No, the question was always if you're sure you're applying separating the art from the artist properly. Not anyone else who just go in and eat a doughnut because they like Harry Potter and they like doughnuts so why not. That makes sense, that's what normal human beings do. What they don't do is start justigying their description as an ability to separate art from the artist.

I'm wondering why you saw people who oppose this because they hate JK Rowling and any opportunities where she generates revenue and decided this was a case of an inability to separate art from artist, as if Harry Potter was a doughnut flavour and not a book series. This is why I keep asking you to explain how buying these doughnuts is closer to showing appreciation for the art than it is enriching the artist since you are operating on the belief that rejecting this marketing opportunity means rejecting the art.

The more you keep insisting that all hate for JK Rowling is performative virtue signaling, the less I'm convinced you've actually thought any of this through. How do you figure nobody could actually hate JK Rowling specifically if they don't go around finding reasons to hate any and all artists? Do you go around telling people who say they hate broccoli they are performativity virtue signaling because they'll eat lettuce without considering it shares vitamins and nutrients with broccoli too?

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

This is why I keep asking you to explain how buying these doughnuts is closer to showing appreciation for the art than it is enriching the artist since you are operating on the belief that rejecting this marketing opportunity means rejecting the art.

No I don't. That's senseless. People who like Harry Potter will buy them. It's a Harry Potter Promotion. It's not a JK Rowling promotion. It's not there to celebrate the personality and world views of JK Rowling.

Horrible people can make wonderful art. The vast majority of people online bitching about Harry Potter now having to be hated are doing it performatively. You don't genuinely change your lives. You don't genuinely research every artist, author, actor, etc behind the media you purchase and consume. That would take genuine care. It would have to be a true belief that mattered to you. But it isn't. You don't have a genuine personal conviction to make sure you're not financially contributing to people who hold abhorrent beliefs. You only care to bitch about the loud, obvious, socially accepted target and anyone who isn't doing the same. Because it's easy and takes no real effort or life changes on your part.

That;'s why I say you're virtue signaling. Because it's what you're doing.

You: "That’s a lot of words to avoid explaining how buying these doughnuts is appreciating the art and not enriching the artist..."

I explain that I don't care about not enriching the artist and am fine with appreciating art though it does enrich an artist who's a twat.

You: "The question was about how you see buying these doughnuts as appreciating the art more than supporting the artist, not how much you care about giving the artist a penny."

I answer that.

You: "No, the question was always if you’re sure you’re applying separating the art from the artist properly."

All you do is constantly change wording and move goal posts. Am I sure I'm applying the concept of separating art from artist "properly"? Properly to whom? It's my life and my actions. I'm sticking to them universally. You don't apply yours universally. Because that would take effort instead of performative care.

I'll go ahead and block you now. I don't care to see your seventh revision of what the question really is. Good luck with your crusade against child wizards.

[–] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Of course it's senseless. That's why I'm asking why you think it's happening here. There's no reason to accuse people of being unable of separating the art from the artist because they reject any brand marketing otherwise. The implication of identifying that as the driving factor suggests that you believe engaging in buying these doughnuts is a statement that you are separating the art from the artist and it is very unclear how that's the case.

You're saying I am personally virtue signaling because you want it to be happening, not because it's actually happening. You'll notice I actually haven't said a word for or against JK Rowling, Harry Potter, or this marketing campaign this whole time. You've been arguing with a boogeyman everytime you want to accuse of virtue signalling, not me.

Frankly you just don't seem to understand any of these terms or concepts your using, including "moving goalposts" now if you think restating the same question over and over is a form of it. This is what it means to use a term "properly": using the term according to its actual definition and connotation, not according to whatever talking points sounded good to you from a Facebook comment.

Block me all you want, but you've already shown everyone how little you understand of what you're saying that you can't even defend from from simple followup questions without going apeshit.