And the author of this article is tying himself into a pretzel trying to absolve Tolkien of this great shame.
TIL Tolkien supported fascist Spain
https://www.josemanuelferrandez.com/vieja/ENguerra.html
https://www.josemanuelferrandez.com/vieja/ENguerra.html
And the author of this article is tying himself into a pretzel trying to absolve Tolkien of this great shame.
89 Comments
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net · 103 pts · 2d
On a related note; George Orwell (1984, Animal Farm) actually traveled to Spain to fight in the Civil War on the side of the Anarchists, where he got shot in the neck and then had to flee the country after the Stalinists betrayed the Anarchists and Marxists and began rounding them up to imprison or execute them as 'secret fascists'.
He wrote about the experience in his book Homage to Catalonia. There was also a movie mostly based on the book called Land and Freedom.
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world · 46 pts · 2d
Oh, to hear a tankie try to explain that one.
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net · 28 pts · 2d
They would likely repeat the USSR's propaganda that the POUM (marxists) were Trotskyists engaging in counter-revolutionary behavior along with the Anarchists, and that they had to be put down/imprisoned since the 'only' way to to win the war was if everyone simply allowed themselves to be totally under the command of the Stalinist faction.
greenbit@lemmy.zip · 19 pts · 2d
They have a pasteable excuse why mls always purged communists
davetortoise@reddthat.com · -5 pts · 2d
In the case of the anarchists (i.e. whatever chaotic vigilante nonsense the CNT/FAI were doing in Catalunya), they were literallly refusing to raise a proper army to contrubute to the war effort against the fascists despite being one of the most populous and industrialised parts of the republican side. The CNT/FAI was insisting on using small bands of barely-trained volunteers for defense, which was very unsurprisingly totally ineffective against the trained and Nazi-equipped forces of Franco. There was only so long that other parts of the republic could do all the fighting on behalf of the CNT/FAI's self-indulgent nonsense before they actually needed to get serious, and that obviously meant raising an actual army. Of course, it didn't stop there because elements of the CNT/FAI continued to disrupt enlistment efforts and encourage Catalunyans to boycott their own self-defense, allowing the fascists to very underwhelmingly stroll into Barcelona and begin slaughtering people.
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net · 20 pts · 2d
Calling it 'chaotic' is a bit absurd considering how well the 3 million+ Anarchists were able to collectively organize and run Catalonia, including public transport, food, weapon production, and universal healthcare (during a war with extremely limited resources), as was well documented in Collectives in the Spanish Revolution by Gaston Leval.
The Anarchists quickly formed a voluntary militia of 150,000 men and women (making up 33% of the Republican military forces) with a coordinated bottom-up structure, where the soldiers themselves would elect someone to lead their squad, and all the squad leaders would elect a commander to lead the squad leaders, etc. Every leadership position could be recalled by a vote outside of combat if the people below them felt they were not performing to expectations. They did this to be in-line with anarchist principles, and they likely believed if they became an authoritarian top-down military force, it would introduce the possibility of going the way of the USSR.
This structure was doubted and questioned at the time by a military advisor to Buenaventura Durruti (at the time, the effective leader of the militias):
:::spoiler spoiler to save space
Source of that quote.
:::
From historical records available, the Anarchists forces were surprisingly effective considering they had the most limited resources of any of the Republican factions due to the Stalinists and liberals withholding weapons and supplies much of the time, as well as preferentially withholding the better equipment for themselves. That happened so much, the Anarchist's were seriously considering robbing the republican bank to acquire the gold needed to finally purchase weapons and supplies on the open market, but decided against it when the Liberal/Stalinist government promised once more that they'd buy supplies for them, but they ultimately did nothing again, screwing the Anarchists for the last time until the war was lost.
For anyone else curious, there's a very detailed 6-part documentary on the Spanish Civil war that's quite excellent, and goes into the military and battles aspect as well.
davetortoise@reddthat.com · -10 pts · 1d
A lot of words holding anarchists to very low standards but this honestly says it all. The CNT/FAI were not remotely serious about fighting the fascists and it's no wonder everyone else was sick of them.
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net · 9 pts · 1d
The Anarchists were only considering that option after repeatedly requesting needed supplies and constantly being stonewalled by the then pro-stalin Republican government, who were in all likelihood hoping to weaken the Anarchists before their betrayal, despite how doing so weakened the war effort dramatically.
