Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Chris Brown at the Grammys

135

Comments

  • #62
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    CaliforniaDream wrote: »
    I'm curious as to how you view the Chris Brown and Ceryl Cole incidences as different? Is it based only on the fact that he's a guy who hit a women?
    The two crimes are alike imo. Person hits person.

    Im quite surprised at the fact that this viewpoint has gained quite a bit of traction (anywhere, but on this forum especially).

    While (almost) all violence is apalling, there is an obvious & very signifcant difference between violence within a relationship and violence outside a relationship. The former involves not only the violent act itself but the breach in trust that comes along with it. The latter is often far more difficult to get over than the former.

    While female-on-male domestic violence is truly reprehensible, I would certainly view male-on-female domestic violence as being (marginally) worse, as the degree of trust a woman places in a man for physical security is typically greater than the reverse.

    As for Chris Brown, if he is truly remorseful and if the Rohanna-incident was truly a once-off, then he should be entitled to some kind of redemption. If not, and there is some evidence for why not, then he should not be welcomed back into the fold.


  • #63
    Dolbert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,154 ✭✭✭Dolbert


    drkpower wrote: »
    Im quite surprised at the fact that this viewpoint has gained quite a bit of traction (anywhere, but on this forum especially).

    While (almost) all violence is apalling, there is an obvious & very signifcant difference between violence within a relationship and violence outside a relationship. The former involves not only the violent act itself but the breach in trust that comes along with it. The latter is often far more difficult to get over than the former.

    While female-on-male domestic violence is truly reprehensible, I would certainly view male-on-female domestic violence as being (marginally) worse, as the degree of trust a woman places in a man for physical security is typically greater than the reverse.

    As for Chris Brown, if he is truly remorseful and if the Rohanna-incident was truly a once-off, then he should be entitled to some kind of redemption. If not, and there is some evidence for why not, then he should not be welcomed back into the fold.

    I have to agree here. His 'apology' was a joke.


  • #64
    Park Royal
    Registered Users Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Park Royal


    Young peoples brains are not fully formed until mid twenties....


    Lets hope it was a one off incident, but he now has history, regretfully.

    Appears to have had a very busy life so far....

    His father had something to do with prisons....?


  • #65
    Honey-ec
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,844 ✭✭✭Honey-ec


    As a wiser soul than me said on Facebook yesterday, the only way Adele could be more popular is if she stuffed all her Grammies into a pillowcase and beat the sh1t out of Chris Brown with them...


  • #66
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,147 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Honey-ec wrote: »
    As a wiser soul than me said on Facebook yesterday, the only way Adele could be more popular is if she stuffed all her Grammies into a pillowcase and beat the sh1t out of Chris Brown with them...

    Chris Brown beating a woman = kill his career!

    A woman beating Chris Brown with a bag full of metal = More popularity!


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Kooli
    Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    careymary wrote: »
    Apologies firstly if my post came across that I thought people would stay in an abusive relationship because they thought it was cool, I in no way meant that.
    I understand there are very complex dynamics to an abusive relationship and that leaving is not an easy option

    I agree that majority of people are uneducated and unaware of & about abusive relationships, often even people in abusive relationships are uncertain and doubt themselves about what is happening. Abusers are clever and minimise what they are doing, in order to continue doing it.


    I find it really disturbing that things I have heard from some of the students I have encountered since the whole Chris Brown/ Rhiannon thing, things guys have said has been along the lines of well he hit her and she is one of the hottest women so why shouldnt I do it? Girls must like it
    Girls have said if even Rhiannon's bf hits her we cant expect our boyfriend to be an angel, you have to put up with some stuff

    From what I am seeing in schools a lot of girls now expect to be mistreated in some way and a lot of guys think it ok to be "a bad boy" as they see it. There are people justifying both their actions and their behaviours based on both what was reported about that incident and the hype that has followed.

    Rhiannon and Chris Brown are seen as cool figures in the media, if violence towards a partner is part of their lives, sadly some people do see it as made acceptable on a level, and very sadly some abusers are saying that its "hot " and "cool" and "edgy"

    There is a certain permissiveness about seeing figures who act that way (Chris Brown) in the spot light,
    When I state that violence or abuse towards a partner is never acceptable, some boys have been honest and said they want to push boundaries more because things "arent as black and white as that anymore"

    Wow that's some scary stuff.

    I think it does blur the boundaries when people aren't unequivocal in their criticism of someone in the public eye who does something like this.

    And as that article demonstrates, people were not unequivocal. They were half-arsed. And then he gets a hero's welcome on his return. He never really became 'uncool', and that's a powerful message. You can beat your woman and still be cool as long as...um...time passes?


