A week or two ago I was talking with someone, and somehow we got onto the PETA advertising campaign that used naked (or scantily clad) celebrity women as a way to get attention.
I didn't find the campaign offensive (nude women don't bother me, equally nude men don't bother me) and it seemed likely to be in some ways effective – attractive people get attention, it's pretty well always going to be true). The other person in the conversation seemed to suggest that the campaign was offensive to women, and that as a result I should be offended.
It's this kind of offence by proxy that I find hard to grasp. I don't find the PETA campaign objectionable. I'm a whole range of reasons other people might be offended, but I don't see why that should worry me. I'm not conveying my point well here – I'm coming across as a selfish git – but what I'm trying to say is that it's silly to be overly considerate. If enough people are offended and complain, the negative effect would likely cause the cancellation of the advertising campaign. I simply don't see that I need to get involved.
Now, what was my segue way..
Ah, right. It seems to me that you're asking authors to value one aspect of their work (how considerate it is to a other cultures, minorities, ..) over other aspects of their work. Specifically, you're asking them not to do something not because it offends them, but because it might offend others.
It seems a strange ask to me. If an author writes a story that is prejudiced, that still seems to me to be an entirely legitimate form of artistic expression. They're saying something by being prejudiced, and that's open to all sorts of readings. In the case of historical works, there's a lot conveyed about the world view and prejudice of a particular time through its texts.
To you a recently authored, racist book is flawed, and as a result you're pretty unlikely to read it (except perhaps as research into your topic of interest.) I might be taking you the wrong way, but what you're saying seems dangerously close to a call for censorship of works that are not considerate according to various guidelines you've laid down, and that (to use a cliché I've always loved) is the thin end of the wedge.
(I'm not trying to say that all consideration is unjustified, I just think a form of self-censorship of ones views out of consideration for absolutely everyone else is a bad thing.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I didn't find the campaign offensive (nude women don't bother me, equally nude men don't bother me) and it seemed likely to be in some ways effective – attractive people get attention, it's pretty well always going to be true). The other person in the conversation seemed to suggest that the campaign was offensive to women, and that as a result I should be offended.
It's this kind of offence by proxy that I find hard to grasp. I don't find the PETA campaign objectionable. I'm a whole range of reasons other people might be offended, but I don't see why that should worry me. I'm not conveying my point well here – I'm coming across as a selfish git – but what I'm trying to say is that it's silly to be overly considerate. If enough people are offended and complain, the negative effect would likely cause the cancellation of the advertising campaign. I simply don't see that I need to get involved.
Now, what was my segue way..
Ah, right. It seems to me that you're asking authors to value one aspect of their work (how considerate it is to a other cultures, minorities, ..) over other aspects of their work. Specifically, you're asking them not to do something not because it offends them, but because it might offend others.
It seems a strange ask to me. If an author writes a story that is prejudiced, that still seems to me to be an entirely legitimate form of artistic expression. They're saying something by being prejudiced, and that's open to all sorts of readings. In the case of historical works, there's a lot conveyed about the world view and prejudice of a particular time through its texts.
To you a recently authored, racist book is flawed, and as a result you're pretty unlikely to read it (except perhaps as research into your topic of interest.) I might be taking you the wrong way, but what you're saying seems dangerously close to a call for censorship of works that are not considerate according to various guidelines you've laid down, and that (to use a cliché I've always loved) is the thin end of the wedge.
(I'm not trying to say that all consideration is unjustified, I just think a form of self-censorship of ones views out of consideration for absolutely everyone else is a bad thing.)