Tuesday 5 November 2013

People are Complex

If you had asked me 12 months ago what I knew about Orson Scott Card, I would probably have answered, "Isn't he that guy who wrote Ender's Game?" That was about the extent of my knowledge. It turns out that he's a devout Mormon and has, as some devout Mormons do, views about homosexuality that the mainstream might not share. This has apparently led to boycotts of the release of the new Ender's Game film in the States.

I don't intend to get into a rant about that issue in particular. Suffice to say that I don't agree with Orson Scott Card, but I disagree equally strongly with associating the political views of a writer or artist with their work - the work should stand on its own merits, and in Ender's Game it more than does. It is one of the most humane and brave novels for teenagers (who are nowadays called "Young Adults" for some reason) ever written. HP Lovecraft was a daft-as-a-brush racist, Wagner was a despicable anti-semite, L. Frank Baum thought that the native Americans ought to be wiped off the face of the earth...none of that should matter if their work is good and those views aren't in the work. I tend to think that boycotting the new Ender's Game film is rather dangerous, in that it subsumes art into a discussion about social values, and thus diminishes it.

Rather, what interests me about this issue is that, wherever you read discussion of the film on the internet, everybody feels bound to dismiss Orson Scott Card as nutty, insane, hateful, bigoted, appalling, and so forth. Even the sensible reviewers, who look at the film as a film, feel the need to preface their comments by saying "Of course, Orson Scott Card is a blithering idiot and a horrendous bigot to boot, but...." or words to that effect.

I think that's too easy. Of course I should preface these comments by saying that I don't agree with Orson Scott Card about homosexuality or gay marriage. Nonetheless, the only real encounter I have ever had with the man is this interview, in which he comes across as an overly-chatty but very nice, extremely warm-spirited and generous man with many interesting things to say about writing, about fantasy and SF, and about creativity. Which is to say, setting his views on homosexuality aside - if this interview was all you had to go on - he would appear as, generally speaking, a good egg.

People are complex, but we seem unduly keen to reduce them to what we hate about them. It's very easy, and tempting, to follow the equation that Card = homophobic = bad person. I think that's inherently dehumanising. For me, the far more interesting issue is: How can somebody who is broadly 'good' have views that are most certainly 'bad'? How can somebody write a book as empathetic as Ender's Game while apparently not having much empathy when it comes gay people who want to get married? Mr Card may be able to explain that, in fact.

It's something that you will inevitably encounter if you look into the political or social views, or the 'off screen' persona, of any creative person you admire. I think China Mieville is a brilliant writer and a really interesting and charming bloke in person too, but his political views in the abstract would probably make my hair stand on end. (Not that I'm comparing his views with those of Card - you understand my point.) Richard Dawkins is an astonishingly good science writer whose books communicate a love of knowledge and expression of wonder at the majesty of life, yet he's capable of sounding like a po-faced and mean-spirited bigot when the mood takes him, which is often. John Lennon wrote some beautiful songs, showing incredible insight into human emotions and how to express them, but he was capable of treating people in his personal life with appalling cruelty. You will be able to think of your own examples.

Part of being a person alive in the world is that you have to recognise that people often can't be pigeon-holed. Sometimes people hold views that you disagree with very strongly, and that doesn't necessarily make them a bad person. Sometimes people do 'bad' things while expressing beauty and empathy through their art. Trying to arrange the world in such a way that it's easy to divide the people you agree with and disagree with into separate camps labelled "hateful bigots" and "on the side of the angels" is extremely tempting, but foolish and mistaken. It's about expressing control over something - other people - that can't be controlled.

50 comments:

  1. It turns out that he's a devout Mormon and has, as some devout Mormons do, views about homosexuality that the mainstream might not share.

    I appreciate your statement and your intent, but your own bias shows through with the above comment. Acceptance of homosexuality as a valid albeit alternative lifestyle is still a minority (though growing) position, certainly not mainstream.

    You harm the GALA communities by downplaying their struggle for acceptance as having been completed or at least over the hump.

    Likewise you harm Card's position by suggesting his position is not a majority position and by not placing his views in proper context.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no idea what "GALA" means, but if I am harming both them and Orson Scott Card I'm not sure where my bias is supposed to lie - aren't I therefore in the middle?

      Delete
    2. Depends on where you live. It is certainly mainstream here on the West Coast.