  • #68
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,147 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Kooli wrote: »
    Wow that's some scary stuff.

    I think it does blur the boundaries when people aren't unequivocal in their criticism of someone in the public eye who does something like this.

    And as that article demonstrates, people were not unequivocal. They were half-arsed. And then he gets a hero's welcome on his return. He never really became 'uncool', and that's a powerful message. You can beat your woman and still be cool as long as...um...time passes?

    Listen, this thread has gone on for 5 whole pages already and you STILL won't listen to anyone but yourself.

    He WAS uncool! His career was almost over! It seems that you say something, people point out that what you said isn't entirely true and give you links, quotes, everything you need to realise that what you're saying isn't accurate.............. and you completely ignore it and say the same thing a few posts later!

    Listen, once again, can I ask you, what exactly is it you think should be happening? What do you think is appropriate? He did what he did, he apologised to Rihanna (and she forgave him), he apologised to the public, he got a 5 year suspended sentence, he did community service, he attended counselling, he went on TV to talk about the domestic violence with his MOTHER. He had promotional partners dump him, he has tours cancelled, gigs cancelled, if i'm not sure he was forced to downgrade his O2 Dublin show to Vicar Street due to so many people looking for refunds.......

    What else do you think should've been done?


  • #69
    Gilldog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭Gilldog


    Kooli wrote: »
    Wow that's some scary stuff.

    I think it does blur the boundaries when people aren't unequivocal in their criticism of someone in the public eye who does something like this.

    And as that article demonstrates, people were not unequivocal. They were half-arsed. And then he gets a hero's welcome on his return. He never really became 'uncool', and that's a powerful message. You can beat your woman and still be cool as long as...um...time passes?

    I think people are entitled to engage in whatever criticism they deem appropriate. Just as you are clearly doing. This issue bothers you and you are entitled to that opinion. I am entitled to the opinion that he has done his time in accordance with the offence he commited. I happen to agree with rehabilitation. This does not mean I support violence against women or that I am somehow excusing what he did.

    From the looks of it, you are more annoyed that people aren't as absolutely outraged as you about this.

    Also, I think 'heroes welcome' is a bit much, he returned to his day job, which he should be entitled to do. As far as many people are concerned, he committed a crime, and was sentenced in a court of law. So long as he is abiding that sentence and as long as he behaves himself, he should be allowed to get on with his life... are you seriously suggesting that for the next 50 years people spit at him in the street?


  • #70
    Kooli
    Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    MrStuffins wrote: »

    What else do you think should've been done?

    I've already answered that!!

    1) People in the music industry and in the media should have come out in force condemning what he did without reservation and supporting Rihanna without reservation (this didn't happen)

    2) He shouldn't have been invited to perform at the Grammys

    And it's not that I'm 'not listening', it's simply that I disagree!!


  • #71
    Kooli
    Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    Gilldog wrote: »

    From the looks of it, you are more annoyed that people aren't as absolutely outraged as you about this.

    Yes, well that's the whole point of my thread. Me feeling uncomfortable that people aren't bothered about his comeback.

    But I'm more annoyed at people telling me I've no right to be annoyed than I am about other people not being annoyed!


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Gilldog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭Gilldog


    Kooli wrote: »
    Yes, well that's the whole point of my thread. Me feeling uncomfortable that people aren't bothered about his comeback.

    But I'm more annoyed at people telling me I've no right to be annoyed than I am about other people not being annoyed!

    I dont think anyone said that you have no right to be annoyed. Be annoyed all you like, just don't expect everyone to agree with you.


  • #73
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,147 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Kooli wrote: »
    I've already answered that!!

    1) People in the music industry and in the media should have come out in force condemning what he did without reservation and supporting Rihanna without reservation (this didn't happen)

    They did! Are you suggesting people in music were not on Rihanna's side?
    2) He shouldn't have been invited to perform at the Grammys

    And it's not that I'm 'not listening', it's simply that I disagree!!

    Wow! So you think he shouldn't be allowed perform? That's ludicrous! You think because he did this to Rihanna he shouldn't be allowed work?

    Do you think, for example, thatit would be a problem if he hadn't performed at this year's Grammys but at the 2022 Grammys?


  • #74
    Kooli
    Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    They did! Are you suggesting people in music were not on Rihanna's side?



    Wow! So you think he shouldn't be allowed perform? That's ludicrous! You think because he did this to Rihanna he shouldn't be allowed work?

    Do you think, for example, thatit would be a problem if he hadn't performed at this year's Grammys but at the 2022 Grammys?

