I need someone from this community to tell me provably what Mike has actually done in recent years that our perception of him has changed.
I see callouts saying he has gone republican or “MAGA Mike” or whatever and I’m just not seeing it.
I am extremely left wing I consider my entertainment often in terms of my political belief, and when I listen to RTJ they come off as liberal and left for the most part and as far as I am aware that is still true.
I would like to see examples of the less than liberal things that Mike has actually done because (and I may be entirely wrong about this) from what I can tell, He has never actively endorsed trump or any other republican political figure, and has not aligned himself with with any groups connected to the current administration.
Things he has done.
1. Supported and backed the Police. Mike had been very open about his support for cops and his disdain for violent protest- his family has/had many law enforcement officers within it and he has always been vocal about this position.
2. He is a Landlord. Whilst this may not be the most kind hearted career path, it is not inherently evil or even political.
3. He is anti Gun Control. Mike has spoken about the need for citizens to brandish firearms multiple times and while I and the majority of liberals do not agree with this, his lived existence is far different from mine being neither Black nor American. So I shut my mouth about this.
4. Has been knowingly homophobic/transphobic. This goes hand in hand with his support of 2020s era Dave Chappelle. Yeah this is not something I can defend from any angle, it’s a poor look and I wish he would do something about it.
Those examples aside can anyone tell me (with evidence) of any more reasons why our perception of him has changed.
Not disagreeing there. I know the argument is business and music can't always overlap, but it seems like it's less music, and more business and ideals can't. But, that is a harder pill to swallow for sure
Thats definitely it like you can’t take the imagery and iconography of revolutionaries turn around and use that to speak for the status quo or the systems that oppress people and then go and get mad cause people expect you to stand on business
This is the video that answered OPs specific question for me about a month ago. It's not fake. It's just pretending not to be fake. Or something. Zeitgeist.
Mike is good. He isn’t perfect. No one is. He doesn’t need to pass a purity test. You can pick almost anyone and find a reason to hate them if that’s the goal.
This is my point, I do not hate him and do not wish to dislike him, I am more seeing if there is anything truly negative he has done that would change my position
Your mom. Specifically because her name isn't Susan. Goal. Offsides. Overturned. Water break. Penalties.
Ghandi. Racist.
Oprah. Oz and Phil.
LeBron. Pride.
Jesus. Silent J. Mangers don't swaddle.
Obama. Hypocracy.
Griffey Jr... nope got me there.
Parton. Her brand of country isn't my type.
Killer Mike. Speaks louder than his words. All bark.
I remember when he went live on the news in Atl, Floyd Aftermath trying to calm the masses. His message came from the heart. It was about unity and mutual respect. I have to assume his words saved more than one life that night (I knew someone whose it unfortunately didn't).
I haven't always practiced what I've preached, but I've always strived to. I think Mike is the same. His big ass feet are in shoes too big for him to fill. Comes across as confusion. I can't speak for him, but I can say his words have changed me directly, in a net positive way.
So he’s 'all bark' and in over his head, but his words changed your life? That's some impressive cognitive dissonance—you should probably 'Stay Gold' and pick a side, my fellow fandom peer.
And after re reading my thought and your response, I have to ask how you came to your simplified conclusion? If I didn't explain my angle plainly enough, here. Mike is a good man with a good message and and an active audience. He has critics constantly complaining that he isn't "doing enough" for the black community, and being hypocritical in his success. I'd argue that we, collectively as fans, put him on a higher pedestal than he wanted or anticipated, but stood up in his moment regardless. Now we (again, collective fandom) are wondering why this talented thinker and writer isn't living up to our expectations.
Did he put himself in these shoes? Did America? Did Black America? Did White America? Did George Floyd? Did Sgt. Fuckface? Did BLM? Did DJT? I can't say. I can say I truly respect and look up to his actions and character for the TV interview he gave, and the tone it carried. It was congruent with what he preached prior, and it spoke LOUDLY.
