The Ethics of Consuming Media in Bad Ways or as a Bad Person
 

We're all familiar with the ethical question of consuming the art of "bad" artists. For example, are we allowed to watch Roman Polanski movies or movies starring Bill Cosby? A different question is that of the ethics of viewing or listening as a disinvited user or consuming media in a disinvited manner. The B-52's, for example, made it official in 2016. Trumpers are NOT invited to the Love Shack. Stay away fools! If you're pro-Trump, the 52's apparently don't want you. Trumper are disinvited users. Alternatively, if you listen to Bob Roberts fictional discography non-ironically, you are consuming it in a way that Tim Robbins didn't want anyone to do (which is why he didn't release the songs he wrote for Bob Roberts as the original motion picture soundtrack). You are, in the case of listening to the ballads Bob Roberts non-ironically, consuming that media in a disinvited manner (Tim Robbins would have released these songs for sale if he wanted that).

Of course, it's a free country, so Trumpers can blast Love Shack in their cars and homes as the please. Likewise, one can non-ironically sing-along to Bob Roberts ultra-nationalist folk songs and there is nothing Tim Robbins can do to stop you. Ethicality, however, is a different question from legality.

And this is my question, asked in two ways. Is it unethical for non-invited users to consume artworks? Is it unethical, at least in some cases, to consume art in unintended ways?

No, it is not unethical. When you release your art in the world, you relinquish control of it. You don't even get to control how people react to it, nevermind whether they react to it. The same way none of us get to dictate to the rest of the world what kinds of people we are: we can only put our words and deeds, our "works," into the world, and others will make up their own minds about them.

The only difficult question here (if there is any), I think, is whether artists should ever even so much as motion towards the idea. On one hand they believe things and have a platform to speak about them, but on the other it's just a fundamentally childish way of engaging with problems. And there is a sort of bait-and-switch, a violated implication in achieving attention for one thing and then leveraging it for another.

Regardless of how reasonable the attempts are, I think it should be pretty obvious they accomplish nothing and tend to spur pointless backlashes. So the only time someone should do it, in purely pragmatic terms, is if they explicitly want to lean into the tribalism inherent in modern fandom.

What a typically ridiculous attempt to have a serious conversation.


What is the issue here?



Is Fred Schneider using his jackboots to kick Trump supporters from his concerts? Or kick naturalized citizens out of the country?


Oh, that's right, were pretending this nothing bullshit is a way to prompt discussion about important topics. You know like how the B52s think Trump supporters have disgusting political views that they are happy to distance themselves from. Which, ya, they should. And they have every right to. Just like Trump supporters continue to have every right they like to pretend is being denied to them. They can follow the B52s across the country Grateful Dead style of they choose.

And Fred Schneider still doesn't have to like them.


Can we close this thread now?

Whaaat? You told me the other day how you wanted a debate. There's Corax, debate him.

Read the rules.

Re: The Ethics of Consuming Media in Bad Ways or as a Bad Person
 

So, this is a complex topic.

But I see at least three clear-cut perspectives:

The first perspective assumes the death of the artist, meaning it doesn't matter what the artist initially intended. The audience can interpret and enjoy the art in their own ways, regardless of the artist’s intentions.

The second perspective assumes that not only is what the artist specifically intended important, but also that art doesn't exist in a vacuum and watching, liking, or endorsing it has its consequences. In other words, art is inherently connected to the artist, and the audience has to consider and respect the artist's intentions and opinions, as well as the social and political intentions of the art.

There's also a third perspective somewhere in between that recognizes the artist's intentions (say, malicious and evil) but allows you to ignore or downplay them if the work of art has other things to offer (e.g., great artistry). I'm mostly here.

I am Rules;)

Re: The Ethics of Consuming Media in Bad Ways or as a Bad Person
 

Here's my take: it's all down to Death of the Author. I don't care what the artist intended or what stipulations they made about viewing/using/liking their art...etc, etc. If I want to visit the Love Shack I will, of course I'm sure the B52s would personally invite me and I'll bring my own glitter!

