Who should we boycott?

[moon]

There's quite a bit of controversy over certain actors or celebrities who express harmful opinions or treat their peers or staff (or dear ones) badly behind the scenes.

Do you think there are some media figures that should be boycotted due to their actions or words not being something one should support? One personal anti-fav of mine is JK Rowling. Harry Potter is wonderful in many ways, but it's hard to support that franchise these days... Thankfully, the actors in the movies have taken (even if subtle) stances against the author's foul mindset.

Or do you think boycotting of media people is useless, or even counter productive? Or maybe that art can and should be separated from the artist? Discuss!

note: I'm not talking about public shaming/cancel culture here (although feel free to discuss that too, if you can do so tastefully). That imo just gives even more publicity to people who should have less. I mainly mean here to avoid consuming media made by immoral people.

 

[Caite-chan]

To me I think it's more of they are allowed to have their own opinion even if it's something we don't like. In JK Rowlings case. We might not like it but she is entitled to her opinion just like everyone else it.

Ellen DeGeneres on the other hand is just a two face. She's always puts on this happy, be kind to one another and then is an ass behind the scenes. I think this is why everyone jumped all over Ellen is because she put on this front for everyone and then we found out she was being two faced and being disrespectful to her staff and people she would have on her show. That is not okay.

 

[Nah]

I wouldn't call boycotting counter productive, but I would say that it's largely useless in practice since you'll never convince enough people these days to boycott, which means that you don't have the numbers to make any real impact. It's also a bit difficult sometimes to boycott something and have it only affect the intended target. When the profits decrease, the wealthy almost always look at the people at the bottom first when it comes to cuts, instead of becoming slightly less rich themselves.

To me I think it's more of they are allowed to have their own opinion even if it's something we don't like. In JK Rowlings case. We might not like it but she is entitled to her opinion just like everyone else it.

being a terf is not one of the things I'd pull out the "people are entitled to their opinion" line for

 

[pkmin3033]

Well...as long as it falls within the law, what people do in their private lives is their own business, I don't think they necessarily deserve to be boycotted for being a terrible person. Although at the same time I do think the media in general should take more responsibility and recognise that these people serve as role models for many and putting them in the spotlight sends the message that this behaviour is OK, and it's not. It really does depend on what the behaviour is, how often it happens, whether the person in question is addressing it, and so on. It depends on a lot of factors. I also think it needs to be handled very carefully because it's very easy to get these things wrong with the way this all gets sensationalised.

Art can be separated from the artist only to a point. If they are obviously promoting their views using their work, then no. If their work can be enjoyed without having harmful messages and attitudes forced onto the consumer, then yes. It's a bit of a blurry line that really does depend on your individual perspective, but I think that's generally how art is anyway and I think at the end of the day, if it really bothers you that someone you dislike made something you enjoy, it comes down to your own conscience. You are allowed to dislike a person but enjoy their work, and vice versa. You're not a hypocrite for doing so, as long as you don't turn around and call other people out for doing the same thing. Your opinion is not any less valid. It's just your personal taste and preference and there is nothing wrong with it.

At the end of the day individuals boycotting celebrities is pointless, because it won't impact them in any significant way: they're still going to make more money than any of us mere mortals can dream of, and they're not going to care if a few people don't like them or their work...after all, you can't please everyone. What needsto happen for it to mean anything is for organisations who promote these people to take action, so they face actual repercussions for their actions or words.

 

[Caite-chan]

I mean she was the first one to pop into my head. I could say the same thing about Donald Trump. He's a complete dumbass idiot who cries like a little bitch when he doesn't get his way. But there are people out there who like him and they are entitled to their opinion no matter how stupid we think it may be.

I'm not saying it's okay in general because I disagree with her but she is entitled to her opinion. Not everyone is going to be okay with everything. It's also the different generations of people we have and how people were raised. Literally everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter what, how bad or how stupid it may be. That was the point I was trying to get across.

 

[Nah]

I mean she was the first one to pop into my head. I could say the same thing about Donald Trump. He's a complete dumbass idiot who cries like a little bitch when he doesn't get his way. But there are people out there who like him and they are entitled to their opinion no matter how stupid we think it may be.

I'm not saying it's okay in general because I disagree with her but she is entitled to her opinion. Not everyone is going to be okay with everything. It's also the different generations of people we have and how people were raised. Literally everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter what, how bad or how stupid it may be. That was the point I was trying to get across.

Should everyone really be entitled to having and expressing harmful opinions though?

But I get why people wouldn't be into the idea, given how much of a mess it'd be to get it to even begin to work, and how easily it could go horribly wrong.

 

[Caite-chan]

Should everyone really be entitled to having and expressing harmful opinions though?

But I get why people wouldn't be into the idea, given how much of a mess it'd be to get it to even begin to work, and how easily it could go horribly wrong.

I mean the US did elect Donald Trump as President after all the stuff he's done in the past soooooo....

 

[Mab]

The only time I'll separate the art from the artist is when the artist is no longer in a position to profit from their work. For example, there's no reason to boycott Minecraft, because Notch isn't associated with it anymore and makes no money off the franchise. By contrast, JKR is still profiting off modern HP media like the Fantastic Beasts movies and that game that's coming out/came out idk. If they're still profiting off the work, supporting the art is supporting the artist.

 

[Starlight]

I try to seperate the art from the artist, but I often just can't do it.

As for JKR, I loved potter but will never support the franchise in any way ever again. Profits go to her, and she is using that money and her influence to oppress and dehumanise an already marginalised demographic. I am not funding that.

Her case isn't that of an out of touch or ignorant celebrity that has some misguided views, she is actively campaigning against, and deliberately hurting trans people. She'll never get another penny from me.

 

[Zeostar]

If someone is willing to answer, what exactly is the difference between cancelling and boycotting?

I thought they were essentially the same thing. A large number of people turn against a person, and that person loses a following.