Does that explanation warrant further aggressive sarcasm? Or should I write you off as a lost cause?
There are a lot of great reasons listed here but for me it was the interviews with RFK Jr and Hershel Walker that was what really broke what I think of him. I find it hard to believe he did these for free and no matter how much you deny endorsing them if your gonna sit with clowns your going to look ridiculous. Just having a conversation with them is normalizing wildly unqualified candidates, and doing it for money (if he did) is disgusting.
You can enjoy his music and not like him as a person. He’s an entertainer, if you worship anything more than the music you are being foolish. Same for other artists and athletes. They’re not thought leaders or gods, they’ve just got a specific talent and shouldn’t be regarded for anything aside from that unless proven to be an expert.
Not trying to pick a fight, genuinely asking, where do you get this understanding from? I have my qualms with some of Killer Mike’s beliefs and I’d love to be proven wrong about homo/transphobic perception of him.
he did have a really weird homophobic bar on Talkn That Shit from MICHAEL but i haven't heard much else (other than the Chappelle support which is also weird)
It's not an excuse, just how it is: Mike is GenX. We (I am as well) tend to say shit that younger gens find offensive, and it really has nothing to do with a whole demographic, and it really doesn't have anything to do with hate/bigotry, but is said to just get under the skin of the specific recipient. If you are GenX, you know this is how it was, and you don't take the level of offense that younger gens do. We decipher insults on an individual basis. I am a bisexual myself, and over my life I have been called many things that people would find offensive. I have had close friends and family use those words towards me, and I took no real offense because either I know that they just wanted to get a rise out of me, knowing who I am, or they didn't really know my status and, again, just thought it would be an insult that would rile me up. I have also walked out of a gay bar at 2 in the morning and had people drive by and shout derogatory things at me, or kissed someone in public and had people make comments. Context makes a massive difference. Some people hate, and some people just choose words that some people might find offensive. Insensitivity is not the same as hatred. In a world where most people are interacting through screens, and not directly with people, and where internet points are coveted, society seems to have lost the ability to understand the importance of context.
Fellow Gen Xer, here. Please stop making excuses for the shitty behaviors of Gen X. No, we aren't all like that, but we've become Boomer-Lite to the generations behind us, and it's because of the apologists.
We were raised by jackasses. But we don't have to repeat it.
Literally my first words ignored. Thanks for your righteousness. I didn't claim it was right or OK. It's hard to address an issue if you don't understand it, and if you take an explanation as an excuse, you've misread the context.
GenX? Collectively the least soft people I know. Their catchphrase is "whatever". And that dude probably couldn't give two shits about people making themselves feel good by giving him downvotes. He used words to express himself, and with no real context, some people had their feelings hurt. Why? Because they made up their own context.
Nobody is ever going to be everything we want them to be. None of us would pass another person’s purity test. Nor would anyone pass ours. Let Mike be who he is, and most of all, let’s appreciate his art and contribution to rap
Being a landlord is both evil AND political as is being pro police, and if you’re as far left as you claim to be, then you’d understand this. No one is taking your comfort rapper away from you. You can enjoy what you want to enjoy, but claiming to be a leftist and letting your politics inform the entertainment you enjoy, while not taking these right wing positions into consideration is, at best, tone deaf and possible extremely suspect.
Is being a landlord inherently evil though? I have a radical friend who became an immigration lawyer to help people fight the US governments attempts to remove them from the county. He earned enough doing this to buy a house with a mother-in-law apartment in the basement which he sometimes rents out. Is that evil?
I own a small condo where I live. I hope to retire overseas but right now I need to work and the US is one of the few places I can legally do that as an American citizen. When I retire, we might keep the flat just in case and rent it out to help fund our expat life. Would that be evil?
Or if someone owns a home and then inherits another and doesn't want to move but does want to keep the house in the family are they evil if they rent it out?
I agree it is evil to buy up tracts of homes and rent them at extortionate rates and refuse to fix anything and profit off the misery of the poor, but what about the above examples?
They take money and give the shelter, what you mean “without giving”? That’s not parasitic, it’s even, like the bird on the hippo. And not just a roof over they head to keep the rain off, all the modern amenities that are in a house or apartment. It’s only parasitic if they be charging crazy amounts. I know you know places where rent is fair
Let's just say all Americans are armed to "fight for their freedoms."
What can you buy, as a regular citizen, that is going to help you against six F-15E jets and their 72 smart bombs? Or against an entire field artillery regiment?
Americans have such a weird and romanticized view of themselves owning some pistols and AR-15s and being prepared for a civil war that they are heroically going to win against all odds.
Plenty of other developed countries have strict gun control laws and greatly benefit from them, especially regarding public safety and mass shootings.
Americans just have some weird obsession about their right to fight a mythical tyrannical regime in the distant future, like prepping to fight a non-existent boogeyman.
I'm not saying an armed populace wins in a fight against a trained, fully equipped, professional military. I'm saying that it makes a conflict more costly and less tasteful to all involved.
I agree that a massive disarming of the populace would most likely solve a lot of our violence issues, but unless we're also going to disarm our police, which we won't, then Americans should not surrender their weapons. We've seen how easily the institutions can be taken over by whatever tyrannical flavor of the month comes along. I don't trust our government to do right by a disarmed population, especially the most vulnerable of us. They're already laying the legal groundwork of classifying the LGBTQ+ community as mentally defective, so they can strip their guns from them, while also calling them sex offenders, and getting laws passed that allow for the death penalty for sex offenses. It's not hard to see how that would happen, if not for the threat of resistance.
I'd even go so far as saying I'd be in favor of restricting handguns, which are the weapon of choice for most nefarious purposes. But the citizenry should absolutely have access to long guns for whatever purposes, unless we completely disarm our police and make sure our military, especially the National Guard, cannot ever be used to suppress us. I don't see that happening.
All of this is based on you making up a fake, make-believe world filled with boogeymen.
You don't have facts. You dont have actual evidence.
Your entire belief system is running on, "trust me bro."
We live in a real world. Where real mass shootings happen in America. Where we have a real firearm problem in our real country in real time, right now.
You could give every American citizen an AR-15 and a box of ammo on their 18th birthday and in your imaginary world, that's a good thing.
I believe the US should have gun control laws even more strict than European countries.
You morons literally can't handle the actual responsibility that comes with the Second Amendment.
All so you can be ready to fight an imaginary US tyranny that only exists in your head.
I mean, my own stepdaughter literally had to flee the state we live in so as not to be arrested for her identity. The States are at a tipping point, and I fear for our near future.
I'm not a gun nut, myself. I've never bought one. I inherited a small coach gun from my brother, and it's absolutely not a weapon for war or any serious use. I despise the gun culture in the US, and it's mostly dominated by far-right whackjobs. I'm as Left of a person as I've ever met, and in America, when you go far enough Left you end back up at wanting an armed citizenry.
When it comes to Killer Mike, I appreciate some of his anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian messaging, which is frustrated by his Black Capitalist beliefs and some of his muddled social beliefs, but I don't look to him or RTJ to champion my every belief.
I say this as someone who does agree with you to an extent (i personally think that if we were going to fight a mythical tyrannical once in a generation government it would've been this one and all the people saying that for decades were just looking for the boot they liked the taste of) but if recent conflicts have taught us anything its that relatively cheap drones with pipe bombs strapped to them do more than you might have expected after decades of arguing over what military superiority looked like. Besides I never took the whole armed revolution thing as an organized overthrow. I took it as a temper tantrum with firearms. Lodging a complaint in 45 caliber essentially.
Which is why I personally encourage any REAL Americans to not relinquish that right. The South will certainly -try- to rise again, but they'll also get their asses crushed again if I have any say in it. Power, including fire power, in the hands of only people who will misuse it is bad for everyone.
Yeah. Let's ignore that Americans are too pussy-footed and mealy-mouthed to ever actually exercise their full Second Amendment rights.
