Axl Political Social Media Post Discussion Thread

[Voodoochild]

There's one thing called "media theory". The thing is: people are not robots. 

Axl Rose isn't telling people "how to vote, save the planet, and telling what to eat". People read this and make up their own minds based on their own knowledge and experiences. It's beyond stupid assuming an old rockstar political view would be taken as gospel. 

Like others mentioned, there's this little thing called freedom of speech. Anyone is entitled to speak their minds about anything. If there's one thing to consider, it's the effects on his own career. On the other hand, why on earth any of us would have the right to tell him (or any other person) what he can or can't talk? This is hypocrisy. 

 

 

[jamillos]

There seems to be this false notion that once a person establishes him/herself as a public figure known for something particular (artists etc.), they should only stick to this whatever thing they’re good at. It’s all twisted. Like, before you were publicly known, you could preach about whatever cockamamie stuff you liked, whether you actually knew anything about it or not, but once you've become a celebrity etc., you suddenly can’t, you’ve somehow lost the right. People have pigeon-holed you in their own schemes and don’t like seeing that you may not fit there, especially if your opinions differ from theirs. 
So all this "shut up and sing" is endlessly stupid. If anything, the said person at least made it in some category, unlike these "fans", who can yell on the internet, but nobody’s ever heard of them...

[jamillos]

7 minutes ago, jamillos said:

There seems to be this false notion that once a person establishes him/herself as a public figure known for something particular (artists etc.), they should only stick to this whatever thing they’re good at. It’s all twisted. Like, before you were publicly known, you could preach about whatever cockamamie stuff you liked, whether you actually knew anything about it or not, but once you've become a celebrity etc., you suddenly can’t, you’ve somehow lost the right. People have pigeon-holed you in their own schemes and don’t like seeing that you may not fit there, especially if your opinions differ from theirs. 
So all this "shut up and sing" is endlessly stupid. If anything, the said person at least made it in some category, unlike these "fans", who can yell on the internet, but nobody’s ever heard of them...

* Admitting there are people who shouldn't be allowed to speak publicly at all, ever. Like [insert some names per your preference] etc. 

[perypheral]

6 hours ago, jamillos said:

Haven’t read the discussion, but I’ll say this: Trevor Noah uploaded a video in June I think (more than 9 million views on the day I was watching it) where he talked about why the reactions of the whole BLM are this extreme (I strongly recommend the video). It may not be the most diplomatic way, but if one party of the "agreement" doesn’t follow its obligations (treating everyone equal etc.), then peaceful, diplomatic, non-threatening meek methods won’t work, or it may take too much time while people are dying etc., so quicker demonstration is due. Don’t wanna get into this, but the principle is clear – and applies identically in the case of the fur-wearing assholes. I’m glad that someone throws red paint on them. We might laboriously discuss eating meat (I’m not a vegetarian, mind you) and whether it’s necessary; but there’s no excuse for wearing fucking animal fur. That’s a brutal, unjustifiable extreme – hence the reactions. They may not be mature, but definitely are understandable. 
How would you like it if an alien landed in front of your house, killed a family member of yours and then wore their skin, just for fun, as a fashion accessory? 
There you go. 

hmm...well...

[GNR_RNR]

1 hour ago, jamillos said:

There seems to be this false notion that once a person establishes him/herself as a public figure known for something particular (artists etc.), they should only stick to this whatever thing they’re good at. It’s all twisted. Like, before you were publicly known, you could preach about whatever cockamamie stuff you liked, whether you actually knew anything about it or not, but once you've become a celebrity etc., you suddenly can’t, you’ve somehow lost the right. People have pigeon-holed you in their own schemes and don’t like seeing that you may not fit there, especially if your opinions differ from theirs. 
So all this "shut up and sing" is endlessly stupid. If anything, the said person at least made it in some category, unlike these "fans", who can yell on the internet, but nobody’s ever heard of them...

I am of the view that "entertainers" should, by and large, not weigh in on political topics. They're just not qualified and it will always hurt them in terms of popularity. But I make an exception for them talking in more general terms on political stuff, for me Axl's comments almost go past that line. 

I follow politicians to hear about politics and I follow Axl to hear about music. In the same way I wouldn't want to listen to an album dropped by Donald Trump I don't want to hear Axl weigh in with his political leanings.

