Hacker News Reader

Comment by aristus | Hacker News Reader

You can like the work but hate the jerk. The real question comes when you decide whether to financially support a jerk's work.

View on HN

So once a jerk artist is dead and can no longer benefit from their work, it becomes easier to consume their art without moral concern?

Yes, literally. Same argument applies to limited copyright terms. Though I'd say it would be with less concern, not completely without it.

I guess that would depend on if their kids are jerks?

I think so, yeah.

Sometimes the artist put too much of themselves in the work. For example: I tried reading Orson Scott Card's Iron Man comics and there was just too much homophobic nonsense throughout.

i stopped reading the ringworld series by larry niven when i found that he kept repeating how sex was used to seal a business transaction. it added nothing to the story and just seemed like wishful thinking from the author.

i can't blame them for it. it's only natural. when i write there is a lot of my personality in it too. in part that is the point and in many cases it is what makes a work worth reading. unless it makes the story unreadable like in our examples.

I read the whole series and don't remember this at all, even a single example let alone appearing so repeatedly that it became noticeable and annoying.

I'm not saying I don't believe you. Whatever it is you're talking about is probably in there.

I'm saying maybe you were just super sensitive to something that was actually insignificant.

that's possibly true. it wasn't in all of the books, but at least in the one where i stopped reading. and it was insignificant because it served no purpose in the plot. what bothered me was not the reference to sex but the fact that it made no sense in the story and that it was treated as something as casual as a handshake and it simply felt like it was the authors personal fantasy.

and if i may say so, i suspect that in general reference to sex is so common that many of us don't notice. it doesn't bother me but i simply don't care for it when it's not a significant plot element. i grew up without any exposure to this kind of theme.

Yes.

H. P. Lovecraft is a good example from literature. He was profoundly racist, even beyond the cultural norms of his time. However, as he has long since passed away buying and amplifying his works do not further his views and causes.

A modern counterexample would be J. K. Rowling. Where supporting her works and properties does directly contribute to furthering her prejudices in a very real way.

buying and amplifying his works do not further his views and causes

i'd rephrase that. it does not support the artist to allow him to continue spreading his views and causes, but it still draws attention to him, and potentially lets people learn about it. even this discussion here. i would not have known about lovecrafts or rowlings views if it weren't for reading about it on hackernews some time ago.

however an even more important concern is how much of these views are woven into the stories. as such it is important to at least be aware. i have ignored harry potter until now but my kids are getting interested, and so i am keeping a close eye on what they are watching for that reason.

First thing is to differentiate with how long the person is dead.

For example, when I accompanied my daughter class to a museum last year, there was a sewed reproduction of the Minotaur by Picasso (the artist exposed was a woman and this was just a collaboration she made with him). To say the least, the history behind the work is not the most glamorous. Would you explain the context to a 7 years class? But Picasso is so close in time, that his direct descendent have financial interest in exploiting the artistic legacy.

Now if you consider some artist like those who made graphic arts in Lasceau cave, of even someone as close and individually nameable as Katsushika Hokusai that died before the world wide madness of "intellectual property", that's a very different matter.

> But Picasso is so close in time, that his direct descendent have financial interest in exploiting the artistic legacy.

I wouldn't be concerned by this specifically. His relatives likely suffered from him being a jerk, I don't mind them at least benefiting from his work. I'm more concerned about Picasso being put on a pedestal.

I don't think I would be against exposing his art with the whole context though.

There can still be a moral concern if the artist is seen as a (role) model / genius and consuming / promoting their art causes the artist to be seen as a model for longer, potentially making it look like what they did is okay or forgiven given the art. We totally need a strong signal that doing good art doesn't forgive or allow being a jerk so jerks are not encouraged to take this path.

Another thing to have in mind: beside moral concerns, often, you can't separate the artist form the art because the art reflects the artist; you'd miss out on the interpretation of the art.

(I have Picasso in mind)

I agree. We all make our own decisions. I won't say someone is wrong for making a different decision. For me, there are people who's product I won't use because they are a jerk and I don't want to contribute to their financial success. But if that same jerk was one of the creators of a commonly used language that is ubiquitous I won't avoid it because that person doesn't financially benefit from it.

A jerk is one thing; a murderer is something else.

If a murderer creates a file system/energy source/mouse trap that is effectively better than all of the alternatives, and generates value to the world, what he did in his personal life is effectively moot. There is no ethics problem involved in choosing the best solution to a problem, when that solution exists.

If financially supporting said murderer allows them to continue to possibly murder more, then I would say there is a moral dilemma. Less so when the murderer is in jail and unlikely to ever really benefit from your using said solution.

I mean if they are a murderer then would not the legal system put them in jail? Also if they serve their sentence are they not adjudicated?

Not if they can afford lawyers to build enough layers between them and the people who pull the lever.

ReiserFS hasn't been the best solution in a long, long while. Even before the murder case it was often more trouble than it was worth.

I used it for a few months, lost a few files and moved on to ext3 at the time. I think his press notoriety came soon after that.

"Of course Reiser's wife would go missing, have you seen how often things end up missing in his file systems?" used to be funny for a moment.

Yeah most major distros that used it (like OpenSuse) moved away before the murder case.

His wife was reported missing in September 2006. OpenSuse dumped it in October 2006. She wasn’t feared dead yet. He was arrested April 2008.

By the time he was even a suspect, his work had already been dropped because it was not reliable enough.

> effectively better than all of the alternatives

Which gladly rarely happens, so often you still have sufficient choice. Now, if it turns out Euler sabotaged some bridges and caused deaths, you'd still have a hard time avoiding using e.

But for software? It's usually rather easy to find alternatives. And ReiserFS never was an exception here.

Yet for many people, the very act of choosing results in a halo that goes beyond the acquisition itself.

You may think you’re choosing a technology, and nothing further. But others may see your decision as a broader endorsement.

Are they right to do so? Don’t know. Maybe not.

But it is a real effect. The quandary is therefore ethical.

no the quandary is political. it's about how others see you.

Politics is, among other things, a way to negotiate the ethics of a society and how they're applied.

you can replace "ethics" with most common nouns in that sentence and it'll probably work.

> There is no ethics problem involved in choosing the best solution to a problem, when that solution exists.

I constantly see people insisting there is, though. Lots of people boycott software just based on the surrounding context.

I agree that there is no ethics problem. The problem is in the realm of personal distaste.

There is also such a thing as lobbying for laws that make a lot of people's lives difficult, destroy QALYs, and possibly cause stochastic death.

It's only called "murder" when it's trivial to measure it, see.

The idea of “stochastic death” is a dangerous and unhelpful escalation of rhetoric that amounts to an excuse to call someone a murderer because they said something you disagree with. It’s the idea that Biden was somehow a “partial murderer” because he said something that might have, possibly, maybe, influenced a wacko to attempt an assassination on Trump. If we start calling everyone a type of murderer, it cheapens the word, dishonors the victims of actual murder, and hardens hearts with hate and fear of the dreaded Other when what the tribalists need most is a little mutual understanding.

Lobbying for laws is not murder, you are correct on that. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Bill Gates multi decade marriage came to an end after his closeness with Epstein became public. I don't think anyone stopped buying ms software because of it.

Ok, he no longer works there, but I'm sure he still benefits from it.

If a video were released of Bill with a minor then I'd expect Microsoft to take a huge hit. Though it'd have to be irrefutable video. Because we've seen other Epstein accomplices thrive despite circumstancal evidence, like a certain real estate mogul.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com