5 ms·

By this standard, many, of not most of the artists that lived prior to the Civil Rights Era are to be thrown out. I don't really want to study fluctuating leve

By this standard, many, of not most of the artists that lived prior to the Civil Rights Era are to be thrown out. I don't really want to study fluctuating levels of religious bigotry in Bach's life when I listen to his works.

victorbjorklund 10mo ago
We can hold people today to modern standards. You can’t burn a woman at the stake today and say ”oh well, 300 years ago it was normal so”.
- inglor_cz 10mo ago
  I can agree with this when it comes to actual violent actions, but not with regard to words or thoughts.
  - b3lvedere 10mo ago
    Laws are words
    - inglor_cz 10mo ago
      Laws consist of words, but making a law is something different than just saying something. It is an act, and indeed American laws are often (or always?) called Acts.
  - victorbjorklund 10mo ago
    First of all, I think we can definitely say that certain words are bad. if somebody is saying that they want to have sex with a child, we can tell them this is something bad and that we don't agree with this. And pretty much all countries in the world limit what we can say. You're not allowed in the US to, for example, threaten the US president with murder, even if it's just words.
shimman 10mo ago
What's wrong with this tho? Maybe we should stop uplifting people when we find out they are nasty individuals. Acting like there aren't also artists that are good people is odd, these are the ones deserving our attention. FWIW, I use to be a big fan of Crystal Castles (like listening to 4+ hours a day for close to a decade). It was a core part of my culture diet. Once it was known that Ethan Kath was a sexual predator that groomed teenage girls, I simply stopped listening or talking about them ever. Why is this hard? IDK, it really feels like people put too much of their identity into cultural objects when they lack real communities and people in their lives. Also throwing it out there, I don't really know much about Scott Adams (or his work for that matter). Dilbert comics weren't widespread memes on the phpBB forums I'd post on throughout the 00s and 10s. edit: spelling
- rglullis 10mo ago
  Why is it so difficult to separate the work from its creator?
  - b3lvedere 10mo ago
    Without the creator no work. Can i like the work and hate the creator? Absolutely.
- inglor_cz 10mo ago
  "What's wrong with this tho?" The thing that is wrong about it is that the purity spiral may get out of control and result in wholesale purging of art, Iconoclast-style (or perhaps Cultural Revolution-style). I don't trust people with an instinct to purge history. They rarely know when to stop. Plus, standards change a lot. Picasso had a teenage mistress. It wasn't as scandalous back then. Should we really be so arrogant as to push our current standards on the entire humanity that once was? If yes, we will be obliterated by the next generation that applies the same logic to us, only with a different set of taboos.
  - stetrain 10mo ago
    "Acknowledge the ugliness and try to do better" and purging art and history are different things. The comment you replied to above did not call for a purging of Adams' work or life from history.
RIMR 10mo ago
Enjoy Bach's music all you want, but when I read his biography those difficult details better be in there, and if that ruins his music for you that's on you.
zemo 10mo ago
I think there's a big difference between the following: - enjoying the work of an unrepentant bigot who died hundreds of years ago, whose work is in the public domain, who does not materially benefit from your spectatorship (what with them being dead and all) - enjoying the work of an unrepentant bigot who is alive today, whose work they have ownership of, who materially benefits from your spectatorship - enjoying the work of an unrepentant bigot who died mere minutes ago, whose work is owned by their estate, whose heirs materially benefit from your spectatorship I think the first category is fine, the second category is unambiguously not fine, and the third category is ambiguous, but I would err on the side of "don't consume".
- inglor_cz 10mo ago
  Is it fine to pirate such works, then? I don't think I ever paid for a Dilbert comics strip, though I never downloaded them from somewhere illegal either.
  - zemo 10mo ago
    I personally would go with no, because you're still propagating their cultural product. One rarely consumes media with the intention of keeping it a secret; half the point of watching a movie or tv show is to talk about it. The entire sociological function of celebrities is that we talk about them. "I am doing research on Scott Adams and I want to consume some Dilbert as a research device", um, sure, I guess, I dunno, why are you doing research on a recently dead bigot, what is the purpose of that. etc. I'm not -your- conscience, I can only explain my own. To me? No, that's not fine.
mempko 10mo ago
In any period of history, there are people who know things are wrong and are vocal about it. There are artists prior to the Civil Rights Era that were not bigots. The problem you have is the artists that were celebrated AT THAT TIME which we know about were also those accepted by the status quo which allowed them to be known. People knew slavery was wrong when slavery was happening. People knew child labor was wrong when child labor was happening. People knew segregation was wrong when segregation was happening. Those people were not rewarded by society.
- inglor_cz 10mo ago
  People also "knew" that being gay was wrong, being atheist was wrong, universal suffrage was wrong or consuming marijuana was wrong. This isn't a reliable method of determining morality.

