Axl Political Social Media Post Discussion Thread

[Scream of the Butterfly]

It wouldn't surprise me if there are some fans who would change their political views to match those of Axl's.

But that's on them and you can't really blame it on Axl.

[GNR_RNR]

4 minutes ago, soon said:

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).

Presenting your (alarming) views as fact, accuses others of dishonest debate.

ok.

4 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

It wouldn't surprise me if there are some fans who would change their political views to match those of Axl's.

But that's on them and you can't really blame it on Axl.

Certainly. That's why I've little issue with artists presenting fair comment on events. If they present their views and that changes how people perceive a party then that's fair.

I've just an issue with artists trying to railroad/shame fans.

[soon]

6 minutes ago, GNR_RNR said:

Presenting your (alarming) views as fact, accuses others of dishonest debate.

ok.

They are facts. 

But I do respect your measured self assessment that doesnt dare test those facts. Instead just demonizes me and calls me dishonest, which I dont respect as much. Its all rather uninteresting to me.

Edited July 14, 2020 by soon

[Sweersa]

Lots of sheep follow the opinions of celebrities for whatever reason. I'm sure celebs know this, and use their heightened platforms as such.

I get it, to an extent. Famous people are people too, and like everyone, or most everyone, sometimes we can't keep our opinions bottled it, and thus a release of some kind is needed. 

[WhazUp]

40 minutes ago, Sweersa said:

Lots of sheep follow the opinions of celebrities for whatever reason. I'm sure celebs know this, and use their heightened platforms as such.

I get it, to an extent. Famous people are people too, and like everyone, or most everyone, sometimes we can't keep our opinions bottled it, and thus a release of some kind is needed. 

I wonder what Ja Rule thinks of this post? 

[Voodoochild]

20 hours ago, GNR_RNR said:

 

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.

Please, tell me where exactly I used any false argument.

There's 15 pages here and several others in the previous thread to prove my point. Majority of people complaining about Axl's political tweets are on the other side of the fence. 

By the way, your only argument here is disagreeing. You disagree and, instead of trying to talk about it, you're just saying "it is because it is". This also has a name: rhetorical fallacies. 

20 hours ago, GNR_RNR said:

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).

There's literally dozens of posts here not only trying, but saying he shouldn't be able to comment on political affairs. And, like I said, many of those are only sick and tired because of political side Axl took. 

This kind of argument is funny because it's often used as a means to end a political discussion. Again, rhetoric. 

21 hours ago, GNR_RNR said:

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

I think you don't even know what the issue is.

[GNR_RNR]

57 minutes ago, Voodoochild said:

Please, tell me where exactly I used any false argument.

You tried to assert that the reason people take issue with Axl's posts is solely because they disagree.

Which is just false.

58 minutes ago, Voodoochild said:

By the way, your only argument here is disagreeing. You disagree and, instead of trying to talk about it, you're just saying "it is because it is". This also has a name: rhetorical fallacies. 

I don't know what you're trying to reference here?

59 minutes ago, Voodoochild said:

There's literally dozens of posts here not only trying, but saying he shouldn't be able to comment on political affairs. And, like I said, many of those are only sick and tired because of political side Axl took. 

From posts I've seen no one is saying Axl shouldn't be able to comment on political affairs. Just that he shouldn't (or at least should think before he posts).

1 hour ago, Voodoochild said:

I think you don't even know what the issue is.

No I genuinely think you misunderstand the issue (or at the very least the stance I've taken).

[Sydney Fan]

On 15/07/2020 at 7:02 AM, WhazUp said:

I wonder what Ja Rule thinks of this post? 

Im thinking of that Dave Chapelle skit as im typing this 

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by Sydney Fan

[Voodoochild]

19 hours ago, GNR_RNR said:

You tried to assert that the reason people take issue with Axl's posts is solely because they disagree.

I can't believe you're trying to pull of the "not all..." stunt here. Even when I clearly said:

On 14/07/2020 at 12:27 PM, Voodoochild said:

The vast majority of those complaining are against Axl's POV on Trump's administration.

