Arcade Fire

[Zoo Music Girl]

39 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

To be perfectly honest as a woman I would be more upset and it would have more of an impact on my mental state if someone I knew liked and thought I could trust behaved like this than if I was more violently raped by a complete stranger. A complete stranger doing something it's just bad luck, wrong place, wrong time but someone you liked cared for treating you like that would make you question your judgement, yourself and far more likely to have much longer term impacts psychologically. I think your distinctions show a complete lack of understanding about the emotional impact of the behaviour. 

100% this

[Superscally]

13 hours ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

So the last 2 posts combine to

1. Downplay the assault and

2. Suggest the victim goes to the authorities.

The irony in that melts my brain.

Are you implying I was downplaying it? Can't see where I was. I did suggest that just because someone has said something doesn't mean it's true. In fact, I made it quite clear that I suspected a good deal of this may be. I do feel extremely uncomfortable in these days of instant individual media that once something is out there it is accepted as gospel by a huge number of people. When allegations as serious as this are suggested it shouldn't be just put out there attached to a name. Let's just say an allegation wasn't true - someone's reputation is possibly irreparably tarnished. Craig Charles took years to get over being declared innocent by an ACTUAL jury. Win may choose to sue if untrue on the worst allegations, but legally he'll be on dodgy ground as there is no proof either way and he's already suggested that he's acted like a wrong un, so he won't. The only good thing that comes out of this is that his shitty behaviour has been rightly outed. Question - do you think he, or anyone should defend themselves if they hear an allegation about them that is untrue, or exaggerated (Please, don't misread this as me saying these all are)? 

Also, can you let me know where I'm wrong in suggesting she get the authorities involved? Genuinely confused here. Wondering if it's due to the stress involved? I kind of get that, but maybe say that? I would be very surprised if the police haven't contacted Pitchfork asking for details and offering anonymous support and investigation. I'd be disappointed if they haven't as my mate who is a copper said they would do here and even if the alleged victim didn't want to make a case, they'd be offered confidential support.

[Superscally]

4 hours ago, Suprefan said:

 Im sure the ones who are shrugging this stuff off as minor have likely done similar so they can relate to Win and are cool with all of this. Some incredible small dick energy being shown.

Did you post this whilst drunk? That's the only excuse I can imagine for what is an absolutely idiotic statement. 

[Nobby's Old Boots]

5 minutes ago, Superscally said:

Are you implying I was downplaying it? Can't see where I was. I did suggest that just because someone has said something doesn't mean it's true. In fact, I made it quite clear that I suspected a good deal of this may be. I do feel extremely uncomfortable in these days of instant individual media that once something is out there it is accepted as gospel by a huge number of people. When allegations as serious as this are suggested it shouldn't be just put out there attached to a name. Let's just say an allegation wasn't true - someone's reputation is possibly irreparably tarnished. Craig Charles took years to get over being declared innocent by an ACTUAL jury. Win may choose to sue if untrue on the worst allegations, but legally he'll be on dodgy ground as there is no proof either way and he's already suggested that he's acted like a wrong un, so he won't. The only good thing that comes out of this is that his shitty behaviour has been rightly outed. Question - do you think he, or anyone should defend themselves if they hear an allegation about them that is untrue, or exaggerated (Please, don't misread this as me saying these all are)? 

Also, can you let me know where I'm wrong in suggesting she get the authorities involved? Genuinely confused here. Wondering if it's due to the stress involved? I kind of get that, but maybe say that? I would be very surprised if the police haven't contacted Pitchfork asking for details and offering anonymous support and investigation. I'd be disappointed if they haven't as my mate who is a copper said they would do here and even if the alleged victim didn't want to make a case, they'd be offered confidential support.

I was implying that your post suggesting they should contact the police was not compatible with the post above it, which clearly looks to downplay the serious nature of the accusations. Not saying you're wrong in suggesting they report it to the police, I'm just saying that it's an offensively stupid argument to suggest that nothing bad could have happened because otherwise he'd be arrested (aware that wasn't your point by the way) when at the same time attempting to somehow downgrade what he has been accused of.

