[HN Gopher] 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'
___________________________________________________________________
'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'
Author : RickJWagner
Score : 154 points
Date : 2021-02-17 12:57 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| Everybody involved has always known and assumed that so much that
| it's almost a cliche. 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.)
| simonh wrote:
| 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.
| mnouquet wrote:
| 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.
| known wrote:
| It's there in IT industry also; Girls silently suffer / quit jobs
| :(
| lostgame wrote:
| 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.
| golemiprague wrote:
| IT was always normal, it didn't make any "progress" except
| from the general "progress" that the whole society did. It
| wasn't different to any other industry 40 years ago and not
| today. The only grief women had is that there were not enough
| of them, which is still the case but the ones who worked in
| the industry whether as programmers or other peripheral jobs
| were treated exactly like they would in a law office or a
| bank or other jobs with more women.
|
| The funny thing is that the whole agenda causing women to
| think as if this industry is so bad was pushed by the actual
| bad industry, the media, film and music industry. An industry
| which let hip hop artists say the most horrible things about
| women for years, that actually raped and traded success for
| sexual favours as a common trading coin. They misdirected the
| fire to IT and mid America and everybody swallowed it hook
| line and sinker.
| red01 wrote:
| I can't help but notice the rapists are usually Jewish.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| 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.
| bluGill wrote:
| 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.
| vinger wrote:
| It was never true the pretty ones put out and the uglies were
| good at there jobs. The less good looking probably put out
| more where the more beautiful could get by on a bosses hope.
| bluGill wrote:
| You aren't wrong, but I don't think you are correct. There
| were a lot of "good church going men" who wouldn't sleep
| with anyone they weren't married to. There were others are
| appeared that way in public, but wanted some "outside
| pleasures". The former hired for skill and tried not to
| care about looks, and in fact ugly could be an advantage as
| it may limit temptation (but this was still "women's work"
| so it was her).
|
| The later in theory would hire based on looks, but on on
| reflection it was more complex. It is a bit tricky to
| figure out how who will sleep with you in the interview, as
| those who wouldn't may tell society which would be a
| disaster for someone pretending to be a good church man.
| Those who could figure this out would hire the good looking
| ones. Those who couldn't had to figure out how to make it
| clear that imperfections in performance could be overlooked
| in bed and see what happened - I suspect this was more
| common, and thus biases to the ugly ones.
| tabtab wrote:
| In other words, other "skills" can partly substitute for
| looks. One generally moans with their eyes closed.
|
| One thing that bugs me is that it's often said "men are
| animals" in that they lack self control. Yet many women
| wear provocative clothing at work to gain favors. Such
| women want it both ways: the ability to tease and taunt,
| but a magic lid on those when they don't want advances.
|
| They want to play with fire BUT not ever get burned. Sorry,
| that's being too choosey. If you don't want to get burned,
| don't play with friggen fire! It's like wanting to taunt
| tigers at the zoo all day, but saying they should never try
| to break their cages. Both sides are at fault. Don't taunt
| the hungry tigers in our pants and expect 24/7 self
| control. You already know tigers are dangerous, so don't
| aggravate them.
| grawprog wrote:
| >Don't taunt the hungry tigers in our pants and expect
| 24/7 self control.
|
| I probably shouldn't even bother responding to this
| comment, but i'm sorry, as a man, yes control your
| fucking dick. That's the way of it. If you can't control
| yourself, that's on you, nobody else.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I agree that men should control themselves. They have the
| moral responsibility to do so.
|
| And yet, we live in a world where not all men do. We live
| in a world where some men are rapists, and some use
| intimidation or influence to pressure women into sex.
| _That 's their fault_, not womens'. But if a woman acts
| like she lives in a world where that never happens, she
| is not being very wise. Morally, is it her fault? No,
| absolutely not. But she still is acting unwisely.
| nineplay wrote:
| > But if a woman acts like she lives in a world where
| that never happens, she is not being very wise.
|
| How many woman do you think are pressured into sex who
| "were not being very wise" What wisdom did they lack?
|
| What does acting "like she lives in a world where that
| never happens" mean exactly? Cute clothes? Friendly
| attitudes? Having curves and not trying to disguise it?
| Un
| tabtab wrote:
| I'm not justifying it, only saying it's not realistic IN
| PRACTICE. Requiring 24/7 discipline on that doesn't
| scale. Most men are friggen horny by nature. It's like
| telling everyone to diet and exercise to not be obese. It
| doesn't work, half the population over 30 is obese. Or to
| never gossip. How many will follow that?
|
| Realistic advice needs to scale and work in practice.
| Platitudes without that won't actually fly.
| grawprog wrote:
| Yeah dude...being horny by nature is no excuse for that
| kind of behaviour. Yes it is realistic to expect people
| will not sexually take advantage of others just because
| they're horny and the other person is dressed in a way
| that 'taunts' them.
|
| It happens all the time. There's millions of horny people
| out there every day not sexually assaulting people.
| tabtab wrote:
| BOTH SIDES have a responsibility to reduce the problem.
| Women shouldn't be given a Get-Out-Of-Taunt-For-Free
| card.
|
| Re: _There 's millions of horny people out there every
| day not sexually assaulting people._
|
| Just because SOME can muster up the discipline doesn't
| mean everybody can.
|
| It's not about "making excuses", it's about solving
| problems in a PRACTICAL way. (I replied here because the
| Reply button is missing for unknown reasons.)