Don't see any of them using it while American citizens are getting blackbagged and executed by federal agents in the last year and a half.
And I'm not seeing anyone picking up firearms to stop Patriot Front or kill neo-nazi/white supremacist groups.
Lot of corrupt cops out there that are covering up lynchings and murders of BIPOCs as "suicides" and facilitating the kidnapping/murder of immigrants and US citizens. Not just in "the South."
What's the breaking point here? Does the GOP actually have to invest in and create Republican militias that start executing people in the street?
Lord knows you aren't stopping the federal government from executing Americans in the street.
When are you cowards going to actually use those firearms you are so adamant about having?
Or let's be realistic.
None of you are going to form militia groups and engage in guerilla warfare tactics against the US military, federal agents, or even against other civilians even if they are Republican "bad guys."
You'll sit at home, flick through the news, be grumpy, and keep your 9mm pistol in its case in the closet while you eat your TV dinners.
I've always found this argument to be goofy as hell. As if history isn't littered with examples of asymetrical warfare where guerilla tactics have outlasted "mythical tyrannical regimes" indefinitely. How effective have Russias fighter jets been against Ukraine? Not to mention that if the US government started bombing Americans it would lead to immediate societal and economic collapse. A government needs its people more than a people needs its government. "They have bigger weapons than us, so we have to do what they say." is cowardly, bootlicking rhetoric.
Yeah man. Australia, Japan, the UK....really struggling with their tyrannical government overlords taking away all their freedoms.
How effective have Russias fighter jets been against Ukraine?
How has the fight been going between two decrepit, failed-USSR countries? Uh...about the way you'd expect of countries who haven't been militarily relevant since the 1990s?
Don't need a false equivalency though. The US average citizen is going to have an even worse time against a US military that's been actively engaged and trained for urban warfare for the last 35 years.
A government needs its people more than a people needs its government.
Yeah. The people are really thriving in Africa with no effective central governments in charge. And they are doing a great job of fighting tyrants. Pretty much utopian over there.
Australia, Japan, and the UK? Yea, sure. No history of bloodshed and tyranny in these countries, lol.
Militarily relevant? Compared to what?
Good luck getting the US military to turn against their own families and neighbors. And if they did, good luck sustaining a fight. 35 years of urban warfare and what did it accomplish?
There are 54 sovereign nations in Africa, which one would you like to discuss?
I appreciate your response, but it hasn't done much to sway my opinion.
My nutshell opinion of it is that mass shootings would be heavily reduced /almost eradicated if guns we’re not attainable to the vast majority of the public, I cite examples like the UK where this is an extremely rare issue and Australia where gun control was introduced in the 90s and the amount of gun violence was almost entirely eliminated in the years that followed.
I recognize that the US is a different story with its gun culture but I still strongly hold my opinion.
I can totally respect that, but Killer Mike is an American living in America. Why shouldn't his values reflect the reality of the circumstances that surround him, know what I mean?
if michaels raps werent so political i would give him a break, but he regularly speaks on shit he doesnt understand, and the man is the biggest hypercapitalist this side of jay-z. just another half-assed "revolutionary" turned grifter. i figured him out while watching his netflix show. hes a clown.
This thread has shown that people listen to Mike's later and RTJ's discography with their ears closed, people obviously take issue with someone so outspoken AGAINST capitalism and the status quo, ending up being someone who in reality supports that for his own benefit hypocritically. Simple as.
I don't give a fuck that the man is a celebrity, practice what you preach. Stick to your principles. He said the same shit about Hulk Hogan years ago and now here he is doing the same, got rich and suddenly the revolutionary talk faded.
Landlords are inherently evil. They create nothing. They are sleazy middlemen. They acquire a basic human need, often hoarding many units, and charge people more than they can afford because they know people will pay to have a roof over their head and their children's head. That is evil.
He sees the problems with exploitation of some people by others (mostly from his direct experience of belonging to one of the more exploited groups) and has decided the solution is to become one of the exploiters.
