It’s something I struggle with. Some bad news comes out about some public persona doing something shitty and they get cancelled. But sometimes I really struggle with giving up the things they’ve made because I like them. There are also occasions where the person has been accused of something and it doesn’t seem true to me, or I think they’re genuinely sorry and have been punished enough, and the context isn’t being considered.
What do you think? Who do you feel conflicted about enjoying?
Neil Gaiman. I’m extremely depressed that he’s actually a POS, and because I loved his work so much, I’m conflicted. His work itself seemed to have well interrogated values woven into it’s fiber, but I guess you never can tell.
Edit: really fucking bummed about Red Hot Chili Peppers too
I have a theory that all writers are somewhat hypocritical. As an amateur writer myself (I write fan fiction and am also working on original work I hope to get published eventually), I find sometimes the moral messages I try to weave into my work are sometimes messages that I myself am struggling to live up to and writing is a way of trying to work through that
I like the world building in Fifth Element and Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. But Luc Besson is probably a rapist and certainly a sexual assaulter. I’ll watch his old stuff I already own but won’t put any more money towards it nor support any new projects.
Edit: oh, also he’s not “cancelled”. He came out with another movie this year or last, if I recall. 9 times our of 10, celebrities that say they were “cancelled” just had their feefees hurt by people on social media.
Also a pedo. From his wiki page:
Besson’s second wife was actress and director Maïwenn Le Besco, whom he started dating when he was 32 and she was 15 after having met three years earlier.[46] They married in late 1992 when Le Besco, 16, was pregnant with their daughter Shanna, who was born on 3 January 1993.[47][deprecated source] Le Besco later claimed that their relationship inspired Besson’s film Léon (1994), where the plot involved the emotional relationship between an adult man and a 12-year-old girl (played by then 12-year-old Natalie Portman).
So not only is he a pedo, but he was proud enough of it he made a movie about it.
That knowledge makes the uncomfortableness in Léon so much worse…
Bill Cosby is a monster, but his stand-up special “Himself” is a master class on comedic story-telling.
The only respect I’m ever going to give Bill Cosby, is how he stood up and criticized the black community for their ghetto-like behavior and how they continued blaming the white man for all of their problems. That took balls and only he could have done it because he’s black as well.
So uh I’m guessing that aligns with your beliefs. Please explain to me how white people didn’t fuck over black people? Obviously not all problems black people face are from white people, and obviously not ever single white person has fucked over a black person, but please explain how white people aren’t responsible for a lot of the problems black people go through right now please?
I’ve got a few pretty big counter examples of how they did right here that I’m sure you’d find interesting.
Excuse you? What I said did not speak of anything of what my beliefs are. You are just assuming in a baseless manner. That is in of itself, a huge problem with society today so thanks for being a demonstration of that problem.
Obviously not all problems black people face are from white people
So you went on this entire tirade of rambling and you say that snippet. How about you project some sources that example that little detail, instead of virtue-signaling the way that you have?
I bet you won’t. You’ll just take all of the virtuous self-patting upvotes of your little rant like you have, and provide me nothing in return, just petty downvotes. That’s exactly how I expect you to behave.
How come every time someone points out obviously racist coded stuff, the response is “well I didn’t directly say what my opinion was so how dare you, you’ll never know” like we don’t have reading comprehension and dog whistles.
Then you hone in on the one thing that might validate your blatantly obvious opinion, and tell me to give you sources, instead of actually answering my question.
Then you throw a tantrum saying I won’t give you what you want, and that if I don’t give you what you want, you’re right.
Even though you didn’t have the balls to answer my question.
Here’s a surprise for you, three examples of Problems Black People Can Have That Have Nothing To Do With White People, all of which I can personally attest to:
Black person cheated on their black spouse and they got divorced.
Black person’s car got a flat.
Black person’s favorite cereal was out at the grocery store.
Those problems don’t have anything to do with white people. But some related problems in those situations do.
The judge ordered way harsher child support of the black husband than a white husband would’ve had to deal with.
Cops harassed and threatened to arrest the black person trying to change a tire instead of offering help.
The person at the register accused the black person of stealing for no reason.
So yeah. Three examples. Bet you don’t have the balls to answer my question though.
Haha, imagine giving a shit about an artist’s views and actions outside of the art they create. I don’t expect my doctor or political representative to be a good painter. Why would I expect my painter to give me medical advice or represent me politically? They’re completely different activities and I look for different people to perform them.
Imagine not being able to read the title correctly. It’s not about your painter thinking differently or voting differently. It’s about your painters actions.
He made a beautiful, remarkable signed painting. It’s the center piece in your living room. And then it comes out he was was abducting, raping, and killing women.
The painting looks the same. 1 week later his name will fade and no one remembers. But you might feel a lot differently about it knowing it was his painting. I’m not gonna claim it’s right or wrong whatever you decide. You do you. But im sure you can appreciate the potential moral dilemma.
Let’s be real here, if the artist created great work and then was also a killer, not only is the painting still just as aesthetically pleasing as it always was, but if we are going to care about what they did outside of the art, it only makes the art more interesting as an example of the varied nature of humanity. The same individual produced heinous murder and exquisite beauty.
That is certainly a personal preference someone might have. But the point is, if you know the painting you have displayed, is made by a child molester. You might not feel particularly comfortable with having his painting. Despite it being an otherwise beautiful piece of art.
