Travis and Taylor

[Anonymous]

I want some Taylor swift pajamas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want some Taylor swift pajamas.

I got my daughter some Christmas and now I want some too!! They’re really nice!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This gets said on every Taylor thread about the plane but come on. None of us want Taylor flying commercial. Any airport she goes near would be filled with fans - even the more obsessed ones buying tickets to wait with her at the gate. Can you imagine paparazzi interest in her bag items at the security line?

Any of us would be livid with the traffic and congestion and so on.

This came up because she sent a PJ for Kelce to take from Hawaii to Sydney. He could easily fly commercial, first class.

I don't actually care if Taylor uses a private jet for security reasons, and her actual job does require some flexibility in travel at times (enables her to play shows all around the world on a relatively tight schedule) so okay. But that doesn't mean I think there should be no accountability there. Private jet use does affect all of us because of the fossil fuels involved, and I think using one to pick up your boyfriend is pretty gross. Sorry.

Are all these people piling onto the billionaire men and their jets and space rockets and everything? Bezos, Gates, Musk and his 20 kids and exes, British Royal Family, all the insanely rich people I don't know by name...

Yes, if you ever read any media that wasn't related to Taylor Swift you would realize that many people criticize billionaires for their private jet usage. To the point that Musk sued the same guy Taylor is now threatening to sue over him publishing info about his private jet's flights. Honestly, Taylor has only just recently gotten pulled into the issue because she recently bought a really large and fancy private jet and she also recently reached billionaire status. Before her, it was mostly rich white guys being criticized, though I've also seen criticism of other celebrities like Tom Cruise and Oprah.

Often the criticism focuses on on the fact that these people have private jets, as many of us understand that as very public people, there are security risks associated with them flying commercial. But if you are wealthy enough to have a private jet, you are also often wealthy enough to do things like fly your jet to St. Louis for good barbecue, or fly it to London to pick up a painting you purchased at auction, without you being on it. Or fly it to Hawaii to give your NFL boyfriend a lift. And those kinds of activities have started attracting increasingly negative attention in recent years because of the implications for the climate. Most people's fossil fuel usage does not, on its own, impact climate change in any real sense, whether for good or bad. But people this wealthy can use such an enormous amount of fossil fuels via private jets that it's the rare situation where individual action could actually be more than a drop in the bucket. Thus the criticism and the pressure for these people to consider the environmental impacts of how they use their jets.

This is not a Taylor thing. At all. It's a rich people with private jet thing. And any one of them could avoid it by using chartered jets, if they wanted both more privacy and less criticism. But using chartered jets would be less convenient or glamorous, and also have less financial upside. It would also make it a lot harder for them to use their jets in truly frivolous ways.

So maybe we can retire the conversation in a gossip thread about Taylor Swift and her boyfriend. Who, despite everyone's claims are fake, keep ticking off the months one by one and they're still together.

What does longevity have to do with if something is fake? There are gay men in fake bearding relationships for years. There’s no time limit.

Throughout this thread there have been numerous "I predict they're done at xyz time." And they're wrong. Every time. Is the point.

I can't fathom putting so much energy into believing a relationship is fake. I mean, hell, it may be and my life won't change at all. Isn't it more fun to believe that people found love rather than finding every reason under the sun for a relationship to be fake?

The vast majority of those comments predicted it it would last at least through the Superbowl. It did. Very few people thought they would have broken up by the end of February.

I don't it's a fake relationship but I think they are shallow people who enjoy the attention and that it's more likely to fail than not. I find the belief that it's "true love" mildly comical given their respective dating history. I think they are both the type to enjoy intense initial love bombing type relationships and then flee as soon as reality sets in.

I also think had or not been for Covid and the fact that Taylor had kind of fled to London to escape criticism over the whole Kim/Kanye/snake thing (which I think she overreacted to), she would have lasted 2 years, tops, with Joe. I also think they were apart and she was seeing Matty Healy for a lot longer than people think.

Meh, could be. I'm watching this unfold just like I like watching Hallmark Channel movies. To escape from my boring life! I don't really invest too much into it other than watching two good looking successful people hang out together and seem to be happy. It's just not that deep. But when criticism is masked as misogyny, I gotta pipe in.

