Every private business has a right to allow or disallow certain speach they deme acceptable in their property. We are allowed to react to that. Just as reddit can silence anything they'd like, as Facebook can too.
As long as the government isn't getting involved then it is not a free speech issue.
Free speech is relative to the government. Has he been arrested for what he said? Has the government done anything in response? No? Then his free speech is still holding up.
Lmao cancel culture just isn't a thing. I can still hear what Macklemore has to say and people are rallying behind him. He's not "canceled".
People have reacted to others by what they say and do forever, getting booted off a tour is not being canceled. I may not agree with it, but I also respect the rights of those that booted him to do it because this is America where we are free to do such things.
I mean go keep licking the boot then. I don’t care if a billionaire owns a stadium or not, they should not be allowed to have that level of influence in society. Look at where that has gotten us.
bladex1234 needs a few more trips around the sun and perhaps a counterexample or two of a rich person having high influence in society for a cause he agrees with.
The content of his character was tested and in the eyes of a lot of people that like his music, he failed the test.
It’s not fair in that he didn’t ask to be tested but sometimes the world knocks at your door and tests you. For most of us it’s something only we and maybe a handful of people know about but when you’re a famous musician you have the spotlight and not only when you want it to be on you.
On the surface, he was given a nice excuse to try to stay out of it. The promoters made the decision, not him. So he took a gamble that he could look like a neutral party in this debate. The thing is, because of his position in the situation, he held all of the power. He could have easily said "If Macklemore is kicked off the tour, I'm not playing." Then the tour ends and the promoters and venues would have lost a ton of money. I sort of feel for him that he was trying to find a neutral stance on the matter.
The thing is, when you're one of the biggest stars on the planet and you get swept up in controversy, you don't really have a neutral option. By not taking a stance, he effectively endorsed the decision. It's kind of easy to forget this because Sheeran spent his career cultivating the down-to-earth everyman image. But he is massively successful and influential, which comes with responsibilities to represent what happens on his tour.
I feel bad for Ed. He just wants to sing and dance, he knows he's not a politician and he wanted to stay in his own lane. I am honestly surprised they had a tour together to begin with.
Edit: So what's going to be good enough for Reddit? Ed never plays another show? Y'all are treating him like he's opening up for Trump for his next big speech and are creating a bigger divide. Do you not see that people not terminally online are tired of the witch hunts and do not agree with burning everything down when someone doesn't agree? I hate that being a progressive means that all of my fellow voters are a bunch of terminally online witch hunters rather than doing anything productive. Energy is much better spent talking with your family and friends who are much more willing to listen to you opinions on politics than screaming at anyone who disagrees slightly online.
If his conception of "not being a politician" is to betray his friends at the behest of censorious billionaires then he needs to re-evaluate what actions are and are not political.
You can't claim "neutrality" while also doing the bidding of your big money masters. He had a choice here, stand up for a friend, or be a toadie for a rich out of touch ghoul. He chose the latter. He might not be able to see it, but everyone else on the tour did, and that's why he's entirely without support at this point.
I think this idea of being "neutral" on a big important issue is not really feasible. Especially if you have a platform of millions of fans or followers. You don't get to claim that your voice doesn't matter, you don't get to claim it doesn't make a difference what you think or say.
All you are effectively doing is making it clear that you are okay with the status quo. That no discussion or action is needed as far as you are concerned. And if the status quo is US taxpayer-funded genocide, people are allowed to have feelings and opinions about that.
It's okay to not want to get into the details of the Isreal-Palestine conflict in a music tour promo press conference or in an interview for some magazine. It is not okay to lie to people by pretending you don't have an opinion on millions of people being slaughtered, many among them children and women. Especially if it is in your own self-interest to keep the money flowing, as you pointed out.
Damn sensitive much? I have a job and went to bed. Go ahead and take it out on me, I do not give a shit about you or anyone else on reddit. I feel like y'all need serious help the way you always need to witch hunt. Take this energy out on a fucking Republican and go VOTE if you actually give a shit.
