Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The inability to distinguish between creation and creator. It is completely fine to like Harry Potter and still think that J.K.Rowling is nuts. You can dislike Dolly Parton's songs and still appreciate her for the awesome human being she is.
The vast majority of people obviously can't do that for some reason. It's either "both creation and creator are shit" or "both are awesome" and nothing inbetween, to the point that some folks automatically assume you're a climate change denier because you listen to Meatloaf, or do a 180° turn about liking/disliking movies, arts, novels etc. depending on what their authors did IRL. And don't get me started on Nintendo fanboys .... if you tell them you love the Zelda franchise but dislike Nintendo as a company, they'll rip you apart because you're obviously not allowed to have anything else but a single-track blanket opinion about literally everything they ever did.
If you like someone, you are not obligated to support each and every one of their actions, decisions or world views, and if you dislike someone you can (and should IMHO) still appreciate it if they do something good.
Someone else more less touched on this but I think you're missing the point.
I don't know a single person who thinks you can't like someone's art because you dislike the artist. Using your example, I have plenty of friends who grew up with Harry Potter and still absolutely love the series in many ways. However they also think JK Rowling is a piece of shit.
The problem lies in giving a platform to people who, at the very least outspokenly, espouse harmful views, and/or engage in harmful activities. So generally speaking, they tend to take some amount of issue (how much varies person to person) with people continuing to support works from them without some demonstration of change or betterment. In turn, most of us stop consuming their content wholesale, as we don't want to support their actions or views by contributing to their platform and would prefer others do the same.
People like what you're talking about exist, sure. I also think that demographic is nearly exclusively terminally online people, who tend to be quite a bit louder than your average person. Which in turn can skew how commonly held of an opinion something can seem to be.
I know plenty of people like this.
Mind if I steal that description? It's perfect ♥
As for your comment; I am completely fine with people deciding for themselves that they no longer wish to engage with some creation because its creator sucks - that's a personal choice and I can respect that decision easily.
What I don't get are people who try to force that decision onto others, like going "...but the author is shit, so you HAVE to now hate literally everything they ever did, and if you don't then you're just as bad as them". No, I don't have to do anything of the sort - and that does not mean that I support the world views of the author. It only means that the world view of the creator hasn't ruined the creation for me.
Oh I certainly did not coin that term, so steal away lol
But yeah I definitely get your point. I suppose my only real contention is that I don't personally feel it's as ubiquitous of an opinion as it sounds like you do.
That said, in the case of someone like Jk Rowling I will absolutely bring up the topic should she come up. I have quite a few trans friends, and she has and continues to actively take steps to attack and harm the trans community. Liking the art she has created is one thing, but supporting someone who seeks to invalidate the existence of people, particularly those I care about, and take away essential care is another. I probably won't start a fight about it, unless you're a real shit head, but I take no qualms with standing up about it either.
Quick edit to note that's not directed at you, to be clear. More just continuing to make the distinction I was before.
No offense taken, don't worry ;) And I fully agree ... Rowling is a malicious, hateful, spiteful asshole and deserves all the hostility she gets online and IRL for what she said, did and still does. There are no two ways about it.
I don't think you should be upset with someone for liking an artist's work despite their personal life but I've definitely stopped listening to artists for theirs. I'll be half way through the opening verse and remember "oh yeah, this dude's a rapist" and don't want to continue.
On the flip side, I know Jackie Chan has had his fair share of controversy....but I still love his films and on-screen persona.
That's a personal choice, and I'm completely fine with that. If you can't help but dislike a work of art because it always reminds you of the bad thing its creator did/said, there is no shame in no longer engaging with said art as it won't bring you happiness anymore.
What I don't get are people who go "waaah noo, how DARE you like that song! The singer is an asshole, you have to hate their music now!" ... no, I don't have to. And that does not automatically mean I am okay with what the singer did - it just means that their actions haven't ruined the song for me.
If you pirate their art, I suppose you have a point.
But if you're financially supporting folks who are actively opposed to your existence or the existence of people you care about, that's pretty foolish.
Harry Potter is the only reason folks care about J.K. Rowling. However, her words outside of her books have influenced politics and have hurt marginalized folks.
