Obviously you're not antisemites or antisemitism-apologists (duh), and personally, I don't see Ye as anything more than pitiful, but maybe it's not just identity politics at play. Bulgakov isn't much of a threat to anyone, and I can't imagine anyone reading the Master and Margarita on the train and going to, I don't know, spit on some people in South Williamsburg. But antisemitism is on the rise, and Ye is going (or being led) on a media rampage with immoral actors preying on the stupid and the vulnerable, the people who have a chance of becoming radicalized. His bizarre nonsense is being amplified and going viral, and I can see how that can be perceived as an actual threat to people's safety.
The people making bank on Ye's demented appearances are despicable, as are the political cretins led by their pathetic hard-on for celebrities who wink in their direction. No dispute. But the question is, can we still have the space to enjoy works by artists who express evil and deranged views? I say yes.
You draw the line at risk of radicalization. Ok. First, I doubt that listening to Runaway is likely to radicalize anyone without certain supporting conditions like celebrity worship, intellectual aloofness, and historical ignorance. Maybe we should take issue with these problems before concerning ourselves with shutting down the artists.
Second, if you don't like the examples of Bulgakov and Wagner, I can think of multiple Hollywood celebrities whose strident ignorance about both domestic and world affairs has probably injected far more radical stupidity into the political bloodstream, and which I'd argue is more insidious because unlike Ye's comments, it hardly gets called out. Yet it never occurred to me to boycott movies they star in or anything of the sort.
Third, the attacks in Brooklyn and New Jersey were on the rise regardless of Ye's bizarre interpolations. I'd argue that far more urgent –– and pertinent –– than cancelling Ye would be demanding of our most prominent journalists to start covering this issue seriously and honestly, something they've been reluctant to do for two years. As a reminder: https://uncertain.substack.com/p/dara-horn-antisemitism-jews
I absolutely agree that coverage of antisemitic incidents has been unsatisfactory, and I certainly don't think cancelling Ye is going to resolve any societal ills. I also don't see his cancellation as a particularly big deal - not that I'm in favor of mobs of any political persuasion, it's just that I think that the rich and the famous are always going to come out OK, and there's no particular reason to fawn over a clearly unwell person on a racist rampage.
I think most people are turned off by vocal fringe opinions: imagine running into Ye at a party. I'm not sure you'd be able to notice his brilliance in conversation at this point, and even if you did, the ickiness of his opinions would likely overshadow that. You'd probably want to avoid him in future events. I suspect the state he's in is going to negatively impact the quality of his art as well, but who knows. Anyway, Ye the Product (as opposed to Ye the Man, who's clearly a tragic figure in need of help) is just much less attractive now. He's making people uncomfortable and that's not going to sell luxury products. It makes business sense for brands to drop him. As to enjoyment of his art, on an individual level, people should do whatever the hell they want (my personal suggestion for guilt-free enjoyment of your favorite despicable geniuses? Pirate that shit). Is all of his art tainted for good? Historically speaking, probably not. Society tends to be pretty forgiving of its, let's call it complicated, geniuses in the long term (generally speaking, a good thing!). He may not get a lot of radio airtime anymore (maybe? I don't know the stats), but he's probably not going to lose a lot of existing fans, and I don't think historians of hip hop will choose to ignore his work.
My caveat here is that honestly, I don't know. It's harder to empathize with people who are so radically opposed to you - if Ye was a public school teacher making these kinds of comments, I'd probably want him fired. I would prefer to buy my cupcakes elsewhere if he owned a bakery. I don't think awful racists deserve to starve to death due to lack of income, but we're not obligated to buy their products either. But I recognize how easily this can be flipped against any other position (or minority, for that matter), and I don't quite know how to resolve that.
If Ye's outrageous Holocaust denial turns you off his music, that's fine. Don't listen. What I won't accept is that defending his art, despite the man's noxious madness, is somehow tantamount to anti-Semitism, or any apologia of such.
