Chris Brown - all is forgiven?!
Was it right that he was allowed a 'second chance' to play the Grammy's?
''I think people deserve a second chance, you know. If you'll note, [Chris] has not been on the Grammys for the past few years and it may have taken us a while to kind of get over the fact that we were the victim of what happened.'' - Ken Ehrlich, Grammy Executive Producer
''HATE ALL U WANT BECUZ I GOT A GRAMMY Now! That's the ultimate FUCK OFF!'' - Chris Brown
Read this: http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&p=11855&title=why_are_we_so_quick_to_forgive&more=1&c=1
Then read the disturbing police report about what he actually did to Rihanna: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1606481/chris-brown-police-report-provides-details-altercation.jhtml
I can't quite work out why there wasn't a bigger uproar about this.
- Relevant artist taggings:
- Rihanna »[x]
- Chris Brown »[x]
- DiS Does Pop: The Xmas Bumper Edition
- V Festival 2011: The DiS Review
- In Photos: V Festival 2011 @ Weston Park, Staffordshire
- V Festival 2011: A DiS preview...
- Last.fm reveal most listened to artists of 2010
- Spotifriday #70 - This Week on DiS as a playlist
- Rihanna - Loud
- In Photos: BBC Big Weekend @ Vanyol Estate, Bangor
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild | Report this
Twitter
Facebook
Last.fm
SoundCloud
MySpace
Friendster
RSS
If she can forgive and forget then other people should be able to.
I couldn't agree with this statement less.
I'll try to elaborate - Chris Brown viciously assaulted her. It wasn't a case a few nasty words or he stole some jewellery from her; he beat her up. And then it's his complete lack of remorse (or his extremely considered press release comments of remorse) that show him for what he truly is; a horrible, vile man.
I think the reason that Rihanna has sadly "forgiven" him is what happens in so many domestic abuse cases and that is that the victim tends to side with the attacker in the end.
Mini-rant over
Completely agree with this
The man is Scum.
LOL.
why LOL?
were you being sarcastic in your first post?
Yeah
please elaborate. What was "lol" funny about my post?
"it may have taken us a while to kind of get over the fact that we were the victim of what happened.'
YOU POOR RICH OLD WHITE MAN
What's his skin colour got to do with anything?
Nothing
But the only old Black men I know are Morgan Freeman and Bill Cosby and I bet they have better taste in music than the guys who run the Grammys.
Freeman definitely, he owns an awesome blues club.
Case
closed.
yes
the victim of a woman being punched in the face wasn't actually her or her face, it was the Grammy awards.
fuck chris brown forever, what a cunt.
this is particularly disturbing
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/horrible-reactions-to-chris-brown-at-the-grammys
Absolute morons
Number 13
Looks like he already has.
*slow clap*
Dickhead.
That's pretty distressing
has domestic violence been trivialised to such an extent that people think like that? Or are some people just incredibly stupid?
It's the internet
Everyone can have their say, even idiots
Has it been trivialised?
I read the comment below by 'Mary O'Donnell', which everyone is applauding, and she seems to be describing a world different to the one I live in. Which is a shame because she's quite hot.
Well, that's what I'm asking, has it been trivialised?
Because I'm looking for reasons why when somebody finds somebody else attractive they do it by stating they want him to beat them up.
Oh, I thought you were suggesting it's been trivialised to at least some extent
I think these girls are just idiots, personally.
That is pretty much the most depressing thing I have ever read
The world will never run out of idiots.
I don't get this 'he made a mistake' malarkey
Making a mistake is tipping red wine on the sofa or buying skimmed milk instead of semi-skilled, not beating your girlfriend's face in. That's not something that accidentally happens, you can't just be like 'oopsy, sorry about that' and expect everyone to forget.
semi-skilled, wtf
Quite frankly I wouldn't forgive any normal person for what he did....
Let alone someone who meant to be a role model for our youth.
Also, what spoiledff7 said.
Would you care as much if it wasn't Rihana but a non famous girlfriend
he done that to?
No
Sorry - should have really READ your statement
Clearly meant "Yes".
too late
hmmm
Definitely.
Without a single doubt.
You're right
People only care about domestic violence when it happens to famous people.
I should get outraged about this
but then I see my records and DVDs and books etc and see people like Roman Polanski, Dennis Hopper, Mark Wahlberg, Ike Turner, Norman Mailer and Michael Fassbender amongst them, and then I think there's probably not much difference between me and the music industry saying "Welcome back Chris Brown, let's say no more about beating up your girlfriend eh" - we're all rather hypocritical with this sort of thing, as we're often prepared to overlook nasty things people may have done if we like their work.
um
Michael Fassbender? Whats he done?
.
http://ennn.tumblr.com/post/16153856924/the-thing-about-michael-fassbender
I'm unsure about Fassbender, to be honest. There's a bad smell around him, but...
