Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Right except we can't apply this evenly. You can go right now to any big museum, see elegant wood carvings from like 800 years ago, and we know nothing about the artist except his name. How do you know he wasn't a murdering psychopath? You don't. What you do know is Rowling said some shit on Twitter. We are holding more modern work to a higher standard compared to older work simply because we can document the lives of modern artists better. If you can't enforce a moral principle with anything resembling consistent application I question how good it is.
Also comparing it to Chick-fil-A is bullshit.
A good moral principle is 'don't do things that needlessly harm people', but unintended consequences are everywhere. By delaying a passerby two seconds while you give a homeless guy $5, you might end up causing them to get hit by a garbage truck that would otherwise have missed them.
You can't enforce the principle consistently, but that doesn't make it worthless; you give it a good-faith, best-effort go, and that's all you can do. If your best efforts turn out to be disastrous, that's shitty, but life's unfair like that.
Also, whatever else was going on with the person 800 years ago, JK is right now causing ongoing harm in her relentless campaign of hatred for trans people. Waving her IP around is promoting her cause, and so harming more people, right now.
If nobody knows whether the 800-years-ago guy was a piece of shit or not, then promoting their work isn't supporting some piece-of-shit cause and harming people.
As for chicken sandwiches - without explaining why you think my analogy was inapt, calling it bullshit is no more of a slam-dunk rebuttal than if I called you a poopoohead.
Entity X makes product Y and does shitty horrible thing Z. By being a product-Y fanboi and promoting Y all over the internet, you're expressing approval for X and condoning Z (at least enough to cut them slack for it).
What difference does it make whether Y is a media IP or a food product?
Fine your analogy is in apt because you can get a fried chicken sandwich anywhere. It isnt exactly intellectual property.
Also you are muddling the difference between not being all knowing with not being consistent. Not the same thing at all.
Don't muddy the water: you were talking specifically about chick-fil-A, even though I was using it as a generic example of a product people might get attached to. The 'separate the art from the artist' crowd would have you ignore any unpleasantness on the part of the producer, so long as the product is enjoyable in isolation - and hold it a moral failing not to do so.
And your entire point was that you couldn't be consistent because you werne't all-knowing; not knowing the character of your 800-year-old artist is no different in this instance from not knowing the future: to perfectly apply the principle would require full knowledge of every situation where it could possibly apply (which is of course impossible). This does not, I contend, render the principle, or attempts to apply it as consistently as your knowledge allows, worthless.
Do better, and try again.