Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?

mumblethrax said:
You are not arguing against pseudo-moralistic mob rule, you are arguing against the possibility of holding moral values at all. Your unlettered account of the "rule of law" implies that marital rape was ok until it was criminalized. No, it wasn't ok. It was just legal. I mean, under what possible grounds can I seek to change the law if I'm not permitted to say that there's something wrong with the status quo?
Click to expand...

No. I'm just saying that the proper way to change that was to actually make it illegal, rather than some fickle mob being possibly for and possibly against it this time, and some companies maybe listening to the mob this time, and maybe not.
 
HansMustermann said:
No. I'm just saying that the proper way to change that was to actually make it illegal, rather than some fickle mob being possibly for and possibly against it this time.
Click to expand...
That isn't what you are saying. You explicitly stated that that which is not illegal is "ok". That's been the thrust of your argument all along--that if Gaiman did nothing illegal, there's no problem.

You're now trying to retreat to a more defensible view in light of the evident flaws of the position you've taken.

And it's not true that the only proper way to effect change is to attempt to criminalize undesirable behaviors in any case. There's also an obvious contradiction between "If it isn't illegal it's ok" and "This (legally permissible) means of effecting change is improper (ie, not ok)".
 
Last edited:
No I'm not. It's literally a basic principle of the rule of the law that it's OK to do something if it's not illegal, and not be punished if it's not. As opposed to the fickle mob rule which resulted in several absurd acts for thousands of years straight. My favourite example being probably the guy who got exiled from ancient Athens because his opponent literally argued that he's TOO gay for Athens.

You can think differently, but then take it to your congresscritter. Trying to enforce mob rule, e.g., via cancel culture, just isn't how the rule of law was supposed to work.

I mean, sure, you can think the guy is an ass. You're absolutely free to. So what? I mean, probably at at least one neighbour thinks I'm an ass because I don't sort my garbage the way they want me to. Another thinks I'm an ass because I smoke in my own apartment, and he doesn't like the smell when passing before my door. It's not even hypotheticals, but actually RL examples I had. The latter literally went as far with the harassment over that, as to report that I died in my apartment, so I come home to see the cops, firemen and an ambulance being done with breaking into my home.

But... SO WHAT? It's not my duty to conform to every random guys idea of morality, down to whether I should be allowed to smoke in my own home. Just go and make it illegal, if you think I should stop, and can convince enough people of that.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
No I'm not. It's literally a basic principle of the rule of the law that it's OK to do something if it's not illegal, and not be punished if it's not.
Click to expand...
I don't really get the sense that you know what "rule of law" means at all. It's expected that we will not be punished by the state for acts that are not illegal, but little follows from that about how private actors will treat us, and we're not talking about punishment (at the hands of the state or otherwise) in any case. We're talking about companies shelving projects.

You can think differently, but then take it to your congresscritter. Trying to enforce mob rule, e.g., via cancel culture, just isn't how the rule of law was supposed to work.
Click to expand...
You're attempting to force a false dichotomy between "writing to your representative" and "mob rule." There are many other options, and I see no evidence of a "mob rule" effort to force anyone's hand in this particular case.

But... SO WHAT? It's not my duty to conform to every random guys idea of morality, down to whether I should be allowed to smoke in my own home. Just go and make it illegal, if you think I should stop, and can convince enough people of that.
Click to expand...
You're just bragging about being unreasonable here. You will be persuaded by nothing short of force. It's also a bit odd that you're inveighing against mob rule and then giving a very "mob rule" account of democratic legitimization.

But you haven't addressed the contradiction I pointed out at all. Why should I take the rather totalitarian step of seeking to criminalize all behavior I regard as undesirable if I have other options available (for example, trying to persuade people not to do something via the language of reason)? Shouldn't your view that this is the only justifiable course of action be met with a resounding "So what?"
 
Last edited:
Well, maybe even that is me going off track. All I really wanted to say originally is that if you've made a deal where you get some advantages in exchange for sex, congrats, you're a prostitute not a victim. We could debate in which other direction the morality goes from there or how it connects to legality, but a victim you are not. Not just legally, but even morally, I absolutely don't see the analogy between "someone forced me to do X" and "I accepted to do X in exchange for some remuneration." In the latter case I might sympathise with whatever origin sob-story might have driven yourself to it, but it still means you chose to make that deal, not that someone forced you to.

