I understand where you're coming from, and I watched the Jessie Gender video posted lower in this thread when it came out initially, but I think the issue is that it's hard to know if he's actually an ally. I really don't love the firing squad analogy, but even so, it takes for granted that he's an ally. A bunch of people on the right have progressive ideas, they just either don't care about them as much as they care about their regressive ones, or they don't see them as "progressive". They see corruption and they think less regulation will solve that. They see dwindling middle class and they think lower taxes will fix that. He seemed a bit chummy with critical drinker and doesn't like the politics in Star Trek. He doesn't seem to understand the underlying politics in his own works. It makes it seem like despite his underlying beliefs, he's not an actual political ally. I didn't do any further looking, but from the interview he comes off as a republican despite his works seeming progressive. At the end of the day I don't think he's as harmful as JK Rowling, but I don't see this as a purity test. I see this as a "it's unclear where you stand" and I think that's valid because to exist in modern America and not think your art is political makes you stupid or republican and I don't think he's stupid. I understand not wanting to support a republican artist and if that's the assumption people are left with and he doesn't want to correct it then I think that's an understandable outcome. I don't care how well he writes women if he's not interested in rights being stripped from real women.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
replies: