Bad People, Good Art: What Now?

[@novakaizr]

I think an interesting example of this is lovecraft. He was a man who had some absolutely horrible views, and those views directly and heavily influence his work, but his contributions to the horror genre are still incredible and worth recognizing. Not only can art be good or bad, but it can be both at the same time. I think what is important is to be able to recognize what is good, which for lovecraft would be the cosmic and psychological horrror, and condemn what is not, like the overt racism.

[@Sue_Me_Too]

Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard were both incredibly racist/xenophobic and the shared world they created through their stories is one of my favorite contributions to all of sci-fi/fantasy. Lovecraft was a deeply fearful and paranoid man, a xenophobe in the real sense; he was afflicted by irrational fears and compulsions. Nobody else _could have_ imagined the things he was afraid of.

[@andyb1653]

A reasonable take.

[@Alaskan-Armadillo]

I feel the exact same way where I am a huge fan of Charles Bukowski but the guy was a mess where to me he shows what it is like to be in the shit then slightly get up to the asphalt where you're still in the shit but you're starting to come to the awareness it might just be ok. I just wish that people would understand this in a more nuanced way since I disagree with Wisecrack about how it is more about people wanting accountability where that may be true for some but I have experienced a lot of people when away from the screen who just want vengeance.

[@davidgaskin5417]

it is hard to know with Lovecraft how much of his views were well-thought out and rational( therefore quite aboherent) or whether he was suffering mental trauma. He had a pretty messed up home life, including having his mother dressing him as a girl and referring to him as ugly.

[@mmmproductions1247]

My biggest problem with this whole thing is the moment you take it out of the art world. Almost everything we buy in some way supports amoral and downright evil business. Sweatshops, 3rd world lithium mining, etc.

[@jimprine7522]

Not to mention politicians corporations like BlackRock Vanguard

[@kenshn22828]

Definitely agree with this viewpoint. The world is very morally grey.

[@CoralCopperHead]

@@kenshn22828 Odd way to spell "black" but alright.

[@dwpetrak]

@@kenshn22828I would say it is a flat earth with a lot of interconnectedness. The Good Place riffed on this pretty well, but in short there are people making good choices and people making bad choices all over the place and it is extraordinarily difficult to try to only support one of them. But then, is it even bonum (good) to only support those we agree with? Wouldn't doing so imply that a) our perceptions or desires are perfect and b) people, especially others, cannot learn from their mistakes or have a change of heart?

[@intellectually_lazy]

we should make our own merch, free, aka fan art, and also fvck cars. we need trains

[@matthewbrooks5470]

Blurred Lines is kind of an interesting example in that, unless you really need to hear the original singers, there is a complete replacement in Weird Al’s Word Crimes

[@zemoxian]

He’s against using “literally” in a figurative sense. He hates hyperbole and must be stopped. IT’S TIME WE CANCEL WIERD AL!!!

[@Crispman_777]

Even that had the issue of using the word "sp @ stick"

[@matthewbrooks5470]

@@Crispman_777 True, though as popular as his stuff is, I'm surprised I've seen nothing about it being used

[@lumpchunker5516]

@Matthew Brooks His fans in the UK had an issue with it when Word Crimes was first released. But Al apologized and it blew over. The word wasn't really considered inappropriate in North America until fairly recently.

[@Crispman_777]

@@matthewbrooks5470 He thought it was just a synonym of stupid and apologised immediately after he found out.

[@Utomneian]

as part of my autism, i sort of have made just about any and all of my interests the core of my personality at one point or another, but in my older years, i have gotten better at keeping a more self-aware approach to fandom, especially when it comes to people.

[@ildadelcheva1]

I’m happy I finally see someone pointing out that Rick and Morty is not an achievement and creation solely of Justin Roland, but a collective effort of many creators, editors , animators etc. Honestly didn’t understand the cancel calls for the show, that would be punishment for people who weren’t aware of Roland’a behaviour, couldn’t control it, had nothing to do with it and definitely don’t deserve to be out of a job or not recognised for their work because of him

[@niksatt4843]

WE DONT EVEN KNOW ID HE DID IT OR NOW. this is you morons "if it has a vag it's telling the truth"

[@Sue_Me_Too]

I guess a lot of people think Royland produces the whole show by himself or something. Turns out he only helped write like 6 episodes

[@blackmanrunfree]

This is what I said when people started boycotting Kanye’s music as well. Fuck that dude but look at the credits man, he isn’t the only person working on that shit and those other people that worked on that are taking the hit from boycotting an artists work cause usually they are not a sole entity just a big collab with one person taking all the credit for it.

[@TheFf9Vivi]

I was a really big fan of the band Brand New. So much so that the sorta cult like fandom that they had, I was flying out across the country to meet strangers that I met on the internet to go to music festivals with and see shows with fellow fans. It felt like a community. When the sexual allegations came out by the lead singer it complete split the community in two. While one side said this is the worst thing thats ever happened to me the ther side was trying to separate the art from the artist. I think the worst part about this situation was the fact that a lot of the music that they made was emo by nature and a lot of the people that were drawn to it were people who have had traumatic experiences with sexual abuse, whether it be assault, depression, or anxiety. To have this this band that they could relate to come out and do all the things that they had helped people try to get over with their art shattered them. While I still listen to this day and enjoy it, I still almost feel guilty for enjoying it. Its not in my regular rotation of music anymore but if a song comes on I will know it if that makes sense.

[@oscarguzman3017]

I didn't even know that happened even tho I've been listening to their first two albums forever. Cuz I had only streamed them. The more you know.

[@heavenly2k]

Literally same- I don't feel comfortable willfully injecting a predators words and thoughts into my head via music. But I used to have multiple shirts and posters of them

[@robkemp598]

One of my favourite shows, The Expanse, had a cast of 6-7 people. But one of the cast began messaging underage fan as soliciting pictures from them and they killed his character off screen. I feel fairly comfortable still watching this as he was only one person of 6 and not the main face like Kevin spacey in house of cards.

[@Tapster2010]

What !! Which character

[@constantinsavu5301]

@@Tapster2010 I think it's Alex Kamal played by Cas Anvar Spoilers below. His death in the show (can't remember if it was a heart attack or something else) was caused by doing several high G maneuvers.

[@anonymousinfinido2540]

they removed him in season 5 end, he is not in season 6, so cool I think in a way.

[@JonMcMenamin777]

In the books Alex Kamal lives longer than some of the others, but he never has any major plot points revolve around him, more like the ever present "daddy" (or given their age as the books continue "grandpa") of the group on the Roci. It was shocking and disappointing that Cas Anwar turned out to be such a predatory and sinister individual.

[@itzpro5951]

sounds like a load of cope, one bad apple spoils the rest, they know something and thats why they try to act like they never knew him, I can never watch this show without knowing this man was part of it, good riddance.

[@Cokodayo]

I think it's important to note that people can't be categorised as "bad" or "good", the stuff they do however, can be. Even the worst of the people have done some good deeds and they probably arn't enough to redeem them, but they should not be ignored either. In our society, one good deed does not redeem a life time of evil, but one bad deed is enough to condemn a lifetime of good. Which in itself a flawed world view, we as a society should be able to acknowledge good deeds without labeling the person as "good" and vice versa. People are just people, some more flawed than others yet still people.

[@aqshay]

Most logical explanation according to me

[@bailujen8052]

Like what if Michael Bay despite making bad art/Movies, somehow made a cure that saves lives, does that overly value those films? Edit: Being a celebrity is a “Eat or be eaten” life as some celebrities to terrible things while there are also celebrities who suffered terrible things (Stan Lee, Keanu Reeves, Johnny Depp, Vic Mignogna) etc.

[@jackcapellini113]

Or perhaps all people are bad, but some are worse than others.

[@Cokodayo]

@@jackcapellini113 seems likely tbh

[@cameronhoffman891]

Ever since I was young, I have been a huge fan of Mythbusters and Adam Savage specifically, he is just such a cool dude in so many ways and I genuinely admire him. I even like some of his philosophies enough that I've adopted them and he has played a part in me becoming the person that I am today. Because of this, it would devastate me if it turned out he was a shitty person and make me question some of my own values, beliefs, and ideas not to mention my judge of character. I think that is one of the main reasons that people struggle with defending shitty people who's work they love, because acknowledging that those people are shitty could mean that the things a person took from that person are also shitty.

[@cameronhoffman891]

@T E L E G R A M me👉@OfficialWisecrack Is it just me or does this look like a scam to anybody else?

[@greywolf7577]

You scared me with the beginning of your comment. I was thinking "what was Adam Savage accused of?"

[@ChineduOpara]

​@@greywolf7577 Nothing YET. Give it time.

[@BattleAxeRX]

You are your own person. Other people's lives, their ups and downs, their pros and cons, and their decisions don't define you. You define yourself. Do what feels right and try to improve if you can. You can't go wrong if you are sincere.

[@eltacogordito6096]

@@greywolf7577 I believe he was accused of raping his younger sister, but it is all very muddy. Interesting read, at least; worth googling.

[@Sailorlimabean20]

Lindsey Ellis did a really good video on Death of the Author, which this is related to, that folks here might also enjoy.

[@guest_informant]

And then later got cancelled :-)

[@Madara8989]

@@guest_informant Only on KZbin and Twitter; she still makes content and still has a career over on Nebula... the site that's mostly marketed to consumers who care about intellectual topic matters rather than just mindless entertainment and reactionary ragebaiting.

[@guest_informant]

@@Madara8989 Yes. Thanks. I watch her on Nebula. And "ragebaiting" is a great term :-)

[@keenanchandler2469]

​@@guest_informant which was absurd to me 😵‍💫

[@VactorVerse]

Link?

[@EmmisonMike]

I tried having Joss Whedon as my guy because of Firefly and reruns of Angel. Teenage me really appreciated how strong his voice was in dialogue, and his worldbuilding in Firefly is still something real special to this day. Trying to get into Buffy and Angel in their release order through streaming kindof disillusioned his writing style for me, though. Definitely wasn't built for that sort of consumption, so i was off the train when allegations came out on him. My first reaction when stuff like this happens is mostly just "you don't have to consume media you're worried is problematic. even if it's philosophically defensible to consume that media. if your gut check fails, there's other stuff." and i wonder why that's my reaction, or if it's rhetorical quitter-talk for me to say that. Like, I don't feel compunctions about Rick and Morty because it feels much much more like a Harmon joint to me than a Roiland one. the commentaries for early seasons shit-talk him for not being in the writer's room enough, and with so many new writers coming in to stabilize the quality of each season, I really don't see much roiland in there barring his voice-work. Harmon, as stated here, is a penitent mess and getting better. that's literally the most we can expect of anyone, and i think that striving shows positively in his work. Helps that he's also a good writer. I think... things get weird when we use celebrity or brands et al as markers for our personality. it's so different from, say, having a friend, so our most visceral judgement for when a celebrity/brand goes bad (treating them like a friend that misbehaved) makes sense in the moment but not when you think about it. weaves into parasocial something somethings and other stuff that reminded me I only took the one philosophy class before moving along with my English degree. I'd hope, interpersonally, that we hold these things openhandedly. You don't have to grapple with the complexities of morally gray people or evil acts if you don't legitimize the existence of evil. but then "what is evil?" and i remind you... only one philosophy class. what do i know

[@VCV95]

Just fyi, harmon is/was doing some bad things too, sadly. Right around the wrap up to community and the start of rick and morty if I remember correctly.

