Social Justice Warriors - Now With Less Feminism Sperging

1675545207285.png

1675545219534.png

Many such cases.
 
What exactly is the argument blacks and natives are having? Are the blacks trying to claim they're the "real" natives or something?
Black oppression is more important than any other oppression, so the only way to criticize native oppression without it seeming adversarial is to absorb them (BIPOC) first. Now that blacks and natives are in the same group, blacks can freely shit on them because it's impossible for people in that group to be outwardly racist.
 
Always a pissing contest. Indians were dying to disease while niggers picked cotton.

It's tiring being told that I and everyone I know is nothing more than colonizing "foreigners". Ironic that the Indians are also immigrants from Eastern Eurasia. Modern DNA testing confirms their Far East Asian origins. Even the Pacific Islanders, the other "Natives" of the U.S, are technically immigrants who share origins with Southeast Asians. They're all part of the greater Austronesian culture. The populating of the Polynesian islands was more recent than the Americas. Yet everyone except for them is "stealing".

If they claim that blacks were the "original people" of every continent, by their own logic, everything in life is black and black crime. Whether its colonialism or police brutality. So they can't blame crackers or indians for screwing them over because everyone is "black".

Recent archeological finds have shown that there were (at least) two waves of migration into America.

(And that’s excluding the very hypothetical WHITE PEOPLE SETTLED FIRST!-stuff)

In the arctic fornexample, there were an early migration wave that settled parts of Greenland, who were later conquered/colonized by a later wave of migrants: The people we now know as Inuit.

TLDR: We’re all settler colonialists. Even native Americans. If they liked the Americas so much, they should have developed past the stone age level and invented some shit on their own, instead of selling everything to the first white dude who showed up with booze and glass beads.
 
Recent archeological finds have shown that there were (at least) two waves of migration into America.

(And that’s excluding the very hypothetical WHITE PEOPLE SETTLED FIRST!-stuff)

In the arctic fornexample, there were an early migration wave that settled parts of Greenland, who were later conquered/colonized by a later wave of migrants: The people we now know as Inuit.

TLDR: We’re all settler colonialists. Even native Americans. If they liked the Americas so much, they should have developed past the stone age level and invented some shit on their own, instead of selling everything to the first white dude who showed up with booze and glass beads.
If you ask around, a lot of native populations have stories about how some bad shit happened a while back and reset things to 0. I believe it, personally, but that's not really what these people are getting at anyway.
 
PW / https://archive.ph/SeeEG

The Sensitive Question of Sensitivity Readers​


An agent argues that changing a book based on a sensitivity read can make it less authentic.​


By Jeffrey Herman |

Feb 03, 2023

Under book publishing’s trending best practices, historical authenticity can be secondary to appeasing people’s sensitivities. I’m qualified to say this based on my recent experience as a literary agent on behalf of a client.

The events in question began happily: my client received a Big Five contract for a book about his time as a Marine sniper during the Vietnam War, when he was 17. The original manuscript (written with the assistance of a coauthor) told his story in the context of its time and place, including florid verbatim language and descriptions that wouldn’t be appropriate in other settings, then or now. Historical authenticity and truthfulness were the author’s priorities.

The manuscript passed the publisher’s editorial and legal protocols with relatively few revisions, and no additional hurdles were expected. In fairness, the editor’s good news email included a brief statement that the manuscript still needed to pass a so-called sensitivity read, but we weren’t told what that was or given any reason for concern. I had never heard of it and didn’t give it a second thought. Instead, I asked the editor to request the second advance payment due upon acceptance for publication. But my assumptions were wrong.

I’ve since learned that sensitivity reads are a recent and potentially powerful layer of scrutiny some books are subjected to. Evidently, they have been in use by some children’s publishers for several years. I don’t know which adult publishers may have adapted them, if they are uniformly structured and empowered, or if any written mission statements or guidelines exist. I can only write about my experience.

If properly conceived and used, sensitivity reads can be beneficial for all stakeholders, especially authors. Any manuscript can be potentially infected with inadvertently offensive content that serves no meaningful purpose. For instance, I represent many older backlist titles that possess unacceptable language by current standards but that, when written, seemed innocent. We make an effort to discover and rewrite those segments without distorting the (often deceased) author’s meaning. The key is trying to remain as true as possible to the author’s original intent.

