[RD] Morals of enjoying works made by people who have done bad things

[Traitorfish]

I always suspected art history as taught as a somehat bogus subject for people who were neither proper artists nor historians.

When I discovered that Britain's leading protagonist of the theory was Anthony Blunt later revealed as a soviet spy, I became convinced.

You surely appreciate that nobody except you has any idea how one could follow from the other.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Somebody is sure to quote him, might as well be me,
“Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault. Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only Beauty. There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.”
Oscar Wilde.

 

[Patine]

I'm sorry to some that my must use this quote, and the one who quotes was the founder of a religion that has become popular to dogpile for all evil in the world, while all other religions have "untouchable validity and cannot be judged in any way" (even though EVERY single religion that has EVER graced this Green Earth has done of oppressive, unspeakable, vile, and unforgiveable things in the name of their faiths and beliefs, without real exception, unless said religion is completely removed from normal society by nature, like Taoism and Jainism), but I can think of no better quote to sum up this point off the top of my head, so bear with me.
-"Let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone,' Jesus Christ

 

[Cheetah]

Yeah I'm not going to defend my feelings or those of my friends based on rationality. It's 100% personal preference which is all over the place and inconsistent.

I do know that for one friend in particular, they identify strongly with feminism and saw him as a major ally. His humor was funny because it was so absurd but then we found out it wasn't all absurd, that he was doing some really creepy, demeaning stuff and directly contributed to the sexism that my friend hates. Then with his comeback he went hard in on SJW's of all stripes, further aggravating the grievance. Basically it's entirely personal for my friend and somewhat so for me. Though to be honest he was never my favorite comedian, I did have a lot of respect for him as a person.

I don't think your feelings need to be defended at all. Context and messenger matters.

It's why black rappers can call each other «******» in their music with no one having a problem with it, but it would still be unacceptable if they spoke like that in church. Not to mention a white person using it as an insult. Everyone knows the first instance isn't about trying to put down black people, but everyone knows it's not language one uses at church, and everyone knows how loaded the word is when used by white people.

It's why I can make jokes about Jews and Hitler among my friends — or how I've gotten away with mansplaining things to two of my friends for hours now. My friends know I'm not an anti-semite or a Nazi or a jerk who looks down on women, so it's absurd and funny. None of us would laugh if Richard Spencer made a joke about Jews. We know he's not joking.

It's why it was perfectly fine for Louis CK to make the jokes he did. Everyone knew he didn't actually mean it, so it was all absurd and we could laugh about the stupidness of it all.

Those jokes by Louis CK aren't funny anymore. We don't trust that he doesn't mean it anymore. That makes it insulting and threatening, not absurd and funny.

----

In general, I think I can — and I consider it acceptable to (maybe those are related?) — appreciate works or actions done by bad men as long as those works are still good with the knowledge of the context and the messenger.

Louis needs to start making humour that doesn't kick downwards like he used to, for we can no longer appreciate the humour he used to do.

R Kelly's «I believe I can fly» is still a good song, but all the songs he's been involved with with sexual lyrics are deeply problematic now, and I personally I don't think it's right to enjoy those anymore. Not to mention Aaliyah's «Age Ain't Nothing But a Number»...

We have a rolling #metoo case going in Norway, cause one of our big politicians who was a second-in-command in the Labour party has been acting «inappropriately» for decades, and still seem poised to end up in the leadership anyway. Last weekend he was at a nightclub and ended up dancing with some twenty-year olds (he is fifty-something). Everything that happened that night was actually totally fine, except for the fact that it was him doing it. He of course feels unfairly treated now, but to me and many others it just shows a lack of judgement, and a failure to understand that what he has done earlier was wrong.

Someone also referenced the famous picture of the victory-kiss in NYC:

That there is sexual assault.

But it could have been innocent, and it is also an image that celebrates the end of the war.

Once I learned the truth behind it, my appreciation for it really dropped, but it still feels like a decent picture to illustrate the happiness of winning the war. Or?

And I could take the whole question of the thread further:

Is it right to enjoy your electronics, when some of the materials for them necessarily comes from environmentally disastrous and dangerous slave labour work?