[@TAP7a]

(in response to second paragraph) Nah, saying that you’re free to not consume art is a foundational truth, otherwise you’d be getting Clockwork Orange’d. As a pedagogical or developmental point you could argue that it would be unwise for your understanding of the wider field/genre/form/whatever to avoid consuming foundational or extremely influential works within that area on such an external basis, especially if consuming it does nothing to further problematic causes of the artist, but you cannot say that you as a person are *not* free to *not* consume a particular work of art

[@VCV95]

@@TAP7a Birth of a Nation can illustrate the beliefs and blind vigor behind nationalism, as an example.

[@EmmisonMike]

@@TAP7a purpose is a very interesting thing to mull over in this case. A lot of people do not have a very deep purpose in the consumption of media, they’re not trying to do anything further than kill time. In their case, maybe it’s okay to just spend time elsewhere. To demand that everything delivered to you be completely agreeable to your taste while still being entirely convenient to your consumption habits is, well, a very entitled thing to demand of content providers, imo. That being said, if your purpose is deeper, to understand the broader canon of a genre or medium, then yeah, you gotta go for the fuller picture. I agree with you on that. Maybe some things are more important than keeping moral purity. Maybe it is through a northstar of purpose that you can keep a moral perspective in the consumption of potentially problematic media that shields you from that problematism. Take for example Annie hall in the video. I watched it because it inspired movies like 500 days of summer that I HATE and I really wanted to see the patient zero for the complaints I have for 500 days. When I heard the 16-year-old twins line it was a weird line that I didn’t approve of, but it was also discardable. It wasn’t relevant to my purpose, so it fell to the wayside.

[@EmmisonMike]

@@VCV95 Oh absolutely. I’ve since forgone the idea of a writer being someone I exemplify in an aspirational sense. I’ll grant calling him a “mess” is pretty euphemistic. He’s been a highly documented bastard in multiple cases, but as the Video pointed out, he’s a person trying to live a good life after that, and while I might not love the guy like a brother, I can respect his public attempts.

[@zemoxian]

I grew up watching the Electric Company, Fat Albert, the Cosby Show, and we even had a couple of his stand up album. Every now and then something funny he said pops into my head. A formerly fond memory that’s now tainted by his actions.

[@berniekatzroy]

I still enjoy what Cosby created but its not always easy thinking wow, he gave us great things but did worse.

[@TheJadedJames]

The key thing about Cosby is that he is directly in his art, and a lot of his art is about him as the father in a wholesome family sitcom. You can watch Match Point not knowing anything about the people behind the camera

[@greywolf7577]

Yeah, Cosby being on the screen makes it far more difficult to enjoy his work. If Cosby had just written and produced the shows and had someone else act out the parts, it would be far easier for me to enjoy the work. I have no problem watching a Weinstein production, for example, because he is never on screen. When it comes to spoiling art, I am perhaps most angry at him because he took so many good shows and artistic production and made it very difficult to enjoy due to his actions.

[@watamatafoyu]

I loved Bill Cosby's standup and shows. Now I can't even think about them without also thinking about him drugging women. I can't separate the art from the artist there.

[@TheJadedJames]

@@greywolf7577 Woody Allen is sort of similar in that I can watch some of his material and forget/not realize he had anything to do with it. But I don’t exactly want to see Woody Allen as a protagonist in a film

[@tubularjay]

I write as an author for the SCP Foundation wiki (massive online horror collaboration). I got into the space because of amazing article entries across the board, some by legacy authors that truly mastered the medium. One of those authors was a man who went by "DrBright". He was so prolific in his writing and contributions to the site, that even his own "author persona" BECAME a character, or "author avatar", within the actual narrative structure of the entire site. Then... the allegations started to come out... "inappropriate texts"... "solicitation"... "grooming"... of young and often underaged fans of his work. These have been found verified, and the person of Dr. Bright is no longer apart of, or accepted in the community. He is still though, oft referenced by unknowing consumers of SCP media, as an intrinsic part of the "folklore". And for that I now just accept the Dr. Bright "character" as a separate entity from the DrBright "author". I do this not to give said author a pass for what they have done. However, I acknowledge that the art and writing is "good" from an objective prospective while simultaneously acknowledging that this piece of art IS done by a bad person. I feel like that dual acknowledgment allows for the catharsis of the known bad actions in my mind to be reconciled with the appreciation of the mastery of the medium.

[@Lumberjack_king]

i never knew that the person who created the most well known charecter in the fandom was a horrible person

[@braxtonwise9897]

This is really well said, put into words exactly how I feel in a way I could never

[@peachy_lili]

damn, it's been years and years since I wrote so I didn't even know. that's the feeling I got from a few of his writings... one in particular was extremely obvious, ofc.

[@Lumberjack_king]

@@peachy_lili ok

[@CronyxRavage]

I became celibate and asexual precisely because of the over-correction into prudish puritanicalism this generation has steered into. I've become too paranoid to approach anyone, hit on anyone, attempt to communicate desire or interest to anyone, because no action, no interaction seems safe from scrutiny. At the end of the day, you're trying to find someone who's desires match yours. Call it the equivalent of right clicking on someone and selecting "properties" and navigating to the "sexuality" tab. Simply trying to derive this data for the purpose of running a differential comparison against your own properties -- which is to say, polling if they would be amicable to doing things with you -- is now called "solicitation." Getting to know someone and building a friendship to test compatibility as a bridge to a romantic relationship is now called "grooming." It's no wonder birth rates are down. never mind marriages. Nobody can safely navigate this maze.

[@EvenFlow391]

How one supports the artist was an interesting aspect of this topic. Did someone just listen to Blurred Lines online a bunch of times, but never bought anything, or did they buy Robin's album? The extent of how one supports controversial art ties back into the idea of how we as people tie the art and the artist together.

[@raymondtrabulsy7294]

As someone who loved Woody Allen's work, I struggled with the accusations levied against him initially. In the end, I wasn't going to put my money behind his works, especially since there are so many great artists in the world who don't try to convince you that child predation is cool.

[@javiergonzalez7214]

When has Woody Allen tried to convince people that child predation is cool?

[@guest_informant]

Read the blog post by Moses Farrow called "A Son Speaks Out". There's another side to that story, and it's very dark.

[@Horatio787]

@@guest_informant Yeah I'd recommend looking at every side of that including what their other children said. Basically, both the parents are evil.

[@nl3064]

@Raymond Trabulsy - the thing about an accusation is that it's just that, an accu-fucken-sation. How the fuck do you instantly turn against someone based on nothing? Maybe Woody did it, maybe not. And that's just it - how are you, how the fuck does anyone, get so sanctimonious with nothing to stand on? They've been saying this about him the past thirty years, and still have not provided anything to back their claims. Since when the fuck is emotion a substitute for the shown? Let's hypothetically say that in the end, it comes out the accusations are true. At this point in time, when, from your vantage, and my vantage, we have nothing to base these claims on, how in the hell are you virtue signalling this hard when we have nothing to go on? You don't see the dangers of this mentality of turning on people every time someone talks shit about them, no questions asked? (as an aside, I always found it interesting how Mia waited to make these allegations until her very loud, messy, public break-up with Woody). Another aspect I absolutely love about your desperately superior attitude, is - what about all the other people who worked on the movie? The cast, the crew, the investors, the post-production team? Weird how you don't consider them. Trying to screw their efforts because one person on the team had negative things said about them. But whatever, so long as you feel above someone.

[@guest_informant]

@@nl3064 If you believe what Moses Farrow wrote, and, for me, it's by far the most convincing account of events over the short and long term, the situation is far worse than this. (From memory two of her other children committed suicide - edit: they did.) For instance: "It pains me to recall instances in which I witnessed siblings, some blind or physically disabled, dragged down a flight of stairs to be thrown into a bedroom or a closet, then having the door locked from the outside. She even shut my brother Thaddeus, paraplegic from polio, in an outdoor shed overnight as punishment for a minor transgression."

[@matthewtaylor8876]

The funny thing about separating the art from the artist is that all media, over time, eventually separates the art from the artist. It's funny because how a person reacts to this concept that their identity, as an individual in their time, will not be associated to the media in the future makes some folks assume that holding a morality of the moment is not important.

[@thetapsy7508]

Same logic as might as well do nothing if we're all going to die anyway.

[@juliussw9153]

name one great and iconic work of historic art that is not almost synomymous with its artist. from homer to michelangelo, beethoven or shakespeare, it seems to me that if the artist is not more famous than any of their individual works, then they share the same level of fame (eg. leonardo da vinci and the mona lisa). i cannot from the top of my head recall any piece of such influence that is significantly more popular than the artist. it is however true that we begin to care less and less about the personalities of their artists as time goes on, since it was not their personalities that made them famous to begin with. key example would probably be wagner, who was a proto-nazi, but whose music is more acclaimed now than it might have ever been, even though the man himself has only been looked down upon more and more with time.

[@Puerco-Potter]

​@@juliussw9153 I think is more that the artist is separated from the bad aspects. Except for flavor text in the descriptions of their works. Some founding fathers had slaves, Picasso was abusive, but most people don't care so much about it at a moral level and kind of romantice it. Most people want a good "story", and they don't care this were real people, they care about the fictionalized character.

[@Sue_Me_Too]

@@juliussw9153 Simple: every piece of art where the artist is unknown.

[@Sue_Me_Too]

@@Puerco-Potter True, the myth is always more fun than reality and they're dead anyway so who cares.

[@IrocZIV]

I hold art and artist separate. Not only when they are bad, but also when they are good. I want to enjoy the art itself, and not think about the person behind it. Music is a great example, as there are many great musicians that I just wouldn't want to be around in real life. While the artist has intent behind what they do, it becomes something else as soon as we view it through our life's lens. The same picture can elicit very different feelings between two people, but their feelings are still legitimate.

[@professorbaxtercarelessdre1075]

yeah, i've found the more i find out about celebrities and artist, the less i enjoy them, the illusion is broken, not saying i want to enjoy a piece of art never knowing someone is evil and i'm being brainwashed or something, just that i want to enjoy entertainment without having to constantly second guess whether or not its ok to

[@TAP7a]

Separation of art and artist is an analytical tool, not an ethical one

[@missnoneofyourbusiness]

I do this with Azealia Banks. She's a horrible person but she's a genius and anyway I do remember somebody pointing out that it helps the genre that she is that way because you can't sing such chungus while being a pretty butterfly that everybody loves.

