Kim Petras (Horsey) unfollows Dr Luke; shades him

[Guillaume Hamon 6,260]

4 hours ago, Dayman said:

Even Gaga who has gained pull has a well established history of doing the same. Just look at the entire DWUW debacle - R. Kellys crimes were well known and documented - even more undeniably than Dr Luke given there was video evidence - she went out there and lied several times oh how the collab came to be. She lied and said that R Kelly has a lot of untrue things written about him. She got out of it by burying it, tanking her era and cleaning house everywhere she could.

Gaga stopped everything with Kelly a few months after the single dropped and didn't defend him afterwards so I wouldn't say she did "the same" as Petras. Kim dismissed the scandal along the years and after Luke was proven to be, at least, verbally abusive with Kesha Kim still said she didn't believe he would be abusive with women.

The Kelly video you mentioned led to a trial that didn't condemn him so why affirm Gaga "lied" by saying "untrue things were said about him"? It's plausible she believed the court saw more elements than us all and decided to free him cause nothing was found against him. While saying that back then, she was herself out of her assistant justice drama that harmed her image so maybe she considered him leaving free after the mega scandal was the proof he was victim of slander. Like her.

[Dayman 6,128]

6 hours ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

Gaga stopped everything with Kelly a few months after the single dropped and didn't defend him afterwards so I wouldn't say she did "the same" as Petras. Kim dismissed the scandal along the years and after Luke was proven to be, at least, verbally abusive with Kesha Kim still said she didn't believe he would be abusive with women.

The Kelly video you mentioned led to a trial that didn't condemn him so why affirm Gaga "lied" by saying "untrue things were said about him"? It's plausible she believed the court saw more elements than us all and decided to free him cause nothing was found against him. While saying that back then, she was herself out of her assistant justice drama that harmed her image so maybe she considered him leaving free after the mega scandal was the proof he was victim of slander. Like her.

   Completely missing the point. Gaga had to fire her management and take a huge hit a situation that was a one time collaborator. Kim’s career is far more linked with Dr Luke and would require intervention from the label for her to cut ties in a meaningful way. 
   As for the point of Kelly’s trial. There was/is a video of him and a minor. Point blank period a trial result does not matter. 
   This isn’t about dragging Gaga let me be clear - it’s about the state of the music industry and how it’s filled with men like this as the norm and artists are forced to stay tight lipped and speak positively out of fear they will take a career hit at best or blacklisted at worst. Gaga didn’t speak up as explicitly as others and still took a hit, Kesha did speak up and while on the up swing now, had her career torn down for the better part of a decade, Doja spoke up minorly was made to apologize and now seemingly is treated as an after thought by her label.

   If we see higher ups have a pattern of abuse that is allowed to persist by those even above them. Then why on Earth is it that we only ever center discussions around those in lower power dynamics as being the ones responsible for their actions? It’s hard to call it victim blaming because we have no idea of the scope of what artists are and aren’t victims - but just based off of what we *do* know it’s a more likely than not that these artists are under similar circumstances. Why would someone like Kim of all people be the exception over every other artist he works with? What is so special about her that she has any pull? Any significance at all? There is nothing there important enough. But her desperation to be a musician, be a pop star, live in the US - all of that and the fear of it being taken away is definitely enough to keep her fearful and do what she’s told.

[Guillaume Hamon 6,260]

5 hours ago, Dayman said:

Completely missing the point. Gaga had to fire her management and take a huge hit a situation that was a one time collaborator. Kim’s career is far more linked with Dr Luke and would require intervention from the label for her to cut ties in a meaningful way. 

Nobody missed that the stakes were different cause one was contractually tied to him and not the other but that wasn't my point. To say "Gaga did the same" is still false. Legally linked or not you can always distance yourself even if it's riskier, indeed, when it's the guy who signed you. Doja shown it with her tentative. Even if they forced a retractation, everybody know what's up and that she only retracted cause she was forced.

5 hours ago, Dayman said:

 As for the point of Kelly’s trial. There was/is a video of him and a minor. Point blank period a trial result does not matter. 

Well no. There's a reason if justice judge both very differently. Willingly going with minors cause you act upon your desire on them ain't the same as thinking someone is of age and doing it. We were talking about Gaga's choice to collab with him and if she considered you're "innocent until proven guilty" she logically took the justice result as a proof he was, as she said, a victim of slander like her etc.

Doesn't mean I believe the trial result seing the man's life and doesn't mean more investigations wouldn't/shouldn't have led to avoiding the feat in the first place... She was clearly wrong in her vision of him but we can't affirm she knowingly supported a proven abuser after so it's not "the same" as Kim.

5 hours ago, Dayman said:

This isn’t about dragging Gaga let me be clear - it’s about the state of the music industry and how it’s filled with men like this as the norm and artists are forced to stay tight lipped and speak positively out of fear they will take a career hit at best or blacklisted at worst.

Yes it's a choice between making it or distancing yourself from an abuser. It's very sad indeed that some has to do it.

Doja was also signed by Luke and didn't defend him like Kim did so saying in this case they're all "forced to speak positively" is a missing that key point.

5 hours ago, Dayman said:

But her desperation to be a musician, be a pop star, live in the US - all of that and the fear of it being taken away is definitely enough to keep her fearful and do what she’s told.

If she choses to. It would be unfair to collaterally miss your ideal career path for this man faults ofc but so is associating with him when he's a known abuser. Kim is from a loving middle class family in Germany so she had a choice.

5 hours ago, Dayman said:

Then why on Earth is it that we only ever center discussions around those in lower power dynamics as being the ones responsible for their actions?

Nobody said the artists working with him were "responsible" for his actions.