Is it right to go on vacation to the Emirates, knowing that much of the infrastructure one uses is built and maintained on slave labour? Is it moral to participate in the World Cup there?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That there is sexual assault.

By whom?

 

[Cheetah]

By whom?

The not-sober sailor just grabbed a random woman, bent her backwards and started kissing her.

By pure chance a photographer was there and ready, but they disappeared before he could take their names. Years later the individuals were found and interviewed, and the fact that it was completely involuntary from her side got known.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

The not-sober sailor just grabbed a random woman, bent her backwards and started kissing her.

By pure chance a photographer was there and ready, but they disappeared before he could take their names. Years later the individuals were found and interviewed, and the fact that it was completely involuntary from her side got known.

I wonder why nobody tried to stop him. Was that kind of thing more acceptable back then, or did people think it was voluntary?

 

[Cheetah]

Well...

I just looked up the Wikipedia article, which made me a bit unsure about what I've been writing here. But it seems at least that the woman is identified, and what she said was:

"It wasn't my choice to be kissed", Friedman stated in a 2005 interview with the Library of Congress. "The guy just came over and grabbed!" she said, adding, "That man was very strong. I wasn't kissing him. He was kissing me." "I did not see him approaching, and before I know it I was in this tight grip," Friedman told CBS News in 2012.

And here's the two versions the photographer is telling:

In Times Square on V.J. Day I saw a sailor running along the street grabbing any and every girl in sight. Whether she was a grandmother, stout, thin, old, didn't make a difference. I was running ahead of him with my Leica looking back over my shoulder but none of the pictures that were possible pleased me. Then suddenly, in a flash, I saw something white being grabbed. I turned around and clicked the moment the sailor kissed the nurse. If she had been dressed in a dark dress I would never have taken the picture. If the sailor had worn a white uniform, the same. I took exactly four pictures. It was done within a few seconds.

I was walking through the crowds on V-J Day, looking for pictures. I noticed a sailor coming my way. He was grabbing every female he could find and kissing them all — young girls and old ladies alike. Then I noticed the nurse, standing in that enormous crowd. I focused on her, and just as I'd hoped, the sailor came along, grabbed the nurse, and bent down to kiss her. Now if this girl hadn't been a nurse, if she'd been dressed in dark clothes, I wouldn't have had a picture. The contrast between her white dress and the sailor's dark uniform gives the photograph its extra impact.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

Abaddon was a poster here who contributed regularly and creatively. He was banned permanently for repeatedly and then more repeatedly breaking rules. Nonetheless, he was a great community member. Not as extreme as all the Hollywood guys, but the principle is the same.

What kind of rules was he breaking? CFC mods throw out infractions to people for calling a spade a spade, so breaking CFC rules generally doesn't make you a bad person. And breaking bad rules, in fact, makes you a good person (example: Nazi officers who disobeyed Hitler when he told them to kill Jews). You get my point.

Moderator Action: We also throw out infractions for PDMA. --LM

By whom?

You can't tell it's involuntary? Just look at the sailor's arm: the veins are popping, and his left hand is in a fist. Clearly, he is applying force.

 

[Patine]

What kind of rules was he breaking? CFC mods throw out infractions to people for calling a spade a spade, so breaking CFC rules generally doesn't make you a bad person.

Brace yourself for your coming infraction.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I wonder why nobody tried to stop him. Was that kind of thing more acceptable back then, or did people think it was voluntary?

Both.

I guess the usual mental process was something like: "Look at Johnny, he has kissed 237 girls today, what a badass. A determined lad. Will get far in life. And she cant but enjoy being kissed by one of our manly sailors who just kicked Hiro-Hito's ass".

 

[adcarrymaokai]

For me, it depends on what they have done. If some great scientist, using Civ language, was drunk at a bar and started a fight, I honestly don't see it as a problem. But if he is a rapist and a serial killer? Maybe it is a problem.

