Ethical Consumption

[hades]

There is a self responsibility and it falls on the consumer themselves. Look at the fallout this year alone of both indie and mainstream creators. John K. Of Ren and stimpy being a huge example of both the ability and inability to separate the art from the artist. When his actions were outed it really pushed this very discussion.

It is up to you to research and make the decision to support or walk away. And i DO believe context of time is important.

A lot of art and narrative history greats are bad if not terrible people. But often their work is still shown. They are also dead and gain nothing from this other then keeping their name alive.

Supporting John K is not the same as supporting a dead creator.

I guess what im getting at is ultimately it falls on the consumer to choose. I personally can't separate living modern creators from their work. But you still need to fact check and research.

[ISNEKO]

If the artist is a piece of shit human I won't read their stuff.

Talent cannot distract me from the fact that they are a waste of oxygen.

[phen]

This is something I've flip-flopped on for the past couple years. Even more, there's been a few other threads on here about it in that span of time as well, but it's a constant dilemma of pretty black-and-white opinions.

With respect to the indie community, it's something reflective of a whole. To an extent, we all need each other to survive and I've noticed that even with the not-so-shiny apples on the tree, little rifts slowly just mend themselves over time. This is where it's good to respect others' spaces while respecting yours. Being mutuals with conservative, christian creators is difficult (me being polar to this) and some of their views I see as "bad", as things that actively go against the very fabric of my ideals/morals. BUT(!), it's open for debate and can absolutely be applied vice versa to my own stance.

Really I just try to remain peaceful, amicable because we live and learn. Only in situations where my personal space, my privacy is disrespected would I pull away from a fellow creator. Even at that point, giving time for growth and observing basic respect (ie, no dragging on them, no inflammatory call-outs, etc.), you can overcome a lot within community.

Now, when it comes to curbing diversity (ie, comicsgate) or straight-up hate-speech, that's not something to simply overlook and would make me withhold support until some kind of positive resolve came to them later on.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

I think this question really boils down to, "should we as an audience feel responsible for enforcing consequences for creators' actions?" And I think the answer is yes.

As someone else said, there's nothing we can do about dead creators. We can appreciate what they did while disapproving of them as people; that's all. We can appreciate the actual creative work of anyone, living or dead, as a product in and of itself.

When it comes to the FUTURE of a living creator, however, we are the ones with the power to let them know that what they did will not be tolerated. No one will blacklist a performer that still draws a crowd. We are the crowd, and we can decide not to be drawn.

Like @Kura said, we can easily find other people. Johnny Depp, for instance, is not the only actor in the world who could fill the roles he played. No artist is SO special that we should continue to support them no matter what they do. If they want the respect of the masses, they should have to earn it and re-earn it, just like everyone else. No one should get to "coast" on morality if they make it big enough.

[Zaboem]

I would like to live in a world where good ethics are rewarded and bad ethics are punished proportionately and fairly. I do not live in that world. For both philosophic and practical reasons, the system does not and cannot work.

On the practical level, we as consumers end up judging creators based on incomplete knowledge and half-truths. The tools for uncovering the whole story and hearing both sides quickly and easily are just not in place. The more confident we are in our black and white judgements, the more inaccurate we are with them.

On the philosophic level there is an even bigger issue at play. When we judge real people by their morals, eventually everyone fails the test. Morals which were considered fine or even admirable in generations past have been deplorable or as we say "so cringy." The hero of one century is counted as a villain in the next, and critics scowl as they say things like, "Yes, I can judge that person despite him being a product of his times because wrong is still wrong!"

But Zaboem, you say, I am a good person! Yes dear reader, you likely are a good and just person -- right now. Those morals of which you are so proud will become the hated relics of a dark age of thinking if you live long enough to see it. Reader, if you think that your morals will hold up thirty years from now, you are kidding yourself. That hubris merely means you have already started becoming the villain.

[Luminosophy]

I stop following artists all the time, not even because they're big bad meanie bullies, but because they start thinking their political opinions are super interesting and decide to spam my feed with them . I'm not American, and I see enough American politics on the news all the time despite being in another country. I'm really fed up with hearing about it when all I wanted was to see some pretty pictures/ comics. As far as I'm concerned, they're the ones mixing art with the artist. Do so at your own risk.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

You raise an interesting point...

...but as a realist, I have to say, "okay, so what?" Does that mean we should just not judge anyone anymore for any behavior? I'm not sure that kind of thinking lends itself to the maintenance of a society...although, whether or not societies should even exist is another philosophical quandary, I suppose...

