Ditto for the LGBTQ exceptions. Whether it’s agents in their “what I’m looking for in queries” blurbs or publisher requests/requirements like this it’s pretty clear the deck is stacked against straight white people, specifically men. It’s just so damn depressing.

How is this even legal? Is it not a clear cut case of discrimination? 13 percent of the population gets to skip the line?

I worked my ass off to make sure my book was the best it could be and this is the state of the industry? Nobody will even read a fucking sample to see if it’s worthwhile?

The job application process is every bit the same. Is the point to drive a whole generation and demographic into mania and self-destructive patterns? Do they genuinely want revolt and social upheaval? Where else does this ridiculous road lead when the majority of the country is condescendingly ignored in favor of disparate minority groups?

>>24452519 (OP)
i remember applying to work for onion to be a ghost writer and they had some shit like this

>>24452519 (OP)
just say you are half black and identify as female and be done with it

>>24452524
This is a great way to get blacklisted

>>24452519 (OP)
you don't really want to get published unless you're willing to call yourself a tranny

>>24452531
then say you are being discriminated as a trans woman just because you refuse to present feminine

>>24452519 (OP)
>How is this even legal? Is it not a clear cut case of discrimination?
Because they know for a fact if you're an aspiring author, you're too poor to sue them. Since you're white, they know no minority mafia organization (NAACP, SLPC, et al) would bankroll you, either. You're a valid target to kick because the system is structured to prevent you from kicking back.

Even if you did, you know for a fact that some bleeding heart libshit judge would rule in favour of the publisher, since discrimination is a good thing, actually, if it benefits "marginalized communities." and corrects "historical racial, gender, and sexual imbalances" in literature. Their words, not mine.

Besides, would you really want to be on a platform where you're clearly not welcome, and would be subject to the shears of the editor to make your work into something inoffensive, trendy, and marketable?

>>24452519 (OP)
>unagented
This """""word""""" is used by the people who will judge your manuscript. Why the fuck would you give them the chance?

>>24452624
I genuinely dont understand losers like you who are essentially asking “why would you go for trad pub rather than indie” when the answer is obvious for anyone who is older than 16: guaranteed up front money and further reach vs very little return in investment at all.

Indie is not the future, it’s how you kill your project on the vine.

>>24452519 (OP)
The publishing industry circular logic'd their way into killing off male audience. Decades ago they saw data that showed more women read than men, which is true through most of history since the printing press. Yet instead of trying to figure out how to reengage male readership they just went all in on female readers in almost every genre. I think military history is one of the few genres left that are dominated by men. There is usually every year a guardian article about the decline of male readers but the tone is different each time depending on the author. From "Men should read female authors!" to "Please men you need to read our books or the industry will die" sort of stuff. I'm not sure there will ever be a way to grow male readership and the entire publishing industry is probably going to die simply because younger demographics can't read.

>>24452650
>Indie is not the future, it’s how you kill your project on the vine.
Indie is the only option. Traditional publishers aren't interested in the works of the, for want of a better phrase, "Academic literary community." The gates are barred. Shut. No entry. We are not welcome. Indie publishing is the only option, so we, the Academic Literary Community, must build it up ourselves into an alternative platform to be able to find livelihood and an audience. This is the 21st century, not the 1960's.

>>24452650
My point, which so completely eluded you, is that your prospective publishers are illiterates. They can hardly be trusted to recognise literary merit when they see it.

>>24452741
>Indie is the only option
Stopped reading there. This has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

>>24452744
>>24452741
We reply twice?

>inb4 edited screencap

I’ll be proven wrong by you “both” replying separately before the timer is up.

>>24452748
>he doesn't know how to detect samefags
How embarrassing.

>>24452811
Elucidate, by all means

Gee.
When (in another thread), I complained about *this* very thing? I wsa screamed at, and told I was crazy, there's no such thing, why that's illegal, anon. Why, you're just relating old news."
Here we are.
Anon \lit\-isens have reported...
female pen name no longer sufficient. Publisher demands skype call. Its to filter claiming to be black/female/etc.
As I stated in that thread I mentioned?
might as well, they just hang out a sign IRL:
"White men need not apply"
all you get when you complain about this widespread practice?
"Oh, you;re making that up!"
"Oh, its not like that!"
"Oh, that would be illegal!"
OP image? Might be the exact one I saw.
But, there are others, similar. Or? They just straight up say it.
There's not even any shame anymore.

>>24452931
The people complaining are lit agents (trannys and faggots) lurking here or trolls anon. It’s very well known and statistics bare it out that straight white people, men specifically, have trouble getting their submissions even glanced at let alone considered, let alone accepted.

>>24452935
which would explain a lot more here, than just that.
I suspected as much.
There's one here, I call the my number one fan. (sick reverse joke, lol). Any sample I post, though I usually get neutral to even good feedback as a new unpub writer? sounds like the same anon. "I can tell by the way you post, nothing you could ever write, would ever be any good!" (this, before they ever read a sentence).
I have since come to believe, that I must be half-way,on my way to... at least middling fiction writing.
Or else, they wouldn't bother.
As someone once said. If you have no haters, you really must not be doing anything noteworthy

>>24452971
The whole site, not even just the board but particularly the media boards, is full of shills, analysts and insiders. Some post, many lurk.

This to say nothing of the bots and glowies on other boards.

>>24452650
>>24452745
Indie publishing is a valid and relevant answer to this problem though. The supposed benefits of trad publishing cited here, like guaranteed up front money and further reach, are totally irrelevant if the gatekeepers are ideologically predisposed to stop certain types of authors from ever being published. Even if they got past this barrier-to-entry and were published, trad publishing pays less to a new author per book sold than self-publishing, and publishers are not going to invest significantly in advertising a new author. Then, if you sink rather than swim, you probably aren't going to get published again.

New authors who publish independently are very likely to fail and not get a return on investment, but at least it is a more open market where their race and sex is not a factor in their participation, where their success is more generously rewarded, and where they have more control over the product. It offers those who treat it like a business and a long term career a real alternative option.

>>24452519 (OP)
>How is this even legal? Is it not a clear cut case of discrimination? 13 percent of the population gets to skip the line?

Yes. No refunds. Enjoy your liberalisms.

>>24452591
That's why I don't care if my books sell or not.

>>24453011
It's not even about the money. It's about society throwing you out like a dirty rag and beating you down if you dare quesetion it.

>>24452531
white men are already auto-black listed, what have we got to lose?

i dont approve of lying however

>>24452992
>trad publishing pays less to a new author per book sold than self-publishing
Self-publishing typically results in a loss per unit until you can ship over 1000 units. Most digital-only projects dont sell more than a few hundred copies TOPS which nets someone enough to put a down payment on a new mattress at best. The vast majority of them sell less than 100.

Stop being retarded.

>>24453028
>which nets someone enough to put a down payment on a new mattress at best.
The sad truth.

This is why so many indiefags stay in Twitter buying each other’s books because nobody else will. Because most indie books are unreadable dreck and the ubiquity and sheer quantity of the sewage has poisoned the idea of reading an indie for any normie readers - these same semi-retarded people paying full price for hardcover copies of slop

>>24452519 (OP)
All leftists and third worlders deserve to die

>>24453016
I'm at the point I refuse to state my (white) race on those "Equal Opportunity" forms for job applications. Yeah I know, >>>/pol/ but I am ... fatigued.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6o-g7O0yjo

>>24452519 (OP)
>How is this even legal
It isn’t but they know you aren’t going to blacklist yourself from the industry by suing and that you likely don’t have the time or money to do so anyway.

>>24452519 (OP)
To be fair would you rather they don’t say it and then do it anyway?

Extreme racism is just a casual fact of reality for you white people. Unironically, I am a brownoid social justice warrior simping for you whites. It's so horrible to hear about white people's dramatic suicide rates, interracial crime victimization, opiate use, lack of any form of institutional protection and assistance (like black only scholarships, or assistance programs that were only available for my race) and no recourse offered.

Was just reading a pastoral novella and thought "just imagine how many serfs and slaves passed their lives away exploited, unremembered, forgotten, and with so much to say". How many white people pass away like this. How many OPs had a beautiful novel to share only to be turned away for the next Shaniqua's Dey Don Be Make dem Like dat. I will never stop simping for the end of actual, real institutional racism, which is almost solely directed towards whites. I need to go breathe some fresh air not to be taken with grief at how much this enrages me.

>angryrobotbooks.com
You get what you deserve.

It's lame that someone can get an advantage because of their skin color (something white people throughout history have also had), but that's all it is. They're not saying white voices don't matter, they're saying it's easier for the black person.

>>24454080
>something white people throughout history have also had
This isnt true at all though. Straight white people being a majority (and continuing to be) used to be reflected in the demographic make up of media. Now we have to be disproportionately exposed to diverse minority demographics which end up over represented as compared to the demographic make up of the country.

