FA+
Shop
An unpopular opinion
5 years ago
General
OK, so. This is likely going to lose me a few folks, which I kind of expect. Nonetheless, I'd be remiss if I didn't touch on this matter as something that bothers me terribly.
Now, allow me to preface the latter part of this little commentary by saying I am, and always have been, for the need for someone to be responsible and held accountable for their words and their deeds, the latter more especially than most. Especially in this time, it's important. To be called to task for something harmful done, or harsh words needlessly spoken, should be a given, and the anonymity and faceless nature of the internet notwithstanding in that. I think this is reasonable, and a proper extension of manners.
This having been said, I rail against the idea that because someone was complete shit, utterly amoral, a horrific excuse of a failure as a human being, and even a criminal of the highest order that somehow this makes it that everything they may have done prior, regardless of its' quality, value, etc., needs to be thoroughly and completely reviled and absolutely rejected without exception, buried utterly, erased from all existence and never again acknowledged as having existed, let alone given the slightest bit of praise.
Yet this is a trend i am seeing commonly extolled, indeed trumpeted as utterly virtuous, an utter and complete absolute social requirement, and that, as seems to be the case in the last decade, that not doing so brands one immediately, unforgivably, permanently and completely not merely as a horrible criminal and piss-poor shit-faced excuse as a human being worthy only of deletion without memory from this fertile earth, but also labels one as enabling the person in some way.
I am admittedly the product of a prior generation, so perhaps this might not strike a chord within folks, but do ask yourselves, if I may be so bold as to be marginally confrontational: is anyone here willing to forego the reams of medical knowledge that have bettered our lives these past 80 or so years in the fields of heredity and disease, many of which are based, sometimes QUITE directly, upon the horrifying, torturous, indeed viciously sociopathic and criminal "experiments" of Josef Mengele? Should we logically, by the reasoning above, reject what good has come, derived from his horror? Most would say no. Equally, does this by any means we should forgive this monster for their horrific acts? Again, utterly and absolutely NO, without fail nor exception.
To this same field I thus say - yes, an individual may be horrible, worthy of the utmost unmitigated and complete contempt, hatred, censure, rejection, and persecution. This, though, should never be used to make it so the good of anything they have contributed should be buried, whether art or science. They should be remembered for having produced the work, possibly work at odds with their mindset and actions. They should not be forgiven MERELY upon the fact they have produced this work! But equally, the work itself, if it has harmed none (or, in some cases after the fact even if it has, see my example above), should not be treated as if it were the guilty party themselves. Place the guilt and the blame not upon the work but upon the PERSON whom might so richly deserve it.
I recognize that, in this day and age, my opinion upon this is likely to earn me no friends, gain me no small amount of enmity, and brand me as a sympathizer towards such horrible people, regardless of my protests to the contrary. I expect I shan't emerge unscathed for this. However, I can't sit idly by and leave this uncommented-upon.
Thank you.
Now, allow me to preface the latter part of this little commentary by saying I am, and always have been, for the need for someone to be responsible and held accountable for their words and their deeds, the latter more especially than most. Especially in this time, it's important. To be called to task for something harmful done, or harsh words needlessly spoken, should be a given, and the anonymity and faceless nature of the internet notwithstanding in that. I think this is reasonable, and a proper extension of manners.
This having been said, I rail against the idea that because someone was complete shit, utterly amoral, a horrific excuse of a failure as a human being, and even a criminal of the highest order that somehow this makes it that everything they may have done prior, regardless of its' quality, value, etc., needs to be thoroughly and completely reviled and absolutely rejected without exception, buried utterly, erased from all existence and never again acknowledged as having existed, let alone given the slightest bit of praise.
Yet this is a trend i am seeing commonly extolled, indeed trumpeted as utterly virtuous, an utter and complete absolute social requirement, and that, as seems to be the case in the last decade, that not doing so brands one immediately, unforgivably, permanently and completely not merely as a horrible criminal and piss-poor shit-faced excuse as a human being worthy only of deletion without memory from this fertile earth, but also labels one as enabling the person in some way.
