[the_af]

> It's just these criticisms are not generally welcomed or amplified for figures in the prime of their accolades. Which is an interesting subject itself, I think.

Yes, this is a fair assessment. The criticisms are given voice and spread once the person falls in disgrace. They are sometimes declared "unpersons", which I find deeply irritating. I suppose this happens to artists or scientists nearer in time; nobody cares to censor/cancel a Greek philosopher if he abused boys, it's just a footnote in their biography.

[monknomo]

It might be different if you could go talk to the boys - with these modern folks you can often literally interview the victim(s) and I think that makes a difference for the reaction

[the_af]

Yes, this is a good point. Talking to victims or aggrieved parties is something ancient history denies us.

On the other hand, what if we could -- would we cancel all those Greek philosophers, or artists and scientists of antiquity? Strike them from the classroom, or focus the lesson entirely on how bad they were as people? Would mankind be better if that were the case?

[watwut]

Then again, plenty of times they are not declared unpersons nor treated horribly. Oftentimes just mentioning that this or that person did something bad at some points is enough for everyone to get outrage over "how dare you to say that".

As in, criticism is silenced until it breaks.

[the_af]

> It's just these criticisms are not generally welcomed or amplified for figures in the prime of their accolades. Which is an interesting subject itself, I think.

I want to make clear that when someone commits a horrible crime (not a minor transgression) they should be held accountable. So rape/abuse/murder is horrible, being a bad husband/wife or an uncaring parent is bad but not "horrible", etc. Also, people are flawed, and everyone engages in bad behavior that wouldn't stand up to public criticism. Your mileage may vary, of course.

What I object to is canceling a person's work because of alleged crimes. People confuse "I don't like what it's alleged this person did in their personal life" with "this is not relevant art/science, I wish cinemas/schools/museums didn't mention this person anymore".

[watwut]

Saying he did X is not the same as cancelation. Also, if actual art piece is related to the real world acts, it is entirely fair to talk about it. Just like when we talk about political purposes of art.

There is also difference between "not mentioning person existed" and refusal to celebrate that person as hero or moral founder. Or just, putting contemporary complains about historical character into context. The "do not mention this person" is quite rare, actually. What people object about regarding cancelation is adding shade of grade to the person story or refusal to celebrate them.

[the_af]

> Saying he did X is not the same as cancelation

Cinema students are literally asking teachers not to include Woody Allen in their syllabus. I don't know if everywhere, but I'm telling you of a second hand account of someone I know who witnessed this. And it's not the only example.

> There is also difference between "not mentioning person existed" and refusal to celebrate that person as hero or moral founder.

This brings us back to the initial comment I posted in this thread: why celebrate a public figure as a hero or moral founder? People seem to want to do this. Everyone must be either a hero or a villain; and a hero who falls from grace and turns into a villain in the public eye is doubly reviled!

It's fascinating but also irritating how we are so eager to create gods and then destroy them.