The arrogance of society in 2022

[XJDenton]

Do you work in an At-will state?

[hefdaddy42]

At our office, I will sometimes compliment co-workers if they are clearly doing something a little different to look nice, and I have received compliments about looking nice.  Nothing inappropriate, and never really focusing on physical traits, other than maybe a new haircut/hairdo.  There are ways that mature adults can give compliments and show appreciation without being creepers.

[emtee]

At our office, I will sometimes compliment co-workers if they are clearly doing something a little different to look nice, and I have received compliments about looking nice.  Nothing inappropriate, and never really focusing on physical traits, other than maybe a new haircut/hairdo.  There are ways that mature adults can give compliments and show appreciation without being creepers.

One would think so. However, in today's hyper-sensitive corporate environment,  compliments based on appearance are off limits. Obviously I can't speak to every corporation, only the last 3 I've worked for.

[Stadler]

Do you work in an At-will state?

All three events were in at-will states.  I'm not criticizing the firing, necessarily (even if two of the three people were people I would call friends of mine); the company had the right to do what it did.  I'm just relating the environment.  For me, good management is about setting clear expectations and having appropriate and prompt reward and accountability.  With some limitations in terms of information shared, I think each and every employee "event" is another marker in the road as to what an appropriate reward will be and what accountability looks like. I've looked at all three events, and other than the obvious "don't bone one of your co-workers", I'm really struggling to understand what the universal, replicable, and documentable takeaway is.  Don't talk to an attractive coworker?  How does that work (and why now should my job performance be impacted by this intangible)?

[Adami]

Hey you look nice today.

Reported.

[Harmony]

Even consensual relationships at work are not allowed by my employer.  And I fully understand why - this is coming from someone who met (and later married) her spouse at work more than 30 years ago.

It just isn't worth it to employers to have to dedicate man hours by HR or company lawyers about he said she said.  I get that people are human and when people are put together in groups, attractions are bound to occur.  But it makes good fiscal sense for companies to make this the line and I don't blame them one bit.

Work is for work, not flirting, not dalliances in the break room, or sending racy texts.

I would wager that with more and more businesses making room for working from home that these types of situations decrease in frequency.

[Stadler]

Even consensual relationships at work are not allowed by my employer.  And I fully understand why - this is coming from someone who met (and later married) her spouse at work more than 30 years ago.

It just isn't worth it to employers to have to dedicate man hours by HR or company lawyers about he said she said.  I get that people are human and when people are put together in groups, attractions are bound to occur.  But it makes good fiscal sense for companies to make this the line and I don't blame them one bit.

Work is for work, not flirting, not dalliances in the break room, or sending racy texts.

I would wager that with more and more businesses making room for working from home that these types of situations decrease in frequency.

Tell that to my ex-wife! 


(I kid, and we're good now, but she met her current husband at their work - they still work together - and the four of us actually would hang out on occasion at work events.)

[KevShmev]

To touch on the Arcade Fire story again, Feist, who was the scheduled opener for I believe the UK portion of their tour, has left the tour and went back home after two dates. 

https://people.com/music/musician-feist-exits-arcade-fire-tour-after-win-butler-denies-sexual-misconduct-allegations/

I had never heard of Feist until today, but I respect her decision and feel her statement was well-measured.

[TAC]

So she has convicted him.

Wow, she is so principled. Eh, whatever.

[KevShmev]

That wasn't my takeaway from her statement.

What's hilarious are the people ripping Ticketmaster because they want to sell their tickets back and get refunds and TM had said no.  We all know that TM sucks monkey balls, but why should people get their money back?  Just more arrogance.

[TAC]

That wasn't my takeaway from her statement.

Well, what did you take from her statement?

[KevShmev]

That wasn't my takeaway from her statement.

Well, what did you take from her statement?

That she felt uncomfortable due to the accusations and couldn't get in good conscience continue opening for them.  I thought the "my songs made this decision for me" line was a bit ridiculous, but I thought almost everything else she said was well said. 

[TAC]

That wasn't my takeaway from her statement.

Well, what did you take from her statement?

That she felt uncomfortable due to the accusations and couldn't get in good conscience continue opening for them.  I thought the "my songs made this decision for me" line was a bit ridiculous, but I thought almost everything else she said was well said.

So why should she be afforded to leave the tour, yet any fan who feels the same way that bought a ticket not be able to get a refund?

[KevShmev]

That wasn't my takeaway from her statement.

Well, what did you take from her statement?

That she felt uncomfortable due to the accusations and couldn't get in good conscience continue opening for them.  I thought the "my songs made this decision for me" line was a bit ridiculous, but I thought almost everything else she said was well said.

So why should she be afforded to leave the tour, yet any fan who feels the same way that bought a ticket not be able to get a refund?

I'd be shocked if she gets paid for the remainder of the tour after leaving it, especially since Arcade Fire likely might view this tour as the last hurrah (I'd be shocked if they continue after this tour) and can't be feeling too generous right now, just like fans who bought tickets and do not go will not get a refund.