>>24452519 (OP)
>How is this even legal? Is it not a clear cut case of discrimination?
As of last week, it is explicitly not legal. Attach a copy of Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services as an addendum to your submission.

>>24452519 (OP)
> How is this even legal?
It’s crazy to me after all these years that white Western men haven’t caught on to the undeniable fact that the legacy of civil rights law is making sure women, gays, mentally ill, and people with brown skin have access to a second constitution that grants them more rights than you and confers preference you’ve never had and never will had. It literally exists to turn you into a paypig quasi-slave for a non-white male faux-aristocracy. That was the point, that’s what it does, that’s what it will continue to do, and there’s nothing you can do about it until these laws go away.

>>24454106
It is true. Don't be delusional. Your second sentence I agree with.

>>24454106
Be careful, a redditor will reply
>ACKSHUALLY THERE WERE LOTS OF OTHER RACES ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD
as if European authors ought to have been writing about the sophisticated lives of various Bushmen Kings, chinese Roman Emperors, Black Samurai and others from the delusional wellspring of diversity.

>>24454107
The world is healing.

>>24454107
Just like was the case in the Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action, hirers and publishers will continue to discriminate against white men. They will just do so on the basis of “culture” and “history”, at least outwardly, rather than race. “We didn’t not publish you because you’re white. We were just too busy publishing black womxn because of their unique perspectives.” Civil rights law unquestionably and universally gives libtard private equity wives who now make up the entire staff at universities, publishing firms, museums, galleries, and the various committees which decide to give cultural grants or platform artists and writers the legal cover they need to discriminate against white men, and they’re going to do it no matter what the Supreme Court says and then their female and Jewish attorneys will help them navigate the courts every time they get sued before inevitably being let off the hook. We cannot win as long as civil rights law remains on the books. It was a legal revolution and people need to wake up to that fact. No amount of clarifications or decisions which can just be overturned later can change that.

>>24454120
>d-d-delusional
There’s nothing delusional about saying that. The country was, like the rest of the western world, predominantly white. So it was no advantage from being white. How do you not understand this?

>>24454137
>being the majority has no advantages in day to day life
This is what you're trying to say is true? This is without mentioning how overtly racist some people were in the past.

>>24454048
What shocks me is the way that brown people can’t intuitively grasp that even the apparent preference for browns and women and white men is rooted in a natural and inevitable sense of racism and white supremacy. And I don’t mean that in the libtard le white supremacy sense. I mean that whites, even the woke dipshits, literally understand themselves as superior. That’s actually why they feel so strongly that they have to champion brown people. The right sees you as like perpetual children and animals and so wants to keep you at bay. The left sees you as perpetual children and animals and so wants to protect and help you. Either way, whites look at you like perpetual children and/or animals. It has never been otherwise and probably never will be otherwise. But worse, not only do brown people not intuitively pick up on this obvious fact, they don’t act accordingly when they do. A handful notice but instead of going “okay we need to tread carefully here” they become agitators and live up to the stereotypes in the most way possible. Why? They imagine somehow the future allows them to get away with more I guess. What happens when the pendulum swings? Look at the stuff going on in LA right now. Does anyone really believe whites will just allow this? White Americans are significantly better armed, better prepared, more self sufficient, more proud, and more violent than the white Rhodesians were. Taken to an extreme the idea that whites would just perpetually roll over and die while they give handouts to minorities for eternity even while minorities burn loot and murder is preposterous. They will respond by crushing them, total oppression. It’s become popular among the the mainstream young right to insist that for example, not only do most if not all brown people in this country need to be removed but those who are allowed to remain need to be deprived equal citizenship. Every year the popular sentiment gets more severe and more popular. So how they can’t see the writing on the wall boggles my mind. The 2nd most dangerous animal on this planet is blacks. The most dangerous is white Europeans. When they decide to chimp out, boy, do they do it big time.

>>24454140


This is like saying asian authors are benefiting from a racial advantage in China. It’s absurd to suggest. How do you not see this?

>>24454140
>This is without mentioning how overtly racist some people were in the past
I’d say no more or less racist than any groups, specifically black and brown groups, are these days.

>>24454154
That's not at all what I said. I said the majority race has had advantages throughout history. It's more like saying an Asian person has more advantages in China than a minority. Which is true.

>>24454161
>That's not at all what I said. I said the majority race has had advantages throughout history
The majority race in China is asian. So yes that’s exactly what you said, you fucking idiot, and it’s absurd.

The majority is competing against itself every bit as much as the minority. So they’re at no advantage. Statistically they’re less likely to succeed, meaning they’re functionally at a disadvantage.

Class structure perpetuates itself which is more indicative of a set of advantage being afforded to each of its generations. It has nothing to do with race.

What has happened in the last 15 years in america, however, is a blatant bias (not just raciall) against the majority.

>>24454161
>It's more like saying an Asian person has more advantages in China than a minority.
That’s exactly what anon said. I’m guessing you’re a literary agent because it appears you can’t read.

>>24452519 (OP)
Nothing you can do about it either. This discrimination is championed by journalists, academics and society at large. Good luck getting published (won't happen)

>>24452519 (OP)
>this thread bitching about this shit again
Go get a job in sales.
One thing that's nice about jobs where you have to perform or you're fired is this absolutely is not ever a thing.

In fields where shit is subjective, they rule. You picked it.
And its always been like that. Before it was brown people it was personal connections. That's what subjective fields are like.

>>24454208
Kill yourself faggot

>>24452713
This is the funniest part. The thing is the few people asking why men don’t read anymore are not the same as those in the industry who know damn well why men don’t read anymore.

>>24454154
>>24454176
>>24454179

Asian (and other ethnic) minorities in China do receive many advantages, same as affirmative action in the US for minorities. For example their gaokao scores are automatically boosted and they were always exempt from the one-child policy.

>>24452591
>Because they know for a fact if you're an aspiring author, you're too poor to sue them. Since you're white, they know no minority mafia organization (NAACP, SLPC, et al) would bankroll you, either. You're a valid target to kick because the system is structured to prevent you from kicking back.
Still it doesn't benefit them. What you say only makes them able to shit on you, no gains for them involved.

>>24454695
they get better loans by indulging dei google esg scores

>>24454673
>Asian minorities in China
Chinese are Asian anon, they’re a majority in China. Do you mean foreign nationals? If so that has nothing to do with a discussion of race relations in America or anywhere else for that matter.

Beyond that, the following:
> The majority is competing against itself every bit as much as the minority. So they’re at no advantage. Statistically they’re less likely to succeed, meaning they’re functionally at a disadvantage.
>Class structure perpetuates itself which is more indicative of a set of advantages being afforded to each of its generations. It has nothing to do with race.
>What has happened in the last 15 years in america, however, is a blatant bias (not just racial) against the majority.
is indisputable

>>24454695
Your mistake are thinking they are doing this for gains. They are not. They are doing this because they hate (you) and will gladly take a hit if it means you suffered.

Correction : the people doing these policies hate you. The people below them have no choice, and the people above them are kept clueless, with plenty of incestuous charts sent their ways to prove the economic benefits of these policies - after all, their numbers might be tanking, but if they WERE accepting submissions by white people, they would be tanking even more

>>24454147
Good thing so many whites are mutting their genes with Asians and blacks.

>>24454743
>Do you mean foreign nationals?
No, I mean the dozens of other Asian minorities in China.

>>24454750
>The people below them have no choice
I’d disagree only because they hire fat liberal white women who are the biggest race traitors in the world, LGBT types and POC. All of these people think there are already enough books by straight white men and that printing even a few per year is already too many.

>but if they WERE accepting submissions by white people, they would be tanking even more
I don’t understand this conclusion.

>>24452841
You appear to be under the impression you're worth the trouble.

>>24454766
Anon that’s not possible because China is an Asian country. There cannot be ASIAN minorities. There can be people of different nationalities but if they are racially Asian they are not a racial minority in an Asian country.

Please tell me you understand the difference between nationality and race.

>>24454770
NTA but I accept your concession on their behalf.

>>24452519 (OP)
American literature will just go the way of American comic books and other forms of entertainment. There's a reason anime, manga and more and more foreign movies and TV shows are starting to dominate.

>>24454781
>more and more foreign movies and TV shows are starting to dominate.
Only part that isn’t true. Foreign films do putrid numbers in America. And outside of BBC slop on PBS we see almost not foreign tv.

>>24454784
Korean slop is getting pretty popular.

>>24454785
The last Korean production I can remember making any sort of dent was that fake game show or whatever it was

>>24452519 (OP)
>Is anyone else sick of this shit?
Got any more examples besides this one?
Submissions being open to black writers without agents doesn't guarantee that they'll be published.

