Challenges
May. 3rd, 2011 03:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livI have no time at all for the obvious arguments against political correctness. Claiming that it's curtailing free speech to ask people to refrain from using offensive terms for minority groups is risible, claiming that it's just too much effort to keep up with the ever-changing terminology is rude and dismissive. Especially coming from people who have notably extensive vocabularies and are willing to be extremely pedantic about precise terminology when it doesn't involve offending people!
So I was particularly impressed byrho's thoughtful piece about language policing. I don't agree with her entirely but she makes some very important points and succeeds in saying something actually novel and relevant about this contentious issue.
In similar vein, I basically buy into the idea that it's desirable to have a broader diversity of people represented in all types of media. Again, most of the counter-arguments I've seen are rude, lazy and are more about making the arguers feel less uncomfortable than actually making a point. But this video discussion presents some novel and grounded arguments about why more representation isn't always a good thing.
It's quite a long, personal soliloquy, which unfortunately isn't captioned. If you have the technology and the ability to listen to the whole thing, I do recommend it. For people who aren't in that position, I will try to summarize, but preferably don't quibble with the exact word choices I make in my summary, because that's my fault for not doing the discussion justice. The speaker refers to a book including a story about a character with a medical condition that he happens to share, and points up several issues with "more representation" as a default goal:
So I was particularly impressed by
rho's thoughtful piece about language policing. I don't agree with her entirely but she makes some very important points and succeeds in saying something actually novel and relevant about this contentious issue.In similar vein, I basically buy into the idea that it's desirable to have a broader diversity of people represented in all types of media. Again, most of the counter-arguments I've seen are rude, lazy and are more about making the arguers feel less uncomfortable than actually making a point. But this video discussion presents some novel and grounded arguments about why more representation isn't always a good thing.
It's quite a long, personal soliloquy, which unfortunately isn't captioned. If you have the technology and the ability to listen to the whole thing, I do recommend it. For people who aren't in that position, I will try to summarize, but preferably don't quibble with the exact word choices I make in my summary, because that's my fault for not doing the discussion justice. The speaker refers to a book including a story about a character with a medical condition that he happens to share, and points up several issues with "more representation" as a default goal:
- Readers may erroneously assume that the fictional character really represents the speaker, rather than just happening to share this particular medical issue.
- Indeed, with a small press book published and shared among a relatively small subculture, readers may assume the character is actually based on this particular individual.
- In doing research to create a sensitive and accurate portrayal, the author may have used online resources designed to support real life members of the relevant minority group. This makes the speaker feel uncomfortable about going to such sources for support, in case there is some budding author lurking who is just using the material and even participants' personal experiences for research.
- The character in the story is easily able to obtain medical support for their condition, even though in real life the condition is hard to treat and dealing with the medical establishment can be really frustrating.
- The speaker has unpleasant memories of having to deal with his medical issues, and doesn't want to be reminded of them by encountering them in leisure reading.
- The book assumes that the medical issue is a politicized Identity, but the speaker would prefer to see it as just a minor part of his life history and not make it such a focus.
