Starker on 17/7/2025 at 01:54
Onion or not?
Quote:
President Donald Trump is accusing some of his onetime supporters of being “weaklings” who are falling prey to Democratic “bullshit” about the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — concluding that he no longer wants their support.
[...]
“Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this ‘bullshit,’ hook, line, and sinker,” Trump wrote in a missive on Truth Social. “They haven’t learned their lesson, and probably never will, even after being conned by the Lunatic Left for 8 long years.”
[...]
The answer:
(https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/16/politics/trump-epstein-weaklings-supporters)For comparison, this is the actual Onion article on the topic: (https://theonion.com/trump-urges-supporters-to-move-on-from-societal-disdain-for-pedophilia/)
Facing mounting backlash from his MAGA base over his perceived ties to the Jeffrey Epstein case, President Donald Trump reportedly encouraged his supporters Monday to simply move on from society’s widespread disdain for pedophilia. “It’s time to just accept that some people like having sex with kids and focus on the fantastic things we’re doing to win back the respect of the world,” said Trump, who expressed frustration that instead of celebrating the passage of his domestic spending bill or his historic deportation numbers, many of his supporters were getting distracted by “something that people have done since ancient Greece.” “Are people really still talking about the sexual abuse of children? Let it go! Our administration is making America great again. That’s the story, not whether I or anyone else ‘diddled’ an underage girl! The case is closed. Sometimes kids get molested. Maybe they shouldn’t dress like such sluts!” Trump went on to state that he has had many pedophile friends and associates over the years who have been fine, hardworking Americans.Starker on 20/7/2025 at 10:57
Yeah, it turns out it's possible to get papers published in academia if you're willing to pay a team to fake data and workshop and refine rejected papers long enough to get them into a publishable state.
Notwithstanding the bar to get a poem, any poem published in an indie journal being so low you don't have to even lift your foot to get over it, I looked at the journal he published in that's on the photo and here is the description of the journal (that explicitly defines itself as anti-literary):
Quote:
(
https://jakethemag.com/about/)
JAKE is the punkest little shit you know. He doesn't want to eat his vegetables, he doesn't want to wake up for school, he doesn't want to follow the established trends of what makes good literary writing good and bad literary writing bad. JAKE wants to look deep into the heart of all entropy of the universe, and do a sick kickflip over the abyss between what we know is possible and what we dream can be. JAKE is the king of bad taste, of broken forms, and broken rules. JAKE wants all of the shade of the bigger, badder mags, and he wants your funniest, strangest, or boldest words. JAKE is here to play without rules.
So yeah, a white man pretended to be black, got a poem published in a journal whose stated goal is to publish anything, no matter how bad, and this is supposed to prove something about minorities.
SD on 21/7/2025 at 14:18
No, not pretended - identified as.
The article by The Free Press is very good, as it expands upon the difficulties straight white men are facing when trying to get anything published due to the industry's preoccupation with identity politics. Indeed, the publisher of the first book pulled it when the ruse was exposed, allegedly telling him he didn't publish white male authors "because I don’t want to deal with you guys".
(Imagine a publisher pulling a work because they found out the author was black, and they didn't want to deal with "you guys". Yeah...)
Identity politics is leading us down these cul-de-sacs. It's the reason Trump won, and it's the reason his side will keep winning. If pranks like this one can chip away at some of this nonsense, then great.
Pyrian on 22/7/2025 at 03:51
Sure looks to me like what you've all got your panties in a twist about isn't that a white man can't get published - which is obviously nonsense anyway - but that a black man, even a fake black man, did. Just enrages y'all, doesn't it?
SD on 22/7/2025 at 09:43
- Ignore actual point
- Smear people as racists
Yep, your work here is done.
Martin Luther King was right when he said people should be judged by the content of their character and not the colour of their skin. Today's activists have drifted so very far from that righteous path.
Sulphur on 22/7/2025 at 13:45
It looks like they got your actual point perfectly right, because they just restated your thesis with fewer words. And how nice of you to quote Martin Luther King only when you feel like the majority is somehow being oppressed, but not for anyone else. I suppose British government workers still doesn't really understand or have a handle on irony, even after centuries of manufacturing it out of thin air.
SD on 22/7/2025 at 18:48
My god, have IQs dropped sharply in the 24 hours the board has been out of service? There's no excuse for any of this rampant strawmanning.
My argument is and always has been that discriminating for or against a person because of their skin colour is wrong, regardless of whether they are arbitrarily assigned to a majority or minority.
The beauty of King's words, which reflect the brilliance of the man, is that they are UNIVERSAL and apply to EVERYONE. They don't suddenly become irrelevant because "white" people happen to be on the receiving end of discrimination on this occasion.
Give your heads a wobble.
Starker on 23/7/2025 at 03:49
This man did not
identify as black -- he
invented a black identity and
pretended to be it.
And the reason he did it was to play into the old right-wing canard that incompetent non-white people are being chosen over competent white people in significant amounts because businesses just don't care at all about profits. And it's simply not the case. White people as a group are not oppressed in the publishing industry, not even close.
Here's just one article that looked into this: (
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/11/opinion/culture/diversity-publishing-industry.html)
Of the books that they looked at that were published in past decades in the US, 95% were written by non-hispanic white authors. In 2018, the percentage was 89%. Non-hispanic whites make up 57% percent of the US population. White people absolutely dominate the publishing industry in the absolute biggest market in the world and they are not exactly underrepresented in the rest of the western world.
Oh, and when I say absolute biggest market -- a whole quarter of all books are sold in the US.