      Delete
  2. I find it difficult to separate an artist from his or her work; if I know that the artist is (or was) someone I'd find personally hateful, I find it taints my enjoyment of the produce of their talent. Gauguin is a prime example — he did some fantastic work, but he was an execrable human being, and I can't look at his paintings without that being in the back of my mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What was wrong with Gaugin? Dish the dirt.

      Delete
    2. Yes, but that's your failure, not his.

      Delete
    3. I dunno the full details of his biography, but I do know off the cuff that Gauguin roomed with Vincent Van Gogh and was a total jerkass to him, at least if the Kirk Douglas movie "Lust for Life" is to be believed.

      Delete
    4. Having looked on wikipedia it seems that he may have had more than a passing interesting in prepubescent Polynesian girls. That could be what Peter is referring to.

      Delete
  3. While I agree with the need to appreciate a work on its own merits, rather than deciding it's bad because the author is, the boycotting question goes to whether you want to actively support that person. For example, Roman Polanski is without question a brilliant director, but I don't feel comfortable giving him even a little bit of my money.

    Also, Card isn't just a homophobe, he's actually a little nuts. In 2008, he wrote

    "What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.

    How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn."
    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700245157/State-job-is-not-to-redefine-marriage.html?pg=all

    That's seems like some pretty legit crazy to me. It doesn't mean Ender's Game isn't awesome (it is), but it does mean that it's hard to see Card as a reasonable man rather than a crazy person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's kind of my point. Card seems perfectly reasonable when he isn't talking about this issue. Richard Dawkins seems perfectly reasonable when he isn't talking about religion. Wagner probably sounded perfectly reasonable when he wasn't talking about Jews. I'm more interested in the question of how people can be simultaneously reasonable and unreasonable than I am in the specifics of Card's views on gay marriage.

      Roman Polanski is a very interesting person to point out, actually. I really like a lot of his films. I don't think in paying to see them I've 'supported him' except in the sense that he's created something amazing that I've liked and have given him some money for it. It's sort of the same thing as paying a prisoner to do some labour while in prison (as happens sometimes). It's not as though the payment he receives from his work says anything about his criminal behaviour. Though I understand you could argue the opposite.

      Delete
    2. Re: the question of how people can be simultaneously reasonable and unreasonable, have you seen this post at Grantland? If not, you might find it interesting.

      http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9909314/ender-game-controversial-author-very-personal-history

      Delete
    3. Good article, and I agree with it.

      Delete
  4. I'm not sure the parallels you draw between authors are generally accurate. HP Lovecraft is dead. Wagner and L Frank Baum are dead. By consuming those works, those people do not benefit. By consuming Card's work, he does benefit. And he likely puts financial support towards his views.

    Therefore, by consuming his material - regardless of his quality, I am both supporting him and supporting his cause. Which I will not do. Roman Polanski is another similar example. I can elect not to support a living person because I do not agree with their views - regardless of the quality of their work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's your prerogative, but I find it unfathomable. Sir Alex Ferguson is a prominent Labour Party supporter. When I would watch football games on Sky, should I have been worried that part of my subscription was going towards Man Utd as part of the Premier League's deal with Sky, and hence in part going towards paying his wages, and hence possibly towards donations to the Labour Party? I don't understand where that way of ordering your life leads you.

      Delete
    2. To look at the other side of the coin, would you ever have qualms about entering into a purely business transaction with someone who is a really bad person? I think most people would if the other party was bad enough. I guess the classic (overused) example would be selling something to the Third Reich. Or maybe not buying product from a company that you view as doing terrible things to the environment, or its workers, or to public morality or whatever. As Jeremy above explains, in this case the fact that the person he's buying the product from happens to be an artist is sort of beside the point. It's not about divorcing art from the artist (and I agree with your comments on that as a general matter), its about business ethics.

      The Alex Ferguson example is the other end of the spectrum, but I don't think it's a concern that's terribly easy to dismiss.

      Delete
    3. I'm annoyed at having to go down this road, because that wasn't the point of the article. But here goes, anyway: those business ethics are brainless. They are based on totally superficial thinking. Orson Scott Card is not the only person to benefit financially from this film. There are many others - the director, the producers, the actors. This being Hollywood, is it not a reasonable bet that some of those people will use their financial rewards from the film to donate to political causes diametrically opposed to Card's? The "business ethics" argument would only ever make sense in extremely simple and nonexistent hypothetical scenarios.

      Delete
    4. Yes, my host, but the psychological drive for simplistic (and exclusive) world views causes a reductionism past all reason or reality. Entirely brainless, yes.

      Delete
    5. Well that was incredibly argumentative and unpersuasive.

