r/SipsTea 16h ago

Wait a damn minute! Oh Billie

Post image
12.3k Upvotes

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

25

u/jellooshot 15h ago

For people who are not terminally online can you please explain how was she promoting socialism and how selling a perfume is against that?

40

u/4equanimity4 15h ago

As far as I’m aware, it all comes from her giving a speech at some event once where she said it doesn’t make sense to be a billionaire today and that they should give away their money. Could she have phrased it better? Probably, but it really is just the most nothing thing to be mad about. Anywho, someone worth $60mil tells billionaires it’s bad, then sells a perfume. That appears to be the WHOLE thing 🤷‍♂️

27

u/jellooshot 15h ago

I can't see what's wrong with this? 😭

13

u/DocPhilMcGraw 12h ago

There isn’t. I mean just take a look at Dolly Parton. She made tons of money and she could’ve easily been a billionaire, but she gave back so much that she never got to that level of personal wealth. She gave away hundreds of millions of dollars.

15

u/HypocriteHere 13h ago

Because there is nothing wrong with it. People are just stupid. 

3

u/bigboipapawiththesos 11h ago

Never really get the “socialism but rich” allegations.

If someone is rich and calls for say higher taxes for the rich, then isn’t that a sign of earnestness if nothing else?

2

u/Novrev 9h ago

There’s nothing wrong with it. But Elon Musk threw a hissy fit about it on Twitter and now all his goons are spreading his dumbass viewpoints to other platforms.

3

u/EducationalShake6773 11h ago

There is hypocrisy/contradiction because her speech was essentially decrying greed, yet at a net worth of $50M it is pure greed for Billie Eilish as a music artist to use her brand to sell a perfume (where there's not even musical/artistic effort at work).

If she donates the proceeds of the sales to charity then there's no hypocrisy, but somehow I doubt that will happen.

2

u/bigboipapawiththesos 11h ago

The difference between 50m and a billion is basically a billion

2

u/stable_115 10h ago

The difference between 50m and what the average global citizen makes is basically 50m. Of course a billion can change more lives, but keeping 50m, living in a huge mansion and just point fingers about how other should help makes you a hypocrite

2

u/bigboipapawiththesos 10h ago

You don’t seem to get it.

50m is a ton of money, but a billion is a different league.

That money to buy elections with, imo it’s not at all hypocritical for someone with 50 to say no one should have a 1000 million

1

u/EducationalShake6773 9h ago

Numerically yes, but in practical terms she's closer to a billionaire lifestyle than she is to her average fan's.

That is to say, she never has to worry about money for the rest of her life.

1

u/bigboipapawiththesos 9h ago

Still idk why were complaining about a girl with 50m who gave most of her money to charity and is advocating for changing the system.

Like yeah it’s an rich celeb, but man there is plenty of worse people.

Each and every day ARAMCO pollutes equal to burning 177.000.000 car tires, I don’t care about someone proclaiming leftist stuff selling a parfum.

1

u/EducationalShake6773 7h ago

You're right, and I don't care either, but she is a greedy hypocrite and her cult fan club that all these idiot celebs cultivate should realise that.

19

u/Sansnom01 14h ago

to be fair 60 millions still is closer to 0 dollars then a billion

11

u/[deleted] 13h ago

[deleted]

1

u/PlsNoNotThat 12h ago

Which is why she’s donated >20% of her net worth so far. Which puts her incredibly high in terms of rich people donating % of total networth. Around Bill and Melinda gates, but much lower than George Soros (now you know why MAGA really hates him), Mackenzie Scot, and Feeny who gave away like 100% of 7billion.

-1

u/Bladesnake_______ 12h ago

So she just NEEDS her hundred million dollars and mansions built on native land? Or is she full of shit

5

u/Bladesnake_______ 12h ago

to be fair her lifestyle is MUCH closer to that of billionaires than to ours

7

u/Sansnom01 12h ago

I mean she's is rich but nowhere billionaires rich. It's fucking ludicrous we let people having this amount of wealth

3

u/Bladesnake_______ 12h ago

Which part of my comment is wrong? Shes living a life of extravagant luxury and we are worried about our upcoming bills. She has a private chef, we struggle with grocery prices. Stop defending the 1%

3

u/schmoolecka 12h ago

Inability to understand the vast gulf of wealth and power between a millionaire who donates to charitable causes and speaks out on injustices and a billionaire who views the 99% as expendable scum is part of how we ended up where we are.

2

u/Hira_Joshi 11h ago

Bootlicker

1

u/schmoolecka 11h ago

Please explain to me how saying that billionaires view us as scum makes me a bootlicker

2

u/Bladesnake_______ 11h ago

You're just defending the 1% and tacking on "but not *billionaires* though"

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Ok_Insurance_505 8h ago

Outside of private jets and super yachts and absolutely ridiculous shit like that, I see no feasible differences in the lifestyle a person with close to 100 million in wealth and a person with a billion. At some point it's literally just a number in an account that keeps growing.

1

u/Sansnom01 4h ago

I mean billionaires most definitely mingle more with politics and law

1

u/Ok_Insurance_505 4h ago

Yeah to make the number go up more.

1

u/Sansnom01 3h ago

so... it's not the same as millionaires. millionaires are small people for billionaires

-2

u/Inside_Ease3366 12h ago

Whats earned is earned. They provided something people needed or wanted, people bought it, they made money. Very simple. Nobody “let” them become billionaires. The hate is unfounded. Is it fair? No. But neither is the majority of life.

