when the objective is obscured
Apr. 12th, 2009 07:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
adrian_turtleI saw a big sign at Port Authority this morning. Most of it was a green chalkboard, with white letters:
Under the chalkboard, in different lettering, the sign offered:
Learn more at [ ]IsReal.org
The blank spaces were made with thick tape, like white electrical tape, put over the text. Was it put there in an attempt to dispute the original public service announcement, to say, "No, this disease you're talking about is not real," or "How dare you compare cancer to this stigmatized, marginalized disease?" Or were they trying to make the poster's point more general, to ask, simultaneously:
So why do some say it about fibromyalgia?
So why do some say it about depression?
So why do some say it about allergies?
So why do some say it about PTSD?
So why do some say it about lupus?
Etc, etc, for all the potentially disabling or life-threatening diseases that are so often regarded as trivial or imaginary. Is there value in focusing on "why do some say it," rather than just defending the legitimacy of a particular disease? I think it would be valuable, and the altered poster pointed me that way. However clumsily, or unintentionally.
YOU'D NEVER SAY,
IT'S JUST CANCER,
GET OVER IT."
So why do some say that about [ ]?
Under the chalkboard, in different lettering, the sign offered:
The blank spaces were made with thick tape, like white electrical tape, put over the text. Was it put there in an attempt to dispute the original public service announcement, to say, "No, this disease you're talking about is not real," or "How dare you compare cancer to this stigmatized, marginalized disease?" Or were they trying to make the poster's point more general, to ask, simultaneously:
So why do some say it about depression?
So why do some say it about allergies?
So why do some say it about PTSD?
So why do some say it about lupus?
Etc, etc, for all the potentially disabling or life-threatening diseases that are so often regarded as trivial or imaginary. Is there value in focusing on "why do some say it," rather than just defending the legitimacy of a particular disease? I think it would be valuable, and the altered poster pointed me that way. However clumsily, or unintentionally.
