Your Fave is Problematic

waruv said:
I do get the question though, to me there's nuance but I get if there's not for folks.
Click to expand...
There's definitely nuance, it's just that the lines and the thresholds for what is tolerable are somewhat arbitrarily drawn. Like, what if Big Thief were to play Israel but charge 5x normal ticket prices, and fleece their audience to make a bigger donation to Palestinian causes? Would *that* offset the validation they're offering? Does a little indie darling outfit like Big Thief even carry that kind of clout in the first place? It's not like they're a major pop/rock stadium tour enterprise, you know?

I don't even really know anything about this band, so grain of salt and all that, but Max is presumably a direct beneficiary of Israeli government policy even if he's not a 'settler.' How is providing him with a livelihood not worse than just taking money from people who want to hear your music?

Legitimately not trying to "devil's advocate" this to death, I'm not that invested. I've just never been completely clear on what the "X Artist is Playing a Show in Israel!" stories do to actually help Palestine. "Just don't play in Israel" is a fairly passive form of activism.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Not asking this to be inflammatory, even if it sometimes feels that everything said on this subject is inherently controversial: if it's not okay to play shows there, why is it okay to employ a current resident citizen in the band?
Click to expand...
As an individual, I would hate to be judged by the actions of the US. I would also hate to be associated with a lot of the crap our government is doing. I really, really, really hope that we can separate an individual from their country when talking about how we view that person.

Indymisanthrope said:
There's definitely nuance, it's just that the lines and the thresholds for what is tolerable are somewhat arbitrarily drawn. Like, what if Big Thief were to play Israel but charge 5x normal ticket prices, and fleece their audience to make a bigger donation to Palestinian causes? Would *that* offset the validation they're offering? Does a little indie darling outfit like Big Thief even carry that kind of clout in the first place? It's not like they're a major pop/rock stadium tour enterprise, you know?

I don't even really know anything about this band, so grain of salt and all that, but Max is presumably a direct beneficiary of Israeli government policy even if he's not a 'settler.' How is providing him with a livelihood not worse than just taking money from people who want to hear your music?

Legitimately not trying to "devil's advocate" this to death, I'm not that invested. I've just never been completely clear on what the "X Artist is Playing a Show in Israel!" stories do to actually help Palestine. "Just don't play in Israel" is a fairly passive form of activism.
Click to expand...
It doesn't really add up too much in my book either.

I don't think it really helps anything and it just breeds animosity. I get that some bands feel they need to make political statements, but I think it does a disservice to their fans in places that are unpopular in the political West. If a band is concerned for its safety, this is different, but to skip a place because of politically polarizing issues, is concerning to me. As a resident of Louisiana, I can see artists cut us out of tours because of our politics (we already lost an OB/GYN convention because of our abortion trigger laws). Losing the convention didn't change anything in Baton Rouge and it ultimately hurt people in NOLA who depend on tourism revenue. It did nothing but hurt the people on the ground, not the people making policy. And while I would love to say that we will vote people out, analysis suggests that lawmakers don't follow the will of the people anymore and are instead making policy that benefits campaign contributors.

So yeah, making the people on the ground miss out on your show because you don't agree with the government of said people is not going to change anything and your fans don't get to see you live.
 
nolalady said:
As an individual, I would hate to be judged by the actions of the US. I would also hate to be associated with a lot of the crap our government is doing. I really, really, really hope that we can separate an individual from their country when talking about how we view that person.


It doesn't really add up too much in my book either.

I don't think it really helps anything and it just breeds animosity. I get that some bands feel they need to make political statements, but I think it does a disservice to their fans in places that are unpopular in the political West. If a band is concerned for its safety, this is different, but to skip a place because of politically polarizing issues, is concerning to me. As a resident of Louisiana, I can see artists cut us out of tours because of our politics (we already lost an OB/GYN convention because of our abortion trigger laws). Losing the convention didn't change anything in Baton Rouge and it ultimately hurt people in NOLA who depend on tourism revenue. It did nothing but hurt the people on the ground, not the people making policy. And while I would love to say that we will vote people out, analysis suggests that lawmakers don't follow the will of the people anymore and are instead making policy that benefits campaign contributors.

So yeah, making the people on the ground miss out on your show because you don't agree with the government of said people is not going to change anything and your fans don't get to see you live.
Click to expand...

I think if you’re a direct supporter of BDS then the idea is that you won’t allow your labour, art, money to enrich a company that doesn’t openly oppose the illegal occupation and virtual annexation of Palestinian lands. So for example Sally Rooney recently refused to syndicate her novel to an Israeli publishing house on the basis that they were not a company that made such a stance. Similarly here it would show an equivalence to promotors, venues, security companies, booking agents, etc.

If you strongly believe in the illegality of the Israeli actions and sit and watch as they front it out as national security etc etc etc such bad publicity and small scale financial choices are all that you really have. A popular musician has a platform, like it or not, and they can focus attention on such things.

We do however, really need to get better at realising that the situation in the Middle East is as complex as hell and that someone not expressly agreeing even with our actions, never mind our viewpoint, isn’t automatically an evil person. Polarisation is such a cancer right now.
 
Last edited:
4080 said:
pitchfork.com

Arcade Fire’s Win Butler Accused of Sexual Misconduct by Multiple Women; Frontman Responds

Allegations of inappropriate behavior in his life offstage contrast with Butler’s virtuous public reputation. In lengthy comments, the frontman claims his extramarital relationships were consensual.
pitchfork.com pitchfork.com

This wasn't something I expected to read today
Click to expand...
Yeah I just read that whole thing. I mean he’s response is super telling. What a creep.

