but you came off very dismissive to begin with
Because I am. I am dismissing your article, as are others that you’ll read as replies but also so many more you’ll never hear from who simply go on with their lives.
When you throw around terms like “ableist” you are demonstrating to everyone that you are part of a clique who finds it reasonable to be perpetually outraged, because I truly believe most people in this world would have absolutely no idea what you even mean when you say “ableist”. You will never hear that word in everyday conversation, if perhaps ever in the real world unless dealing with people from the outrage-clique.
Simply, it’s not a word. It’s a signal to others who think the same as yourself to form the echo chamber and brigade whatever the current offense of the day is. When most people don’t know what “ableist” means you are excluding most people and are therefore simply preaching to the choir.
People who would use terms like that are easily dismissed because they fail to engage others on a reasonable level in a reasonable fashion. Their drama is faux.
Yes, I dismiss your article. It’s trite.
But behind the article is someone who doesn’t write in a way that completely ruins the reading experience, and who obviously has a fire beneath them. Your replies share the same. So, I’ll engage you for awhile to give you the counterpoint to your position because the effort you have gone to inspires me to reply, and then we’ll part ways.
This was about a movie I (and others) felt was so offensive it should be boycotted. I’m not talking about any topic. I’m talking about mental illness.
So why not be outraged at Fight Club, or Bad Boy Bubby, or so on and so forth? There are plenty of choices, but someone somewhere decided this was the hill where the battle would be fought, not considering that perhaps there’s no battle to fight.
The problem I have with your article, and any like it, is that it takes a very personal pain point and demands that others accommodate for it, when in reality it’s nothing personal at all and the situation is being magnified and distorted to fit a narrative and reality that doesn’t exist.
You have to consider that maybe your personal issue with this film isn’t legitimate, or isn’t important enough for people to give it any credit. Your feelings on the matter are yours, and others like you, but I dare say most people won’t be so deeply internalizing the topic of the movie. Your feelings are legitimate in that you experience them, but that doesn’t mean they hold weight or reflect how others do, or should, feel.
I think if you step back a little you’ll see that this is all just hysterics about nothing, and for this to hold so much weight is ignoring all of the other “injustices” in every single other film.
It’s an unhealthy, unproductive, exclusionary approach to take about a topic you care about. Instead of writing in an inclusive manner that speaks to why there perhaps should or could be more movies that show mental health issues in a fairer or more flattering light we have a battle being fought and boycotts being demanded.
If nothing else you have simply afforded more advertising to the film you say you want nobody to see. And let’s be real here, the movie is going to make a tonne of money and be stupid-profitable for everyone involved… boycott or no boycott.
We should be demanding change. Because it’s just not good enough. And I don’t see why that’s so wrong for me to say.
You aren’t demanding change. You are demanding a stoppage. They aren’t the same thing. Again, you could be writing to dispel myths, or creating stories to better-reflect the realities of mental illness. But you aren’t doing that. You aren’t offering anything other than outrage, and outrage on it’s own is worthless.
You sound very condescending.
Because I can be condescending. It’s an effort to speak to a person in a reasonable manner when they are already unreasonable, and sugar-coating everything to a diabetic crisp does nobody any favors. That I am being condescending at times doesn’t negate what I’ve said, nor should it. I consider your article and position immature and lacking perspective, whether that upsets you or not.
If it so happens that you are in fact objectively right, and I’m wrong, then I have either failed to grasp why or you have failed to petition to readers like myself why we are wrong to not be upset.
Bottom line is this: You aren’t being a positive force in any of this; You are just being noisy, and that has no value.
I’ll leave this conversation here. Reply or not, but don’t feel that I’m going to hold this over you until your fingers fall off or that I need the final word. You can have the final word, if it suits you to do so. So with my last sentence to you I’ll say this… Even though I disagree with your stance on the topic I do appreciate your passion, efforts, and writing, so thank you for that and (sincerely) best wishes to you.