Lit on Trial 2: You Can Love The Story Without Excusing The Writer

Can you keep a beloved book on your shelf while refusing to excuse the person behind it? We step into the most uncomfortable corner of modern reading culture: the collision between great stories and flawed authors, where personal identity, harm, and community pressure all show up at once. We don’t chase easy answers, because “art versus artist” isn’t a slogan, it’s a lived ethical problem for readers, teachers, parents, and anyone trying to read responsibly.

We dig into the controversies that keep resurfacing online and in classrooms, including Sarah J. Maas and the backlash over representation and a disastrously tone-deaf Breonna Taylor related post, plus the long shadow of J.K. Rowling. Along the way, we talk about why some reactions are deeply personal and valid for marginalized readers, while other reactions drift into performative outrage and shelf-policing that doesn’t actually reduce harm. We also explore a paradox that many readers feel but rarely say out loud: sometimes a “bad” creator makes art that becomes a refuge for the very people the creator later harms, because meaning can move from author to reader.

Then we widen the lens to censorship, book bans, and the double standard that appears when we cheer removals we agree with while condemning removals we don’t. If the goal is real accountability culture, we argue it has to lead somewhere concrete: voting, showing up at school board and library meetings, supporting local LGBTQ groups, building safe spaces, and putting real skin in the game beyond social media.

If this conversation hits a nerve, share it with a reader friend, subscribe, and leave a review. Where do you draw your line between ethical reading and censorship?

Transcript

Why We Ask For Grace

SPEAKER_01 0:50

Welcome back. Today's case is messy, uncomfortable, maybe even a little dangerous. Because we're asking a question that keeps getting louder in classrooms, on social media, and across culture. Can we value literature when we reject the values of the person who wrote it? Do we burn the book along with the author? Or is there something in the art that transcends the flaws, biases, even the harm of its creator? Today we're stepping into the tension between art and artist, that uneasy space where brilliance and controversy collide. We're digging into whether meaning belongs to the author or to us, whether a text can outgrow the hands that made it, and whether engaging with challenging or even offensive literature is an act of complicity or an act of critical power. But we're not stopping there. Because in an age of instant outrage, we also have to ask, are we actually holding anyone accountable, or are we just performing it? Is canceling a book or an author real action? Or is it a shortcut that lets us avoid the harder work of confronting ideas, systems, and ourselves? Today on Lit on Trial, we're not here for easy answers. We're here to wrestle with the question, what does it really mean to read responsibly in a world where authors and readers are anything but perfect? Court is in session. All right, Peter. There's a lot to pluck through here, so why don't you go ahead and get us started?

SPEAKER_00 2:28

Yeah, okay, so I actually had to address this very early on in my book talk career because I kept getting DMs and comments about certain authors that I talked about or that I had on my shelf. And in particular, Neil Gaiman, J.K. Rowling, who I lovingly refer to as she who should not be named, and Sarah J. Mass. A lot about Sarah J. Mass and the controversy that I was unaware of that was surrounding her. But somebody multiple times would comment, you know, why do you have a racist so proudly displayed on your shelf there? Which was confusing to me, and I had to like look up what on earth they meant by that. But anyway, I addressed it, and I'm going to start this out the same way that I started out that video that I posted. And you can find that on my book talk too. I talk more about that there. But I want anyone listening to this conversation between me and Liz to have a lot of grace for both of us. Because as I said when I posted way back when, I am a white cisgendered male who has very little skin in the game when it comes to being on the victimization side of some of the controversy that has come up with these artists. Well, I did say that I do have some skin in the game because my youngest is trans. And so that is one of the reasons why I lovingly refer to J.K. Rowling as she who may not be named. I don't, in other ways, have any skin in the game because I am very privileged in my position. Those persons in my life, however, that have victimized me and the kind of person that they are, to this day, I will admit that I still have a very visceral emotional reaction to encountering that kind of victimization. And that is people who are abusive and bullies. And so feelings can be very, very strong when they are personal and you have experienced that kind of thing. And your feelings aren't right or wrong, they just are. So no one, no matter what the discussion is, has a right to tell you how you should feel as a victim. And that is where a lot of the valid emotional response to the kinds of things that these artists have done comes from.

SPEAKER_01 4:29

Right.