Detest when artists tell people how they should vote. However don't really have an issue with them giving their opinions and telling people to vote.

Now so far GNR and it's members seem to have been pretty ok with not trying to steer peoples views. But I'm worried that'll change come November.

Remember when GNR had the pinata of Trump? To me that's just gross and not acceptable from people that then want a platform for political discourse. They're pundits when it suits them and entertainers when it suits them.

7 hours ago, jamillos said:

Don’t wanna get into this, but the principle is clear – and applies identically in the case of the fur-wearing assholes. I’m glad that someone throws red paint on them. We might laboriously discuss eating meat (I’m not a vegetarian, mind you) and whether it’s necessary; but there’s no excuse for wearing fucking animal fur. That’s a brutal, unjustifiable extreme – hence the reactions. They may not be mature, but definitely are understandable. 

I'm no fan of fur but think attacking anyone is just gross.

I'm sure a lot of people here have an issue with fur but will happily wear leather or clothing that uses glue derived from animals. 

[jamillos]

58 minutes ago, GNR_RNR said:

I am of the view that "entertainers" should, by and large, not weigh in on political topics. They're just not qualified and it will always hurt them in terms of popularity. But I make an exception for them talking in more general terms on political stuff, for me Axl's comments almost go past that line. 

I follow politicians to hear about politics and I follow Axl to hear about music. In the same way I wouldn't want to listen to an album dropped by Donald Trump I don't want to hear Axl weigh in with his political leanings.

Detest when artists tell people how they should vote. However don't really have an issue with them giving their opinions and telling people to vote.

Now so far GNR and it's members seem to have been pretty ok with not trying to steer peoples views. But I'm worried that'll change come November.

Remember when GNR had the pinata of Trump? To me that's just gross and not acceptable from people that then want a platform for political discourse. They're pundits when it suits them and entertainers when it suits them.

I'm no fan of fur but think attacking anyone is just gross.

I'm sure a lot of people here have an issue with fur but will happily wear leather or clothing that uses glue derived from animals. 

- A lot of dubious takes here. If only those who were "qualified" talked about politics, how would it look like in the world? Anyone with sufficient IQ not only could but downright should have their say about the world that concerns them. And you know what, DT out of all guys... seriously, I’d rather see Axl in the Oval office. Remember, the real decision-making is done amongst several people. They let him run amok, but he’s not the one who really decides about what country to invade next and the like. What approbation does he have anyway? (Btw, by this logic, shouldn't people who aren't musicians refrain from evaluating/criticizing any music then? Man, would this forum be full of tumbleweeds in the wind, huh? )
- As for the celebs' popularity – hey if they wanna risk it and go out on a limb, then kudos to them – to me, it only shows they actually might really mean it and there’s a tiny bigger chance it’s not just pretence.
- Again, you and I can rant about politics, right? Don’t forget that even though we ourselves see Axl only as an artist, he’s still a human being with his own life who has opinions like us – yet you’re depriving him of this very right. The way we perceive him is not the same way he perceives himself – these guys are people who have some extra talent, but this talent doesn’t preclude their not only right but rather (apparent) appetite (!) and will to express their opinion on whatever stuff they wish to. 
I’m clumsy in English, but I believe you get the gist. 
- Did Axl tell people how to vote? I guess I haven’t read that one. In any case, Axl’s always been a bit political, so no surprise there now. However, I agree that celebrities shouldn’t literally tell people how to vote. If I was Baz (it may have been someone else, not sure), I wouldn’t go on Twitter and say "anyone who’s voting for Trump at this point is an idiot" – because even if I agree with that sentiment (sorry, whoever), this kind of conduct is not exactly fair in terms of argumentation; also think of empathy, the higher road etc. etc. 

- As for the fur thing, sprinkling someone with paint may be gross, but skinning animals is way grosser my friend, you stand no chance here. Peace. 

Edited July 13, 2020 by jamillos

[GNR_RNR]

4 minutes ago, jamillos said:

If only those who were "qualified" talked about politics, how would it look like in the world? 

[soon]

48 minutes ago, GNR_RNR said:

I follow politicians to hear about politics and I follow Axl to hear about music.

Thats not the most advantageous way to hear about politics. But its a great way to hear the lies politicians tell.

But since you follow politicians you will note that they have been tweeting at Axl.