The ex dropped her application for a restraining order, we don't know why. And that interview with Keira Knightley is ambiguous. Was she joking when she threatened to have his legs broken? Was he joking when he replied? If so, did she take it as a joke? I dunno.
I don't want to go too far with this, because it sounds like I'm making excuses, and I really don't want to turn into some kind of abuse apologist. But as far as I can see the case against him isn't clear-cut.
i agree
there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the claim his ex made was completely false. apparently he wasn't even in the country when the allegation was made? And the thing with Knightley, that just seems flimsy to me. It pisses me off slightly that people are using a case that got dropped to make a point. Just because he's some celebrity doesn't mean we have the right to drag someone's name through the mud like that.
Hardly any allegations of rape make it to court.
Few of those that do result in charges.
Does this mean most rape allegations are made up?
Not that Fassbender should be lynched or anything, but it's really obvious why people might still refer to dropped cases in situations like the one being discussed here.
mmm spanking kiera knightly
some people stop buying stuff made by people they don't like
We had this thread a while ago
<\marckee>
...but the thing with the Chris Brown case is that it was so public and yet he's gotten away with it and rebuilt his career around a weird kind of 'fuck the haterz' self-belief ethos thingy. Don't remember any shocking photos of Dennis Hopper's missus (for example), so you can understand how he managed to brush that under the carpet.
And some 'celebrities' have suffered massive damage from this type of thing - Arthur Koestler for example.
There's something weird and uncomfortable about the whole Chris Brown thing and whatever it is it makes me angry.
This just makes me want to scream
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEuQU6a90Pc
what is there to possibly discuss?
honestly.
If he actually understood the extent of what he has done, he would know why it would be completely inappropriate, unacceptable and just utterly offensive to perform at the grammys and market himself to young people *ever again*.
I get what j_l_b is saying above about it being such a big deal because it was a famous girlfriend who he abused. That's why it was such a big story to begin with. The fact that EVERYONE knows what he did and that he is now pretty much publicly rehabilitated just means an even more damaging message is being sent about domestic violence. argh. hate the world.
i mean
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/horrible-reactions-to-chris-brown-at-the-grammys
Does it send out a message?
It makes me sad that people will still buy his music and DJs will play it; it makes me more than sad that the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (they're the people responsible for the Grammys - I just looked it up), who should have more sense, would give him an award. But is it really going to change people's attitudes to domestic abuse? Do we have that little faith in the moral fibre of others? If someone's going to justify to themselves domestic abuse, I - regrettably - imagine they'll be able to do it without celebrity endorsement. Maybe I'm being naive. Or maybe you're being naive. One of us is being naive.
you're being niave
I wasn't saying
it's going to directly cause some people to consciously justify abuse.
but it's part of a discourse that i think, erm evidently, has a lot wrong.
Elaborate
couldn't read the whole report, so horrible
fuck Chris Brown
I had always assumed that it was a quick impulsive beating-up with instant regret
Sounds like he was really going to do some damage to her and he was entirely aware of what he was doing. The fame issue blurs the malicious intent here - how penitent would he have been if they were just some ordinary couple with no media intrusion into the aftermath? He's quite a nasty piece of work it would seem.
This happened 3 years ago!
He obviously made a big mistake, paid his dues and now is trying to move on.
stop trolling/being an idiot
So much for DiS liberalism on criminal rehabilitation.
Don't be silly
Pressed_Flowers claimed that Chris Brown has paid his dues, which is bullshit. This won't be true for another two years at least. He's still on probation.
Also he shows no sign of actually *wanting* to be rehabilitated, given that that would involve accepting that he did something wrong.
So what do we do with those that don't want to be re-habilitated?
And what about those who don't want to be rehabilited, show no remorse, but also have commited no further crimes (like Brown)?
Have a little cry on the internet seems to be the answer.
commited no further crimes that we know of
Ah, guilty until proven innocent.
Nice.
D:
the way the attack happened
and the threat to 'beat the shit out of you' when they got home suggested to me that this could have not been an isolated incident. if you're willing to viciously punch a woman in the face multiple times while completely sober and aware of what you're doing you're likely to be willing to do it again of have done it before. it's sad and scary but violence like this isn't usually a one-off.
and his behaviour on good morning america
proves he can't control himself.
he can continue his career elsewhere
Not sure what this means?
It means he can fuck right off.
I think that's fairly clear...
Not very clear.
He has a career in music, the beating was seperate from that, so why should he stop doing it once he has repaid his debt to society?
If his job was working in a shelter for victims of domestic violence, then yes, I would agree he should continue his career elsewhere. But it isn't.
He is obvioulsy a horrible, horrible person who deserves no sympathy
However he has been praised by all the judges that have sat on his rehabilitation and probabtion hearings for his committment and willingness to take attend the anger management classes, do community service etc.
