you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 46 points 9 hours ago (20 children)

Macklemor did his first part, he said some thing about the Palestinian Genocide so Sheeran dump him. Now other act are dumpings the Sheeran tour and people are laughing at him

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 9 hours ago* (10 children)

    Sheeran didn't dump him. Kraft did. Sheeran stood idly by and didn't back him. it's an awkward position to be in, but at the moment

    Genociders vs Anti-Genociders

    the genocider cunts are winning.

    People need to properly join in the boycotts of the genociders products, affiliations and services.

    They're the ones currently doing the cancelling. It's fucking ridiculous.

    We need to make it easier for cowards like Sheeran to stand up to them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 hours ago (9 children)

    An awkward position? My brother in Christ, what is awkward about denouncing genocide?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 hours ago (7 children)

    Please reconsider the brother in christ phrase.

    It's problematic, because even if you don't mean anything by it, it still normalizes and perpetuates christianity at a time when christian nationalism and Dominionism are on the rise and have taken over the US government. It also assumes the person you are talking to is also christian. Third, it reinforces patriarchy by assuming the person you are talking to is male.

    I have no idea how it caught on and become popular, but I'm hoping that with a little self-reflection, we can all move away from it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 hours ago (6 children)

    As an atheist who's gone through deconstruction, I hear your point. But I see it more as taking the piss out of the phrase, but sure, what exclamatory would you rather I use?

    "My sibling in spaghetti"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 hours ago (8 children)
  • [+] -6 points 8 hours ago (7 children)

    It was the venues and tour managers that did it, not Ed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 8 hours ago (6 children)

    If ed said he stays, they would have let him stay, the Kraft and Tour Manager thing is just deflection

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 7 hours ago (5 children)

    That's not how things work in the music industry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 10 points 6 hours ago (4 children)

    Ed and his management could have at the very least threatened a lawsuit or breach of contract rather than allow Kraft et al. to muzzle his “friend” and supporting act. Hell, all of the artists on the tour should sue all the owners and seek punitive damages.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 hours ago* (3 children)

    I'd be shocked if the venue contract didn't have a morals clause specifically for situations like this. Same with the tour contract.

    What people should be able to do and what they're actually able to do are often different things. I'm not sure why everyone assumes that no one asked their legal department before making decisions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago*

    Ed has a reported net worth of 300 million dollars. Hes a 1/3rd billionaire.

    He can do a lot fucking more than youre giving him credit for, including canceling a tour because he opposes genocide while standing up for freedom for artists to speak truth to power. The blowback would have been 99% focused on the billionaire genocide supporters, who likely would have folded or at least made PR based concessions.

    He did none of these things but claim to be apolitcal when he is not, and pretend he was powerless as someone who has "superyaught" money.

  • source
  • parent