With the rise of cancel culture, it’s something that’s got me curious, why are so many works (music, literature, tv shows, etc.) no longer separated from their controversial makers? Is it purely to do with money (e.g. not wanting to give money to people you don’t agree with?) and what about controversial people who are dead? They don’t gain anything, so why isn’t the art separated from the artist? What’s your opinion on this topic?

  • Zarobi@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    27 days ago

    Ignore what everyone else says. They’re applying their own moral judgements to what is ultimately your own personal decision.

    Whenever someone posts this they’re usually feeling guilty for enjoying the Harry Potter series. Personally, I can’t enjoy Harry Potter anymore because the author is transphobic and awful. It makes me sad to watch it anymore because of that. If I found out later that something I enjoyed is also made by an author I dislike, I similarly stop enjoying it.

    You might think that’s silly, but think of it like Nestle. You can enjoy their chocolate, it’s genuinely good chocolate. But they’re one of the most evil companies on the planet. It’s your personal decision, nobody else’s, whether you’re willing to ignore that, and still eat their chocolate and support their business practices. It’s a psychological phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance.

    As for dead people… it’s more nuanced. If it’s from 100+ years ago; basically everyone was racist etc back then, so it’s more a sign of the times changing. If they died yesterday, that doesn’t fly.

    So my moral framework can be summarised as:

    • I don’t like financially supporting evil
    • I don’t like culturally supporting evil subtexts or evil authors
    • Historical works get a pass

    You’ll need to find your own moral framework, something you can work on and stand by with pride. Don’t just copy others’.