4 ms·
I'm not so happy about the comment "she looks like a hooker". Nor about sub-comments purporting to know the reasons she has in mind for her dress choice, and sh
by dosy 8y ago
I'm not so happy about the comment "she looks like a hooker". Nor about sub-comments purporting to know the reasons she has in mind for her dress choice, and she knows how she affects people by it. Also want to say, as preface, that of course hookers can be hackers, and one reason I'm taking the following slant on it is the surprise expressed in this comment, I take to indicate the (limited) assumption that they cannot coexist.
I think I've got two main issues with these comments.
The first is: Why do you think you can speak for her? Why do you think you get it?
The second is: Why do you think she can speak for you? Why do you assume she knows how she is affecting people by her dress?
The second is the same as the first, you can't assume her mind, she can't assume the viewer's mind.
Knowing the mind of the other / empathy is a good thing, but when you assume it to fit a particular narrative or impose a particular limiting idea, as I see the case is here, I think that's not a good thing.
Another way to say all this is, people are free to dress in whatever individuated ways they want, for whatever individuated reasons/feelings they have for that, and viewers are free to respond/feel whatever individuated responses they have for that.
The narrative where we assume the intent of the viewed and the viewer, and use that assumption we impose, to then fill in / construct a negative / discriminatory / fake narrative of the viewer or the viewed is not only flat out morally wrong, it's also logically incorrect I think.
For the record, I think the "sexualization" is imposed by the interpretation of the commenters, not by the choice of dress. Also I don't find the dress looks "like a hooker". I think it's more nuanced than that, if you pay more attention to the details, her choice of shots, her expression. I understand people might differ in their conclusion / label of the dress, but realize that, probably, if you reach a superficial conclusion such as this, you are likely only limiting yourself and possibly limiting the discourse / way you can think about someone else. It doesn't matter what the effect intended by her is, it matters what your response is. That's one way I think about this.
I think people need to upgrade / nuance-out their discourse about these sorts of topics.
- turbinerneiter 8y agoYou are basically denying people's right to interpret art, because they could interpret art wrong. I don't speak for Wu. I'm merely talking about how her art affected my thinking. > Also want to say, as preface, that of course hookers can be hackers, and one reason I'm taking the following slant on it is the surprise expressed in this comment, I take to indicate the (limited) assumption that they cannot coexist. I quite literally said that her work helped me overcome this prejudice, so I'm not sure what you are getting at.
- dosy 8y ago> You are basically denying people's right to interpret art, because they could interpret art wrong. Nope. I was criticizing these interpretations, even as I recognize they are valid for you (from some point of view) and saying they can be improved. If you want to take that as "don't speak at all", that's your choice, and not what I'm saying.
- pessimizer 8y ago> I think I've got two main issues with these comments. > The first is: Why do you think you can speak for her? Why do you think you get it? > The second is: Why do you think she can speak for you? Why do you assume she knows how she is affecting people by her dress? To criticize an interpretation, you would point out a specific statement that someone has said about the meaning of something, and why you think that isn't true. You're literally just repeating that no one knows anything and shouldn't assert things because things may or may not be true, just verbosely.
- dosy 8y agoNope, sorry anon, that's not it. Interesting theory tho. But it conflicts with how I think about things. Useful to know you don't get it, tho.
- turbinerneiter 8y agoAnyway, this is what Wu has to say on the matter: https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/1019186539857735682 https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/101918653985773568...
- dosy 8y agoLooking more closely at this corner of online my sense of it is that Wu doesn't really care about the "political" stances she's taking, she's more a careerist political-chameleon donning and shunning values to suit her purpose. And my sense of this little episode currently in play is it's more about Wu conjuring a narrative about how bad the Western media is and using the mere color of a few choice political stances to rope a group along with her. Rabble-rousing, pot stirring, chaos creation, in the service of narratives that try to undermine the West I think is what she enjoys, as well as tech. So despite paying lip service to being "anti-China" (more hooks for her fans, much like Ai Wei Wei), she is of course pro-China. It's not hard to go into LiberalLaLaLand and stir the pot and create chaos and outrage. Once created that energy can be directed toward a purpose. Which is what I see Wu working hard and skillfully doing here. I think we will see more and more of this in future, as China takes advantage of the structural "narrative vulnerabilities" of the fake liberal ideology to damage and create chaos in the West (much as CIA likes to do in places like HK, W Africa, S America, I think). The irony, perhaps, is these fake-liberal values (identity politics, etc) were actually created to contain / delude and disempower activist movements by the IC, and now it's used against them by the Chinese. It's always the way with weapons, when you create something powerful it can end up being used against you.