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Everyone _can_ , but not everyone _does_. Cold hard
| reality is that not everyone _does_. Saying that not
| everyone _can_ is excusing at least some of the men.
| grawprog wrote:
| I'm going to respond to this comment, but this is to the
| above poster as well and in general to the thread.
|
| Rereading your comments, i think i've responded a bit
| reactionary and not really addressed some of the things
| you've said.
|
| Yes, i believe people have a responsibility to keep
| themselves safe and out of harm. Yes, women and everyone,
| should be aware there's nasty people out there that will
| hurt them. You're correct many people are unaware of
| this.
|
| This doesn't change the fact that the victim of an
| assault is not guilty of it. Saying women are responsible
| because they dress a certain way is the same as saying
|
| 'Well that guy that got beaten and robbed, it's his
| fault, doesn't he know that street's full of crime?
| Everybody knows that.'
|
| It's laying the blame on the victim, saying they are
| somehow responsible for their attacker's actions. It's
| their fault because if they'd just dressed differently,
| maybe they wouldn't have been attacked.
| nineplay wrote:
| > Yet many women wear provocative clothing at work to
| gain favors.
|
| Where are earth are you working? I've never seen anything
| like it in 30-odd years.
| ThankYouBernard wrote:
| who needs Mad Men when you can just read HN in 2021
| pvarangot wrote:
| 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.
| lostgame wrote:
| 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.
| g00gler wrote:
| 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.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| 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).
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| I worked in tech companies, this is why I was mentioning how
| this is different between companies and organizations.
| crazypython wrote:
| 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.
| mercer wrote:
| It's very common in the world of gymnastics, for one.
| sbilstein wrote:
| 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
| sadmann1 wrote:
| Stardom levels of success will always be based on relationships
| and all the power dynamic baggage that entails
| FriedrichN wrote:
| 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.
| alistairSH wrote:
| And US Gymnastics and other sports.
| evgen wrote:
| 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...
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Russian ballet comes to mind as well
| _pmf_ wrote:
| So, it's women exploiting men for money?
| cat199 wrote:
| 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.
| sdellis wrote:
| #FreeBritney
| motohagiography wrote:
| 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.
| throwaawwaaaay wrote:
| HN: Legalize prostitution, it is normal work.
|
| Also HN: Sleeping your way to the top? THE HORROR.
|
| I know quite a few people who did the latter, they don't seem to
| regret it at all.
| [deleted]
| dang wrote:
| _Please don 't sneer, including at the rest of the community._
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| That guideline is there because this is such a common, tedious,
| and reliably provocative form of flamebait. Please make your
| substantive points without flamebait.
| kgwxd wrote:
| Sleeping your way to the top isn't what's under fire. It's the
| people in positions of power expecting sex.
| enriquto wrote:
| These two things may be very difficult do distinguish in
| practice. In many cases the only difference will be in how
| you describe the situation.
| kgwxd wrote:
| Specific instances aren't really part of the point I'm
| trying to make. It's clear that there exists a non-zero
| number of people in positions of power expecting sex in
| exchange for opportunity and a lot of people just accept
| "that's how it is".
|
| There is a surprisingly large number of comments here
| trying to justify this by redirecting focus towards the
| people who ultimately decided to give sex in exchange for
| opportunity. That's a completely separate debate that isn't
| even very controversial. It's those comments, and their
| upvotes, that concern me. Especially when they're high
| karma accounts on a site targeted at entrepreneurs that
| might be in a position to coerce someone towards choosing
| to give sex in exchange for opportunity.
| capableweb wrote:
| It's almost as HN is filled with actual real human beings with
| different opinions and emotions, some of them think legalizing
| prostitution should be done and some of them think using your
| body for industry favors is bad.
| chewmieser wrote:
| Both of these can be true too... We can be horrified that
| people abuse their positions of power to force people into
| sex to achieve a life goal while at the same time believe
| that prostitution should be legalized for those that choose
| to go down that path in life.
|
| Legalizing behaviors doesn't endorse them either. It removes
| some of the danger inherent in the behavior.
| Jochim wrote:
| Can you really not see the difference? In prostitution sex is
| the product being sold. In other environments sex is a
| distorting factor that puts those not willing to engage in it
| at a disadvantage and can cause great harm when it becomes an
| expectation.
| eplanit wrote:
| I don't think it said they were forcibly raped; but that the
| sex was in exchange for something of value, like opportunity
| or promotion. So long as both parties are adults and in
| agreement, the "not willing to engage" part doesn't apply.