Re: The Ethics of Consuming Media in Bad Ways or as a Bad Person
 

No one will tell me what to do!

So you enjoy power electronics made by neo-Nazis who openly incite genocide?

For what it's worth, my response is not interpreting the question this way at all. I'm answering the bolded questions in the OP.

Death of an Author is, I think, something else. I don't take the same "you relinquish control" approach when it comes to interpreting the work, exactly.

It's interesting to me that these things are often conflated, though. Not saying it's wrong, just interesting, and it feels to me like there's a subtle but important distinction.

Are you talking about the legit Nazis doing this in the US or a certain Finnish perv?

This.

You mean Volkswagens? ;)

Most PEAC is not that good. But the Finnish guy is!

Yes, this is the orthodox view, a view I have voiced on many occasions, because I share it. I think the view has truth objectively and normatively. Objectively, this is just what happens whether we like it our not. Normatively, we're putting art out there to be consumed, so if we wanted it to be our private property we should have never released it. The dance of culture is improved by alteration and appropriation. Culture is appropriation, so I am down with the normative truth of this position.

That stated, it seems that there is a conversation to be had about some uses and gratifications. Would you, for example, as a prison warden allow convicted child predators to watch Lolita and Blue Lagoon on a loop for a "film festival weekend"? Or, consider that there was that controversy over whether white people should take seats away from people of color for the opening weekend of Black Panther. Activists on social media encouraged whites to stay home or, better yet, give tickets away to POC for opening weekend and self-relegate themselves to watching it later. We may not agree with the idea, but this idea was put out there.

Personally, I don't that the Koran should be burned or that crucifixes should be placed in jars of urine are art, so there are limits to my normativity, although I must concede that people will do it anyway (objectively).

I am questioning whether our common commitment is really absolute or whether there are boundaries.

To be clear, the objective question is not part of the conversation. People do various things with art. I am only asking the question of whether, in some cases, it is the case that they should forebear from doing so (either as disinvited consumers or as one who consumes in a disinvited fashion).

If an artist, for example, said that I (personally or demographically) was not welcome attend their exhibition or concert, I would feel some pressure not to attend, simply by way of not feeling welcome. And indeed, if I did attend, that would seem to be a subversive and likely political act in itself.

Reports of the demise of the author of have been greatly exaggerated. Every time we build a shrine to a director or attempt to divine their secret meaning (e.g., Room 234) we're in the orbit of the author and the metaphysics of presence.


And the author isn't the only guardrail. In effect, there are "community guidelines" regarding consumption (e.g., don't buy R. Kelly, don't give Polanski awards, "don't rap the N-word if you're white" is a rule regarding how one may consume, "don't come to Black Panther on opening night if your white" is a rule offered by activists--not the author or makers--which polices who may consume).

I hadn't heard about that but if true it saddens me that bigotry still exist and is acceptable enough for anyone on social medial to suggest such a racist thing and not get shouted down and voted into social media oblivion.

Re: The Ethics of Consuming Media in Bad Ways or as a Bad Person
 

This reminds me much of the plight of Kramer in the Seinfeld episode "The Chicken Roaster".

Due to a large, red, neon sign for Kenny Roger's Chicken that is erected directly opposite Kramer's apartment window and which obtrusively casts a blasting red light into his dwelling, Kramer develops a hatred for Kenny Rogers. Kramer decides to do whatever he can to take down the Kenny Roger's Chicken dynasty... that is until he gets a taste of the chicken! Kramer becomes addicted to the chicken and finds himself at a crossroads - if he continues his crusade against Rogers, he'll lose the chicken he's come to love, but if he gives up the fight he'll have to live with the accursed red glow that has made his apartment unlivable!

Wow, what a question. So, how does one be "invited"? The last time I checked, art galleries welcome visitors, movie theaters and live theaters sell tickets with no criteria other than cash or a credit card.