It's a sad day when we forget the human and only see a witch. Ed is just another victim. I hope that progressive politics can survive this wave of hate and doesn't just become the hate. I still want health care for everybody here and I think Palestine has a right to exist, but I'm the devil because I don't think Ed is where the hate should be directed at.
It was too late for that years ago, this ain't my first rodeo, ever since social media reached popularity its brought out the inner cruel bullying asshole in both the left and right.
This is exactly correct. Folks often forget that the right to free speech is also balanced by the right to free association. If you are in a business relationship where you represent your employer publicly, you retain the right to speak freely, and they retain the right to end the relationship as a result of that speech. Likewise, the general public retains the right to no longer associate with that employer.
In this instance, things are a little tricky. Criticizing the Israeli government for their actions in the war is not antisemitism. Personally, I would go even further than the war and say the current Israeli government represents an aspect of Israeli culture that seeks to minimize and potentially eliminate the Palestinian presence in disputed areas. At best, it’s apartheid.
However, as critical as I am of their policies, I acknowledge that joining their critics does put me in contact with some blatant antisemites. While I reject the current Israeli philosophy, “From the River to the sea,” is a phrase I would never utter as part of that criticism. Understanding the origins and desires of that call recognizes it is allying with voices calling for the extermination of anyone with Jewish heritage in that region of the world, and calling for a new Jewish diaspora. Resolving one genocide with another genocide is not justice.
Cancel culture doesn’t exist, except as an argumentative construct abused by supporters of people who have been called out for shitty behavior and are paying a public price.
In this instance it’s not even cancel culture that would be the issue, even if it existed. The issue here is that an unambiguously evil billionaire didn’t like that Macklemore was protesting a genocide that he benefits from, and so he used his disproportionate power, influence, and wealth to remove Macklemore from the show. It’s almost like billionaires are a colossal threat to democracy, and that they shouldn’t exist.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your last sentence, but an interesting take about private citizens having influence in society through money actually makes sense, when viewed against and contrasted to communism. In one, the state owns everything and has most of the influence. In the other, people have influence and can work to earn even more influence if they want to. That’s as ‘democratic’ in a way.
It absolutely is a thing. Some of the people canceled didn't really have shitty behavior and the hypersensitive mob mentality outrage didn't care, or at least blew it way out of proportion. Like Al Franken. This case is similar.
Al Franken was likely treated badly. Does that mean there is a whole "culture" around treating people that way? And does that culture happen to align with any previously established political or demographic category?
I just gave one example, there are plenty more. Cancel culture has absolutely been massively disproportionate in a ton of cases. The group think mob mentality is strong.
“Mob mentality” is not the same as “cancel culture.” The former has been around for millennia. The latter is used to systematically undermine the concerns of women and liberals within the last ten or so years.
“Cancel culture” is what abusive people say to undermine legitimate (usually) claims calling out their abuses publicly in order to offhandedly dismiss them. And just because a mob is after you does not mean they’re wrong.
The only person offhandedly dismissing anything is you. People that should not have recieved the treatment they did had their lives ruined by a bunch of wannabe vigilante goobers on some self-righteous crusade. You can both accept that shitty people got what was coming and that it went too far in a lot of cases.
You’re kind of talking past me. Franken, and others did not necessarily get what they deserve. People being tried in the media is not new though. What is new(-ish at this point) is using something some liberal dummy said as a conservative dogwhistle to try to avoid scrutiny and consequences for being a dick. Remember how it was thrown around when primarily rich old White men were being called out for sexual misconduct? I do, and I happen to be an old white man. It’s not about whether specific claims against specific people were justified, it’s about using a catchphrase to try to swat down undesirable press. Used predominantly by conservative dummies and their billionaire handlers.
People have mostly internalized it as people being annoying on the internet but it is a real issue where people with actual power in society wield that influence to marginalize and crush those with opinions or lifestyles they don't like. In this case, a billionaire with deep ties to a foreign state using his power to force out a musician from a tour because he criticized that foreign state
In the current example, which real person is responsible for the blowback on Ed Sheeran? Did all of his support bands walk because some other person's public influence being wielded on them? Or did they, like many musicians leave because of his cowardice and refusal to back his friend and fellow artist?
