Jump to content

Ryan Adams


tevaburger
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Superscally said:

It's five actually, three of whom are ex-partners who given his character are hardly like to speak of him in glowing terms. Just being a shitty person doesn't mean you can't have an album or tour. Full blown criminal behaviour does. Have you burned all your Beatles records? Fleetwood Mac? Rolling Stones? Guns and Roses? Nirvana? Oasis? You get my point. 

The fundemental difference seems to be that we believe the women and you want “proof”, though what kind of proof you’re looking for I don’t know.

He can have an album if someone wants to put it out, and he can try and tour if someone wants to put him on, but we can call him out on what he’s done and refuse to contribute to his career in any way.

Edited by Bradders
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Bradders said:

The fundemental difference seems to be that we believe the women and you want “proof”, though what kind of proof you’re looking for I don’t know.

He can have an album if someone wants to put it out, and he can try and tour if someone wants to put him on, but we can call him out on what he’s done and refuse to contribute to his career in any way.

I'm not saying that I don't believe that there were negative elements of his behaviour. What I don't know about is that how much of it actually occurred. You read the article it could sound like their lives were a living hell when it was merely a couple of incidents. Not defending those couple of incidents, mind and similarly not rushing out to get the new album or tour, but before I completely assassinate his character, I'd like to know more about the situation. I doubt any of us in here are perfect and there are probably elements of all of our characters that if the NYT decided to investigate and find people who'd seen them you'd be hung out to dry too. I'd certainly like to hear more than one side. Think that's fair enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of this "innocent until proven guilty" argument. He is currently has very condemning allegations under his name, we can't just assume he is innocent due to the fact he hasn't had a guilty verdict in court. I do admit there is a certain level of hypocrisy about celebrities who preach against this who are known to have several skeletons in their closet themselves.

Edited by deadpheasant
quote not required
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, deadpheasant said:

I'm not a fan of this "innocent until proven guilty" argument. He is currently has very condemning allegations under his name, we can't just assume he is innocent due to the fact he hasn't had a guilty verdict in court. 

Assuming innocent and presuming guilty are two different things. Whether you're a fan of it is also irrelevant. It's called the rule of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Superscally said:

I'll take two boulders and a bag of gravel please.

But seriously...don't you think it's a bit odd to deploy the "Well, nobody's perfect" style of argument in this situation?

Because, typically, the sort of people who deploy that argument are maybe not entirely comfortable with their own pasts and don't want to see someone face consequences for it, because then they would have to admit to themselves they did something wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Superscally said:

Assuming innocent and presuming guilty are two different things. Whether you're a fan of it is also irrelevant. It's called the rule of law.

We’re not talking about the law though. We’re believing the accounts of several women which corroborate evidence of similar behaviour. He could be found innocent of all crimes but I still believe their account of his behaviour and wouldn’t support him again (not that I ever have tbf).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Superscally said:

Assuming innocent and presuming guilty are two different things. Whether you're a fan of it is also irrelevant. It's called the rule of law.

You are bringing the discussion down to an issue of legality and that misses the point entirely. Much of his (and others behaviour) is not or wasn't against the law - the UK only recently brought in a law against controlling and coercive behaviour.

As with nearly all these allegations by women against men, they never ever go to court so this 'innocent until proven guilty' is a dead argument as there's nothing to prove terms of the law. The women have to bring it to the police and not suprisingly, having found the bravery to come forward, they don't often want to end up going to court, facing their abuser and having it all played out in public.

It fundamentally comes down to whether you believe the women or murmur that you've not got all the facts and stand on the sidelines until such time it's all 'proven'.

I'd suggest the latter part of that argument is why men get away with it so much and why women are afraid to come forward.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Keithy said:

I'd suggest the latter part of that argument is why men get away with it so much and why women are afraid to come forward.

Plus, you've got cases like Ronaldo, where what he did absolutely was illegal, but he's powerful enough to make it go away until Der Spiegel did their own investigation, receipts and all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, FatAmmy said:

But seriously...don't you think it's a bit odd to deploy the "Well, nobody's perfect" style of argument in this situation?

no more odd than others feeling the need to exaggerate the crimes, or to attack people for daring to have considerations different to their own.

The prisons are stuffed full of sex offenders but most get released and have to be dealt with within society. Talking them into non-existence doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

no more odd than others feeling the need to exaggerate the crimes, or to attack people for daring to have considerations different to their own.

The prisons are stuffed full of sex offenders but most get released and have to be dealt with within society. Talking them into non-existence doesn't work.

Shouldn't we have the reckoning before talking about rehabilitation?( ESP since Adams isn't being particularly penitent)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...