I'm a Senior Editor here at BuzzFeed, which means I've spent wayyyyy too much time on the internet.

"I don’t think anyone, famous or not, is obligated to broadcast their political views. Expecting them to do so is indicative of something deeply wrong with society and a violation of free speech and privacy

​We all agree that censoring someone is wrong... BUT freedom of speech has to include the right not to speak. When the rule becomes 'silence is violence,' it's no longer about authentic beliefs. If you force an artist to put out a PR statement just to avoid getting canceled, that’s not real advocacy. It just turns politics into a mandatory checklist. You hurt the people you're trying to help by turning their pain into a performance.

​Context also matters here. Ed Sheeran writes acoustic love songs and radio hits. When he has touched on issues, they’ve been small, safe, and uncontroversial, but even that doesn't matter. I want to be crystal clear that I'm not judging overtly political artists. Bob Dylan and Willie Nelson are two deeply political artists, and I love them deeply, but they still haven't been held to the same standard. My point is, if you do have highly political artists, maybe you could make an argument where it would be all right to pester them to some degree, but I think most of you know that's still wrong when you think about pestering Bob Dylan or Willie Nelson.

We also need to separate keeping your politics out of your work from being a callous bystander. The opinion the majority holds is that what is going on in Palestine and the West Bank is a tragedy. But recognizing human suffering doesn't automatically obligate an entertainer to become a geopolitical spokesperson or turn a concert into a rally. You can care deeply about a tragedy without performing your politics for an audience. Art serves many purposes; one very, very important purpose is for people to escape in a healthy way and get lost in the music, something I really think people [who are] angry need to do.

​I work in media, and when I’m with my friends in my personal life, I am very political. But in my professional capacity? I have absolutely no political opinions. That is incredibly common for anybody who works in media or live production. We separate our personal views from our jobs to get the work done. How well-known do I have to be before I'm not allowed to stay apolitical at work?

Being famous doesn't mean you sign away your right to keep your convictions private. Our relationship with celebrities is unhealthy. It is only becoming increasingly unhealthy. I can't wait for the day when society decides that stalking, harassing, and demanding more of a person is unacceptable just because you know their name or you bought their album.

​I will concede one thing on the Sheeran situation: If someone is mad at him purely because he didn't stand up for Macklemore's artistic expression when the venue and promoters were censoring his opening act, I understand that. That’s a fair critique about platform management and supporting your fellow artists. But if you are angry at Sheeran or celebrities just because they prefer to stay neutral and keep their politics to themselves, that anger is misplaced. Kraft got away with it scot-free along with all the other owners.

Note: These are the opinions of the redditors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of this writer or of BuzzFeed.

"Being apolitical is one thing. I can understand someone not wanting their lives to be overrun with the problems of the world. There’s the minimum responsibility not to enable horrific people or events. Some of it can be overblown, like people getting mad that Keanu was trained for some scenes by a guy who was in the Mossad 30 years ago (especially given that Keanu has donated $30M+ to causes, including Lebanon). But there is a huge difference between not being into politics and what Ed did. 

Macklemore is boisterous, explicitly political, and willing to lose to make a point. He was a terrible tour mate for Ed to choose if he didn’t want politics. It’s like being friends with J.J. Watt and complaining he talks about football. Sheeran brought him on tour, knowing who he was, and then refused to have his back. Worse, he ranted about how sunshine and rainbows he was, like he can pretend the world around him doesn’t exist. It was the excuse of a child, not a performer worth half a billion."

"'He didn't stand up for Macklemore's artistic expression when the venue and promoters were censoring his opening act, I understand that.'

But that *is* a political stance. He sided clearly with one side in the dispute. Even if he *said* he's apolitical, neutrality is not what his actions performed."

"You have no political opinions? How is that possible?"

"Zero political opinions is obviously impossible, but there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that you don't have enough info to take a stance on most issues. For most political issues, everything we know about the issue is filtered through media that is *imprecise* at best and *intentionally manipulative* at worst.

People who consider themselves apolitical (if they're being honest and not just hiding their opinions) are often saying they don't have enough info to form a strong opinion, which is an intelligent thing to do."

"Every person who says that is just incorrect. Their political opinions are generally, 'The status quo is fine, but I don't like taxes that much.' 

'I don't have enough information to have an opinion' is a reasonable response on specific parts of specific topics.

'I don't have enough information, so I'm apolitical' as a general stance is something else. 

A bunch of people are defending a statement that doesn't apply here. 

If your response to everything is, 'Oh, I don't know enough to have an opinion,' you are just choosing not to have any information."

