A publisher rendering its services conditionally, which is to say on the condition that it approves of the material it's asked to publish, is a wholly appropriate consequence...no matter the basis for not approving of material it's asked to publish.
He's not arguing or whining against their right and ability to do this, but taking issue with their decision, and what it means for writers in future.
My personal feeling? I'm glad to be free in my mind now, which has come through personal development.
What it means for writers in the future is what it has always meant for writers: publishers exercise discretion and the service isn't something to be expected. It doesn't go any deeper than that.
Yeah, that's whining. He hasn't been made to do anything. There's an audience for this fake oppression, however, and "The Times" understands this and has availed its platform to him so that it may enjoy the spoils of giving that audience what it wants.
Now you've acknowledged and responded to my remarks without having addressed them. Alas, that's also not something to be expected.
It's always meant that - I don't think he is disputing that. What he's alarmed at, however, is what's now considered acceptable by children's publishers, and wishes that it was left up to the public. I think he's entitled to have a whine at that.
I'm not sure I understand. I've said many "un-PC" things here and in real life and dealt with the consequences, being proven right in some instances and wrong in others. Would I define political correctness differently than I have before? Probably.
www.salon.com
So if I put myself as having no political views other than all politicians are corrupt and manipulative liars, how will my theoretical university be punished?New law will survey Florida students, professors on political views
Colleges could lose funding if survey of "ideas and perspectives" fails to satisfy state's GOP-run legislature
New law will survey Florida students, professors on political views
Colleges could lose funding if survey of "ideas and perspectives" fails to satisfy state's GOP-run legislature
This exchange came to mind when people such as @m76 take this line.
www.independent.co.uk
We've spent the entire thread trying to pin the jelly to the wall that is the constantly shifting definition of PC. I'm not surprised that the meaning of woke has proved to be similarly nebulous and am glad that Rakie refuses to be similarly fooled.This exchange came to mind when people such as @m76 take this line.
Rakie Ayola says critics who claim The Pact is ‘woke’ don’t know ‘what they mean’
‘Sit there and tell me what you mean by “woke” and then we can talk about whether this show is “woke” or not,’ actor responded
And therein lies the fundamental issue. Double think. Censorship is censorship regardless of whether i agree with the speech being censored. But somehow those in support of political correctness cannot think in three dimensions and think censorship is fine as long as they disagree with what's being censored. But as soon as the worm turns they are crying the end of democracy, or worse.“You’re censoring me from being an asshole! Reeeee!”
As an autistic person I'm going to do three things here.
There are plenty of people among conservative talking heads who will label anything they dislike as woke.
Of course, paint yourself as the victim and instantly everything you say becomes gospel? That's not how it works. I'm very much on the spectrum and I could list my other disabilities too, but I do not because it does not make my points stronger or weaker. It is not the win all arguments card you think it is.
What was it about political correctness is not censorship, it is people who censor themselves out of fear? So how is that now? I used that term to drive home a point, which you still managed to completely ignore. This is why I hate to debate on the internet, people will find a way to weasel out of any argument by pretending it didn't exist.
Tell me where and how am I wrong, otherwise this is just simply being in denial. You might as well just have posted "REEEEEE"
I didn't think we would devolve to name calling so quickly. Believing that soft language does nothing to improve anyone's quality of life is not me being a bigot. Well unless being prejudiced against PC culture is being a bigot. The only thing I'm intolerant towards is wishing away the problem, which political correctness is doing.
Nope.
Well you didn't read that well at all.
Not the reason why we have an AUP here, one that you agreed to follow when you joined.
You made an factual claim, all it requires is 1 person that doesn't meet your absolute claim to demonstrate its wrong.
No, you using slurs makes you a bigot.
No you used an ablist slur, breaking the AUP you agreed to follow when you joined.
It actually doesn't. There is no censorship in one referring to another, appopriately or otherwise, as racist and sexist ("the usual stuff"). I tend to not unless it's explicit and I try to suggest others exercise the same kind of discretion, but it's still just speech. When it's not subject to legitimate state action, it's free speech. WhY dO yOu HaTe FrEe SpEeCh?!
Yup, though there's basically no chance of this one accepting that. Grievance has a distinct edge over reason, or to be more blunt, the bitchfit feels much too good to break out of it.
I think this still gives the invocation too much power. Is there such a movement? Maybe. "Movement" seems, to me, to suggest there's a new enlightenment, but I think for the most part people have tended this direction but legitimate authority gave a minority a right to treat people as less than what they are based on some disfavored characteristic.
