[happytoexplain]

This isn't as indicative of ignorance or hypocrisy as it implies (and it comes off as a petty "gotcha" with an attitude of superiority). He said and did a lot of things. It's normal to variously agree and disagree with each thing in a vacuum. This is true of most political/societal figures, no matter how horrific they are, taken as a whole.

[HKH2]

> This isn't as indicative of ignorance or hypocrisy as it implies (and it comes off as a petty "gotcha" with an attitude of superiority).

I don't think it implies any of that. The GP just means some people can't or won't separate the art from the artist.

[burkaman]

If we're talking about individual out-of-context quotes, I don't think it's correct to separate the art from the artist. Human language is very imprecise, and knowing the author of a quote can significantly change the meaning of a sentence.

I'm just going to make up an example: let's say the quote in question is "Democracy requires active participation." If I saw this posted by an anonymous internet commenter in a political discussion, I would completely agree. The obvious interpretation is that democracy works better when people vote, speak to your representative, organize, etc.

Now let's say the commenter reveals that this is a quote from a presidential assassin. Well, now I'm a little uncomfortable. Why did they choose this particular quote? Do they agree with the assassin's fringe definition of "active participation"? The intended meaning has completely changed with this new information. The identity of the author is part of the message, because we aren't talking about objectively true or false statements, we're talking about philosophical ideas that are much bigger than the quote provided.

[Kye]

I just wonder how many people who could have done better were blocked by the actions of all these artists people want to make excuses for. How many great works were we denied because someone insisted on making space for someone who repelled (or worse) better people?

[catiopatio]

The zero-sum command-economy view of free speech: we have to exercise prior restraint on what people can say to ensure that there’s room for the people we approve of to speak.

[happytoexplain]

This seems pretty un-generous. The parent is citing a real, straight-forward cause-and-effect which does not necessitate or even imply a zero-sum game, nor does it imply the extremist solution you're accusing them of supporting.

[Kye]

I was struggling to figure out how to respond to them, but I think you got it. I had that famous Stephen Jay Gould quote in mind: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/99345-i-am-somehow-less-int...

"I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops."

My post was a call for being smarter about who we invest in. I always wonder about people who call for separating art and artist over such mediocre artistry.

[catiopatio]

The zero-sum game and extremist solution are inherent in their position.

As the parent says in their reply below:

> My post was a call for being smarter about who we invest in.

[Kye]

"We can do better" is not a Hitlerian final solution. I'm calling for having taste, not building gulags.

[HKH2]

More charitably, attention is zero-sum and we personally have to prioritize if we want to maximize quality.

What you said assumes that people will give up on that and jump to coercion. Maybe your cynicism is warranted.