You’re quite right that this can be an important distinction to make, but in this case it’s moot. I read all the artists statements and all of them explicitly state both of those positions. Yes, they all directly supported Macklemore speaking out, but they all also followed that by stating some form of agreement with him on Palestine.
Finneas strait up says, “I stand with Palestine and its people”. Aaron Rowe uses the phrase “Israeli genocide”. Beoga says “We fully supported his message.” and goes on to say a lot more about Palestine, colonialism and violence. The only one who doesn’t specifically name anyone is Lukas Graham, but even he talks about speaking out against any violence on civilians and children, no matter who they are, which in the context of it being a response to Macklemore’s statements should obviously be read to include Palestine.
It’s not moot. In fact the headline of the post is editorialized compared to the headline of the article itself.
Finneas’ statement is both in character and explicit compared to the others.
Lukas Graham’s statement could be ambiguous
It’s hard to watch families in other parts of the world burying the people they love. We should be able to speak about war, about civilians being killed, about children who deserve to grow up. Wherever they live. Whatever flag flies over them.
and Aaron Rowe’s is in support of those who speak up not being silenced, it’s not actually advocating for Palestine directly.
I cannot stand by and allow billionaires to use their position of power to silence the rightful voices of those who speak up against Israeli genocide and who highlight the savage
Even Beoga’s leaves some wiggle room with its phrasing.
As I said, doing the right thing, even for the wrong reasons, shouldn’t be dismissed but all too often the opinions of those with something to lose or gain shift with popular opinion.
Ultimately take issue with the editorializing by OP and am sceptical of any who stand behind someone else’s actions rather than alongside them with their own.
You’re right that which thing the headline was chosen to say is not moot, and still matters a lot.
I can see how Graham and Rowe’s statements could be interpreted that way, but I genuinely think they were not intended to be ambiguous. Hard disagree on Beoga though, I see no wiggle room whatsoever in their rather long and detailed statement.
Fair enough. I still see a scenario where the social wind shifts and Beoga’s statement could be walked back along with a claim of pressure and pointing out they were the last to quit, though I don’t think that’s likely or true.
I still feel direct and definitive statements like Finneas’ or what has been coming from Ruffalo carry more weight but you take your allies where you can find them.
You’re quite right that this can be an important distinction to make, but in this case it’s moot. I read all the artists statements and all of them explicitly state both of those positions. Yes, they all directly supported Macklemore speaking out, but they all also followed that by stating some form of agreement with him on Palestine.
Finneas strait up says, “I stand with Palestine and its people”. Aaron Rowe uses the phrase “Israeli genocide”. Beoga says “We fully supported his message.” and goes on to say a lot more about Palestine, colonialism and violence. The only one who doesn’t specifically name anyone is Lukas Graham, but even he talks about speaking out against any violence on civilians and children, no matter who they are, which in the context of it being a response to Macklemore’s statements should obviously be read to include Palestine.
It’s not moot. In fact the headline of the post is editorialized compared to the headline of the article itself.
Finneas’ statement is both in character and explicit compared to the others.
Lukas Graham’s statement could be ambiguous
and Aaron Rowe’s is in support of those who speak up not being silenced, it’s not actually advocating for Palestine directly.
Even Beoga’s leaves some wiggle room with its phrasing.
As I said, doing the right thing, even for the wrong reasons, shouldn’t be dismissed but all too often the opinions of those with something to lose or gain shift with popular opinion.
Ultimately take issue with the editorializing by OP and am sceptical of any who stand behind someone else’s actions rather than alongside them with their own.
You’re right that which thing the headline was chosen to say is not moot, and still matters a lot.
I can see how Graham and Rowe’s statements could be interpreted that way, but I genuinely think they were not intended to be ambiguous. Hard disagree on Beoga though, I see no wiggle room whatsoever in their rather long and detailed statement.
Fair enough. I still see a scenario where the social wind shifts and Beoga’s statement could be walked back along with a claim of pressure and pointing out they were the last to quit, though I don’t think that’s likely or true.
I still feel direct and definitive statements like Finneas’ or what has been coming from Ruffalo carry more weight but you take your allies where you can find them.