As many have said there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and you can't know everything about everyone, so no matter what you're going to end up supporting something unethical at some point.
That being said, all I can do is act on the information I have, and when I learn about some situation like this, I don't have an easy answer or decision flow chart. But I do ask myself two questions.
How much will my support enable more of the behaviour I find abhorrent? And how much will the knowledge ruin my appreciation of the thing?
I cannot read Ender's Game even though I always meant to since I found out about Orson Scott Card's politics about ten years back. And while there's (somehow) way, way worse people out there the knowledge, especially the holocaust denial, just ruins any enjoyment I could get from the books or movies, regardless of any separate-art-from-artist arguments.
But I am a huge Lovecraft fan, and he was also just the worst. But the guy's dead, it doesn't matter if I buy his books or not. And even then despite his popularity across Geekdom he's a relatively niche author. His views aren't going to reach a lot of people.
I think this works out differently if the creator is someone current and powerful or influential. If we can blunt the impact of a popular creator spreading toxic views that prevents a lot more bad than than the same frome someone dead or niche. Even if that's only lack of support, that's still more.
I guess what I'm saying it is has less to do with the details of the bad views or actions, and more about much my support helps enable those. The less I contribute by watching or buying or clicking, the less I'm concerned about it. Unless it just personally bothers me.
I don't know if that's the right answer but it's the one I've got right now
Well let me just help you about Ender there - imagine an akschyaly clever kid, fedora wearing, huffing their own farts while being annoying on twitter and trying to suck their own dick all day. The image is a pimply kid almost reaching their dick, the cum blasts past their face and hits mein kampf on the spine, the kid goes into a crying diatribe about something.
I think that's about it really, might have missed a part of the plot
Not at all. I'm a user of the product/service, not the creators friend or even acquaintance. If their product sucks, I'm more apt to speak against that. If the persons worldview sucks, that's their problem; so long as it does not infect their tech or media. If/when it does, that's a different aspect.
Its tricky, because how much do I really know about people's views who I've never met? Especially more famous people who might just be crafting a public image. They might be hiding aspects of thier views that are bad publicity, or just being controversial to drum up attention.
I think it's a little silly for anyone to grandstand on self-important moralistic consumption, because you can't be a consumer of most things in the US without contributing to evil labor practices on some level.
Nearly everyone owns a computer or cell phone, and those are all produced with parts sourced unethically on some level or labor that is impoverished in a more remote or regressive part of the world.
And some artists are so incredibly good it's impossible to ignore the quality even with their questionable morals, like Michael Jackson or Salvador Dali for example.
Everyone should make an effort to be mindful of their consumption, in my opinion, but I will always roll my eyes at people who are preachy about it. As some have mentioned, the secondary market is a great thing for trying to manage the problematic side of things, and even better, you're upcycling when you by used.
My.limit is where the utility provided is less than the annoyance I get from the creator. JKR is immensely annoying, far more than I enjoy their work so they will never see a dime out of me. Melon husk is a shit head and not entertaining so they don't get my money or content and so on. But Google gets some data out of me since they don't literally shitpost in my general direction about their opinions on people different from them.
If I know who the CEO is there is already a problem at the company level. If I care about who the CEO is, there is a MASSIVE issue for the company as I am many times more likely to make a decision based on who they hired rather than the quality of any product. The same goes for arts.
A lot. Also, thanks for the heads-up on Kagi. Anybody have recommendations for a privacy-respecting search engine that isn't run by chuds? Paid is fine as long as it doesn't suck.
Having kind of a rough week with wrestling with identity stuff. Things are generally good for me, but I just keep having these questions about myself coming up and I can't seem to just drop it. Not sure where any of it is going, or if it's going anywhere, but I'm getting kind of tired of it tbh...
I generally avoid giving meaningful contributions to chuds when possible. I was considering getting a Kagi subscription before, but upon seeing this that is no longer the case.
