Separating Art From Artist
-
@GreenFlashlight Let's maybe not use Kestrel as an example in that analogy, since she's not advocating this and it seems like something that could be misconstrued later in the thread if someone skims and thinks she has done so somewhere.
-
@Rinel said in Separating Art From Artist:
I'm going to say it's immoral, because you're treating that person as a means to an end (inducing others not to be nazis) rather than an end in themselves (changing their mind re: nazism).
Ugh. I can't Kant. I despise the categorical imperative probably about as much as you despise consequentialism.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
@GreenFlashlight said in Separating Art From Artist:
So if Kestrel reports a Klansman for being at a Klan rally, the effects of that on the Klansman's family belong more to Kestrel than to the Klansman who chose to be at the rally, who chose to be a Klansman, who chose to tie his family's fortune to his Klan participation? Because I feel like it's on the Klansman, and on the Klansman's SO who realistically had to know what they were getting into.
Substitute 'clansman' for literally any other political / religious / belief-based organization and you quickly start to see the problem here. The Klan is taboo because we as a society have chosen for it to be. But it wasn't always. And other things can take its spot in the future. Like being a democratic socialist. Or a muslim.
Our current 'enlightenment' in whatever form it takes is no more realistically informed than any other eras. They had their own arguments for believing what they did was for the best in society, some of them sincerely held. Don't think that can't change in a heartbeat, given the right match to the right powderkeg at the right time.
waves hand at Border Wall and Muslim Ban
-
@GreenFlashlight said in Separating Art From Artist:
So if Kestrel reports a Klansman for being at a Klan rally, the effects of that on the Klansman's family belong more to Kestrel than to the Klansman who chose to be at the rally, who chose to be a Klansman, who chose to tie his family's fortune to his Klan participation? Because I feel like it's on the Klansman, and on the Klansman's SO who realistically had to know what they were getting into. Also, their brat kids shoulda known to be born to better parents.
It looks like you forgot something while explaining what dependents are, but don't worry, I fixed it!
-
I may be biased as an activist, but I think that if you care enough about a political issue to take to the streets or any public forum and rally for it, you're also the kind of person who wouldn't be happy in a work environment where your views are at odds with the existing work culture. Certainly I wouldn't want to work for Tyson Foods, and I wouldn't be shocked if they didn't want to hire me either. It would make no sense for them to. They'd be right to be very suspicious about allowing me anywhere near their facilities.
Related to the JK Rowling controversy, Maya Forstater was "forced out of her job" (in reality, they just didn't renew her contract) for
being a TERF"saying sex is real". Though when you put it into context: she was working for a NGO thinktank built to fight inequality while also insisting on misgendering transpeople. The thinktank decided they didn't like her thinking. It was clearly not conducive to their brand image nor goals of fighting inequality. This seems so beyond reasonable to me I'm just baffled as to why it's controversial at all.I believe a company is entitled to have an ethos and hire people who share that ethos. I may not agree with Tyson Foods' ethos, but I understand it. They think battery farming chickens is fine. I think those cages should be broken.
Taking a stand isn't something anyone has to do. I volunteer with Extinction Rebellion at the moment and we insist on making anyone who signs up abundantly aware of the potential consequences of their involvement. We ask new volunteers to practice "radical consent" when carefully choosing which, if any, risks they're willing to take, and offer lower-risk roles for the passionate yet cautious. For example, I have opted not to undertake any roles that could risk me getting arrested, because I can't afford a criminal record at present.
But if you choose to take a stand of your own free volition, I think it's the height of chutzpah to expect there to be no repercussions for doing so.
@Derp the difference between being a Klansman and being a Muslim is a Muslim wants to exist, and a Klansman wants other people not to exist.
Please none of this "both sides" rhetoric.
I don't think "Muslim" belongs in your list of examples. A Muslim is, a Klansman does.
If we exclude false equivalence, however, and substitute Klansman for literally any other political / religious / belief-based organization — i.e., any other kind of activist (Klansmen are activists, after all, just for a very different ideology than mine) ...
I still 100% stand behind a company's right to hire and fire in accordance with their company ethos, so long as that entails judging people for what they do, not who they are.
Companies shouldn't be allowed to fire people for being Christian. They absolutely should, however, be allowed to fire people for being Christians publicly protesting gay rights, especially if their role entails working with or having the approval of gay clients/consumers, or representing a progressive company image in the public eye.
-
@Derp said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Rinel said in Separating Art From Artist:
I'm going to say it's immoral, because you're treating that person as a means to an end (inducing others not to be nazis) rather than an end in themselves (changing their mind re: nazism).
Ugh. I can't Kant. I despise the categorical imperative probably about as much as you despise consequentialism.
Probably doesn't help things that my personal ethical system is actually theistic in nature
-
I think my primary concern with various deplatforming / shaming strategies is that they don't appear to be particularly effective. The net effect seems to be that those with opposing views simply become more insular while still growing in number.