      The "simplistic" worldviews are (a) I will never enter into a business transaction that might even tangentially benefit any person I disagree with, and (b) I will enter into any business transaction with anyone, no matter how evil they are and no matter what evil the transaction will cause.

      Obviously nearly everyone including noisms is somewhere between those poles. I know I am, but I don't have a good way of articulating why I am where I am. I'm not in a place where I won't see Ender's Game because I disagree with Card (I won't see it because I'm not interested in seeing it).

      To indulge in a little namecalling of my own, it is moronic to think that "the 'business ethics' argument would only ever make sense in extremely simple and nonexistent hypothetical scenarios." I'm sure if you think about it even a little you can recall many actual scenarios where consumers have used economic pressure to force business to change practices they view as unethical.

      Delete
    6. So because sometimes boycotts have an effect, that means the logic behind them is sound? I'm sure you'll understand if I don't find that very persuasive.

      Do I really have to repeat myself? The flaw is contained right there in your comment: "I will enter a transaction with anyone, no matter how evil..." Yes, fine, that covers those scenarios where you know the guy at the hamburger stand plans to use his profits for a terrorist campaign, or where you know the self-employed plumber in the yellow pages is a major donor to the KKK. Meanwhile, let's talk about the real world - when was the last time you spent money on ANYTHING where you can be confident you knew where the money ended up and what was done with it?

      Delete
    7. And I'll add the caveat: When was the last time you spent money on anything where you could be confident you knew where the money ended up, what was done with it, how many people ended up benefiting from the purchase, and whether they have ever made donations to political organisations?

      Delete
  5. Almost everyone's political and religious beliefs are irrational and emotional, and the expression of those beliefs is only palatable among like-minded people and distasteful to the rest.

    We don't know what the political and religious beliefs of most writers and artists are because, with good sense, they don't tell us. They don't tell us because it is widely understood that abusing your popularity in one medium to broadcast irrational judgements founded on emotion is a cause for mass irritation.

    It is no surprise that those writers and artists who insist on sharing their views on politics and religion arouse hostility. That kind of rubbish should be kept locked away with reports on last night's dreams.

    Personally I don't give a tinker's curse about gays and gay marriage, either one way or the other, and don't care what writers/artists have to say if it is not relevant to their work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It isn't what he says, it is the fact that he's on the board of an anti-gay marriage organization and spends a lot of his money (money you're giving him) on that cause.

      Delete
    2. See above. That argument only makes sense in bizarro world where Orson Scott Card created the film himself and is entitled to all of the revenue from it.

      Delete
    3. No, there is a reasonable cut-off point after which the concern becomes too nebulous to be actionable. You just have a slightly higher cut-off point. I have little doubt that you would not directly donate money to a politician whose views you find offensive, correct?

      I agree. I take my objection a step further. I don't knowingly support works or organizations whose creator supports views I find offensive.

      Some people likely take things further - refusing to eat any GMO food because they find the business practices of certain GMO-creating companies offensive.

      It is a spectrum - I'm simply a bit further towards the "I can decide what to support" side than you are.

      the other thing to consider here is that you can decide on a case-by-case basis. For example, SM Stirling, an author that I quite like, has made some very "genocidal" statements about muslim extremists. I found out about them, researched what he said, found it to be just as extreme a perspective as the extremists he proposed eliminating, and thought very carefully about whether to buy his next book.

      Eventually, I did. I don't support his views on the subject, but I also see no evidence that he is actively using his own money to promote an anti-Muslim agenda. If it comes out that I am wrong, I will reconsider.

      But your argument is that we can't know everyone who is involved in the production of something, so we should just consume and not care? That we should be aware of terrible views and behavior and just enjoy the product anyway? Who cares how it's made, as long as it's delicious? How ever do you get the sand out of your beard?

      Delete
    4. As I said, that argument only makes sense if you assume a non-existent scenario in which all the money spent on a product ends up in one single creator's pocket. It ignores all of the potentially thousands of people among whom the money is actually dissipated, from the lowliest marketer to the best boy to the executive producer to the person who sells you your popcorn. If you don't understand that, and why it makes the issue almost irreducibly complex, there really is no helping you.

      Delete
    5. As I said already *everyone's* political and religious beliefs are objectionable to some group or other if only they were made known. If everyone was obliged to publicly express their stance on a canonical list of *hot issues* it would be a very precious and highly stupid society whose every commercial transaction was conducted with reference to these public declarations.

      The fact that someone actively promotes their political views is daft to me but might be considered honest by others.

