Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
And that kind of knee-jerk avoidance of anything uncomfortable is at the core of reactionary thinking. If it makes you uncomfortable to be near something a child molester has touched, will you abandon their victims? The home they lived in? The clothes which they owned once but that others could use? The sidewalk they walked along to get to the scene of their crimes? Shall we all expel the things that make us uncomfortable? Some people are made uncomfortable by foreigners, and people who look different. Don't tell me 'but that's different.' It's not. It's the same reactionary childishness, and it might make you uncomfortable to acknowledge it, but that's why we can't use discomfort as a measure.
First off, Nice strawman by the way.
Second, It is FAR from the same thing. I'm not uncomfortable being near something some awful person have been near. People have walked on the street I walk on, for several hundreds of years. I have no doubt some truly terrible people have traversed that road.
But I don't want their artwork at display in my house. What I put on display in my house, is a reflection of me and my taste. Which is why I don't want to have such artwork from such a person.
If you're fine with it, good for you. I have not once said it would be wrong. I've not once said no one can or should have such things. Only that I personally, wouldn't want to.
You not being able to differentiate what people are comfortable with in their own home, and what they tolerate in public, is the centerpiece of your argument. Not a particularly strong foundation since it's based on nothing but your own misconception
Being uncomfortable with it in your own home is only different in that you actually have some control over what is displayed in your own home, but the irrational judgement of the art based on the non-artistic conduct of the artist exists regardless of whether you have the power to force your judgement onto others. It all still applies. There is an implied moral superiority in the statement of 'You do you, but I would never,' in the same vein as someone who makes a point to say to gay people, 'You do you, but I would never.' Saying 'I didn't say you couldn't do it' is the same 'I'm not saying anything like that. I'm just asking questions,' excuse people use to get away with making all sorts of implications that they know they can't really justify.
You're the one reading into it. We're talking about art. People like different art. And that's ok. I do not imply any form of superiority, moral or otherwise when I say "you do you". So you can scratch that off.
I have loads of stuff around my place that honestly, are not particularly beautiful or amazing in any way. But the artist is very dear to me, for various reasons. So I like to have them on display.
Why does it matter so much to you that some people would prefer to avoid artists due to their conduct? It doesn't affect you. You just want to make it about yourself, by thinking that we judge you for listening/watching/buying/whatever from the artist. The world doesn't revolve around you.
I don't think you're a bad person for enjoying Chris Browns music. I don't think about you, at all.
It's not about me. It was never about me or some art that I don't have. It's about you and people like you, and the lies hidden in silence.
The issue is not with the 'you do you,' but with the 'but I would never.' People only express the negation as applicable. You wouldn't, for instance, say 'I would never run backwards to Turkmenistan,' because there is no reason to assume you would. If we all spent time saying the obvious negatives, we'd be babbling non-stop from waking to exhaustion. It's more like the guy who says 'I would never wear a dress.' It doesn't say openly that there's something wrong with wearing the dress, but he wants you to know he's not one of those lowly dress-wearers so badly that he's going out of his way to say it. When you say 'but I would never display such'n'such class of art,' it is inherently a disavowal to place yourself apart from those who would. It is a signal, not silence. You can ignore the hypocrisy of your pretence, but it's there regardless. The prejudice of the 'but' phrase is just as present in 'but I would never' as it is in whatever follows 'I'm not a racist, but...'
I don't know what you are smoking. But you need to stop. For your own good.
You're trying to go into this massive tangent away from the topic and I'm just not going to follow.
I've already told you clearly what I mean and what I don't mean. I'm not going to argue with you about how you personally percieve something. I'm sorry you feel that way.
I love ice cream, but I would never order a banana split. So that means I judge those that do? That I see myself above those that like banana split? The answer is no. I just don't like banana split. You do you. Each to their own. Whatever floats your boat.
There is a reason you are saying each thing you are saying. Saying 'but I would never order a banana split' in this context has a different subtext than if you said it after watching someone else order one. I won't re-explain it, because I was fairly clear, but yes, saying 'I would never' is an inherently judgemental negation of the supposedly non-judgemental 'you do you.' It is trying to claim both the stance of 'I don't judge,' and 'I am judging.' It is a lie, either to the listener or to yourself.
I don't like liars, but I try to give people a chance to realize their mistake, if it is one, by explaining their error. After that, I have to assume idiocy or ill will. Whichever it is, goodbye.
I'm still not going to argue with you about how you percieve the phrase "you do you". And why you so desperately want to double down on that tangent is beyond me.
It's a new level of arrogance trying to tell me what I mean when I say "you do you". When i already explained what I mean with it after your initial confusion.
You got 2 brain cells, both fighting for third place. God bless and good luck.