Not so fast Mr Shark! (I mean, don't stop, else you will sink, but slow down a bunch, eh?)

Kyle is comparing apples with oranges. Most of those folks were long dead before I (an old guy) were exposed to their works. As brilliant as they are, I don't consider their works, at the cost of the misery they* inflicted, a reasonable trade.
*some, not all
But in 2019 the damage is already done. We can enjoy their works without rewarding the authors for their misdeeds.


But when living artists are revealed to be terrible people, it is appropriate to shun their work. It doesn't mean their work isn't good, brilliant even. It's that the authors - and in turn, ourselves - are supposed to pay an appropriate price. Eventually that price becomes a deterrent. And that's a good thing.

There's another element, particularly applicable in the case of Harvey Weinstein and the like: how much genius have we been denied because these monsters put their deviancy ahead of the world's opportunity to benefit from unknown talent? We can't ever know, and that's a crying shame.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1076969Oscar Wilde did time for gross indecency - having had sex with a 17 year old boy.
Thomas Malory was locked up for attempted murder, robbery and rape. No more Le Morte D'Arthur for us.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1076969If you require moral purity of your authours, you are going to have a rather bare bookshelf, and had best not go to the cinema or turn on the radio at all.

"Books are well written, or badly written. That is all." - Oscar Wilde, convicted paedophile

I agree with you on much of this - but this is ridiculous equivalence. 17 is the age of consent in much of the U.S., Canada, and Europe even at present. In England at the time, the age of consent was 16. There were plenty of respectable relationships with 17 year olds. Oscar Wilde was convicted for being a homosexual, not for pedophilia.

That said, I do think it is different when a living author is getting royalties from buying their work. For the most part, I don't care about an author's views - but I am put off from buying the work of murderers and other extremes (which Wilde certainly doesn't count as).

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1076969No more Michael Jackson, for a start.

Except Jackson was the victim of false accusation as was proven in court.

Quote from: Motorskills;1076973Not so fast Mr Shark! (I mean, don't stop, else you will sink, but slow down a bunch, eh?)

Kyle is comparing apples with oranges. Most of those folks were long dead before I (an old guy) were exposed to their works. As brilliant as they are, I don't consider their works, at the cost of the misery they* inflicted, a reasonable trade.
*some, not all
But in 2019 the damage is already done. We can enjoy their works without rewarding the authors for their misdeeds.


But when living artists are revealed to be terrible people, it is appropriate to shun their work. It doesn't mean their work isn't good, brilliant even. It's that the authors - and in turn, ourselves - are supposed to pay an appropriate price. Eventually that price becomes a deterrent. And that's a good thing.

There's another element, particularly applicable in the case of Harvey Weinstein and the like: how much genius have we been denied because these monsters put their deviancy ahead of the world's opportunity to benefit from unknown talent? We can't ever know, and that's a crying shame.

Greetings!

LOLOLOLOLOLOL! Ah, Motorskills. That was very funny! Hmmm...you make a worthwhile point there. There is some difference between some folks being long dead, and some moron that is like, right online, ranting at you in response to you no longer being a customer or fan for their terrible behavior concerning whatever. I understand the distinction.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

There is some distinction between those extant and those departed, however I see a disturbing trend in this. That people, Motorskills for one, seem to believe that he can determine what is an appropriate price to pay for alleged transgressions. While, no doubt Zak is a tool, I take what both of them said with a salt lick. Unless you actually witnessed this alleged behavior, you are hanging your hat on unsubstantiated allegations and trying to punish based on that. THAT IS NOT A GOOD THING. Just because you want to believe someone is a horrid person, and probably is, it is inappropriate to punish them until you actually have evidence of their crime. You are essentially denying them due process (yes I am aware that has to do with the courts, but in principle it is good to observe in all such cases). Now if you feel ruining reputations, denying income, et al are appropriate for someone being an internet asshole, you'd better hope like hell no one applies the same standard to you.

Quote from: shuddemell;1076986There is some distinction between those extant and those departed, however I see a disturbing trend in this. That people, Motorskills for one, seem to believe that he can determine what is an appropriate price to pay for alleged transgressions. While, no doubt Zak is a tool, I take what both of them said with a salt lick. Unless you actually witnessed this alleged behavior, you are hanging your hat on unsubstantiated allegations and trying to punish based on that. THAT IS NOT A GOOD THING. Just because you want to believe someone is a horrid person, and probably is, it is inappropriate to punish them until you actually have evidence of their crime. You are essentially denying them due process (yes I am aware that has to do with the courts, but in principle it is good to observe in all such cases). Now if you feel ruining reputations, denying income, et al are appropriate for someone being an internet asshole, you'd better hope like hell no one applies the same standard to you.

Greetings!

Indeed, my friend. I have from the beginning felt that everyone invoved--Zak, Mandy, etc--should have kept the whole sordid affair *private*. Furthermore, any criminal actions should have been reported and filed in a court of law, with proper jurisprudence proceeding thereupon. Evidently, however, that is not an ideologically popular position to hold. That is what I believe though.

