Jump to content
eFestivals is fund-raising

eFestivals has been here 20 years supporting festivals and festival goers. Without your support it will not continue as it has been.
Advertising used to pay the bills but advertising revenues are much less than they were.

Festivals: if you'd like us to continue to promote your event to our 650,000 monthly readers you'll need to give a helping hand.
Festival-Goers: if every visitor in just one day donated just £2, that would provide funding for a whole year.

You can donate or sign up for 'gold' (ad-free) membership, or you can contact the editor.
Sign in to follow this  
tevaburger

Ryan Adams

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Well yes, there are worse things in the world. But this is a specific ryan Adams thread!

Adams hasn't even admitted he did anything wrong or that he wants rehabilitation.

Which may prove my point of not realising there was an issue...none of which are proven I will re-add...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, stylishkids said:

 Mick Jagger shouldn't be sleeping around with someone who's 43 years younger than him but it's not against the law.

What the fuck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Homer said:

He is definitely a bit of a bellend - he managed to fall out with Mark Radcliffe for god's sake:
 

 

Being wound up over oven gloves and implying he might be guilty of similar things as Adams is a bit of a stretch.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Well yes, there are worse things in the world. But this is a specific ryan Adams thread!

it was you who raised worse cases than Adams and the wider issue of rehab. 

Edited by eFestivals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Superscally said:

Which may prove my point of not realising there was an issue...none of which are proven I will re-add...

Hmmm... he was the one joking about being r Kelly'd 

 

Also, I suspect he is trying to brazen it out, I'm the hopes like louis ck, he can start back again in a  few months time

Edited by zahidf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I don't really disagree, but if someone is able to do rehab and come out the other side a better person then surely that should have the chance of recognition?

The way things stand right now the damnation is forever and there's no chance of rehabilitation.

Surely the point is to move to a better society, and not throw flawed humans - which is all of us in some way or another - off a cliff?

There's clearly a big wrong in stuff like this, and yet there's far worse that goes on in the world without getting anything like the same sorts of focus, responses or the same forever-damnation. We need better perspectives as well as outing wrongs.

I think this will be my last post on this thread, but whilst you can see from my previous ones I don't have a lot of time for people defending his actions, I do think there is a valid point in here. Moving past the initial condemnation, how should society deal with these cases? I'm a strong believer in rehabilitation for criminals so it should logically extend to cases outside the law (again though it should be remembered that he IS under investigation from the FBI). For criminals we have prisons, probation and the whole infrastructure behind that to facilitate and monitor rehabilitation. In society we don't have that. It's something I've thought a lot about but still don't really know.

On the one hand you have this belief in rehabilitation and whilst it sounds a bit crass, some incentive for reflection and becoming a better person. If you're 'cancelled' regardless of how you respond and try to make amends you're just going to have a lot more situations where people dig in deeper when called out and continue. I guess the counter argument to that would be whilst it's fine for him to be 'rehabilitated', he had a position of fame and power and he abused it and that he's lost that privelege. He can still live his life but he doesn't have a given right to have people give him record deals, promote him and give him stages to play on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Garrett_Salas said:

I think this will be my last post on this thread, but whilst you can see from my previous ones I don't have a lot of time for people defending his actions, I do think there is a valid point in here. Moving past the initial condemnation, how should society deal with these cases? I'm a strong believer in rehabilitation for criminals so it should logically extend to cases outside the law (again though it should be remembered that he IS under investigation from the FBI). For criminals we have prisons, probation and the whole infrastructure behind that to facilitate and monitor rehabilitation. In society we don't have that. It's something I've thought a lot about but still don't really know.

On the one hand you have this belief in rehabilitation and whilst it sounds a bit crass, some incentive for reflection and becoming a better person. If you're 'cancelled' regardless of how you respond and try to make amends you're just going to have a lot more situations where people dig in deeper when called out and continue. I guess the counter argument to that would be whilst it's fine for him to be 'rehabilitated', he had a position of fame and power and he abused it and that he's lost that privelege. He can still live his life but he doesn't have a given right to have people give him record deals, promote him and give him stages to play on.

Yup the last point. Same with people defending Louis CK. He has no right to fame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re:rehabilitation 

I'm all for that and in a decent society you have to give everyone the opportunity to be rehabilitated. But for me, I precursor to that is an acceptance they did wrong. That is not the case with Adams.

.."some people believe I caused them pain.."

He doesn't accept he has and puts the onus back on the girls and women, inferring that it is simply their interpretation of events.

Of course it may well be that all these girls and women have independently come to the same misinterpretation of his actions. Or it could be that he's a serial manipulator of women who refuses to accept what he does is wrong. I know where I stand.

Similarly, no contrition over the young girl, simply a statement that he wouldn't have interactions with someone he thought was underage. No acceptance that it was inappropriate for a 40 year old bloke to have inappropriate interactions with a 16, 17, or 18 year old, just a fall back to the "I didn't know she might have been underage defence'.

Finally, the classic standard; details are 'misrepresented' or 'false'....but not explaining what is misrepresented or false. I get that he's under no obligation to give his version of events but, rightly or wrongly, I've long moved to the position of believing the women until such time the bloke can give a counter account of his actions.

Edited by Keithy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Same with people defending ...

where is ANYONE defending Adams?  You're making it up. :rolleyes: 

Just because people don't go fucking loopy with condemnations doesn't make it "defending".

It helps no one to throw bullshit into the mix. It's just another wrong to chalk up alongside Adams.

Edited by eFestivals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

where is ANYONE defending Adams?  You're making it up. :rolleyes: 

Stay off Twitter kids. Unless you're not virtue signaling on there you're a c**t.

Anyway new album binned and the companies who make his kit have ditched him. 