I've already explained why I feel that the attitude of looking to dismiss allegations as less serious than other types of sexual assault is incredibly dangerous and plays into the culture that leads to women being less likely to report crimes against them, we're covering the same ground here.

[FloorFiller]

24 minutes ago, Superscally said:

Did you post this whilst drunk? That's the only excuse I can imagine for what is an absolutely idiotic statement. 

Just look at the rest of his post history and it’ll make a whole lot more sense. 

[Nobby's Old Boots]

16 minutes ago, Superscally said:

Are you implying I was downplaying it? Can't see where I was. I did suggest that just because someone has said something doesn't mean it's true. In fact, I made it quite clear that I suspected a good deal of this may be. I do feel extremely uncomfortable in these days of instant individual media that once something is out there it is accepted as gospel by a huge number of people. When allegations as serious as this are suggested it shouldn't be just put out there attached to a name. Let's just say an allegation wasn't true - someone's reputation is possibly irreparably tarnished. Craig Charles took years to get over being declared innocent by an ACTUAL jury. Win may choose to sue if untrue on the worst allegations, but legally he'll be on dodgy ground as there is no proof either way and he's already suggested that he's acted like a wrong un, so he won't. The only good thing that comes out of this is that his shitty behaviour has been rightly outed. Question - do you think he, or anyone should defend themselves if they hear an allegation about them that is untrue, or exaggerated (Please, don't misread this as me saying these all are)? 

Also, can you let me know where I'm wrong in suggesting she get the authorities involved? Genuinely confused here. Wondering if it's due to the stress involved? I kind of get that, but maybe say that? I would be very surprised if the police haven't contacted Pitchfork asking for details and offering anonymous support and investigation. I'd be disappointed if they haven't as my mate who is a copper said they would do here and even if the alleged victim didn't want to make a case, they'd be offered confidential support.

Suggesting people are accepting this as gospel is implying there is no thought or research (honestly, it won't take long to find other, numerous similar stories online about him) behind the conclusions people are coming to about this. I feel uncomfortable that you are not inclined to believe the victim, honestly. There is this constant, embarrassing battle when something like this comes out fed by a strange paranoia men have about accusations being false. It's really unhealthy and leads to the issues I've already addressed.

Stop making silly comparisons. The Craig Charles story is completely different to this - he was falsely accused in a one off incident, this is not that. It's offensive to the victims, reductive and extremely unhelpful to make comparisons like that.

And further, yes I am upset and distressed about all this and I'll not be offering any apologies for that.

I believe people should be bothered, upset, and stressed because this is happening far too often and some of the responses and attitudes honestly seem to be coming from the 1950's. 

[henry bear]

36 minutes ago, Superscally said:

Did you post this whilst drunk? That's the only excuse I can imagine for what is an absolutely idiotic statement. 

Whilst he's always been something of a prickly character, he seems to have given up altogether on having meaningful interaction here and seems intent on little more than winding people up/trolling

[Superscally]

49 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

Suggesting people are accepting this as gospel is implying there is no thought or research (honestly, it won't take long to find other, numerous similar stories online about him) behind the conclusions people are coming to about this. I feel uncomfortable that you are not inclined to believe the victim, honestly. There is this constant, embarrassing battle when something like this comes out fed by a strange paranoia men have about accusations being false. It's really unhealthy and leads to the issues I've already addressed.

Stop making silly comparisons. The Craig Charles story is completely different to this - he was falsely accused in a one off incident, this is not that. It's offensive to the victims, reductive and extremely unhelpful to make comparisons like that.

And further, yes I am upset and distressed about all this and I'll not be offering any apologies for that.

Firstly, I didn't ask you to apologise and I believe most people on here are upset about the whole situation, myself included, so I won't be asking you to either. 