      When considering the work of art and the politics of the artist my only concern is is the artist gauche enough to elevate grubby petty politics by inducting it into his work. If he does he is not an artist.

      Delete
    6. Exactly. The "but he donates to anti-gay marriage organisations!" argument is a ridiculous red herring; do we want to live in a world in which whenever anyone makes a political donation they have to make it public so everybody else can decide whether they want to do business with them or not?

      Delete
  6. He gets better.

    http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2013-05-09-1.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Interesting can of worms.

    I've had discussions similar to this with a friend of mine, about politicians and their personal lives/sex scandals. He thinks such things show the person to be untrustworthy & not worthy of holding office, I don't care a wit about it, any more than I care if my dentist or banker is faithful in their marriage: if I am not married to them then what do I care? I only care if the person is good at the job they are responsible for doing, anything unrelated to the job is irrelevant. I see a lot of similarities to this issue about artists and their socio-political opinions.

    I am sure there are lots of artists who I would not agree with but if it isn't within their work, why should I care what their opinions on other matters are? Everyone has opinions, how many are shared with others? Not many. I would hate human society to get to the point where we bring in a 1984 style concept of thought-crime. if he's a nut, or worse, a hateful nut, that's his own business and his own right to be if he chooses. We may have lost the right to our home as our castle, but the mind should always be one's unquestioned sanctuary.

    Now, that said, if someone uses their art or business to try to impose their opinion on others, then by all means, avoid, boycott or protest to your heart's content. When that Chick-Fillee (or however it is spelled) fast food guy made it clear he was economically supporting initiatives against gay marriage I would have boycotted his restaurants, had I known about them or been tempted to eat their before, which I hadn't. Just like when South Africa still had Apartheid, I wouldn't buy products that invested in South Africa, didn't buy tuna that wasn't Dolphin Safe, etc.

    If by economically supporting someone that person is going to have more money and/or power to try to enforce opinions on the public which you are against, then it makes every sense to not help them in their efforts to hurt you or those you sympathize with. But if the money given has nothing to do with it, if it is just an opinion of an individual who isn't trying to force it on others, then boycotting is a form of oppression: it is punishing someone for having an opinion. I certainly wouldn't like someone not hiring me because they didn't like my personal opinions about an issue: they'd have the right of course, but seems small minded.

    Personally, I'm all in favor of not helping people enact policies I oppose, but I'm not in favor of punishing people for their thoughts.

    I haven't heard anything about Card using his profit to do such, but it might be the case? I'd be interested to know. That's the only point I think would be relevant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Al's statement above indicates he would use the money for denying others' rights. If that is the case I'd not pay to see the movie. Not to punish the artist for their opinion, but to not help them impose an opinion I do not share.

      Delete
  8. I think your post is well reasoned. I like it even better since I am sure that it is true. Nevertheless the internet has defeated you. The comments to your post are already identical to those posted in response to every other post on Card I've read in the last week, regardless of what was said to proke them... and from the same characters, to boot.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It sucks that art and artists don't emerge from a vacuum. Like just a big warehouse of hermetically sealed boxes with artists living in them, quitely producing art without being tainted by the squalor and prejudices of the external world.

    But I ultimately agree with Noisms here.

    Maybe piracy is the answer.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Arnold you are fast becoming one of my favourite people.

    Nice even-handed unemotional response Noisms, shame it's like yelling at the ocean.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Ender's Game" (the novella) was written in 1977. I encountered the big plot reveal during the Reagan administration. Card hasn't written anything better since, and quite a bit of drivel in the bargain. So I don't have high hopes for the movie, *especially* if he's directly involved. How does boycotting a work based on the author's increasing disconnect from what made them successful fit in?

    ReplyDelete
  12. >>I think China Mieville is a brilliant writer and a really interesting and charming bloke in person too, but his political views in the abstract would probably make my hair stand on end. (Not that I'm comparing his views with those of Card - you understand my point.) <<

    I'd hope not - Mormons as Mormons have murdered a few hundred people; Communists over a shorter time scale have murdered tens of millions, probably over a hundred million...

    I'm somewhere in between on this; I do find some authors' views make it hard for me to enjoy their work (Mieville), but I think it's might be because I was aware of Mieville's views before I read him, rather than because Mieville is so much more vile than Michael Moorcock, say, or Alan Moore might be a better comparison. I can say that Philip Pulman is a nasty piece of work but his first two Dark Materials books don't suffer too much from that; the third certainly does and taints the former two. CS Lewis' dubious view of death as a Jolly Good Thing in The Last Battle doesn't seem to taint the earlier Narnia books, though. And re Dawkins I agree 100% - unpleasant in person, but a great writer.