SPEAKER_00 4:29

A lot of other emotional reactions are very performative, in my opinion. And we'll get to that discussion, what is performative and what is not, and what should be the appropriate effective response and what is largely performative and ineffective as well. So that's really what this discussion is going to be about. And we're going to try to do our best. So again, give us grace. This is a big discussion and probably can't be talked about enough, especially in what we try to keep in a 30-minute podcast. But here we go.

SPEAKER_01 4:57

Right. And I'm going to just second what Peter said about the grace and also about what we have skin in the game on and what we do not. And that there is a distinction between being a victim who's directly affected, impacted by some of these authors, some of these artists. Those emotions are very, very real. And we are going to make a clear distinction between people that are very emotionally impacted on a personal level and those who are simply responding because they're just responding to what has become a trend when it comes to some of these artists and the responses that we see on social media. So do we want to start with some of the more recent posts and things that have been going on with these authors? Where should we start?

SPEAKER_00 5:44

Well, since I brought her up, I guess we'll go ahead and start with SJM. Yeah, Clara J. Madison, her very popular Avatar, Crescent City, and Throne of Glass series. And she's largely in the public still and has a very successful career. And that is also a distinction that I make as far as like it's easier to respond to somebody whose career has been ruined by what they did than it is to be at peace with somebody who's still making a ton of money.

SPEAKER_01 6:05

It continues to be very, very popular as she does.

SPEAKER_00 6:08

Which is why I have more of an emotional reaction to J.K. Rowling than I do, say, somebody like Neil Gaiman, who's pretty much been ruined by the accusations against him. SGM has been criticized for a number of things, including a very common criticism, which is that she does not have a lot of persons of color in her works, and those that she does have, she relegates to the sidelines and even kills off more often. This is the accusation anyway, than other white presenting characters, and that she is not very clear about which characters are persons of color. She is vague in her descriptions of skin color, and she just really doesn't explicitly include much diversity in her works. And that's probably very true. That is probably very accurate, as it is, many white authors lack diversity. And I think some of that is because they lack experience with diversity, and you cannot really write what you have not experienced. And there's a danger there of doing more harm than good if you don't understand that person and what you write to represent them is more of a stereotype than it is the truth. Right. So it's a difficult artistic road for an artist to navigate. And sometimes you're better off staying in your lane.

SPEAKER_01 7:16

Yes.

The Breonna Taylor Post Fallout

SPEAKER_00 7:17

But there's more to it than that when it comes to SJM. The other thing that really it all stems from, and I think probably is why she is scrutinized so much more in her portrayal of persons of color, is what happened in September of 2020 when the news came out that none of Brianna Taylor's murderers were going to face any kind of conviction. She made a social media post on Instagram addressing that, but also including with it the release of her cover art for A Court of Silver Flames. And I'm just going to read what she said. She posted this. In case you missed the reveal earlier, here's the Accord of Silver Flames cover. I hope it's a bit of light for you guys today, given the appalling lack of justice for Brianna Taylor and a president doing his best to undermine and destroy our democracy. And while I'm truly so thrilled for you guys to read Nest and Cassian's book in February, and I love this artwork so much, thank you, uh, to the artist. I also want to encourage each one of you to get out there and vote this November. Vote for people who will protect, nurture our democracy, vote for people who recognize and will fight the racial injustice in this country, vote for people who will battle climate change and pull our planet back from the brink, vote, vote, vote, because no election has ever been more important, and the future of this country and this world depends on you.

SPEAKER_01 8:44

Appropriate.

SPEAKER_00 8:46

So did she did she to do a terrible, vile, awful, evil, racist thing here explicitly? No. But there was an appropriate amount of outrage that she couldn't address the issue without also seeming to promote her book. And I can't imagine the emotional impact things like this would have on a person of color who has experienced and been victimized and has has had these things happen to so many people like them over and over again. And and how that that must add up and feel awful. I it's easy for me as a white person to give another white person the benefit of the doubt. And I'm inclined to in this case. I I don't think that she woke up and thought, how can I use Brianna Taylor's death to promote my book today? I I think she was going to reveal her cover today, and these things are scheduled to happen. And I think she thought to herself, I cannot not address it because it's on everybody's mind today. I don't want to just put my cover out there and seem like I don't know what's going on. So she combined the two in a very awkward and stupid, stupid way. And what she should have done was just released her cover and then written an impassioned and compassionate, empathetic post about Breonna Taylor all on her own, giving her own time and not associate it with her career whatsoever.