It's been my impression that many of those with extremist views have valid concerns (with false premises) they use to validate those views and tend to see themselves as persecuted. What seems to be effective is addressing those concerns (Usually related to economic anxiety) while having them actually meet the people they are othering and help them realize they're not that different.
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to me and vice versa.
-
@Kestrel Maybe you want to eat and you don't have ready access to other employment options? Like, for a person really interested in discussing all this stuff, I'd think you'd recognize the privilege there.
As for companies being able to 'have an ethos,' again... sounds great in theory until you examine the other side of what is happening there. If you want to find something that gives corporations power to control workers, including subjecting them to every imaginable form of mistreatment, -ism, and bias, there's hardly a better candidate than at-will employment contracts. The power to fire someone over a tweet is terrifying, and it's the same power used to fire an employee who speaks up about something internally that they 'shouldn't.'
Beyond that, I've never read a Harry Potter novel and I am unsure why parts of your post are even directed at me, as I am not a surrogate for the thread at large. My concerns are mostly in regards to law vs. mob, and it's... disturbingly oblivious to argue in favor of the latter in a thread discussing the KKK.
-
@surreality said in Separating Art From Artist:
Let's maybe not use Kestrel as an example in that analogy, since she's not advocating this and it seems like something that could be misconstrued later in the thread if someone skims and thinks she has done so somewhere.
Sorry. I only used her name because I'm so used to everyone dogpiling on her in this thread anyway.
@Derp said in Separating Art From Artist:
Substitute 'clansman' for literally any other political / religious / belief-based organization and you quickly start to see the problem here.
Mmmmmmno, I'm sticking with "The Ku Klux Klan is a despicable, domestic terrorist organization people deserve to know the membership of at all times." Frankly, I think it's wildly insulting to compare them to Democratic Socialists or Muslims, and the slippery slope is a named fallacy for a reason.
@bored said in Separating Art From Artist:
It looks like you forgot something while explaining what dependents are, but don't worry, I fixed it!
I have not put words in your mouth, bored. Please show me the same courtesy, particularly as you have no idea what I think about these hypothetical children.
-
@bored said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Kestrel Maybe you want to eat and you don't have ready access to other employment options?
Then don't become an activist. Prioritise your need to eat and not your need to espouse controversial opinions.
No one is forcing anyone to join the KKK, Extinction Rebellion, nor to insist on misgendering transpeople. These are choices.
Choices have consequences. Don't want consequences? Choose differently.
Twitter is a place people go to build up their brand. You get hearts and retweets when you post things your target audience likes. You may lose that target audience if you post things they don't. Public adoration is a fickle thing, but gambling for it is also a choice.
I'm not interested in marketing myself for public approval, and therefore I don't have a twitter account. I both avoid the risk of losing out on the grounds of stupid tweets, and the potential benefit of gaining influence as a likeable tweeter. I also don't have a job that requires me to be at the mercy of the public eye because I know full well that I'd find that soul-sucking. If I did, I'd have the good sense to curate better.
The Maya Forstater controversy is relevant to the topic of people being fired for expressing political opinions which are at odds with their company's ethos.
-
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
A Muslim is, a Klansman does.
It's not 'both sides' rhetoric. It's pointing out a logically dangerous argument. Good try though.
And also, 'muslim is, clansman does' it a ridiculous statement, as they are both products of choosing to follow a certain belief.
-
That argument easily reduces to 'don't become an activist if you're concerned about having a livelihood.' Is that really the stance you want to take? Like... do you not get that you're basically arguing for your own suppression? I don't get it. Most of these things (like the employment contract issue that you didn't respond on) are far more effective as tools of oppression than they are as tools of activism. Twitter shit just gives people a false sense of bravado.
@GreenFlashlight said in Separating Art From Artist:
I have not put words in your mouth, bored. Please show me the same courtesy, particularly as you have no idea what I think about these hypothetical children.
You presented a counter-argument to the idea that collateral damage to dependents was a valid concern. You did it while blatantly avoiding mention of the most likely victims of such a scenario. Sarcastic delivery aside, I am pointing out the holes in your argument as presented.
-
@Groth said in Separating Art From Artist:
I think my primary concern with various deplatforming / shaming strategies is that they don't appear to be particularly effective.
They do result in funny videos of Nazis crying because they can't reach a big enough audience to keep their grift going, so that's a plus.
-
@bored said in Separating Art From Artist:
You presented a counter-argument to the idea that collateral damage to dependents was a valid concern. You did it while blatantly avoiding mention of the most likely victims of such a scenario. Sarcastic delivery aside, I am pointing out the holes in your argument as presented.
You are doing so by presenting them as my own. Don't do that. It's dishonest and rude.
