DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
songs of songs of songs of songs of songs of songs
Songs of Songs.songs of songs of songs of songs of songs of songs
I was genuinely surprised at all of the "ahhhh not really" responses. I was expecting more along the lines of "he's a wanker but he's right" defenses.In my brief glance of Twitter’s reaction to the Bono interview, there seems to be backlash to the backlash against Bono/U2.
For every leftist who hates Bono’s completely correct disagreement with the “capitalism bad” crowd, many posters are like, “U2 is good, actually, and Bono is not only correct about the need for more capitalism in poor countries …
View attachment 13327
… but he is also a beloved musician who has fronted the biggest and most important band of the past 40 years.”
So we may be at a point where rationality will be returns to The Discourse about the band. U2 is a good band, and Bono, while occasionally annoying, is a good singer and front man and has done, on balance, more good for the world than any other living rock star.
I was genuinely surprised at all of the "ahhhh not really" responses. I was expecting more along the lines of "he's a wanker but he's right" defenses.
What I seem to be reading — and this could be the algorithm at play — is “Bono is correct, actually, and today’s sneering young leftists need to understand that there’s much more to ending poverty than just redistribution because it is a complex problem.”
That's the problem with absolutism. Just because he has to sit and talk or have lunch with a politician or CEO that is less than desirable in a multitude of ways, doesn't mean that he approves of them as people or even their position. If he can get them to spend millions or billions to save people's lives, then at least they've done one good thing.
That's the problem with absolutism. Just because he has to sit and talk or have lunch with a politician or CEO that is less than desirable in a multitude of ways, doesn't mean that he approves of them as people or even their position. If he can get them to spend millions or billions to save people's lives, then at least they've done one good thing.
Yes. It's also the difference between people who value integrity and people who value results.
There are those who will say "I will keep my values in tact by never associating with this demon!" and, although nothing gets done, they sleep better at night feeling like they've stood up for truth and justice.
And then there are those of us who say "I may have to sit across the table from some awful people, and it won't look pretty, but I'll *actually get something done* here. And those results are worth more than any image or message." This seems to be Bono's position, and I applaud him for it.
Sure, that’s all well and good, but he’s still being way too soft on Bush Jr. Reducing it to “I don’t think he just went to war for the oil” is pretty reductive in terms of the many critiques of that administration, with its manufacturing of a WMD threat as an impetus for a decades-long war, and the failure to attack the actual villains of because of the long-standing Bush-Saudi connection.