4 ms·

I'm glad you brought up "in the age of the internet" because there's a part of "separate the art from the artist" that I don't see discussed enough: In the int

I'm glad you brought up "in the age of the internet" because there's a part of "separate the art from the artist" that I don't see discussed enough: In the internet age, simply consuming an artists media funds the artist. Get as philosophical as you'd like while separating the art from the artist, but if they're still alive you're still basically saying "look you're a piece of shit but here's a couple of bucks anyways".

mjr00 9mo ago
> but you're still basically saying "look you're a piece of shit but here's a couple of bucks anyways". Is it ethical to buy Dilbert books now that Adams is dead and the money's not going to him?
- c-hendricks 9mo ago
  Still depends on where the money ultimately goes.
  - Nevermark 9mo ago
    As I once noted to a homeopath regarding their extensive selection of impossibly diluted water remedies, by their own dictum, it's all toilet water.
- pc86 9mo ago
  If you (the royal you) thought it was unethical to buy a Dilbert book because the person who stood to make something like $4 off of it had some views you disagree with, you are a broken person. Even if Adams agreed with every single opinion you had, it's a statistical certainty that a dozen people who also make money off that book have views you find reprehensible.
  - apparent 9mo ago
    Good point, retailers typically get 50% of the purchase price, which means that they're getting as much as the author/printer/editor/marketer/etc. all combined. So perhaps if you bought the book from a bookstore you wanted to support (assuming they would carry it), that could outweigh the impact to the author.
    - Imustaskforhelp 9mo ago
      We are really chartering into utilitarian line of thinking here. Nothing wrong with that and I may be overthinking but utilitarian line of thinking is the reason why a lot of issues actually happen because Politicians might promise something on an utilitarian premise where there real premise might be unknown. Morals are certainly in question as well and where does one stop in the utilitarian line of thinking But I overall agree with your statement and I wish to expand on it that if we are thinking about offsetting, one of the ideas can be to keep on buying even books written by many authors, overall aggregate can be net positive impact so perhaps we can treat it as a bank of sorts from which we can withdraw some impact.
      - pc86 9mo ago
        > Politicians might promise something on an utilitarian premise where there real premise might be unknown. At the risk of drifting off topic, what does it matter if you agree with the policy? If I want my member of Congress to vote yes on a particular issue, and they will vote yes, does it matter to me what their motives are?
  - LexiMax 9mo ago
    > you are a broken person On the contrary, I think folks that always try to find some sort of hypocrisy in how folks choose to not spend their money are broken. It seems too cynical by half, and completely discards any sort of relative morality to one's purchasing decisions. I have also long suspected that there is a selfish motivation to it - as if to assuage your (again, the royal your) own morality about how you choose to spend your own money, you need to tear down other people's choices.
    - pc86 9mo ago
      My chief complaint is not only that it's spitting into a headwind during a rainstorm, but also just the performative nature of it. Someone enjoys Adams' (Adams's?) work, presumably for years or even decades. He says something gross. That person then, in order to deprive this multi-millionaire of a few dollars, not only deprives themselves of something they ostensibly enjoy[ed], but also has to turn it into a moral or ethical question so they can either feel better about it themselves, or feel superior to people who a) don't really care what Adams said or did, or b) care but are capable of separating the art from the artist. It's the same kind of performative virtue signaling that led someone at the New York Times to call him racist twice in the first two sentences of his own obituary.