[@virtuerse]

@@missnoneofyourbusiness at least Azealia Banks makes good music, this show they’re talking about isn’t even that good or funny. R&M is overhyped by childish white dudes who have that cheap, commercial edginess. It’s popularity should speak volumes about the average viewer.

[@IrocZIV]

@@TAP7a How are ethics involved in art appreciation? Whether you should purchase from an artist is a different discussion.

[@strengthmonk]

As a black metal fan, I've been separating the art from the artist for years at this point lol

[@puturro]

Haaaaa totally

[@jordanwaskelis4913]

Yeah I can't do black metal anymore. Too many fascists.

[@strengthmonk]

@@jordanwaskelis4913 I'd say that's still the minority of the artists imo but I understand what you're saying. There's always crossover genres too like blackened doom metal where you're more than likely to avoid that sort of thing

[@jw1415]

Most minorities have too. Many, many artists of the past were racist pieces of $h!+. But in order to enjoy the art, you gotta try to forget it...

[@strengthmonk]

@@jw1415 I agree. The biggest example in black metal specifically is obviously Burzum. Varg has awful ethnonationalist beliefs, but made good music that luckily doesn't reflect his views.

[@danielsprayberry6831]

The Blood Bowl community is one of the most accepting I have encountered. I live in the south so one can imagine that a niche, competitive, miniatures table top game can get real neck beardy and gate keepy real quick but somehow it has carved out a wholesome community and I love it.

[@armedhyde1448]

Seriously guys, the charges have been dropped and the text messages aren't substantial... Please make a redaction or an update video.

[@lunastar89]

So I really love the manga Rurouni Kenshin and have been waiting for over a literal decade for a full anime adaptation. And they finally recently announced one.... Rrriiiiight after the creator, Nobuhiro Watsuki, was arrested for owning very serious CP. So now I'm sad.

[@twenty-fifth420]

That was 5 years ago? I mean, i can separate the art from the artist, but the artist can do a wide variety of oopsies. Including, as you mentioned, CP. Which is up there with me for racism, and battery/abuse. Those are the hardest for me imo to forgive. I also believe it is fine to consume art, but also not support the artist. Like for me, I hate JK Rowling’s trans takes. Buuut I still might buy her books. Uhm, used, so no chance of her money going back to her. As for the Video Game? No comment.

[@Gemnist98]

@@twenty-fifth420 The thing is that Watsuki got basically a slap on the wrist for something we deem jail-able. He basically had to pay a fine and then could continue making manga. Meanwhile, the Japanese voice of Olaf in Frozen did cocaine, and he was thrown in the slammer never to be seen again while his voice contribution to Kingdom Hearts III was patched over by a different actor. I know different societies have different views of morality, but that is just too much.

[@twenty-fifth420]

@@Gemnist98 I already knew this too, so no need for ‘the thing is’? Japanese Legal System tends to be very ineffective with actual sex abuse and pornography abuses like CP. Also, I have seen his comments. It is clear he is unwell and should have been arrested/tried to set precedent, but he did not get either, basically. And it sucks because he is a famous mangaka, so he sort of set a bad light on an issue and industry that is already highly scrutinized by censorship. I am fine if he got sent to jail, but I personally thought he needed more medical treatment and a disciplinary action from his job (by hopefully being fired because holy hell was that gross.). I point out the the time only because OP acted like this was recent, which it wasn’t. Finally, for the issue at hand. Yeah I am also pro drug. I also see drugs, and pedophillia requiring health institutionalization. With Sex Offenses like CP being comboed with prison institutionalization but like Joey from Anime Man Said “If people were expected to be good, we wouldn’t need the police!” But with that, I also know Japan’s court systems are just fucked. Like I said above, for women who are trying to get justice especially. Both underage and over the age. Sorry if this sounds like, aggressive. I admit I am kind of am just opinionated and I sort of see the issue as more complex and also am very political. In short, I don’t think it is a matter of ‘countries with different ethical values’ because it is clear if you are a girl or woman in japan this is NOT okay….. It is literally a systemic problem, Japan had another similar systemic problem with its courts regarding false confessions and mistrials. I mean, Phoenix Wright exists, and he shouldn’t have too in a country with perfectly high metrics in most other areas of interest like education and news freedom. I made an allusion to bad people and good art with an HP Lovecraft comment I made somewhere else. And for all of his flaws, at least he didn’t collect child porn. All societies have their flaws, but Japans is how its court system tends to be ineffective with sex crimes of basically all walks of life. And that is actually being nice, because it is closer to be ‘being harmful’ with victims of said sex crimes. So much so, some of this data is not properly recorded but yeah.

[@pencildragger]

I could already tell. His main character was like 30 and the main girl was 17. Terrible.

[@jameslongstaff2762]

I love this video so much. I'm glad there's space to critique cancel culture, but also the reactions against cancel culture. I have some work to do to detangle my own thoughts on the subject.

[@professorbaxtercarelessdre1075]

its really difficult, one almost wants to just ignore it and enjoy things regardless, our society certainly seems to have functioned by that philosophy, though i don't think complete outrage is healthy either, we need balance

[@niksatt4843]

Wow you people make me feel smart and I got bricks for brains. It's simple we don't know if he did it or not wait for the trail and evidence. Innocent until proven guilty you fucks

[@flamebreaker7318]

​@Professor Baxter well think about it cancel culture is not new it's used to be called mob justice

[@professorbaxtercarelessdre1075]

@@flamebreaker7318 good point, i guess outrage has always been a thing, which sucks

[@MLBlue30]

Cancel culture is a myth. Its called reaping the consequences of your actions.

[@carloszapata847]

The biggest problem with the "separate the art from the artist" debate is that, in many cases, the life of the artist either influences the art or appears to do so. Klaus Kinski, the star of Aguirre, Wrath of God, was excellent at playing dangerous psychopaths because he was a diagnosed psychopath. He was infamously violent, working with him was a nightmare, and he sexually abused his daughters (Paola and Nastassja). Same with Roman Polanski. People say his art is more authentic in the Pianist because he is a Holocaust Survivor and in the dark movies after Sharon Tate's death. This people also forget his 2 most famous movies are about powerful rapists getting away with their crimes (Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown), some he has done himself.

[@Rithmy]

In your example i find that Polanskis work should be critized, especially because he portrait rapists that get away with their crimes. The case about Klaus Kinskis Art on the other hand is harder to evaluate. I never saw the film, but generally it has value to us that he succesfully showed us a dangerous psychopath.

[@nielsbourgeois9800]

The question then still is if the broadly perceived messages of the artworks are morally good. Horrible people can put their immorality in their art but if the message people walk away with is morally good then is the art still to be discarded? Mostly intention falls in line with how something is going to be perceived, but if people walk away from those polanski films with disgust for the rapists and the systems that let them walk away then are those films not a net positive? I ask these questions because i’m still asking them to myself. Probably won’t see another Polanski film anymore though.

[@fromgreattobrilliant922]

I always figured it was a way of pointing out the flaws within the society so we can avoid letting stuff like this happen. Then, ironically, Roman became part of that flaw in the long run.

[@ChrisDink]

Chinatown isn’t about a rapist getting away tho

[@Petrico94]

Those are interesting cases where the artist is playing a terrible person and connects with their role too much. Woody Allen is usually appreciated as a comedian, not as a sex offender, but he's berated in real life because of sexual abuse that wasn't intended to be a joke but just harmful. It also doesn't address when a work has good messages but then gets tied to the artist having a negative take on a separate issue. Is Rick and Morty better knowing the creator was arrested for domestic battery? Maybe ironic, but also it doesn't really improve the work and is more distracting to the enjoyment or when it tends to have an emotional spin to itself. And as stated in the video, with so many writers handling the show it's difficult to really link a plot to Justin's actions when he may have had no connection to any of Jerry and Beth's stories at this point. There's no denying the show is a little more uncomfortable to watch but still unlikely people will see it in a different light over a wacky sci fi adventure with characters based on a bad Back to the Future pun and hints of nihilism.

[@tapanpatel]

Hey Wisecrack. I love your videos and the amount of research that goes into them. Would be lovely if you could do a bibliography section in the description for those of us who want to read more.

[@chesterparish3794]

I love music, especially old rock and soul. I grew up with it and then had to face the fact that most of those people, and I mean most, are awful. I love music too much at this point to abandon it and I've accepted that most people in music are bad. I no longer feel much guilt listening to most artists because their music is so good and I always tell people, if you want to listen to music based on how good of a person an artist is, then you shouldn't listen to music.

[@juanandrealvarezmeza6179]

When I think of morality I usually focus on what impact an action has on other people, so I think that as lo g as you enjoying a piece of art doesn’t hurt anyone, then I don’t think there’s a problem

[@professorbaxtercarelessdre1075]

i think so as well, at least generally

[@leroypreston2973]

Unless the work is flat out hate speech.

[@hades_head_empty]

so, for example: pirate the harry potter game, because she's said she'll put her profits into supporting her terf views

[@leroypreston2973]

@@hades_head_empty i do that with the works of Frank Miller and Dave Sim

[@dylanclark9903]

We need good art in the world! It helps all of us to make sense of this wild nightmare called life. I want art from the good, the bad, and the ugly… show me the human soul in all its cruel and beautiful complexity!

[@thomascheckie2394]

Exactly...would the world really be a better place if the Harry Potter franchise simply stopped existing? Should artists who create within the franchise be punished for continuing to use the license?

[@akirosakuragi9279]

Yo, that's some protagonist speech right there

[@zabeerfarid7687]

Okay but sometimes the ugly are pedophiles who took advantage of underage girls

[@matteste]

@@akirosakuragi9279 Sounds a bit more like some villain speech rather. You know, that big and bombastic kind that likes to push characters to the breaking point and watch everyone dance to their tune.

[@BlackMita]

But muh consumerist moral perfection

[@jasonrhome710]

Warren Ellis was the big disappointment for me. Especially as his Come In Alone collection of articles is an important piece to read in regards to keeping the comic book medium alive and actually growing (both in readers and artistic intents). And Nextwave was the funniest thing I read in years. And Orbiter is about keeping hope in progress alive. And Planetary is just great. And I can't in good conscience recommend his work without feeling... slimy. Joss Whedon sucked as well, but I wasn't as immersed in that fandom. The first couple episodes of the second season of The Dollhouse now feel EXTRA gross after all of those allegations came out, which is a bummer as the ending for that series was pretty much perfect.

[@moneybags25]

I wonder how this is gonna age now that he's found innocent?