Secondly, it's not a silly comparison. There are two levels here. One is the sleazy behaviour and the other is an allegation on the same spectrum as rape. Win denies it. I don't know if that's true. I don't think you do either, so unless there is a proper investigation that proves otherwise he has the right to deny it. Of course there is the chance that he is lying. It's not an embarrassing battle, it's called searching for the truth. You can't just assume an allegation is true as stated. There is nuance, even when one of the people involved has unsavoury traits. As such, there needs to be due process and with all due respect, that isn't Internet research. 

I'm sorry you feel I don't believe the victim, but I don't know her and I don't know the circumstances, bar two contrasting opinions, so for me to believe her without wanting more information would be farcical. 

Question:

Would you lock Win Butler up right now? If not, what would you do? 

P.s. I don't believe Win either at the moment. There is likely elements of truth on both sides. Time may tell...

Edited September 1, 2022 by Superscally

[Nobby's Old Boots]

3 minutes ago, Superscally said:

Firstly, I didn't ask you to apologise and I believe most people on here are upset about the whole situation, myself included, so I won't be asking you to either. 

Secondly, it's not a silly comparison. There are two levels here. One is the sleazy behaviour and the other is an allegation on the same spectrum as rape. Win denies it. I don't know if that's true. I don't think you do either, so unless there is a proper investigation that proves otherwise he has the right to deny it. Of course there is the chance that he is lying. It's not an embarrassing battle, it's called searching for the truth. You can't just assume an allegation is true as stated. There is nuance, even when one of the people involved has unsavoury traits. As such, there needs to be due process and with all due respect, that isn't Internet research. 

I'm sorry you feel I don't believe the victim, but I don't know her and I don't know the circumstances, bar two contrasting opinions, so for me to believe her without wanting more information would be farcical. 

Question:

Would you lock Win Butler up right now? If not, what would you do? 

If I have to do this over and over again then I will.

This is NOT NOT NOT accusations of "sleazy behaviour" - read the above posts, I'll not lay them out again. Read the article. These are accusations of serious (not getting into that again either) sexual assault.

If you think that believing a woman making accusations of such behaviour is "farcical" then I think we've reached the logical conclusion of this conversation, because to me that's just straight up dangerous.

Since you're a fan of hypothetical questions;

If you did know the victim in this situation, and they told you it had happened, would you be more likely to believe them? Or would you bang on about how Craig Charles was falsely accused of rape in 1994?

[Superscally]

First - answer my question. 

Secondly, I actually do apologise for my wording there and should have taken more care, but that's the result of me replying in between bits at work. I was using the word belief in terms of a concrete proof of guilt. My first reaction when I read Lily's* story was that I hope she followed through on this and if proven true that gets Win in a heap of bother. It is important that as soon as an allegation is made it is investigated as if it is true and the alleged victim is afforded all the support needed. There should never be a vocal assumption that they're not telling the truth. However, you simply cannot crucify the alleged perpetrator without evidence. The shitty situation is that there may be none. I'd love to know what the solution is here, but it cannot be punishment of an innocent person (again, to reduce the risk of being misinterpreted, I'm not saying Win is innocent). The important thing is that Lily* is supported here and I hope she pursues this legally if she is able. The fact that she has already slightly altered her testimony doesn't help her legal plausibility however, though I know that when stressed you can say things that you later alter for valid reasons. 

 

In summation and to answer your question, in advance of you answering mine. It would depend on the person and the situation. I'll ask you a second question. If you had a mate who was reliably full of shit or prone to hyperbole (again, so you don't misinterpret - I'm not saying that Lily* is) and a mate who was always on the level - who would you be more likely to believe if I told you only one was telling the truth about any issue?

P.s. In addition if you read my earlier post, I'm also making the distinction between sleazy behaviour and sexual assault, so please don't resort to capitalisation to imply I'm treating them the same. I said anyone has the right to reply to things that are untrue even if some of the allegations made are true.

