Ed Sheeran IS a megastar, that’s why this is kind of a big deal. This whole thing is about selling out STADIUMS, and that’s takes a superstar.
He absolutely could have stood up for his fellow musicians, and remained neutral, although that isn’t really an option any more. These days, we want to know where everybody stands. It wouldn’t have been possible to remain neutral in the 1940s, and it is no longer possible to stay neutral now. We expect celebrities to stake out their positions, and take their chances with the outcome. If you aren’t openly, vocally against genocide, then you are for it.
most folk who headline arena tours are megastar. boycotting Sheeran’s music is not a difficult position for me to take, but my dislike of him doesn’t change the fame he’s acquired
It’s a mid-deal. He’s not nobody, he’s a privileged artist who writes sappy music that a lot of people bop their head to. So this contributes to the overall sustainment of outrage over what Israel is doing to Palestinians. But it’s not going to move the needle on what’s happening even marginally and honestly it’s not going to change how audiences feel about the genocide one way or another. Maybe a handful of people will pause and question or pay more attention if they’ve been tuned out. It’s a mid-deal.
What can we realistically do against Nestlé? They own like a third of all retail brands. Most people don’t have the time or patience to keep up with all that.
At least in the country I’m in, companies need not list their parent company on the packaging. There are Nestle branded products, but the products made by the companies they’ve bought still bear their original branding, even in the fine print. It would require at least some research to learn who is at the top of the pyramid of the company making the Twinkies or whatever.
It’s a lot easier to be choosier about one’s choice of music than it is to be about one’s choice of food. For example, when it comes to Nestlé, it’s hard to find alternative chocolate brands that don’t also have problematic “Controversy” sections in their wikipedia articles.
Yeah cuz ppl are fucking morons and don’t bother learning how the world around them actually works. Nestle knowingly sold hiv contaminated baby food to Africa and yet because they make fucking Oreos, they get overlooked.
Nestle did some shady shit that’s responsible for harm, suffering, and deaths of infants… but distributing HIV contaminated baby food is not one that I’m aware of. Do you have a source for that?
So a musician, not even a megastar at that, is getting the business while companies like Coke and Nestlé are still seeing high profits. 😮💨
Ed Sheeran IS a megastar, that’s why this is kind of a big deal. This whole thing is about selling out STADIUMS, and that’s takes a superstar.
He absolutely could have stood up for his fellow musicians, and remained neutral, although that isn’t really an option any more. These days, we want to know where everybody stands. It wouldn’t have been possible to remain neutral in the 1940s, and it is no longer possible to stay neutral now. We expect celebrities to stake out their positions, and take their chances with the outcome. If you aren’t openly, vocally against genocide, then you are for it.
Sheeran has shown his colors.
most folk who headline arena tours are megastar. boycotting Sheeran’s music is not a difficult position for me to take, but my dislike of him doesn’t change the fame he’s acquired
It’s a mid-deal. He’s not nobody, he’s a privileged artist who writes sappy music that a lot of people bop their head to. So this contributes to the overall sustainment of outrage over what Israel is doing to Palestinians. But it’s not going to move the needle on what’s happening even marginally and honestly it’s not going to change how audiences feel about the genocide one way or another. Maybe a handful of people will pause and question or pay more attention if they’ve been tuned out. It’s a mid-deal.
What can we realistically do against Nestlé? They own like a third of all retail brands. Most people don’t have the time or patience to keep up with all that.
Just look on the back of food packages. If it says Nestle, consider buying something that doesn’t.
At least in the country I’m in, companies need not list their parent company on the packaging. There are Nestle branded products, but the products made by the companies they’ve bought still bear their original branding, even in the fine print. It would require at least some research to learn who is at the top of the pyramid of the company making the Twinkies or whatever.
It’s a lot easier to be choosier about one’s choice of music than it is to be about one’s choice of food. For example, when it comes to Nestlé, it’s hard to find alternative chocolate brands that don’t also have problematic “Controversy” sections in their wikipedia articles.
Yeah cuz ppl are fucking morons and don’t bother learning how the world around them actually works. Nestle knowingly sold hiv contaminated baby food to Africa and yet because they make fucking Oreos, they get overlooked.
Oreos are unilever are they not?
Idk, it was just an example of the type of stuff they make. Toll house cookies I guess or nesquick
HIV contaminated baby food?
Nestle did some shady shit that’s responsible for harm, suffering, and deaths of infants… but distributing HIV contaminated baby food is not one that I’m aware of. Do you have a source for that?
It doesn’t even sound possible. How would you distribute HIV in baby food?
Exactly. I was trying to be polite I guess.