@mikebabcock @transworld this isn't a fallacy though. "No ethical consumption under capitalism" doesn't mean "it's ok to spend money with this person actively funding the eradication of human of a certain category". The dog analogy is literally 1:1.
(Not talking to the transphobe but to anyone else reading; of course I blocked this asshole rather than attempt "discourse" with someone who's already made up they're mind that it's ok for people to die for their consumerism)
@vex @mikebabcock @transworld 1/4
jk rowling’s words and actions against trans people are truly awful. but the art/artist argument is real and complicated.
art becomes so much more than the artist. and yet the originator of something is paid the primary royalties.
if i enjoy the art, how do i reconcile that with the originator’s current actions?
i used to love hp. rn there’s so much other (better) fantasy i have discovered and fallen into. is complex
@theatremaker @vex @mikebabcock @transworld iunno, piracy?
It seems to me easier to separate the art from the artist if there's no royalties. It's not like a Wagnerian opera where there's overt transphobia *in* the books, are there? Idk, I never cared to read any of them but that predated knowing anything about JK Rowling.
Noa
Mich
Antonio