First and foremost it is Robert Kraft for demanding the removal of Macklemore and threatening to torpedo the tour if his demands weren't met. Then Sheeran for caving to those demands.
There also isn't much of a distinction between your last two questions. The lack of backbone to defend a friend and fellow artist doesn't happen without the billionaire abusing power for their own self-interests
I don’t think you understand what people mean by “cancel culture” if you think Kraft is the cause of anything other than poor people misery. An asshole billionaire with ties to an apartheid regime forcing censorship is not cancel culture by any common use of the term.
Your ignorance is showing. Aaron Rodgers is a prime example. But you don’t actually want to understand, you just want to find any reason to be a pedantic moron.
You can say it exists. But you can also say it's been managed into a political weapon. And I think it's use as a dog whistle and ambit claim has swamped any real meaning it had.
Of course, A$ap Rocky was not only selected for one of the most popular movies of all time, he was also selected for the most popular video game of all time. All this after his AstroWorld negligence where he watched as his fans died while he was performing, which would’ve had anyone else thrown behind bars.
feastoffun | 21 hours ago
They have a right to kick off any Musician from the tour they don’t like, BUT we have a right not to go to the show and protest their actions.
bladex1234 | 4 hours ago
I’m sorry but no they don’t ethically have the right to do that. Where the does that end if they do?
shaggy_nomad | 2 hours ago
Every private business has a right to allow or disallow certain speach they deme acceptable in their property. We are allowed to react to that. Just as reddit can silence anything they'd like, as Facebook can too.
As long as the government isn't getting involved then it is not a free speech issue.
bladex1234 | 2 hours ago
Stadiums that are built with public money should not be able to dictate speech.
shaggy_nomad | 2 hours ago
Free speech is relative to the government. Has he been arrested for what he said? Has the government done anything in response? No? Then his free speech is still holding up.
bladex1234 | 2 hours ago
So you’re okay with cancel culture when billionaires do it?
shaggy_nomad | 2 hours ago
Lmao cancel culture just isn't a thing. I can still hear what Macklemore has to say and people are rallying behind him. He's not "canceled".
People have reacted to others by what they say and do forever, getting booted off a tour is not being canceled. I may not agree with it, but I also respect the rights of those that booted him to do it because this is America where we are free to do such things.
bladex1234 | 2 hours ago
I mean go keep licking the boot then. I don’t care if a billionaire owns a stadium or not, they should not be allowed to have that level of influence in society. Look at where that has gotten us.
shaggy_nomad | 2 hours ago
Im not licking a boot. Macklemore has ridiculous streaming numbers, still has a public outlet, and is still being heard. He has not been canceled.
Im not a fan of what happened but in America we can't act like this behavior is only okay when it goes one way.
MarksRabbitHole | an hour ago
shaggy_nomad gets it.
bladex1234 needs a few more trips around the sun and perhaps a counterexample or two of a rich person having high influence in society for a cause he agrees with.
omegaphallic | 21 hours ago
Ed didn't fire any body, he hasn't done anything wrong, but he's getting punished
Astrochops | 21 hours ago
I wouldn't say he didn't do ANYTHING wrong
Zank_Frappa | 19 hours ago
He could have stood by his friend instead of abandoning him because it was more convenient.
Johnny_bubblegum | 12 hours ago
The content of his character was tested and in the eyes of a lot of people that like his music, he failed the test.
It’s not fair in that he didn’t ask to be tested but sometimes the world knocks at your door and tests you. For most of us it’s something only we and maybe a handful of people know about but when you’re a famous musician you have the spotlight and not only when you want it to be on you.
WelcomeMysterious315 | 20 hours ago
lol
bluecalx2 | 9 hours ago
On the surface, he was given a nice excuse to try to stay out of it. The promoters made the decision, not him. So he took a gamble that he could look like a neutral party in this debate. The thing is, because of his position in the situation, he held all of the power. He could have easily said "If Macklemore is kicked off the tour, I'm not playing." Then the tour ends and the promoters and venues would have lost a ton of money. I sort of feel for him that he was trying to find a neutral stance on the matter.
