The C3G Cave - Hangout

[Lord Pyre]

He did the work for the song it’s not like he’s going to have a great fun filled life anymore anyway.

If we boycotted every single film where there was a song made by a questionable person, three quarters of all films ever made would probably be off limits.

[LordVenoc]

So its okay to punish all the crew and staff of the film who weren't involved in the film and have any sort of stake in the movie? Especially when royalties generally technically work off the play of the movie, not ticket sales. Like if they play a song at a football game, a person doesn't get money based on how many people are there. They get the same if 1 or 1,000,000 people are there. I'd wager movies don't work too much differently, and they play whether you are there or not.

[Lazy Orang]

As far as I'm concerned, whether he gets paid for it or not, it was consciously included by the people making the film, and it's intensely disrespectful.
Imagine you're one of the children he abused. Imagine you're one of their parents, or siblings - any of the people who care about them. Imagine you're one of those people, and you hear that this film's pretty good, so you go along... and you hear that song. Wouldn't you feel hurt, outraged? How is that not a kick in the teeth to everyone this man has hurt?
This isn't like old media, or old footage, which already exists. This is a new piece of media being thoughtless enough to choose to make use of a song made by a man who has damaged the lives of children. It is disrespectful to the victims and unintentionally cruel to any of them who might see or hear of it.

[johnny139]

I don't have a problem privately enjoying art made by bad people. Like, it turned out the author of Rurouni Kenshin is a pedophile, but I already bought the books years ago, so... am I gonna throw them away? Nah. I'm just not going to buy anything else from him, as long as he's alive and can benefit from it.

Actively seeking out morally reprehensible people's work and paying them money for it, in a world where there's essentially endless art and entertainment being created by non-reprehensible people, is hard to justify.

Gary Glitter is probably (hopefully?) going to die in prison so I don't feel as bad as I would, say, going to see a Roman Polanski film. That dude is still living it up free and clear. But it's an ethical grey spot at bare minimum.

[LordVenoc]

I generally take the stance of not being offended on behalf of someone I've never met. Also to the question "How is that not a kick in the teeth?" Because I'd wager a good portion of those people may not even recognize the artist of the song is the same person. I personally wouldn't track how someone who wronged me is doing in their career, so I generally wouldn't know their music or take much wffort in recognizing their voice. You're generally discounting the role of healing in the life of a person. Many don't spend their life reeling from anything associated with their traumatic experience, many heal, move on, and wouldn't be bothered by a song.

I don't disagree with the concept of "don't give known pedophiles money." I make enough DCS calls in my job to always be on board with that thought. But I also think its wrong to assume massive trauma response on what are likely adults seeing a movie that happens to include a song by a person sho harmed them. Resilience is a thing that people account for. Hell, if they're having a trauma response from that, maybe that'll encourage them to do some trauma work and find healing (which is by no means an endorsement).

But of course I also didn't care for the soundtrack of the movie in general.

[IAmBatman]

It sounds like he's already been tried and punished for his misdeeds in the court of law and that he only gets a massive payday based on DVD and soundtrack sales (so it'd be more effective to boycott those). If society's role is to prevent someone who's done bad things from ever earning money again, though, we should just outright kill those people. It's a lot more efficient (and not my personal opinion on how we should handle it, btw).

[Lazy Orang]

Originally Posted by LordVenoc

I generally take the stance of not being offended on behalf of someone I've never met. Also to the question "How is that not a kick in the teeth?" Because I'd wager a good portion of those people may not even recognize the artist of the song is the same person. I personally wouldn't track how someone who wronged me is doing in their career, so I generally wouldn't know their music or take much wffort in recognizing their voice. You're generally discounting the role of healing in the life of a person. Many don't spend their life reeling from anything associated with their traumatic experience, many heal, move on, and wouldn't be bothered by a song.

I don't disagree with the concept of "don't give known pedophiles money." I make enough DCS calls in my job to always be on board with that thought. But I also think its wrong to assume massive trauma response on what are likely adults seeing a movie that happens to include a song by a person sho harmed them. Resilience is a thing that people account for. Hell, if they're having a trauma response from that, maybe that'll encourage them to do some trauma work and find healing (which is by no means an endorsement).