"Free speech is about the government censoring speech. That's not the issue here. And no one forced him to do anything. He was pressured to do so because his fans were upset. That's not a free speech issue.

Now, banning people from playing at your stadium because they have beliefs you don't like? It's also not a First Amendment issue, but it's a much bigger threat to free speech."

In particular, there are some issues where it's not 'apolitical' to remain silent on them, because remaining silent is not being done to be *either* political or apolitical.

The issue here is that Israel/Palestine is not actually a straightforward situation, but absolute *fanatics* on both sides have polarized the situation to the point where no matter what you support, you're basically taking a stand with fanatics and making yourself a target.

The only way to avoid that is to not say anything. You can't even describe it as being a nuanced situation that you don't want to take a position on (i.e. 'be apolitical') because even *that* will call in the fanatics.

That's very different from remaining silent when it's actually possible to take a stand without that stand becoming your entire identity in the public eye, which is *extremely* important for celebrities.

Macklemore's announcement was basically putting Ed into an impossible situation by making it inevitable that no matter what his response was, it would make him the center of a polarized, fanatical horde of attack dogs.

That's actually a shitty thing to do to someone you're working with, *especially* without talking to them about it, and I wouldn't blame Ed for 'letting' the promoters get rid of him if that was the reason. Which...I actually think was the real reason.

It really doesn't have anything to do with whether Ed is 'apolitical.' We know he's not, as he's supported Ukraine publicly."

"Celebrities can choose to keep their political opinions to themselves, they can choose to be apolitical, they can choose not to act in ways which make their politics known. Ed Sheeran did not do those things and is being punished for it. He chose to make his politics known, he chose to act in a way to punish someone else for political speech. Ed Sheeran chose to involve politics when he acted against someone else's speech. You talk about free speech, but no one involved had their speech silenced by the government. They are all facing consequences from their speech, which is actually our right by freedom of association."

"Those views are always weird to me. Typically, artists depend on public opinion to earn a living. Quite obviously, it behooves them to maintain the favor of the general public as well as their particular audiences. There's nothing complicated or ominous about this.

Now, often enough, artists can manage to maintain public favor without being overtly political if they want to do so. Their main issue isn't going to be silence, it's going to be saying or doing something they want to be 'apolitical' but is really 'status quo supporting,' and that's a political statement, too. This is what happened with Ed Sheeran, so far as I can tell."

2. Ed is in the business of bringing people together for a good time.

Not all artists are in the same business as Ed, and many make politics a central part of their art. However, Ed's brand doesn't include a political stance, so if an opening artist makes a political statement, it suddenly makes the entire performance supportive of that political stance and alienates everyone who disagrees with that stance. That is just disastrous for Ed's brand.

Let's keep in mind that this is a common way to do art. Ed isn't a freak. Look at Good Mythical Morning. They largely produce escapist content. They don't cover important issues in their content. Why? Because that's not what they're selling! It would be like putting ground beef in a cake since protein is important. Yes, the cake isn't healthy, but let me enjoy it instead of ruining it.

Same thing with concerts, SOME concerts and artists are selling cake, a fun time away from real issues. That's Ed, that's GMM, etc. Injecting politics into these things ruins them, and Ed and anyone concerned about sales and maintaining a brand image has every right to be annoyed with anyone who does so. If I'm making cake and somebody adds beef without asking, I have every right to be annoyed."

"'I don’t think anyone, famous or not, is obligated to broadcast their political views.' 

Let me pause you here; the very concept of being able to 'hide' or conceal your political views, or to compartmentalize them from the rest of your life, is tremendously privileged. Many people’s lives are impacted in unavoidable ways due to events in the world beset by politics. For example, no one chose to be Palestinian or to be born specifically in Gaza, but that is who they are, and the luxury of choosing whether or not to be involved in that situation isn’t available to them.

Even setting aside this most relevant example, there are many, many vulnerable or outwardly identifiable groups whose very lives are made political every single day. None of these groups are white men with net worths in the eight or nine-digit range. So while Ed Sheeran is most certainly not obligated by his existence to be political, even having the choice to sit on the sidelines is something not everyone gets.

'Expecting them to do so is indicative of something deeply wrong with society and a violation of free speech and privacy.'

It is not a violation of your free speech rights to be asked a question or held to task for your decisions. It is Ed Sheeran’s very free speech rights at work when he allows his tour manager to kick Macklemore off the opening set. He is allowed to do that by law. Being castigated for it socially is just reciprocal free speech. Second, Sheeran is a public figure who makes his livelihood by being public; he is not entitled to privacy of his secondary opinions, which he has, again, publicly expressed by way of complying with the request to change his show.

