Great Things made by Horrible People

[Duckay]

I don't disagree with your statement that you can do bad things and not be a bad person (and just to be clear, even if in the past I have hyperbolically said someone was a bad person, I have long believed this and continue to do so), but I question the logical extension.

Maybe instead of giving my money to Orson Scott Card, I can give my money directly to the things that he supports that I also support, so that way the things he supports that I do not are not receiving my money. Or maybe I can choose not to give my money to Orson Scott Card, and instead give it to other causes entirely.

I just dislike the idea that you are shaming people for being selective about how they use their money. And yes, calling a boycott "epic vanity and self-importance" is shaming. Would you still call it vanity and self-importance if I chose not to buy Ender's Game for literally any other reason?

ETA: Also, I'm sorry to be "that person" but I feel it is relevant. No one has addressed the point I made earlier in the thread, which is that there are celebrities who have been famously accused of sexual assault, child abuse... things, in my opinion, on a completely different level than being rude on Twitter. Do you hold the same position when we are discussing those people, Lord Hosk? (Not challenging, sincerely asking.)

[Lord Hosk]

Im not shaming people for being selective about how they use their money, im saying that it epic vanity and self-importance to say that other people are "horrible people" because of one thing or even a group of things they choose to say or do while simultaneously doing horrible things yourself but considering yourself "better" than them.

Im not saying you should, or shouldn't support Orson Scott Card or Adam Baldwin, or any other creative person, Im saying you shouldn't refer to people as horrible people because they hold different views than you do, even if our society has judged those views to be abhorrent.

IM saying, and I will say again that ACTIONS are horrible, ACTIONS are bad, not the individual.

The individual is a compilation of both good and bad actions and saying that they are either "good" or "bad" "Righteous" or "Horrible" is a completely ludicrous proposition.

[Duckay]

First of all...

I don't disagree with your statement that you can do bad things and not be a bad person (and just to be clear, even if in the past I have hyperbolically said someone was a bad person, I have long believed this and continue to do so), but I question the logical extension.

Secondly, while I do not believe that people are inherently good or bad, I am not sure how I feel about your point on the whole. For a start, I read your post that "it is impossible ... to not support people who do bad things, so it is epic vanity..." to refer to the act of boycotting I.e. It's impossible to avoid supporting all people who do bad things, so it is vain and self-important to avoid any of them. That is clearly where the confusion and much of this debate has arisen.

I'm also not sure how I feel about the notion of moral "rankings" in general. I agree with you that it is at the very least impossible to tell a lot of the time, but I admit, I'm selfish and hypocritical; that starts to fall down for me when it comes to people who have committed certain crimes. I sincerely applaud you for not being caught up in the emotion of that.

...however I can't help but notice you've been using a lot of caps for emphasis in your post. Have I upset you? If so I am genuinely sorry.

[Metcarfre]

The obvious example here is Bill Cosby. While his early stand up and The Cosby Show are laudable, he is a (15 times now?) alleged rapist. Also someone who has castigated modern black American culture from a dubious ethical standpoint.

Woody Allen; brilliant director and writer. Alleged child molester.

Tim Allen; comedian. Convicted drug dealer.

We all heard the Jian Gomeshi allegations. Fortunately I've never been a Moxie Fruvous or Q fan.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

I can separate the work from the author. I can enjoy Ender's Game while condemning Orson Scott Card. No issue for me... except there are wrinkles:

1) What if the creator is alive? Then I refuse to give money to her/him. If I want to read Ender's Game, I'll buy it used so no money goes to Card. Because I don't want whatever fraction of my purchase he sees being used to fund, for example, organizations opposed to same-sex marriage. It's not a question of having a problem with the work itself; it's a problem with where my cash goes. Easily solved, I think.

I don't think its as easy as that. You bought a used copy of Ender, so when another person who didnt care about the ethics went looking for one less expensive used copy and couldnt find one they bought a new ender. Effectivly you gave the same amount of money to Card.

In theory, yes; in practice, no. Supply far outstrips demand when it comes to used books. The person I deprived of a used copy has a dozen more used copies to choose from.

And even if that weren't the case, I dispute that I'm morally accountable for another person's actions. Just because I buy a used book that someone else might have otherwise bought odes not mean I'm implicated in their free choice to buy a new copy instead. That's on them.