Your extremely harsh characterization of Anarchists as unruly chaotic vigilantes who cannot be worked with is very much in line with USSR anti-anarchist propaganda 🤨
davetortoise@reddthat.com · -6 pts · 1d
And how much supplies did the CNT/FAI provide to the rest of the republic? Answer, nothing at all because they could barely handle their own disfunctional industry. The republic was not obliged to prop up their cosplaying indefinitely. Barcelona had a strong pre-war economy and should have been able to not only stand up on its own, but support other parts of the republic too.
I'm harsh on the CNT/FAI because their incompetence was a significant contributor to tens of millions of people being plunged into facsism for decades. I have possibly been too harsh on anarchists in general, mostly in my experience they are lovely people, but I don't think they're serious enough to run a revolution against militarised fascism.
I disagree with your assertion that all 3 million+ people in Catalunya suddenly fell in line with the CNT/FAI's ideology. There were possibly a few hundred thousand actual anarchists in the region, with huge numbers of people who weren't thinking about politics scared shitless of the disorganised vigilante militias going around establishing their vision of "anarchism" with zero oversight. Setting up tribunals and executing/imprisoning people with no due process. Whether they were "bottom-up" or not wasn't really relevant. It was a scary time to be in Spain and the lack of a proper system of government made things much worse for the millions of people for whom this "anarchism" stuff was weird and unknown.
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net · 10 pts · 1d
I can point to sources which show the Anarchists were using the profits of the Catalonia transit system to fund sending any excess vehicles to neighboring impoverished provinces which ran at a loss.
:::spoiler Evidence of Transit help
Indeed, alongside a railway line shown in black, 8, 10, 12 red lines represented that number of companies and road transport services which were competing with the railways and among themselves. It was a useless duplication which was to be found especially on the Mediterranean littoral, in the densely populated and prosperous province of Barcelona.
By contrast, on the chart showing means of transport for the province of Lerida, in the interior of Catalonia, there were great expanses, whole cantons without regular communications. Huge areas which, because they were impoverished, were condemned to stagnate in isolation, ignorance and poverty though an improvement in the means of transport could, as often happens, favour some aspect of development of production. And my comrades, who always put social interest, viewed in its global aspect, above corporative self-interest, or of narrow syndicalist outlook, decided that some of the lorries and buses in overabundance in the province of Barcelona should be sent to the province of Lerida. At the beginning, at least, the services would be run at a loss, but profitable services in the Barcelona area would more than compensate for these losses. What was required was to ensure to all the inhabitants of Catalonia then, and later for all the people of Spain, the same chances of well being and happiness. Did not the Collectives in Aragon, the Levante and Castile act in this way?
Source: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gaston-leval-collectives-in-the-spanish-revolution#toc34
:::
And how the Anarchists organized access to universal healthcare across much of the eastern part of Spain (not just Anarchists controlled Catalonia), including hundreds of impoverished villages who previously had little to no access.
::: spoiler Evidence of Anarchists rendering aid
in Valencia, then the third largest city in Spain, was the headquarters of a Mutua levantina or Mutual Aid Society of the Levante, founded by libertarians whom this writer got to know in his youth, and who brought together many doctors with different specialities, professional people with experience in the different fields of public health. More than a simple society for mutual aid, it was, basically, an association of practitioners of medicine which extended over the whole region of the Levante and in which the spirit of mutual aid dominated in its most human implications. [135]
Much more details in source.
:::
You have made confident assertions that Anarchists in the civil war had no military, barely functioned, contributed nothing to Spain, and spread fear amongst the populace, and continue to assert this despite being provided evidence to the contrary, and in fact seemingly dismiss it without even looking at it.
If you're not a Marxist-leninist, then I have no idea why you have such an extreme negative view of the Anarchists of Spain to the point where you're not even willing to look at any evidence that may contradict your vendetta against them.
This will be my last response, as I'm not sure further responses will be productive, unfortunately.
(And that gold the Anarchist were considering robbing to finally get the supplies they needed? The pro-stalinist government, who controlled the gold, ended up just sending it all to the USSR, so they really should've robbed it, honestly)
stenAanden@feddit.dk · 7 pts · 1d
George Orwell was a real one for that!
CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 1d
Homage to Catalonia might be my favourite Orwell book. You can kind of see all the seeds being planted for his later more famous books in his experiences there.