Some of you think ANY criticism of Swift is de facto misogyny. That's not how it works when the subject of the criticism is a billionaire who is in the news every day. It would be like arguing all criticism of Oprah is grounded in racism, or all criticism of Tom Cruise is grounded in hatred for short guys. It does not track.

If Taylor Swift were really as victimized by misogyny as some of you claim, she would not be as successful as she is.

It's not so much whether she's the "victim" of misogyny. It's that some of you are misogynistic. And I'll point it out. Sorry not sorry. But while we're on the subject, someone's bank account doesn't dictate whether they are the subject of someone's misogynistic statements. Someone can be a billionaire twice over and still be the object of misogyny. That is actually how it works.

But you're whining that criticizing her or vaye jet usage is misogynistic when men like Musk, DiCaprio, and Bezos have gotten the same criticism. I know my criticism of Swift's private jet is not misogyny because I'm as likely to criticize a man for the exact same thing.

You're using accusations of misogyny to shield Swift, a billionaire, from valid criticism. Which isn't what feminism is for, actually.

[Anonymous]

They are overexposed and this 'ship is played out and corny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She has a much longer shelf life than he does. In 10yrs her music will still be on the radio. He will be “that guy from the Chiefs. Remember. You know who I’m talking about”

I don’t think he’s retiring this year. Once he does it will be interesting to see if the relationship can withstand life’s transitions.

He ain't retiring, his brother probably isn't either. It's their last chance at this sort of money and fame. Gronk is the only tight end to remain a household name; Tony Gonzalaz and Antonio Gates aren't famous.

[Anonymous]

He already left Sydney (on a private jet) and is headed to Vegas for more post-SB celebrations with the Chiefs.

So the Taylor/Travis relationship is responsible for four private jet trips across the Pacific in 2 weeks (just to see each other, not for work).

I'm sorry that's really dumb. What a waste of resources on something that's probably going to fall apart within a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has a much longer shelf life than he does. In 10yrs her music will still be on the radio. He will be “that guy from the Chiefs. Remember. You know who I’m talking about”

I don’t think he’s retiring this year. Once he does it will be interesting to see if the relationship can withstand life’s transitions.

He ain't retiring, his brother probably isn't either. It's their last chance at this sort of money and fame. Gronk is the only tight end to remain a household name; Tony Gonzalaz and Antonio Gates aren't famous.

He'll retire in two years, tops, when his current contract expires. Most likely he'll be forced to retire sooner due to injury or weak performance (the Chiefs will give him the dignity of announcing his own retirement probably, but they'll also let him know when they are dropping him from the roster to make room for someone younger). He's already flagging-- his numbers this year were mediocre and he missed time with an injury. He is now the oldest signed tight end in the NFL (Mercedes Lewis played for Packers this year at 39 but is now a free agent and unlikely to get a contract).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has a much longer shelf life than he does. In 10yrs her music will still be on the radio. He will be “that guy from the Chiefs. Remember. You know who I’m talking about”

I don’t think he’s retiring this year. Once he does it will be interesting to see if the relationship can withstand life’s transitions.

He ain't retiring, his brother probably isn't either. It's their last chance at this sort of money and fame. Gronk is the only tight end to remain a household name; Tony Gonzalaz and Antonio Gates aren't famous.

He'll retire in two years, tops, when his current contract expires. Most likely he'll be forced to retire sooner due to injury or weak performance (the Chiefs will give him the dignity of announcing his own retirement probably, but they'll also let him know when they are dropping him from the roster to make room for someone younger). He's already flagging-- his numbers this year were mediocre and he missed time with an injury. He is now the oldest signed tight end in the NFL (Mercedes Lewis played for Packers this year at 39 but is now a free agent and unlikely to get a contract).

Tell us you know nothing about football without telling us, lol

Did you watch the Super Bowl? The supposed all-Pro TE, George Kittle, was irrelevant, while Kelce took over the game in the 2nd half.
That was after catching all 11 passes thrown to him in the AFC Championship for 116 yards and a TD.

No, he's not "flagging."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This gets said on every Taylor thread about the plane but come on. None of us want Taylor flying commercial. Any airport she goes near would be filled with fans - even the more obsessed ones buying tickets to wait with her at the gate. Can you imagine paparazzi interest in her bag items at the security line?

Any of us would be livid with the traffic and congestion and so on.

This came up because she sent a PJ for Kelce to take from Hawaii to Sydney. He could easily fly commercial, first class.

I don't actually care if Taylor uses a private jet for security reasons, and her actual job does require some flexibility in travel at times (enables her to play shows all around the world on a relatively tight schedule) so okay. But that doesn't mean I think there should be no accountability there. Private jet use does affect all of us because of the fossil fuels involved, and I think using one to pick up your boyfriend is pretty gross. Sorry.

Are all these people piling onto the billionaire men and their jets and space rockets and everything? Bezos, Gates, Musk and his 20 kids and exes, British Royal Family, all the insanely rich people I don't know by name...

Yes, if you ever read any media that wasn't related to Taylor Swift you would realize that many people criticize billionaires for their private jet usage. To the point that Musk sued the same guy Taylor is now threatening to sue over him publishing info about his private jet's flights. Honestly, Taylor has only just recently gotten pulled into the issue because she recently bought a really large and fancy private jet and she also recently reached billionaire status. Before her, it was mostly rich white guys being criticized, though I've also seen criticism of other celebrities like Tom Cruise and Oprah.

Often the criticism focuses on on the fact that these people have private jets, as many of us understand that as very public people, there are security risks associated with them flying commercial. But if you are wealthy enough to have a private jet, you are also often wealthy enough to do things like fly your jet to St. Louis for good barbecue, or fly it to London to pick up a painting you purchased at auction, without you being on it. Or fly it to Hawaii to give your NFL boyfriend a lift. And those kinds of activities have started attracting increasingly negative attention in recent years because of the implications for the climate. Most people's fossil fuel usage does not, on its own, impact climate change in any real sense, whether for good or bad. But people this wealthy can use such an enormous amount of fossil fuels via private jets that it's the rare situation where individual action could actually be more than a drop in the bucket. Thus the criticism and the pressure for these people to consider the environmental impacts of how they use their jets.

This is not a Taylor thing. At all. It's a rich people with private jet thing. And any one of them could avoid it by using chartered jets, if they wanted both more privacy and less criticism. But using chartered jets would be less convenient or glamorous, and also have less financial upside. It would also make it a lot harder for them to use their jets in truly frivolous ways.

So maybe we can retire the conversation in a gossip thread about Taylor Swift and her boyfriend. Who, despite everyone's claims are fake, keep ticking off the months one by one and they're still together.

What does longevity have to do with if something is fake? There are gay men in fake bearding relationships for years. There’s no time limit.

Throughout this thread there have been numerous "I predict they're done at xyz time." And they're wrong. Every time. Is the point.

I can't fathom putting so much energy into believing a relationship is fake. I mean, hell, it may be and my life won't change at all. Isn't it more fun to believe that people found love rather than finding every reason under the sun for a relationship to be fake?

The vast majority of those comments predicted it it would last at least through the Superbowl. It did. Very few people thought they would have broken up by the end of February.

I don't it's a fake relationship but I think they are shallow people who enjoy the attention and that it's more likely to fail than not. I find the belief that it's "true love" mildly comical given their respective dating history. I think they are both the type to enjoy intense initial love bombing type relationships and then flee as soon as reality sets in.

I also think had or not been for Covid and the fact that Taylor had kind of fled to London to escape criticism over the whole Kim/Kanye/snake thing (which I think she overreacted to), she would have lasted 2 years, tops, with Joe. I also think they were apart and she was seeing Matty Healy for a lot longer than people think.

Meh, could be. I'm watching this unfold just like I like watching Hallmark Channel movies. To escape from my boring life! I don't really invest too much into it other than watching two good looking successful people hang out together and seem to be happy. It's just not that deep. But when criticism is masked as misogyny, I gotta pipe in.

Some of you think ANY criticism of Swift is de facto misogyny. That's not how it works when the subject of the criticism is a billionaire who is in the news every day. It would be like arguing all criticism of Oprah is grounded in racism, or all criticism of Tom Cruise is grounded in hatred for short guys. It does not track.

If Taylor Swift were really as victimized by misogyny as some of you claim, she would not be as successful as she is.

It's not so much whether she's the "victim" of misogyny. It's that some of you are misogynistic. And I'll point it out. Sorry not sorry. But while we're on the subject, someone's bank account doesn't dictate whether they are the subject of someone's misogynistic statements. Someone can be a billionaire twice over and still be the object of misogyny. That is actually how it works.

