Not having any idea what this meme was referring to, I could pretty easily make a good inference based on the format (Ed Sheeran taking a position on genocide by not taking a position on genocide).
However, this comment citing Robert Kraft’s inclusion in the Epstein files while name-dropping Macklemore—somehow in reference to Ed Sheeran and genocide—what did I miss?
Fortunately Robert Kraft has nothing to do with making what can generously be described as food. He's CEO of a holding company and owns the New England Patriots.
He directly supported genocide by claiming holding a Palestinian flag hurt the feeling of a lot of people this is a denial, of palestinians right to exist and self determination
I recall actually talking to him on Facebook at one point once over a decade ago. He was talking shit about single family homes. I can't imagine I've ever had direct contact with a worse person.
I'm not here to argue. I'm just pointing out that, well, yeah. Single-family homes are fucking awful. They, and the suburban sprawl that accompanies them, are terrible for the environment and for society. None of this is particularly controversial, especially in an overwhelmingly leftist and not-car-brained space like the fediverse.
But we do have resources available right now to provide a home to every single family in the UK, it's a matter of policy that we dont
Yes yes in a fair resource based economy we'd all be sharing resources equally and minimising our impact on the world, but that's an opinion that should come from someone who doesn't own several
It's hardly any different where I'm from originally; Kraft makes a lot of money on real estate, so he's not really worth agreeing with whatever your preferred non-radical housing reforms may be.
Sure, but apartments, row houses, duplexes, and other medium- or higher-density housing are just so much better for not just the environment but also for people than sprawling single-family homes. It's easier to get around your city if more things are closer together. Especially good if it means you don't have to drive everywhere, but can take an easy walk or bike ride or make use of fast efficient public transport. It's also better for the government because the cost of maintaining roads, sewerage, electricity, and other infrastructure is greatly lessened. Better for people's health because less driving means cleaner local air and healthier personal lifestyles. And once people aren't driving as much they're more likely to spend money in the local economy rather than driving to big (inter)national chain stores that take the money out of the local region. It's really win-win-win all around.
But as I write this, I'm wondering if perhaps we're just having a miscommunication? In the interest of clarity, when we talk about single-family homes, what we're talking about is something like this:
A large, separated property with fairly large front and back yards and strips of usable space down either side, where the whole property is occupied by one family. It's not including apartments, row houses, or townhouses, even though those are homes that could be occupied by a single family. It also doesn't count duplexes, fourplexes, etc., which could be special-made as duplexes or converted from single-family homes by dividing down the centre.
Urbanists promote medium- and higher-density mixed-use housing, they don't necessarily want to push multi-generational households or share houses (though for sure there are, separately, reasonable discussions to be had around that). I don't know if perhaps that's what you were thinking of? It certainly seems unlikely that the guy you were speaking to was genuinely an urbanist, from what else I'm reading about him. But as I glibly said at the start of this, it's certainly possible, because even the worst people sometimes have a good opinion.
Apolitical = Ignoring the bullshit, living locally, planting a garden, dancing drunk, etc. Nothing to do with maintaining the status quo if you aren't a part of it. As far as the ruling class goes we all gotta serve somebody.
That's quite a stretch there, bucko. Is it society that allows me to be what you say I am, or is it just you? I'm anything but happy with the status quo but, go ahead, keep on flinging those attributes around if it makes you cope better. We all need a pretend enemy sometimes because that is our nature.
If you are neutral towards baseball, it means you're fine with it as a sport, aka reinforcing its acceptance in society (I don't give a damn about it). If you are not fine with hare coursing existing as a "sport", you protest against it. Being neutral would reinforce its existence, if it's already being practiced.
I know someone at work who is often "a-political" and tries the whole let's hear out all sides. This is am excellent reason as to why you just need to pick a side, because now he's probably alienating people on both sides.
That said, there will always be Ed Sheeran fans, just like some people still like Harry Potter. I'll never understand why.
My issue with apoliticism is that, IMO, it's impossible: it just endorses the status quo, and is simply a fachade to hide that.
Paraphrasing Desmond Tutu: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor".
And it's fine if you want to conform to the status quo, not every single discussion we have every single day should be this huge decision-making take-a-stand and die-on-that hill and so on, but just be transperent and honest about it, instead of hiding in that "apolitical" image.
