Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
This argument is just talking in circles and I don’t think anyone is changing their mind. Let’s chill
You are very right. I'll bet a Frolem it doesn't stop though. Passes seem to be at a standstill while shuttle passes have gone up quite a bit for weekend 2. I shoulda bought one premessage board hype.
In general when celebrities are charged with a crime and they get off, its via a trial dismissal after essentially paying off the accuser to not show up in court. It’s what happened when R Kelly got accused in 2002, the accuser recanted and no showed and R Kelly got off.
Go take a look at the witness list who testified against Michael Jackson in 2005, the no-shows weren’t there. He went up against the accusers and beat them in court, no OJ level prosecution failure either.
The dude is now dead and can’t defend himself except for the time where he did defend himself in court and won.
I could not disagree more. The Hollywood "leaks" that have come out in the past few months (Weinstein, Spacey, Singer, Cosby, R. Kelly, and yes MJ) are all known quantities that have been known about, although in less formal accusations, for decades in some cases. It's not like they are accusing Amy Adams or J.J. Abrams or Viola Davis or somebody totally out of the blue. This is what I'm talking about...everybody wants to say "Shame on Hollywood!" for not being more transparent, but these things have been widely known forever, and people have been plugging their ears because they too loved Shakespeare in Love and like singing Ignition (remix) at karaoke. I find the evidence against MJ beyond compelling and I think the rush of people to exonerate him, despite children accurately describing birth marks on his genitals, to be the problem. We want the entertainment industry to be transparent about who are predators, but then when the people are exposed as predators (that we all know and expect to be predators anyway), we let our collective love for the artists' work override the plain reality.
In general when celebrities are charged with a crime and they get off, its via a trial dismissal after essentially paying off the accuser to not show up in court. It’s what happened when R Kelly got accused in 2002, the accuser recanted and no showed and R Kelly got off.
Go take a look at the witness list who testified against Michael Jackson in 2005, the no-shows weren’t there. He went up against the accusers and beat them in court, no OJ level prosecution failure either.
The dude is now dead and can’t defend himself except for the time where he did defend himself in court and won.
I could not disagree more. The Hollywood "leaks" that have come out in the past few months (Weinstein, Spacey, Singer, Cosby, R. Kelly, and yes MJ) are all known quantities that have been known about, although in less formal accusations, for decades in some cases. It's not like they are accusing Amy Adams or J.J. Abrams or Viola Davis or somebody totally out of the blue. This is what I'm talking about...everybody wants to say "Shame on Hollywood!" for not being more transparent, but these things have been widely known forever, and people have been plugging their ears because they too loved Shakespeare in Love and like singing Ignition (remix) at karaoke. I find the evidence against MJ beyond compelling and I think the rush of people to exonerate him, despite children accurately describing birth marks on his genitals, to be the problem. We want the entertainment industry to be transparent about who are predators, but then when the people are exposed as predators (that we all know and expect to be predators anyway), we let our collective love for the artists' work override the plain reality.
think you are missing my point here. I’m not saying MJ is innocent, no doubt about it. I’m simply saying that in a probablistic way R Kelly is significantly further from the chance of innocence than MJ, and that having R Kelly and MJ in the same sentence isn’t fair.
I look at this like Weinstein and Ansari a bit. The allegations against both have been self confirmed to be true, but you wouldn’t put Ansari’s sexual incidents and Weinstein’s sexual incidents in the same sentence due to the relative nature of the events, regardless that both Ansari and Weinstein creates traumatic events for their victims.
I’m currently at “carefully studying all the options on the food list knowing full well that I won’t give a shit once I enter the gates and just grab whatever’s closest and sounds good at the moment” levels of excited.
My food goal is to find the place that sells Lucky Charms ice cream. Will you please help me in my quest?
Post by braundiggity on Apr 1, 2019 14:49:49 GMT -5
Wait speaking of food goals -- I have never found this damn hidden tiki bar. Can someone, like, point it out on a map specifically for me? I love me some tiki.
I look at this like Weinstein and Ansari a bit. The allegations against both have been self confirmed to be true, but you wouldn’t put Ansari’s sexual incidents and Weinstein’s sexual incidents in the same sentence due to the relative nature of the events, regardless that both Ansari and Weinstein creates traumatic events for their victims.
I totally 100% agree about the differences between Ansari and Weinstein and this is why I think we need clearer language rather than "sexual assault" because, while none of it is great behavior, the two are quite different in scope and scale.
I do not remotely agree about Kelly and Jackson. If even half of the allegations against Jackson are true, it is a consistent story of premeditated and patterned behavior of the rape of minors. At that point I really don't see the need to say "well it wasn't as bad as R. Kelly".
We obviously differ on this and there's no point in talking about that in an otherwise fun Coachella thread, but it feels like the only reason people don't condemn MJ as much (he's still gotten played 80 times at every wedding I've ever been to, my own included) despite the evidence being out there forever is because MJ means so much to so many people.
Wait speaking of food goals -- I have never found this damn hidden tiki bar. Can someone, like, point it out on a map specifically for me? I love me some tiki.
Last year it was at a coconut stand in the corner of the Central Market. I think they’re going to move it around each year though.
