Apologies to Ron Pearlman

    • Hux ( Hux@lemmy.ml ) English
      32·
      1 month ago

      Not having any idea what this meme was referring to, I could pretty easily make a good inference based on the format (Ed Sheeran taking a position on genocide by not taking a position on genocide).

      However, this comment citing Robert Kraft’s inclusion in the Epstein files while name-dropping Macklemore—somehow in reference to Ed Sheeran and genocide—what did I miss?

          • Zagorath ( Zagorath@quokk.au ) English
            8·
            1 month ago

            I’m not here to argue. I’m just pointing out that, well, yeah. Single-family homes are fucking awful. They, and the suburban sprawl that accompanies them, are terrible for the environment and for society. None of this is particularly controversial, especially in an overwhelmingly leftist and not-car-brained space like the fediverse.

            • tetris11 ( tetris11@feddit.uk ) English
              4·
              1 month ago

              But we do have resources available right now to provide a home to every single family in the UK, it’s a matter of policy that we dont

              Yes yes in a fair resource based economy we’d all be sharing resources equally and minimising our impact on the world, but that’s an opinion that should come from someone who doesn’t own several

              • Zagorath ( Zagorath@quokk.au ) English
                3·
                1 month ago

                Sure, but apartments, row houses, duplexes, and other medium- or higher-density housing are just so much better for not just the environment but also for people than sprawling single-family homes. It’s easier to get around your city if more things are closer together. Especially good if it means you don’t have to drive everywhere, but can take an easy walk or bike ride or make use of fast efficient public transport. It’s also better for the government because the cost of maintaining roads, sewerage, electricity, and other infrastructure is greatly lessened. Better for people’s health because less driving means cleaner local air and healthier personal lifestyles. And once people aren’t driving as much they’re more likely to spend money in the local economy rather than driving to big (inter)national chain stores that take the money out of the local region. It’s really win-win-win all around.

                But as I write this, I’m wondering if perhaps we’re just having a miscommunication? In the interest of clarity, when we talk about single-family homes, what we’re talking about is something like this:

                image

                A large, separated property with fairly large front and back yards and strips of usable space down either side, where the whole property is occupied by one family. It’s not including apartments, row houses, or townhouses, even though those are homes that could be occupied by a single family. It also doesn’t count duplexes, fourplexes, etc., which could be special-made as duplexes or converted from single-family homes by dividing down the centre.

                Urbanists promote medium- and higher-density mixed-use housing, they don’t necessarily want to push multi-generational households or share houses (though for sure there are, separately, reasonable discussions to be had around that). I don’t know if perhaps that’s what you were thinking of? It certainly seems unlikely that the guy you were speaking to was genuinely an urbanist, from what else I’m reading about him. But as I glibly said at the start of this, it’s certainly possible, because even the worst people sometimes have a good opinion.

    • urthoughtsrbad ( urthoughtsrbad@lemmy.zip ) English
      7·
      1 month ago

      Is that for when he needed a good sex crime lawyer for getting caught up in the orchids of Asia sex trafficking sting?

      They did a good job, and it’s totally preposterous that people say he paid off the ladies to tell the cops they weren’t trafficked after the fact. The cops simply realized they were mistaken once Kraft was involved. Why is that so hard to believe?

    • GalacticSushi ( GalacticSushi@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English
      41·
      1 month ago

      Edit Sheeran has historically chosen not to take sides on political issues. Recently he dropped Macklemore from some tour dates under pressure from billionaire Robert Kraft, who owns an arena he’s booked at due to Macklemore’s vocal opposition to Israel’s genocidal actions in Palestine.

      Ed Sheeran is influential enough that choosing to speak out would be beneficial towards raising awareness about the issue. Even though he has the platform to help people by speaking up about important issues, he chooses not to. Even though he has hundreds of millions of dollars and could easily afford get a few dates cancelled just to make a statement he chooses not to. Most likely because he is a straight, white, wealthy, well-connected man who doesn’t have to worry about the threat of oppression and would rather stay silent than risk his ability to make even more millions of dollars.