And I stand by that. It's not even just me interpreting, there's tons of posts here in this thread to prove my point.

19 hours ago, GNR_RNR said:

From posts I've seen no one is saying Axl shouldn't be able to comment on political affairs. Just that he shouldn't (or at least should think before he posts).

Yeah. "I'm not saying that Axl shouldn't comment, but he shouldn't". 

I really don't have the energy to try to explain myself in different ways just because you are unable to understand. Move on. 

 

[GNR_RNR]

3 hours ago, Voodoochild said:

I can't believe you're trying to pull of the "not all..." stunt here. Even when I clearly said:

And I stand by that. It's not even just me interpreting, there's tons of posts here in this thread to prove my point.

Yeah. "I'm not saying that Axl shouldn't comment, but he shouldn't". 

I really don't have the energy to try to explain myself in different ways just because you are unable to understand. Move on. 

 

Well no your original point was:

On 14/07/2020 at 12:20 AM, 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.

Pretty all encompassing there.

And even if you try to move the goal posts to you only referring to most that's still baseless, and I'd argue just wrong.

As it stands you tired to tar people with the same brush, never a good idea.

And as for:

3 hours ago, Voodoochild said:

Yeah. "I'm not saying that Axl shouldn't comment, but he shouldn't". 

Yes. Having a platform and using it ethically are two different things.

[axlvai]

"Just shut up n sing" influenced a lot when it comes to make rants on stage . I got that feeling.

Idk whos said that to Axl, but i believe its was just a minority. Or someone of the band? Who knows that?

[Voodoochild]

17 minutes ago, GNR_RNR said:

Well no your original point was:

Pretty all encompassing there.

And even if you try to move the goal posts to you only referring to most that's still baseless, and I'd argue just wrong.

As it stands you tired to tar people with the same brush, never a good idea.

And as for:

Yes. Having a platform and using it ethically are two different things.

Lol, so when I post anything I should state "well, actually I was talking about 93,7% of the people who said this"? Even when explained in a follow up post (which you conveniently calls "try to move the goal posts"). Give me a break. 

You're arguing it's wrong and baseless, yet you are not providing anything but your interpretation.

Just read some random previous pages:

"It's not just who is in office as he's obviously going after Trump.  He only attacks Republicans.  If he hit both sides with some criticism I'd be all for it but he went left and stayed there.  Looks more like a left wing agenda than just a concern for his country.  The left has plenty to criticize as does the right."

"It just feels beyond his scope of concern"

"But for me Twitter just aint the place, shape or form to voice thoughts on topics as complex, deep and important as politics and society."

I won't quote every single post because it's not even everything here, a lot of what I saw came from the regular social media thread. 

BTW:

"Using it ethically" = he's taking sides. How is this unethical?
tired = unrested. 

[GNR_RNR]

11 minutes ago, Voodoochild said:

You're arguing it's wrong and baseless, yet you are not providing anything but your interpretation.

Because we have no data to say otherwise. And as such trying to assert anything leads to wild speculation.

14 minutes ago, Voodoochild said:

You're arguing it's wrong and baseless, yet you are not providing anything but your interpretation.

Again because you have no basis for your claim.

13 minutes ago, Voodoochild said:

Just read some random previous pages:

"It's not just who is in office as he's obviously going after Trump.  He only attacks Republicans.  If he hit both sides with some criticism I'd be all for it but he went left and stayed there.  Looks more like a left wing agenda than just a concern for his country.  The left has plenty to criticize as does the right."

"It just feels beyond his scope of concern"

"But for me Twitter just aint the place, shape or form to voice thoughts on topics as complex, deep and important as politics and society."

All of those are valid comments. None assert the political leaning of the person commenting. Sure, we can assume but again that's just speculation. 

The idea that people cannot take issue with celebrities trying to muscle their way onto the political stage without being directly opposed to whatever party they endorse is just weird.

16 minutes ago, Voodoochild said:

"Using it ethically" = he's taking sides. How is this unethical?

Taking sides is fine but directly telling fans how to vote is unethical imo. This will ofc vary for everyone.