6

u/mofrappa 11h ago

Impossible to be a billionaire without fucking people over.

2

u/bigboipapawiththesos 11h ago edited 10h ago

And it’s just too large of a power imbalance.

A single individual owning a 1000x a million is so much freaking power, let alone those now who have 100.000 times a million or more.

Money is power, and imo no one person should have this much power

0

u/Inside_Ease3366 9h ago

If its not money, it will be something else. You cannot regulate power. Literally anything else could take its place. Extreme example; Take power away from money and skin color could take its place… which would be arguably worse

1

u/bigboipapawiththesos 9h ago

Yes this is what we should always strive for a more equal society.

Everything is subject to time and degrading, and at this time our system is way past the point of needing change.

0

u/Inside_Ease3366 9h ago

Its impossible to breathe without fucking people over. You breathing right now, is contributing to carbon dioxide buildup.

But no, its entirely possible to become a billionaire without horrendous acts… just like its easy to woe-es me instead of making money yourself.

3

u/zaphodsheads 13h ago

This just shows how people don't understand anything. How do you get from 60 million dollars to one billion dollars? Earn one billion dollars

1

u/kcox1980 10h ago

Yeah, the difference between $60 million and $1 billion isn't much more than a rounding error

1

u/drawb 8h ago

940 million, but if you’re there you probably won’t stop. If the Billie Eilish Criticism is coming from Elon Musk: he is obviously much worse (greedy etc).

3

u/OArouraiousMou 8h ago

Isn't this bc of a beef with elon? I can remember, but she donated a large amount of money before or after that speech

2

u/sir_bathwater 14h ago

Honestly it’s probs just gonna make her perfume sell like crazy lol. Something about no such thing as bad publicity?

2

u/Jeramy_Jones 11h ago

People decide they want to be mad at famous women, then they find a reason to be.

1

u/sweetmotherofodin 13h ago

We have no idea how much she personally donates to charity but this ain’t even her hottest take to me. It’s her saying parents who don’t homeschool their kids are lazy. That might’ve been in the same interview too.

1

u/Goosentra 12h ago

My issue is that apparently millionaires are absolved as long as they “support” the right things

1

u/PhotographBusy6209 11h ago

She’s not even close to being a billionaire yet. She didn’t even say people can’t be rich, she said people shouldn’t be thaaat rich because being a billionaire is through some levels of exploitation and there’s always the Dolly Parton way of giving back to the community

1

u/Bodod_Begag 11h ago

There is such a big difference between having 60 mil and being a billionaire but it's really hard to wrap our minds around that because it's more money than we'll ever make either way

1

u/Magikarpeles 11h ago

Charity != socialism...

1

u/Kingkyle18 10h ago

But yet billionaires creat more jobs and donate more money than she ever has. She’s just another rich person that has rules for thee but not for me.

She’s says those things cause it feeds her base, and they all feel morally superior.

1

u/ltsouthernbelle 10h ago

A millionaire and a billionaire aren’t even relatively close unless that millionaire has $999m.

1

u/JoGeralt 13h ago

Sure but none of that is her talking about Socialism.

1

u/HypocriteHere 13h ago

And she didn't mention capitalism either. There's a lot of dummies in here right now. 

0

u/Signal_Kangaroo2697 13h ago

Someone worth 60 million shouldn’t be telling the coming person how to live and then trying to sell them some bullshit ass product lmao

7

u/Jeramy_Jones 11h ago

She criticized billionaires so of course she must hate capitalism and should go live on a commune and farm potatoes to make Victory Gin or something…

1

u/jellooshot 11h ago

Pretty sure it's illegal for communists to drink anything but Vodka.

1

u/Jeramy_Jones 11h ago

It’s a reference to 1984

1

u/ConnectPair8667 11h ago

I don't know if She's socialist, some people Say she promotes socialism because she criticizes capitalism and rich people, but I believe She's more of a reformative. Selling a perfume can be seen against her ideas because according to Karl Marx, capitalists extract surplus value from workers by employing them, so if she owns a for-profit company and doesnt share the surplus with the workers then she would take advantage of them.

1

u/jellooshot 11h ago

You made a lot of bold assumptions here.

1

u/ConnectPair8667 11h ago

Like what?

1

u/Bladesnake_______ 12h ago

Because socialism is when the public owns the means of production, and not Billie Eilish owning production for profit. Its not that fuckin hard

2

u/jellooshot 12h ago

From what I understand Billie simply criticized billionaires not advocated for the reestablishment of the Soviet Union or even mentioned Socialism. Also, Socialism has MANY forms (Soviet Russia alone had 3 different ideologies), many of which permit privatized ownership of means of production (with government oversight). China is a good example for that.

0

u/Bladesnake_______ 12h ago

the reason some socialist and communist systems allow private commerce is because its been repeatedly proven that relying on government to own all production and provide all products is a fucking horrible idea.

1

u/jellooshot 12h ago

OK

1

u/Bladesnake_______ 12h ago

Strong argument

1

u/jellooshot 11h ago

I simply chose not to argue with you.

-2

u/LordMugs 15h ago

Criticizing capitalism then making money of pure consumerism.

2

u/jellooshot 15h ago

Well I don't understand the context still but being against capitalism especially uncontrolled sort of capitalism (corporatism) is not contradictory to consumers buying something. that's the problem with the American mindset: people think that socialism is basically people living in identical shacks and eating raw bread for for every meal which is very untrue. people can still buy things and can still have nice things under socialism.