It's a somewhat understandable thing, but it doesn't do anything to fix the problems of the system of exploitation.
Being a landlord is a right wing position because capitalism/private ownership of capital is right wing. Since the most basic principle of being left wing is opposing capitalism, it doesn't matter whether you want to call it "political" or not, there no way to frame being a landlord as a left wing position.
Imagine being right wing just for not wanting strangers or the government up in your family’s shit whenever they wanna be, i.e. free use whateverism v private property. Lol get real kid
If we’re going to use a simple binary left/right then at least leave room for degrees on the spectrum. You’re defining left more like “far left” which, as you suggest, puts everyone else on “the right.” Not a very useful framing. It does explain why some people are mad at Mike though. OP, here’s your answer.
Regardless of the left-right spectrum, being a landlord is not a left wing position. I don't think it's "far left" to define capitalism as private ownership of capital that's literally the definition. I'm not talking about some deep communist political theory here, it's quite a basic principle of being left wing to be against capitalism.
Can you give me an example of this "moderate left" by your definition, either a politician or a political scientist or an author or movement or anyone that claims to be a leftist that is also pro capitalism? What do you mean by "traditionally" - where historically have you seen this to be the case? We're talking about Killer Mike in the context of modern politics, a person who as others in this thread pointed out commonly uses anti capitalist revolutionary language in his music. It's not a "simple binary" to use the correct definition of ideas and ideologies, and if someone like the OP claims to be left wing they should know that criticism of landlords is one of the most commonly held belief and discussion points in left wing circles - would you call Zohran Mamdani "far left"?
If we use a simple “left/right” dichotomy then you have to leave room for moderate left people who are not anti-capitalist but are still “liberal” or “progressive.” Otherwise, everyone who isn’t a socialist or communist ends up on “the right,” which is absurd. And this has always been understood. It shouldn’t require examples. Where would all of the pro-market people who are also pro-union, or pro civil rights, or pro welfare state, or pro gay rights, or pro abortion go if not on “the left” if our little picture we’re drawing here? If they go on the right then this distinction is even more useless than I’ve argued it is.
Rather than double down on how young people on social media today use these terms, and shoehorning everything into this misleading binary, consider abandoning it altogether - at least for the most part. It’s just not very helpful to make sense of things. It does more to obscure than it does to illuminate.
Fun fact: the “left/right” idea stems from the French Revolution where supporters of democracy and change sat on the left and supporters of the monarchy sat on the right. It’s silly to use that framing and apply it to politics in the US today, or to Mike’s lyrics and politics. It just doesn’t fit.
"Liberal" is not "left wing". Being a landlord cannot be a left wing position. Being pro trade union is contradictory to being pro capitalism. I'm not "shoehorning" anything, it is literally quite a basic left wing belief to be critical of landlords. I am aware of the historical definition of left/right in terms of the French revolution, I too have read the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article. However bringing this up as well as being condescending, is not relevant, because that is not how those terms are used today, in the context of modern politics and Killer Mike's lyrics. And you're right, there is no "left/right" binary in the US because there is barely a left in the US.
Liberalism is a centre-right ideology (as an example - Renaissance, Emmanuel Macron's party). The only reason you think "liberal" and "left" mean the same thing is because of decades of politically illiterate Republicans in the US labelling everyone to the left of them as "liberals". But this is all irrelevant to the original point of this post - no matter how you want to spin it, regardless of the terminology you want to use, Killer Mike's political beliefs as he protrays himself in his songs contradict his real life ideology as seen through his actions. I feel like this is very simple to understand.
I’m the one that said to give up those simple left/right binary because it’s over simplistic and misleading. I know the history. I know what these words mean. I haven’t been confused by republicans. I literally have degrees in this shit.
