Author Topic: Harvey Weinstein  (Read 35382 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19602
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #945 on: December 07, 2018, 09:11:42 AM »
(Though in all seriousness, this sort of thing smacks of the rule that isn't really intended to stop the behavior, but rather to create a cause of action in the event that a confluence of events makes another employee uncomfortable.)
Yeah, my first thought was obvious CYA. Nobody really expects people to time how long they look at somebody. The reality is that all of the newly regulated behavior can be summed up with the Wil Wheaton rule. Unfortunately Don't be a dick is probably a little too vague when the lawyers get involved.

"Your Honor, we'd like to submit Surveillance Tape #2 into evidence, please?  In this passage, noting the time bar at the bottom of the screen, you can clearly see that my client gained eye contact... here, and released that eye contact... here, at 4.7 seconds.   I move for summary judgment."

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23939
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #946 on: December 07, 2018, 09:21:20 AM »
Heard this on Howard Stern this morning...

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/05/673770902/baby-it-s-cold-outside-seen-as-sexist-frozen-out-by-radio-stations

I never had heard the song before, but man did Howard Rip into it because one person called the radio station to say it's too #metoo and now radio stations are banning this song.  Like, come on, let's ban art now because we find it offensive?  Let alone something from the 40s which maybe is a bit creepy when you listen to the lyrics now, but why are we forcefully suppressing it?

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23071
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #947 on: December 07, 2018, 09:53:17 AM »
Heard this on Howard Stern this morning...

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/05/673770902/baby-it-s-cold-outside-seen-as-sexist-frozen-out-by-radio-stations

I never had heard the song before, but man did Howard Rip into it because one person called the radio station to say it's too #metoo and now radio stations are banning this song.  Like, come on, let's ban art now because we find it offensive?  Let alone something from the 40s which maybe is a bit creepy when you listen to the lyrics now, but why are we forcefully suppressing it?
Song gets plenty of airplay down here on the jazz station I listen to. Never thought about it before, but I can see some slightly rapey elements to it. One station handled it the right way, which was to put a poll on their website asking if it should still be played. I never followed up but it'll get 95% support. After that they'll play it with decreasing frequency until nobody remembers it anymore.

It got me thinking about the first Pink Panther movie. It's gone under the radar so nobody's made a stink about it, but if they aired it on TV now there would be the same backlash. David Niven attempts what would be considered history's most romantic date rape with the amazingly hot Claudia Cardinale. Great scene, and until 10 years ago nobody would have considered it rapey, but by modern standards it's certainly problematic. Similar to the song in that regard.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19602
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #948 on: December 07, 2018, 09:54:45 AM »
Huh; never heard of that actress before, but a quick Google was rather rewarding. 


How much do we think this is a fad or a phase?   Meaning, the 50's were sort of a belt-tightening from the days of the 20's and 30's, and the 60's and 70's were a sort of grand "Bite Me!" to the '50's.  Will we (or our kids) look at this movement as a sort of cute, well-intentioned but over-zealous response, or maybe something else?   

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 29252
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #949 on: December 07, 2018, 11:25:37 AM »
Just cuz I've been raging - absolutely RAGING - about all of this for the past 4 days on the Baby It's Cold Outside topic (mostly because it's stuck the song in my head for 4 days!).  This is what happens when sheople let others think for them.  This is akin to hearing once on the Internet that vaccines cause autism, yet millions of points of proof confirm otherwise

Just one debrief on the matter:

Quote
It’s time to bring an end to the Rape Anthem Masquerading As Christmas Carol

Hi there! Former English nerd/teacher here. Also a big fan of jazz of the 30s and 40s.

So. Here’s the thing. Given a cursory glance and applying today’s worldview to the song, yes, you’re right, it absolutely *sounds* like a rape anthem.

BUT! Let’s look closer!

“Hey what’s in this drink” was a stock joke at the time, and the punchline was invariably that there’s actually pretty much nothing in the drink, not even a significant amount of alcohol.