Now, if Arcade Fire decides to pay her anyway, that opens up a whole new can of worms.  Odds are we will never know unless Feist says one way or the other.

[TAC]

Well, they're fucking crazy to pay her a dime, except for the shows she performed. I don't know her setup, but does she have a band she just bailed on, or roadies, or a bus driver who was depending on the paycheck?


I saw this in the NYP article:
https://nypost.com/2022/08/28/arcade-fire-singer-win-butler-accused-of-sexual-misconduct/

"Three of the accusers are women who say their relationships were inappropriate due to an age gap and “power dynamics” between them and the singer."
None of them were minors.

Maybe the guy is an asshole, but like Gene Simmons said, you don't show up backstage to discuss my bass playing.

[KevShmev]

Yeah, I don't think the age gap or power dynamics was a significant thing here, but the sending of dick pics is a bit weird.  Maybe it is my age, but sending those unsolicited always seems creepy to me.  Seems like all of the accusations of sexual assault fall under the he said/she said banner, and the "believe woman" ("all of them?" - Bill Burr) peeps are the ones who will automatically assume he is guilty.  The more I read about this, the more he just seems like just another rock star who was drinking a lot and trying to sleep with a lot of girls (unheard of, right).  Again, though, if he is guilty of sexual assault, F the guy, but since I am not part of the "you are guilty until you prove your innocence, and if you can't, you're f'd" crowd, I am not going to assume he is until I see more.

[ReaperKK]

To touch on the Arcade Fire story again, Feist, who was the scheduled opener for I believe the UK portion of their tour, has left the tour and went back home after two dates. 

https://people.com/music/musician-feist-exits-arcade-fire-tour-after-win-butler-denies-sexual-misconduct-allegations/

I had never heard of Feist until today, but I respect her decision and feel her statement was well-measured.

Off-topic but Feist has some pretty solid records out, The Reminder is a great album.

[Skeever]

Imagine the rock stars of the 70s and 80s having gone through their peak during the social media age.

I'm not sure it would have been a problem for them. Hard to say, because social media is what's causing the standards to be so variable. The thing is, what rock stars were doing 50 years ago wasn't too far out of line from the standards of the time. Judged by those standards society probably would have been alright with it. Small town cops and ministers with hot daughters probably would have been, but people as a whole most likely wouldn't have cared too much. The problem today is the tendency to judge the past by contemporary standards. It's akin to what Stadler said, but rather changing the rules after the game's been played.

I think there's another thing at play here, too. People wanted to be with the rockstars of the 60s, 70s and 80s. Just so they could be with them. YES, people were absolutely taken advantage of, and I am sure bad things happened. But I think the baseline was different.

Basically, in the 70s, I imagine a lot of "I want to get to high and sleep with a member of Led Zeppelin, because that would be the best thing that ever happened to me".

The women of today are nowhere near as naïve, and sorry to say, and the male celebrities are rarely anywhere near as appealing. It's not "I want to sleep with the guy from Arcade Fire because it would rock my world"; it's "I'll sleep with Mark Kozelek of Sun Kil Moon because I'd like a career in the arts and maybe he can help me". And these men will pretend that they'll help the attractive young ladies that throw their bodies at them before ultimately failing to deliver. Hence why, in every one of these situations that I see, it's always about that next level - the power dynamic, the failed promises, the being lied to, etc... It's beyond just "consensual sex", and about the assumptions and inferences on which that consent was granted.

[Stadler]

Imagine the rock stars of the 70s and 80s having gone through their peak during the social media age.

I'm not sure it would have been a problem for them. Hard to say, because social media is what's causing the standards to be so variable. The thing is, what rock stars were doing 50 years ago wasn't too far out of line from the standards of the time. Judged by those standards society probably would have been alright with it. Small town cops and ministers with hot daughters probably would have been, but people as a whole most likely wouldn't have cared too much. The problem today is the tendency to judge the past by contemporary standards. It's akin to what Stadler said, but rather changing the rules after the game's been played.

I think there's another thing at play here, too. People wanted to be with the rockstars of the 60s, 70s and 80s. Just so they could be with them. YES, people were absolutely taken advantage of, and I am sure bad things happened. But I think the baseline was different.

Basically, in the 70s, I imagine a lot of "I want to get to high and sleep with a member of Led Zeppelin, because that would be the best thing that ever happened to me".

The women of today are nowhere near as naïve, and sorry to say, and the male celebrities are rarely anywhere near as appealing. It's not "I want to sleep with the guy from Arcade Fire because it would rock my world"; it's "I'll sleep with Mark Kozelek of Sun Kil Moon because I'd like a career in the arts and maybe he can help me". And these men will pretend that they'll help the attractive young ladies that throw their bodies at them before ultimately failing to deliver. Hence why, in every one of these situations that I see, it's always about that next level - the power dynamic, the failed promises, the being lied to, etc... It's beyond just "consensual sex", and about the assumptions and inferences on which that consent was granted.

