Separating Art From Artist

[insomniac7809]

@surreality said in Separating Art From Artist:

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.

Taken to its conclusion, this sort of assertion prevents anyone from suffering any consequences for anything ever. No one is an island, after all; there is no such thing as a punishment that can avoid causing harm to the perpetrator's friends and loved ones.

[Auspice]

Unfortunately, those that dox rarely keep their actions to the offending individual.

They threaten their spouses.
Their children.
Their parents.
Their friends.

How far does it go?
If you do something that offends, does that mean the lives of everyone you know are forfeit?

[insomniac7809]

@Auspice Again, I'm not condoning or advocating for the cowards who hide behind internet anonymity to threaten people en masse, or people who direct others to do so on their behalf.

But when the sweaty Charlottesville guy complains that his professional life took a hit when his screaming face was over the world in all its tiki-torch-and-polo glory, I find myself profoundly lacking in sympathy.

[Auspice]

@insomniac7809 said in Separating Art From Artist:

But when the sweaty Charlottesville guy complains that his professional life took a hit when his screaming face was over the world in all its tiki-torch-and-polo glory, I find myself profoundly lacking in sympathy.

And, IMO, that isn't doxxing. He was in news articles about the event. Even if people hadn't dredged up his info, it would have been just as easy for an employer to pay witness.

But the topic was about doxxing. About people (or people they recruit/hire) digging up details on someone who isn't so blatantly 'out there.'

[Kestrel]

My sleep is funny so I just woke up, gonna respond to some comments one by one:

@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.

I oppose Capitalism. In my ideal world, no one's livelihood would depend on corporate mercy, and anyone who wanted to become an activist could do so without fear of, 'How am I going to feed my kids?'

However.

I also live in the real world, and I am at corporate mercy. We all are. This doesn't just mean I depend on the good opinion of superiors and consumers I come into contact with to put food on my table; it also means I depend on them to protect me from other corporate entities.

As a simple illustrative example (made up): I'm a woman at the workplace. My colleague/superior is a misogynist who likes to tweet about how women suck dick to get ahead at work, that Men should Go Their Own Way, that someone at his work has poppin' tits, or he posts an upskirt picture of a woman he rode the subway with this morning.

Any number of these things is going to make me feel incredibly unsafe at work. Whether I want to be or not, I'm both at his mercy and the mercy of my employer to decide if they'd rather protect his job, or my job, where I'm likely not to be safe near him.

I really, really hope he gets fired for this. I hope their burning question isn't, 'How is Creeper McCreeperson going to feed his kids?' And instead, 'Oh God, if Creeper McCreeperson has such a backwards view of women, how is he treating our female employees? How do they feel having to share a workspace with him?'

I do not feel oppressed as an activist. It's a choice I actively make each and every time I either take to the streets or volunteer some of my time for a cause I care about. Is it always easy? No. It has pros and cons that go beyond simply time management; it can be emotionally draining, though it can also be wonderfully empowering and a great way to connect with like-minded people. When the cons start to outweigh the pros, I take a break to focus on other aspects of my life. This would be true regardless of corporate influence. I wouldn't do this if I wasn't incredibly passionate, but it remains 100% a choice, never a necessity.

You know what isn't a choice? Being a woman, or coming from any kind of socially or economically underprivileged or marginalised background. These aren't things anyone can just take a break from. These are things I feel oppressed by, or by proxy, sympathy for other people who are oppressed by them.

I have the world's tiniest violin for those who feel oppressed by their need to express hatred and/or antisocial behaviour. Doubly so if this happens to include espousing genocide. Ultradoubly so if we're talking about rich and famous people losing positions of influence to abuse. I care a lot more about their victims. While I firmly believe in forgiveness and rehabilitation, that takes time and work, and I will not be making it my personal responsibility to provide them with it.

For me, one of the most compelling arguments on cancel culture made on this thread so far is @surreality's fear (or fear by proxy) that one stupid tweet or something similar made by a person years and years ago can damage their career far into the future. And in these cases I think there should still be consequences and accountability; you might want to post another, updated tweet, apologising years later and explaining you have learned and grown since then and no longer stand by the views you once professed. Depending on the severity, you might want to do more than that to demonstrate reparative intent and action. If it seems you're still the same shitbag? I don't really care how long ago it was, it remains relevant today. And where we're talking about people being actively racist/sexist or whatever losing opportunities, I just don't care at all.

@bored said in Separating Art From Artist:

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.