Also very curious to see what happens from here for the band
 
Djxfactor511 said:
Have to wonder whether Will Butler saw this coming and that's one of the reasons he left the band, especially since he has political aspirations.
Click to expand...
Yeah I was wondering the same thing. I knew he left recently. And I looked at Reddit and it seems like people have been kinda talking about these allegations for a while now. So I guess everyone in the band has known to some extent this was coming.
 
Bennnnn said:
Yeah I was wondering the same thing. I knew he left recently. And I looked at Reddit and it seems like people have been kinda talking about these allegations for a while now. So I guess everyone in the band has known to some extent this was coming.
Click to expand...
given regine's response this seems highly likely
 
“Everyone is awful so you shouldn’t judge this musician differently or more harshly than anyone else.” - guy on Reddit going out of his way to minimize abuse because he likes the perpetrator’s music
 
swamp jazz box set said:
“Everyone is awful so you shouldn’t judge this musician differently or more harshly than anyone else.” - guy on Reddit going out of his way to minimize abuse because he likes the perpetrator’s music
Click to expand...
By that moronic logic, we should go out of our way to judge Win more harshly, since everyone (including us) is awful
 
swamp jazz box set said:
“Everyone is awful so you shouldn’t judge this musician differently or more harshly than anyone else.” - guy on Reddit going out of his way to minimize abuse because he likes the perpetrator’s music
Click to expand...
Just a pseudo-philosophical way of saying “I’m not bothered by abuse.”

It’s always weird when I hear this sort of prevarication, because the speaker clearly thinks they’re diluting blame/culpability, when it sounds more to me that they recognize themselves in an abuser, or see no behavioral line between themselves and an abuser.
 
Last edited:
Jan said:
weareyard.com

Just Plane Wrong: Celebs with the Worst Private Jet Co2 Emissions | Insights | Yard

We’ve researched over 1,500 flights to find out which celebrities have clocked up the most carbon emissions from private jet travel in 2022.
weareyard.com weareyard.com
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what's worse, the private jet use or the justifications each celeb team had:

“Taylor’s jet is loaned out regularly to other individuals. To attribute most or all of these trips to her is blatantly incorrect.”

After publication of our original data, a lawyer for Jay-Z told The Washington Post the rapper does not own the private jet in question. CelebJets and Yard attributed the jet to Jay-Z as according to news sources, he had requested the PUMA jet as part of his sign-up deal to become the creative director of Puma basketball.

Taylor's jet is loaned out, so that some other rich person can emit the pollution...how is this any better? And Jay-Z still rode in the jet regardless of who owned it. These jets are huge emitters of pollution (especially if you look at it per seat), and if we were really concerned with reducing our carbon footprint, we would invest in high speed rail instead of giving millions to air travel companies.

Around 2.4% of global CO2 emissions come from aviation. Together with other gases and the water vapour trails produced by aircraft, the industry is responsible for around 5% of global warming.

At first glance, that might not seem like very big contribution. Except, only a very small percentage of the world flies frequently. Even in richer countries like the UK and the US, around half of people fly in any given year, and just 12-15% are frequent fliers.

www.bbc.com

Should we give up flying for the sake of the climate?

For those of us that take regular holidays abroad and travel on business, flying makes up a considerable chunk of our carbon footprint, but are there ways of reducing those emissions?
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

A very, very small percentage of people actually fly on airplanes and yet that small amount of people makes up a huge amount of pollution.
 
nolalady said:
I'm not sure what's worse, the private jet use or the justifications each celeb team had:

“Taylor’s jet is loaned out regularly to other individuals. To attribute most or all of these trips to her is blatantly incorrect.”

After publication of our original data, a lawyer for Jay-Z told The Washington Post the rapper does not own the private jet in question. CelebJets and Yard attributed the jet to Jay-Z as according to news sources, he had requested the PUMA jet as part of his sign-up deal to become the creative director of Puma basketball.

Taylor's jet is loaned out, so that some other rich person can emit the pollution...how is this any better? And Jay-Z still rode in the jet regardless of who owned it. These jets are huge emitters of pollution (especially if you look at it per seat), and if we were really concerned with reducing our carbon footprint, we would invest in high speed rail instead of giving millions to air travel companies.

Around 2.4% of global CO2 emissions come from aviation. Together with other gases and the water vapour trails produced by aircraft, the industry is responsible for around 5% of global warming.

At first glance, that might not seem like very big contribution. Except, only a very small percentage of the world flies frequently. Even in richer countries like the UK and the US, around half of people fly in any given year, and just 12-15% are frequent fliers.

www.bbc.com

Should we give up flying for the sake of the climate?

For those of us that take regular holidays abroad and travel on business, flying makes up a considerable chunk of our carbon footprint, but are there ways of reducing those emissions?
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

A very, very small percentage of people actually fly on airplanes and yet that small amount of people makes up a huge amount of pollution.
Click to expand...

Don’t get me started on high speed rail. Makes perfect sense in US for sure but in the UK. Billions to get from Manchester to London in an hour. Is two really that bad? It’s a small country and that money could do wonders for improving the rest of the network that is collapsing at the seams…

Also, back on planes, when you drill down beyond that 12-15% it’s the same old 1% that are creating the vast majority of emissions. We really need a carbon tax that increases per air mile that you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top