Posts made by GreenFlashlight

@Tinuviel said in Separating Art From Artist:

I... what?

Are you actually asking, or would I be wasting my effort?

@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:

At what point do you separate the person behind the keyboard from the character they're playing?

At the point when consent is obtained or not.

@peasoupling said in The Work Thread:

@Tyche said in The Work Thread:

@GreenFlashlight said in The Work Thread:

Yeah, I won't take shots at anyone trying to help, but I'm really suspicious of how basically every story I hear about the Australian fires frames it in terms of animals dead and contains no mention at all of the effects on the indigenous population. It makes me think there's a horror going on there we're not being told about.

The only article I could find says they are pro fire.
Australia fires: Aboriginal planners say the bush 'needs to burn'

PS: The article says no such thing.

Thank you.

@Auspice said in Good or New Movies Review:

Inception. Interstellar.

Is Interstellar the one that was supposed to be directed by, like, Spielberg or someone, but Nolan ended up directing it because of behind the scenes contract stuff?

I never saw Inception, because Christopher Nolan movies always tend to be about his creative process, which itself is usually about suppressing emotion to abide by patriarchal English virtues and I've seen that movie enough times already, thanks.

@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:

This is such a sad derail, and so typical of a conversation on MSB, where instead of debating the issue at hand, it's devolved yet again into a semantics quibbling match about an alternative reading of what someone wrote. If I'm saying 'THIS IS WHAT I SAID AND HOW I MEANT IT' why can't you take that at face value?

Because we either can't understand your point and need your help framing it in terms that allow us to see what you actually mean, or because we consider your statements to be so contradictory we feel forced to choose which one to believe you actually mean.

Oh, and as a random aside because I only just figured out why this has been bothering me: you ever notice how "Oh, he's just a product of his time, you can't blame him for his beliefs" only ever applies to white people? Black people in the 1930s were not confused about whether they were subhuman, nor were Jewish people. It's not the time an artist is a product of; it's a culture, and the culture is not a monolith.

I wonder if that's why people say "a product of his time." It feels like a deliberate attempt to uphold the power structures that existed and still exist.

@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:

Censorship begins with someone's personal views on a work or body of works.

Slippery slope.

@surreality said in Separating Art From Artist:

I don't think, fwiw, that Kestrel or GreenFlashlight are suggesting the equivalent of 'comin' to take our guns!' re: any works of fiction/etc.

For my part, and I know this is probably lost because it was in an entirely different thread, my original point was only that I think it's dishonest to try to divorce art from the person who created it; and I think attempting to do so is usually an admission of the problem they're trying to avoid, because if they didn't think it was a big deal, they wouldn't be deflecting. Like, if someone thinks the literary importance of a white guy whining that the Abrahamic God not existing means the universe is unfair because it won't prioritize man to the degree he wants them to be prioritized is more important than him being an explicit fan of Hitler, then I wish they'd just say so instead of asking us to pretend there ain't some fucked up stuff going on in those stories.

Kestrel said, "I wouldn't dare take it away from them." Like, that's in the bit you quoted. Maybe this is one of those things where I'm being too literal, but I really don't understand how you can accuse them of erasing the future when they literally said they wouldn't try to take your space squids from you. It sounds to me like you're arguing Kestrel has some personal obligation to promote Lovecraft's work in their personal life because otherwise that's censorship, which... I really hope I'm misinterpreting you here, because that's just goofy.

@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:

The point, and this is where I roll my eyes because I don't respect the idea at all, is to promote the idea that these works should be erased from the future.

Wait, whose point is that? Like, what are the names of the people advocating for that?

@Auspice said in The Work Thread:

Someone put up posters all over work for a fundraiser they're doing for Australia.

And I'm like.
This is cool what you're doing but covering the poster with glamor shots of yourself plus like, two stock koala photos is weird and means I am prob just gonna look for an official foundation thanks.

(p.s. Australia is more than just koalas.)

Yeah, I won't take shots at anyone trying to help, but I'm really suspicious of how basically every story I hear about the Australian fires frames it in terms of animals dead and contains no mention at all of the effects on the indigenous population. It makes me think there's a horror going on there we're not being told about.

@Caggles said in Well, this sums up why I RP:

Do you think this separation is more difficult with writing than eg. with music?

For me, it's not about the medium, it's about how likely someone is to say "Okay, but" when you point out this or that artist was kind of an asshole.

If I enjoy a Wagner symphony, am I tacitly expressing a fondness for fascism?