| Maybe it's still unethical, though.
| leetcrew wrote:
| the point is that even if the participants are okay with
| it, it still harms people who are unwilling to participate.
| if I'm a sex worker, my work _is_ sex. nothing wrong with
| charging money for that. if I 'm a software engineer, my
| work has nothing to do with sex, and my career progression
| should not be impeded by my refusal to have sex with my
| boss.
| [deleted]
| Jochim wrote:
| I was intending to make a more general statement on the
| effects of the practice on all participants and in other
| industries.
|
| The disadvantage for being "not willing to engage" would be
| applied to those potential artists who refused the sexual
| advances of these people and were therefore passed over;
| despite potentially being a better candidate. I think you
| could even argue that there may be an element of coercion
| if the person was willing to engage originally. Now that
| your manager is responsible for your career are you really
| safe in saying no the second time?
|
| The question is really whether we're okay with allowing
| sexual favours to be placed over merit when accepting
| people into an industry. I think the answer is
| unequivocally no, even in industries where sex is the
| product.
| chewmieser wrote:
| So you'd rather keep things as they were? Make this a permanent
| barrier to entry?
| enriquto wrote:
| It's a barrier or an open door, depending on what you are
| willing to do.
| Jochim wrote:
| Either way it usually has nothing to do with the job.
| Should we really be accepting of managers hiring/promoting
| people based on how likely they are to fuck them?
| enriquto wrote:
| No, of course. But it still is an open door to many
| people who wouldn't be there otherwise. I'm not giving
| any assessment whether this is good or bad.
| Jochim wrote:
| What is the point of discussing something like this other
| than to determine whether it was good or bad?
| leetcrew wrote:
| it is bad for promotions/opportunities at work to be
| doled out on any other basis than a good-faith estimate
| of capability. that is, assuming you agree that the point
| of work is to get work done.
| Dirlewanger wrote:
| >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...
| agumonkey wrote:
| You should start a thread on twitter, #bttf
| texasbigdata wrote:
| 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.
| krapp wrote:
| >(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.
| dang wrote:
| 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...
| nicolas_t wrote:
| Who is Parkor? Tried googling but couldn't find anything about
| that?
| MadeThisToReply wrote:
| Presumably they meant to write Parler
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler
| MauranKilom wrote:
| I think they meant Parler.
| [deleted]
| znpy wrote:
| 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.
| Communitivity wrote:
| 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).
| tabtab wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| MichaelMoser123 wrote:
| 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?
| AltruisticGapHN wrote:
| 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.
| Udik wrote:
| Exactly. Insisting on how shameful and/ or traumatic some
| experiences _must_ feel is, deep down, incredibly puritanic.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| 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.
| MichaelMoser123 wrote:
| 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.
| bluGill wrote:
| 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]
| jaegerpicker wrote:
| 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.
| runawaybottle wrote:
| You overestimate the amount of integrity people have.
| dang wrote:
| The article is interesting because it seems to be an example of
| just that.
| linuxftw wrote:
| 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.
| bigtex wrote:
| 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.
| usrusr wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| 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.
| killtimeatwork wrote:
| 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.
| simonh wrote:
| 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.
| chokeartist wrote:
| Yup. Just ask Rose McGowan. I'm sure in retrospect it would
| have been easier for her career to let mongloid-dick Harvey
| Weinstein plow her a few times.
|
| Fucking disgusting abuse of power. Makes me sick.
| watwut wrote:
| > 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.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| I'd have sex with a rich and powerful woman in exchange for
| millions of dollars and I wouldn't feel the slightest bit of
| shame.
| lurquer wrote:
| But would a rich and powerful woman want to have sex with
| you? For millions of dollars?
|
| I salute your inflated ego, sir!
| havelhovel wrote:
| The key word is "I'd" which is the contraction of "I
| would", which indicates a hypothetical situation separate
| from the commenter's ego or self-image.
| [deleted]
| jinkyu wrote:
| "were"?
| [deleted]
| subpixel wrote:
| I'm reminded of an axiom, which I will paraphrase:
|
| Everything is about sex. Except sex, which is about power.
| agumonkey wrote:
| 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.
| mnouquet wrote:
| Actually, in a human hierarchical society, power is all about
| sex.
| saalweachter wrote:
| Money, power, sex and elephants.
| pjc50 wrote:
| It might have gone better if you'd said "aphorism" rather than
| "axiom", because boy howdy are there a lot of people in these
| comments who don't know what an aphorism is and are taking it
| literally.
| subpixel wrote:
| you are correct.
| A12-B wrote:
| I've always thought this phrase is a bit silly. It completely
| erases the existence of asexual people and their goals and
| ambitions.
| jmt_ wrote:
| 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.
| robscallsign wrote:
| The average human has one breast and one testicle.
| dspillett wrote:
| And less than two arms.