It's not Godwin's Law, A) because the thread started out specifically about racism and someone who very literally endorsed Hitler in his own words not anyone else's; no one put that in Lovecraft's mouth and being cancelled for fascism is totally relevant here; and B) because while @GreenFlashlight hasn't specified their stance on this count, both myself and @insomniac7809 at least have specified that we stand by the universal principle that if you take a public stand for something, even something like gay rights or feminism, you should be willing to be held accountable for that stand.

@surreality said in Separating Art From Artist:

'Sins of the father' is a problem not to be ignored.

I don't think this is a real issue. Is Ronan Farrow suffering from lost opportunities because his father Woody Allen has been outed (in part by Ronan Farrow) as a creep? If there's a lynchmob coming for Allen — and in both my opinion and the Farrows' he hasn't suffered near enough consequences for his actions — it looks like his son's right there on the front lines bearing the biggest torch next to his sister.

It seems to me that if your heart's in the right place, though I respect and honour that it can be much more difficult to condemn a parent, being the offspring of a disgraced individual can spur, not bar you, from being an ally to whatever movement they were disgraced by.

See also: Meghan Phelps-Roper who was raised by and then left the Westboro Baptist Church and now uses the weight of her family ties to condemn them; Rachel Jeffs, daughter of the polygamous Mormon cult leader Warren Jeffs, who wrote an entire book exposing and condemning his crimes.

[GreenFlashlight]

@surreality No, I am prioritizing. Specifically, I am prioritizing the safety of everyone a domestic terrorist chooses to target for violence over the financial prosperity of a domestic terrorist's family. It sucks for the hypothetical kid in this situation, but tough shit. We have social welfare programs for a reason, and even if this hypothetical child falls through the cracks, I can live with it. I'm stunned that people think this is even a choice.

[Ominous]

[Staricide]

I think there's a difference between boycotting, not buying something and encouraging others to do the same. And cancelling which seems to involve more shaming people for not doing the same, is more likely to be targeted at people and not companies, and usually comes along with a lot more personal attacks in general.

My biggest issues with cancelling are:

• It only really affects small/midsized creators. Big creators or corporations who it would matter most to be held to account just shrug it off.

• It only works if you're cancelled by your audience, white supremacists authors writing white supremacists books can't be cancelled unless white supremacists don't like what they did.

• It almost always seems to lead into personal attacks and online bullying.

This is a video about the experience of being hated online I found somewhat eye-opening.

[surreality]

@insomniac7809 said in Separating Art From Artist:

@surreality said in Separating Art From Artist:

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.

Taken to its conclusion, this sort of assertion prevents anyone from suffering any consequences for anything ever. No one is an island, after all; there is no such thing as a punishment that can avoid causing harm to the perpetrator's friends and loved ones.

...no? Am employer seeing the image and firing the employee (or even seeing the information) is not engaging in harassment. Friends abandoning the person are not engaging in harassment. And so on.

Taking the classic MSB dogpile, ramping it up by a factor of 100x or more the population, and sending off a fired up mob to do whatever they want with someone's personal information? That is harassment.

You know where this tactic has most commonly been used over the past twenty years or so, until quite recently, right? To publish the identities of people who worked at places that provided women's health, birth control, and abortion services. This has even extended to patients at times. To say 'that did not go well for the people whose identities were published' would be an understatement.

I'm going to -- gods help me -- share a personal story here. About 20 years ago now, I thought I had an ectopic pregnancy. I had to get a blood test to determine if this was the case before moving on to further testing, because that was the cheapest option when you didn't have insurance. The totally secular lab I went to for this had an employee who noticed that she was doing a pregnancy test from the forms she was sent, and went on and on about how thrilled I must be to have a baby on the way. I told her that wasn't the case, and they were concerned I had an ectopic pregnancy, so if I was pregnant, this story was unlikely to have any sort of happy ending. This medical professional chose to lecture me that I should still keep the pregnancy if that was the case, despite the fact that nobody survives if they do that.

And that would be bad enough, if things like 'murderer' didn't start getting scrawled on my car window in lipstick. If flyers weren't tacked to my door for over a year after that. If calls didn't come in from a number of pro-life activists and 'crisis counseling centers' for several months. It was very clear my name, address, and telephone number had been shared with these groups and there was very little doubt about who was responsible.

Spoiler alert: a cyst had burst, I was never pregnant. That didn't matter. The circumstances had I been pregnant didn't matter. (This wouldn't even be acceptable if I had been normally pregnant and had an abortion, either, obviously.)

