Albums in Stores – Jan. 17th, 2020 • Page 5

You're just finding this out?

 

Really don’t get why people go to the ends of the earth to defend one band, when there’s thousands of just as good bands who have never had a scandal and who are more deserving of that platform.

Like, do you really think you’re changing anyone’s mind who is making a conscious decision to support other music? “Oh the victim directly said he was lying... but oh HEY these two random dudes on Chorus, who arent remotely involved... well they ‘disagree’ with what the victim actually experienced, and said they were ‘allowed’ to make music , I guess it’s fine”

 

You do you, but for me, a band that acts shady doesn’t deserve to be in my rotation above a good band that hasn’t yet broken out. Some people act like it’s the most horrible thing in the world when a musician loses their career due to how they acted, but what about other amazing musicians who have never done anything wrong and never even gotten the opportunities that Pinegrove got? Why is that just “whatever” but a band who did get that lucky break, and then acted up and lost half their fans is some sort of tragedy?

Being a professional band is a huge privilege that isn’t possible for 99% of people who attempt it... so I think it’s only fair if you abuse your influence, you lose that fragile privilege and someone else gets a chance instead of you. Support small bands instead of big bands with ugly baggage. They both need it more and deserve it more.

No one is saying Hall cant go out and get a job and move on, no one is saying he deserves to have no income and starve or whatever. But for him to continue to be exalted for his musical skill and given semi-celebrity status is just not fair to bands who are more respectful to women and who honor their fans.

 

Serious questions, can you point somewhere that people can, as you put it, "learn about the entirety of the situation."

 

who are you continuing to argue with by making this post longer and longer?

 

I’m arguing with you, motherfucker lol. And the other dudes who like, made an account just to defend Pinegrove.

Yeah, I edited the post to further clarify my point. Says a lot that you only pointed that out instead of responding to any of it.

 

Whoever suggested the "Dragged Under" album. Thank you! Perfect soundtrack to my gym workout today!

If you guys remember - in the Echosmith release day convo I was kinda forgiving because of the autistic, spectrum angle leaving some uncertainty but when it comes to Pinegrove all I have to say is, Fuck You, Pinegrove.

Anyone who digs into that story would see with a fair amount of clarity that this dude is not worthy of your forgiveness and likely will continue his disgusting behavior in the future as he only seems to have in a fake and shallow manner addressed his issues.

 

Any suggested readings that will allow people to dig in further. Unfortunately, a lot of people in this thread are saying that ESH shouldn't be forgiven and that he's done nothing to garner forgiveness, but haven't provided links to articles to support their point. I'm not saying you or anyone else is wrong, but I think it would help other people understand your point of view on the subject better than just saying "stuff is out there." I for one am very interested in seeing the complete picture.

On a separate note, what does atonement look like to you in this situation?

 

Articles don’t hold as much weight as the actual victim’s words. And his forgiveness isn’t ours to give.

 

Honestly everywhere I look now that you asked and I tried to research again has given me wildly different portrayals of the story. Most actually seem to be making this person that runs "Punktalks" the most evil of the bunch as trying to take down the "biggest indie band in the scene" despite the accuser not wanting any of this public..

It's very convoluted. There were multiple complaintants. I haven't found any accuser statements yet today but researching it has been a drain on my day and is giving me a headache. I've chosen not to listen. The fact that there's multiple accusers bothers me.

 

From what I've read, there was 2 "accusers". The one who didn't want it public and has allegedly dealt with Pinegrove through an intermediary. And then one who the founder of Punk Talks offered up but said that she had a consensual relationship with ESH that didn't work out. Evidently Sheridan Allen of Punk Talks completely misrepresented the second person.

 

If there's an accuser statement out there alleging an assault I would 100% believe the accuser but I just wasted a long ass time going down an endless rabbit hole of conflicting information without any direct accuser statements or even context. Is the girl under age? The only contact I see was for one accuser who described a consensual relationship except he pressured her to cheat on her boyfriend. Eventually she dumped the boyfriend and they spent a few weeks together and then the relationship ended. She felt he used his position of power as being in a popular band to coerce her.