    I think overall I agree, you're right, if an author's nasty views don't intrude into a work (and I have no idea if Card has nasty views, sounds like probably not from this post) then the work stands on its merits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My opinion on gay marriage, for what little it's worth: I don't believe anyone has a right to have the State recognise their marriage. Legal recognition of marriage is a public good not a private matter and should be granted or not for social policy reasons - more socially desirable outcomes. On balance I believe legal recognition of gay & lesbian marriage meets that criteria.
      I don't believe that the State sanctifies marriage morally - the Muslim with four wives is morally married to them whether or not the State he's living in recognises his marriage. The cohabiting English couple are 'common law husband and wife', whatever the State may claim. If the lesbian couple are recognised by their society/peer group as married, they are married, whatever the government says. Likewise the Mormon church is not bound to the views of a State it opposes.

      Delete
    2. If the lesbian couple are recognised by their society/peer group as married, they are married, whatever the government says.

      Until the state deports one of them for not having a green card (which a straight person would have gotten in a similar context) or one of them is forbidden hospital visitation rights, or inheritance rights are not recognized, or...

      One might claim that they are "still morally married" but the fact that the union can be forcibly dissolved in these ways legally at any time makes a mockery of such an ivory tower proposition.

      (Apologies for the topic derail.)

      Delete
    3. Brendan: The deportation thing would never arise in the UK/European context. Long-term gay relationships are treated as being essentially the same as marriage in that regard in the ECHR framework and have been for quite a long time. I'm fairly sure that the same would be true with respect to hospital visitation rights; it would almost certainly be construed as a violation of the Article 8 rights of the patient, although I can't imagine it ever arising in practice (what nurse is going to refuse a gay partner visiting somebody in hospital?). So I think over here it is not just morally the case that this hypothetical lesbian couple are married - they are de facto married for almost all purposes in the eyes of the law. (There may be some rather trivial exceptions.)

      On the Communism point...I grant people like China Mieville the benefit of the doubt, in that I'm sure it's at least theoretically possible to argue that you could have a socialist state in which people aren't routinely murdered, enslaved and/or imprisoned for nothing. I think anybody who describes himself as a revolutionary socialist is dangerously misguided, but still potentially a decent person on an individual level (as China Mieville no doubt is).

      Delete
    4. "I'm sure it's at least theoretically possible to argue that you could have a socialist state in which people aren't routinely murdered, enslaved and/or imprisoned for nothing" - Well, yeah, but that's kind of a low bar to cross. :)
      Apparently everyone was quite surprised when the victorious Vietnamese Communists didn't go on a massive murder rampage like the Red Chinese, Khmer Rouge, Stalin, Castro & Che to a lesser degree, etc. I doubt Mr Mieville is a decent human being, but he's a good friend of a very charming colleague of mine and I'm sure he's very charming too!

      Delete
    5. @Brendan - you're saying US gay & lesbian couples should be eligible for privileges that the State currently affords only to straight couples. Yes, I agree, I think. As Noisms has indicated, here in the UK being legally married doesn't get you much, except I believe exemption from death duties requires marriage or civil partnership, which is de facto gay marriage. I think in hindsight New Labour was pretty clever with the whole 'civil partnership' thing, giving the benefits without the title, and the US would have been wise to follow that example.

      Delete
  13. Funny, really. Card is on record as having made a comment "about fiction being a totally inappropriate venue for any kind of ideological proselytizing."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Since you had to mention L. Frank Baum, I did a little digging.

    http://thewizardofoz.info/wiki/L._Frank_Baum,_the_Royal_Historian_of_Oz#Was_Baum_a_racist.3F

    On the subject of Card, I enjoyed the Ender's Game series when I read them as a youth. I might enjoy them should I read them again. But I would only buy them used because I don't want to contribute to his royalties.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Of course the irony of calling for boycotts and other actions against people who don't support gay marriage wouldn't be lost on anyone over 40. In the end, this isn't anything new. It's possibly more common, and I think there are more issues with which we judge others today than, say, thirty years ago. I mean judge by the way. I mean, define as unacceptable those who don't conform to this or that moral absolute. But it isn't as if it's never happened. In every age and generation there are those issues we use to define what is and isn't right, and who is and isn't acceptable as part of polite society. If tomorrow every human being stood up and in one harmonious voice declared their unending support for gay marriage, we humans would simply shuffle on and find some other issue to separate the sheep from the goats, or divide those folks without stars on their bellies from us folks whose belly stars shine brightly. It's just the nature of today that it's this issue. Just like in ten years, it will be for something else, perhaps an issue or topic we can't even imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "RPG Blooger writes sensible, polite political blog entry" - The DonGion