Godric@lemmy.world · 58 pts · 2d
First paragraph:
"When historical events are analysed from a distance and evaluated according to contemporary parameters and not according to the circumstances when they developed, it is easy to attain wrong conclusions, or at least, get a distorted view of the different attitudes of the participants and witnesses of those events"
"Tolkein loves fascism" is a WILDLY dishonest summation of the article. You, to use the academic term; fucking suck, OP.
Improve the Fediverse: post less, please.
maturelemontree@lemmy.zip · 18 pts · 1d
That's like saying practically any significant figure from over 300 years ago is certainly evil because their country likely had slavery. Keep zooming out, don't think critically, and hate everyone you used to look up to.
stenAanden@feddit.dk · 3 pts · 1d
Support for Franco was ANYTHING but widespread when the war happened.
Eric@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 1d
He was a devout Catholic and Franco's Spain was very close with the church.
stenAanden@feddit.dk · 3 pts · 1d
This right here.
stenAanden@feddit.dk · -8 pts · 1d
But I read the article and understood the explanations. And they don't hold up to scrutiny. Even Tolkien's own daughter was ashamed of his view of the war.
Where did I say that?
And lastly: calm down.
You seem upset. There is no need to use swear words and engage in mud throwing.
agent_nycto@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 1d
Your title is "TIL Tolkien supported fascist Spain".
You don't have to be a super sluth to see what you're saying between the lines here, saying "well I didn't say those specific words" doesn't work with people who have reading comprehension.
stenAanden@feddit.dk · -7 pts · 1d
He literally cited me as saying that?! I have every right to call that out.
Besides, everyone agrees that Tolkien supported the nationalists in the Spanish civil war. Saying that "Tolkien loves fascism" is an entirely different topic.
Devil's in the details.
agent_nycto@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
Oh please, we know exactly what you're saying directly as well as implying. Someone summing it up simply doesn't change the message.
Unless .... The only reason this wouldn't make sense is if the summary was off.....
Are you saying that Tolkien didn't love fascism, or are you saying that the nationalists during the Spanish civil war weren't fascists? Are you glad he liked them?
stenAanden@feddit.dk · 2 pts · 22h
If ya'll know my secret thoughts then tell me what I think bout ya'll's MOMMAs!
agent_nycto@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 20h
If I had to guess... It's you dodging the question. I'm just going to assume you liked Spanish nationalists and don't think they were fascists.
stenAanden@feddit.dk · 1 pts · 20h
That's actually insane of you.
Godric@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
Your title is literally "Tolkien supported fascist Spain". So sorry I read between the lines and used the no-no words to call out an unfair, dishonest, and deeply stupid title, enjoy your holy refuge in civility.
megaman@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 1d
Did Tolkien support fascist Spain, tho?
stenAanden@feddit.dk · -1 pts · 1d
And that's not true?
Calm down.
agent_nycto@lemmy.world · 37 pts · 1d
The idea that only pure people are allowed to make things, and that you are allowed to only enjoy things made by pure people, lest you become impure by enjoying them, is a childish view held by the extremists on the right and the left, and such an ignorant idea should be left to fools.
Frettchen@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 2d
Honestly if the person written a story is dead and the none is getting money or it I do not care.
NOT_RICK@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 2d
I feel you. It would sound silly if I said I can’t read the Prince because Machiavelli was a bad guy
Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org · 14 pts · 2d
Also, The Prince is highly sarcastic but is a good notice to anyone living in what might become a horrible place about what to avoid in leaders.
Funny how the Republican party match up with his qualifications.
ChristerMLB@piefed.social · 2 pts · 2d
What's the case for The Prince being sarcastic? I realize it's quite different from his Discourses on Livy, but I've read it as being more of a "extreme measures for an extreme situation" kind of deal. He does write in the Discourses that a sufficiently corrupted society could require a monarch using extreme and unusual means.
Fenloss@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2d
Historical context basically, I don't remember the exact argument for it but it's a commonly held view by specialists that I've seen referenced in newspaper-published essais.
stenAanden@feddit.dk · 12 pts · 2d
I agree. My issue is that Tolkien's views are rarely talked about or they are excused. He is often put forth as a straight progressive.
diablicja@lemmy.zip · 15 pts · 2d
In some ways he was quite progressive. He wrote strong female characters before it was cool, made a case for diversity (the way different races all have some unique characteristics that help them achieve victory as a team) and championed protecting the environment from villains who would exploit and destroy it (I know, it used to be a republican position, not anymore though). With his popularity, do we really want him to be claimed by fascists? What stands to be gained from bringing him to the court of public opinion, now that he's long dead?
starlinguk@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 2d
The Tolkien estate is getting money.
diablicja@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 2d
That will be relevant if there's proof of the Tolkien estate supporting fascists. Or do you believe in punishing the children for the sins of their fathers?
queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zone · 32 pts · 2d
Tolkien had a lot of eugenicist nonsense in his writing. Lots of commentary over how pure Aragorn's "blood of the West" was, and how lesser, less-pure men are just more easily swayed by Sauron. It's pretty vile.
