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.”
Good. Fuck ICE indeed!
That’s a really great, quotable line. She’s got a way with words, almost like she’s an award-winning lyricist.
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
She seems like a decent person.
More specifically, FUCK YOU KRISTI.
I applaud the sentiment, but that honor is held by Stephen “PeeWee Himmler” Miller.
Noem wishes she could aspire to being as nasty an asshole as he is.
If the inner circle she is the one doing the most direct damage
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.
Sure fuck ice was bleeped but it’s still getting out.
The Grammys are broadcast on CBS. Broadcast TV has to follow FCC rules about profanity. Not bleeping fuck would mean pretty hefty fines, and IIRC those increase based on viewership. Cable and streaming services don’t have to follow those same rules.
There are clips that are not bleeped, because that was only done for the broadcast version.
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.
Oh, you can bet the Grammys doesn’t want to be on CBS any longer, and CBS doesn’t want them any longer. They’ll be replaced by the Conservative of the Year Award, or some such dumb shit.
She is correct and very cool of her to say so.
this comment section is heavy on the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” vibes
Kurt Cobain making a come back?
I’d like her head intact. Me might need it
Popular music was the anti-Fox News back in the day, but it dead now.
Nice to see the echoes tho.
Most art is that way, because art of any relative depth takes you into consideration and therefore probable empathy, and thus not a Republican.
You’re right. I honestly rather see celebrities in the streets in solidarity with the people, freezing and standing up to ICE. They are condemning ICE in their fancy clothes. It’s just them sucking their own dicks. Everyone hates ICE. It’s not bringing attention to anything. The shootings are doing that.
Don’t downplay the importance of influence. That was a large audience and using the platform to at least say something encourages others to start being comfortable saying the same thing. Most people aren’t the protestors in Minneapolis, including most of us here. By opening the door to outward criticism, people the follow these artists and listen to them are being given further permission, internally, to voice the same opposition.
No, it’s not as brave as standing face to face with tyranny in the streets, but both fronts are worth fighting on.
While I do agree, they should’ve been screaming the message earlier. With more passion. Not “um, ICE sucks. Fuck em. They bad.” They can do both. It’s just most of them are too comfortable in their mansions to go the next step and practice what they preach.
I’m a nobody, but earlier last year I became a community leader and helped organize protests in my red city. Imagine what they can do if they are shoulder to shoulder with the people.
“They didn’t do it on my schedule, so fuck them.”
What an immature take.
Yes, let’s keep putting hope in celebrities. That’s really helped us so far.
I didn’t say anything about putting hope in celebrities, but shitting on them for spreading a message you agree with is really dumb.
If you have influence, you also have the responsibility to make sure your voice reaches as many people as possible. Screaming this message earlier is a good way of lowering your chances of getting access to a mic at the Grammy at a moment where most people are listening.
Everyone was clapping. Everyone agreed. Everyone already knows the situation. They know it’s now safe to speak against ICE so it won’t hurt their bottom dollar.
People with influence should use that influence for the betterment of everyone.
Positive outcomes as a result self aggrandizing really shouldn’t be a problem. Quit with the “it’s not perfect so they should do nothing” rhetoric, it self destructive.
No, not everyone hates ICE, unfortunately. Here on lemmy sure. But this was an opportunity to get a message out to the Fox listeners, the trumptards, the people who have not heard, or don’t believe what’s actually going on.
At this point, nothing will change their mind until ICE is knocking down their front door or shooting someone they care about.
As pessimistic as I naturally am, I actually don’t believe that. The trump administrative lies all the time, Fox News lies and spins an incredible amount, there are constant lies on Xitter. I think they do this because they have to. They know that if the truth was more unavoidable, they’d face much more backlash from the typical trump backers. I’m sure plenty of Trumpers wouldn’t care, but I think there’s a significant group of trump supporters who are only so because they’re stuck in the right wing echo chambers.
celebrities aren’t normal people. they don’t want to be around you. they just want your money. and they will say what they think will get them money.
I don’t think that’s true across the board.
sorry, do the majority of celebs fly commercial and show up to protests?
or do they just say crap at award shows to score points with little zero inconvenience or consequence to themselves?
or do they just say crap […] score points with little zero inconvenience or consequence to themselves?
You just described the vast majority of people.
i’m not disputing that. most people are armchair activists at best.
and frankly, being an activist requires a certain mentality that most people don’t possess. I gave up on activism myself because so many activists are violent psychos and I want nothing to do with people like that. Everything is ‘peace and love’ until you mildly disagree with them, then you their enemy they must destroy.