    Did you read the article I quoted about how the music industry responded? I don't know how to put it in a quote box but here you go:

    "Carrie Underwood: “I don’t think anybody actually knows what happened. I have no advice.”

    Lindsay Lohan: “I have no comment on that. That’s not my relationship. I think they’re both great people.”

    Nia Long: “I know both of them well. They’re young, and all we can do is pray for them at this point.”

    Mary J. Blige: “They’re both young and beautiful people, and that’s it.”

    Jay-Z, one of Rihanna’s mentors, spoke up: “You have to have compassion for others. Just imagine it being your sister or mom and then think about how we should talk about that. I just think we should all support her.”

    In a sane world, Jay-Z’s statement would sound insane. Why would he have to remind his fans to support Rihanna after what happened is that she got hit in the face?"

    As for your second question, yes I do think it makes a big difference if he performs in 2012 (three years after it happened, while he is still under probation for the offence) or 2022 (thirteen years after it happened)


  • #75
    Kooli
    Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    And when Usher criticised him (in quite a tame manner), saying he thought it was inappropriate to have photos going around of him having fun on a jetski, HE (Usher) was made to publicly apologise because of the backlash!!

    And yet Chris Brown's own apology amounted to saying that he was sorry and saddened about what had transpired. i.e. a totally passive non-apology.

    He has never shown genuine remorse or taken full responsibility (although he has used the phrase 'I take full responsibility', he has said other things which show that he doesn't)


  • #76
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,147 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Kooli wrote: »
    As for your second question, yes I do think it makes a big difference if he performs in 2012 (three years after it happened, while he is still under probation for the offence) or 2022 (thirteen years after it happened)

    So it's all about time then is it?

    Isn't he still a woman beater 13 years later? Do you expect Mary J.Blige to have some out and condemned him by then? What will have changed exactly?

    What you're saying here is, it's ok for him to have a comeback, as long as it's in your timeframe?


  • #77
    VagnerLove
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭VagnerLove


    some real crazy talk going on in this thread.

    his career should be over? come on now. he made a horrible mistake and was rightly criticised. now people have done the normal thing and moved on. that doesn't condone what he did, it's just that people can hardly hold it against him forever.


  • #78
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,147 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    VagnerLove wrote: »
    some real crazy talk going on in this thread.

    his career should be over? come on now. he made a horrible mistake and was rightly criticised. now people have done the normal thing and moved on. that doesn't condone what he did, it's just that people can hardly hold it against him forever.

    Apparently it's not ok for him to perform now. But in 13 years, everything will have changed!


  • #79
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Apparently it's not ok for him to perform now. But in 13 years, everything will have changed!
    It is not an especially unusual phenomenon to welcome people back into the fold after a suitable timeframe has elapsed. What is suitable of course carries with it a large dose of subjectivity.

    After all, we send people to prison to particular periods of time; so we pretty much say it's not ok for you to live in civilised society, but in x years, it will be.

    At least Kooli is trying to use some objective measure to determine the length of time Brown should be ostracised for (by linking it to his suspended sentence). If anything, you are the one who is choosing an entirely subjective timeframe for his ostracisation.

    Unless of course you believe that he should have been invited onto the Grammys/the Late Show/Jonathon Woss immediately upon him giving an apology. Is that your view?


  • #80
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Post deleted - please note; this is a discussion forum primarily for the ladies of boards, posters are under no obligations to answer questions posed nor agree with anyone's summations - dog-with-a-bone type aggressive and repetitive argument, puerile humour and silly pictures are not appropriate.

    If you cannot post in a civil, mature and constructive manner - don't post at all.

    Final warning.


  • #81
    Kooli
    Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    So it's all about time then is it?

    Isn't he still a woman beater 13 years later? Do you expect Mary J.Blige to have some out and condemned him by then? What will have changed exactly?

    What you're saying here is, it's ok for him to have a comeback, as long as it's in your timeframe?

    I don't really understand what the aggressive questioning is about, trying desperately to find contradictions or inconsistencies in what I'm saying, as if that will prove I'm definitely wrong. You do realise there is no objective right or wrong answer in this situation?

    I have very little interest in trying find the RIGHT ANSWER, I am always more interested in exploring meaning, consequences etc.

    I've tried to answer your questions, but the questions don't seem to be in good faith (i.e. trying to generate discussion, trying to understand a different point of view), but more an effort fo 'catch me out' or 'prove me wrong', which doesn't make sense in this situation as there is no way of saying what's right or wrong cos it's subjective.

