'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'(bbc.com)
bbc.com
'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-56029660
638 コメント
>Tumblr had a lot of LGBTQ "diversity hires". One guy would show up at company-wide meetings and use all of the gay porn blogs to demonstrate the latest features he had been working on. Another guy would strut around the office in a zz-top beard and a french maid outfit w/ fishnet pantyhose and heels. There was a group of transitioning guys who would hang out by my desk and discuss their urine fetish - though they stopped doing that after I challenged them all to a "b_lls-out" coding contest knowing they were no longer equipped.
This reminds me of Aphyr (Jepsen guy). He does good work, but his twitter feed was full of NSFW stuff, last time I checked. He was also in the silicone balls cult for a while, and spoke out against its leader noodlesandbeef.
This reminds me of Aphyr (Jepsen guy). He does good work, but his twitter feed was full of NSFW stuff, last time I checked. He was also in the silicone balls cult for a while, and spoke out against its leader noodlesandbeef.
> After all that I think I'm ready if I ever get that dream SRE job at PornHub. O Canada!
You know what they say about not letting your dreams just be dreams: https://www.mindgeek.com/careers/?gh_jid=4564518002
You know what they say about not letting your dreams just be dreams: https://www.mindgeek.com/careers/?gh_jid=4564518002
I actually think this is the most amusing comment I've read on HN. Thanks. Workplaces seem so sterile these days.
This just made my top 5 "WTF" moments of working in Tech.
Thank you for this - I thought I was the only who experienced these types of madness at some of the smaller companies I worked at.
Thank you for this - I thought I was the only who experienced these types of madness at some of the smaller companies I worked at.
I’ve heard of “bring your whole self to work”, but I didn’t imagine anyone would ever take it that far.
That porn server sounds like a huge liability. Did you have any vetting process to make sure it didn't accidentally collect child porn or other illicit images?
Absolutely! There was an community of moderators that came by the storage room every day to review the latest intake. There was much discussion. Lunch was served.
[deleted]
Lost in this comment is how brutally inappropriate that Tumblr office would have been to work in - and beyond illegal in so many ways but it's just all cool because it's LGBTQ? I thought they were suppose to be 'just like us' and that 'transitioning pantihose urine fetish' would a gross, charicatured misrepresentation?
YouPorn you'll find is completely not like that, super professional to the point wherein the 'content' would effectively be mundane. Maybe in some ways more like a bank actually.
YouPorn you'll find is completely not like that, super professional to the point wherein the 'content' would effectively be mundane. Maybe in some ways more like a bank actually.
I just ignored most of it - the only time I was really insulted was when I found out the real reason the office manager went around lighting candles everywhere was that she thought the engineers smelled bad. I overheard her taking to the receptionist while I was downstairs foraging for a favorite snack one day. They didn’t realize I was there, but not cool just the same.
Sure, it wouldn't bother me either, but those things are 'squarely sexual harassment' of the kind HR teams usually writhe over. I think if the story were changed to 'straight white guys' then I can also see some letting it pass, but a lot more people viscerally upset as well, popularly.
Balls out actually refers to engine govenors. Additionally if a person AMAB is transitioning you may well not call them men, but if you asked I guess I would take your word for it.
Yep, "balls out" and "balls to the wall" are respectively the steam train and fighter plane expressions for "full speed" (similar to "full throttle" or "pedal to the metal"). Neither expression has anything to do with testicles.
In any event censoring the word "balls" (even when used euphemistically) is a bit weird.
In any event censoring the word "balls" (even when used euphemistically) is a bit weird.
how is it possible to have a 400k per month cocaine habit? was he giving it to his 100 closest friends every day?
I wasn’t close enough to him to reconcile his receipts, but this was a place were people talked a lot, the number was 400k per month, they sent him to rehab because they were afraid how his family might react if they dismissed him, he had to hold a job in order to continue to receive funds from his family.
You would be surprised at how quickly tolerance builds up once someone gets ahold of the good stuff. Considering that this guy is in Berlin, it's probably not as cheap as it is close to the source. Even so, at $300 an eight ball, that's roughly 44 eight balls a day, or roughly 2-4 an hour depending on how hard he's partying. It certainly is on the heavier side of usage profiles I've heard of.
Prices used to be higher too, in the past.
Berlin is not that far from the port of Antwerp, one of the biggest shipping centers in the EU (and world) -- apparently you can get tons of cheap cocaine there that is really high quality.
> You would be surprised at how quickly tolerance builds
my experience in the US navy with alcohol lends strong credibility to this.
heavy drinkers can put away 750mL of 80proof a night and not be hungover the next day (much less debilitated). a person with no tolerance would drink that amount and either vomit or die - possibly both.
a heavy drinker with an uncommonly high tolerance is capable of truly startling things.
my experience in the US navy with alcohol lends strong credibility to this.
heavy drinkers can put away 750mL of 80proof a night and not be hungover the next day (much less debilitated). a person with no tolerance would drink that amount and either vomit or die - possibly both.
a heavy drinker with an uncommonly high tolerance is capable of truly startling things.
No single person is doing 11oz of cocaine per day.
> We had server set up in a storage closet with a huge porn cache. When the project managers came back to the US we would copy all the porn they had collected to the server, replace the porn on their laptops with new porn from the cache, then send them back abroad again. We never knew what people would come back with but it ranged from "Cinemax" to "Only Legal In Kentucky".
Wait, sorry, what? Why were you storing this porn, exactly?
Wait, sorry, what? Why were you storing this porn, exactly?
> Why were you storing this porn, exactly?
Given that the parent comment mentioned that 20 years after the porn storage story happened they ended up working at Tumblr, I assume the original story took place during a time before high-speed internet and porn streaming were a thing.
Given that the parent comment mentioned that 20 years after the porn storage story happened they ended up working at Tumblr, I assume the original story took place during a time before high-speed internet and porn streaming were a thing.
> spoke like John Moschitta imitating yoda
Thanks for this
Thanks for this
This career trajectory is my nightmare. I would have quit all of those jobs on the spot. To each their own I suppose.
> It depends on the company.
You aren't offering evidence for entertainment companies "it" doesn't happen in, just sayin.
You aren't offering evidence for entertainment companies "it" doesn't happen in, just sayin.
I see the tradition of SAP, Oracle, and the big consulting firms from the days of yore is still going strong.
[deleted]
>Tumblr had a lot of LGBTQ "diversity hires"
Out of curiosity, what is your basis for thinking that they were hired only for being LGBTQ? As a gay man I wonder how I can avoid my colleagues thinking this. (It sounds like it's not just the gay folks who were engaged in inappropriately sexual behavior, so it can't be that.)
Out of curiosity, what is your basis for thinking that they were hired only for being LGBTQ? As a gay man I wonder how I can avoid my colleagues thinking this. (It sounds like it's not just the gay folks who were engaged in inappropriately sexual behavior, so it can't be that.)
Because everyone else at Tumblr more or less young, male, single, caucasian, straight, European ancestry. The Office manager was female, one of the HR reps was African American, head of security had kids, PHP developers were always blowing through so occasionally someone diverse would slip in there, but in large LGBTQ was the only category where there was diversity and they hired a lot from that category. If you were LGBTQ and had a cat it was more or less impossible to not be hired. All this would come up occasionally in the Friday company meetings and David would always promise to do better but the demographics never shifted much.
One of the Unix admins was allergic to dogs if that counts towards diversity.
One of the Unix admins was allergic to dogs if that counts towards diversity.
I wasn't always a software engineer, and in my previous career (academic linguist) there were lots of gay men. This wasn't because linguistics departments were making a concerted effort to hire gay men. Nor are linguistics departments in the USA particularly diverse in other respects (e.g. race). In general, it's a mistake to conclude that any 'diverse' people you see around must have been hired according to some special diversity criterion. There are probably lots of contributing factors – tumblr's large LGBTQ user base being an obvious candidate.
It's not super helpful to LGBTQ folks to spread unfounded rumors that large numbers of us are just in our jobs because we're LGBTQ. Unless you've got some really strong evidence, I'd have to say that your remarks on that point were somewhat misjudged. I understand that you mostly wanted to tell a colorful story, but at the same time, it's annoying to see these ideas spread, even in a somewhat flippant context.
It's not super helpful to LGBTQ folks to spread unfounded rumors that large numbers of us are just in our jobs because we're LGBTQ. Unless you've got some really strong evidence, I'd have to say that your remarks on that point were somewhat misjudged. I understand that you mostly wanted to tell a colorful story, but at the same time, it's annoying to see these ideas spread, even in a somewhat flippant context.
As another LGBTQ person, I find your post petulant. He had an interesting story. He's not promoting whatever "harmful" stereotype you're supposing.
> As a gay man I wonder how I can avoid my colleagues thinking this.
Diversity hiring has the same vibe as nepotism. Sometimes you look at someone's output (or even job description) and can't help but think that this guy wouldn't have a job here if he wasn't someone's nephew. Unless this is something that can be said about you (with "gay" replacing "nephew") you have nothing to fear.
Diversity hiring has the same vibe as nepotism. Sometimes you look at someone's output (or even job description) and can't help but think that this guy wouldn't have a job here if he wasn't someone's nephew. Unless this is something that can be said about you (with "gay" replacing "nephew") you have nothing to fear.
>Unless this is something that can be said about you (with "gay" replacing "nephew") you have nothing to fear.
The OP's post makes me doubt this is the case, as it seems unlikely that he was very familiar with the work of all the people he's referring to as "diversity hires".
Most of us have one or two colleagues who we perceive to be performing badly. It's all too easy to weave tales about why they were hired without any evidential basis. If your equation is "bad at job + gay = diversity hire", then I think you're going to get an awful lot of false positives.
I suspect that there are at least as many people who've been hired in tech companies because they fit in with a bro-ish predominantly male culture. But of course that's just "culture fit", whereas any attempt to avoid falling into this trap is often referred to dismissively as "diversity hiring", and linked to disparaging remarks about people's job performance.
The OP's post makes me doubt this is the case, as it seems unlikely that he was very familiar with the work of all the people he's referring to as "diversity hires".
Most of us have one or two colleagues who we perceive to be performing badly. It's all too easy to weave tales about why they were hired without any evidential basis. If your equation is "bad at job + gay = diversity hire", then I think you're going to get an awful lot of false positives.
I suspect that there are at least as many people who've been hired in tech companies because they fit in with a bro-ish predominantly male culture. But of course that's just "culture fit", whereas any attempt to avoid falling into this trap is often referred to dismissively as "diversity hiring", and linked to disparaging remarks about people's job performance.
That happens at any company that's sufficiently devoted to SJW principles. Though it's usually about women rather than gays as obviously the question of orientation can't usually be brought up at interview time.
I thought everyone working in tech knew this happened. If you doubt it, a simple check of the Tumblr jobs page should make their policy clear:
https://www.tumblr.com/jobs
"Now, billions of posts later, we continue to build out Tumblr as a platform for diverse communities to express their points of view. And we’re committed to hiring a workforce that represents the same diversity."
A company committed to hiring a workforce that represents "diversity" will have a lot of "diversity hires", as it's literally their stated policy.
I thought everyone working in tech knew this happened. If you doubt it, a simple check of the Tumblr jobs page should make their policy clear:
https://www.tumblr.com/jobs
"Now, billions of posts later, we continue to build out Tumblr as a platform for diverse communities to express their points of view. And we’re committed to hiring a workforce that represents the same diversity."
A company committed to hiring a workforce that represents "diversity" will have a lot of "diversity hires", as it's literally their stated policy.
I'm aware that a lot of people think that "SJWs" have taken over tech companies and are forcing them to hire certain groups of people. I was sort of banking on the OP not being one of these people and getting a different kind of answer.
I doubt we can have a productive discussion of what you've posted that won't descend into a flame war that's been had a thousand times before.
The phrase 'diversity hire' is usually used prejoritatively to hint that the person in question is not really qualified for their job. If the OP simply meant to say that tumblr was quite successful at hiring a diverse range of people, then I think it was a slightly off choice of wording.
I doubt we can have a productive discussion of what you've posted that won't descend into a flame war that's been had a thousand times before.
The phrase 'diversity hire' is usually used prejoritatively to hint that the person in question is not really qualified for their job. If the OP simply meant to say that tumblr was quite successful at hiring a diverse range of people, then I think it was a slightly off choice of wording.
*pejoritatively ha - I thought I'd caught that in an edit.
Out of interest, why did you want a different answer? Do you think "diversity hires" don't exist? Whether they do or don't, it doesn't have any bearing on the "diverse" people being hired on the basis of their technical or professional abilities.
My question was why the OP thought that these particular people are diversity hires. And as I said, the phrase 'diversity hire' is usually used to cast aspersions on people's abilities (though it is possible that the OP didn't want to do this and just made a questionable wording choice).
His entire post is about bad behaviour by employees, and he has just confirmed to you that if you were (visibly) LGBTQ it was impossible not to be hired there. Most likely also impossible to be fired given the OP's stories. That is exactly what you'd expect from a SF based firm that says it's committed to diversity hiring, because that word is code for "anyone who isn't a straight white man".
That's why your response to me was not really in good faith. As the original writer later confirmed, the answer I gave you was correct - hiring standards vanished if you were the "best" orientation. Yet you just flatly rejected it and demanded an alternative (but wrong) answer you liked more. You also stated you wouldn't be able to discuss the issue without it "descending into a flame war", passive voice, implying that I'd be the one flaming you - that is also wrong. This seems to be an increasingly common tactic to avoid reading alternative viewpoints: just announce up front that polite debate is impossible, with the insinuation that it's the fault of other people. Not a great approach.
From your other posts, you are feeling hurt that people might doubt your abilities because you're in a favoured class. Yes, that must really suck. We can all totally understand that. At the same time it sucks a lot more to be at that sort of company in a non favoured class.
That's why your response to me was not really in good faith. As the original writer later confirmed, the answer I gave you was correct - hiring standards vanished if you were the "best" orientation. Yet you just flatly rejected it and demanded an alternative (but wrong) answer you liked more. You also stated you wouldn't be able to discuss the issue without it "descending into a flame war", passive voice, implying that I'd be the one flaming you - that is also wrong. This seems to be an increasingly common tactic to avoid reading alternative viewpoints: just announce up front that polite debate is impossible, with the insinuation that it's the fault of other people. Not a great approach.
From your other posts, you are feeling hurt that people might doubt your abilities because you're in a favoured class. Yes, that must really suck. We can all totally understand that. At the same time it sucks a lot more to be at that sort of company in a non favoured class.
'SJW' is Godwin 2.0. If you see LGBTQ people as a 'favored class' (!) then I don't think we can go anywhere with this. I'm not avoiding debate with regard to the issue raised in my original response to zxcvbn4038. I'm declining your invitation to have another debate that's been had over and over again many times before.
Haha no one blows through $400k of cocaine in a month and survives. It's only $100 a bag (gram)! That would be 13 bags a day of coke.
Stardom levels of success will always be based on relationships and all the power dynamic baggage that entails
I would be surprised if it wasn't the case. Industries like these have too many 'king makers' and people idolize the established figures too much. It's basically the same mechanism by which the abuse is facilitated in closed religious communities.
And US Gymnastics and other sports.
Currently there are major scandals in France around coaches and team officials sexually abusing kids in swimming and figure skating. It is not just a US thing...
Russian ballet comes to mind as well
Power corrupts. If you want to find industries with sexual abuse problems look for ones where the power is concentrated in a handful of unelected people, doubly so if those people form an "old boys club".
Power doesn't corrupt. Power enables. People corrupt themselves. Otherwise agreed.
That's a fascinating alternative take I haven't seen before. Thanks - will remember this.
>Entertainment industry where fucktons of money can be made has a shady underbelly no one publicly talks about.
No way? Next you'll tell me Hollywood has this same problem...
No way? Next you'll tell me Hollywood has this same problem...
You should start a thread on twitter, #bttf
[deleted]
[deleted]
what interests me is: how do people maintain their integrity in such a foul environment? I mean if you can't look yourself in the mirror then how do you keep on creating anything?
A polish pop star who once said that her career took 10 years longer to go off than it otherwise would because she refused to sleep with the important people in the biz. So, you can maintain your integrity.
At a very real risk of being permanently blocked. Just because one person managed to succeed despite not being compromised, that doesn't mean it's possible generally. It seems more likely that almost all the artists that refuse to compromise have their career killed right there.
You overestimate the amount of integrity people have.
It's really simple I think: the vast majority of "transactions" won't be well defined "do x to get y" offers but just things that may or may not change certain odds. There's an entire spectrum between the extremes of pure romantic love and list price prostitution and I believe that the point were you really can't fool yourself anymore can be surprisingly far from the former.
Is pure romantic love devoid of transactions? Many couples involve two people giving commitment and expecting commitment back. Sure, not all couples are so monogamous, but many if not most are. People have expectations of what to receive from a relationship and when they don't, they consider ending the relationship. Point out a one sided romantic relationship people will tell you to find someone better for you. Sure, it is never put in the language of 'do x, get y'.
Many social groups who help each other with resources without keeping tabs still can recognize when someone is leaching off the group, especially when they recognize the person has the ability to contribute to the group but chooses not to. People who support someone without expecting them to be paid back often have an expectation of the relationship being two sided with sentiments such as "I know if the roles were reversed, you would do the same for me." In cases where the roles do reverse but they don't do the same, you see people quite broken. It wasn't ever a strict tally, but it does hurt the person that their relationship wasn't as too sided as they expected.
We even describe people as being enablers when they give to someone without receiving back what we think is due (with that last part being defined in highly situations terms).
Many social groups who help each other with resources without keeping tabs still can recognize when someone is leaching off the group, especially when they recognize the person has the ability to contribute to the group but chooses not to. People who support someone without expecting them to be paid back often have an expectation of the relationship being two sided with sentiments such as "I know if the roles were reversed, you would do the same for me." In cases where the roles do reverse but they don't do the same, you see people quite broken. It wasn't ever a strict tally, but it does hurt the person that their relationship wasn't as too sided as they expected.
We even describe people as being enablers when they give to someone without receiving back what we think is due (with that last part being defined in highly situations terms).
Romantic love is definitely transactional, just like everything else. We are animals in a physical world, after all. Anyone who says that they love someone truly without conditions just hasn't had enough of their conditions broken to know that they have them. I say this as a happily married person going on fifteen years. Our marriage is romantic, sure, but it's also a deal, and you're both putting stuff into the deal and getting stuff out of it to make it work. The romance wouldn't work without the rest of it.
Combine a mild dose of self delusion with a huge potential payoff and world view that everything is crap and there's evil everywhere and you'll have no trouble living with yourself no matter what you do.
> how do people maintain their integrity in such a foul environment?
They can not require sexual favors when they are about to decide who to help. This ability is entirely within their possibilities.
Because really, the biggest integrity fail in this is sexual harassment, making business decisions based on sexual favors (demanding ones or accepting them) and abuse of power.
They can not require sexual favors when they are about to decide who to help. This ability is entirely within their possibilities.
Because really, the biggest integrity fail in this is sexual harassment, making business decisions based on sexual favors (demanding ones or accepting them) and abuse of power.
An important topic here is that shame is also a construct, and it is a collective construct. Certain things are shameful in one culture, not in another.
This isn’t to say that we don’t have a gut feeling when something feels wrong. We have an inner sense of boundaries which eg. can be damaged by trauma and deeply affects our ability to connect and such.
But when it comes to adult relationships there is a wide spectrum of behaviours and unless everyone tells you something is deeply wrong, I think there are times and places where people may not endure the same sense of shame.
This isn’t to say that we don’t have a gut feeling when something feels wrong. We have an inner sense of boundaries which eg. can be damaged by trauma and deeply affects our ability to connect and such.
But when it comes to adult relationships there is a wide spectrum of behaviours and unless everyone tells you something is deeply wrong, I think there are times and places where people may not endure the same sense of shame.
Exactly. Insisting on how shameful and/ or traumatic some experiences must feel is, deep down, incredibly puritanic.
Which isn’t always a bad thing. E.g. society can deem certain experiences shameful (incest) for puritanical reasons if it decides to do so.
I don't quite buy that; whatever your cultural norms are, there will always be a significant problem with any kind of forced violation of this kind.
Perhaps, but none of this was forced. It was clear that if you didn't play the game you wouldn't get farther in general, but you had a choice, if you call get out of music a choice.
[deleted]
Why do you think so many celebs face drug addiction? They're being exploited, often have to compromise their morals, and drugs are a coping mechanism.
Institutions of power are masters of controlling people. It's almost scientific.
Institutions of power are masters of controlling people. It's almost scientific.
I also really like this Gaga interview referencing Amy Winehouse
"You can't have it both ways; You can't enjoy listening to somebody singing sad songs about the blues and heartbreak and then not expect them to be truly heartbroken."
A lot of artists already struggle with mental health and addiction issues and that is why their music is powerful and propels their success.
Amy Winehouse is one of my favorite artists. Watch Amy for an amazing, sad, portrait that shows her existing struggles which were amplified to the extreme by our treatment and ridicule of her.
Mac Miller is another example that comes to mind, his last few albums in particular are lyrically intense and personal and candid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddRN5lYMTJY
"You can't have it both ways; You can't enjoy listening to somebody singing sad songs about the blues and heartbreak and then not expect them to be truly heartbroken."
A lot of artists already struggle with mental health and addiction issues and that is why their music is powerful and propels their success.
Amy Winehouse is one of my favorite artists. Watch Amy for an amazing, sad, portrait that shows her existing struggles which were amplified to the extreme by our treatment and ridicule of her.
Mac Miller is another example that comes to mind, his last few albums in particular are lyrically intense and personal and candid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddRN5lYMTJY
Also drugs are used as a control mechanism, as we say with the child stars who were being sexual abused. Get them addicted to drugs while the abuser gets what they want.
The article is interesting because it seems to be an example of just that.
This assumes that everyone views integrity in the same way. Not everyone views sex as a sacred rite that a lot of cultures make it out to be. Regardless of my views or your views using sex for gain isn't wrong or immoral to everyone. I don't support or think it's right for anyone to have no other option but some people would argue that having the option is better than not and I shouldn't enforce my morals on them.
Note: I'd never use sex in a bargain, vows and dealing with peoples emotions is a very serious thing to me. I'm not everyone though.
Note: I'd never use sex in a bargain, vows and dealing with peoples emotions is a very serious thing to me. I'm not everyone though.
Arguably there are two issues here. The first is viewing sex as sacred or not. But if you consider it not sacred, if you think of giving someone sex as roughly equivalent to giving them money, then that brings us to the next issue: Bribery. If the claims are true, then essentially you're expected to bribe people (with sex) who act as industry gatekeepers, or else find it much more difficult to progress in your career. That would be called "corruption"—and to not want to be part of that is indeed a manifestation of "integrity".
Now, one could come up with alternate motivations. "So, let's see just how dedicated you are to your career" ... Oh lord, I can't finish that with a straight face. I mean, if someone does think sex is at least mildly sacred, then being willing to do it for career purposes would show dedication (or desperation), but there are probably lots of other ways to measure that, not to mention that you might end up selecting less for dedication and more for sexual blaséness.
Now, one could come up with alternate motivations. "So, let's see just how dedicated you are to your career" ... Oh lord, I can't finish that with a straight face. I mean, if someone does think sex is at least mildly sacred, then being willing to do it for career purposes would show dedication (or desperation), but there are probably lots of other ways to measure that, not to mention that you might end up selecting less for dedication and more for sexual blaséness.
Push those feelings and emotions deep down inside and don't think about them? Drink and use drugs often? See therapists? Probably the same way most people deal with/don't deal with shitty situations.
