228
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by sgibson5150@slrpnk.net to c/news@lemmy.world

Following initial investigation in July, three more women come forward, including one who signed NDA following her experience with author

Edit: Not sure why the link abstract says two. The article clearly says three.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tyrant@lemmy.world 71 points 3 months ago

Damnit. This always sucks to hear but it sucks even more when it's someone who's work is (was) enjoyable.

[-] citrusface@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago

The work can still be enjoyable - you can separate the art from the artist.

[-] tyrant@lemmy.world 43 points 3 months ago

I don't enjoy supporting the artist even if the art is good and don't buy into this argument. If you support the art, the artist is still making money off of it. Unless they are dead I guess....

[-] citrusface@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago
[-] watersnipje 2 points 3 months ago
[-] noobdoomguy8658@feddit.org 8 points 3 months ago

A gentle nudge towards, let's say, alternative means of acquiring media to enjoy. One that, ironically enough, Neil Gaiman commended himself (under certain circumstances, of course). One that is still better than giving money to someone you don't want to support as a person or a creator.

[-] watersnipje 3 points 3 months ago

Ahh gotcha. I thought that somehow the artist had been controversial and that this was an example of separating the art from the artist or something. I was thinking in the wrong direction, thanks.

[-] noobdoomguy8658@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago

Happy to help!

[-] Silentiea 5 points 3 months ago
[-] watersnipje 2 points 3 months ago
[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 17 points 3 months ago

It's possible to enjoy the art without giving material support or publicity.

[-] rainynight65@feddit.org 1 points 3 months ago

But do you have to?

For me, knowing that the artist is a terrible person ruins the art for me, or at least compromises it to the point where I don't feel comfortable in my skin continuing to peruse it. And that even if I wouldn't be buying anything new or otherwise be giving the artist money.

Take as an example Jon Schaffer, head of metal bad Iced Earth, which I liked quite a bit in the past. Later it became clear that he is at least problematic, and once he was identified as having participated in the January 6 riots, that was the end of it. I still own older Iced Earth CDs, but I can't listen to them any more.

Or Joss Whedon, whose work I used to love, and I own a lot of DVDs of his stuff. But watching it now knowing what he's done particularly to many women he worked with just seriously hinders my enjoyment of what I once really liked.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I agree, sometimes what you know about the artist can change how you experience it so that it is no longer appealing. That's a legitimate reaction too. If philosophy is art we had this situation with Martin Heidegger, who was quite a brilliant thinker but also, at least for part of his life, a committed Nazi. It's not really possible to read him now without that fact colouring the experience.

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 2 points 3 months ago

Books can be consumed without paying the author anything.

[-] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 11 points 3 months ago

lol this argument just happened in a thread about jk rowling.

enjoy your rapist stories

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 3 months ago

I choose to continue to enjoy the work of people who turned out to be shitheads from before learning that they are shitheads. Michael Jackson, Phil Anselmo, now Neil Gaiman (actually, last year for him). All people who created great art that I enjoy and whose future work I will not consume (for the ones that are still alive). To be clear, MJ is only before the allegations. Thriller still kicks ass.

[-] rekorse@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Is the MJ thing settled or are you just saying you avoid anything thats likely to be problematic too?

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 3 months ago

I mean, claims against MJ seem pretty bad and, I think, multiple enough that I can't ignore them. There's no proof, to my knowledge. But I'm not comfortable with it.

[-] rekorse@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I think the running counter story is that he felt more comfortable around kids than adults, but people couldn't believe it was innocent. Its really hard to play the accusations game. Macaulay Culkin saying he spent tons of time with him and nothing bad ever happened is as much evidence for good as any of the accusations of wrongdoing.

I also think there was and still is a problematic understanding of psychology especially with small children.

[-] mineralfellow@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Yeah, you can appreciate that people are complicated, and bad people can create good things. If you try to only read books by people who are morally above reproach, you will wind up with a pretty short reading list.

[-] DJDarren@thelemmy.club 2 points 3 months ago

I can justify still enjoying Pantera by knowing that most of what made them awesome was Dimebag.

[-] TheFunkyMonk@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I just read a super interesting book about this–Monsters by Claire Dederer. It won’t really give you answers, but a thought-provoking discussion on this subject I also struggle with.

this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
228 points (100.0% liked)

News

23275 readers
3072 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS