• Duallight@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Eh, all he did was accept money to do exactly what he does: play a concert. Now if he canceled other concerts just for this, that would be a different story IMO. The Amazon execs would just buy a yacht or something instead if Dave declined.

    • Isoprenoid@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Ah the ol’ “If I didn’t accept the money to do something unethical, then someone else would have done it.” argument.

      • Duallight@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, I can see how it could be seen that way. I’m thinking more along the lines of “Dave performs for money. Someone wants to pay a lot of money for a special performance, and it doesn’t affect any of his other shows so of course he would do it”. IMO what Dave did isn’t unethical, but I can see how it could be seen that way. But I also think if the article was “Amazon Execs bought a multi million dollar yacht after massive layoffs”, no one would be blaming the yacht manufacturer. Just the execs.

        • zaph@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          no one would be blaming the yacht manufacturer

          I already don’t support yacht manufacturers. I own foo fighters albums. There is a massive difference in your example.

          • Duallight@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            The yacht was a bad example. What I’m getting at is that not hating something is not the same as supporting it. I don’t support Dave doing this, but I don’t hate him for doing it either.