Edited by The Nal
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

where is ANYONE defending Adams?  You're making it up. :rolleyes: 

Just because people don't go fucking loopy with condemnations doesn't make it "defending".

It helps no one to throw bullshit into the mix. It's just another wrong to chalk up alongside Adams.

? I wasn't saying that about defennding Adams. I was saying about people defending Louis CK and Adams looking at that as his way back. 

Outside of here, loads of his fans are defending him anyway....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 It's just another wrong to chalk up alongside Adams.

Great and fair comparison of two totally similar actions. You're killing it in this thread!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FatAmmy said:

Great and fair comparison of two totally similar actions. You're killing it in this thread!

I compared both as wrong, I didn't say both were equally wrong.  What did you find so difficult that you got it so wrong? :rolleyes: 

Enjoy your ride on the bandwagon. 

Edited by eFestivals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Keithy said:

Re:rehabilitation 

I'm all for that and in a decent society you have to give everyone the opportunity to be rehabilitated. But for me, I precursor to that is an acceptance they did wrong. That is not the case with Adams.

.."some people believe I caused them great pain.."

He doesn't accept he has and puts the onus back on the girls and women, inferring that it is simply their interpretation of events.

Of course it may well be that all these girls and women have independently come to the same misinterpretation of his actions. Or it could be that he's a serial manipulator of women who refuses to accept what he does is wrong. I know where I stand.

Similarly, no contrition over the young girl, simply a statement that he wouldn't have interactions with someone he thought was underage. No acceptance that it was inappropriate for a 40 year old bloke to have inappropriate interactions with a 16, 17, or 18 year old, just a fall back to the "I didn't know she might have been underage defence'.

Finally, the classic standard; details are 'misrepresented' or 'false'....but not explaining what is misrepresented or false. I get that he's under no obligation to give his version of events but, rightly or wrongly, I've long moved to the position of believing the women until such time the bloke can give a counter account of his actions.

He will have been advised not to comment on all of this, especially the potential underage thing. He has no obligation to let us know, you don't know if he's contrite or not. You don't know if he's given an effective counter. We are not his area of obligation.

All these comments from me aren't trying to defend any inappropriate actions btw, just pointing out flaws in what people are saying/expecting.

In response to the rkelley (sic) thing, you could use that line appropriately if she was actually 20 given RA's age. It doesn't imply underage knowledge, just big age gap. That's another issue. I'm 40 and wouldn't dream of sleeping with an 18 year old. 28? Yes. 25? Probably. Somewhere there is a line, which probably depends on the individual's maturity. However, legally there is nothing wrong with it, it is just unseemly to many, which is fair enough.

Regardless of motives or knowledge, he was an idiot at best for even taking the risk sending those messages if he thought there was a chance she was not of age. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I compared both as wrong, I didn't say both were equally wrong.  What did you find so difficult that you got it so wrong? :rolleyes: 

Enjoy your ride on the bandwagon. 

You drew a comparison between people who disagree with you online and an alleged kid toucher. Why do you think that's acceptable behavior, regardless of whether you typed the exact phase "I think these two things are equal"?

 

Why would you do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FatAmmy said:

You drew a comparison between people who disagree with you online

I called out bullshit as bullshit. :rolleyes: 

 

Just now, FatAmmy said:

and an alleged kid toucher.

Is that part of it? I thought the abuse with the under-age was online-only? 

(just wondering if this is another bit of bullshit, in need of calling out)

 

Just now, FatAmmy said:

Why do you think that's acceptable behavior, regardless of whether you typed the exact phase "I think these two things are equal"?

Why do you think the only acceptable response is to your model, to make any different responses wrong? 

 

Just now, FatAmmy said:

Why would you do that?

Hyperbole and bullshit and lynch-mob mentality do not take things to a better place, they take things to a worse place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You couldn't think of any other way to call out bullshit as bullshit? You had no choice but to compare the people who disagreed with you on the internet to Ryan Adams? Does that take things to a better place?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FatAmmy said:

You couldn't think of any other way to call out bullshit as bullshit? You had no choice but to compare the people who disagreed with you on the internet to Ryan Adams? 

You're making it up. I did no such thing. I'm not responsible for your fail.

PS: was it bullshit you posted? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, eFestivals said:

You're making it up. I did no such thing. I'm not responsible for your fail.

PS: was it bullshit you posted? 

So when you said "It's just another wrong to chalk up alongside Adams", in reference to the things other people were posting, which you believed to be bullshit

 

You didn't want to compare the two actions

 

You just wanted to chalk them up next to each other?

 

Got it

PS. Upon further investigation, I retract my flippant use of the phrase "kid toucher" as a catch-all for sexual crimes against children

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's about to appear on the sex offenders register and sounds like Bryan Adams?




You can probably figure out the punchline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FatAmmy said:

So when you said "It's just another wrong to chalk up alongside Adams", in reference to the things other people were posting, which you believed to be bullshit

 

You didn't want to compare the two actions

 

You just wanted to chalk them up next to each other?

 

Got it

PS. Upon further investigation, I retract my flippant use of the phrase "kid toucher" as a catch-all for sexual crimes against children

As a wider point the catch-all thing is a huge problem. Hes been chucked in with Bill Cosby. Who has 50 years of rape, paedophilia and battery charges against him. Ridiculous. Its either completely good good or completely evil. No in between. 

No two wrongs/crimes are the same. 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FatAmmy said:

You didn't want to compare the two actions

wrong is wrong. The levels of wrongness might be different. Not every wrong is the same hanging offence. 

I think most 5 years olds have grasped that.

 

4 minutes ago, FatAmmy said:

PS. Upon further investigation, I retract my flippant use of the phrase "kid toucher" as a catch-all for sexual crimes against children

good to see there's no one whipping up the lynch mob. :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
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
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...