SD on 23/7/2025 at 14:33
The "identified as" quip was just a gag about the inherently preposterous nature of self-identification. Nothing more.
I'm always wary of anything which claims that certain groups are over or under-represented in various fields as they've traditionally been used to justify discrimination against those groups.
The only real concrete point that can be drawn from this is that it's been amply demonstrated that publishers - quite a few of them - will publish any old rubbish if it comes (or purports to come) from certain minorities. Anyone who thinks that this kind of patronising tokenism is in any way helpful to those minorities needs to wake up and smell the organic single origin coffee.
Starker on 24/7/2025 at 01:43
Why on earth would publishers intentionally take losses by putting out books that don't sell? This idea that competent white authors are sidelined in the industry by awful non-white authors producing complete rubbish is nothing but a reactionary fever dream.
Sulphur on 24/7/2025 at 12:36
Quote Posted by SD
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.
Your argument isn't something I've seen you back up for any kind of minority in this forum, so it's very impressive that you think you have any kind of moral high ground. It's even more impressive that you immediately attempt to ridicule self-identification, ignore the link Starker posted which was in fact
also posted in the Free Press article you mentioned, and then try to claim that white is black. How you've not been run over at the nearest zebra crossing is a question only Douglas Adams could answer, but unfortunately for everyone, he's no longer here.
RippedPhreak on 24/7/2025 at 16:39
Quote:
Why on earth would publishers intentionally take losses by putting out books that don't sell?
Why do Disney, Marvel, Amazon etc continue to put out movies and shows that don't make money? Probably because pushing their moral message is considered more important. Could be the same for these publishers.
Starker on 24/7/2025 at 20:42
What are you on about.
This year Lilo and Stitch has grossed 400 million dollars already in the US alone and it's still playing in theatres.
Last year Moana 2 grossed 460 million in the US.
The year before Little Mermaid grossed 300 million in the US.
Nicker on 24/7/2025 at 21:37
Quote:
Probably because pushing their moral message is considered more important.
Disney has always pushed moral messages. It's an integral part of their brand as family entertainment.
The professional victims on the right just love inventing novel offenses committed against them, so they can justify getting bent out of shape about "wokeness". There's plenty of genuinely bad things in the world requiring your attention.
If that photo is actually of the poetic impersonator in question, could he have picked a more smug and self satisfied image?
This is me being a victim. (crying emoji) SD: There are so many things wrong about his claims and especially his process. Confirmation bias to begin with. Sloppy methodology. Were there controls, double blinds, random samples? Were his crap poems actually crap? Maybe he's a reluctant empath who unconsciously channeled the honest angst of his assumed identities.
Did he actually do what he claims to have done and were his reported results accurate and complete?Sorry but the only thing he proved to me is that people who pedal prejudice will concoct any excuse to disguise their agenda. And that their audience is willingly gullible.
Pyrian on 24/7/2025 at 21:57
Quote Posted by Nicker
The professional victims on the right just love inventing novel offenses committed against them, so they can justify...
...Atrocities. It always leads to holocausts, slowly or quickly, one way or another.
RippedPhreak on 25/7/2025 at 02:24
The Little Mermaid cost $250 million to make...then there's the advertising budget which might be another 50 million. Thus it didn't make money. Can't be arsed to look up the numbers for the rest at the moment.
Starker on 25/7/2025 at 04:58
That's only in the US, nowhere else. Worldwide it made much more. And that's only ticket sales, not counting any other sales such as VOD or money from merchandising.
Little Mermaid was one of the top five highest grossing movies of the US market in summer of 2023 and other big movies in top 5 made similar money -- in place three was one of the Marvel movies with 350 million, for example. Only Barbie, another movie derided as woke, dwarfed them, making 600 million at home: (
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/season/summer/2023/)
Seriously, the derangement of the reactionary movement has gone so far that people now pretend massively profitable multi-billion franchises such as the Marvel movies are losing studios money.
SD on 25/7/2025 at 20:02
Quote Posted by Starker
Why on earth would publishers intentionally take losses by putting out books that don't sell? This idea that competent white authors are sidelined in the industry by awful non-white authors producing complete rubbish is nothing but a reactionary fever dream.
I'm not going to pretend to understand the economics of the publishing industry. I would hope we could agree that racism is bad whether it is profitable or loss-making.
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Your argument isn't something I've seen you back up for any kind of minority in this forum, so it's very impressive that you think you have any kind of moral high ground. It's even more impressive that you immediately attempt to ridicule self-identification, ignore the link Starker posted which was in fact
also posted in the Free Press article you mentioned, and then try to claim that white is black. How you've not been run over at the nearest zebra crossing is a question only Douglas Adams could answer, but unfortunately for everyone, he's no longer here.
I don't often resort to ad hominems here, but you are really, really fucking horrible.
I don't even know who you are, so I'm quite impressed you have a seemingly encyclopaedic knowledge of everything I've written in more than 20 years on this forum.
If you can't discuss things without ignoring what someone actually says, introducing strawmen, and then just calling them a racist anyway, can I suggest you don't post at all?