And, not that you asked, because you are not interested in knowing what I think if it might conflict with what you have decided I think for the sake of arguing against me, let's say this Klansman does have a child dependent on his Klandaddy for support via the one and only job Klandaddy can get, and that outing Klandaddy will harm that child's financial future. Why are we pretending that child is the only victim here? Klandaddy is in the Ku Klux Klan. He believes non-white people are subhuman and he takes action to support those beliefs. In the best possible cases, he merely engages in the passive violence of oppression via legislation. In the worst, he is actively violent to non-white people, attacking them physically.* Am I to look at all the victims of his Klan violence and say, "Sorry, I coulda done something, but that would have made his kid collateral damage, so I figured it was better for you all to just suck it up?"
*and really, I could make a serious argument the personal violence is less damaging on the whole than participating in organized oppression, just because of the scale of the damage done
-
@bored said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Kestrel
That argument easily reduces to 'don't become an activist if you're concerned about having a livelihood.' Is that really the stance you want to take? Like... do you not get that you're basically arguing for your own suppression? I don't get it. Most of these things (like the employment contract issue that you didn't respond on) are far more effective as tools of oppression than they are as tools of activism. Twitter shit just gives people a false sense of bravado.You don't get to use the "my personal views are my own business" thing as regards someone who goes out on the street in public for the specific purpose of airing those views to literally everybody who can hear or see them.
The whole point of activism is to tie oneself to those views, loudly and publicly. That's almost literally the definition. Yes, that means accepting the consequences of that, because you cannot both make yourself a public advocate of a position and claim that the position should have no impact on your public life.
("Oh, but you'd be complaining if a gay rights advocate was fired because their company didn't want the association with gay rights advocacy, while you're fine if a white supremacy advocate gets the boot!" Well, yes, because even if we assume a spherical goat situation where all concepts must be considered to hold equal value, supporting gay rights is good and supporting white supremacy is bad. And I have the right to tell people that the company who fires people for supporting gay rights is bad and I won't buy shit from them/their advertisers, while the company that fires Nazis is good and I will buy shit from them and their advertisers.)
-
How, if at all, the above might apply to a creative work or public statement that someone has made, placed their name on in a position of prominence, and released to the world to be consumed and interpreted is left as an exercise for the reader.
-
@Derp said in Separating Art From Artist:
The Klan is taboo because we as a society have chosen for it to be. But it wasn't always.
Sure it was. That's why they hid their faces behind the stupid pointy ghost hoods.
That's why the worst thing that happened to them was a serial on the Superman radio show that leaked all their dumbfuck code names and secret handshakes.
Their big fear has always been exposure.
-
@GreenFlashlight Yawn.
I think I'm going to join in with the whole, 'this isn't worth engaging with the insisted narrow focus on the KKK' because, yeah, the inherent Godwin kind of makes it pointless. Just imagine me re-iterating my posts @Gany here.
@insomniac7809 I don't really follow your post. I have said several times that engaging in a public rally probably mitigates privacy protections to some degrees. I can nonetheless find that in some instances those consequences might be out of scale, believe that better legal frameworks might rein this in, and point out that it can have a suppressive effect on speech you support alongside speech you oppose.
-
I'm going to take a break from rubbing my temples to make the headache go away to say this, and for the time being, only this:
Don't justify the public release of information about people without understanding that the primary purpose of this act is to cause direct harm to the targeted individual. This harm can come in the form of harassment online or off. Threats of various kinds -- again, online or off -- are part of the intention here.
Whether employment is a factor or not, the harassment extends to someone's family as well, as do the threats and shaming.
It is called 'targeting' for a reason.
I do not support harassment, full stop. I believe what the Klan does is harassment. I do not believe that justifies promoting harassment of them in return. 'They do harm' does not justify harming people in the periphery of them, and it never will.
In precisely the same manner, I'm horrified by accounts of people harassing/threatening/shaming the kids of people who came here illegally, who had no volition in that choice. It happens. It's not OK.
'Sins of the father' is a problem not to be ignored. Handwave it off as 'but look at the harm he's doing!', GreenFlashlight, is exactly the sort of thing you were previously claiming people were doing re: enjoying any of Lovecraft's work: deflecting somehow from an admission that there's a real problem here.
-
@bored said in Separating Art From Artist:
@insomniac7809 I don't really follow your post. I have said several times that engaging in a public rally probably mitigates privacy protections to some degrees. I can nonetheless find that in some instances those consequences might be out of scale, believe that better legal frameworks might rein this in, and point out that it can have a suppressive effect on speech you support alongside speech you oppose.
You expressed incredulity at the idea that someone shouldn't be an activist unless they're willing to suffer consequences for it (potentially to their employment).
I responded that being willing to suffer consequences for tying their public identity to the ideological cause is a large part of what activism is, so yes, that's kind of how it works.
I'm also responding to your comment upthread, saying that
@bored said in Separating Art From Artist:@Kestrel
In the United States (and even moreso in Europe, really), we do enshrine a certain right to privacy, particularly as in regards to political belief.And I'm responding that someone who takes to the streets to publicly participate in a demonstration has very explicitly forgone any sort of right to privacy as in regards to the political belief in question.