PWSD - Post Weinstein Stress Disorder
I agree with the sentiment of your comment. But I do get the impression that creativity often comes from bad experiences, trauma and pain.
I am not speaking from experience here.
I am not speaking from experience here.
Why wouldn't they be able to look themselves in the mirror?
Maybe a lot of these people can look themselves in the mirror. After all, its just drugs and sex.
There's no reason for these things to be sacred cows outside of what society tries to program us to believe.
There's no reason for these things to be sacred cows outside of what society tries to program us to believe.
It’s not about the sex and drugs but rather about controlling and abusing people.
Another thought,
How much of the content you consume comes out of this environment?
Are you letting that content set what you imagine is normal behavior?
As a society, what role does the entertainment industry play in setting behavioral norms?
How much of the content you consume comes out of this environment?
Are you letting that content set what you imagine is normal behavior?
As a society, what role does the entertainment industry play in setting behavioral norms?
Other people in the thread have cast this vision as puritanical, but in my view the more interesting angle is that its Judaeo-christian aspect has more to do with the sense of expecting punishment. We are trained by the media to have this idea of people eventually paying a psychological price for doing things considered shameful by the majority. In reality, the propensity of people to feel shame sometimes corresponds to that pattern, and sometimes doesn't. It all comes down to the inability to theorize of different minds.
It is not to be thought that the life of darkness is sunk in misery and lost as if in sorrowing. There is no sorrowing. For sorrow is a thing that is swallowed up in death, and death and dying are the very life of the darkness. --Jacob Boehme
[deleted]
I’m reminded of an axiom, which I will paraphrase:
Everything is about sex. Except sex, which is about power.
Everything is about sex. Except sex, which is about power.
I've always thought this phrase is a bit silly. It completely erases the existence of asexual people and their goals and ambitions.
Even with asexual people, it's all about sex... or the lack of thereof. Asexuality is a sexuality.
Yeah and it completely erases the existence of clouds too! Why isn't there a bit about clouds?!
Or, is the lack of sex about power, reinforcing the axiom?
The 'axiom' (idiom) is not that the lack of sex is power, but that everything is sex, and sex itself is power, therefore everything is ultimately about power. But you cannot take sex our of that equation. So it implies that anything you do, even if you don't care about having sex at all, is about sex. Doesn't make sense.
Not that I'm supporting asexual erasure, but sayings like the quote in GP are usually fairly general. Statistically, there are much much fewer asexual people than not, so in general it may hold but that's not to say it holds for every single person.
The average human has one breast and one testicle.
Parent is talking about percentiles, not averages.
But on the point of averages: the median human has two breasts and no testicles.
But on the point of averages: the median human has two breasts and no testicles.
And less than two arms.
I think you misunderstand the phrase; it's about society as a whole, not individual people. Things are implicitly about sex and power on an ingrained level, and asexual people are just screwed (SCNR) even more by this.
I disagree with that. Not everything is implicitly about sex, maybe everything is about power (strong maybe) but sex is not a precursor to that. That said, you are probably right that the things that are about sex and power end up disadvantaging the asexuals.
[deleted]
Came here to post this, glad I didn't and forget we can't post about asexuality here.
As an asexual person, not only are we not respected whatsoever here, but in my experienced, also personally attacked.
That your comment about erasure is getting this many down votes is unfortunately absolutely common for HN, and I'm incredibly disappointed in that.
Before people jump in who might not be asexual to try to defend this - it's such a problem I have actually shared emails with an admin who actually seem genuinely concerned about the problem. Just the truth.
I'm not sure why HN has it in for asexuals, but God damn guys, can't you ease up on us?
As an asexual person, not only are we not respected whatsoever here, but in my experienced, also personally attacked.
That your comment about erasure is getting this many down votes is unfortunately absolutely common for HN, and I'm incredibly disappointed in that.
Before people jump in who might not be asexual to try to defend this - it's such a problem I have actually shared emails with an admin who actually seem genuinely concerned about the problem. Just the truth.
I'm not sure why HN has it in for asexuals, but God damn guys, can't you ease up on us?
> I'm not sure why HN has it in for asexuals, but God damn guys, can't you ease up on us?
Complaining about the erasure of asexual people as you use "guys" to erase non-men is an unfortunate combo.
Complaining about the erasure of asexual people as you use "guys" to erase non-men is an unfortunate combo.
My apologies. I use 'guys' gender-neutrally, I should have said 'y'all', which was the intention.
Thanks for pointing that out. I appreciate it.
Thanks for pointing that out. I appreciate it.
It's ok. If you even slightly hint at being self righteous or virtuous you will get downvoted. I saw it coming the second I said 'asexual people exist', which is just a declarative statement of fact and nothing more.
They got downvotes because it's not relevant to the point of the saying.
Which this little flap just underlined, because asexuality is defined as a lack of interest in sex, once again demonstrating that everything is indeed about sex (or lack thereof).
Which this little flap just underlined, because asexuality is defined as a lack of interest in sex, once again demonstrating that everything is indeed about sex (or lack thereof).
This is hilarious.
'Everything is about food.'
'Well, an iPhone isn't food.'
'Well, you had to mention that an iPhone wasn't food, therefore everything is indeed about food, or lack thereof!'
...
There's a term for this type of fallacious reasoning, I forget what it is - anyone?
'Everything is about food.'
'Well, an iPhone isn't food.'
'Well, you had to mention that an iPhone wasn't food, therefore everything is indeed about food, or lack thereof!'
...
There's a term for this type of fallacious reasoning, I forget what it is - anyone?
> 'Everything is about food.'
> 'Well, an iPhone isn't food.'
That's just absurd, of course an iPhone is not food...
However,
- You can use your iPhone to take pictures of your food
- You can look up how to cook food
- You can order food
- You can use it in jobs, that help you earn money to buy food
- The people in china who assemble them do it, so they can buy food - etc...
Everything is about food, just like sex, because those two are among the most important things for survival of an individual and the species.
That's just absurd, of course an iPhone is not food...
However,
- You can use your iPhone to take pictures of your food
- You can look up how to cook food
- You can order food
- You can use it in jobs, that help you earn money to buy food
- The people in china who assemble them do it, so they can buy food - etc...
Everything is about food, just like sex, because those two are among the most important things for survival of an individual and the species.
Not really. That's like saying everything is about food because even when it's not about food, it's still about food in relation to something else. You still have to prove everything is about sex, or we can do this with any object and assert it as true.
I found that HN is generally not very friendly to LGBTQ+ people. I don't think it is because there's a certain type of phobia here, but most people here are very logical and analytical people which I've seen resulting in "logical arguments for and against the existence of ..." which is just.. Why
We exist because we exist, nothing else.
We exist because we exist, nothing else.
And to speak up about it, as obviously pictured once again here - gets us downvoted into oblivion, only confirming our feelings of being unheard...
For real, it's been such an issue here I have had emails with an admin but didn't press the issue further and I think it's due time to send another one. They really did seem to care and to be concerned.
For real, it's been such an issue here I have had emails with an admin but didn't press the issue further and I think it's due time to send another one. They really did seem to care and to be concerned.
You're assuming you're getting downvoted due to the asexual aspect of your posts. I don't know whether this applies to other cases, but in this case I'm reasonably sure the reason is different: the existence and behavior of asexual people does not change how overall society works (sadly).
In the very situation the BBC story refers to, it doesn't matter whether you're an asexual musician. The producer/executive/... would still expect sex from you. They don't give a shit, follow their ingrained patterns, and that's the problem.
No part of "Everything is about sex. Except sex, which is about power." is in any way diminishing or erasing asexual people. If anything, it exemplifies the additional plight that being asexual brings, even over other LGBTQ+ preferences. Society expects you to be about sex & that's gonna be a very slow change.
In the very situation the BBC story refers to, it doesn't matter whether you're an asexual musician. The producer/executive/... would still expect sex from you. They don't give a shit, follow their ingrained patterns, and that's the problem.
No part of "Everything is about sex. Except sex, which is about power." is in any way diminishing or erasing asexual people. If anything, it exemplifies the additional plight that being asexual brings, even over other LGBTQ+ preferences. Society expects you to be about sex & that's gonna be a very slow change.
I'm very much in your camp, so to speak, but I downvoted some of the upthread comments because I think they are responding to something that wasn't really said.
There's a massive difference between an observation and a judgment. Especially if that 'observation' is a commonly quoted statement (aphorism, as has been pointed out).
Personally, I'm pretty close to asexual if we'd consider sexuality a spectrum. As such, if anything, I find the observation valuable because it underlines how much sex plays a role in areas of life where really perhaps it shouldn't.
Pointing out something that is true or at worst perceived to be true is in no way equal to agreeing with it, or morally defending it.
There's a massive difference between an observation and a judgment. Especially if that 'observation' is a commonly quoted statement (aphorism, as has been pointed out).
Personally, I'm pretty close to asexual if we'd consider sexuality a spectrum. As such, if anything, I find the observation valuable because it underlines how much sex plays a role in areas of life where really perhaps it shouldn't.
Pointing out something that is true or at worst perceived to be true is in no way equal to agreeing with it, or morally defending it.
I...might agree with downvoting maybe the poster's original point, but, as an asexual person, blanket statements like the world revolves around sex absolutely do seem to completely ignore the ever-growing movement of openly asexual individuals.
My responses, however, about the general negative atmosphere towards LGTBQ+ folks here, especially asexuals in particular - (no idea why, asexuals in particular; it's just relentless, sometimes) - also got downvoted into near oblivion.
They consistently have, and I regret even opening up about it, honestly, because I hate getting dragged into this shit online, but I wanted to actually back up and validate the OP who has evidently had an extremely similar experience to my own, that; yes, HN has a long-standing problem with LGBTQ+ relations, and neither OP or I are the first to experience or post about it.
That we choose to open up about the negative treatment, and get downvoted for it, for me; is an issue of respect and being heard.
Downvotes on a post saying that we feel the community needs work with regards to respect for LGBTQ+ people obviously only make, at least myself - feel even shittier and more unheard.
Getting downvoted into oblivion for opening up about the negative treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals on this particular forum seems clearly intentionally * phobic and that's just a shit sandwich I can't do much about.
Is it the stigma associated with asexuality? Is is just general * phobia? I'm not sure what makes HN in particular so awful with regards to LGBTQ+ issues - today has certainly all but reaffirmed that for me - but for such an intelligent crowd, and a bunch of people from the Bay area and shit; I'm honestly continually baffled and unfortunately it appears to be a growing issue that is getting worse, rather than improving in any way.
My responses, however, about the general negative atmosphere towards LGTBQ+ folks here, especially asexuals in particular - (no idea why, asexuals in particular; it's just relentless, sometimes) - also got downvoted into near oblivion.
They consistently have, and I regret even opening up about it, honestly, because I hate getting dragged into this shit online, but I wanted to actually back up and validate the OP who has evidently had an extremely similar experience to my own, that; yes, HN has a long-standing problem with LGBTQ+ relations, and neither OP or I are the first to experience or post about it.
That we choose to open up about the negative treatment, and get downvoted for it, for me; is an issue of respect and being heard.
Downvotes on a post saying that we feel the community needs work with regards to respect for LGBTQ+ people obviously only make, at least myself - feel even shittier and more unheard.
Getting downvoted into oblivion for opening up about the negative treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals on this particular forum seems clearly intentionally * phobic and that's just a shit sandwich I can't do much about.
Is it the stigma associated with asexuality? Is is just general * phobia? I'm not sure what makes HN in particular so awful with regards to LGBTQ+ issues - today has certainly all but reaffirmed that for me - but for such an intelligent crowd, and a bunch of people from the Bay area and shit; I'm honestly continually baffled and unfortunately it appears to be a growing issue that is getting worse, rather than improving in any way.
Asexual people actually are the ones erasing their own existence. On a generational timescale, at least
Not really, because asexuality is not an inheritable trait, as far as i understand. It wouldn't have lasted this long in humanity if it was (maybe there were asexuals who have been forced to have sex? I don't know).
It can also just be a lifestyle choice. We wouldn't call this asexuality probably, but nevertheless if someone chooses not to have sex it's kind of a spit in the face to say that everything from work to relaxation is undertaken because of some sex->power pipeline.
It can also just be a lifestyle choice. We wouldn't call this asexuality probably, but nevertheless if someone chooses not to have sex it's kind of a spit in the face to say that everything from work to relaxation is undertaken because of some sex->power pipeline.
> It can also just be a lifestyle choice. We wouldn't call this asexuality probably,
The word there is “celibacy”. It’s not like straight people make a “lifestyle choice” to not get aroused when they see an attractive member of the opposite sex.
> but nevertheless if someone chooses not to have sex it's kind of a spit in the face to say that everything from work to relaxation is undertaken because of some sex->power pipeline.
Not from what I’ve heard from people who make that choice. That group mostly consisting of Catholic priests.
The word there is “celibacy”. It’s not like straight people make a “lifestyle choice” to not get aroused when they see an attractive member of the opposite sex.
> but nevertheless if someone chooses not to have sex it's kind of a spit in the face to say that everything from work to relaxation is undertaken because of some sex->power pipeline.
Not from what I’ve heard from people who make that choice. That group mostly consisting of Catholic priests.
Actually I'd bet that neurologically sex is far from power games, but along each growth the system gets used for personal benefits rather than union. Might be a cultural lens too.
Actually, in a human hierarchical society, power is all about sex.
Explain that to me, is that a self gene natural ladder ?
Competition to get at the top of the hierarchy, and the fact someone will be willing to compete, coupled with the intrinsic need for control which comes with power, sex just being a tool to an end... Especially in a culture as puritan and easily offended (only "in public") as the North American culture.
All in all, it's human intrinsic nature.
All in all, it's human intrinsic nature.
Money, power, sex and elephants.
Says more about the speaker than sex itself. Sounds like the words of someone with mental health issues.
Or maybe someone who've read Frans de Waal "Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes". Power and sex seem to be interlinked due to evolution: the more power one have, the more accessible sex and reproduction become. People are trying to break this link for some reasons (probably good reasons), but it is not so easy.
The phrase should be considered as a framework for (let's say) hyper-masculine Id behaviour.
However sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
However sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
A more nuanced critique is to be found via the podcast "Sex Power Money", by Sara Pascoe.
Fifty Shades of Grey is one of the best selling books of all time. Almost all the women your age have read it or seen the film. You should too.
> However he left the music business in the mid-90s to become a teacher and is now president of Saint Louis School in his native Hawaii.
Interesting career choice :)
Interesting career choice :)
My chemistry teacher was in a top ten pop group in decades past. Could be a more common career ladder than you might think.
There's a lot of teaching jobs available, and if you think about it there's a lot of skill overlap. Students are an audience you have to keep engaged.
Wow that sounds super interesting. Did he have any cool stories?
Some fun ones. What was more interesting to me was that a couple of my contemporaries who were taught by him also then went on to be in top ten groups.
Just as a point of comparison, how many of your contemporaries who were taught by him went on to become chemists?
It's hard to imagine this is only the music industry. Human use sex as a weapon and a tool all the time. True, it might be more useful in the music industry but why would sex as currency only exist there?
Where there are humans, there is sex. The obviousness of how that plays out may differ but the underlying theme is universal.
Where there are humans, there is sex. The obviousness of how that plays out may differ but the underlying theme is universal.
Reminds me of a (untasteful) joke in Family Guy:
A women goes to the "Penguin" Publishing, where the owner is a penguin and asks for her book to be published. The penguin makes the joke: "If you want your book in black and white, black and white has to be in you."
I feel like this is based on a true story.
A women goes to the "Penguin" Publishing, where the owner is a penguin and asks for her book to be published. The penguin makes the joke: "If you want your book in black and white, black and white has to be in you."
I feel like this is based on a true story.
It depends. It’s a matter of how normalized the vice is. If everyone did coke in the 80s, it is much easier for one not to feel any one way about it.
It’s not normal to fuck your way to the top or use your power for sex everywhere. It’s abnormal in many places.
Avoid systems that make you feel uneasy. Whoring/pimping ain’t for everyone. The same way I’d say avoid tech if hyper competition makes you uneasy.
It’s not normal to fuck your way to the top or use your power for sex everywhere. It’s abnormal in many places.
Avoid systems that make you feel uneasy. Whoring/pimping ain’t for everyone. The same way I’d say avoid tech if hyper competition makes you uneasy.
Any industry where there's a massive power differential between "the boss" and "the employee" will likely have this happen.
US Gymnastics. Movie, TV, and music industries. US Presidents (and other politicians) and employees.
Hell, you still get it in normal business. The stories my wife tells about former co-workers and bosses are disgusting and a primary reason she no longer works at a former employer.
US Gymnastics. Movie, TV, and music industries. US Presidents (and other politicians) and employees.
Hell, you still get it in normal business. The stories my wife tells about former co-workers and bosses are disgusting and a primary reason she no longer works at a former employer.
The power deltas might create more opportunity. But as you (and me) noted, it's everywhere.
Perhaps because the music industry is so dependent on personal connections and because talent is very subjective? In academia, doctorate students usually do not have to sleep with their supervisors to get their degree.
This comment probably wasn't intentionally funny.
How do you know that? There are plenty of opportunities for favoritism. For example, listing position on the name of assistants on research papers.
Surely not an isolated incident, but music is one of the more homogenous industries out there.
All top country music stars move in the same circles, or highly overlapping circles, for example.
However, if you told me you were a top iOS developer in the tech industry, that gives me zero information about the circles you move in. You also have a long list of unrelated tech companies to choose from. You're not beholden to any one group of people for anything.
All top country music stars move in the same circles, or highly overlapping circles, for example.
However, if you told me you were a top iOS developer in the tech industry, that gives me zero information about the circles you move in. You also have a long list of unrelated tech companies to choose from. You're not beholden to any one group of people for anything.
Different industries have different structures and different cultures.
This is an entertainment thing and as noted by other commenters has to do with the very aspirational aspects of the positions, along with a total commodity of folks wanting the work. And, an open attitude towards sex. Not a lot of institutionalized systems. Hollywood is not mostly corporate style jobs, on the creative side. With HR departments.
This is an entertainment thing and as noted by other commenters has to do with the very aspirational aspects of the positions, along with a total commodity of folks wanting the work. And, an open attitude towards sex. Not a lot of institutionalized systems. Hollywood is not mostly corporate style jobs, on the creative side. With HR departments.
nabla9(13)
Any time you have an industry where the number of people who want to do the work vastly outstrips demand and where there are gatekeepers, you are going to get a culture of abuse.
It comes in various forms: sexual or other inappropriate favors for advancement, verbal abuse, or just abusive working conditions like sweatshop hours and burnout culture.
It comes in various forms: sexual or other inappropriate favors for advancement, verbal abuse, or just abusive working conditions like sweatshop hours and burnout culture.
It also helps a lot when the quality of the work performed by the person is subjective and overall success is largely dependent on the work of others (writers, musicians, tour directors, sound editors, etc.).
It'd be a lot tougher to be successful as an electrician or commercial airline pilot if you got there from sexual favors for your boss.
It'd be a lot tougher to be successful as an electrician or commercial airline pilot if you got there from sexual favors for your boss.
> It'd be a lot tougher to be successful as an electrician or commercial airline pilot if you got there from sexual favors for your boss.
That isn't true, but the reasons are different for each.
For electrician getting your foot in the door is the hard part, from there on it is about on the job training. Getting the first apprentice position is one of the harder steps to success, and sexual favors can work here. Though I doubt this happens much in practice - the field isn't one that people are so excited to get into that they will drop their morals to do so.
For airline pilot, demand comes and goes. You have to get a license first (though you can probably pay your instructor in bed, that just gets training I doubt any instructor/examiner will let you buy the license before you are qualified - if anything they will be tougher one you so you have to "buy" another lesson). Once you are qualified, you can use favors to get a job when jobs are scare and this will put you ahead in seniority later when the others finally get a job; or you can use favor to keep a job - but again: seniority means they may not even have an option to keep you. Note that the above is or - because of constant management change odds are against your ability to use this more than once at a real airline without getting caught and then their HR will ensure you are out.
That isn't true, but the reasons are different for each.
For electrician getting your foot in the door is the hard part, from there on it is about on the job training. Getting the first apprentice position is one of the harder steps to success, and sexual favors can work here. Though I doubt this happens much in practice - the field isn't one that people are so excited to get into that they will drop their morals to do so.
For airline pilot, demand comes and goes. You have to get a license first (though you can probably pay your instructor in bed, that just gets training I doubt any instructor/examiner will let you buy the license before you are qualified - if anything they will be tougher one you so you have to "buy" another lesson). Once you are qualified, you can use favors to get a job when jobs are scare and this will put you ahead in seniority later when the others finally get a job; or you can use favor to keep a job - but again: seniority means they may not even have an option to keep you. Note that the above is or - because of constant management change odds are against your ability to use this more than once at a real airline without getting caught and then their HR will ensure you are out.
To clarify, are you disagreeing with their point, or just the examples they used? I'm able to read your comment either way, so I'm not sure.
The examples. Though I think I could find pedantic fault with any example while still agreeing with the point.
I wonder about game development, it shares a lot of the traits.
Historically game dev has definitely had a big boys club problem. It's better post gamergate, and the trend is heading the right way, but still, it's a bad problem.
What I saw personally, working on an ill fated unreal licensed property around 1999, wasn't sexual extortion. But it was a boys club that loved trading porn in the official irc channels for unreal engine support. CliffyB was particularly fond of posting pictures of his then girlfriend, as well as essentially rick rolling people with this picture involving a cactus and what appears to be a very uncomfortable sexual act.
It may not have been straight up extortion of sexual interactions, but I am sure that if you pushed back on that, you'd have found yourself fenced out of the very small community of people who have huge influence over whether your game ships. It certainly was not a welcoming environment to anyone other than immature young men, which is a label I'd apply to myself at that time for sure.
Again though, I want to emphasize I also see a positive trend in gaming in general. There's a long walk ahead, but the industry is actually walking the right direction, just slowly.
What I saw personally, working on an ill fated unreal licensed property around 1999, wasn't sexual extortion. But it was a boys club that loved trading porn in the official irc channels for unreal engine support. CliffyB was particularly fond of posting pictures of his then girlfriend, as well as essentially rick rolling people with this picture involving a cactus and what appears to be a very uncomfortable sexual act.
It may not have been straight up extortion of sexual interactions, but I am sure that if you pushed back on that, you'd have found yourself fenced out of the very small community of people who have huge influence over whether your game ships. It certainly was not a welcoming environment to anyone other than immature young men, which is a label I'd apply to myself at that time for sure.
Again though, I want to emphasize I also see a positive trend in gaming in general. There's a long walk ahead, but the industry is actually walking the right direction, just slowly.
There are definitely stories to tell.
https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2015/11/rumour_leading_jap...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/25/tech/gaming-metoo-twitch/inde...
A good rule of thumb is to look for visible gatekeepers. Where they go the abuses follow, and if caught they only need to burnish their image enough to get their pals to rehire them.
https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2015/11/rumour_leading_jap...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/25/tech/gaming-metoo-twitch/inde...
A good rule of thumb is to look for visible gatekeepers. Where they go the abuses follow, and if caught they only need to burnish their image enough to get their pals to rehire them.
Game development is probably saved because most studios had (have?) really serious gender imbalances. I wouldn't be surprised of reports of harassment by the female devs, but they make up such a small percentage of the population that it doesn't change the entire hiring dynamic like it does in the music industry.
The cases in the BBC story we're commenting on were same-sex.
Game development is known for being a death march burnout culture.
My body doesn't qualify me for access to "alternative routes" to success. I can see many game devs are in the same boat.
