Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
this is interesting: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/08/miracle_memes_and_inspiration_porn_internet_viral_images_demean_disabled.html
Inspiration porn: good shout - I find "What Happened Next Will Move You To Tears" Upworthy clickbait intensely irritating and rather patronising.
Especially on the effect it has on injured military veterans.
I mean on one hand the whole "invictus games"/Climb Kilimanjaro/ go to the South Pole stuff is a really positive and inspirational thing, and does a great amount of good for charity and giving people a sense of worth and wellbeing who might otherwise have little.
However it's pretty impossible to compare injuries that people get from things such as IEDs. To put it crudely, someone who has two or three limbs amputated can be less impaired than someone who has a less visible impairment, especially if it's caused by a "dirty" IED. I think the expectation that this can bring, and the whole "superhero" narrative can be very dangerous for other people who have similar injuries.
I also worry about the effect that it can have on other disabled people too.
There's also the argument as to whether injured veterans should be afforded "superhero" treatment in comparison to, say, mrs ccb's ex-colleague, who has a permanent brain injury after a pupil threw a chair at her head. (Plus thousands of other people in other professions who sustain injuries whilst trying to serve others).
a lot of it is, quite obviously, tied into the public perception of soldiers and the military etc- though I guess a degree of it may be caused by some innate public sense of guilt.
Also, in a practical sense (and not to denigrate the achievements of anyone veteran who achieves something like this), soldiers by their very nature are young and fit- if there's one group of people who are most likely to achieve a goal like this from a life-threatening, debilitation injury, then it would be one of them.
to help young disabled kids to start using wheelchairs as many are desperate for their kids to walk regardless of whether that's really feasible or not.
In fact, Christopher Reeve was strongly disliked by a lot of disabled people for his "walking again at any cost" approach and the way it fed into a lot of the media around this too.
Cause, if Christopher Reeve wanted to walk again, in many ways that is his own prerogative. but at the same time, when someone gets all that exposure, it puts that same expectation on other people.
It's very tough for parents, because by their very nature all disabilities are different. The focus should always be on giving the disabled person the best quality of life, though its often hard for parents to see the "wood from the trees" as to what is actually best for their child.
I wouldn't criticise anyone (or any parent) for aspiring to those things or "remaining positive" - which is a loaded phrase in itself - but that X Factor-style media narrative of "you can do it if you only believe enough!" can be seriously damaging, not to mention personally insulting for many.
"remaining positive but realistic" may be a more helpful phrase.
it's funny, because growing up as a disabled person I also saw the opposite- children whose parents wouldn't let them do the things they wanted to (and most likely would have been able to) do. Really really fine balance.
and it should all be down to the individual.
I did get pretty angry at some of the things government ministers and other commentators/columnists were saying during the paralympics: patronising those whose benefits and assistance they'd removed and telling able-bodied campaigners that they were holding disabled people back. The paralympians are exceptional athletes - you might as well tell an able-bodied person that they don't need a car to get to work because Mo Farah can run 10K in 25 minutes.
there are times i have long periods of inactivity because i'm reluctant to get a wheelchair, as advised, because i don't need it 100% of the time and would feel like i was actually shitting on people who need them 100% of the time. end up doing myself more harm in the long run, prolonging periods of inactivity.
no two disabilities are the same, no two people suffering from the same disability are the same, no two people deal with pain or adapting an able world to their needs the same.
I know wheelchair provision and funding is *massively* hit and miss across the country, but to adapt the analogy in the article we wouldn't expect someone to go without glasses because they only need them occasionally.
unless absolutely necessary - it was felt that an over dependence on them could reduce the vision in the eyes. That's now known to not be the case, but at the same time it is known that working muscles/nerves through physiotherapy can counter atrophy.
I don't think it's unusual to have a fear of that happening, personally, but at the same time it shouldn't be seen as an insult to other wheelchair users to use one when it makes life easier. It's not like the people who wear thick-rimmed spectacles with no lenses in them.
but I thought georgiabeth was saying she does herself more harm by not using a wheelchair and by being inactive, not by using one.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong, GB!
I got confused by the punctuation.
"George Takei did not apologize. He did not remove the meme from his page or even justify why it was there."
Is now totally bollocks. He DID remove it, he got shirty and then he apologised.
Fucking hell Theo.
Surely it should say: "George Takei did not apologize (because he doesn't have to). He did not remove the meme from his page (because he doesn't have to) or even justify why it was there (because he doesn't have to)."
Takei was later quoted as saying "hmm interesting"
Nice self-satisfaction though.
However, reflecting on your thoughts and actions and apologising and amending future behaviour is a good thing.
Don't you think?
and amending your behaviour for.
Surely it could say (but it doesn't have to): "George Takei did not apologize (because he doesn't have to). He did not remove the meme from his page (because he doesn't have to) or even justify why it was there (because he doesn't have to)."
that phrase is really annoying me for some reason.
something can't be true and then be 'total bollocks'. it can be true then no longer true. it's like saying it was true earlier but now it's a complete fabrication. idk who cares.
Just in case you're somehow being serious, not sure how many articles get checked and amended every few hours in case the status of something they mentioned has now changed.
but when part of the article is seen important enough to isolate from the article and highlight in bold text and is now no longer true I don't think it's unreasonable for that to be updated. I believe that is the point theo is making.
Theo should stop being such a precious trekkie.
but that theo expects it to have been done already?
to direct people to his apology, sure.
That doesn't make anything in the article "totally bollocks" any more than contemporary reports of WWII are now "totally bollocks" because Hitler's dead.
This is fucking dull, John.
because it's made me think of something I hadn't considered before: do people expect things written on the web to be accurate as of right now because it's a 'living' thing and can be updated? I suppose this relates in some way to the 'right to be forgotten'. I don't accept your analogy about contemporary WWII reports. These would be hard copies so any sensible person would realise the accuracy of these is not absolute and can be superseded by subsequent events.
I do accept that using the phrase 'totally bollocks' was over emotive as alcxxk has said.