5 ms·

> That sounds like an a posteriori justification for stealing, like saying "see, that building ended up being bombed, so it's a good thing I stole all these Ukr

> That sounds like an a posteriori justification for stealing, like saying "see, that building ended up being bombed, so it's a good thing I stole all these Ukrainian paintings from the country last year" There's a difference between justification and acknowledgement. Just because people are able to acknowledge that specific artifacts only exist because they were stolen, does not mean that they believe the original theft was "right or reasonable."

Ansil849 4y ago
> Just because people are able to acknowledge that specific artifacts only exist because they were stolen, does not mean that they believe the original theft was "right or reasonable." I mean...sure, but then what's the point of this facile acknowledgement? Yeah, if you hadn't burglarized my house yesterday, all my things would have burned up in the fire that happened there today. That's all well and good, except you still stole my shit. The fact that you inadvertently saved it from being burned is irrelevant to the action of the theft.
- dumpsterdiver 4y ago
  > I mean...sure, but then what's the point of this facile acknowledgement? Why should anything beyond facile acknowledgement be expected from the average person when it comes to appreciating artifacts that still exist on our planet? Is it a moral crime to simply appreciate a painting, even though it was stolen hundreds of years ago? Are people "justifying" that crime that happened before they were born, because they're glad that the painting still exists?
  - Ansil849 4y ago
    > Is it a moral crime to simply appreciate a painting, even though it was stolen hundreds of years ago? Yes. Because your enjoyment deprives the ancestors of the people who actually created it. Try personalizing this to see if it resonates. There's a quilt that has been in your family for centuries, with each family member adding a patch. At some point, your house is burglarized and the quilt is taken. Hundreds of years later, the quilt is around the world, being seen by people who have absolutely no connection to it, meanwhile your great^n children no longer have access to this piece of their cultural heritage.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      > Because your enjoyment deprives the ancestors of the people who actually created it. My enjoyment itself is what does that? What if viewing the artifact bores me to tears? No moral crime then?
      - Ansil849 4y ago
        The "moral crime" (a term the previous poster used, not me) is in knowingly patronizing something that houses stolen goods, not in whether you enjoyed them or not. 'Enjoyment' was just the example the previous poster used, the same would hold true if they had said 'hatred' instead of 'enjoyment'. If you come over to someone's house, and watch whatever is on their stolen TV, it doesn't matter if you're enjoying what's on the TV or if you hate the TV, by knowingly associating with the thief you're tacitly OKing their actions.
        robonerd 4y ago
        Oh okay, I'm in the clear then. I only visit the museums on the days they're open for free to the public.
        Ansil849 4y ago
        > I only visit the museums on the days they're open for free to the public. Right on, I hear ya. If museums want my money, they can break into my house and steal it, like they stole their artefacts.
    - stormbrew 4y ago
      And for that matter, if the people it was stolen from decided it wasn't worth preserving who are you to decide they're wrong? It's the height of colonial arrogance to assume we know better, that we can value the works of other cultures better than they can. That our enjoyment is more important than their history and self-determination.
      - 4y ago

Ansil849 4y ago

> Just because people are able to acknowledge that specific artifacts only exist because they were stolen, does not mean that they believe the original theft was "right or reasonable." I mean...sure, but then what's the point of this facile acknowledgement? Yeah, if you hadn't burglarized my house yesterday, all my things would have burned up in the fire that happened there today. That's all well and good, except you still stole my shit. The fact that you inadvertently saved it from being burned is irrelevant to the action of the theft.

dumpsterdiver 4y ago
> I mean...sure, but then what's the point of this facile acknowledgement? Why should anything beyond facile acknowledgement be expected from the average person when it comes to appreciating artifacts that still exist on our planet? Is it a moral crime to simply appreciate a painting, even though it was stolen hundreds of years ago? Are people "justifying" that crime that happened before they were born, because they're glad that the painting still exists?
- Ansil849 4y ago
  > Is it a moral crime to simply appreciate a painting, even though it was stolen hundreds of years ago? Yes. Because your enjoyment deprives the ancestors of the people who actually created it. Try personalizing this to see if it resonates. There's a quilt that has been in your family for centuries, with each family member adding a patch. At some point, your house is burglarized and the quilt is taken. Hundreds of years later, the quilt is around the world, being seen by people who have absolutely no connection to it, meanwhile your great^n children no longer have access to this piece of their cultural heritage.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    > Because your enjoyment deprives the ancestors of the people who actually created it. My enjoyment itself is what does that? What if viewing the artifact bores me to tears? No moral crime then?
    - Ansil849 4y ago
      The "moral crime" (a term the previous poster used, not me) is in knowingly patronizing something that houses stolen goods, not in whether you enjoyed them or not. 'Enjoyment' was just the example the previous poster used, the same would hold true if they had said 'hatred' instead of 'enjoyment'. If you come over to someone's house, and watch whatever is on their stolen TV, it doesn't matter if you're enjoying what's on the TV or if you hate the TV, by knowingly associating with the thief you're tacitly OKing their actions.
      - robonerd 4y ago
        Oh okay, I'm in the clear then. I only visit the museums on the days they're open for free to the public.
        Ansil849 4y ago
        > I only visit the museums on the days they're open for free to the public. Right on, I hear ya. If museums want my money, they can break into my house and steal it, like they stole their artefacts.
  - stormbrew 4y ago
    And for that matter, if the people it was stolen from decided it wasn't worth preserving who are you to decide they're wrong? It's the height of colonial arrogance to assume we know better, that we can value the works of other cultures better than they can. That our enjoyment is more important than their history and self-determination.
    - 4y ago