For those not upset and see the band “just playing a gig”, what would be a line that you personally would consider too far? Would you be ok with them doing a private show for Netanyahu and his cabinet? Would a private show for Trump and his Republican lackeys be ok? How about Nestle CEO and its board, but none of its workers? Would a private show for the Proud Boys be ok if they had a “dump truck full of cash”?
Look, I despise Amazon and Jeff bezos. I avoid Amazon and work hard to find products from retailers that aren’t Amazon storefronts. But at some point, unless you’re self-employed and completely self-sustaining, you’re 1) whoring yourself out to somebody, and 2) sucking the knob of capitalism somewhere.
Seems like it’s just fanboyism and they can’t stand that a band they care about (or at least enjoy) has sold out to the absolute worst degree. People are right in that all bands sell out to a certain point (“All you know about me is what I’ve sold ya, dumb fuck/I sold out long before you’d ever even heard my name/I sold my soul to make a record, dipshit/And then you bought one” – Hooker with a Penis, Tool), but when you specifically accept a gig that is just some elitist executive party for a company that treats its employees like shit, you’ve gone too far.
Fuck the Foos. And stop making it political (“lol, liberals”) – bullshit, this is just rampant band fanboyism.
I think that anything benign that separates evil people from a significant portion of their cash is fine by me. That’s millions of dollars they can’t use to break up unions, or replace human workers with AI, or pay for campaign ads (or hush money, or legal costs). And it’s not something that’s aiding them in those pursuits, so it’s generally just money they’re losing.
What harm are they doing though? They’re being paid to do a private concert, not donating to their super PAC. It goes without saying that lavish spending on executives when people are being laid off is super gross, but at the end of the day I dont think the band did anything worth being chastised for.
Obviously it’s entirely your prerogative what artists to support, but I’m having a hard time understanding how the Fighters of the Foo accepting money from rich douches changes how you feel about them. Now, if they took an Amazon record deal and wrote a bunch of garbage jingles or something, then yeah, id bail on em too. But in this case, I don’t hink theyve done anything they havent done 1000x before; Played on a stage for a few hours, shook some hands, took some photos, and went home with some extra zeroes in their bank account.
Oh, I do the same for other things and didnt mean to imply you should do anything differently, everyone has their “line”. I’m just saying maybe you dont have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The Foo Fighters, particularly Dave Grohl, are some of the more humanitarian artists out there. Dave himself routinely puts on BBQs to feed the homeless. So considering your comment about actions having consequences, they’ve earned a little bit of wiggle room in my eyes.
But regardless, I respect ypur opinion and enjoy your weekend!
I think this is an interesting point. What if they gave a concert and a murderer attended? Should they leave if they found out who was there?
Of course it’s more personal when it’s a private concert, but this is Amazon not Gaddafi. They are kind of supporting the company, but who’s working as an Amazon executive just for the concerts? I’m sure they have free gym memberships or something too. Should the gym ban them?
Just to carry this train of thought forward… What type of device (make/OS) did you compose this post with? Unless you found a way to pass tcp via… I don’t know… clay you dig up in your back yard, it’s pretty hard to avoid ecological damage and morally-questionable employment practices. Participating in damn near any way with any economy makes all of us complicit, and at this point all we’re arguing is to what degree makes each of us uncomfortable.
This is such weird logic. The Foo Fighters are millionaires that have a ton of leeway with what shows they do because they don’t really need more money to survive. The guy that frames houses probably isn’t working for a morally great company but that dude starves without the job.
And yet the Foo fighters and specifically Dave do benefit concerts raising millions and actually cook and feed disadvantaged people by the thousands. They also do (at last I knew) an annual multi-day trolling of the westboro Baptist church compound, which is a great thing imho.
Now, what is the measure of a man? Is it a sliding scale? Is it just the sums? Sure, that house framer has smaller sins, but does he have a smaller positive impact? Does it matter?
As I said in my last sentence, we’re all just arguing degrees.
Something about monkies with lots of bananas? Dave’s got 330 million bananas and just got a few hundred thousand more. Hoarding is only bad when people I don’t like do it.
Oh, dont get me wrong, most anyone hoarding that much wealth is an asshole by default, but theres a lot worse out there than those guys. Hell, just this year Dave BBQed for 24hrs to feed the homeless, and has done many such events over the years.
Right? The concert is not the problem. The problem is who is paying for it/who is deserving of this (or any other) company benefit.
Though I guess there is an argument to be had that the performers are enabling class exploitation instead of standing in solidarity. Then again, it’s entirely plausible that the performers don’t know any of these details.
Depends on how they’re paying for it and if I could donate most of it to causes that actively oppose them. IMO it’s like buying Chicks CDs to burn them. But the money, which is the real power here, flowed in one direction that day.
Personally, I’d think it would be much for impactful to play for whoever, then donate all the proceeds to some important cause. Telling e.g. Netanyahu no to a Foo Fighters concert isn’t going to make him change his mind about anything. But giving the concert will take money away from him and give it to something important.
For those not upset and see the band “just playing a gig”, what would be a line that you personally would consider too far? Would you be ok with them doing a private show for Netanyahu and his cabinet? Would a private show for Trump and his Republican lackeys be ok? How about Nestle CEO and its board, but none of its workers? Would a private show for the Proud Boys be ok if they had a “dump truck full of cash”?
Look, I despise Amazon and Jeff bezos. I avoid Amazon and work hard to find products from retailers that aren’t Amazon storefronts. But at some point, unless you’re self-employed and completely self-sustaining, you’re 1) whoring yourself out to somebody, and 2) sucking the knob of capitalism somewhere.
All we’re left to argue is matter of degrees.
