The fact remains, despite all my witterings this week, that some people want disability represented in second life. While I reserve the right to criticise that attitude, and perhaps point out certain criticisms I have vis–vis pride and the way some of ‘us’ seem to shove their disabilities down peoples throats, the fact remains that some people do it simply to represent their selves. They do it apolitically, just to represent their selves. In other words, there are political and non-political reasons for the appearance of disability in second life; it is only when it goes too far, and becomes too political, that I object to it. For example, some people have tried to replicate having tourettes in s.l (you can guess how) in the online disability equivalent of blacking up. Some have stepped beyond representation in s.l into political agitationism. As I have maintained all week, it is the latter, not the former, which I object to.
Either way, the fact remains people do it. People have started to write about it, academically. I don’t think it can be ignored. Indeed, look at what people said about film back in 1895, or the net in 1985. online cultures need looking into. How do people chose to represent themselves? What is the relationship between this and other traditional media, like film? Does this, in a way, relate to cinephilia in our relation to the screen?
Ok. I’ll shut up about this soon.