Because she's making money, she doesn't care.
Until JK doesn't make a dime from Harry Potter, your fandom of the IP will financially support her hateful views.
Pretty sure she'd still have those views, even if she was poor. I understand and respect people who decide to boycott certain creators for their political views and statements--I stopped buying Orson Scott Card's books after finding out things he'd said about homosexuality among other things--but I don't think people who oppose a creator's views, but still choose to pay for their work should be shamed for it. When you pay for a product, you're paying for that product and are thus supporting only what went into that product. I think there's more of an issue of hypocrisy in people who have problems with Apple's labor practices in China or their anti-consumer practices, but still buy their products, as those issues are directly linked to said products and therefore their money is inherently rewarding them (but, full disclosure: I'm one of those people, as I own an iPhone). If the Harry Potter books had some anti-trans message in them, that'd be one thing, but I don't think that's the case, is it (I honestly don't know, as I haven't read them)? I think people can still enjoy and financially support the HP IP without tacitly supporting JK Rowling's politics, just as Tesla owners can enjoy their cars without supporting Elon's whacky political views.
I stopped buying new copies of his stuff.
But to my mind, buying used doesn't add support to him nor add to his wealth.
On the other hand, I stopped reading Dilbert because it became unfunny, not because Adams turned out to be a shitty person.
.
I am reminded of people in my parents generation who stopped listening to certain musicians because they were rumored to be gay...
No anti-LGBTIQ content in those books whatsoever. If they did have such a message, then I could understand people hating the author and the books, but as it is, the books do not reflect the world view of the author about this particular topic.
...and on the topic of supporting the author by buying the books (from a different comment); you can buy them secondhand. That way Rowling makes one less sale as secondhand shops, private sellers etc. don't have to pay royalties to her.
Ok? So what If you already bought and read the books, does that mean you'll have to throw them away, burn them, and you're never ever allowed to enjoy the fictional story of Harry Potter ever again because the author is an ass....? Or that by liking the fictional story you automatically support her world view as well, finances aside?
It's the exact thing I described. Yes J.K. Rowling is nuts but that does not mean that you have to hate the Harry Potter books / movies. You can hate the author for what she did and said independendly from the stories she wrote.
Keep the books, cherish 'em. I don't care.
I'm just saying knowingly giving money to hateful people is where folks tend to draw the line. Some folks can still enjoy the art, some folks have their perception of the art tainted by the hateful ideologies of the artist.
You're free to do as you wish, but some folks have trouble separating the art from the artist, and have valid concerns around consuming of art from hateful artists.
I always hated those books when I was a kid before any of the shit about JK came to light - and its cause she's a fucking hack.
Troll, the film from 1986 is a story about Harry Potter and the Potter family where he ends up training along side a witch to defeat evil.
She's a hack and her story blows.
Completely fine with me. shrugs ... in that case you don't like the creation because it's not your cup of tea, and that the author also happens to be an ass is a separate issue. Dfferent people, different preferences.
To me, she was awful for ripping someone off and then the icing on the shit cake is that she's a terf as well.
So I feel very validated in knowing that I was always right about what a piece of absolute trash she is. And always was. Don't know why anyone would want to read some rip off hack book lol
No offense, but just no. If you don't like the art, but the artist that's fine, absolutely no problem here, but supporting a person like J. K. Rowling financially by consuming their creation is actually a problem and should be opposed.
This view is enabling horrible people and not okay.
If I already own the books, I'm not going to toss them away just because the author is an ass. It doesn't hurt her anyway. And you can buy books, movies etc. secondhand, as secondhand stores, private sellers and the like don't have to pay royalties to the author. There are plenty of ways to consume their creations without supporting the creator.
That's fine. The problem lies in talking about their works which might encourage others to buy the books or merchandise etc. Unfortunately the best result would be if the work and the author would be forgotten, but that's unlikely to happen. So at least when talking about the works it should never be omitted that the author is a horrible person who abuses her influence to hurt other people.
Hence I disagree with the take. This way around the work should not be separated from the creator, because popularizing it is enabling even if you won't consume any more than what you already have, others might.