I got the word from you Dad!Nice. We're a "mob" now. And you wonder why you are having trouble having this discussion with people.
No really, all funny aside, it's right there in what I quoted from you. You can hardly expect me to think you'd get upset when I was using your own words.
Rhetoricals aren't meant to be answered. But you could answer how you'd feel. How long do you think he should be banished from our "No Bad Peeps Club"? A year? Forever? What would it take for you except his redemption arc was genuine?And, how can anyone actually answer that?
(hypothetically presuming he ever bothers trying to become a better person)
Ah, so never. He can never rise above his past misdeeds, he will forever be a sexual predator. Okay, at least there is honesty in that.Maybe my Magic 8 Ball of future prediction of how much people will accept sexual predators into their hobby will result in better answers.
Ask Ireland about spicy nazi pug jokes.Seriously, how is, "We're not going to buy this guy's products, nor do we want this person to be the "face" of our hobby" turned into "pitchforks and fiery brands"?
In my case, I can see where the ball of progress is rolling and I don't like all of it. I want to be able to make jokes that challenge social conventions and not worry about facing jail time. I want to see the freedom of speech be upheld and not be slowly eroded until facecrime becomes a reality (did you see that smug smirk! J'ACUSSE!).
What about when you describe your own side as a mob*... am I allowed to ostracise you from the fires of civility and discussion? Asking for a friend...When you characterize the other side of a discussion as a mob, only interested in mob justice, I'm thinking that perhaps, just perhaps, you're part of the problem. If you are incapable of characterizing the other side of an issue without demonizing and dehumanizing them, don't be shocked when you are no longer invited to the fireside for a chat.
* Yes, I know you were hyperbolically attempting to shame Celebrim over his fears. So... J'ACCUSE!
Yes! And the answers are even harder.Those are hard questions.
For me? I have to separate personal feelings* from ethical considerations on this one. I think yes, he should be allowed to strive for and achieve redemption.
* I always thought Zak was sketchy and the only thing of his I ever read was Maze of the Blue Medusa... so... for that last crime alone I think he should be banished to the cornfields.
That's the general direction I'm driving in here. Destroying the statues of yesterday to pretend it never happened is a bad road to go down.If we believe in our society a person is redeemable, then stripping one of his accolades does, for me, seem to counter that belief.
I've already been doing it for years, why stop now? I can be informed about where some themes in their work may come from (Lovecraft's racism), but that won't stop me from enjoying their work (Lovecraft's Mythos stories).The personal issue I have with this is - separating the artist from the artwork. Do we, don't we?
You'll have to pry What's Up Tiger Lily? and BECM from my cold dead grip.Am I not allowed to enjoy Woody Allen's ... Frank Mentzer's ...