Years ago, as a fan of Dilbert, I read one of his nonfiction books where he explained that there are multiple universes, and the reason he had been successful as a cartoonist is because he willed himself into the universe where he was successful.
It was at that point that I began to wonder about his mental condition.
And over the years, as he spouted more and more crazy, right-wing Trumpy proclamations, I decided I had had enough and stopped buying his cartoon books or reading the comic. Saying that his Dilbert TV show had been cancelled because he was “white” didn’t help.
He’s now gone so far out with his latest racist rant that he’s being dropped from many papers. He, of course, is claiming that he’s being discriminated against, which just shows once again how crazy he has become.
Picasso was a terrible human being who mistreated his wives, but he made great art. Orson Scott Card writes novels I really enjoy, but his rants against gay rights are full of hate. There are actors and musicians whose work I admire and whose personal lives are terrible.
But I think it is important to separate the two. It is possible to like the art without liking the artist.
Which leads to the important question: Should you support the art, knowing it benefits the artist?
In my case, I have tried to limit whatever I could contribute to the artist. I refuse to buy Card’s books, although I certainly can see myself getting one out from the library.
The situation with J.K. Rowling is more complicated.
In case you are not aware, Rowling has said some terrible things about trangendered people — really hateful things. I certainly will not buy any more of her books.
But I used to question certain boycotts of the Harry Potter movies because, after all, it’s not just her. There are thousands of people working on those films. I have no idea what the political views are of the director or the gaffer or the editor or the guy who sweeps the floor after the scene is done. (You can easily boycott the new “Fantastic Beast” films without this dilemma simply because they suck.)
J.K. Rowling has solved this dilemma for me by claiming that her success, and the success of the new Harry Potter video game, is evidence that people agree with her position.
That made my decision easier. Had she just shut her stupid mouth, I would be questioning the point of boycotting something that involves thousands of people, but I certainly am not about to give her a vote of confidence by purchasing the game. (And especially once I found out the game designer is a right-wing Trumpie who specifically placed anti-semitic themes into the game. Apparently, the hook-nosed goblins who run the banks are in rebellion against being treated terribly, and your goal as a player is not to help them against this injustice, but to put down the rebellion! Um, no thanks, I like playing the good guy in my games.)
I really did enjoy the Potter books and films, despite their flaws, and I can judge them separately from my views of the author.
But how can I buy this new game and still claim to be a supporter of my trans friends (of which I have quite a few)?
“How can you support these drag queens teaching our children books while criticizing George Santos for dressing in drag?” ask clueless conservatives.
The issue isn’t George Santos dressing in drag. The issue is the Republican party screaming about something while secretly participating in that same exact thing.
I mean, how many have claimed to be in favor of “family values” while cheating on their wives? How many preach against gay rights while being in the closet themselves? How many talk about how terrible voter fraud is while they themselves are doing it?
It’s the hypocrisy that allows us to criticize Santos.
We’re not criticizing him for dressing in drag.
We’re not the hypocrites.
The biggest mystery in life to me is still why otherwise intelligent people believe in a god.
I’m not talking about just believing in a creator, or in being “spiritual,” but in all the religious stuff: heaven and hell, angels, demons, formalities, rituals, rules that he will punish you forever with… All the kinds of cliches you see in fantasy novels.
They have no problem believing in evolution and the earth being older than 4000 years and an expanding universe, but they still believe their god made this gigantically huge universe, stuck the earth in some corner of some minor galaxy, had dinosaurs running the place for 165 million years, and then finally decided to have humans evolve in the last half a million years or so.
They will laugh at people who believe in the healing power of crystals or Bigfoot or aliens decorating fields with crop circles, but have no problem believing in a human-like creator who performed many miracles a few thousand years ago, but only in this one small part of the planet.
They will find ways to explain away every inconsistency to themselves that convinces them, yet will laugh at any other religion’s inconsistencies.
I honestly just don’t get it. How can you be a logical, intelligent person who believes in evidence and proof and still be religious?
I know, I know — some people are angry that I implied that belief in religion isn’t “intelligent.” What I mean by that is this:
When I asked this on Facebook, I got hundreds of replies, with most of them saying that it was about “faith” which is different. I agree it’s different. But no scientific advancement was ever made by having faith. Faith isn’t evidence. Faith isn’t factual.
I’m just trying to understand how people who are logical and demand evidence for everything else can make an exception for their religious beliefs. “I make an exception because I want to” is what it sounds like to me.
Some said the universe is just too beautiful and there are things that can’t be explained, and therefore that’s why they believe. But to me, that’s such a jump. “I can’t understand how the universe could be this beautiful. Therefore it HAD to be designed and created that way.”
That’s no different to me from ancient Greeks saying “Lighting is so mysterious. Therefore it HAS to be Zeus shooting lightning bolts from a tall mountain.”
There’s nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know. Maybe some day we will figure it out.”
Some say that religion provides them comfort. I’m not willing to believe impossible things just because they make me comfortable.
My point isn’t addressed to those people who believe in Adam and Eve and a young earth and who deny evolution.
It’s addressed at friends who are otherwise intelligent, logical, and rational who still believe despite lack of any evidence to support that belief.
They deny Nessie and Bigfoot and the Tooth Fairy for lack of evidence but have no problem believing in a god.
That just mystifies me.
ventrellaquest.com 