This is where this shit goes. Stop pretending it's harmless make-believe 'just on the internet'. That is absolutely harassment, and people have only gotten a lot more ugly about it with the rise of social media and with a much larger population on the internet since that time.

@Kestrel I think adult children are a different animal than young dependents. Big names with money are also pretty different from a blue collar family that's feeling alienated and shoved out of society and responds the wrong way (with hate). Someone else mentioned offering support and showing that the people they're hating are not different from them in the gross ways the dogma they're embracing says, and that's a much healthier approach in those cases than harassment campaigns.

[JinShei]

@Ganymede said in Separating Art From Artist:

@bored

It was a question of whether it was acceptable behavior.

I mean, I understand from the discussion that we are talking about shaming. Shaming people for their bad behavior. And if that means affecting their life so be it.

The line I see is whether the shaming leads to physical consequences. It is clearly wrong if someone is assaulted or killed as a result of exposing them.

But losing one’s job? Some people think that the truth hurts. But it also hurts children who depend on that job. Does the morality depend on what a person is being shamed for?

I guess that’s why I err on the side of not shaming.

I don't know if any of you have read / listened to Jon Ronson's work, "So you've been publicly shamed" - it discusses these issues.

For me, I have marched in protests around Brexit and the NHS - I work in the public sector and didn't cover my face. Honestly? I believe in those things, and if I were identified, I would stand by them. BUT I am also covered by solid employment laws and good unions and so there isn't a fear of my income being affected. So it wasn't a major risk for me - my sector is notoriously left-leaning, anti-Brexit, pro-NHS.

I love a video of a nazi being punched as much as the next left-wing person. But I feel that is the part of us - all of us - who would watch gladiators. The same reason some people read threads on here with popcorn.

[Kestrel]

Gonna take a break from yelling at people on the internet just to say I have loads of respect for loads of you.

@Staricide I found that video helpful.
@surreality that ectopic pregnancy pro-life scare story, wow and ugh.
@JinShei thanks for campaigning on a really important issue.

[mietze]

You do not have to be an activist per se to be on the receiving end of doxing and harassment, unless you count anyone who has ever given public testimony before the legislature, school board, or other body about a subject or who speaks out against troubling activity an activist.

I guess you could in one sense but to me that is somewhat disrespectful of what people who do campaigning and coordination as well as more disruptive forms of activism and advocacy actually do.

And yet, people absolutely will stalk and harass you for giving public commentary at meetings of government bodies. For me that is more personally frightening than the FB trolls because it's people who are definitely in your community.

And people within groups often eviscerate each other. The worst case of harassing grossness that my kid has faced was from a couple of people in a trans support group who decided he was transphobic because he disagreed with them about whether or not everyonr should immediately cut someone out of their life for using their dead name. Not that he disagreed that no one should, just that he personally did not always. That lead to a short time of intense threats (including rape and death threats) and a longer period of online harassment. He and I have both faced harassment and face to face name calling because of our public advocacy in the school district, but nothing that intense (I think because unlike online stuff where you don't have the identity or real location of the person doing the harassment, police will take seriously a member of their community texting death and rape threats to a minor, and people k know it.)

The most death and rape threats I have personally received came from my efforts (combined with others) from within a political party to remove from their position and toss out a long standing and popular political organizer who liked to rape young women at after hours events after getting them alcohol. We succeeded after a very ugly fight--he is out as are a few other people who had been doing other gross stuff that did not involve assault for years, and put an end to the good old boys party culture at state events. But not without a lot of really horrible pushback and personal attacks. Especially since as an elected party official your personal info is usually public information so. It was really intense.

In all cases did I or my kid "deserved" this, I suppose so. We did after all speak up, publicly even if it wasnt rah rah rally activism. I have done that to and while I am mindful of police violence potential as well as crowd danger, to be honest I feel safer doing demonstrations than I have putting my words on record. It is just kind of the price of active citizenship. For every person regardless of political view that speaks in a public and on record fashion theres going to be a ton that will really go after you where they think nobody can see.

This happens to people who write and produce art that touches on any kind of social issue, regardless of side, and due to biases and other long standing things as far as publishing industry and other corporate oversight I'm unconvinced that the majority of people who are left out in the cold are people who dont have "snowflake" sensibilities. Pretty sure there is much more suppression and lack of support for "nontraditional" authors and artists. I just think maybe there isn't as much, so that paltry change feels like a groundswell towards people who feel threatened by it.

That's a human nature thing, though.

[Ganymede]

@bored said in Separating Art From Artist:

You're the lawyer, but I assume the split you're describing between 'this action causes a person to lose their job' and 'this action causes a person to become a victim of subsequent physical violence' is largely a division of the same basic concept into civil and criminal realms, right?

