>Why are you putting "value" above human decency?

Because human decency is often overrated and hard usable value is often underrated.

If we removed the value (changes, inventions, artworks, products, etc) made by people which were lacking in "human decency" in this or that aspect, billions would be poorer, sicker, die sooner, and have much worse cultures.

>There are plenty people just the same, with the same capabilities without the quality of being a tarpit of suck.

Understanding is a great component of human decency too, as is not being a sanctimonious hollier-than-thou type. For example, not labelling someone who "wrote something mean in a forum" as "a tarpit of suck", as if that defines them totally, or as if the persons making such statements shit doesn't smell.

Plus "plenty people just the same, with the same capabilities", really? As if the output of an artist is interchangeable with that of another, so that we can just discard those that have done such grave offenses as "being rude on a forum" and just listen to another?

Is there really a distinction? Isn't the altruistic concept that we all have innate value also a statement of offering value, even by our mere existence?

I find it so odd that people overlook severe faults in those whose other qualities they rather love and greatly appreciate. It seems so unjust, yet it's universal.

I know I have made many mistakes in my life, especially as a dumb kid.

We can't all be on your level of moral perfection.

A lot of James' discography is predicated on making other people suffer. The album art is offputting, the track listings are usually cluttered and useless, his music videos are scary and confusing, random tracks are designed to torture you (eg. Ventolin), and half of his music is released under unrelated aliases.

If you're not familiar with Aphex Twin, it's hard to understand that this hatred does nothing to inhibit his success.