5 hours ago, Dayman said:

It’s hard to call it victim blaming because we have no idea of the scope of what artists are and aren’t victims - but just based off of what we *do* know it’s a more likely than not that these artists are under similar circumstances.

If we really base ourselves on "what we do know" there's a known abuser and others reaction to it. That's the facts beyond convenient assumptions in a rant to defend one person who supported him.

5 hours ago, Dayman said:

Why would someone like Kim of all people be the exception over every other artist he works with?

Did you miss all the huge backlash Perry took after having most of her last album made by him? And she didn't even support him aside these collabs. Nicki didn't defend him neither and took crap for one or two songs with him.bDoja didn't defend him, took crap as well and stopped being so blamed for his prods when she said it was added against her will and not her willingly working with him.

It's definitely not an "exception" made for Kim who defended him, worked on a ton of songs with him without making it about shady contracts or anything.

Edited April 23 by Guillaume Hamon

[Pandacadabra 8,332]

[vmpiregrn 826]

Too little too late girl

[Dayman 6,128]

5 hours ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

Nobody missed that the stakes were different cause one was contractually tied to him and not the other but that wasn't my point. To say "Gaga did the same" is still false. Legally linked or not you can always distance yourself even if it's riskier, indeed, when it's the guy who signed you. Doja shown it with her tentative. Even if they forced a retractation, everybody know what's up and that she only retracted cause she was forced.

Well no. There's a reason if justice judge both very differently. Willingly going with minors cause you act upon your desire on them ain't the same as thinking someone is of age and doing it. We were talking about Gaga's choice to collab with him and if she considered you're "innocent until proven guilty" she logically took the justice result as a proof he was, as she said, a victim of slander like her etc.

Doesn't mean I believe the trial result seing the man's life and doesn't mean more investigations wouldn't/shouldn't have led to avoiding the feat in the first place... She was clearly wrong in her vision of him but we can't affirm she knowingly supported a proven abuser after so it's not "the same" as Kim.

Yes it's a choice between making it or distancing yourself from an abuser. It's very sad indeed that some has to do it.

Doja was also signed by Luke and didn't defend him like Kim did so saying in this case they're all "forced to speak positively" is a missing that key point.

If she choses to. It would be unfair to collaterally miss your ideal career path for this man faults ofc but so is associating with him when he's a known abuser. Kim is from a loving middle class family in Germany so she had a choice.

Nobody said the artists working with him were "responsible" for his actions.

If we really base ourselves on "what we do know" there's a known abuser and others reaction to it. That's the facts beyond convenient assumptions in a rant to defend one person who supported him.

Did you miss all the huge backlash Perry took after having most of her last album made by him? And she didn't even support him aside these collabs. Nicki didn't defend him neither and took crap for one or two songs with him.bDoja didn't defend him, took crap as well and stopped being so blamed for his prods when she said it was added against her will and not her willingly working with him.

It's definitely not an "exception" made for Kim who defended him, worked on a ton of songs with him without making it about shady contracts or anything.

    Once again the problem I'm pointing out is that Dr Luke has an established pattern of abuse, manipulation, and scare tactics in his camp as the norm. When it has been proven time and time again this is the case - why is it so worth it to be hateful and convinced that this is not the case? You don't need to be financially supportive of any artist in this situation. But why pile on and insist that their situation must be different from countless others? And better yet, why drag someone down once they are doing exactly what people have wanted - breaking away from him? When people do exactly this, It just comes off that the Dr Luke situation never was the thing that mattered - it was all just an excuse to be cruel in a morally and socially acceptable way. Honestly, I would love to hope that no additional artists have gone through it with him - but that is almost certainly not the case. I don't want to be someone that participated in the pile on of someone that has already alluded very publicly to being in a situation that they are trying to just survive. Time will tell what the reality of it is though, how long is another question.

[Guillaume Hamon 6,260]

5 hours ago, Dayman said:

    Once again the problem I'm pointing out is that Dr Luke has an established pattern of abuse, manipulation, and scare tactics in his camp as the norm. When it has been proven time and time again this is the case - why is it so worth it to be hateful and convinced that this is not the case?

And again nobody here's denying Luke pattern by saying you either resist or play along to help your career. It ain't "hateful" to see people's math.

5 hours ago, Dayman said:

You don't need to be financially supportive of any artist in this situation. But why pile on and insist that their situation must be different from countless others?

Oh I'm not, I'm coherent with that lol. As I said, she didn't reject him for a very long time and was repeating her support to him when even other Luke signed artists didn't publicly support him once concerning the accusations. Her reaction was standing out even if I ain't saying she was the only one doing it.

5 hours ago, Dayman said:

And better yet, why drag someone down once they are doing exactly what people have wanted - breaking away from him? When people do exactly this, It just comes off that the Dr Luke situation never was the thing that mattered - it was all just an excuse to be cruel in a morally and socially acceptable way.

If calling a spade a spade is "dragging down" and "be cruel" towards folks I didn't do so "once" she changed. Also after years of that, the idea that the day a switch popped people should be going over it right away is... Very debatable. Sounds like "as long as you go confess it's forgotten" from a certain hypocritical religion that led many to do what they want cause there was always the confession option haha.

5 hours ago, Dayman said:

Honestly, I would love to hope that no additional artists have gone through it with him - but that is almost certainly not the case. I don't want to be someone that participated in the pile on of someone that has already alluded very publicly to being in a situation that they are trying to just survive. Time will tell what the reality of it is though, how long is another question.

As you said, I prefer to focus on what we do know before to assume what could be and making trial of intents about what people would really want to do when discussing Kim so the raw observation becomes "hate".

Edited April 24 by Guillaume Hamon