SPEAKER_01 10:06

Right.

SPEAKER_00 10:07

Right. That would have been the smart thing to do.

SPEAKER_01 10:09

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 10:10

Do I think there's explicit evidence that she is a racist? No, I think that's a bit of a performative reaction. Now, to be outraged as a person of color at her, that's not performative. You have a right to. I question, though, her intent in this. I don't think it's logical to assume there was some sort of vile exploitative intent in this. Yeah. But that's an opinion.

SPEAKER_01 10:30

Yeah, it I'll grant it's an opinion also. And as a white woman, again, I guess I'm probably inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt, but I tell you what, as a white woman, hearing that particular social media post, as soon as I would have read that in real time in the moment, my immediate response is, you idiot. Like, what were you thinking? Like that is about the dumbest thing you could have possibly posted, you absolute moron. So for me, my head would have immediately impacted the desk had I seen that pop up the moment she posted it. And if I were her publicist, I would have been like, oh my God, delete that now. What are you doing? Like, I don't know who thought that was a good idea, but that was about the stupidest thing anyone could have possibly advised her to do. As a woman of color, I would have been justifiably outraged. I mean, let's just put this in perspective. What she's basically saying is in the midst of your grief, I hope that my little cover with its cool art for my book about fairies fucking each other brings you joy, even though this person has died. I mean, if you're Breonna Taylor's family and you're reading this post, do you think her stupid fairy fucking cover is going to bring you joy? I mean, no, just no, no, absolutely not.

SPEAKER_00 11:57

Exactly. The white privilege is on full and apparent display here, and it's excruciating.

SPEAKER_01 12:03

It definitely is. However, I also don't read that as that one instant as her being intentionally racist. I think she's just a stupid, oblivious white woman who wasn't in tune with the significance of that moment.

SPEAKER_00 12:21

And there are many of us out there, men and women.

SPEAKER_01 12:24

Right. I mean, it's just true. I I think that honestly, I mean, let's be completely honest. I don't even want to, I think it would be shameful to even acknowledge the percentage of white men and women in this country who had no idea what Juneteenth was until what, maybe five years ago? I mean, Juneteenth wasn't even on a white person's radar.

SPEAKER_00 12:49

It wasn't in our canon.

SPEAKER_01 12:50

It wasn't even, yeah, it wasn't in our canon. It wasn't in our reality until maybe a few years ago. I mean, even quote unquote woke white people weren't really in tune with Juneteenth. So as an oblivious white person, she made that post without the full understanding of what was going on there.

SPEAKER_00 13:09

Right. And continuing criticism, which is valid as well, she still has that post up. I was able to go straight to it to read it.

SPEAKER_01 13:16

That's just again stupid.

SPEAKER_00 13:18

She never as explicitly apologized. She posted other things like ways to contact the senator about the outrage over the decision, et cetera, like that. She definitely is advocating for Breonna Taylor and her family, but her initial execution was terrible and her decision to not address it further is questionable.

SPEAKER_01 13:38

Yeah, she didn't double down on it, but she didn't apologize for it and she didn't take it down, which she should have definitely addressed it. So there's just a lot of like oblivious, out-of-touch things going on there.