[soon]

50 minutes ago, GNR_RNR said:

The idea that people cannot take issue with celebrities trying to muscle their way onto the political stage without being directly opposed to whatever party they endorse is just weird.

Bolded: wtf are you talking about now?? 

[DurhamGirl]

1 hour ago, GNR_RNR said:

Because we have no data to say otherwise. And as such trying to assert anything leads to wild speculation.

Again because you have no basis for your claim.

All of those are valid comments. None assert the political leaning of the person commenting. Sure, we can assume but again that's just speculation. 

The idea that people cannot take issue with celebrities trying to muscle their way onto the political stage without being directly opposed to whatever party they endorse is just weird.

Taking sides is fine but directly telling fans how to vote is unethical imo. This will ofc vary for everyone.

Help...he is NOT telling anybody how to vote but simply expressing a view about a situation he is worried about.  Also he he is not specifically speaking to fans.   So no problem there.

 

[GNR_RNR]

15 minutes ago, soon said:

Bolded: wtf are you talking about now?? 

The opposition to celebrities dragging politics into every aspect of our lives isn't particularly unusual.

Some love celebs using their platform as a soapbox, other hate it. 

 

[soon]

9 minutes ago, GNR_RNR said:

The opposition to celebrities dragging politics into every aspect of our lives isn't particularly unusual.

Some love celebs using their platform as a soapbox, other hate it. 

 

This is a great chance to teach you about another argumentative fallacy. Mott and Bailey. In Mott and Bailey a person makes a crazy and impossible to defend statement. When challenged on it, they retreat to a more reasonable position. They defend the reasonable position in order to avoid having to defend their actual position.

You said, "Muscle their way onto the political stage" here it is again,

1 hour ago, GNR_RNR said:

The idea that people cannot take issue with celebrities trying to muscle their way onto the political stage without being directly opposed to whatever party they endorse is just weird.

^^^ This is the Mott, the impossible to defend position. And when challenged you retreated to the Bailey, saying that 'some people dont like when celebrities talk politics.'

The idea seems to be to do a kung fu move where hopefully we ignore the unreasonable statement that you made, and instead think that my challenging it is whats actually unreasonable. 

Tweeting - occasionally at that - in no way, shape or form constitutes "Muscling their way onto the political stage."

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by soon

[GNR_RNR]

13 minutes ago, soon said:

This is a great chance to teach you about another argumentative fallacy. Mott and Bailey. In Mott and Bailey a person makes a crazy and impossible to defend statement. When challenged on it, they retreat to a more reasonable position. They defend the reasonable position in order to avoid having to defend their actual position.

You said, "Muscle their way onto the political stage" here it is again,

^^^ This is the Mott, the impossible to defend position. And when challenged you retreated to the Bailey, saying that 'some people dont like when celebrities talk politics.'

The idea seems to be to do a kung fu move where hopefully we ignore the unreasonable statement that you made, and instead think that my challenging it is whats actually unreasonable. 

Tweeting - occasionally at that - in no way, shape or form constitutes "Muscling their way onto the political stage."

 

I don't think that really applies in this case but it depends what your personal definition of "muscling in" is.

I'd be happy with the entire GNR camp remaining out of politics and just posting a "remember to vote" post on election day.

Statement still stands for me though. Notable exceptions go to celebrities that transition to politics (Trump, Arnie, Reagan etc) or Celebrities that establish(ed) themselves on political content. 

I've yet to see a benefit of anyone in GNR engaging in political posting.

[soon]

22 minutes ago, GNR_RNR said:

I've yet to see a benefit of anyone in GNR engaging in political posting.

Do you have data sets to support this view?

[GNR_RNR]

20 minutes ago, soon said:

Do you have data sets to support this view?

No data either way. Hence "I've yet to see".

But in terms of music I can only think of acts that have been harmed by wading into politics. 

[soon]

11 minutes ago, GNR_RNR said:

No data either way. Hence "I've yet to see".

But in terms of music I can only think of acts that have been harmed by wading into politics. 

Like RATM, Jonny Cash and Willie Nelson.

[GNR_RNR]

Just now, soon said:

Like RATM, Jonny Cash and Willie Nelson.

