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?

  • Cyril Strobe@sh.itjust.worksOP
    103·
    3 days ago

    Fair point. It’s like that Churchill quote about freedom of speech: it’s ok until anyone says something you don’t like ig. Not exactly what I was asking about, but good point in any case.

    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
      26·
      3 days ago

      I think it’s worth raising the distinciton, because it’s probably only people on the left that are going to give a thoughtful reply, while those on the fascist right, being fascist, will be more than happy to censor anything to further their political project–but they are very unlikely to say so outright.

      The truth is every society always has and always will try to control the speech of its members. “Cancel culture” is a term used by the right to invalidate the left’s ability counter speech, while still maintaining their ability to cancel people they don’t like.

      • Cyril Strobe@sh.itjust.worksOP
        7·
        3 days ago

        Oh I completely agree. Cancel culture has existed ever since the days of Herostratus, maybe earlier, it just wasn’t called that by name

        • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
          11·
          3 days ago

          Yup, the right, who gave the Red Scare and the McArthy era, absolutely HATES it when the Left decides what can be said. Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher are both partly reactions to speech codes started in the 1980’s that became “political correctness.”