Here is a separate wrinkle for you, if you believe that people are good or evil, and you do things that support people you judge to be evil even if they are dead arent you evil?

I don't believe that people are good or evil. So I don't think this applies.

The tricky slop. You choose who to support you choose who to ignore, you choose which suffering you consider to be caused by evil oppose and which suffering you consider to be simply existing and ignore.

It is impossible to live in a interconnected world and not support people who do bad things, so its a matter of epic vanity and self importance to decide who is or isnt "bad enough"

Perhaps. I think it's worse not to try, though.

[korvys]

Hosk: The title was chosen to be intentionally hyperbolic, as most titles are. You are correct to say that a person who has done bad things may not be a bad person. And even that a person that continues to do bad things, without remorse, may not be a bad person, and that's for each person to judge.

But once again, the question is less about who you judge to be bad or good, and more about what you do once you decide that. Card gives money to good and bad causes. Not supporting him financially means not supporting any of those causes. Does that affect whether you support him? If he wasn't supporting the good causes, would you be less likely to buy his books? If you can't get past the idea of any real person being actually good or bad, could you comment in the hypothetical? If there was a person of pure evil, who made a great thing, would it change your opinion of the thing, and would you pay to view/read/consume it, knowing it would support that person?

I can't help but notice, though, that there have been some examples in media lately of celebrities allegedly doing far worse things than being racist, homophobic, or rude on twitter. You have not given those celebrities as an example.

Is there an upper limit to what you will accept from a creator before it taints their work too much? Did you not want to discuss things that controversial? Or do you think it's a different matter when it's something a court of law can prosecute?

ETA: Or is it different when it's objectively true (like you can see that they have said something) or when it is alleged by someone else?

I assume you are referring to Bill Cosby? I had been thinking about this topic for quite a while, well before the most recent allegations had arisen. While I had watched the Cosby show as a kid, I hadn't really thought about it at all since, and while I'm aware of the more recent stuff, I don't pay a lot of attention to celebrity news. Omitting him was not a deliberate choice as much as he had not made as big an impression on my mind. Which probably says something about me, but I'm not sure what.

I had also leant a bit more heavily on geek culture type stuff, given the community here. Bill Cosby, Jimmy Savile, and Rolf Harris, for example, are all people who would be worth discussing, but a Sci-Fi author, a Video Game developer and a Sci-Fi actor were in my mind a bit more strongly, despite the relative banality of their problems. I'm certainly happy to hear thoughts on all manner of people.

One who is on a similar level of horrid, and who strikes closer to home for me is Ian Watkins, former lead signer of the band Lostprophets. The feelings I have listening to their music have changed, to my deep regret.

EDIT: And in the time I took to write that, a few more people, including Duckay, have slipped in before me. Oh well, I don't think it changes anything.

[Duckay]

I actually assumed this thread was about Bill Cosby when I saw it. Needless to say, there are dozens of celebrities that fall into the category of "people who have done things I would rather not support" over an enormously wide spectrum.

[Darkflame]

Remember also "support" means helping a cause in some way. Merely buying a book written by a dead guy doesn't mean you support their causes. Unless a connection can be found between your action and that cause taking some strength is more about your own physcology then any literal change in the world.

That's why I find the living typically a different category - their wages can contribute to all sorts of things - you buying their stuff can help that.
I have heard the argument a few times that "well, if you boycot a movie due too that actor supporting X/Y and Z, surely your unfairly punishingly everyone else involved with that movie?" Which is correct...too a bit point - but the same could be said for any time I choose too see one movie over another. Not boycotting the movie (and seeing another instead) would also "punish" the alternative film.
All our actions and inactions have effects.
Its all a shade of grey - but we can try our hardest to support the lighter ends as best we can.

The obvious example here is Bill Cosby. While his early stand up and The Cosby Show are laudable, he is a (15 times now?) alleged rapist.

"alleged" is a critical word there.
I think we have to assume innocent till proven guilty - especially where celebrities are concerned.

To us they might be in a hyperposition of possible states between "good and evil"...(and yes, if your a rapist you are evil - humans might not be any one thing but youd need a hell of a lot of good to even start to counter that single evil act)....but until we know for sure its wrong to assume based on the smoke.

