away in the skulls of their ungrateful workers, is bullshit:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/02/its-the-economy-stupid/#neofeudal

Remember when OpenAI's board briefly fired founder Sam Altman and Microsoft offered to hire him and 700 of his techies? If "noncompetes block investments" was true, you'd think they'd have a hard time raising money, but no, they're still pulling in billions in investor capital (primarily from Microsoft itself!). This is likewise true of Anthropic, the company's major rival, which was founded by (wait for it), two former OpenAI employees.

Indeed, Silicon Valley couldn't have come into existence without California's ban on noncompetes – the first silicon company, Shockley Semiconductors, was founded by a malignant, delusional eugenicist who also couldn't manage a lemonade stand. His eight most senior employees (the "Traitorous Eight") quit his shitty company to found Fairchild Semiconductor, a rather successful chip shop – but not nearly so successful as the company that two of Fairchild's top employees founded after they quit: Intel:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/24/the-traitorous-eight-and-the-battle-of-germanium-valley/

Likewise a lie: the tale that noncompetes lower wages. This theory – beloved of people whose skulls are so filled with Efficient Market Hypothesis Brain-Worms that they've got worms dangling out of their nostrils and eye-sockets – holds that the right to sign a noncompete is an asset that workers can trade to their employers in exchange for better pay. This is absolutely true, provided you ignore reality.

Remember: the median noncompete-bound worker is a fast food employee making near minimum wage. The major application of noncompetes is preventing that worker from getting a raise from a rival fast-food franchisee. Those workers are losing wages due to noncompetes. Meanwhile, the highest paid workers in the country are all clustered in a a couple of cities in northern California, pulling down sky-high salaries in a state where noncompetes have been illegal since the gold rush.

If a capitalist wants to retain their workers, they can compete. Offer your workers get better treatment and better wages. That's how capitalism's alchemy is supposed to work: competition transmogrifies the base metal of a capitalist's greed into the noble gold of public benefit by making success contingent on offering better products to your customers than your rivals – and better jobs to your workers than those rivals are willing to pay. However, capitalists hate capitalism:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/18/in-extremis-veritas/#the-winnah

Capitalists hate capitalism so much that they're suing the FTC, in MAGA's beloved Fifth Circuit, before a Trump-appointed judge. The case was brought by Trump's financial advisors, Ryan LLC, who are using it to drum up business from corporations that hate Biden's new taxes on the wealthy and stepped up IRS enforcement on rich tax-cheats.

Will they win? It's hard to say. Despite what you may have heard, the case against the FTC order is very weak, as Matt Stoller explains here:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/ftc-enrages-corporate-america-by

The FTC's statutory authority to block noncompetes comes from Section 5 of the FTC Act, which bans "unfair methods of competition" (hard to imagine a less fair method than indenturing your workers). Section 6(g) of the Act lets the FTC make rules to enforce Section 5's ban on unfairness. Both are good law – 6(g) has been used many times (26 times in the five years from 1968-73 alone!).

The DC Circuit court upheld the FTC's right to "promulgate rules defining the meaning of the statutory standards of the illegality the Commission is empowered to prevent" in 1973, and in 1974, Congress changed the FTC Act, but left this rulemaking power intact.

The lawyer suing the FTC – Anton Scalia's larvum, a pismire named Eugene Scalia – has some wild theories as to why none of this matters. He says that because the law hasn't been enforced since the ancient days of the (checks notes) 1970s, it no longer applies. He says that the mountain of precedent supporting the FTC's authority "hasn't aged well." He says that other antitrust statutes don't work the same as the FTC Act. Finally, he says that this rule is a big economic move and that it should be up to Congress to make it.

Stoller makes short work of these arguments. The thing that tells you whether a law is good is its text and precedent, "not whether a lawyer thinks a precedent is old and bad." Likewise, the fact that other antitrust laws is irrelevant "because, well, they are other antitrust laws, not this antitrust law." And as to whether this is Congress's job because it's economically significant, "so what?" Congress gave the FTC this power.

Now, none of this matters if the Supreme Court strikes down the rule, and what's more, if they do, they might also neuter the FTC's rulemaking power in the bargain. But again: so what? How is it better for the FTC to do nothing, and preserve a power that it never uses, than it is for the Commission to free the 35-40 million American workers whose bosses get to use the US court system to force them to do a job they hate?

The FTC's rule doesn't just ban noncompetes – it also bans TRAPs ("training repayment agreement provisions"), which require employees to pay their bosses thousands of dollars if they quit, get laid off, or are fired:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/04/its-a-trap/#a-little-on-the-nose

The FTC's job is to protect Americans from businesses that cheat. This is them, doing their job. If the Supreme Court strikes this down, it further delegitimizes the court, and spells out exactly who the GOP works for.

