Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 643 posts

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#281

Post by grawprog »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #261
tabtab wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BOTH SIDES have a responsibility to reduce the problem. Women shouldn't be given a Get-Out-Of-Taunt-For-Free card. Re: There's millions of horny people out there every day not sexually assaulting people. Just because SOME can muster up the discipline doesn't mean everybody can. It's not about "making excuses", it's about solving problems in a PRACTICAL way. (I replied here because the Reply button is missing for unkn…

Everyone can , but not everyone does . Cold hard reality is that not everyone does . Saying that not everyone can is excusing at least some of the men.

I'm going to respond to this comment, but this is to the above poster as well and in general to the thread.

Rereading your comments, i think i've responded a bit reactionary and not really addressed some of the things you've said.

Yes, i believe people have a responsibility to keep themselves safe and out of harm. Yes, women and everyone, should be aware there's nasty people out there that will hurt them. You're correct many people are unaware of this.

This doesn't change the fact that the victim of an assault is not guilty of it. Saying women are responsible because they dress a certain way is the same as saying

'Well that guy that got beaten and robbed, it's his fault, doesn't he know that street's full of crime? Everybody knows that.'

It's laying the blame on the victim, saying they are somehow responsible for their attacker's actions. It's their fault because if they'd just dressed differently, maybe they wouldn't have been attacked.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#282

Post by mathgorges »

heywherelogingo wrote: post #278
mathgorges wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen this take quite a bit lately with respect to cancel culture and I'm a bit confused about it. Since HN is amazing, I'm hoping someone here can help me understand without it turning into a flamewar. I don't understand how "cancel culture" is substantially different from what we used to call "boycotts", just with the internet for more social lubrication. I suppose theres a risk that the allegations at the cent…

Boycott - don't attend talk. Cancel culture - you may not give talk.

So “cancel culture” == “deplatforming”?

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#283

Post by nineplay »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #259
grawprog wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Don't taunt the hungry tigers in our pants and expect 24/7 self control. I probably shouldn't even bother responding to this comment, but i'm sorry, as a man, yes control your fucking dick. That's the way of it. If you can't control yourself, that's on you, nobody else.

I agree that men should control themselves. They have the moral responsibility to do so. And yet, we live in a world where not all men do. We live in a world where some men are rapists, and some use intimidation or influence to pressure women into sex. That's their fault , not womens'. But if a woman acts like she lives in a world where that never happens, she is not being very wise. Morally, is it her fault? No, abs…

> But if a woman acts like she lives in a world where that never happens, she is not being very wise.

How many woman do you think are pressured into sex who "were not being very wise" What wisdom did they lack?

What does acting "like she lives in a world where that never happens" mean exactly? Cute clothes? Friendly attitudes? Having curves and not trying to disguise it? Un

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#284

Post by varjag »

enriquto wrote: post #252
nostromo wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roman Polanski won an Oscar after pleading guilty to drugging and raping a 13 year old girl. Look at all these vile people applauding this villain, who couldn't accept his Oscar because he fled the country. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnNOBj26lk In some ways I think we may have over responded (Aziz Ansari is not Harvey Weinstein), but it was shocking what behavior people were excusing from the powerful even in r…

> Look at all these vile people applauding this villain Acknowledging the artistic talent of a villain does not make you vile. Not at all. Imagine a clearer example. Imagine that somebody is on a life sentence convicted of a murder that they have commited. Do you think that this person has the right to write a book? Can this book be sent for participation at a literary contest? Can it win? Does the jury that gives th…

No need to imagine. There was a historic precedent of a convict writing super popular book about their personal struggle.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#285

Post by mrec »

mathgorges wrote: post #271
jlawson wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turing wasn't 'canceled' for being gay. He was prosecuted by the government according to the laws of the time, by police. Cancel culture is extra-legal and does not involve the use of laws or police. Cancel culture is also distinct from politicians and infidelity because cancel culture targets non-public individuals . Of course politicians and celebrities were always subject to public opinion; the modern era now mean…

You’re point about cancel culture being against _private_ individuals is new to me. Where I think of people who have been cancelled I only think about celebrities. Reading about Justine Sacco’s story was interesting. Do you know where I can learn more about private individuals being cancelled? (Googling only brings up celebs)

Emmanuel Cafferty is one (extreme) example that springs to mind:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firin...

