That's such a gross misrepresentation. Does the article improve at all past this?
That's such a gross misrepresentation. Does the article improve at all past this?
> A sensitivity reader is an additional editor [...]. This individual will conduct a very specific read of the manuscript, and offer notes on characters from marginalised groups, or elements which may cause offence.
(emphasis mine)
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/08/stop-m...
Looks like the article could've used a sensitivity reader itself, if it caused yout to get so offended you didn't read the rest of it.
This is also a gross misrepresentation. This article is drawing such a poor discussion.
That you think the phrase "cleanse unpublished manuscripts" is a purely factual statement, but "a sensitivity reader is someone who protects marginalized people from systemic oppression" is not, simply reveals your own politics.
Both are statements of fact and ideology. Both are deliberate framings meant to push a certain narrative.
"Cleanse" invokes ideas of removal and censorship, centering on specific outcomes.
"Protects" instead emphasizes the needs of marginalized groups, centering on intent.
Both are value-laden statements.
So let's not pretend one is more "objective" than the other.
Also some other HN comments here mentioned regurgitating of opinions on social media and how that influences this issue; so in the spirit of that, I recommend reading the article and forming your own! Not trying to be snide btw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskaleut_languages#Internal_cl...