See, this woman is staying late, unchaperoned, at a dude’s house. In the 1940’s, that’s the kind of thing Good Girls aren’t supposed to do — and she wants people to think she’s a good girl. The woman in the song says outright, multiple times, that what other people will think of her staying is what she’s really concerned about: “the neighbors might think,” “my maiden aunt’s mind is vicious,” “there’s bound to be talk tomorrow.” But she’s having a really good time, and she wants to stay, and so she is excusing her uncharacteristically bold behavior (either to the guy or to herself) by blaming it on the drink — unaware that the drink is actually really weak, maybe not even alcoholic at all. That’s the joke. That is the standard joke that’s going on when a woman in media from the early-to-mid 20th century says “hey, what’s in this drink?” It is not a joke about how she’s drunk and about to be raped. It’s a joke about how she’s perfectly sober and about to have awesome consensual sex and use the drink for plausible deniability because she’s living in a society where women aren’t supposed to have sexual agency.

Basically, the song only makes sense in the context of a society in which women are expected to reject men’s advances whether they actually want to or not, and therefore it’s normal and expected for a lady’s gentleman companion to pressure her despite her protests, because he knows she would have to say that whether or not she meant it, and if she really wants to stay she won’t be able to justify doing so unless he offers her an excuse other than “I’m staying because I want to.” (That’s the main theme of the man’s lines in the song, suggesting excuses she can use when people ask later why she spent the night at his house: it was so cold out, there were no cabs available, he simply insisted because he was concerned about my safety in such awful weather, it was perfectly innocent and definitely not about sex at all!) In this particular case, he’s pretty clearly right, because the woman has a voice, and she’s using it to give all the culturally-understood signals that she actually does want to stay but can’t say so. She states explicitly that she’s resisting because she’s supposed to, not because she wants to: “I ought to say no no no…” She states explicitly that she’s just putting up a token resistance so she’ll be able to claim later that she did what’s expected of a decent woman in this situation: “at least I’m gonna say that I tried.” And at the end of the song they’re singing together, in harmony, because they’re both on the same page and they have been all along.

So it’s not actually a song about rape - in fact it’s a song about a woman finding a way to exercise sexual agency in a patriarchal society designed to stop her from doing so. But it’s also, at the same time, one of the best illustrations of rape culture that pop culture has ever produced. It’s a song about a society where women aren’t allowed to say yes…which happens to mean it’s also a society where women don’t have a clear and unambiguous way to say no.

Go watch the original movie scene (which won an Academy Award... don't tell anyone though, it might get taken away) watch both parts.

Lastly, a quote I read in another article - "The song has a lot to teach us about how society views women’s sexuality. But the lesson of this song is NOT that it’s about forcing a woman into sex. If you want to be outraged, be outraged about what the song is actually about — the double standard in regards to sex that women face and how nothing much has changed."
if I want ice cream or a chocolate or a cake, I fucking have it
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13902
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #950 on: December 07, 2018, 11:33:14 AM »
A couple has re-recorded the song to address the apparent rapey nature of the original.

This is not a joke. It's real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amK4U4pCTB8
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 29252
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #951 on: December 07, 2018, 12:01:57 PM »
A couple has re-recorded the song to address the apparent rapey nature of the original.

This is not a joke. It's real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amK4U4pCTB8

yeah... I'd heard that was done (back in 2016).  I was praying that was sattire/parody, but nope.

FFS, I fear for humanity.
if I want ice cream or a chocolate or a cake, I fucking have it
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23939
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #952 on: December 07, 2018, 12:07:42 PM »
A couple has re-recorded the song to address the apparent rapey nature of the original.

This is not a joke. It's real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amK4U4pCTB8

yeah... I'd heard that was done (back in 2016).  I was praying that was sattire/parody, but nope.

