Jump to content

"Turns Out They're An Asshole"


LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow

Recommended Posts

This is kinda a vague idea topic and it's hard to put into words so who better than me, who sucks at that, right?

 

Okay so the idea is this. You've all seen it. A famous person ends up showing, or you end up learning of, a bad side. Finding out a beloved musician beat their wife, or discovering a famous speaker for peace was racist, etc etc. Does this make them lesser to you?

Does it affect how you see their work?

Especially in the case of the speaker for peace (say, Ghandi) does it make their words have less impact?

 

What do you think, YCM? Discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It wasn't suggested that you're supposed to suddenly dislike their work just because they personally turn out a bit of a prick.

Regardless, being able to separate aspects of someones lives and not judge them in entirety for one aspect of them shows maturity. Granted most of society lacks maturity, but it's the ideal..

 

Sudden has nothing to do with it. It should have 0 impact.

 

I think Clinton's perjury was a crime, but it shouldn't at all reflect on his role as a president

 

A person is more than a sum of their parts and "fruit from a poisoned tree" doesn't apply to complex beings like humans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, being able to separate aspects of someones lives and not judge them in entirety for one aspect of them shows maturity. Granted most of society lacks it, but it's what ever.

 

Sudden has nothing to do with it.It should have 0 impact. I think Clinton's perjury was a crime, but it shouldn't at all reflect as his roles as a president for example.

 

You can think someone's an asshole but still like them. I mean, I don't even dislike Jim Carrey, just think he holds a stupid view on a relatively major issue and that lowers my opinion of him. Again, just because someone's a bit of a prick doesn't mean you can't like what they do, but it will affect how you think of them as an individual, which is what this thread's going for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You can think someone's an jabroni but still like them. I mean, I don't even dislike Jim Carrey, just think he holds a stupid view on a relatively major issue and that lowers my opinion of him. Again, just because someone's a bit of a prick doesn't mean you can't like what they do, but it will affect how you think of them as an individual, which is what this thread's going for.

I really don't think any one aspect should be able to reflect on a person as a whole. It really shouldn't affect how you think about them, because objectively there's a lot more to them to judge about. So what if a person is an jabroni? That WILL affect how I deem their personality, but it will have 0 impact on how I view them as a person. Call it arguing semantics, but It's an important differentiation imo  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I just see several posts of people basically saying the same thing but in an argumentative way? I'm so confused.

 

Also the point of this thread is to get opinions.

 

Anyway I don't let it affect me personally but I can see some people being uncomfortable supporting someone they think did something terrible.

Though Clinton is a bad example kinda because the kind of person one is does affect their ability to lead a nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think any one aspect should be able to reflect on a person as a whole. It really shouldn't affect how you think about them, because objectively there's a lot more to them to judge about. So what if a person is an a******? That WILL affect how I deem their personality, but it will have 0 impact on how I view them as a person. Call it arguing semantics, but It's an important differentiation imo  

 

You've literally just said in that first line that a person's actions shouldn't affect what we think of them. If that's the case, we shouldn't like them in the first place, because unless we just looked at them and said "yep cool guy", it's their actions that have gotten them to appeal to us. It's like you're arguing just to argue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've literally just said in that first line that a person's actions shouldn't affect what we think of them. If that's the case, we shouldn't like them in the first place, because unless we just looked at them and said "yep cool guy", it's their actions that have gotten them to appeal to us. It's like you're arguing just to argue.

Sorry wasn't my intention. I meant more so don't judge a person cause of any one action even if they seem like an jabroni for it. I agree with cow pretty much on all this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Celebrities are people, people are stupid, celebrities just have an amplifier so everyone can hear them. No celebrity has said anything worse than 51 year-old friend Jerry who's a farmer and part of the KKK-chapter. He's actually a good friend, just hates f***king ni-... nigerians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still listen to Lostprophets. I still commend their music, because I separate art from artist and always will.

I actually only found out about that when listening to Rooftops and then reading the Youtube comments.

Then I went back to listening to the song and found...

It sounded the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I just see several posts of people basically saying the same thing but in an argumentative way? I'm so confused.

From what I understood (and please correct me if I misinterpreted), was that Winter was very much in the mindset of "A negative personality holds no weight vs competence" while Enguin is of the mindset that "Negative actions do impact one's views of a person". Amusingly, if these were indeed the main points, could it really be called arguing since they are broaching different topics completely?

 

As for me, I'm a "love the sinner, hate the sin"-type person. I might not agree with one's views, but that doesn't mean they deserve less respect because of differences in opinion. If at one point they are an jabroni, my first instinct is to not let that ruffle me because I truly believe that they have their own reasons for being that way.

 

...however, I tend to lose respect quickly when dealing with those people who are bastards just for the sake of being bastards with no reasoning at all. Though those people are few and far between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like an artist for their art, not their own person. Cuteosphere is a famous tumblr artist who has outlandish SJW opinions but I still like her art. Daitro were a French Hardcore band who were offered to open for Thursday but they turned down the offer and openly mocked the band and the record label they were on, but I still like their work. Dont even get me started on how much of a scumbag Doug Walker is yet I still watch Nostalgia Critic when im bored.

 

What is truly relevant with an artist is their art, not their person. You could be a huge serial killer yet ill still enjoy your work as long as its good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually only found out about that when listening to Rooftops and then reading the Youtube comments.

Then I went back to listening to the song and found...

It sounded the same.

If there is anything Whitehouse has taught me, it's that we are all sick and shouldn't feel bad about listening to music by evil human beings or admiring serial killers. We are all undeniably messed up. The best we can do is admit it. It's why I find Hitler's paintings to be genuinely beautiful along with the artistic qualities of Nazi architecture. I also enjoy that one song Charles Manson made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cant believe I forgot about Ian Watkins while I was writing examples, I still listen to their first two albums even though Ian is a pedophile. Thankfully Geoff Rickly took the rest of the band under his wing with No Devotion, great band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...