For the background to this post, click here.
******
Over on William Peace's blog, someone has left a snide comment, saying "Kid Robson is a troll. Ignore." Think about that for a moment. Surely the definition of a 'troll' is someone (usually anonymous) who leaves childish, inane remarks that aren't pertinent to the matter under discussion, for the purpose of insulting another person or sowing discord? I wonder if the commenter is aware of the irony of his actions, but I doubt it. It seems that some people think the Internet was invented solely for those in perfect agreement on everything to communicate with one another, and therefore object to any form of lively discussion on the part of others.
Mr. Peace says that, due to the response my remarks have generated, the thread has now deteriorated and he will delete all future comments from everyone. He could simply delete those he regards as "empty rhetoric", but it appears to be mainly the comments for which he has no answer and wishes to evade that are the true targets of his ire. I was unaware when I initially replied to the post that it was three years old, but a number of folks disagree with Mr. Peace's viewpoint in no uncertain terms - a few are quite insulting, in fact. My comment, on the other hand, is perfectly polite and (more importantly) pertinent - it's only 'fault' being that it disagrees with Mr. Peace'e fundamentally flawed view that anything he regards as showing disabled people in what he sees as a negative light serves only to reinforce a stereotype of them.
But Mr. Peace is, I believe, mistaken - it doesn't! Let us now, for the purpose of discussion, consider his proposition that the blind beggar comes across as a bit of thicko in the ad. So what? Disability is no respecter of persons, afflicting people from every walk of life regardless of age, gender, status or intellect. Is Mr. Peace saying that there are no physically disabled people who are far from the sharpest tool in the box? When I watch the video, I do not come away from it thinking that all (or even any) blind beggars are 'useless' and 'thick' (and I sincerely doubt that any fair-minded, rational person without an axe to grind does either), only that, for the purpose of the ad, a beggar of average intelligence was required. (I did wonder why the woman was wearing sunglasses on a dull, rainy day though.)
Another thing - it wasn't just the beggar who failed to see the potential benefit in rewording his sign; the other passers-by were equally as unimaginative - as was everybody who watched the ad. It can't be claimed that the man was portrayed as being stupid without levelling the exact same charge at everyone else (bar one), as well as the entire viewing audience. However, if an able-bodied person were to suggest that it made 'people' look stupid, you'd think that he'd had too much vinegar on his chips and was over-reacting.
Consider this: Ads usually portray situations in a way best-suited to serve whatever idea or product the advertiser is trying to promote. Shortcuts are usually taken, hence the woman not seeking permission to change the beggar's sign, nor him asking what she's doing as she writes it. Or, indeed, asking consent to touch the woman's shoes, as a fellow 'activist' complains on the site that Mr. Peace links to in support of his views. (Saying that other people think the same as him is hardly the clincher he seems to think it is.)
A lot of disabled people are largely self-sufficient in their day-to-day lives, but, equally, many aren't, relying on family, friends and paid carers for assistance in order to make their lives easier or, in some cases, even bearable. (Depends on the disability, obviously.) Mr. Peace's problem seems to stem from his resentment of the notion that not all disabled people are as capable as their more able-bodied counterparts. Well, Mr. Peace, it's a sad fact that not all of them are. The clue is in the name - 'disabled'.
Yet another case of political correctness gone mad, I'm bound to say. Should disabled people only ever be portrayed as intellectual giants whose physical disabilities are mere minor inconveniences, and who are far better and more capable human beings than those who haven't been 'blessed' with some form of physical impairment? (In just the same way that homosexual couples who adopt, always seem to be shown as loving, caring parents to a degree that heterosexual parents can only dream of.)
That way lies madness. If disabled activists are genuine in their claim that all they want is to be treated in the same way as the able-bodied, then they should be prepared to put up with advertisers treating them in the same manner as they do everyone else - as people to be exploited. That's true equality. Welcome to the real world, Mr. Peace!