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think it's entirely possible to acknowledge that the profits from film ticket sales are distributed in a wide and complex manner while also recognizing that SOME of the money earned would go towards Orson Scott Card, whose donations to anti-gay groups are pretty well documented, and conclud that you personally do not want ANY of your money going to support said groups. It is certainly possible, and indeed highly likely, that money one spends does eventually and without your knowledge end up in the hands of people you find morally repugnant, and who use that money to enforce their views on the world. However, the dynamic changes a little bit when you're made aware of where the (some) of the money you spend will (pretty likely) go. The foreknowledge makes that purchase an informed choice, and the act of choosing to financially support an anti-gay person or group makes some people uncomfortable. Which is all my long-winded way of saying that I see and respect why people might wish to boycott the movie. Not everyone will feel that way, and I don't think there's anything wrong with choosing to consume the art of someone whose views you disagree with either.

    People see and don't see movies for all sorts of reasons. I can't imagine anyone criticizes people for watching Ender's Game, and I don't see the point in dismissing the reasons why somebody would choose not to see it. And while it is true that we will always face issues which divide us, I don't see the point in dismissing the topic offay rights simply because "there will always be conflicts of opinion". And finally, people absolutely are complex amalgamations of admirable and ignoble traits, and of course the right to speak and make art about or alongside any viewpoint, no matter how unpleasant, must be protected, but that doesn't excuse a person from criticism for expressing or acting upon their less pleasant views.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why does the dynamic change when you're made aware of where the money you spend will go? There's something very delusionally self-satisfied about patting yourself on the back for not paying to see a film because some small amount of the money you paid will go to somebody who funds anti-gay marriage campaigns, while remaining entirely unaware of where all of the rest of the money you spend in your life goes. (Using the general 'you', here - I don't mean you.)

      People are free to spend their money as they see fit, obviously, but the boycott thing strikes me as mere posturing. But as I've said repeatedly, and in the entry itself, that's not really the interesting issue here.

      Delete
    2. Well it needn't change, of course, but for some people it clearly does. It's impossible to control where all your money goes after you spend it because there's no way of knowing (also its not your money anymore, but hey) but if you do happen to know, or can make a pretty good guess, then it can feel as if you're making a conscious choice to support the author's cause, which can stick in the craw for some folks. It's a moral compromise: I can't always know what my money supports, but when I know where it will go I can choose not to support that cause.

      Personally, I didn't watch it because I didn't think the trailers looked very good. I agree about patting yourself on the back about not watching a film being a bit stupid, but I'm not bothered by a well-articulated "I'm not watching this film, here's my reason, you do as you like".

      Sorry to harp on about a topic you find uninteresting, I just wanted to explain what I'd meant. I quite agree with the body of your post - there's a large difference between "you've done/do bad things" and "you are an abjectly terrible person in all respects" that is often missing from discussion. Partly I expect it's because it's easy, and party because it can be difficult to separate actions from self hood when the criticism starts flying.

      Delete
    3. The dynamic always changes when you find things out.

      One of the fascinating things about global capitalism is the way that intermediated trade allows collaboration between mortal enemies. People who hate each other can still trade with each other through a few steps, because money doesn't hold a trace of it's use.

      For thousands of years, war profiteering has been possible, (as opposed to simple looting of goods) as has using money to increase the prosperity of conflicting communities because money is hard to trace.

      The internet, wide spread accountancy and an integrated banking system is changing this, inscription and data is catching up with this classic role of money, and de-anonomising it.

      You can see this in the way that economic sanctions work (so much better than they used to), or the way that people are following supply lines to find exploitation, or stop sourcing raw materials from conflicts etc.

      In short, I'd say ethical business is the future. Not necesarily a good future, or considered ethics, but it is entirely possible that a few years from now, blocs of different ideologies will by choice slowly form their own loosely coupeled economies, like a patchwork overlapping version of the cold war.

      To finish my sci-fi world, I'd say that crypto-currencies will continue to develop to meet the arbitrage demands of this kind of economy, and there'll still be lots of trade between them, it'll just be in the private browsing, don't post it to facebook, guilty pleasure domain.

      Delete