'We all agree that censoring someone is wrong...... BUT freedom of speech has to include the right not to speak.'

Sheeran could have been silent on it, no one compelled him to continue making statements.

'If you force an artist to put out a PR statement just to avoid getting canceled, that’s not real advocacy. It just turns politics into a mandatory checklist. You hurt the people you're trying to help by turning their pain into a performance.'

The advocacy necessary for the issue presented is one of awareness for populations of 'apolitical' people. The awareness that even Sheeran’s bumbling of this issue has brought is invaluable to the cause at large and has absolutely helped bring attention to the monied interests behind this genocide. The lack of a performance was actually the issue here, as you’ll note.

'Context also matters here. Ed Sheeran writes acoustic love songs and radio hits. When he has touched on issues, they’ve been small, safe, and uncontroversial, but even that doesn't matter.'

You, Ed Sheeran, and his millions of listeners get to enjoy harmless acoustic pop songs and safe issues because you aren’t currently being subjected to a genocide being funded by US tax dollars. As addressed above, your position of relative privilege is not being addressed in your argument. You have a choice to be apolitical, and just like every choice in this world, it has outcomes. The outcome here is that some middle-aged white dude is singing about a girl's curves after crying on stage because people think he’s weird for not condemning an obviously bad thing. It undercuts his entire brand as a safe, harmless guy. It makes him look like a snake. He is harming his own brand.

'The opinion the majority holds is that what is going on in Palestine and the West Bank is a tragedy.'

If this were true, your tax dollars would not have been used for the last many decades to colonize the West Bank. Your money would not currently be going to a genocide. You would not be voting for or listening to genocide supporters.

If you thought it was a tragedy, this post wouldn’t exist.

'I will concede one thing on the Sheeran situation: if someone is mad at him purely because he didn't stand up for Macklemore's artistic expression when the venue and promoters were censoring his opening act, I understand that. That’s a fair critique about platform management and supporting your fellow artists. But if you are angry at Sheeran or celebrities just because they prefer to stay neutral and keep their politics to themselves, that anger is misplaced. Kraft got away with it scot-free, along with all the other owners.'

The fact that we are busting out free speech arguments for this is dire. The controversy here is that nothing Macklemore said was at all controversial. He gave a very heartwarming speech about solidarity and standing against tragedy and then performed a song with some images from Gaza. How often do billionaires chime in on the contents of concerts in their stadiums like this? 

You seem to be resenting that Ed Sheeran was pressured by fans and Macklemore? When in reality the pressure came from a small handful of billionaire stadium operators. Ed Sheeran just handled it extraordinarily poorly."

"'Let me pause you here; the very concept of being able to “hide” or conceal your political views, or to compartmentalize them from the rest of your life.'

Similarly, I'll pause you there. I don't need to take a side on every political issue any more or less than a celebrity does. Some things are entirely out of my control, and I'm allowed to agree or disagree, but there's no built-in requirement to being a human that says I need to share those opinions.

It's not that I don't care. If I had the platform of celebrity status, I wouldn't be shy, but even then, they're not politicians either and are not obligated to create a political platform.

I'm not hiding my stance on anything. I just only speak up when it's relevant to the conversation. Palestine should be free *and* Israel should be allowed to live in peace... Do I know how to do that? Fuck no. Nothing I say will matter anyway. Sharing your political opinions does nothing but make you look better to half of your audience and worse to the other half, you have no authority without the backing of the government so nobody but actual elected civil servants should be obligated to share their opinions on political matters."

"I don't give a fuck about his opinion on the Middle East; why would I? He's not a politician or an activist. The whole thing is just keyboard warriors who virtue signal."

"'Ed Sheeran writes acoustic love songs and radio hits. When he has touched on issues, they’ve been small, safe, and uncontroversial, but even that doesn't matter...'

The second sentence is not true, and therefore it *does* matter. Sheeran is selectively apolitical — he has in the past been outspoken on Ukraine, an issue I would certainly not describe as 'small' or 'safe.' This either makes him a hypocrite since he's willing to use his platform for some important moral causes (Ukraine) but not others (Gaza), *or* he did not actually believe Gaza was a moral cause worth speaking about until the Macklemore situation blew up in his face.

In either case, he deserves moral criticism, and it's not infringing on his right to stay silent to point this out."

"The problem is that everything is political or informed by politics. Being apolitical just means that you're making the audience testing say you lose more fans with a take on either side of the aisle than you do with neutrality. Also when you're at work, I guarantee you're political; you dress a certain way which indicates a certain upbringing, or associate with certain cultural touchstones which indicates things about you. These are all political; everything we do is political and has material impacts on the world. The idea that somehow you're above it all and can walk through the world without ever touching on a political issue is just deeply selfish."