> Any time you have an industry where the number of people who want to do the work vastly outstrips demand and where there are gatekeepers, you are going to get a culture of abuse.
You've perfectly described capitalism where every capitalist state consciously constrains the number of available jobs, maintaining a stable unemployment % among the populace.
Once they've done that, people are always fighting each other and compromising their dignity and morals - some to get ahead, some to simply stay afloat and have a family.
You've perfectly described capitalism where every capitalist state consciously constrains the number of available jobs, maintaining a stable unemployment % among the populace.
Once they've done that, people are always fighting each other and compromising their dignity and morals - some to get ahead, some to simply stay afloat and have a family.
I would qualify this by saying many want to be in specific entertainment industries for the (potential) glamor and fame, and will sacrifice a lot to reach that goal. Many may have more practical alternatives, but are driven by a goal. This is the land of opportunity, and many dream of taking a shot at the big-time while still young and attractive. That window of time closes fast.
The idea of possibly being the next Elvis or Madonna if you accept being boinked by a pig with money is hard to turn down for many.
One of the reasons the game dev industry has more abuse (mostly non-sexual) than other software endeavors is because games are seen as more fun or cool to work on, rather than say a sales proposal tracking CRUD system. (I'm happy making sales proposal tracking systems myself, although I admit I have dabbled in the pop music writing industry, and still dabble in neo-renascence tunes.)
My daughter found the clothing fashion industry is similar: high pressure because many want the job of designer and scrape and claw to get it. She changed careers after some nasty office skirmishes among competitors.
The idea of possibly being the next Elvis or Madonna if you accept being boinked by a pig with money is hard to turn down for many.
One of the reasons the game dev industry has more abuse (mostly non-sexual) than other software endeavors is because games are seen as more fun or cool to work on, rather than say a sales proposal tracking CRUD system. (I'm happy making sales proposal tracking systems myself, although I admit I have dabbled in the pop music writing industry, and still dabble in neo-renascence tunes.)
My daughter found the clothing fashion industry is similar: high pressure because many want the job of designer and scrape and claw to get it. She changed careers after some nasty office skirmishes among competitors.
[deleted]
[deleted]
As far as I understand, the first claim:
> [capitalist states] consciously constrains the number of available jobs, maintaining a stable unemployment % among the populace.
is true, and not particularly controversial. Too little unemployment is assumed (true or not) to lead to inflation and inefficiency.
(Although, I'm not sure the second claim follows. If unemployment is reduced by, say, drastically lowering the minimum wage, I don't see why things would look any different. Unemployment isn't the problem, here anyway.)
> [capitalist states] consciously constrains the number of available jobs, maintaining a stable unemployment % among the populace.
is true, and not particularly controversial. Too little unemployment is assumed (true or not) to lead to inflation and inefficiency.
(Although, I'm not sure the second claim follows. If unemployment is reduced by, say, drastically lowering the minimum wage, I don't see why things would look any different. Unemployment isn't the problem, here anyway.)
You're getting downvoted but you're right. It makes good business sense to have what Marx called a "reserve army of labour", a percentage of unemployed people such that there is always more demand for jobs than there is supply, ensuring wages and labour conditions get pushed down.
To be a little more precise, I think the conditions are
1. The job is incredibly rewarding, both in terms of money and fame.
2. There are thousands of pretty much equally qualified people for the job.
Here the "hiring manager" clearly has enormous leverage.
1. The job is incredibly rewarding, both in terms of money and fame.
2. There are thousands of pretty much equally qualified people for the job.
Here the "hiring manager" clearly has enormous leverage.
Yes. I have heard of sexual favours being provided by a trainee to get into a (highly sought after) Dermatology training program.
Another way to put it is that anyone who can be exploited will be exploited. The differences are only in frequency and visiblity.
Another way to put it is that anyone who can be exploited will be exploited. The differences are only in frequency and visiblity.
Everybody involved has always known and assumed that so much that it's almost a cliché. I mean, people were warning about predatory record producers since the 60s or so. Since I'm not against prostitution either, I can't really be angry about this old hat. (Not that I think it's good.)
Entertainers can work their whole lives to break into the business, investing their heart and soul into it, only for one gatekeeper to hold all of that hostage. They hold incredible leverage. That's in no way similar to offering someone a few quid for sex.
It's exactly the same, as long as someone will want to go the extra inch to make anything more than their competitor, this behavior will stay.
[deleted]
Don't know why they picked a headline that buried the other big point of the article - "Mafia 'owned' pop stars"
This is a huge thing hugely related to the rest of the 'industry culture' being talked about.
This is a huge thing hugely related to the rest of the 'industry culture' being talked about.
I remember reading about a scandal in the 90's or 00's fashion business where it came out the top modelling and talent agencies were in-effect used as escort agencies by super wealthy clients. The arts have always been seedy, but they have also always been a key path to social mobility, so it's kind of a story as old as time.
Same thing happens with cheerleaders of famous teams too.. (at least I remember an article where they were being forced to attend parties wearing little black dresses, with creepy old dudes in attendance).
#FreeBritney
Does "Mafia" here refer to the Cosa Nostra, or other organized crime syndicates?
The big question is will internet free the good artists that were gatekeeped due to refusing debasing their core values. I have a feeling that only those ready to overcome any such hurdles have the grit to pursue a stage life, but I can be wrong.
I wouldn't put it that way, but I think you're referring to something real. I'm not musical but I was quite active in theatre from a young age and there seems to be a skill around dissociation that is necessary to perform. There's something incredibly intimate that happens between a performer and the audience, someone comfortable with that kind of intimacy with that many strangers probably couldn't have certain kinds of core values anyway.
The answer to that question is a "no".
Those large companies are distributors, packaging a product and selling it to consumers. Think of distribution like a motorway Vs dirt road. If you're doing it yourself, you're running down that dirt road trying to get from point A to point B, battling with millions other people trying to do the same. If you're with a distribution company, you're on their branded luxury touring bus cruising down a motorway, you'll be arriving any minute...
Those large companies are distributors, packaging a product and selling it to consumers. Think of distribution like a motorway Vs dirt road. If you're doing it yourself, you're running down that dirt road trying to get from point A to point B, battling with millions other people trying to do the same. If you're with a distribution company, you're on their branded luxury touring bus cruising down a motorway, you'll be arriving any minute...
I'm reminded of a quote by Jack Stratton of Vulfpeck; "It reminds me of the comedy approach. You're just gonna eat it for ten years then hopefully be in a movie or something."
> The big question is will internet free the good artists that were gatekeeped
I don't think so. What they need the most is publicity, and this is not magically granted by internet.
Just take a look at e.g. Spotify; I'm sure there are hundreds of extremely gifted artists sitting down at barely a few dozens listenings, just because no one found them.
I don't think so. What they need the most is publicity, and this is not magically granted by internet.
Just take a look at e.g. Spotify; I'm sure there are hundreds of extremely gifted artists sitting down at barely a few dozens listenings, just because no one found them.
But it's interesting. Do we like artists due to marketing only ? Or seducing feature over artistic quality. A small but gifted artist on Spotify could, in theory (in theory), generate word of mouth at quickly get known. Sometimes I believe that labels were filters for that. They could see who was just very good and who had some 'it factor'.
Discoverability. There is more new music uploaded to Spotify every day than I could listen to in a year[0]. How do I discover the new stuff I like?
Spotify does a terrible job of recommending new music to me - mostly my "Discover Weekly" is a mixtape of my existing playlists, and "Release Radar" is entirely stuff I hate.
I'm not sure how a new band would reach me, but it's not via the methods they're trying now. I haven't been genuinely excited by a "new" band since, oh, Mumford? Bad Shepherds? something like that.
[0] I don't listen to that much music. I would if I got more new stuff, though, I'm sure
Spotify does a terrible job of recommending new music to me - mostly my "Discover Weekly" is a mixtape of my existing playlists, and "Release Radar" is entirely stuff I hate.
I'm not sure how a new band would reach me, but it's not via the methods they're trying now. I haven't been genuinely excited by a "new" band since, oh, Mumford? Bad Shepherds? something like that.
[0] I don't listen to that much music. I would if I got more new stuff, though, I'm sure
Soundcloud used to have pretty great discoverability but people started, in my opinion, the repost feature and you ended up with the same song recommended over and over again. Their genre recommendations were also pretty tight. All of my experience was from about 5+ years ago.
By far the best discovery I've seen was on What.CD, RIP. The similar artists web they had on ever artist page was extremely tight. I tried a few months ago to find the old What.cd data to look into it but wasn't able to find it in a couple minutes of googling.
Look into Last.fm. They do a pretty decent job of recommending similar artists but its more of a what you played tracker than true music discovery.
By far the best discovery I've seen was on What.CD, RIP. The similar artists web they had on ever artist page was extremely tight. I tried a few months ago to find the old What.cd data to look into it but wasn't able to find it in a couple minutes of googling.
Look into Last.fm. They do a pretty decent job of recommending similar artists but its more of a what you played tracker than true music discovery.
A Pandora station based on other bands I like seems to work reasonably well for finding new music. Most are still terrible but it finds a good one often enough.
If you're actually interested in up and coming artists, Tik Tok is probably the place to go. Their algorithm really does bring good stuff up.
In German we distinguish between 'Interpret' (the one interpreting or performing an art) and the 'Künstler' (artist). I think this explains it very well: Most of the popular 'Interpreten' are not famous for their exquisite music, but for who they are, as a brand, and how they perform in public and on stage.
The movie Yesterday is such a farce because it suggest The Beatles songs are super successful no matter who performs them, as long as they are the first to perform them. When effectively it was a mix of having skilled musicians, produce and perform good songs on the one hand, but also who they were, the marketing and their performances on the other hand.
The movie Yesterday is such a farce because it suggest The Beatles songs are super successful no matter who performs them, as long as they are the first to perform them. When effectively it was a mix of having skilled musicians, produce and perform good songs on the one hand, but also who they were, the marketing and their performances on the other hand.
> Künstler
reminds me of Gunnm / Battle Alita Angel, where the author coined the term panzerkunst as a martial art name.. first time I read about the real life term.
slight anecdote: some people really do have a glow that we can feel but not really explain, something electric and immediate, that will either catch an audience or even stop the air in the room. I don't go to concert often but the few time it happened I was quite shocked. You can put all the best vocal or musical technicians next to them and they would not be able to create that.
reminds me of Gunnm / Battle Alita Angel, where the author coined the term panzerkunst as a martial art name.. first time I read about the real life term.
slight anecdote: some people really do have a glow that we can feel but not really explain, something electric and immediate, that will either catch an audience or even stop the air in the room. I don't go to concert often but the few time it happened I was quite shocked. You can put all the best vocal or musical technicians next to them and they would not be able to create that.
Japanese people love German words. Panzerkunst just meaning tank art.
No, good marketers also pick good artists. You can't polish a turd. However most of the products we like are only so popular because of marketing. So in a way the answer is yes?
Even if we don't like artists due to marketing, I'm fairly sure I only become aware of artists due to marketing.
'Some factor' was usually the previous generations' equivalent of virality - typically a blend of sexual charisma, personal charisma, theatricality, entertainment value, and shock value.
Without that packaging music is a very tough sell. Being competent and creative on its own isn't enough.
I can't think of anyone who has made it on musicality alone without at least some of the above OR enthusiastic and regular promotion by gatekeepers (top radio DJs) while they were still an influence.
Without that packaging music is a very tough sell. Being competent and creative on its own isn't enough.
I can't think of anyone who has made it on musicality alone without at least some of the above OR enthusiastic and regular promotion by gatekeepers (top radio DJs) while they were still an influence.
I think movie/game composers might fit this criteria, unless you count the movies/games themselves as gatekeepers
Actually interesting, I think we all remember some video game scores deeply even though they were never sold to us, never relied on naming or branding .. it was just 'that music that captured my brain for hours so well'
Some people today do acapella renditions for SNES F-Zero soundtrack.. that says something :)
Some people today do acapella renditions for SNES F-Zero soundtrack.. that says something :)
The problem is there are more great artists with the potential than the world needs. Only one artist can be number one for the week in any given week, and the artist who holds that often does for several weeks (and often they get a second hit). People like a small amount of change in life, which means they listen to a few artists, then change to a different one. Then they grow up/old and review that set of artists for memory sake and need even less new great ones.
I don't have time to listen to all the great music in the world. Even if "God" gave me a list of all the great artists trying to record today, it would take me more than a day to listen to all their recordings. So the labels choose for me, and to a large extent it doesn't matter which ones they choose, what matters is there is a filter to gets the right amount of music to me. In the world being great isn't enough as there are more than enough greats, so if you can great, good looking (this helps me overlook any of your faults - I'd like to think otherwise but I know better), and good in the bed of the label - you make it. If you fail any of the above three you have probably lost (note to the good looking, the labels may use you for sex knowing that you won't make it).
Note too that labels bring in other help for the great. I can record music in my basement: I don't have the best microphones, but they are good enough to pick up the sump pump in the corner. I can mix tracks in my basement as well, lets just say I'm not quitting my day job. I could go on about other parts of the process of turning a great artist into a great recording for mass consumption that labels have figured out.
I don't have time to listen to all the great music in the world. Even if "God" gave me a list of all the great artists trying to record today, it would take me more than a day to listen to all their recordings. So the labels choose for me, and to a large extent it doesn't matter which ones they choose, what matters is there is a filter to gets the right amount of music to me. In the world being great isn't enough as there are more than enough greats, so if you can great, good looking (this helps me overlook any of your faults - I'd like to think otherwise but I know better), and good in the bed of the label - you make it. If you fail any of the above three you have probably lost (note to the good looking, the labels may use you for sex knowing that you won't make it).
Note too that labels bring in other help for the great. I can record music in my basement: I don't have the best microphones, but they are good enough to pick up the sump pump in the corner. I can mix tracks in my basement as well, lets just say I'm not quitting my day job. I could go on about other parts of the process of turning a great artist into a great recording for mass consumption that labels have figured out.
> I don't have time to listen to all the great music in the world.
The problem is that the filters you describe are so narrow that certain genres of music don't get adequately explored, and some genres don't exist at all. In broad terms that's bound to happen, but the missing and under-served genres are so obvious that the filters are clearly limiting the maximum amount of musical enjoyment and meaning that's available to the average listener.
For a dead simple example-- Bach and Beethoven were known as the greatest improvisers in their eras. So where is the Grammy winning album of someone improvising a set of their own variations in the style of Beethoven? Who is the Michael Jordan of improvising a set of 30 new variations atop the bassline of the Goldberg variations?
Don't get me wrong-- there are people who can improvise perfectly well in those styles. But there's no industrial incentive to push those artists to release something truly transcendent-- e.g., something that reveals for a general audience something new about music in the time of Bach's, who makes it fresh, and who redefines what improvisation can be. There's no period improviser so single-minded and driven that an audience of tens of millions would spend lock-down watching a 10-part miniseries on the making of such an album.
Another one, off the top of my head-- what's the version of math rock where there's no common subdivision shared by each line? Computers make this effortless to write, but AFAICT that genre doesn't exist. For just a simple example, Steve Reich's Phasing exists as a prototype-- it shows that there's a compelling perceptual basis for presenting the same melody at tempos that are very close to one another.
There are many other examples, and the filter you refer to means you've never, ever heard them.
So growing old and getting set in a desire for nostalgic music isn't so much a natural law of musical desires as it is the result of creating "The Matrix" for music in the age of the internet by locking your ears into the same old payola scheme from the before times. (I guess the "heat" captured from your attention is to fuel the machine world of the filters... :)
The problem is that the filters you describe are so narrow that certain genres of music don't get adequately explored, and some genres don't exist at all. In broad terms that's bound to happen, but the missing and under-served genres are so obvious that the filters are clearly limiting the maximum amount of musical enjoyment and meaning that's available to the average listener.
For a dead simple example-- Bach and Beethoven were known as the greatest improvisers in their eras. So where is the Grammy winning album of someone improvising a set of their own variations in the style of Beethoven? Who is the Michael Jordan of improvising a set of 30 new variations atop the bassline of the Goldberg variations?
Don't get me wrong-- there are people who can improvise perfectly well in those styles. But there's no industrial incentive to push those artists to release something truly transcendent-- e.g., something that reveals for a general audience something new about music in the time of Bach's, who makes it fresh, and who redefines what improvisation can be. There's no period improviser so single-minded and driven that an audience of tens of millions would spend lock-down watching a 10-part miniseries on the making of such an album.
Another one, off the top of my head-- what's the version of math rock where there's no common subdivision shared by each line? Computers make this effortless to write, but AFAICT that genre doesn't exist. For just a simple example, Steve Reich's Phasing exists as a prototype-- it shows that there's a compelling perceptual basis for presenting the same melody at tempos that are very close to one another.
There are many other examples, and the filter you refer to means you've never, ever heard them.
So growing old and getting set in a desire for nostalgic music isn't so much a natural law of musical desires as it is the result of creating "The Matrix" for music in the age of the internet by locking your ears into the same old payola scheme from the before times. (I guess the "heat" captured from your attention is to fuel the machine world of the filters... :)
Spotify charges $1/song/month as a listing fee. I bet a majority of Spotify artists pay more to Spotify than they receive.
I've never had to pay spotify a monthly fee to list a song. I've had to pay some one time costs to get the song listed (via a distributor), but I've never had to pay a maintenance fee of any sort.
And I assure you, the stuff I've put up does not make enough money to cover any fees (20 listens a month).
And I assure you, the stuff I've put up does not make enough money to cover any fees (20 listens a month).
I don't know where you heard this, but it's incorrect. I have lots of music on Spotify, and pay no listing fees
It's still pay to win with middlemen controlling what's going to hit millions of ears. Now there's like a wild card, where a few people "go viral".
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.
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 center of the boycott are incorrect, but isn't that what defamation laws are meant to combat?
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 center of the boycott are incorrect, but isn't that what defamation laws are meant to combat?
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 expensive and risky, and doesn't necessarily restore reputational damage even if you win.
Obviously, some people clearly guilty of the accusations against them and deserve the consequences being meted out against them.
But there is also a long history of "witch hunts" and people being punished in ways that don't deserve. Social media is enabling a new form of that, which is what we call "cancel culture".
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 expensive and risky, and doesn't necessarily restore reputational damage even if you win.
Obviously, some people clearly guilty of the accusations against them and deserve the consequences being meted out against them.
But there is also a long history of "witch hunts" and people being punished in ways that don't deserve. Social media is enabling a new form of that, which is what we call "cancel culture".
> 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 my life (and, wow, Trump really modernized the Republican party on that one). Not to mention the McCarthy era, where people got canceled over suspected affiliation with leftists.
There's a huge panic about how cancel culture is destroying the world... but the difference is that people today are getting canceled for exhibiting intolerance and bigotry, instead of getting canceled by the intolerance and bigotry of those in power. And, yes. There are certainly cases where the cancellation is disproportionate to the offense. But compared to Harvey Milk, Martin Luther King, and many many others canceled in the past... there's nothing new here, and historically speaking, this sort of cancellation is pretty soft.
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 my life (and, wow, Trump really modernized the Republican party on that one). Not to mention the McCarthy era, where people got canceled over suspected affiliation with leftists.
There's a huge panic about how cancel culture is destroying the world... but the difference is that people today are getting canceled for exhibiting intolerance and bigotry, instead of getting canceled by the intolerance and bigotry of those in power. And, yes. There are certainly cases where the cancellation is disproportionate to the offense. But compared to Harvey Milk, Martin Luther King, and many many others canceled in the past... there's nothing new here, and historically speaking, this sort of cancellation is pretty soft.
And those things were all bad!
"We have some power so we're gonna do it now, why you so mad" is pure antisocial behavior.
Any movement based on diversity, celebrating differences etc cannot afford that look.
"We have some power so we're gonna do it now, why you so mad" is pure antisocial behavior.
Any movement based on diversity, celebrating differences etc cannot afford that look.
To add to your examples, Dixie Chicks got cancelled for being against the War in Iraq.
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 means that everyone can be targeted this way, even if they weren't known at all before (Justine Sacco is a simple example).
The McCarthy era was again a matter of government action through government processes with at least some level of transparency, democratic representation, and accountability. It was not spontaneous mobs of individuals without leaders or any kind of accountability. (They also targeted communists, not just 'leftists').
It's ironic you say casually that "people today are getting canceled for exhibiting intolerance and bigotry", when cancel culture is itself intolerance and bigotry. The standard definition of bigotry is "extreme intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." [0]
[0] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigotry
It's also always disturbing to encounter people like you who are openly clear that cancel culture is just like historical persecution, but you're totally fine with it because you (wrongly) think it only happens to bad people. As though only people you like deserve to have human rights.
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 means that everyone can be targeted this way, even if they weren't known at all before (Justine Sacco is a simple example).
The McCarthy era was again a matter of government action through government processes with at least some level of transparency, democratic representation, and accountability. It was not spontaneous mobs of individuals without leaders or any kind of accountability. (They also targeted communists, not just 'leftists').
It's ironic you say casually that "people today are getting canceled for exhibiting intolerance and bigotry", when cancel culture is itself intolerance and bigotry. The standard definition of bigotry is "extreme intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." [0]
[0] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigotry
It's also always disturbing to encounter people like you who are openly clear that cancel culture is just like historical persecution, but you're totally fine with it because you (wrongly) think it only happens to bad people. As though only people you like deserve to have human rights.
> It's ironic you say casually that "people today are getting canceled for exhibiting intolerance and bigotry", when cancel culture is itself intolerance and bigotry.
You've hit Popper's paradox right on the head. Sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia are examples of intolerance. Fighting those values, and criticizing/boycotting their champions, is not. This is the bright line between what the right decries as "cancel culture" of today vs the "cancel culture" of yesteryear.
> It's also always disturbing to encounter people like you...
So, you're making assertions about opinions that I hold, not based on opinions that I've stated, but upon those of "people like [me]." This is not a good-faith approach to conversation.
You've hit Popper's paradox right on the head. Sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia are examples of intolerance. Fighting those values, and criticizing/boycotting their champions, is not. This is the bright line between what the right decries as "cancel culture" of today vs the "cancel culture" of yesteryear.
> It's also always disturbing to encounter people like you...
So, you're making assertions about opinions that I hold, not based on opinions that I've stated, but upon those of "people like [me]." This is not a good-faith approach to conversation.
You're committing an extremely common mis-representation of what Popper wrote about his paradox.
As Popper wrote, his conception of 'intolerance' was not "sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia". In fact, none of these words had even been invented when he was writing!
Popper was very clear that he conceptualized 'intolerance' as people who will use violence and force and power to silence others. This he was specifically referring to intolerance of other beliefs, whether religious or political. This is exactly the kind of intolerance you are committing.
Please read what Popper actually wrote about the paradox before misrepresenting it - I see this error all the time.
>you're making assertions about opinions that I hold, not based on opinions that I've stated, but upon those of "people like [me]."
No, just about opinions you plainly stated - that you think cancel culture is cool because only people on your list are getting cancelled.
As Popper wrote, his conception of 'intolerance' was not "sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia". In fact, none of these words had even been invented when he was writing!
Popper was very clear that he conceptualized 'intolerance' as people who will use violence and force and power to silence others. This he was specifically referring to intolerance of other beliefs, whether religious or political. This is exactly the kind of intolerance you are committing.
Please read what Popper actually wrote about the paradox before misrepresenting it - I see this error all the time.
>you're making assertions about opinions that I hold, not based on opinions that I've stated, but upon those of "people like [me]."
No, just about opinions you plainly stated - that you think cancel culture is cool because only people on your list are getting cancelled.
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)
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 the Bush administration. Although, truth be told, I doubt that’d be enough if my turn comes, and maybe all that just proves the anti-CC people’s point.