[Duckay]

I stand by my assessment of these things as actions/politics that I don't wish to support. You are correct, however, that what constitutes "support" will inform my actions (which may mean no change from my previous behaviour, or a boycott, or perhaps something else).

[Lord Hosk]

No, I wasnt angry I just get frustrated by having a conversation which veer in the direction of arguments with just this path.

Me: I think A and here are my reasons 1 2 3
Other Person in the conversation: You mean B?
Me: No, I mean A and here are reasons 4 5 and 6
Other Person in the conversation: You mean 5b and 5c I find that wrong for reasons XYZ
Me: No, I dont think 5b or 5c I think A for reasons 1 2 5 and 6.
Other Person in the conversation: Are you trying to say 5d, and 6e?
Me: NO, Im am saying A
Other Person in the conversation: OK I think I understand you, because of 5 and 6 you are saying that C and D are correct? because thats just such a terrible thing to say.
Me: No, im saying A can we focus on A for reasons 1 2 4 and 6
Other Person in the conversation: listen reason 6 has nothing to do with C, why do you keep bringing it up.

[Lord Hosk]

Hosk: The title was chosen to be intentionally hyperbolic, as most titles are. You are correct to say that a person who has done bad things may not be a bad person. And even that a person that continues to do bad things, without remorse, may not be a bad person, and that's for each person to judge.

You can say the title was intentionally hyperbolic but you continue though out your first and second post to reinforce and expand on the concept that you feel there are bad people and that the people you list fall into that category.

But once again, the question is less about who you judge to be bad or good, and more about what you do once you decide that. Card gives money to good and bad causes. Not supporting him financially means not supporting any of those causes. Does that affect whether you support him? If he wasn't supporting the good causes, would you be less likely to buy his books? If you can't get past the idea of any real person being actually good or bad, could you comment in the hypothetical? If there was a person of pure evil, who made a great thing, would it change your opinion of the thing, and would you pay to view/read/consume it, knowing it would support that person?

if a creative work is good, then a creative work is good.

I have no problem buying great creative works if they are great. I choose not to be the one to throw rocks in a glass house as it were.

[Duckay]

No, I wasnt angry I just get frustrated by having a conversation which veer in the direction of arguments with just this path.

Me: I think A and here are my reasons 1 2 3
Other Person in the conversation: You mean B?
Me: No, I mean A and here are reasons 4 5 and 6
Other Person in the conversation: You mean 5b and 5c I find that wrong for reasons XYZ
Me: No, I dont think 5b or 5c I think A for reasons 1 2 5 and 6.
Other Person in the conversation: Are you trying to say 5d, and 6e?
Me: NO, Im am saying A
Other Person in the conversation: OK I think I understand you, because of 5 and 6 you are saying that C and D are correct? because thats just such a terrible thing to say.
Me: No, im saying A can we focus on A for reasons 1 2 4 and 6
Other Person in the conversation: listen reason 6 has nothing to do with C, why do you keep bringing it up.

I have nothing to say to that except that I sincerely tried to understand where you were coming from and take direct quotes to explain how I came to those conclusions, and asked you to correct me if I was wrong, and still apparently not only was I wrong, but I didn't realize that I was frustrating/upsetting you in the process, which makes me feel terrible. I really wasn't doing it on purpose.

I'll bow out here then, I suppose. If I'm still wrong about what you were trying to say (that everyone does bad things and that it's wrong to say that people are bad -- I still don't know what any of that had to do with the decision not to spend money on the works of people who do things we think of as bad, unless it wasn't meant to have anything to do with that) I really, sincerely, honestly have no idea what your point is. I'm not trying to misrepresent you or pick a fight, if that's not your point then I am simply too stupid to understand what your point is.

[korvys]

You can say the title was intentionally hyperbolic but you continue though out your first and second post to reinforce and expand on the concept that you feel there are bad people and that the people you list fall into that category.

Yes, because I disagree with you. I think it's true that doing a bad thing doesn't automatically make you a bad person. I also think it is possible to do enough bad to outweigh the good, and that does make you a bad person. But that's on me, it's not some declaration of fact.

In any case, you've made it pretty clear you don't think there are bad people, and therefore I imagine the rest of this discussion would be pointless to you, given an entirely illogical premise.

[Deedles]

I think it's highly person whether you think that there are just bad actions, if are people are bad, or a bit of both.