Seems like it’s just fanboyism and they can’t stand that a band they care about (or at least enjoy) has sold out to the absolute worst degree. People are right in that all bands sell out to a certain point (“All you know about me is what I’ve sold ya, dumb fuck/I sold out long before you’d ever even heard my name/I sold my soul to make a record, dipshit/And then you bought one” – Hooker with a Penis, Tool), but when you specifically accept a gig that is just some elitist executive party for a company that treats its employees like shit, you’ve gone too far.
Fuck the Foos. And stop making it political (“lol, liberals”) – bullshit, this is just rampant band fanboyism.
One of the last punk dudes still making a statement instead of doing shows for 50 year old execs.
It’s political because caring about people who aren’t rich is political.
The fact that you think it’s a certain side that does this is the only reason you think it’s political. And you’re wrong about it.
I’m not talking about just politicians. I’m talking about all conservatives. And yes, only one “side” is like that. It’s their defining trait.
I think that anything benign that separates evil people from a significant portion of their cash is fine by me. That’s millions of dollars they can’t use to break up unions, or replace human workers with AI, or pay for campaign ads (or hush money, or legal costs). And it’s not something that’s aiding them in those pursuits, so it’s generally just money they’re losing.
I think. That’s just my initial idea.
I definitely agree but it still hurts, a lot.
This is way past the point for me, but I’m not a good musician or famous and part of how I draw lines may be contributing factors.
What harm are they doing though? They’re being paid to do a private concert, not donating to their super PAC. It goes without saying that lavish spending on executives when people are being laid off is super gross, but at the end of the day I dont think the band did anything worth being chastised for.
Well I guess I’ll be adding the Foo Fighters to my list of people that won’t be getting any money from me.
Does it matter? Sure it matters to me. I can sleep better knowing I’m not contributing to things I don’t agree with.
I expected better from Dave Grohl but here we are.
Obviously it’s entirely your prerogative what artists to support, but I’m having a hard time understanding how the Fighters of the Foo accepting money from rich douches changes how you feel about them. Now, if they took an Amazon record deal and wrote a bunch of garbage jingles or something, then yeah, id bail on em too. But in this case, I don’t hink theyve done anything they havent done 1000x before; Played on a stage for a few hours, shook some hands, took some photos, and went home with some extra zeroes in their bank account.
It changes how I feel about them because I refuse to support people that don’t hold the same morals as me.
I’m not saying they can’t perform here, just that their actions have consequences and they have to deal with that.
Does it matter in the grand schema of things? Not at all, but I know what my beliefs are and where I want to put my money.
Perhaps one day there will be a line that is over your moral boundary and I would support your right to make that choice.
Oh, I do the same for other things and didnt mean to imply you should do anything differently, everyone has their “line”. I’m just saying maybe you dont have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The Foo Fighters, particularly Dave Grohl, are some of the more humanitarian artists out there. Dave himself routinely puts on BBQs to feed the homeless. So considering your comment about actions having consequences, they’ve earned a little bit of wiggle room in my eyes.
But regardless, I respect ypur opinion and enjoy your weekend!
I think this is an interesting point. What if they gave a concert and a murderer attended? Should they leave if they found out who was there?
Of course it’s more personal when it’s a private concert, but this is Amazon not Gaddafi. They are kind of supporting the company, but who’s working as an Amazon executive just for the concerts? I’m sure they have free gym memberships or something too. Should the gym ban them?
Just to carry this train of thought forward… What type of device (make/OS) did you compose this post with? Unless you found a way to pass tcp via… I don’t know… clay you dig up in your back yard, it’s pretty hard to avoid ecological damage and morally-questionable employment practices. Participating in damn near any way with any economy makes all of us complicit, and at this point all we’re arguing is to what degree makes each of us uncomfortable.
So if we can’t completely remove ourselves from every terrible company in society we shouldn’t even try at all.
That’s pretty apathetic don’t you think.
If we can’t stop all murders, why bother prosecuting any aye.
This is such weird logic. The Foo Fighters are millionaires that have a ton of leeway with what shows they do because they don’t really need more money to survive. The guy that frames houses probably isn’t working for a morally great company but that dude starves without the job.
And yet the Foo fighters and specifically Dave do benefit concerts raising millions and actually cook and feed disadvantaged people by the thousands. They also do (at last I knew) an annual multi-day trolling of the westboro Baptist church compound, which is a great thing imho.
Now, what is the measure of a man? Is it a sliding scale? Is it just the sums? Sure, that house framer has smaller sins, but does he have a smaller positive impact? Does it matter?
As I said in my last sentence, we’re all just arguing degrees.
That’s a completely different argument…
Something about monkies with lots of bananas? Dave’s got 330 million bananas and just got a few hundred thousand more. Hoarding is only bad when people I don’t like do it.
Oh, dont get me wrong, most anyone hoarding that much wealth is an asshole by default, but theres a lot worse out there than those guys. Hell, just this year Dave BBQed for 24hrs to feed the homeless, and has done many such events over the years.
I honestly don’t care who they play for, as long as it’s not at the cost of of any regular scheduled gig.
Right? The concert is not the problem. The problem is who is paying for it/who is deserving of this (or any other) company benefit.
Though I guess there is an argument to be had that the performers are enabling class exploitation instead of standing in solidarity. Then again, it’s entirely plausible that the performers don’t know any of these details.
Depends on how they’re paying for it and if I could donate most of it to causes that actively oppose them. IMO it’s like buying Chicks CDs to burn them. But the money, which is the real power here, flowed in one direction that day.
Personally, I’d think it would be much for impactful to play for whoever, then donate all the proceeds to some important cause. Telling e.g. Netanyahu no to a Foo Fighters concert isn’t going to make him change his mind about anything. But giving the concert will take money away from him and give it to something important.
I consider Amazon to be only average evil. Now if they did a concert for Nestle…