FFS, I fear for humanity.

oh geeze, this is cringy and lol at double the amount of thumbs down

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8103
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #953 on: December 07, 2018, 01:30:13 PM »
Maybe it's just me, but I am inclined toward the position that if you have to resort to "kinda rapey" as a descriptor, you are probably missing the point of something, anyway.  :dunno:
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7169
  • Gender: Male
  • My wife is a cabriolet
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #954 on: December 07, 2018, 01:41:21 PM »
Yeah, there has to be better terminology. It's too evocative of farcical oxymorons such as "somewhat murderous" or "lightly killed".

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13902
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #955 on: December 07, 2018, 01:47:28 PM »
Maybe it's just me, but I am inclined toward the position that if you have to resort to "kinda rapey" as a descriptor, you are probably missing the point of something, anyway.  :dunno:

Yeah, there has to be better terminology. It's too evocative of farcical oxymorons such as "somewhat murderous" or "lightly killed".

given the ridiculousness surrounding the whole 'controversy' anyway....I didn't bother to try and craft a better sentence in which to describe that abomination of a video.....or detail whatever ultra sensitive, triggered reason it was they felt compelled to write it anyway.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8103
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #956 on: December 07, 2018, 02:04:43 PM »
No, that wasn't aimed at you.  It was aimed at critics of the song (or similar things).  Sorry for the confusion, Gary.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13902
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #957 on: December 07, 2018, 02:08:55 PM »
No, that wasn't aimed at you.  It was aimed at critics of the song (or similar things).  Sorry for the confusion, Gary.

It's all good.....I still could have come up with something a bit less graphic than 'rapey'.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23939
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #958 on: December 07, 2018, 02:17:50 PM »
That quote from Jingle makes a lot of sense, we are judging the words from the 40s as if it were today.  I don't think that's fair.  I wasn't into the song at all so I couldn't care less if it were played or not, but I just don't like the censorship of art.

After that they'll play it with decreasing frequency until nobody remembers it anymore.

I kind of feel like this is the solution.  You recognize maybe this song doesn't make sense anymore to today's audience and you just slowly stop playing it and let it fade away.  It doesn't need to be national news and we don't need additional censorship that just leads down a slippery slope.


Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7169
  • Gender: Male
  • My wife is a cabriolet
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #959 on: December 07, 2018, 02:51:58 PM »
No, that wasn't aimed at you.  It was aimed at critics of the song (or similar things).  Sorry for the confusion, Gary.

It's all good.....I still could have come up with something a bit less graphic than 'rapey'.

Yeah, I should have read the thread more carefully. I thought Bosky's comment was leveled at people who were seriously criticizing the song. I didn't even realize that it was one of the forum posters let alone you specifically.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23071
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #960 on: December 07, 2018, 03:07:41 PM »
I've thrown out rapey four or five times, and aside from "kinda" being unnecessary (and I don't think I used kind of, myself) I think it's a perfectly good word. While Bosk's point might not have been directed at me, I used it to lend a small amount of credence to the criticism, so it might as well have. Personally, the point struck me as a pat dismissal.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8103
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #961 on: December 07, 2018, 03:43:46 PM »
No, again, my comment isn't aimed at anyone's usage of it here in the thread.  It was more aimed at anyone using that as a criticism in the first place.  I'm all good with my DTF homies.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 31509
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #962 on: December 07, 2018, 04:52:28 PM »
I'm waiting for the current generation of crybabies to decide that The Graduate is offensive because Benjamin sleeps with his girlfriend's mom and then spends the last half of the movie chasing her (literally, on occasion) to try to win her back. 

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 21710
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #963 on: December 08, 2018, 02:35:26 PM »
A couple has re-recorded the song to address the apparent rapey nature of the original.

This is not a joke. It's real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amK4U4pCTB8

yeah... I'd heard that was done (back in 2016).  I was praying that was sattire/parody, but nope.

FFS, I fear for humanity.

This seems like a pretty insignificant thing to fear for humanity over.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19602
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #964 on: December 10, 2018, 12:16:05 PM »
I'm saying this for two reasons, one specific but one general:  I've heard that song 1,000 times, and while it's not as friggin' annoying as "Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer" (it was annoying the second time, imagine after 1,000 times) I can still enjoy it the first couple times each year.

