4 ms·

While I appreciate that the author rightly calls out the cult-like mob justice of the progressive movement as overly cruel and destructive, the final section re

While I appreciate that the author rightly calls out the cult-like mob justice of the progressive movement as overly cruel and destructive, the final section reveals an inherently selfish motive for this piece. He appears less concerned with artists being treated fairly or justly and more with whether he can enjoy what they made after the person has been destroyed. IMHO, here's something devilish about seeing societal injustices, pretending it's futile to fight back, but then pleading for society to spare the art from their rampage. If we're going to let this be the new status quo, then protecting the art should be the least of our worries.

whoopshanon 8y ago
As the author gists at: what if we found out that Michealangelo uninvitedly touched a woman’s bottom. Should we then deplatform him, remove his works, and paint over the Sistine Chapel in an appeasing off white so that no one else were to subject to his transgressions?
- AgentME 8y ago
  I think the equation changes a lot once they're dead.
  - writepub 8y ago
    Why? Why not stop at the legally stipulated punishment proportionate to the crime. Why is there a need to deplatform someone to the same degree, regardless of the gravity of their crime?
    - MisterBastahrd 8y ago
      Well, for one, because we can judge them by the era in which they lived and what the societal standards were at the time. There was no point in time in Bill Cosby's career where drugging a woman to rape her was ever okay. There was no point in time in Louis CK's career where masturbating in front of female subordinates was ever okay. Who knows what went on during Michaelangelo's era?
    - AgentME 8y ago
      Networks don't necessarily stop reruns just to participate in the punishment of someone. They do it because the audience's perception of someone is changed. Bill Cosby's work and Roseanne weren't directly changed for example, but in their new contexts, many people are uncomfortable now. The networks want to run what people like. If they think people would generally like a different show now over those old reruns, then they're just keeping up with the market. They don't need a court's approval for that.
- tveita 8y ago
  I don't see the need for tortured hypotheticals when history is already full of flawed artists. You can still get copies of Mein Kampf, how's that for deplatforming. The point isn't to erase people from history, but to stop rewarding, glorifying and shielding them.
Nasrudith 8y ago
Yeah my first reaction was "what makes artists so special"? There are many careers penalized far worse for less and unpunished with far greater power and potential for abuse. Teachers get fired for being in a porn video in college while literally shooting someone innocent dead without another valid threat leads to no repercussions. Cynically it seems power makes you less culpable instead of more and the extent of "morality" is what you do with genitals instead of anything else. And those outside the norm are more culpable to the extreme of "should have been superhuman". It is a deep seated stupidity and evil.
arduanika 8y ago
> whether he can enjoy It's actually > whether she can enjoy But really, her point is a more selfless one: > whether we can enjoy And also, > pretending it's futile to fight back Does Shriver engage in such pretense? Or is this a strawman?

whoopshanon 8y ago

As the author gists at: what if we found out that Michealangelo uninvitedly touched a woman’s bottom. Should we then deplatform him, remove his works, and paint over the Sistine Chapel in an appeasing off white so that no one else were to subject to his transgressions?

AgentME 8y ago
I think the equation changes a lot once they're dead.
- writepub 8y ago
  Why? Why not stop at the legally stipulated punishment proportionate to the crime. Why is there a need to deplatform someone to the same degree, regardless of the gravity of their crime?
  - MisterBastahrd 8y ago
    Well, for one, because we can judge them by the era in which they lived and what the societal standards were at the time. There was no point in time in Bill Cosby's career where drugging a woman to rape her was ever okay. There was no point in time in Louis CK's career where masturbating in front of female subordinates was ever okay. Who knows what went on during Michaelangelo's era?
  - AgentME 8y ago
    Networks don't necessarily stop reruns just to participate in the punishment of someone. They do it because the audience's perception of someone is changed. Bill Cosby's work and Roseanne weren't directly changed for example, but in their new contexts, many people are uncomfortable now. The networks want to run what people like. If they think people would generally like a different show now over those old reruns, then they're just keeping up with the market. They don't need a court's approval for that.
tveita 8y ago
I don't see the need for tortured hypotheticals when history is already full of flawed artists. You can still get copies of Mein Kampf, how's that for deplatforming. The point isn't to erase people from history, but to stop rewarding, glorifying and shielding them.

Nasrudith 8y ago

Yeah my first reaction was "what makes artists so special"? There are many careers penalized far worse for less and unpunished with far greater power and potential for abuse. Teachers get fired for being in a porn video in college while literally shooting someone innocent dead without another valid threat leads to no repercussions. Cynically it seems power makes you less culpable instead of more and the extent of "morality" is what you do with genitals instead of anything else. And those outside the norm are more culpable to the extreme of "should have been superhuman". It is a deep seated stupidity and evil.

arduanika 8y ago

> whether he can enjoy It's actually > whether she can enjoy But really, her point is a more selfless one: > whether we can enjoy And also, > pretending it's futile to fight back Does Shriver engage in such pretense? Or is this a strawman?