3 ms·

No, that's not the point. This is not about any famous person being entitled to anything. Her point is that "the arts consumer" is entitled to make their own de

No, that's not the point. This is not about any famous person being entitled to anything. Her point is that "the arts consumer" is entitled to make their own decision about what to read and watch and think. We are hampered in this by posturing platforms and by the mob's simplistic "by association" mental model of evil. I can hold entertainers to any standard I like, or none at all. I can judge them for the subset of crimes that are topical to judge them for, or some other arbitrary subset of my choosing. Or, I can take the words "gratia artis" literally.

jakelazaroff 8y ago
I understand her point, it's just not consistent. Where is my option to support people who would have had a career had it not been killed by some powerful abuser? The choice isn't "art or no art". That choice is made for us when someone decides to wield their power over someone else. Our only choice is which art we ignore: that of famous abusers or that of their victims. The "arts consumer" loses out either way.
- arduanika 8y ago
  > Where is my option...? There is an established path for group action here: 1. Vote 2. Pass a law that says powerful abusers are bad 3. When someone's convicted of wielding power in a mean way, the justice system will punish them by due process 4. People learn what will get punished 5. The artists you wish you could see will be less scared away 6. You get the art you want! Notice how throughout this entire process, you don't get to tell me, of the art that exists today, what I'm allowed to read or watch or listen to. On the other hand, cheating that hangman and bullying the platforms feels a little bit like, how to say, wielding your power over someone else.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    This would be a much more convincing argument if 3-6 weren't extremely rare despite 1 and 2 already existing. It's not really "cheating the hangman". He's not doing his job, so we have to deal with it on our own. Which sucks, because I agree: your proposal is way better.
    - arduanika 8y ago
      > He's not doing his job, so we have to deal with it on our own. Ah yes, this is how everyone starts to think after a long glut of too many superhero movies. Criminal law has/will come down hard upon Cosby and Weinstein and such. Other alleged offenders will settle claims and lose out on future employment. Step 5 is looking way brighter in this generation than in the last. But step 3, not vigilantism, is really the best system we have for deciding between innocence and guilt.

jakelazaroff 8y ago

I understand her point, it's just not consistent. Where is my option to support people who would have had a career had it not been killed by some powerful abuser? The choice isn't "art or no art". That choice is made for us when someone decides to wield their power over someone else. Our only choice is which art we ignore: that of famous abusers or that of their victims. The "arts consumer" loses out either way.

arduanika 8y ago
> Where is my option...? There is an established path for group action here: 1. Vote 2. Pass a law that says powerful abusers are bad 3. When someone's convicted of wielding power in a mean way, the justice system will punish them by due process 4. People learn what will get punished 5. The artists you wish you could see will be less scared away 6. You get the art you want! Notice how throughout this entire process, you don't get to tell me, of the art that exists today, what I'm allowed to read or watch or listen to. On the other hand, cheating that hangman and bullying the platforms feels a little bit like, how to say, wielding your power over someone else.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  This would be a much more convincing argument if 3-6 weren't extremely rare despite 1 and 2 already existing. It's not really "cheating the hangman". He's not doing his job, so we have to deal with it on our own. Which sucks, because I agree: your proposal is way better.
  - arduanika 8y ago
    > He's not doing his job, so we have to deal with it on our own. Ah yes, this is how everyone starts to think after a long glut of too many superhero movies. Criminal law has/will come down hard upon Cosby and Weinstein and such. Other alleged offenders will settle claims and lose out on future employment. Step 5 is looking way brighter in this generation than in the last. But step 3, not vigilantism, is really the best system we have for deciding between innocence and guilt.