I went back and read the lyrics, and I just don't see the issue.  Yeah, some LINES, in and of themselves might be suggestive of undesirable behavior, but it's the story of a meet-cute.  I don't get at all that one is pressuring the other to do something they don't want to do, but I read it more like two people in cahoots who want to get it on playing a facetious game of "justification".  Ever sit at the bar with your buddy, and you both know you should be heading home soon and the bar tender comes and says "another round?" and you look at your buddy, then lean back, look outside and facetiously say "well, traffic is looking pretty thick out there... maybe we should have one more", or something like that?

But on another level, I sort of wonder about myself - in ways both good and bad - about why I just don't see these things in the worst possible light like some do, and why I don't view everything as some existential take on the inherent and immutable imbalance of identity politics.  I know, the obvious answer is "white straight male", but it's not that.  I can fill the fingers on at least one hand of women close to me that have suffered at the hands of sexual abuse and/or rape.  I have two daughters that are in their late teens/early 20's heading out into the cold cruel world.   You can't possibly tell me that in the back seat of that Audi, where my daughter is facing the daunting challenge of the sexual advances of a popular hockey player with over a thousand followers on Instachat and Snapgram that he's thinking "well, of course I'm going to get some action. That Christmas song says I can!"  or "Hmmm, should I go for boobie?  Dean Martin would!"

We have a deeper problem in our society involving respect for others; respect for others that don't look like us, that don't think like us, that don't act like us, that don't VOTE like us... No Christmas song from the '40's is driving thought or behavior on that issue.   It's just not.   

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8103
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #965 on: December 10, 2018, 12:24:00 PM »
We have a deeper problem in our society involving respect for others; respect for others that don't look like us, that don't think like us, that don't act like us, that don't VOTE like us... No Christmas song from the '40's is driving thought or behavior on that issue.   It's just not. 

Whether it is driving the behavior or not isn't the issue though, is it?  I mean--let me preface this by saying that I think this is dumb.  But to play devil's advocate, I think the more "reasonable" argument isn't about it driving bad behavior.  But if it is even celebrating bad behavior, isn't that a reason to take it off the play list?  Or to at least pause and ask whether to take it off the play list?  Even if the song would not cause even a single incident, if it celebrates instances of bad behavior, wouldn't it be normal to question whether or not that the song is something we should really want to be a part of our holiday celebrations?
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23939
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #966 on: December 10, 2018, 12:27:58 PM »
And yet what is currently in the lyrics of mainstream music is ok....

I'm not a fan of any censorship but we can't have it both ways.  Why is this song from the 40s the culprit of bad behavior in lyrics?   

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 39594
  • Gender: Male
  • Just a decent, normal metal-head fellow
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #967 on: December 10, 2018, 01:22:10 PM »
How is it celebrating bad behavior? I have never considered the song anything but a flirty interaction. Even if it does lead to a hook up, so f'n what.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19602
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #968 on: December 10, 2018, 01:45:22 PM »
We have a deeper problem in our society involving respect for others; respect for others that don't look like us, that don't think like us, that don't act like us, that don't VOTE like us... No Christmas song from the '40's is driving thought or behavior on that issue.   It's just not. 

Whether it is driving the behavior or not isn't the issue though, is it?  I mean--let me preface this by saying that I think this is dumb.  But to play devil's advocate, I think the more "reasonable" argument isn't about it driving bad behavior.  But if it is even celebrating bad behavior, isn't that a reason to take it off the play list?  Or to at least pause and ask whether to take it off the play list?  Even if the song would not cause even a single incident, if it celebrates instances of bad behavior, wouldn't it be normal to question whether or not that the song is something we should really want to be a part of our holiday celebrations?

