Music critic gets a platform on PBS to call for the censorship of music. Hit that "like/dislike" button to show her how you feel. I would say "add a comment" but - strangely - the comments function is disabled. Hmmm....
Well, that's up to each person. That's what I heard as the message of that video. She says, "It's on me to consider the ethical implications of my fandom." The title of the video is "This music critic says it’s time to update our art consumption ethical standards," not, "It's time to censor or ban art that one person doesn't like."
I know what she's talking about, I talked about it on my podcast recently, watching a movie trailer, thinking, "That seems like something I'd like to see," then at the end it said, " Woody Allen Film," and I thought, oh jesus, do I even want to watch it now? I think that kind of questioning of things is what she's talking about. What's your own line, where do you draw it?
Well, for me personally, I have an interest or fascination with artists who's work draws on their personal damage. Even shit as extreme as serial killer art interests me a lot. No, I definitely would not buy or want to own a clown painting by John Wayne Gacy, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to see/experience it.
I agree, like she said, I would draw a line at supporting them - knowing I was putting money in their pocket would not feel good.
I hear you. Who hasn't snapped their fingers along to a catchy Charles Manson song on YouTube? But I don't think anyone is necessarily a fan of Manson or Gacy. No one who isn't a budding murderer or lunatic themselves, anyway.
And I'm pretty sure that me watching a Woody Allen movie on Netflix does not put any money into his pocket. He gets that licensing money whether anyone watches the movie(s) or not. I guess it's - again, like the video says - a question of re-assessing our "fandom" of people. Questioning what we want to consume.
Which is a valid consideration, and a valid thing to argue the pros and cons of. But listening to what she's saying in the video and twisting it to characterize it as a call for censorship is a tad Trumpian for my taste. And I have to wonder about the motive or biases that are behind that kind of purposeful distortion.
1. Select a target – Art work X or creator Y should be delegitimised on moral grounds.
2. Establish grounds - Imply a link (factual, inferred or fabricated) between creator Y and negative attribute/action Z. Spread this link as widely as possible.
3. Appeal to ethos – Say to consumers “Surely you, as moral and informed individuals, see how terrible attribute/action Z is. In year XXXX, we all agree this is unacceptable.”
4. Appeal to pathos – Say to consumers “If you support artist Y you are effectively endorsing attribute/action Z. Not only that, you are spreading attribute Z. In year XXXX, we all agree this is unacceptable.”
5. Reinforcing the narrative – Draw attention of high-profile figures and high-readership publications to the widespread known attribute/action Z and creator Y. Their statements assuming a link between creator Y and attribute/action Z will be used as evidence.
6. Call for condemnation – “As right-thinking people we should condemn creator Y for his established attribute/action Z. Failure to adequately condemn creator Y is effectively support for attribute/action Z.”
7. Call to action – “Providers/institutions should stop promoting attribute Z by removing support for creator Y.”
8. Call for boycott – “Consumers should boycott provider/institution, which is promoting attribute/action Z by supporting creator Y. Pressure should be put upon the provider/institution’s staff, sponsorship, sub-contractors, internet provider and so forth.”
9. Further steps, including removing creator Y’s work from shops, libraries and other means of public access. Honours can be retrospectively retracted, history redacted and so forth.
10. Choose new target.
Through this method an art work or creator can be maligned and deplatformed without ever a) establishing an evidential link between a negative attribute/action and the creator; b) establishing evidence of the presence of a malign attribute within a work of art; or c) establishing the influence of this supposed malign attribute upon consumers. Not all steps are necessary and can apply in a slightly different order. It is essentially an extended ad hominem attack, appealing to ethos and pathos. Activists do not need to know or follow the steps above in order to participate in this process. Uninformed observers can support the suppression of material on moral grounds without understanding the invalidity of ad hominem criticism and the potential inaccuracy of the claims. Casual supporters suffer no apparent loss through crowd-driven censorship and never encounter an accurate presentation of facts, therefore they never realise that they were manipulated to support crowd censorship.
This is frequently used to deplatform prominent figures from social media (Milo Yiannopoulis, Alex Jones). Art/music/writing is partly or fully suppressed (look up cases of Gary Glitter, Graham Ovenden, Eric Gill). It can be used by political activists on any side. Providers/institutions can remove material on supposed moral grounds or use infringement of T&Cs to remove material on a technicality (while not deplatforming many others who technically infringe T&Cs). You may not like or approve of the material – however, making up your own mind will be difficult once that material has been restricted or removed.
TL; DR Watch when public figures suggest that there is an ethical burden upon the consumer to judge in moral creators terms. Using the playbook above you can censor and ban creators without ever using the words “censor” and “ban”.
I'm going to duck out of this thread. I have to re-read Atlas Shrugged for a review.... Back to the day job.
She's speaking in plain, declarative sentences. It's up to the listener to hear what is actually being said without projecting their personal biases and fear onto it.
Your entire argument seems like a lot of noise to distract from some underlying, dare I say, anti-female beliefs that may have been responsible for a harsh reaction to the video in the first place. As if the #metoo hashtag made it impossible to hear what was really being said.
Institutionalized misogyny and generally accepted societal misogyny are being exposed and opposed everywhere these days, and the only people uncomfortable about that are misogynists. Odd as it may seem that anyone could be upset by, or argue against, a group of people getting a tiny, microscopic morsel of justice after dealing with tens of thousands of years of oppression and abuse, they are out there.
To me, that's what the video is about. Not art and artists. It's about whether or not we as a society are going to continue to support and endorse the abuse of women as a group, and the people who blatantly and unapologetically engage in, or even celebrate, that abuse.
We've asked ourselves these kind of questions in the past, "we" being civilization, and we've generally said, no, we will no longer support the abuse of a certain group, or defend the people who benefit from that abuse.
You mention the "deplatforming" of a few pedophiles and neo-Nazi trolls, but what about the deplatforming that women (and everyone else who isn't a white man) have been living with as their everyday reality for all of their lives?
In fact, deplatforming seems to be the goal of posting the video here in the first place. You try to hide that goal by pointing out the option to "like/dislike," but the thread title you chose doesn't leave any doubt as to which side you come down on.
I couldn't argue against anything you're saying if your initial example had been different. But you launched your argument on a shaky, questionable foot. And now you're attempting to turn an attack on a woman's free speech into a defense of free speech.