But why let those facts cloud your opinion but have a slightly more loose judgement with Fassbender. That wouldn't be becuase you like his work and don't like Chris Brown's music? Must be just a coincedence.
Maybe you could link me to an article about Michael Fassbender's criminal convictions
Maybe you could link me to an article about shows no sign of actually Chris Brown where shows no sign of actually *wanting* to be rehabilitated
Like I said I hate the man, just a little interjection in a rather tedious we all hate someone thread
Good lord, that make no sense at all!!
But I think you get the point
Made sense to me
I do get your point, yes. I wasn't aware of the praise from the judges, so thanks for bringing it up. I'd based my judgement on his public behaviour outside of the criminal justice system, which I have to say still seems a lot less contrite than you'd hope for.
Agreed, his public behaviour is awful
But then he is an awful person.
Was going to start trolling on this as it is ripe for it but not something that should be trivialised and don't have the energy, leave that to the sad & loney like KiK and CG
Here's one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1368810/Chris-Brown-smashes-window-Good-Morning-America-Rihanna-assault-quiz.html
The below paragraph is pretty much the stupidest thing I've read on this matter.
'But what's worse is that there's been no strong, en masse media message that has emphasised that Brown's behaviour is totally unacceptable. Until that happens, idiots will continue to make uninformed, flippant remarks like the above, teenagers will still continue to think that Rihanna was responsible for her attack, and Brown will be able to consign the incident to the past whilst his ascent continues.'
Does this person live on the same planet as me?
Brown seems like an utter cunt, but I'm struggling to care that he sells records and sings to people who want to hear him sing.
I don't care about Chris Brown
but what makes me very, very uncomfortable is how much of this is because of the fact he beat up a woman. All that Fox news guy tweet stuff- read through that and see how many times the guy says the word "woman".
It just upsets me because we should be angry that he hurt someone who was very close to him and was pretty much defenceless, NOT because he hurt a woman. Just in case you don't get what I mean- my problem with this is that many peoples reactions to the Chris Brown thing (not on this board specifically) seem to reflect this archaic, regressive, sexist view that "men have a duty to protect women, not hurt them", and not just that a woman is at a physical disadvantage in a situation like this, but also a mental one- e.g. "a woman shouldn't have to deal with something like this"
What he did was utterly horrible, but to me there always seems to be an uncomfortable, sexist slant on the whole thing, which just adds insult to injury. Women are not only beaten up, but then patronised about it. Horrible.
...
Leaving work now, but I get the feeling this might be worth looking at any replies you get to this later on.
I'm obviously not saying that people should be LESS angry at him
but I'm saying that it's for the wrong reason. People should be angry because he's a foul, violent man, who acted extremely violently towards someone he was supposed to love and who trusted him. Obviously I don't mean people on this forum, I mean some idiot Americans mainly. There is nothing shocking and controversial about what I posted. What he did was absolutely dreadful. I'm not excusing it in any way whatsoever.
of course
yeah I'm not a fan of the fox news clip
it's like YOU ARE A WOMAN BEATER HAHA PWNED.
yeah exactly
the tone was totally off. Just goes to show how many people are disconnected from violent reality of the incident.
Absolutely
It was more like the guy was getting back at Chris Brown for what happened to him personally, and not because of the actual issue at hand. It was more for the purpose of him being smug which made me feel uncomfortable and completely missed the point.
I don't think it's sexist to be honest
I don't really see the whole 'men shouldn't hit women' idea ever completely vanishing. In general, men are physically larger and stronger than women, so it's fair enough that male on female violence is viewed more harshly. Obviously depends on the individual circumstances of each case though.
well maybe the emphasis on that aspect is excessive
i had to check the date
i can't believe we have another fucking thread on this
Check the date? The Grammys were only last weekend
right and we've had a "omg why aren't people more outraged?" thread on chris brown every day since
Sorry, Cronin's raised the bar on protesting against threads you don't want to read
You need to post a 1000-word essay full of wispy metaphors if you want to register your lack of interest.
Have we?
Must have missed that particular deluge.
me too
and i live here...
fuck off loser
you seem upset
Incidentally
if you added an artist tag to this thread that isn't Rihanna or Chris Brown: well done. You are HILARIOUS. Especially whoever added Coone! It's funny because Chris Brown is a black guy! LOL!
Seriously, go fuck yourselves
^ this.
Especially that example, ffs.
If you're going to misuse tags, make it funny, like here - http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/music/4315278
That's some high-quality tagging.
I agreed so much I just deleted them all.
Thanks, Theo.
After I read that report just now
at first I regretted it, its truly horrible, but now at least I won't be stupid enough to say something in his favour ever again. Unlike some people here...