But you're whining that criticizing her or vaye jet usage is misogynistic when men like Musk, DiCaprio, and Bezos have gotten the same criticism. I know my criticism of Swift's private jet is not misogyny because I'm as likely to criticize a man for the exact same thing.

You're using accusations of misogyny to shield Swift, a billionaire, from valid criticism. Which isn't what feminism is for, actually.

I didn’t say (or whine as you put it) any of what you’re claiming I said. Given that this is anonymous forum you probably have me confused with someone else. I chimed in that it’s boring to talk about her jet usage on a fun thread about a romance. That’s it. And then I noted that I’ll let it rip if I see misogyny on here (and there’s been plenty) but I didn’t connect those two things. You did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has a much longer shelf life than he does. In 10yrs her music will still be on the radio. He will be “that guy from the Chiefs. Remember. You know who I’m talking about”

I don’t think he’s retiring this year. Once he does it will be interesting to see if the relationship can withstand life’s transitions.

He ain't retiring, his brother probably isn't either. It's their last chance at this sort of money and fame. Gronk is the only tight end to remain a household name; Tony Gonzalaz and Antonio Gates aren't famous.

He'll retire in two years, tops, when his current contract expires. Most likely he'll be forced to retire sooner due to injury or weak performance (the Chiefs will give him the dignity of announcing his own retirement probably, but they'll also let him know when they are dropping him from the roster to make room for someone younger). He's already flagging-- his numbers this year were mediocre and he missed time with an injury. He is now the oldest signed tight end in the NFL (Mercedes Lewis played for Packers this year at 39 but is now a free agent and unlikely to get a contract).

Tell us you know nothing about football without telling us, lol

Did you watch the Super Bowl? The supposed all-Pro TE, George Kittle, was irrelevant, while Kelce took over the game in the 2nd half.
That was after catching all 11 passes thrown to him in the AFC Championship for 116 yards and a TD.

No, he's not "flagging."

Look at his numbers for the year, not just playoffs. Dude is old. Yards per catch lowest of his career, total yards lowest since the 2015 season. I expect someone with two SB rings to turn it on in the playoffs. He also played fewer downs than in previous years.

Again, he is the oldest tight end on an actual NFL roster. And not by a few months. With Kyle Rudolph retiring to become a broadcaster, I think the next oldest is Taysom Hill with the saints? Used to be a QB but converted to TE in 2022. We'll see if he makes a roster.

Kelce is very old for his position. He still has good hands but he's slower and less agile than he used to be. The Chiefs will absolutely play him next year if he's healthy and willing because he can still make plays in their offensive scheme, but the clock is ticking. I'd put it at less than 5% odds he'll be a starter in 2025, and decent chance he'll be off roster (he'll still get paid). A 36 year old TE isn't really a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This gets said on every Taylor thread about the plane but come on. None of us want Taylor flying commercial. Any airport she goes near would be filled with fans - even the more obsessed ones buying tickets to wait with her at the gate. Can you imagine paparazzi interest in her bag items at the security line?

Any of us would be livid with the traffic and congestion and so on.

This came up because she sent a PJ for Kelce to take from Hawaii to Sydney. He could easily fly commercial, first class.

I don't actually care if Taylor uses a private jet for security reasons, and her actual job does require some flexibility in travel at times (enables her to play shows all around the world on a relatively tight schedule) so okay. But that doesn't mean I think there should be no accountability there. Private jet use does affect all of us because of the fossil fuels involved, and I think using one to pick up your boyfriend is pretty gross. Sorry.

Are all these people piling onto the billionaire men and their jets and space rockets and everything? Bezos, Gates, Musk and his 20 kids and exes, British Royal Family, all the insanely rich people I don't know by name...

Yes, if you ever read any media that wasn't related to Taylor Swift you would realize that many people criticize billionaires for their private jet usage. To the point that Musk sued the same guy Taylor is now threatening to sue over him publishing info about his private jet's flights. Honestly, Taylor has only just recently gotten pulled into the issue because she recently bought a really large and fancy private jet and she also recently reached billionaire status. Before her, it was mostly rich white guys being criticized, though I've also seen criticism of other celebrities like Tom Cruise and Oprah.