I am admittedly the product of a prior generation, so perhaps this might not strike a chord within folks, but do ask yourselves, if I may be so bold as to be marginally confrontational: is anyone here willing to forego the reams of medical knowledge that have bettered our lives these past 80 or so years in the fields of heredity and disease, many of which are based, sometimes QUITE directly, upon the horrifying, torturous, indeed viciously sociopathic and criminal "experiments" of Josef Mengele? Should we logically, by the reasoning above, reject what good has come, derived from his horror? Most would say no. Equally, does this by any means we should forgive this monster for their horrific acts? Again, utterly and absolutely NO, without fail nor exception.
To this same field I thus say - yes, an individual may be horrible, worthy of the utmost unmitigated and complete contempt, hatred, censure, rejection, and persecution. This, though, should never be used to make it so the good of anything they have contributed should be buried, whether art or science. They should be remembered for having produced the work, possibly work at odds with their mindset and actions. They should not be forgiven MERELY upon the fact they have produced this work! But equally, the work itself, if it has harmed none (or, in some cases after the fact even if it has, see my example above), should not be treated as if it were the guilty party themselves. Place the guilt and the blame not upon the work but upon the PERSON whom might so richly deserve it.
I recognize that, in this day and age, my opinion upon this is likely to earn me no friends, gain me no small amount of enmity, and brand me as a sympathizer towards such horrible people, regardless of my protests to the contrary. I expect I shan't emerge unscathed for this. However, I can't sit idly by and leave this uncommented-upon.
Thank you.
It's like saying "So-and-so is a fuck!", thus their art, their work, and everything they do needs to be junked burned and forgotten just like them, and if you disagree you're a fuck like so-and-so and need to go with them!" Sadly, this is the common attitude, it seems, and it's horrble.
But in my own opinion, how many people have created things throughout our known history and they are unstable at best and criminal (or worse) at the other end?
When I was in school we learned about them all the same. For me it was more the painters and artists, like Edgar Allen Poe and Vincent Van Gogh.
Heck, even Lovecraft produced some of the most insane (and creative) things, but nowadays we cannot learn from his work or methods cause of...reasons I won't elaborate on (Though we know what they are).
I can see both sides and I will admit sometimes beautiful things can be made by the worst people.
I do have trouble finding a proper answer because on one hand I see the benefit when such things are remembered, analyzed or discussed.
On the other, something I dislike is seeing people being inhuman to one another.
Then again, I was always of a mind to weigh the options and perspectives and see which is the most beneficial to move onward with after analyzing it.
I grew up in the 80's. Back then we had hair bands aplenty and guys like Michael Jackson on the radio. Since then it's turned it there's a lot of evidence pointing to MJ being a child molester. A lot of those hair bands wrote lyrics that demeaned women and did things like rape underage groupies. Does that mean we should toss out everything they've done? For the most part no-but it doesn't mean we need to celebrate scummy bands/songs nor do people like JK need us giving her carte blanche to go adding to the already mountainous amount of hate the transgender community faces every day.
At some point people who do shitty things need to pay the consequences for said shitty things. If that means they need to educate themselves and go about doing new work showing they've learned and want to do better-work that people can support-so be it. I'm a firm believer in forgiveness-under certain conditions. That said nobody's going to suffer if they don't read Harry Potter. People are suffering because of what the series author is doing and saying, however and that's not right.
Cut to today. We still live together due to our economic & medical situations preventing us from going anywhere. While we tried to remain friends over the years I did too much damage plus there were all those other issues. While i've done my best to be a better person he still resents me and rightfully so. We barely talk and he spends most of his time in his room on the other side of the house.
Now-should be acknowledge my efforts to be better and not do little things like make snide remarks or ignore me the rare time I send him a text when something important comes up? Probably but is he obligated to forgive me for all the hurt I caused? Is he obligated to trust me and assume I won't do something to hurt him again? No. Not at all. I was a toxic person. I hurt him in one of the most unforgivable ways you can hurt someone. I emotionally abused and damaged him. I caused his psyche grievous harm. Whatever good I've done doesn't matter. He's not obligated to recognize it (it just would make living here less stressful for everyone and I think it would do him a lot of good to forgive me but then I'm biased and it's not something I have a right to expect, anyways).
The fact of the matter is if someone hurts you and their being a part of your life would cause harm to your mental health you have every right to keep that person out of your life. No matter how 'fair' or 'unfair' it seems. About the only time I can think one would be obligated to involve themselves with someone who hurt them is in a child custody case-and in those situations lawyers usually act as stand-in's so that it reduces potential issues.