I don't see any context that leads me to "sexual assault" unless she's under age or he legit raped her and I'm not ready to call flirting with and trying to seduce a taken woman assault. I would call it being a selfish dick but that describes most single men in the dating scene. I also wouldn't blame anyone other than myself for cheating on my wife, even if the person I cheated with was a gorgeous Hollywood superstar actress I was in love with who (this would never happen! Lol) asked me to hook up several times until I finally gave in and said yes. I am still a person with free will and simply asking even persistently isn't a crime so if I said yes that would be on me and I'd have to own that. Did she tell him to stop bothering her? Stop harassing her? Stop talking to her? Did she try and block him or tell him to go away? Again if she did, I'm 100% on the accusers side but this information isn't even public it seems.

Now if he were her boss, or held a direct ability to impact her career or life in a negative manner if she denied his advances and he used that as a form of coercion and blackmail that's completely different. That I would consider assault.

I was all in on the "Fuck Pinegrove" train because I thought it was clear cut but the more I read the more ambiguity I'm met with. Again, give me any clear accusations in a statement or other form with context and I'll be right back on the "Fuck Pinegrove" train but I can't even find a clear accusations with any details at all.


Please don't attack me personally in response to this. I'm just trying to do my research in a fair unbiased manner. I do believe in "believing women" but I don't see any actual assault claims within this really convoluted and odd story.

 

sigh

 

Super woke sigh, bro. That clears everything up. It's totally not woke enough to think to even locate an accusers actual statement on the matter before blindly proving how woke I am by evoking cancel culture on their asses. Spot on sigh, condescend to the unwoken heathens who dare try and research and understand what happened.

Condescension is the only true path to enlightment. Way smarter to condescend than to present any clarity to help others understand. Shame them into agreement. Am I right my dude?

 

Double sigh.

 

Like shady politicians, laughing (or in this case sighing) to avoid the fact that they have no actual substance to back their positions.

This board has a gang mentality bully culture problem. People are completely incapable of responding to questions or dissenting opinion so people all conform together to avoid scrutiny and drive the rest out. Shame.

 

Ask people here about what the victim has actually said versus what articles you can read. If a victim hasn’t put out a formal statement that doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.

 

I did ask and the response I got was "sigh"

 

Your statement doesn't really make sense. At first you say to ask people here what the victim has actually said (without just telling us yourself). And then you say the victim hasn't put out a statement. So are you saying that people in this thread have spoken directly to the victim? Genuinely trying to figure out what you're attempting to say here.

 

To piggyback onto this - Punk Talks or whatever they are called, from what I've read pushed for this to be made public and for the band to have to release a statement against the wishes of the accuser. Is this true or not? Is there other information out there that's original source wasn't Punk Talks. Every article I've seen cites punk talks as the source and none of it has any context other than what I already wrote in my last long response.

 

It’s already been established in this thread that the victim has come forward with statements that do not concur with Evan’s. People in this thread have better knowledge and/or correspondence than I. I never said she didn’t make a statement, my generalized comment was directed at the weird implication that a victim has to have a formal accusation to be considered reliable.

 

So you are saying people in this thread have secret inside information that the rest of the general public does not? You just said the accuser hasn't made any statements and now your saying it's been established in this thread that the victim has come forward with statements that don't align with the bands. Where is all this coming from? This is like a bad game telephone gone wrong.

So - other people in this thread. Where are these statements from the accuser that don't align with the bands statements? Where is this information coming from? If there is anything out there of this sort my instinct would be 100% be to believe the accuser but this is super weird bc this is the only place I've found thus far claiming this to have occurred. Punk Talks themselves said the singer didn't actually go to therapy through punk talks. That's all I saw, and it doesn't actually state he didn't seek his therapy elsewhere rather than through punk talks.

 

Y’all are really just misreading my comments on purpose huh? I literally nowhere said she didnt make a statement lol. And yes, it has been established, read the rest of this thread? It’s not secret information lol, abuse doesn’t need an article written about it to be true.

 

What are those statements? It's very unclear what you're basing your position on. And I don't even think the position your taking is implicitly wrong, but you're doing nothing to actually back it up. What have you seen, in this thread, that you are using to support your statements?