6 ms·

> he pointed out that by insisting on maintaining ignorance, I could be funding a very bad person. I don't consider that to be something worth worrying about.

by bigstrat2003 3mo ago

> he pointed out that by insisting on maintaining ignorance, I could be funding a very bad person. I don't consider that to be something worth worrying about. On the contrary, I find the obsession that some have with moral purity and not ever supporting the wrong type of person to be a serious mark of immaturity. Every person, without exception, is a collection of both good and bad traits. I believe that the adult thing to do is to encourage and reward the good, while discouraging and punishing the bad. When I support an artist's work, I do not thereby endorse everything that person does. I think that the desire to reduce everyone to "good guy" or "bad guy" (and acting towards them accordingly) is literally the sort of thing one would expect from a child, not an adult who has learned to have some nuance in thinking.

Nursie 3mo ago
I think the desire to not have to be accountable for ones choices and their effect on the world is also childlike, personally. One of the powers we have in this capitalist world is to decide where our money goes. If there's a decent chance it'll end up perpetuating something I find massively objectionable, it's my choice not to fund that. Beyond that it's not just about reducing everything to good or bad, it's also about understanding the context of the works you're consuming. Sometimes the author's life, prejudices and mores seep into the work, and put a new spin on the characters and scenarios.
- teddyh 3mo ago
  > One of the powers we have in this capitalist world is to decide where our money goes. If there's a decent chance it'll end up perpetuating something I find massively objectionable, it's my choice not to fund that. “I believe that almost everyone fails to completely understand how badly they need the people they can’t stand.” — Jason K. Pargin: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3GzrYI8Tj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3GzrYI8Tj4>
  - Nursie 3mo ago
    “It's not easy being green.” - Kermit The Frog: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRZ-IxZ46ng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRZ-IxZ46ng> Eh, I'm not watching a video to see a quote from someone I've never heard of and have no particular reason to value. And whatever he might have to say, I'm not reliant on the work of a specific author, which is the context here. Nor do I buy into "you can't survive without relying on/funding some people you disagree with therefore you shouldn't seek to act consistently with your own ethics in any regard" as a philosophy.
    - teddyh 3mo ago
      > Eh, I'm not watching a video to see a quote from someone I've never heard of and have no particular reason to value. Your loss. > Nor do I buy into "you can't survive without relying on/funding some people you disagree with therefore you shouldn't seek to act consistently with your own ethics in any regard" as a philosophy. But what exactly is your ethics here? Is it that nobody should rely on people who have done something bad? If it is, then how should these condemned people live? And if not, would you then happily allow other people to rely on them, without decrying those people, as well?
      - Nursie 3mo ago
        > Your loss. Seems unlikely. I'd have read an argument but I don't generally consider links-to-youtube to be an argument. > Is it that nobody should rely on people who have done something bad? My point is it's not impossible to make ethical choices about spending, even in a world where you don't have full control. The idea that it is wrong to make ethical decisions about how to spend your money, time or attention, either because the system we live in makes complete consistency impossible or because of some notion that we might force people judged as bad to starve, is just so bizarre. A thread here the other day covered several brands of "Italian" or "Australian" tomato paste in Australia that have been caught using Chinese tomatoes, which are largely from areas we know use forced labour. I don't approve of forced labour and I'm willing to pay a little more to avoid contributing to that. If enough others join me, it might make a small difference. By directing what economic activity I can to products from nations with good standards of worker rights, I hope I help keep slavery-free products viable, until such time as we get a government with a backbone. But am I boycotting everything made in China? Could I even conceptually avoid using all Chinese products when they're literally everywhere? No, that seems very unlikely to even be possible in this day and age. But I don't consider that the inability to do that negates the choices I make where I can. Your quote makes it seem like you do think that? All or nothing? Go live in a locally made yurt and grow your own food or just give up? > If it is, then how should these condemned people live? Well if there's no more profit to be had in selling the output of indentured servitude, it might stop? And these "condemned" people could do something else to make a living rather than being slavers? If a particular author was known to be (for example) funding white supremacist groups, am I supposed to feel guilt that I might not buy their book? Why? They need to eat? Maybe they could stop the funding then? Now, where your specific red lines are is going to be variable, and where it comes to artistic output things are always blurry. But I still don't think it's wrong to ask "Where is my money going? What second order effect is this purchase having on the world?" An author who abandoned his family and lied about large parts of his life is clearly not a good person. Whether that puts you off reading them is up to you. I still (occasionally) reread HP Lovecraft, with the knowledge he was a pretty godawful racist, even for his times, and so is some of his work. That said, buying a book of his isn't going to fund him or his views these days, as there is no identifiable estate.
- jimnotgym 3mo ago
  I am quite sure that not a penny from my purchase of Master and Commander went to Patrick O'Brian.
  - Nursie 3mo ago
    Just as I am sure that not a single penny of my purchase of Tales of the Cthulu Mythos went to HP Lovecraft. But knowing about the artist can still inform views about the art.
tecoholic 3mo ago
Someone pointed it out to me that, if a person does something bad and faces the consequences by law, then that should be the end of it. Applying a personal punishment individually like avoiding anything they have involved in, is pointless or even unfair. It can’t apply to all scenarios. But that struck me as an important thing to consider. Sometimes people get out of the consequences by using the riches they accumulated by being bad.
- soco 3mo ago
  Why are we even thinking about "fairness" in this context? It's not like we read every book in the world, in order to be fair to all authors. Or all genres, all qualities, all equally. You have to make some choices and actually make every second a choice, to pick a book, to pick it up, to continue it after page 100...
  - tecoholic 3mo ago
    I don’t think it’s that fairness. It’s about - what’s a fair amount of punishment? Since society has created the laws and laid down mechanisms to punish wrongs, each person then individually deciding to punish the person is unfair in a civilised society. P.S: I was writing it as a response to the my parent comment. I haven’t read C&G books and don’t know this author.