Like I had people threaten me for not being pro bike lane enough, because apparently if I go to a bike lane rally, but I don’t think cars are evil and car drivers are evil, I’m evil.
OK, but I think the point a lot of commenters were making is Billie Eilish’s anti-ICE statement was likely genuine. She might be a slackivist, but it seemed like you attributed her statement to just a grift trying to get kudos and this attitude is applied to every progressive celebrity. I always find this perspective unnecessarily pessimistic.
I know being a celebrity basically gives you a mental illness, but I’m pretty sure celebrities authentically believe things, and if they were in it purely for a grift, they’d start appealing to rightwingers given how much more money they’d be making that way.
Removed by mod
Wtf wht removed by moderator, what a joke censorship platform is this
True, but still some land is significantly more stolen than others.
Like what
Name a culture which hasn’t stolen land or had slaves
What? This is getting confusing.
Yes probably all cultures had slaves or stole land at some point in time. (This is true, depending on whether you see cultures as fixed in time: are current day Egyptians of the same culture as ancient Egyptians? When does culture “restart”? Who decides this?)
Let me ask you: is there no difference between let’s say a Native American claiming his land was stolen (hundreds of years ago and his people massacred, and he’s now a second rank citizen on his own land), and for instance a white European claiming his land was stolen (by the Romans? During WW2? I would not know what he means honestly, especially because he is now part of a nation state, a first class citizen).
Yes all land was stolen. But this is not an absolute. You wouldn’t agree the Native American had his land quite a bit more relatively stolen?
My point is you can’t invalidate the claim of native peoples just by going “meh, so what? All land was technically stolen at some point”. Some people can make a more legitimate claim their land was stolen than others.
Inuit
Nope.
and how do you rank the ‘stoleness’ of land?
Can’t really rank it, it’s a subjective statement. My gut tells me there’s a difference between for instance a Native American stating his land is stolen and a, just an example, white European stating his land is stolen.
My gut thinks there IS a way to rank these statements, even though it’s technically true all land was stolen at some point and the whole nation state fairy tale is completely arbitrary.
That’s just my gut though, it doesn’t agree with genocide
I can rank it, but it would depend on the context and the evidence involved.
I used to work professional in land policy. Land ownership is ultimately about the legal system and who posses the ‘deed’ to the land. Governments are the ones who control this ultimately. They can create, take, and steal land via the law. And the law defines all these things. Proof of theft requires proof of previous ownership, as a starting point. To prove that land was stolen you’d have to prove original ownership, and the series of events that lead to it’s loss of ownership and their illegality or illegitimacy.
and the further back you go the messier it gets. land records from the past 50 years are quite clear. land records from 200+ years ago, not so much. It’s basically impossible to prove any of it if say, the town or municipality in dispute, had it’s records destroyed in a fire or somesuch, perhaps even maliciously.
Plenty of Europeans have land-conflicts that go back centuries and involve murder. There are also conflicts amongst indigenous people’s over land right and land use and tribal recognition. It’s vastly more complex than ‘hey white people give us our land back because your ancestors stole it from our ancestors’. My ancestors arrived in America in the 1910/20s, personally, and never left the area of the original 16th century colonies, many of which were established with peaceful agreements of the natives and were not stolen at all.
“No-one is illegal on stolen land” is a staunchly pro-immigration, anti-colonial, and anti-borders statement made by people in anarchist-adjacent circles. You’re arguing about laws and legal processes that people with this sentiment hate and seek to abolish. Everything you’ve stated here is correct, but in this context it doesn’t matter, isn’t it pedantic?
If you want to feel your deep profound anarchist liberation feelings, go right ahead.
I’m not an anarchist and I’m don’t care about idealistic sentimentality. I care about reality, and yes, if your world view is that ‘reality is bad and must be abolished’ then yeah, I suppose you’d be pretty annoyed at someone who was pointing out that reality to you.
I’m not an anarchist, something that was obvious from how I spoke about them like an outsider, but this is such a disingenuous comment I’m gonna ignore that bit.
You do not care about reality – this is made obvious from your belief that property laws are some sort of sane and natural order, instead of being hackneyed together by generations of rich landowners with their own short-sighted, trite, and nonsensical goals. The violence committed by these freaks for more oil or sharecropping land or some other garbage is actually the opposite of normal humanity, unless you live somewhere where your neighbors shoot each other because they were bored and wanted a second house. You see, within civilization, humans generally share spaces. There no borders in the household or passport stations in the farmers’ market. Anarchism is the belief that this can be expanded all the way to the international level; the comparatively simpler idea expressed by this celebrity is that there shouldn’t be a military dedicated to attacking random people who are just trying to live in society because they’re “illegal”, especially considering this society is already built on attacking random people and the attackers, by their own definitions, are actually already here illegally. The fact that this simple slogan pisses you off is a genuinely fascinating concept and makes me think you aren’t too happy to abide by the social contract.
