Apologies to Ron Pearlman

  • Ertain@feddit.onlineEnglish
    5·
    2 hours ago

    Ugh, genocide was practiced a century ago, and is still being practiced to this day.

    War never changes. 😮‍💨

    • Hux@lemmy.mlEnglish
      35·
      15 hours ago

      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?

    • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@feddit.ukEnglish
      201·
      9 hours ago

      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.

      • Zagorath@quokk.auEnglish
        5·
        8 hours ago

        He was talking shit about single family homes.

        Well, even terrible people can have good opinions sometimes.

          • Zagorath@quokk.auEnglish
            7·
            5 hours ago

            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.

            • tetris11@feddit.ukEnglish
              3·
              4 hours ago

              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

              • Zagorath@quokk.auEnglish
                2·
                2 hours ago

                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:

                image

                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.

              • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@feddit.ukEnglish
                2·
                2 hours ago

                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.

    • urthoughtsrbad@lemmy.zipEnglish
      101·
      16 hours ago

      Is that for when he needed a good sex crime lawyer for getting caught up in the orchids of Asia sex trafficking sting?

      They did a good job, and it’s totally preposterous that people say he paid off the ladies to tell the cops they weren’t trafficked after the fact. The cops simply realized they were mistaken once Kraft was involved. Why is that so hard to believe?

  • shameless@lemmy.worldEnglish
    29·
    15 hours ago

    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.

    • Danitos@reddthat.comEnglish
      24·
      12 hours ago

      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.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        9 hours ago

        “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.

        • Tollana1234567@lemmy.todayEnglish
          61·
          8 hours ago

          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.”

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.todayEnglish
      3·
      8 hours ago

      you know hes likely a right winger, when he says hes not “political”, why do republicans have to pretend they dont like politics.

      • tmyakal@infosec.pubEnglish
        2·
        4 hours ago

        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.

    • Godort@lemmy.caEnglish
      26·
      15 hours ago

      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.

      • SmoothOperator@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        9 hours ago

        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.

    • GalacticSushi@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      531·
      16 hours ago

      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.

    • arctanthrope@lemmy.worldEnglish
      19·
      16 hours ago

      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

    • BurgerBaron@quokk.auEnglish
      7·
      15 hours ago

      Ed lost his spine somewhere and he’s having a lot of trouble finding it, please check under your couch cushions!