If "celebrating bad behavior" is now a problem then lets start listing the bands we're never going to hear from again:

Van Halen
AC/DC
Slayer
Kiss ("When I saw you coming out of school that day, that day, I knew, I KNEW, I've got to have you.  I've GOT to have you!")
Motley Crue (could probably be on this list more than once)
Ozzy Osbourne
Motorhead
Black Sabbath
Led Zeppelin
W.A.S.P.  (Do you think the "Beast" got consent first?)
Whitesnake ("Spit it out, spit it out, spit it out... if you don't like it!")
Scorpions (not that they are poetry anyway, but have you ever read some of the lyrics to their songs?)

Okay, I'll stop there to give others a chance, but more seriously, I'm not at all in favor of that kind of censorship.  I can sort of kind of, maybe articulate an excuse if it was DRIVING or CAUSING the behavior, but if we're conceding to "celebrating" then I'm out.  That's where the listener can now decide to program their own listening.

Oh, and by the way, in the age of iPods, playlists, Spotify, etc. if you're really that bothered by this, program your own Xmas playlist.   Keep it simple and only listen to Kenny G and Vince Guaraldi, therefore you won't have to listen to dodgy, sketchy lyrics.   

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23939
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #969 on: December 10, 2018, 03:01:06 PM »
when it comes to censorship as George Carlin used to say "Change the channel"

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 29252
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #970 on: December 10, 2018, 03:47:52 PM »
when it comes to censorship as George Carlin used to say "Change the channel"

if I want ice cream or a chocolate or a cake, I fucking have it
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8103
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #971 on: December 10, 2018, 03:56:57 PM »
Okay, but insofar as the posts following mine are talking about censorship, I wasn't condoning or suggesting any such thing.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 29252
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #972 on: December 10, 2018, 05:26:36 PM »
Okay, but insofar as the posts following mine are talking about censorship, I wasn't condoning or suggesting any such thing.

Understood.  I think Stads changed lanes on us without signalling by going to the the cause of this kind of issue, not the symptom. 

He's good like that.
if I want ice cream or a chocolate or a cake, I fucking have it
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19602
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #973 on: December 10, 2018, 06:24:52 PM »
Okay, but insofar as the posts following mine are talking about censorship, I wasn't condoning or suggesting any such thing.

I don't think it was that bad a lane change.   If you're going to stop playing a song (or using any media) because it CELEBRATES something, that is presumably only a content-based restriction.  A content-based restriction is, by definition, censorship. 

What'd I miss?

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 29346
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #974 on: December 10, 2018, 06:26:42 PM »
I'll admit I'm not following this because it's silly.

That said, is it that they are being forced, against their will to not play this song or are they just choosing not to?

One is censorship, one is not.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19602
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #975 on: December 10, 2018, 06:54:55 PM »
I'll admit I'm not following this because it's silly.

That said, is it that they are being forced, against their will to not play this song or are they just choosing not to?

One is censorship, one is not.
First, to be clear, I wasn't saying that Bosk was advocating censorship, just that that is the inevitable conclusion I draw from the line of thinking that he put forth - as devil's advocate (and reluctant one, I might add).

Second, it's not "silly".  You're silly.  :)  (Seriously, though, these are the issues involved with this kind of discussion.) 

Third, I don't see a difference if you're directly forced, or if you proactively make the decision based on potential feedback from listeners and/or advertisers.  To me it's the same thing just a slightly more convoluted route.



Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 39594
  • Gender: Male
  • Just a decent, normal metal-head fellow
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #976 on: December 10, 2018, 07:30:02 PM »
It's self censorship. And pandering.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5604
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #977 on: December 11, 2018, 02:33:54 PM »
All the drama about that Christmas song being rapey is old and since been proven false. Yet news/info doesn't really spread so people are still on about how problematic it is, which when viewed through a contextual lens of the time period, it really isn't at all.

Hell even Tumblr of all places figured this out years ago.  :lol

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 839
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #978 on: December 11, 2018, 05:08:26 PM »
The whole topic of BICO can be summed up in this tweet.


Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23939
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #979 on: December 11, 2018, 05:10:20 PM »
 :lol