Wataba@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 16h
Jesus I really thought I was the only one sick of hearing Tolkien worship. For me its more just how lackluster the women are, given how few appear to begin with.
queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 15h
Yeah, I think that's a valid criticism. Off the top of my head, the women of LotR are:
Eowyn (A good character, I think, even though her one big moment, killing the Witch King, is undercut with a pretty stupid "get it, you thought 'man' meant human but she's a girl!" twist and she gets unceremoniously hitched with Faramir to tie her story off. Not Tolkien's best work)
Galadriel (Queen of Lorien, sure, wielder of Nenya, ok cool, refuses the One Ring, well done very wise, but not much of a character in the story, more a vehicle for exposition)
Arwen (Aragorn's objet d'amour and... end of list)
The Old Woman in the Houses of Healing in Minas Tirith (can't remember her name, basically an old lady clown iirc)
Lobelia (Shrewish but she does resist Sharkey at the end, offscreen, so partial character credit I guess)
Rosie (Sam's Arwen)
Those are slim pickins. I can forgive Tolkien for writing a male-dominated war story, I imagine that's what his experience with war (and, culture generally) was like. I think his fixation on race, lineage, and hereditary right of power are more severe undercuts to his critique of abuse of power.
EDIT: 😆 I wanted to check my work and found there's a whole separate wikipedia article on the subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_The_Lord_of_the_Rings
eurodyne@piefed.world · 32 pts · 2d
The day comes for all of us when we find out our literary heroes were actually tremendous pieces of fucking shit
Uair@autistics.life · 26 pts · 2d
@eurodyne @stenAanden
Naaah, Terry Pratchett and Stephen King are solidly good guys. All the way.
eurodyne@piefed.world · 10 pts · 2d
Well… They’re not all terrible
And Stephen King is a personal hero simply because he survived so much cocaine. But I’m still pretty pissed that I had to read the entirety of both It and Pet Cemetery. What the absolute fuck… there is 1000 pages between both of those books that just did not need to be.
Don’t even fucking get me started on Misery.
joshcodes@programming.dev · 15 pts · 2d
Debated replying to this because its speculation but Stephen King has exactly two tweets that I'm aware of telling people the Epstein client list is fake like the tooth fairy, Santa and UFOs...
VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2d
The one I saw it seemed like he meant he didn't think the government bothered to create one and was trying to bury evidence. Could be wrong, though.
eurodyne@piefed.world · 5 pts · 2d
and when I'm drunk and jacked, I also say olympic-level dumb shit.
I don't, however, also publish an epic series of trend-setting horror novels.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
take it with grain of Misty salt that all floats down here
orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 2d
11/22/63
eurodyne@piefed.world · 5 pts · 2d
don't even
start/endtimeloop with me, motherfucker. im a Star Trek nerd. I know more about temporal paradoxes than most anyone here! (Lemmy is a boiling stew of Star Trek nerdery, so at least I’m a good company)starlinguk@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2d
I'm reading The Stand (OG version). The animal abuse and the way he writes about women really pisses me off.
His later books are much better in that respect.
eurodyne@piefed.world · 2 pts · 2d
I never read The Stand, but I have been told how "problematic” it was
Uair@autistics.life · 1 pts · 2d
@eurodyne
Man, we could spiral on this. Misery was the last of his that I read. I tried "The Girl Who Loved tom Gordon" but threw it across the room.
Everybody with arts money did coke balls to the wall back then. The smart ones grew out of it.
eurodyne@piefed.world · 2 pts · 2d
I'm not here to debate the virtues of mountains of coke-- just how pissed I am at wasting the time of burning through 1000 pages of bullshit. perhaps I should be blaming his editors. whatever.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 2d
The only somewhat potentially sus thing I know about Terry Pratchett is having written Good Omens with Neil Gaiman, combined with the idea that the stuff the latter got up to was an open secret to insiders. Have not actually seriously looked into this though.