Besides, I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. Morals aren't completely arbitrary. They do change, but they usually change in a direction that tends towards more mercy and more kindness. The bar gets higher and higher with each generation of humanity. And I think, in that case, we should just do our best to keep everyone rising up with that bar.

To think that we shouldn't bother judging people on their behavior because even we the "good people" won't be good enough a century from now is just plain counter-productive. How are we supposed to get there in 100 years if we don't work toward it now?

[kytri]

I think this is the kind of thing you have to take on a case by case basis.

Sometimes I will still enjoy art by people who have said or done bad things. Maybe I don't think the Bad Thing was that bad, or that they've sufficiently apologized, maybe they're dead and can't hurt anyone anymore, or maybe the work just meant so much to me personally that I can't give it up.

That said personally I often err on the side of not consuming a person's art anymore if I think they've done something truly terrible. Not because I think I have some moral obligation to do so but because I'll end up thinking about how that person is a domestic abuser or a child molester or whatever. I won't be able to enjoy the work anymore if I think the creator is a truly horrible person. There's a lot of art out there and it's easy to fill my time with other things.

I make an effort not to judge people who still do like their work, everyone's threshold is different and people tend to get defensive if they think you are morally judging them.

When it comes to indie artists I'm not generally a fan of call out posts and cancelling people outright, but I'm okay with quietly unfollowing and no longer interacting with someone.

[Jenny-Toons]

But Zaboem, you say, I am a good person! Yes dear reader, you likely are a good and just person -- right now. Those morals of which you are so proud will become the hated relics of a dark age of thinking if you live long enough to see it. Reader, if you think that your morals will hold up thirty years from now, you are kidding yourself. That hubris merely means you have already started becoming the villain.

Ehhh, I kinda feel this works better if we're talking about ourselves being the biggest of hypocrites when we judge others or trying to be on some high horse. But this is more along the lines of "if you know a creator has for sure done something that just ain't right, would you still follow their work because you like it?"

My answer will always be no.

If there is concrete evidence of them being an terrible asshole (and not just hear-say), no amount of talent will distract me from what they've done, and I will still hold them accountable.

Me being flawed or obeying the morals of now doesn't lessen my ability to see that. In fact, it's a reminder for me to lead by some example, at the very least practicing what I stand by. If these actions are wrong now, they were wrong in the dark ages. Circumstances and social norms back then kinda made it harder for people to see that -- yeah -- but that doesn't mean it wasn't wrong in any way. Doesn't mean that there wasn't something disturbing about those actions.

So I might not be perfect or whatever, but if I know general right from wrong, and if I know for sure that what this creator has done is not cool, I won't be able to separate them from their work.

[unknown_user]

Thank God (in which I really don't believe ), there are not too many immoral things which give me real butthurt.
If I will suddenly discover that creator abuses heavily their children or beat his wife or is involved in hard bullying of outcasts, or shows any kind of explicit, serious sadism and unmotivated aggression, making others feel really heavy pain just for fun (BDSM doesn't count)... well... I will continue to consume their creations anyway (if they are fun, of course), but probably will not buy their stuff or something due to mine butthurt and disliking this person.
If I'll discover that creator is doing something "bad", but not that kind which gives me real butthurt, I usually don't mind.
If I'm finding out that creator is doing something which counts as a "bad" thing from society, but not from me... well, I'm intrigued.

[punkarsenic]

MAN thats a big question

id say it depends on the material effect of your consumption

eg: the FB crew hiring johnny depp gives him social influence and lots and lots of money - big effect, bad action. millie in newcastle paying £4 to see the movie at the local cinema has little to no material effect. steve from bristol watching the movie on putlocker has zero material effect.

but thats big budget. indie gets way more complicated - its more direct, harder to pirate, and every bit of engagement has a bigger relative effect. if a tapas creator was outed as an abuser, every sub is a validation of their status on the site. every view is a bit of money in their pocket (not much, idrc abt giving nasty comics views on tapas, but i do avoid giving nasty youtubers views for the same reasons)

also, in terms of material effect the inverse is true - while a handful of ppl boycotting fantastic beasts will change squat, the same number of ppl turning from an indie creator can actually squash their career.

then theres a conversation abt 'Really Bad.' what can we forgive creators for? do indie creators get more forgiveness bc theyre still developing? indie creators are in closer contact with their audience, so is there a responsibility to talk to them before 'cancelling' them?

personally i think Really Bad is certainly any kind of abuser, id also not want to support ppl who create pedophillic content for obvious reasons. but when it comes to things like racism, transphobia, misogyny, everyones gonna have a different opinion of where the Line is due to their opinions and closeness to the situation. personally i take things on a case by case basis.