Sadly, in this instance, Mr. Peace comes across as just another guy with a giant chip on his shoulder who wants to bully the rest of society into seeing and doing things his way. Perish forbid that any able-bodied person should ever be portrayed as being smarter than a disabled one, or shown assisting or bestowing an act of assistance on anyone less fortunate. That would never do.
******
Agree, disagree, couldn't care less? Or would you prefer a punch-up at the back of the pub? Feel free to have your say in the comments section - or not, as the case may be.
******
As someone seems to be exploiting this topic to 'settle old scores' over in the comments section of Mr. Peace's post on this subject, let me just make it clear that I hold no personal animosity towards him. It is only on this one matter that I feel he is not only mistaken, but damages his own credibility in his response to an ad which I (and many others, some of whom are disabled themselves) feel he has over-reacted to. Also, in 'shifting the goalposts' for his reason for objecting to the ad and removing my follow-up comment pointing this out, I feel that he has been less than honest.
As, I'm saddened to say, he has also been in saying that he would publish no further comments from anyone on the matter and then allowing a number of 'anonymous' attacks on me by one or two people without the guts to identify themselves (or reply to my post) who have sought to exploit the occasion for reasons of their own. It's strange that none of the more vociferous replies to Mr. Peace's post have attracted the same kind of hostile attention as my own far more mild and moderate one. Strange indeed.
Says it all really.
12 comments:
I think I've probably made my thoughts on the issues of the projection of ideals through media such as television, film and comics known before. I'm pretty uncompromising, I find it to be morally corrupt, I know you probably find that contentious, which is ok because almost everybody does, so I'm used to disagreement over the issue. I think here though, is an illustration that supports my view, because my view is that an author's responsibility is to create a moral focus for a narrative that reflects reality. That's essentially why that film with the beggar works, it resonates strongly because we recognise the reality of it. That's actually what makes it offensive, the reality of it. The subject matter is almost irrelevant because truth always offends someone, it's just that in this case the individual of concern has been emboldened by the belief they can rouse an army under a banner. This time the call to muster is under the flag disabled rights and political correctness but the motive is always the same, persecute those who don't conform to your ideal.
In response to DeadSpiderEye:
I'm not sure I understand you correctly. "The projection of ideals through media" is corrupt, in and of itself, or is it that the ideals that have been projected are ones you find offensive?
Is your argument against art as a means to express idealism in general? I'm sure I must be misunderstanding this.
While I agree that political correctness and the fear of offending somebody are not always good things, and often have gotten way out of hand, don't cry foul if something you write or say offends someone and they take issue. They have a right to bitch just like you do. If you don't wanna get hit, don't get in the ring. Debate, sometimes harsh is part of the free exchange of ideas.
That people might write or talk about the poor, weak or unfortunate doesn't necessarily mean they are celebrating being a victim, or romanticizing it.
But, perhaps I misunderstood your point. If so, I apologize.
But I still think Ayn Rand was fulla shit.
Interesting points there, gentlemen. Anyone else?
I think Mr Pearse is just a wee neb with a big chip on his shoulder.Life is'nt fair, whether you are able or disabled, so get over it.And as for his rhetoric, it seems to me like he is peashooter,full of machine gun talk,until someone gets the better of him, then its teddy in the corner time, or its my ball and I get to choose which game we play.
So there, pf#×#tt...hmph!
It's a shame he's crippled, Moony, but he seems to have another disability in that he takes severe offence at the drop of a hat over daft ads that most people would smile at and then forget.
Jiminy Christmas, what the hell did Moonmando just say?
You guys are English (hey, no offense, that's where my mother's people came from) but sometimes you guys are incomprehensible. You guys invented the language, made three quarters of the world learn it, sometimes at gunpoint, but you've taken liberties with it. It's no longer understandable!Sometimes I feel like I'm back in the army talking to a German hillbilly from Bavaria.
Ah, your incomprehension lies in your typical American error, Mlp - we're not English, we're Scottish. Britain does not consist solely of England, nor are the two actually synonymous. That's like calling New Yorkers Texans.