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 the Bush administration. Although, truth be told, I doubt that’d be enough if my turn comes, and maybe all that just proves the anti-CC people’s point.
Yeah, but huge grain of salt there. Several of references in that thread are being twisted out of proportion. Also, they couldn't be bothered to find single example where someone is being "canceled" or ridiculed for being too PC, which makes me think this is an axe-grind-with-the-left issue and less decrying the practice.
There are a plethora of examples. Republicans who disagree with Trump are getting labeled "RINO" and censured by their parties.
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.
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.
> 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.
Calling it a lie might be a bit unfair.
The news article from June 29th it links to says that they'd be shutting down, and the tweet was less than two weeks on. I found another news story from July 10th [1] - two days before the tweet went out - repeating the intention to shut down permanently, and another from August [2] that affirms that a shutdown happened. So at the time the author of the thread was in good faith relaying the truth.
I can't find any news stories indicating that it reopened, so unless you expect the author to live in Denver or be following closely every single example he provides months after the fact, I don't think this is a reasonable criticism.
ETA: Actually, their social media appears dead since June; Yelp shows many locations closed, and the locations it doesn't show as closed have, uh, poems written in memory of them...so I'm wondering if it actually did shutdown and you're not just mistakenly thinking of/talking about a different yoga studio entirely.
[1] https://theknow.denverpost.com/2020/07/10/denver-yoga-studio...
[2] https://theknow.denverpost.com/2020/08/07/courageous-yoga-bi...
The news article from June 29th it links to says that they'd be shutting down, and the tweet was less than two weeks on. I found another news story from July 10th [1] - two days before the tweet went out - repeating the intention to shut down permanently, and another from August [2] that affirms that a shutdown happened. So at the time the author of the thread was in good faith relaying the truth.
I can't find any news stories indicating that it reopened, so unless you expect the author to live in Denver or be following closely every single example he provides months after the fact, I don't think this is a reasonable criticism.
ETA: Actually, their social media appears dead since June; Yelp shows many locations closed, and the locations it doesn't show as closed have, uh, poems written in memory of them...so I'm wondering if it actually did shutdown and you're not just mistakenly thinking of/talking about a different yoga studio entirely.
[1] https://theknow.denverpost.com/2020/07/10/denver-yoga-studio...
[2] https://theknow.denverpost.com/2020/08/07/courageous-yoga-bi...
You make assertions which would require that the author was mistaken, while ungraciously and unfairly accusing them of lying. Posted elsewhere in this thread is evidence suggesting the possiblity that you may, in fact, have been mistaken. Can you provide evidence to the contrary?
You can schedule a class on their website *today*.
I'll grant that it's more likely a mistake than an outright lie.
I'd still recommend that you read what the thread author says with a grain of salt as they aren't corroborating the claims they're repeating.
If you dig into the sourcing if the Colorado Sun's article, it cites an Instagram post[1] as evidence the business is closing, but the post says no such thing.
[1]: https://www.instagram.com/p/CBotnpslXVj/
I'll grant that it's more likely a mistake than an outright lie.
I'd still recommend that you read what the thread author says with a grain of salt as they aren't corroborating the claims they're repeating.
If you dig into the sourcing if the Colorado Sun's article, it cites an Instagram post[1] as evidence the business is closing, but the post says no such thing.
[1]: https://www.instagram.com/p/CBotnpslXVj/
Are you saying that because they are now open, they never closed down?
I’m skeptical. By that logic, isn’t any voice of disapproval an attempted cancelling?
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...
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...
“So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed” Jon Ronson
> The McCarthy era was again a matter of government action through government processes with at least some level of transparency, democratic representation, and accountability. It was not spontaneous mobs of individuals without leaders or any kind of accountability.
How were the perpetrators of McCarthyism held accountable?
How were the perpetrators of McCarthyism held accountable?
Took 5 seconds to look up on Wikipedia:
"With the highly publicized Army–McCarthy hearings of 1954, and following the suicide of Wyoming Senator Lester C. Hunt that same year,[12] McCarthy's support and popularity faded. On December 2, 1954, the Senate voted to censure Senator McCarthy by a vote of 67–22, making him one of the few senators ever to be disciplined in this fashion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#Censure_and_th...
"With the highly publicized Army–McCarthy hearings of 1954, and following the suicide of Wyoming Senator Lester C. Hunt that same year,[12] McCarthy's support and popularity faded. On December 2, 1954, the Senate voted to censure Senator McCarthy by a vote of 67–22, making him one of the few senators ever to be disciplined in this fashion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#Censure_and_th...
[deleted]
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
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
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.
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.
Great questions, and I applaud your ability to approach a sensitive topic with such open curiosity.
Some arguments I'm familiar with around cancel culture are below. My goal isn't to assert them -- just enumerate some of them. People are welcome to reshape them or knock 'em down as they see fit.
- The Internet is a global namespace: now you can have people anywhere in the world outraged. What used to be a localized problem and response can now turn into a localized problem, but global response.
- The ability to go back-in-time is all too easy. That dumb comment you made as a teenager can come back years and years later to haunt you (or people close to you). Maybe you had a massive turn-around already or you were recorded without consent. Often that doesn't matter.
- It is fostering an insidious call-out culture. The focus is no longer on prevention and remediation, but on scoring points and repositioning power towards "the vanguard". Legitimate victims aren't helped to heal and offenders aren't led to improve.
- No room is given to defend yourself, particularly when mobbed upon. Even if the record is set straight later it doesn't matter, as your reputation (possibly friendships, career, and family life) is in tatters.
What I do feel worth asserting is this: no matter what the current norm is, always remember you will be judged according to later standards, right or wrong. The greater the disparity in power the more important this is regardless of role (e.g. boss, parent, etc).
Some arguments I'm familiar with around cancel culture are below. My goal isn't to assert them -- just enumerate some of them. People are welcome to reshape them or knock 'em down as they see fit.
- The Internet is a global namespace: now you can have people anywhere in the world outraged. What used to be a localized problem and response can now turn into a localized problem, but global response.
- The ability to go back-in-time is all too easy. That dumb comment you made as a teenager can come back years and years later to haunt you (or people close to you). Maybe you had a massive turn-around already or you were recorded without consent. Often that doesn't matter.
- It is fostering an insidious call-out culture. The focus is no longer on prevention and remediation, but on scoring points and repositioning power towards "the vanguard". Legitimate victims aren't helped to heal and offenders aren't led to improve.
- No room is given to defend yourself, particularly when mobbed upon. Even if the record is set straight later it doesn't matter, as your reputation (possibly friendships, career, and family life) is in tatters.
What I do feel worth asserting is this: no matter what the current norm is, always remember you will be judged according to later standards, right or wrong. The greater the disparity in power the more important this is regardless of role (e.g. boss, parent, etc).
-- it is selectively enforced depending on what side someone is on -- especially with regards to forgiveness of something which happened some time ago.
-- Context is irrelevant. People are being canceled for using the wrong word when enumerating words which cannot be said. again, some people can say them, some can't.
-- it is completely out of proportion to things which do actual damage. This really bothers me. Someone saying something really bad means less to me than even the mildest act of violence
-- some places are upping the ante to claim that speech is actual violence and that if certain people aren't fired, then the workplace is unsafe
-- Context is irrelevant. People are being canceled for using the wrong word when enumerating words which cannot be said. again, some people can say them, some can't.
-- it is completely out of proportion to things which do actual damage. This really bothers me. Someone saying something really bad means less to me than even the mildest act of violence
-- some places are upping the ante to claim that speech is actual violence and that if certain people aren't fired, then the workplace is unsafe
I've seen people get upset about authors from demographic group X writing about people from demographic group Y.
Apparently, that is a prerogative of only group Y nowadays.
Apparently, that is a prerogative of only group Y nowadays.
I wouldn't consider that by itself as representative of anything - it's completely normal that people get upset about other people for all kinds of subjective reasons, that's normal free speech and diversity of opinions, I'm not the one to judge whether their upset is justified or not.
But what seems problematic for me is when institutions react to random outrage groups (which often are very vocal but small groups) on social media by blindly joining in the outrage and rapidly severing ties with people (firing them, removing authors, etc) without a serious investigation of what - if any - actual wrongdoing there was, what were the circumstances, etc. I would expect some semblance of due process instead of "just" doing what the crowd says immediately for PR reasons.
But what seems problematic for me is when institutions react to random outrage groups (which often are very vocal but small groups) on social media by blindly joining in the outrage and rapidly severing ties with people (firing them, removing authors, etc) without a serious investigation of what - if any - actual wrongdoing there was, what were the circumstances, etc. I would expect some semblance of due process instead of "just" doing what the crowd says immediately for PR reasons.
While simultaneously another author gets criticized for not including enough Y's.
> -- it is selectively enforced depending on what side someone is on
Joss Whedon is a showrunner and filmmaker, of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame. A few years ago while going through a divorce, his ex-wife alleged that he had sex with female staff on one of his shows. This lead to allegations that his demeanor on the set of Justice League was snide and unprofessional. Which lead to former Buffy and Angel actors coming forward, and alleging that Joss called an actress "fat" when she got pregnant almost 20 years ago.
James Cameron is a filmmaker of Titanic and Terminator fame. He has been married five times, notably to filmmakers he's worked with and actresses who worked on his films. Some of his divorces have been attributed to affairs with other actresses under his employ. He is a notoriously angry and difficult director to work for, and on the set of The Abyss he was punched in the face by an actor who was nearly allowed to drown because Cameron didn't want to spoil the take.
Joss Whedon is effectively canceled. He has been forced to step down from a new show he was developing for HBO, and his fanbase on various Internet forums has viscerally turned against him.
James Cameron is an Academy Award winner, one of the most marketable brands in the entertainment industry, and everyone will be lining up to watch Avatar sequels over the next few years.
For me personally, the inconsistency and near-randomness of it all is just... unsettling.
Joss Whedon is a showrunner and filmmaker, of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame. A few years ago while going through a divorce, his ex-wife alleged that he had sex with female staff on one of his shows. This lead to allegations that his demeanor on the set of Justice League was snide and unprofessional. Which lead to former Buffy and Angel actors coming forward, and alleging that Joss called an actress "fat" when she got pregnant almost 20 years ago.
James Cameron is a filmmaker of Titanic and Terminator fame. He has been married five times, notably to filmmakers he's worked with and actresses who worked on his films. Some of his divorces have been attributed to affairs with other actresses under his employ. He is a notoriously angry and difficult director to work for, and on the set of The Abyss he was punched in the face by an actor who was nearly allowed to drown because Cameron didn't want to spoil the take.
Joss Whedon is effectively canceled. He has been forced to step down from a new show he was developing for HBO, and his fanbase on various Internet forums has viscerally turned against him.
James Cameron is an Academy Award winner, one of the most marketable brands in the entertainment industry, and everyone will be lining up to watch Avatar sequels over the next few years.
For me personally, the inconsistency and near-randomness of it all is just... unsettling.
Thanks for this. These sort-of argument catalogue comments are very helpful in these discussions.
And your call out at the bottom is good wisdom :)
Edit: this->these
And your call out at the bottom is good wisdom :)
Edit: this->these
You bet! Now, if you'll allow me to try to present the other side for your consideration:
- Virtue signaling is a critical component to personal and social moral growth. Showing where you stand and putting your money where you mouth is necessary to decentralize authority and improve the standards that are "baked" into society. Otherwise you're just appealing to whoever has the biggest stick.
- That people misapply a legitimate action or are overzealous in its application doesn't mean the underlying idea is wrong. The Internet is still quite young and its inviting a global confrontation of how to deal with deeply-seated social problems. Expecting this new-found power to be wielded without making mistakes is unrealistic.
- People are learning how horrible it is to rely on power and privilege to isolate you from the effects of your wrong-doing. Even if we assume the best of people and that they aren't consciously doing this, it is still pushing awareness closer to consciousness and thus (hopefully) better decision making.
- The importance of allyship is making massive strides. As oft quoted, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.". On a personal note, as a kid watching a neighborhood kid get his bully-buddy to stop throwing snowballs at another kid taught me a lesson I've never forgotten.
- "Good" and "bad" deeds always have a "blast radius" and require support of some kind to sustain. Engaging organizations and platforms that surround people is a critical component to making a change, or all you're doing is swapping the hood ornament on the car without touching the engine underneath.
- Virtue signaling is a critical component to personal and social moral growth. Showing where you stand and putting your money where you mouth is necessary to decentralize authority and improve the standards that are "baked" into society. Otherwise you're just appealing to whoever has the biggest stick.
- That people misapply a legitimate action or are overzealous in its application doesn't mean the underlying idea is wrong. The Internet is still quite young and its inviting a global confrontation of how to deal with deeply-seated social problems. Expecting this new-found power to be wielded without making mistakes is unrealistic.
- People are learning how horrible it is to rely on power and privilege to isolate you from the effects of your wrong-doing. Even if we assume the best of people and that they aren't consciously doing this, it is still pushing awareness closer to consciousness and thus (hopefully) better decision making.
- The importance of allyship is making massive strides. As oft quoted, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.". On a personal note, as a kid watching a neighborhood kid get his bully-buddy to stop throwing snowballs at another kid taught me a lesson I've never forgotten.
- "Good" and "bad" deeds always have a "blast radius" and require support of some kind to sustain. Engaging organizations and platforms that surround people is a critical component to making a change, or all you're doing is swapping the hood ornament on the car without touching the engine underneath.
> - Virtue signaling is a critical component to personal and social moral growth. Showing where you stand and putting your money where you mouth is necessary to decentralize authority and improve the standards that are "baked" into society. Otherwise you're just appealing to whoever has the biggest stick.
I was under the impression the virtue signalling specifically requires insincerity.
For example, if you inject yourself into a conversation to lecture everyone about what a great ally you are (and you don't even really mean it), that is virtue signaling.
If you try to make it all about yourself, and assert completely risk free opinions that challenge nothing, that is virtue signalling.
Simply sharing and asserting your values doesn't have to be virtue signalling.
> - That people misapply a legitimate action or are overzealous in its application doesn't mean the underlying idea is wrong. The Internet is still quite young and its inviting a global confrontation of how to deal with deeply-seated social problems. Expecting this new-found power to be wielded without making mistakes is unrealistic.
Nobody objects to the underlying idea of witch hunting. If there were actual witches that were using magic powers to poison the town, of course we should have an inquisitor to hunt them down.
This has only ever been a discussion about tactics.
I was under the impression the virtue signalling specifically requires insincerity.
For example, if you inject yourself into a conversation to lecture everyone about what a great ally you are (and you don't even really mean it), that is virtue signaling.
If you try to make it all about yourself, and assert completely risk free opinions that challenge nothing, that is virtue signalling.
Simply sharing and asserting your values doesn't have to be virtue signalling.
> - That people misapply a legitimate action or are overzealous in its application doesn't mean the underlying idea is wrong. The Internet is still quite young and its inviting a global confrontation of how to deal with deeply-seated social problems. Expecting this new-found power to be wielded without making mistakes is unrealistic.
Nobody objects to the underlying idea of witch hunting. If there were actual witches that were using magic powers to poison the town, of course we should have an inquisitor to hunt them down.
This has only ever been a discussion about tactics.
Thanks for your extra thoughts -- I think they add some very relevant color that I was intentionally omitting.
I think there are lot of loaded words in our political vocabulary and their meaning can have subtle (or even significant) shifts based on who uses them. If "virtue signaling" includes a connotation of insincerity, and that aspect changes everything entirely as you show.
I used it in a more strictly technical sense, but I think it fair to say that with most language the neutral, technical version is the least common in actual usage.
I think there are lot of loaded words in our political vocabulary and their meaning can have subtle (or even significant) shifts based on who uses them. If "virtue signaling" includes a connotation of insincerity, and that aspect changes everything entirely as you show.
I used it in a more strictly technical sense, but I think it fair to say that with most language the neutral, technical version is the least common in actual usage.
IMO the main issue with cancel culture is when it targets people who are innocent or gives unreasonable punishments for small mistakes. Those being cancelled are tried in the court of social media, where critics attack without evidence or even knowing the accusations. The accused' friends and employers fear being associated with the accused, even if they ultimately get cleared of any wrongdoing, and they can sue for defamation but it won't necessarily work out.
People have gotten kicked out of colleges for using racist words in text messages. People have been fired for their jobs for messages taken out of context. Non-public individuals start getting death threats online and they get called out in the streets, for small mistakes or things taen out of context.
A separate issue is that people sometimes get cancelled for things that happened a long time ago, sometimes even when they were still young. The issue here is that people change. It would be like boycotting a company because 20 years ago they exploited workers, regardless of whatever they're doing today. It's a really grey area.
People have gotten kicked out of colleges for using racist words in text messages. People have been fired for their jobs for messages taken out of context. Non-public individuals start getting death threats online and they get called out in the streets, for small mistakes or things taen out of context.
A separate issue is that people sometimes get cancelled for things that happened a long time ago, sometimes even when they were still young. The issue here is that people change. It would be like boycotting a company because 20 years ago they exploited workers, regardless of whatever they're doing today. It's a really grey area.
There is no such thing as cancel culture. It is a rhetorical device created to shift blame, allowing perpetrators of injustices to claim that they are really the victims.
Define injustice. Are you talking about serious hate crimes, i.e. physical violence? "Softer" but still awful actions, such as discriminatory hiring practices? Or impolitic comments that cause no actual harm? If you are talking about the first two, they are not merely injustices but crimes with legal (often criminal) remedies.
Cancel culture typically refers to instances of the third option, someone saying something mean and having his life ruined for it. A good example: a guy's business was ruined because his daughter wrote some mean things online as a kid. https://forward.com/news/448382/the-ceo-of-holy-land-hummus-... They were certainly bad, and her parents ought to chastise and punish her for them. But neither she nor her father should face "cancellation". I feel just as sorry for her; she may never get into college or get a good job because of this. These weren't "injustices"; no man was harmed.
Cancel culture typically refers to instances of the third option, someone saying something mean and having his life ruined for it. A good example: a guy's business was ruined because his daughter wrote some mean things online as a kid. https://forward.com/news/448382/the-ceo-of-holy-land-hummus-... They were certainly bad, and her parents ought to chastise and punish her for them. But neither she nor her father should face "cancellation". I feel just as sorry for her; she may never get into college or get a good job because of this. These weren't "injustices"; no man was harmed.
A boycott is when consumers protest an organization by refusing to do business with them. Typically this is done to try an effect a change in behavior or policy in said organization.
Cancel culture usually targets an individual. The objective is typically not change in policy, but the ostracism of the target.
E.g. refusing to buy from Nike until they pay better wages to their manufacturing labor is a boycott. Pressuring a company to fire a certain employee because a group doesn't like the political views of said employee is cancel culture.
Cancel culture usually targets an individual. The objective is typically not change in policy, but the ostracism of the target.
E.g. refusing to buy from Nike until they pay better wages to their manufacturing labor is a boycott. Pressuring a company to fire a certain employee because a group doesn't like the political views of said employee is cancel culture.
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 gonna call disney over and over until she gets fired.
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 gonna call disney over and over until she gets fired.
> 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 got tired of listening to a small group of people complain; they did it because enough people complained that they saw a potential loss in future revenue. this looks a lot like a boycott to me.
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 got tired of listening to a small group of people complain; they did it because enough people complained that they saw a potential loss in future revenue. this looks a lot like a boycott to me.
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.
> they did it because enough people complained that they saw a potential loss in future revenue
See, this is something I highly doubt. Do you think that there is such a large part of Disney public that does give a damn about what Gina Carano says? I don't think so. I want to count the ones who actually stop watching "the Mandalorian" because of Gina Carano's tweets. My bet is that they're so few they'd feel stupid after two weeks and start watching it again.
I think the issue here is that taken one by one, each of those who have the power to take decisions succumb to peer pressure and fear of being targeted next. Everyone is replaceable, so everyone prefers to keep on the safe side when confronted by people who are aggressive, determined, and always ready to escalate the pressure to the the next hierarchy level or to to start working out the weakest peers.
So the bottom line is that if the targets of these attacks just stood their ground united and told the mobs to fuck off, the cancellers would just vaporise in a couple of weeks.
See, this is something I highly doubt. Do you think that there is such a large part of Disney public that does give a damn about what Gina Carano says? I don't think so. I want to count the ones who actually stop watching "the Mandalorian" because of Gina Carano's tweets. My bet is that they're so few they'd feel stupid after two weeks and start watching it again.
I think the issue here is that taken one by one, each of those who have the power to take decisions succumb to peer pressure and fear of being targeted next. Everyone is replaceable, so everyone prefers to keep on the safe side when confronted by people who are aggressive, determined, and always ready to escalate the pressure to the the next hierarchy level or to to start working out the weakest peers.
So the bottom line is that if the targets of these attacks just stood their ground united and told the mobs to fuck off, the cancellers would just vaporise in a couple of weeks.
Yes, you are correct. Noting that [not] all cancel efforts are the same, and I'm sure there are edge cases and exceptions, it seems that generally cancel culture efforts often gain momentum when the target shows 'perceived weakness' and often lose momentum when the target makes it very clear they don't care. In the case of corporations like Disney, the very idea of telling people to "fuck off" as you say is anathema to PR culture.
A few people have made the point about boycotts being against organizations and cancels being against individuals.
I don’t see the material difference there, what about it being an individual makes you feel it’s different?
Your last point is intriguing to me.
If I were to simply not watch films with Gina Carano in them anymore, would you still say I’m canceling her?
I don’t see the material difference there, what about it being an individual makes you feel it’s different?
Your last point is intriguing to me.
If I were to simply not watch films with Gina Carano in them anymore, would you still say I’m canceling her?
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 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.
There is a long history of people who have been fired due to public outrage. People have different (and a greater number of) means of communicating that outrage today, but the general mechanism hasn't changed.
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.
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.
Boycotts are typically aimed at companies, not individuals.
Boycotts are conducted by people with an existing relationship with the target.
Boycotts are usually seeking to inflict financial damage, rather than primarily reputational.
Boycotts are addressing an issue directly, cancel culture is addressing systematic issues with selective enforcement.
Boycotts are trying to change the behaviour of their target, rather than make an example out of them or as punishment.
Boycotts are typically temporary, not permanent.
Boycotts are conducted by people with an existing relationship with the target.
Boycotts are usually seeking to inflict financial damage, rather than primarily reputational.
Boycotts are addressing an issue directly, cancel culture is addressing systematic issues with selective enforcement.
Boycotts are trying to change the behaviour of their target, rather than make an example out of them or as punishment.
Boycotts are typically temporary, not permanent.
I've seen a handful of people make the point on permanency, but it doesn't sit right with me.
Since theres no central authority enforcing a cancel, how can it be permanent?
How many times has Kanye West been "cancelled"? It seems to me everyone forgets about having cancelled him whenever he releases a new album ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And it makes sense to me, since cancels are done by disconnected individuals, a cancel ought to only last as long as the cancelling collective's attention span.
Since theres no central authority enforcing a cancel, how can it be permanent?
How many times has Kanye West been "cancelled"? It seems to me everyone forgets about having cancelled him whenever he releases a new album ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And it makes sense to me, since cancels are done by disconnected individuals, a cancel ought to only last as long as the cancelling collective's attention span.
Not an expert, but big difference is that boycotts are against companies/businesses while cancellations target individuals.
The term can apply to individuals as well.
The origin of the term boycott was a landlord's agent called Charles Boycott, who was socially and economically ostracised in response to the eviction of tenants.
The origin of the term boycott was a landlord's agent called Charles Boycott, who was socially and economically ostracised in response to the eviction of tenants.
