Pink Floyd fans are hitting back against anti-LGBTQ2 trolls who have criticized the band for being “woke” for reinventing their iconic rainbow logo as part of their 50th anniversary celebration.
Last week, the British rockers announced the upcoming release of a deluxe box set of their 1973 hit album Dark Side of the Moon, updated with a fresh take on the album’s original art — the widely recognizable prism refracting light.
The band posted the adapted minimalist version of the logo to Facebook, which now features the number 50 inside the prism, with the 0 filled in with a rainbow.
Some of the band’s so-called fans took the new logo as a statement of support for the LGBTQ2 Pride movement and lashed out at the band in the comments.
Actor George Takei, along with many others, shared some of the reactions to the Facebook post.
“Lose the rainbow, you’re making yourself look stupid!” wrote one detractor, with another person replying, “from this moment i (sic) don’t listen to this band.”
Another person weighed in with, “are you going woke with rainbows, is there a straight flag, I want equal representation, don’t get me wrong, we should all be true to who we are. Peace.”
For every comment calling the band out of their “woke agenda,” however, there were dozens of comments mocking these fans and reminding them of the original Dark Side imagery.
“I heard if you listen to it backwards you can hear boomers complaining,” joked one person on Facebook.
Get daily National news
“Judging by some comments, many of you took the ‘we don’t need no education’ line to heart,” wrote another, calling to mind another famous Pink Floyd song.
Others pointed out that Dark Side of the Moon was released in 1973, five years before Gilbert Baker created the Pride flag.
Twitter also had a field day, with plenty of people cracking jokes about the outrage.
“Wait until they hear about the rainbow in the Bible,” one person wrote in response to Takei’s post.
Pink Floyd band members appear to be ignoring the chatter and have not publicly responded to the criticism.
Comments