Like, not even just for sex. I also don't see an equivalence between, dunno, "someone coerced me to take one of my kidneys" and "I sold a kidney." I don't actually care if it's from a legal perspective or whatever moral framework you wish, the latter doesn't make you a victim.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Well, maybe even that is me going off track. All I really wanted to say originally is that if you've made a deal where you get some advantages in exchange for sex, congrats, you're a prostitute not a victim.
Click to expand...
And this is also just wrong. In general, that would make you a victim of quid pro quo sexual harassment in an employment or tenancy relationship. Do you honestly think the boss can make blowing him under the desk a formal job requirement? That there would be no element of coercion involved there, even if it were legal?
 
It probably IS sexual harassment, but you still have the choice whether to accept it or not, so no, I don't see it as coercion. Again, especially for tenancy, there are tens of thousands of other landlords, and a lot are even impersonal companies, and the vast majority DON'T ask you to spread them. They might be farther away from where you want to be, or more expensive, or smaller, but they exist and are probably the majority. If you chose to accept to pay in sex for one that suits you better, instead of, dunno, reporting the harassment, then yes, congrats, you are a prostitute in my moral system.
 
co·er·cion
The practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

I'm sorry, but I don't see it as any more of a case of using force or threats than any other agreement.

I mean, is a landlord coercing someone to get rid of of their pets, if said landlord put a "no pets allowed" in the contract?
 
It's a question of alternatives:

yes, a landlord putting a "no pets" clause in is absolutely coercing a tenant if said tenant has no other option for a place to stay, financially and/or geographically.

Same with employment contracts: if you can be quite certain that you can quit your job and find an equivalent quickly, then almost nothing that your employer asks for is coercion, since there is practically no cost to refusal. But if you can't the cost to current and future income can be life threatening.

If you want fewer cases like these, provide free housing and a decent UBI.
 
HansMustermann said:
I mean, is a landlord coercing someone to get rid of of their pets, if said landlord put a "no pets allowed" in the contract?
Click to expand...
No, because--crucially--I can read the lease before agreeing to it. I don't move into an apartment and then find out if I'm allowed to have pets. "Agree to this no-pets addendum to your current lease or you'll be evicted" would be coercive.

There's nothing to suggest that either of these women entered into their respective employment/housing agreements with the knowledge that they would be expected to, at Neil Gaiman's pleasure, provide him with sexual gratification as a condition of employment or tenancy.

And if there were such a condition in the lease or employment contract, it would be unenforceable, by virtue of being illegal.

There's telling on yourself, and then there's making **** up so that you can tell on yourself.
 
arthwollipot said:
This sounds like perfectly normal dominance play. I personally don't get the choking fetish, but a lot of people enjoy it, when it is consensual.
Click to expand...
Indeed. But there seems to have been a real world power imbalance in the relationships.
 
3point14 said:
Isn't there a real world power imbalance in quite a few, if not the majority, of relationships?
Click to expand...
There's a difference, IMO, between a healthy and fully consensual dom-sub relationship, and the kind of coerced compliance that this situation appears to be.
 
mumblethrax said:
No, because--crucially--I can read the lease before agreeing to it. I don't move into an apartment and then find out if I'm allowed to have pets. "Agree to this no-pets addendum to your current lease or you'll be evicted" would be coercive.
Click to expand...

Well, then we've been talking past each other. Because I was talking about the former, not the latter.

mumblethrax said:
And if there were such a condition in the lease or employment contract, it would be unenforceable, by virtue of being illegal.
Click to expand...

Well, probably, but people enter illegal verbal contracts all the time.


But then that also brings up the question of how can one be coerced with that, unless it's a deal with the mafia. If a landlord can't legally unilaterally add a no-pets addendum -- and yes, they can't -- please explain to me slowly how can they add a "pussy required" one? I mean, if what they're doing is illegal, doesn't it make more sense to lawyer up and turn the tables than acquiesce? I mean, I know I'd get a dictaphone and a lawyer if my landlord tried to add a "bend over" clause :p
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
There's a difference, IMO, between a healthy and fully consensual dom-sub relationship, and the kind of coerced compliance that this situation appears to be.
Click to expand...

I don't mean that sort of relationship.

In nearly all relationships there will be an imbalance of status, financial stability, intellect, experience, assets or the like. And I don't mean just romantic (or "romantic") relationships. Between employer and employee, between contractor and contracted, even between friends or colleagues, there will be an imbalance in power in some way. That's just the way life is.
 
HansMustermann said:
I stand corrected.

But then the way it's phrased, she agreed to a deal where she'd get a place to stay AND 275K in exchange for sex. Doesn't that qualify as prostitution? I mean, sure, it would make Gaiman guilty of soliciting, but still.
Click to expand...

The 275K was not negotiated upfront; it was the amount Gaiman was willing to pay to get her to keep quiet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom