twiststreet:comicartistevolution:twiststreet:Every “hard-hitting” article I saw people pass around t
twiststreet:comicartistevolution:twiststreet:Every “hard-hitting” article I saw people pass around that summer – besides failing to push back aggressively against the arguments that were actually being made by people who didn’t get it– was about how he was just a gosh-darned genius who did legendarily genius comic work and all the suddenly-quiet-quiet-the-first-time-in-their-careers people around him were geniuses too, geniuses everywhere, but aww gawsh, I guess genius and being a good person aren’t the same thing gawshhhhh; print essay, praise rolls in. The one I saw get passed around the most was even written by a guy who was immediately exposed for abusing somebody himself… and they kept passing it around anyways. But if you keep saying someone’s a genius, then people being people, they were going to say “well, we can’t just get rid of a genius, can we?? We gotta forgive the genius! Why would we live a life without geniuses in it?” So I tried to write something different, about how he wasn’t some genius– he was a ridiculous person who got “comic famous” telling a weak audience that their anger made them special, a fool wearing a cock sock while he was getting off on causing a lot of vulnerable people pain. I thought it might be better to at least try to shut the door a little harder.People didn’t agree. Door’s open. When we learn of a person who does toxic harmful behavior, the urge to cancel them is strong and understandable. Our sense of justice and fairness demands that we consider the harm done to victims and punish the perpetrator accordingly. For many, that sentence is to be cancelled: that the perpetrator be banished from polite society, that they never work in their field again, and that they forever bear a scarlet letter reminding everyone of their crimes. However that “throw-away-the-key, tough on crime” approach is at odds from the lessons we’ve learned about criminal justice — one that we’re struggling to reform in other parts of our society. It stresses retribution over repair. It presumes that actual rehabilitation is beyond the ability of the perpetrator.In instances in which the perpetrator is unrepentant, or their “response” is a self-serving ”sorry-if-you-got-offended” non-apology, then I think “cancelling” is the best we can do. But if an offender does own up to their mistakes, what then? Are they destined to be defined by the worst thing they’ve done? Are you — yes, you the person reading this now — defined by the worst thing you’ve ever done? Have you ever grown and changed to be a better person than you were before?Here is Warren Ellis’ response to the accusations made against him. I for one 100% believe all the accusations against him. And I mostly believe in his repentance — I at least don’t think he’s a lost cause. I think he’s on a precipice in which he could be a restorative agent of healing or a corrosive agent of spite.I ask every advocate of deplatforming to consider the kinds of outcomes restorative justice models could produce. If someone like Ellis does have influence in a community, how can that influence be refocused for good — especially to further the work and careers of the specific people — Katie West, Meredith Yayanos, Jhayne Holmes, and so many more — he legitimately wronged?To be sure, Ellis needs to put his money where his mouth is and even when he has, there’s a lot of work that needs to be done. But I think the “just go away” urge directed at wrongdoers of social offenses is no more effective than it is for wrongdoers of criminal offenses.Cute little speech. Only problem: reality. Here’s what the So Many of Us Website had to say at the time of its publication, which was well after Ellis’s “mistakes” had been exposed and the apology you’re citing to:Even as we compiled our stories, Warren Ellis contacted a few of us with sterile, performatively apologetic missives, which acknowledged little of the realities of his conduct. These texts and emails did not express self-reflection, acknowledgement of the harm his actions cause, nor desire to change his behavior. He also posted this public statement on June 19, 2020. Following that statement’s publication, he continued to send sexual messages and overtures to people as recently as July 2020.He didn’t own up to his mistakes– you just failed to investigate what happened. And you’re running interference for a serial predator to this day anyways (while actual world events are happening), in response to random tumblr blogs?? Uhhhhhhhhhhhh. Plus, he could have “owned up” to his mistakes the first time someone told him that he had hurt them. He didn’t. Over and over again he didn’t. If you’re not moved by that, that’s your choice. But the idea that the rest of us have to stand back despite that and say “oh well maybe *this time* he’s being sincere, maybe he’s learned something, maybe he won’t do it again, even though the culture that allowed his misconduct to happen the first time around has definitely not been fixed…” If that’s what you want to say, go, be my guest. But don’t drag me into that– I don’t need to be “tagged in” to that. I’m not on board. Warren Ellis getting to be famous isn’t so great a reward for human civilization that I’m rolling the bones on that gamble– especially if I’m not the one who will suffer the consequences of being wrong on betting on Ellis and neither will you. (More importantly: your blog should go back to doing histories of comic artists because that ruled.) -- source link