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

311–320 of 643 posts

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

#311

Post by 8note »

jlawson wrote: post #263
klyrs wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the past, boycotts were aimed at corporations. Not buying or consuming a specific product, or protesting that company. Cancel culture is more aimed at individuals. This isn't remotely new, though. For one very visible example in our industry, Lynn Conway got fired for coming out as transgender. Similarly, Turing was canceled for being gay. Politicians have been getting canceled for marital infidelity for most of…

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…

Cancelling is patching a hole in the American government, forcing things to be democratic instead of the stupid states rights business they use to ensure laws help and protect the wealthy and influential people.

Cancelling is much more democratic than policing, or the writing of laws. Nothing forces anyone to join in, everything is voluntary, and the cancelling only works when people agree. There is also no undemocratic way to get around it. Weinstein can pay of investigators, judges, journalists, and jurors, but he can't pay off everyone on the internet.

Similarly it's transparent - cancelling comes from specific instances of stuff. Screenshots, links, videos, etc

The big thing that's different between cancelling and historical persecution is that it's targetting people that used to be able to attack single points of failure to avoid being held accountable.

They should be happy it's not like historical persecution because when mobs used to get together to attack the rich, heads used to roll. Now the mob is content with making them not rich

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

#312

Post by umbos »

willismichael wrote: post #287
leetcrew wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

It was never much of a thing. If your social media posts cause a financial or reputational risk to your employer, they'll take action to resolve that risk regardless of a disclaimer in your bio.

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

#313

Post by chordalkeyboard »

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)

“So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed” Jon Ronson

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

#314

Post by tehjoker »

tabtab wrote: post #242
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'm not justifying it, only saying it's not realistic IN PRACTICE. Requiring 24/7 discipline on that doesn't scale. Most men are friggen horny by nature. It's like telling everyone to diet and exercise to not be obese. It doesn't work, half the population over 30 is obese. Or to never gossip. How many will follow that? Realistic advice needs to scale and work in practice. Platitudes without that won't actually fly.

I think this attitude sounds practical and realistic to some ears but acting as though this is a reality we live in and can only cope with it rather than try to change it belies the tremendous progress that has been made.

People are flexible and can be taught how to express themselves in ways that aren't harmful. The opposite attitude regards both male and female human beings as mere animal automatons and denies the most essential aspects of being a social and learning human being.

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

#315

Post by [deleted] »

tabtab wrote: post #215

In other words, other "skills" can partly substitute for looks. One generally moans with their eyes closed. One thing that bugs me is that it's often said "men are animals" in that they lack self control. Yet many women wear provocative clothing at work to gain favors. Such women want it both ways: the ability to tease and taunt, but a magic lid on those when they don't want advances. They want to play with fire BUT…

[deleted]

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

#316

Post by mathgorges »

wk_end wrote: post #291
mathgorges wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Someone on HN once linked this Twitter thread and I made a point of jotting it down. https://mobile.twitter.com/sooppressed/status/12824046471609... I feel a real urge to say, for the record, that I don’t consider myself strongly “anti-cancel culture” or whatever, just that I understand the skepticism towards it and think that it’s referring to something that exists and at the very least has amped up since the end of…

This is a good thread, thanks.

I'm reading through the articles now, and have concerns that the author is over editorializing at least some of them.

I know for a fact Kindness Yoga is doing fine, I walk past there daily.

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

#317

Post by mywittyname »

lostgame wrote: post #153
known wrote: post #141

It's there in IT industry also; Girls silently suffer / quit jobs :(

While it is there, being female and in both industries myself I have to say that it's like comparing a cup of water to a bucket in terms of the sheer amount of sexual abuse that goes on in the music industry. And I say that as a victim of IT workplace sexual assault, and I unfortunately did exactly as you posted. :( The music industry is harrowing. It's not to discount the very real trauma myself and others have gone…

I'm sorry that happened to you.

Thank you for speaking out. I understand that it can be very difficult to talk about, but it does help other people notice issues that don't directly effect them. And bringing attention to those issues is the only way to solve them.

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

#318

Post by willcipriano »

ohashi wrote: post #295
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He still raped a 13 year old. Why is anyone trying to defend or excuse his behavior? I don't care if Jesus came back from the dead and forgave him, it's still not OK.

May I also add it's very common for victims of this type of abuse to make statements like that, particularly if they are abused as children. A sort of Stockholm syndrome takes hold and they begin to empathize with their rapist and feel bad that they face punishment for their crimes. Don't take that statement as a report on his innocence but rather a compliment to his well practiced grooming skills, if anything its evidence that this probably wasn't the first time.

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

#319

Post by dkersten »

mathgorges wrote: post #282
heywherelogingo wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So “cancel culture” == “deplatforming”?

It can be, sure. Or getting you fired or otherwise demanding that your income stream is taken away. Without any recourse or chance to defend yourself, typically. This is often alongside mass outrage and death threats and usually the majority of the participants are just jumping on to score points or be part of it or whatever, without really having put much thought into whether the accusations are true or how their actions will affect others.
Post reply on HN