Obviously you're not antisemites or antisemitism-apologists (duh), and personally, I don't see Ye as anything more than pitiful, but maybe it's not just identity politics at play. Bulgakov isn't much of a threat to anyone, and I can't imagine anyone reading the Master and Margarita on the train and going to, I don't know, spit on some people in South Williamsburg. But antisemitism is on the rise, and Ye is going (or being led) on a media rampage with immoral actors preying on the stupid and the vulnerable, the people who have a chance of becoming radicalized. His bizarre nonsense is being amplified and going viral, and I can see how that can be perceived as an actual threat to people's safety.
The people making bank on Ye's demented appearances are despicable, as are the political cretins led by their pathetic hard-on for celebrities who wink in their direction. No dispute. But the question is, can we still have the space to enjoy works by artists who express evil and deranged views? I say yes.
You draw the line at risk of radicalization. Ok. First, I doubt that listening to Runaway is likely to radicalize anyone without certain supporting conditions like celebrity worship, intellectual aloofness, and historical ignorance. Maybe we should take issue with these problems before concerning ourselves with shutting down the artists.
Second, if you don't like the examples of Bulgakov and Wagner, I can think of multiple Hollywood celebrities whose strident ignorance about both domestic and world affairs has probably injected far more radical stupidity into the political bloodstream, and which I'd argue is more insidious because unlike Ye's comments, it hardly gets called out. Yet it never occurred to me to boycott movies they star in or anything of the sort.
Third, the attacks in Brooklyn and New Jersey were on the rise regardless of Ye's bizarre interpolations. I'd argue that far more urgent –– and pertinent –– than cancelling Ye would be demanding of our most prominent journalists to start covering this issue seriously and honestly, something they've been reluctant to do for two years. As a reminder: https://uncertain.substack.com/p/dara-horn-antisemitism-jews
I absolutely agree that coverage of antisemitic incidents has been unsatisfactory, and I certainly don't think cancelling Ye is going to resolve any societal ills. I also don't see his cancellation as a particularly big deal - not that I'm in favor of mobs of any political persuasion, it's just that I think that the rich and the famous are always going to come out OK, and there's no particular reason to fawn over a clearly unwell person on a racist rampage.
I think most people are turned off by vocal fringe opinions: imagine running into Ye at a party. I'm not sure you'd be able to notice his brilliance in conversation at this point, and even if you did, the ickiness of his opinions would likely overshadow that. You'd probably want to avoid him in future events. I suspect the state he's in is going to negatively impact the quality of his art as well, but who knows. Anyway, Ye the Product (as opposed to Ye the Man, who's clearly a tragic figure in need of help) is just much less attractive now. He's making people uncomfortable and that's not going to sell luxury products. It makes business sense for brands to drop him. As to enjoyment of his art, on an individual level, people should do whatever the hell they want (my personal suggestion for guilt-free enjoyment of your favorite despicable geniuses? Pirate that shit). Is all of his art tainted for good? Historically speaking, probably not. Society tends to be pretty forgiving of its, let's call it complicated, geniuses in the long term (generally speaking, a good thing!). He may not get a lot of radio airtime anymore (maybe? I don't know the stats), but he's probably not going to lose a lot of existing fans, and I don't think historians of hip hop will choose to ignore his work.
My caveat here is that honestly, I don't know. It's harder to empathize with people who are so radically opposed to you - if Ye was a public school teacher making these kinds of comments, I'd probably want him fired. I would prefer to buy my cupcakes elsewhere if he owned a bakery. I don't think awful racists deserve to starve to death due to lack of income, but we're not obligated to buy their products either. But I recognize how easily this can be flipped against any other position (or minority, for that matter), and I don't quite know how to resolve that.
If Ye's outrageous Holocaust denial turns you off his music, that's fine. Don't listen. What I won't accept is that defending his art, despite the man's noxious madness, is somehow tantamount to anti-Semitism, or any apologia of such.