      - wussboy 9mo ago
        In fact, some of every dollar you spend _must_ go to people you would find reprehensible if only you knew them better. Bought a Slurpee at 7-11? There's almost certainly someone in that corporation who will share ever-so-slightly in the revenue your $0.98 of sugar water brought in. Ignore is not only bliss, but necessary.
        Imustaskforhelp 9mo ago
        Adding onto this, we all pay some forms of taxes one way or other and those taxes are sometimes used by govts to then either be lost in corruption or scandals or the govt itself spends it on something you might not appreciate if you know the full context of details (especially when they pertain to war) > Ignore is not only bliss, but necessary. It honestly depends on the time, if we as a society wants change, some amount of uncomfort is needed to better shape it for the needs/affordability of the average person but also a lot of people don't want to face that uncomfort so they wish to be ignorant partially being the reason that some of the issues are able to persist even in a democratic system
  - lynndotpy 9mo ago
    "You are a broken person" is not an appropriate response for someone engaging in a personal boycott. This is verbiage of flamebait and it really doesn't belong here.
  - vintermann 9mo ago
    "Ethical" is the wrong lens to see it through. I have only so much money to spend on art. I'd rather use it on something I wholeheartedly like. Ideally, something that wouldn't exist unless I supported it (art buyers, even if we are artists outselves, should not be "gilding the lily" and heap money on artists who don't need it).
- pfdietz 9mo ago
  Ethical? I'd say it would be fine. Tolerable? I couldn't enjoy the books. It's like when I found out about the Breendoggle and tossed all my MZB books in the recycling bin.
nickthegreek 9mo ago
People consume media without paying anyone. The internet is kinda famous for it.
- pc86 9mo ago
  Eyeballs increase ad revenue, just because you're not paying money doesn't mean the artist isn't making money.
  - retsibsi 9mo ago
    > Eyeballs increase ad revenue If you're blocking ads, I think this is usually false. (But I would appreciate a correction if I'm wrong, or more detail if it's complicated.)
    - KeplerBoy 9mo ago
      You still increase their algorithmic reach by viewing and interacting with their content. It really is voting with your eyeballs: whether you like or hate the content, if you have it on your screen, the creators benefit.
    - shiroiuma 9mo ago
      I disagree: network effects are still present even if you block ads. You tell your friends about it, they tell their friends, etc. Only a small fraction of people bother to block ads (or even know about ad-blocking), so the loss in ad revenue to those people is offset by the gain from their friends seeing the ads.
    - pc86 9mo ago
      In addition to the two replies below, which are both accurate, most people don't block any ads.
- c-hendricks 9mo ago
  It's true, piracy does get around the whole monetary side of the equation.
- 9mo ago
BurningFrog 9mo ago
That makes a certain kind of sense. Then again looking at the table, laptop, and protein drink in front of me, I know that many people were involved in making and shipping them. Some were quite possibly rapists, racists and/or worse. And I don't find myself caring at all. This is something special about art, isn't it?
- dostick 9mo ago
  That’s interesting analogy! With art, you re receiving something that’s not physically consumed but informs you or even changes your mind - depends how that art works for you.

