ink_space (original) (raw)

Okay, so this giant blog argument exploded because Amanda Palmer collaborated with another musician on a fun, if somewhat dark, fictional concept album about a pair of conjoined twin sisters who were also musicians.

Somehow, this undertaking has offended THE ENTIRE WORRRRRLD with its supposed ignorance and how HIDEOUSLY OFFENSIVE it is to disabled people everywhere.

Say it with me: "Huhhhhhh?"

Despite my better judgment, I decided to participate in the shit storm on the blog. Below are some of the highlights from arguing with the most brittle and prickly, unimaginative politically correct people conceivable.

Argument #1:

Steph [Moderator] 1 day ago
People take things too seriously. If you didn't offend at least someone, then you wouldn't being doing your job properly.

pensata [Moderator] 1 day ago in reply to Steph
this is incredibly simplistic. people exist within social contexts, with certain power relations. there's a difference between offending a straight/white/protestant/financially well-off/educated/non-expolited cismale (because his story isn't being privileged, as an example), and offending disabled feminists, who see the same stories perpetuated about women, disabled people, and women with disabilities every day. offense for offense sake is not useful - it matters who is offended, and why.

EdenBee [Moderator] 1 day ago in reply to pensata
I'm not sure I follow.
As a straight, white, (Atheist), financially-not-destitute, educated, and arguably non-exploited person, I am actually offended by how you're generalizing my demographic. You talk about us as though we cannot possibly understand a point of view other than our own because we've just had it so easy. That generalization is in and of itself offensive, and is perpetuated every day too.

pensata [Moderator] 1 day ago in reply to EdenBee
for the record: i am a white, economically secure, educated, able-bodied person. these are just a few of my privileges, up front, so you know where i'm coming from. i do not consider myself *bad* or *incapable of compassion* due to these traits (clearly), but they do locate me in a certain position. now, on to my actual response.
i am not calling you, edenbee, out. i am saying that there are people with certain privileges who rarely *have* to step outside their comfort zone and understand another person's perspective, if they don't want to. this often has to do with the intersection racial, gender, financial, etc. privilege.
it is a phenomenon that exists. it is real. privilege is a widely-accepted concept in social justice movements. please don't take it as a personal affront; rather, it is a way of describing someone who often has an easier time in our society, in some measurable, quantitative instances, and of highlighting, on the flip-side, someone who is "Othered" as a result of not having any, some, or all of these qualities as well.
(check out 'unpacking the invisible knapsack', by peggy mcintosh, for a variation on this theme.)

EdenBee [Moderator] 23 hours ago in reply to pensata
I'm all for breaking down and analyzing texts (of any kind). My university background is in English and Fine Art, so I'm used to approaching art, fictional writing, essays, etc., with their social implications in mind.
However, just because a text lends itself to this type of breakdown and analysis, and one can find negative points and messages within it, doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist, or that it should be modified to eliminate those elements. It seems to me that many people on this board are actually trying to censor Amanda. I'm all for analysis. People can develop their own theories and theses on the project, and if that theory is that it's ableist, then that's one reading.
Never once have I written an essay on a work of fiction, pointed out a gender-biased or otherwise biased reading of it, and then felt the need to actually WRITE TO THE AUTHOR to tell them that I was shocked and offended and that they ought to change their work because of my reading of it. That's not the purpose of interpreting a text. And it's disrespectful to the author of the text, and to the text itself, to approach it that way.

pensata [Moderator] 8 hours ago in reply to EdenBee
1. you didn't respond to my earlier comment on privilege, and your privilege allows you to make this kind of argument.
2. joseph conrad (as an example) did not have a facebook page, twitter, and blog where he regularly interacted with his fans. he also did not ever claim to have "radical inclusivity" in mind when it came to his art and his life. amanda palmer, on the other hand, has done all of these things. not only is your argument - that artists don't merit criticism - incredibly fallacious, but it elides all of the major differences between a canonical author one might read in English as an undergrad and amanda palmer.
she is anti-status quo. she is anti-making people feel bad. for this reason, letting her know when people DO end up feeling bad, because of her art, is very important. fans should not just be fans - they are also participants in creating art, which includes giving valuable criticism and feedback when necessary. it is not a one-way street.

EdenBee [Moderator] 0 minutes ago in reply to pensata
1. Being human allows me to make whatever argument I feel is worth making, privilege or no.
2. I never said artists don't merit criticism. But writing to someone and telling them they need to radically change their project to make it all better for other people isn't criticism. It's attempting to rewrite another person's art.

Argument #2: (my favourite)

EdenBee [Moderator] 1 day ago
A point that I don't think has come up here (though I apologize if it has).
I've long had an interest in the history of vaudeville, sideshows, traveling carnivals, etc. I've read up and watched a lot about them.
One common thread that at first surprised me but that I did come to understand with repeated exposure was the point of view of the people who had been on display and toured as "freaks" in some of these shows. They almost universally expressed sadness at the end of the acceptability of this practice. In interviews, many stated that they enjoyed showing off their uniqueness, because in that context it was something special about them, whether it was admired or reviled, and not something to be awkwardly ignored by strangers on the street. In the era in which these people lived, these shows provided an opportunity to turn what in normal society might be a crippling handicap into a way to make a good living, and to be surrounded by other people who were different in their own ways, and who could act as a support system and family group. Most of the people I've seen and read in interviews were angry that protests by well-meaning outsiders had destroyed a way of life that they had come to love. They weren't thankful that people had stopped "exploiting" them. They felt their freedom to pursue a life they loved had been taken away from them by people who were offended on their behalf.
There are still people with physical differences and disabilities who choose to come together to put on contemporary "freak shows" in the old style of spectacle and exaggeration, and who still love the life they've chosen.
I'm not going to opine either way on this. I just thought I'd bring up this side of the history that this show touches upon.

BrookeA [Moderator] 1 day ago in reply to EdenBee
Okay...but, those are REAL people who are choosing what voice they have in this world.

EdenBee [Moderator] 23 hours ago in reply to BrookeA
Yes, they are.
And the fictional people don't have a say in how they're represented because they're... fictional. It's a problem shared by fictional people everywhere. I don't really follow your point here.