[@Zybran93]

In my opinion its very important to talk about these issues with creators of art, so the consumers know who they are supporting. But I still think you can consume the art, if you know the story behind it, especially if a creator expresses these issues wihtin their art. If you know about these issues and still consume the art, you are more critical towards the opinions expressed in it and this gives a furhter emphasis on the actual problem. This presupposes that people actually think while consuming, but people that dont do that, dont care about the actions of an artists anyway.

[@AWSVids]

I feel like a lot of this comes down to the overlooked difference between morality and ethics. Morality is your own personal idea of right and wrong that you care about holding yourself to for the sake of your own good (usually associated with the religious idea that you'll be punished in the afterlife for your sins). Ethics is the rules of society, and the golden rule of treating others how you want to be treated... not because you're afraid it'll come back around on you somehow, but just because you care about others' feelings/experience as being as valid as your own. Is it "moral" to watch content from bad people? That's entirely your choice. If it doesn't bother YOU, then it's moral for you to watch it, regardless of what anybody else thinks. Is it "ethical"? Probably not, but always up for debate. Morality is not. Only YOU can choose your morality. To that end, I say... watch whatever you want. But if it's problematic or comes from problematic people, don't be surprised if you can't talk about it or celebrate it with other people, and don't take issue with them when their morality is different than yours. Ethics does not mean we all have to have the same morality. It means we need to respect each other's morality and treat each other decently no matter what we or they choose to watch. In the end, we all need to respect the REAL golden rule: "Don't be stupid, stupid." If you like a movie that a racist made because it's a fun entertaining movie... great. But just because you like their movie, that doesn't mean you start feeling the need to respect their opinion on politics. Just know where to draw the line and reject the problematic bullshit, while enjoying what's enjoyable. If you let your kids watch something like this, know that its your responsibility to talk with them about it and make sure they understand what they're watching. Don't be afraid to address it. It's better than to not. The only way problematic art seeps into our subconscious is if we refuse to be conscious about it. Pushing it away and letting people discover it in the shadows where they're less likely to have their perception of it checked... is actually more dangerous. When we suppress things, we give them power. Let the art exist. Then TALK about it. That's the point of art, to inspire conversation. To get ideas to the surface, so we can address them. The problem comes with the notion that we shouldn't look at these things that exist, and we shouldn't talk about it. We should and we should.

[@TheRealMuckluck]

Ehhh, while you're not wrong, I also think you're oversimplifying. Do we all have personal morals? Yes. Is that all morals are? No. We can definitely have concepts like collective/societal morals, where something can be deemed moral/immoral without it being viewed through the lens of a single person. In other words, morality is partly what you decide it is, but it's also so much more than that, to the point where we must accept that some behaviours can be considered inherently/"objectively" immoral in a society. I suppose you could call it morality by consensus. (Please note that I'm in no way saying that if a group/society has decided that something is moral, then it definitely is moral and/or good)

[@T.BG822]

You kinda swapped morals and ethics, and missed the point of the latter. Morality is a communal and cultural concept of right and wrong, ethics are how you approach that communal or cultural contract. Personal morality requires the qualifier 'personal' because it's a representation of how much you've integrated that social framework into your personal heuristics, and ethics are how you constructed those heuristics.

[@SgtCarter69]

@@T.BG822 Great synthesis, thanks !

[@oliverivo2217]

My opinion is that it feels wrong to do something which financially benefits someone I find immoral, I often come to the conclusion that knowing I'm supporting someone I find immoral is not worth the entertainment their art provides, I still buy products from companies I find immoral though it just feels more disconnected somehow, so I guess I have some weird double standards now that I think about it...

[@TheMagnanimousMany]

The thing is just not to live your life by absolutism. Make boundaries and define them. We all have morales, AND we have to live in this world everyday. For example, we can all hate fossil fuel emissions, but when we need to go somewhere and flying is the only option, we change our tune. People need some morales that we can actually hope to attain, not just pie in the sky and platitudes.

[@bishop186]

There unfortunately is no ethical consumption under capitalism, though that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and I do think that supporting unrepentantly immoral people (eg JK Rowling, Orson Scott Card) financially in a capitalistic system is immoral so I try not to, even if I enjoyed their works in the past. Similarly, I couldn't ever support Nestle or Foxconn financially with purchases of their products.

[@kurtlindner]

It's a total double standard, it is undoubtedly helping far more immoral people by living that lifestyle than if one _only_ didn't use Amazon (as an example, because most do) and sent Roiland $15 every month. Justin Roiland is one guy, by using Amazon at all you're supporting every immoral person Amazon employs. Without any doubt they are currently, unknowingly, employing domestic abusers, pdeos, thieves, sociopaths, all sorts of white collar criminals, and more who simply haven't been caught. The whole situation is like that Doctor Who episode with the enslaved space whale everyone lives on and they sacrifice people to; nobody cares if they don't know what going on, so in reality everyone is immoral because if faced with knowing everything bad and being unable to exist or being happy, people will choose happiness 99% of the time. Or maybe it's The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, there' really isn't much option in reality, you just enforce justice equally when you can knowing you're helping bad people and they're helping you.

[@joeclarke7982]

​​@@bishop186 really JK is unrepentantly immoral because she does what? Opens a women's only center for abuse victims that doesn't cater to Trans women? That's ridiculous

[@ExtraVictory]

Yeah, that makes no difference at all, capitalism puts profit above human lives already. It's actually moreso your moral obligation to make your own life as tolerable as possible under capitalism, assuming you're working class that is. As someone born into a rich American family (albeit abroad in Japan) I would urge anyone to put their own well being and happiness above a paper thin moral high ground that doesn't even do anything. because capitalist exploitation is literally completely universal anyway lmfao. If you enjoy a product I would always say consume It and raise your own quality of life. But everyone has to make that choice for themselves I guess, that's just my perspective though. To me its not really different from consuming fiction with egregious elements, or very cutting edge fetish porn, other types of stuff that would be technically immoral if it wasn't fiction like dubcon or Loli or chikan or NTR. Incest, snuff, etc. Lots of people work at studios or in circles who make this type of porn & content in Japan and it would be like saying they should quit and be out of a job for moral purposes lol. because of what the art portrays. Or judging every fanfic writing girl because of the lack of consent in their writing. Or even the people who read of watch all of this stuff. At some point you just have to worry about your own happiness

[@TheTinaBelcher]

Disappointed sure. But I'm not surprised at Roiland's behaviour.

[@guest_informant]

*alleged behaviour

[@Im-BAD-at-satire]

I'm hoping it's only alleged but I wouldn't be surprised either.

[@stefancelmare866]

Why? I was pretty surprised about the news

[@CamSiv996]

​@@guest_informant yes, it is alleged. Therefore, it's not true, and no reason to fire Justin.

[@temin2776]

Okay, guys, I'm tired. Look at the situation. The court has not yet made a decision, it is not yet known whether this accusation is false or true. But it is already important for you to blame, to draw a conclusion, to argue about whether it is acceptable to love the work of a dubious person. I don't understand why you can't just wait for things to turn out. You weren't there. You don't know where the truth is and where the lie is, who should be blamed. But it's already important for you to say, "Oh, yes, I thought so." "No wonder it turned out that way." "And the series has not been so good for a long time." Enough! Is it important for you to find out the truth, or is it important to get into the right moral position? In case you didn't say that you admired the criminal? You are in the same situation that could become a plot about human hypocrisy in the same series. Yes! And I want to say something. When you are arguing about whether it is acceptable to pay money for art from bad people, I want to remind you that you do not ask about the moral character of doctors, salesmen, officials, lawyers and policemen, as long as your personal interests are not affected. It's important to you whether they do their job well, and I understand why this has a different meaning for artists, but it's also somewhat hypocritical. I myself know what it is, in relation to some of my favorite writers. And not only to writers. But I want to ask, why are you already preparing to get into the right moral position? What if they find out tomorrow that the accusation is false? What will you do then? Why is it so important for you to speak out now? (By the way, there are sites where you can watch cartoons for free, if you care so much. Perhaps this is more acceptable for you).

[@sj97inr4]

"There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all." Oscar Wilde

[@fionatastic0.070]

I think death of the author is so attractive because it’s frightening to us that we could relate emotionally to someone who has done terrible things. Of course there’s other elements to the issue, arguments about ethical consumption and renewed analysis of a work worries us that we will not enjoy something precious to us if we find it too problematic upon reflection and won’t find something else to replace it for example, aspects that take center stage in the discourse surrounding this topic, but I think psychologically this it what really bugs us.

[@ayanabeads1614]

I think art is a reflection of some aspect of the artist, their philosophy, ideology, sanity, morality, etc. I think we need to consider how we are influenced by that art, and most importantly, how we behave under that influence. I know he basically said the same thing in the video, but he didn’t go too deeply into how our society has been/ continues to be influenced and affected by subjectively “good” art made by objectively bad artists.

[@christianandjesse7370]

I mean yeah, like they're written multiple incest and chikd sex acts into the show, we should have seen it coming

[@99sins]

@@christianandjesse7370 besides that the show often handwaves or wrist-slaps a lot of what is genuinely abusive and horrific behavior with either some sappy emotional beats or the overall nihilistic energy it tries to push. I wouldn't say we should have seen it coming but more that I can only be so surprised after all the red flags.

[@christianandjesse7370]

@Kaweta for sure, and I get it. I don't think Seth MacFarlane is a rapist or anything, he writes the same jokes. But Rick and Monty takes it to another level

[@fromgreattobrilliant922]

​@@99sinsthat's to show the characters flaws. Not to say what the character is doing is right.

[@professorbaxtercarelessdre1075]

true, though maybe our own philosophy and morality are the reason we enjoy something to begin with, that's what i've been wondering, like do we like something cause its good, or because we relate to its hidden messages without realizing it? for me i just know regardless of what i enjoy, i try to be a wise and considerate person, not sure anyone's perfect at it, alas

[@ZiggyZ3]

This gave me a lot to think about. It’s actually making me re-think my approach to avoiding consuming art for fear of financially supporting artists who have done bad things. I don’t think that trying to financially punish an artist is very effective for changing their minds. I think it’s better to be honest and aware that the artist has certain views and recognize how their art may have made those views more palatable. In other words, good art can make the immorality go down easy. When an artist commits a crime or a moral offense, I think that shocks us into understanding the power that good art has over our emotions. It can make a bad idea seem good, a lame joke funny, a racist comment satire, or a bad person seem heroic, brave, or aspirational. For a lot of people this lifting of the veil can result in cognitive dissonance- an instinctual response to keep us believing the things we love aren’t so bad. People pointing out how bad an artist is can make us feel like our emotions are lying to us, that we’re not as rational or moral as we thought, which for many is an unacceptable conclusion. Good art can be a sort of witchcraft manipulating us into feeling and then believing things. I think- like many spells- the counter to this is awareness. Consume art knowing that the artist may be transphobic, racist,misogynistic, etc. but be aware of how the art makes those ideas more palatable. It’s a good thing to enjoy art because the art itself is good. Just remember that sometimes a strong glass of port can mask the taste of cyanide.