Edited September 1, 2022 by Superscally

[Nobby's Old Boots]

5 minutes ago, Superscally said:

First - answer my question. 

Secondly, I actually do apologise for my wording there and should have taken more care, but that's the result of me replying in between bits at work. I was using the word belief in terms of a concrete proof of guilt. My first reaction when I read Lily's* story was that I hope she followed through on this and if proven true that gets Win in a heap of bother. It is important that as soon as an allegation is made it is investigated as if it is true and the alleged victim is afforded all the support needed. There should never be a vocal assumption that they're not telling the truth. However, you simply cannot crucify the alleged perpetrator without evidence. The shitty situation is that there may be none. I'd love to know what the solution is here, but it cannot be punishment of an innocent person (again, to reduce the risk of being misinterpreted, I'm not saying Win is innocent). The important thing is that Lily* is supported here and I hope she pursues this legally if she is able. The fact that she has already slightly altered her testimony doesn't help her legal plausibility however, though I know that when stressed you can say things that you later alter for valid reasons. 

 

In summation and to answer your question, in advance of you answering mine. It would depend on the person and the situation. I'll ask you a second question. If you had a mate who was reliably full of shit or prone to hyperbole (again, so you don't misinterpret - I'm not saying that Lily* is) and a mate who was always on the level - who would you be more likely to believe if I told you only one was telling the truth about any issue?

P.s. In addition if you read my earlier post, I'm also making the distinction between sleazy behaviour and sexual assault, so please don't resort to capitalisation to imply I'm treating them the same. I said anyone has the right to reply to things that are untrue even if some of the allegations made are true.

I'm not going to answer the question because it's leading, hypothetical and not relevant to the point I'm making. I am talking about serious allegations that have been made. They are allegations, and my belief is that as a civilised society, the correct response is not to seek to downplay what he has been accused of, or instantly publicly question the victim's reliability. Both those things will lead to more and more women not coming forward when they've dealt with similar. Do you seriously not recognise that as a fact?

I know you say you feel uncomfortable with accusations like this being treated as fact. Well, if I'm honest here, I don't particularly care. I think in the grand scheme of things, the discomfort you feel about that is almost irrelevant in the face of the heartbreaking and infuriating statistics about women who do not report similar assaults to the ones being described here, because they are worried they'll end up talking to someone with the same attitude as you. Someone more interested in talking in hypothetical and irrelevant comparisons because there's male fragility at play and an intense paranoia of false accusations (the statistics for which are minuscule in comparison).

I've been called hysterical, stressed, having no perspective, and accepting accusations as gospel and now I'm being told not to use capitals. Don't you get it yet? I DON'T CARE if you're looking for different reasons to dismiss what I'm saying, I'll still say it.

[gizmoman]

13 hours ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

You want to know why I'm "bothering to reply to it"? Because I'm completely exhausted and tired of people like you who are so desperate to discredit women who are victims of sexual assault, or look to downplay the seriousness of allegations being made. Sick to death of men excusing men for inexcusable behaviour. Sick to death of men abusing their positions of power by abusing women and people like you only interested in categorising those offenses.

Sick to death of people like you and your "Well, technically he didn't drag her into a bush and rape her" bullshit because YOU, my friend, and your opinions are the EXACT reason women don't report assaults because they know that even if they manage to summon the frankly superhuman strength to go and tell someone, they'll likely come across some nobhead with a clipboard looking to categorise them into a "spectrum" and minimise and minimise the assault until they're too embarrassed to see it through.

So whatever, call it an outburst, call it "hysteria", call it what you want but you are embarrassing and you're a perfect example of why so many women live in a constant state of fear and I don't care if I've the piss taken out of me here or anywhere, I'll call it out when I see it, because I care about the women in my life; friends, family, and most importantly the next generation of young girls and women who see this sort of attitude from people like you and think that's how the world works. Bullshit.