I split the two situations based on observation.

Kim Davis, the duly-elected Rowan County, KY clerk, refused to issue marriage licenses for gay couples after the Obergefell decision and defied a court order directing her to issue marriage licenses. Later, she was unseated by a Democrat challenger in an 2018 election for her seat. Many attribute her unseating to the very public campaign shaming her for her decision, which she made on religious grounds. Few people I know cry about this.

Pamela Taylor became notorious when it came out that she had referred to former First Lady Michelle Obama as an "ape". She was forced to leave her public job as director of the Clay County, WV Development Corporation. That county's mayor, Beverly Whaling, resigned after it became public that she had liked Ms. Taylor's comment. Ms. Taylor was later convicted of embezzling FEMA funds.

Ryan Roy marched in Charlottsville, VA. When he was discovered, he lost his job with his employer -- an Uno's Pizzeria and Grill in South Burlington, VT. When asked about his very public white supremacist comments, he said: "There's nothing wrong with white people standing up for their own interest and identity."

It sounds like we're all okay with this, right? We may also be somewhat pleased when Richard Spencer gets punched in the face. Frankly, I think this is because it's Richard Spencer, but his views certainly don't help. (I also advocate for the public punching of Curt Schilling.)

If I have an objection to what is being called "cancel culture," it is shaming other people for having an unaligned view. While many people have harped on J.K. Rowling for her support of Maya Forstater, I believe I understand why she did so, and it has little to do with whether her position in her single post is biased against the transgendered. (In saying this, I mean to say that she very well may have said other TERF-y things, that you are welcome to your opinion regardless, and that my comment is only directed to the tweet made at 0757 on Dec. 19, 2019.)

But no one that I know (personally) seems to care about why J.K. Rowling would have an even iota of interest in the Forstater case (which is an interesting case, I suppose, but wholly inapplicable to anyone outside of the UK, legally-speaking). They have focused on what she said, not why she said it. No one (I know) seems to care what the implications of the Forstater case may have on freedom of speech in the UK, an issue that a British author would have every reason to be concerned with.

So, as it may apply to the topic of separating art from the artist, I think we ought to be concerned about that little part of us which delights when "evil" gets its comeuppance.

[Rinel]

@Ganymede said in Separating Art From Artist:

No one (I know) seems to care what the implications of the Forstater case may have on freedom of speech in the UK, an issue that a British author would have every reason to be concerned with

Here's the thing, though: it has none. Firstly, freedom of speech in the UK is already a flimsy construct. Secondly, employment tribunals have no precedential authority. Thirdly, the case was exquisitely narrow in scope--whether a person's "gender critical" views constituted a protected category of belief such that it would be unlawful to deny renewal of a contract with her based upon actions she had taken pursuant to this belief (e.g. misgendering coworkers).

The answer was "of course it fucking doesn't," because of course it fucking doesn't. Can you imagine an Anglican insisting her Christian views should be a protected basis for her saying "Merry Christmas" instead of a company mandated "Happy Holidays?"

I did research into the Forstater case, because I would rather transphobia be protected than free speech be diminished. So you know one person who cares.

ETA: If a famous author cares about freedom of speech, there are better ways to go about it than posting the latter-day equivalent of #IstandwithSkokie

[Kestrel]

I just want to clarify: @mietze and @surreality's stories both horrify me and I don't believe anything anyone does, on any level, means they deserve that kind of harassment. I'm particularly saddened by the one about the trans kids because I think being ostracised from your own community like that when you're already a member of a marginalised group must be devastating. Marginalised groups above all, I feel, have a duty to support each other and not let purity testing get in the way of that. This is especially true for trans & queer people because they ought to realise better than anyone what a difficult journey that can be, and that it takes time for a transperson to fully embrace and become themselves.

I suppose perhaps given context it is worth adding stipulations to what constitutes acceptable action against someone whose views you disagree with, and why.

• Why is action being undertaken? The person's views must in some way represent a threat to one's safety against another person or their property, e.g.: this dangerous vegan wants to break the cages in my battery farm and that will cost me my livelihood; the racist Klansman is advocating ethnic genocide; the misogynist believes it is acceptable for him to harass and/or assault women in his vicinity.
• What action should be taken? The action must in some way serve to protect one's person or property from the individual in question, prevent or minimise the harm they can do, without itself being violent. E.g.; engage them in debate (with their consent, not via stalking/harassment) and try to change their mind; fire them from a job where they have access to women and minorities to harass; don't hire a member of the ALF (Animal Liberation Front) to work in Tyson Foods; don't hire a member of Extinction Rebellion to work in an oil company; don't offer the person you find dangerous and contemptible any paid interviews, book deals, air time etc. that will allow them to continue profiting from bad behaviour.