The distinction, in so far as it is evidently publicly known, I can understand why someone as an individual would choose not to be a customer, or what have you. For example, I chose not to patronize the Dixie Chicks because of their anti-American statements made in public, on a foreign platform, while our nation was engaged in warfare on foreign shores.

However, even when I offer such an example, it is not based on murky hearsay, he said/she said--but specific commentary broadcast and recorded in public, from which the Dixie Chicks were undeniably guilty of. Many Americans likewise made a similar decision, and the Dixie Chicks country music career took a lightning-fast nosedive into the gutter. Their career has henceforth never really recovered.

With the Zak/Mandy affair, there is no certain evidence for an uninvolved viewer to make such an assessment.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim;1076980That said, I do think it is different when a living author is getting royalties from buying their work. For the most part, I don't care about an author's views - but I am put off from buying the work of murderers and other extremes (which Wilde certainly doesn't count as).

The flip side is: what should the livelihood of a murderer be? It's one thing if you have followed a trial and think someone has been unjustifiably acquitted. But in our western democracies it's basically not up to citizens to punish fellow citizens privately, not even through economic sanctions. In fact, we need to lower sentences for convicted criminals by taking into account any irregular de facto (even if that is not the intent) punishment outside of the judicial system.

Quote from: Omega;1076981Except Jackson was the victim of false accusation as was proven in court.

Awful lot of false accusers.
From yesterday - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6753623/Michael-Jackson-victims-say-late-pop-star-told-first.html

In reality of course they failed to prove Jackson guilty in court when he was prosecuted, they did not prove him innocent.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1076990But in our western democracies it's basically not up to citizens to punish fellow citizens privately, not even through economic sanctions.

Better go buy MYFAROG then...

Of course in reality we are indeed at liberty to punish murderers and other criminals via not buying from them. Just as some people refused to buy South African peaches (yum, tasty) during Apartheid.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1076969Cervantes did time for fraud. No more Don Quixote.
Jack Henry Abbott did armed robbery, and murdered two people - including one after his release from prison. No more In the Belly of the Beast.
William Burroughs shot and killed his wife.
Louis Althusser killed his wife, too. Leftie philosopher, by the way.
Maria Geel murdered her lover, just to show that women writers can murder spouses, too.
Oscar Wilde did time for gross indecency - having had sex with a 17 year old boy.
Thomas Malory was locked up for attempted murder, robbery and rape. No more Le Morte D'Arthur for us.

Personally I'll avoid most authors from 18th century onwards if their behaviour was sufficiently reprehensible. I might (did) read Rousseau for research purposes, but with the same attitude I'd take to reading Mein Kampf (not read).  Scepticism informed by knowledge of the appalling character of the author.

A medieval author like Malory is so alien, I'm already not identifying with what he writes - 'heroic' Paladin decapitates the wife of some bad knight on more or less a whim - so knowing he's a rapist and would-be murderer as well makes little difference.

Quote from: shuddemell;1076986You are essentially denying them due process (yes I am aware that has to do with the courts, but in principle it is good to observe in all such cases).

Not really, no.

This worship of legalism - all the world's a courtroom - seems extra weird to me considering I teach law for a living.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1076990The flip side is: what should the livelihood of a murderer be?

Well IMO they should normally be executed, and otherwise they should be imprisoned for life, so it shouldn't come up much.

(sorry about all the separate posts, in a rush & bad at multiquote!)

Quote from: S'mon;1076999Well IMO they should normally be executed, and otherwise they should be imprisoned for life, so it shouldn't come up much.

How about someone who's a boor and keeps coming on to women after they've shown they're not interested? Harassment? Assault? Professes to believe what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality and transgenderism?

What is an appropriate financial penalty for them? Are they to be driven from all employment and financially ruined forever? What jobs can they still hold without expecting the moral harpies to drive them from it? At what point does the punishment exceed the crime (and sometimes not even a crime, just uncouth behavior or wrongthink)?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1076957Perhaps. But is his writing any good?

I didn't find his gaming products to be to my taste. They're kinda gimmicky, and the writing strives (rather painfully, IMO) to be Art. A lot of people seem to disagree with my opinion, but I don't get the appeal. I think he was pretty good at capturing attention and selling himself and his products.

Quote from: S'mon;1076998Not really, no.

This worship of legalism - all the world's a courtroom - seems extra weird to me considering I teach law for a living.

No worship here, however I disagree that something as foundational as due process, which when accusations are leveled in a public forum, particularly about things that are criminal in nature, are something we should afford some degree of circumspection as to not unfairly tar someone with a life altering brush. While you may believe it's okay to just assume someone's guilt, I do not. Particularly when I am not actually privy to the actual event. Anytime someone is tried in the court of public opinion prior to an actual trial, they are denied due process. I find the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" to be the bedrock of our legal system, and even our very society. Something less serious that isn't a crime is certainly more open to such sanctions, but I find them premature without some standard of proof.