>>24454773
this
their answer is that it's revealed to them in drug visions

Another annoying thing is that even when they dont have this preferential treatment stated outright in their submission guidelines they still exhibit a woke culture which is unwelcoming. I've been trying to get a short story published. It's a philosophical/psychological horror written in what I consider a beautiful style, but it's formal and serious. It will probably never get published just because the ideas in it aren't something these types have ever even considered or understand. It's just two completely different cultures.

>>24454773
>NTA
Careful, you have to prove that around here.

>>24454801
You mean like Penguin Random House?
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/imprints/RR/Random-House-Canada/submissions

It’s fairly common, same type of “front of the line” stuff applies to many agents/agencies as well though.

>Submissions being open to black writers without agents doesn't guarantee that they'll be published.

Nobody is claiming they should be closed to that, they’re claiming it’s unfair (and likely illegal) that it’s not open to everyone. While being able to submit doesn’t guarantee publication being unable to submit guarantees you will not be published.

I suspect you understand this already and are simply being an insufferable cunt about it though.

>>24454812
>Another annoying thing is that even when they dont have this preferential treatment stated outright in their submission guidelines they still exhibit a woke culture which is unwelcoming.
You give yourself away with statements like this. The whole thing is that "woke culture" is welcoming to everyone, just not welcoming to people who treat other people like shit.

>>24454828
>The whole thing is that "woke culture" is welcoming to everyone
Gr8 b8

Whites can afford an agent, blacks can't. You're not oppressed, you're privileged, and they're levelling the playing field. /thread

>>24454822
The issue is that people keep making these claims that straight, white, cis gender men are being black balled out of jobs and I never see any valid examples. I think allowing one group to submit without agents and requiring others to have an agent is stupid but it's not the same as completely denying the work of other writers.
>Nobody is claiming they should be closed to that, they’re claiming it’s unfair (and likely illegal) that it’s not open to everyone. While being able to submit doesn’t guarantee publication being unable to submit guarantees you will not be published.

I suspect you understand this already and are simply being an insufferable cunt about it though.
Cool your jets you fucking retard, don't put words into my mouth.

>>24454845
>afford
You don’t pay for an agent, but you know this already. You’re just trolling for some reason.

>>24452519 (OP)
worlds not fair for guys like us

>>24454850
>think allowing one group to submit without agents and requiring others to have an agent is stupid but it's not the same as completely denying the work of other writers.
>the door is open for “underrepresented groups”
>the door is closed for straight white men
>somehow this doesn’t mean the latter is specifically being denied
Why are you being so disingenuous?

>>24454771
What are they then? White minorities? Are they black minorities? Have you heard of the Miao, the Tibetans, the Mongols, the Manchu and dozens of other Asian and Central Asian minorities in China?

>>24454868
The door isn't closed for straight white men they just need an agent. Again it's stupid but not the same as them saying they're not accepting anything from white writers. Don't mistake this as me supporting this, I think the rules should be the same for everyone, it's just not coming off as you're trying to present it. As far as the legality of this is concerned I'm pretty sure it's illegal in the U.S. but you linked the Canadian branch of Penguin Random House and Angry Robot, from the OP image, is based in the UK.

>>24454241
Don't feel like it

>>24454147
>, literally understand themselves as superior. That’s actually why they feel so strongly that they have to champion brown people.
Are you brown? This is not what is happening. Brown people's model are white people, hence the resentment. The leftists whites use black people as a mean in their rivalry with other whites.

Otherwise, yes, fully agree.

>The most dangerous is white Europeans. When they decide to chimp out, boy, do they do it big time.

Ready to chew on jaws.

>>24454828
>just not welcoming to people who treat other people like shit.
oh, thats better. Now you state that "all white men treat people like shit".
That's at least if not more racist, than whites ever were.

>>24454845
>Whites can afford an agent, blacks can't. You're not oppressed, you're privileged, and they're levelling the playing field. /thread
oh, fuck this whiteprivelege nonsense. I'm a straight white male. I live on 50 bucks a week? I'm lucky to eat "something" every day. No welfare. I've been at this for years. I dont *have* any privelege.

>>24454845
>there are no poor white people
Kill yourself.

>>24454771
He means non-Han-Chinese that are also ethnically asian, which the Chinese government treats as second class because they only acknowledge Han Chinese as fair citizens. Don't be obtuse on purpose.

>>24454976
That would be a pretty retarded comparison to race relations in America

cry about it chud

>>24454845
A poor white person is less privileged than an average black person. I'm literally a brown person that benefited from a program that my white family members could not get. Anti-white racism is disgusted and filthy.

>>24455121
>A poor white person is less privileged than an average black person
People say things like this with a straight face?
Poor white people don't even believe that.

>>24454907
>Again it's stupid but not the same as them saying they're not accepting anything from white writers.
That’s absolutely what it means. They’re only accepting submissions for those works via agents. You’re being intentionally obtuse about this.

>>24454888
It’s more akin to the class issues in the US.

>>24454907

>they just need an agent

>>24455191
When was the last time you heard the phrase, "White lives matter?"

>>24452519 (OP)
The only people here who disagree that it’s ridiculous are doing it for (You)s

>>24454907

there are dozens of these, just posting a few

>>24454907

>>24455200
>my statement was stupid
>time to ignore it and change the subject

>>24455200
>>24455218
Two retards not even discussing the topic

>>>/pol/

>>24455191
Yes, poor white people have it worse. The reason they don't say it is fear and self-hatred perpetuated by a racist system thar pins all blame on white men.

>>24455199
>>24455203
>>24455205
>manuscriptwishlist
These are personal requests or wishes of agents. They're not linked to any company postings and don't promise that any of the submitted work will actually be published.

>>24455218
>he thinks i changed the subject

>>24455191
I am literally a non-white person that believes the system is racist and unfair for white people. I have non-white family that thinks the same, and they're not /pol/. Trump's election against all odds is a reflection of this same sentiment; Many, many people believe the same. The reason it doesn't look that way is because you're part of the same ancient, ossified, status quo political system that will soon be trashed.

>>24455235
>They're not linked to any company postings
That’s not even remotely true. These agents are representing their company at all times, they cannot take clients on independently of their company as stipulated in their employment contracts. I don’t know how you could even conceive of arguing otherwise.
>and don't promise that any of the submitted work will actually be published.
Nobody said they did. But if you can’t submit directly to a publisher, and you’re being shut out from getting an agent you absolutely will not be getting published.

>>24455303
You're talking to an anon that said all white people can afford to be published and believes these literary agents aren't possibly going to favor the things they say they'll favor. He's retarded or a troll.

>>24455316
I know this, I’ve taken appropriate action in regard to trolls, I hope you will do the same.

>>24452519 (OP)
>Nobody will even read a fucking sample to see if it’s worthwhile?
This is the most painful part of the status quo at the moment. It’s one thing to be rejected on merit or even marketability. It’s another to be rejected without having your sample even so much as glanced at. And I’m not talking some autistic 1000 page epoch blahblahblah shit that is sent in full and which they know they don’t even need to open because the digital file itself reeks of autism and ass sweat.

I’m talking a normal, well-researched, well put together query with a solid chapter/50 page sample as stated in their bios with all their condescendingly ridiculous hoops jumped through like that goddamn halo 3 mission. You pat your head and rub your tummy while doing a little jig like a fucking trained spider monkey and they still don’t even read the first sentence because your name is Aguamabama Bling Bling or you didn’t refer to yourself as they them

>>24452524
>>24452535
Say you're non-binary, that's more plausible.

>>24455303
Not every agent will have contracts with those stipulations or restrictions, and some work independently, anon.
I'm not arguing against this being unfair but this is not something that keeps writers of other colors out of publishing. But this thread is clearly focused on faux victimhood, which I hate, no matter who it comes from.
>>24455316
I'm not that anon, the comment chain is pretty clear.

Look at their list of published authors.
>https://angryrobotbooks.com/our-authors/
The only possibly white and straight authors were Steve Beard, Joshua Bellin, Dan Koboldt, Eric Brown and Keith Brooke after the changes in 2021 that I'll discuss.
>Ben Alderson
Writes male on male porn.
>Geoff Ryman
Known on wikipedia for writing LGBT fiction/literature
>Chris Faraday
His most well known is an LGBT sci-fi with two girls (Trine), or the other with a male and male.
>Al Hess
"He writes cozy and uplifting stories with queer, trans, and neurodiverse representation."
>Keith Brooke
I mentioned Brooke as a candidate for straight white males, but he is also an established author since 1990. This is very different from a published a non-established author, as he was already published long before the company was founded.
>Eric Brown
Also published before the company was founded in 2007.

