>>3537291Generally good points, but
>If you actually gave a shit about spergs then you would go beyond from just adding them as background characters and calling it a day. If writers aren't willing to do that, then its better to not have them at allI think it's perfectly fine to have disabled characters in the background
But don't call it "activism."
All it does is say that they exist. It does nothing for bettering understanding of what the disabled go through. It merely normalizes their presence.
You can't say you're doing anything for the disabled if you create characters solely defined by being disabled and nothing beyond that. It's nothing more than tokenism
I think the thing with much of the progressive crowd is that its inclusion/representation of disabled people indicates a certain sense of the performative rather than genuine passionate concern. They're following the normative social values of their time. It's less about actually caring about the welfare of the disabled, and more about fulfilling a sense of ... politeness. But that's the less cynical types. While those are a little condescending and virtue-signally, the more irritating cases seem to a) lionize the cause of the disabled purely for personal recognition, or b) think that the bare minimum is actually positive action, like
>>3530641 to some extent
But I'm perfectly fine with stuff like
>>3537180 so long as they're honest about fetishizing real disabilities. Hearts and clits don't follow logic, there's no point trying to be responsible with our sexual/emotional kinks, so long as we're all being honest with ourselves. I actually see the appeal of that kind of person you're describing. Dependency and weakness are cute, just not IRL. Let's just not delude ourselves into thinking we're helping anything but own fantasies. For example, I would probably enjoy some whump of what you're describing, and that's not healthy, now isn't it?
Pic unrelated. Wish there was more good Dr. Bright and Connor art