The thing is, when you're one of the biggest stars on the planet and you get swept up in controversy, you don't really have a neutral option. By not taking a stance, he effectively endorsed the decision. It's kind of easy to forget this because Sheeran spent his career cultivating the down-to-earth everyman image. But he is massively successful and influential, which comes with responsibilities to represent what happens on his tour.
OkMind2351 | 17 hours ago
Rubbish
Friendo_Marx | 5 hours ago
Maybe he is really being punished for that horrible song of his. He is my number two rage Shazam after Drake!
junpei | 20 hours ago
I feel bad for Ed. He just wants to sing and dance, he knows he's not a politician and he wanted to stay in his own lane. I am honestly surprised they had a tour together to begin with.
Edit: So what's going to be good enough for Reddit? Ed never plays another show? Y'all are treating him like he's opening up for Trump for his next big speech and are creating a bigger divide. Do you not see that people not terminally online are tired of the witch hunts and do not agree with burning everything down when someone doesn't agree? I hate that being a progressive means that all of my fellow voters are a bunch of terminally online witch hunters rather than doing anything productive. Energy is much better spent talking with your family and friends who are much more willing to listen to you opinions on politics than screaming at anyone who disagrees slightly online.
Astrochops | 18 hours ago
They literally have a song together
Murrabbit | 19 hours ago
If his conception of "not being a politician" is to betray his friends at the behest of censorious billionaires then he needs to re-evaluate what actions are and are not political.
You can't claim "neutrality" while also doing the bidding of your big money masters. He had a choice here, stand up for a friend, or be a toadie for a rich out of touch ghoul. He chose the latter. He might not be able to see it, but everyone else on the tour did, and that's why he's entirely without support at this point.
individual_throwaway | 12 hours ago
I think this idea of being "neutral" on a big important issue is not really feasible. Especially if you have a platform of millions of fans or followers. You don't get to claim that your voice doesn't matter, you don't get to claim it doesn't make a difference what you think or say.
All you are effectively doing is making it clear that you are okay with the status quo. That no discussion or action is needed as far as you are concerned. And if the status quo is US taxpayer-funded genocide, people are allowed to have feelings and opinions about that.
It's okay to not want to get into the details of the Isreal-Palestine conflict in a music tour promo press conference or in an interview for some magazine. It is not okay to lie to people by pretending you don't have an opinion on millions of people being slaughtered, many among them children and women. Especially if it is in your own self-interest to keep the money flowing, as you pointed out.
AwTomorrow | 12 hours ago
He’s spoken out on numerous political causes before.
junpei | 9 hours ago
Oh okay I guess he deserves the witch hunt then? What the fuck?
Mimehunter | 9 hours ago
It means you can't use that excuse, einstein
AwTomorrow | 9 hours ago
Just means this excuse is disingenuous, and he should try another
WelcomeMysterious315 | 19 hours ago
Except those other times he spoke out for causes, right?
Edit: you can use bigboy words to express your disagreement Junpie. Why stop at the downvote?
junpei | 11 hours ago
Damn sensitive much? I have a job and went to bed. Go ahead and take it out on me, I do not give a shit about you or anyone else on reddit. I feel like y'all need serious help the way you always need to witch hunt. Take this energy out on a fucking Republican and go VOTE if you actually give a shit.
SledgeLaud | 9 hours ago
Most people aren't from America, and can hold more than 2 opinions at a time.
WelcomeMysterious315 | 8 hours ago
Going off like that and not caring what other people think are kinda mutually exclusive mate.
junpei | 8 hours ago
Okay enjoy your echo chamber. Have a good day, vote blue.