So how does that make “illegal” immigration a bad thing? Or are you violently agreeing?
Yes no more borders
all “owned” land is
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.
So philosophically, I agree with you, but how would the logistics of land use work without something similar to ownership?
Like, how would you decode who gets to live where?
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 is a social construct of our minds, clearly.
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.
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 to live anywhere 😠
They discovered shit. The land was already discovered and inhabited by people.
Well yeah that too. Indigenous people didn’t have to pay anyone to live anywhere either.
I cannot have more respect for a person than I have for Billie.
I’m pretty left leaning but the whole “stolen land” narrative will never land with the common person. It certainly doesn’t with me.
I cannot be asked to be held responsible about the actions of people well over 200 years ago. I was born here.
Arguing that someone “stole the land” and thus it’s yours is how you get places like Israel.
That doesn’t sound left-leaning. It’s not about you. It’s not about holding you responsible. That’s a talking point straight out of the conservative victimhood playbook.
And yet that’s what is always implied by these statements. “someone 200 years ago made a choice so you deal with it”
No, fuck that.
Do you have an opinion on DEI?
Sure: it’s a good idea to improve diversity. Can’t think of any reasons not to.
I do think that corporations get it wrong, and it doesn’t make sense to pick a less qualified candidate just to meet some arbitrary requirements.
DEI tends to encourage the hiring of diverse people because they have been historically underrepresented due to past policies and systemic injustices. One could argue DEI is people making choices due to the behavior of people from previous generations. It seems at odds to support that and not acknowledge some concept of debt owed to people wronged by society in the past.
Also, DEI is not about lowering standards. It’s a pretty common dog whistle to suggest that corpos pick less qualified candidates because of DEI. I’m not suggesting you intended it that way, but going forward it’s good to keep that in mind.
No one’s asking you to take responsibility, just to face reality.
Make a list of land that wasn’t taken from someone else. I’ll wait.
That’s not the point you think it is…
Removed by mod
Island nations?
Amazon jungle tribals area Greenland (yet)
That’s what first comes to mind.
Maybe you should rephrase your point?
Oh, sorry friend. You can’t prove to me that the people living there didn’t steal their current living space from another community member.
It’s just a stupid concept. You can’t look at any piece of written human history that doesn’t involve conquering land from others.
What’s the cutoff for something being stolen? The immediate area around where I live? A city? Does it matter if the people who came before had a concept of nations or borders?
My point is: immigration policy in the USA is clearly broken for a plethora of ways that don’t involve using some weird idea that a country’s land is stolen. The average person is likely going to look at that part of the claim and latch on to it, contemplating how dumb the idea is. We should probably use arguments that make some sense when trying to convince undecided people to take a logical stance.
You can’t look at any piece of written human history that doesn’t involve conquering land from others
You can, if the land was free of people before you.
Terminally online alert. The fuck is seppoland?
“B-b-but the “holy land” was stolen from us first!” - Israel
You do understand that same narrative is what they use to justify “taking it back”, right? They’re not there illegally bro, the land was stolen from them.
seppo is rhyming slang for “yank” - “septic tank”. It’s just how australians talk and I thought it was funny.
I also understand this is the reason settlers use https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/4/if-i-dont-steal-your-home-someone-else-will-jewish-settler-says
I agree. This kind of rhetoric doesn’t really help. I guess I get what she’s going for here, but…trying to get people, en masse, to reject the very notion of someone being here illegally is going to take a lot.
I personally find the over-emphasis on the restriction of the movement of people, while money can slosh all around the world with hardly any friction rather absurd, but I also realize that’s not a widely-held view.
I personally find the over-emphasis on the restriction of the movement of people, while money can slosh all around the world with hardly any friction rather absurd
Um, it’s not the movement of all people that’s restricted; it’s the movement of poor people. If you’re rich enough, you can basically go wherever you want whenever you want.
Oh, of course, but that’s the case with nearly all of the people that I think you are talking about (the billionaires and the centimillionaires) - the rules and grind everyone else has are not really problems for them. But their money can circle the globe even easier than they can…
I mean now they can literally buy a Trump gold visa or whatever.
Well, I mean there’s one group.
You know . . . the thieves?
Removed by mod
Me when I can’t see past the literal letters on the screen