Often the criticism focuses on on the fact that these people have private jets, as many of us understand that as very public people, there are security risks associated with them flying commercial. But if you are wealthy enough to have a private jet, you are also often wealthy enough to do things like fly your jet to St. Louis for good barbecue, or fly it to London to pick up a painting you purchased at auction, without you being on it. Or fly it to Hawaii to give your NFL boyfriend a lift. And those kinds of activities have started attracting increasingly negative attention in recent years because of the implications for the climate. Most people's fossil fuel usage does not, on its own, impact climate change in any real sense, whether for good or bad. But people this wealthy can use such an enormous amount of fossil fuels via private jets that it's the rare situation where individual action could actually be more than a drop in the bucket. Thus the criticism and the pressure for these people to consider the environmental impacts of how they use their jets.

This is not a Taylor thing. At all. It's a rich people with private jet thing. And any one of them could avoid it by using chartered jets, if they wanted both more privacy and less criticism. But using chartered jets would be less convenient or glamorous, and also have less financial upside. It would also make it a lot harder for them to use their jets in truly frivolous ways.

So maybe we can retire the conversation in a gossip thread about Taylor Swift and her boyfriend. Who, despite everyone's claims are fake, keep ticking off the months one by one and they're still together.

What does longevity have to do with if something is fake? There are gay men in fake bearding relationships for years. There’s no time limit.

Throughout this thread there have been numerous "I predict they're done at xyz time." And they're wrong. Every time. Is the point.

I can't fathom putting so much energy into believing a relationship is fake. I mean, hell, it may be and my life won't change at all. Isn't it more fun to believe that people found love rather than finding every reason under the sun for a relationship to be fake?

The vast majority of those comments predicted it it would last at least through the Superbowl. It did. Very few people thought they would have broken up by the end of February.

I don't it's a fake relationship but I think they are shallow people who enjoy the attention and that it's more likely to fail than not. I find the belief that it's "true love" mildly comical given their respective dating history. I think they are both the type to enjoy intense initial love bombing type relationships and then flee as soon as reality sets in.

I also think had or not been for Covid and the fact that Taylor had kind of fled to London to escape criticism over the whole Kim/Kanye/snake thing (which I think she overreacted to), she would have lasted 2 years, tops, with Joe. I also think they were apart and she was seeing Matty Healy for a lot longer than people think.

Meh, could be. I'm watching this unfold just like I like watching Hallmark Channel movies. To escape from my boring life! I don't really invest too much into it other than watching two good looking successful people hang out together and seem to be happy. It's just not that deep. But when criticism is masked as misogyny, I gotta pipe in.

Some of you think ANY criticism of Swift is de facto misogyny. That's not how it works when the subject of the criticism is a billionaire who is in the news every day. It would be like arguing all criticism of Oprah is grounded in racism, or all criticism of Tom Cruise is grounded in hatred for short guys. It does not track.

If Taylor Swift were really as victimized by misogyny as some of you claim, she would not be as successful as she is.

It's not so much whether she's the "victim" of misogyny. It's that some of you are misogynistic. And I'll point it out. Sorry not sorry. But while we're on the subject, someone's bank account doesn't dictate whether they are the subject of someone's misogynistic statements. Someone can be a billionaire twice over and still be the object of misogyny. That is actually how it works.

But you're whining that criticizing her or vaye jet usage is misogynistic when men like Musk, DiCaprio, and Bezos have gotten the same criticism. I know my criticism of Swift's private jet is not misogyny because I'm as likely to criticize a man for the exact same thing.

You're using accusations of misogyny to shield Swift, a billionaire, from valid criticism. Which isn't what feminism is for, actually.

I didn’t say (or whine as you put it) any of what you’re claiming I said. Given that this is anonymous forum you probably have me confused with someone else. I chimed in that it’s boring to talk about her jet usage on a fun thread about a romance. That’s it. And then I noted that I’ll let it rip if I see misogyny on here (and there’s been plenty) but I didn’t connect those two things. You did.

Well their entire relationship is predicated on the ability to fly halfway around the world to see each other on private jets, so actually it is relevant! I personally find people coming over how cute they supposedly are together boring. Good thing you're not actually Thread Sheriff I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She has a much longer shelf life than he does. In 10yrs her music will still be on the radio. He will be “that guy from the Chiefs. Remember. You know who I’m talking about”

I don’t think he’s retiring this year. Once he does it will be interesting to see if the relationship can withstand life’s transitions.