Also, keep in mind that some people's accomplishments are overstated and overblown. One good example is Wagner. He was an antisemite, and his music was venerated by the Nazis (and today it is widely popular in the US). His music is prohibited from being performed in Israel, which I think is kinda wrong... but back to my point. And the point is that Wagner's music is objectively bad music. It's really boring, doesn't invoke any emotions, and generally shows poor composing style. He is really overrated, and his antisemitism is almost like the thing that keeps his crappy music still relevant today.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I listened to an interesting interview on NPR with the head of an Israeli pro-Wagner group that has been pushing the government to change the ban. The group feels the censorship is wrong and ultimately the ban is a form of capitulation to antisemitism. That was how I found out there was a ban on his music at all. It was an interesting interview.

 

[Patine]

For me, it depends on what they have done. If some great scientist, using Civ language, was drunk at a bar and started a fight, I honestly don't see it as a problem. But if he is a rapist and a serial killer? Maybe it is a problem.

Also, keep in mind that some people's accomplishments are overstated and overblown. One good example is Wagner. He was an antisemite, and his music was venerated by the Nazis (and today it is widely popular in the US). His music is prohibited from being performed in Israel, which I think is kinda wrong... but back to my point. And the point is that Wagner's music is objectively bad music. It's really boring, doesn't invoke any emotions, and generally shows poor composing style. He is really overrated, and his antisemitism is almost like the thing that keeps his crappy music still relevant today.

I listened to an interesting interview on NPR with the head of an Israeli pro-Wagner group that has been pushing the government to change the ban. The group feels the censorship is wrong and ultimately the ban is a form of capitulation to antisemitism.

Of course, in quite a few cases (disclaimer, I'm not even REMOTELY suggesting Hitler here, but many better examples), there is the "one nation's hero is another nation's butcher/oppressor/traitor/terrorist" problem, even in histories of certain individuals still gone over and debated to this day.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

I listened to an interesting interview on NPR with the head of an Israeli pro-Wagner group that has been pushing the government to change the ban. The group feels the censorship is wrong and ultimately the ban is a form of capitulation to antisemitism. That was how I found out there was a ban on his music at all. It was an interesting interview.

I think the ban is kinda wrong, but I also think it's understandable.

But then again, I think Wagner should just not be performed anywhere anyway because his music is trash.

 

[Patine]

I think the ban is kinda wrong, but I also think it's understandable.

But then again, I think Wagner should just not be performed anywhere anyway because his music is trash.

But if banning music everywhere "because it's trash" becomes a thing, who decides what gets banned and what doesn't Music, like food, is VERY subjective in taste, and I CERTAINLY don't want some all-powerful, oppressive, Fascistic council of censors deciding what music I can and cannot listen to based on their own tastes.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

But if banning music everywhere "because it's trash" becomes a thing, who decides what gets banned and what doesn't Music, like food, is VERY subjective in taste, and I CERTAINLY don't want some all-powerful, oppressive, Fascistic council of censors deciding what music I can and cannot listen to based on their own tastes.

My post was a half joke, btw.

pS: But banning things because someone decided against them is.. something that has happened in every society at all times.

 

[Broken_Erika]

But then again, I think Wagner should just not be performed anywhere anyway because his music is trash.

But what about Apocalypse Now? The helicopter scene just wouldn't be the same without it....

 

[adcarrymaokai]

But what about Apocalypse Now? The helicopter scene just wouldn't be the same without it....

Is this... confirmation bias? In other words, you are used to seeing this scene with certain music and think it would not have been the same without it. But what if the scene had other, even better music, to begin with, and you would have been used to it anyway?

Which actually brings me back to the topic. Sometimes, "geniuses" are forgiven for some bad things they do because they are "geniuses", but how many people actually come up with something unique? Most human discoveries are based on previous knowledge and are often made concurrently or even asynchronously in different parts of the world. If one "genius" had not been born, another "genius" would have made his/her discovery anyway.

In other words, there are no "bad people who have done something great" who aren't replaceable—there will always be others to do great work, as well.

 

[Zelig]

I'll consume the works still, but I'll only acquire them via piracy, and I won't recommend them to anyone who I think might financially support the creator.

I think a good and just solution would be that works created by people convicted of sufficiently serious crimes immediately and irrevocably revert to the public domain upon conviction, so I operate as if that's already the case.