Indeed but they were political (or in Cash's case religious) from the outset. 

Whereas acts that transition from 'carefree' music to trying to grandstand tend to fall short (Dixie Chix, Katy Perry, Lady Antebellum).

It's just a case of giving the audience what they want. 

[soon]

6 minutes ago, GNR_RNR said:

Indeed but they were political (or in Cash's case religious) from the outset. 

Whereas acts that transition from 'carefree' music to trying to grandstand tend to fall short (Dixie Chix, Katy Perry, Lady Antebellum).

It's just a case of giving the audience what they want. 

Paul McCartney said Trump "Acted like a clown" and Trump beefed with him a bit on Twitter. Ringo released a song about peace on the day to mark Trumps inauguration. The Beatles are the highest selling band for downloads in 2020. 

How on earth one can have "Dixie" in a name and have that not viewed as being political is a cute thought. Also, they are monied super stars, so, yeah. Thats so fun that you know anything about Katy Perry. Ill have to take your word for it.

Henley released an anti Tump track. The Eagles are doing just fine. As is Pink. Im bored of this so Ill leave the list at that.

 

 

 

[Voodoochild]

5 hours ago, GNR_RNR said:

Because we have no data to say otherwise. And as such trying to assert anything leads to wild speculation.

Again because you have no basis for your claim.

All of those are valid comments. None assert the political leaning of the person commenting. Sure, we can assume but again that's just speculation. 

The idea that people cannot take issue with celebrities trying to muscle their way onto the political stage without being directly opposed to whatever party they endorse is just weird.

Taking sides is fine but directly telling fans how to vote is unethical imo. This will ofc vary for everyone.

The quotes are for a reason. I'm not assuming anything. 

Again, I did not say that every single person on this forum is doing that. I like how you ignore this while avoiding other points to keep pushing this argument.

How ethic is a matter of opinion in this subject? He's just an artist. It's his personal account. He can tell people whatever he wants, who said artists need to be neutral? 

2 hours ago, soon said:

Paul McCartney said Trump "Acted like a clown" and Trump beefed with him a bit on Twitter. Ringo released a song about peace on the day to mark Trumps inauguration. The Beatles are the highest selling band for downloads in 2020. 

How on earth one can have "Dixie" in a name and have that not viewed as being political is a cute thought. Also, they are monied super stars, so, yeah. Thats so fun that you know anything about Katy Perry. Ill have to take your word for it.

Henley released an anti Tump track. The Eagles are doing just fine. As is Pink. Im bored of this so Ill leave the list at that.

Fiona Apple did the same. 

Also, there's no rule saying a band or artist should stay out of politics forever. Including during this very social/economic/health crises.

[GNR_RNR]

15 hours ago, soon said:

Paul McCartney said Trump "Acted like a clown" and Trump beefed with him a bit on Twitter. Ringo released a song about peace on the day to mark Trumps inauguration. The Beatles are the highest selling band for downloads in 2020. 

How on earth one can have "Dixie" in a name and have that not viewed as being political is a cute thought. Also, they are monied super stars, so, yeah. Thats so fun that you know anything about Katy Perry. Ill have to take your word for it.

Henley released an anti Tump track. The Eagles are doing just fine. As is Pink. Im bored of this so Ill leave the list at that.

This is quickly going nowhere. We clearly sit at opposite ends of the table regarding this.

We can exchange lists of acts that have benefited/suffered from getting into politics but I don't know what that would achieve.

13 hours ago, Voodoochild said:

The quotes are for a reason. I'm not assuming anything. 

Again, I did not say that every single person on this forum is doing that. I like how you ignore this while avoiding other points to keep pushing this argument.

How ethic is a matter of opinion in this subject? He's just an artist. It's his personal account. He can tell people whatever he wants, who said artists need to be neutral? 

Indeed, and I assumed from your first post that you didn't consider it to be 100%. But you clearly consider it to be the majority.

And I guess ethics are always a matter of opinion? Imo it's wrong for entertainers to try and promote one side of a political issue, but that won't be the case for everyone.

It's just weird that GNR would decide to get so much into party politics.