Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Agamemnon420XD t1_jckatrh wrote

Reply to comment by 2ndmost in Debates in Separating Art and Artist by adarsh_badri

All I can say about that is, being bad and being a criminal are two different things. JK Rowling is a ‘bad’ person but she’s not a criminal, she’s not raping anyone. Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein were criminals, they were raping people. In their case, I’d still support their careers and their opportunities, but I’d 100% demand they face Justice for their crimes as swiftly and earnestly as possible, and realistically if they eventually are released from prison they’d need to be on a tight leash. Like, the rule of law is important. If Pablo Picasso was a murderer, despite my love and support of his art I’d absolutely want him arrested. I’m not saying we should excuse people from breaking the law, I’m saying that a bad person (not criminal, just bad) can do good things and that if doing good things keeps them from becoming a criminal or something worse than they are, then it’s important that they be allowed to succeed.

I’d summarize it like this; you can’t ‘cancel’ someone, but you can kill them. Cancelers (ideally) want people they deem worthy of being canceled to not have any opportunities whatsoever, meaning that that person will have to turn to a life of crime to survive. That’s essentially a death sentence, in modern society. So, I view it as equivalent to the death sentence.

Would I be OK with JK Rowling getting the death sentence? Absolutely not, even if I think she’s done some bad things. But criminals who have raped countless innocent people, like Cosby and Weinstein? Yeah, sure, kill them, they’re violent criminals, unfit for civilization.

You make a great point, though, that my idea could be stretched to an extreme, and used to protect criminals. I’d just like to reiterate that when I said ‘bad’ I did not mean ‘criminal’, and I do think it’s horrible that criminals are protected because of the things they achieve. The law is biased, and it shouldn’t be.

6

2ndmost t1_jckel6p wrote

Bad people, or people with bad ideas, always have am opportunity - they can stop being bad.

I'm not in any way obligated to pay to support someone's being terrible, and I reject the idea that for JK Rowling, the choice is "famous author who screams about trans people on social media" or "a life of crime".

There are so many options in between those two! She could be "famous author who doesn't scream about trans people" or she could be "anti trans author who is now broken and bitter and working at Subway" or she could be "famous author who took some time to reflect and apologized for the impact of her words"

All of these actions are under HER CONTROL.

I, as someone who exists in the universe with JK Rowling, have but a scant few options.

I can't force her to not be an asshole. I can't make it illegal to be an asshole (nor do I think that a law like that should be permissible).

So I can do a few things - I can ignore her. I can refuse to monetarily support her. I can encourage others to support my view.

With your thoughts on cancel culture it seems clear that you believe using the power of your speech or your money has an effect on people. So why is it ok for Rowling to use her words and money to actively try and hurt one group of people, but it is not ok for society to use their money and their words to convince her and other people that they are, in fact, acting badly?

5

Agamemnon420XD t1_jckgtrg wrote

That’s a good response/question.

So you don’t want to criminalize JK’s ‘bad’ behavior. Then I stand by my point that there’s nothing wrong with supporting her art, even if she’s a ‘bad’ person. She does many good things with herself and her fortune, and I hope she continues to do good, despite also doing bad.

You are right, she has many choices, but let’s be pragmatic, here; she’s going to continue to be herself, she’s going to continue to be exactly what she is and not be anything else. That’s where cancelling comes into play; should her life be destroyed or not? Most people would say no, yet some would say yes. That is why the rule of law deems her actions acceptable; there’s not enough people against what she is doing, what she is doing is not seen as a crime.

You can ignore her and not support her, that’s your right. But are you any morally better than someone who does support her? According to my argument, no. The reason being that good and bad come together, and unless the bad is so bad that she needs to be dealt with, we’ve just kind of got to accept that bad with the good.