I don’t care if Hitlers paintings are worth lots of money today. I wouldn’t want it anywhere near my place.
And that kind of knee-jerk avoidance of anything uncomfortable is at the core of reactionary thinking. If it makes you uncomfortable to be near something a child molester has touched, will you abandon their victims? The home they lived in? The clothes which they owned once but that others could use? The sidewalk they walked along to get to the scene of their crimes? Shall we all expel the things that make us uncomfortable? Some people are made uncomfortable by foreigners, and people who look different. Don’t tell me ‘but that’s different.’ It’s not. It’s the same reactionary childishness, and it might make you uncomfortable to acknowledge it, but that’s why we can’t use discomfort as a measure.
First off, Nice strawman by the way.
Second, It is FAR from the same thing. I’m not uncomfortable being near something some awful person have been near. People have walked on the street I walk on, for several hundreds of years. I have no doubt some truly terrible people have traversed that road.
But I don’t want their artwork at display in my house. What I put on display in my house, is a reflection of me and my taste. Which is why I don’t want to have such artwork from such a person.
If you’re fine with it, good for you. I have not once said it would be wrong. I’ve not once said no one can or should have such things. Only that I personally, wouldn’t want to.
You not being able to differentiate what people are comfortable with in their own home, and what they tolerate in public, is the centerpiece of your argument. Not a particularly strong foundation since it’s based on nothing but your own misconception
Being uncomfortable with it in your own home is only different in that you actually have some control over what is displayed in your own home, but the irrational judgement of the art based on the non-artistic conduct of the artist exists regardless of whether you have the power to force your judgement onto others. It all still applies. There is an implied moral superiority in the statement of ‘You do you, but I would never,’ in the same vein as someone who makes a point to say to gay people, ‘You do you, but I would never.’ Saying ‘I didn’t say you couldn’t do it’ is the same ‘I’m not saying anything like that. I’m just asking questions,’ excuse people use to get away with making all sorts of implications that they know they can’t really justify.
You’re the one reading into it. We’re talking about art. People like different art. And that’s ok. I do not imply any form of superiority, moral or otherwise when I say “you do you”. So you can scratch that off.
I have loads of stuff around my place that honestly, are not particularly beautiful or amazing in any way. But the artist is very dear to me, for various reasons. So I like to have them on display.
Why does it matter so much to you that some people would prefer to avoid artists due to their conduct? It doesn’t affect you. You just want to make it about yourself, by thinking that we judge you for listening/watching/buying/whatever from the artist. The world doesn’t revolve around you.
I don’t think you’re a bad person for enjoying Chris Browns music. I don’t think about you, at all.
I really liked Chappelle show, but he’s really gone bad the last few years being anti trans and all. To say he’s canceled is a bit much, though. He’s still rich and popular, and selling tickets.
I don’t think he’s actually anti-trans, he just likes making jokes about them and refused to be cowed by people telling him to stop. Just my sense of it though.
There are jokes punching up, and jokes punching down.
Chapelle is in a position of punching down, here.
I doubt he’d go around punching/harassing transpeople (but correct me if I’m wrong, of course, I’m not dying on the Dave Chapelle hill, lol), he might just disagree with some of the current Western culture around it and understanding of it.
“It’s not like he goes around assaulting trans people, he just disagrees with the current culture of letting trans people be who they are instead of masking and hiding themselves”
Yeah while I think Chapelle is entitled to free speech as a comedian and all that, his doubling- and tripling-down with the trans jokes are not only unfunny, they are embraced by bigots and embolden their subsequent hateful rhetoric and actions. If Chapelle actually cared one iota about trans people, he would just tell jokes about literally anything else. It’s not like there’s a shortage of topics to poke fun at.
He’s a petulant, obstinate, man baby and deserving of all the backlash he has received. I honestly think he must be washed up and creatively tapped since he won’t let the trans jokes go.
It’s just step one of his transformation into Clayton Bigsby.
Tarantino.
I just know the guy’s a dickhole.
how the fuck did that guy get canceled actually don’t tell me I don’t want to know
Quinten exists in this weird state of permanent precancel. He does wild shit like openly writing a pro slavery character in a film with a black actor in mind and casting women specifically to see/interact with their feet. Yet he somehow keeps going socially.
He does wild shit like openly writing a pro slavery character in a film with a black actor
That’s a real thing that existed and was observed long before Tarantino.
https://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/mxp/speeches/mxt17.html
And considering what goes on in Hollywood, Tarantino’s feet thing is probably one of the more boring things going on. Be glad they’ll all adults who know how to say no, unlike that Nickelodeon guy.
I mean, I didn’t throw out my Harry Potter boxed set just becsuse Rowling is a dumb fucking TERF. I just don’t continue buying shit she profits off of, and can see tons of questionable things in her work that I didn’t question before knowing her thoughts on things.
I understand people’s feelings towards her, but to call her transphobic seems a bit harsh. She doesn’t show hatred for trans people, but a need to show that they are different than woman born as female. Although this might be ignorant in some ways. . . I don’t see it as a form of hatred or fear towards trans people. We as a society have a hard time looking at nuance.
Just because she doesn’t outright say I hate trans. People doesn’t mean that she uses her fame her money and her businesses to help incorporate and promote anti-trans policies in the UK and also promote those ideas in the world ideas that trans people aren’t people. How is that not the definition of hatred just in a different way you need to stop being so ignorant because you really are and I’m only saying that to help you open up to reality.