Have you boycotted JKR
I was never a Harry Potter fan to begin with, but if I were then I would be, yeah.
or dropped your opinion about Picasso
I don't expect people who died centuries ago to be woke, so probably not. That someone like Picasso would be racist/sexist/queerphobic is a default assumption for me, so that already lowkey colors my perception of them when analyzing their work.
Is it about the general vibe of a product or piece of media, or are you more discerning? What goes into this decision and why?
It's about applying pressure to provoke capitulation. I want to make clear to both them and everyone watching that being a dipshit in such a way will cost them resources and reputation. This is less effective when the creator is dead, though, so I'm not particularly concerned about their art.
You raise a really good perspective about the relevance of the artist among our culture. Older cultural influences have some significance but not the same as current artists in society. The relevance of problematic Greeks/Romans/Catholics just don't have the same weight because we know they come from a different time and their art is a reflection of that time. If anything, it's a sociological study of people from that time - we can still say the same for people today except for the fact that our consumption of their work can effect their estate.
Compared to current artists of today who are problematic - the likes of Roman Polanski, Chris Brown, Kevin Spacey, Johnathon Majors, Roald Dahl, these artists are much more in line with J.K.R. than someone like Picasso (or {insert problematic writer from 1850-1950}, because their works are more immediately relevant to our current culture. I also think the intent of consumption matters based on how it is then talked about - is someone is consuming the media to get an understanding of the cultural feelings at the time, something that highlights aspects of society, or are they trying to live vicariously through this character and thus perpetuating it.
As someone mentioned as well, second-hand is a way to still consume the media without directly supporting the artist. I don't think consumption of media is inherently supportive of the ideology nor does it have to monetarily support them, though I do understand that there is a high likelihood of sharing thoughts about something leading to others possibly purchasing and supporting them.
What these conversations always come down to me is how effective is blacklisting an artist? As in, does consumption of problematic works inherently perpetuate those problematic ideas or is it able to be discussed while highlighting them? I myself am conflicted here, as one of my favorite movie has 2 problematic actors in it, but Baby Driver is so damn good and having it on my Plex server doesn't actively support the problematic people (then, nor does it support the good workers). So it comes down to how willing or how able I am to separate the art from the artist, and how I choose to engage with said media when talking about it with others.
Someone mentioned Joss Whedon who is another great (or, awful rather) example where his actions make it harder to consume his media. But Buffy is still and always will be a classic, and The Avengers is still a big moment. Those also happen to have a lot more people than just him working on them. But the same could be said for Roman Polanski, but I am on the side of the user who said his works should effectively be dismissed. The only case for something to that extent would be for film and social studies in an academic setting where all of the knowledge surrounding it becomes part of the conversation - as an example akin to this I think it's important to be aware of and study American Cinema. Unfortunately by nature American Comedy has deeply rooted racism ranging from creating stereotypes that still are perpetuated today, to poor treatment of actors. And yet it's essential that we study these else we lack the historical contexts that led to change. I think the same will be said a few decades from now regarding Polanski, where we aren't studying his work his actions but rather studying the changes in society as a result of them.
We can study without them, but we will miss important contexts that are important dynamics. Without knowing about how trains influenced filmography the impact of travel films like Thelma and Louise are less impactful than they could be. Without knowing about how awful sex scenes in film used to be, the impact of modern sex scenes led by Intimacy Coordinators can seem frivolous. Without knowing the history of blackslpoitation films contemporary ones (like Black Dynamite) made in its image may not have the same weight. They can be viewed and understood without that contextual knowledge, but the impact from viewing the media with the knowledge is very different. Which of course the whole discussion, is exactly what it's like to consume media with someone problematic - exactly how able, or worthwhile, is separating the art from the artist? Does their intent even matter all that much if how it is consumed is completely antithetical to their position? If someone hateful has a work that everyone consumes and the socially perpetuated message is from love and kindness, does it matter if the artist is problematic? Or does their work become a slap in the face to themselves, so long as the consumers aren't supportive of the artist but the positive message behind the work - as mentioned this could be as simple as buying the book second hand or pirating it. I don't remotely have definitive answers to these, but I do think that the discussions surrounding problematic works can be more important than trying to sweep them under the rug in many cases. That of course also isn't something that's guaranteed. I'm also not trying to say that there is a definitive answer for any of these, moreso that it almost comes to be a case-by-case basis, per person.
