Arguably, you don’t want camera phones near an artist doing illegal drugs. You don’t need to be a rapist to find that logical.
This is unhinged lmao. If you don’t want people to take pictures/videos of you doing illegal drugs backstage, there are at least two way more logical options that also have the benefit of not violating a person’s rights:
Don’t do illegal drugs backstage with an audience
Don’t invite people backstage to watch you do illegal drugs
I think it was more about inviting them to do drugs with him than to watch, and you wouldn’t want any selfies of that going on instagram.
Yes, obviously doing drugs around strangers is a bad idea. But if you truly insist on inviting strangers to do drugs with you, asking them to not bring any cameras in the room seems like a good move PR-wise.
And you see how that makes it seem like you’re defending that behavior right? By sane-washing it? By making it seem like an appropriate “solution” instead of the bad behavior it is?
The point was more that the argument of “no phones allowed” doesn’t really make a sex-on-drug party any worse.
Nobody points to Al Capone sane-washing tax-fraud. Nobody argues about what an evil cunt he was based on his tax returns either. It was just the logical consequence of his racketeering, violence and general mob-boss-ness. The only reason people know about his tax fraud is because it’s how he got caught. From a moral perspective, it makes no difference in how people consider his character.
Similarly, in this discussion about sexual abuse, not allowing phones backstage at a Lindemann afterparty is of no real consequence. You wouldn’t be allowed to bring a phone to a drug party, whether it’s organised by Charles Manson or the freaking pope. I wouldn’t go to a gay orgy in Brussels expecting to keep my phone around, it’s just part of the package.
Now if there wasn’t any drugs backstage and you still weren’t allowed to bring your phone, yeah, I think that would be a red flag, because the obvious reason for it is now missing.
This is unhinged lmao. If you don’t want people to take pictures/videos of you doing illegal drugs backstage, there are at least two way more logical options that also have the benefit of not violating a person’s rights:
I think it was more about inviting them to do drugs with him than to watch, and you wouldn’t want any selfies of that going on instagram.
Yes, obviously doing drugs around strangers is a bad idea. But if you truly insist on inviting strangers to do drugs with you, asking them to not bring any cameras in the room seems like a good move PR-wise.
And you see how that makes it seem like you’re defending that behavior right? By sane-washing it? By making it seem like an appropriate “solution” instead of the bad behavior it is?
The point was more that the argument of “no phones allowed” doesn’t really make a sex-on-drug party any worse.
Nobody points to Al Capone sane-washing tax-fraud. Nobody argues about what an evil cunt he was based on his tax returns either. It was just the logical consequence of his racketeering, violence and general mob-boss-ness. The only reason people know about his tax fraud is because it’s how he got caught. From a moral perspective, it makes no difference in how people consider his character.
Similarly, in this discussion about sexual abuse, not allowing phones backstage at a Lindemann afterparty is of no real consequence. You wouldn’t be allowed to bring a phone to a drug party, whether it’s organised by Charles Manson or the freaking pope. I wouldn’t go to a gay orgy in Brussels expecting to keep my phone around, it’s just part of the package.
Now if there wasn’t any drugs backstage and you still weren’t allowed to bring your phone, yeah, I think that would be a red flag, because the obvious reason for it is now missing.