But, to answer your question, essentially, Moony said that the gentleman referred to is "a cheeky little upstart who unduly concerns himself in the business of others, and who sulks when people disagree with him or he doesn't get things his own way."
I'm not surprised any disabled person is sensitive these days, New Labour started to demonize disabled people with all that crap about "hard working families" and the Tories and the media followed and now a nasty minority feels it's OK to label the disabled as scroungers and use them as scapegoats.As for gay couples- surely they have to try much harder as adoptive parents just to look half as good? I love your blog and read it every day but I've never left a comment till now( I mostly agree with you usually).
I'm more than a bit embarrassed to have confused two Scotsmen with Englishmen. I my defense, it's hard to tell over the internet, but I understand the distinction. I would hate to be confused with a Texan.
mlp
Woah, calling a Scottish person English, I think you got off lightly there. Fortunately I'm a winner of the Lottery Mr. Rhodes spoke of, so such considerations don't apply in my case.
Ayn Rand? I'm not really big on philosophy so my understanding of her views are limited to things like her appearance on Donahue and certain references to her work in relation to Steve Ditko. The other thing I should clarify is the distinction between taking offence and declaring something to be immoral. We can take offence at the smell of sewage but if you get a job cleaning drains, you'll probably modify those sensibilities as you would if you found bad language intolerable and got a place on a Rugby team. You see offence is product of our sensibilities, sometimes we offend easily, other times, when we've been desensitised, things that possibly should incur our umbrage are ignored.
When I declare something to be immoral, I'm saying a it's manifestation of intrinsic evil not that I'm offended, in fact I'm rarely offended beyond a few eclectic sensibilities that you probably wouldn't sympathise with. And yes I am stating that it's the projection of ideals in conflict with reality. rather than the specifics of such that I find to be immoral.
Hoots mon and jimmy ma kilt, did Mlp jist call us English.Aaaaarrgh! I'm cut tae the bone and richtly aggrieved. Lol
Mlp,you would find Scotland a beautiful place and its people honest and welcoming, but you are right, for I'm a native of these shores and I also can hardly make head nor tale of our blatherings, even at the best of times!
Peace and goodwill from Caledonia. :)
Colin, you're allowed to disagree on this blog, and you won't get called a 'troll' for it either. The person over at Mr Peace's blog who called me one has left the same remark on other sites I've commented on (exact same words), which means he tends to follow me around trying to colour people's opinion of me. Doesn't have the spuds to do it on my blog because then he'd confirm his identity. As there are only two people who regularly refer to me in that way, I've a fairly good idea who it is.
Mr Peace lives in America, so I doubt his situation is entirely comparable with British disabled people. However, he wasn't talking about them being demonised, he was talking about them being patronised and stereotyped in quite a different way than the British government is trying to do. Therefore, it's not quite the same thing as your comment suggests.
As for gay people being parents, it's not that they're trying harder to be good parents, it's more a case of certain sections of the media and special interest groups doing an all-out assualt in trying to portray them in that light.
Feel free to comment whenever you like, whether you agree with me or not. It all adds up to a lively and interesting discussion for everyone.
******
DSE, I'm still trying to work out exactly what you said in your first comment - I'll respond when my brain clears. Meanwhile I'll hold the coats while you and Mlp slug it out. Careful, 'though - he's a Yankee and is therefore probably armed.
******
Moony, 'honest and welcoming' - everybody but me, because, as some loser is so fond of telling everybody, I'm a bitter, frustrated, aggressive troll who's jealous of everybody and their granny. Hoots, mon!
******
Perhaps I should point out for the hard-of-thinking that Moony was indulging in a bit of hyberole in the way he expressed himself in his earlier comment, merely for comic effect. Moony used to be a nurse and is still actively involved in assisting disabled and disadvantaged people on an everyday basis. It is only Mr Peace's attitude in this matter that Moony disagrees with; like me, he has no personal animosity towards Mr Peace himself.
Post a Comment