Manipulating or sanitizing history will not cure what ails us.

Under the threat of having his book deal terminated, my client was forced to meaningfully modify his manuscript to accommodate a five-page document full of subjective complaints about how the Vietnam War was fought by the author and his co-combatants, the unfiltered descriptions of his horrific experiences, and the unsavory language used by the mostly very young men who were there on behalf of their country. The sensitivity review was written by one person. This person was hired by the publisher, and no information about their qualifications, or who might have reviewed their review, was provided. No appeals or rebuttals were allowed. My author reluctantly complied in full.

I actually agree with many of the sensitivity reader’s sentiments. Everything about that war was appalling. But why sanitize it? It should be depicted exactly as it happened. Following the publisher’s logic would be equal to transforming the M˜y Lai Massacre into a misunderstanding with unpleasant consequences that shouldn’t be discussed because it’s too upsetting for some people.

I felt the publisher endowed the sensitivity reader’s report with the unilateral power to censor my client’s book, which raises serious questions. How are sensitivity readers recruited and what qualifies them? Are their personal views and experiences taken into account? More problematically, how can a person’s feelings qualify as objective or open-minded? How is it possible to oppose a person’s feelings without at least partially invalidating them? Should the need for accuracy be enmeshed with feelings? What outcomes are publishers looking for?

Manipulating or sanitizing history will not cure what ails us. And publishers, especially, should understand the perils of going down this road. We can’t lose sight of the need to stay true to our authors’ ideas and characterizations.

Jeff Herman is a literary agent and author.
IMO a seventeen year old in Vietnam getting shot at by midgets in black pajamas should probably get a "gook" and "zipperhead" free pass for life, but that just me. Alas, nobody from the Big 5 has offered me a contract as a sensitivity reader for some reason. 🤷‍♂️

Do think it interesting that edits can be demanded where not only is there no appeal allowed, you don't even know who it is who handed down the edict forcing the change. Found that part the most interesting.
 
Poster spotted in Chicago. Doesn't surprise me.
View attachment 4428584
What if that is some subtle psyop shit meant to remove black people by fucking up their criminal records so they can't find a job and fucking up their places of employment/business so that they have no money? It's like the dismantling of "black Wall Street" but with a social justice topping covering up the bullshit.
 
Regarding American Indians, anybody who gets butthurt about Whitey's "Settler Colonialism" sure better not look up the history of the Comanche.
Of course, they aren't basing their positions off actual appraisal and comparison of historic wrongs, but rather arguing from the conclusion of the existence of White "Original Sin".
 
Regarding American Indians, anybody who gets butthurt about Whitey's "Settler Colonialism" sure better not look up the history of the Comanche.
Of course, they aren't basing their positions off actual appraisal and comparison of historic wrongs, but rather arguing from the conclusion of the existence of White "Original Sin".
They literally think this was the reality of the red man before we arrived:
 
Regarding American Indians, anybody who gets butthurt about Whitey's "Settler Colonialism" sure better not look up the history of the Comanche.
Of course, they aren't basing their positions off actual appraisal and comparison of historic wrongs, but rather arguing from the conclusion of the existence of White "Original Sin".
Obligatory:
And also:
 
Regarding American Indians, anybody who gets butthurt about Whitey's "Settler Colonialism" sure better not look up the history of the Comanche.
Of course, they aren't basing their positions off actual appraisal and comparison of historic wrongs, but rather arguing from the conclusion of the existence of White "Original Sin".
This really sums up so much of what is wrong with Western hand-wringing over colonialism. Europeans in the great era of colonial expansion weren't doing anything worse than what societies around the world have always done for centuries: expand into new territory, gain resources, consolidate power over foreign peoples. The only difference is that the Europeans between the 16th and 19th centuries were so much more successful at doing this than anyone else has ever been. And while there's a lot of variation between different imperial projects (the Spanish and Belgians were especially brutal), they were often a lot better than the alternatives. The British and French Empires for example were objectively far more humane than, say, the Mongolian and Aztec Empires. But they weren't white so no one cares.
 
Back