I haven't ever said anything in his favour, come to think of it
musically or otherwise
I'm sure people would find it a lot easier to forgive Chris Brown
if he didn't seem to constantly act as if he were somehow the biggest victim of the whole thing.
You can second guess Rihanna's motives for forgiving him, but she has done so publically and were he to seem to have a more lasting sense of remorse he'd almost certainly come acros as less of a tool. As it is he hired an expensive spin team, spent about a year being publically contrite, and now seems angry that people still bring it up.
Also: I suspect if he just got off twitter, he'd help himself about a billion per cent.
^
I *almost* think it would be better if he'd just shown no remorse and had a 'fuck yeah I did it' attitude. That video with tweeny-boppers' favourite Bieber I posted up there is the most infuriating, reprehensible piece of shit I've ever seen.
That's mainly because it's shit though
that song is probably more significant than the Grammys thing tbh
clearly some music suits somewhere had carefully calculated that association with Brown would offer Bieber a bit of edge, rather than totally fuck up his career, and I suppose they were right. If there was no uproar over that there was hardly going to be one over this.
jfc
there are apparently some detestable cunts on here. could the tag people make themselves known.
I just thought everyone hated him cos of this album cover?
http://tinyurl.com/y8tfsvz
Christ, it gets worse.
Just out of interest
Has anyone ever heard a Chris Brown song? Any good?
Yes, he had some jams.
Gimme That http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yl-5FOZcr0&ob=av2e
Take Me Down http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPIq_ljFb4g
With You http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgSyf3lKHkA
Wall to Wall http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-dbPGdLoZU << song was massive
Run It http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLz6aIW2svk < you've never heard this??
Yo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQcYRtYrupc
Wouldn't expect many DiSers to like this stuff though. Before the incident he had a sparkling image, up-and-coming pop star with endless potential. His dancing is pretty incredible.
He had this ad campaign jumping off like right when it all went down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enJbXlb4zqo
Not that it really changes anything, but dude watched his moms get beat up and emotionally abused by his step dad all the time as a youth.
Then you see stuff like this http://i44.tinypic.com/351j12u.jpg and it makes you wonder.
It's like he thinks that everyone believes
that a Grammy acquits you of beating women.
Biggest jam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z3D2b0fby8
Fuck, that police report reads more like an attempted murder
WTF Were The Grammy's thinking? I'd like to think that wouldn't happen in England. If there's one thing we're good at its ruthlessly hounding and dismantling the lives of errant public figures.
You say that but we seem to be giving Chris Langham another chance...
That'll be Chris Langham who got done for having kiddy porn on his computer
and has managed one role in a minor independent film since. And hasn't won any major awards for doing so.
You're right, that IS the same.
About to potentially open up a whole can of controversial worms...
but isn't there a case that Chris Langham was convicted mistakenly. That's certainly what I've heard.
Cheryl Cole?
Excuse my ignorance
But wo the fuck is Chris Brown? I almost got to the end of this thread thinking it was the guy from Coldplay.
As an NME reader, i'm surprised you don't know who he is.
Soz
Mr Alternative.
That's why i'm on drownedinsound.com and not nme.com.
discussing Chris Brown...
should be in jail
he's a piece of shit, the police report makes him sound actually derranged in the head.
To answer the OP questions, I suspect it might be because the US has a very strange attitude towards violence.
What's acceptable in film, and the ratings violence in films is given (compared to, say, sex) seems to be the most basic example I can give of that.
I've heard it said that Europe and The US are kind of opposite in that respect. i.e. the US is generally more relaxed about (or even glorifies?) violence, but often freaks out over sexual content in mainstream media, whereas Europe is generally more relaxed about (obsessed with?) the general availability of sexual content, but is wary of media violence (the UK, as a somewhat Americanised culture, being somewhere in between). It's obviously a blanket theory, and probably one with holes in, but I'm just trying to open up the thread a little, in search of some sort of context.
I suspect it's the US's puritan religious approach to sex that makes the distinction
To me, it's ridiculous that you can legally have sex at 16 but you aren't allowed to see people fictitiously have sex in a film at that age. The fact that the film Shame is rated 18 merely for containing a few scenes of consenting adult sex while films featuring graphic violence, abuse and murder often come in at 12 or 15 is ridiculous.
Obviously Chris Brown is a despicable thug, but does that have any connection to his ability to write a song?
The Grammy's is different in that it's an issue of representation or support rather than expression, but: to what extent can you overlook an artist's personal failings (whether small or large) in engagement with their art?
Charliepanayi makes the point upthread about the hypocrisy of owning (say) a DVD of a Polanski film while simultaneously disapproving of Polanski's personal life. Can you not nevertheless say though, without contradiction, `That Polanski is a reprehensible individual, a rapist and a cowardly justice-dodger on top of that, but this film he directed/wrote/whatever is very good`? Obviously that isn't exactly conscious cultural consumerism, but it seems simplistic to deny that people can be abominable in one aspect of their life and a genius in another.
