|
Post by Naos on May 25, 2018 14:01:00 GMT -5
Why is my nationality relevant? So you live in Japan (allegedly), a country with a 98.5% ethnic Japanese population. Which explains a lot about why you don't understand race issues in America/Canada/UK I never said anything about where I live. Plus, in Japan, you can get signs on businesses telling people to leave based on their ethnicity or race. You'll see "No Chinese Allowed" signs. I don't really see that in the US.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,533
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 25, 2018 16:00:00 GMT -5
So you live in Japan (allegedly), a country with a 98.5% ethnic Japanese population. Which explains a lot about why you don't understand race issues in America/Canada/UK I never said anything about where I live. Plus, in Japan, you can get signs on businesses telling people to leave based on their ethnicity or race. You'll see "No Chinese Allowed" signs. I don't really see that in the US. We can’t have signs like that, so they use imprisonment and other concepts to separate out the non-whites.
|
|
|
Post by Naos on May 25, 2018 17:53:33 GMT -5
I never said anything about where I live. Plus, in Japan, you can get signs on businesses telling people to leave based on their ethnicity or race. You'll see "No Chinese Allowed" signs. I don't really see that in the US. We can’t have signs like that, so they use imprisonment and other concepts to separate out the non-whites. I didn't say what the Japanese business owners do is legal. It isn't. They just do it anyway. As I've stated before, Anglo and Latin countries tend to be the most racially tolerant. Which makes sense because they are often the more diverse countries. Am I saying there isn't a race bias in the justice system? No. But there's also gender biases, and class biases. And those are often worse. Black people commit crime at a higher rate, so it does make sense a good portion of the prison population would be black. Whites and blacks are about equal population in prisons, but given the crime stats, a lot of it makes sense.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,533
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 25, 2018 21:24:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Naos on May 25, 2018 21:31:57 GMT -5
Vox is a very questionable source. But the other... As I said, there's also class and gender biases. Rich people will get off better than less wealthy (due to better legal defence), and men get harsher sentences than women.
|
|
Au$tin
Diamond Member
Pop Culture Guru
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 54,543
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his/him
|
Post by Au$tin on May 26, 2018 16:08:02 GMT -5
Vox is a very questionable source. It has a left bias, yes, but their factual reporting is very solid. It's not like FOX or CNN. Also, that second link is The Washington Post.
|
|
|
Post by Naos on May 26, 2018 16:31:53 GMT -5
Vox is a very questionable source. It has a left bias, yes, but their factual reporting is very solid. It's not like FOX or CNN. Also, that second link is The Washington Post. Deadspin also has a left-wing bias. And yet, they can show how much Vox f**ked up. theconcourse.deadspin.com/46-times-vox-totally-f**ked-up-a-story-1673835447I already addressed the second article. The gender disparity in the justice system towards men is worse than the race disparity for black people. Even Huffpost reported on this, granted they left out the part where the gender disparity is six times as large as the racial one. I think people need to stop acting like the justice system is only biased towards blacks or racial minorities in general. www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on May 26, 2018 16:52:49 GMT -5
Black people commit crime at a higher rate, so it does make sense a good portion of the prison population would be black. Whites and blacks are about equal population in prisons, but given the crime stats, a lot of it makes sense. It's SO easy to say "black people commit crime at a higher rate" and just leave it at that. Have you ever wondered why that's the case? Do you think black people are inherently more violent?
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on May 26, 2018 18:44:21 GMT -5
You really want him to answer that?
|
|
|
Post by Naos on May 26, 2018 18:53:05 GMT -5
Black people commit crime at a higher rate, so it does make sense a good portion of the prison population would be black. Whites and blacks are about equal population in prisons, but given the crime stats, a lot of it makes sense. It's SO easy to say "black people commit crime at a higher rate" and just leave it at that. Have you ever wondered why that's the case? Do you think black people are inherently more violent? No. Never said anything of the sort. Just as men commit crime at a higher rate. Doesn't mean there's something inherently wrong with men. Blacks make up a lot of impoverished population. Along with that, there's cultural matters like gangs. There's also the matter of single parent households being more likely if the family is black. People coming from single parent households are more likely to commit crime. Adding the being impovershed, the single parent household, and the fact men and blacks are more likely to be incarcerated and get harsher sentences than women and whites, the conclusion is that a poor black male who came from a single parent household is at a very high likelihood of committing crime and being convicted and incarcerated.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 22:25:47 GMT -5
Some people just love to argue they don't care what it is they are arguing for. Totally ridiculous and not worth debating people who spew hot air and frame stats and use talking points that support their shit and ignore what doesn't or is complex. GTFO with that bullhorn of bullshit.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,533
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 29, 2018 22:42:10 GMT -5
It has a left bias, yes, but their factual reporting is very solid. It's not like FOX or CNN. Also, that second link is The Washington Post. Deadspin also has a left-wing bias. And yet, they can show how much Vox f**ked up. theconcourse.deadspin.com/46-times-vox-totally-f**ked-up-a-story-1673835447I already addressed the second article. The gender disparity in the justice system towards men is worse than the race disparity for black people. Even Huffpost reported on this, granted they left out the part where the gender disparity is six times as large as the racial one. I think people need to stop acting like the justice system is only biased towards blacks or racial minorities in general. www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspxNo one has denied other disparities in the system exist, but those disparities are not relevant to this discussion. That’s why it isn’t mentioned, but a lack of mention is not the same as a denial. If someone is telling you how many people are affected by multiple sclerosis, do you feel a need to tell them heart disease affects more people? I don’t understand why you are always bringing in other sh*t. Can we stick to the topic at hand?
|
|
|
Post by Naos on May 29, 2018 23:12:50 GMT -5
No one has denied other disparities in the system exist, but those disparities are not relevant to this discussion. That’s why it isn’t mentioned, but a lack of mention is not the same as a denial. If someone is telling you how many people are affected by multiple sclerosis, do you feel a need to tell them heart disease affects more people? I don’t understand why you are always bringing in other sh*t. Can we stick to the topic at hand? Sticking to the topic... Hmm. A bit hypocritical, when you tried getting off topic on a different thread by referencing this one. And a lack of mention is essentially a denial. They ignore all the disparities that don't go along and help their viewpoint. For example, you can get people who say the justice system is biased towards blacks by using statistics of arrests and court sentences. But when the same thing happens with men, you get the typical radical feminist response of "misandry isn't real", because apparently there's no institutional bias. Especially when those areas are constantly ignored. You will rarely see mainstream news talking about other biases. That's the problem. When you bring up these kind of biases, and you don't address it for other groups (most issues regarding men or whites tends to be ignored), it will not help the issue at all.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on May 30, 2018 6:24:41 GMT -5
How many times are you going to attempt to blame "radical feminism" for all the ills of the world? Go back to your MRA subreddit with that crap
|
|
|
Post by Naos on May 30, 2018 16:32:30 GMT -5
How many times are you going to attempt to blame "radical feminism" for all the ills of the world? Go back to your MRA subreddit with that crap Couldn't I tell you to go back to leftist forums? Go back to watching CNN or something. I like how you never actually have a counter-argument and stick to putting irrelevant labels on people.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 22:11:31 GMT -5
I'm going to level with you people I think there's a point buried somewhere in Naos' posts, poorly communicated as it was, but the way some of you are egging him on isn't helping anything. Soooo, can they kill off Chris Brown on Spotify now or is that by happening for some bs It might not affect "Freaky Friday". He's not the lead, and they might not want to punish other aritists who've done nothing wrong. A little old but I don't think this was ever addressed. In this case the lead artist chose to collaborate with Brown with knowledge of his history (or the label forced them into it—see Tinashe) and as such should be willing to face any consequences that would come of that association. The message Spotify is sending here isn't pointed at the artists, rather the labels who continue to employ him. Lil Dicky's other songs won't be effected either, so the "punishment" is minimal. That this just so happens to be his biggest hit is a consequence of chance, but overall his catalogue remains intact on the streaming service and that's irrelevant to the point.
