Willful Ignorance = Tacit Condonation

I've been dabbling on Google's newest push into the social networking realm after the spectacular failure of Buzz. There's some to like about Google+ and lots to dislike.

But this post isn't about G+'s goods and bads. Its about the mental gyrations some people go through in order to justify their previously held conclusion.

Case in point, someone I'd been following on G+ and interacted with on several occasions posted a video featuring, among others, Chris Brown. Yes, the Chris Brown who beat the holy shit out of Rihanna on the way to some award ceremony. Yes, the same Chris Brown who threw a chair into a window, ripped off his shirt and stormed off Good Morning America for even bringing up the subject of his violent past which was a whole two years behind at that point.

Warning, the post below contains a fairly graphic image of the injuries Rihanna sustained when Chris Brown, her boyfriend, beat the fucking crap out of her on the way to some awards show.  

The reason he posted the video was to highlight Busta Rhymes' part of the video and I've got no issue with Busta Rhymes. I do have a pretty major issue with someone condoning Chris Brown's violence against women. And I had a really serious problem with how he just dismissed the whole thing out of hand without any knowledge as being a construct of the savage media. Note, he'd not read or seen what Brown did to her, he just heard about it third hand and dismissed it.

Did the media cook this up too?
Yes. This guy thinks the media cooked up the whole story to bring the brother down. He also noted that Rihanna has a song lyric about whips and chains exciting her as if that's some kind of justification for getting beaten.

So I responded with a link to an article about Chris Brown including a photo of Rihanna before and after Chris Brown beat the fucking snot out of her. And, oh yeah, while this beat down was, by far, the worst, it was not the only violent episode between the two.

And he dismissed that too. So I uncircled the guy and blocked him. I've no interest in any relationship with someone who doesn't want to be concerned about someone's personal conduct so long as they are a star. Which is, of course, utterly and totally fucking ridiculous. Personal conduct has a direct bearing on one's professional life, ask Michael Vick (and punch him in the face while you're at it and maybe let your dog bite his nuts off), ask Mel Gibson, ask anyone in the public eye that has watched their career spiral from their private issues coming to public light.

Now, let me note right here, I'm not a fan of Rihanna's. I think she uses her sexuality to sell records and her music is pretty meh so-so. But that, in no way, mitigates the basic fact that no one, regardless of fame, status or gender, deserves to get treated the way Chris Brown treated her. I hear the violent little fuck even bit her during his rampage.

And yet this person on G+ couldn't be bothered to give a shit. Which I find deeply, deeply galling and appalling. If you patronize an entertainer with a past like Chris Brown then you are tacitly condoning his actions. You are helping to pay his legal bills, you are helping him justify what he did to someone else with his fists and teeth. You are part of the problem.

And you and I have a problem if you think you're doing no harm by enjoying his music and spreading it. You're also spreading the belief that maybe what he did wasn't so bad, maybe she "deserved it" as some commenters have said (yes, internet commenters are, by and large, cowardly fucking morons). Your support is his condonation.

Chris Brown might be best singer ever (he's not), he might be the best dancer ever (he's not) but no matter what else he is or becomes, he will always be a violent rager who used his fists and teeth to inflict grievous bodily harm to someone he was supposed to love and care about. He is a woman beating pile of shit and if you are down with him then I am absolutely NOT down with you.
blog comments powered by Disqus