Or as CG's semi-trolling upthread notes, to what extent does rehabilitation come into this? Obviously it helps if a person who has committed a crime expresses contrition, but it seems unlikely that a musician who had for example robbed a shop in their past and had served their sentence would continue to be boycotted in the way that someone who beat a person up would - which seems a strange moral absolute line where more of a gradient should seem to apply.
Or how about if the person is a great author but horrible and selfish to their family and children? Should we be bothered about that? How about if they cheat at board games? Getting a bit silly, I suppose the point is that people don't tend to apply a very coherent model of whether they engage with the thoughts and creations of people who have erred morally, and I'm genuinely torn as to whether it even makes sense to do so.
Play the ball/song/story/picture/idea/philosophy/morality, not the man? Or does this notion of shunning and shaming people in all of their endeavours remain important socially for correcting disreputable behaviour and instincts?
Stern points.
Same could be said about Burzum fans I guess. I think my real issue is the lack of remorse and total arrogance.
Definitely had the Burzum example in mind
Well obviously Hitler was dispicable mass murder, but does that have any connection to his ability to write a good speech?
I guess it depends how much the action outweighs the value of the art.
In Chris Brown's case, surely beating the shit out of his beautiful young girlfriend is far more significant than any piece of performance he's ever contributed to.
He's a thug. A woman beating thug who's somehow twisted a completely brutal act into a character defining act of heroism. He's a prick and the fact anyone (label/grammy panel/the press) gives him any kind of public platform is a sad indictment of how odiously laissez faire the Western world has become.
Godwin's Law is fulfilled again!
Astute.
Aside from the Godwin joke thing, the hitler example is useless because Hitler's speeches weren't attempts at art
Nor is Hitler presenting awards at the grammy's.
Of course Chris Brown beating Rhianna is `more significant` than any performance, but domestic violence and songs don't really exist in the same sphere. Giving him a platform at the grammy's is terrible, but if he writes a good song, are you morally obliged to boycott the song, is what I'm actually asking?*
* I've never knowingly heard a Chris Brown song, just to be clear.
Actually they do exist in the same sphere completely...
When he's being marketed to an audience of young women who are attracted to his "misunderstoodf bad-boy" image.
And yeah, I'm totally morally obliged to not buy an artists music if I think the artist is a misogynistic, violent, bullying cunt (regardless of how good or bad his music is).
I think you're probably being a little bit too simplistic if you think that consumers invest in an artists just for the music.
For a start, I'm not really saying anything definitive, I'm asking the question
Why are you morally obliged not to buy an artist's music just because they're a dick? Do you apply that test to all music you buy? I doubt it, but I'm interested.
Well no, but I suppose behaviour is generally conspicuous by it's absence.
I don't really want to support an artist (financially and psychologically) if I I strongly disapprove of their lifestyle and behaviour.
But do you want to support art that is good, profound, insightful, etc?
I think your over thinking this a bit.
But yes, I do want to support art that is made by artists that I like and not support artists that I don't like for whatever reason. That's a no brainer isn't it?
It is a no brainer, because you've answered a different (and easier) question than the one I asked
I said `do you want to support art that is good`, not `do you want to support art made by artists that you like`.
Let's take the Polanski example
Polanski isn't selling his own self-image as part of his *art*. The films aren't anything to do with him or his life. If he was directing and starring in films depicting him as some lovable cuddly guy, adored by teenage girls, then I think people would have far more of a problem with him, in fact I think that such a film wouldn't get made because no-one would dare back it. (And it's not as if the child sex thing has been forgotten, he's still a very controversial figure).
Watch that Chris Brown video up the thread, I dare you. It's all heartfelt bollocks about what a great, steady guy he is and how he's some kind of rock for whoever it is who fancies him. It even shows him rescuing a damsel in distress. On top of that it pairs him up with a tweeny-bopper idol to make him even more marketable as a teenage heart-throb. It's repulsive. If he made seriousface concept albums about the holocaust then maybe it would be different, but he doesn't, he's an unrepentant women-beater making pop songs for teenage girls. What I find staggering is the cynicism of the music industry that's behind it all.
It's actually disgusting.
What I'm also disturbed by is how a lot of the positive press seems to be coming from women. I think that in itself is really really upsetting.
This is beautifully argued
There is a difference between film directors and pop stars because a film director is much more separate from his work than a pop star.
I think it's possible to admire a film even if it is made by someone despicable (and Polanksi is certainly a scumbag)but a pop star asks his fans to buy into not just his music but his whole image. That Brown can be successfully marketed to teenage girls and young women is profoundly depressing (see the Twitter comments linked to above)
Sure, totally agreed about the actual facts of this particular case
But, ``If he made seriousface concept albums about the holocaust then maybe it would be different`` - this is what I'm asking. Would it be different? I suspect it would, but what difference does it make if it's a holocaust concept album or just a catchy pop song? None, really. So why the hypocrisy? We'll look the other way if an artist is scum but makes their art about something else, whereas if they also have an `image` that changes everything? Don't see how that works (artistically that is, prick still shouldn't be presenting awards or advertising jeans or whatever).
