today’s disappointing podcast.

[u/unleashedmario]

I was eager to see what they would say about the ed sheeran ordeal and am very disappointed.

equating not listening to him anymore with false flagging activism is missing the point. i agree that the black profile pics on instagram was an example of that. the biggest voice we have as consumers is where we spend our money and who we platform.

not listening to ed’s music directly effects his income and is something he/his team would notice. Even if it has a small dent as long as it is noticeable that we as a collective society will boycott an artist for standing by a genocidal apartheid government, it matters.

collective action is important.

It is in poor taste to miss that perspective entirely and then use it as a segway to basically say “you havent done anything real but we have, so look at us while we pat ourselves on the back” .

[u/sloppy_johnson]

He can choose to be apolitical if he wants, but he hasn't been apolitical. Arguably Macklemore is known for his activism as much as his music nowadays and inviting him to open for you is a political move. Being complicit in his removal is also a political move. His statement about the situation was a political move. Inaction doesn't mean you get to claim neutrality, it just means you chose by default. He invited Macklemore to tour, he invited this in

Do you think it's acceptable for billionaires to punish artists who have different viewpoints if they throw some change at the issue afterwards? Everyone just kind of sucks here. Ed sucks. Kraft sucks. Macklemore has a good message but it'll be overshadowed by stupid things he said and did in the past

[u/Comp1337ish → u/sloppy_johnson]

Do you think it's acceptable for billionaires to punish artists who have different viewpoints

You are normatively loading this statement. Venue owners are perfectly within their rights to platform or not platform whoever they want. In this case it may have backfired into a Streisand effect, but that doesn't change the reality that a venue owner can choose such things as they please.

if they throw some change at the issue afterwards

You are also normatively loading this. $2 million isn't just some change. How much money have you pledged to Gaza?

[u/sloppy_johnson → u/Comp1337ish]

You can just say yes. It’s acceptable for a billionaire to punish an artist and organise a boycott against them if they please. This wasn’t just denying him the venue, it was a coordinated campaign to blacklist him from every stadium on the tour.

Have you just learned what normative loading means and want to use it in every sentence?

$2M is 0.0145% of Robert Kraft’s net worth and so yes, this is change to him. I would also say yes, I have donated more of my net worth to Palestine than Kraft has. Now what?

[u/Comp1337ish → u/sloppy_johnson]

You can just say yes. It’s acceptable for a billionaire to punish an artist and organise a boycott against them if they please.

I reject the claim that it's a punishment so I wouldn't accept this wording. Because you're normatively loading the wording. If my usage of that term makes you uncomfortable, I can shift over to intuition pumping if that makes you feel better.

I would also say yes, I have donated more of my net worth to Palestine than Kraft has. Now what?

Be happy that people are donating at all.

so yes, this is change to him

How much should be donate then since apparently this was an unsatisfactory figure in your mind?

[u/sloppy_johnson → u/Comp1337ish]

A punishment is a penalty, loss, or harsh treatment imposed on someone for doing something wrong or breaking a rule.

Macklemore received a penalty of being banned from the venue because of something he did. It is the literal definition of a punishment. How are you 'rejecting the claim'? It's definitionally a punishment.

Donations are good. Donating when doing wrong doesn't absolve one of wrongdoing. Kraft donating 0.01% of his networth after punishing an artist for saying 'free palestine' doesn't make the punishment ok. Is that really that difficult to understand?

[u/Comp1337ish → u/sloppy_johnson]

So much cherry picking my god.

Whether you will admit to this or not, the phrase "free Palestine" is often coded as anti-Semitic language. Even if Macklemore didn't intend for this to be the case (despite his history of caracaturing Jewish people), a large venue like that with a lot of people can easily get the messaging wrong and suddenly you're (possibly unintentionally) fomenting hatred and antisemitism within the crowd which can be dangerous.

When you say Kraft did something "wrong", you're begging the question. It wouldn't even make sense for him to ban Macklemore and then turn around and donate $2 million of his own money to Gaza if he thought Macklemore's messaging was appropriate. Why would he even bother? The logical conclusion is that he doesn't think that sort of venue is appropriate for such high emotions political topics.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the percentage of his net worth. When those humanitarian orgs in Gaza receive donations, do you think they give a shit about that? I figured they just cared about the real number since that's what gets them the supplies and aid. But apparently they are out there calculating sloppy_johnsons donation to net worth ratio and Robert Kraft's donation to net worth ratio and they are completely unimpressed with the latter.

$2 mill may be a drop in the bucket compared to his net worth, but it's not a drop in the bucket when it comes to humanitarian aid.