I'm personally a bit of both. I've had friends say or act in ways that I've found bad, and I've told them off for it, but I've thought they were bad people. Unless it comes to the point where I end a friendship; This friend of mine has been doing so much bad shit, not just to myself, but to others, that I just can't stand being around them anymore, they only bring bad things to my life. At that point they go from being a good person who occasionally does a bad thing, to a bad person, in my eyes.

As such it's a rather personal thing to me, and I can't really say if famous person A is a horrible person or just did a horrible thing. That said, I am effected in what I buy depending on what I think of the behavior of its creator. Doesn't have to be that they're a bad person, but simply that I dislike them.

[AdmiralMemo]

One thing that keeps nagging on me in this whole conversation is the concept of "my money" and "your money" when purchasing things. At what point can you truly say that the money is still "your money" when you're referring to "supporting" or "influencing" things?

Let's use the OSC example. I've got a copy of Ender's Game right here. (I didn't actually pay for it. I got it from The Book Thing for free.) Alright... The cover price is $7. Who exactly is that $7 going to? It has to get split up. Some of it goes to taxes. Some of it goes to the bookstore you bought it from. Some goes to OSC. (Judging from what some of my writer acquaintances get, they see maybe a dime per book.) Some goes to Tor, the publisher. (I think a lot of it goes to them, actually.) Some of it goes to the manufacturers of the ink. Some of it goes to the paper manufacturers. Then, each of those last three has to pay their workers and pay for equipment and maintenance. Those workers buy stuff of their own accord. And it keeps going. Is it still "your money" at this point?

Or say you donated to a non-profit that's helping fund the fight against cancer. Say this non-profit has shirts with their logo printed on them. Say the shirt printer buys blank shirts from another company, and simply prints on them. Say that the shirt-making company actually makes the shirts in Chinese sweatshops.
Is your donation to the cancer non-profit funding Chinese sweatshops? Or did it go to the shirt-printing company, and then maybe onto the ink-making company that they bought the ink from? Or maybe it went into a bureaucratic payment for something directly at the cancer non-profit. Or did they give it to actually research cancer treatments? Where does it end? How far does "your money" go before it's no longer "your money" anymore?

The only thing I can come up with is that it's no longer "your money" that you're "supporting" things with once it leaves your hands.

On the original topic, I firmly believe in the "Death of the Author" principle: once a work is completed, the author's own interpretation of the work should be only one of many possible interpretations available. Maybe it might be weighted a bit more heavily than most, but there should be no completely "true" interpretation. A piece of work relies as much on the receiver as it does the giver. Each person who reads a book, views a painting, examines a sculpture, etc. is doing so through their own lens of their own life and experiences.

Adolf Hitler was an artist at one point. I believe his art should be judged on its own merits, not on the fact that the man who created them was a xenophobic, racist mass murderer.

Things are things. They are amoral. It is how they are used that makes a difference.

[Duckay]

The thing is, when I said "my money" I was referring to a very specific point of the chain; when I am making my purchasing decision. Walking down the street to coffee shop #1 or #2, or standing in the bookstore deciding if I want something.

Basically my point was that if I decide at that point that I do not want to spend that money on Gloria Jeans, or on an Orson Scott Card novel, or whatever the item is in question, that is my decision to make as a consumer.

How long it remains "your money" after that point is, you are correct, a different story. Maybe it's wrong to say that the 10 cents from the item which is going towards the hypothetical Bad Thing constitutes "support", but when you buy an item you're also giving them sales figures, and other people are seeing you with that item. If it's a website, you're giving ad revenue. Depending on what the issue in question is, that may not be something I am happy with.

But the heart of my point was that a lot of dirty words get thrown around about boycotts, and that's the direction I thought this thread was going. No one would think twice about "I don't want this coffee because it is overpriced" or "this book doesn't interest me so I won't buy it", so I don't understand why "I don't want this coffee because I can get the same thing elsewhere without the homophobia" is suddenly a problem for people. Still my purchasing decision.

[korvys]

"My Money" is the money I have control over. Sure, once I spend it, it moves out of my hands, into a long chain of people, causing things to happen. But I get to choose what chain to send it along, and I think it's not unreasonable to try to understand the impact of my choice.

Adolf Hitler was an artist at one point. I believe his art should be judged on its own merits, not on the fact that the man who created them was a xenophobic, racist mass murderer.

Sure, but that's only part of the question. Were he still alive, would you pay him for his art (hypothetically, if this were possible)?

[Elomin Sha]

"My Money" is the money I have control over. Sure, once I spend it, it moves out of my hands, into a long chain of people, causing things to happen. But I get to choose what chain to send it along, and I think it's not unreasonable to try to understand the impact of my choice.

Adolf Hitler was an artist at one point. I believe his art should be judged on its own merits, not on the fact that the man who created them was a xenophobic, racist mass murderer.

Sure, but that's only part of the question. Were he still alive, would you pay him for his art (hypothetically, if this were possible)?

One of his art pieces was sold at auction for $100,000 approx. It was decent art.

[Metcarfre]

His art is also known to be quite popular in the neo-Nazi community.

Is seem to recall the plot of some show wherein it was revealed that someone purchased much of his art such to remove it from the hands of such people and consequently burned it.

[Bebop Man]

What's wrong with Earthworm Jim?

Nothing, it's a great series.

The "problem" is that its creator, Doug TenNapel, is a homophobe and a bigot.

No, I know the games are great, I was wondering what the creator had done that you would bring Earthworm Jim up. I googled the guy and didn't find anything particular about him.

[Shandi]

Thanks, everyone contributing to this. It's been super interesting to read about these people. I haven't thought of any celebrities aside from those listed, probably because I keep coming back to people I have known through work and stuff.
I have found myself in the position before of abetting the work of someone I truly believe is a terrible person. Since my personal opinion is irrelevant in this line of work, I was lucky that they seemed to be doing the right thing at the time, even if for the wrong reasons.

Since then I've kind of come to the world view that, surprisingly often, bad people do good things and good people do bad things. No one is absolute, right?

[JackSlack]

No, I know the games are great, I was wondering what the creator had done that you would bring Earthworm Jim up. I googled the guy and didn't find anything particular about him.

http://gameological.com/2013/06/foc-tennapel-armikrog/

[Strazdas]

I see you people mention a lot of homophobes, bigots and racists. well, i think i can top that.

Ron L. Hubbard - the father of Scientology.

Before he created a religion, he was a write. a documentary writer at first (and wrote mediocre nature documentaries) that weered later into science fiction. his science fiction was amazing. Battlefield Earth is my favourite book of all time (not to be mixed up with the movie that had nothing to do with the book, not even the names were right).

Its funny really. Back when Hubbard started writing fiction he started selling far more than he sold in his documentary writing days. so journalists asked him "Are you going to write only fantasy now to get rich?"
His reply was: "If i wanted to get rich id start a religion".

Years later - Scientology. Looks like he did want to get rich after all.

Hes pretty evil as evil comes, but his writings outside of Scientology is quite brilliant. Its probably also why Scientology succeeded where other cults failed - he knew how to write a good bible.

[Elomin Sha]

Hubbard is considered a terrible writer.

[Amake]

I don't think your support or lack of support matters so much as who (and whose work) you can stand to be around and let influence your life. You make your decisions about what entertainment to enjoy for your own health, not because of the infinitesmal effect on a celebrity's economy and opinions you supporting or boycotting them may have. I won't read anything more than I have to by Orson Scott Card because he makes me sick (and I admit that's a failure on my part to separate the author from the work); whatever other lovely qualities he may have and what good he may have done, whatever is wrong with his mind that he's unable to consider homosexuals as human beings makes the idea of reading his books physically nauseating to me.

That's not a value judgment over Card's essential good-or-evilness, his character, his work or his opinions. That's just a practical consideration. If I went to Germany I probably wouldn't go to the trouble of avoiding the parts of the Autobahn built under Hitler, even though building them probably killed more workers than peoples' days have been ruined by Card's hate activism. It's a matter of reward vs effort, and to me the potential reward of enjoying the works of Card, or let's say Tom Cruise, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski or Michael Jackson is not worth the effort of ignoring all the things about them I don't like.

Of course giving someone money knowing it'll go some small way towards ruining someone's day can be a part of those unlikeable things, but I still believe your sense of your own physical and emotional well-being comes first, and that it's okay to make these decisions for those reasons.