Uair@autistics.life · 10 pts · 2d
@chicken
Terry was autistic as fuck and I can forgive him a failure to spot a monster (who had already snowed, apparently, the entire British intelligentsia). It was one book and he never defended Gaiman again, so I'm willing to look past this one.
starlinguk@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2d
I know a murderer. Nobody in our friend group clocked him, and most of us aren't autistic. This guy was smart and funny, we really liked him. We only found out what he was like when his wife told us about his odd behaviour.
Anyway, I won't go into detail, it's quite a distinct case and he's dead now.
Uair@autistics.life · 1 pts · 2d
@starlinguk
Interesting. thanks.
I've known lots of murderers. Most of my friends had bodies on them.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 2d
Fair
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · -3 pts · 2d
How does being ND excuse anything? Even if impaired, a choice is a choice.
Uair@autistics.life · 7 pts · 2d
@WorldsDumbestMan
autistic people (I am one) suck at social cues. We're very weak on that level of thinking. It's kinda what autism is. So I cut autistic people a lot of slack for fucking up social awareness. Neurotypicals should have been able to spot him as a predator long before autistic people would catch it. Hence the extra slack I cut Terry. He did his best.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · -1 pts · 2d
As an ND person, I know very well how harsh being ND is, and what the very real consequences of that are. And it might ultimately cost me my life.
But we are still ultimately always responsible for our actions. And we must always be aware of this.
starlinguk@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
Gaiman behaves a certain way with certain women. How is a man going to know this unless he is there when it happens, Gaiman explicity talks about it or if a woman tells him?
Feathercrown@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2d
This is true, but I don't think it really makes sense here. He didn't have a choice if he didn't know anything was wrong with Gaiman.
Malica@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 2d
Brandon Sanderson too
mrmisses@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 2d
Whatcha got on Vonnegut?
LordMayor@piefed.social · 3 pts · 1d
He kinda treated is first wife and kids like shit, even by his own admission. He wasn’t evil but flawed like most people, really.
There’s a good documentary about his life, Kurt Vonnegut: Unstuck in Time. Seemed pretty open and balanced.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · -12 pts · 2d
Dig deep enough, and everyone is kind of a piece if shit.
It's hard not to look at Pandora's box (AI) and think...
...maybe this is better?
Feathercrown@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 2d
Giving up and saying everyone sucks is a symptom of someone who does not want to believe that it is possible to try and succeed to be good. Because if nobody can be good, then it is easy to feel okay being bad. Don't let yourself make this excuse.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 2d
I have plans to prevent even the possibility of doing something bad. But something slips catastrophicaly every now and then. It's always some unexpected angle that I fuckup in, which is why instead of ever assuming I'm good, I will always assume I'm a piece of shit, and "Airgap" myself from others. This is also why I will never date.
As for others, well seeing the polls sometimes, the landlords, and the state of the world. Having people tell me "we all have ADHD", and that it is propaganda. I just stopped expecting them to be reasonable. Many people have entire groups they would like to watch suffer, and love to see exterminated.
If the world was back to what it was, we would destroy it again.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
Don't lose faith. The media, and your brain, have a very strong incentive to focus on the negative things in the world. Are there horrible, disgusting things happening every day? Yes. But you're looking at billions of people, and filtering to see only those things. If you walk around and take a look at what your average person does every day, it's generally pretty neutral. Maybe some good things. They stop and let another car go ahead of them. They say thank you to the barista. They hold the door for someone at work. Maybe some bad things. They send someone an undeservedly snippy email. They make a joke in poor taste. They take too much grilled chicken from the salad bar.
Some people are worse than others, definitely, but most people are not evil; it is just much easier to notice when someone's bad actions affect you. Similarly, it is easy to see when your bad actions affect others. But do you think the few truly evil people in this world are walking around wondering if they're good inside and trying to be better? This effort to improve and act well towards others which holds value. I posit that there is no such thing as a good person. There are good actions, and trying to do the best ones you can, when you can, is the best you can do. You will make mistakes, but it is always better to continue trying. I wish you luck, and the chance to see yourself and appreciate what you see.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 2d
I can't explain to you. There is just some crucial lack with humans, a screw loose, that makes them non-viable as they are.
I'm convinced our primitive hardware can't keep up with the responsibilities of this new world, and we would need to geneticaly modify ourselves just to survive.
Even a small flaw tends to snowball when there are so many of us.
spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app · 4 pts · 2d
lol no
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 2d
We must remain morally pure! Anyone trying to understand evil becomes stained with it! Only the most reduced and simple argument can save us from the evils of intellectualism. It is not enough to simply reject evil, we must repeat the rejection again and again until it becomes part of our mental fortress.