I think you're on to something; I would never call Pamela des Barres "naive" though; maybe "realistic"?  "Pragmatic"?  Those aren't really the right words, either, but we're in an age now where athletes aren't about "winning games", they're about "building brands".   I think it's that same mentality you're tapping into.  Back then, a fuck was just that; there wasn't anything to go back to, and people were accountable for that moment in time. I don't think Lori Maddox ever had any illusions about Jimmy Page, even at her age.  Now, though, we live in an age where we're only as good as our worst moment, and when our insecurity takes over (you might have heard me speak of that before, once or twice) there's less willingness to own our mistakes; instead, someone has to "pay".  I don't feel bad for Win Butler - and whether it's the '75 tour in Anaheim, or the '22 tour in Montreal - you can't ever take what's not being given to you freely - but a lot of what's being written as "salacious" ought not be anyone's business.

[Dream Team]

If I understand correctly, there is no statute of limitation on these types of allegations because of the presumed mental trauma the victims have to work through before bringing the accusations to light? Is that true lawyer people?

[Stadler]

It's not that simple; I'm not the expert here, and I can't tell you what's the what in every state, but I know New York didn't remove the statute of limitations entirely - there are still very valid reasons for a statue of limitations, regardless of the crime - but passes a one-year "look back window" where they essentially said "from this point forward, you all are on notice, but we'll give those for whom the  SOL has passed a one-time chance to bring their case".  Others - and I think California is like this, but don't quote me - makes it different for if you were under 18 or over 18 at the time of the crime.  My state is five years, but there is an exception for DNA as long as the case was reported within the five year window (in other words, if I'm raped, and I report it within the five years, but 20 years from now we find that there is a DNA match, the perp can still be brought to justice).

[El Barto]

Seems unlikely that the allegations come from the same state, or even same country. Is he even being sued, or are people just shaming him?

It's not that simple; I'm not the expert here, and I can't tell you what's the what in every state, but I know New York didn't remove the statute of limitations entirely - there are still very valid reasons for a statue of limitations, regardless of the crime - but passes a one-year "look back window" where they essentially said "from this point forward, you all are on notice, but we'll give those for whom the  SOL has passed a one-time chance to bring their case".  Others - and I think California is like this, but don't quote me - makes it different for if you were under 18 or over 18 at the time of the crime.  My state is five years, but there is an exception for DNA as long as the case was reported within the five year window (in other words, if I'm raped, and I report it within the five years, but 20 years from now we find that there is a DNA match, the perp can still be brought to justice).

I don't follow the NY thing. Was the one year window started for everybody on the day the bill passed? Does each person get their own one year window, which would seem to defeat the purpose?

[El Barto]

Imagine the rock stars of the 70s and 80s having gone through their peak during the social media age.

I'm not sure it would have been a problem for them. Hard to say, because social media is what's causing the standards to be so variable. The thing is, what rock stars were doing 50 years ago wasn't too far out of line from the standards of the time. Judged by those standards society probably would have been alright with it. Small town cops and ministers with hot daughters probably would have been, but people as a whole most likely wouldn't have cared too much. The problem today is the tendency to judge the past by contemporary standards. It's akin to what Stadler said, but rather changing the rules after the game's been played.

I think there's another thing at play here, too. People wanted to be with the rockstars of the 60s, 70s and 80s. Just so they could be with them. YES, people were absolutely taken advantage of, and I am sure bad things happened. But I think the baseline was different.

Basically, in the 70s, I imagine a lot of "I want to get to high and sleep with a member of Led Zeppelin, because that would be the best thing that ever happened to me".

The women of today are nowhere near as naïve, and sorry to say, and the male celebrities are rarely anywhere near as appealing. It's not "I want to sleep with the guy from Arcade Fire because it would rock my world"; it's "I'll sleep with Mark Kozelek of Sun Kil Moon because I'd like a career in the arts and maybe he can help me". And these men will pretend that they'll help the attractive young ladies that throw their bodies at them before ultimately failing to deliver. Hence why, in every one of these situations that I see, it's always about that next level - the power dynamic, the failed promises, the being lied to, etc... It's beyond just "consensual sex", and about the assumptions and inferences on which that consent was granted.

Well, I think there's still plenty of women who just want to bang rockstars for the sake of rocking their world.

And if we're being honest, isn't "inference" a part of playing the game? If I subtly suggest that I'm filthy stinking rich to some woman in a bar and we go back to her house on that basis, is that the "sexual misconduct" he's on the hook for? In this day and age it kind of makes me a raging asshole to suggest that women should be accountable, at least in part, for their actions, but it certainly seems like we need to start thinking about drawing a line somewhere.

[KevShmev]

To follow up on this, the US tour for Arcade Fire begins in a couple weeks and Beck, their opener for the tour, just pulled out.  He did not give a reason, but of course many are speculating that it is because of the allegations against Win Butler, which seemingly have gone nowhere.  It sounds like the European tour did well after the first few shows of a lot of no-shows, but we will see how it goes in America.  We (the general "we") here in America love to assume someone is guilty until proven innocence, so I won't be surprised if the backlash is worse here than it was on the other side.