Written by GutturalNinja on 15.09.2022 at 14:26

Damn, I was really beginning to believe people using MS were a smarter, more nuanced bunch than your average internet commenter making personal insults to other users.

Its kinda sad to see people just be dicks because someone finds it hard to listen to a band that has a member that beat his wife. Literally not hard to get mad at a person for that.

Written by qlacs on 16.09.2022 at 10:16

For me it helped a great deal to understand every abuse takes 2. One to do it, one to enable it. Morally and ethically there might be one victim and one abuser, but in reality both people are victims or were before and they just re-enact. The other two guys might be in the very same boat you are.

You know, if you had said that the people in an abusive relationship could all be caught in the middle of a cycle of abuse and trauma and that DiSanto could be a survivor of abuse too, I'd have agreed. But an abuser does not need permission and the person being attacked by an abuser often hasn't done a damn thing wrong to be in that position and doesn't deserve any suspicion or sense of guilt just because they got too close to a person with violence issues.

Shitty things can happen to people through no fault of their own.

Personally, i didn't feel empowered to do anything, let alone enable my ex to attempt to strangle me and then tell me they'd kill my family if i ever told anybody about it or attempted to leave them, but go off, i guess! <333

Written by nikarg on 17.09.2022 at 10:44

The problem begins when social media becomes the new court. It's as simple as that. At the same time, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and they are free to choose to ignore a band if they feel that views or actions of their members do not sit well with them. I personally choose to neither condemn nor acquit anyone with social media posts being the sole evidence and especially when only one side has been heard, and there is no legal action known to have been taken. And, to be honest, I don't care. I am not a judge and never wanted to be one.

Finally, no one is forcing you to either listen to Vektor or to not listen to Vektor.

Amen to that.

Written by Tuonelan on 18.09.2022 at 02:23

You know, if you had said that the people in an abusive relationship could all be caught in the middle of a cycle of abuse and trauma and that DiSanto could be a survivor of abuse too, I'd have agreed. But an abuser does not need permission and the person being attacked by an abuser often hasn't done a damn thing wrong to be in that position and doesn't deserve any suspicion or sense of guilt just because they got too close to a person with violence issues.

Shitty things can happen to people through no fault of their own.

I didn't say that because we don't know that, but it's likely. Healthly people treat others with respect as they would treat themselves. But there are characteristics that could eventually lead to abuse, and they can usually be seen before any serious event - being too dependent, being controlling and manipulative, inability for compromise and cooperation, emotional avoidance or getting upset at sensitive topics etc... and once seeing these then it's your decision to not pull the trigger before it's too late.

Anyway I don't want to hijack comments for such discussion, and this is just my opinion anyway.

Written by Iamgubbler on 17.09.2022 at 20:03

All I know is that a legitimately inspired artist is being silenced for throwing a pillow and it makes me sick.

Who is silencing Vektor? They were just dropped from Century Media. They can still create and release music. Hell, some labels might even want to sign them now just to "own the libs".

Written by Batlord666 on 15.09.2022 at 23:30

Written by Stormm on 15.09.2022 at 11:18

Written by Batlord666 on 14.09.2022 at 22:36

I just can't even bring myself to listen to the first three Vektor records anymore after the abuse allegations against Dave.

That's kinda sad if you're unable to separate music and personal matters of musicians. You're probably missing lots off great music then. Also, how do you know he's guilty? For example his bandmate Erik Nelson is on his side in this.

I can separate art from the artist to an extent. But there's always in the back of my mind, that I'd rather listen to something made by someone who isn't a known shitty person. I don't know Dave is guilty, I just know the posts and videos his wife made public. I take it there's a reason the other two members quit and never looked back like Erik Nelson did. If others can effectively separate art from the artist, I hold no ill will.

I bring this approach. Forget about separating art from artist. Forget about what we know and if we can judge or not an artist's personal matters. Let's try this.

Think about (one of) your most favourite tune(s), the one(s) you like the most. Try to remember the actual first time you listened to it/them, what the appeal was, what prompted you to listen over and over and over. Can you remember? Can you remember what you felt? Did you feel enjoyment, pleasure, just because of the music? I think so.

Now, let's assume a certain person commits an actual crime and is condemned to prison time. This person is a real shitty one actually. During prison time, let's say this person learns and becomes a musician: an outstanding one.

Well, now for the argument's sake, imagine that/those favourite piece(s) of music I asked you to remember, were a creation of this criminal — I know it's hard, but try... Is anything in there (in the music) making it any different than before (the first time you listened)? The answer should be clear

What's my point? This one: shitty persons, even criminals, are capable of creating not only non-shitty things, but beautiful things! I could list artists (from painters to writers) who were absolute bastards! But guess what? What they created was way better than themselves! And it's factually proven everytime you get goosebumps with a tune — you're being moved by a feeling because of the music, not the person behind it! It's the art(work) touching you, not the artist.

Plus, look at it in this opposite way: we *already* have a [99% shitty person/1% only worth as artist] and we believe that precluding that 1% to happen is smart, really? Is it really smart to ditch that saving grace and keep the other 99% of this shitty person only?

Disclaimer: I even don't like Vektor

Written by The Sentient on 10.10.2022 at 10:16

...