You said it yourself that what she’s doing shouldn’t be considered a crime. That means you don’t want her to be forcibly stopped, you see the damage she does as so insignificant that she shouldn’t be held accountable for it in a court of law. And I agree with that statement. Yet we both also acknowledge that she is doing damage. I think there’s a very real but blurred line, where something is deemed so bad that we can’t allow the person doing it to continue. Clearly JK has not crossed that blurry line, and therefore is free to continue as she pleases.

3

BulbasaurIsMyGod t1_jcklg7z wrote

I’m just casually reading along. Not entirely looking to debate, but I think it’s possible to “accept” JKR’s bad behavior without endorsing it financially. And IMO that’s morally better than using “oh well, her hateful actions aren’t a crime” as an excuse to be ok with financially supporting a bigot. Just my 0.02.

2

2ndmost t1_jcktegk wrote

We agree that most speech should not be punishable by the state.

But I think it's reasonable, if not obvious, that all actions will have reactions - or in this case consequences.

Some of those consequences are good! Some of them are bad! If you say something unpopular, people respond by showing displeasure. This is natural and normal, and also changes based upon where and when you find yourself.

Indeed, many consequences for Rowling's views have been positive! Many groups have heaped praise on her and supported her both culturally and commercially.

However, she has also faced many negative consequences. None of them have risen to the level of life destruction (despite what Rowling would at times want you to believe).

Now, do I believe that someone is allowed to "do as she pleases" if they don't cross a blurry line that takes it to the level of a crime?

Let's try to see some real world examples:

I work in restaurants. It's not illegal for people to be rude to servers and bartenders. It's not illegal for a customer to argue with every person at the bar whenever they speak.

However, they do not have the right to "continue doing as they please" at the expense of the restaurant as a whole. We are well within our rights to deny them service. In fact, all the other people should have the right to do as they please without him being annoying the whole time.

Did I destroy this person's life? Or did they face the consequences of actions they could have stopped at any time?

Certainly they have the right, and probably the inclination, to continue being horrible to every establishment they step foot in. But it would be a far cry to say they were victimized by a biased restaurant industry.

I do not believe that a person should face no consequences for denigrating people in a public forum. I also firmly believe that if a person in a position of influence demonstrates clear prejudice it is permissible for society to determine, on their own, whether or not they want to accept that prejudice to have the opportunity to influence that position (to use your case of doctors or lawyers that behave poorly - racist doctors and lawyers have a clear opportunity to use their position to do real harm, even if they never commit a crime).

It feels like you and I have a bit of a gulf between us and I'm not sure we'd be able to do much more than say "x is impermissible but y and z would be so long as we consider a, b, and c." But I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and responses.

1

[deleted] t1_jcnys24 wrote

[removed]

1

2ndmost t1_jco03ui wrote

To the first part - I may not be able to change anything by not spending money on an asshole artist, that's true.

I may not be able to stop a corrupt politician from getting elected by voting for their opponent. Isn't it still worth it to cast my vote?

For the rest - I guess I think about it this way - an artist's art is an extension of their humanity, and what they think it means to be human. It is in many ways how they view the world.

So a) I find it hard to believe that their views don't make it into their work either overtly or covertly, and b) by commercially supporting these people I am endorsing their views. Now (b) might be a stretch for people, and I'm not saying that everyone must do this, but it is an ethical standard that costs me relatively little (oh no I don't get to consume to whatever vehicle the HP universe is putting out this month) and gives me a benefit (I feel good about keeping my money spent on people I feel worthy of my support).

There's so much art out there ready to consume, and so many artists to support. I can be picky and still have a rich and full life.

1

Pert02 t1_jckeh1i wrote

With JK you are missing the point. Her bigoted and hatred views are in fact shaping policy and misconstructing the image around transgender people which in turn makes their lifes more miserable.

JK "views" affect the world in a negative way and are actively hurting a collective of people.

2

Shield_Lyger t1_jckthz8 wrote

Okay, I'll bite. Why put "views" into scare quotes? If views is not the correct term, put your cards on the table... how should J. K. Rowling's thought processes be characterized or described?

5