Star Trek has never really been my fandom of choice, but I've picked up a good deal of information about it from cultural osmosis and dabbling
( Read more... )
Did it resonate because it seemed like an apt metaphor, or because it attributed a higher level of damage than had generally been attributed before?
Perhaps, if it's the case where it's not a single incident is a car collision, but rather, many incidents causing pain over time, it'd be more apt to analogize to a long term chronic pain or illness? Granted, this is about analogizing, and the purpose there is as much to convince the reader of the level of pain, and most readers are unfamiliar with how debilitating a chronic illness is, so it's unlikely to work as effectively for communicating the level of upset.
One difficulty with the analogy to a car collision is that it seems to be asking people to be careful not of creating an environment of (for example) sexism, but of any one sexist comment. It likens the one sexist comment to a car collision -- to a man, not having experienced the backlog of sexism from the environment, that seems ridiculous, and so the sort of thing to respond to with the usual complaints about "those people"("histrionics" in the case of women? I'm not sure what the words are). Whereas if the analogy argues not for the damage of a single comment but of the damage of a lifetime of them, it may be more possible to reach those who don't experience a lifetime of them, and thus aren't damaged by a single insult.
Perhaps, if it's the case where it's not a single incident is a car collision, but rather, many incidents causing pain over time, it'd be more apt to analogize to a long term chronic pain or illness?
Absolutely not. He is making a point about people hurting other people, not people being hurt by forces beyond our control.
He's also not talking to the consciousness-raising 101 crowd. His intended audience (as near as I can tell from outside his head) are people who already understand that racism exists. It's very hard to have a conversation about something like racism or sexism that's of any value to the people experiencing it if you're trying to drag along people who dismiss it.
I found his metaphor to be interesting and a helpful lens to view racism, as well as various other -isms, through. You didn't. That's fine -- people are different and like different things. I'm not going to rewrite his description of what racism feels like to him to suit your sensibilities.
Okay. From the comments, and this, it does sound like the audience he's talking to views this analogy as valuable. And I'm not intending to ask you to suit my sensibilities, but
a) Your response--that my analogy is wrong because isms are about people hurting other people, not people being hurt by forces beyond people--sounds very similar to my response to his analogy: a significant complaint with the underlying like-ness, and an objection to the views people would take away from that analogy, and
b) there's a difference between dividing the world into people who "already understand that racism exists" vs "people who dismiss it" and "people who experience ism on a regular basis and are seriously hurt by it" and "people who don't" (whether or not they accept it exists, whether or not they think it should be fixed.)
Anyway, I see much more clearly how easily any such metaphor is going to be fraught with misinterpretation by some audience.
I think I see part of the communication problem between us: I was talking specifically about his analogy, not about general analogies about -isms. I feel like, given that I'm white, a POC's description of racism is sufficiently not my ... my space that while I can appreciate it, respond to it, publicize it, or ignore it, changing or reframing it is rude.
Perhaps, if it's the case where it's not a single incident is a car collision, but rather, many incidents causing pain over time, it'd be more apt to analogize to a long term chronic pain or illness? Granted, this is about analogizing, and the purpose there is as much to convince the reader of the level of pain, and most readers are unfamiliar with how debilitating a chronic illness is, so it's unlikely to work as effectively for communicating the level of upset.
One difficulty with the analogy to a car collision is that it seems to be asking people to be careful not of creating an environment of (for example) sexism, but of any one sexist comment. It likens the one sexist comment to a car collision -- to a man, not having experienced the backlog of sexism from the environment, that seems ridiculous, and so the sort of thing to respond to with the usual complaints about "those people"("histrionics" in the case of women? I'm not sure what the words are). Whereas if the analogy argues not for the damage of a single comment but of the damage of a lifetime of them, it may be more possible to reach those who don't experience a lifetime of them, and thus aren't damaged by a single insult.
I wonder if that made any sense at all.
Reply
Absolutely not. He is making a point about people hurting other people, not people being hurt by forces beyond our control.
He's also not talking to the consciousness-raising 101 crowd. His intended audience (as near as I can tell from outside his head) are people who already understand that racism exists. It's very hard to have a conversation about something like racism or sexism that's of any value to the people experiencing it if you're trying to drag along people who dismiss it.
I found his metaphor to be interesting and a helpful lens to view racism, as well as various other -isms, through. You didn't. That's fine -- people are different and like different things. I'm not going to rewrite his description of what racism feels like to him to suit your sensibilities.
Reply
a) Your response--that my analogy is wrong because isms are about people hurting other people, not people being hurt by forces beyond people--sounds very similar to my response to his analogy: a significant complaint with the underlying like-ness, and an objection to the views people would take away from that analogy, and
b) there's a difference between dividing the world into people who "already understand that racism exists" vs "people who dismiss it" and "people who experience ism on a regular basis and are seriously hurt by it" and "people who don't" (whether or not they accept it exists, whether or not they think it should be fixed.)
Anyway, I see much more clearly how easily any such metaphor is going to be fraught with misinterpretation by some audience.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment