I understand his reasoning. He didn't want to lose out on a paycheck. I just think it's shitty reasoning considering he'll still have a net worth of hundreds of millions of dollars if he gets a couple tour dates cancelled over speaking out against injustice in the world.

Here is my understand but not agree take on it:

I don’t think he is an evil person, I think he is just far more meh and mediocre for the giant platform he has.

Its not unfortunate that he is shitty, it’s unfortunate that someone like him has such a big platform.

I don't get why he's trying to stay neutral, do you mean because his billionaire friend who funded the tour is pro-Israel and he's choosing future money over the lives of men, women, and children?

Do you really "understand" that as being "neutral"?

Because it's not, and you, he, and his billionaire buddy all deserve the shit you're getting for claim that's staying neutral, or understandable. Grow up and join humanity.

Do you understand Hitler as trying to stay neutral too?

It's pretty ironic that it's EXACTLY this kind of backlash that he was trying to avoid. He's just missed the fact that neutrality when talking about genocide doesn't exist.

He also, actually, very much DID take a stance. He tried to "both sides" it, completely ignoring the fact that one side has near infinite resources, access to SIGNIFICANTLY more advanced weaponry, and have openly declared their intentions to completely annihilate the other (AKA: genocide) while the other is on it's knees, bleeding out, begging for the children to be spared.

It's like responding to a slap in the face, by setting someone's whole town on fire, and then justifying it with "well they started it"

I'm convinced there's a lot of Israeli propaganda to attack allies and muddy the water so it really looks like anyone not on Israel side is calling for it's destruction.

Especially since the second it broke, there was a huge push to blame the guy who put Macklemore on the stage in the first place, and not the billionaires who threatened to cancel the biggest shows if the financial backers of the tour didn't kick Macklemore off.

Like, even saying "at least also blame the people who did it" got me labeled an Ed Sheeran fan.

People on this site kind of just want to use you for whatever argument they want to have. It's like being their "shower argument". Pretty masturbatory.

That's not "staying neutral" though. That's the point. There is no neutral stance to take on genocide.

Ignoring it and not talking about it is not neutral. Saying "it's complicated and I don't know enough" is not neutral. And removing an artist from your venue when threatened by stadium owning Zionist is definitely not neutral.

There is no neutrality when it comes to a genocide. Inaction is taking a side.

The problem isn't him "trying to stay neutral". The problem is that the world believes the lie that remaining silent during a genocide is a rational or respectable position.

I'm not upset with you trying to understand the flawed rational of a millionaire artist with all the power and popularity to stand on the right side of history.

I'm upset with you thinking that someone in that position can have a "neutral" stance. They can't. They're not a janitor or a high school teacher. They lost that privilege of "neutrality" when the world gave them a voice and a stage to speak. Not speaking against it, is siding with the genocide. It's thats simple.

Ultimately, trying to stay neutral during a genocide is unforgivable. Sure, it's better than actively supporting the genocide, but neither is acceptable. I understand it impacted his livelihood, which made supporting Palestine a more difficult choice to make for him than most people, but even then it needed to be an easy choice. The cons of a genocide easily outweigh the pros of any amount of money.

Yes, his choice doesn't impact whether or not there is a genocide, but the only thing us non-world-leaders can do is say we don't support it, and so that is what we all must do. Solidarity is the only tool we have. Trying to say "I understand where they're coming from" as if there's a case to be made for him to choose his career over denunciation of an ongoing genocide only serves to insinuate that profit might in some circumstances justify genocide.

You have no morals, you consider profit and the well-being of others to be of similar value so you think this is "neutral". I "understand" Ed Sheeran's position the same way I "understand" Bibi going extra hard and murdering even more aggressively to remain in power without too much inconvenience, or a thief murdering someone for their phone, or a rapist overpowering a child... amoral beings do monstrous things for their own convenience, that's nothing new. I "understand" their thought processes, it just disgusts me and I cannot condone it, ofc.

Garbage take. He made his choice. Here he is with Israelis waxing victim:

Post Malone was also there. They both chose Israel.

I haven't seen a single Ed Sheran image where I didn't think: "I don't think this guy likes conflict". I'm pretty sure the dude is just trying his best not to piss anyone off because he's conflict averse, I doubt he needs the money.

why are we using a 17 year old meme to communicate?