It isn't going to last nearly that long lol. He left her last concert city ASAP to go back to Vegas and drink with the Mahomes. She is WAY more invested here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This gets said on every Taylor thread about the plane but come on. None of us want Taylor flying commercial. Any airport she goes near would be filled with fans - even the more obsessed ones buying tickets to wait with her at the gate. Can you imagine paparazzi interest in her bag items at the security line?

Any of us would be livid with the traffic and congestion and so on.

This came up because she sent a PJ for Kelce to take from Hawaii to Sydney. He could easily fly commercial, first class.

I don't actually care if Taylor uses a private jet for security reasons, and her actual job does require some flexibility in travel at times (enables her to play shows all around the world on a relatively tight schedule) so okay. But that doesn't mean I think there should be no accountability there. Private jet use does affect all of us because of the fossil fuels involved, and I think using one to pick up your boyfriend is pretty gross. Sorry.

Are all these people piling onto the billionaire men and their jets and space rockets and everything? Bezos, Gates, Musk and his 20 kids and exes, British Royal Family, all the insanely rich people I don't know by name...

Yes, if you ever read any media that wasn't related to Taylor Swift you would realize that many people criticize billionaires for their private jet usage. To the point that Musk sued the same guy Taylor is now threatening to sue over him publishing info about his private jet's flights. Honestly, Taylor has only just recently gotten pulled into the issue because she recently bought a really large and fancy private jet and she also recently reached billionaire status. Before her, it was mostly rich white guys being criticized, though I've also seen criticism of other celebrities like Tom Cruise and Oprah.

Often the criticism focuses on on the fact that these people have private jets, as many of us understand that as very public people, there are security risks associated with them flying commercial. But if you are wealthy enough to have a private jet, you are also often wealthy enough to do things like fly your jet to St. Louis for good barbecue, or fly it to London to pick up a painting you purchased at auction, without you being on it. Or fly it to Hawaii to give your NFL boyfriend a lift. And those kinds of activities have started attracting increasingly negative attention in recent years because of the implications for the climate. Most people's fossil fuel usage does not, on its own, impact climate change in any real sense, whether for good or bad. But people this wealthy can use such an enormous amount of fossil fuels via private jets that it's the rare situation where individual action could actually be more than a drop in the bucket. Thus the criticism and the pressure for these people to consider the environmental impacts of how they use their jets.

This is not a Taylor thing. At all. It's a rich people with private jet thing. And any one of them could avoid it by using chartered jets, if they wanted both more privacy and less criticism. But using chartered jets would be less convenient or glamorous, and also have less financial upside. It would also make it a lot harder for them to use their jets in truly frivolous ways.

So maybe we can retire the conversation in a gossip thread about Taylor Swift and her boyfriend. Who, despite everyone's claims are fake, keep ticking off the months one by one and they're still together.

What does longevity have to do with if something is fake? There are gay men in fake bearding relationships for years. There’s no time limit.

Throughout this thread there have been numerous "I predict they're done at xyz time." And they're wrong. Every time. Is the point.

I can't fathom putting so much energy into believing a relationship is fake. I mean, hell, it may be and my life won't change at all. Isn't it more fun to believe that people found love rather than finding every reason under the sun for a relationship to be fake?

The vast majority of those comments predicted it it would last at least through the Superbowl. It did. Very few people thought they would have broken up by the end of February.

I don't it's a fake relationship but I think they are shallow people who enjoy the attention and that it's more likely to fail than not. I find the belief that it's "true love" mildly comical given their respective dating history. I think they are both the type to enjoy intense initial love bombing type relationships and then flee as soon as reality sets in.

I also think had or not been for Covid and the fact that Taylor had kind of fled to London to escape criticism over the whole Kim/Kanye/snake thing (which I think she overreacted to), she would have lasted 2 years, tops, with Joe. I also think they were apart and she was seeing Matty Healy for a lot longer than people think.