We have no idea at the outset, what "consumers" will do with the art nor to we have much control over them.

The last time I heard of anybody being "disinvited" since the beginning of the civil rights era, aside from obvious intoxication or disorderly behavior, was never. What it amounts to would be some combination of censorship and/or discrimination. On a personal level, Cosby and Polanski are off of MY list, as is Clint Eastwood and some others, but I'm not OK with them being banned or considered to be "unethical".

Fortunately we have not gotten there yet.

I merely offer this as an actual example (it was actually the premier for Wakanda Forever that had this social media activism) of disinvited viewers to establish that we're not in the realm of pure hypotheticals.



If I squint hard enough, I can kind of see it. Imagine that you got smashed with all your college buddies and decided to go see a kids' movie on opening weekend just for giggles.Your crew is in line to buy the last 15 tickets just in front of a mom with two beaming children who have been dying to see this film for weeks. Would it be better to speak up and encourage your bros to buy tickets for another film so that the kids don't have to leave crestfallen? Would you make way for Tiny Tim and Tiny Tina?

Re: The Ethics of Consuming Media in Bad Ways or as a Bad Person
 

Would you make way for Tiny Tim and Tiny Tina?

I think it's a loaded question to ask whether it's ethical to let Tiny Tim into a children's movie.



https://i.postimg.cc/t4r8tP98/tiny.jpg


No?

Re: The Ethics of Consuming Media in Bad Ways or as a Bad Person
 

Holy cow, what if Corax is Sexy?

Nah, Corax has been with us for years.

I remember a poster named Lovesexy.



At any rate, I unmasked at this ball years ago.

Yea...no.

This is not always the case. Historically, people have been legally discluded from some artistic venues on the basis of ethnicity, melanin, and religion and so on. Moreover, there are contemporary thrusts at hierarchy and segregation (usually in the name of fighting it).

https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/...,w_1160/f_webpDon't crow too much about the status quo. It is not a certainty that the law will always favor freedom. And activist artists will lead the way if and when the worm turns.

Next, please remember that our question is ethical and not legal. Thus, even if no one else requests that you do something, you may have a duty to do it anyway (e.g., a child drowning in a neighbor's pool is an emergency which may not be accompanied by a formal request for you to aid the child).
This is not entirely true, is it? Movie disks sometimes have unskippable adverts. Sesame Credit in China offers the government the ability to punish your credit score if you make untoward comments about the state, or associate with people who do. The West's ubiquitous use of credit and smartphones is placing us in a similar position (e.g., protesting truckers in Canada had their bank accounts frozen). Play an online video game? Well, they have control of your user experience and can (and will) terminate your online account if you pick a bad name, say a bad thing, etc., relative to their POV. Our future is one where certain parties will have the ability to exercise considerable control not only over art, but over all human expression.
What kind of list? How does this list govern your consumption? Is this list rational? Would it have binding normative force on a reasonable person of goodwill or is it just random?

So since this thread isn't about people being actually excluded from anything legally, and is all about the 'ethics' of movie consumption, I guess we're all good to continue here.


Or is it just me who is noticing this conversations 'slow' 'pivot' towards how these supposed ethics will eventually be used by governments to punish citizens who don't agree with their politics. Oh, and that every example being given is about a lefty being mean to right wing causes, almost as if some random B52s example (which I can hardly find any actual example of while googling) is much more convenient than mentioning any instances where the right has overtly threatened the left wing.


Please carry on. He's clearly not doing the thing he always does, yet again.

I am merely pointing out that the present is not exhaustive of the possible. "Well, we don't do that today!" is no proof of what might be done in the future.
Feel free to offer additional examples. I'd be happy to entertain examples that lean in the other direction.

Regardless of the politics of the artist, if the artist tells me that I am not welcome to participate as others, that does give me pause. For example, I would not crash a "women's only" art exhibition (link in prior post). However, some people are willing to skirt the rules for some events (e.g., this one).