HumanBarbarian | 7 hours ago
I feel like y'all protest too much.
omegaphallic | 7 hours ago
Down voted to hell for being rational and compassionate.
junpei | 7 hours ago
It's a sad day when we forget the human and only see a witch. Ed is just another victim. I hope that progressive politics can survive this wave of hate and doesn't just become the hate. I still want health care for everybody here and I think Palestine has a right to exist, but I'm the devil because I don't think Ed is where the hate should be directed at.
omegaphallic | 4 hours ago
It was too late for that years ago, this ain't my first rodeo, ever since social media reached popularity its brought out the inner cruel bullying asshole in both the left and right.
adriftinanmtc | 20 hours ago
Is being fired by an employer for having an opposing view the same as being canceled?
dkillers303 | 18 hours ago
Thank you for defining, “cancel culture”
snowdenn | 18 hours ago
Fired for merely having? Yes that absolutely would be. For talking openly about it at work and in public? It really depends on the situation.
HMSSpeedy1801 | 14 hours ago
This is exactly correct. Folks often forget that the right to free speech is also balanced by the right to free association. If you are in a business relationship where you represent your employer publicly, you retain the right to speak freely, and they retain the right to end the relationship as a result of that speech. Likewise, the general public retains the right to no longer associate with that employer.
In this instance, things are a little tricky. Criticizing the Israeli government for their actions in the war is not antisemitism. Personally, I would go even further than the war and say the current Israeli government represents an aspect of Israeli culture that seeks to minimize and potentially eliminate the Palestinian presence in disputed areas. At best, it’s apartheid.
However, as critical as I am of their policies, I acknowledge that joining their critics does put me in contact with some blatant antisemites. While I reject the current Israeli philosophy, “From the River to the sea,” is a phrase I would never utter as part of that criticism. Understanding the origins and desires of that call recognizes it is allying with voices calling for the extermination of anyone with Jewish heritage in that region of the world, and calling for a new Jewish diaspora. Resolving one genocide with another genocide is not justice.
Pip-Pipes | 18 hours ago
Depends on the view and how it reflects on the employer and bottom line.
soiltostone | 22 hours ago
Cancel culture doesn’t exist, except as an argumentative construct abused by supporters of people who have been called out for shitty behavior and are paying a public price.
Satan-o-saurus | 21 hours ago
In this instance it’s not even cancel culture that would be the issue, even if it existed. The issue here is that an unambiguously evil billionaire didn’t like that Macklemore was protesting a genocide that he benefits from, and so he used his disproportionate power, influence, and wealth to remove Macklemore from the show. It’s almost like billionaires are a colossal threat to democracy, and that they shouldn’t exist.
soiltostone | 20 hours ago
Absolutely
MarksRabbitHole | an hour ago
I don’t necessarily disagree with your last sentence, but an interesting take about private citizens having influence in society through money actually makes sense, when viewed against and contrasted to communism. In one, the state owns everything and has most of the influence. In the other, people have influence and can work to earn even more influence if they want to. That’s as ‘democratic’ in a way.
LogDogan8 | 8 hours ago
It absolutely is a thing. Some of the people canceled didn't really have shitty behavior and the hypersensitive mob mentality outrage didn't care, or at least blew it way out of proportion. Like Al Franken. This case is similar.
soiltostone | 7 hours ago
Al Franken was likely treated badly. Does that mean there is a whole "culture" around treating people that way? And does that culture happen to align with any previously established political or demographic category?
LogDogan8 | 7 hours ago
I just gave one example, there are plenty more. Cancel culture has absolutely been massively disproportionate in a ton of cases. The group think mob mentality is strong.
soiltostone | 6 hours ago
“Mob mentality” is not the same as “cancel culture.” The former has been around for millennia. The latter is used to systematically undermine the concerns of women and liberals within the last ten or so years.
LogDogan8 | 6 hours ago
Mob mentality is the driving force behind cancel culture. Never said they were the same thing.
soiltostone | 6 hours ago
“Cancel culture” is what abusive people say to undermine legitimate (usually) claims calling out their abuses publicly in order to offhandedly dismiss them. And just because a mob is after you does not mean they’re wrong.
