Quote:
Originally Posted by Gráinne
But who gets to decide for everyone else what is banned? If a statue triggers someone, should it be pulled down even if the person's descendants objects? Who would decide for me what I can't see, watch or read?
I too am a survivor. But I don't want to live in a sterile world free of triggers. I don't want compassion. I want the whole world of art, as messy and controversial as it is.
|
I think the movement to stop R Kelly, for instance, is just and empowering. If you want to support his art, go right ahead. His victims/survivors have a right to appeal to any and all to NOT support his art. As long as R Kelly is making money he has power and influence. Unless the law finally catches up to a man who abuses black women, he will face no repercussions. He's shown himself to be someone who feels entitled to abuse women, so I feel good about his downfall.
I think we should be precise about our language, too. I know you haven't done so, Grainne, but whenever this subject comes up, butt hurt men come screaming out of the woodwork to decry the supposed trampling of their right to free speech. When we say 'ban' in reference to a recording artist, we're not talking about any government stopping him from doing his work under penalty of criminal prosecution. We're saying that reputable, compassionate people have decided that the only way to stop this man from victimizing other young women is to cut off his supply of funds. You can have all the messy artists you want, but I'm committed to stopping the careers of active, unrepentant abusers.