While I'd like to agree with you, you are missing vital points. Every artwork exists within a context, that includes its creation and its further existence. It's not the artwork itself that creates a conflict within the person but the context and the association. I could maybe agree with you if it were a painting on your wall for your singular enjoyment not to be sold, like, ever. Fact is, music earns a living (yes, yes, questionable) not only to the author but also to a lot of in-betweens who have helped to release it. By consuming (either online or physical) you support the whole chain that makes the author-listener delivery possible. And that chain benefits, it's always working at a profit. Which by extension means that even after everything is said and done and cleared up, there's continued benefits for someone from that particular situation/person. That is the weight behind it. That is why to some extent cancelling happens. People want to cut out not only the starting point but also make the whole production/delivery chain to be unable to benefit from that situation/person.

Not saying I know how to behave or that I don't swing one way or another depending on the times. Just saying that separating the art from the creator is far from being a simple decision to do so.

I.

Quote:

By consuming (either online or physical) you support the whole chain that makes the author-listener delivery possible. And that chain benefits, it's always working at a profit. Which by extension means that even after everything is said and done and cleared up, there's continued benefits for someone from that particular situation/person. That is the weight behind it. That is why to some extent cancelling happens.

Of course I know all of that, there's no need to explain me In fact, that's the reason I brought the issue, which is the following: The purpose of serving a prison (or any other) sentence is to make criminals pay for their crimes.

However, if

Quote:

people want to cut out not only the starting point but also make the whole production/delivery chain to be unable to benefit from that situation/person .

in the end, cancelling shows that the mechanisms society established to make criminals pay for their crimes aren't enough. Because that's the factual result: as the first conviction isn't enough, there needs to be another one, which is cancelling, right?

Well, there's a big trouble with that: cancelling is sort of replacing justice systems then... One of the reasons for them (justice systems) to exist was (among others) to limit situations where a mob takes justice into their own hands, or precludes someone from making a living (*this situation*). Justice is all about equilibrium, not extremes. I tend to believe that 'witch hunts' and 'witch trials' were long gone, but...

If anything, society should be less hypocrite: justice systems can't be something an individual decides to attach/adhere to, solely based on individual convenience or affinity... Otherwise, kind of a new medieval period is really near

Written by The Sentient on 11.10.2022 at 07:56

[However, if

Quote:

people want to cut out not only the starting point but also make the whole production/delivery chain to be unable to benefit from that situation/person .

in the end, cancelling shows that the mechanisms society established to make criminals pay for their crimes aren't enough. Because that's the factual result: as the first conviction isn't enough, there needs to be another one, which is cancelling, right?

Wrong. Because you still point at the source. The mechanics of cancelling targets the whole chain. It's not about the criminal at that point. It's about the criminal act and the beneficiaries that still get benefits even after the criminal has paid their dues. As you say, the first conviction appears not to be enough because it punishes the one who did the deed. But the system does nothing about those who support the deed indirectly. That's the key there.

I.

Quote:

As you say, the first conviction appears not to be enough because it punishes the one who did the deed. [/U]But the system does nothing about those who support the deed indirectly. That's the key there.

I fear something is getting mixed-up by you here... What deed are you talking about? Of course the first conviction punishes the one who did the deed! Who else is going to be punished? The criminal's employer? There is no responsibility for the employer! That's not the way justice systems work: limitations are established regarding responsibilities, which usually go in hand with the elements that were required for a crime to happen. In the same way, actions are delimited to establish what constitutes the deed to judge on. For example, the period of time: from "year X" to "year Y"; in a domestic violence case, it would comprise the full period of time the couple knew each other, for instance. More often than not, being an employer of a person who commits a crime doesn't imply supporting a crime... posing the opposite is a big oversimplification regarding how degrees of responsiblities are determined by justice.

Quote:

Because you still point at the source. The mechanics of cancelling targets the whole chain. It's not about the criminal at that point. It's about the criminal act and the beneficiaries that still get benefits even after the criminal has paid their dues

And that is exactly the issue! It doesn't matter what it targets, as long as what is being hit is the criminal (for a second time!). One of the main tenets of any justice system is that for a commited crime, you can't be judged twice. That's the reason justice systems exist! To avoid that! You can't go after "the beneficiares that still get benefits after the criminal paid their dues", unless those benefits constitute another crime separately. Right there you are inadvertedly conflating both separate actions: "It's about the criminal act and the beneficiaries" Do you see? They are two independent, unrelated actions: domestic violence on one hand, and selling music as a way of making a living on the other. Please, be gentle and don't explain me how they are related in a everydaylife; I'm no moron, I'm talking about the justice's worldview where you need definitions: a line needs to be drawn somewhere, right? If the criminal paid for the first action, you can't target the whole chain just for the second action (even as a sort of "taking justice into own hands") because that implies a second punishment regarding the first one!

Look, my problem is neither the outcome of this very case (Vektor) nor any other. My worry is the massive use of questionable methods like 'canceling', instead of justice systems. Do justice systems suck? Of course! Improve them, change them! But this practice of 'canceling', where people judge lightly based on sayings or poor factual proof (since facts aren't reality-checked in the same way that a trial would require) is really dangerous: it's sort of rejecting the decent amount of logic and science which justice systems are built upon. 'Canceling' doesn't care for proportionality and uniformity of its 'punishments', let alone how much of a threat a criminal really is: 'canceling', more often than not, appears like retaliation.