This might also be controversial, but I absolutely will judge a person who continues to listen to artists with racist, sexist, alt-right, etc. views even after discovering it. I understand the concept of separating the art from the artist, but when that artist is still active, alive, and profiting from your support, you send a clear message that society tolerates their views and that you want to reward them for it.

It's the same as people who say "I don't like Chik-Fil-A's political actions, but really love the sandwiches", or "I don't agree with JK Rowling, but I'm picking up that new Hogwarts game". The message you are sending is that you value the life and rights of me and my entire community less than your stupid fucking $5 sandwich, or the $70 you spent on a videogame for a dozen hours of entertainment.

If you can't take a moral stand against bad people, especially if it barely impacts your life to do so, then you are part of the problem, and not an ally.

I stop listening to pretty much any band that I find out has shitty views on race, politics, gender, etc. I don't care if it's the entire band, just the band leader or one person the others are covering for, etc. Harbor toxic and bad people in your group and I will not listen if I find out, period.

There's also people who have just straight up been convicted of awful and reprehensible crimes. I don't want my money or attention going to a murderer, rapist, etc. Even if the person is dead, I still don't want record labels and families profiting off of their work.

These artists are on my shit list. I will never listen to these artists again, and I will take every opportunity to dump on them and encourage others to not support them.

- Malevolent Creation
- Jon Schaffer/Iced Earth
- Varg/Burzum
- Proscriptor/Absu
- Gaahl/Gorgoroth
- Nokturnal Mortum
- Inquisition
- Destroyer 666
- Dissection

There's some bands like Vektor and Neurosis that I'm a bit more torn on. In those cases it seems like the rest of the band was unaware of one specific member's actions. In both cases, they basically split up over it, and in the case of Dave DiSanto, he seems pretty remorseful about what he did and how he situation played out. I'm not unsympathetic to someone who made a mistake and has shown genuine effort to change, but it's definitely a case by case thing for me as to how much of a second chance I'll give them.

---

This might also be controversial, but I absolutely will judge a person who continues to listen to artists with racist, sexist, alt-right, etc. views even after discovering it. I understand the concept of separating the art from the artist, but when that artist is still active, alive, and profiting from your support, you send a clear message that society tolerates their views and that you want to reward them for it.

It's the same as people who say "I don't like Chik-Fil-A's political actions, but really love the sandwiches", or "I don't agree with JK Rowling, but I'm picking up that new Hogwarts game". The message you are sending is that you value the life and rights of me and my entire community less than your stupid fucking $5 sandwich, or the $70 you spent on a videogame for a dozen hours of entertainment.

If you can't take a moral stand against bad people, especially if it barely impacts your life to do so, then you are part of the problem, and not an ally.

There's some bands like Vektor and Neurosis that I'm a bit more torn on. In those cases it seems like the rest of the band was unaware of one specific member's actions. In both cases, they basically split up over it, and in the case of Dave DiSanto, he seems pretty remorseful about what he did and how he situation played out. I'm not unsympathetic to someone who made a mistake and has shown genuine effort to change, but it's definitely a case by case thing for me as to how much of a second chance I'll give them.

I respect where you're coming from, and part of me wishes I (like you) had the backbone to be more consistent with my ethics, but my own opinion is that it's...not quite "okay" (because that might translate to "harmless" or "irreproachable"), but understandable, if a person chooses to be more lenient and less ambitious in their moral evaluations, both of themselves and of others.

I think everyone falls very short of achieving an ideal harmony between their spending habits (and other everyday choices) and moral values. (Not to mention, people's value-systems themselves often (always?) deserve more scrutiny and correction than they in fact receive.) To me, being less judgmental about this doesn't mean throwing up one's hands and saying "anything goes" or pretending that all consumption policies are equal, but just giving oneself permission to keep thinking highly of friends and loved ones (and oneself), "warts and all." In my experience, people's mental health (including self-esteem) and relationships with others most likely suffer if they aren't willing to exercise a certain moral lenience. (Years ago I saw someone remark to the effect that nobody wants to be friends with a saint - I've never been able to retrace my steps and find the source of this remark, but anyway, I like it. At the same time, it's not exactly a bad thing for the world to have saints.)

An example from my own life: One of the few protests I've bothered to attend, years ago, was at a Chik-Fil-A (for animal rights and LGBT equality). A while after this protest, I noticed my therapist come into her office with a Chik-Fil-A beverage cup. I didn't say anything, but thought then (and think now) that she is, all things considered, someone who deserves credit for helping and enriching the lives of far more people (myself included) than I ever will. She once mentioned to me that she'd had a patient ask for a referral to "conversion therapy" for a son or daughter, but she simply told the patient, "No, I won't help you with that, because it's unethical." That snapshot, IMO, says more about her than the Chik-Fil-A stuff says about either of us; plus, it would've been harmful to our relationship (and pretty clearly unfair, IMO) if I interpreted her Chik-Fil-A cup as a sign of indifference or contempt for the LGBT community.

I guess my point is, not to say you have to be okay with me for owning Drudkh CDs and whatnot, but just to say that it can be beneficial from a mental health and personal relationships angle to somewhat soften the moral judgments, as one sees fit.