LogDogan8 | 5 hours ago
The only person offhandedly dismissing anything is you. People that should not have recieved the treatment they did had their lives ruined by a bunch of wannabe vigilante goobers on some self-righteous crusade. You can both accept that shitty people got what was coming and that it went too far in a lot of cases.
soiltostone | 4 hours ago
You’re kind of talking past me. Franken, and others did not necessarily get what they deserve. People being tried in the media is not new though. What is new(-ish at this point) is using something some liberal dummy said as a conservative dogwhistle to try to avoid scrutiny and consequences for being a dick. Remember how it was thrown around when primarily rich old White men were being called out for sexual misconduct? I do, and I happen to be an old white man. It’s not about whether specific claims against specific people were justified, it’s about using a catchphrase to try to swat down undesirable press. Used predominantly by conservative dummies and their billionaire handlers.
RADMADSADGLADBADDAD | 20 hours ago
It shouldn’t be called cancel culture. It should be called Consequence Culture.
Ambitious_Bridge_484 | 21 hours ago
Yeah.
HighKing_of_Festivus | 7 hours ago
People have mostly internalized it as people being annoying on the internet but it is a real issue where people with actual power in society wield that influence to marginalize and crush those with opinions or lifestyles they don't like. In this case, a billionaire with deep ties to a foreign state using his power to force out a musician from a tour because he criticized that foreign state
soiltostone | 7 hours ago
In the current example, which real person is responsible for the blowback on Ed Sheeran? Did all of his support bands walk because some other person's public influence being wielded on them? Or did they, like many musicians leave because of his cowardice and refusal to back his friend and fellow artist?
HighKing_of_Festivus | 7 hours ago
First and foremost it is Robert Kraft for demanding the removal of Macklemore and threatening to torpedo the tour if his demands weren't met. Then Sheeran for caving to those demands.
There also isn't much of a distinction between your last two questions. The lack of backbone to defend a friend and fellow artist doesn't happen without the billionaire abusing power for their own self-interests
soiltostone | 6 hours ago
I don’t think you understand what people mean by “cancel culture” if you think Kraft is the cause of anything other than poor people misery. An asshole billionaire with ties to an apartheid regime forcing censorship is not cancel culture by any common use of the term.
HighKing_of_Festivus | 6 hours ago
If only I said something about that in the post you originally responded to
soiltostone | 6 hours ago
I wonder if we are secretly agreeing with each other in substance, and at least I am not reading well.
Cereborn | 5 hours ago
That’s because the common usage of the term is angry rightwing reactionaries who don’t like being told not to be racist and sexist.
tmurg375 | 20 hours ago
No, it exists. Look what happened to a lot of people during Covid as well. Saying it doesn’t exist makes it hard to take you seriously.
soiltostone | 19 hours ago
Omg totally. Such a tragedy when bad things just "happen" to totally regular people.
Murrabbit | 19 hours ago
> Look what happened to a lot of people during Covid as well
That was a virus. What are you talking about? Lol.
CruelAngelsPostgrad | 13 hours ago
I'd guess that dude must an enormous fan of Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby.
tmurg375 | 10 hours ago
Your ignorance is showing. Aaron Rodgers is a prime example. But you don’t actually want to understand, you just want to find any reason to be a pedantic moron.
Murrabbit | 10 hours ago
Uh-huh cool. Have fun developing your persecution complex. Sounds like a blast.
tmurg375 | 10 hours ago
Thanks for proving my point
SledgeLaud | 8 hours ago
Aaron Rodgers, net worth 250million, 42yo and current quarter back for the Steelers?
jedburghofficial | 15 hours ago
You can say it exists. But you can also say it's been managed into a political weapon. And I think it's use as a dog whistle and ambit claim has swamped any real meaning it had.
MiksterA | 19 hours ago
Yeah, I'm going to focus on the ongoing genocide, and let you wring your hands over "cancel culture."
YawnDogg | 8 hours ago
Louis CK won an Emmy. Cancel culture lol
andizzzzi | 19 hours ago
Of course, A$ap Rocky was not only selected for one of the most popular movies of all time, he was also selected for the most popular video game of all time. All this after his AstroWorld negligence where he watched as his fans died while he was performing, which would’ve had anyone else thrown behind bars.
twowaysplit | 19 hours ago
Wasn’t that Travis Scott?
AeliusRogimus | 17 hours ago
Yeah but "rich black rapper guy" so all the same. 🙄
timshel42 | 17 hours ago
i present to you the average level of discourse on reddit.