We shall repost this rebuke of JRR Tolkien again and again, and every time it must become simpler, purer, easier to accept and less dangerous to the uncritical mind.
Reject moral Pretzelism!
stenAanden@feddit.dk · -6 pts · 1d
You are an ml user. Why am I not surprised?
I did understand his explanations. And they don't hold up to scrutiny. Even Tolkien's daughter understood that.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 12 pts · 2d
They guy is dead, and no one praise him or remember him for his political ideas.
queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 1d
I remember and admire him for his political ideas. Some of them, anyway. His understanding of the corrupting influence of power on power-havers is singular and illuminating of the motives of those who seek power. He also has some very silly and unfortunate ideas about blood politics and who is deserving of power that intersect with his ideas about corruption in some fascinating ways. He's a complicated guy, and I think it's worth it to pick through his complications rather than deciding whether he belongs in the "good guy" bucket or the "bad guy" bucket and moving on.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2d
This is why we say such things as "We must separate the art from the artist." Some of us pay to see Tom Cruise movies, some of us can't stand to see his face. There are still plenty of fans of Harry Potter, but they can't so much as mention it without being shouted down, these days.
They're all human, unless they're AI. So, we're going to disagree with them on some, or many, or all things, aside from their art. There are extremely few Dolly Partons and Fred Rogers in the world. You can accept this, or you can cancel everyone but the pure, and then decide amongst them who is the most pure, and only ever listen to Dolly Parton songs.
Go ahead and keep screaming about this, but I'm done with it. I like the art I like, that doesn't mean I like the artist. Deal with it.
imadethis@fedinsfw.app · 18 pts · 2d
I think we can pretty easily separate the idea of continuing to give money to someone who is one of the most active breeders of hate against transgender individuals as bad from the enjoyment of the work of a long dead author who supported horrible causes.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 2d
Does it have cancer yet? Any hope it will die soon?
starlinguk@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
It doesn't look good but that's probably Ozempic.
BassTurd@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 2d
It depends on your tolerance for how bad that person is and how much you want to contribute to their financial well being. For JK Rowling, my opinion is that if JK just said she doesn't like trans people, I'd disagree, but that by itself may not be a reason to not enjoy the work produced by her. However, she actively fights to put down trans people and spreads transphobia. That is reason enough for me to never do anything that will finance her and therefore support her actions.
In this case, Tolkein is long dead. Nothing I do now will contribute to him further pushing and supporting fascism.
Everyone gets to make this choice on their own. Nobody said you're not allowed to enjoy that art. If you decide that you're fine supporting artists through thick or thin and there's no line they can cross that will turn you away, then you can't be surprised or upset when other people change their opinion of you as a person. If you're okay with that, then that's fine, it's your life, live it.
chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
Yeah. Hitler was a painter, too.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 1d
And, a good one. Thank you, this makes my point perfectly. I don't support what he did*. But, I can appreciate his art. He wasn't doing paint-by-numbers, he was actually good, at least technically. Maybe more of an illustrator than Artiste.
*I can't say "obviously" here, because there are far too many who still do. But, I'm certainly not one of them. Again, making my point.
To expand on this a bit, if there were an art gallery showing of a large collection of Hitler's works, I'd pay $20 to see it, mostly out of curiosity. Then, in this hypothetical scenario, I'd join the protest outside against Hitler.
My son is an adult now, but if I had a young child who wanted to read Harry Potter for the first time, I'd buy them the books. I'd be thrilled they wanted to read such long books, and encourage them to do it. I would not deny them, and lecture them about what a piece of shit the author is.
I don't like Tom Cruise's movies, except for Risky Business. If my kid wanted to watch Mission Impossible movies, I'd pirate the movies for them.
chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
Nah, man. Maybe you should rethink your position.
Tm12@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 2d
Surprised you’re not on reddit
Feathercrown@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Low effort comment. Insult is generic and easily applicable; little skill demonstrated. 2/5.
creamfresh@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
Do we? Everyone has to decide that for themselves, everyone draws the crooked line somewhere else.
ati@piefed.social · 2 pts · 2d
I used to think that but then I read about Eric Gill's crimes (Gill Sans font) and now I can't look at it. Don't look it up, by the way.
the_q@piefed.social · 5 pts · 2d
The only way to not be disappointed is to not.