5 ms·

While I can understand and somewhat agree with his point that the works should be judged on their own merit. However, I find his attitude extremely callous. He

While I can understand and somewhat agree with his point that the works should be judged on their own merit. However, I find his attitude extremely callous. He even reiterated the point that even if the artist was an axe murderer he wouldn't care he just wants the goods. It boils down to he's saying that the suffering of any of the victims doesn't matter to him. Literally at all... More over there is a pretty deep undercurrent that that has been the attitude for a long time and that the suffering of others has been ignored for equally long. If you want justification for removing the works of the artists then consider it a form of ill-gotten gains. Would that work of art have been made if they're crime had been revealed or convicted?

kstenerud 8y ago
Ok, let's go down this road. Suppose a crime is discovered long after the event. Does that mean you take their house? They probably wouldn't have gotten a job good enough to buy one. Their possessions? Gone. How about their family? Probably wouldn't have gotten married. Probably wouldn't have had those children. Erase erase erase! Honestly, the response here is downright frightening, and I fear for our future...
- hath995 8y ago
  The difference between all the things that you listed is that works of art are able to give royalties to a person. If you continue to buy or consume their products they still profit. Obviously ex post facto law is bad for society. However, if an artist is receiving royalties for a work they made during which they raped several people, why should they still profit?
  - kstenerud 8y ago
    Because it's the job of the justice system to mete out punishment, not the modern day equivalent of a lynch mob.
    - arduanika 8y ago
      > Because it's the job of the justice system to mete out punishment, not the modern day equivalent of a lynch mob. This should be so glaringly obvious. A common problem when someone finishes serving their jail time as allotted by said justice system, the (much more low-key) lynch mob doesn't want to hire them just yet. But what doesn't happen is this: the prisoner, by some stroke of luck, gets a job in a say a car factory, and suddenly everyone else in that factory should loose their job, and I'm a bad person for wanting to drive a car that the ex-felon worked on.
      - m_mueller 8y ago
        The difference is probably that the factory worker is not seen by the car buyer - we wouldn’t want to expose everyone’s mind to the terrible sight of an ex-felon would we? Now all that being said, this is probably just a pendulum swing. It looks like for decades sexual assault was shielded in the media industry - me too is overall still a positive movement IMO, it’s just important to not letting it get too far (and I think those breaking forces are already acting).
    - zimpenfish 8y ago
      One of the key problems, however, is that the justice system isn't doing that. Hence why you get consumer-level campaigns to apply pressure and punishments in other ways.
      - xorfish 8y ago
        How can you know that it isn't doing that? I imagine sex crimes to be really hard to proof. Because the difference between a completely legal act and one that is deeply wrong is the state of mind of two people at the time. The justice system shouldn't convict someone if it can't be sure that the accuses really did the crime.
    - astura 8y ago
      The criminal justice system is very, very rarely involved in HR matters, and that's what we are talking about. (Hiring and firing)
  - Someone 8y ago
    In addition to “because it’s the job of the justice department to dole out punishment”: if an artist is receiving dividend on shares bought in a period during which they raped several people, should we take those dividends? The money they earned in a period in which they raped people? That would be quite a deviation from what the justice system ‘we’ (in the western world, 21st century, …) agreed on typically do: only take the money people get from a crime (frequently with a fine added), not all their money. (There may be edge cases, for example: if I steal a million, put all it on red in Vegas, come out with two million, and then get caught, how much money should be taken from me? I can see a judge ordering me to return a million to the owner of the original million and a million to the casino. Those are the exceptions, though)
- MisterBastahrd 8y ago
  If someone steals $400K from you, and you discover who it was 10 years later, are you not due at least $400K from that person even if it means liquidating their assets? Don't build your future on the ashes of someone else's past.
arduanika 8y ago
Luckily there wasn't any suffering that went into making my iPhone, so I'm all clear to enjoy that, right?
- cocacola1 8y ago
  It can't be that difficult for people to admit they consume products that were created under less than ideal conditions.
classicsnoot 8y ago
Apply this logic (ill gotten gains is the term you used, but I interpret it as a coded way to say value created by immoral actors) to technology and it suddenly becomes a little more complicated. The scary prospect, from my perspective, is that cultural erasure on moral grounds is not only possible, it could be inevitable and lead to a chain reaction. From the statue removal in the US (easily justifiable considering the circumstances of their placement) to the college course alteration and removal in certain South African universities (justifiable under Socially Just interpretations) to the discrediting and forced reinterpretation of scientific theory (IQ studies, intelligent design inclusion, inherent sex disparity, evolutionary genetics), it would appear there may in fact be a reduced friction gradient that isn't wholly fallacious. If some pernicious pedophile develops a cure for cancer, I'm not going to consider for even a second whether or not I am going to use it.
- hath995 8y ago
  If some pernicious pedophile develops a cure for cancer, it would be morally wrong not to use it. However, if that particular pedophile should profit from it is an entirely separate question. Patents and copyrights are a government given right and they can be removed. Actions have consequences.
  - kstenerud 8y ago
    So, someone who commits a crime should not reap the rewards of unrelated activity? Seriously... Am I even talking to a member of the free world?
    - hath995 8y ago
      Maybe try not raping or abusing people or other illegal activities and don't suffer economic punishment?
      - kstenerud 8y ago
        I'm... At a loss for words. Do you not trust your own justice system?
dsajames 8y ago
He's not being extremely callous. He's just saying your opinion shouldn't be forced on him. The suffering of others doesn't need to be his problem. We can discourage that with prison and fines. No need to drag the consumer in on a forced march through some rabid vigilante social assassination.

