Agamemnon420XD t1_jckgtrg wrote on March 17, 2023 at 2:18 PM

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

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.

BulbasaurIsMyGod t1_jcklg7z wrote on March 17, 2023 at 2:49 PM

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.

2ndmost t1_jcktegk wrote on March 17, 2023 at 3:41 PM

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.