https://nitter.click/Eminem/status/2111311830572552546#m

Not about choosing sides, just choosing to make music with my old friend. Praying for all of us. #HealMyFaith @KidRock

https://archive.is/ZVuV3 (stereogum)

Eminem Defends New Kid Rock Collaboration

Kid Rock and Eminem’s new collaboration has been turning heads. Though the pair have been friends for decades, their political views are famously opposed, as Kid Rock is an avid MAGA supporter and Eminem is a vocal critic of Trump. In a new post, Eminem defended his decision to work with the controversial figure.

“Not about choosing sides, just choosing to make music with my old friend. Praying for all of us,” Eminem wrote about “Heal My Faith,” which comes from Kid Rock’s new Christian album Halfway 2 Jesus. In his verse, Eminem raps, “From shock rap to the rock rap, my homie and me/ He is my brother, not my political enemy.”

In an interview with Billboard, Kid Rock said about Eminem, “We’ve been friends for, like, 40 years. I really didn’t want to drag him into my political world…. We talk about [politics] a little bit, not a ton. There’s a lot of stuff we agree on, and we can have a laugh about what [we don’t]. That’s why I asked him to write a verse for me.”

Last month, Kid Rock was supposed to perform at a MAGA festival in Kentucky but it was canceled because only six people bought VIP tickets.

This is the lyrics to the Kid Rock song featuring Eminem. The song was released yesterday. Lil Wayne is also featured on a different track of the album.
https://genius.com/Kid-rock-heal-my-faith-lyrics

  • BeanisBrain [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    0·
    23 days ago

    there is a difference between knowing history and cherry-picking it to argue for a pre-conceived notion.

    If I’m cherry-picking, I’m cherry-picking in an orchard. All that shit was just off the top of my head. Doctrine of Discovery and Divine Right of Kings alone did so much to uphold the superstructure of reactionary and oppressive systems.

    i could use the exact same “methodology” and argue for the exact opposite point, bringing up […]

    Now who’s cherry-picking? This is on the level of arguing “Engels was a factory owner, therefore capitalism is fine.”

    i could point out how the cathars you mentioned, being massacred during the albigensian crusade, viewed themselves as a christian sect as well.

    How is “some of the massacre victims were also Christians” relevant? A lot of people killed by liberal capitalism are liberal capitalists. Is that a defense of liberal capitalism?

    also, would it in your eyes be just to condemn all of islam due to daesh? would you go so far as to denounce all of buddhism because of the rohingya genocide? how about declaring all of judaism to be equal with religious zionism, or using modi and the bjp as a reason to smear all 1.2 billion hindus as an irredeemable evil? so let’,s not argue against caricatures.

    To give an example that’s uncontroversial on this site, people here broadly agree that China liberating the Tibetan peasantry from its religious leaders was a good thing.

    you mentioned the bourgeois french revolutionaries trying to abolish religion. did they succeed?

    They didn’t succeed in abolishing monarchy, either. Should we start supporting monarchy on that basis?

    condemning ordinary religious people is a needless own-goal.

    There’s a difference between condemning a system and condemning everyone inside that system. Wanting to end capitalism does not mean I condemn every single proletarian.

    it’s a great way to make enemies of a sizeable majority of the global working class for no benefit.

    Most of the global working class isn’t communist, so by your standard we shouldn’t oppose capitalism at all.

    You can read the quote in context in this paper. It’s on page 266.

    • ourtimewillcome [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
      0·
      23 days ago

      Now who’s cherry-picking? This is on the level of arguing “Engels was a factory owner, therefore capitalism is fine.”

      my example was meant to serve as a demonstration that cherry-picking is not useful for actual argumentation, though i see now that i didn’t signal this intention well at all.

      How is “some of the massacre victims were also Christians” relevant? A lot of people killed by liberal capitalism are liberal capitalists. Is that a defense of liberal capitalism?

      please correct me if i’m wrong, but as i understand it, your point is that all of christian society and culture is inherently reactionary, bringing up the albigensian crusade as an example. pointing out that the victims considered themselves to be part of that very same social and cultural paradigm is relevant insofar as they would have most likely disagreed quite strongly with your conclusion.

      To give an example that’s uncontroversial on this site, people here broadly agree that China liberating the Tibetan peasantry from its religious leaders was a good thing.

      i’m sorry, but i don’t quite see the relevance of this to the things i said. please elaborate.

      There’s a difference between condemning a system and condemning everyone inside that system. Wanting to end capitalism does not mean I condemn every single proletarian.

      you seem to be confusing the material base with the societal superstructure. you cannot condemn a religious or cultural tradition without condemning its participants.

      They didn’t succeed in abolishing monarchy, either. Should we start supporting monarchy on that basis?

      and

      Most of the global working class isn’t communist, so by your standard we shouldn’t oppose capitalism at all.

      again, you seem to be confusing the impact of aspects of the material base, such as monarchical institutions or socio-economic systems, with superstructural elements like culture and religion. one is dominant over the other here.

      the real question is whether the means actually end up being effective and emancipatory. a marxist account should focus on changing the material conditions that reproduce religion, not simply trying to ban belief.

      You can read the quote in context in this paper. It’s on page 266.

      thank you, appreciate this.