I think it comes down to a mix of the intent of consumption, whether it's perpetuating or highlighting, as well as the consumers worldview affecting their perspective - like how the movie Idiocracy is received across all demographics. You'd think the conservative mindset would write this movie off, but somehow there is a narrative that fits into their worldview that affects how they perceive and interact with the media.
I'm also not condoning any problematic artists. I grew up with Harry Potter but I haven't interacted with the IP since the final movie (not the new series), and my interactions since have been through my Plex server, so no direct support. I was interested in the game as a concept and there are people that aren't her who worked on it, but I'm also neither invested enough in the IP nor interested in supporting her - were I ever to try to play it I would pirate it outright, and I think it would mostly be so that I was able to have a full understanding of the game, its mechanics, seeing the specific problems as they're presented in game. But that's me consuming the media with this knowledge in mind, almost inherently creating a dialogue between myself, the property, and society. With that in mind, is my playing that game problematic? Some might still think so, others might think not. I think the same could be said for video games that get called "woke", such as The Last of Us 2 being poorly received upon release - from an outsiders perspective many critiques were almost entirely comprised of misogyny. Any actual shortcomings of the game were eclipsed by things that just were not an issue, but some consumers decided it was. The reality for that game seems simple; people wanted more Joel and they didn't get that. Our cultural shortcoming of respecting women have heavily affected any media that represents them, calling them things like Mary Sues or just using woke as a blanket term.
(cont) Finally, there are so many people and examples that I also don't explicitly fault anyone for liking a problematic artists work, within reason. Someone can love the A-Team and have no idea Crazy Murdock is certifiably insane, or Dilbert strips etc. Consumption with ignorance isn't ideal but it's okay within reason. I also think that people can be allowed to have an exception. I don't support deforestation for Palm Oil but I fucking love Nutella and I'm sorry but I won't give that up as it's been the one thing that has kept me going at times of despair. I'm allowed to have that and I can feel okay rationalizing it because of how I carry myself for other products, even if my consumption of it isn't inherently ethical. Whether or not purchasing Nutella negates my convictions (like boycotting Nestle and trying to avoid non-sustainable practices) becomes irrelevant because it comes down to my happiness. I feel the same way for AI art for general consumers - I personally think that it's people like little Timmy and overworked Jane who are just using Midjourney to make fun photos to make themselves happy. These are people who likely wouldn't be commissioning art anyway, and their happiness is allowed to exist. For production of other things someone mentioned shoes as another example, which I personally try very hard to find ethical ones but in practice I always end up with PUMA's because they fit my feet and have lasted longer. It's something I wish I could change, but I'm stuck between values and blistered feet and buying another pair far more quickly than usual (just for this one example I bought shoes from Thousandfell and I had to get a new pair within 6 months from basic work wear) just to have to break them in again.
I think media from the perspective of ethical consumption is only a skipping stone away from corporate consumption, with the main difference being that the former you have a little more freedom of choice to decide with a much wider range of acceptability - is the author someone you want to support or do they just have an idea worth talking about, but you need to be informed first? Compared to which handbag/pair of shoes I should by because of how other people perceive my social status.
The former may have problematic elements but they can be discussed and support isn't as outright. It's more likely to highlight the issue, even if you're consuming the work of someone problematic. The latter is a byproduct of societies problematic elements, it is hard to not perpetuate the issues unless you are specifically going out of your way to correct them, if you can buy second-hand or whatever else. Anyway, I realize I scoped this out a bit wider than the original question, but only because I think they are closely related, the main difference simply being that it's not necessarily inherently ethical to consume a problematic artists works, while general consumption is just so difficult to avoid problematic business.
Honestly, there is so much art and so many services and tools out there, that I try to avoid sending money towards ones made by shitty people.