    You asked me to prove that celebrities didn't condemn him without reservation, I gave you the quotes which you then ignored.
    You asked if I think the time frame matters. I said it did, and you react with this 'GOTCHA' as if that somehow means nothing I have said makes sense, even though drkpower made the very good point that these things are often about time frames, and if he had performed at the Grammys the night after it happened that would have been totally inappropriate.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    The saddest thing of all is that Rihanna has apparently gone back to him. But it's textbook.

    Getting beaten up by some-one you love is meant to be one of the most confusing things to happen to you, and you blame yourself in order to get some control in the situation, "I must have done something wrong".

    Why women go back to their abusers.


  • #83
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    That's more than one or two punches.


  • #84
    Tigger99
    Registered Users Posts: 6,247 ✭✭✭Tigger99


    And he bit her ear also. It was a horrific horrific attack.


  • #85
    Kooli
    Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    Full details in case anyone's interested (warning, it's horrific):

    http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1606481/chris-brown-police-report-provides-details-altercation.jhtml


  • #86
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    I think Rihanna's S&M video is really interesting from a psychological point of view.

    She's told her worth is all from sex (music industry), she's told by Chris Brown she deserves to get beat up.

    Her music and videos start getting darker.

    She releases S&M. About some-one who wants, "deserves", to get beaten up.

    I saw the video and thought what are the music industry doing, having a young troubled girl release a song and video like that.

    But sure it's all money in the coffers for them.


  • #87
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    They did! Are you suggesting people in music were not on Rihanna's side?

    Wow! So you think he shouldn't be allowed perform? That's ludicrous! You think because he did this to Rihanna he shouldn't be allowed work?

    Do you think, for example, thatit would be a problem if he hadn't performed at this year's Grammys but at the 2022 Grammys?

    I don't think the issue is, he shouldn't have a career or be barred from the studio. But being asked to perform at the Grammys is a huge honor, and so I think for a lot of people, seeing Chris Brown being honored this way was dismaying.

    Chris Brown has a right to earn a living, and people are free to buy his music, but I think asking him to perform at the Grammys - an event he missed two years ago because of what he did - was in bad taste.


  • #88
    Giselle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Giselle


    Kooli wrote: »
    Full details in case anyone's interested (warning, it's horrific):

    http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1606481/chris-brown-police-report-provides-details-altercation.jhtml


    I was only vaguely aware of the incident at the time, but after reading that I'm horrified.

    It wasn't 'a couple of punches'. It was a sustained threatening attack that included verbal threats on her life.

    It might be okay for him to resume his life, assuming he's rehabilitated. But its also ok for organisations to disassociate themselves from the man, and what he now is associated with, if they so choose.

    Its also a huge missed opportunity by the music industry, and by the Grammy organisers in particular, to be seen to make a huge public statement about the unacceptability of violence by exclulding Brown from performing, and by issuing an unequivocal statement of condemnation at the time.


  • #89
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Giselle wrote: »
    I was only vaguely aware of the incident at the time, but after reading that I'm horrified.

    It wasn't 'a couple of punches'. It was a sustained threatening attack that included verbal threats on her life.

    It might be okay for him to resume his life, assuming he's rehabilitated. But its also ok for organisations to disassociate themselves from the man, and what he now is associated with, if they so choose.

    Its also a huge missed opportunity by the music industry, and by the Grammy organisers in particular, to be seen to make a huge public statement about the unacceptability of violence by exclulding Brown from performing, and by issuing an unequivocal statement of condemnation at the time.

    good christ, i thought he gave her a slap

    i still think what was done to him wasn't nothing but i agree the grammy people could have used it as an anti DV thing


  • #90
    Kooli
    Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    OK I guess I should have included that link in my first post 5 pages ago.

    But in a way, it shouldn't really be necessary that we have to draw a line between 'really bad domestic violence' and 'not so bad domestic violence' in order for there to be an expectation that the music industry will make a public stand about the issue in general.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Honey-ec
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,844 ✭✭✭Honey-ec


    It's the attitude of the Grammy producers that really galls me. Executive Producer Ken Ehrlich actually said “We’re glad to have him back. I think people deserve a second chance, you know. If you’ll note, he has not been on the Grammys for the past few years and it may have taken us a while to kind of get over the fact that we were the victim of what happened.”

    So, the Grammies were victimised by the fact that Chris Brown assaulted his girlfriend and couldn't perform as a result? What the fcuk?

    His behaviour on Twitter in the last few days wouldn't exactly point to him being a better man as a result of the experience either.

    This piece pretty much sums up my exact feelings on the whole situation - http://hellogiggles.com/im-not-okay-with-chris-brown-performing-at-the-grammys-and-im-not-sure-why-you-are


Advertisement