| covidthrow wrote:
| Parent is talking about percentiles, not averages.
|
| But on the point of averages: the median human has two
| breasts and no testicles.
| mnouquet wrote:
| Even with asexual people, it's _all_ about sex... or the lack
| of thereof. Asexuality is a sexuality.
| eqvinox wrote:
| 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.
| A12-B wrote:
| 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]
| voldacar wrote:
| Asexual people actually are the ones erasing their own
| existence. On a generational timescale, at least
| A12-B wrote:
| 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.
| lostgame wrote:
| 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?
| caseysoftware wrote:
| > _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.
| lostgame wrote:
| 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.
| A12-B wrote:
| 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.
| Clewza313 wrote:
| 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).
| lostgame wrote:
| 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?
| A12-B wrote:
| 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.
| azeirah wrote:
| 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.
| lostgame wrote:
| 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.
| mercer wrote:
| 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.
| lostgame wrote:
| 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.
| eqvinox wrote:
| 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.
| globular-toast wrote:
| Yeah and it completely erases the existence of clouds too!
| Why isn't there a bit about clouds?!
| benburleson wrote:
| Or, is the lack of sex about power, reinforcing the axiom?
| A12-B wrote:
| 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.
| kgwxd wrote:
| It's also leaves out everyone for whom sex is not about
| power. It's like saying knives are for stabbing, which is
| true, if you're going to stab someone.
| mnouquet wrote:
| Either conscientiously or inconscientiously, sex is about
| power.
| kgwxd wrote:
| Says more about the speaker than sex itself. Sounds like the
| words of someone with mental health issues.
| leetcrew wrote:
| kevin spacey said this in the first season of house of cards.
| kgwxd wrote:
| I did not know that and I choked on my tea reading it.
| leetcrew wrote:
| in hindsight, it's kind of incredible. in the show, he
| said this to a young reporter who was trading sexual
| favors for scoops.
| ordu wrote:
| 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.
| subpixel wrote:
| A more nuanced critique is to be found via the podcast "Sex
| Power Money", by Sara Pascoe.
| globular-toast wrote:
| _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.
| mhh__ wrote:
| The phrase should be considered as a framework for (let's
| say) hyper-masculine Id behaviour.
|
| However sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| 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.
| mathgorges wrote:
| 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?
| [deleted]
| jimkleiber wrote:
| 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.
| mathgorges wrote:
| 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?
| mgarfias wrote:
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| mathgorges wrote:
| 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?
| unishark wrote:
| 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.
| mathgorges wrote:
| 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?
| leetcrew wrote:
| > 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.
| manfredo wrote:
| 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.
| jimbokun wrote:
| 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".
| klyrs wrote:
| > 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.
| jlawson wrote:
| 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.
| mathgorges wrote:
| 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)
| mrec wrote:
| Emmanuel Cafferty is one example that springs to mind:
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-
| firin...
| spoonjim wrote:
| 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."
| ookblah wrote:
| 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.
| mr-wendel wrote:
| 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).
| mathgorges wrote:
| 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
| LanceH wrote:
| -- 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
| heywherelogingo wrote:
| Boycott - don't attend talk. Cancel culture - you may not
| give talk.
| mathgorges wrote:
| So "cancel culture" == "deplatforming"?
| werber wrote:
| Boycotts still exist, like the BDS (boycott divest sanction)
| movement
| matkoniecz wrote:
| Not an expert, but big difference is that boycotts are
| against companies/businesses while cancellations target
| individuals.
| rgblambda wrote:
| 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.
| macksd wrote:
| 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.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| 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.
| tchalla wrote:
| > 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 :)
| timthorn wrote:
| My chemistry teacher was in a top ten pop group in decades
| past. Could be a more common career ladder than you might
| think.
| fuzzer37 wrote:
| Wow that sounds super interesting. Did he have any cool
| stories?
| unnouinceput wrote:
| 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.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Citation? I thought he kept family retainers around
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| 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.
| csunbird wrote:
| 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.
| bjourne wrote:
| 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.
| tabtab wrote:
| How do you know that? There are plenty of opportunities for
| favoritism. For example, listing position on the name of
| assistants on research papers.
| jacquesm wrote:
| This comment probably wasn't intentionally funny.
| runawaybottle wrote:
| 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.
| alistairSH wrote:
| 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.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| The power deltas might create more opportunity. But as you
| (and me) noted, it's everywhere.
| nabla9 wrote:
| It makes perfect sense.
|
| Music industry is a economics of superstars.
| https://www.jstor.org/stable/1803469 Very few stars get huge
| profits and after that it's long slim tail.
|
| Talent or high work ethic is not enough for success, "getting
| discovered" aka someone likes you and invests the initial money
| and effort is another factor.
|
| If personal effort is not enough and the artist has nothing else,
| selling your ass for an opportunity to earn millions is pretty
| damn reasonable transaction. I mean, if Jeff Besos would come to
| you and say: I invest into your startup $100M if I can fuck you
| into the ass tree times, very high percentage of HN crowd would
| immediately say yes.