This might also be controversial, but I absolutely will judge a person who continues to listen to artists with racist, sexist, alt-right, etc. views even after discovering it. I understand the concept of separating the art from the artist, but when that artist is still active, alive, and profiting from your support, you send a clear message that society tolerates their views and that you want to reward them for it.

It's the same as people who say "I don't like Chik-Fil-A's political actions, but really love the sandwiches", or "I don't agree with JK Rowling, but I'm picking up that new Hogwarts game". The message you are sending is that you value the life and rights of me and my entire community less than your stupid fucking $5 sandwich, or the $70 you spent on a videogame for a dozen hours of entertainment.

If you can't take a moral stand against bad people, especially if it barely impacts your life to do so, then you are part of the problem, and not an ally.

Vektor split up years before any of the allegations came out

Friends and interpersonal relationships is really a different thing from artists and their art. But still, you need to hold your friends and people you know accountable for what they say and do. Even if your friend has voted Democrat their whole life, has friends from various minority groups, understands what they go through, and will answer that bigotry is wrong if they're asked, the second they support a bigot monetarily, let fly a bigoted joke or laugh at one, make a racist comment, or similarly insensitive statement, all that goes up in smoke and means nothing. You're either with us 100 percent or you're against us. That's how it works. If your entire social network has to evaporate because of this, so be it. Those people weren't worth it anyway, no matter how many good experiences you've had with them.

Also the hardcore band Slant. I went to a gig with a South African man I know and they were super shitty towards him. Fuck that band.

Friends and interpersonal relationships is really a different thing from artists and their art. But still, you need to hold your friends and people you know accountable for what they say and do. Even if your friend has voted Democrat their whole life, has friends from various minority groups, understands what they go through, and will answer that bigotry is wrong if they're asked, the second they support a bigot monetarily, let fly a bigoted joke or laugh at one, make a racist comment, or similarly insensitive statement, all that goes up in smoke and means nothing. You're either with us 100 percent or you're against us. That's how it works. If your entire social network has to evaporate because of this, so be it. Those people weren't worth it anyway, no matter how many good experiences you've had with them.

Ps and what did Gaahl?

With the project's new album circulating in the atmo-black circles, I just want to reiterate that I really don't want to listen to Great Cold Emptiness because I know it's TheLoneForest's project and I remember how he acted on this forum.

I think I remember that guy being an edgelord but I can’t recall the particulars. Did he end ip getting banned? What happened?

What does that even mean, you’re with us or against us? I don’t want to be in your fucking cult. Grow up dude that’s embarrassing.

Friends and interpersonal relationships is really a different thing from artists and their art. But still, you need to hold your friends and people you know accountable for what they say and do. Even if your friend has voted Democrat their whole life, has friends from various minority groups, understands what they go through, and will answer that bigotry is wrong if they're asked, the second they support a bigot monetarily, let fly a bigoted joke or laugh at one, make a racist comment, or similarly insensitive statement, all that goes up in smoke and means nothing. You're either with us 100 percent or you're against us. That's how it works. If your entire social network has to evaporate because of this, so be it. Those people weren't worth it anyway, no matter how many good experiences you've had with them.

Exhausting way to live. I hate all the bigot shit too, but at the end of the day, none of this shit is real activism or really making a difference. Very "online" mentality here.

Exhausting way to live. I hate all the bigot shit too, but at the end of the day, none of this shit is real activism or really making a difference. Very "online" mentality here.

Exhausting way to live. I hate all the bigot shit too, but at the end of the day, none of this shit is real activism or really making a difference. Very "online" mentality here.

Are you guys sure Lord_Of_Diamonds even meant anything he wrote in that paragraph? To me it sounds like sarcasm. Like he is mocking the stance he is presenting here.

Are you guys sure Lord_Of_Diamonds even meant anything he wrote in that paragraph? To me it sounds like sarcasm. Like he is mocking the stance he is presenting here.

I’ve said this before and it still rings true; not metal, but Smashing Pumpkins. I can’t look at them the same way since I found out Billy Corgan is an InfoWars/Alex Jones guy. My view of them is completely tainted.

It certainly doesn’t help that most of the post-2007 reformation material is utterly forgettable.

I still have a very hard time believing that LoD actually means what he said. The whole "You're either with us 100 percent or you're against us." part is a pretty big tell, in my opinion.

If you try to apply this kind of logic to most of things, even if the ethics and morality make sense, it's basically impossible to be perfect. Plus, nobody is going to align with you 100% when it comes to judging what is right and wrong.

Defenestrated's stance is more viable, and also allows for a concerted effort when it comes to social, political and economical issues. You have to be pragmatic if you wish to be able to have any kind of impact in your world, and if you take this kind of "You're either with us 100 percent or you're against us." stance, you will end up with a just a handful of people who actually fit your extremely precise criteria of who is "with you", and this is regarding basically anything, ranging from lgbtq rights, to environmentalism, to antiracism and whatnot.