And we do self-regulate in some areas. Back in the day, all the suburban white kids were bumping NWA and rapping along (including all the various uses of the N-word), whereas now the mere mention of the word is considered use, meaning that singing/rapping along to some tracks in public (or what people would confess to doing in private) is now taboo. This is a change in our pattern of consumption. And unless you're petitioning for an "N-pass" on this particular point, we have to shrug and note that this is an acceptable change to how we personally self-regulate our consumption of art.

Nah, Corax reads like a lawyer writing a baffling legal brief designed to be coyishly unreadable.
Sexy read like Erma Bombeck after her third pot of coffee and second bloater of lsd.

So your response is you can't think of anything yourself?


And yet, somehow, the ****ing B52's are on your radar.


Tell me you've been bumping NWA and singing along with it without telling me you've been bumping NWA and singing along with it.

Re: The Ethics of Consuming Media in Bad Ways or as a Bad Person
 

This reminds me, I should listen to the B52's


I am, after all, invited.

Just so we are clear, Corax isn't permitted to listen to this.


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

Well, I posted here with Sexy Celebrity, I knew Sexy Celebrity from posting here, I considered Sexy Celebrity a MoFo friend of mine... and, sir... Corax is no Sexy Celebrity.

- great moments in debate history! ;)

Re: The Ethics of Consuming Media in Bad Ways or as a Bad Person
 

There are certainly "wrong" ways of consumption, but isn't or shouldn't be an issue to the general viewer be they bad or tactless. In public spaces there should be a level of sanity, like for example not to wear a Hitler T-Shirt at a showing of Schindler's List. In private, anything goes, and if it's truly erroneous, the negative payback will be dished out eventually through the gnarled roots of misunderstandings.

My response is that I am not going to perform additional labor for you to pass some sort of ideological purity test.

Again, feel free to offer your own examples. Add something productive to a conversation for a change. Branch out a little bit.
Just something I happened to remember. It struck me. It's one thing when Bobby McFerrin asked the RNC to stop using "Don't Worry, Be Happy" in the Reagan era. He has an IP stake in that song and he has some stake in how that song may be used to platform ideas or sell products. It's a different thing entirely when an artist tells a portion of the public to not consume their art.

Here's another example. Pink was upset about Roe vs. Wade being overturned and so she said this on Twitter,
A portion of her audience has been disinvited to consume her art, because they're "bad people" on her view. This is merely an example of what I am talking about. The question is whether the disinvited hearer or viewer has a moral responsibility to comply.
Tell me you only have generic meme-level responses without telling me you only have hackey-formulaic responses.

I don't really judge art by the personality ot the artists. It's a silly thing to do in my eyes...especially when you consider the founder of cinema is Thomas Edison who was by all accounts a monster. Would you not use a lightbulb because Thomas Edison likely murdered his wife.

Our question here is a bit different. It is not whether or not we would consume (or consume differently) because we judged the artist, but rather whether we would not consume (or consume differently) because the artist had judged us.

I'm only pointing out what appears to be the purpose of this thread. You don't want to contradict that, then feel free to continue being a partisan political hack.

And I'm supposed to expend additional labour so you can misread everything I write, make assumptions of what is being said, and then just conjure up the arguments that you'd prefer to have? You know, the thing you do in every conversation, and are continually called out for, but can't help continue to do because you are either

1) A troll

2) Have horrendous reading comprehension, but a high ability to parrot back things you've read but never actually understood in the first place.

You can see my predicament, right? How can I possibly take the bait with such a person as this? Why would I spend the time I need to make all these fantastic points I've got sitting on the bench, waiting to throw a fastball directly into your crotch, when I know the Sisyphean ordeal I have ahead. All the fastballs. All the crotches.

Yes, there are some in the audience that would love it, bu it's no longer satisfying watching you pretend it doesn't hurt. It's tired and sad.

I know human emotions are some kind of alien landscape to you, but an artist venting their disgust towards politics they believe are adversely affecting them, is clearly not binding, legally or morally. Who exactly on earth thinks there is some kind of higher component at play here?

No one.

No, not even Pink.

So please, keep ignoring real things where people actually are having their rights compromised (something you do with great ease), and continue to fret about these hypotheticals where elite, left wing artists are frightening you with their feelings.

God, you can't even steal a joke properly.

Yeah, you've got me. I'm a formulaic dud. But you should understand by now from experience, that sometimes all one needs is a meme to disassemble the arguments of a hack intellectual. No need to go the ergill route. You already had your bones picked clean years ago by him. I'm just here to push the sand over your remains. With memes.

Now, please, since I'm such easy pickings for such an intellectual titan as yourself, come and throw another barely relevant quote at me. Make yourself feel better.

Re: The Ethics of Consuming Media in Bad Ways or as a Bad Person
 

crumbsroom is like "This time I won't entangle myself in a lengthy nonsense discussion with Corax"

*Two hours later*

"I hate my life."

Maybe Fred Schneider was actually punishing them because they didn't bring their jukebox money? Just throwing that out there.

Are you peeking through my windows?

https://i.imgur.com/s5adt9z.png

You're adorable.

Somehow this discussion has coincided with me finding a vinyl copy of Cosmic Thing in my closet that I didn't know I have.



It's like this thread is mocking me from inside the house.

https://i.imgur.com/64iAfcK.png

Look, I am able to overlook our differences in political worldview, but keeping records in a closet where they can't be accessed is beyond the pale!

Please PM me for an address to send any and all additional records you find in your closet so I can begin listening to them on the daily immediately.

It was a couple of stragglers in there that I think got overlooked in my last move, and got left in a 'who cares' pile.


Not like I don't already have enough, with two of my rooms already having been overrun with shelves full of them, not even including the few hundred I have downstairs with my record player (or the couple thousand I got rid of for pocket change because they were all shit and I needed the space)


And, just as a side note, in that pile of junk I sold, there was the first song Metallica ever recorded ("Hit the Lights"). In shrink wrap. That I forgot was in there. And so the guy who spent a hundred and fifty dollars on what he probably thought were a bunch of dollar bin purchases for his store, will have gotten a nice little surprise there. And, yes, I kick myself every day over this.

Jealous! Not to veer this thread too off-topic from ethics, but I do regret not getting to see them live, especially since they're local. If there are any Las Vegas residents out there, it looks like they have a residency at the Venetian. You're welcome.

Re: The Ethics of Consuming Media in Bad Ways or as a Bad Person
 

Is it ethical to keep your vinyls in your closet?

Considering what was in there, yes.


I only rescued the worst B52s album ever made, because my girlfriend wanted to listen to it.



She likes Roam, because she's a heathen.

They would be amongst the groups who I would have most loved to see in their prime.



My main reason I hate this particular record is just because whenever I talk about the B52s it's always 'ew, you like Love Shack' or 'oh, I loved Love Shack'. I don't need that in my life.

You just can’t quit him….

Never underestimate the power of boredom and an arsenal of stock insults.



https://i.pinimg.com/originals/64/1d...7922779a11.gif

I demand for crumbsroom and Corax to kiss and make up.

But we'd just inevitably argue about kissing technique.


Mine would be better.

That's the biggest issue with vinyl; it takes up a shit ton of room. I am down to one 3 x 3 Ikea cube along with a couple of smaller single row racks and a DJ case that is stuffed full.

What makes you think they don't already on a regular basis?

*shuts curtains*

So, you're mind-reading and speculating.

"Can you you prove that you're not a Communist?" asked Crumb, innocently.

Friend, you don't even have to post in this thread.
You don't have to back up your side of the case, because... ..let's see here... ...insult, ad hominem, whine, unsupported assertion. Yep, you're checking your usual boxes.

The bait? Was "Hey, Crumbroom, I have candy!" in the title of this thread?

I'm sorry to hear that. Maybe you should go to talk to someone else?

Tears of a clown, what can I say. Again, perhaps it's time to move on to another love shack?

I never claimed that it was, at present, legally binding, however, it is not obvious that it may not, in some cases, not be morally binding. If Billy Holiday informed the Klan that she would prefer that they no longer ironically play "Strange Fruit" at their marches and meetings, she might have a valid point, no?

And there are other examples I have offered (e.g., the art exhibition that was for women only for the first month). I would have been a disinvited viewer had I secreted myself in to see the exhibition during the period when it was for women only. Did male patrons have a moral (as well as "official" / "procedural") responsibility not view that exhibit during that time frame? If you're specifically disinvited, it would seem that the answer is yes (or, at least, plausibly so).
I do.

Alas, you don't speak for everyone.

I am not ignoring any issue. Rather, I am discussing how these "real thing" sometimes might engender a moral duty impacting how we consume and who may consume.

We're not in the realm of hypotheticals. We have real examples here of artists regulating their public (or attempting to do so) and the public self-regulating their own consumption.

This ain't Dodge City and you ain't Bill Hickock.

When you're ready to engage in good faith, I'll be ready to offer my services. Until then, have a better one.

Re: The Ethics of Consuming Media in Bad Ways or as a Bad Person
 

Ha! Good faith. Give me a break.



Just because you've got a long leash here to keep pulling the same shit, nudging in your politics with the hopes no one will notice, or might not get any push back from the threat the thread will be closed as a result, I'll respond as often as I like. And I don't have to meet your expectations of what a response should be. Pointing out what a phony you are is all I'm interested in at this point. Not getting pulled down in the undertow of all your semantics.



You don't like it, block me. I'm completely happy insulting you behind your back as well if you keep it up.

OK then.

https://i.imgur.com/GmO2gDF.png

I'll do some lower-case crowing about the historical changes since way since way back in my kid-hood and place of upbringing, I DO remember hard-core segregation, when people were not allowed in some places because of their race, ethnicity or religion. I've seen this sh*t up close and personal, thankfully a long time ago.

In regard to "ethics of viewing or listening as a disinvited user or consuming media in a disinvited manner.", I have heard people take the view that they are going to this place or viewing whatever BECAUSE they were excluded. The logic being that, if going to this place or seeing whatever "contaminates" it for the people who support the exclusion, that's just fine.

I can recall old folks remarking that "you just can't go anyplace nice anymore". The meaning of that should be obvious to the cynical as long as you know what "nice" means.

No. This is much worse. I was lured into a box by the promise of listening to a grown man worry over a Fred Schneider quote he half remembers from a decade ago.


The only candy I deserve at this point would be laced with cyanide.

You need more.



The only way to do vinyl, is to have it completely subsume your life.


No half measures. No common sense.

Alas, our collective memory is seems be comparable that of a goldfish.
Right, it's a subversive act to go where you're not invited. However, there seems to be cases where this is noble (e.g., Rosa Parks) and cases where it isn't (e.g., those Radio DJ's who entered a Mosque with a boom box blaring the national anthem after 9-11).

There was a controversy, for example, at Evergreen Campus over the "Day of Absence" (this is the controversy that Brett Weinstein got wrapped up in as a prof.). It started as a day when POC would absent them from campus as a political message (i.e., to get people to notice how essential POC are by way of their absence). When this changed to a day of absence for non-POC (i.e., when whites were told that on this day that they should absent them from campus), Brett objected (in a faculty email that was not intended to be read publicly) and then everything went south (i.e., roving mobs of students on campus trying to hunt him down).
Right, but that means it would be just fine for people to show up on the day of absence at Evergreen campus for the sole purpose of poking a finger into the eye of the people set up that day (e.g., like the two white students with the "Police Lives Matter" stickers on their computers who sat down in the multicultural space at ASU two years ago).