Before 2020 are more white male authors, underrepresented but still close. Here are their submission pages:
>2009
>https://web.archive.org/web/20091220231128/http://angryrobotbooks.com/about-us/submissions/
In 2009, a year after release, no diversity quota.
>Sep 14, 2019
>https://web.archive.org/web/20190914044505/https://angryrobotbooks.com/submissions/
Still no diversity quota. The earliest archived page where this changes is
>Nov 29 2021
>https://web.archive.org/web/20211129152330/https://angryrobotbooks.com/submissions/
So let's see, after the change, the first published author was a black woman named Denise Crittendon. After that, only 5 out of 35 authors were white males not explicitly writing about queer issues. If including all white males including the extremely dubiously white, it brings it to 11/35 authors being white and male.

Of the 104 authors before then, 56 were white males. This means that immediately after the alteration to policy, white male acceptance plummeted from 54% to 31%, or a whopping 14% when we do not count the ones that are gay and explicitly write LGBT fiction. This alteration happened between Oct 21 and Nov 29, and led to the immediate exclusion of almost 2/3rds of all white males who wanted to be published. W P Wiles was the last author before the change, starting with him to the next page (2021-2018) has 14 straight white male published authors out of 29 total, or almost precisely 50%. The change was surgical, immediate, and clearly exclusionary. It cannot be argued that the purpose was financial on their part, because they were clearly willing to publish these authors before the change when considering profitability: The change in policy was explicitly racist and exclusionary, almost entirely eliminating white males authors altogether.

These policies are similar everywhere, they reflect the industries, scholarships, the agents particular interests, publishers, all exherting a top-down racist and exclusionary policy towards white males. White males are being discriminated against at every step of the way.

>>24456204
I posted that image because of how funny the article was. Their debunk was:
>Still, Penguin Random House, one of the largest book publishers in the world, found that White contributors accounted for 76% of books released between 2019 and 2021. Separately, 34% were men.
Hmm, that's a very funny way to say white males were underrepresented. The other debunk is simply about white people as a whole in other areas, but this again doesn't reflect sex discrimination and the percentage of the western world that is white. It's not even a debunk, they give it the title and write something tangentially related in the article so it seems 'kinda plausible.' They don't even bother to debunk her actual statement. Here is all they say:
>“Those charts make it VERY clear that white writers are the majority,” Watters said in an email to CNN.
It's genuinely hilarious.

White males are being systematically discriminated against, and if this published author is to be trusted, even by agents themselves.

>>24456204
>Before 2020 are more white male authors, underrepresented but still close. Here are their submission pages:
This line is incorrect and I wrote it before going through every single author.

>>24453013
I've dealt with worse

>>24454752
In your dreams I'm sure

>>24455235

huh? they are literally AGENTS of their agencies. the way they solicit clients (that is, discriminatorily) reflects their work as agents of the agency. I didn't say anything about a "promise that any of the work will actually published" - I was responding to the anon that said "the door isn't closed for white men, they just need an agent"

the point is that the door is closed at the agent level too

>>24456490
>>24456494
You raped him to death, just leave him be.

Someone who knows nothing about this industry here. Is there a reason you can't just lie and pretend to be your own agent?

>>24456529

You would lack pedigree and it would be immediately obvious: no prior sales, no professional web presence, most importantly no existing connection with the editors you would be pitching too, not part of an agency (there are some solo agents but they have all of the preceding qualities).

A different but related question people ask is “why not use a pen name and query as a BIPOC” or not disclose your race, but agents will always require video calls before signing you, and you would also have to sign any contracts in your legal name anyway

>>24456529
Publishers typically have a list of reputable agents. This is why even established ones can’t just strike out on their own. It’s an incredibly incestuous industry.

>>24456204
Genuinely solid work looking into this, anon.

>>24456022
Kys cunt

>>24456490
you're just being hard headed now, like you think it's impossible and unheard of for people to take on work independently of the companies they work for. And you're acting like these are the only literary agents available, I'm also sure there are other agents that take on passion work as well that writers, regardless or color, could potentially send their work to. idk how you're getting confused in the replies, since I'm literally the only one replying to you.

>>24456956
Saying
>you're just being hard headed now,
And immediately following up with
>like you think it's impossible and unheard of for people to take on work independently of the companies they work for
Is how I know you’re trolling

>>24456557
Why not go blackface in the vid call

>>24455121
What are you talking about? An average black family has 10x LESS WEALTH THAN THE AVERAGE WHITE FAMILY. A poor white family who has 10x less wealth than the average white family isn't worse off than the average black family, they're the same.

>>24457128
I had a huge reply typed up with lots of pretty studies and statistics, since the information on wealth by race, is closely monitored and easily available. As well as many other statistics associated with race, class, and privilege. But didn't even bother posting it because this thread is about building up a victim complex and excuses as to why they aren't where they want or need to be in life right now. It's going through all of the classic logical fallacies and right-wing complaints. It's not me holding myself back, it's the browns, and blacks, the gays, women, and jews!

>>24457128
This is because of higher end earners like Bezos, Gates, etc.

Again, you know this.

>>24457128
you imbecile. If a white is below the poverty line it doesn't make a difference whether there's some white family 340 miles away that makes more than him. A poor white is a poor white, just as poor as any black, but unlike the black, he isn't protected by special racial programs, or boosted through with racist diversity policy, doesn't benefit from racial scholarships, etc.

>>24452519 (OP)
>aaahhhhhh men have it so hard!!!

Right, because there’s such a lack of white male writers in publishing. Oh wait, there’s not. They simply offer easier access to disfranchised groups who are underrepresented. And if you read it to the bottom they still offer open submissions from people with no agents during certain time periods. They just don’t allow the most represented group ie white men to do it all the time because they already flood submissions. You’re basically bitching that you can’t glide through simply by being a white dude.

>>24454106
White writers are not underrepresented

I am a BIPOC and already got two automatic rejections. It is hard for all of us, people. They just put up those BIPOC-wanted signs to virtue signal. It is nothing more than that.

>>24457230
There are noticable changes in results when you check the dates on various diversity changes. It is not virtue signalling. This anon gave OP's example >>24456204

>>24455316
White people wishing to be authors have far higher likelihood of having representation, that’s the point.

>>24457223
The changes resulted in tangible extreme underrepresentation of white males when comparing 2025-2021 and 2021-2018. Are we to expect that white males (especially straight white males) abruptly stopped wanting to publish between October and November 2021?
There so is an underrepresentation of white males in publishing. The CNN article that "debunks" the conspiracy: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/joyce-carol-oates-white-men-publishing-cec
>That audit, published in November of last year, did not include a simultaneous breakdown by gender and race. Still, Penguin Random House, one of the largest book publishers in the world, found that White contributors accounted for 76% of books released between 2019 and 2021
>Separately, 34% were men.
This wording means that only 34% of all published authors were men, so that means white males were represented at only 25%. They don't specify white men. Even if they did, the western world is more than 80% white and the country this company is from is the UK, which is 83% white, so 36% is not overrepresentation, it's underrepresentation.
No matter how the statistic is read, white males are under represented. Whites as a whole in western publishing companies fairly accurately reflect the white racial makeup.

>>24454147
>I mean that whites, even the woke dipshits, literally understand themselves as superior. That’s actually why they feel so strongly that they have to champion brown people. The right sees you as like perpetual children and animals and so wants to keep you at bay. The left sees you as perpetual children and animals and so wants to protect and help you. Either way, whites look at you like perpetual children and/or animals.
Nta but I thought it was because we live in a misandrist patriarchy built by men for women as a way to compensate for men only contributing 15 minutes to the reproductive process, and as women gained power after the war and technology and access to men advanced, the need for men decreased, so all that remains for men is disposability. A place in society exists for women underneath men, but women have no desire for men underneath and would see most men die. It's actually because women see themselves as superior and more whole human beings. Hence, black people, the more masculine looking race just based on color theory and unfortunate history, become like women in a way in order to transcend their low ranking disposable workhorse male status, just like gays, just like trans women. It's why I'm skeptical that whites will rebel and opress blacks again. The reason black civil rights even worked was due to guilting the public into thinking blacks were more than just men, but perpetual children, beyond corruption and disposability, essentially women. And, as long as technology remains advanced and society remains big and communication remains vast, our obsession with minorities, just like women, will only increase until whites themselves ditch masculinity and become like women or children(essentially women) as much as possible too. Being a man means being a means for the ends of women and children. It's not superior. It's just sacrificial, and it always has been except when men attempt to be like women and value themselves and other men more. It's why anthropologically societal collapse is linked to homosexuality.

Blacks will continue taking from cis straight white men in the same way women, trannies, faggots, and whathaveyou will until whites figure out how to occupy a more feminine niche. The incel movement, for example, if it became progressive, would do this.

>>24457254
Not really. Publishing accurately reflects their majority in their respective countries. Even worse, it doesn't account for things like literacy or actual interest in literature. A cursory examination of literacy in the UK showed non-white ethnicities lagging behind whites. So that means despite an even lower effective population of writers, OP's example still overrepresents ethnic minorities.
The post diversity changes to OP's example company has 23% representation of ethnic minorities after the change, so it's extremely close to racial demography EVEN if we assume literacy rates and cultural interest were identical (and they are far from).

>>24457310
So every publishing company should across the board do perfect equal representation or it’s discrimination? Ie white men writers need affirmative action?

>>24457270
Men are increasingly becoming a demographic that doesn’t read so it only makes sense the amount of them wanting to be authors is also shrinking.

>>24457325
No. It's just obvious that the representation was representative of the authors that wanted to be published and had the skill to do it prior to the changes, and that the changes were strictly racist and resulted in dramatic under-representation.
Or do you think a cataclysmic event just caused all white men to check out in 2021? Did they all get killed by covid and BLM riots? Is that why they stopped publishing?

>>24457331
I sampled one publishing company. The change in representation happened essentially overnight with the change in policy, white males going from 50% of authors in the few years prior and down to 31% in the 3 and a fraction years after, or 14% when not counting authors whose market is LGBT related issues. It has nothing to do with natural literacy trends.

>>24457337
This is also with me assuming everyone without a profile picture that did not otherwise expressly state their ancestry on social media was white. The actual share of white male authors may be lower.

>>24457325
Your premise is that whites get editors proportionate to their skill or availability, which is wrong on both counts.

>>24457337
Are there even any competitions that don't state preferences for non-white, non-male authors? There was one but even then they recently started posting random Indians stories in their list of top winners even though those stories are clearly worse than the grand prize winners. I even got an email trying to get me to buy a book based on that marketing. Don't know why I'm supposed to care about an Indian identity story but they seemed to think there was a massive audience for that.

>>24457368
>Are there even any competitions that don't state preferences for non-white, non-male authors?
I've noticed this too. And regardless of the obvious racist change in representation, this is a classic sign of systemic racism. Whites and males who see this information learn one thing, EVEN IF they aren't totally disbarred:
>You aren't welcome.
It's what the left says happens to minorities, but it happens in the open against whites; And it's clear that the diffuse cultural racism would contribute to a similar feeling of othering that leftists claim minorities feel. These open displays of genuine systemic racism are symptoms of a more pervasive phenomenon. The difference is, there's both measurable instances of this structural racism and evidence of its systemic effects on whites and males.

I've been considering making a substack with these statistics I've been gathering since yesterday. Literacy rates, etc., and I'm sampling two more publishing companies with a combined ~630 authors and there seems to be a similar cut off period between 2020-2022 (around the BLM/covid scenario) where white male representation crashes. I have not rigorously checked it so the trends may not be the same. I'm interested in the reality of it rather than proving a political point. There's just so much data to go through and 3 companies isn't much. Some (like Trident) have so many authors and almost no public data, so it would be very difficult.

Anyways, very interesting topic.

>>24457337
Maybe the white authors weren’t selling and non-white authors were so they adjusted what type of stuff that was actually moving product

>>24457334
They just got addicted to playing video games and didn’t bother finishing their manuscript

>>24457396
That would have reflected already prior to the changes, since they were previously selecting based on what they thought was profitable. If they noticed white male authors weren't profitable, we would have seen SOME sort of change in representation, instead we don't. There are also two problems with your statement:
>1. If false:
Strictly structural and systemic racism.
>2. If true:
This is an example of structurally racist policies perpetuating racism, similar to the arguments leftists use against conservatives on why their policies that negatively affect minority groups aren't racist but based on practical results. This ignores the primary progressive argument (because I assume you're a progressive, I'm not) that this market data still reflects systemic bias. For example, how Amazon.com has a "Black Female Authors" advertisement campaign but none for white males. These structurally racist policies self reinforce the racist system. The massive underrepresentation of white males in the NYT best seller list is an example of how racism perpretuates this market bias.
Besides that, both yours and >>24457401 arguments are examples of baseless conjecture and racist stereotyping.

>>24457421
>>24457396
And I want to add that whether you accept progressive critical race theory or not, the evidence shows white males authors are discriminated against. Whether you operate under a right or left wing mindset, no sufficient case can be made to justify this discrimination. Under leftism, all you can say is
>white people bad I hate em racism good

>>24457438
It reflects the changing demographics. Even if the general population is whiter, the younger generation is not. The publishing industry is just trying to stay ahead of the curve. The future is not white. In the US, half of all kids being born are now non-white.

>>24457421
>NYT best seller list
This was a mistake. I intended to reference two literary awards that do not track sales, and end with the NYT bestsellers to cap it off but decided to erase the latter part for concision (I ended up erasing the first).
For example, two out of 13 booker shortlist winners for 2024 were white males. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_winners_and_nominated_authors_of_the_Booker_Prize
2023 is an outlier with 5 out of 13 being white males, then 2022 has 2 out of 13 or 3 out of 13 considering the ambiguously white. 2021 continues this trend with 3 out of 13 (nathan harris has no page but here is his picture on social media). So yes, strict underrepresentation.
>>24457461
Also wrong. Prior to the changes in policy, there were still both older and young white males publishing. The change in 2021 caused the immediate drop. If it was a changing demographic, we would have seen some difference. The trends on Booker go further.

>>24457486
>>24457461
The Booker Prize is the critical example, because anti-white and anti-male bias existed in it since before mass immigration into the UK. This eliminates much of your argument.

>>24457461
Then, even when we accept your argument, which is
>conjecture
>near baseless
>without evidence
It is still, strictly speaking, open structural racism. Thus OP is correct, white males are being discriminated against in spite of both their capacity to write and for things they cannot control. Even if we accept the validity of racial capitalism.

>>24457517
>>24457461
As a note to this, I am not commenting on the evidence demography. The demography of the UK or US would not strengthen your position. I say there is no evidence for these book companies accepting non-white male authors so that in 40-60 years when the demographics align with their predictions, these pulpy sci-fi books will be read by brown people. This is utterly ludicrous but can be granted without affecting my point.

>>24457229
I disagree.

>>24457254
Prove this statement

>>24457331
If this board wasn’t run by trannies and dykes you’d have been b& for trolling by now.

>>24452531
White people are already blacklisted.
>you cant do that! We will blacklist you again!
What are they going to do? Not publish me harder?

>>24454907
Agents also dont accept submissions from white men, you retard.

OP's argument has hereby been proven factual.
>>24454801
Goalpost: Isolated instance. Disproven: >>24454822
>>24454845
Goalpost: Whites can afford it. Disproven on multiple accounts, from the way agents work to the way that poor whites wouldn't have access to the money of rich whites and more.
>>24454850
Goalpost: White cisgender males are not being blackballed.
Reality: There is a provable exclusionary policy that led to a tangible, immediate drop in white male authorship. For many white male authors, this amounts to blackballing on race and sex alone.
>>24454907
Goalpost: There is no by-necessity prohibition on white male authors, just get an agent.
Reality: This isn't the point. The point is that many white males will be openly turned down based on race and/or sex alone. They will face an explicitly racist and sexist barrier, and this explicitly racist and sexist barrier has tangible effects. It is different from systemic racism as the left sees it, because there is no explicit structural bias against these supposed minorities, whereas there is for white males.

In addition, a lot of agents are explicitly racist and sexist towards white males, and even if not, the fact that white male authorship plummeted so dramatically to a completely non-representative percentage shows that there is still TANGIBLE systemic bias against white males.
>>24455191
(Tangential argument): All white people are richer than all black people. Kek.
>>24455235
Goalpost: The agent's stated goals are not their actual goals.
Reality: The fact that white male authorship has plummetted even though a white male can just get an agent and supposedly be treated equally begs to differ. Entrenched systemic bias is still obvious.
>>24456022
Goalpost: Not every agent will exclude white males.
Reality: Yes, but the effect of this is that quite literally the majority of white males are being de facto excluded based on race, sex, and sexuality alone.

Many whites are quite literally kept out based on these characteristics, minor exceptions don't matter. It's explicitly policy for there to be exclusion of white males in areas.
>>24457128
(Tangential tard) All white people are richer than all black people again. He apparently has studies to prove this. I'm sure the dog ate them.
>>24457223
Goalpost: "Right, because there’s such a lack of white male writers in publishing. Oh wait, there’s not."

Actually, there is. After the first reply, anon immediately moves the goalpost to
>Men are increasingly becoming a demographic that doesn’t read so it only makes sense the amount of them wanting to be authors is also shrinking.
Then to
>Maybe the white authors weren’t selling and non-white authors were so they adjusted what type of stuff that was actually moving product
Which is then debunked. He finally caps it off with:
>it reflects the changing demographics
Which is again debunked with factual evidence.

I expect the goalpost to end up in Hades soon.