"Apolitical" people don't even realize that's what they're doing. But I guarantee if something affected them they would suddenly realize why politics is important.
apolitical really means, a right winger that knows thier position is very offensive to friends and family, coworkers and is likely wrong, "so i have to pretend i cant talk about it, and in a "neutral" position so it doesnt compromise my beliefs."
I know someone at work who is often "a-political" and tries the whole let's hear out all sides.
I tend to be this guy when I am mostly unfamiliar with an issue, largely because I want to know the whole situation, and more importantly, the reasoning behind each side's arguments before I publicly take a position one way or the other.
In this case though, it's pretty obvious to see who the oppressor is.
It's perfectly reasonable to have an opinion on a topic based on the information you've had access to so far, while also being open to or seeking out new information that might change your mind.
why do republicans have to pretend they don't like politics
Because the alternative is admitting to friends and family that they actually wanted all this, and that mask-off villainy may complicate some relationships.
Edit Sheeran has historically chosen not to take sides on political issues. Recently he dropped Macklemore from some tour dates under pressure from billionaire Robert Kraft, who owns an arena he's booked at due to Macklemore's vocal opposition to Israel's genocidal actions in Palestine.
Ed Sheeran is influential enough that choosing to speak out would be beneficial towards raising awareness about the issue. Even though he has the platform to help people by speaking up about important issues, he chooses not to. Even though he has hundreds of millions of dollars and could easily afford get a few dates cancelled just to make a statement he chooses not to. Most likely because he is a straight, white, wealthy, well-connected man who doesn't have to worry about the threat of oppression and would rather stay silent than risk his ability to make even more millions of dollars.
In not opposed to him being outspoken, or even his stated outspoken stances, but pretending he has none now means he either supports genocide, or at least supports those that support it.
for the original clip that the images come from, you don't really need any context other than what's shown here in order to get the point of this particular meme: an explicit statement that you are not taking a stance on a particular issue is itself an explicit stance on that issue
but to give the context that's not really needed, it's a game show, and the objective of this particular part of the episode is "don't acknowledge Ron Perlman," but the twist is some players don't know the objectives, and just walk into the room and see Ron Perlman with no instruction given
That last one "I spy" I really feel was the weakest yet. Like I know the art department put in a metric fuckton of work into it, but I feel Ryan and Sam really didn't put in a whole lot of brain power into the gimmick(s). Same with the jury episode this season too.
90 replies
the funny thing about macklemore is that robert kraft is in the epstein files
Not having any idea what this meme was referring to, I could pretty easily make a good inference based on the format (Ed Sheeran taking a position on genocide by not taking a position on genocide).
However, this comment citing Robert Kraft’s inclusion in the Epstein files while name-dropping Macklemore—somehow in reference to Ed Sheeran and genocide—what did I miss?
Kraft owns one of the venues Sheeran was scheduled to play at and pressured him to drop Macklemore.
Thank you! I thought Kraft was in Macklemore.
Edit: I have since learned Macklemore is a person, not a band, and I have been playing his music.
I think kraft is in cheese
"Cheese"
"Cheez"
Now contains 30% more disappointment!
Fortunately Robert Kraft has nothing to do with making what can generously be described as food. He's CEO of a holding company and owns the New England Patriots.
Next album should be named Kraft, Mack, and Cheese it would be fire
No cheese in kraft
If by "cheese" you mean "billionaire pedophile club"
He directly supported genocide by claiming holding a Palestinian flag hurt the feeling of a lot of people this is a denial, of palestinians right to exist and self determination
I recall actually talking to him on Facebook at one point once over a decade ago. He was talking shit about single family homes. I can't imagine I've ever had direct contact with a worse person.
Uhh, Macklemore, Kraft or Ed?
Or Epstein?
Kraft
What
Well, even terrible people can have good opinions sometimes.
Lot of people this week just straight up approaching me like "let's argue". No thanks, I'm already vibrating with stress and rage. 🫶
I'm not here to argue. I'm just pointing out that, well, yeah. Single-family homes are fucking awful. They, and the suburban sprawl that accompanies them, are terrible for the environment and for society. None of this is particularly controversial, especially in an overwhelmingly leftist and not-car-brained space like the fediverse.
But we do have resources available right now to provide a home to every single family in the UK, it's a matter of policy that we dont
Yes yes in a fair resource based economy we'd all be sharing resources equally and minimising our impact on the world, but that's an opinion that should come from someone who doesn't own several
It's hardly any different where I'm from originally; Kraft makes a lot of money on real estate, so he's not really worth agreeing with whatever your preferred non-radical housing reforms may be.