[@darkcranny3851]

Also, it's not like you're donating money to the artist. You're buying a product. That's what it is, an entertainment product. It's not like you're just giving them money because you like them as a person.

[@laurad.m6807]

What about artists that go out of their way to make bad things with the money they get from their art ? Like JK Rowling funding antitrans movements

[@ZiggyZ3]

@@laurad.m6807 That’s certainly a valid point. There’s a whole lot to discuss with this, but my mind goes to black friends who are enjoying Hogwarts Legacy and appreciate that there are a variety of black hairstyles. They clearly love the Harry Potter universe and appreciate that they finally see themselves represented in that. I don’t really want to take that away from them- but most of them aren’t there for the transphobia. Remember, JK Rowling is a great example of good art hiding bad ideas. You can protest her work, but that doesn’t stop her from being rich, and it doesn’t stop her fans from enjoying her IP. She can shield herself from any criticism or consequences by burying her head in gold. Additionally, fans who love the Wizarding World will likely dissociate from her ideas in favor of the art. Any protest as an outsider will likely fall on deaf ears, and there will be no accountability unless her bad ideas are obvious and on display. This will likely happen if she does something criminal or borderline criminal (Think about how fans reacted to R Kelly) I think a better alternative is critically examining the art and encouraging other fans to do the same. Ideally, the more apparent those ideas become in her art, the more her art will be unpalatable to the fans. Her art has to have a clear stigma of transphobia. That is to say that fans can no longer make the excuse that her politics don’t affect her work.

[@ZiggyZ3]

@@laurad.m6807 TLDR- Her art will age poorly as the fans mature.

[@darkcranny3851]

@@laurad.m6807 what is an anti-trans movement? I thought she just tweeted that biological sex is real.

[@christopherchilton-smith6482]

I gotta say your videos have really grown on me over these last couple of years. I hope that rebellious spirit that seems to leak out here and there is genuine.

[@blackbeardtx371]

I generally separate the art from the artist, no one is going to hold up to extreme scrutiny of the masses or time, they are just as flawed as I am. We as a society need to stop putting people on pedestals or start producing better people- we'll have a much easier time with the first one than the second.

[@theplatinumking9682]

Was thinking about this yesterday about Lovecraft, super racist but the father of Cosmic horror. I think yeah you can separate art and artist.

[@Hyperencrpted12345]

It is easier to seperate art and artist when you don't have to pay the artist to access the art.

[@theplatinumking9682]

@@Hyperencrpted12345 very true 👍

[@Feedbackking13]

Unless they profit from it, because when they profit from it then your only further funding their behavior.

[@QBG]

@@Hyperencrpted12345 Good point. We all know Lovecraft was extremely racist even for his day, and that this is reflected in many of his stories. However, he's been dead for almost a century. We can make adaptations of his work that remove the racism, or address and challenge it in-universe, and there's nothing he can say or do about it. And best of all, buying a Cthulhu-branded product won't directly empower him to take political actions that support his bigotry. Because unlike certain other writers, he's fucking dead.

[@lampostsamurai2518]

Tbf, Lovecraft at least said "my god, i was an ass. Don't do what i did!"

[@LightsOnTrees]

I think what's unfortunate with sexuality is that a lot of guys still have a public persona and a private persona. So where they will publicly stop engaging with certain authors, they will privately continue consumption, almost agreeing with the sexual abuse. Or as Kurt Cobain put it, when are we gonna stop speaking to women about sexual violence and start speaking to men.

[@JayLew91]

I appreciate your last statements about doing the work of honest moral interrogation. There needs to be discussion and respect for people's space. But I don't automatically judge someone for consuming art.

[@jasoncarto]

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT

[@IEcLiPsEI95]

At first, when the host changed, I feared it will not be the same. But as I continued to watch this channel doesn't take the easy approach of black and white takes, but the more nuanced and more personal ones, explaining everything we need to take into consideration before taking a decision and teaching us to be better more developed humans. Another banger video

[@bennuinspace6688]

i was really into tool growing up. like, they were my personality all the way through my 20's even. something happened, i guess i got old. somewhere along the way i collected enough knowledge to recognize them as human. just some dudes. they were no longer teaching me and their art was no longer a marvel. i was hoping this most recent album would have done something to blow my mind, but it just didnt. to me, thats the truth about these obsessive fan bases, they are enthralled by witnessing a magic trick and a proper glimpse behind the curtain would cure them of that. a good example is the star wars fandom that was better enjoyed before it became something we consume while also critiquing the management of the franchise.

[@kronikkronolov9793]

Plus Maynard is just cringey. Like he's not a good person, not even performatively.

[@Literallyjustmint]

@@kronikkronolov9793 are you mental

[@Literallyjustmint]

He's a great guy

[@hcxpl1]

YEAH, I think little is said about this side of things, how many artists and celebrities in general are for some reason put up on pedestals like they are beyond human. Not only that but, like you said, you grew out of it, and I think sometimes people are being shamed or such for engaging with a work of a reprehensible person, but, it might be just a phase, they might like something that isn't what made the artist despicable - like many in the HP fanbase, I'd imagine - and that the problem is not engaging with the work itself, but rather seeing it as something transcendental or created in vaccuum.

[@boxtupos7718]

@@kronikkronolov9793 Did I miss a contreversy of his? Isn't he just someone aloof? Or is it because he hates being put in a pedestal by fanatics? So he insults them, people who overanalyze their songs.

[@dalegaliniak607]

One of the things that I grapple with the most is when an artist creates work that seems to promote values that are hypocritical of the ones they actually live. You mentioned Joss Whedon, who I do think created shows that _did_ have strong female characters and broke gender stereotypes, and was celebrated for it, while Whedon himself was behaving awfully, abusing staff, and especially female staff, in a way completely opposite to the values he was writing and creating shows about. Louis CK did something very similar with comedy and I think Orson Scott Card also fits. Do I love the art, for the values it professes? And does having a bad creator make the message less true? And even if I accept that it might not, does supporting the art somehow "excuse" the creator, that I will ignore their bad deeds, just as long as they create art that doesn't offend me? I can honestly say I never know how to deal with it.

[@temin2776]

Okay, guys, I'm tired. Look at the situation. The court has not yet made a decision, it is not yet known whether this accusation is false or true. But it is already important for you to blame, to draw a conclusion, to argue about whether it is acceptable to love the work of a dubious person. I don't understand why you can't just wait for things to turn out. You weren't there. You don't know where the truth is and where the lie is, who should be blamed. But it's already important for you to say, "Oh, yes, I thought so." "No wonder it turned out that way." "And the series has not been so good for a long time." Enough! Is it important for you to find out the truth, or is it important to get into the right moral position? In case you didn't say that you admired the criminal? You are in the same situation that could become a plot about human hypocrisy in the same series. Yes! And I want to say something. When you are arguing about whether it is acceptable to pay money for art from bad people, I want to remind you that you do not ask about the moral character of doctors, salesmen, officials, lawyers and policemen, as long as your personal interests are not affected. It's important to you whether they do their job well, and I understand why this has a different meaning for artists, but it's also somewhat hypocritical. I myself know what it is, in relation to some of my favorite writers. And not only to writers. But I want to ask, why are you already preparing to get into the right moral position? What if they find out tomorrow that the accusation is false? What will you do then? Why is it so important for you to speak out now? (By the way, there are sites where you can watch cartoons for free, if you care so much. Perhaps this is more acceptable for you).

[@christianandjesse7370]

Louis CK was so upsetting to me, bexause his work was good and he positioned himself as a male feminist.

[@BorderlineBinge]

​​​@@temin2776 both Whedon and CK have admitted they did at least part of what they were accused of. While there are some unverified accusations, CK admitted to nonconsensually masturbating in front of a co-worker, Whedon admitted to sleeping with people who worked on his shows despite the obvious power dynamic and his marriage. These are things *they* said they did and apologized for doing, these things are not in dispute. Why does everyone feel the need to jump to the defense of millionaires who A. often already admitted fault and B. literally just don't care because no matter what, their careers and money are fine. JK, Roiland, CK, Cosby, Kelly - I promise you they'll all land on their feet no matter what they actually did or allegedly did because they have entirely too much money and power not to. So chill, your buddies can manage some lightly critical comments on a Wisecrack video. All that aside, do you honestly think the courts have never decided unfairly or unjustly and the law is naturally just and moral, and no one who has been found guilty in a court of law has ever been innocent, no one guilty lacks a conviction, and everything wrong is formally illegal? Because if so that's adorable. The courts - at least in the States - are hilariously bad at finding the truth and worse at any moral discourse.

[@temin2776]

@@BorderlineBinge No, I don't think so. All people can lie. Sometimes even a sincere confession is a lie. (There were precedents). But that's not what I'm talking about. All people lie, almost everyone. So why should we believe some and not believe others. I'm not defending Royland. I don't like his show. But I ask you, why is it so important for you to speak out on this topic? You weren't standing there with a candle. (There is such an expression in my language. Means you didn't witness all the events.)

[@dalegaliniak607]

@@temin2776 A few things: 1) The bar for me consuming media is much lower than sending someone to jail, as it should be. And while, in Roiland's case, he was accused of doing something illegal, there's a whole swath of things that might be legal but I don't want to support 2) I personally try not to jump to conclusions. If it was one accusation with no evidence, that's one thing, but when you have a whole bunch of people coming forward, with screenshots, and coworkers, from a variety of corporate levels, are jumping onboard saying, yes, it's true, that's a completely different story. After a certain point, you have to acknowledge that there's enough evidence to make a decision, as a consumer, even if the courts move slower, and you can't in good conscience pretend that there isn't. 3) I do expect my doctors, lawyers, political officials and policemen to behave ethically. In fact, all the professions you listed, with the exception of salespeople, actually have ethics codes and oaths as a part of their jobs. 4) It depends on how it all falls apart. If it ends up this was all some sort of a plot, I will admit I was wrong. But if it's a quiet settlement or the case gets thrown out on a technicality, I would say that the evidence is still high enough to not support Roiland, even if the bar wasn't high enough to send him to jail. 5) Piracy is a complicated subject, but whether you end up on the side of for or against it, I don't think you can wash your hands of the morality of consuming a piece of media just because you didn't pay for it. Thinking about it is necessary

[@NemFX]

There is a quote, that people far too often forget. It goes something like; "Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.” Or words to that effect. All of the best artists I know are generally terrible, or at least very damaged, people. I would posit the argument that you do not get GREAT art out of people who are mentally well off. Yes, you can be good in a Technical way, but you don't get the creativity, the experimentation, the.. for lack of a better descriptive word, Soul. There's always something missing. You look at the best artists humanity has created, and you see a laundry list of mental issues, societal issues, and so on. You ask, "What now?" I say "Well, it's friday, the sky is still blue, water is still wet, and nothing has changed."