I loved HP as a kid, but I'm not going to support JKR's dullard takes on trans people. It's clear she knows literally nothing beyond what her transphobic friend and their wine club "LGB Alliance" of straight white women tell her, but she still feels the need to parrot it online in front of millions of people. And guess what? There are other books about magic out there.
In terms of my judgement criteria, it's not some fixed system, but my 2 main considerations are:
How much does a bad person benefit financially from the product?
How much are bad people responsible for the creation of the product?
Generally-speaking, if either of those can be answered with "A lot", I avoid it.
So for instance, in the case of Hogwarts: Legacy, while JKR wasn't responsible for making the product almost at all, she publicly indicated that she was making a lot of money from it, so I did not purchase it.
Ditto for AWS; once I was able to afford a cheap refurb server, I shut down my AWS accounts and been self-hosting everything.
Certainly. There's a big difference between me giving cash and uplifting someone who is actively harming people today, and supporting a dead man's art.
Of course remember there's nuance as well. It doesn't cost me much to stop interacting with JKR's output, but buying quality shoes that don't in some way support sweatshop owners or fast fashion represents a significant time/money investment on my part.
And if there's something important for my health than it goes right out. idk, maybe Dr. Scholl was there on Jan 6 and I was prescribed those Dr. Scholl's foot goobers by a podiatrist, I'm not going to quibble too much.
Which ties in to the privilege of being socially conscious. It costs me nonzero money and energy that some might not have to do all of these things. I cannot blame or fault the person who works at Chick-fil-A paying rent, even if their work supports CFA.
Strongly, generally, although I also try to see who they are today versus who they might have been. It also depends on what they are saying and less on what somebody tells me they believe. For example, if someone doesn't understand or is uncomfortable with a trans person but at the same time believes everybody should have the rights and ability to live life as they choose (basic tolerance, essentially), I don't consider that transphobic specifically. Some people would though.
I avoid altogether, look for alternatives, or do my best not to support them financially at least. So I avoid anything written by Lunduke, I don't avoid all of JKR because I like the franchise, but I get anything secondhand.
A creator’s worldview influences me a whole lot on whether I’ll use their stuff or not. I don’t think we can afford the luxury of supporting jerks anymore. There’s just too much shit going on. Consuming is voting. That’s the rational part. The affective part is that when I learn that the creator’s a jerk, I just don’t feel like engaging with their stuff anymore. It’s basically a turn off for me.
The kagi controversy is unfortunate. I’ve been considering biting the bullet, but there’s no way I’m paying for a search engine I don’t feel good about. Also I very naively didn’t realize until now kagi was just aggregating Google, Yandex or whatever, stripping the advertisement rot and applying some extra magic. Won’t they get the rug pulled right from under them the second they reach any sort of relevance?
How much does a creator's worldview influence whether you use their tech or consume their media?
Depending on what we call "worldview"... either 0%, or 100%.
In this particular case:
SearXNG
SearXNG is a free internet metasearch engine which aggregates results from more than 70 search services. Users are neither tracked nor profiled.
OpenSource
Free
Self-hostable
User configurable
Kagi
Kagi Inc. is a company [...]
Closed
For profit
Not verifiable, not controllable
You pay for the privilege
Google, Bing, etc.
Closed
For profit
Not verifiable, not controllable
You don't pay, you're the product
How much does their respective owner's worldview matter to me?
Being open and verifiable: 100%
Giving full control to the user: 100%
Wanting to sell my tracking data: 0%
Misrepresenting their intentions: 100%
Having an unrelated opinion about politics, religion, human rights, or other: 0%
As for art, my opinion of the art doesn't change whether I think the artist is a great or a horrible person; doing otherwise would be either dishonest... or imply the art can't stand on by itself (I call that kind of art "trash", no matter the author).
I am a very "death of the artist" kind of guy, but I won't give my money to people will will use it for evil. So while I'm perfectly happy to, say, buy a Roman Polanski movie secondhand, I'm not going to purchase a new copy.
Chat
Hot