Jump to content

Ryan Adams

tevaburger

By tevaburger,
in Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

eFestivals Mentor

eFestivals

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

But you can see how 'letting him live his life' in this case wouldn't change anything if he doesn't want to change? I haven't seen any indication that he knows why people are angry with him e.t.c.

but if he is aware of his wrongs and wants to change, why is he required to hold a conversation with you about it?

When a crim is released from prison after serving their sentence, they're not required to publicly repent. 

He's done wrong; he's been caught; he's already paying a significant price with his career and looks like facing criminal prosecution too. 

It's not your place to hound him (or any other crim) until they've repented to your satisfaction. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 405
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Keithy
Keithy

Survivors of abuse, either mentally or physically. Controlling, manipulative behaviour is abuse. A 40 year old bloke having sexual text messages with a 16 to girl is a famous man using his fame t

Supernintendo Chalmers
Supernintendo Chalmers
henry bear
henry bear

You can be under investigation by the FBI and continue being the President of the USA.

Posted Images

Wooderson Proficient

Wooderson

Posted
Posted

If he threw himself to the ground and begged forgiveness people wouldnt accept their either. Time and long term demonstrative changes in behaviour is needed. The concept of him being forced to be a non-person is sickening to me however. Gross and vile.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zahidf Grand Master

zahidf

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

but if he is aware of his wrongs and wants to change, why is he required to hold a conversation with you about it?

When a crim is released from prison after serving their sentence, they're not required to publicly repent. 

He's done wrong; he's been caught; he's already paying a significant price with his career and looks like facing criminal prosecution too. 

It's not your place to hound him (or any other crim) until they've repented to your satisfaction. ;) 

Hounding is an... Interesting word. What have I said should happen to him at this stage other than keep a low profile until the investigation is over?

Double edged sword of fame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zahidf Grand Master

zahidf

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

If he threw himself to the ground and begged forgiveness people wouldnt accept their either. Time and long term demonstrative changes in behaviour is needed. The concept of him being forced to be a non-person is sickening to me however. Gross and vile.

He isn't being forced to do anything. He's rich, so he won't starve. Looks like he abused his position in the music industry, does he have god given right to keep it at the same level?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wooderson Proficient

Wooderson

Posted
Posted
Just now, zahidf said:

He isn't being forced to do anything. He's rich, so he won't starve. Looks like he abused his position in the music industry, does he have god given right to keep it at the same level?

Take a holiday mate. This is rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zahidf Grand Master

zahidf

Posted
Posted
Just now, eFestivals said:

So you'd be up for a bit of hounding of Shamima Begum if she's allowed to return to the UK, until she's repented to your satisfaction.

Or is me saying that going to wise you up a bit?

Is saying she should probably not go on a UK tour until she is investigated properly me hounding her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eFestivals Mentor

eFestivals

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, FatAmmy said:

So let me get this straight... If I criticize Ryan Adams without remembering to perform my hourly public two minutes hate of any given dead musician, I'm a hypocrite??? What is wrong with your brain

Nope.

It's if you slur others because they're not performing hate to your satisfaction and then don't perform the hate yourself you''d be a hypocrite.

You'll know if that applies to you, or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FatAmmy Enthusiast

FatAmmy

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

It's if you slur others because they're not performing hate to your satisfaction

Noone has done this. You just choose not to be able to tell the difference between "not performing hate to people's satisfaction" and "having problematic attitudes about abuse/abusers that merit pushback"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FatAmmy Enthusiast

FatAmmy

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

that's just not true, as can be seen by reading back thru the thread.

If it was you, feel free to defend yourself. If it wasn't, why are you sticking up for hypocrisy?

Everyone can read the thread and see that you're misrepresenting what people have said. I will allow them to do so

If you want to provide evidence for your claim in the form of a quote of somebody saying "You're not performing hate to my satisfaction", you are also free to do so

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eFestivals Mentor

eFestivals

Posted
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, FatAmmy said:

If you want to provide evidence for your claim in the form of a quote of somebody saying "You're not performing hate to my satisfaction", you are also free to do so

it's paraphrasing. :rolleyes: 

There are a number of attacks on people's posts, complaining that they're not sticking to the lynch-mob-condemnation-script in one way or another.

I see you're feeling the need to defend yourself. Guess that's because your own entry point into this thread was to make an attack on me (ho-hum) with a wilful misunderstanding* of a post I'd made.

(* apologies if I've credited you with too much intelligence).

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FatAmmy Enthusiast

FatAmmy

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's paraphrasing. :rolleyes: 

There are a number of attacks on people's posts, complaining that they're not sticking to the lynch-mob-condemnation-script in one way or another.

I have no confidence in your ability to paraphrase. I am confident that the substance of the attacks/complaints was not "You're not sticking to the lynch-mob-condemnation script"

Regarding my entry to this thread, that's a great example of a person disagreeing with you for something that is explicitly not "Not performing hate to people's satisfaction". Thanks for bringing it up

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eFestivals Mentor

eFestivals

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, FatAmmy said:

Regarding my entry to this thread, that's a great example of a person disagreeing with you for something that is explicitly not "Not performing hate to people's satisfaction". Thanks for bringing it up

that's you being a trolling prick. Glad to bring it up as a demonstration of your bad faith with your posts here. :) 

 

3 minutes ago, FatAmmy said:

 I am confident that the substance of the attacks/complaints was not "You're not sticking to the lynch-mob-condemnation script"

And I'm confident you're wrong.

Eg:-

https://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/228298-ryan-adams/?do=findComment&comment=5596990

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FatAmmy Enthusiast

FatAmmy

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that's you being a trolling prick. Glad to bring it up as a demonstration of your bad faith with your posts here. :) 

 

And I'm confident you're wrong.

Eg:-

https://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/228298-ryan-adams/?do=findComment&comment=5596990

 

Already stated that I was posting my sincerely held beliefs, not trolling. But feel free to use the "troll" label as a cudgel to discredit people who disagree with you

I actually disagree slightly with Garrett on the wording there - I would categorize stating that you're not shocked as a minimization, not a tacit non-condemnation (Although it could be argued that they are essentially the same thing). But I see where he's coming from and agree with him that it's a harmful attitude worthy of being called out, and I think he explained himself well in the overall conversation without attacking anyone. Definitely disagree with your assessment of that post as "Slurring others because they're not performing hate to your satisfaction"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Garrett_Salas Newbie

Garrett_Salas

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, FatAmmy said:

Already stated that I was posting my sincerely held beliefs, not trolling. But feel free to use the "troll" label as a cudgel to discredit people who disagree with you

I actually disagree slightly with Garrett on the wording there - I would categorize stating that you're not shocked as a minimization, not a tacit non-condemnation (Although it could be argued that they are essentially the same thing). But I see where he's coming from and agree with him that it's a harmful attitude worthy of being called out, and I think he explained himself well in the overall conversation without attacking anyone. Definitely disagree with your assessment of that post as "Slurring others because they're not performing hate to your satisfaction

Whoops, sorry completely ruined your last part there with the post above ?

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
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...