mjr00 9mo ago

> but you're still basically saying "look you're a piece of shit but here's a couple of bucks anyways". Is it ethical to buy Dilbert books now that Adams is dead and the money's not going to him?

c-hendricks 9mo ago
Still depends on where the money ultimately goes.
- Nevermark 9mo ago
  As I once noted to a homeopath regarding their extensive selection of impossibly diluted water remedies, by their own dictum, it's all toilet water.
pc86 9mo ago
If you (the royal you) thought it was unethical to buy a Dilbert book because the person who stood to make something like $4 off of it had some views you disagree with, you are a broken person. Even if Adams agreed with every single opinion you had, it's a statistical certainty that a dozen people who also make money off that book have views you find reprehensible.
- apparent 9mo ago
  Good point, retailers typically get 50% of the purchase price, which means that they're getting as much as the author/printer/editor/marketer/etc. all combined. So perhaps if you bought the book from a bookstore you wanted to support (assuming they would carry it), that could outweigh the impact to the author.
  - Imustaskforhelp 9mo ago
    We are really chartering into utilitarian line of thinking here. Nothing wrong with that and I may be overthinking but utilitarian line of thinking is the reason why a lot of issues actually happen because Politicians might promise something on an utilitarian premise where there real premise might be unknown. Morals are certainly in question as well and where does one stop in the utilitarian line of thinking But I overall agree with your statement and I wish to expand on it that if we are thinking about offsetting, one of the ideas can be to keep on buying even books written by many authors, overall aggregate can be net positive impact so perhaps we can treat it as a bank of sorts from which we can withdraw some impact.
    - pc86 9mo ago
      > Politicians might promise something on an utilitarian premise where there real premise might be unknown. At the risk of drifting off topic, what does it matter if you agree with the policy? If I want my member of Congress to vote yes on a particular issue, and they will vote yes, does it matter to me what their motives are?
- LexiMax 9mo ago
  > you are a broken person On the contrary, I think folks that always try to find some sort of hypocrisy in how folks choose to not spend their money are broken. It seems too cynical by half, and completely discards any sort of relative morality to one's purchasing decisions. I have also long suspected that there is a selfish motivation to it - as if to assuage your (again, the royal your) own morality about how you choose to spend your own money, you need to tear down other people's choices.
  - pc86 9mo ago
    My chief complaint is not only that it's spitting into a headwind during a rainstorm, but also just the performative nature of it. Someone enjoys Adams' (Adams's?) work, presumably for years or even decades. He says something gross. That person then, in order to deprive this multi-millionaire of a few dollars, not only deprives themselves of something they ostensibly enjoy[ed], but also has to turn it into a moral or ethical question so they can either feel better about it themselves, or feel superior to people who a) don't really care what Adams said or did, or b) care but are capable of separating the art from the artist. It's the same kind of performative virtue signaling that led someone at the New York Times to call him racist twice in the first two sentences of his own obituary.
    - wussboy 9mo ago
      In fact, some of every dollar you spend _must_ go to people you would find reprehensible if only you knew them better. Bought a Slurpee at 7-11? There's almost certainly someone in that corporation who will share ever-so-slightly in the revenue your $0.98 of sugar water brought in. Ignore is not only bliss, but necessary.
      - Imustaskforhelp 9mo ago
        Adding onto this, we all pay some forms of taxes one way or other and those taxes are sometimes used by govts to then either be lost in corruption or scandals or the govt itself spends it on something you might not appreciate if you know the full context of details (especially when they pertain to war) > Ignore is not only bliss, but necessary. It honestly depends on the time, if we as a society wants change, some amount of uncomfort is needed to better shape it for the needs/affordability of the average person but also a lot of people don't want to face that uncomfort so they wish to be ignorant partially being the reason that some of the issues are able to persist even in a democratic system
- lynndotpy 9mo ago
  "You are a broken person" is not an appropriate response for someone engaging in a personal boycott. This is verbiage of flamebait and it really doesn't belong here.
- vintermann 9mo ago
  "Ethical" is the wrong lens to see it through. I have only so much money to spend on art. I'd rather use it on something I wholeheartedly like. Ideally, something that wouldn't exist unless I supported it (art buyers, even if we are artists outselves, should not be "gilding the lily" and heap money on artists who don't need it).
pfdietz 9mo ago
Ethical? I'd say it would be fine. Tolerable? I couldn't enjoy the books. It's like when I found out about the Breendoggle and tossed all my MZB books in the recycling bin.

nickthegreek 9mo ago

People consume media without paying anyone. The internet is kinda famous for it.

pc86 9mo ago
Eyeballs increase ad revenue, just because you're not paying money doesn't mean the artist isn't making money.
- retsibsi 9mo ago
  > Eyeballs increase ad revenue If you're blocking ads, I think this is usually false. (But I would appreciate a correction if I'm wrong, or more detail if it's complicated.)
  - KeplerBoy 9mo ago
    You still increase their algorithmic reach by viewing and interacting with their content. It really is voting with your eyeballs: whether you like or hate the content, if you have it on your screen, the creators benefit.
  - shiroiuma 9mo ago
    I disagree: network effects are still present even if you block ads. You tell your friends about it, they tell their friends, etc. Only a small fraction of people bother to block ads (or even know about ad-blocking), so the loss in ad revenue to those people is offset by the gain from their friends seeing the ads.
  - pc86 9mo ago
    In addition to the two replies below, which are both accurate, most people don't block any ads.
c-hendricks 9mo ago
It's true, piracy does get around the whole monetary side of the equation.
9mo ago

BurningFrog 9mo ago

That makes a certain kind of sense. Then again looking at the table, laptop, and protein drink in front of me, I know that many people were involved in making and shipping them. Some were quite possibly rapists, racists and/or worse. And I don't find myself caring at all. This is something special about art, isn't it?

dostick 9mo ago
That’s interesting analogy! With art, you re receiving something that’s not physically consumed but informs you or even changes your mind - depends how that art works for you.