"Sometimes you are thrust into a situation where there is no apolitical solution."

"Counterpoint: What if the anger at Sheeran has nothing to do with demanding he take a position at all? 

The anger/disappointment/disgust against Ed Sheeran isn't based in him not taking a position on Israel/Palestine, either now or previously. 

It's that another artist on his tour wasn't allowed to express his own (somehow) controversial viewpoint in the most carefully constructed, inoffensive manner possible, and Sheeran, rather than defend that artist's right to free speech, utterly caved in an attempt to preserve his own earning potential. 

Had Sheeran said something like 'I do not have a position on the I/P conflict I am willing to share publicly, but I will defend the right of Macklemore to talk about his,' this wouldn't be a problem. He'd probably catch *some* flak, sure, but it wouldn't be anything like the universal condemnation he's getting now. 

The other part of this is that there was no real reason for Sheeran to do so. He's already made it. He's super rich, incredibly famous, and had every opportunity to use his own star power to push back against the blacklisting of Macklemore by a small cadre of pro-Israel arena owners."

"There's a difference between sharing unprompted political opinions and being dragged into the center of a global issue that you didn't ask for. In general, it's perfectly fair that celebrities (or anyone for that matter) avoid sharing political stances. It's a private opinion, and nobody owes an explanation for their beliefs.

However, if you get placed in the controversy, even if not by choice, you're (unfairly) now in a position where staying silent is agreeing with what's happening. If that's your stance, then fine, but if you don't say anything here, you're saying you agree with it."

"I used to think celebrities should hold a political stand and use their voice to make a change, but over the years I understood (like in any other field) most of them have no idea or no interest in whatever is going on around them and those who might have some usually don't have anything smart to contribute, and in those cases, it's better if they shut up and focus on entertaining people. I really don't have to listen to attention-seeking ignorants trying to play it cool."

"Other people, here and elsewhere, have tried explaining:

1) that everything really is political,2) that polarization is not necessarily a bad thing,3) that boycotts have a measurable impact on the causes they support or oppose, and are worth engaging in for that reason alone,4) that the placement of the Overton window is arbitrary, and therefore, there is no true 'neutral' political belief,5) and that most political disagreements are not 'small differences.'

And while all of these are correct, and I'm surprised you haven't been moved on any of them, I want to try a different approach. OP, you frustrate me because you're right for the wrong reasons, right on accident, and that's no different from being wrong. I don't expect what I'm about to say to resonate with you unless you're of a certain political persuasion, but I hope it's at least a new perspective for you.

Celebrities are a tool of capital. They exist to make the capital class seem relatable and friendly, to reify the concept that some people deserve to be put on a pedestal and have a certain level of wealth and privilege, and to be a pressure release valve for liberatory sentiments during times of political upheaval (so those feelings don't get channeled in a productive, transformative way). They exploit parasocial relationships to make us think the rich care about us.

The occasional celebrity can popularize egalitarian ideas, from time to time, but that's just a small concession the capital class makes so we look up to celebrities in the first place. The existence of celebrities creates unhealthy incentives broadly, changing what the average person thinks is worth striving for. (I encourage you to read The Right to Be Greedy for more on that last little bit.)

Ultimately celebrities are not our friends; they are enemies, and weapons in the class war. To the extent that we should care about celebrities' politics, it should be regarding their alliance with and within the capital class. So in a sense, you're right, OP. We shouldn't care what the politics of celebrities are in the abstract, because we should be working toward a world without any celebrities at all.

Part of what we should do is point (3) above, boycott when we believe it is right to do so, and many people do this. Boycotting *works*. Sometimes this means boycotting a celebrity. I don't understand the urge to get pissy on Reddit about this, it's just voting with your wallet."

"Interested to know whether you think guilt by inaction exists. The exaggerated version would be this: If you're walking by a river and you see a child drowning, are you guilty if you ignore it and walk on? You didn't actually *do* anything, is the idea, so how can you be said to have *done* something immoral?

This, for me, is the question of apolitical celebrities. If they don't speak or act when they could, then they're subject to guilt by inaction.

If you think the guy by the riverbank wasn't responsible for the child drowning, then you should think celebrities can be apolitical. But if you think guilt by inaction is real, then you have to agree that every human shares a responsibility to do what they can to protect the vulnerable, including by contributing to democratic discourse around genocide and so on."

"Absolutely, it does. In your example, you would be.

But that's not what's happening. To use your example. You walk by, and you already have hundreds helping, and you don't know how to swim."

Note: Some comments have been lightly edited for length or clarity.