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?"
The surface level distinction is that a boycott is aimed at an organization while canceling is aimed at a person. That has deeper consequences because our mental model of organizations and people is different.
With a boycott, the intent is to change the organization's behavior. Once the organization stops doing the thing you don't like, you can stop the boycott. Problem solved.
But with canceling, there is an assumption that people have a deeper, immutable character. They are canceled because of an act or acts they have already done, and the cancelation is intended to be permanent based on the assumption that those acts reveal who the person really is and that we can never trust that they won't do those acts again in the future.
Part of the justification for this is that canceling a person sends a signal to other people "don't be like that". The canceled person is considered irredeemable but an accepted casualty to root out a societal ill.
It's also important to consider what people are being canceled from. This is a sanction mostly applied to celebrities and politicians. These people are not being ostracized from all society—they can still go to the grocery store. They are being kicked out of the high prestige realm they were a member of.
In that sense, it's maybe more acceptable that the sanction is permanent because they're only being kicked out of a club, and not left to die alone in the wilderness.
With a boycott, the intent is to change the organization's behavior. Once the organization stops doing the thing you don't like, you can stop the boycott. Problem solved.
But with canceling, there is an assumption that people have a deeper, immutable character. They are canceled because of an act or acts they have already done, and the cancelation is intended to be permanent based on the assumption that those acts reveal who the person really is and that we can never trust that they won't do those acts again in the future.
Part of the justification for this is that canceling a person sends a signal to other people "don't be like that". The canceled person is considered irredeemable but an accepted casualty to root out a societal ill.
It's also important to consider what people are being canceled from. This is a sanction mostly applied to celebrities and politicians. These people are not being ostracized from all society—they can still go to the grocery store. They are being kicked out of the high prestige realm they were a member of.
In that sense, it's maybe more acceptable that the sanction is permanent because they're only being kicked out of a club, and not left to die alone in the wilderness.
>This is a sanction mostly applied to celebrities and politicians.
I was with you up until here. This is blatantly wrong. Regular people are being cancelled all the time. Besides, people in prestigious positions deserve due process just like anyone else. Cancel culture intentionally circumvents any semblance of due process or fairness.
I was with you up until here. This is blatantly wrong. Regular people are being cancelled all the time. Besides, people in prestigious positions deserve due process just like anyone else. Cancel culture intentionally circumvents any semblance of due process or fairness.
[deleted]
For the record, I'm not making any statement either for or against "cancel culture" in general, just articulating how I think it differs from boycotts.
_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 weeks later, DojaKat released a video in which she apologized, talked about how much she's grown as a person, and promised to do better. It seemed sincere to me, so I added her work back to my Spotify playlists.
Am I correctly interpreting that as a cancel?
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 weeks later, DojaKat released a video in which she apologized, talked about how much she's grown as a person, and promised to do better. It seemed sincere to me, so I added her work back to my Spotify playlists.
Am I correctly interpreting that as a cancel?
> _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 then I wouldn't interpret it as any kind of "cancel". We're all free to stop consuming from anyone for whatever reason we like. That's not canceling people, it's just having a preference.
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 then I wouldn't interpret it as any kind of "cancel". We're all free to stop consuming from anyone for whatever reason we like. That's not canceling people, it's just having a preference.
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?
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?
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.
Lower threshold for one to occur. A cancel attempt can be really small. Sometimes a single person is enough.
More targeted and more often aimed at specific individuals.
As a side effect of the above, it is much easier to devolve into harassment and worse crimes than when it was a business that was being boycott.
More access to data to cancel on. Much easier to take information out of context now that social media exists.
Cancels also take on characteristics of a meme. A given behavior may lead to a cancel attempt while far worse behavior by others is ignored. There is a lack of rhyme or reason that pairs up with how some things become a meme and other similar things do not.
What is considered worthy of being canceled has increased to include many actions that the majority does not feel comfortable cancelling over, but given the previous changes a smaller group is needed to convince HR that someone should be fired.
More targeted and more often aimed at specific individuals.
As a side effect of the above, it is much easier to devolve into harassment and worse crimes than when it was a business that was being boycott.
More access to data to cancel on. Much easier to take information out of context now that social media exists.
Cancels also take on characteristics of a meme. A given behavior may lead to a cancel attempt while far worse behavior by others is ignored. There is a lack of rhyme or reason that pairs up with how some things become a meme and other similar things do not.
What is considered worthy of being canceled has increased to include many actions that the majority does not feel comfortable cancelling over, but given the previous changes a smaller group is needed to convince HR that someone should be fired.
Yes, they are equivalent to boycotts, but think about how hard it was to organize a boycott. They were done at large scale to protest things like “black people must sit in the back of the bus.”
Now your career can end because “You encouraged too much forgiveness for a girl who attended the wrong kind of party at 18.”
Now your career can end because “You encouraged too much forgiveness for a girl who attended the wrong kind of party at 18.”
[deleted]
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.
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.
I think one thing that I've noticed is that defamation laws seem really hard to enforce on people speaking on the internet, especially when one can hide behind a pseudonym or straight anonymity.
I guess overall for "cancel culture", I see it similar to boycotts, but often boycotts edit are /edit of a specific individual, and also without the stipulation that the boycott will stop if a behavior changes. AFAIK, the civil rights bus boycotts wanted a specific policy to change and once that policy changed, they stopped their boycotts. Much of "cancel culture" I guess wants an organization's policy to change, but often that policy is to excommunicate an individual and there doesn't seem to be much that the individual can do to seek redemption—but I may be wrong on this.
Would love to hear your thoughts in response.
I guess overall for "cancel culture", I see it similar to boycotts, but often boycotts edit are /edit of a specific individual, and also without the stipulation that the boycott will stop if a behavior changes. AFAIK, the civil rights bus boycotts wanted a specific policy to change and once that policy changed, they stopped their boycotts. Much of "cancel culture" I guess wants an organization's policy to change, but often that policy is to excommunicate an individual and there doesn't seem to be much that the individual can do to seek redemption—but I may be wrong on this.
Would love to hear your thoughts in response.
Thats a fair take.
I hadn't considered the sort-of agenda that boycotts tend to have.
I bet a lot of cancels also have a salient agenda, but since the movement is so democratized it gets lost in the noise. Just a gut feeling.
_____
You lost me a bit on:
> Much of "cancel culture" I guess wants an organization's policy to change, but often that policy is to excommunicate an individual...
I've been conceptualizing the cancel as individuals choosing to not support creators, but this makes it sound like theres a third-party involved. A sibling comment mentioned people repeatedly calling Disney.. am I missing something here?
_____
I've been involved in one cancel before, so heres the frame of reference I'm coming from:
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 weeks later, DojaKat released a video in which she apologized, talked about how much she's grown as a person, and promised to do better. It seemed sincere to me, so I added her work back to my Spotify playlists.
Am I correctly interpreting that as a cancel?
I hadn't considered the sort-of agenda that boycotts tend to have.
I bet a lot of cancels also have a salient agenda, but since the movement is so democratized it gets lost in the noise. Just a gut feeling.
_____
You lost me a bit on:
> Much of "cancel culture" I guess wants an organization's policy to change, but often that policy is to excommunicate an individual...
I've been conceptualizing the cancel as individuals choosing to not support creators, but this makes it sound like theres a third-party involved. A sibling comment mentioned people repeatedly calling Disney.. am I missing something here?
_____
I've been involved in one cancel before, so heres the frame of reference I'm coming from:
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 weeks later, DojaKat released a video in which she apologized, talked about how much she's grown as a person, and promised to do better. It seemed sincere to me, so I added her work back to my Spotify playlists.
Am I correctly interpreting that as a cancel?
> I bet a lot of cancels also have a salient agenda, but since the movement is so democratized it gets lost in the noise. Just a gut feeling.
I appreciate this point. I think sometimes these waves of calls for cancellation play into larger movements that have more clearly defined goals, such as #metoo, which I think focused on shedding light on sexual violence/abuse/harassment and to get individuals and organizations to create more policies to prevent it from happening. Maybe when I think of "cancel culture" I think less of the underlying structural goals of it, but you've helped me step back to think of that.
______
I think a lot with the call to "cancel" someone (I don't know why I feel compelled to put it in quotes but I keep doing it) is often to specifically tell the organization(s) to remove the individual from participating. E.g., wanting Netflix to fire Kevin Spacey in House of Cards (and other Hollywood production firms to no longer hire him), wanting radio stations to ban R Kelly's music, etc.
So I think it's the idea that for a person to be cancelled, someone has to do the cancelling.
_____
I guess for me, I wouldn't see that so much as how the phrase "cancel" is being used in the "cancel culture" idea. Yours seems to be you, the individual consumer, doing the cancellation, and also you being open to giving her a second chance through forgiveness.
I see a "cancel" of DojaKat in this instance being people demanding that her record company, her agent, TV stations, radio stations, and others agree to break relations with her and when she apologizes, to not forgive her and to not give her a second chance.
So in summary, I see "cancel culture" as more about trying to rally others, especially groups and institutions, to break off relations with that person (or sometimes a group) and to do so permanently.
I personally don't like it because I believe much more in restorative justice than I do retributive justice, and I also believe that by distancing ourselves from these people, through the power of the internet, they may find other people who feel alienated and cancelled and they could form into more and more radicalized groups.
I appreciate this point. I think sometimes these waves of calls for cancellation play into larger movements that have more clearly defined goals, such as #metoo, which I think focused on shedding light on sexual violence/abuse/harassment and to get individuals and organizations to create more policies to prevent it from happening. Maybe when I think of "cancel culture" I think less of the underlying structural goals of it, but you've helped me step back to think of that.
______
I think a lot with the call to "cancel" someone (I don't know why I feel compelled to put it in quotes but I keep doing it) is often to specifically tell the organization(s) to remove the individual from participating. E.g., wanting Netflix to fire Kevin Spacey in House of Cards (and other Hollywood production firms to no longer hire him), wanting radio stations to ban R Kelly's music, etc.
So I think it's the idea that for a person to be cancelled, someone has to do the cancelling.
_____
I guess for me, I wouldn't see that so much as how the phrase "cancel" is being used in the "cancel culture" idea. Yours seems to be you, the individual consumer, doing the cancellation, and also you being open to giving her a second chance through forgiveness.
I see a "cancel" of DojaKat in this instance being people demanding that her record company, her agent, TV stations, radio stations, and others agree to break relations with her and when she apologizes, to not forgive her and to not give her a second chance.
So in summary, I see "cancel culture" as more about trying to rally others, especially groups and institutions, to break off relations with that person (or sometimes a group) and to do so permanently.
I personally don't like it because I believe much more in restorative justice than I do retributive justice, and I also believe that by distancing ourselves from these people, through the power of the internet, they may find other people who feel alienated and cancelled and they could form into more and more radicalized groups.
When I hear "cancel culture", I think of the cases where someone is accused of something, usually over social media, and without any real chance to defend themselves gets attacked and harassed by a hordes of anonymous strangers online in a witch hunt, typically alongside death threats and demanding that their employers fire them.
So, unless you sent DojaKat death threats or tried to have her fired/have her l7income taken away, I don't see a boycott like that as the same as "cancel culture" at all.
So, unless you sent DojaKat death threats or tried to have her fired/have her l7income taken away, I don't see a boycott like that as the same as "cancel culture" at all.
Boycotts still exist, like the BDS (boycott divest sanction) movement
i think boycotting a business or having a highly visible public figure (aka celebrities) face social consequences isn't "cancel culture". it comes with the territory, so to speak.
for me, personally, it's when your average joe gets the other end of internet mob justice and they suddenly seek to ruin everything about your life above and beyond what you would normally face.
for me, personally, it's when your average joe gets the other end of internet mob justice and they suddenly seek to ruin everything about your life above and beyond what you would normally face.
I see the difference as being that boycotting is a means of protesting a specific policy or practice in the hopes that an organization changes.
Cancel culture is wanting to punish a person (or virtue signal) for something in the past. Maybe they deserve it - I get it more when there's a history of credible charges of sexual assault or something (but then, I'd prefer they be tried in court and punished via the legal system). But the bar seems to have lowered and now you get fired for a tweet people don't like. And maybe people have the right to do it, but that doesn't mean it's always a good idea. If we're not careful it takes over the role of rule of law in our society and will do a worse job of it.
In the recent case of Gina Carano specifically, I don't think her tweet is remotely offensive to the level of being fired, and the effect will be that she's given a voice and seen as a martyr by people who have far more extreme opinions than what she's voiced previously.
Cancel culture is wanting to punish a person (or virtue signal) for something in the past. Maybe they deserve it - I get it more when there's a history of credible charges of sexual assault or something (but then, I'd prefer they be tried in court and punished via the legal system). But the bar seems to have lowered and now you get fired for a tweet people don't like. And maybe people have the right to do it, but that doesn't mean it's always a good idea. If we're not careful it takes over the role of rule of law in our society and will do a worse job of it.
In the recent case of Gina Carano specifically, I don't think her tweet is remotely offensive to the level of being fired, and the effect will be that she's given a voice and seen as a martyr by people who have far more extreme opinions than what she's voiced previously.
cancel culture that has no means of forgiveness
On the one hand, I've known of all sorts of ridiculous and unbalanced leftist moral outrage misdirected to individuals rather than the broader system (which is what leftists are supposed to oppose).
On the other hand, I feel like the phrase "cancel culture" itself has become an ill-defined catch-all used to attack an ill defined group of people - a situation that mirrors these misdirected leftist attacks.
On the one hand, I've known of all sorts of ridiculous and unbalanced leftist moral outrage misdirected to individuals rather than the broader system (which is what leftists are supposed to oppose).
On the other hand, I feel like the phrase "cancel culture" itself has become an ill-defined catch-all used to attack an ill defined group of people - a situation that mirrors these misdirected leftist attacks.
> On the other hand, I feel like the phrase "cancel culture" itself has become an ill-defined catch-all used to attack an ill defined group of people
“Cancel culture” is what, after about four decades of nonstop use, the Right has done a search and replace in their canned narratives to replace “political correctness” with. With exactly the same complaints and descriptions of the nature and effects, including the continuous argument that it is new.
“Cancel culture” is what, after about four decades of nonstop use, the Right has done a search and replace in their canned narratives to replace “political correctness” with. With exactly the same complaints and descriptions of the nature and effects, including the continuous argument that it is new.
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.
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.
That’s what I was telling a friend who’s against social media the other day. Without social media there would be no gay marriage. Social medias amplify minority issues.
That's a somewhat odd statement. Gay marriage was legalised in several countries before the advent of what we consider social media (Facebook etc.) - and a lot of other social change happened well before computers were even a thing, let alone instantaneous communication. Can you expand on what you mean?
The countries with the most social media have no gay marriage.
America has no gay mariage ?
Recall that the U.S. is 4% of the world population:
1. China 1,394,015,977
2. India 1,325,349,639
3. US 329,484,123
4. Indonesia 272,856,400
5. Pakistan 233,431,156
6. Nigeria 213,986,428
7. Brazil 212,041,332
8. Bangladesh 162,532,538
9. Russia 142,588,206
10. Mexico 128,840,997
1. China 1,394,015,977
2. India 1,325,349,639
3. US 329,484,123
4. Indonesia 272,856,400
5. Pakistan 233,431,156
6. Nigeria 213,986,428
7. Brazil 212,041,332
8. Bangladesh 162,532,538
9. Russia 142,588,206
10. Mexico 128,840,997
Many of these countries' social medias are heavily controlled by their government + they are developing countries and/or lagging behind in terms of social norm. I'm pretty sure things are changing quite fast for them though!
Every country’s social media is heavily controlled by their government or by corporations.
The thing that matters more is GDP/capita
The thing that matters more is GDP/capita
I'm sorry but you can't compare censorship on weibo to censorship on twitter
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.
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.
Citation? I thought he kept family retainers around
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?
> the Mafia is very much a part of the music industry,
I'm not too familiar with the pop side of the music industry. I dipped my toe into the Rap/R&B side of the business building websites for new artists. There were literal gangsters in the recording studios sitting across from me drinking and smoking and they made plans for every aspect of these young girls lives: what and when they could eat, who they could see, where they could travel. They were given an allowance. Sexual favours weren't requested or performed in front of me but it was clear these girls were under control. And by girls I mean 15,16,17.
I'm not too familiar with the pop side of the music industry. I dipped my toe into the Rap/R&B side of the business building websites for new artists. There were literal gangsters in the recording studios sitting across from me drinking and smoking and they made plans for every aspect of these young girls lives: what and when they could eat, who they could see, where they could travel. They were given an allowance. Sexual favours weren't requested or performed in front of me but it was clear these girls were under control. And by girls I mean 15,16,17.
So R Kelly just erred by degree?
This is why I don't understand the massive cultural obsession over KPOP. It's one of the grossest abusive industries, and anyone who wants to know is able to do a simple google to find out. Those fans? They could use their collective economic impact to help those folks they "love". Instead they just let them get used and abused for their fantasy.
I don't see that changing. I see K-pop fans worshipping the companies as much as they worship the artists themselves.
It's a bit dystopic. As much as the old music industry sucks, at least established artists had power.
It's a bit dystopic. As much as the old music industry sucks, at least established artists had power.
What Kpop fans are these? None of the Big 3 Kpop companies are worshiped and the men who founded them are hated. Smaller Kpop companies are not worshiped either. There's some BTS fans who like Big Hit but that's about it.
Example of an established artist with power
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSo9NTb1llI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGW99ilZ7oQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFELwBpskpU
Example of an established artist with power
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSo9NTb1llI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGW99ilZ7oQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFELwBpskpU
"at least established artists had power."
Really? Prince's right to his own (stage) name? Taylor Swift and the rights to her early albums? And even if we're just talking about royalties, it looks like half of established artists have had lawsuits about labels defrauding them in some way, and the other half seem to have similar issues settled out of court.
Really? Prince's right to his own (stage) name? Taylor Swift and the rights to her early albums? And even if we're just talking about royalties, it looks like half of established artists have had lawsuits about labels defrauding them in some way, and the other half seem to have similar issues settled out of court.
You seem to be reading too much into my comment. "Having power" doesn't mean that everything is perfect and abuses won't happen.
Same with video games.
The first problem here is using Google to find information about Kpop rather than Naver. Many of the abusive practices in Kpop also happen in the western music industry. It doesn't make it right, but Americans and American media have a massive blind-spot when looking at foreign cultures.
These videos explain a few of these
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn0gmu_m-os
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxj9rogBPi0
Kpop has become popular because it fills a niche that the western music industry doesn't cater to anymore. Some of it is actually better than the American pop scene. Right now there's no male western pop act with this Kpop idol's level of skill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEKVyfsYnuM
Comparing similar acts shows why Kpop is becoming popular.
Kpop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkwYeEMpTIM
western pop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe6D899cz3c
Every fan of a Kpop artist has a long list of how they have been mistreated and mismanaged, and sometimes these aren't even justified, the fans are being oversensitive. The fans pay for protest trucks to park outside the music company buildings with screens displaying their demands for better treatment.
These videos explain a few of these
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn0gmu_m-os
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxj9rogBPi0
Kpop has become popular because it fills a niche that the western music industry doesn't cater to anymore. Some of it is actually better than the American pop scene. Right now there's no male western pop act with this Kpop idol's level of skill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEKVyfsYnuM
Comparing similar acts shows why Kpop is becoming popular.
Kpop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkwYeEMpTIM
western pop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe6D899cz3c
Every fan of a Kpop artist has a long list of how they have been mistreated and mismanaged, and sometimes these aren't even justified, the fans are being oversensitive. The fans pay for protest trucks to park outside the music company buildings with screens displaying their demands for better treatment.
Isn't the problem here that the talent is fungible? The rewards are so high that there's no shortage of sufficient talent to make another Bieber or Taemin.
People personally connect with the performer, but the performer's popularity is dependent on the whims of the industry and their managers.
It would be naïve to expect a different outcome when the underlying drivers are the same.
Both Japan and Korea are notable for their talent development pipeline. Did the West fall behind somehow, or is the market for these types of performances simply not as lucrative in the West? Or maybe it's simply easier/more predictable to manage solo acts?
[1] Places k-pop behind pop, rock, oldies, hip-hop/rap, dance/electronic and indie/alternative.
[1] https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/k-town/8531464/k-...
Both Japan and Korea are notable for their talent development pipeline. Did the West fall behind somehow, or is the market for these types of performances simply not as lucrative in the West? Or maybe it's simply easier/more predictable to manage solo acts?
[1] Places k-pop behind pop, rock, oldies, hip-hop/rap, dance/electronic and indie/alternative.
[1] https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/k-town/8531464/k-...
I don't think KPop artists are sex slaves, though?
Rather, it's a really rough, possibly exploitative gig. They are just like models, but they also sing and dance.
The Music Industry and Hollywood though, they will protect themselves.
We hear more about someone being cancelled for the slightest Tweet than for example Bryan Singer's decades long rapey escapades.
Corey Feldman was literally mocked in public for suggesting that he was abused. By none other than Barbara Walters.
Rather, it's a really rough, possibly exploitative gig. They are just like models, but they also sing and dance.
The Music Industry and Hollywood though, they will protect themselves.
We hear more about someone being cancelled for the slightest Tweet than for example Bryan Singer's decades long rapey escapades.
Corey Feldman was literally mocked in public for suggesting that he was abused. By none other than Barbara Walters.
> They are just like models
It is a little ironic that you say they're not required to give sexual favours and say right after that they're just like models, another industry where that is very very common.
It is a little ironic that you say they're not required to give sexual favours and say right after that they're just like models, another industry where that is very very common.
But KPop is Korean and corporatised.
It's not like 'modelling' or 'acting'.
The bands are run by organized machines.
Hollywood/Music/Modelling are industries of individuals, sometimes coming together for productions, entire segments of the industry never work in classically professional environments.
It's not like 'modelling' or 'acting'.
The bands are run by organized machines.
Hollywood/Music/Modelling are industries of individuals, sometimes coming together for productions, entire segments of the industry never work in classically professional environments.
Given how fundamentally exploitative the KPop industry is, whether or not the exploitation is also sexual is not particularly important to me personally. The industry is unhealthy for the people that participate in it and it should not exist in it's current form.
I worked for a startup that contracted with the major record labels at the time, with a lot of the funding coming from the record labels.
One day a group of four men arrived at the office. They were investors and not too happy with how the stock had been performing. This was a time before naked shorting was illegal. They all wore suits and one of the men carried a baseball bat into the office. They all had stereotypical gangster accents. They had a closed door meeting with the CEO that day, baseball bat and all, and I'm pretty sure they got paid that day.
It was one of the most bizarre work experiences in my life. Mafia in the music industry? Yes, yes it is.
One day a group of four men arrived at the office. They were investors and not too happy with how the stock had been performing. This was a time before naked shorting was illegal. They all wore suits and one of the men carried a baseball bat into the office. They all had stereotypical gangster accents. They had a closed door meeting with the CEO that day, baseball bat and all, and I'm pretty sure they got paid that day.
It was one of the most bizarre work experiences in my life. Mafia in the music industry? Yes, yes it is.
The stories around Death Row Records are now legend.
Dr. Dre said he saw one sound tech get beat down by six guys because he rewound the tape back too far.
The amount of intimidation, blackmail and extortion many in the rap game talked about was legit. Even in the DMX documentary, the two founders talked about twice strong arming record labels and their owners to let artists they wanted to sign out of their contracts.
Dr. Dre said he saw one sound tech get beat down by six guys because he rewound the tape back too far.
The amount of intimidation, blackmail and extortion many in the rap game talked about was legit. Even in the DMX documentary, the two founders talked about twice strong arming record labels and their owners to let artists they wanted to sign out of their contracts.