>>24457839
>>24452519 (OP)
OP does not need to go further than proving his statement:
>it’s pretty clear the deck is stacked against straight white people, specifically men. It’s just so damn depressing.
Of which there is substantial evidence of explicit exclusionary policy, exclusionary language, non-representative demographics in publishing, and direct, tangible effects from from these racist, sexist policies. OP's post is so substantially true that CNN's attempt to debunk it acknowledges only that "white men may not have it the worst," (paraphrase) and outright shows with their own statistical sample that white males are not accurately represented in publishing. OP does not go so far as to say there is a strict prohibition, which is not necessary to be proven to show white males have the deck stacked against them.

OP's statement is without refutation objectively factual. White males must operate with the deck stacked against them. Q.E.D.

>>24454907
>The door isn't closed for blacks in the south, they just need to pass a bunch of impassable arbitrary tests given by someone that hates them in order to vote.

>>24457839
Holy based

>>24454785
No, that peaked a few years ago. It already was and will continue to be popular in SEA, but in the west, it's completely relegated to Asians, teenage girls, and weird internet perverts.

>>24457979
I think Korean manhwas and animes are getting more popular, you can see examples like Solo Leveling topping the charts.
Also Korean dramas are more popular now than ever before in the west.

>>24456529
All agents and publishers know each other. It's a very tight knit circle of nepotism. You can pretend to be an agent but it will be quickly debunked.

>>24458019
Anon said:
>Foreign films do putrid numbers in America. And outside of BBC slop on PBS we see almost no foreign tv.
So why bring up manhwas?

And I can’t name a single Korean drama.

>>24458146
You're right, I was referring to media in general. I wasn't trying to be disingenuous, so my bad for not specifically referring to movies.
I can't name any either and I don't watch them, but I know other people do. Hell, even /tv/ now has a permanent general about it.

>>24452519 (OP)
>Is the point to drive a whole generation and demographic into mania and self-destructive patterns?
Congratulations you recognized what’s happening

>>24458054
Why do editors become agents? Is it because they fail to get a promotion at the publisher and it's an "either move up or move out" rat race?

>>24452519 (OP)
Any rules besides the individual and unique artistic merits of the work as a self-standing entity disgusts me deeply. I'm pretty sure the "academy awards" for movies tried to do this too, and it backfired horribly and now nobody watches or engages with that content. Serves them right. Social engineering is a reprehensible overreach whoever attempts it.pdmd

>>24458176
Ever heard the saying “if you can’t do, you teach”? Well similarly, if you can’t write, you edit and if you can’t edit you become an agent or a critic.

>>24459449
If they can't "edit" I think they would have been out much faster, but many agents show resumes of having spent a decade or more at the big publishers

honestly, what might go over. As in, worth a try.
What publishers once handled so called "toxic" books.
IE, Turner diaries, Huntr, etc. SOMEone published them, if only briefly. Or they wouldn;t exist. Fire one of thse up, with an infusion of (crowdfunded?) capital.
But. They should re-brand themselves, possibly with a new name.
The test catalog? normal, 1980-1990 style fiction novels.
No race war, no JQ, nothing. Just... quietly all white characters, no woke drop-in editing, etc.
Let people see and read, normal books before the bullshit started. The so-called chuds and alt-right (bullshit, but its what regula rpeople are called now) might get the message. Here. Normal books, for normal people, once again.
Advantage: they get to distance themselves, from the extremes of their past.
They now appear, to be way more "normal", then the crazy leftwing nonsense.
Because in todays world? What was once normal, is now (supposedly) le epic nazy shieet.
This would be the text case, to normalize... being fucking normal. Instead of crazy left wing woke editing... he emphasis is on, actual good values. Ethics. Intelligence, to solve things. You could show people, what normal is.

>>24452519 (OP)
Because the jewish people hate you, and you're still a good goy for them, paying taxes and obeying the law

>>24456270
Like what?

>>24459491
I mean, people sent over half a million to a lady for saying nigger. That million? Could have fired up one of these re-branded printing houses I am decribing.
WHile they wouldn;t be touched in stores (muh left wing tibe), they would have th ability to succeed now a days, through E-pubbing. Imagine getting a decently written, non-woke crime noir... for a buck or two, download easy. It could take off, or keep itself afloat. or at least, down to minimum more infusions of crowdfunded.

>>24457229
They're the only ones that should even be represented

>>24457157
>I typed it b-b-but I just didnt send it okay??

>>24453330
I always put 2+ races. In the rare cases I'm asked to specify, I respond Jewish and Native American. I even have a story about my great grandmother escaping from Germany in the 30s and marrying a Chickasaw man in Louisville, KY but have never been pressed for it.

What are they going to do, DNA test me?

>>24459523
You are missing the black part though

>>24457187
On the other hand, he isn't likely to experience informal discrimination for being white.

>>24459847
Informal discrimination is common. If you were white and grew up in a black or brown neighborhood you probably experienced extreme racial bullying. I grew up with white brothers and sisters in a spic town and the only other white family new to keep it to their fucking selves.
You can see informal discrimination online a lot, from statements like timmy, dogfucker, the way white people are called evil, that white culture and civilization are evil, the way Karen became a slur primarily for white women; etc.

But the thing is that informal discrimination becomes formal discrimination. The fact that we now have formal, institutional discrimination in the open is symptomatic of the informal public discriminatory attitude towards white people, both from internalized racial hatred (whites criticizing whiteness) and oppositional racial hatred from minorities. The internalized self-hatred is a classic symptom of pervasive racism.

>>24459859
And yet, the majority of the population are white and whites are disproportionately represented in positions of wealth and power. This means that, even if people of all races have a preference for hiring people of their own race to a similar extent, this fact will have a larger positive impact on white people than anyone else. The fact that prejudice against white people exists as well doesn't negate this.

>>24452519 (OP)
Just let them bankrupt themselves publishing shit nobody wants

>>24459867
This is a misattribution of what belongs to wealth, to race. Whites have more wealth not because of their race, but because of the simple fact that many white people inherited property or had wealthy parents. Poor whites struggle more than poor blacks, and statistics show it. One example is a somewhat recent UK Parliamentary Committe:
>https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/203/education-committee/news/156024/forgotten-white-workingclass-pupils-let-down-by-decades-of-neglect-mps-say/
Where iy is noted that poor white students perform worse than many other ethnicities, and they acknowledge this:
>Disadvantaged White children feel anything but privileged when it comes to education.
>Privilege is the very opposite to what disadvantaged white children enjoy or benefit from in an education system which is now leaving far too many behind.”
White overrepresentation in suicide, underrepresentation in higher education:
>https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/for-providers/equality-of-opportunity/effective-practice/white-british-males-from-low-socioeconomic-status-backgrounds/
>White British males from the lowest socioeconomic status backgrounds are less likely than any other group to access higher education.
And more reflect the fact that white privilege isn't really a thing. High income whites are insulated from many of the troubles that ANY poor person faces, but a very large amount of whites are at or near poverty, they have no generational wealth, they have no social programs to address their ethnic needs (unlike minorities), they are informally and formally discriminated against, and more.

But that ignores the glaring issue with your post:
>even if people of all races have a preference for hiring people of their own race to a similar extent, this fact will have a larger positive impact on white people than anyone else.
You created a hypothetical scenario that isn't even true.
Because white people quite literally do not. They are statistically less nepotistic.[1] What point are you trying to make? The majority of white people are not rich enough to make it past the racially discriminatory barriers (evidenced by their increasingly non-representative states in things like publishing) and white wealth is already receeding.

Whites are being disproportionately harmed by these explicitly exclusionary policies and we can see that. Whites are victims of racism, informal and explicitly institutional. Where is your argument?

[1]But strikingly, the opposite is true of white employees. Under own-race managers, whites have relative outcomes that are similar or even less favorable than under other-race managers. In both dismissals and promotions, the evidence of own-race bias is strongest for blacks. The relative dismissal rate of blacks is 19 percent lower under black managers than non-black managers, and their relative promotion rate is 79 percent higher. Our main results are generally consistent with theories that assume own-race biases.

>>24459867
Continuation of the note: [1]
>In promotions (Table 3, column 3b), we find the same pattern as in dismissals—i.e, an own-race bias for blacks and Hispanics, but a reverse bias for whites. Evidence of own-race bias is again strongest for blacks. The coefficient on the own-race interaction term for blacks is positive and significant, and suggests the relative promotion rate of blacks is 79 percent higher under black managers. For Hispanics, the estimate suggests their relative promotion rate is 40 percent higher under Hispanic managers. Although the coefficient on the own-race interaction term for Hispanics is smaller and not statistically significant, a Wald test cannot reject equality of the coefficients for blacks and Hispanics (p=.50), and together, they are jointly significant (p=.08). Finally, the interaction coefficient for whites, while not significant, does differsignificantly from the mean of the black and Hispanic coefficients (p=.06) and indicates a reverse bias. The estimate suggests that whites are promoted at a 20 percent lower rate under white managers.
There's a lot of data on this. The study in question (Laura Giuliano et al. etc) ends with an interesting racially biased note, despite the findings. The conclusion lumps in all asian, hispanic, and whites together for the statement to make it seem as if there is a bias in favor of whites, when really this is the only way they can present the collected data in conclusion that doesn't explicitly state that other races are more racist towards whites than whites are. They notice whites have more biases against themselves, and by the statistics (this is not what they infer) whites are better at highering populations that represent the demographics of their geographic area.