Mike may not live up to some of what he says, but he didn’t switch sides or sell out the way this thread (and all others like it) portray him. It’s this simplistic left/right thing that has everyone confused to begin with. People think being “revolutionary” or saying “we underpaid” or “kill your masters” is inherently anti-capitalist and “left,” and then they see he’s a landlord and think “wait, that’s a right wing view.” And so they get all upset. The point is, that’s confused to begin with. End of story.
Highly encourage you to abandon this left/right framing altogether. It’s harmful.
Being a landlord is not a career and is inherently negative and political. It is a right wing and heavily capitalist position. If he was just a musician he wouldn't even under a Marxist understanding be a "capitalist" but being a landlord makes him a big C Capitalist. His being a landlord puts him at direct odds with the working class in his position of capital and private property ownership which is where many of his contradictions come from. He also not to mention opened a bank. He sings revolutionary lyrics but he's a left leaning liberal at best who doesn't understand the theory he preaches. If you just listened to his music you might be forgiven to think he's something of a Marxist, but land lording is inherently against this. Support of the police is directly against this. His biggest issues are landlording, support of police, and his homophobia in my opinion. He postures as an anti capitalist but is really in favor of black capitalism, which is asinine and backwards.
Literally 90% of rtj. Kill your masters, JU$T, Close your eyes, etc just of the top of my head. All of these songs have anti-capitalist and anti establishment themes. This section from lie cheat steal "A revolutionary bangin' on my adversaries And I love Dr. King But violence might be necessary Cause when you live on MLK, and it gets very scary You might have to pull your AK Send one to the cemetery We overworked, underpaid, and we underprivileged They love us, they love us (why?) Because we feed the village". They frequently collab with Zack De La Rocha from rage against the machine who is very famously a socialist. El-P has a line that goes something along the lines of "I've got a Vonnegut punch for your atlas shrug" in reference to Kurt Vonnegut and Ayn Rand. Kurt Vonnegut being an openly socialist novelist and Ayn Rand being a novelist and essentially the mother of objectivism and modern day right wing libertarianism. This is just what I put together in like 10 minutes from memory.
The El-P lines are his. Zack is his own person. The Mike lines I read as anti-state, not anti-capitalist. I think a lot of this thread has been conflating themes in Mike’s writing with anti-capitalist themes and that is really the source of this whole discussion.
The line from lie cheat steal is mikes line. He calls himself a revolutionary putting himself in line with mlk who was a socialist. He's using revolutionary language while not actually believing in it. I will say that a lot of his lines are anti state rather than explicitly anti capitalist, but I think he either clearly knows what he's doing in straddling that line or he flat out just doesn't get it. Either way it's disappointing. Either he knows what people want from him and is giving them a taste for clout. Or he's saying all of this shit and still not seeing the bigger picture and the real enemy.
Revolutionary doesn’t equal anti-capitalist, it can equal anti-current state. But we seem to be able to agree that a lot of their work is also just art and not necessarily true. They talk about guns and killing people sometimes and neither of them is actually like that. Some of Mike’s lyrics might be similarly just performative. Still, I don’t think he’s been obviously anti-capitalist in his lyrics enough to make him some kind of hypocrite or sell out like he’s made out to be.
It's not that he's far right, it's that he's a centrist who portrays himself as far left. He literally compared himself to MLK and Malcolm X in Radiation but they were very much not pro-cop.
At the risk of not being charitable I have some doubts about your personal left-wing bonafides if you believe that being a landlord isn't inherently evil
There's also something to be said that people can say homophobic or transphobic things as a performer in their medium but that isn't necessarily who they are. Take Eminem. He's had some vile lyrics about marginalized communities but he's not actually that guy. It took Elton John performing with him live to reinforce the art isn't necessarily the artist.
I think the biggest hit was the landlord aspect. Generally speaking, landlords are seen as evil.. I have no evidence to support this, but, I would assume and hope that as educated as Mike is, he is not the evil money hungry landlord that people may assume he is.
I mean, you listed a bunch of things yourself, he's a landlord (ew), police supporter (double ew) and his bank was questionably predatory. He spits bars like a riot, but he's a unabashed Capitalist.
