general media Is it okay to support the work of a person who is considered terrible?

[phantompone1148 126]

Just because the creator of a game, cartoon, or art is a awful person does NOT mean the stuff they made should be hated.

 

Let me explain: you wouldn’t want to support a terrible person, correct? Some interpret that supporting their work is supporting that individual. Though, in my opinion I don’t think you should be shamed for liking something to happen to be made by an awful person as long as you separate the art from the artist. 

[Nitobit 2,251]

I agree that you don't have to hate their work, but you also shouldn't support it in a way that would benefit the creator.

[phantompone1148 126]

1 hour ago, The Wife of Adaman said:

@phantompone1148

The section Sugarcube Corner is designated for discussing FiM indirectly. Your topic is not related to MLP let alone FiM in any manner. It has been moved to Media Discussion with the appropriate tag.

Also, the title has been changed to give proper context.

Sorry about that, I meant to put it in here

[Tom Gallagher 33,636]

I think it really depends on what the subject matter is. 

[Evil Pink One 13,555]

In a way everyone is terrible... It just depends on the person on how much one can tolerate the other.

 

[Megas 28,181]

I mean if I stopped watching things because people involved turned out to be terrible people, it would have been impossible for me to be a wrestling fan

[Pentium100 2,312]

I decouple the work from the person

For one, I am not really interested in what the person does when not working, so I do not look for that kind of information. However, sometimes I can find out that the person is bad, but that would not change my opinion about the work. If I really like some music and then find out that the singer likes to, say, strangle kittens in his free time, well, I hope he gets punished according to the law, but I also hope he gets to finish and release his new album first. 

[Prospekt 11,037]

Depends on what they've done to become "terrible" in the first place, as well as when it happened and whether or not they seem to show any genuine regret

[dead account 2,717]

I was in the situation a few times myself. I discovered a cute video game online and wanted to play it, but I discovered that one of the developers said horrible things towards transgender people. It's some time ago, so I don't remember all the details. Ironically, the game itself has a positive message, I read. But I still never bothered to buy/play it and I will never.

Another time I was watching a YouTuber I really like. Some of his "private" dialogues were leaked and people started to call him "Nazi" and things like that. Later he regretted what he said in those conversations and apologized. And since then all the stuff he made was only positive and supportive, that's why I'm still watching him.

[Evil Pink One 13,555]

Mehhh things are always taken out of context... So I judge their work fairly, instead of what I feel.... Would you kill or put to jail, the son of a murderer?

[ExplosionMare 23,625]

I’m going to go off of my own experiences here. For me it depends on the context of what the “bad person” did. I completely avoided all Mandopony songs and content because he did something intentionally bad thinking he could get away with it. I lost respect for him after that which made it hard to listen to any of his songs. However, when Scott Cawthon was cancelled on Twitter for his political donations, I didn’t up and boycott FNAF because even though I may not understand or support what he did, to me it seemed like he wasn’t being a bad person, he just made a bad decision.

Corporations are where it gets confusing though because if you really think about it, there’s always something wrong or “evil” within a corporation, including Hasbro (this opinion mainly seems to lie within their “buy our toys” scheme, which you can’t really blame a toy company for). I follow corporations like Disney for example and even though there’s been things that have made them notorious, I’ve never thought to boycott them because even if staff have or are currently making bad decisions, it isn’t enough to turn me away since a majority of those incidents are involving individuals, not the corporation as a whole. 

[Splashee 28,601]

It really depends. What is a bad person? A person who made a few mistakes? A person is is hurting others?

I really don't like people that hurt others.

 

But when talking about a game or other creative stuff, there are usually more than one people behind it.

[Misty Shadow 8,226]

I am a strong supporter of separating the art from the artist. I do, however, consider situations where I will not support a work if I feel it means supporting dubious people or things. 

[Envy 6,432]

If they're alive and making money off of it, then I think we should definitely do our best to not support bad people.

Like if we're talking Richard Wagner or Carlos Gesualdo (a composer from the Renaissance who murdered his wife) then it's different. Although I'm not sure it completely is even with Wagner. Sure he doesn't make money, but being anti-semitic, his music was loved by Hitler, IIRC. Even with a long dead person, you wonder. Is his music still being used by anti-Semitic people? Don't really want to be associating with his music in that case. But generally, I don't think too much of the composers I listen to, as they can't benefit from me loving their music, aside from being remembered forever I guess. lol (Pretty sure my existence isn't doing much to keep them remembered either way)

But modern day people who are rotten? I do my best to avoid them. I'm no saint in this regard, I'm sure. But like J.K. Rowling? I'm not going anywhere near the Harry Potter franchise. And 3 Doors Down after showing their support for Trump? Nope. I stopped listening to them altogether. I know they were conservative slanted and all, but that was just a step too far. It's sad because Here Without You is a darn good song. It's a shame that the artists behind it are rotten.

[They call me Loyalty 1,956]

Too many compromises have been made already. With all sort of pretexts. And the result is always more compromises and more pretexts. Somebody has to embody the principle, or else all you have left are rational animals in descending chaos. There is always a rationalization for a more basic urge. And it is always a lie.
You cannot build truth on a foundations of lies. Or maybe it was the other way around all along. Meanwhile, the ideal that gives order to the inherent nature of life disappears, and the tribe of humanity starts degenerating back into animalism.

So, how much can this go on like that? I want the whole thing razed so that which was lost can be restored.
It is a tragic outcome that such drastic measures are required to put the "children" back in their place. But I have come to understand that this is the language humanity knows best. At first, I questioned his methods. I was too naive. I thought human kind was more like us, and then I started to understand the nature of flesh and what it does to the spirit. I was born, and an absolute mountain of human crap was thrown over me. That is his throne. Imagine having to juggle this zoo. You leave them alone and they blow each other up. They did it before.

I am starting to understand why such catastrophic events were required before. I am disappointed.
But most of all, I am disappointed in myself. This is it? This is who I am? Anyways. A dream was given to them. And they killed it. They thought the dreamer was not real. And they even killed him. Now comes the time to know the other side of his love.

[EpicEnergy 23,253]

I think it depends on the situation, the work, the person, and your personal convictions and ideals. Is the situation involving that person committing atrocities? Is the work that person made a work about immoral activities or reflects the thoughts of a person who would commit terrible acts? Is the person extremely immoral? And do you personally hold convictions and ideals that you would be going against should you make a decision regarding that situation? Such questions would be good to ask when presented with a situation where you have to choose whether or not to buy a work from a terrible person.

One must also keep in mind that there is no black and white answer to this moral dilemma. Chick-Fil-A offer good tasting food that a large amount of people buy regularly, but Chick-Fil-A supports anti-LGBTQ+ groups and pro-Christian groups. Does that mean that everyone who bought their food on a regular basis is supporting such groups as well? Or how about this scenario: J. K. Rowling has said some hateful words, yet she wrote the Harry Potter books. Does that mean whoever bought her books supports the hateful words that she speaks? These moral dilemmas aren't exactly black and white, but rather they are grey areas that depend on each individual's view of morality.

Ultimately, one should not take this topic lightly, nor should one go to extremes as a response. As I've stated above, it depends on a wide range of variables that determines how one should respond to this moral dilemma.

[Steve Piranha 29,496]

I’m up for separating the work from the artist. Specially today as it’s trendy to hate on people for phony reasons, like what’s happening to JK Rowling. For me to do the opposite, has to be a pretty extreme situation, like financing drug cartels, or the “special military operation” 

[Misty Shadow 8,226]

7 hours ago, EpicEnergy said:

One must also keep in mind that there is no black and white answer to this moral dilemma. Chick-Fil-A offer good tasting food that a large amount of people buy regularly, but Chick-Fil-A supports anti-LGBTQ+ groups and pro-Christian groups. Does that mean that everyone who bought their food on a regular basis is supporting such groups as well? Or how about this scenario: J. K. Rowling has said some hateful words, yet she wrote the Harry Potter books. Does that mean whoever bought her books supports the hateful words that she speaks? These moral dilemmas aren't exactly black and white, but rather they are grey areas that depend on each individual's view of morality.

Though I find this true in essence, I can't help but be humored by how the mentioned two seem to be the favorite whipping boys when "everyone" buys stuff from Wal-Mart and Amazon, companies that literally support child slave labor, and far worse people who have worked on "our" favorite movies have turned out to be pedophiles. 

I know the rules, no serious debates intended to be sparked here, I am literally just saying. 

[Goat-kun 2,531]

Arise now, ye Canceled. Ye banned who yet post. The call of long-lost reason speaks to us all.

 

Separate work from the author.

