I have to disagree with this, sadly. Supporting the work is supporting the author so they can continue doing terrible author things. This is why boycotts are effective and "oh well, I'll just keep buying it anyway" is not.
Depends on how you enjoy them. I'm re reading Harry Potter off and on. I already bought the books before JK Rowling expressed her views. My reading does not give her another dime.
Same thing with Blu-Ray of Pulp Fiction though I believe Weinstein Company has given up all rights to most of their movies.
I think these are two positions that don't inherently conflict. In most cases you can still enjoy art you loved before you knew the artist was problematic without continuing to give them money.
Don't stream it and don't buy a new copy unless someone completely unrelated owns it now, but you can still listen to, watch, or read the stuff you loved before you knew what was going. Whatever you already owned didn't suddenly become toxic. Used book/music/movie stores exist. Piracy is always an option.
That's not to say a few people haven't managed to ruin it beyond my ability to enjoy their content no matter how much I used to love them, but there's no reason to give up something you enjoy just because you learn the person or a key person behind it sucks.
So, has any of that slowed down J.K. Rowling? These sorts of boycotts seem to be more of an attempt at controlling something in an uncontrollable situation rather than an actually effective means of change. “Voting with your wallet” is almost never effective.
> Supporting the work is supporting the author so they can continue doing terrible author things.
This has always seemed like the flimsiest argument. It costs nothing for JK Rowling to tweet. On the flipside, the joy and wonder her books have produced for the world dwarf what else she has wrought and in the end her life will be a net-positive, more so than your vegan co-worker. Doesn't make her a good person, just a net-positive.
