Asking athletes to do so is unjustified and hypocritical.
![bitches agree to disagree bitches agree to disagree](https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/e382dd335444271df467d8d00a67bf39c7a75bcc/c=0-128-1133-1639/local/-/media/2017/09/26/INGroup/LafayetteIN/636420434822381665-Harpold-Richard-edit.jpg)
But who are these executives to make such an argument? Any claim that athletes are contractually obligated to abstain from political discourse would be ambiguous at best. It is a privilege, they might say, to be able to play a game for a living. Yet, many coaches and owners still argue that they should try they should stick to sports because they were hired to play, first and foremost. So, athletes couldn’t be apolitical even if they tried. The number of voters who express opinions consistently aligned with one party has doubled in the past two decades, and this consolidation within the two main parties has made it so that ideological overlap between them has diminished remarkably: Whereas 26 years ago, the median Democrat fell to the left of 64 percent of Republicans and the median Republican fell to the right of 70 percent of Democrats, those numbers shifted to 92 and 94 percent by 2014, respectively, and the divide has likely only grown since.ĭue to this increasing partisanship and partisan-inspired hatred, we have become so attuned to everything that we say because we are terrified of people on our side even thinking that we might dare agree with something the other side has to say. It is damn near impossible to say anything without planting yourself firmly on one of two incredibly-far-apart sides, each associated with two vastly different realities. It's how we understand and empathize with each other.In this day and age, everything is political. Music is great, there should be no boundaries, no shaming. Later maybe I'll throw on my UK grime and rap playlist, because the new Juice Menace cut "No Speaking" is ill as f**k. Right now I'm listening to a Spotify playlist I made of every single Dylan studio album. What that has to do with older music: if a-good christ-newly middle-aged type can listen to that music, younger listeners can listen to the music I listened to as decades back, and certainly they can listen to music older than that. I think my only mainstay from my high school days is U2, and now it includes Grimes, Jessie Ware, Big Thief, loads of techno and house and hip hop, etc.
#Bitches agree to disagree full
It's probably the same going the other way too I'm keep up pretty well with a number of newer younger artists and genres but the full impact might be lost on me, as a 40ish dude who doesn't go out as much as he used to (now especially of course but even pre-COVID!) But I don't think my enthusiasm has dimmed at all, and my most-listened-to musicians are always shifting and being replaced as time goes on. Billie Holiday sounds as powerful in 2020 as she did in the 1930s.
![bitches agree to disagree bitches agree to disagree](https://i0.wp.com/plagueofstrength.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Zack2BDe2BLa2BRocha2Bzack3.jpg)
![bitches agree to disagree bitches agree to disagree](https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/309aefdf6606016ea9c4ca594049aa3a7237b9cf/c=0-225-1134-1737/local/-/media/2017/09/26/INGroup/LafayetteIN/636420418217635225-McKinnis-Lawrance-edit.jpg)
I think it's easy to get a certain sense of the importance of '60s rock or '70s punk if you weren't there, and a lot of the music itself is timeless and fresh, and while the full impact of the music on society is something that cannot be replicated that doesn't necessarily diminish the full power of the tunes themselves. A fairer answer would be that listeners who weren't around to experience the political or social era-specific context of certain releases might be missing something.