If you need any clarifications, just ask

>>24459867
Those were one example, but I can bring more. The study was from quite a while back too, and it is certain that the racial disparity and anti-white bias has gotten WORSE since the 2000's.

>>24459867
>>24459970
To add to this and simplify it, the attribution of economic privilege to whiteness is both fallacious and racist.

>>24452519 (OP)
If your writing were good enough, you wouldn't be complaining. You need skill to get your book published

2016 was hell for brown people, I remember the vile shit they had to deal with daily. You can get fucked whitoid

>>24459991
Not when they don't accept whites, the agents are only looking to work with PoC, and the publishers are only interested in LatinX LGBTQ queer theory allegories that make 3000 lifetime sales (2998 copies purchased with government funds to supply to public libraries).

>>24459991
>You need skill to get your book published
You mean writing skill? Because modern publishing doesn't suggest that at all.

>>24459970
bro im crying

>>24459993
yeah like what

>>24459999
If you take 1000 poverty level whites and drop them into somalia and 2 billionaire whites and drop then in as well, do you think those whites benefit at all from that wealth? Do you think those two billionaires have their privilege from race or wealth? Imbecile.

>>24459999
>>24460003
Furthermore, next time you see a white homeless man, ask him why the white patriarchy hasn't given him a job, house, and car. The next time a white boy kills himself because of bullying, ask where the white man was.

White racial privilege is not real. A white of equal wealth is worse off than a black of equal wealth, because there are no social programs designed explicitly to uplift white people. There are barriers against him, there are diversity quotas, there is bias against whites even from other whites. Leftist rhetoric is very, very careful about how they word their statements and conclusions because of just how tenuous the idea of white racial privilege is. For example, when white suicide is higher, they must victim blame and say that this is just because of the fact that they are spoiled and losing their privilege. When the same suicides rise in blacks, they must say it is a result of systemic bias, without any evidence for this supposed bias.
You will find similar careful wordings everywhere, even in the study I posted. The CNN article earlier in this thread is another example of those carefully, carefully worded conclusions that help to sustain the veneer of truth.

>>24460015
no i'm literally crying because we're killing ourselves and each other

>>24459996
you need connections. it's all nepotism. doesn't matter if you are white or black

>>24460019
Okay, sorry for the rude reply. It is very sad that so many white people are taught to be self-hating over a concept that is not objectively proven and quite literally a pseudoscience, since it is not falsifiable. White privilege is simply defined as
>white people do better in any way
Without concern for any non-privilege related factors that may cause this. Many in academics are even moving away from the idea of white privilege for this reason, although I think it also has to do with the general resurgence of conservativism.

Just going by the wikipedia article,
>White privilege functions differently in different places. A person's white skin will not be an asset to them in every conceivable place or situation. White people are also a global minority, and this fact affects the experiences they have outside of their home areas. Nevertheless, some people who use the term "white privilege" describe it as a worldwide phenomenon, resulting from the history of colonialism by white Western Europeans. One author states that American white men are privileged almost everywhere in the world, even though many countries have never been colonized by Western Europeans.
They cite a 2003 opinion piece from The Guardian:
>Whites are the only race that never suffers any kind of systemic racism anywhere in the world. And the impact of white racism has been far more profound and baneful than any other: it remains the only racism with global reach.
That makes statements that were factually FALSE even with regards to the 2001 study I cited earlier. The wiki article neither says that all whites will benefit, nor that white skin benefits in all situations, and not even in the entire article that it can be agreed what white privilege actual is. The article also doesn't say that it's real, because it is literally a pseudoscientific post factum rationalization for why a disparity exists:
>Some scholars say that the term uses the concept of "whiteness" as a substitute for class or other social privilege or as a distraction from deeper underlying problems of inequality.
Where they acknowledge that it's possible for white privilege to really just be an examination if class privilege.
And all of their examples of racial privilege are just assessments that a black/other population has done worse without an explanation for why racism is the cause:
>Wildman says that even schools that appear to be integrated often segregate students based on abilities. This can increase white students' initial educational advantage, magnifying the "unequal classroom experience of African American students" and minorities. (2004)
>Other studies using sentence repetition tasks found that, at both third and fifth grades, white subjects repeated Standard English sentences significantly more accurately than black subjects, while black subjects repeated nonstandard English sentences significantly more accurately than white subjects.
This did not better with "equitable" policy.

>>24452650
I genuinely don't understand how you could turn his comment into that retarded strawman question of yours

>>24459867
>In dismissals and promotions, we also compared the effects of own-race bias in hiring managers and new managers, and we found two cases in dismissals where there was a divergence between these two groups. First, while we found a strong own-race bias for blacks among hiring managers, this bias disappears among new managers. Second, while among hiring managers we find no own-race bias for whites, there appears among new managers a significant reverse bias for whites. Why would the own-race bias for blacks disappear among new managers?

>And why would a reverse bias for whites appear? We propose that status, again, may play an important role. We argued above that a manager’s ability to command authority may depend on the social status associated with his race group relative to the race group of the employees he supervises. Here another type of status difference may also be important—the difference in status between managers supervising employees whom they hired vs. new managers supervising incumbent employees. If new managers are less secure in their authority over incumbent employees, they may be less likely to indulge racial biases in decisions about these employees. Such a status effect could explain the fact that the own-race bias for blacks disappears among new managers.
This is another interesting example of how all data that shows whites are not racist is used dismissed and explained away as racist. This is what all critical race theory is based on. It is a framework for interpreting all data in a certain critical light.

Now that you know this, you will be unable to unsee it. Here is the final statement of the study:
>First, we find that all nonblack managers—whites, Hispanics, and Asians—hire more whites and fewer blacks than do black managers.
>When minorities have dissimilar managers, they are more likely to be fired and less likely to be promoted. And when minorities obtain managerial positions, they apparently have difficulty hiring, retaining, and exercising authority over whites.
A conclusion completely divorced from the nature of the study. When this study is cited, they do not mention the "reverse bias" against whites, they mention the sociological conjecture, which is again not scientific, but a rationalization from the author. These careful conclusions are then cited by other authors, disregarding the actual findings:
>Ruqaiijah Yearby:
>For instance, studies show that African Americans seeking employ-
ment have a harder time obtaining employment because non-African
American managers tend to hire more Caucasians (Giuliano, Levin, and
Leonard 2009: 589).
The finding being that this difference stems———from blacks being much more biased in favor of themselves, that every race except asians are biased against whites, and that whites are in fact biased against themselves! These sorts of interesting "interpretations" are propagated down te citation pipeline, building an entire web of fake knowledge.

>>24459867
>In dismissals and promotions, we also compared the effects of own-race bias in hiring managers and new managers, and we found two cases in dismissals where there was a divergence between these two groups. First, while we found a strong own-race bias for blacks among hiring managers, this bias disappears among new managers. Second, while among hiring managers we find no own-race bias for whites, there appears among new managers a significant reverse bias for whites. Why would the own-race bias for blacks disappear among new managers?

>And why would a reverse bias for whites appear? We propose that status, again, may play an important role. We argued above that a manager’s ability to command authority may depend on the social status associated with his race group relative to the race group of the employees he supervises. Here another type of status difference may also be important—the difference in status between managers supervising employees whom they hired vs. new managers supervising incumbent employees. If new managers are less secure in their authority over incumbent employees, they may be less likely to indulge racial biases in decisions about these employees. Such a status effect could explain the fact that the own-race bias for blacks disappears among new managers.
This is another interesting example of how all data that shows whites are not racist is used dismissed and explained away as racist. This is what all critical race theory is based on. It is a framework for interpreting all data in a certain critical light.

Now that you know this, you will be unable to unsee it. Here is the final statement of the study:
>First, we find that all nonblack managers—whites, Hispanics, and Asians—hire more whites and fewer blacks than do black managers.
>When minorities have dissimilar managers, they are more likely to be fired and less likely to be promoted. And when minorities obtain managerial positions, they apparently have difficulty hiring, retaining, and exercising authority over whites.
A conclusion completely divorced from the nature of the study. When this study is cited, they do not mention the "reverse bias" against whites, they mention the sociological conjecture, which is again not scientific, but a rationalization from the author. These careful conclusions are then cited by other authors, disregarding the actual findings:
>Ruqaiijah Yearby:
>For instance, studies show that African Americans seeking employment have a harder time obtaining employment because non-African American managers tend to hire more Caucasians (Giuliano, Levin, and Leonard 2009: 589).
The finding being that this difference stems———from blacks being much more biased in favor of themselves, that every race except asians are biased against whites, and that whites are in fact biased against themselves! These sorts of interesting "interpretations" are propagated down te citation pipeline, building an entire web of fake knowledge.

