So it seems Gal Gadot posted a tweet regarding the passing of Stephen Hawking in which she expressed the sentiment that he would no longer be restricted by his ALS-stricken body. Immediately the Eternal Personhood of Eternal Outrage went on the offensive, calling her able-ist and Zionist (I’m not sure why this would be relevant to the discussion) for implying that he might have preferred not to be crippled.
While I understand their concerns to a degree, they are as usual reading far too much into what would normally be a heartfelt expression of loss and a hope for something positive. Certainly Hawking was not and should not be defined or evaluated based on his disease. Certainly his worth as a human being cannot be calculated solely on his disease–or even his response to it.
But to take offense at suggesting a person might be happier being freed from that disease, or to have not contracted it in the first place? Gal Gadot is not the warped one here. The EPEO may as well declare that cancer just happens and there’s no point in whining about it. In fact, by their apparent thinking, even committing funding to researching cures for diseases like cancer and ALS is able-ist–they’re implying victims are just as well off as those without it, so why even try to prevent it?
Am I going to extremes here? Perhaps, but no more extreme than getting upset with someone who imagines that someone with such a disease might not have enjoyed every minute of it and may actually have wished for something better.
No one was implying that Hawking or anyone else with physical limitations are any less of a person because of those limitations. No one was implying that those people’s accomplishment are in any way diminished by their limitations. Gadot was just imagining that Hawking might just enjoy not having those limitations.
I can only wonder how many of the EPEO have ever changed their hair color, applied cosmetics, started an exercise program, changed their diet, or selected clothing specifically for its figure-enhancing features. Are those not a suggestion that their life could be better by changing some aspect of the physical cards dealt them?
But that’s not the most insidious aspect of this whole incident. This is part of a larger, more disturbing pattern: How dare any of us assume we know what will make another person happy? How dare any of us assume that any sort of sentiment might be even remotely universal? According to the EPEO, it seems, we should never attempt to wish anyone well in any way, shape or form because that makes assumptions that might be erroneous. Sad that Hawking is dead? You’re assuming he didn’t want to die! Should we instead be glad Hawking is dead? How can you know he didn’t want to live?
The bottom line they are racing toward is this: don’t speak to anyone for anything other than to convey information. Period. Any attempt to convey emotion, sentiment, or opinion, however well-intentioned, is potentially damaging (unless it’s the EPEO doing so, of course–they are never in the wrong).
These people just don’t get it. Yes, it’s possible that someone may inadvertently be offended. Everyone has their limits. While I likely take it well if someone wished me a Happy Hanukah, Feliz Cinco De Mayo, or even a fine Solstice Rituals Day, I suppose I might be disturbed if someone wished me a Happy “Your Mother Didn’t Terminate Your Fetus Like She Should Have” Day, and I might question the sincerity of the person expressing the sentiment.
But while it’s conceivable that some people with ALS might not like such a sentiment as Gadot’s, is it really that inconceivable that there might be just as many who would? Is it really so bad that she played the odds a little that the majority of those with ALS might actually appreciate being free of it? Is it so bad to attempt to console those mourning the loss of someone with ALS with the thought that death might have a bright side?
These EPEOs are certainly banking on general good will when they presume to speak for people with ALS. They don’t seem to consider that their generalizations might not be appreciated. They fail to imagine that such railings against those who clearly had good intentions only undermines their own cause.
I recently participated in an online conversation, however brief, in which a young woman appeared to posit that “offense” was the vehicle by which beneficial change occurs. If enough people are offended by something, she seemed to be saying, they will band together and bring about revolution, making the world a better place. While she was not entirely wrong, she offered no delineation between “good offense” and “bad offense”. I can assume she didn’t mean to imply that those who find homosexual behavior offensive, for example, would be right to gather enough compatriots together to bring about revolution and eliminate homosexual behavior. Taking offense is by no means intrinsically good. While sometimes it benefits society to eliminate the thing that is offensive, more often than not society is best served by simply not taking offense at all.
Life is not all about avoiding offense. It’s a rare person who cannot be offended. We can all pretty much assume we will be offended at some point–even deliberately. It’s just part of life. We won’t fix it by becoming even more sensitive. We won’t change it by being ready to destroy anyone who so much as looks at us cross-eyed. We won’t make the world a better place by putting everyone on the defense to the point they’re reluctant to speak at all. But that’s where the EPEO want to take us.
I don’t want to go there. I see nothing desirable in their vision for the world. In stamping out all chances of causing offense we stamp out any chance of meaningful connections as well. The world is not served by continual, relentless hyper-sensitivity.