[@Im-BAD-at-satire]

I agree with everything here but I feel there's some additional stuff to consider. I would find it wrong if an artists use likeness of people that actually exists when it comes to erotic forms of expression. I don't whatsoever care that an artist draws snuff or fictionalized depictions of a minor, you can't place human rights on a character that doesn't exist. But when they take the likeness of someone who exists in reality then it becomes vile, it's exactly what Chris Chan did many years ago of the only person genuinely giving them a chance to be a good friend, of course they blew that chance. That's the only example I could think of that isn't a hypothetical. When you're basing on people that actually exists then human rights and ethics should be involved.

[@temin2776]

Actually in that case people need to look at themselves. Who of us perfect? But why artists should be perfect?

[@guest_informant]

David Foster Wallace popularised this quote, but I don't think it originated with him.

[@availanila]

I suppose you'd love that white supremacist genocidal Rudyard Kipling then. That quote sucks, who the hell wants to appease disturbed people and insult mundane average Joe's? I'd forgive the "product of his time" argument than the modern day neonazi spreading their BS coz "it's beautiful." Ayn Rand sucked, but was given the time of day based on the body she occupied, Kanye West sucks but got where he is by grifting pan-Africans while being a neonazi all along. And those are just two people who comforted the disturbed and gave the average person a huge F you.

[@Im-BAD-at-satire]

@@sebastianluna4608 Art is a great way for the mentally disturbed to find a therapeutic routine, it would be best paired with advice and treatment coming from professionals of course. I don't feel the quote reflects everyone, art comforting the disturbed could imply a healthy way to express your thoughts but I wouldn't say this reflects the majority of the mentally well talented artists out there.

[@jimbojones247]

charges were dropped. how about you make an apology video? might be a good first step to redeem yourselves

[@JaceDeanLove]

For what? Did they say he did it?

[@alexvignolo7798]

They profited from the allegation which, if false, equates to defamation. Does he get a %? He sustained social damages.

[@pbfloyd13]

I feel like it depends on how much of themselves the artist put into their work

[@lastmatch1111]

Artist put all of themselves in their work. The work comes from them. They are the creators.

[@MungkaeX]

I think you hit the nail on the head with the response of Roiland to his prior controversy is the crux of this. We are all imperfect humans capable of mistakes in judgement; but the response when confronted with those mistakes is key to determining how much remorse and forgiveness a given individual deserves. One aspect I feel like you danced past without fully addressing is how the remorseless offender who doubles down on their hurtful words or actions is financially rewarded when we choose to continue consuming their media while tossing the blanket “separate the art from the artist” response.

[@MungkaeX]

@@beepboop204 In the case of much of our corporately produced media landscape you are absolutely correct. My concern is more of those individuals who are alive, say and fund hateful things, and are financially rewarded for our consumption of the media franchise they started. Specifically I’m thinking of JK Rowling who is a well documented Transphobe, gives vast quantities of her personal gold hoard to Trans-Hate groups who are responsible for acts of domestic terrorism against trans people, and despite contributing little to nothing to the new media offshoots of her series still is personally raking in more money from those sales than anyone involved in making such new media. The new Hogwarts Legacy is the most recent addition to this cavalcade; while supporters argue that they want to support the developers, it’s a fact that those developers have been paid for their work already and game publishers will not pay them one penny more for their work on the game no matter how many or how few copies are sold. In fact as EA, WB, CDPR and countless other scummy publishers have proven; even if the game is a monumental success going above and beyond expectations, those developers will likely be let go simply to ensure that the executives can be granted even more egregiously large bonuses. No, as much as they try to deflect responsibility; the profits made by purchases of the game will go to JK, executives, and the shareholders; and that money going to JK is being funneled into transphobic groups and further emboldening her to continue spouting and funding Hate.

[@DakwanTheChef]

Guys, I love the content but BRING UP THE AUDIO LEVEL, IT'S TOO LOW!!!

[@zainmudassir2964]

It's the style so it's okay 👍

[@white_biscuit]

@@zainmudassir2964 well the style is shit

[@shibingeorge89]

How about moving money from royalties for criminals to public funds? Like moving the ownership to an art Trust or a museum for example?

[@EB240]

sounds very socialist, i like it, i like when people have solutions to problems

[@Sue_Me_Too]

@@EB240 I have a Fine Ol Solution for socialists...

[@Navonex]

Immoral art ultimately creates controversy, and that almost always sells. Mix that with people who will go to great lengths to defend what they love. You get a scenario where they're forced to acknowledge something wrong or skim over it. Since neither, emphasis "FEEL" like the correct response, everyone kinda emotionally implodes.

[@Sue_Me_Too]

"Immoral art" like what, a snuff film?

[@Peace_And_Love42]

I had an interesting talk with my kids about this when they were ~7. I played for them Bill Cosby's Noah sketch, and prefaced it with our knowledge of what Cosby had done. When we got to the end of it, my younger child said something along the lines of, "We can like his funny stuff, but we shouldn't give him any more money or attention." Kids can be f-ing smart, y'all.

[@jesses7244]

Correction- YOUR kid can be smart. Most other people lack this kind of critical thinking, sadly. But I do remain hopeful for the future.

[@rabidrabids5348]

@@jesses7244 What do you think the kid meant by saying "we shouldn't give him any more money or attention?"

[@jesses7244]

@@rabidrabids5348 It’s pretty obvious, no? That’s we cannot, ethically or morally support Cosby with funding since knowing what he did. Their child is smart because they understand the difference in enjoying content before someone was confirmed to be a rapist, and choosing to support them after gaining that knowledge.

[@LucBoeren]

Holy shit i’m not sure many kids are as smart as that though haha

[@Peace_And_Love42]

@@rabidrabids5348 I told the kids that we were watching a video put up by some rando, not an official channel, so Cosby wasn't profiting, monetarily or algorithmically. That's probably what they meant (to whatever degree they understand algorithms).

[@im36degrees]

It's harder when the artists art involves themselves. watching a woody allen movies that he stars in feels much different than a roman Polanski film...

[@meinbherpieg4723]

Around 6:10 its asserted that this basically comes down to our individual ethics and morals. So what does it say if a majority of people choose not to denounce art they like when it's creator is immoral? Is it a compromising of our morality? And if so, what difference is there between an immoral artist whose work you like, and, say, an immoral corporation whose products you like? At what point are citizens culpable for putting hedonism and aesthetics before a moral stance?

[@messwithhelpy]

Jaywalker says what?

[@davelawson03]

Eh…that “moral stance” could easily translate into vain self righteousness in this case.

[@fauxjackhorseman5793]

im surprised you didnt bring musicians like marilyn manson and jimmy page up in this one as well

[@eleven2614]

Reminds me of discussions online, about weather people want to boycott Flash and Aquaman 2 for Miller and Heard, or support them for Keaton and Momoa... 😅

[@nullakjg767]

its weird when people say "morals" like we all agree on them. Some people think a lot of laws shouldnt exist and things that are crimes shouldnt be considered ones. Some people think its immoral to allow abortion. Some people think its immoral to allow in too many immigrants. Some people think its immoral to allow jewish people to exist. Some people think segregation is moral. Theres no unified code of morality and the internet is only increasing the disparity as people with different values can congregate. The entire premise of this video is bunk. Also this guy clearly didnt do his research on louis ck if he thinks he didnt suffer from cancel culture. He lost over 30 million dollars and a show and had to start over using his own company since he couldnt be employed elsewhere. Thats like saying "it wasnt cancel culture, the dixie chicks could still find employment elsewhere!" when they got dropped by their label. Because back then many people thought NOT supporting war was immoral.

[@Wernouis]

This video was awesome! Some really nice concepts and elucidations to keep in mind from now on when dealing with so called "problematic" artists and art itself. Thanks for your work!

[@shababdidar]

Honestly, it shocked me to the core when it was established that Roiland did these nasty things. Why do creatives who make such good quality work turn out to be shitty people? :(

[@elvillivle]

I don't think it's creativity that made him do it, it's power. This happens in all industry, both creative and non-creative.

[@kcthonian]

Charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence. So, other than an accusation of wrong doing, there's no actual proof.

[@runemisty]

Great video as always! The end part was really fun to listen to - you were doing what the people you spoke about did through their art - try to bring in your own work justification for why you did that work on rick and morty. Not sure if that was intentional but food for thought!

[@SwaySilva]

I wonder how stuff like this impacts the morality of piracy. I see a lot of people suggest that piracy becomes moral in situations like this.

[@jam199716]

He’s a creative genius. I love his art. Didn’t really care about him as a person before this still don’t after this.

[@Sue_Me_Too]

I don't think he was actually involved in the creative process of the show, he'd just show up drunk and improvise lines...

[@Crazael]

To me, it is entirely possible to do so, and I do it all the time. While I understand that some people cannot separate the two, and I think their opinions are perfectly valid, I can do so easily see no reason why I shouldn't.

[@theaizere]

The thing is- good art is experience, an expression, a view, experience is all subjective and personal, the reason why in highschool you read the authors biographies, politics at the times etc is to give context and be able to understand the text fully. I did not explain this as well as I could've but hope that at least something transferred. Rick and Morty type of stuff can be viewed without the biographies of the creators since it's a work of enormous groups of people doing the work, royland specifically had minute contributions for years, after the second season in my opinion it hasn't been cohesive/great

[@will_silvano]

Damn this something that’s been on a lot of people’s minds

[@messwithhelpy]

That's why I love high school girls, I get older, they stay the same age

[@jugginator2.068]

@@messwithhelpy Sir

[@will_silvano]

Oh yea, I almost forgot this is still the Internet. Thanks for the friendly reminder.

[@will_silvano]

I need help. I see a joke, but I’m not seeing the relevance… or was this joke supposed to be irrelevant? Idk. I’ve probably spent too much time thinking about this. I’d better go walk the kids and take the dog to school 😅

[@silentortoise3627]

I find it very annoying that people get surprised/shocked when artists who's work is known for being deviant and irreverent are caught being deviant and irreverent. Its like they dont get the very traits that they love have more than just one behavioral product. Judge them how you like but a society where creatives are following the rules and not making people uncomfortable will not have much laughter or innovation.