I don't understand music well enough to say whether fascism is ingrained in the text of his music (or if music can even be said to have text), but I don't believe enjoying any artist's art is inherently a sign of support for the artist's worst values. I believe in death of the author, as art is just a series of symbols; so the meaning you assign to them will necessarily be idiosyncratic.

I get the feeling people think I said "If you like Lovecraft, then you hate black people and Jewish people," so I just want to reiterate my original point was only I think it's disingenuous to insist we treat Cthulhu as an immaculate creation which exists separate from the context in which it was dreamt up.

As music is a more abstract form, does it become easier to split artist from art, whereas with writing there are assumptions from the artist which form a baseline for everything written?

Not with me personally. Like, Bryan Adams is kind of an asshole, so I got rid of his music because that knowledge soured my enjoyment of his music. And let's be honest, he only had like six good songs anyway, so no great loss there.

To further muddy it, is this different for fiction vs non-fiction? Does a paper on covalent bonds lose validity if written by a TERF? How about different disciplines? Social sciences vs physics?

Assuming we're still talking about dead people, I'd say nonfiction makes it both easier and more dangerous to compartmentalize, because facts are objective and exist apart from the biases of the scientist (insert caveats here about proper methodology); but more dangerous because the validity of their work can be stolen to grant validity to their shitty ideas. Since we've pretty much stopped publishing studies that repeat experiments to verify their results, it's probably pretty hard to find a different, less shitty source for the same ideas, which is a shame.

I am generally cold enough not to care if a dead person was racist or whatever, but my hackles go up a little bit when people try to separate art from artist. Every painting is a self-portrait, and I don't think it's appropriate to compartmentalize the neat space squid stuff from the name he gave his cat. Trying to do so feels to me like an admission of the problem: otherwise, you wouldn't need to try to divorce them.

In no order but alphabetical. Omitting channels already mentioned as of time of writing just to stoke the mystery of which ones I watch. I also left out the twenty or so ASMR channels I watch.

Bowlingotter: A pair of married Let's Players with terrific chemistry (I mean, you'd hope so, right?) and a dorky earnestness you don't get from other channels who're trying so hard to be above it all. I knew I was on board forever when Lissy Sandwich broke into open tears at the end of To The Moon.

CinemaWins: Because too much of the internet thinks film criticism is about finding flaws to establish your mental superiority over the people making movies. Here is a channel about celebrating what makes movies a good time, and while some of it is a stretch, this guy knows the language of film.

Hbomberguy: A feminist and leftist (or possibly liberal, I forget which) who invites you to laugh at stupid people being stupid by citing evidence and reason to explain why they're stupid. Maybe that sounds mean, but he picks truly worthy targets like MRAs, Flat Earthers, and Nazis, so I think it's morally justified.

Jim Sterling: Video game punditry, staunch anti-capitalism, pro-LGBTQ support, and the kind of bizarre humor you can only get from the English. Can't recommend highly enough.

Philosophy Tube: One of the bravest, smartest people on the internet, explaining the mechanics behind the arguments and actions people taking in a relentlessly self-critical way while channeling seemingly endless creativity into the characters and scenarios of his sketches. Olly's improved a lot in last few years after escaping an abusive relationship he's pretty open about discussing, which... the man is a hero to me.

Thought Slime: After so long on the internet listening to edgelords babble about anarchy as a vessel for their thoughtless self-adulation, I had no idea anarchy is a philosophy with a coherent ethos and a serious, achievable set of goals. This channel is run by a man doing his best to try to convince people to care that they exist in a system designed to treat us all as prey and to set us against one another to sacrifice our peers to the greed of those who oppress us all rather than resist as a unified mass. He makes it sound funnier than I do, though.

Tofupupper: In the words of Tofu-Chan himself, "The other night I had a dream where you subscribed to my channel and then I licked your face. Please make it come true." Absurd, abstract comedy built around a handsome goodboi who is apparently also a motivational speaker because why wouldn't he be? Look at his face and tell me you don't feel motivated. Do it. I dare you.

@Pandora said in Le Deuxieme Etat:

Someone told me once that a black girl couldn't be a fairy because there's no fairies in Africa (not a racist person, just a stickler for historical plausibility)

It seems to me a stickler for historical plausibility would say no one could be a fairy because there's no fairies anywhere.

@Kestrel said in Good TV:

Torn between upvoting for hbomberguy and wishing I could downvote because trashing BBC’s Sherlock is unacceptable heresy no matter who you are.

Either one counts as engagement for the purposes of the algorithm, so do what you feel.

Two hours long but very comprehensive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkoGBOs5ecM

I'm terribly sorry for your loss.