victorbjorklund 10mo ago

We can hold people today to modern standards. You can’t burn a woman at the stake today and say ”oh well, 300 years ago it was normal so”.

inglor_cz 10mo ago
I can agree with this when it comes to actual violent actions, but not with regard to words or thoughts.
- b3lvedere 10mo ago
  Laws are words
  - inglor_cz 10mo ago
    Laws consist of words, but making a law is something different than just saying something. It is an act, and indeed American laws are often (or always?) called Acts.
- victorbjorklund 10mo ago
  First of all, I think we can definitely say that certain words are bad. if somebody is saying that they want to have sex with a child, we can tell them this is something bad and that we don't agree with this. And pretty much all countries in the world limit what we can say. You're not allowed in the US to, for example, threaten the US president with murder, even if it's just words.

shimman 10mo ago

What's wrong with this tho? Maybe we should stop uplifting people when we find out they are nasty individuals. Acting like there aren't also artists that are good people is odd, these are the ones deserving our attention. FWIW, I use to be a big fan of Crystal Castles (like listening to 4+ hours a day for close to a decade). It was a core part of my culture diet. Once it was known that Ethan Kath was a sexual predator that groomed teenage girls, I simply stopped listening or talking about them ever. Why is this hard? IDK, it really feels like people put too much of their identity into cultural objects when they lack real communities and people in their lives. Also throwing it out there, I don't really know much about Scott Adams (or his work for that matter). Dilbert comics weren't widespread memes on the phpBB forums I'd post on throughout the 00s and 10s. edit: spelling

rglullis 10mo ago
Why is it so difficult to separate the work from its creator?
- b3lvedere 10mo ago
  Without the creator no work. Can i like the work and hate the creator? Absolutely.
inglor_cz 10mo ago
"What's wrong with this tho?" The thing that is wrong about it is that the purity spiral may get out of control and result in wholesale purging of art, Iconoclast-style (or perhaps Cultural Revolution-style). I don't trust people with an instinct to purge history. They rarely know when to stop. Plus, standards change a lot. Picasso had a teenage mistress. It wasn't as scandalous back then. Should we really be so arrogant as to push our current standards on the entire humanity that once was? If yes, we will be obliterated by the next generation that applies the same logic to us, only with a different set of taboos.
- stetrain 10mo ago
  "Acknowledge the ugliness and try to do better" and purging art and history are different things. The comment you replied to above did not call for a purging of Adams' work or life from history.

RIMR 10mo ago

Enjoy Bach's music all you want, but when I read his biography those difficult details better be in there, and if that ruins his music for you that's on you.

zemo 10mo ago

I think there's a big difference between the following: - enjoying the work of an unrepentant bigot who died hundreds of years ago, whose work is in the public domain, who does not materially benefit from your spectatorship (what with them being dead and all) - enjoying the work of an unrepentant bigot who is alive today, whose work they have ownership of, who materially benefits from your spectatorship - enjoying the work of an unrepentant bigot who died mere minutes ago, whose work is owned by their estate, whose heirs materially benefit from your spectatorship I think the first category is fine, the second category is unambiguously not fine, and the third category is ambiguous, but I would err on the side of "don't consume".

inglor_cz 10mo ago
Is it fine to pirate such works, then? I don't think I ever paid for a Dilbert comics strip, though I never downloaded them from somewhere illegal either.
- zemo 10mo ago
  I personally would go with no, because you're still propagating their cultural product. One rarely consumes media with the intention of keeping it a secret; half the point of watching a movie or tv show is to talk about it. The entire sociological function of celebrities is that we talk about them. "I am doing research on Scott Adams and I want to consume some Dilbert as a research device", um, sure, I guess, I dunno, why are you doing research on a recently dead bigot, what is the purpose of that. etc. I'm not -your- conscience, I can only explain my own. To me? No, that's not fine.

mempko 10mo ago

In any period of history, there are people who know things are wrong and are vocal about it. There are artists prior to the Civil Rights Era that were not bigots. The problem you have is the artists that were celebrated AT THAT TIME which we know about were also those accepted by the status quo which allowed them to be known. People knew slavery was wrong when slavery was happening. People knew child labor was wrong when child labor was happening. People knew segregation was wrong when segregation was happening. Those people were not rewarded by society.

inglor_cz 10mo ago
People also "knew" that being gay was wrong, being atheist was wrong, universal suffrage was wrong or consuming marijuana was wrong. This isn't a reliable method of determining morality.