[@marceloaguerohollman2310]

Art is good as long as it generates a reponse, wether its hate, laughhter or anything in between. The only bad art is that wich leaves you indifferent, wich doesnt generate any emotion or make you question reality in any way. It is not surprising that great artists are troubled humans who dont fit into mainstream society, they are always on the edge of whats known, thought or accepted. that is exactly why they art resonates with us and wether you love it or hate it will never be irrelevant

[@Sue_Me_Too]

There's effective and ineffective art; does it communicate the meaning that it was _intended_ to communicate, or do people go "UGHH!!" and avert their gaze?

[@dUFGoLZ]

Just remember: If you punish someone by avoiding their work, you might also punish many others who worked on the same project.

[@OdinOfficialEmcee]

To this point, I also think it is of interest to note that society is only concerned when it is a high profile name attached to a project. If a camera operator that worked in Hollywood for 30 years was found out to be an abusive husband or some other negative thing, nobody would suggest that all the work he helped create ought to be boycott. I suspect this is solely because of commodified morality and the ability to leverage a famous evil to thrust your "appropriate reaction" upon as many eyes as possible. This allows one to reap the social reward of virtue signalling from likeminded zealots, and become a martyr to that community when zealots of a differing stripe encounter your virtue signal and roundly condemn it.

[@lentrozenol1037]

But is the punishment evenly distributed? If someone refused to buy Hogwarts Legacy, would every person at Warner Brothers, from the CFO to the night janitor, lose out on the collective $59.99 with tax? In reality, most of the money made from large controversial projects doesn't make it down to the people least connected to the controversy therein.

[@OdinOfficialEmcee]

@@lentrozenol1037 The unequal share of profit in a major media company's IP actually affects those at the bottom more. When the market proves a given piece is not viable the first people to lose out are the creatives involved, and if that happens to enough creatives in a company's roster, then the administrative and maintenance crews will be affected. The managerial and ownership groups will be the last to be affected and the least affected by commercial failure. As such, a boycott disproportionatly harms creatives and administrators, and has a net neutral affect on the managerial and ownership strata. While a commercial success does disproportionatly benefit the managers and owners, the benefit to the creatives and administrators is as noticable and significant for them as a failure. Furthermore, the effect is only dispropirtionate if we consider individual economic gain, if we consider the groups as a whole, the creatives, administrators, and maintenance personal will typically reap a greater collective reward than the managers and owners do.

[@taliaphlogiston5801]

Not really, in a collaborative work (such as film) the majority of those workers (Managerial, Custodial, Crew, Effects) are salaried or hourlies who are paid as they work (not after a film is released). The people hit by poor box office are the artist(s) and financiers who have a stake in box office returns. In fact, continued support and financing of "bad people" can result in financial losses (from a disenchanted public) that will ultimately effect everyone on a project in terms of lower wage increases (or layoffs in extreme cases). This is why "bad people" going unfinanced (getting cancelled) is arguable a shrewd financial move over all.

[@fionatastic0.070]

That’s a really reductive take. In that case, everything I don’t buy is punishing a worker. More specific to this instance, if someone works for a company, just because they worked on a certain project doesn’t mean they aren’t getting paid if it doesn’t sell. And if we’re not having an argument about capitalism being the issue of how and why the other creators are punished, then I can argue that they can work on another project. And if a large public figure uses the success of something to gauge how acceptable their actions are, then why give them the satisfaction?

[@OdinOfficialEmcee]

I think the reason this question is so impactful in our current time, is because when we enjoy art, we identify with themes in it and subconciously understand that those themes are a piece of the creator, and as such, we identify with some part of the creator. So, when they do something that we either can't identify with, or don't want to see as part of ourselves, we become stuck in a state of cognitive dissonance; not able to deny our appreciation of the art to ourselves, but insecure over what identifying with a "bad" person says about us, as people. In a culture of commodifed morality obsessed with surface level perceptions, this issue becomes a flashpoint for conflict brought about by virtue signalling in an effort to capitalize on the event by appealing to specific communities with the "appropriate" public reaction. I think the only way to move past this is to understand that everyone's closet has skeletons, and know that no person is wholly evil or good, and one's act of evil neither erases nor outweighs one's act of good, that each act simply _is_ . Furthermore, I think we need to develop a greater self-assured resiliance so that when those we identify with and admire for whatever reason are inevitably proved fallable humans, our world is not shattered and we can accept the positive traits we identify with, and reject those that do not match our own values. The only way to develop that though, is to become less concerned with the anonomys hoard we are all currently hellbent on appeasing, despite the impossibility of doing so. In a virtue economy, questions like these cannot be adequatly answered, and will always devolve into tribal vitriol rather than productive discussion and actual reductions in harm to those actually affected by evil actions.

[@NoOne-hg1qc]

yes, this sort of 'partitioning' this is kind of the like the idea of not dismissing an argument just because of the source ... to put a really fine point on it, it's like the idea that just because hitler says it, doesn't mean it inherently must be wrong as an argument lol :p

[@ruthspanos2532]

Just because Hitler said something doesn’t mean it can’t possibly be valid. Especially in areas outside his, um, evilness. But I wouldn’t recommend citing him as a source. There are probably others who said or explained it better.

[@NoOne-hg1qc]

@@ruthspanos2532 lol, true. and if he were a relatively unknown figure and started getting cited everywhere, it would be likelier that some people would get drawn into the more negative aspects because of that initial 'hey he said some shit that makes sense!' lol

[@LiamsEntertainmentFranchise]

I am 100% part of the Dan Harmon community. I identify with him in so many ways, and his now-ended podcast, Harmontown, helped me through some really hard times. I've probably listened to the first 300 episodes 5 or 6 times since I started in 2016. He's made some bad mistakes, many of which were on full display on his podcast (his and Jeff Davis' very poor, sometimes abusive, treatment of Dan's then-girlfriend, Erin McGathy, being a prime example). Seriously, there's a couple episodes I always skip on a re-listen because he's so fucking mean to her. On stage. What has kept me on the Harmontrain despite these things, is that he has always been open and honest about his behavior, and, more importantly, his willingness to learn, grow, and change for the better. He started the podcast in a toxic relationship in which he bullied and gaslit his girlfriend; he ended it in a healthy, loving relationship, having apologized to his ex. He started it as someone who belittled therapy as a practice, and ended it as one of its biggest advocates. He started it as someone who would openly and cruelly reply to any social media dissenters with paragraphs of abuse, and ended it having quit twitter and given up ever writing negatively online. And then there's the apology he made to Megan Gantz that you mentioned, which he did live on Harmontown, sparing no details, offering no excuses, asking for no forgiveness, and imploring his audience to listen to the women in their lives and own up to any way they've harmed them like he did. I could go on, but Dan Harmon is a hero of mine not because he's a paragon of virtue, but because he acknowledges his flaws and improves himself, and commits sincerely to writing his wrongs. His journey over the course of Harmontown really inspired me. It showed me, episode by episode, that it's never too late to change.

[@DThron]

I strongly advise people to think of their experience of any art as their own, with no outside requirements or judgements. Our feelings toward art should not be codependent. Openly love what you love, because you love it. If you find out an artist is a terrible person, know that the beauty you found in the work was beauty you found in yourself, not in them, as the work is only a mechanism for reflection, and what you discover is your own. The artist has no say over what you feel about their work, whether you are right or wrong. They may think you're a sucker, you may think they are a scumbag. But you might read their book, watch their film, play their game - and be moved. That's because the art is YOU. Likewise, if whatever they've done makes it impossible for you to enjoy the work, that is for you to say as well. But only for yourself. Trust that others, like you, are only trying to find beauty and happiness, and don't try to take that from them, or shame them for their love. You may not like someone, you may hate a work of art or the person who made it. But that feeling is yours, not others. Love what and who you love, do it honestly, and let everyone else do the same. And if you share the things about it that you love, you will be surprised at how much there is to share, because we are talking about love, and we all have more of that than anything else.

[@entropy0shacknews]

Thank you for addressing this topic; and for handling it in such a well thought out manner.

[@Rampala]

The issue for me isn't that the art is automatically bad because the creator may be reprehensible, but if that creator is alive, then it's unethical to financially support them regardless of the quality of the art. That said, Rick and Morty is created by a team of people, not a single person, so is it wrong to continue watching it even if Roiland will not be associated with it in the future? I don't know.

[@temin2776]

Okay, guys, I'm tired. Look at the situation. The court has not yet made a decision, it is not yet known whether this accusation is false or true. But it is already important for you to blame, to draw a conclusion, to argue about whether it is acceptable to love the work of a dubious person. I don't understand why you can't just wait for things to turn out. You weren't there. You don't know where the truth is and where the lie is, who should be blamed. But it's already important for you to say, "Oh, yes, I thought so." "No wonder it turned out that way." "And the series has not been so good for a long time." Enough! Is it important for you to find out the truth, or is it important to get into the right moral position? In case you didn't say that you admired the criminal? You are in the same situation that could become a plot about human hypocrisy in the same series. Yes! And I want to say something. When you are arguing about whether it is acceptable to pay money for art from bad people, I want to remind you that you do not ask about the moral character of doctors, salesmen, officials, lawyers and policemen, as long as your personal interests are not affected. It's important to you whether they do their job well, and I understand why this has a different meaning for artists, but it's also somewhat hypocritical. I myself know what it is, in relation to some of my favorite writers. And not only to writers. But I want to ask, why are you already preparing to get into the right moral position? What if they find out tomorrow that the accusation is false? What will you do then? Why is it so important for you to speak out now? (By the way, there are sites where you can watch cartoons for free, if you care so much. Perhaps this is more acceptable for you).

[@rabidrabids5348]

@@temin2776 We can tell you're tired, it must be really exhausting to copy and paste that comment.

[@temin2776]

@@rabidrabids5348 Well, sometimes you can ask same question. Because many people can say same things.

[@matteste]

A little surprised that you never brought up someone like Lovecraft who was infamous for his xenophobic views even by the standards of his time. Especially given how that xenophobia influenced his work. Though he could also serve as something of a redemption story given that he started to come around to more reasonable views near the end of his life. Sadly he died before being able to fully express these more redeemed ideas.

[@WeirdTale]

Because Lovecraft was intelligent enough to recognize how wrong his believes where once he really started to think about it. In the end Lovecraft is a case of a man that in the bottom of his heart wasn't horrible but had been misguided by a horrible environment his whole life, and needed exposure to the truth to be able to start correcting those beliefs.

[@DaLHunt44]

Not "enriched ideas" but "redeemed ideas" itself tells a lot of things about this topic. Everybody's a redeemer.

[@BDTPBO]

Most of my life my favorite artists were drug addicts, abusers and mostly terrible people. If we removed their art because of their personal behavior the world would be terribly boring.

[@muffen5148]

This video really shifted something in my perspective and the way I’ve viewed these topics in the past- I think for the better so thank you❤

[@dhacker949]

I accepted a long time ago that is basically impossible to ‘know’ a celebrity, so scandals rarely bother me. They are probably both better and worse than whatever I know about them from 3rd (and 4th and 5th …) parties.