kstenerud 8y ago

Ok, let's go down this road. Suppose a crime is discovered long after the event. Does that mean you take their house? They probably wouldn't have gotten a job good enough to buy one. Their possessions? Gone. How about their family? Probably wouldn't have gotten married. Probably wouldn't have had those children. Erase erase erase! Honestly, the response here is downright frightening, and I fear for our future...

hath995 8y ago
The difference between all the things that you listed is that works of art are able to give royalties to a person. If you continue to buy or consume their products they still profit. Obviously ex post facto law is bad for society. However, if an artist is receiving royalties for a work they made during which they raped several people, why should they still profit?
- kstenerud 8y ago
  Because it's the job of the justice system to mete out punishment, not the modern day equivalent of a lynch mob.
  - arduanika 8y ago
    > Because it's the job of the justice system to mete out punishment, not the modern day equivalent of a lynch mob. This should be so glaringly obvious. A common problem when someone finishes serving their jail time as allotted by said justice system, the (much more low-key) lynch mob doesn't want to hire them just yet. But what doesn't happen is this: the prisoner, by some stroke of luck, gets a job in a say a car factory, and suddenly everyone else in that factory should loose their job, and I'm a bad person for wanting to drive a car that the ex-felon worked on.
    - m_mueller 8y ago
      The difference is probably that the factory worker is not seen by the car buyer - we wouldn’t want to expose everyone’s mind to the terrible sight of an ex-felon would we? Now all that being said, this is probably just a pendulum swing. It looks like for decades sexual assault was shielded in the media industry - me too is overall still a positive movement IMO, it’s just important to not letting it get too far (and I think those breaking forces are already acting).
  - zimpenfish 8y ago
    One of the key problems, however, is that the justice system isn't doing that. Hence why you get consumer-level campaigns to apply pressure and punishments in other ways.
    - xorfish 8y ago
      How can you know that it isn't doing that? I imagine sex crimes to be really hard to proof. Because the difference between a completely legal act and one that is deeply wrong is the state of mind of two people at the time. The justice system shouldn't convict someone if it can't be sure that the accuses really did the crime.
  - astura 8y ago
    The criminal justice system is very, very rarely involved in HR matters, and that's what we are talking about. (Hiring and firing)
- Someone 8y ago
  In addition to “because it’s the job of the justice department to dole out punishment”: if an artist is receiving dividend on shares bought in a period during which they raped several people, should we take those dividends? The money they earned in a period in which they raped people? That would be quite a deviation from what the justice system ‘we’ (in the western world, 21st century, …) agreed on typically do: only take the money people get from a crime (frequently with a fine added), not all their money. (There may be edge cases, for example: if I steal a million, put all it on red in Vegas, come out with two million, and then get caught, how much money should be taken from me? I can see a judge ordering me to return a million to the owner of the original million and a million to the casino. Those are the exceptions, though)
MisterBastahrd 8y ago
If someone steals $400K from you, and you discover who it was 10 years later, are you not due at least $400K from that person even if it means liquidating their assets? Don't build your future on the ashes of someone else's past.

arduanika 8y ago

Luckily there wasn't any suffering that went into making my iPhone, so I'm all clear to enjoy that, right?

cocacola1 8y ago
It can't be that difficult for people to admit they consume products that were created under less than ideal conditions.

classicsnoot 8y ago

Apply this logic (ill gotten gains is the term you used, but I interpret it as a coded way to say value created by immoral actors) to technology and it suddenly becomes a little more complicated. The scary prospect, from my perspective, is that cultural erasure on moral grounds is not only possible, it could be inevitable and lead to a chain reaction. From the statue removal in the US (easily justifiable considering the circumstances of their placement) to the college course alteration and removal in certain South African universities (justifiable under Socially Just interpretations) to the discrediting and forced reinterpretation of scientific theory (IQ studies, intelligent design inclusion, inherent sex disparity, evolutionary genetics), it would appear there may in fact be a reduced friction gradient that isn't wholly fallacious. If some pernicious pedophile develops a cure for cancer, I'm not going to consider for even a second whether or not I am going to use it.

hath995 8y ago
If some pernicious pedophile develops a cure for cancer, it would be morally wrong not to use it. However, if that particular pedophile should profit from it is an entirely separate question. Patents and copyrights are a government given right and they can be removed. Actions have consequences.
- kstenerud 8y ago
  So, someone who commits a crime should not reap the rewards of unrelated activity? Seriously... Am I even talking to a member of the free world?
  - hath995 8y ago
    Maybe try not raping or abusing people or other illegal activities and don't suffer economic punishment?
    - kstenerud 8y ago
      I'm... At a loss for words. Do you not trust your own justice system?

dsajames 8y ago

He's not being extremely callous. He's just saying your opinion shouldn't be forced on him. The suffering of others doesn't need to be his problem. We can discourage that with prison and fines. No need to drag the consumer in on a forced march through some rabid vigilante social assassination.