| agumonkey wrote:
| 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.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| 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.
| illwrks wrote:
| 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...
| shakow wrote:
| > 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.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Spotify charges $1/song/month as a listing fee. I bet a
| majority of Spotify artists pay more to Spotify than they
| receive.
| steverb wrote:
| 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).
| agumonkey wrote:
| 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'.
| bluGill wrote:
| 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.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| '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.
| beckman466 wrote:
| > I mean, if Jeff Besos would come to you and say: I invest
| into your startup $100M if I can fuck you into the ass tree
| times, very high percentage of HN crowd would immediately say
| yes.
|
| Ew. This comment is atrocious and shows your privilege. It
| sounds like you haven't listened to many stories of women
| experiencing systemic abuse, misogyny and humiliation (and who
| experience most of this abuse in the music industry). It scares
| me that people say this stuff publicly.
|
| Comparing Bezos 'fucking you in the ass three times to gain an
| advantage' with the constant threat women face from powerful
| men leaves me feeling disgusted
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| Get a grip.
| vmception wrote:
| The reaction anybody views probably comes from their own
| prior life experiences.
|
| That doesn't change that a very high percentage of the HN
| crowd would take this offer are men. A lot men are not in a
| position to reject offers about their body's sexual value
| such that it turns into abuse.
|
| A lot of men (99%?) don't get the privilege of making a
| choice to prove themselves in the business world, versus
| distinctly with their body.
|
| If this was a more frequent choice, the gender representation
| in tech/corporate leadership roles would even out much
| faster. Because less men would be there, having chosen a
| different opportunity. I perceive this as an underrepresented
| reality.
|
| I viewed that comment as referring to that crowd.
| nabla9 wrote:
| These two things don't compare:
|
| a) People in position of power demanding sexual favors from
| people so that they can get on with their work or get small
| rewards.
|
| b) Competitive entertainers prostituting themselves for rare
| opportunities to become wealthy celebrities. Exchanges of sex
| for extreme rewards.
|
| Equating how people prostitute themselves for celebrity
| status and high income to the abuse that some background
| dancer gets every day is wrong.
|
| I understand that people live and understand things trough
| celebrities, but that's not where the real problems are.
| beckman466 wrote:
| > b) Competitive entertainers prostituting themselves for
| rare opportunities to become wealthy celebrities. Exchanges
| of sex for extreme rewards.
|
| No. I think you overestimate the frequency of this
| happening. Most people don't want to give sex for
| opportunities.
|
| Most of the people I've met just want their unique talent
| to be recognized and honored.
| nabla9 wrote:
| Many beautiful women marry rich ugly men they don't love
| for money. That's not abuse. It's prostituting oneself. I
| respect these women and men and their decisions.
| Sometimes sex is business decision.
|
| Trading sex for favors is not automatically abuse.
|
| People trade sex for opportunity because all other tings
| equal they may get opportunity over someone better.
| Superstars don't become superstars just because they have
| unique talents. They are as much or more results of
| marketing investments. When there are hundreds of equally
| talented individuals, picking one of them for marketing
| is more or less random.
|
| When person has opportunity to continue as indie artist
| or sell their ass for million dollar opportunity, that's
| just a business deal.
| mam2 wrote:
| > Ew. This comment is atrocious and shows your privilege. It
| sounds like you haven't listened to many stories of women
| experiencing systemic abuse and misogyny. It scares me that
| people say this stuff publicly.
|
| The point is that for 2 girls complaining about abuse, in
| this industry there are 100 who perfectly know what they are
| doing and happy to play the sexual favor game.
|
| The only part where you are right is that it should be made
| more public, so that "innocent" (not like amber heard) girls
| would not get so surprised then.
| beckman466 wrote:
| > in this industry there are 100 who perfectly know what
| they are doing and happy to play the sexual favor game.
|
| Do they 'know', or have they just come to accept this level
| of violence and danger becuase of their gender?
|
| > The only part where you are right is that it should be
| made more public, so that "innocent" (not like amber heard)
| girls would not get so surprised then.
|
| Ah jeez, speculating about Amber's innocence is just
| tabloid celebrity gawking at this point. Have you met her
| or heard her story in person? No.
| leesalminen wrote:
| To me your comment is illustrating your privilege.
| Prostituting oneself three times to be financially set for
| life could be a perfectly acceptable trade off for millions
| of people. The fact that you wouldn't even consider it shows
| that you haven't gone hungry for a while.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > The fact that you wouldn't even consider it shows that
| you haven't gone hungry for a while.
|
| "I give you $1 bn if you kill that one kid" and you answer
| "I'll never kill a kid, no matter how much you pay me" to
| which I reply: "Your answer is illustrating your
| privilege".
|
| Certainly you see the gigantic sophism in your comment?