I’m currently at “carefully studying all the options on the food list knowing full well that I won’t give a shit once I enter the gates and just grab whatever’s closest and sounds good at the moment” levels of excited.
My food goal is to find the place that sells Lucky Charms ice cream. Will you please help me in my quest?
I look at this like Weinstein and Ansari a bit. The allegations against both have been self confirmed to be true, but you wouldn’t put Ansari’s sexual incidents and Weinstein’s sexual incidents in the same sentence due to the relative nature of the events, regardless that both Ansari and Weinstein creates traumatic events for their victims.
it feels like the only reason people don't condemn MJ as much (he's still gotten played 80 times at every wedding I've ever been to, my own included) despite the evidence being out there forever is because MJ means so much to so many people.
The other very big difference is that MJ is dead, and R Kelly is not. It's much easier to separate the art from the artist when the artist no longer benefits (financially or otherwise) from you enjoying their art, and when they are no longer able to do harm to other people.
it feels like the only reason people don't condemn MJ as much (he's still gotten played 80 times at every wedding I've ever been to, my own included) despite the evidence being out there forever is because MJ means so much to so many people.
The other very big difference is that MJ is dead, and R Kelly is not. It's much easier to separate the art from the artist when the artist no longer benefits (financially or otherwise) from you enjoying their art, and when they are no longer able to do harm to other people.
I'd agree with this more if that money wasn't sustaining the estate, which is actively working to suppress the story/muddy the water around it as much as possible.
The other very big difference is that MJ is dead, and R Kelly is not. It's much easier to separate the art from the artist when the artist no longer benefits (financially or otherwise) from you enjoying their art, and when they are no longer able to do harm to other people.
I'd agree with this more if that money wasn't sustaining the estate, which is actively working to suppress the story/muddy the water around it as much as possible.
True, no doubt. Still, with each additional degree of separation I would imagine it's easier for people to ignore the artist for the art.
Harder yes, but it's the public insincerity on this that drives me crazy.
PUBLIC: Tell us who the predators are, entertainment industry! Time's Up!
VICTIMS: Well MJ sexually assaulted a bunch of us when we were kids and from court documents many children correctly identified birth marks on his genitals and sure we didn't win the lawsuit but in a "when there's smoke, there's fire" analogy we're talking California wildfire levels of smoke here.
PUBLIC: Whoops LOL not him, we love Thriller still, give us somebody else!
I doubt anybody's changing their mind here so we can move on LOL.
Post by braundiggity on Apr 1, 2019 19:03:53 GMT -5
I dunno, I think a lot of people have turned on him after the documentary came out. It's certainly different than it was around the time he died. To be honest, I used to be one of those "you know, I get why it's weird, but he does just seem like a child, and he wasn't found guilty" people. It's taken growing older, learning a lot about how this stuff affects victims, etc to realize how stupid I was and how obvious everything was in hindsight. I'd like to think the world is waking up, slowly but surely.
If this really is on the festival grounds 9am Sunday W2, what about crew sound checking for acts(including those closing stages) before the doors open?
Is the even off limits to those using the hotel shuttle unless they find a cab?
Enough check point security working 3 hours earlier than usual?
If this really is on the festival grounds 9am Sunday W2, what about crew sound checking for acts(including those closing stages) before the doors open?
This year at Pitchfork, about 150 people or so, myself included, got into the gates before Lauryn Hill came on to do her soundcheck. There was a small army of security guards blocking off about half of the main stage area. I tried to take a Snapchat and one of them came up and told me to stop. Of course, the scale is totally different, but it strikes me that it’d certainly be possible to cordon off at least part of the area for the main stage. Plus, given the amount of attention swirling around Kanye’s appearance now, I can’t imagine the number of people who would show up specifically to sneak in and gawk at an Ariana soundcheck or whatever would be that high.
Someone on Reddit just asked if the EDM sets "for artists like Zedd and Charlotte de Witte" would be similar to their sets at Ultra, and I think that pretty much says it all about this year's Yuma.
Someone on Reddit just asked if the EDM sets "for artists like Zedd and Charlotte de Witte" would be similar to their sets at Ultra, and I think that pretty much says it all about this year's Yuma.
I’m gonna go with “we have Idris Elba closing the Yuma in the mock and everyone is pretty much okay with that and that says it all about this year’s Yuma”
Not the OP but I’ve seen a fair argument that diversity quotas is just tokenism. There may be good intentions behind it but it can be a bit objectifying. I’m not sure artists like Rihanna, Florence Welch and Adele would like to be referred to as a token female headliner because a lot of these online discussions I’ve seen kinda put them into that hole. Diversity is great but making a quota like that is kinda weird IMO. I think there are fair points from both perspectives though.
It’s more about the motivation behind it, not about it being 50-50. The Primavera lineup video makes it clear that this is obviously a political statement fueled by radical left wing identity politics which in my opinion should be left out of festivals. You don’t want to alienate any potential ticket buyers or fans that don’t agree with your politics.
Yo Truevine, don’t you think it’s a little inconsistent to feel this way about festivals booking more women but you’re all amped up for Kanye West (of all people) to do a bible study at Coachella?
