3 ms·
What you react negatively to is not that the description is inaccurate (it's perfectly accurate), but that it omits the ideological justifications. Many propone
by bondarchuk 4y ago
What you react negatively to is not that the description is inaccurate (it's perfectly accurate), but that it omits the ideological justifications. Many proponents of sensitivity readers would probably answer the question "what is a sensitivity reader?" with something like: "a sensitivity reader is someone who protects marginalized people from systemic oppression and etc...", which is not just a description but also a justification with a whole lot of ideological baggage. If it makes you uncomfortable to see a phenomenon like this explained in a simple, factual manner, consider why that may be.
- BaseballPhysics 4y ago> If it makes you uncomfortable to see a phenomenon like this explained in a simple, factual manner, consider why that may be That you think the phrase "cleanse unpublished manuscripts" is a purely factual statement, but "a sensitivity reader is someone who protects marginalized people from systemic oppression" is not, simply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.