Also any number of academics, who wouldn't normally be considered celebrities or politicians:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-sus...

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#286

Post by bluGill »

jacquesm wrote: post #234
virtue3 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... Judy Garland was... ugh. Here's a pretty tame snippet: "But it was her draconian weight-watch that made Judy the most abused child in the history of American cinema. Judy was put on diet pills from the age of 12. She was not slowed to eat anything that children enjoy. In the bio-pic on Judy we see how she was not allowed to have cake even on her own birthday. Mayer personally kept reminding Judy of how fat…

Check out children's beauty pageants if you want to see another example of this kind of horror.

Or don't. None of them look like children anyway. There are a bunch of kids made up to look like adults. First time you see your kids do it it is funny, but you then lock away the makeup because it wouldn't be funny the second time just a waste of makeup.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#287

Post by willismichael »

leetcrew wrote: post #253
mgarfias wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boycott is me (or you) choosing not to spend your money or do business with a particular entity due to perceived notions about that entity. This cancel culture stuff is about not just "not reading the article and not going to the site", its an active attack against someone that you don't like. A boycott is me saying "buzz feed sux, i won't goto one of t heir urls". Cancelling would be me saying Gina Carano sux, i'm g…

> A boycott is me saying "buzz feed sux, i won't goto one of t heir urls". Cancelling would be me saying Gina Carano sux, i'm gonna call disney over and over until she gets fired. I guess I'm not sure I see the difference here. complaining about what gina carano says on her twitter is, in a roundabout way, complaining about a disney product. disney didn't fire an actress from one of their popular shows because they g…

What ever happened to the idea that people can express their own opinions without representing their employer? It used to be that many personal blogs had a readily visible disclaimer along these lines: "Opinions expressed do not express the views of my employer."

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#288

Post by draw_down »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #275
nostromo wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roman Polanski won an Oscar after pleading guilty to drugging and raping a 13 year old girl. Look at all these vile people applauding this villain, who couldn't accept his Oscar because he fled the country. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnNOBj26lk In some ways I think we may have over responded (Aziz Ansari is not Harvey Weinstein), but it was shocking what behavior people were excusing from the powerful even in r…

Whenever discussing Polanski's late career and the acclaim or scorn he has received, it must be mentioned that the girl in question has (later, when she grew up) expressed that she does not wish that Polanski be prosecuted or further punished by the industry.

Yep, nobody wants to talk about that.

She even has gone further, and denounced the people who wish to use her trauma to score political points. Nobody cares -- her trauma is important only insofar as it is useful to them. They think it belongs to them, not her.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#289

Post by unishark »

mathgorges wrote: post #277
unishark wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it's against individuals it starts to become harassment and bullying, depending on the severity. These are not things we generally care about protecting organizations from, just individuals.

I see, that makes sense. I’m still curious if me choosing to not watch films with problematic individuals in them would be considered cancelling or a boycott?

I'm not sure about that. I'd always heard about it in the context of "deplatforming" people by actively getting them kicked off whatever social media or getting them fired from a job where they can influence society. Maybe that is where the word "cancel" originally comes from for all I know.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#290

Post by ZeroGravitas »

mathgorges wrote: post #194
mensetmanusman wrote: post #61

The internet is enabling a new norm in reducing the cost of calling out behavior. Some of this is good, e.g. calling out sexual abuse. Some of this is bad, e.g. cancel culture that has no means of forgiveness.

I've seen this take quite a bit lately with respect to cancel culture and I'm a bit confused about it. Since HN is amazing, I'm hoping someone here can help me understand without it turning into a flamewar. I don't understand how "cancel culture" is substantially different from what we used to call "boycotts", just with the internet for more social lubrication. I suppose theres a risk that the allegations at the cent…

Like "terrorists" vs "freedom fighters" it's very much about which side you're on. And if you feel like you're about to slip into minority status, you suddenly have a very different opinion on the majority making their voices heard than you did when you were the majority.
Post reply on HN