| leesalminen wrote:
| No, actually I think this is a fairly poor analogy. In
| your example, one is being asked to harm _another_ for
| their benefit. In the other, one is being asked to harm
| _one's self_ for their benefit.
|
| However terrible and painful the example is, abstractly,
| I believe people are free to decide what happens to
| themselves, but not to others. Murder is universally
| illegal, while prostitution, arguably, shouldn't be, and
| isn't in many places.
| null_deref wrote:
| What are you talking about? In my understanding you're
| saying everyone that been offered sexual transaction from a
| superstar is dying for a piece of bread? I think that
| statement is very detached from reality
| wiz21c wrote:
| ain't sure what you mean by acceptable. All of this
| discussion comes to one question : do you have a choice or
| not.
|
| You have a choice to run a start up and make any sacrifice
| you think necessary. You don't have a choice to eat
| something when you're hungry.
|
| If you don't have a choice, then you're a victim.
|
| (and yes, not everyone has a choice, not everyone just has
| to work more to get the choice, many people, at some point,
| don't have a choice; abusing their situation is criminal)
| zajio1am wrote:
| It is not that you have only two options:
|
| 1) Get $100M and anal sex from Bezos
|
| 2) Be hungry
|
| You can take third option, do not take Bezos's offer, do
| not make startup and instead do same basic work. So in
| this case you have choice.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > The fact that you wouldn't even consider it shows that
| you haven't gone hungry for a while.
|
| This is an argument for making sure people don't go hungry,
| not for letting rich people rape people who want a job.
| leesalminen wrote:
| I'm not here to argue about a hypothetical utopia where
| nobody on the planet has to make terrible choices to
| protect their life. I'm just providing a commentary on
| the state of the world we do live in. Obviously this
| hypothetical utopia (or any step in that direction) would
| be superior to what we have now.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I like to think of "not being raped" as "bare minimum
| standard to strive for", not "hypothetical utopia".
| leesalminen wrote:
| I was referring to the hypothetical utopia of "making
| sure people don't go hungry", which is something that has
| never happened before in human history. But thanks for
| assuming negative intent.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The world produces enough food to feed everyone. Doubly
| true if you scope things to the developed world. Triply
| true if you scope it to the USA only. "No one starves" is
| just as reasonable a minimum standard to _strive_ for as
| "no one gets raped".
|
| Yes, there are serious implementation details, but
| there's a big societal will factor at play too.
| tomp wrote:
| You're making a strawman argument. The difference is
| between "being a local singer vs being a superstar", not
| "being hungry vs fed".
| ceejayoz wrote:
| This thread stems from a comment that stated:
|
| > The fact that you wouldn't even consider it shows that
| you haven't gone hungry for a while.
| beckman466 wrote:
| > To me your comment is illustrating your privilege.
| Prostituting oneself three times to be financially set for
| life could be a perfectly acceptable trade off for millions
| of people.
|
| I hear you and get where you're coming from, yet my take is
| that I want to shift the dynamics of the system for
| everyone. Systems change, not personal change. Also this
| isn't about a 'facing a trade off' or sex work, it's about
| dehumanization and exploitation at the hands of an abusive
| powerful person.
|
| And I want everyone to be 'set for life'. It's absolutely
| possible.
| leesalminen wrote:
| > I want to shift the dynamics of the system for
| everyone. Systems change, not personal change.
|
| We can agree here!
| [deleted]
| galfarragem wrote:
| > very high percentage of HN crowd would immediately say yes
|
| FWIW, I believe GP was not making any gender distinction..
| rectang wrote:
| I agree, that was the intent. The article talks about gay
| sexual favors.
|
| However, the distinction is that people with tangible
| experience with sexual abuse perceive this differently. And
| unfortunately, women have disproportionate experience with
| sexual abuse.
| mindslight wrote:
| It's easier and more honest to simply say "ew" to a crassly
| worded comment, than to drag the discussion into a
| pity/privilege party by making up some narrative about the
| poster.
| fishe wrote:
| Don't equate sex work (which is what is in op's example) with
| rape. It simultaneously denigrates sex workers while
| trivializing victims of sexual violence.
| david38 wrote:
| There's always one who takes any comment and has to act like
| that gatekeeper.
|
| You don't own suffering. You're not it's gatekeeper. It's not
| for you to decide if one person's proposed situation doesn't
| take into account the situation of one of millions of
| versions of suffering.
|
| This sounds like you never played "would you rather" as a
| child. If comments like this leave you disgusted, you would
| reconsider reading public forums.
| dv_dt wrote:
| A transaction where the terms are fully disclosed with
| enforceable clauses and which has a clean starting and ending
| completion state is very different from what is being described
| in the article or what you are fantastically proposing.
|
| A sexual assault tied to an entertainment career paths has
| indefinite terms, consists of unagreed upon jeopardy in terms
| of what is being exchanged, and for how long. It's nothing like
| an "opportunity".
