He wouldn't be promoting it if it wasn't profitable for him or Stake
Stop acting like this s*** has no influence on gullible people
Whataboutism is a logical fallacy that is irrelevant to the actual issue in place. Here, it's a completely relevant retort to point out that hip hop has its bad faith immoral actors, Drake is one of them, and saying we should boycott Drake and not all of the people promoting ignorance toward children is stupid.
Whataboutism
"the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue."
The different issue = the promotion of violence and d*** abuse in hip hop
The logic = Violence and d*** abuse is more harmful than sports betting. Therefore, if we do not consistently criticize the artists who promote it, we should not criticize Drake either.
We could go back and forth about this, but my perspective is unlikely to change. I think their argument was problematic for a number of reasons.
Obviously it’s f***ed up that so much violence and d*** abuse is glorified in music rn. I always thoughts it’s wrong af. Some people here were saying “it’s their culture let them express it”. So there’s dumb people with dumb arguments anywhere
But like why bring that up rn. Obviously both is equally f***ed up but for drake - a super rich - to go hands in hands with an online casino not only promote sports gambling but also online slots and everything else is nasty work
Whataboutism is a logical fallacy that is irrelevant to the actual issue in place. Here, it's a completely relevant retort to point out that hip hop has its bad faith immoral actors, Drake is one of them, and saying we should boycott Drake and not all of the people promoting ignorance toward children is stupid.
Whataboutism
"the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue."
The different issue = the promotion of violence and d*** abuse in hip hop
The logic = Violence and d*** abuse is more harmful than sports betting. Therefore, if we do not consistently criticize the artists who promote it, we should not criticize Drake either.
We could go back and forth about this, but my perspective is unlikely to change. I think their argument was problematic for a number of reasons.
Whataboutism
"the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue."
The different issue = the promotion of violence and d*** abuse in hip hop
The logic = Violence and d*** abuse is more harmful than sports betting. Therefore, if we do not consistently criticize the artists who promote it, we should not criticize Drake either.
We could go back and forth about this, but my perspective is unlikely to change. I think their argument was problematic for a number of reasons.
In this case the topic is not "gambling" but "boycotts in hip-hop", in which case bringing up other vices being promoted by artists stays entirely on topic.
In this case the topic is not "gambling" but "boycotts in hip-hop", in which case bringing up other vices being promoted by artists stays entirely on topic.
Ultimately, what other artists choose to do does not absolve Drake of his own decisions.
If someone chooses to "boycott" Drake, arguably the biggest rapper in America, and not other artists, it's probably because the size of his platform drew their attention. In other words, they probably don't care enough about those artists to speak out against them.
Pointing this out would not be incorrect, but it doesn't make OP's decision to boycott Drake, in and of itself, invalid. It just suggests that other issues are present.
This boycott drake angle was this s*** we expected

Ultimately, what other artists choose to do does not absolve Drake of his own decisions.
If someone chooses to "boycott" Drake, arguably the biggest rapper in America, and not other artists, it's probably because the size of his platform drew their attention. In other words, they probably don't care enough about those artists to speak out against them.
Pointing this out would not be incorrect, but it doesn't make OP's decision to boycott Drake, in and of itself, invalid. It just suggests that other issues are present.
OP’s decision to boycott Drake is driven by the desire for YouTube views let’s be real. Nobody gives a s*** if you make a video about saying you’ve decided to stop listening to Lil Durk
people make their own decisions, can't blame other people for chasing a bag...
Yeah you’re dumb. There’s something called morals you know
Bruh it’s online slots, table games and everything included
We don’t care Stephen a clip
Yea barstool corny
Yeah barstool corny
Ain't nobody saying boycott Durk, Von, or Shiesty's music bro and they're all promoting that lifestyle very tangibly in real life.
um...yea people do? i literally don't listen to their music for those reasons
not many people are even saying boycott Drake, this is literally the first time i heard someone say that, yet have heard plenty of old heads/younger folk divest from that scene of music.
Whataboutism
"the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue."
The different issue = the promotion of violence and d*** abuse in hip hop
The logic = Violence and d*** abuse is more harmful than sports betting. Therefore, if we do not consistently criticize the artists who promote it, we should not criticize Drake either.
We could go back and forth about this, but my perspective is unlikely to change. I think their argument was problematic for a number of reasons.
the purpose of whataboutism is to derail the conversation by introducing example B while sidestepping example A. reasonable individuals can recognize that both A and B can be problematic. presenting an alternative example often signals an attempt to dismiss or undermine the validity of the original point rather than addressing it directly.
yes, it's semantics, so, back on topic--it's important to note that we're on a hip hop forum; these people are self-centered anywhere you go, so picking out Drake out of every rapper as if we should boycott him for his actions when more people are morally deprived than a gambling addict is perfectly reasonable logic.
boycotting Drake for being a poor artist in 2024/2025 is a far more consistent idea (and true)
Obviously it’s f***ed up that so much violence and d*** abuse is glorified in music rn. I always thoughts it’s wrong af. Some people here were saying “it’s their culture let them express it”. So there’s dumb people with dumb arguments anywhere
But like why bring that up rn. Obviously both is equally f***ed up but for drake - a super rich - to go hands in hands with an online casino not only promote sports gambling but also online slots and everything else is nasty work
they wanna dismiss this so they can go back to their bubble and enjoy their music
they don't care about d*** abuse/violence being promoted, they just want to dismiss this claim outright.