Personal Choices Versus Performative Outrage

SPEAKER_00 13:50

So the question is, what is the appropriate way to respond to something like this when we have an author whose works we may be enjoying who does something that sets us off either unintentionally or is accused of something heinous like sexual assault in the case of Neil Gaiman? How do we respond to their works, how we consume them, whether we continue to have them on our shelves and read them? My short and sweet answer to that is do whatever you like, respond however you like, and let others respond however they like, because it's largely a response that is for yourself more than anything else, and is more often than not more performative than effectual. But ineffectual solidarity is still symbolically relevant. However, what you're really looking for is a way to counteract the negative impact of the problematic behavior. And I would argue there are more effectual ways to do that. You're not angry at the book they've made, you're angry at the person and what their actions represent and the attitude, and that's the thing you want to respond to if you are going to make the world a better place in spite of what they have contributed to it. So don't have their books on your shelf if that makes you feel better and that feels like a symbolic thing that you need to do in order to show your stance on their behavior. Don't buy their books anymore if that's something you feel you need to do in order to show your stance and opinion on their behavior. But make that your own personal response and don't go and get in other people's DMs and say how they need to feel and how they should behave, because again, we cannot dictate another person's feelings and demand that they get on the bandwagon with your outrage. My overall opinion is that I don't wish to punish art that I'm enjoying. In J.K. Rowling's situation, she's got more money than God at this point. Not buying a Harry Potter, her next Harry Potter book isn't gonna make or break her day at all. No. You know, how do we respond effectively that isn't just performative? I'm still going to keep SJM's books and series and read them because I don't think they're explicitly racist. I think she could do better, but I don't think they're explicitly racist.

SPEAKER_01 16:01

Right.

SPEAKER_00 16:02

And I hope that she does do better.

Harry Potter And The Ownership Paradox

SPEAKER_01 16:04

Well, and I've read one of her books, didn't like it, and haven't read any others. So I have no, I have no skin in that game as far as reading her works or not. But given your position, I would probably have the same response. So I'm gonna pick up on the JK Rowling train for a second and talk about Harry Potter and the ironic impact I feel that series has had. I love that series. I love it for a couple of key reasons. On a personal level, I picked up those books when I was suffering from postpartum depression after my first child, and they kind of got me through this terrible time in my life. And I read the Harry Potter books as silly as that is, and thoroughly enjoyed them, and they became kind of this integral part of that period of my life, right? And and they became books that my children enjoyed as well. So my feeling on the Harry Potter series, and you're right, she has more money than God, and she's not going to be hurt whether we buy her next book or not. But in a true sense of irony, with all her stupid comments about, you know, rights for women who actually menstruate and different ridiculous and terrible comments she has made in relation to the trans community and the LGBTQ community in general, because she's just hideous when it comes to that. And she's brazen about it. She has continued to be brazen about it. The irony for me is that her books, for decades now, for a couple decades now, have given a place for marginalized kids to find themselves. I want to say that again. The Harry Potter series has given a place for marginalized kids to find themselves. I can't tell you as a teacher how many of my kids who are trans, who are part of the LGBTQ community, who are those kids that maybe sit on the outskirts of the classroom, the kids that carry around the manga at lunch and they're reading that, or that dress, you know, in the quirkier ways, or that wear the headbands with the cat ears, or that, I don't know, have the streaks of color in their hair, or any of those things. The quieter kids in my class who are the readers who love that and they ask me what house I'm in, and I can proudly tell them I'm a Ravenclaw, and they can tell me what house they're in because they have done that quiz. They have still found themselves in those books with those characters, even though she's a complete idiot. Do you know what I'm saying?

SPEAKER_00 18:40

Yeah, it's possible for a terrible person to produce something good.

SPEAKER_01 18:45

Right. She has done good for these kids, unintentionally, perhaps, even though she has made terrible comments about some of those communities. These kids have still owned these books. They own these books and these characters more than she does now. They own these books and these characters more than she does. And I see them take ownership of that and take it and make it what they want. And I think that's awesome. So when I see my students take ownership and take joy in that, I don't give a rat's ass what she has to say. Because those books have done something for my kids and have done something for tons of people that she may like or not like, but those books have helped them.

SPEAKER_00 19:34

Yeah, I think that when an artist goes in in good faith to create art without malicious intent or agenda, the art doesn't belong to them. It has a life of its own. It does. They're kind of just the vessel that the universe produces it through, in my opinion. It's beyond, it's sometimes beyond the artists themselves. And so I think a bad person can create something good, just as a good person in general could create something unintentionally harmful, you know? And as I've already said, I have a daughter who is trans, and Harry Potter books are still proudly on my shelf with Harry and Hermione bookends. I mean, they are given a place of honor on my shelf because I know what's going to make a difference in the life of my daughter and what isn't. And throwing away uh Harry Potter books because of what J.K. Rowlings has said about the LGBTQI is performative.

