Featured

Unhinged Taylor Swift Fan Accuses Singer Of Selling Nazi-Themed Necklace In Viral TikTok

A Taylor Swift fan who accused the singer of selling a necklace with allegedly blatant Nazi symbolism has gone viral with her claims.

Also, the item has disappeared from Swift’s merchandise site, though it’s unclear if this was due to the accusations or because it sold out. Reps for Swift did not immediately return a request for comment on the controversy.

User sampire1513, whose profile describes her as “the friend that’s too woke” and “happily gay married,” posted a video detailing all the symbolism she saw on the necklace being sold on Swift’s merchandise website. The jewelry piece was meant to go along with the song “Opalite” from the singer’s newest “The Life of a Showgirl” album.

The video has gone viral on multiple social media platforms, earning 5.4 million views on TikTok and a ton of supportive comments.

The TikTok creator opened by mentioning the reception to the song “Opalite,” which she said has “racial undertones.”

“I am in the business of  listening to black women. I think they would know what a microaggression sounds like against them way better than I ever could,” sampire1513 began.

She said after seeing the necklace, she has decided that the song “Opalite” is “completely intentionally racial. And I am sick.”

The TikTok creator goes on to describe how the necklace has lighting bolts, but insists that the way these lightning bolts are designed is meant to represent something specific while acknowledging that the lyrics say, “dancing through the lightning strikes.”

“They are specifically SS lightning bolts,” sampire1513 continues. “Okay? It is not ambiguous. That is exactly what it is.”

She goes on with the conspiracy accusations.

Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout

“And then, if you’ll look, there are eight of them,” the TikTok user says. “Why does that matter? Because H is the eighth letter in the alphabet. Many Nazi, neo Nazi circles, gangs, will put an 88, meaning [Heil] Hitler, they’ll put it in their bios, they’ll tattoo it on their bodies, they’ll put it on their motorcycles, their leather jackets … I’m not reaching … the 88 thing is extremely common.”

Sampire1513 goes on to claim that the cross on the necklace is a “f***ing iron cross,” a German military medal.

The social media creator said after seeing the necklace, there are only two options.

“Number one, Swift’s team and Swift herself, they put this out, and they genuinely just didn’t know what they were doing. And it’s a complete happenstance that it resembles any commonly used Nazi dog whistles,” she said, noting that for this to happen, there would have to be no one on the team who is Jewish or who went through “cultural sensitivity training.”

“…Option number two, which is, she knows exactly what this is, and that’s what she decided to put out. What the f***,” the user said.

Sampire1513 demanded that Swift put out a statement condemning Nazism and hatred. “I don’t think I’m reaching at all,” she said in conclusion of the necklace’s alleged symbolism. “I think it’s clear as f***ing day.”

The user set her TikTok account to private Thursday as the video continued gaining traction online. X users called her out for the allegations.

“That’s some unhinged stuff right there. As someone who studied the 3rd Reich for many years at university – no, they don’t look like SS lighting bolts, those look like the last 2 letters in KISS. That looks NOTHING like the Iron Cross,” one commenter wrote.

“If you see a [lightning] bolt and think nazi i think there’s only one person obsessed with nazis and it aint taylor swift,” another person said.



Source link

Related Posts

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 81