I mean even with Michael Jackson, there are others who contributed and thus would have royalties from his work. Even art that is seemingly singular is not.

It's just a suggestion, take if you will or won't. I mean hell, some people refuse to watch a show with a "tainted" actor, or those programs aren't aired by many channels or streaming platforms, like the cosby show for example. Some people thought it was unfair because the other actors hadn't done anything triffling and they deserved those royalties. But on the one hand, they have other royalties and roles, or they take on other jobs after acting. I'm not saying it's fair, but its hard to work out royalty payments if viewers won't touch a movie or show or whatever with a ten foot pole.

I mean if they have an active civil suit against them for payment then the royalties will go to the victims and not the artist.

For example O.J Simpson

How exactly do you recommend pirating media so that only one member of an enormous cast and crew is affected?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

If philosophers are the only discipline that notice their biases we'd have a lot more problems than we have now. I thought the entire basis for our use of the scientific method was the absolute pursuit of the truth. Like the answer to a math equation. Theories are brought to light and invited outside scrutiny, regardless of social context, is given consideration. The rules of engagement force the theorist to remove any biases when examining any subject, lest you have your ass handed to you by the social context you failed to see before uttering your theory. One good shellacking from an informed peer having a different social context in public I bet that bias gets considered or you take a seat.

[removed]

In the context it seems to mean "from time immemorial" rather than "universally" - a fairly defensible historical argument.

Then specifically take his ends and the others can keep theirs. We can create solutions as we think and go. Problem solving should be ever evolving in my opinion.

But there are other people that earn (and some even deserve) the income from art - Kevin Spacey didn’t make a movie on his own, other cast members, etc. same goes for music

Yeah, I always consider that to be critical thinking skills. Not much room for it these days in our educational system. We value memory of distilled historical events and call it learning as opposed to problem solving, creative thinking and critical thinking skills. What box should be the question asked about positive educational outcomes.

[deleted]

We could pirate the material. Why let them earn anything from their art? We could just make the art public property, give the royalties to the victims, anything beneficial to others and not the artist, because why should someone immoral profit from their art, especially if there was no punishment, or a just punishment?

>My dude, it is absolutely you who is playing the semantics game by refusing to use or even recognize a word in its common definition which is agreed upon by everyone except you.

Nobody discussing political theory uses the word that way, but do go on dodging the actual points I made.

>But I guess there is no point in continuing this debate, seeing as how we are apparently speaking different languages.

Not only did you get hung up on a thing I addressed twice, you're now pretending like I didn't.

Capitalists are very few, whereas their capital has been used to brainwash a whole lot of workers into supporting a system diametrically opposed to their material interests.

Japanese Unit 731. We hate them but we use the knowledge they gained to this day.

>I'm giving the only philosophically useful definition of capitalist.

Sorry adherents of the most popular economic theory in the world, you don't get to exist.

Yes, that is correct. Philosophy has never been a purely objective pursuit of truth, but rather it is an ongoing dialogue and investigation that is influenced by the cultural, social and historical context in which it is practiced. Philosophers are influenced by their own experiences, beliefs and biases, which inevitably shape their perspectives and understanding of the world.
Furthermore, the philosophical concepts and questions have often evolved in response to historical and cultural developments, and different cultures have developed distinct philosophical traditions. The ideas of Western philosophy, for example, are deeply rooted in the culture and history of ancient Greece, while Eastern philosophy has distinct concepts and traditions rooted in the culture and history of China, India, and Japan.
This doesn't mean that philosophy lacks objectivity or value, but it's important to recognize that philosophies are products of their time, place, and culture and that they are subject to change and revision over time. It is worth studying different philosophical perspectives to understand how the diverse cultures and societies have shaped their philosophies and the questions they were trying to answer, this provides a richer and more complete understanding of the subject.

It is true that philosophy, like any other field of study, is influenced by the cultural and historical context in which it is practiced. Philosophers are human beings and they are deeply influenced by their cultural, social, and political surroundings, which can shape their thoughts and beliefs.
Philosophical ideas and theories have developed and evolved over time, and these changes have often been influenced by the cultural, social and political context of the time. Many philosophers have been critical of the dominant cultural, social and political ideologies of their time and have sought to challenge and question them.
Furthermore, different cultures have developed different philosophical traditions, some cultures have had more of a tendency towards metaphysical and spiritual beliefs, while others have had a more rational and empirical approach.
It is important to acknowledge the cultural perspective and context of philosophy, as it can give a better understanding of the evolution of certain ideas, the motivations behind them and the context in which they were formed.
Philosophy as a discipline is ever-evolving and today many philosophers are actively working on trying to remove biases and prejudices that might be present in the field, and this includes also looking at how culture, society and politics might be influencing their own thoughts.

what if the artist still is able to earn a royalty off the media? Does that change it for you?

Hate takes more effort than indifference, that’s for sure.

Like the holidays, is it religion imprinted on pagan tradition and now a corporate cash grab? Yeah. I can recognize all of that, remain indifferent, and still take joy in watching my kid open presents.

Do people not use money because colonizers, fascists and tyrants are printed on it?

He sounds showy from his interview.

I love Woody Allen films but I don't want to support a bad person. I refuse to watch any of his movies while he is alive. The day he dies I'm going to have a Woody Allen film festival! I honestly look forward to it!

My dude, it is absolutely you who is playing the semantics game by refusing to use or even recognize a word in its common definition which is agreed upon by everyone except you.

But I guess there is no point in continuing this debate, seeing as how we are apparently speaking different languages.

you can separate art from artist or not however you want. the tough choice is what you do about that separation. to not support Kevin Spacy’s past work so he doesn’t get money also punishes the hundreds of others who worked on the production. Group arts are tricky this way. Now not supporting future endeavours puts pressure on the community to stop working with him. Ultimately in group based arts the action needs to be done at a community level if it’s not to punish other hard working artists for one person’s misdeeds. But getting that community to hold them to account is where every fan’s choice matters.

Individual arts are trickier. Michael Jackson (we’re he still alive) would be a good example. that’s where nostalgia plays a more prominent role. but even now that he is gone - it begs the question - do you support his legacy and family or are they too punished?

This conversation has a long way to mature, but it’s important we mature it - collectively and individually so as to make something more constructive of reactionary “cancel culture” into something more thoughtfully socially just.

Yeah, that’s bs.