SPEAKER_01 20:25

Right. Because that's not going to make the real difference. I can tell you what's going to make the real difference in the lives of the children that are struggling with their identity, with the adults that are struggling with their identity. The real difference is made when we go to cast our vote. The real difference is made when we are out and actively protesting, actively seeking to reach out and help people on an individual level. The real difference is made when we provide safe spaces for those kids as they're going through that process. When as a teacher, my students know that they can come to me, even though in today's day and age we have to be careful about advertising those things. I still wear a pen on my lanyard and I still have a sign in my classroom that lets those kids know that they can come into my classroom and that my classroom is a safe space, that they can come and talk to me. What makes a difference is when we actually are active in showing that we care and in taking action to make the world a better place for all people. It's not about throwing a book in the trash can or making a social media post. That doesn't make the difference.

SPEAKER_00 21:46

Outrage is easy.

SPEAKER_01 21:48

It is easy.

SPEAKER_00 21:49

And often impotent.

SPEAKER_01 21:51

Right.

SPEAKER_00 21:51

I would argue that all our anger is rooted in fear. To quote someone very, very wise: fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hatred. And hatred is the path to the dark side. What we do have control over is not destroying something that is bad, but it is directly within our control to create something good.

SPEAKER_01 22:17

Correct.

SPEAKER_00 22:17

And that is the appropriate reaction to go out there, like you say, and actively put some skin in the game and advocate for creating a new world that's better than simply impotent outrage behind the scenes as a keyboard warrior, you know? Showing people love and compassion in response to hate.

SPEAKER_01 22:36

And that can be an act of putting yourself at risk, also.

SPEAKER_00 22:40

Oh yeah.

SPEAKER_01 22:41

You know, as a teacher, I have gotten myself in hot water more than one time, putting myself out there. Some teachers have been told to take down their sign. To take the pens off their lanyards, that will be a hill I die on. You will not tell me to take down the things that show my students that they are welcome in my classroom. That is not something that I will allow people to do. It becomes an act of resistance. And we have to be there for people. And it's not being behind a keyboard, it's being there for real and putting yourself out there in what is sometimes an uncomfortable position. I can read Harry Potter still. That's absolutely fine. Because my students read it and because it still does some good. I can leave JK to her own devices, wherever she is and whatever she's doing. Let her wallow in her own ignorance. But then I'm also going to put into action the things that I know are right. And that is where the real effort needs to go.

SPEAKER_00 23:41

One of the things that concerns me most about this issue of how we respond to these works, these books, and the behavior of the author and some of the things that people think we should be doing, like taking them out of bookstores, take taking them off our shelves, and stuff like that, is it becomes then not a matter of whether or not you are for or against censorship, but rather what you are for censoring and not for censoring. We will be outraged if a conservative group were taking LGBTQIA representation off the shelves, black authors off the shelf, black history books off the shelves, but we rejoice if a bookstore says, I'm no longer gonna carry Harry Potter or SJM or Neil Gaiman or whatever it may be. And that, in my mind, is a double standard. And it really just comes down to sort of almost petty point scoring against, you know, one side or the other. And it's a wash in the end. And I would rather, like you said, fight for somebody's rights and freedoms than fight to have somebody's right and freedom taken away. And so it makes no positive or even meaningful impact in the world to say, hey, you shouldn't be able to read that book anymore because of what this author did, or you shouldn't be able to consume that art because of what this artist did. Because we all have our selective outrage about things. And like I said, outrage is often very impotent. And I think that's what it really has become in this kind of censorship battle between liberal and conservative, woke and you know, religious or whatever.

SPEAKER_01 25:10

Yeah, woke and unwoke.

