Similar to the recent question about artists where you can successfully separate them from their art. Are there any artists who did something so horrible, so despicable, that it has instantly invalidated all art that they have had any part in?

    • Delphia@lemmy.world
      363·
      11 months ago

      I honestly believe that if you’re convicted of shit like this the band should be able to sue to have your rights to royalties and any songwriting/producing credits revoked. Even if they have to surrender any monetary outcome to the victims or their families.

      • Geobloke@lemmy.world
        5·
        11 months ago

        I know I loved the band growing up and the band have tried to separate themselves from the singer, but how can you? The music is still good but it can’t avoid leaving a bad feeling knowing he used the fame generated by the shared music for such heinous thing

        • Delphia@lemmy.world
          7·
          11 months ago

          It would make it a bit easier for people who can if you knew that the scumbag wasnt getting royalty cheques anymore.

          Ian Watkins is a fucking extreme example, but imagine putting in a dozen years of your life and career, your art and passion into a band and its catalogue only for the lead singer to make it absolutely radioactive.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        1·
        10 months ago

        Hmm not a lawyer but I wonder if there might be some old law about this. Kinda feel like there is one since it’s retroactive.

        • chunkystyles@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          77·
          11 months ago

          The point is that we should try to stop using euphemistic language around rape. It happens all the time, and it lessens the impact of the act for the reader. We should be explicit.

        • DessertStorms@kbin.social
          916·
          11 months ago

          You mean the distinction between engaging in consensual intercourse (aka “fucking”) vs committing a heinous crime?

          If you think pointing out that babies can only be raped, is the problem, not saying he “fucked” them, this is a you problem…

            • DessertStorms@kbin.social
              423·
              11 months ago

              I’m making the point that babies cannot be fucked, only raped, which obviously isn’t “inherent” to the person who said “he fucked babies” which minimises the reality of the “scenario” as you call it (more minimisation, why do you do that? To preserve your own comfort of course!). Words matter, and if you think pointing that out is “splitting hairs” (when you’re literally the only one making a load of fuss over this valid distinction), then again, you’re the one with the problem here (and taking issue with someone pointed out that babies can only be raped, not “fucked” is definitely a problem that needs addressing, like seriously - imagine being the person dying on the hill to defend the use of “fucked” to describe baby rape… 🤦‍♀️).

              • blazeknave@lemmy.world
                11·
                11 months ago

                Lemmy sucks. This isn’t a you thing. Nobody IRL would ever spend the energy debating you on this. And of course a follow-up of “whoa relax don’t get triggered bro”

                There is no understanding that words matter round these parts at all. This place is a dangerous bubble bc it started as a place where one assumed everyone was on the level. So if you were the outlier opinion, maybe it really was you: I’d challenge myself and question my opinions. Now, if I’m downvoted, I dig in and entrench.

    • spittingimage@lemmy.world
      2·
      11 months ago

      I’m convinced he’s not all there. Dude was talking about what he’s going to do when he gets out of prison. He doesn’t seem to understand they’re going to wheel him out on a trolley.