In art, we've struggled with questions of making (can a white man play the blues?), partaking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XASNM1XEQPs, and appreciating (e.g., gentrification, appropriation, colonization).

I dunno. If I was told by a filmmaker that a film was made only for devout Muslims and not for the eyes of unbelievers, I would at least pause and think about it. What would you do? Would you enter the theater for the premier at some local theater having been told this by the filmmaker that this film was NOT for you?

Re: The Ethics of Consuming Media in Bad Ways or as a Bad Person
 

Yes, there is absolutely no difference between POC doing a walk out to try and raise awareness that their contributions have value, and white people walking out on their job because they....I don't know....want a day off too?


Notice how even Corax doesn't supply a reason why the white members of campus needed to stage a protest? Or what the protest was about?


Must have been a very vital stand they were taking.

Re: The Ethics of Consuming Media in Bad Ways or as a Bad Person
 

I also think he doesn't quite grasp the joke in that Office Space clip.

Whites did NOT stage a protest on campus. Whites did not absent themselves in protest. Rather whites were being asked to voluntarily absent themselves from campus in solidarity with POC. Professor Weinstein objected to whites being asked to absent themselves on campus in a faculty email that leaked. And then the students freaked out.

The question in this case is hypothetical. If you were specifically disinvited from campus for a cause would you absent yourself in solidarity with that cause? Or would it depend on the cause? And if you didn't absent yourself would it be because you would find the request non-binding or would you specifically come to campus on that day to just irritate people? Skizzerflake was speaking the subversive participation, transgressing boundaries in the attempt to show that those boundaries are not legitimate. It seems to me that there are cases where this is laudable, but also cases where its obnoxious. Thus, there is no one-size fits all answer for who may consume art and how.

Then in this case there are a lot of details here that I feel might be important to be aware of.



Who was asking the white students to absent themselves and what was this reason?



What was Weinstein's objection?



What was the reason why students freaked out?


And a dozen other questions that might clarify whether your point has any relevancy at all.

The case has been documented widely.

As you have expressly indicated that you're not proceeding in good faith, I am not going to perform the labor you have requested. Google is your friend.

The relevance is a question I put to Skizzerflake--how would you feel about showing up on campus on that day for no other reason than to upset people? Skizzer has committed to the virtue of transgressive protest (i.e., occupying space as a disinvited party), but there might be limits to the acceptability of transgression. To return to another example, if a filmmaker told me in a face-to-face conversation that s/he had made a film expressly for Muslims and that non-believers really shouldn't attend a premier, I'd be inclined (at least initially) to be polite and leave the film to its intended audience. Ditto for a women's only art exhibition. OK, this isn't a men's space, so as a man I won't enter this space. This exhibition is not for me. The point in connection with this press for relevance is that there are cases that are not so easy to decide.

This isn't accurate, though. I won't try to lay it all out, because it was a complex situation that escalated very quickly, with some staff eventually being sort of held against their will and subjected to a struggle session of sorts. The professor in question was and is, in his words "deeply progressive," and I think he went well above and beyond with these students as he tried to explain why forcing students to not attend their college classes against their will was indeed quite different that people voluntarily staying home to make a point about society. He was placed in physical danger and had to first evade capture and then get taken away under guard for his trouble.

Professor Weinstein (and also his wife, also an academic and also former facility at the college) haven't changed their social views, but after a lawsuit (which they won) they are no longer tenured at Evergreen. I think this incident was when I really started to understand how vast the divide was between the various ideologies and factions in our county.

There is plenty of info on these events online, and I found it fascinating, if unsettling, to read about.

I presume Corax might get a reply in with some of these facts before I finish typing this, but I am hitting POST anyway...

I misread his initial post. But it still stands in regards to him, I'm not just going to accept his take on some story because he references it. He consistently misrepresents things for the sake of his argument.



