[ SECRET POST #4953 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4953 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 31 secrets from Secret Submission Post #709.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

This is not an either-or situation. There's no rule that says there has to be 1 thing that's THE big problem.

It's really a pretty basic point with most, if not all, parts of society: different forms of discrimination exist and create problems at the same time. Race is a barrier and class is a barrier. Both are barriers. All of them need to be addressed. And, in fact, they often overlap and dovetail - this is the basic insight of intersectionalism, that we can't just address problems on a single axis because they don't exist on a single axis.

You're absolutely right on about class. It's baffling to make the correct point about the importance of wealth and class, and use it as a springboard to say that race isn't important.

[(Anonymous)]

I never said it was the ONLY problem. I think it's the biggest problem, and because so many other problems flower out of it, the industry needs to address that one first.

For instance, how you can ever address the lack of POC in positions of power when the industry collects people via unpaid interns? (Who need to come from wealthy families, which are predominantly white?) If you just say, "Address the symptom, hire more POC" you know what you get? Tokenism. Separation as people are hired specifically to fulfill quotas and then don't function in the business properly (and get to the top). How about changing the industry and how it functions monetarily? How about making the people AT THE TOP change their lifestyle? (Livin' it up in NYC.) Don't give the out of saying, "We need more representation" and letting them just fulfill quotas and then keep doing the same old shit everywhere else as they point to the numbers and say, "Look! Aren't we such benevolent white people!"

And the thing that gets me the most? Moving the entire publishing industry to Iowa would help it grow and be more successful. But they don't want to do it, because they don't want to change their lifestyle ... Which is, btw, being part of the liberal cultural elite. Liberal. Democrat.

And thus I must link this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liberals-dumb-themselves-down-when-they-speak-black-people-new-study-contends/

[(Anonymous)]

I never said it was the ONLY problem. I think it's the biggest problem, and because so many other problems flower out of it, the industry needs to address that one first.

Where on earth do you get the idea that we can only address one problem at a time?

How about changing the industry and how it functions monetarily? How about making the people AT THE TOP change their lifestyle? (Livin' it up in NYC.) Don't give the out of saying, "We need more representation" and letting them just fulfill quotas and then keep doing the same old shit everywhere else as they point to the numbers and say, "Look! Aren't we such benevolent white people!" And the thing that gets me the most? Moving the entire publishing industry to Iowa would help it grow and be more successful. But they don't want to do it, because they don't want to change their lifestyle ...

I have to be honest, this seems just mindbogglingly wrongheaded to me, in several different ways (for instance, fucking, of course it would be massively difficult to transplant an entire industry halfway across the country; that's not cultural elitism, that's simply the fact that people don't want to uproot their lives. and Iowa is kind of a bizarre example to choose, since out of all the rural midwestern states, it's the one that New York literary people are by far the most likely to have lived in, for a very straightforward reason).

But I think the most bizarre thing about it is the idea that the best way of fix class inequality in publishing is by moving out of New York to Iowa. mother fucking. are you serious with this? You talk about how treating the symptoms of racism without addressing root causes is insufficient, and then your big solution for addressing class is MOVING TO IOWA? That's the best that you can come up with? the best way to address class inequality in publishing, and the only way to address the root causes of the problem, is to ADDRESS CLASS AND WEALTH INEQUALITY IN AMERICA. And part of that is absolutely reducing the economic dominance of a few large cities, but forcing institutions or industries to move piecemeal is a completely wrongheaded and ineffective way of doing that.

[(Anonymous)]

Do you realize you can actually FUCKING LIVE in Iowa without being paid 200k a year? Is this mind-boggling to you?

Are you rich? Are you incapable of understanding the difference between those two places in allowing people to live a better life for less money? Do you think 'Well, it's always been in NYC and people shouldn't have to move' is a good reason NOT to move it? Are you serious? Do you realize that right now in California, multi-millionaires sit pretty in their nice offices in San Francisco while the government is literally TAXING THE POOR who have to commute to it? Why do they stay in SF when it's so bad for their employees?

Same reason all these rich companies do it in NYC.

Probably a third of America is working remote right now. But you want to justify high-ups in the publishing industry being paid fuckloads of money just to live in NYC??? You tell me: are you fucking serious?

If they can solve a significant portion of money problems for their employees and all the authors who don't get paid enough RIGHT NOW, they damn well should.

[(Anonymous)]

I am not really either for or against companies moving out of New York. I think there are many good justifications for publishing companies moving. There would also be a lot of logistical challenges to uprooting existing organizations and uprooting a lot of peoples' lives all at once. And I don't know what mechanism you would use to force companies to do so (if you're going to use state power to coerce companies to move, I think there are much more immediately effective things you could do using state power; if you're not going to use state power, it's not going to happen). So the whole question seems pretty irrelevant to me.

What I do think is completely ridiculous is positioning that as a solution to the issue of class inequality in publishing. You're not going to solve class inequality in publishing without addressing the root causes of class inequality in publishing. You're not going to get rid of things like access and internships by moving to Iowa. And it's bewildering that you can correctly identify the problems with trying to address racial inequality by addressing symptoms and not root causes, and then do exactly that with regards to class inequalities.

Also, it seems pretty clear that this is also bound up with a bunch of cultural war baggage for you, given the constant digs you keep making about coastal elites, so, you know, there's that.