Not to mention that with such a radical stance as "You're either with us 100 percent or you're against us." you often end up excluding people who are actually the people you're trying to defend. For instance, there are still trans people who read Harry Potter, play Harry Poter Legacy or watch the movies, because HP was/is important to who they are, it shaped their identity, and might have been a light in the dark for them when they were struggling with real life issues.

You have the same thing with music. For instance, you'd have a whole bunch of non-white people to exclude from the antiracist movement if you were to make a list of those who are "against you" based on what they listen to. Take the amount of non-whites going to Pantera shows and listening to their music. Taking the radical stance of excluding anyone who isn't 100% perfect in their behavior, would lead to this weird phenomenon of excluding de facto a whole lot of non-whites from the fight against white supremacism, because they still listen to Cowboys From Hell.

Like, don't get me wrong, I totally would not go to a Pantera show and would not support them financially in anyway, and I think the ethic thing to do is to not go to their show. But I'm not about to throw rocks at people who will go to their show or who listen to their music. That's not how you make things change anyway. I prefer talking with people, letting them know about the facts, sharing my point of view, and trying to make a positive change.

Still, I'm pretty sure LoD doesn't believe what he said.

I'm absolutely serious. That's legitimately what I believe.

I agree, it also strikes me as narcissism, like you're with us or against us just means "you have to see things my way or I don't like you and you're the bastard" when in reality that's a pretty bastard opinion and standard to set everyone else to.

I think the main problem and it's something I was sort of alluding to or something that that discussion about words like gay or retard could get into is this excessive urge to deny that people just don't fit into groups like that in real life, I think these days everyone just needs an enemy in order to fuel their own ego, and that's exactly what I think LoDs post is, pure dribble that tries to act all moral and high but in reality is just closing the doors on people that could really use help.

I guess my main point is in life you can't really think in absolutes about everything, something will always come along to prove it different

Yeah, I'll have to agree with a lot of this.

As much as I want to fight homophobia, sexism, racism and whatnot, cutting off people from my life because they ever so slightly don't align with my ideals regarding these issues, is not really something I see as viable. Like, sure, I hold my friends and family to high standards, and will not tolerate people who are flatout heinous, but I'm not about to throw people out of my life just because they aren't perfect. Hell, I'm not perfect myself, but I'm always trying to improve myself.

And like I stated before, we have more to gain by talking with each other and promoting good ideals then by blacklisting people for slightly diverging from our ideals.

Like, this is something that happened to me. I have a friend who said he wanted to spend more time with me because he thought I was well-informed about social and political issues, and he perceived me as someone who could help him better understand issues like transidentities or feminism. He described himself as "retrograde" and said he had difficulties understanding some stuff, but that he wanted to try. And I mean, I've heard this friend say a couple things that rubbed me the wrong way, but instead of telling him to go fuck himself, I tell him why I disagree with that he said.

It seems like an healthier and more viable option, IMHO.

Perfectly said, HeavenDuff. I would just add that the only real change most of us will lever be able to see is within our own close friends and families. Most of us are not political ideologues or leaders of movement, we can only affect those closest to us either by example or persuasion. If you cut off people in your life for not being 100% on your side, then you lose any influence you have.

For instance, if you have heterosexual friends who are mostly fine with homosexuality, but who make homophobic jokes here and there. Should you shun them and write them off completely for it? Or should you tell them it makes you uncomfortable and tell them that what they are doing is harmful?

As much as I want to fight homophobia, sexism, racism and whatnot, cutting off people from my life because they ever so slightly don't align with my ideals regarding these issues, is not really something I see as viable. Like, sure, I hold my friends and family to high standards, and will not tolerate people who are flatout heinous, but I'm not about to throw people out of my life just because they aren't perfect. Hell, I'm not perfect myself, but I'm always trying to improve myself.

There's no room for complacency anymore. I've interacted with the queer community (and been a part of it, even) for long enough and experienced and heard enough about its struggles for me to know it is wholly undeserving of any criticism or invalidation and anything that criticizes or invalidates it or is skeptical of it, no matter what context, no matter how small, is dangerous and deserves no respect and turns anyone who holds the ideal into, at best, a very dangerous useful idiot. Especially now, when there is a very real, prominent legal and social struggle for queer people to advance and be seen as valid human beings.

From February till December in 2002, Gaahl was imprisoned for assaulting a man, and was forced to pay the victim 158,000 NOK, etc...

Wait, seriously? That's all he did, eh? By assault I assume he beat someone up or seriously injured someone? Yeah, sorry, that is a pretty piss poor reason to stop supporting an artist...especially considering some of the heinous shit that some of these artists have done/still do.

Frankly, some people seriously need a good ass whooping.

I'm pretty sure he also kidnapped and tortured the guy, or maybe it was another one. Apparently he also collected the guy's blood during his torture session, and later drank it, or made the guy drank it, that detail was always a bit foggy.

From February till December in 2002, Gaahl was imprisoned for assaulting a man, and was forced to pay the victim 158,000 NOK.

From April till December in 2006 Gaahl spent another nine months (of a fourteen month sentence) in prison. He was accused of assaulting and torturing a man for six hours while collecting his blood into a cup and threatening to make him drink it. The victim received a total of 190,000 NOK.

You mean the South Korean band with the female singer?