![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alixtiiSuzie at Echidne of the Snakes, on how Dollhouse is and isn't (and should and shouldn't be) feminist, here. (I think we may disagree on whether or not sex work is inherently anti-feminist--I don't think it is--but that obscures the more important point that, both in real life and on the show, the way sex work is actually conducted is pretty clearly immoral in almost all cases.)
cesare, on using sexually explicit RPF and FPF, particularly those involving some type of queerness, as a mechanism of critique and attack and mockery, here and here. And for the record, no, I would have no problem with people writing RPF about me even if the purpose was to slander me, and even if they leave it in places I'll probably see it. The fact that they wanted to attack me would sadden me, of course, if I found out about it, but the particular method they chose would be one I'd consider legitimate and valid and even sort of awesome; all the world's a text and we should feel free to remix it.
The first rule of RPF is, of course, that the characters we never write are never the real people (if your metaphysics allows for such a thing) they purport to be; in this context, the very idea of RPF as an attack is logically incoherent. Which is not to say that doing anything at all with the intent to hurt somebody (or the knowledge that it would hurt them) is an okay thing, or that the mere knowledge that someone else acted with that intent couldn't itself be hurtful, but that's a very different critique, and I've seen people specifically claiming that intent isn't relevant to the discussion they were trying to have.
yhlee, on "how to avoid the wind-up toy effect," dealing with issues of worldbuilding especially in science fiction and fantasy settings, here. At some point I'm going to write why I think what she writes there is a useful corrective to what I found problematic or wrong coming out of the Science and Magic panel at ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
writercon, but for now I'll settle on just linking it.
cesare, on using sexually explicit RPF and FPF, particularly those involving some type of queerness, as a mechanism of critique and attack and mockery, here and here. And for the record, no, I would have no problem with people writing RPF about me even if the purpose was to slander me, and even if they leave it in places I'll probably see it. The fact that they wanted to attack me would sadden me, of course, if I found out about it, but the particular method they chose would be one I'd consider legitimate and valid and even sort of awesome; all the world's a text and we should feel free to remix it.The first rule of RPF is, of course, that the characters we never write are never the real people (if your metaphysics allows for such a thing) they purport to be; in this context, the very idea of RPF as an attack is logically incoherent. Which is not to say that doing anything at all with the intent to hurt somebody (or the knowledge that it would hurt them) is an okay thing, or that the mere knowledge that someone else acted with that intent couldn't itself be hurtful, but that's a very different critique, and I've seen people specifically claiming that intent isn't relevant to the discussion they were trying to have.
yhlee, on "how to avoid the wind-up toy effect," dealing with issues of worldbuilding especially in science fiction and fantasy settings, here. At some point I'm going to write why I think what she writes there is a useful corrective to what I found problematic or wrong coming out of the Science and Magic panel at writercon, but for now I'll settle on just linking it.![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-07 06:16 am (UTC)I would say you (general you) need to remember that they are not just defined by their sexism or homophobia. The chances are they have other problems of their own, and even if you decide you can be beastly to them as regards their -ism you surely have an ethical responsibility to tread carefully as regards everything else. And since humans do not live their lives in discreet boxes of separate ideas and behaviour within their own minds, upsetting a person 'because of' one thing will always play into all the other facets of their life and who knows how your actions may spread out and what harm they may do?
At the very least one should try to set a good example. Rise above their own bad morals to display good ones. Demonstrate how to do things right and how to apologise if one does them wrong. In short, nursery manners have a lot to be said for them - we tend to teach children the fundamental things that matter to us as a society, and by and large they aren't that far off the mark.
So I would say I find the answer to that one very easy indeed - nobody who cares about other people should ever take the attitude that it is ok to treat another person other than with dignity and respect. Even if they do happen to represent something you hate.