I bet heroin addicts would be great workers, because they'd really need the money. People complain that junkies steal shit, but that's only because people are prejudiced and won't hire them. But, that's dumb - they only steal shit because people won't hire them and give them money.
A junkie will do anything if you give them enough money for their habit. If I even ran a company I'd only hire people who did heroin. They'd never quit. They'd do exaclty what you told them to do and they'd be docile. Customers would love them.
I look forward to a world where all the heroin addicts have jobs and the homeless people on the street hold signs reading "Hungry, Out Of Job Because I Don't Do Heroin."
Anytime it comes out that a beloved celebrity has something in his or her personal life that pisses a shitton of people off there is a huge backlash of "but their personal life doesn't matter. It's their art that matters!"
With Joan Rivers I'm seeing a lot of the opposite. Her art was mean, petty, racist, transphobic, homophobic and just plain shitty to anyone who wasn't white and richer than her. But people keep saying "but in real life she was a great person!"
For me, this is a line of bullshit. You can't just pick and choose. To me if you believe in the idea of the first paragraph, you can't defend Joan Rivers based on her personal life. You need to judge her on what a shitty person she was in her public life.
And, yes, I know there is also the argument that she was a "trailblazer" as a woman in comedy. All that means is she was the first woman to be just as shitty to people as male comdeians were at the time she was coming up. I mean, seriously, the first female member of Hitler Youth was probably a trailblazer as well, but that don't make them some sort of feminist icon.
So Mararget Atwood is the first author to volunteer for the Future Library Society. What does that mean? It means that instead of publishing her next novel now, she's going to have it buried under a tree for 100 years and then when it is dug up they will cut down the tree to make the first copy of it.
I see several problems with this idea.
1. Think about the environmentalist movement. It's really probable that 100 years from now the idea of cutting down a tree to print a book will be something people consider horrible.
2. They are publishing where the tree/time capsule is. You telling me nobody in the next century is going to try to dig that shit up?
3. Will anyone care about a second wave feminist psedo-sci-fi author 100 years from now?
4. There will have to be copies somewhere else. I bet it gets hacked at some point and published anyway.