| hshshs2 wrote:
| you seem to neglect the fact that in a realistic scenario bezos
| would do it and also not pay you, rape isn't a financial
| transaction
| [deleted]
| johnchristopher wrote:
| > if Jeff Besos would come to you and say: I invest into your
| startup $100M if I can fuck you into the ass tree times, very
| high percentage of HN crowd would immediately say yes.
|
| What's the name for this kind of arguments?
|
| Also, why specifically Bezos? Why not the billionaire next
| door?
|
| Also, why only the HN crowd? Wouldn't a lot of people too?
|
| Do you have a beef with the HN crowd or Bezos?
| adamisom wrote:
| I perceive your parent comment to be straightforward and not
| sinister in the least. Why _not_ Bezos (the billionaire who
| most easily comes to mind), why _not_ HN (the website we 're
| _on_ )? Seriously, what's with the weird angry insinuating
| questions.
| leetcrew wrote:
| how dare someone choose an example that would be relevant
| to the audience!
| [deleted]
| 3np wrote:
| It makes my wonder, just how prevalent is that in the tech
| industry? I'm pretty sure it falls somewhere between 0 and
| music industry, non-inclusively.
| onychomys wrote:
| Probably a lot less of a problem since so many tech dudes are
| dudes.
| hshshs2 wrote:
| lots of fairly high profile harassment cases in the
| industry, especially if you expand it to include game dev
| rectang wrote:
| Sadly, that means that the few women in the tech industry
| experience even more concentrated abuse.
|
| Furthermore, there are even fewer people up the tech
| management food chain than in other industries who
| appreciate the circumstances of sexual abuse victims.
| onychomys wrote:
| I mostly meant in a probabilistic sense. It's much more
| likely that a male VC will be having a meeting with a
| male startup CEO than a female one (on either end!).
| bluGill wrote:
| Sort of. The lack of women in the field is a problem.
| However programmers are in demand which means that women
| have some awareness that they can scream and get away
| with it. A female in the arts who screamed can be
| unofficially blacklisted and not get anywhere, where as a
| female in programming can scream and find a different
| job.
|
| Also a lot of tech companies (but by no means all!) are
| aware of the issue. You can be reasonably sure a large
| tech company has as good anti-sexual harassment program
| and will generally take actions to prevent it. A female
| is about as safe in tech as any other job: not perfectly
| safe, as safe as possible.
| thn-gap wrote:
| Thousands of employees devote already 1/3 of their life doing a
| work they despise just so they can avoid starving.
|
| Getting literally fucked to save 40 years of bad work doesn't
| sound too bad.
| im3w1l wrote:
| It's a race to the bottom though. Once one person does it,
| everyone else has to do it too, just so they don't fall
| behind. In the end you are back to where you started, except
| you have to sell yourself in addition.
| xwdv wrote:
| You're selling a service, not yourself. There's plenty of
| people for whom a sexual favor is not a big deal, and they
| see it as a huge return on investment.
| kgwxd wrote:
| > There's plenty of people for whom a sexual favor is not
| a big deal
|
| And that's their choice. Sleeping your way to the top is
| a very separate debate. Requiring anyone who wants a job
| to fuck you is the topic being discussed.
| enriquto wrote:
| > Sleeping your way to the top is a very separate debate
|
| You keep saying that, but it's actually the same thing.
| One cannot exist without the other. You need both kinds
| of people for the phenomenon to exist. If a boss hires
| only people who have sex with them, and nobody is willing
| to, they will not hire anybody. Conversely, if a
| candidate is willing to sleep their way to the top, but
| no boss partakes in that, then they are not hired.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >It's a race to the bottom though. Once one person does it,
| everyone else has to do it too, just so they don't fall
| behind.
|
| See also: growth hacking which is rampant in the tech
| startup industry
| [deleted]
| rectang wrote:
| Except that most sexual assault victims just get literally
| fucked and don't save 40 years of bad work.
|
| People generally perceive winner-take-all economies like the
| music industry through this same fallacious lens: they assume
| that the star experience is the norm and ignore the long
| tail. The music industry is a high-profile but economically
| tiny; it is not representative of the wider economy, and the
| star experience within it is even more unrepresentative.
|
| It's comments like this which remind me that HN has minuscule
| female participation. Because so many more women have
| experience with sexual assault than men, and because people
| who have experienced sexual assault would downvote this
| comment into oblivion, the fact that it survives is a
| testament to how screwed up HN demographics are.
| neutronicus wrote:
| Yeah, this shit didn't happen with a fucking contract - the
| entire sexual assault probably took place without the
| offender ever even mentioning a _quid pro quo_ , you just
| heard from someone else that it was the only way. You can't
| sue the fucking guy if you don't get a callback.
|
| And to be honest there are people here who _loudly_ won 't
| even do a three-hour whiteboard interview for a high-paying
| gig that isn't a sure thing.