If this happens to be an issue where someone who self proclaims themselves as a progressive was acting like a bullish puritan, it's not like it comes as a surprise to me. I've been consistently disappointed with the behavior of lots of people, of all political stripes, the last ten years. And if it wasn't for how grotesque those acting in the name of the right have become during these same years, I would probably spend even more time being hostile to those from my own general ideology for dropping the ball.


But I don't know this story in nearly enough detail to comment. And, maybe if it was anyone else referencing it, someone who isn't notorious for pulling things out of context, I might have more 'good faith' that it wasn't a pile of stinking shit that was being handed to us.

Just wanted to highlight this again, because THIS 1000 times!

Dogmatic puritans of all stripes, and I can't stand it as someone who considers myself to be a free thinker. I guess people dig and start knee-jerking almost immediately when presented with something or someone they dislike or feel runs counter to their strongly held beliefs these days, which makes it really difficult to find common ground.

Maybe I won't fix my turntable.:dizzy:

In other words, "no soup for you!!!"

No way. Sexy always made me laugh.

Only if there's video.

i’m reminded of a NPR voice telling white people to not attend opening showings of Black Panther 2. they made, what i thought, was a well constructed and valid point as to why. but i thought their vibe was kinda cringe.

these days i got a low bar for expectations. as long as you ain’t exploiting someone else i’ll consume the media. if i found out afterwards there was exploitation involved i’ll feel icky for a minute, but then i’ll go on living.

Is that the same incident that Corax was referring too? Corax can you expand on that some?

I never heard of any of this until now as I don't do social media. But I'll bite, just what did the NPR say that was a 'well constructed and a valid point' as to why whites shouldn't attend the premier of Black Panther 2? And how was their vibe 'kinda cringe'? Seriously I don't know a damn thing about this.

To anyone: What was the reaction to that? Did whites stay away? Were there protest? Or?

@Citizen Rules: i prefer when NPR plays opera but unfortunately i don’t get that here :(

anyways, i think they were talking about people trying to scalp movie tickets to opening showings of it for like hundreds of dollars, which is definitely super unethical and exploitative. and in the process of talking about it a speaker talked about how movies have largely been made for white audiences by white crews and actors. and that Black Panther 2 was a major milestone for representation and industry firsts (there were like 6 or 7 crew roles they referenced). and they made the argument that the openings were going to be celebrations and white people would be taking seats from those who wanted to be there.

the cringe aspect was how they presented it. it was very much “**** you and the horse you rode in on”. besides, a movie like that is gonna get shown like 20+ times in one day in the smallest of theaters. so it seemed a little over the top.

Right, this was the Wakanda film and there was a demand made by a social media activist which got picked up by the rest of the internet commentariat (largely to deride it) and then it was magnified by normie pundits looking for the rage-click of the day. See here for the thing that I think started it all.

The filmmakers made no demand. The actors made no demand. Theaters were not race-carding people. I don't think it made any difference at the box office. The demand, however, was made by a self-styled activist who does have hundreds of thousands of followers and sides were taken on the matter. I don't recall anything on NPR, but it would be just like them to bring in some "expert" to explain why it's not such an insane idea.

Re: The Ethics of Consuming Media in Bad Ways or as a Bad Person
 

You can hate me, but if I ever make a film, I'll allow only people with good taste to watch it. Everybody would have to undergo a long taste survey before they could place their unworthy eyes on my masterwork. Can you imagine normies protesting against that? The Normie Anti-Discrimination League would crucify me!

https://i.imgur.com/CBPSk72.png

Dear Board,

I don’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member.

Sincerely yours,
Groucho Marx.

"I misread his post, but it's still his fault, because he's bad."



--Memelord Gravedigger, 2024

My bad. I should have claimed that it was impossible to understand what you meant. You know, the stunt you always pull when you're called out for your consistently awful reading comprehension.

Re: The Ethics of Consuming Media in Bad Ways or as a Bad Person
 

Okay, closing this for awhile. Will need to have a few conversations about how to handle this kind of thing going forward.