|
|
|
Post by Naos on May 31, 2018 23:33:09 GMT -5
A little old but I don't think this was ever addressed. In this case the lead artist chose to collaborate with Brown with knowledge of his history (or the label forced them into it—see Tinashe) and as such should be willing to face any consequences that would come of that association. The message Spotify is sending here isn't pointed at the artists, rather the labels who continue to employ him. Lil Dicky's other songs won't be effected either, so the "punishment" is minimal. That this just so happens to be his biggest hit is a consequence of chance, but overall his catalogue remains intact on the streaming service and that's irrelevant to the point. I do have to say, I appreciate the more neutral tone rather than immediate hostility. But to the post you made. In Lil Dicky's case, I believe "Freaky Friday" is the only song on his that was ever on any major playlists, barring maybe "$ave Dat Money", though I can't confirm. So the effect would be big on his income. But as you said, it was more a consequence of chance. Although... Where's the line? Marilyn Manson had Twiggy Ramirez, who was accused of rape (though Manson removed him for this). Or how about any band who was one members in some hot water? How about dead artists like Michael Jackson? It also doesn't specify what actions would be considered "hateful conduct" and what wouldn't. Hence why I mentioned Zara Larsson before. Or as someone mentioned, Melanie Martinez.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2018 4:55:13 GMT -5
In Lil Dicky's case, I believe "Freaky Friday" is the only song on his that was ever on any major playlists, barring maybe "$ave Dat Money", though I can't confirm. I see what you're saying, but Brown shouldn't be able to profit off of and shield himself with collaborators. There are any number of solutions to this issue—Spotify could reach out to the label for suggestions on what to replace "Freaky Friday" with in such an event, but that's just one example—but even if none of them are reached, the same zero-tolerance message will be sent to the label. Lil' Dicky might have to be a casualty of that, but that's the unfortunate nature of the business. I don't think there's a line to be drawn so much as we have to look at each incident on a case by case basis and figure out how the company could potentially respond. As in, I don't work for Spotify, but we can make educated guesses. Michael Jackson works as an example of the opposite happening. Over the course of his career he was tried multiple times, but never found guilty and most people tend to agree that he's not. Streaming services can look at the case and decide for themselves whether they believe MJ to be guilty, and whether or not that would align with their views as a company, but they must also consider the general consensus of their consumers (which is that he was not guilty, and ultimately this opinion carries more weight for them). Since he's still available for streaming, I imagine the service didn't find merit in the accusations and doesn't feel the public did either. Relative to Zara Larsson and Melanie Martinez, if you ask me both of these artists warrant removal, but they realistically aren't making enough money from the services for Spotify to care. The court of public opinion in this case is more likely "who?" than anything. The public has more or less already spoken for Spotify and said they don't want them. Now, back to Brown (and Kelly). Both of these artists are huge, stand to gain significant revenue from the service (as do the labels), and can use it to further their brand. Public opinion on both is pretty s**t (moreso Kelly than Brown, here), leading the company to assess if these artists deserve to be on their service at all. Spotify doesn't condone sex cults and rape, the public doesn’t either, ergo Kelly gets the can. I would hope that, eventually, they would reach the same conclusion about domestic abuse, but that's my 10 cents. One also has to consider that even if a line could be drawn, it ultimately doesn't matter. Spotify isn't losing anything by cutting R. Kelly, and gains a lot of positive PR for it. That doesn't make the decision any less right in my mind, but it's entirely possible that these decisions are reached on a case by case basis purely because of what will and won't make the company look good at the end of the day. If people aren’t in an uproar about (or aware of) a given issue, then it isn’t a problem.
|
|
SHOOTER
Diamond Member
3x Poster Of The Year!!!
Typical of those in power to stay worried about the *wrong* shit.
Joined: April 2006
Posts: 75,102
|
Post by SHOOTER on Jun 1, 2018 15:56:55 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2018 17:22:44 GMT -5
I get it. It seems like this policy wasn't thought of at all and tbh... I see way more negatives than positives.
|
|
allow that
Diamond Member
Fall into the atlas
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 14,788
|
Post by allow that on Sept 10, 2018 9:28:59 GMT -5
Anyone else find it odd that Spotify took this grand stance earlier this year yet adds 6ix9ine to Today's Top Hits and other high profile playlist regularly?
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Sept 11, 2018 5:50:21 GMT -5
The whole rollout was poorly executed. Honestly, Spotify could care less about who is on their playlists, as long as you're streaming something. They just wanted headlines.
|
|