Morning all, wasn't going to comment further but have to just point out a couple of things,

tired of people like you who are so desperate to discredit women who are victims of sexual assault,

I never mentioned the victims in this case, I've accepted their stories as fact and only cast doubt on Win's version, pointing out that even if you believe him his behaviour was wrong.

Sick to death of men excusing men for inexcusable behaviour.

Never made any excuses for Win's conduct, it is clearly wrong, reread my posts.

I care about the women in my life; friends, family, and most importantly the next generation of young girls and women

And, by inference, i don't? Or is that just virtue signalling on your part? We all care about this, but if it makes you feel better blaming me for societies attitudes and legal response to these issues then that's fine. You're entitled to your view but don't credit me with imaginary opinions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nobby's Old Boots]

4 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

virtue signalling on your part

Oh, there we go. Added to the list.

Cheers.

[gizmoman]

3 hours ago, gigpusher said:

To be perfectly honest as a woman I would be more upset and it would have more of an impact on my mental state if someone I knew liked and thought I could trust behaved like this than if I was more violently raped by a complete stranger. A complete stranger doing something it's just bad luck, wrong place, wrong time but someone you liked cared for treating you like that would make you question your judgement, yourself and far more likely to have much longer term impacts psychologically. I think your distinctions show a complete lack of understanding about the emotional impact of the behaviour. 

They are not my distinctions, they are society's distinctions. In my original post I was pointing out the legal difference in how these things are viewed and responded to, but it would be pretty much impossible to gauge the emotional damage done on a case by case basis and set an appropriate punishment which is why we have the imperfect system we do. Nobby believes all these crimes are of the same magnitude, they are entitled to that view but society doesn't judge them in that way, that's not down to me!

[Superscally]

4 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

I'm not going to answer the question because it's leading, hypothetical and not relevant to the point I'm making. I am talking about serious allegations that have been made. They are allegations, and my belief is that as a civilised society, the correct response is not to seek to downplay what he has been accused of, or instantly publicly question the victim's reliability. Both those things will lead to more and more women not coming forward when they've dealt with similar. Do you seriously not recognise that as a fact?

I know you say you feel uncomfortable with accusations like this being treated as fact. Well, if I'm honest here, I don't particularly care. I think in the grand scheme of things, the discomfort you feel about that is almost irrelevant in the face of the heartbreaking and infuriating statistics about women who do not report similar assaults to the ones being described here, because they are worried they'll end up talking to someone with the same attitude as you. Someone more interested in talking in hypothetical and irrelevant comparisons because there's male fragility at play and an intense paranoia of false accusations (the statistics for which are minuscule in comparison).

I've been called hysterical, stressed, having no perspective, and accepting accusations as gospel and now I'm being told not to use capitals. Don't you get it yet? I DON'T CARE if you're looking for different reasons to dismiss what I'm saying, I'll still say it.

It is relevant, but hey, you've talked yourself into a corner that you can't offer a way out of and that's that.

You're also completely misinterpreting what I'm saying to fit your line of pursuit. 

I understand and agree with how you feel about the seriousness of the situation, so don't use the "same attitude as you" line when you're completely misjudging my attitude. 

Seeing as you wish to talk about a civilised society, we need to both assume an incident has happened and then seek to prove it and then act accordingly.  

I haven't accused you of any of these things, but before you go through with your highlighter - I'm talking about the general "you", as in "one". I certainly never even remotely implied you were hysterical, stressed, or had no perspective. 

Well done on the capitals again. I now firmly know that you don't care. Thank you for clarifying. Happy for you to say it, I'm not trying to stop you, just offering my opinion that everyone has a right to justice in whatever form that takes.

[Nobby's Old Boots]

12 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

They are not my distinctions, they are society's distinctions. In my original post I was pointing out the legal difference in how these things are viewed and responded to, but it would be pretty much impossible to gauge the emotional damage done on a case by case basis and set an appropriate punishment which is why we have the imperfect system we do. Nobby believes all these crimes are of the same magnitude, they are entitled to that view but society doesn't judge them in that way, that's not down to me!

