Read on Twitter
so here's my thing: I think people are allowed to dislike art. Any art. I don't like Picasso, because I find some aspects of that art *very* body horrory and No Thank You. I think I'm allowed to *talk* about why I don't like Picasso, because that is also freedom of expression
when that art also includes statements pertaining to hate campaigns- e.g. TERFs making art depicting the murder of trans people, art containing real life racist symbology- that goes triply so.
because here's the thing: that art can exist, sure. but imo it is very necessary to talk about it. "Oh, they didn't know it was bad"? that's why we talk about it, so in the future people do know.
education, through discussion
education, through discussion
not necessarily for the artist, but for the people who might see that art and also not understand the symbology, who might pick it up and carry on using it without realising the implications
or the people who might see it and think they can get away with open hatred
or the people who might see it and think they can get away with open hatred
if it changes the artist's mind too, even better, although inflammatory artists usually don't care much *what* reaction they inflame, as long as they do
some people even use it for good purposes, precisely to raise conversation
some people even use it for good purposes, precisely to raise conversation
me disliking art, however publicly I do so, whether it's picasso or your local murderterf, does not stop that art existing. it does not stop the artist creating. hell, it doesn't even stop them profiting off it.
and in the case of hate ideologies, maybe, just maybe, someone seeing the conversation will realise they've been holding some kind of unpleasant views and attitudes.
frankly, if antis stuck to disliking things, without all the harassment and threats and trying to actively censor things and morality-based prescriptivism, and instead focussed on raising discussion and awareness, I wouldn't be here.
