• galoisghost@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    7 months ago

    I would say the right decision was made. It’s part of the work. The next act of the artwork moves on to the unhinged ranting of people (mostly male) who didn’t understand the artwork, will praise the decision and think this is a big fuck you to the artist, and will continue to support discrimination when it doesn’t apply to them

    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I get where you’re coming from, and I understand what the artist was trying to do.

      But for me allowing this to go all the way to a courtroom was crossing a line. The judge and everyone else working there have important shit to do, including cases where people’s actual lives are being ruined by discrimination, and they shouldn’t have to waste time participating in anything like this.

      There’s a time and a place for artwork and protests. A courtroom is not one of them.

      Also, I think it was counterproductive. If you want misogynist dickheads to change their ways, you don’t do it by overcorrecting too far in the other direction. This has just made them even more passionate and even less likely to treat women fairly