With the rise of cancel culture, it’s something that’s got me curious, why are so many works (music, literature, tv shows, etc.) no longer separated from their controversial makers? Is it purely to do with money (e.g. not wanting to give money to people you don’t agree with?) and what about controversial people who are dead? They don’t gain anything, so why isn’t the art separated from the artist? What’s your opinion on this topic?

    • ElcaineVolta@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      yea, this combined with “Oh don’t start…” further down the thread, I’m all set. you’ve got that “just asking questions here!” vibe that got old like fifteen years ago.

      • Cyril Strobe@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        That’s because I didn’t want people to bring politics into this, because the post wasn’t about politics. I’d appreciate it if people could stop behaving like the media and trying to turn everything about politics. That is all. Thank you.

          • Cyril Strobe@sh.itjust.worksOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 days ago

            Bullshit. There was a time in history when there was no politics (modern, etc.) and human being survived (arguably they even thrived). People try to twist anything into politics now, it doesn’t mean it has to be, if even it were possible, but not so

            • queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zone
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              What do you think politics is, exactly, that it can be so easily excised from… history, or whatever it is that humans do?

              I don’t think there’s any point in human history that doesn’t have politics deeply ingrained. I don’t even think history as a concept can exist without politics. Someone has to decide what to write down.

              • Cyril Strobe@sh.itjust.worksOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 days ago

                Depends on the definition. I’m not talking about a political definition, more the raw human emotion of rejecting something for whatever reason they don’t like it — not because it fits into some political ‘theology’