This is why I don't listen to the music they play on the radio and only listen to demoscene tracks and armature folk recordings. You can feel this stuff going on in the music.
is this something common? i mean, beating ceos for not-going-well-stocks?
> before naked shorting was illegal
It might be illegal now, but certainly not enforced!
It might be illegal now, but certainly not enforced!
Yes it is. It took me less than 5 seconds to Google and find cases of it being enforced: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2014-20
The attitude of "they don't catch every criminal, therefore it isn't being enforced" that people take towards financial crimes is silly.
40% of murderers get away with it but no one goes around trying to claim that "murder but by illegal but it certainly isn't enforced".
Over 60% of rapists get away with it. 70% of robbery. 80% of theft. 87% of burglary.
Just because financial crimes (maybe) have a slightly higher rate of "getting away with it" is no reason to make the disingenuous claim that it isn't enforced.
The attitude of "they don't catch every criminal, therefore it isn't being enforced" that people take towards financial crimes is silly.
40% of murderers get away with it but no one goes around trying to claim that "murder but by illegal but it certainly isn't enforced".
Over 60% of rapists get away with it. 70% of robbery. 80% of theft. 87% of burglary.
Just because financial crimes (maybe) have a slightly higher rate of "getting away with it" is no reason to make the disingenuous claim that it isn't enforced.
> 40% of murderers get away with it but no one goes around trying to claim that "murder but by illegal but it certainly isn't enforced".
Well, maybe not murder in general, but there is certainly a point where the prohibition is seen as theoretical. Consider BLM.
Well, maybe not murder in general, but there is certainly a point where the prohibition is seen as theoretical. Consider BLM.
Refer to "Practices Related to Naked Short
Selling Complaints and Referrals" by the Office of the Inspector General: https://www.sec.gov/files/450.pdf
> Our audit disclosed that despite the tremendous amount of attention the practice of naked short selling has generated in recent years, Enforcement has brought very few enforcement actions based on conduct involving abusive or manipulative naked short selling.
> Of approximately 5,000 naked short selling complaints received in the ECC between January 1, 2007 and June 1, 2008, only 123 (approximately 2.5 percent) were forwarded for further investigation.
I guarantee that more 2.5% of murders are investigated. Reg SHO violations remain massively under-investigated still today, to the extent that the SEC is well aware of simple ways to bypass: https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/options-trading-risk-...
> Our audit disclosed that despite the tremendous amount of attention the practice of naked short selling has generated in recent years, Enforcement has brought very few enforcement actions based on conduct involving abusive or manipulative naked short selling.
> Of approximately 5,000 naked short selling complaints received in the ECC between January 1, 2007 and June 1, 2008, only 123 (approximately 2.5 percent) were forwarded for further investigation.
I guarantee that more 2.5% of murders are investigated. Reg SHO violations remain massively under-investigated still today, to the extent that the SEC is well aware of simple ways to bypass: https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/options-trading-risk-...
I used to cover (photography) the BET music awards for a newspaper between 2006-2009. I saw the same things, in dressing rooms, green rooms and after parties. Someone controlled the female artists, who they can talk with, who could take pictures of them, etc. It made my job hard and sometimes impossible.
Why is it different for female artists than male artists? Could it also have some protective aspect?
> Could it also have some protective aspect?
No, if you are trying to actually protecting someone, you don't end up isolating them nor controlling who they can talk to. Protection would be that the artist decides who she/he talks to and you enforce that. If you make those decisions and expect artist to comply, it is not protection anymore.
No, if you are trying to actually protecting someone, you don't end up isolating them nor controlling who they can talk to. Protection would be that the artist decides who she/he talks to and you enforce that. If you make those decisions and expect artist to comply, it is not protection anymore.
[deleted]
I've been working for 25+ years in huge, international, rich companies — at very senior (tech) levels.
Plenty of travel, plenty of team building, plenty of dinners and hotels.
My wife asked me a few times about the orgies the movies show, and damn it, I must have always been at the wrong parties.
It is interesting how this varies by companies and organizations.
Plenty of travel, plenty of team building, plenty of dinners and hotels.
My wife asked me a few times about the orgies the movies show, and damn it, I must have always been at the wrong parties.
It is interesting how this varies by companies and organizations.
I worked for the movie industry only for a couple of years and on very technical low-level roles, almost apprentice level. Think data tech or in color grading and only as a side gig.
I also frequented movie festivals.
Don't take this personally but I think you were at the wrong parties. Good signs to tell if you are "in" or not: do you know how to get illegal drugs on set? have you ever been to a private event in a hotel room or AirBNB before or after a ceremony? have you ever been in the same room with an A list celebrity or actor when they are using an illegal substance?
If the answer to all those is no then yeah it's probably that you are in the wrong parties.
If you've been there and like never witnessed a movie level epic orgy then that's great for you. I know they are not usual on some circles, I've heard Disney and Netflix try to keep their staff on a tight leash. Honestly I wished my experience was more like yours because I liked the industry and it was a little bit of a dream of mine to be more involved with the movie creative process, and one of the reasons I didn't get more into it was that I was not comfortable mixing illegal drugs and orgies with work in the way it was usual.
I also frequented movie festivals.
Don't take this personally but I think you were at the wrong parties. Good signs to tell if you are "in" or not: do you know how to get illegal drugs on set? have you ever been to a private event in a hotel room or AirBNB before or after a ceremony? have you ever been in the same room with an A list celebrity or actor when they are using an illegal substance?
If the answer to all those is no then yeah it's probably that you are in the wrong parties.
If you've been there and like never witnessed a movie level epic orgy then that's great for you. I know they are not usual on some circles, I've heard Disney and Netflix try to keep their staff on a tight leash. Honestly I wished my experience was more like yours because I liked the industry and it was a little bit of a dream of mine to be more involved with the movie creative process, and one of the reasons I didn't get more into it was that I was not comfortable mixing illegal drugs and orgies with work in the way it was usual.
Yikes, my answer is yes to all of these, and, indeed, I witnessed and partook in several of said orgies. They certainly do happen, for sure.
I don't think OP was in the entertainment industry. He has worked with several large companies at a very senior level and has never experienced anything like what is alleged to occur in the entertainment industry.
Yes, thanks for clarifying - I should have highlighted that I worked in tech. This is why I was wondering how life is different between companies (and even organizations within a company).
I worked in tech companies, this is why I was mentioning how this is different between companies and organizations.
Oh sorry I thought you were talking about roles on the entertainment industry. I also work in tech and worked in tech most of my life and even talking about this stuff in certain circles can get you fired. Not so much about the drugs thing, but for for reason the tech industry is very conservative regarding sex.
> but for for reason the tech industry is very conservative regarding sex.
IDK about that it's the same or slightly better than the rest of corporate America IME. Maybe a bit more lenient, if anything.
Industry is "very conservative" because talking about sex can almost instantaneously turn into sexual harassment. So you have to be careful talking about it. Drugs don't have the same liability concerns, if people aren't obviously loaded on the job.
I'm talking about frivolous lawsuits as well as legitimate grievances. People have a right not to deal with sexual discomfort (I don't have a better name for this concept - the uncomfortable feelings people have when talking about sex). Some people are very very uncomfortable talking about sex for various reasons. You can't even mention it without toing this line, or potentially crossing it.
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the tech industry being conservative on sex. I've met so many very openly LGBTQ in software. It definitely feels more common than elsewhere, especially with these corporate jobs.
IDK about that it's the same or slightly better than the rest of corporate America IME. Maybe a bit more lenient, if anything.
Industry is "very conservative" because talking about sex can almost instantaneously turn into sexual harassment. So you have to be careful talking about it. Drugs don't have the same liability concerns, if people aren't obviously loaded on the job.
I'm talking about frivolous lawsuits as well as legitimate grievances. People have a right not to deal with sexual discomfort (I don't have a better name for this concept - the uncomfortable feelings people have when talking about sex). Some people are very very uncomfortable talking about sex for various reasons. You can't even mention it without toing this line, or potentially crossing it.
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the tech industry being conservative on sex. I've met so many very openly LGBTQ in software. It definitely feels more common than elsewhere, especially with these corporate jobs.
The discomfort is considered to be part of the broad topic of ‘consent’. In a similar manner to people consenting to actual sexual actions, you should get consent about talking about sex, because people’s boundaries are all over the place, and you’re almost certainly not going to get informed, free consent in a workplace with power dynamics.
Right, in a way that's what I'm talking about. I still wanted to come up with a separate term for the "feelings", vs. the concept of consent which is designed to prevent people inflicting these feelings on parties against their will. I still don't like my own choice of wording... feels kinda weak, or an understatement
I am French so the sex part is, well, French :)
I believe the reason you don't see this kind of parties in tech is because the industry is filled with people who are introverts, not specially groomed/attractive and/or not very good reading social cues.
No, I don't think so. That's a 1980s era explanation. There are people who aren't especially attractive in all industries. Even in Hollywood, look at what Weinstein got up to, and he isn't exactly Adonis reborn.
I think the explanation is simpler: music and acting jobs are easy. Lots of people can sing, dance, semi-convincingly repeat lines written for them by other people, or even write scripts. It's just not a very skilled set of jobs. It doesn't take 5 years of study to become a great actor, people just luck into it all the time. Anywhere you get the intersection of a lot of money and easy jobs, you get jobs being parcelled out according to criteria like looks, knowing the right people, having the right parents, having the right party attitudes, or how easily they get into bed. After all, what other criteria are they going to use to differentiate between the masses of hopefuls applying for their chance at fame and fortune.
In contrast, tech is hard. It takes years of study to even get in on the bottom rung. Then it takes many more years of obsessive-level study and work to climb to the top. The difference in skill between a newbie and a master is enormous. If you're interviewing for a master software developer, and say "hey, you party much?" and they reply with something lame and boring like "no, I prefer to spend time with my wife and kids" then in a well functioning organisation they will still get the job. In quite a few other industries, if the interviewer is young that reply could easily cause you to be ranked lower than some other candidate who said "I'm always up for a good time!"
I think the explanation is simpler: music and acting jobs are easy. Lots of people can sing, dance, semi-convincingly repeat lines written for them by other people, or even write scripts. It's just not a very skilled set of jobs. It doesn't take 5 years of study to become a great actor, people just luck into it all the time. Anywhere you get the intersection of a lot of money and easy jobs, you get jobs being parcelled out according to criteria like looks, knowing the right people, having the right parents, having the right party attitudes, or how easily they get into bed. After all, what other criteria are they going to use to differentiate between the masses of hopefuls applying for their chance at fame and fortune.
In contrast, tech is hard. It takes years of study to even get in on the bottom rung. Then it takes many more years of obsessive-level study and work to climb to the top. The difference in skill between a newbie and a master is enormous. If you're interviewing for a master software developer, and say "hey, you party much?" and they reply with something lame and boring like "no, I prefer to spend time with my wife and kids" then in a well functioning organisation they will still get the job. In quite a few other industries, if the interviewer is young that reply could easily cause you to be ranked lower than some other candidate who said "I'm always up for a good time!"
I'm not sure where to start with this, so I'll start with the broad strokes: You've underestimated the difficulty of creative work (or what is traditionally seen as creative) and overestimated the difficulty of "tech" (which I would argue is also a creative field). If anything, tech is ridiculously easy to get into even if you are patently and demonstrably unskilled. The same is simply not true for other creative work (at least not if it has to pay the bills).
I would say the grandparent even has the correlation backwards.
Tech isn’t necessarily harder or easier, there is just so much demand for tech that employees can afford to walk away from egregious behavior. Most creative industries do not suffer from extremely high demand.
In fact this isn’t even true for all tech. Academia sounds like a big hazing ritual. Games has had high profile abuse cases. And startups can be plenty exploitative.
Tech isn’t necessarily harder or easier, there is just so much demand for tech that employees can afford to walk away from egregious behavior. Most creative industries do not suffer from extremely high demand.
In fact this isn’t even true for all tech. Academia sounds like a big hazing ritual. Games has had high profile abuse cases. And startups can be plenty exploitative.
tech is ridiculously easy to get into even if you are patently and demonstrably unskilled
For what definition of "get into tech" is this? Be somewhere in the proximity of a company that calls itself a tech company? Maybe? Be hired as an actual software developer after starting from scratch - this is by no means "ridiculously easy". I've helped people try to break in and they found it extremely hard.
For what definition of "get into tech" is this? Be somewhere in the proximity of a company that calls itself a tech company? Maybe? Be hired as an actual software developer after starting from scratch - this is by no means "ridiculously easy". I've helped people try to break in and they found it extremely hard.
> after starting from scratch
I am as always assuming schooling. If you've done no relevant schooling it may be difficult at first, but relatively I'd say it still isn't very difficult when compared to other industries.
I am as always assuming schooling. If you've done no relevant schooling it may be difficult at first, but relatively I'd say it still isn't very difficult when compared to other industries.
Also, young naive tech people are consistently and often financially exploited by startups in the valley all of the time. It’s just a different kind of exploitation.
> music and acting jobs are easy. Lots of people can sing, dance, semi-convincingly repeat lines written for them by other people, or even write scripts.
Oh please. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I can't speak to acting, but it takes far more than 5 years of study to become a professional dancer or musician
(oh and FWIW I've been a professional software dev for 25 years, having lucked into it just by being a nerdy guy in the right place at the right time)
Oh please. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I can't speak to acting, but it takes far more than 5 years of study to become a professional dancer or musician
(oh and FWIW I've been a professional software dev for 25 years, having lucked into it just by being a nerdy guy in the right place at the right time)
Uh huh, really.
John Lennon formed the Beatles when he was 20, after flunking out of music school, failing his O-Levels and being written off by his teachers. He wrote his first top 10 hit when he was 15, just a year or so after getting his first guitar. The Beatles was formed mostly of his mates, no extensive 5+ year study of music went into any of this.
Naturally talented group, yes, but that is nowhere near the same as requiring years of study to be able to get work in the field at all.
The history of most bands and professional musicians is the same. They're all self taught and it doesn't take years before they can get work. The slogan "learn to code" was deemed a quasi-offensive thing to say to out of work Appalachian coal miners because it implied that anyone can learn to code pretty easily, and that's widely recognised across society as not being true. How many of those coal miners could already sing songs or play musical instruments? Probably quite a few.
John Lennon formed the Beatles when he was 20, after flunking out of music school, failing his O-Levels and being written off by his teachers. He wrote his first top 10 hit when he was 15, just a year or so after getting his first guitar. The Beatles was formed mostly of his mates, no extensive 5+ year study of music went into any of this.
Naturally talented group, yes, but that is nowhere near the same as requiring years of study to be able to get work in the field at all.
The history of most bands and professional musicians is the same. They're all self taught and it doesn't take years before they can get work. The slogan "learn to code" was deemed a quasi-offensive thing to say to out of work Appalachian coal miners because it implied that anyone can learn to code pretty easily, and that's widely recognised across society as not being true. How many of those coal miners could already sing songs or play musical instruments? Probably quite a few.
Music, acting, and dancing are much, much more difficult than you portray them to be. It's just that the people who are good at it make it look easy. The competition is also extremely fierce and ruthless. There is little demand for most artists.
In tech, there is high demand for even moderately proficient individuals. There are tons of free tools and helpful resources to help you study and improve. If you have access to a computer and the internet you are already in a great position to practice. Being a master is obviously tremendously hard, but it is far from necessary for a good life.
If I had to choose, I would pick tech since there is a greater probability of having a very decent standard of living, and tech workers are generally left alone when it comes to the rest of their lifestyle. They do not need to keep up a personal style and social life that directly feeds into their job prospects. That's why the last point you mentioned is actually in favor of tech being easier.
In tech, there is high demand for even moderately proficient individuals. There are tons of free tools and helpful resources to help you study and improve. If you have access to a computer and the internet you are already in a great position to practice. Being a master is obviously tremendously hard, but it is far from necessary for a good life.
If I had to choose, I would pick tech since there is a greater probability of having a very decent standard of living, and tech workers are generally left alone when it comes to the rest of their lifestyle. They do not need to keep up a personal style and social life that directly feeds into their job prospects. That's why the last point you mentioned is actually in favor of tech being easier.
These parties are absolutely in tech...
Go on... ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
If we already had a GPT-deepfake interface I would now ask it to generate a costumed Elon Musk confusedly 'John Travolta'ing (the Pulp Fiction meme) in the middle of a SciFi sex party.
In a year or two, perhaps.
In a year or two, perhaps.
I worked in film visual effects for nearly a decade, and my wife was a AAA producer (since left the industry.) Perhaps because we were a couple, I never encountered any sex orgies, but the drugs, oh yeah, the drugs were very prevalent.
The appeal of drugs and orgies is perfectly understandable. What I don't get is the appeal of mixing those with work and hierarchical relationships.
Well it will make it easier to get promoted if you are good looking and/or mentally and physically fit enough to do a shit ton of drugs every day so you are "friends" with everyone. So yeah a lot of people don't want it to go away.
I don't like mixing it with professional life because it pushes people that can't take it away from a job were partying and getting intoxicated is "required". Even if they are good at that job.
I don't like mixing it with professional life because it pushes people that can't take it away from a job were partying and getting intoxicated is "required". Even if they are good at that job.
Keep in mind that there are a lot of serious, dedicated folks in the upper ranks of most businesses... and then there are other types of folks. Ex-CEO of Broadcom is one example. I worked at a startup where the well-connected CTO invited me to come to Tijuana with him and the secretary for a night of indiscretions. I've found having long hair and looking like a partier gets people to open up to you and you find out some of the straight laced folks you thought you knew are much different.
Of course individual cases happen - I know of a few. I was more thinking about the way corporate parties are depicted in media (Hollywood movies, mostly).
I am French and worked for French, German and US companies (tech) and I never witnessed what was discussed above.
Flights in corporate jets were convenient and everyone was either chatting, or reading, or working. Multiple week travels in great hotels were pleases where people got to know, had dinner and then everyone went to their room.
Parties were parties (including after-parties), some drinking, lots of laughing and that's all.
All this from "general population" parties/travels, to top level ones.
Like I said: I must have been to the wrong parties :)
I am French and worked for French, German and US companies (tech) and I never witnessed what was discussed above.
Flights in corporate jets were convenient and everyone was either chatting, or reading, or working. Multiple week travels in great hotels were pleases where people got to know, had dinner and then everyone went to their room.
Parties were parties (including after-parties), some drinking, lots of laughing and that's all.
All this from "general population" parties/travels, to top level ones.
Like I said: I must have been to the wrong parties :)
In France you have free parties to make up for that (or at least HAD, before Covid)
It really depends on if you are the person who can sign a contract or influence a vendor decision.
It probably depends where.
I was signing contracts or giving GO/NOGO for others (as customers of vendors, very large contracts) and I was getting invitations to dinners, sport events or "company walk-though" in interesting places (that I never took because this the way I work). These were "normal" sales invitations, no hidden agenda.
I was signing contracts or giving GO/NOGO for others (as customers of vendors, very large contracts) and I was getting invitations to dinners, sport events or "company walk-though" in interesting places (that I never took because this the way I work). These were "normal" sales invitations, no hidden agenda.
Since we’re sharing weird work stories, I was working for an early cloud provider in SF back around 2010, coming out from NYC about once a month or so. Got into the office right off the plane late afternoon once and one of the sales guys wanted to get drinks after work, told me he’d come by the company apartment to get me.
So he swings by to pick me up and I didn’t ask where we were headed, figured just some cocktail bar or something normal. Nope, we roll up to a strip club out near North Beach. It actually was my first time in one, I was young and it never was my thing. The guy had a bottle of vodka on a shelf behind the bar that he used for clients (but honestly for whoever), and the strippers all knew him. I start talking to one of the performers about regular things - the school she was studying at, her family, etc. Then somehow we start talking about how they had a private room that was mainly for Zynga employees, with video game setups, bottle service and private dances. She made it clear that lots of tech companies came in to entertain clients, investors, and whoever else they wanted to.
Last time I let a sales guy bring me somewhere without telling me what the plan was first.
So he swings by to pick me up and I didn’t ask where we were headed, figured just some cocktail bar or something normal. Nope, we roll up to a strip club out near North Beach. It actually was my first time in one, I was young and it never was my thing. The guy had a bottle of vodka on a shelf behind the bar that he used for clients (but honestly for whoever), and the strippers all knew him. I start talking to one of the performers about regular things - the school she was studying at, her family, etc. Then somehow we start talking about how they had a private room that was mainly for Zynga employees, with video game setups, bottle service and private dances. She made it clear that lots of tech companies came in to entertain clients, investors, and whoever else they wanted to.
Last time I let a sales guy bring me somewhere without telling me what the plan was first.
> Last time I let a sales guy bring me somewhere without telling me what the plan was first
Wow, that sales guy must be thinking: last time I’m bringing the prude guy.
Wow, that sales guy must be thinking: last time I’m bringing the prude guy.
This kinda reminds me of an experience I had years ago, working at a small startup that was "disrupting" a particular industry. One of my coworkers was interested in this other company's software products so we contacted them and they sent a couple of sales people over for a meeting.
Okay, here's what happened. I'll never forget it because it was so weird. There was a younger guy and a much older guy. They introduce themselves, the younger one hands us business cards and pamphlets, and then the oldest one... starts telling us names of all the people he sold products to.
It was so weird because neither of them knew much about the product they were selling. Just their customers. And they tried hard to figure out if we knew any of their customers. Given our company's culture, we were all fairly new and thrown off guard by that lol. I think only one of us knew any of the people he was talking about.
We ended up not buying any of their products, because among other things, it was the worst sales pitch I've ever heard of. Like they relied on connections lol.
Okay, here's what happened. I'll never forget it because it was so weird. There was a younger guy and a much older guy. They introduce themselves, the younger one hands us business cards and pamphlets, and then the oldest one... starts telling us names of all the people he sold products to.
It was so weird because neither of them knew much about the product they were selling. Just their customers. And they tried hard to figure out if we knew any of their customers. Given our company's culture, we were all fairly new and thrown off guard by that lol. I think only one of us knew any of the people he was talking about.
We ended up not buying any of their products, because among other things, it was the worst sales pitch I've ever heard of. Like they relied on connections lol.
The explanation here is "sales guy". This is the typical behavior of sales people, don't expect anything different when they invite you to go out.
Seniority doesn't cut into it, it must also be the right person sending the right signals (and often sharding some backstories).
They'll seldom if ever make the mistake of inviting a clean cut / square type of person.
They'll seldom if ever make the mistake of inviting a clean cut / square type of person.
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.
It's very common in the world of gymnastics, for one.
Yes it is. Opera, for example, https://www.npr.org/2019/07/26/745286413/opera-star-david-da...
Music and Arts are a hellhole for this kind of stuff
Music and Arts are a hellhole for this kind of stuff
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...
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...
My sister-in-law withdrew from a US-based doctoral operatic program, and a residency with the Royal Opera, specifically because she realized she could not further her career without granting continuous sexual favors.
This is probably the most interesting comment here. Especially (as a moderate to liberal) with the cancelling of Parkor which was deeply troubling.
Is anyone speaking publicly and/or thinking deeply on this future of everyone in the value chain being able to deny freedom of speech? Obviously in some cases it's warranted (violence), but in others where the attack is very pointed (heard instances of cloudfare being petitioned to take down content which is literally internet plumbing) it's relatively concerning.
Is anyone speaking publicly and/or thinking deeply on this future of everyone in the value chain being able to deny freedom of speech? Obviously in some cases it's warranted (violence), but in others where the attack is very pointed (heard instances of cloudfare being petitioned to take down content which is literally internet plumbing) it's relatively concerning.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26166493 since it's taking the thread on a generic tangent that's been argued to death and back many times recently.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Apologize didn’t see it. Thank you.