...
'it seems unlikely that a musician who had for example robbed a shop in their past and had served their sentence would continue to be boycotted in the way that someone who beat a person up would - which seems a strange moral absolute line where more of a gradient should seem to apply'
...do you not think those are qualitatively different things, though?
besides which,
it's not about drawing a 'moral absolute line', it's about putting things in context; beating someone up in a provoked drunken pub brawl, for instance, is an entirely different act than what we're talking about here. just because eveything exists in gradients doesn't mean some things can't be morally worse than others
by which i mean
ostracising an artist for robbing a shop is not the equivalent of ostracising an artist for beating up his girlfriend, and that statement doesn't require some kind of arbitrary moral absolutism
Well, yeah, they are different
beating someone up is very bad, robbing a shop (perhaps depending on the level of violence or aggravation involved) is... `pretty` bad? They're both bad, they're both criminal acts. So why is one irrelevant while the other is worthy of a complete boycott?
it's not about levels of 'badness' or criminality
taking hard drugs is also a criminal act and i assume you wouldn't use that as a reasonable analogy. it's about the moral nature of the act. stealing shit does not exist in the same social or psychological sphere as deliberately and brutally beating your partner. they're not just different levels of the same thing, they're qualitatively different things
i mean i take your points about whether there's any reason to boycott art made by bad people
but that's been well addressed above. i'm taking issue with the idea that we can't draw moral lines between different kinds of crime; obviously there will always be grey areas, but this isn't one of them. most people don't find it hard to accept that deliberate, vicious violence against someone else's body is just *different* than all the other kinds of crime. do you really think that's arbitrary?
`I mean I take your points about whether there's any reason to boycott art made by bad people but that's been well addressed above``
Has it? I haven't seen any posts in this thread that really engage with that aspect.
Again, I agree they're different, but still both negative, so
why do you set the threshold there?
As in, ``this guy's a thug, I'm not listening to his sweet tunes. This other guy's a thief and con artist, I'm fine with that, where's the new album at?``
i set the threshold, as i just said above,
at physical violence against another person (with obvious caveats and exceptions such as self-defence, and certain grey areas, none of which apply to this case). i think most people would generally agree. if you reckon that's arbitrary, sure, but i'd be interested to know why
for me it's not really about whether you as an individual 'should' continue to enjoy someone's art if they do something bad, it's about a whole industry continuing to happily endorse and promote someone's career (a big part of which, as has been pointed out, involves cultivating a likeable image of himself as a person) as if it had never happened. and i don't think being a celebrity and living a public celebrity lifestyle is some sort of unimpeachable right.
Not a big fan of Mark Wahlberg then I take it
Who in their right mind would be?
He's a decent actor!
Meh.
Sorry to repeat myself, but *why* do you set the threshold there?
There are plenty of other acts or crimes which do as much or more long-term damage to individuals or groups. It just seems slightly fixated on classic domestic violence as the sole disqualifying cause.
Totally agree about the whole industry airbrushing over Chris Brown the person. (I've been trying to take the discussion away from this specific case and closer to the borderline as the Chris Brown example is clearly terrible).
chris brown is a punk, but ...
to be honest, rhianna getting beat up is the best thing that ever happened to her career. pre-bruises no one really knew who she was unless they "wanted" to know who she was; now all the world knows the vacant-looking bimbo with the stupid red hair. I am totally against any type of violence, but her PR people must've spunked themselves at the first slap. but seriously, someone should beat his ass once & for all.
PLUS
if she's reconciling with him as has been rumoured, she deserves what she gets. two assholes, made for each other.
oh dear...
Except her breakthrough album was released 2 years before Chris Brown hit her
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING?
So the "TRL" watchers & Source readers knew about her? Big fucking deal. Face the facts, after he hit her, her face was plastered all over every magazine page, every entertainment website, every news magazine TV show worldwide. AND THERE'S NO STOPPING IT NOW!! She's done collabs with Coldplay, everyone's shouting her out, she's sudddenly every artist's influence. IT AIN'T BECAUSE OF HER AWESOME TALENT. Poor suddenly uber-popular Rhianna. Goddamn right, her PR people were working overtime. There's no artistic muso authenticity there, she's a media whore just like all the usual suspects. Warhol would've loved this.
•••March 29, 2007: Umbrella single is released.
Remained at the top of the US Billboard Hot 100 for seven consecutive weeks.
Number two in the billboard year end chart, behind Beyoncé.