SPEAKER_00 25:12

Unwoke, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 25:13

Right. Yeah, and that I agree. I've been following the battle in our library system here in the CSRA in Georgia quite a bit. And they passed laws in our state, as far as the school system is concerned, that requires a parent review for the books that can be taught in school. And there's kind of this loosely worded language in the Georgia law that says that the books that are read in school have to match the culture of the community, that have to match the belief system of the community. And it's very vague so that parents can then come in and complain if it doesn't match with the majority. So if white people come in and complain, white Christian people that it doesn't match their viewpoint, and they're the ones that come in and complain, and it's reviewed and they have a decent standing argument, they could potentially get a book removed from the school system. And then in the public libraries, the fact that they've succeeded in having LGBTQ titles removed from children's sections and placed in a restricted part of the library so that children cannot access LGBTQ books or books with those themes or those storylines in them. And we're having the shuffling of books and the ability for people to access books based on belief. And now when my children go into a library, those books are restricted. Those books have been moved, even though that does not match my belief. It's been moved by this conservative belief system because of the community, right? The overarching belief that is there within the community that these books need to be moved. Or potentially in the school system, that my children could be restricted on what they read because it doesn't match with the overarching beliefs of the community and what is believed to be appropriate in the school system, that my children's reading selections could be restricted based on belief. When we begin to, from a woke standpoint, do essentially the same thing based on our belief, however right that belief may be to us to us about racism, about our belief in diversity, about our belief in the LGBTQ community and supporting that, about our belief in supporting trans populations in our belief in any of those things, when we begin to push for censorship on that level, we are justifying what they are pushing for on theirs. And that's when we get into this weird balance. And you can say it's not the same thing. Okay, I agree with you. We're right and they're wrong. Okay. Like I will sit here and say we are fighting for good representation. Racism is evil, and so racism should be shunned and racism should be looked down upon. Racism is a bad thing. We know this to be the case, but censorship as an issue is something we have resisted in our country. The First Amendment, the right to free speech, was written into the Constitution for a reason. We cannot do harm to one another, but we can say things, we can write things, we have this guaranteed right, and it's not something that's always comfortable. And we have to remember that. So we want to fight for our free speech. We have to allow some free speech we may not like on the reverse. And I just have to remind us that that's the case. And so do no harm, but the speech has to be there and it has to be preserved. So as I watch them wage this war on this flip side against what our children can read in the school system and what can be in the libraries, and then I see us wanting to wage a war about what can be on our own bookshelves and what can be in the bookstores based on what these authors have done. I get concerned that now we've got limp we are imposing limitations all over the place. And that becomes scary to me from a censorship perspective.

SPEAKER_00 29:24

And censorship changes nothing.

SPEAKER_01 29:26

It doesn't.

SPEAKER_00 29:26

Whether you're woke or unwoke, it's not going to affect the world any way, shape, or form at all because we have the internet people. The information cat is out of the bag. And I'm sorry to everybody who is conservative out there, but if your child has the internet, they are they have access to way more dangerous things than they're ever going to find in a library.

SPEAKER_01 29:48

Correct.

SPEAKER_00 29:49

So it's really laughable. The outrage over banning books is more the principle of the matter than it is really the effectiveness of it because it's not effective.

Accountability That Leads To Action

SPEAKER_01 29:57

It is. It's posturing and it's performative and it is lashing out, and it is people spinning their wheels over things that they can get emotional about. And I see everyone putting all this energy into this issue and doing so little on things that need to be combated. As Georgia faces a complete redistricting in as far as all of our districts are concerned, and the vote ends up being stripped away in a lot of ways from groups of color in our state, as the district lines are drawn in marginalized ways, as we have these horrific decisions being made at the county level to restrict voting, as we have so many things going on around the state and around this country that are real issues that we should be aware of and we should be fighting. We're spinning our wheels here? That's crazy. That's crazy. That's the type of stuff that distracts us while all these other things are going on and these laws are being passed that we're missing along the way. And there are people that are out actually on the streets fighting and going to meetings every month or or twice a month trying to rally the troops and get people, you know, to protect the voting box and to um show up at these different county meetings and to be aware of this. And that's too much work for the average person to do. It's so much more fun to sit at the computer and make a social media post and argue with someone. That's easy because you don't have to leave the comfort of your home. But the real war is being waged at the county commissioner meetings and at the you know library meetings and at the at the voter board meetings and at all these meetings that are going on all the time and all these votes that are being held, and at the protests and at these community forums, these places are where the war is being waged and where voices need to be heard and where people need to show up. Go speak to your school board. No one wants to do those things because then you have to leave the comfort of your own home and you have to be known in your community, and that that involves a lot more risk. And people aren't interested in risking that much or putting that much skin in the game. So I am not again kicking anyone in the teeth who has legitimate outrage, who has been a victim, who has much more reason to be angry about some of the things these authors have said and done. That is not what I'm saying. You have a right to be outraged, you have a right to be outraged. But if you are sitting in a place of comfort and privilege, get up out of your seat at your computer and take your privilege out to do something useful. Because taking a book off your shelf or jumping into someone else's message board and worrying about these things, like what an author has done and whether or not someone should be reading their book is not doing anything. Get out and exercise your privilege to help someone else.