Seems fair?

[Ganymede]

@Rinel said in Separating Art From Artist:

Here's the thing, though: it has none. Firstly, freedom of speech in the UK is already a flimsy construct. Secondly, employment tribunals have no precedential authority. Thirdly, the case was exquisitely narrow in scope--whether a person's "gender critical" views constituted a protected category of belief such that it would be unlawful to deny renewal of a contract with her based upon actions she had taken pursuant to this belief (e.g. misgendering coworkers).

I am not saying that the case actually had large consequences other than those involved. Plus, Forstater is a fucking moron that deserved to be sacked, as they say over there. But I do not want to presume that J.K. Rowling knows, or should know, this the same way we legal practitioners do (or would). Freedom of speech is a strong concern for writers, and I appreciate that.

I hasten again to say that I do not believe that Rowling isn't a TERF and that the case against her goes beyond that one tweet, but I simply want to point out that the power of internet hatred, which is often fueled by ignorance, can cause an indiscriminate, uncaring shit-fire.

[lordbelh]

@Ganymede said in Separating Art From Artist:

power of internet hatred, which is often fueled by ignorance

That tends to be the way of mobs, on the internet or not. The underlying reason for the passion might be justified, or it might not be, but by the time the frenzy gets going, facts and reason go out of the way and there's just passion left and the damage gets done regardless.

[Auspice]

@Ganymede said in Separating Art From Artist:

@Rinel said in Separating Art From Artist:

Here's the thing, though: it has none. Firstly, freedom of speech in the UK is already a flimsy construct. Secondly, employment tribunals have no precedential authority. Thirdly, the case was exquisitely narrow in scope--whether a person's "gender critical" views constituted a protected category of belief such that it would be unlawful to deny renewal of a contract with her based upon actions she had taken pursuant to this belief (e.g. misgendering coworkers).

I am not saying that the case actually had large consequences other than those involved. Plus, Forstater is a fucking moron that deserved to be sacked, as they say over there. But I do not want to presume that J.K. Rowling knows, or should know, this the same way we legal practitioners do (or would). Freedom of speech is a strong concern for writers, and I appreciate that.

I hasten again to say that I do not believe that Rowling isn't a TERF and that the case against her goes beyond that one tweet, but I simply want to point out that the power of internet hatred, which is often fueled by ignorance, can cause an indiscriminate, uncaring shit-fire.

I want to add that Rowling has a very poor understanding of freedom of speech (or the lack thereof) in the UK. She made a tweet a year or so ago about how blessed she is to be able to say what she wants because of freedom of speech. Now, she got largely panned for it by people who know better (mocked may be a better word), but we don't know if she reads Twitter replies very often. Or if she took it to heart.

If she still believes that the UK has the same freedom of speech the US does, she could very well have believed the Forester case fell into that category.

I know Mark Hamill tweeted something in support of Forester also before he got more details and apologized for his actions.

[Ganymede]

@Auspice said in Separating Art From Artist:

I know Mark Hamill tweeted something in support of Forester also before he got more details and apologized for his actions.

I can understand that because Hamill is an American actor, rather than a British author. But, also, Hamill is human, but a capable one because he can apologize and lampoon Trump as no other can.

[Auspice]

@Ganymede said in Separating Art From Artist:

@Auspice said in Separating Art From Artist:

I know Mark Hamill tweeted something in support of Forester also before he got more details and apologized for his actions.

I can understand that because Hamill is an American actor, rather than a British author. But, also, Hamill is human, but a capable one because he can apologize and lampoon Trump as no other can.

My point, partly, is that many people do not understand freedom of speech and how it works. It's also that celebrities rarely actually do research on things they post/talk about. Neither do us plebes always do so, but though we would hope a celebrity might due to their reach: they don't.

He apologized and explained he didn't know the full background. It's why I've partly given Rowling the benefit of the doubt on this front. Like you, Gany, that tweet is the only TERF-type talk I've seen out of her. There might be more! But I haven't run into it.

(I also think Rowling is kind of an idiot and a lot of her post-publication 'edits' to appease the public have been terribly and awkwardly misguided. But I don't think this is a McCaffrey-level 'no I absolutely believe this -phobic thing and I will tell you, at length, why.')