[Freemints30]

To me I can separate the art from the artist rather easily. However that is only the case if its just opinions, Jontron may have said some really stupid stuff but I still love his videos and will still watch his stuff(thou he hasn't updated in months). HP love craft was a raging racist but I still love what he contributed to literature and fiction. I definitely don't agree with a lot of my friends and families views but I will support what ever creative endever they take on. However for the case of actions like an active pedophile and/or abuser I simply can't as I know that what ever support I give will just fund their disgusting actions. However despite who an artist is you can still appreciate their work, the art is simply a separate entity.

[racarter]

Meh. I mean I still enjoy Woody Allen movies even tho he’s a creep. Hell, I knew he was a creep long before everyone on the Internet started talking about it because my dad told me about it.

But that doesn’t change the fact his movies are funny.

Numerous times in my life I’ve heard my dad say “good movie. the guys a prick, but it’s a good movie”. So I suppose it’s easier for me to think like that. Then again my dad also refuses to support certain things by actors he likes, like their newer stuff, but still enjoys their older stuff.

For me it just depends on if the media itself is worth it. Tho I have hard lines on occasion. For example if they start getting overly sociopolitical or if the creator is blatantly an anti-shipper. If people can keep that under wraps then fine, I’ll keep reading.

My dad told me some quote once about someone who got asked about his political opinions and he refused to answer because “republicans buy tennis shoes too”. So that’s kinda how I think.

Now if they are a truly terrible person who committed crimes, etc. Depends on the media itself, but out of spite I’ll just look at it in ways that won’t officially support them.

So it’s a mixed bag for me and purely depends on the situation. Overall I think it’s up to the person to do what they feel comfortable with.

Also I’ve known people who create disturbing content who are actually sweet and nice people. So I don’t think it’s fair to judge the creator based on content or judge the content based on the creator.

Now if the creator is a prick who badmouths others or supports it, who half-asses their work, then I won’t even start watching it. Arrogance and rudeness to others is something I refuse to support. If it’s good enough I’ll watch it in a way that won’t support them, however.

Everyone has their own lines in the sand. Sometimes things rub them the wrong way so they can’t separate creator from creation, but objectively worse things the creator does or says may not impact them the same way. Does that make sense?

[indagold]

If they have really good work I don't tend to care even if it puts a bad taste in my mouth but every single shit tier creator i've seen produced shit tier work so I have no qualms about not caring about their product in fact I sometimes just follow it to see how bad it can get. It's like schadenfreude if you will lol

[NickRowler]

i think it all depends on the artist and their connection to their work.

Bill Cosby has created media for kids and family but because his image is such a huge part of these properties (Cosby Show, Little Bill, Fat Albert), it is sort of hard to separate him from the media.

But, then you have something like Sea Monkeys which was created by a white supremacist however the toy is still sold in stores today. I guess people figured that he's dead and the toy has none of his agenda in it, so it is OK. I personally have mixed feelings about this.

[Zaboem]

Now that I have read every comment in this thread, I have concluded that this is the consensus. Most contributers in the thread is expressing some form of it-depends-case-by-case. They are backing this up with different arguments and maybe moving the line slightly thia way or that. The consensus isn't wrong, but it isn't helpful either. It answers the original question because of how that question was worded. Until somebody comes up with a clear rule or at least a clearer rule of thumb, I cannot get behind this consensus. It's too arbitrary and too prone to creating further conflict and confusion going forward for my tastes.

Eh, I am okay with this. I am very often the objector standing outside the group and ineffectually screaming at a wall, "Everybody is wrong but me!" My voting record in my Home Owners Association confirms this with solid data. I still believe in the wisdom of groups and respect the democratic process. Just understand that I can your comments, folks, and still not be agreeing with your conclusion.

[Shanny8]

I will drop a creator's stuff if they've done or said something awful- depending on the level of "awfulness". I know everyone has different opinions or takes on a thing, but there some lines/areas/zones you just "do not go into". I dont care what kind of logic or facts you may have to prop your reasoning up- if I feel it's garbage or wrong, I'm done with you.

[EntropicalForest]

Their actions don't play a major role in my consumption.p

[OttoGruenwald]

Don't see why you can't separate the work from the person. HP Lovecraft thought blacks were orc monsters, doesn't mean he wasn't the best Weird Fiction writer of his time.

[OttoGruenwald]

There's no "ethical consumption" under any system as hierarchical structures form out of any system. Someone will always have more power or ability and will use it to put the screws to those with less.