The request for a textbook, or similar caliber academic content on the question was serious and not intended to be inflammatory.
Particularly, on something new, the ratio of words spent versus insight is perhaps lower up front as the issue unfolds until learnings crystallize. IMHO.
The request for a textbook, or similar caliber academic content on the question was serious and not intended to be inflammatory.
Particularly, on something new, the ratio of words spent versus insight is perhaps lower up front as the issue unfolds until learnings crystallize. IMHO.
>Is anyone speaking publicly and/or thinking deeply on this future of everyone in the value chain being able to deny freedom of speech?
Yes. Lots of people, all the time, everywhere. Please let it stop.
Yes. Lots of people, all the time, everywhere. Please let it stop.
Who is Parkor? Tried googling but couldn't find anything about that?
Presumably they meant to write Parler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler
I think they meant Parler.
Thanks, that makes more sense. Yeah in that case I agree with Dang, that topic has been argued to death already and mostly going to lead to a flamewar...
>(heard instances of cloudfare being petitioned to take down content which is literally internet plumbing)
It's not, it's a private company. Most internet infrastructure is private companies offering their services under arbitrary terms, because that's the only possible way to have such an infrastructure without government controlling or regulating the internet, which we don't want.
And petitioning is free speech - people have the right to petition anyone about anything. There's nothing to be "relatively concerned" about here, except maybe the lack of competition in the DDoS space, but that's a free market issue, not a free speech issue. If too many people think Cloudflare has stepped out of line, someone will create an alternative, just as alternative right-wing platforms like Gab and Parler were created by people unsatisfied with mainstream social media.
It's not, it's a private company. Most internet infrastructure is private companies offering their services under arbitrary terms, because that's the only possible way to have such an infrastructure without government controlling or regulating the internet, which we don't want.
And petitioning is free speech - people have the right to petition anyone about anything. There's nothing to be "relatively concerned" about here, except maybe the lack of competition in the DDoS space, but that's a free market issue, not a free speech issue. If too many people think Cloudflare has stepped out of line, someone will create an alternative, just as alternative right-wing platforms like Gab and Parler were created by people unsatisfied with mainstream social media.
I saw comments talking about a hypothetical utopia where no one needs to go hungry and where talent gets notice without having to sell their body or soul.
As with many things, the problem is not technological. We have the technology to create such a utopia (there would still be other problems, but the world would be utopian from those aspects). The problem is sociological. In order to do this we need to both all work together, and think long term (on the order of 50-100 years). The problem is that nations can't even stay together in just an economic union when it's in their best interests economically (Brexit, Paris Accord), and internally those same nations bicker and vote on party lines (Tories vs Labor, Democrats vs Republicans), instead of voting what's best in the long term for the nation.
What's happening in Texas right now is an example. Texas had the money to buy snowplows. They didn't. Texas had the money to winterize wind turbines. They didn't.
We have to get beyond our short term greed and work together in long term action to succeed at addressing these problems. Otherwise there will always be Epsteins, etc. in any industry where people are vying for attention (most of them).
As with many things, the problem is not technological. We have the technology to create such a utopia (there would still be other problems, but the world would be utopian from those aspects). The problem is sociological. In order to do this we need to both all work together, and think long term (on the order of 50-100 years). The problem is that nations can't even stay together in just an economic union when it's in their best interests economically (Brexit, Paris Accord), and internally those same nations bicker and vote on party lines (Tories vs Labor, Democrats vs Republicans), instead of voting what's best in the long term for the nation.
What's happening in Texas right now is an example. Texas had the money to buy snowplows. They didn't. Texas had the money to winterize wind turbines. They didn't.
We have to get beyond our short term greed and work together in long term action to succeed at addressing these problems. Otherwise there will always be Epsteins, etc. in any industry where people are vying for attention (most of them).
> What's happening in Texas right now is an example. Texas had the money to buy snowplows. They didn't. Texas had the money to winterize wind turbines. They didn't.
Why would a state that only sees things like black ice distribute snow plows everywhere? I lived in that state for 20-something years and never saw these kinds of conditions. It always made sense for them to salt and sand the roads or expect to miss a couple days of work or school.
Why would a state that only sees things like black ice distribute snow plows everywhere? I lived in that state for 20-something years and never saw these kinds of conditions. It always made sense for them to salt and sand the roads or expect to miss a couple days of work or school.
Re: Texas had the money to buy snowplows. They didn't. Texas had the money to winterize wind turbines. They didn't.
They worship tax-cuts and D.I.Y. social Darwinism (survival of the fittest). So when the weather gets bad, many there are okay with social Darwinism per survival. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/17/texas-mayor-...
Note I didn't say all are happy with it, but enough that they tend to lightly fund infrastructure.
They worship tax-cuts and D.I.Y. social Darwinism (survival of the fittest). So when the weather gets bad, many there are okay with social Darwinism per survival. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/17/texas-mayor-...
Note I didn't say all are happy with it, but enough that they tend to lightly fund infrastructure.
It's a case study in why putting public utilities on a free market is self destructive. The company that neglects maintenance drives the costs down and wins, driving out the competition. Once they have an effective monopoly the utility collapses from a pileup of deferred maintenance and has to get bailed out by the taxpayers.
On the upside some very rich people got way richer than they would have under a traditional regulated utility situation.
On the upside some very rich people got way richer than they would have under a traditional regulated utility situation.
sounds like poor management. Why do you think the same individuals overseeing the private utilities would do a better job of managing public utilities? Public utilities rot on the vine and get bailed out as well.
The market rewarded short term thinking that resulted in lower prices at the expense of much more expensive repairs later. Companies that were properly managed were outcompeted and got bought out by the short term thinking competitor.
Doesn't politics favor short term thinking as well?
Elected officials yes. Civil Servants that don't get swapped out with each administration not so much. People like your county water commissioner.
[edit] having just read https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ as posted by /u/phreack, it turns out Scott Alexander has already written what I wrote below, point by point, much more eloquently than I ever could. Read that instead of this comment, if you have the time.
The problem is that bad behaviour is incentivised. It's like the prisoner's dilemma - what you're wishing for is for everyone to cooperate, even though any given individual stands to benefit from betrayal - some individuals will betray, and in an iterated prisoner's dilemma others will see that "crime pays" so to speak and do the same.
What we need to do as a society is to reshape the incentives, through systems engineering, so that the best incentives encourage cooperation. This is a herculean task, I have no idea whether it's even possible, and if it is, who would be in a position to enact such widespread societal changes. But as long as one can personally benefit from a collective harm (or even just reducing the collective benefit), collective harm will be done.
I think some of these arguments are Marxist ones, to be honest - but so far, Marxist attempts to reorganise society have produced even worse societies. I think the only way forwards is incrementalism, tweaking our social structures little by little in the right direction, as total societal reinvention was clearly a catastrophe when attempted.
The problem is that bad behaviour is incentivised. It's like the prisoner's dilemma - what you're wishing for is for everyone to cooperate, even though any given individual stands to benefit from betrayal - some individuals will betray, and in an iterated prisoner's dilemma others will see that "crime pays" so to speak and do the same.
What we need to do as a society is to reshape the incentives, through systems engineering, so that the best incentives encourage cooperation. This is a herculean task, I have no idea whether it's even possible, and if it is, who would be in a position to enact such widespread societal changes. But as long as one can personally benefit from a collective harm (or even just reducing the collective benefit), collective harm will be done.
I think some of these arguments are Marxist ones, to be honest - but so far, Marxist attempts to reorganise society have produced even worse societies. I think the only way forwards is incrementalism, tweaking our social structures little by little in the right direction, as total societal reinvention was clearly a catastrophe when attempted.
That's entirely right - here's an article you might like about your idea in case you haven't read it already. It's lately got me thinking a lot about the difficulties in simple organization.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
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 through in the IT workplace - it sucks, it's shitty and it shouldn't be. However, the last decade especially, I've noticed IT has gotten progressively and better at this, and if women in my workplace or previous two were seriously mistreated everyone would be shocked and people would be immediately fired.
I don't have a lot of time to list off the horror stories right now, but pretty much everything you've heard about abuse in Hollywood is true, and it's much worse than you've heard.
I guess the abuse is just so much more systematic, established, and regular in the music industry, and; despite #metoo - it is unfortunately not progressing or evolving in the way that I have personally witnessed the IT industry do over the last decade. It just seems like more people have been exposed.
There's some bad apples in IT but tbh very often you do hear about them, and it destroys companies and careers.
The good apples in the music industry are the exception, not the rule, and in IT that playing field is incredibly more even.
The music industry is harrowing. It's not to discount the very real trauma myself and others have gone through in the IT workplace - it sucks, it's shitty and it shouldn't be. However, the last decade especially, I've noticed IT has gotten progressively and better at this, and if women in my workplace or previous two were seriously mistreated everyone would be shocked and people would be immediately fired.
I don't have a lot of time to list off the horror stories right now, but pretty much everything you've heard about abuse in Hollywood is true, and it's much worse than you've heard.
I guess the abuse is just so much more systematic, established, and regular in the music industry, and; despite #metoo - it is unfortunately not progressing or evolving in the way that I have personally witnessed the IT industry do over the last decade. It just seems like more people have been exposed.
There's some bad apples in IT but tbh very often you do hear about them, and it destroys companies and careers.
The good apples in the music industry are the exception, not the rule, and in IT that playing field is incredibly more even.
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.
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.
Yesterday a Court in India gave a landmark Judgement to protect dignity of women;
https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-court-acqu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priya_Ramani
https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-court-acqu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priya_Ramani
The article is from nine hours ago.
The interesting part will come, maybe, in the next days.
It's going to be interesting if somebody from the pop scenes comes out to confirm those claims, in a sort of "me too" fashion.
I mean, I would really like to see this topic discussed by more people in the industry. If anything, to help put an end to this kind of practices.
The interesting part will come, maybe, in the next days.
It's going to be interesting if somebody from the pop scenes comes out to confirm those claims, in a sort of "me too" fashion.
I mean, I would really like to see this topic discussed by more people in the industry. If anything, to help put an end to this kind of practices.
a metoo on sex in the music industry would be one reaction to the article, another would be a metoo about mafia involved and controlling your industry.
The second one looks much much gutsy tbh..
The second one looks much much gutsy tbh..
My understanding is this was more common in years past. Up to the 1950s it was understood a good looking secretary got her job in bed. The really ugly ones got and kept it by being good at the job, with a possible side of the wife doing well in bed. Even then it was understood as not always true, but it was true enough. Secretaries at the time demanded the ability handle boredom as a lot of the job was doing the simple repetitive work we have automated machines to do: a girl who got her job in bed could probably do it nearly as well as the ugly secretary who was good with only a little training. The slightly more complex repetitive work would be given to a computer - which was a job title for a human not a machine.
Note the sexist language above. Females were generally "kept in their place", which meant little opportunity to get to do anything interesting or high paying.
Note the sexist language above. Females were generally "kept in their place", which meant little opportunity to get to do anything interesting or high paying.
I'll be bold and say it's the media industry has a problem.
I remember family members having problems/reservations with Weinstein's behavior back in the 90's. People like Corey Feltman have been speaking up for years.
But nobody cares because we're getting good cinema and TV, right?
A huge part of these industries are based on 'favors' and 'networking'. Toss in the theory that you have a higher-than-baseline level of narcissism in this talent pool and you lead to a recipe for abuse.
I remember family members having problems/reservations with Weinstein's behavior back in the 90's. People like Corey Feltman have been speaking up for years.
But nobody cares because we're getting good cinema and TV, right?
A huge part of these industries are based on 'favors' and 'networking'. Toss in the theory that you have a higher-than-baseline level of narcissism in this talent pool and you lead to a recipe for abuse.
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 she was when in fact Judy was a skinny under-fed near-anorexic child who craved to enjoy a burger or sip on a cola. Pleasures that she was sternly and often abusively denied. If she broke the diet code she was threatened with immediate dismissal from the MGM roster."
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.
> If she broke the diet code she was threatened with immediate dismissal from the MGM roster.
And yet... given her level of fame even early on, I think she was far more valuable to keep on the books. But... I doubt she (or those around her) were able to think that strategically in the moment.
And yet... given her level of fame even early on, I think she was far more valuable to keep on the books. But... I doubt she (or those around her) were able to think that strategically in the moment.
> who craved to enjoy a burger or sip on a cola
On the other hand, presenting a burger and cola as some kind of innate need for a child also seems off - enjoying a birthday cake, a lemonade or a lasagna are already damning enough...
On the other hand, presenting a burger and cola as some kind of innate need for a child also seems off - enjoying a birthday cake, a lemonade or a lasagna are already damning enough...
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 recent decades.
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 recent decades.
> 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 the prize condone the killing perpetrated by the winner? Are they vile?
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 the prize condone the killing perpetrated by the winner? Are they vile?
If the book is really good, I'd say the villain should be applauded. I would applaud Hitler and recommend Mein Kampf to everyone if it was good (it is not).
It doesn't excuse the murder, but I think talent should be rewarded, doubly so if the person is a villain. The problem with most criminals is that we can't think of them as other than criminals, and it is a vicious circle because it drags people deeper in the world of crime.
We should give a message such as: you have been sentenced to 10 years, if you have a talent, use that time to develop it, and you can use it to have a good life after you get out. Just look at the other guy who won the literary contest while serving a life sentence, just because you did bad things doesn't make you can't get recognized for all the good thing you can do.
I've seen work mentioned as the magic bullet for rehabilitating criminals. Not as a punishment but actually useful work. And if the criminal in question has a particular talent, that should be taken advantage of.
It doesn't excuse the murder, but I think talent should be rewarded, doubly so if the person is a villain. The problem with most criminals is that we can't think of them as other than criminals, and it is a vicious circle because it drags people deeper in the world of crime.
We should give a message such as: you have been sentenced to 10 years, if you have a talent, use that time to develop it, and you can use it to have a good life after you get out. Just look at the other guy who won the literary contest while serving a life sentence, just because you did bad things doesn't make you can't get recognized for all the good thing you can do.
I've seen work mentioned as the magic bullet for rehabilitating criminals. Not as a punishment but actually useful work. And if the criminal in question has a particular talent, that should be taken advantage of.
> I think talent should be rewarded, doubly so if the person is a villain
Why doubly so, it is literally rewarding the bad behavior? A person that does not abuse people should be rewarded as much as those who do abuse them. And it seem to me that current culture or at least culture last twenty years was rewarding abusers more then non-abusers or their victims. And it just leads to more abuse.
Why doubly so, it is literally rewarding the bad behavior? A person that does not abuse people should be rewarded as much as those who do abuse them. And it seem to me that current culture or at least culture last twenty years was rewarding abusers more then non-abusers or their victims. And it just leads to more abuse.
I am not saying that we should double the reward for villains, but that it is twice as important. Everyone should be rewarded the same way, otherwise, sure, it rewards bad behavior and we don't want that, we don't want to excuse the bad behavior either.
But you rise an interesting point about victims. A criminal shall pay damage to the victims, and a successful author can do it. A worthless thug or someone perceived by society as such can't, not just that but he will continue to be supported by society for as long as he lives.
The reason I think society today is more "lax" towards criminals is that we focus on rehabilitation. That's the only way for criminals to repay their debt to society. We used to have them do slave labor, but modern society doesn't need slaves, it needs skilled workers. We can also kill them all, but that's extreme and carries a whole lot of other issues.
But you rise an interesting point about victims. A criminal shall pay damage to the victims, and a successful author can do it. A worthless thug or someone perceived by society as such can't, not just that but he will continue to be supported by society for as long as he lives.
The reason I think society today is more "lax" towards criminals is that we focus on rehabilitation. That's the only way for criminals to repay their debt to society. We used to have them do slave labor, but modern society doesn't need slaves, it needs skilled workers. We can also kill them all, but that's extreme and carries a whole lot of other issues.
If you perceive reward for villains as twice as important, villains will be more likely to obtain the rewarded. The non-abusers will be less likely to get that reward. End result is that villains will be the ones more likely to be selected in whatever competition you are at.
Yes, I would applaud such a scumbag and would hope my friends did not either.
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 Hitler, Stalin, Mengele, Saddam Hussein, etc, then they are definitely knocked down a few pegs in my book. I wouldn't go so far as to call them vile on that alone, but I definitely question their moral compass.
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 Hitler, Stalin, Mengele, Saddam Hussein, etc, then they are definitely knocked down a few pegs in my book. I wouldn't go so far as to call them vile on that alone, but I definitely question their moral compass.
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 on the run from justice. That would have put things nicely into perspective and, I think, clarified that they were awarding the accomplishment of the film and not honoring Polanski himself.
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 on the run from justice. That would have put things nicely into perspective and, I think, clarified that they were awarding the accomplishment of the film and not honoring Polanski himself.
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.
Sounds nice. But in the real world all humans are both sinners and saints at the same time.
Good luck being the one with the power to decide what an upstanding citizen is. This is cancel culture in a nutshell.
There’s a reason “don’t meet your heroes” is a saying. The problem is not appreciating the good works of someone who has also done bad things —- the problem is when we assume prima facie that just because someone is celebrated for one thing, that they are an upstanding citizen in all other areas of their life.
There would be a lot less Harvey Weinstein’s in the world if our fallible human herd mentality didn’t elevate someone to sainthood because they were a bigshot in one aspect of their life.
Good luck being the one with the power to decide what an upstanding citizen is. This is cancel culture in a nutshell.
There’s a reason “don’t meet your heroes” is a saying. The problem is not appreciating the good works of someone who has also done bad things —- the problem is when we assume prima facie that just because someone is celebrated for one thing, that they are an upstanding citizen in all other areas of their life.
There would be a lot less Harvey Weinstein’s in the world if our fallible human herd mentality didn’t elevate someone to sainthood because they were a bigshot in one aspect of their life.
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 true that "all humans are both sinners and saints at the same time" - but it's absolutely not true that all, or even most, humans have done something as bad as raping a child (to say nothing of the other people mentioned in the parent comment). This kind of sentiment is appropriate when considering the kinds of mistakes or sins that all humans commit, identifying the grey areas that people are consistently in. The existence of grey areas does not mean that somethings aren't black and others aren't white. I think, in this case, we can clearly see that what Polanski did was very bad and worthy condemnation and not "Who among hasn't..."
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 true that "all humans are both sinners and saints at the same time" - but it's absolutely not true that all, or even most, humans have done something as bad as raping a child (to say nothing of the other people mentioned in the parent comment). This kind of sentiment is appropriate when considering the kinds of mistakes or sins that all humans commit, identifying the grey areas that people are consistently in. The existence of grey areas does not mean that somethings aren't black and others aren't white. I think, in this case, we can clearly see that what Polanski did was very bad and worthy condemnation and not "Who among hasn'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.
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.
Ghandi?
You can recognize the art, while condemning the artist.
That's the post-war treatment given to studies of hypothermia that came out of Nazi Germany - because the means by which those studies were conducted was by putting Jews and PoWs into barrels of ice water, and measuring how long it would take them to die.
You recognize the results, while condemning every single person involved in the methods.
That's the post-war treatment given to studies of hypothermia that came out of Nazi Germany - because the means by which those studies were conducted was by putting Jews and PoWs into barrels of ice water, and measuring how long it would take them to die.
You recognize the results, while condemning every single person involved in the methods.
That research is highly controversial within the modern scientific community. Many scientists reject its use on ethical grounds; others reject it over concerns about its scientific validity. (The Nazis weren't especially precise in their experimental methods.)
Your example is missing some key points. Imagine if instead of serving that life sentence your murderer fled the country before sentencing. Also imagine that instead of writing books by themselves all of their books are co-authored by other famous authors. Should you be spending your money on books that were written by a fugitive? Would it be wrong to judge their publishers and co-authors for collaborating with a fugitive?
>Acknowledging the artistic talent of a villain does not make you vile.
depends on the way of the acknowledgement. If the movie is the best - you give the Oskar as that is the rules of the game (though you can also follow the example of many professional associations like say doctors and lawyers who completely exclude criminally immoral people, talented or not, from their ranks. Movie industry not doing it is already a kind of a tell about the industry's ethics.), yet you definitely don't have to applaud and celebrate. Applauding and celebrating is what makes you personally vile and supporter and validator.
depends on the way of the acknowledgement. If the movie is the best - you give the Oskar as that is the rules of the game (though you can also follow the example of many professional associations like say doctors and lawyers who completely exclude criminally immoral people, talented or not, from their ranks. Movie industry not doing it is already a kind of a tell about the industry's ethics.), yet you definitely don't have to applaud and celebrate. Applauding and celebrating is what makes you personally vile and supporter and validator.
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.
Its the Oscars!, you need the opposite of a broader context. Just give the award to the most qualified and avoid the controversy.
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.
I urge you to read her own remarks. She does not sympathize with Polanski, and she would not feel bad about whatever he experiences. But she finds it an act of violence against her, an opening of the wound afresh, when third parties opine on the case.
[deleted]
Yeah, like:
Raping is bad. If you rape anyone you deserve to rot in jail.
But drugging someone to rape them is particularly vile.
But not only did he drugged and raped a woman, that woman was not a woman but a girl. A 13 year old one.
For the life of me I can't understand how people defend this guy. I mean, all his pedo rapist friends in the entertainment industry obviously wouldn't be too hard on him, but everyone else.
Also, did anyone ever ask Jack Nicholson how an unaccompanied minor got into his party?
But drugging someone to rape them is particularly vile.
But not only did he drugged and raped a woman, that woman was not a woman but a girl. A 13 year old one.
For the life of me I can't understand how people defend this guy. I mean, all his pedo rapist friends in the entertainment industry obviously wouldn't be too hard on him, but everyone else.
Also, did anyone ever ask Jack Nicholson how an unaccompanied minor got into his party?
> 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.
I think Samantha Geimer has been doubly victimised – first by Polanski, then by a legal system which cares more about itself than about the interests and wishes of the victims it is supposed to protect.
I think Geimer feels, that as Polanski's victim, she should have some say – some power over – what happens to Polanski. But society doesn't want to give her that power. Polanski made her powerless then, and the system makes her powerless now. And when she complains about the system making her powerless, people misinterpret that as either some defence of what Polanski did to her (which she doesn't agree with and wishes never happened), or start (horribly unfairly and cruelly) dismissing what she has to say as the result of "Stockholm syndrome" or "grooming".
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/sep/18/samantha-geimer...
I think Samantha Geimer has been doubly victimised – first by Polanski, then by a legal system which cares more about itself than about the interests and wishes of the victims it is supposed to protect.
I think Geimer feels, that as Polanski's victim, she should have some say – some power over – what happens to Polanski. But society doesn't want to give her that power. Polanski made her powerless then, and the system makes her powerless now. And when she complains about the system making her powerless, people misinterpret that as either some defence of what Polanski did to her (which she doesn't agree with and wishes never happened), or start (horribly unfairly and cruelly) dismissing what she has to say as the result of "Stockholm syndrome" or "grooming".
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/sep/18/samantha-geimer...
I think the individual victim certainly has some interest in the punishment outcomes, but the state also has a proper interest. Neither holds a monopoly. (In particular, was she his only victim? That seems unlikely.)
> I think the individual victim certainly has some interest in the punishment outcomes, but the state also has a proper interest. Neither holds a monopoly
The state holds a monopoly. All the victim gets, is the right to be consulted by the prosecution, but the prosecution is free to ignore the victim's opinion, as they have done repeatedly in this case.