So, you can see, reality doesn't conform to your desired approach to political discourse.

[GNR_RNR]

12 minutes ago, soon said:

Thats not the most advantageous way to hear about politics. But its a great way to hear the lies politicians tell.

But since you follow politicians you will note that they have been tweeting at Axl.

So, you can see, reality doesn't conform to your desired approach to political discourse.

I don't really know what you're trying to say with this.

Are you saying it's better to listen to singers than politicians for political coverage?

 

[DurhamGirl]

1 hour ago, GNR_RNR said:

I am of the view that "entertainers" should, by and large, not weigh in on political topics. They're just not qualified and it will always hurt them in terms of popularity. But I make an exception for them talking in more general terms on political stuff, for me Axl's comments almost go past that line. 

I follow politicians to hear about politics and I follow Axl to hear about music. In the same way I wouldn't want to listen to an album dropped by Donald Trump I don't want to hear Axl weigh in with his political leanings.

Detest when artists tell people how they should vote. However don't really have an issue with them giving their opinions and telling people to vote.

Now so far GNR and it's members seem to have been pretty ok with not trying to steer peoples views. But I'm worried that'll change come November.

Remember when GNR had the pinata of Trump? To me that's just gross and not acceptable from people that then want a platform for political discourse. They're pundits when it suits them and entertainers when it suits them.

I'm no fan of fur but think attacking anyone is just gross.

I'm sure a lot of people here have an issue with fur but will happily wear leather or clothing that uses glue derived from animals. 

No fan of attacking anyone but ok to attack the animal...hmmmm

There are also many that would NOT wear leather ect for the for similar reasons...

 

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by DurhamGirl

[GNR_RNR]

25 minutes ago, DurhamGirl said:

No fan of attacking anyone but ok to attack the animal...hmmmm

I didn't say that. 

I think attacking people is wrong and that animals should be treated humanely. These are not mutually exclusive views.

26 minutes ago, DurhamGirl said:

There are also many that would NOT wear leather ect for the for similar reasons...

Indeed, however there are those that simply hold fur in worse regard and are fine with leather etc.

[siraddam]

Axl must have forgotten his own past. I don't think that he is really in much of a position to criticise many people. He apparently raped his ex wife and locked her in a wardrobe. 

[Voodoochild]

I don't see anyone changing their minds after Axl's remarks on Trump here. So the problem is not about which side Axl takes (even though he already stated he's not taking sides or parties), but the fact that you disagree with him, so he shouldn't talk about things you don't like.

Seems like people are really not fan of democracy, and I'm not even talking about the chinese one.

[GNR_RNR]

11 hours ago, Voodoochild said:

I don't see anyone changing their minds after Axl's remarks on Trump here. So the problem is not about which side Axl takes (even though he already stated he's not taking sides or parties), but the fact that you disagree with him, so he shouldn't talk about things you don't like.

Seems like people are really not fan of democracy, and I'm not even talking about the chinese one.

This seems like a bit of a straw man argument here.

Just because someone disagrees with Axl's approach doesn't mean they disagree with the content of his posts. 

[DownUnderScott]

Oh honestly, who gives a flying fuck about what Axl thinks about politics?  I care about Axl's opinion about as much as I care about Trump's opinion on the current state of Axl's voice... 

[Voodoochild]

4 hours ago, GNR_RNR said:

This seems like a bit of a straw man argument here.

Just because someone disagrees with Axl's approach doesn't mean they disagree with the content of his posts. 

Maybe it seems like a straw man argument for you because you don't seem to understand how media/communications works or a bit of common sense on why the freedom of expression should be equal to everyone. 

Obviously there's people who agree with Axl and, even so, they don't like his remarks on politics for whatever reason. But those are the exception, at least here. The vast majority of those complaining are against Axl's POV on Trump's administration. There are even people mad at possible lyrics they didn't even listen to in possible unreleased songs that maybe for a chance are about Trump. The pre-assumption of attacking content not yet published has a name. 

We could be discussing here if we either agree or disagree with him, this would work just fine. Instead, people are more concern about why a musician should have any say in politics. Well, he votes, he (I assume) pay his taxes, so yes, he has any right. On the other hand, nobody has any right to tell him what he should or not speak his mind. This is so basic and simple human right that I can't even understand why this is so trick for you to get it. 

