zlacker

My one "boomer" take: Something I wish the younger generation would learn is that it's useful to be able to separate a work from its author. Some of my favorite films were produced by Harvey Weinstein. They're still my favorite films. The fact that a slimeball was a force behind making them doesn't detract from their content. I like Robert Heinlein sci-fi, even though, judged by today's moral yardstick, some of his views were... questionable. I still like Harry Potter even though J. K. Rowling went totally bananas. Troubled and/or terrible people can make great art and music, and it's OK to like the art and question the artist.

>>ryandr+(OP)
I have to disagree with this, sadly. Supporting the work is supporting the author so they can continue doing terrible author things. This is why boycotts are effective and "oh well, I'll just keep buying it anyway" is not.

>>jason_+w2
Depends on how you enjoy them. I'm re reading Harry Potter off and on. I already bought the books before JK Rowling expressed her views. My reading does not give her another dime.

Same thing with Blu-Ray of Pulp Fiction though I believe Weinstein Company has given up all rights to most of their movies.

>>jason_+w2
Additionally, boycotting is one of the vanishing rare ways we have influence over anyone richer or more powerful than us.

>>jason_+w2
I think these are two positions that don't inherently conflict. In most cases you can still enjoy art you loved before you knew the artist was problematic without continuing to give them money.

Don't stream it and don't buy a new copy unless someone completely unrelated owns it now, but you can still listen to, watch, or read the stuff you loved before you knew what was going. Whatever you already owned didn't suddenly become toxic. Used book/music/movie stores exist. Piracy is always an option.

That's not to say a few people haven't managed to ruin it beyond my ability to enjoy their content no matter how much I used to love them, but there's no reason to give up something you enjoy just because you learn the person or a key person behind it sucks.

>>jason_+w2
So, has any of that slowed down J.K. Rowling? These sorts of boycotts seem to be more of an attempt at controlling something in an uncontrollable situation rather than an actually effective means of change. “Voting with your wallet” is almost never effective.

>>ryandr+(OP)
The supreme court ruling on the meaning of gender demonstrates that in fact everyone except JK Rowling and likeminded people “went totally bananas”.

>>oivey+EC
> Voting with your wallet” is almost never effective.

It's far more effective than apathy. Just look at how the tariffs are going

>>ryandr+(OP)
> it's OK to like the art and question the artist.

And then the artist takes his fortune and his fame to get laws voted against you and your friends and family.

>>jason_+w2
> Supporting the work is supporting the author so they can continue doing terrible author things.

This has always seemed like the flimsiest argument. It costs nothing for JK Rowling to tweet. On the flipside, the joy and wonder her books have produced for the world dwarf what else she has wrought and in the end her life will be a net-positive, more so than your vegan co-worker. Doesn't make her a good person, just a net-positive.

>>jason_+w2
Eh - if you extend this mode of thinking to all of your purchases, you would have to withdraw from nearly all economic activity.