Geimer asked the courts to drop the case, because she was sick of the whole thing and wants it to go away. The court refused, because it isn't about her, she's just the victim: https://apnews.com/article/683568177ab04a7081dad4e3664b13aa
> (In particular, was she his only victim? That seems unlikely.)
The case in question is only about what Roman Polanski did to Samantha Geimer, not about what Roman Polanski did to other people. Indeed, other women have said that Polanski abused them (Valentine Monnier, Charlotte Lewis, Renate Langer, Marianne Barnard). But, this prosecution is only about what Polanski did to Geimer, which I think means Geimer's wishes ought to be respected by the prosecution. If Polanski were to be prosecuted for what he did to one of his other victims, Geimer would have no say in that, and she wouldn't claim she is entitled to any.
The state holds a monopoly. All the victim gets, is the right to be consulted by the prosecution, but the prosecution is free to ignore the victim's opinion, as they have done repeatedly in this case.
Geimer asked the courts to drop the case, because she was sick of the whole thing and wants it to go away. The court refused, because it isn't about her, she's just the victim: https://apnews.com/article/683568177ab04a7081dad4e3664b13aa
> (In particular, was she his only victim? That seems unlikely.)
The case in question is only about what Roman Polanski did to Samantha Geimer, not about what Roman Polanski did to other people. Indeed, other women have said that Polanski abused them (Valentine Monnier, Charlotte Lewis, Renate Langer, Marianne Barnard). But, this prosecution is only about what Polanski did to Geimer, which I think means Geimer's wishes ought to be respected by the prosecution. If Polanski were to be prosecuted for what he did to one of his other victims, Geimer would have no say in that, and she wouldn't claim she is entitled to any.
I was making a moral argument on whether the state has a monopoly. Of course the state holds a legal monopoly on the punishment.
But the state could give the victims rights. The state could give the victim the right to discontinue the prosecution against the state's wishes. The state doesn't give the victim that right, because the state cares more about its own power than about the victim.
Of course there is the risk that victims might move for leniency due to psychological domination, grooming, threats, etc. However, I don't think that is what is happening in Geimer's case, when decades later, as an adult woman, she is asking for the prosecution to be discontinued – indeed, I think to suggest that is happening in her case is deny her agency, to continue her disempowerment. I think the system could be designed to have safeguards against those risks while still giving victims such as Geimer some legal rights over the proceedings. So that would not mean giving victims an absolute right, but a relative right, as opposed to no right which is what they have now.
If a thirteen year old girl doesn't want her abuser to be prosecuted, I think it is legitimate to disregard that on the grounds that as a minor she doesn't understand her own best interests. But when she says the same thing forty years later, to refuse to listen to her, as the California court system has done to Geimer, is to treat a grown woman as a thirteen year old. That's insulting.
Of course there is the risk that victims might move for leniency due to psychological domination, grooming, threats, etc. However, I don't think that is what is happening in Geimer's case, when decades later, as an adult woman, she is asking for the prosecution to be discontinued – indeed, I think to suggest that is happening in her case is deny her agency, to continue her disempowerment. I think the system could be designed to have safeguards against those risks while still giving victims such as Geimer some legal rights over the proceedings. So that would not mean giving victims an absolute right, but a relative right, as opposed to no right which is what they have now.
If a thirteen year old girl doesn't want her abuser to be prosecuted, I think it is legitimate to disregard that on the grounds that as a minor she doesn't understand her own best interests. But when she says the same thing forty years later, to refuse to listen to her, as the California court system has done to Geimer, is to treat a grown woman as a thirteen year old. That's insulting.
If there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt (the criminal trial standard of proof) that he committed these crimes, society has an interest in seeing him punished, if for no other reason than as actual prevention [it would be quite hard for him to molest more girls while incarcerated].
If there's credible evidence (as reviewed by a grand jury, resulting in an indictment), society has an interest in seeing him tried for the reason above at least. If Geimer doesn't wish to cooperate in that trial, she should not be compelled to testify for the prosecution, but she should not hold the sole power to stop the trial from proceeding. (all in my opinion)
I don't think this is solely, and maybe not even primarily about the state seeking power, but rather properly exercising power granted it by the people.
If there's credible evidence (as reviewed by a grand jury, resulting in an indictment), society has an interest in seeing him tried for the reason above at least. If Geimer doesn't wish to cooperate in that trial, she should not be compelled to testify for the prosecution, but she should not hold the sole power to stop the trial from proceeding. (all in my opinion)
I don't think this is solely, and maybe not even primarily about the state seeking power, but rather properly exercising power granted it by the people.
> society has an interest in seeing him punished, if for no other reason than as actual prevention [it would be quite hard for him to molest more girls while incarcerated].
If Polanski hadn't fled, how much time would he have actually spent in prison? He had a plea bargain for time served (he'd already spent a bit over 40 days in prison) and probation. That plea bargain was approved by the victim and her parents. The judge started (rather unprofessionally) bragging to people he was going to cancel the plea bargain and send Polanski to prison for 50 years. Polanski heard about it, panicked, and fled. But, realistically, the judge was unlikely to give him anywhere near 50 years. He probably wasn't even going to get 50 months – possibly, the unprofessional bragging might have been all for nothing and the judge might have stuck to the plea bargain. Even if the judge decided to overrule it, given sentencing practices at the time, the sentence probably wouldn't have been for very long (more likely months than years), and a heavy sentence would have had high odds of being overturned on appeal. Indeed, lawyers who have looked at the case say that, were Polanski to voluntarily return to the US (or somehow be captured by US authorities), he is unlikely to serve much time at all for his original crime of abusing Geimer – if he is facing serious time for anything, it is going to be for fleeing from prosecution rather than the underlying offence.
If Polanski had got time served (original plea bargain), or a few months in prison (likely outcome if it the judge overruled it), how much protection of children from harm would have society actually received? If Polanski spends 6 months in prison, that's a mere 6 months in which he can't abuse anyone. He might not have abused anyone in those 6 months even if he were free. It is hard to take the preventive justification for sentencing seriously in the context of the magnitude of the sentence Polanski was likely facing.
> I don't think this is solely, and maybe not even primarily about the state seeking power, but rather properly exercising power granted it by the people.
Geimer feels abused by the system, and I think her feelings are entirely legitimate. The prosecution and judges should take some responsibility for what they've done to her (a real flesh and blood person with real thoughts and feelings) rather than hiding behind this inchoate abstraction of "the people".
If Polanski hadn't fled, how much time would he have actually spent in prison? He had a plea bargain for time served (he'd already spent a bit over 40 days in prison) and probation. That plea bargain was approved by the victim and her parents. The judge started (rather unprofessionally) bragging to people he was going to cancel the plea bargain and send Polanski to prison for 50 years. Polanski heard about it, panicked, and fled. But, realistically, the judge was unlikely to give him anywhere near 50 years. He probably wasn't even going to get 50 months – possibly, the unprofessional bragging might have been all for nothing and the judge might have stuck to the plea bargain. Even if the judge decided to overrule it, given sentencing practices at the time, the sentence probably wouldn't have been for very long (more likely months than years), and a heavy sentence would have had high odds of being overturned on appeal. Indeed, lawyers who have looked at the case say that, were Polanski to voluntarily return to the US (or somehow be captured by US authorities), he is unlikely to serve much time at all for his original crime of abusing Geimer – if he is facing serious time for anything, it is going to be for fleeing from prosecution rather than the underlying offence.
If Polanski had got time served (original plea bargain), or a few months in prison (likely outcome if it the judge overruled it), how much protection of children from harm would have society actually received? If Polanski spends 6 months in prison, that's a mere 6 months in which he can't abuse anyone. He might not have abused anyone in those 6 months even if he were free. It is hard to take the preventive justification for sentencing seriously in the context of the magnitude of the sentence Polanski was likely facing.
> I don't think this is solely, and maybe not even primarily about the state seeking power, but rather properly exercising power granted it by the people.
Geimer feels abused by the system, and I think her feelings are entirely legitimate. The prosecution and judges should take some responsibility for what they've done to her (a real flesh and blood person with real thoughts and feelings) rather than hiding behind this inchoate abstraction of "the people".
The problem is we can't yet map a person's neurons well enough to know their motivations as to why they don't want to see the other person punished.
Is it a genuine desire to forgive? Or is it out of fear/undesire to relive the experience?
I honestly don't know and it's not my place to guess, but it's a problem that we see in other areas too. This line of reasoning is part of why DV cases move forward even if the victim doesn't want to.
Is it a genuine desire to forgive? Or is it out of fear/undesire to relive the experience?
I honestly don't know and it's not my place to guess, but it's a problem that we see in other areas too. This line of reasoning is part of why DV cases move forward even if the victim doesn't want to.
> The problem is we can't yet map a person's neurons well enough to know their motivations as to why they don't want to see the other person punished
We don't need to "map" Samantha Geimer's neurons to understand her motivations. We can listen to what she has to say herself about that topic, in her media interviews, in the book she wrote, on Twitter. Have you listened to what she has to say? Or are you saying that it doesn't matter what she says? Isn't that denying her a voice, and denying her agency? And, isn't denying her agency what Polanski did to her to begin with?
> This line of reasoning is part of why DV cases move forward even if the victim doesn't want to.
In many cases of domestic violence, the victim may still be under psychological domination by the abuser, and I agree in those circumstances there may be times when it is right to overrule the victim's wish that their abuser goes unprosecuted.
But in this case, Geimer and Polanski haven't see each other in person in over 40 years. She has had her own life – she married, had kids, a career. She explains her desire that the case be dropped as about what's good for her – escaping the continuing retraumatisation by the legal system and the media. I really don't see any evidence here that she is presently (or even recently) being psychologically dominated by Polanski.
If Geimer, as a thirteen year old, was arguing that Polanski shouldn't be prosecuted, I think it would be legitimate to overrule that wish. But, when she's arguing that as a fifty-seven year old, I don't think overruling her wishes is still legitimate. And, take note, her problem was not with the original prosecution in itself – she was happy with the original outcome that Polanski pled guilty and she didn't have to testify. Her objection is to the case being dragged on for decades against her will.
She's also angry about the judicial misconduct in the case – which, who cares about whether it hurt Polanski, it harmed her (the judge's unprofessionalism betrayed the victim); and by people who want to use the events of her life for political and media ends – it's her trauma not theirs, yet people want to use her trauma for their own ends without consulting her.
I get the impression a lot of people don't care about the actual detailed facts of this case, they just want to cling to the principle, and if Geimer's welfare and agency have to be sacrificed for their principle, so be it.
We don't need to "map" Samantha Geimer's neurons to understand her motivations. We can listen to what she has to say herself about that topic, in her media interviews, in the book she wrote, on Twitter. Have you listened to what she has to say? Or are you saying that it doesn't matter what she says? Isn't that denying her a voice, and denying her agency? And, isn't denying her agency what Polanski did to her to begin with?
> This line of reasoning is part of why DV cases move forward even if the victim doesn't want to.
In many cases of domestic violence, the victim may still be under psychological domination by the abuser, and I agree in those circumstances there may be times when it is right to overrule the victim's wish that their abuser goes unprosecuted.
But in this case, Geimer and Polanski haven't see each other in person in over 40 years. She has had her own life – she married, had kids, a career. She explains her desire that the case be dropped as about what's good for her – escaping the continuing retraumatisation by the legal system and the media. I really don't see any evidence here that she is presently (or even recently) being psychologically dominated by Polanski.
If Geimer, as a thirteen year old, was arguing that Polanski shouldn't be prosecuted, I think it would be legitimate to overrule that wish. But, when she's arguing that as a fifty-seven year old, I don't think overruling her wishes is still legitimate. And, take note, her problem was not with the original prosecution in itself – she was happy with the original outcome that Polanski pled guilty and she didn't have to testify. Her objection is to the case being dragged on for decades against her will.
She's also angry about the judicial misconduct in the case – which, who cares about whether it hurt Polanski, it harmed her (the judge's unprofessionalism betrayed the victim); and by people who want to use the events of her life for political and media ends – it's her trauma not theirs, yet people want to use her trauma for their own ends without consulting her.
I get the impression a lot of people don't care about the actual detailed facts of this case, they just want to cling to the principle, and if Geimer's welfare and agency have to be sacrificed for their principle, so be it.
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.
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.
you miss the important aspect here - her opinion of the situation is formed after having been traumatized and as such may be the direct result of the trauma. I'm not a psychologist, and it is just my layman understanding that treating a traumatic event as less serious than it really was is one of the coping machinery of our brain. Basically the perpetrator, among everything else, may have damaged the victim's ability to evaluate such crimes and situations in the way that untraumatized people would evaluate it. There is a reason why "the people" prosecute such crimes without much regard for the victim's opinion.
Foucault, Satre, Derrida, Barthes literally went on record supporting sexual relations with children (see link below). The idea that something can be so valuable (like art) that it's worth the ethical costs elicited by their purveyors is ridiculous. Ethical behavior doesn't counter creativity (neither should the opposite be true).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of...
I'm not sure that the value of the art was the supposed justification. Not an expert, but I thought they were just arguing for freedom, that children ought to be free to consent to things, not just that great artists deserved a break.
The ongoing Duhamel scandal makes it sound like there was quite a lot going on, in certain elite circles, everyone knew and nobody talked:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/10/france-begins-...
The ongoing Duhamel scandal makes it sound like there was quite a lot going on, in certain elite circles, everyone knew and nobody talked:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/10/france-begins-...
vagrantJin(2)
You can see Harvey Weinstein applauding at 1:17 in the linked video.
The example that comes to my mind is Roman Polanski. He fled the country while under investigation for child molestation. It was shocking how much other celebrities came defending him over the years. He is a child molester and fugitive. It’s just bizarre.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26166759.
Isn't it the case in most industries with few jobs but with a high demand.
The media industry is in high demand. People want the fame associated with it and the money of stars. Making music is also enjoyable for a lot of people. For that you certainly need talent but there is more talent in this world than what is needed by the industry.
The result is a lot of competition, and when there is so much competition people will do a lot of things to get in. Closer to the HN crowd is the video game industry, you hear more stories of abuse than in other sectors, probably because, well, making a video game sound more fun than managing a customer database for a wholesaler.
Add to that that people in the media industry tend to be particularly attractive, and you have a greater chance for abuse to be sexual in nature.
The media industry is in high demand. People want the fame associated with it and the money of stars. Making music is also enjoyable for a lot of people. For that you certainly need talent but there is more talent in this world than what is needed by the industry.
The result is a lot of competition, and when there is so much competition people will do a lot of things to get in. Closer to the HN crowd is the video game industry, you hear more stories of abuse than in other sectors, probably because, well, making a video game sound more fun than managing a customer database for a wholesaler.
Add to that that people in the media industry tend to be particularly attractive, and you have a greater chance for abuse to be sexual in nature.
tabtab(5)
...How exactly is this hacker news?
Articles of general interest are allowable in moderation.
Also, there is broad overlap between the tech and entertainment industries. Some people here have experienced the seedy underbelly of entertainment. And such stories can be very interesting because, for the most part, tech workers in those industries are involved but invisible.
Like gossip among the servants.
Also, there is broad overlap between the tech and entertainment industries. Some people here have experienced the seedy underbelly of entertainment. And such stories can be very interesting because, for the most part, tech workers in those industries are involved but invisible.
Like gossip among the servants.
Hacking one's progression up the career ladder outside of OOP? (...or is that OPP, yeah you know me!)
"were" as in past tense? no longer happening? I have my doubts it has stopped.
I suspect you’re right, but in this case it’s clear that they’re saying “were” because their involvement in the music industry is past tense; they would have little first hand knowledge whether or not it’s common nowadays.
One reason #METOO came to a screeching halt. When it hit the US music industry. Hell their own awards show went out of its way to not award a song many praised for highlighting the issue.
Still is in the K-pop industry.
Not just in Kpop.
"LITTLE MIX claim record bosses ordered them to flirt with men to get ahead in the music industy. The accusations from the quartet come after Simon Cowell confirmed the group have switched to RCA Records. Now the women have alleged they were advised how to behave to carve out chart success following their victory on The X Factor in 2011. Jade Thirlwall claimed: ‘We went to a radio event in America, full of VIPs. Someone from the label said, “Go and flirt with all those important men.” I was like, “F** off. Why have I got to go in and flirt to get my song on the radio?”’ The 25-year-old also alleged the singers were given no input into their own songs because they are women. ‘In the beginning, we were told we shouldn’t be involved in our music videos,’ she said. ‘One producer told us we shouldn’t be writing, we should just be given songs."
"LITTLE MIX claim record bosses ordered them to flirt with men to get ahead in the music industy. The accusations from the quartet come after Simon Cowell confirmed the group have switched to RCA Records. Now the women have alleged they were advised how to behave to carve out chart success following their victory on The X Factor in 2011. Jade Thirlwall claimed: ‘We went to a radio event in America, full of VIPs. Someone from the label said, “Go and flirt with all those important men.” I was like, “F** off. Why have I got to go in and flirt to get my song on the radio?”’ The 25-year-old also alleged the singers were given no input into their own songs because they are women. ‘In the beginning, we were told we shouldn’t be involved in our music videos,’ she said. ‘One producer told us we shouldn’t be writing, we should just be given songs."
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]
The "Society of the Spectacle" is a wonderfully enigmatic take on media and tech. Highly recommended.
[You sent me searching]
Published by "Bureau of Public Secrets":
http://www.bopsecrets.org/cat.htm
Published by "Bureau of Public Secrets":
http://www.bopsecrets.org/cat.htm
Technically, published by Verso, Black and Red Publics and a couple other publishers. Translated by Bureau of Public Secrets (Ken Knabb) as well as Donald Nicholson Smith and Freddy Perlman.
Available online:
Bureau of Public Secrets: http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/ Marxists.org: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.ht...
Film version: https://archive.org/details/thesocietyofthespectacleguydebor...
Available online:
Bureau of Public Secrets: http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/ Marxists.org: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.ht...
Film version: https://archive.org/details/thesocietyofthespectacleguydebor...
[deleted]
(2021)
All: the article is interesting and, as many fine commenters are showing, it's quite possible to have a curious conversation about it. So could the rest of us please not go off the deep end into flamewar? The amount of moderation this thread has needed is beyond the pale.
Yes, the topic is provocative, but the art of being a good HN citizen involves learning to resist the most provocative bits of an article and the provokey reactions they induce in us.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Yes, the topic is provocative, but the art of being a good HN citizen involves learning to resist the most provocative bits of an article and the provokey reactions they induce in us.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Sex is currency in music industry.
Music is currency in drug industry.
Drugs are currency in sex industry.
The three really do go well together.
The three really do go well together.
What I think is most likely is that many other favors are currency in the music industry.
It's simply that enough people are so obsessed with sex that they find it worth writing about that sex is too.
It would not surprise me at all if it can be generalized to “People in showbusiness play favors to advance their career.”.
Showbusiness is uniquely qualified for such gamesmanship, because quality is entirely subjective, so it is quite easy to realize such matters. — in many other fields, one might find oneself having to justify to one's superiors why exactly one so favors this particular employee as the numbers don't justify it.
It's simply that enough people are so obsessed with sex that they find it worth writing about that sex is too.
It would not surprise me at all if it can be generalized to “People in showbusiness play favors to advance their career.”.
Showbusiness is uniquely qualified for such gamesmanship, because quality is entirely subjective, so it is quite easy to realize such matters. — in many other fields, one might find oneself having to justify to one's superiors why exactly one so favors this particular employee as the numbers don't justify it.
Quality is subjective is part of it, but popularity has a positive feedback loop with exposure.
If you think I can help you get the initial exposure, I have a lot of power.
If you think I can help you get the initial exposure, I have a lot of power.
Sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll, huh?
So, like Hollywood then?
If you think this sort of behavior is from a bygone era, or that the tech companies will somehow “fix” the problem: please ask your favorite Swedish streaming music company CEO why he turned a blind eye to one of his key investors running party house in Coachella that was, as I was told, filled with cocaine and shady characters (this was about 10 years ago)... Those mafia-esque deals with labels and managers didn’t write themselves.
There is, of course, more to this, but nobody tells you or reports on it, because nobody wants to lose access to that world.
There is, of course, more to this, but nobody tells you or reports on it, because nobody wants to lose access to that world.
I could have been working in hip hop in the 90s however the label didn't just want production help they also wanted help selling heroin, the industry in the 90s was very unprofessional to say the least, coming from being a fan of Fugazi and other "straight edge" music I was horrified by the prospect of being expected to sell heroin to get into production for the industry.
Water is wet, who would have thought!!
My father's ex-girlfriend went to work as a Kelly Girl for one of the biggest players in the music industry back in the early `70s. She ended up at the top of their executive positions and was paid very well and retired very comfortably. I can assure you she was never sexually harassed there.
I'm sure they had their parties and people mixed and hooked up, but that's not the same as "favors". They never invested money in something they didn't think would sell, and they made a shit ton of money.
I'm sure they had their parties and people mixed and hooked up, but that's not the same as "favors". They never invested money in something they didn't think would sell, and they made a shit ton of money.
In my younger, prettier days I used to work in West Los Angeles, took acting classes, etc. It is pretty clear to me that something like a majority of the people you see onscreen, both male and female, were required to perform acts on Harvey Weinsteinesque characters to get the roles they had. If you think you only have to do that once or twice, remember that you can audition every day for months or even years without getting a role. If you're a dude, remember that you are very likely going to be servicing another dude whether you're straight or not. Also, when you're young it can be hard to tell who actually has the power actually to get you a role or not.
Probably even more so in Hollywood and elsewhere. When you have asymmetric imbalance, it's almost guaranteed to find abuse in the industry.
Wonder if I gave my mechanic a handie he'd find less wrong with it during my yearly inspection..
Not if he's licensed by a certain Italian car manufacturer demanding that you get your car inspected every year or risk losing resale value.
It is a lucrative recurring revenue model after all...favours or not ;)
It is a lucrative recurring revenue model after all...favours or not ;)
Who is flagging and hiding all these messages? Let people be allowed to have an opinion. It's a tricky topic; let people speak their mind. One has to live in a world where people disagree with you. They won't go away just because you cork their mouth.
A article with no new content about celebrities debauchery in the 80/90's?
Is this vanity fair or HN?
Is this vanity fair or HN?
Were?
Can anyone recommend a hackernews alternative where only IT, CS and tech is discussed? With no politics or yellow press?
Another guy came back from Switzerland and the bank had to put him in a hotel for three weeks because the night before he left he met a lady at a bar and she left fingernail marks all over his back - no way he could hide it from his wife and he knew he would get divorced if she found out.
At the same bank we had this German trust fund kid who had a $400k a month cocaine habit - Dr. Rockso had nothing on this guy. The bank sent him to rehab for six months and when he came back it was really eerie because I'd never seen him stand still for more then 200ms - he had always bounced around like a humming bird and spoke like John Moschitta imitating yoda.
Fast forward twenty years to my time at Tumblr where people office sexing damaged a half dozen window stools, several chairs, and there was a very nice grey couch they had to throw out due to all the "mysterious" stains. You really didn't trust any flat surface there.
They tried to set up an office bar but gave up after two nights when someone drank the entire inventory of liquor each night.
Tumblr had a lot of LGBTQ "diversity hires". One guy would show up at company-wide meetings and use all of the gay porn blogs to demonstrate the latest features he had been working on. Another guy would strut around the office in a zz-top beard and a french maid outfit w/ fishnet pantyhose and heels. There was a group of transitioning guys who would hang out by my desk and discuss their urine fetish - though they stopped doing that after I challenged them all to a "b_lls-out" coding contest knowing they were no longer equipped.
After all that I think I'm ready if I ever get that dream SRE job at PornHub. O Canada! Our home and native land!...