Unbelievably disingenuous from the poster who said:

You consider this "serious sexual assault" but in reality the claims are of a relatively minor nature, what used to be termed "indecent assault" in Britain. People need to keep a bit of perspective. He's not a violent rapist but it's clear he's a sleazy chancer, even if you believe his side of the story."

"there is a world of difference between unwanted touching, for example, and a violent sexual attack, that is why I said we need a bit of perspective, doesn't make the act any less unpleasant but there's no need to overplay what actually happened."

"the point is there is a whole spectrum of sexual offending, this particular case seems to be at the lower end. "

"If it is that serious why is he not in jail? Or being questioned by the authorities? There is an air of hysteria on here, take a step back and look at this situation rationally, it's not the crime of the century. That's not me "downplaying" it, just stating a fact."

I'm sure, as it customary, you'll claim those quotes have been taken out of context so I invited you to apply some.

And I didn't say they are all of the same magnitude, I said that attempting to downplay the accusations, as you have done above, is troubling and dangerous. I note you're keen to avoid certain comments on here which offer more insight than either me or you.

Edited September 1, 2022 by Nobby's Old Boots

[stuie]

18 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

Oh, there we go. Added to the list.

Cheers.

Oh mate. You should direct some of this anger to @arcadefire on twitter. 

This isn't helping anyone. 

[gizmoman]

2 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

Unbelievably disingenuous from the poster who said:

You consider this "serious sexual assault" but in reality the claims are of a relatively minor nature, what used to be termed "indecent assault" in Britain. People need to keep a bit of perspective. He's not a violent rapist but it's clear he's a sleazy chancer, even if you believe his side of the story."

"there is a world of difference between unwanted touching, for example, and a violent sexual attack, that is why I said we need a bit of perspective, doesn't make the act any less unpleasant but there's no need to overplay what actually happened."

"the point is there is a whole spectrum of sexual offending, this particular case seems to be at the lower end. "

"If it is that serious why is he not in jail? Or being questioned by the authorities? There is an air of hysteria on here, take a step back and look at this situation rationally, it's not the crime of the century. That's not me "downplaying" it, just stating a fact."

I'm sure, as it customary, you'll claim those quotes have been taken out of context so I invited you to apply some.

See my response to gigpushers post.

[Nobby's Old Boots]

Fuck it, I've said my bit. I'm out.

[gigpusher]

19 hours ago, gizmoman said:

You consider this "serious sexual assault" but in reality the claims are of a relatively minor nature, what used to be termed "indecent assault" in Britain. People need to keep a bit of perspective. He's not a violent rapist but it's clear he's a sleazy chancer, even if you believe his side of the story. Everyone can make their own mind up if what he has done means they can't go and support the band, but if his wife has forgiven him and supports him I suspect most fans will choose to overlook his behaviour. (I'm not a fan of the band BTW so it's not a decision I'll have to make).

 

15 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

They are not my distinctions, they are society's distinctions. In my original post I was pointing out the legal difference in how these things are viewed and responded to, but it would be pretty much impossible to gauge the emotional damage done on a case by case basis and set an appropriate punishment which is why we have the imperfect system we do. Nobby believes all these crimes are of the same magnitude, they are entitled to that view but society doesn't judge them in that way, that's not down to me!

I think looking at your post saying he's just a sleazy chancer when actually there seems to be a pattern of behaviour of predatory sexual behaviour on young women half his age though is quite revealing. It's not just sleazy. It is sexual assault. It is illegal and just because it's very difficult to prove and most men know that they will get away with it doesn't lessen its impact on the women involved. If a journalist chooses to write these things and have multiple people come forward with similar accounts as well you can bet it is the tip of the iceberg. 