Sure, but apartments, row houses, duplexes, and other medium- or higher-density housing are just so much better for not just the environment but also for people than sprawling single-family homes. It's easier to get around your city if more things are closer together. Especially good if it means you don't have to drive everywhere, but can take an easy walk or bike ride or make use of fast efficient public transport. It's also better for the government because the cost of maintaining roads, sewerage, electricity, and other infrastructure is greatly lessened. Better for people's health because less driving means cleaner local air and healthier personal lifestyles. And once people aren't driving as much they're more likely to spend money in the local economy rather than driving to big (inter)national chain stores that take the money out of the local region. It's really win-win-win all around.
But as I write this, I'm wondering if perhaps we're just having a miscommunication? In the interest of clarity, when we talk about single-family homes, what we're talking about is something like this:
A large, separated property with fairly large front and back yards and strips of usable space down either side, where the whole property is occupied by one family. It's not including apartments, row houses, or townhouses, even though those are homes that could be occupied by a single family. It also doesn't count duplexes, fourplexes, etc., which could be special-made as duplexes or converted from single-family homes by dividing down the centre.
Urbanists promote medium- and higher-density mixed-use housing, they don't necessarily want to push multi-generational households or share houses (though for sure there are, separately, reasonable discussions to be had around that). I don't know if perhaps that's what you were thinking of? It certainly seems unlikely that the guy you were speaking to was genuinely an urbanist, from what else I'm reading about him. But as I glibly said at the start of this, it's certainly possible, because even the worst people sometimes have a good opinion.
Oh, I'm talking about this:
single-terraced house with a shop on the corner
Mark my words, Sheeran has the same proclivities
Bet
Choosing not to take a side in the face of oppression is choosing the side of oppressor
How is that reasonable?
You aren't even being asked to do anything. Just acknowledge the right side in theory. If you can't do that, I wouldn't call it reasonable.
"Apolitical" = support the status quo/ruling class.
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"
That Rush song honestly opened my eyes to this when I was younger.
Is there anything Rush can't do?
Revive Neil Peart.
Has anyone checked recently?
They did, they threw his soul into the body of a woman, Anika Nilles.
Ed Sheeran just learned this the hard way.
Apolitical = Ignoring the bullshit, living locally, planting a garden, dancing drunk, etc. Nothing to do with maintaining the status quo if you aren't a part of it. As far as the ruling class goes we all gotta serve somebody.
Lol dude you live in this society whether you choose to believe it or not. You're literally on the internet right now.
The fact that society allows you to do those things but not Palestinians shows that you're happy with the status quo so fuck them.
That's quite a stretch there, bucko. Is it society that allows me to be what you say I am, or is it just you? I'm anything but happy with the status quo but, go ahead, keep on flinging those attributes around if it makes you cope better. We all need a pretend enemy sometimes because that is our nature.
I'm not sorry you feel called out for your support of the ruling class and their status quo
I don't feel called out and I don't support the ruling class. Try again, you'll hit the nail on the head eventually, because I'm certainly no saint.
Upvote for meme, upvote for game changer, upvote for Ron Perlman. Grant is aiight too.
But can you locate the real Grant in a room full of Grants?
Sure. He's the one with the erection.
The huge erection.
Found Grant's secret account.
Hi friend!
"Apolitical" just means reinforcing the status quo. Aka a conservative stance
"Apolitical" isn't reinforcing anything, therefore it's not conservative.
If you don't participate in, say, watching the Oscars, you're not "reinforcing the Oscars."
If you don't participate in America's sport, say, baseball, you're not "reinforcing baseball"
If you don't participate in Sunday school, you're not "reinforcing Catholicism"
... and so on.
If you are neutral towards baseball, it means you're fine with it as a sport, aka reinforcing its acceptance in society (I don't give a damn about it). If you are not fine with hare coursing existing as a "sport", you protest against it. Being neutral would reinforce its existence, if it's already being practiced.
At least all Ed Sheeran's supporting bands had the spine to stand up for what's right. They've all quit the tour.
ms rachel destroying ed sheeran is serotonin.
I know someone at work who is often "a-political" and tries the whole let's hear out all sides. This is am excellent reason as to why you just need to pick a side, because now he's probably alienating people on both sides.
That said, there will always be Ed Sheeran fans, just like some people still like Harry Potter. I'll never understand why.