[Envy 6,432]

12 hours ago, EpicEnergy said:

One must also keep in mind that there is no black and white answer to this moral dilemma. Chick-Fil-A offer good tasting food that a large amount of people buy regularly, but Chick-Fil-A supports anti-LGBTQ+ groups and pro-Christian groups. Does that mean that everyone who bought their food on a regular basis is supporting such groups as well?

It's actually fairly simple. When you give money to Chick-Fil-A that money is indirectly being given to hate groups. The only thing about this that is grey is that a lot of corporations give money to evil politicians and causes. Sometimes these corporations are the only place we can really go, like grocery stores. As they say "no ethical consumption in capitalism" or whatever. But when it comes to Chick-Fil-A? Very simple. We have no need for them. They're one option out of many. They have donated to some extremely nasty causes and have no remorse after being called out for it time and time again (sure they do PR stunts, but they never actually stop donating, they just make people believe that they have. Very evil.). They aren't getting a penny from me. Not even when I was at universities and had limited choices. They still didn't get a penny from me. Evil corporation through and through.

[BornAgainBrony 2,398]

 

4 hours ago, CloudMistDragon said:

Though I find this true in essence, I can't help but be humored by how the mentioned two seem to be the favorite whipping boys when "everyone" buys stuff from Wal-Mart and Amazon, companies that literally support child slave labor, and far worse people who have worked on "our" favorite movies have turned out to be pedophiles.

It'd be a pointless endeavor to discuss the actors, but I think at least part of it is in the way that the money is funnelled after the fact. If you don't like Scientology, well... I doubt Tom Cruise is making a cent when you pick up a copy of Top Gun in Walmart's clearance bin. Someone like Rowling is still the nerve center of it all, still churning out material, and H.P. a type of IP that has enough Merch, you'd think it was coming from Disney. Are any of these "pedo" actors out there on Twitter doubling down on their position saying that sex with children is O.K., to the point that they've turned it into their personal crusade?

But to compare it to something like Walmart or Amazon? They already have the world by its gonads, so they know they can do whatever the heck they wants. Any attempt to boycott at the level in which it would have an impact, would do far more harm to the consumers than it would to the company, because nobody can afford the time or the fuel to drive to ten places to do their shopping anymore. A good parallel for that might be a recent increase in gas prices, due to the "boycott" of an entity that has a comparable grip on the economy. It's not a monopoly situation, but it's sure as heck close enough to one.

On the other hand... I don't agree with some of Hobby Lobby's corporate practices. But that doesn't change the fact that their stores are far superior to Joann's or Michael's. In fact it's probably one of the only stores left that I can walk into at the start of December and actually feel the holiday spirit.

As for whether or not it's OK to support an IP if the creator goes all rogue berzerk...

I'd ask everyone in this thread: After having your lives transformed by it, what would you do with MLP if Hasbro or Lauren Faust suddenly went dark-side?

[daviddaviddavid 780]

Gonna add my two cents before this thread inevitably gets locked: yes, of course it's fine.

People are also of course free to choose to withdraw support from whatever they want for whatever arbitrary reason they want and that's fine too, but there's no moral obligation to boycott something you previously used to enjoy unless it's an extreme scenario, such as the creator murdering stray puppies for fun in their spare time or something. I couldn't care less about what someone wrote on Twitter two years ago and can't fathom what it would be like to be that invested in what other people think (I can only imagine it must make daily life exhausting), let alone use that as the solitary basis for changing which products or services I consume in my leisure time. But everyone's different, and that's fine.

[Steve Piranha 29,496]

4 hours ago, Envy said:

We have no need for them. They're one option out of many.

The more, the merrier . It’s always fine to have that many options in food services tho, and Chick-Fill-A happens to be the favorite of many 

[Pandora 38,702]

Depends on the situation.
Artist point of view > We're just people too and we have feelings, often we're put under a lot of pressure but that's no excuse to behave rude or have a very strong standpoint against something innocent. If I see an artist continuesly being rude i simply won't pay them because it's not worth it to give them more to feed their greed. [but that's my view]

When it comes to movies and such, i think.. that hardly affects the person even if you do watch whatever

I don't support JK's decisions but I like the movies?
 

[Sonic Shimmer 4,141]

If I boycotted the work of everyone who said or did something I don’t agree with I’d probably never read or watch anything ever again.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Sonic Shimmer