Yup and she'd likely still be with Healy if her deranged fans hadn't lost their minds over it. I truly hope that one day Taylor, one of the wealthiest and most powerful women in the world, can stand up and date who she wants, regardless of TayTays / Swifties approval ratings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This gets said on every Taylor thread about the plane but come on. None of us want Taylor flying commercial. Any airport she goes near would be filled with fans - even the more obsessed ones buying tickets to wait with her at the gate. Can you imagine paparazzi interest in her bag items at the security line?

Any of us would be livid with the traffic and congestion and so on.

This came up because she sent a PJ for Kelce to take from Hawaii to Sydney. He could easily fly commercial, first class.

I don't actually care if Taylor uses a private jet for security reasons, and her actual job does require some flexibility in travel at times (enables her to play shows all around the world on a relatively tight schedule) so okay. But that doesn't mean I think there should be no accountability there. Private jet use does affect all of us because of the fossil fuels involved, and I think using one to pick up your boyfriend is pretty gross. Sorry.

Are all these people piling onto the billionaire men and their jets and space rockets and everything? Bezos, Gates, Musk and his 20 kids and exes, British Royal Family, all the insanely rich people I don't know by name...

Yes, if you ever read any media that wasn't related to Taylor Swift you would realize that many people criticize billionaires for their private jet usage. To the point that Musk sued the same guy Taylor is now threatening to sue over him publishing info about his private jet's flights. Honestly, Taylor has only just recently gotten pulled into the issue because she recently bought a really large and fancy private jet and she also recently reached billionaire status. Before her, it was mostly rich white guys being criticized, though I've also seen criticism of other celebrities like Tom Cruise and Oprah.

Often the criticism focuses on on the fact that these people have private jets, as many of us understand that as very public people, there are security risks associated with them flying commercial. But if you are wealthy enough to have a private jet, you are also often wealthy enough to do things like fly your jet to St. Louis for good barbecue, or fly it to London to pick up a painting you purchased at auction, without you being on it. Or fly it to Hawaii to give your NFL boyfriend a lift. And those kinds of activities have started attracting increasingly negative attention in recent years because of the implications for the climate. Most people's fossil fuel usage does not, on its own, impact climate change in any real sense, whether for good or bad. But people this wealthy can use such an enormous amount of fossil fuels via private jets that it's the rare situation where individual action could actually be more than a drop in the bucket. Thus the criticism and the pressure for these people to consider the environmental impacts of how they use their jets.

This is not a Taylor thing. At all. It's a rich people with private jet thing. And any one of them could avoid it by using chartered jets, if they wanted both more privacy and less criticism. But using chartered jets would be less convenient or glamorous, and also have less financial upside. It would also make it a lot harder for them to use their jets in truly frivolous ways.

So maybe we can retire the conversation in a gossip thread about Taylor Swift and her boyfriend. Who, despite everyone's claims are fake, keep ticking off the months one by one and they're still together.

What does longevity have to do with if something is fake? There are gay men in fake bearding relationships for years. There’s no time limit.

Throughout this thread there have been numerous "I predict they're done at xyz time." And they're wrong. Every time. Is the point.

I can't fathom putting so much energy into believing a relationship is fake. I mean, hell, it may be and my life won't change at all. Isn't it more fun to believe that people found love rather than finding every reason under the sun for a relationship to be fake?

The vast majority of those comments predicted it it would last at least through the Superbowl. It did. Very few people thought they would have broken up by the end of February.

I don't it's a fake relationship but I think they are shallow people who enjoy the attention and that it's more likely to fail than not. I find the belief that it's "true love" mildly comical given their respective dating history. I think they are both the type to enjoy intense initial love bombing type relationships and then flee as soon as reality sets in.

I also think had or not been for Covid and the fact that Taylor had kind of fled to London to escape criticism over the whole Kim/Kanye/snake thing (which I think she overreacted to), she would have lasted 2 years, tops, with Joe. I also think they were apart and she was seeing Matty Healy for a lot longer than people think.

Meh, could be. I'm watching this unfold just like I like watching Hallmark Channel movies. To escape from my boring life! I don't really invest too much into it other than watching two good looking successful people hang out together and seem to be happy. It's just not that deep. But when criticism is masked as misogyny, I gotta pipe in.

Some of you think ANY criticism of Swift is de facto misogyny. That's not how it works when the subject of the criticism is a billionaire who is in the news every day. It would be like arguing all criticism of Oprah is grounded in racism, or all criticism of Tom Cruise is grounded in hatred for short guys. It does not track.