SPEAKER_00 33:09

I agree. And that being said, there is a place and a purpose for accountability culture. I don't call it cancel culture, I call it accountability culture. And I do think that people's behavior needs to be held accountable in some way, shape, or form with a measured and logical amount of compassion, education, and reasonable doubt. Again, like I said, it's very easy when you aren't directly triggered by what they did to not have an emotional reaction to that. Like I said, I still have incredibly emotional reactions to bullies, to what I perceive as bully behavior and abusive behavior. And it's difficult for me to rally my compassion. So it's easy to say to be reasonable in your response when it comes to holding these people accountable when you aren't directly affected by their behavior. But I think we do have to try to find a way, like you say, to hold them accountable while at the same time not being performative and not spending our time pretending like our shit doesn't stink and we've never made a mistake in our life. We've never been insensitive and we've always behaved perfectly. And there are different levels, of course. A person being accused of rape or sexual assault by multiple victims is different than somebody slipping up and saying something stupid and insensitive, you know?

SPEAKER_01 34:25

Right.

SPEAKER_00 34:25

And our reactions to that should be different.

SPEAKER_01 34:27

Yes, absolutely. Absolutely.

SPEAKER_00 34:29

But everybody has a a right to respond the way they do personally. But what we need to also take into account is how can we counteract the harm that we perceive this person has done to the world. Instead of being, like you say, a keyboard warrior and very performative and staying in our safe place with our impotent outrage, how do we balance the scales, so to speak? How do we let it make us better people? Let their insensitivity make us more sensitive, let their behavior towards women make us behave better towards women, or vice versa, you know? All those things that are being called out, how do you let it change you? And then how do you also make you a person who's going to protect people from being victimized in the future by those kinds of people?

SPEAKER_01 35:14

Right.

SPEAKER_00 35:14

And it it's not about affecting their wallet, you know, first and foremost. They're largely insulated really from any actionable to uh action you can take against them, really, except for in cases where they're literally their career is ruined by what comes out about them, which is right.

SPEAKER_01 35:30

And if I remember your TikTok post well enough, you know, as you said in the post a while back, we would have to completely change our lifestyle if we want to be consistent about that type of outrage. We would no longer be able to shop at any of the major stores, we would no longer be able to buy any of the major clothing brands, we should have to go off the grid. You'd have to go off the grid to avoid all the places that are guilty of using child labor, that are guilty of paying poor wages in other countries, that are guilty of so many of the things that we should be against and that we should be avoiding, you know, actively not putting our money into. So if I can make a suggestion, if you really want to affect change and counter some of the things these people have done, there are so many organizations in your local community that you can actively get involved in in whatever cause you are interested, if it is politics, there are groups meeting all the time in order to do things and mobilize things in your community. Whether it is, you know, you want to focus on the LGBTQ community, there are all kinds of groups meeting for that. If you want to get involved in a young political group, if you want to get involved in one of the main political groups, if you want to get involved in something to work with women who have gone through abusive situations or sexual assault, there are so many organizations in every community. As someone who led a political committee for seven years and has been actively involved in politics, I can tell you that there are lots of positions on the front line. And some of us have been taking, you know, cannon fire for a long time. We have a lot of empty positions. So there are so many ways to get involved, and there are not a lot of people doing it. So if you really want to be out on the front lines and doing something active to counter some of the things that these people are doing and saying that are wrong, there are places for you. So feel free to put skin in the game.

SPEAKER_00 37:38

Absolutely. And at the very least, I want to reiterate be a good person. Put some love and compassion and sensitivity and empathy out in the world for those that have harmed you and those who've been harmed.

SPEAKER_01 37:51

Correct. Because that's certainly something we can all do. Make the next right choice, exercise love.

SPEAKER_00 37:58

Bring some life into the world instead of contributing to the death. That's correct.

SPEAKER_01 38:02

All right. We're gonna end the episode there. We look forward to talking to you about another book soon and eventually another lit on trial. We'll talk to you later.