Nursie 3mo ago

I think the desire to not have to be accountable for ones choices and their effect on the world is also childlike, personally. One of the powers we have in this capitalist world is to decide where our money goes. If there's a decent chance it'll end up perpetuating something I find massively objectionable, it's my choice not to fund that. Beyond that it's not just about reducing everything to good or bad, it's also about understanding the context of the works you're consuming. Sometimes the author's life, prejudices and mores seep into the work, and put a new spin on the characters and scenarios.

teddyh 3mo ago
> One of the powers we have in this capitalist world is to decide where our money goes. If there's a decent chance it'll end up perpetuating something I find massively objectionable, it's my choice not to fund that. “I believe that almost everyone fails to completely understand how badly they need the people they can’t stand.” — Jason K. Pargin: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3GzrYI8Tj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3GzrYI8Tj4>
- Nursie 3mo ago
  “It's not easy being green.” - Kermit The Frog: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRZ-IxZ46ng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRZ-IxZ46ng> Eh, I'm not watching a video to see a quote from someone I've never heard of and have no particular reason to value. And whatever he might have to say, I'm not reliant on the work of a specific author, which is the context here. Nor do I buy into "you can't survive without relying on/funding some people you disagree with therefore you shouldn't seek to act consistently with your own ethics in any regard" as a philosophy.
  - teddyh 3mo ago
    > Eh, I'm not watching a video to see a quote from someone I've never heard of and have no particular reason to value. Your loss. > Nor do I buy into "you can't survive without relying on/funding some people you disagree with therefore you shouldn't seek to act consistently with your own ethics in any regard" as a philosophy. But what exactly is your ethics here? Is it that nobody should rely on people who have done something bad? If it is, then how should these condemned people live? And if not, would you then happily allow other people to rely on them, without decrying those people, as well?
    - Nursie 3mo ago
      > Your loss. Seems unlikely. I'd have read an argument but I don't generally consider links-to-youtube to be an argument. > Is it that nobody should rely on people who have done something bad? My point is it's not impossible to make ethical choices about spending, even in a world where you don't have full control. The idea that it is wrong to make ethical decisions about how to spend your money, time or attention, either because the system we live in makes complete consistency impossible or because of some notion that we might force people judged as bad to starve, is just so bizarre. A thread here the other day covered several brands of "Italian" or "Australian" tomato paste in Australia that have been caught using Chinese tomatoes, which are largely from areas we know use forced labour. I don't approve of forced labour and I'm willing to pay a little more to avoid contributing to that. If enough others join me, it might make a small difference. By directing what economic activity I can to products from nations with good standards of worker rights, I hope I help keep slavery-free products viable, until such time as we get a government with a backbone. But am I boycotting everything made in China? Could I even conceptually avoid using all Chinese products when they're literally everywhere? No, that seems very unlikely to even be possible in this day and age. But I don't consider that the inability to do that negates the choices I make where I can. Your quote makes it seem like you do think that? All or nothing? Go live in a locally made yurt and grow your own food or just give up? > If it is, then how should these condemned people live? Well if there's no more profit to be had in selling the output of indentured servitude, it might stop? And these "condemned" people could do something else to make a living rather than being slavers? If a particular author was known to be (for example) funding white supremacist groups, am I supposed to feel guilt that I might not buy their book? Why? They need to eat? Maybe they could stop the funding then? Now, where your specific red lines are is going to be variable, and where it comes to artistic output things are always blurry. But I still don't think it's wrong to ask "Where is my money going? What second order effect is this purchase having on the world?" An author who abandoned his family and lied about large parts of his life is clearly not a good person. Whether that puts you off reading them is up to you. I still (occasionally) reread HP Lovecraft, with the knowledge he was a pretty godawful racist, even for his times, and so is some of his work. That said, buying a book of his isn't going to fund him or his views these days, as there is no identifiable estate.
jimnotgym 3mo ago
I am quite sure that not a penny from my purchase of Master and Commander went to Patrick O'Brian.
- Nursie 3mo ago
  Just as I am sure that not a single penny of my purchase of Tales of the Cthulu Mythos went to HP Lovecraft. But knowing about the artist can still inform views about the art.

tecoholic 3mo ago

Someone pointed it out to me that, if a person does something bad and faces the consequences by law, then that should be the end of it. Applying a personal punishment individually like avoiding anything they have involved in, is pointless or even unfair. It can’t apply to all scenarios. But that struck me as an important thing to consider. Sometimes people get out of the consequences by using the riches they accumulated by being bad.

soco 3mo ago
Why are we even thinking about "fairness" in this context? It's not like we read every book in the world, in order to be fair to all authors. Or all genres, all qualities, all equally. You have to make some choices and actually make every second a choice, to pick a book, to pick it up, to continue it after page 100...
- tecoholic 3mo ago
  I don’t think it’s that fairness. It’s about - what’s a fair amount of punishment? Since society has created the laws and laid down mechanisms to punish wrongs, each person then individually deciding to punish the person is unfair in a civilised society. P.S: I was writing it as a response to the my parent comment. I haven’t read C&G books and don’t know this author.