[@fullpull1996]

I love how you talked about wanting to defend the things we like even if it is made by horrible people. Then proceed to defend Rick and Morty at the end. Yea it might be a reasonable defense, and I am not judging you at all for it. I just find it funny.

[@runamerone5492]

To be fair it's been pretty clear over the last few seasons that Rick and Morty has taken a bit of a positive turn towards identifying and calling out the toxic behaviour previously glorified on the show. the fact that Rick and Morty have done so much to fix the problem they themselves created should be a show of proper redemption, in my eyes. That's just me, though.

[@ember-brandt]

@@runamerone5492 Eh, I could have personally done without most of the incest jokes. The Beth x Beth plotline actually narratively fit and worked comedically, largely because it was also seen through the lens of horrified characters - but every other time, it just felt like the writer's barely concealed fetish.

[@christianandjesse7370]

@Runa Merone have they? Nothing has really changed. If anything the family has gotten much worse. They started out nornal enough. Now summer is a psycho murderer, morty goes into murderous rampages, etc. And the show can say Rick's a POS, but at the end of almost every episode it's still him being right, and the family forgiving him.

[@TomboTime]

When it comes to separating the art from the artist, some are easier to remove than others depending on the context. Justin Roiland is easier to remove than it might seem on the surface. Sure, he's credited as a co creator for 3 hit shows, the first of which is arguably the most popular cartoon in western animation right now . . . . but as expressed by his peers he isn't THAT influential to their identity anymore. He partook in writing only 5 episodes in the entire run of Rick and Morty: 3 of which are interdimensional cable and morty's mind blowers, which are written for the distinct purpose of letting him riff and don't require actual writing on his part. He is not responsible for ANY of the highest rated episodes for any season. His biggest contribution is voice acting, and even then, he can do 3 voices at best. There are a lot of voice actors out there with far, far more range than him but are less of household names. Other than that one might argue he's partially responsible for the aesthetics of his shows, namely the big mouths and the weird squigily pupils, but even then all the designs are just clean, riggable versions of Roiland's scribblings. Justin Roiland is, arguably, the most overrated man in Western Animation. Perhaps second only to John K. He was able to get shows greenlit left and right and is a rare case of a voice actor amplified to mega stardom surpassing his peers, but at the end of the day the greatness of his shows can be accredited to all of his CO creators: Dan Harmon, Mike McMahan and Michael Cusack. As for his voices . . . .he's incredibly easy to replace. Talented impressionists are all over the place. J.K. Rowling is . . . much more difficult. For one, she is the solitary author of her critically acclaimed books, meaning there's no argument for how responsible she truly is for the franchise's greatness. For another, while her views are abhorrent, she isn't *technically* a criminal, and therefore cannot be fired and will still very much profit from any Harry Potter merchandise going forward. She also openly admitted that buying HP stuff is either proving agreement with her views or is saying that her views aren't problematic enough for you to care. In this case . . .the only ethical way to consume Harry Potter stuff is to wait until Rowling dies. Either that or pirate everything.

[@bw0081]

Rixty Minutes is one of the most funny episodes of any television show I have ever seen. It saddens me that they’ll most likely never recreate this. For Harry Potter, I am not a fan. However, I’m not sure people purchasing any Harry Potter IP is “unethical.” It’s simply people getting things they enjoy.

[@ultraparanoia]

Good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things. It's called human nature.

[@johnpurser2798]

Thank you for a really intelligent and nuanced view on a hot topic. I wouldn't say you changed my mind on the topic but you gave me a framework to look at my own views. I appreciate the new perspective.

[@natedoge23]

People who can't separate art from artists need to grow up. Their the same people who have trouble understanding innocent till proven guilty.

[@balumeikle8667]

very simplistic take. i really disagree when people like r kelly talk about their paedophilia. it glorifies this. media influences us and to ignore it influences to normalise immoral things is lowkey braindead. Also some artists are vulnerable in terms of mental instability just giving them money and support is blind faith and kind of exploitative

[@Sgt.McHale]

Good art, bad people? Ethan from Crystal Castles

[@rosecity_chris]

In a similar vein, I'd like to see you guys explore why so many men in entertainment (especially streaming/youtube) end up associated with s.a. in one form or another. It's insane to me how many times it's happened.

[@AngryPug76]

Experts say 1 out of 3 females, and 1 out of 6 males are victims of SA in the US. Having worked in a pediatric psychiatric hospital I’m unfortunately certain those numbers are right. It isn’t that so many male celebrities are predators, it’s that it almost only makes the news when the predators are celebrities so it looks like there is a concentration there. There isn’t. The number of male SA predators is extremely high and almost never prosecuted. The number of female SA predators is also much higher than people imagine.

[@12DAMDO]

as someone who knows how to separate art from the artist i won't let real life drama affect the way i see the shows/movies/games/art i consume

[@dororo101]

I see what you mean but it’s not really that simple. Or not always that simple. I could say mass effect andromeda had so much horrible things happen to make that game that it would have tainted the game even if it was great. I would have played and enjoyed it then but it would still be tainted.

[@arisboba]

This is nothing more than a coping mechanism tbh

[@12DAMDO]

@@arisboba not at all.. 90% of the media i consume i am not even aware of who made it... i think caring about irl drama and letting it affect your enjoyment in art requires you to actively seek it out.. i have no idea who wrote Death Note for example, i just know it was 2 emo kids or whatever (that's how little my knowledge is) so if i were to find out new information that they're terrible people, why should that affect the enjoyment i had for it over something i wouldn't even have known about? i am willing to bet MOST people don't know who created the stuff they enjoy.. and to make it even worse, HP Lovecraft is extremely popular despite the fact that he literally uses his racism in his work (don't look up Shub N****rath) but nobody seems to care about that because "hehe Cthulhu goes brrrr" and that's fair: the popular Cthulhu isn't racist, the lesser known Shub N****rath is.. same creator, different result.. clearly most people care more about the art than the artist..

[@brunonjezic6208]

being a Art student i got used to the fact bad people do great art, if i dont i cant see 90% of it due to the idea what bed person is, especially today, when people have super different understanding of what is ok and what not. you cant say anything without pissing at least someone off.

[@jasonsaddison]

Thanks for this. Extremely relevant in a media saturated environment. I find the saturation actually makes it easier for me when making these calls, but I can get how it's hard. Haven't come across it in my classes or studies yet, but it definitely makes me feel better about my evolving understanding in Art Philosophy. Or at least I appreciate the exorbitant cost that I paid for those classes a little more maybe?

[@marcusgarcia06]

All I can do is hold myself accountable. I will always make sure to do the correct thing and be my best person. Consuming media for my pleasure will never be something I let others try to shame me out of. I am not a bad person for spending my money and time how I like when it those actions don’t outright affect another person negatively.

[@jimprine7522]

Is adult swim going to welcome justin back now that all charges were dropped

[@XanBcoo]

This happens in the anime community too, though for some reason it's swept under the rug because weebs tend to think Japan is their special right wing libertarian paradise. There's an upcoming Rurouni Kenshin reboot, a show whose original author was charged with possession of a significant amount of child porn. And that fact is largely kind of...ignored. Or dismissed. It's weird

[@aliasfakename2267]

There's always a weird amount of idolizing other cultures in fandoms while conveniently forgetting about anything negative. The same can be said of metalheads, their identity is often so wrapped up in music they tend to downplay anything negative as they feel it would tarnish their reputation personally.

[@Santoryu90]

The whole thing with the author of Rurouni Kenshin makes me hesitant to ever go back and read or watch the series again. The only other example I know of is the series Oshiete! Galko-chan, who’s author got charged for similar reasons and now the series is suspended.

[@elgracko]

A song like 'F the police', for example, is part of a narrative that asks you to empathize with the circumstances of the artist or people like the artist. If that artist later on Fs up and like drives drunk or kills his best friend or something, it doesn't contradict that narrative. The point of the song was to see through their eyes, to See the other person, As a fellow human. And people sometimes F up, obviously, as we all do, because we're people, this knowledge, can be easily assimilated into our knowledge, What i think we revile is the abuse of power, the power that came as part of our collective celebration of the artist, which i think might make us feel complicit and guilty, which we process as a betrayal, We might look to our idols for the Universal acceptance we might not feel from our everyday lives, imagine the betrayal when we find that that artist expressed distaste for the sub-society you personally belong to, This look towards some universal parent figure we put on a pedestal across the particular screen we see them through, speaks to the alienation of the individual in our society, These jolts into reality should wake us up to the context of our adoration: that We Are seeing our idols through a screen: a 2 dimentional representation of the world, artificial and atemporal, or through their art: a deliberate misrepresentation of the world, in the case of Rick and Morty,

[@leonnewkirk1713]

This is late reply. Your assessment sums up the betrayal and dilemma people feel. People look up to talented and famous people so much because these author the escape from our reality and remedy to ailments. When that screen breaks and we're jolted into reality, we don't know what to do

[@elgracko]

@@leonnewkirk1713 , yah, I agree completely, we look for shelter and for something more ideal in these escapes, in sharp contrast to the muddled and darker realities in our lives,

[@memcycle8]

I think there’s a fine line between the creator and its creation in a sense that we rather have the creation without the creator’s contribution, and move forward in that direction. Idk, something similar to it, if it makes sense.

[@AmzainT]

I'm surprised you didn't mention the 'Death of the author' theory of Roland Barthes! That fits in here perfectly.

[@andyhilaire515]

This aged like milk 😂

[@Carlosmgcosta]

For me, I’ve honestly bound myself fairly tightly around two authors. Brandon Sanderson and Joe Abercrombie. Fingers crossed that doesn’t come to bite me in the a*s lol.

[@Sue_Me_Too]

I'm a huge fan of Robert E Howards literature, but that guy was a raving lunatic. If you can make it through the first chapter of Solomon Kane without needing to take a shower then you're a stronger man than me.

[@Thedarkknight2244]

Louis CK is my all time favourite comedian and he has such incredible philosophies and outlooks about life. When he was exposed it was hard. For the longest time I defended him. But now I accept what he did was wrong, but I can only continue enjoying him by knowing that what he did was redeemable. If he had outright never asked any consent (as opposed to his half hearted attempts in those moments), or outright r-worded anyone, i wouldn't be able to stomach his content.

[@dustincaso6781]

What did he do that was so wrong? He literally said what he was about to do and gave plenty of opportunity to leave lol.

[@myaccount9120]

He asked for permission actually and they agreed.

[@ufinc]

Ok, I'll be the one to say it: The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

[@G4L4N0TH]

The domestic charges against Roiland were dismissed.

[@xlnyc77]

You'd think a cartoon based on a sketch where an old man who tricked a young boy to lick the old man's testicles would have a morally sound creator.

[@zotharr]

Nicely put