That poster seems to confusing/interpreting “separating the art from the artist”, to basically meaning if you’re an artist she’ll argue you shouldn’t be punished because “art”
When in actual fact the term is more the ability to objectively enjoy the film/music/art, while being able to simultaneously be revolted by their admitted crimes and think that they should be punished and/or not given future £££ opportunities on national tv.
Although anyone who compares BG to Picasso or Da Vinci is grasping at best.
And it’s not cancel culture in the sense of thought-policing or inhibiting normal discussion or opposing views, it’s more a question of if we should - for instance - have a massive tribute weekend for Jimmy Savile, or bring Gary Glitter as a guest host on This Morning or similar? The correct analogy is more along those characters lines than eg JKR.
BG chained up a rent boy in a premeditated set-up and threatened him with sex toys and chains and beat him, yet doesn’t even give enough of a fuck about his victim to even bother apologising. Even when he’s come down off the drugs, he still hasn’t shown remorse. It upset me as I have gay friends - a couple of whom have worked as rent boys - & how the whole thing was brushed under the carpet and he was immediately posited as a national treasure has always revolted me.
Should “be kind” (a vapid phrase in any respect) not primarily apply to the victim? Or in fact directed at the criminal perpetrator as that poster is saying? 🧐