|
| I just watched Fran Lebowitz's Netflix special and
| according to her you couldn't even get a job as a waitress
| in NYC in the '70s without sexual favors. Basically a
| generation of service industry management looked at
| sexually assaulting job applicants as a _perk_.
| zajio1am wrote:
| > Except that most sexual assault victims just get
| literally fucked and don't save 40 years of bad work.
|
| But sexual assault is offtopic in this thread. OP discussed
| voluntary exchange and not sexual assault.
| rectang wrote:
| The generic term "abuse" would have been more precise,
| and I have used it elsethread. However, it is common for
| these incidents to take the form of sexual assault: see
| Harvey Weinstein, Les Moonves, etc. In any case,
| "voluntary exchange" is a spectacularly inapt way to
| characterize sexual coercion by entertainment industry
| executives.
| notahacker wrote:
| A lot of "favours" are also about avoiding downsides.
|
| With Weinstein or hypothetical influential Valley figure, the
| choice might be between literally or metaphorically being
| fucked.
| wiz21c wrote:
| I'd be happy to vomit all my sexual weirdness upon you. Then
| you'd have those 40 years to rebuild your psychology from
| ruins...
|
| Come on, you can't possibly think seriously about what you
| just wrote.
| curation wrote:
| I thought so. At 20 I used to go out dancing every night for
| fun. After being repeatedly groped I decided I should get
| paid for dancing. It was a perfect decision. But not for the
| money. The thing is it's not the 'getting literally fucked'
| that is bad. It's that when you choose that as a way to avoid
| starving their is a social cost: You are a fucking dirty
| whore. And it follows you the rest of your life. I became a
| sex worker activist because in Toronto being a stripper/sex
| worker meant no protection from the law (if cops found you
| doing a lap dance or on the street they arrest you if you
| don't give them a hand job (stripper) blow job (hooker).
| jalla wrote:
| Your argument doesn't make sense at all. You don't invest in an
| idea or people if you don't believe you can profit.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > ... very high percentage of HN crowd would immediately say
| yes
|
| The most powerful world in the dictionary is "no". As an
| entirely self-made / self-taught person I know the power of
| that word.
|
| That you consider it a "pretty darn reasonable transaction"
| tells about your ethics and morality, not about the ethics and
| morality of a "very high percentage of HN crowd".
|
| Regarding fame/money, here's Ruyard Kipling's take on it:
|
| "Do not pay too much attention to fame, power, or money. Some
| day you will meet a person who cares for none of these, and
| then you will know how poor you are."
|
| I'm raising my kid the way my rebellious parents rose me,
| telling her "no" is the most powerful word and she should use
| and abuse it and teaching her there's more to life than fame
| and money... But feel free to raise yours telling them selling
| their bodies to obtain fame/money is a "pretty damn reasonable
| transaction".
| [deleted]
| kgwxd wrote:
| This isn't about the people who exchange sex for opportunity,
| it's about the people who exchange opportunity for sex.
| scottisbrave84 wrote:
| I disagree about your comment with Jeff bezos. I don't believe
| anyone on the hn community would do this.
| kwertyoowiyop wrote:
| Sure, but what's the catch?
| sokoloff wrote:
| Now we're just haggling over the price.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| I was haggling on if it had to be Jeff Bezos.
| Humdeee wrote:
| I'm appalled, what kind of a man do you think I am?
| ericol wrote:
| I recognized this quote.
| jaywalk wrote:
| I was worried I'd get into a bidding war with someone who
| says they'll do it four times.
| yardie wrote:
| > 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.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| So R Kelly just erred by degree?
| csharptwdec19 wrote:
| 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.
| virtue3 wrote:
| 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."
| jacquesm wrote:
| Check out children's beauty pageants if you want to see
| another example of this kind of horror.
| mgkimsal wrote:
| > 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.
| jiofih wrote:
| > 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...
| nostromo wrote:
| 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.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| With Polanski, though, it is worth mentioning 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.
| enriquto wrote:
| > 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?
| spoonjim wrote:
| Yes, I would applaud such a scumbag and would hope my
| friends did not either.
| varjag wrote:
| No need to imagine. There was a historic precedent of a
| convict writing super popular book.
| mywittyname wrote:
| 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.
| vkou wrote:
| 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.
| fredophile wrote:
| 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?
| austincheney wrote:
| 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.
| diob wrote:
| 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.
| quasimodem wrote:
| ...How exactly is this hacker news?
| anonAndOn wrote:
| Hacking one's progression up the career ladder outside of OOP?
| (...or is that OPP, yeah you know me!)
| api wrote:
| 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.
| alexashka wrote:
| > 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.
| tabtab wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| moduspol wrote:
| 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.
| fulafel wrote:
| I wonder about game development, it shares a lot of the traits.
| api wrote:
| Game development is known for being a death march burnout
| culture.
| tabtab wrote:
| My body doesn't qualify me for access to "alternative routes"
| to success. I can see many game devs are in the same boat.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-17 21:01 UTC)