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

361–370 of 643 posts

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

#361

Post by underwater »

tabtab wrote: post #335
bloopernova wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human beings are not animals. A responsible human is able to resist raping anyone they see. Minors are sexually assaulted, and they do not "taunt hungry tigers" as you put it. I urge you to visit a therapist and explore what has led you to the position you detailed in your comment. I honestly hope you are trolling, because the attitude you have towards women is deeply troubling. I wish you good luck in self improveme…

Re: Human beings are not animals. Sorry, but they are. We're not the center of the universe; were not special. Re: A responsible human is able to resist raping anyone they see. In practice many are not. Live in reality as it is, not as it should be. World hunger won't go away simply because it "shouldn't happen". The universe ignores our shouldnt's, I'm just the messenger. Re: Minors are sexually assaulted, and they…

You're interpreting women's actions purely through the lense of how it affects the men around her. Then coupled that with a heavy insinuation that everything is sexual. Almost like a woman's primary purpose is to please a man.

That's a deeply mysoginistic and dangerous world view. You probably tell yourself all guys think like this, and you're the only one who has the guts to admit it. But that is absolutely not true.

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

#362

Post by mathgorges »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #346
mathgorges wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The targets of cancel culture don't always get completely buried, just like attempts at murder don't always succeed. That doesn't mean it wasn't an attempted murder or an attempted cancelling.

Sure, but my point is that the thread author said:

> 2. A yoga studio that was so woke they had gender-neutral bathrooms and person-of-color yoga nights where “white friends and allies” were asked to “respectfully refrain from attending” has closed down due to racial accusations.

That was a lie. Kindness Yoga didn’t close down. So I’d advise others to take the thread author’s words with a grain of salt.

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

#363

Post by ALittleLight »

randomsearch wrote: post #353
ALittleLight wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm reminded of this quote which I once saw on lesswrong.com The Sophisticate: “The world isn’t black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It’s all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else.” The Zetet: “Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same shade. You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it with a one-color view . . .” —Marc Stiegler, David’s Sling It's t…

This sounds like an ungenerous interpretation of the parent. They are saying - all humans do good things and bad things. You are attacking the argument - all humans are the same. Those two assertions are totally different.

I am taking the point that "all humans do good and bad things" as a response to the commentary on Polanski, as a kind of excuse for Polanski or as saying that we shouldn't be too harsh or "cancel" Polanski because, after all, all humans do good and bad things.

The point I'm trying to make in return is that while it is true that all humans do good and bad things, some humans, like Polanski, do genuinely terrible things, and the fact that all humans do bad things should not be an excuse for ignoring or looking over genuinely terrible things.

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

#364

Post by tehjoker »

tabtab wrote: post #345
tehjoker wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Re: People are flexible and can be taught how to express themselves in ways that aren't harmful. Only to a degree. Maybe with long and expensive training, men can learn to better control their libido. But that's not likely to happen in practice. The universe doesn't run on "should's" but runs on "is's". I didn't program it. Women need similar training for gossip, by the way. Yes, men gossip also, just as some women s…

I can't but help think that this is an incredibly patriarchal attitude. Men respond to their social environment and so do women. If things are regarded as permissible, they are more likely to do them. For example, you need food, but you don't steal food usually. There's a sex drive, but likewise you don't need to steal sex. People need to poop, but they hold it until they reach the toilet.

I don't see how these cases are biologically very different. In fact, the food and sanitary cases are more biologically urgent for immediate survival.

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

#366

Post by asdff »

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…

I mean it doesn't, but you have to look at this in the broader context. There are always more talented people than there are prizes/awards/jobs to be had. Just give the award to any of the dozens and dozens of just as qualified people instead and avoid the controversy. This is almost like holding a museum exhibit celebrating Hitler's art career——profoundly tone deaf at best, and normalizing that sort of behavior at worst.

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

#367

Post by randomsearch »

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…

Just a slightly orthogonal point: don't discount the "internet for more social lubrication" issue.

The use of feedback and machine learning (even simple mechanisms) in social media to selectively show the most engaging content has, in my opinion, been a fundamental cause of cancel culture. Cancel culture requires "moral outrage", and enragement is engagement, so Twitter (esp) is a factory for moral outrage.

This is fundamentally different from boycotts in the sense that boycotts were "organised", "led", or "stirred up" (according to your pov) by people. For example, anti-Nestle campaigners collecting petition signatures. There's a real world cost, a responsibility to be taken, a time lapse.

In contrast, moral outrages are manufactured almost autonomously by curation algorithms that are constantly searching for engagement. Outrage happens to be one really good strategy for that. The barrier to participation is extremely low - just click here, type an optional tweet dunking further on the target if you wish - and the speed they can spread is fast.

Compounding this is the propensity to be outraged has increased, I think, partly because "engagement-rich" modes of thinking have been spread. I'll resist giving concrete examples to leave the discussion politically neutral.

I really think there's an awful lot of responsibility for this problem on the social media companies and their leaders.

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

#368

Post by loosetypes »

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.

You know how positive feedback loops exist in social media (in terms of engagement) with negative outcomes (whether for the user, society, ..)?

Maybe that’s following a YouTube rabbit hole and now you’re unintentionally watching flat earth or politically radicalizing videos. Maybe you internalize that content which you otherwise wouldn’t have consciously decided to watch had you not been led there.

A sibling comment refers to cancel culture as democratic. That would be great if it were deliberate and rational. But I wonder how much canceling stems from a similar, for example Twitter-centric, pipeline to the YouTube flow above?

Informed, justified, and deliberate canceling as the voice of the people sounds great and I would very much be behind that. But I worry that an increasing portion of the mob is comprised of people led to outrage not by choice but by social media dark patterns.

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

#369

Post by read_if_gay_ »

8note wrote: post #311
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…

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 undemocra…

How is cancel culture circumventing the legal system supposed to make it more democratic?

There is no real majority of people involved in canceling someone. It’s just a mad Twitter mob with a Pareto distribution where most people are content with posting mean tweets to virtue signal, and only few who go as far as calling up people’s workplaces to get them fired. It does not involve anyone beyond the mob, and even within the mob most aren’t willing to go very far. Yet it is the actions of only a few extremists that produce most of the mob’s impact. To call that democratic shows that you don’t seem to realize a world outside of your bubble exists, or should be acknowledged.

Cancel culture is basically softcore terrorism, and fittingly, portions of your rhethoric are not unlike a justification for terrorism.

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

#370

Post by tssva »

unnouinceput wrote: post #82

Quote: "Mafia 'owned' pop stars" Mafia owned Elvis. If the king didn't had a chance what chance have the pop stars? Get serious, where is lust, regardless of industry, there is Mafia, organized or not.

I'm not aware of any documented control of Elvis by the mafia. Are you perhaps confusing the "Memphis Mafia" nickname of his entourage with the actual mafia?
Post reply on HN