Accountability in Music • Page 262

Can’t “return” to your platform if you never left in the first place lol

 

Never even took a break.

 

Yeah like, it's not for me or anyone else to say what amount of time away is "enough" or whatever, but we have no idea what the survivor thinks of any of this. And she's the only one who should decide how much reparative actions or "due diligence" or whatever people want to call it is enough. If she's fine with him continuing to tour as he makes amends then that's one thing but he could just be exacerbating her pain by carrying on like nothing's changed.

 

Exactly, not very much of this played out in the public eye so it's difficult to say whether he 'should' still be playing shows at the moment. Based off what we know, I don't think he should be and it sucks his band are still afforded these opportunities.

 

How would you want things to proceed? I mean person who made claims were anonymous, he reached out with a mediator, they said no, and he listed the steps he took to learn from the experience. What else do you expect of someone?

Not arguing, just curious as to what other's thoughts are. Is there such a thing as the "perfect" apology that leaves no trailing issues?

 

This is basically my thoughts. I’m curious as to what should be done if the mediation is denied from an anonymous victim. Should someone just cease all sorts of band related activity until they have the go ahead from the victim? I’m not asking in a snarky way, I’m genuinely curious if that’s the course most people think he should take.

 

It doesn't matter how I want things to proceed. I only want what the survivor wants. I just think it's super weird that he didn't take any time away from his band or from touring at all. He's also only taken the steps that he thinks are sufficient, and his opinion is the one that matters least of all in any of this.

Also, It's not about a "perfect" apology. There's no "one size fits all" "perfect apology" that's a magic phrase that will fix everything and everyone will be happy. And honestly framing it that way is super counter-productive because it gives people like him room to say things like "nobody will ever be happy" or "you don't actually care about people getting better." It's about doing what's right. If the survivor isn't ready or willing to engage with him through a third party mediator then he should 100% step away from his band while he does whatever he can to make amends on his own.

Him continuing to tour is evidence of a lack of remorse, in my opinion, that he's just going about his life as if nothing has happened and as if he doesn't deserve to lose his platform for at least a little while after finding out he sexually assaulted someone (and that's even if you believe him when he says he believed what happened was consensual, which, your mileage may vary).

In my opinion, yes. Not that she is required to communicate with him, even through a mediator, but that kind of thing would certainly help if she was willing to do so. Who knows, maybe if he stepped back and showed some actual remorse the survivor would be more willing to engage with the mediator. I don't know though, it's up to her in the end.

 

No, there’s no such thing as a perfect apology that leaves no trailing issues, because apologizing is the first step of many steps. An apology is never going to be the end. It shouldn’t be up to the victim to do the work of laying out a list of steps for the abuser to follow, there are plenty of steps that can be taken beyond an apology that seem to be fairly common sense to me. Seek professional help through therapy, take a clear and intentional break from the platform that gave you in one form or another the ability to inflict abuse, make a donation to a charity that helps prevent abuse or help victims and publicly encourage others to do the same... mostly, I think, just fucking stop talking/playing/touring for a while and try to listen and learn how to do better.

 

So are you saying remorse = not touring? Not sure I believe that my statement is counter productive to anything. Why do you get to define what is right for him, what is right for the victim, when they haven't moved forward in any mediative way with their alleged abuser?

If the victim has not done anything else, why do other people get to fill in what they want to happen? Don't go to their shows, don't support them.

 

It seems he has done all of things except stop touring.

What if that is his only source of income?

 

mans can get a shitty job at target like the rest of us

 

The survivor has no obligation to engage with the person who assaulted her. And yeah, generally when someone carries on like nothing happened it shows that they have no remorse about it. That's kind of just a fact of life.

Also your statement is counter-productive because phrasing it as "the perfect apology" makes it seem like people are being unreasonable for demanding accountability.

Then he should have thought about that before he did something worthy of losing it.

 

He has been bringing non profits with him on tour ever since the allegations came out. I think if he’s touring, at least that’s a positive. Even though I personally feel conflicted about him touring, I don’t know if I agree that touring means he doesn’t feel remorse. I know people who have been working with him personally and it’s been pretty apparent that he’s remorseful. I’m definitely curious if the victim has reached out all, but obviously there is no obligation there.

 

I'm just saying I haven't seen an apology that people are happy with, regardless of what is going on with the victim or groups bringing on the allegations.

I think the control that you have over this is not support the band and voice opposition as you are, but asking for them to not tour when there is a demand to do feels like wishing you had power where you do not.

 

What I am also trying to say is maybe he doesn't have the ability to not tour. What if there are bills, responsibilities etc, I'm not saying that justifies any of his actions or anyones, but it just seems that this desire for him to stop working all together for your appeasement seems off.

If stopped working right now my fiance would suffer, my dogs, my home, etc.

 

There is a giant difference between being banished from working at all and not being able to use a platform like performing live music

There are jobs out there outside of being on a stage, he'd be fine

 

Yeah, seems I've gotten the thoughts behind most here.

It does seem more to me that it matters what you all want, verses what the victim does right now though.

 

If I walked into work and groped a coworker, I seriously doubt that my boss would be like "You know what, you have a mortgage and a wife, you can stay on because you need to keep working."

Why should it be any different for this dude.

 

I agree, but I don't think those are the same scenarios here.

 

I don't think the survivor would make that distinction.

 

I'll bite, why not?

 

Because drewinseries is not a fan of you at your job I guess

 

I also love the idea that this guy would be forced into a lifetime of poverty by not being involved in the money tree that is Tiny Moving Parts and living the obviously expense-free life of tour hahaha

 

I guess because people can not come to shows, but they are? If you're saying he can go get another job, you're saying he can get more money elsewhere. Why not just lose money of people who are not coming to their shows?

 

That's not what I am saying. I guess I am just a little surprised by how controlling people in this thread want to be of a situation that has very little information. And whenever things like this happen it seems that nothing short of a full stop of anything is considered good.