My issue with apoliticism is that, IMO, it's impossible: it just endorses the status quo, and is simply a fachade to hide that.
Paraphrasing Desmond Tutu: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor".
And it's fine if you want to conform to the status quo, not every single discussion we have every single day should be this huge decision-making take-a-stand and die-on-that hill and so on, but just be transperent and honest about it, instead of hiding in that "apolitical" image.
"Apolitical" people don't even realize that's what they're doing. But I guarantee if something affected them they would suddenly realize why politics is important.
So you are saying they are just dumb as fuck
Yeah basically
They're saying they are Republicans.
Edit: just realized I repeated your post, sorry.
apolitical really means, a right winger that knows thier position is very offensive to friends and family, coworkers and is likely wrong, "so i have to pretend i cant talk about it, and in a "neutral" position so it doesnt compromise my beliefs."
I tend to be this guy when I am mostly unfamiliar with an issue, largely because I want to know the whole situation, and more importantly, the reasoning behind each side's arguments before I publicly take a position one way or the other.
In this case though, it's pretty obvious to see who the oppressor is.
It's perfectly reasonable to have an opinion on a topic based on the information you've had access to so far, while also being open to or seeking out new information that might change your mind.
someone that is not-political is almost always a right winger.
Oh that's easy, they're just your standard "It doesn't affect me directly so I don't care about it" idiots.
you know hes likely a right winger, when he says hes not "political", why do republicans have to pretend they dont like politics.
Because the alternative is admitting to friends and family that they actually wanted all this, and that mask-off villainy may complicate some relationships.
Silence only helps the oppressor.
HI FRIEND (shoutout to a wild dropout meme <3)
I also love wild dropout memes
Hi dropout friends!
Ugh, genocide was practiced a century ago, and is still being practiced to this day.
War never changes. 😮💨
Explain pls ?
Edit Sheeran has historically chosen not to take sides on political issues. Recently he dropped Macklemore from some tour dates under pressure from billionaire Robert Kraft, who owns an arena he's booked at due to Macklemore's vocal opposition to Israel's genocidal actions in Palestine.
Ed Sheeran is influential enough that choosing to speak out would be beneficial towards raising awareness about the issue. Even though he has the platform to help people by speaking up about important issues, he chooses not to. Even though he has hundreds of millions of dollars and could easily afford get a few dates cancelled just to make a statement he chooses not to. Most likely because he is a straight, white, wealthy, well-connected man who doesn't have to worry about the threat of oppression and would rather stay silent than risk his ability to make even more millions of dollars.
Sheeran was pretty outspoken about Ukraine apparently.
Also brexit, also the various UK elections, etc.
In not opposed to him being outspoken, or even his stated outspoken stances, but pretending he has none now means he either supports genocide, or at least supports those that support it.
Fuck both of those stances, Ed.
Right, and if he's deciding to step away from taking public political stances, now is not the right time to do that. And definitely not like this.
Ed Sheeran also played at Robert Kraft's wedding and apparently had a wonderful time there. Something to keep in mind in all this.
Zamn
He took the side of Ukraine victim of Russian aggression but can't do the same with Palestine
for the original clip that the images come from, you don't really need any context other than what's shown here in order to get the point of this particular meme: an explicit statement that you are not taking a stance on a particular issue is itself an explicit stance on that issue
but to give the context that's not really needed, it's a game show, and the objective of this particular part of the episode is "don't acknowledge Ron Perlman," but the twist is some players don't know the objectives, and just walk into the room and see Ron Perlman with no instruction given
Ed lost his spine somewhere and he's having a lot of trouble finding it, please check under your couch cushions!
I'm going to be really upset if I find his spine in my couch cushions. I don't know the man, how did he get in my house!?
He didn't. His spine did.
I only know Grant(?) from Dropout. Was Ron Perlman on a Dropout show?
Yes on one of the recent Game Changer episodes called "Night Shift"
The prompt was “Ignore Ron Pearlman.” It’s spectacular.
That was my favorite episode. Ron was solid fucking gold, I want him to come back. So fucking funny.
That last one "I spy" I really feel was the weakest yet. Like I know the art department put in a metric fuckton of work into it, but I feel Ryan and Sam really didn't put in a whole lot of brain power into the gimmick(s). Same with the jury episode this season too.
Ignorance is discrimination
Late but shameless plug for ![email protected]