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

371–380 of 643 posts

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

#371

Post by Dma54rhs »

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…

In my eyes it's usually like competing witch hunts / trials with modern legal system :) Way too often people are not interested in justice but revenge, even with the facts out there the will to destroy someone you don't is bigger than reason.

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

#372

Post by kergonath »

ALittleLight wrote: post #334
mywittyname wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see why this might be considered debatable, but I firmly agree with the parent comment here. People who do vile shit should not be celebrated at all. To me, it's a requirement: if you want to be considered a person of great accomplishment, then you should be an upstanding citizen. I also think that celebrating vile people is a reflection on the "jury" here as well. If I discover someone celebrates the works of…

If someone said "I like The Pianist" I wouldn't judge them one way or the other, having never seen The Pianist myself. If someone said they liked Roman Polanski, I would have an opinion. I think extending honors or awards to him is more of the latter category. I honestly would be fine with the award if Harrison Ford had simply continued on to explain that Polanski could not be there on account of being a child rapist…

The Pianist is great, I would recommend watching it (more or less legally if you have reservations about giving money to some people). Also, a film is not only its director. There are many, many other people involved. I am sure some of them are arseholes and some of them are good people, but the end result stands on its own merit.

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

#373

Post by zug_zug »

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…

Well, I saw somebody illustrate the point very with this comparison "How can you argue somebody should lose their job and not be forgiven for a bad word they said 10 years ago, but at the same time argue criminals who robbed somebody should get forgiven and get probation in less time?"

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

#374

Post by canucker2016 »

crazypython wrote: post #96

I wonder if it's common in other industries e.g. dance. And how many victims there are, and how many of them are those most easily exploited: the poor, weak, and underage.

Ballet since at least the time of painter Edgar Degas: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-sordid-truth-d...

Bolshoi ballet:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/dance/ballet/bolshoi-brothel-oli...

classical music:

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2018/05/19/612621436/...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/charles-dutoit-sexua...

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

#375

Post by tabtab »

tehjoker wrote: post #364
tabtab wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Re: For example, you need food, but you don't steal food usually.

I'd argue the biological craving for sex is stronger than hunger in most men who are not outright starving. It's why men often end up ruining their careers over libido slippage but not stealing physical property. Think about that. Why do many ruin their careers from X but not Y? It's not upbringing.

Re: I can't but help think that this is an incredibly patriarchal attitude.

I'm honestly thinking hard about why you see it that way, and honestly can't. I want to "think right", but my logic seems perfectly sound so far. If you are surrounded by people who have a weakness for something, one shouldn't unnecessarily tempt that weakness. That's blatant common sense to me. Don't turn work life into a discipline contest WITHOUT a good reason.

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

#376

Post by tasogare »

bluGill wrote: post #264
vinger wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was never true the pretty ones put out and the uglies were good at there jobs. The less good looking probably put out more where the more beautiful could get by on a bosses hope.

You aren't wrong, but I don't think you are correct. There were a lot of "good church going men" who wouldn't sleep with anyone they weren't married to. There were others are appeared that way in public, but wanted some "outside pleasures". The former hired for skill and tried not to care about looks, and in fact ugly could be an advantage as it may limit temptation (but this was still "women's work" so it was her).…

One thing your theory is not taking into account is that some secretaries were willing to sleep for fun too. Women are into sex too, it’s not a male thing.

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

#377

Post by joe_the_user »

Theorist Guy Debord spoke of the Mafia and the recording industry.

    In the United States at least, it is already in the 
    recording industry, as in every other activity where 
    publicity of a product depends on a quite concentrated 
    number of people. It is easy to apply pressure to them, 
    with bribes and intimidation, since there is obviously
    quite a great deal of capital and hitmen who can not be 
    recognized nor punished. By corrupting the disc-jockeys,
    one thus decides what will succeed, from equally 
    wretched commodities. [1]
[1] Thesis XXIV, http://www.notbored.org/commentaires.html

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

#378

Post by confidantlake »

klyrs wrote: post #237
jimbokun wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People getting fired for an allegation that doesn't pan out, but by then their reputation and career are already destroyed. Or comments taken out of context or missing nuance. Or punishment out of proportion to the offense. 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. Suing for defamation can be e…

> 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…

To add to your examples, Dixie Chicks got cancelled for being against the War in Iraq.

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

#380

Post by mathgorges »

munificent wrote: post #356
mathgorges wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

_Are_ cancels intended to be permanent? I posted about the only cancel I've intentionally been involved in elsewhere: I like an artist named DojaKat. A while ago a video surfaced of her singing a song with a racial slur in it. I saw the video and said to myself "Oh man, I don't want to support a racist artist, this sucks, but I don't think I should stream her on Spotify anymore (In my mind, that was the cancel). Some…

> _Are_ cancels intended to be permanent? I mean, I'm no authority on any of this. But my impression is that most of the high profile cancelations I've seen have no attached list of demands at which point the person is considered to have made amends and can return to their previous stature. > Am I correctly interpreting that as a cancel? Unless you were publicly telling other people that they shouldn't stream her the…

Since cancels arise out of conversation and theres no central organizer I don't see how a cancel _could_ have a list of demands.

At the same time, I'm sure the individuals who are opting to not support could conceivably be swayed back into supporting the creator in most cases.

I guess my point is that theres a de facto list of demands in most cancels, you just don't see them because theres no central authority to reiterate it.

____

I didn't tell other people to stop streaming her, but I learned about the video and chose to boycott because other people were telling me to do so.

If I had posted on Facebook: "I saw an old video where DojaKat used an offensive racial slur, and have thusly chosen to stop consuming her music. Here is the video for your reference"

Would that have constituted cancelling? I'm just expressing my preference to my friends, no?

Post reply on HN