Rolling Race 2021

excellent contributions itt keep it up

sometimes i feel like On Here i've read a completely different article or post. or i read too fast, but i thought he was acknowledging the existence of content produced by people from poor backgrounds and pointing out how they don't get boosted because they are presumed to be unpalatable to white people, regardless of how popular they actually are, and the big media companies can still say they are doing diversity without offending anyone important.

― criminally negligible (harbl), Monday, July 26, 2021 8:02 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

also, someone with basic reading comprehension skills would be able to tell that he is detailing his experience being the black-poorest with a double intent. yes it establishes his credentials, which is probably important considering the topic of the piece, but he also describes his experience in a way that strips it of the kind of romantic authenticity that others are capitalizing on. flattening that into the grotesquerie of "a Black JD Vance" is an impressive fart even for unperson.

i'm really curious / interested if any of the grant or application programs for minority creatives he describes will ever include a clearly defined "poor person" category.

anyway, by all means keep embedding charles murray tweets itt it is very interesting content

though what i would really be interested in is unperson telling us all why he hates poor people so much

unfortunately i was thinking about it some more while i was walking and the article would make no sense logically if the writer was unaware that there is content created by and for black people! like it kind of sounds like that's what he'd prefer to see more of.

anyway it's nice to see that expressed in the elite circle jerk culture ecosystem

ugh insert "poor" in that xpost

the article would make no sense logically if the writer was unaware that there is content created by and for (poor) black people! like it kind of sounds like that's what he'd prefer to see more of.

He came up with exactly one example — Moonlight, a movie with a budget of $1.5 million according to its director. If he really wanted to make the point that he wanted to see more content by poor Black creators, it would be a simple process of listing some books and saying "More like this, please." (Or allowing music to be part of the discussion.) But he's only concerned with what wins National Book Awards and what gets written up in the Atlantic.

The sentence "A decade of unprecedented interest in Black arts and letters has now passed—the greater portion of it bought with footage of people possessing Floyd’s particulars lying dead on the tar—and still you cannot walk into a bookstore to find a shelf named for Black authors raised in poverty." is absurd bullshit. First of all, the last time I went into a physical Barnes & Noble, there was no section for Black authors at all — their books were shelved alphabetically with everybody else's. But when there have been separate sections (and when I worked at Barnes & Noble 20+ years ago, there were), there's absolutely special consideration for "Black authors raised in poverty" — they call it "urban fiction," and it's books like the one I mentioned above, the kind of books this author has zero interest in promoting, by authors whose names he'll never bother to learn, because the readers of Current Affairs would never let such a thing stain their fingers, and he'd rather attack Colson Whitehead and Roxane Gay (whose name he misspells in the piece) for being rich. (I didn't know Gay came from money until reading this. It doesn't change my opinion of her work one way or the other. I used to know one of Whitehead's sisters, a little. She came to a reading I gave for my first book.)