This is part of the long history of antitrust and labor. From its earliest days, antitrust law was "aimed at dollars, not men" – in other words, antitrust law was always designed to smash corporate power in order to protect workers. But over and over again, the courts refused to believe that Congress truly wanted American workers to get legal protection from the wealthy predators who had fastened their mouth-parts on those workers' throats. So over and over – and over and over – Congress passed new antitrust laws that clarified the purpose of antitrust, using words so small that even federal judges could understand them:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/14/aiming-at-dollars/#not-men

After decades of comatose inaction, Biden's FTC has restored its role as a protector of labor, explicitly tackling competition through a worker protection lens. This week, the Commission blocked the merger of Capri Holdings and Tapestry Inc, a pair of giant conglomerates that have, between them, bought up nearly every "affordable luxury" brand (Versace, Jimmy Choo, Michael Kors, Kate Spade, Coach, Stuart Weitzman, etc).

You may not care about "affordable luxury" handbags, but you should care about the basis on which the FTC blocked this merger. As David Dayen explains for The American Prospect: 33,000 workers employed by these two companies would lose the wage-competition that drives them to pay skilled sales-clerks more to cross the mall floor and switch stores:

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-04-24-challenge-fashion-merger-new-antitrust-philosophy/

In other words, the FTC is blocking a $8.5b merger that would turn an oligopoly into a monopoly explicitly to protect workers from the power of bosses to suppress their wages. What's more, the vote was unanimous, include the Commission's freshly appointed (and frankly, pretty terrible) Republican commissioners:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-moves-block-tapestrys-acquisition-capri

A lot of people are (understandably) worried that if Biden doesn't survive the coming election that the raft of excellent rules enacted by his agencies will die along with his presidency. Here we have evidence that the Biden administration's anti-corporate agenda has become institutionalized, acquiring a bipartisan durability.

And while there hasn't been a lot of press about that anti-corporate agenda, it's pretty goddamned huge. Back in 2020, Tim Wu (then working in the White wrote an executive order on competition that identified 72 actions the agencies could take to blunt the power of corporations to harm everyday Americans:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/party-its-1979-og-antitrust-back-baby

Biden's agency heads took that plan and ran with it, demonstrating the revolutionary power of technical administrative competence and proving that being good at your job is praxis:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff

In just the past week, there's been a storm of astoundingly good new rules finalized by the agencies:

A minimum staffing ratio for nursing homes;

The founding of the American Climate Corps;

A guarantee of overtime benefits;

A ban on financial advisors cheating retirement savers;

Medical privacy rules that protect out-of-state abortions;

A ban on junk fees in mortgage servicing;

Conservation for 13m Arctic acres in Alaska;

Classifying "forever chemicals" as hazardous substances;

A requirement for federal agencies to buy sustainable products;

Closing the gun-show loophole.

That's just a partial list, and it's only Thursday.

Why the rush? As Gerard Edic writes for The American Prospect, finalizing these rules now protects them from the Congressional Review Act, a gimmick created by Newt Gingrich in 1996 that lets the next Senate wipe out administrative rules created in the months before a federal election:

https://prospect.org/politics/2024-04-23-biden-administration-regulations-congressional-review-act/

In other words, this is more dazzling administrative competence from the technically brilliant agencies that have labored quietly and effectively since 2020. Even laggards like Pete Buttigieg have gotten in on the act, despite a very poor showing in the early years of the Biden administration:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/11/dinah-wont-you-blow/#ecp

Despite those unpromising beginnings, the DOT has gotten onboard the trains it regulates, and passed a great rule that forces airlines to refund your money if they charge you for services they don't deliver:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/24/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-rules-to-deliver-automatic-refunds-and-protect-consumers-from-surprise-junk-fees-in-air-travel/

The rule also bans junk fees and forces airlines to compensate you for late flights, finally giving American travelers the same rights their European cousins have enjoyed for two decades.

It's the latest in a string of muscular actions taken by the DOT, a period that coincides with the transfer of Jen Howard from her role as chief of staff to FTC chair Lina Khan to a new gig as the DOT's chief of competition enforcement:

https://prospect.org/infrastructure/transportation/2024-04-25-transportation-departments-new-path/

Under Howard's stewardship, the DOT blocked the merger of Spirit and Jetblue, and presided over the lowest flight cancellation rate in more than decade:

https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/2023-numbers-more-flights-fewer-cancellations-more-consumer-protections

All that, along with a suite of protections for fliers, mark a huge turning point in the US aviation industry's long and worsening abusive relationship with the American public. There's more in the offing, too including a ban on charging families extra for adjacent seats, rules to make flying with wheelchairs easier, and a ban on airlines selling passenger's private information to data brokers.

There's plenty going on in the world – and in the Biden administration – that you have every right to be furious and/or depressed about. But these expert agencies, staffed by experts, have brought on a tsunami of rules that will make every working American better off in a myriad of ways. Those material improvements in our lives will, in turn, free us up to fight the bigger, existential fights for a livable planet, free from genocide.

It may not be a good time to be alive, but it's a much better time than it was just last week.

And it's only Thursday.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/25/capri-v-tapestry/#aiming-at-dollars-not-men

#politics #current events

432 notes · View notes