Number one on the UK Singles Chart for ten consecutive weeks (the longest run at number one for any single of that decade), whilst the album was also at number one.
Number two in the UK end of year chart, behind Leona Lewis.
Top ten & top five in multiple charts across the world.
Biggest debut in the six-year history of the iTunes, topping the iTunes Store singles chart in more than 17 different countries around the world.
Re: "artistic muso authenticity" - http://is.gd/theintl_lesson_001
•••May 30, 2007: Good Girl Gone Bad album is released.
The album, preoduced by Timbaland and will.i.am, was nominated for nine Grammy Awards. The album topped the charts in the UK, Canada, Japan, Brazil, Russia and Ireland.
Aside from Umbrella, there are three other chart-topping singles – all reaching the top three on the Billboard Hot 100.
The re-issue featured a release which topped the charts in Canada, UK, and the US. And another one which reached number one in the US and NZ.
Rihanna became the seventh female singer to have two songs in the top five.
Rihanna became one of the two female solo artists with the most number-one singles of the decade - the other being Beyoncé.
Two-times-platinum certification from the RIAA.
Re: "artistic muso authenticity" - http://is.gd/theintl_lesson_002
•••Feb 2009: The Chris Brown story breaks.
Obscure singer Rhianna is involved. And by 'obscure', I mean 'established hugely famous international pop megastar'.
•••Feb 2012: theintl comes out with some wrongness of incredible proportions.
It would merely be a comically embarrassing over-capitalised shouty internet rant, were it not for the fact that it's too disturbing an opinion to just laugh off.
tl;dr?
http://www.google.co.uk/trends/?q=rhianna implies that her profile has not taken the claimed astronomical upward curve since Feb 2009. It has remained broadly consistent.
initially thought this was a nike shoes spam post
Classic wza.
Such a good take down.
You're a moron
and you're fooling yourself
she was fucking massive before it all happened you idiot
Old man shows his age.
and children show their ignorance & gullibility.
tip for future reference
it's bad trolling etiquette to point out that you were trolling
That's right. No one had heard of Rihanna before February 2009.
I wonder who bought all those copies of SOS, Umbrella, Don't Stop The Music, Take A Bow and Disturbia, then?
Using logic against a troll
is a fool's errand
The sad thing is.
He may well be trolling, but there are plenty of hard of thinking chumps out there who actually agree.
Provocatively put, but
there is a nugget of truth to what he's saying. The incident certainly wouldn't have harmed Rihanna's longevity in a market where people are always looking for the next big thing. However much you cover your eyes to it, lots of women find domestic violence glamourous, and if she goes back to him it becomes that. It's why younger girls tend to go for 'bad boys'. Whatever it actually means, the words 'Hit me baby one more time' are the hook to probably the biggest pop song of the last 20 years.
Obviously the problem is women going for 'bad boys'
and not the fact that these guys exist. Or beat up women.
But yeah no that guy's a moron. You're not that far behind either. You realise you're trying to pin the blame on a culture of domestic abuse on a victim of domestic abuse, right? Pretty perverse huh.
I'm not saying it's the victim's fault if they get abused
but if they continue to put themselves in situations where they might get abused, they must ultimately take some of the responsibility. I know there are cases where the victim can't get away, that's different. I'm sure Rihanna could if she wanted to.
Is Rhianna more likely to be able to cut ties than a 'normal' person?
Recent Whitney and Winehouse episodes suggest that the assumption that superstars have the benefit of support networks able to shield them from danger is perhaps misplaced.
i'm not saying it's the victim's fault if they get abused,
just that it's sometimes a bit the victim's fault if they get abused
ew.
I didn't say that, did I?
Do you have endless sympathy for a woman who continually goes back to a dangerous man, or vice-versa, and likes to make a show of it every time it all goes wrong?
yeah, pretty much
also, that last bit is a straw thing that does not happen
also, stop posting
yeah man..
britney meant it literally.
Britney: the line "doesn't mean physically hit me. [...] It means just give me a sign, basically. I think it's kind of funny that people would actually think that's what it meant."
...and you're an unbelievable idiot.
You use that quote from Britney and you're calling me an idiot.
She's basically saying that line in the song doesn't exist, please refer to the previous line.