If Taylor Swift were really as victimized by misogyny as some of you claim, she would not be as successful as she is.

It's not so much whether she's the "victim" of misogyny. It's that some of you are misogynistic. And I'll point it out. Sorry not sorry. But while we're on the subject, someone's bank account doesn't dictate whether they are the subject of someone's misogynistic statements. Someone can be a billionaire twice over and still be the object of misogyny. That is actually how it works.

But you're whining that criticizing her or vaye jet usage is misogynistic when men like Musk, DiCaprio, and Bezos have gotten the same criticism. I know my criticism of Swift's private jet is not misogyny because I'm as likely to criticize a man for the exact same thing.

You're using accusations of misogyny to shield Swift, a billionaire, from valid criticism. Which isn't what feminism is for, actually.

I didn’t say (or whine as you put it) any of what you’re claiming I said. Given that this is anonymous forum you probably have me confused with someone else. I chimed in that it’s boring to talk about her jet usage on a fun thread about a romance. That’s it. And then I noted that I’ll let it rip if I see misogyny on here (and there’s been plenty) but I didn’t connect those two things. You did.

Well their entire relationship is predicated on the ability to fly halfway around the world to see each other on private jets, so actually it is relevant! I personally find people coming over how cute they supposedly are together boring. Good thing you're not actually Thread Sheriff I guess.

OK? Not sure what's got you all twisted and angry over a thread about a singer and football player, but OK. I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has a much longer shelf life than he does. In 10yrs her music will still be on the radio. He will be “that guy from the Chiefs. Remember. You know who I’m talking about”

I don’t think he’s retiring this year. Once he does it will be interesting to see if the relationship can withstand life’s transitions.

He ain't retiring, his brother probably isn't either. It's their last chance at this sort of money and fame. Gronk is the only tight end to remain a household name; Tony Gonzalaz and Antonio Gates aren't famous.

He'll retire in two years, tops, when his current contract expires. Most likely he'll be forced to retire sooner due to injury or weak performance (the Chiefs will give him the dignity of announcing his own retirement probably, but they'll also let him know when they are dropping him from the roster to make room for someone younger). He's already flagging-- his numbers this year were mediocre and he missed time with an injury. He is now the oldest signed tight end in the NFL (Mercedes Lewis played for Packers this year at 39 but is now a free agent and unlikely to get a contract).

Tell us you know nothing about football without telling us, lol

Did you watch the Super Bowl? The supposed all-Pro TE, George Kittle, was irrelevant, while Kelce took over the game in the 2nd half.
That was after catching all 11 passes thrown to him in the AFC Championship for 116 yards and a TD.

No, he's not "flagging."

Look at his numbers for the year, not just playoffs. Dude is old. Yards per catch lowest of his career, total yards lowest since the 2015 season. I expect someone with two SB rings to turn it on in the playoffs. He also played fewer downs than in previous years.

Again, he is the oldest tight end on an actual NFL roster. And not by a few months. With Kyle Rudolph retiring to become a broadcaster, I think the next oldest is Taysom Hill with the saints? Used to be a QB but converted to TE in 2022. We'll see if he makes a roster.

Kelce is very old for his position. He still has good hands but he's slower and less agile than he used to be. The Chiefs will absolutely play him next year if he's healthy and willing because he can still make plays in their offensive scheme, but the clock is ticking. I'd put it at less than 5% odds he'll be a starter in 2025, and decent chance he'll be off roster (he'll still get paid). A 36 year old TE isn't really a thing.

Whatever dude, but he's not "flagging." He's still the best TE in football. I watched every Chiefs game. Kelce was obviously dealing with nagging injuries in the middle of the season, but more importantly the Chiefs had no other dangerous receiving options so teams were double, triple, quadruple teaming Kelce. This forced Mahomes to go elsewhere, and oftentimes his receiver would drop the pass - I think the Chiefs led the league in dropped passes. Over the course of the season Rice became a legitimate weapon, and they brought Hardman back which helped, but there were a few games when you could tell Mahomes was losing his confidence.

I hope for the sake of Kelce's future health that he retires sooner rather than later, but football is an addiction that will be hard for him to give up. Can't help but think he's trying to follow in the footsteps of Tony Gonzalez who played 17 seasons.