[FatAmmy]

cradling win butler in my arms, so that these vicious blows fall upon my body and not his

[The Martini Police]

3 hours ago, Superscally said:

Did you post this whilst drunk? That's the only excuse I can imagine for what is an absolutely idiotic statement. 

I believe he said he doesn’t drink. His idiotic statements instead come from simply being an idiot. 

[gizmoman]

5 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

 

I think looking at your post saying he's just a sleazy chancer when actually there seems to be a pattern of behaviour of predatory sexual behaviour on young women half his age though is quite revealing. It's not just sleazy. It is sexual assault. It is illegal and just because it's very difficult to prove and most men know that they will get away with it doesn't lessen its impact on the women involved. If a journalist chooses to write these things and have multiple people come forward with similar accounts as well you can bet it is the tip of the iceberg. 

You didn't quote me fully, what I said was,

but it's clear he's a sleazy chancer, even if you believe his side of the story.

What I meant is that even if his version of events is true his behaviour was wrong.

"It's not just sleazy. It is sexual assault. ", That has to be proven, either in a criminal or civil case, it will be interesting to see if anything further comes of this or if an out of court settlement is made, in any case my original post was trying to predict what reaction fans and the wider public would have, I suggested most would overlook the allegations (rightly or wrongly), if this Guardian article is any guide it would seem I was right.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/aug/31/arcade-fire-play-first-concert-since-accusations-of-sexual-misconduct-against-frontman-win-butler

Quotes from fans,

“He’s a rock star, it comes with the territory, it’s the lifestyle,” said Dessie Hamill, 60, who had left his Northern Ireland home that morning to nab a spot at the front of the stage. “Women are chasing him every day of the week. They are one of the biggest bands in the world.”

Others were unaware of the allegations and, when told, shrugged them off. “No offence to the male species but a man’s a man,” said one woman in her 30s. “I’m just here for the music.”

Others conceded unease but said they separated art from the artist. “I’m not justifying anything but different artists have had questionable behaviour in the past and you still listen to the music,” said Silvia D’Angelo, 31, from Italy.

Another female fan, aged 29, echoed the sentiment. “People still listen to Michael Jackson.” She declined to give her name, citing the reaction of younger “woke” colleagues.

 

 

[gigpusher]

1 hour ago, gizmoman said:

You didn't quote me fully, what I said was,

but it's clear he's a sleazy chancer, even if you believe his side of the story.

What I meant is that even if his version of events is true his behaviour was wrong.

"It's not just sleazy. It is sexual assault. ", That has to be proven, either in a criminal or civil case, it will be interesting to see if anything further comes of this or if an out of court settlement is made, in any case my original post was trying to predict what reaction fans and the wider public would have, I suggested most would overlook the allegations (rightly or wrongly), if this Guardian article is any guide it would seem I was right.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/aug/31/arcade-fire-play-first-concert-since-accusations-of-sexual-misconduct-against-frontman-win-butler

Quotes from fans,

“He’s a rock star, it comes with the territory, it’s the lifestyle,” said Dessie Hamill, 60, who had left his Northern Ireland home that morning to nab a spot at the front of the stage. “Women are chasing him every day of the week. They are one of the biggest bands in the world.”

Others were unaware of the allegations and, when told, shrugged them off. “No offence to the male species but a man’s a man,” said one woman in her 30s. “I’m just here for the music.”

Others conceded unease but said they separated art from the artist. “I’m not justifying anything but different artists have had questionable behaviour in the past and you still listen to the music,” said Silvia D’Angelo, 31, from Italy.

Another female fan, aged 29, echoed the sentiment. “People still listen to Michael Jackson.” She declined to give her name, citing the reaction of younger “woke” colleagues.

 

 

Unfortunately too many people are capable of mental gymnastics when it comes to people they like. You only have to look at football fans to see that. For me regardless of anything else it's clear he doesn't treat women with respect and for that reason he'll never get another penny of my money. 

[Suprefan]

Feist dropping off the tour.

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/Ch-KNP_Itl_/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=