Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8114964" data-attributes="member: 59082">Talk about a red herring - you can do better than that, Umbran! Did I ever say we shouldn't eradicate racism and misogyny? Did I ever defend it? (And is such a baseless implied accusation really what you want to foster here?) What I am defending is the right of artists to play with and express whatever ideas they want, and to do so without fear of being attacked to the point of causing harm. And yes, that includes depicting things that one might find distasteful in real life. Furthermore, we're not taking about horses and buggies, but books and games. And even if we were talking about old technological forms, some stick around - well, like books and vinyl, both of which have attained a kind of classic stature. Or are you going to be anti-vinyl and suggest it is "swept aside" and people can't buy it anymore because you find vinyl offensive, and everyone must go digital?Furthermore, whether you no longer want a given game or book doesn't mean someone else doesn't want it. If we swept aside every piece of literature or artwork that had anything offensive to modern sensibilities--not to mention, diverse sensibilities--then we'd be left with...what? Anything? And are you only going to cater to the offense of those you disagree with, or will you embrace all feelings of offense? Where does it end?Or should we, maybe, just let the past archives of art remain as it is, and instead create the art we want to see? And encourage everyone to create, more and more art, so that your culture becomes infused with different and diverse visions and expressions? So that we and others can self-define and align with those forms that we find meaningful, as well as recognize that which is not to our taste or that we find abhorrent?Why re-write James Bond? He's perfectly fine as an anachronism of a past era. In fact, didn't Dame Judy accuse him as such in one of the Craig films? Why not be original and create a new character? I used that as an example of what I see as counter-productive, even damaging, approach. Here's another example: the Washington Redskins. I've actually been supportive of a name change for years, as I think the name is clearly racist. But I wouldn't white-out the history books with whatever the new name becomes. We need to be able to see the past as it actually was in order to create something better. And more to the point with art in whatever form, problematic elements--by specific modern standards--doesn't invalidate the art. HP Lovecraft was still an important figure in horror fantasy, even if his views are abhorrent to us today. Woody Allen is an important film maker, and made some great films, even if we find his grooming of a step-daughter into a wife sketchy (to say the least).Well, first we can have a little compassion for the author. She was a very young, 20-something author on the verge of book publication when she was accused of all sorts of nasty things before her book was even published, to the point that she asked the publisher to hold off. Being accused of racism et al is no small matter, especially publicly. Now the book ended up being published, and in the long run it might even have helped sales and made her a kind of martyr, but still...not something I'd want to go through. Where's the outrage for her accusers? Where's the compassion for her?It disturbs me that such witch-hunts are tolerable in the name of social justice, when in fact the witch-hunt is a weird re-anactment of the type of behavior that the "hunters" claim to be against. It is an instant of its own complaint - an intolerance for diversity of thinking and expression, and a causing of real harm to artists for being...artists.</blockquote>

Verification