Billie Eilish joined Bad Bunny in speaking out against ICE during her acceptance speech at the Grammy Awards, slamming the organization after winning song of the year for “Wildflower.”

The singer was bleeped as she said “fuck ICE,” giving strong commentary during the speech. “Thank you so much. I can’t believe this. Everyone else in this category is so amazing. I love you so much,” she said, standing next to her brother Finneas. “I feel so honored every time I get to be in this room. As grateful as I feel, I honestly don’t feel like I need to say anything but that no one is illegal on stolen land. And, yeah, it’s just really hard to know what to say and what to do right now, and I feel really hopeful in this room, and I feel like we just need to keep fighting and speaking up and protesting, and our voices really do matter, and the people matter, and fuck ICE. That’s all I’m going to say. Sorry. Thank you so much.”

  • Kindness is Punk@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    f-f-f-f-f-ucking BASED, Every word she said was like it came out of my own mouth, I love the little bastard

    • fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      You can’t meaningfully own something that existed before you and will continue to exist after you.

      The concept of private property, especially in regards to land ownership is spurious to ridiculous.

      Now your breath you own. Your spoken words you own. Thoughts, too. They will all die with you and can’t exist without you. Though, ownership here isn’t implying originality of any kind. You can own thoughts that you did not originate. That’s how cults spread.

      Think of an apple trying to claim ownership of the apple tree from which it hangs.

      • this@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        So philosophically, I agree with you, but how would the logistics of land use work without something similar to ownership?

        Like, how would you decide who gets to live where?

        • fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          That’s a good question with endless possible answers.

          I can’t speak for everyone. But I like the idea of egalitarian intentional communities, as a demsoc. No representatives or charismatic leaders. Smaller communities with direct democracy I think would be ideal. A place where you know everyone’s name and vice versa.

        • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          everyone would magically self determine that and there wouldn’t be any conflict because there would be endless abundance and we would all be endlessly happy forever.

          the earth being a finite resource over which there is inevitable conflict is a social construct of our minds, clearly.

          who gets to live where in reality, is a determination of systems of government and law. in some systems land is entirely own by the state and the state grants people temporary rights of use. essentially, a lease from the government.

          and private property purists will argue without unless government guarantees land ownership and rights in perpetuity, that government can’t be legitimate and they also typically see taxation of land as a form of injustice.

      • LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        In the 1800s in USA, people were simply traveling around freely by horse, discovering new places, and if they found a place they liked by a lake or river by a beautiful waterfall or a place with great agricultural potential, they would just plant themselves there and build a house without having to ask permission from anyone. Later in the 1800s the government swooped in and decided the government owned everything and made all those people pay the government for the rest of their life to live anywhere 😠

  • ThePantser@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    It’s nice to see the media allowing people to criticize the government again. Sure fuck ice was bleeped but it’s still getting out. The more outspoken the people are the more the media can’t ignore it and must show it. Especially famous people speaking out since they always have an outlet to the masses.

    • danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Honestly, in an award ceremony, they would probably get more attention if they bleeped out all the comments and not just the cuss words. It’s probably the reason CBS is no longer going to host the Grammys after such a long time.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Popular music was the anti-Fox News back in the day, but it dead now.

    Nice to see the echoes tho.

    Edit: not sure what people are taking away from this but just to clarify, I liked the popular music that was anti-Fox news and appreciate the current popular musicians doing what they do. It’s just that the music industry - suspect in the best of times - finally succeeded in killing itself and what we have now is some American Idol game show / hype influencer Frankenstein that’s both worse and not popular.

    The effect of which is that “Fox News” stands alone.

    • SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Most art is that way, because art of any relative depth takes you into consideration and therefore probable empathy, and thus not a Republican.

    • fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      It’s all basically boils down to ‘my God (or other authority) says we own this land.’

      Land is never really owned so it can’t really be stolen. It can be conquered, though. You can have dominion over it. It’s not really ownership, though. Ownership is more of an abstraction(contracts, deeds, bureaucracy and legalese) - it’s not a real thing, it’s an idea. I’m not sure people can own ideas, either… I think more so the ideas own them.

        • fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I personally think Trump will be a great catalyst for a socialist resurgence and will perhaps make America greater and more united than it has ever been.

          • Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            I think he is the canary in the coal mine and could never be elected in an actual functioning “democracy/republic”; the mere fact that he is in office means we’re just in the beginning stages of an absolute shit show heavily influenced (perhaps controlled completely) by the heritage foundation/council of foreign relations and their financial backers (it’s actually a pretty fascinating rabbit hole)

            I 100% hope that you are right and I am wrong. Maybe we could even get union membership over 10%, CRAZY

    • Jankatarch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      You can go somewhere and start living there, that’s perfectly good.

      If you torture the people there to death and say nobody is allowed to live here besides you, then it becomes “stolen land.”

      Colonization and conquest are unethical compared to immigration is what I am trying to say.

      • fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        What you just described as stolen land is historically the way people claimed ownership of lands by conquering them by killing the people there or telling them to get the fuck out, or another great option is make them slaves.

        • Jankatarch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          And the historical method was unethical and backwards.

          I grew up in Turkey where people extensively talked about how Ottoman empire was great for conquering so much meanwhile the Kurdish population is treated inhumane to this day.

          Conquest is Barbaric and was murder even back then. It’s just a mix of “history is written by the victors” and “time makes people forget” that we don’t judge all countries for colonization.

          • fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Someone that wants to take over ‘your land’ and kill you or enslave you probably doesn’t really give a fuck about ethics. Especially cuz they’ll probably consider your kin subhuman.

            Can you pray to ethics? Are there ‘acts of ethics’ that are going to save you?

            There is no country on Earth that isn’t here or there without colonization, wars, and abundant ‘crimes against humanity.’

            And much more than just crimes against humanity! There is no country on Earth that isn’t here without helping to kill +90% of the fucking wildlife and wild habitat on this planet.

            Anyway back to the first paragraph I made. You’re never going to convince those type of people that will burn you and rape you and enslave you that they should listen to your ethics and they should obey your laws and then your Justice will rain (reign) supreme all over the land with rainbows in the sky and the bears and the lions are hugging the piggies and the bunnies.

      • Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I don’t think it’s ethical either, we agree on that!

        But I do think being a “colonizer” is practically everyone in the last few millennia, excepting the Sentinel Island natives perhaps and other very rare exceptions to the rule.

        The Japanese were colonizers of Japan (supplanting the prior native population), Americans were colonizers of North America, Aztecs were colonizers of South America, English were colonizers of the UK, Romans were colonizers of Italy and most of Europe and North Africa, and so on forever