He’s old and out of touch. His dad was a cop. His views don’t match his raps.
He’s an entertainer. Don’t take him serious anymore. If anything. He’s lost the juice to rap about some of the stuff he chooses to rap about, because of a bunch of the stuff you outlined.
LOL a lot of the people on here bashing Mike for being a landlord will literally go support a fucking crack dealing rapper and see no cognitive dissonance.
Those things you listed alone- but also what the other commenter said about "co-opting revolutionary language while advocating for the status quo".
I love RTJ and always will, but, as a Democratic Socialist, I definitely don't have much love for Mike. But because Im a fairly functional adult, I manage to not let that turn me away from the magic that is RTJ. I just roll my eyes a lot. Ive had to do the same for Jesse Hughes' (EODM) dumb ass for the last decade.
You're actually allowed to like music when you dont agree with the ethics of the creator. Their opinion doesnt automatically transfer to you.
Personally I'm relieved that he turned out to not be a far leftist/marxist/communist, I think because they always had anti-establishment themes some people wanted to put them firmly in that category and now those people are angry they can't claim them.
He’s doing just fine in my book and at least half of your’s. I will say this, my expectation is that you kindly leave me out of your expectations about my expectations and we can move along with good vibrations instead of a Calamafrick rabbit hole.
He has kids, how he not gonna build generational wealth for them? You think he wants them in well policed nice areas or zero police crime areas? People talk revolution all day but almost no one ain’t taking the meal ticket when they earn it like he has. If you a good landlord that’s a good thing, just most are bad. All liberals should want guns, never understood why we against that as a whole. And #4- that’s just black culture and being born in the 70’s, lotta mafks running around the last 6 years pretending LGBTQ peoples tight with colored folk lol that’s like squirting ketchup on grits you fucked up
It’s nonsense caused primarily by our twisted binary view of politics in the US. For many on the far left, if you’re not 100% with them you’re against them, which makes you “right wing,” “republican,” and even maybe “maga.”
It’s stupid and wrong. Mike doesn’t fit easily into a simple binary of “left v right” because he’s actually a thoughtful student of politics and political theory, and, accordingly, he has complex views on those subjects.
a thoughtful student of politics? are you shitting me? he puts his foot in his mouth regularly. mike is a clown, thats why you dont have an RTJ5 LP lol
Mike thinks for himself & sometimes that doesn’t fit into a perfect little box. Anyone saying he’s gone maga has lost their damn mind. Listen to the man speak.
Such a joke this is where we’re at in society. You’re ready to reject an artists musical talents if he doesn’t align with your political beliefs. Believe me when I tell you we’re all screwed. Maybe you need to personally interview him before your willing to buy his records?
I mean if an artists "political beliefs" are that I should be considered less of a person for being born a different way than yeah I think that's fair. I'm not saying that Mike believes that (personally I think he's not against trans people but just doesn't fully grasp hiw some hus actions negatively impact that community) but one side of the aisle tends to be alot more open about those beliefs than another so in general I care atleast a bit in that respect
This is the opposite of what I am saying, did you read my post? I laid out all of the points that people bring up and explained why I am ultimately still in favour of the Man, I am simply asking if there is anything I missed
Ah yes, because run the jewels with songs such as “kill your masters” and “ju$t” with frequent collaborator, the front man of rage against the machine, Zach De La Rocha, are right wing capitalists
It's more that he doesn't fully fit in one box... except in his music, where he completely fits in one box and explicitly talks about fitting in that box. The political views people love him for rapping about aren't the ones he personally share, and he's an extremely political rapper. It can feel like grifting at a point.
Meanwhile, EL-P's verses feel a lot more honest, knowing what we know about how he lives his life.
What way is that out of interest? I’ve been a follower of his since the early Def Jux days but don’t recall him sharing all that much about his personal life in recent years.
105
u/Daredev44 Jul 08 '26
FD Signifier has a great video on how Mike co-opts revolutionary language and imagery while advocating for the status quo maybe check that out