But of course I also didn't care for the soundtrack of the movie in general.

You're absolutely wrong. It has been regularly and consistently documented that child sexual abuse has a devastating impact on a person's ability to function.
I would say that these articles are just examples of many more out there, all coming to similar conclusions.

https://www.rainn.org/articles/adult...d-sexual-abuse
https://www.iicsa.org.uk/publication...d-sexual-abuse
https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidan...obileSet=false
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publication...sonal-outcomes
https://www.survivorsintransition.co...-sexual-abuse/


You say that I'm assuming these people haven't moved past it. You're assuming that they have. You say that this might cause them to find a way to heal. You're ignoring the strong possibility that it could bring it all back and make it worse, even if they have got on with their lives. Sexual abuse, especially child sexual abuse, isn't something you 'get over'. It's something you find a way to live with, and this sort of thing makes it harder.


What you all seem to have missed is that this isn't about the movie-goers, or the people who made it. This isn't even about Glitter himself.
It's about his victims.


"The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members."


If we allow this to go by without taking some sort of a stand against it, we're failing the people who've suffered most.

[Sam]

I'll step in briefly. Someone picked it, specifically, went to get it all signed off. There are thousands upon thousands of other possible samples that could have been used. Didn't have to be him. We're not short of good people making music and films and art of all kinds. And if we avoid the terrible people? We'll set a better standard, and get better people.
Abuse is a widespread problem that affects many people (and this issue has affected people I'm close to), and bringing it up in a big film like this? That choice was beyond crass. I would expect more consideration.
Aaaand stepping back out.

[Hahma]

I never knew he was a pedophile, and actually wouldn't have even been able to know he did that song. I've heard it a lot but never cared who did it.

Have heard it a ton at sporting events.

[LordVenoc]

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

You're absolutely wrong. It has been regularly and consistently documented that child sexual abuse has a devastating impact on a person's ability to function.

First off, please let me know what I said that would possibly misconstrue to make me think sexual abuse has no impact on people. I'm a therapist LO. I work with kids. Several of which have been sexually abused. I will suppose my incorrect thing was to type that without making clear a few assumptions on my part, that are, admittedly, coming from knowing next to nothing about this Glitter person or how long ago his actions were committed. Merely, making assumptions based on the R rating of the film controlling the age of viewers was definitely wrong on my part.

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

You say that I'm assuming these people haven't moved past it. You're assuming that they have.

I'm assuming that adults who were harmed by someone who received a public trial may have been encouraged enough by the trial to go do the trauma work that they would likely desperately need to do because of trauma's long term affects on a person, their brain, and development.

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

You say that this might cause them to find a way to heal. You're ignoring the strong possibility that it could bring it all back and make it worse, even if they have got on with their lives.

If they are having it brought back worse, based on how trauma work tends to function, then they haven't done their work. Often people realize they need to work through trauma because of a resurgence of symptoms. I'll openly admit however, that this really is an irrelevant piece of the puzzle. More of a hopeful piece as a response to the potentially insensitive inclusion of this music. I'd say the resurgence of symptoms might encourage them to work on healing. I apologize if that was misworded.

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

Sexual abuse, especially child sexual abuse, isn't something you 'get over'. It's something you find a way to live with, and this sort of thing makes it harder.

You don't just get over it. But you do heal. I've seen it. Its been documented. I take a therapeutic approach that is firmly rested in the strength and resilience of human beings. I'm not going to apologize for believing that a human being who has done their work can stand in the face of small potential reminders of their trauma and continue to function. I do not believe that I need to stand and defend people who have not asked me to. Those who do need it and do ask me? You bet I'll stand for them. I do it on a daily basis.

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

What you all seem to have missed is that this isn't about the movie-goers, or the people who made it. This isn't even about Glitter himself.
It's about his victims.

I'm not defending the placement of the song in the movie. Never was, never will. Simply questioning damaging the livelihood of a lot of people because you are uncomfortable with the choice of the song. I'm not at all trying to sway you to see the movie. Couldn't possibly care less about that. Just encouraging to not think completely black and white about the matter. Again, these victims are now in their 40s and 50s. I think its important to see the potential of both sides that work has been done before you assume they've been avoiding their trauma for like 4 decades.

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

"The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members."

If we allow this to go by without taking some sort of a stand against it, we're failing the people who've suffered most.

Should people speak up about this? Absolutely. A song was included that probably shouldn't. Should we punish multitudes of people because one person did something dumb? (Referring to the inclusion of the song, not the abuse) Generally no.

EDIT: Really my point here is this: I have no problem advocating for victims and hurt people. Generally encourage it. But if you're going to put legitimate effort into it, why not target that at something focused on benefiting and helping victims, rather than just trying to not hurt them?

[Lazy Orang]

Originally Posted by LordVenoc

First off, please let me know what I said that would possibly misconstrue to make me think sexual abuse has no impact on people.

I never said you did.

I'm assuming that adults who were harmed by someone who received a public trial may have been encouraged enough by the trial to go do the trauma work that they would likely desperately need to do because of trauma's long term affects on a person, their brain, and development.

That's still a massive assumption.

If they are having it brought back worse, based on how trauma work tends to function, then they haven't done their work.

That borders on blaming the victim.

You don't just get over it. But you do heal. I've seen it. Its been documented. I take a therapeutic approach that is firmly rested in the strength and resilience of human beings. I'm not going to apologize for believing that a human being who has done their work can stand in the face of small potential reminders of their trauma and continue to function. I do not believe that I need to stand and defend people who have not asked me to. Those who do need it and do ask me? You bet I'll stand for them. I do it on a daily basis.

I've seen the other side of the coin - people who, after years and years of therapy, don't get over it, but can, at best, try to deal with it.
I do believe that it's necessary to take a stand for people who haven't asked for it. Those are people without voices - if you only support or stand up for those who've been able to ask, you condemn the most vulnerable, frightened and crushed under members of society, those who have no voice and have no hope. Even aside from this specific discussion, that is an important point to note.

I'm not defending the placement of the song in the movie. Never was, never will. Simply questioning damaging the livelihood of a lot of people because you are uncomfortable with the choice of the song. I'm not at all trying to sway you to see the movie. Couldn't possibly care less about that. Just encouraging to not think completely black and white about the matter. Again, these victims are now in their 40s and 50s. I think its important to see the potential of both sides that work has been done before you assume they've been avoiding their trauma for like 4 decades.

They aren't actually; as the article stated:
"Glitter, real name Paul Gadd, was convicted in 1999 for downloading thousands of images of child pornography, and was deported from Cambodia in 2002 on suspicion of child sexual abuse. He was jailed in Vietnam in 2006 for molesting two girls, and on his return to the UK was placed on the sex offenders' register for life.
Then in 2015, Gadd was found guilty of attempted rape, several counts of indecent assault, and another count of having sex with a girl under the age of 13, and was sentenced to 16 years in prison."
This is, comparatively, recent.

Should people speak up about this? Absolutely. A song was included that probably shouldn't. Should we punish multitudes of people because one person did something dumb? (Referring to the inclusion of the song, not the abuse) Generally no.

I don't see how it's punishing anyone. The people who worked on this (the stage hands etc.) who weren't involved in this sort of decision (which wouldn't have been one person making a stupid decision - this is a big budget film, it would had to have been greenlit by a board) have done their job, and they've earned their paycheck - they're not going to get a bonus depending on whether the film does well, they aren't that important to the men in suits. What taking a stand might do (if enough people do it, which is sadly unlikely) is send a message to the people at the top who made this decision that, no, this is not acceptable - and these are the sorts of people who only care if you hit them where it hurts; their wallet. Showing solidarity with the victims affected and making a statement that will hopefully make this less likely to be repeated? I'm not sure what moral argument there is against doing that.

[quozl]

I agree that boycotting this film would be a good thing but it doesn't take much from me to say that as this seems to be the sort of film I detest anyway. However, I have learned that you can't force others to have the same sense of morality that you do. You can only state your reasons for doing what you do and answer any questions others might have.