And I'm pretty sure Britney didn't write it herself or necessarily cared what it meant at the time. But I'm betting it was written by someone keen to attach the stereotypical image of the vulnerable woman to her.
let me refer you to the Hole lyric
"he hit me and it felt like a kiss". Courtney Love, not being a stereotypical vulnerable woman points out the fact that abused women dont necessarily realise that their partners are shits, and actually think that being hit is part of a relationship. This might be due to abuse/low self esteem or any other factors. To hold them somehow responsible for this is fairly tight - if someone leaves an abusive husband and he threatens to kill them should she go back? How do you draw a line in the sand at which point a partner should accept they are due a beating?
there's a throw-away remark in H.G. Wells 'A Modern Utopia' from 1905 (!) where he realises that. like, come on guys! this isn't an argument ffs.
that Britney song
was a global hit, which means about 90 % of people who have listened to it are not native English-speakers, and many of them would not be aware of whatever slang meaning a "hit" may have, so I would assume that majority of people have taken it literally.
pedant footnote: That Hole song was originally by The Crystals and may have been one of the earlier contributions by its producer Phil Spector to discussion about violence towards women.
further pedant footnote
'He Hit Me' was written by a woman (Carole King) and was meant by her as an attack on domestic violence. I think she's on record since as regretting writing it, on the basis that it never achieved what she had in mind for it and was regularly taken the wrong way.
I did say it was different if one party just can't get away.
My point is, you'd have thought Rihanna would be able to walk away if she wanted to. As one of the most famous people on the planet I'm sure she has people around her that could stop her from ever setting eyes on Chris Brown again. And her going back to him (as a hypothetical situation, I'm not saying that has happened) is only more likely to make women think it is normal in a relationship, and perhaps even slightly glamorous. It's a bad example to set.
you seem to have a really simplistic idea of what abusive relationships are like
Patronising twat.
You talk like there's no way I could know what it is like to suffer an abusive relationship. Suffice to say that I've been through enough to have complex feelings on the matter, and that ultimately the best advice might come across as callous and cruel. If you think that what I'm saying is wrong, that the best thing for an abusive relationship is not to stay well away from each other, you and your laughing boys/girls are hand-wringing idiots.
stay well away from each other
i think the best thing for an abusive relationship is for the abuser to stay well away from the victim
the reason people think you're being simplistic is because you're completely ignoring the psychological aspects of domestic violence - it's not just a case of being physically or economically unable to leave, it's also the complex psychological torture of being in love with an abusive person, which i would suspect is usually something you can't just switch off (especially if, as often happens, they ingratiate themselves, promise it'll never happen again and they still love you, try to cultivate emotional dependence etc). nobody is saying this is a good thing to happen, just that it's deeply unfair to assign responsibility to victims in these scenarios instead of focusing squarely on the agency of the abuser
It's like buying a delicious-looking block of cheese,
getting it home and finding you don't like it because it smells of old socks. Or saying that just because I like standing under pianos suspended in mid-air with a rope, no-one should try move me if I get under one.
And that's my final word on the matter
yeh.
There's been some quality posting in this thread from the likes of Royter-Hatfood and Joeymahone.
It's disturbing how many utter morons have posted in here too. :(
Every time this thread looks like it's wound down
someone comes in to crank it up again with a rather ill-thought comment. Pretty entertaining/depressing anyway.
Nah
He's still a woman beating twat
Chris Brown: he's no GG Allin.
bitches ain't shit
this is good
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TOjUKwoHUyw
Seems Rihanna's forgiven him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypgXMcQNpdM
http://www.electrolov3.com/2012/02/new-music-rihanna-ft-chris-brown-birthday-cake-full/
http://www.mtv.co.uk/news/rihanna/349011-rihanna-chris-brown-birthday-cake-turn-up-the-music-duet
Just when you thought that talentless skunk doesn't go any lower
..she decides to do something like this, after having portrayed herself as a defender of women's rights and against domestic abuse. (I guess she had already pissed on that a bit when she released S&M though).
*slow clap*
he he
I know I used strong language and I am expecting reactions like this. I don't normally do that, but I find her annoying and superficial anyway, and this is something that might influence several people who are in a vulnerable position. I know it sounds naive but it really isn't..just think about how many people are informed about what she does.
YOU MINDBLOWING HERO
Yeah, and what you are doing now is so much more productive.
I bet you feel superior now, don't you?
Anyway, I just made an angry comment without over-thinking it, that's all. In reality I like your reply, it made me giggle. This is basically the reason why someone posts a comment like this on a forum. It's fun.
Yeah, and what you are doing now is so much more productive.
I bet you feel superior now, don't you?
I actually feel superiorer
now
You've used the word *over-thinking* when what you mean is *thinking*
Hope this helps.
You seem very upset in this thread.
nah
whatever you say, oh wise one
Oh my, you are so clever and witty and all..
erm...
http://gawker.com/5886752/chris-browns-first-line-on-his-rihanna-remix-is-unbelievable
cake.
cake.
cake.
Nice to see that CM Punk is spring boarding a PR stunt off this whole debacle.
Love him
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBlNnJlgu8w
you bed wetting cunts are usually all for second chances
As has been noted repeatedly here
The major problem with Chris Brown is he doesn't seem to show any remorse and tweets stuff like 'fuck you all I have a Grammy now LOL'
Oh forget it, carry on with the contrarian 'you're all bedwetters LOL' stuff...
haha ok