--

By the way, it's funny how some expressions are typical on political debates. "Straw man", "SJW" (which boggles me as if anyone is actually AGAINST social justice in the true sense), "leftist agenda"... You name it. 

[ChristianGNR]

1 hour ago, Voodoochild said:

Maybe it seems like a straw man argument for you because you don't seem to understand how media/communications works or a bit of common sense on why the freedom of expression should be equal to everyone. 

Obviously there's people who agree with Axl and, even so, they don't like his remarks on politics for whatever reason. But those are the exception, at least here. The vast majority of those complaining are against Axl's POV on Trump's administration. There are even people mad at possible lyrics they didn't even listen to in possible unreleased songs that maybe for a chance are about Trump. The pre-assumption of attacking content not yet published has a name. 

We could be discussing here if we either agree or disagree with him, this would work just fine. Instead, people are more concern about why a musician should have any say in politics. Well, he votes, he (I assume) pay his taxes, so yes, he has any right. On the other hand, nobody has any right to tell him what he should or not speak his mind. This is so basic and simple human right that I can't even understand why this is so trick for you to get it. 

--

By the way, it's funny how some expressions are typical on political debates. "Straw man", "SJW" (which boggles me as if anyone is actually AGAINST social justice in the true sense), "leftist agenda"... You name it. 

1000% accurate. 

[Blackstar]

The only "straw man" I see here is "Why should I/we listen to Axl about who to vote for" and "Why should I/we care about what he has to say on politics", as if anyone (or Axl himself) ever suggested that, or as if anyone ever stated that Axl's political views would make them change theirs.

[DurhamGirl]

I am at a loss to understand why this is such a big deal.  Axl makes some political remark (not asking anybody to believe or disbelieve) you can choose to leave it there, mull it over or ignore it...end of.

[GNR_RNR]

 

4 hours ago, Voodoochild said:

Maybe it seems like a straw man argument for you because you don't seem to understand how media/communications works or a bit of common sense on why the freedom of expression should be equal to everyone. 

No it seems like a straw man because that's what your argument was. You tired to build up a false argument so you could dismantle it.

Don't think anyone is trying to say celebrities shouldn't be able to comment on political affairs. Just that people are sick and tired of soapboxing from them and the associated demonising of entire swathes of people (on the left and right).

4 hours ago, Voodoochild said:

On the other hand, nobody has any right to tell him what he should or not speak his mind. This is so basic and simple human right that I can't even understand why this is so trick for you to get it. 

I think you've misunderstood the heart of the issue.

[soon]

Mostly peoples opposition is a proxy defence of MAGA/Right Wing. 

Theres also those who are mourning the loss of the Axl Rose who spoke against "F@gg0ts" and "n!g&er2." They want the old Axl back.

In both these cases these are just people with a neurotic need to frame themselves as victims. Victims of anything at all that they dont like or understand.

[GNR_RNR]

1 minute ago, soon said:

Mostly peoples opposition is a proxy defence of MAGA/Right Wing. 

Theres also those who are mourning the loss of the Axl Rose who spoke against "F@gg0ts" and "n!g&er2." They want the old Axl back.

In both these cases these are just people with a neurotic need to frame themselves as victims. Victims of anything at all that they dont like or understand.

This is, once again, a straw man argument. 

[soon]

7 minutes ago, GNR_RNR said:

This is, once again, a straw man argument. 

Its my observations. A straw man is the name of a type of argumentative fallacy. Learn the difference. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by soon

[GNR_RNR]

1 minute ago, soon said:

Its my observations. A straw man is the name of a type of logical fallacy. Learn the difference. 

Yet you present it as a fact. You're quite clearly trying to frame people you disagree with, on the issue of Axl airing his political views, based off of a view you've made up.

Makes no sense to try to demonise people. 

 

[soon]

4 minutes ago, GNR_RNR said:

Yet you present it as a fact. You're quite clearly trying to frame people you disagree with, on the issue of Axl airing his political views, based off of a view you've made up.

Makes no sense to try to demonise people. 

 

I believe it to be fact. You could have explored why. Except that you are engaging in dishonest debate.

Heres the kicker - calling my views that you havent tested a "Straw Man" (sic) is actually you engaging in that very argumentative fallacy.  (please look up the definition).

Edited July 14, 2020 by soon