>>24460173
And yet the other anon immediately confirmed that’s exactly what they were saying so it was hardly a strawman

How do you know if somebody is really an agent and not some rando with a webpage?

>anon finally gets published
>back here a month later to whine no one bought his book

The racebaiting in this thread is out of control. You could lay out how they're wrong like you're doing for all eternity, it doesn't matter. They hate you if you're white and male, and are glad of your suffering, and you're not going to talk them out of it. It would be like calmly rationally telling a Jim Crow Ku Klux Klan why black people are not inferior. He could know everything you're saying is right, but it wouldn't matter. It does not matter. I do appreciate your effort though and like that you're trying to foght back.

>>24459993
>2016 was hell for brown people, I remember the vile shit they had to deal with daily. You can get fucked whitoid
they were whipping niggers, lynching niggers, what. examples, anon.

>>24457839
People like that have zero interest in making arguments in good faith, they just want you to shut up, stop questioning it, and accept your place as a second class citizen. Same people who want you to join the military to kill Iranians for them right now btw

>>24452519 (OP)
I'm mixed race but I'd never accept being shortlisted because of it.

>>24460649
>They hate you if you're white and male
As if more than half the people who say white people are privileged aren't white themselves. To take something as innocent as saying 'a majority group has advantages' and twist it into 'everyone is racist against me' is disingenuous. To say 'not all white people' is missing the point entirely.

>>24460993
>To take something as innocent as saying 'a majority group has advantages' and twist it into 'everyone is racist against me'
To take something as innocent as 'black people are 8.5 times more likely to kill people than whites and have an average IQ of 85' and twist it into 'hatred of all brown people' is disingenuous. To say 'not all black people' is missing the point entirely.

autism anon gonna clap your post, I can just hear the music playing
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7IEYDJ7CqCI&pp=ygURamF3cyBtdXNpYyBhdHRhY2s%3D

>>24461024
>To say 'not all black people' is missing the point entirely
True

>>24461024
First, do you see these two statements as functionally equivalent ((X group has Y) and (X group has Y)) and that their validity can be determined by assessing the Y quality that each of those groups possesses?
>'a majority group has advantages'
>'black people are 8.5 times more likely to kill people than whites and have an average IQ of 85'
So for you, you must prove that the majority group has those advantages, in this case, white people having advantages based on their skin color explicitly because of white privilege and not some other factor,* and the other statement must be proven based on the crime statistics of black people.

It would then be wise for you to determine if the arguments made in this thread were really
>'everyone is racist against me'
or if they were backed by reason and evidence.

*If the reason for a majority group's advantage is entirely circumstantial and has no racist basis, then it becomes a pointless observation. For example, if a group of white billionaires migrate to Somalia and become the richest group in the country, and after a few generations have produced offspring that inherited that wealth, there is no worthwhile complaint that Somalia is a structurally racist nation simply because the majority of white families are rich, educated, and have a low rate of crime and incarceration compared to the indigenous population. If these white people breed and become a majority, and they retain their wealth simply because each generation inherits their wealth from the preceeding one, there is still no structural racism just because the minority of indigenous Somalis have low wealth and do not inherit this wealth and privilege.

To prove that this white majority has a racist advantage, one would have to prove the structure is racist, informally or formally. I have previously in this thread offered significant evidence that whites are the least in-group preferential race in the USA, at least when it comes to hiring. There is also explicit formal, structural racism occuring against whites, especially white males, as well as significant evidence for informal evidence. Given that structural racism against non-whites is so rare that studies do not bother with this nor is explicit structural bias acknowledged to exist, you must prove the existence of informal structural racism for whites that is not attributable to circumstantial benefits, like economic status or culture.

In our previous example, the White Somali upper class whites are wealthy and have better outcomes because of class, and their generational wealth is not evidencd of structural racism, unless you want to say those particular families, for no other reason than their race, must give their inheritance to other people for no other reason than that those people have a different race and ended up poorer.

>>24461024
I will let you know how impossible this is. Current dialogue revolves around the idea that all white wealth is inherently racist because there is no other way to attribute blame to white people than to say that the wealth they have is unfairly owned. But this is a MORAL JUSTIFICATION rather than an objective quality. The whites alive today may have been given an inheritence by their parents, their parents may or may not have benefited from racism, but these whites today are not taking part in a system for which there is any objective evidence of their racial privilege. One must say the very fact that these whites have wealth AT ALL is MORALLY WRONG.

I will give an example. Let us say that a family has two sons, and they favor the eldest son (A). The eldest son, 'A', is given the parents' entire inheritance, while the younger (B) is left homeless. 'A' may have been callous not to give 'B' any money, but it is still his inheritance. Let us now say that 'A' gets a job and has his own family and offspring, as with 'B'.

Now we are on the third generation, and the sons of the eldest possess substantially more wealth than their cousins. However, the grandsons of the initial parent ARE NOT CULPABLE in any sense morally. These grandsons grow up, get their own jobs, and start their own families, and after several generations, there are many cousins of varying sorts with varying wealth. Some of the great grandsons of the initial unjust parent are now in poverty, some are wealthy. Some of the great grandsons of B are also wealthy, while many are in poverty. The descendants of 'A' are statistically less likely to be biased for their own "family", they have no structural support, and in fact there are many programs voted by these descendants to uplift the descendants of 'B', programs and structures that are explicitly discriminatory towards descendants of 'A'.

Now imagine that one day a great, great grandson of A, sitting in his trailer, poor, on the verge of suicide, with no prospects for his future, is visited by a similar descendant of B. B tells A his wealth is a result of hatred from hatred, that the fact that most descendants of A are richer is proof that the system is hateful against B, and that A MUST work towards giving wealth to B.

Imagine the same, even for a wealthy descendant of A. The 'A' did not do anything. The fact that he is wealthy is not a result of structural bias against B, it is circumstantial. He is not culpable, and his wealth is not "racist." If A enters poverty, he will find that the system is biased AGAINST him, and that unlike descendants of B, he will be excluded from many programs to uplift those in poverty. If he wants to publish, as OP has found, he will be excluded, in spite of his lack of privilege of any sort, on basis of being an 'A.'

The way the left frames the generational wealth of A as racist is itself racist and a form of racial kin punishment.*

>>24461024
This veneer of white privilege is upkept by barely workable statistics. Harvard will say:
>However, across 13 experiments, US White participants (and White participants abroad) showed robust evidence of an implicit Human=Own Group association. Conversely, Black, Latinx, and Asian participants in the United States did not demonstrate this bias.
>https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2300995120
Without any explanation for how this affects racism when whites have the least in-group bias of any race, and are the most likely to have reverse bias. From a study they cite, other races are explicitly racist against whites, nonwhites not so:
>On a 1 to 10 scale, participants reported feeling “somewhat” warm toward both White people (M = 6.95, SD=2.10) and Black people (M = 7.56, SD = 1.95), with greater warmth reported toward Black than White people, t(846) =8.93, P< 0.0001, Cohen’s d = 0.31, 95% CI [0.24, 0.38]. This was true among both White participants (t(591) = 4.90, P< 0.0001, Cohen’s d = 0.20, 95% CI [0.12, 0.28]) and non-White participants
>Participants clearly affirmed the humanity of both groups, associating Black (M = 1.63, SD = 1.15) and White (M = 1.78; SD = 1.29) targets with Human more than Animal.
To paint whites as racist ANYWAY, they had to engineer the present study, which gives partipants images to rate as more black or more white. They noted whites were more slightly more likely to associate things like "table" and "flower" with white people, or "farm animal" and "vermin" with other races. By God it sounds horrible! Until you learn that the study worked by showing a word and having the partic. match the word to either black or white, and that this implicit bias is more reflective of cultural association. For example, black people tend to be poor, so a vermin rating is associated with poverty. The fact that whites had no explicit bias or behavioral bias is enough to evidence that the implicit bias is a reflection of non-malignant cultural associations that reflect reality. Thinking a black person is more likely to be associated with things associated with poverty isn't really racist, but even anti-racist.

>>24460993
>>24461026
>>24461166
>>24461168
>>24461170
Like I said before ( >>24460185 ), these studies are propagated in misleading ways into other citations, in the media, and more:
>Harvard study finds implicit racial bias highest among white people
>https://phys.org/news/2023-05-harvard-implicit-racial-bias-highest.html
The key takeaway from headlines like these is that white people are more racist. Really, all the data shows that they are not. They are least likely to prefer their own group, the least likely to have explicitly racist attitudes (the Harvard study itself acknowledges that other races are more likely to be EXPLICITLY hateful towards whites). These extremely misleading studies create the cultural misconception of white racial privilege, when the entire thing is built on ignoring the evidence, the explicit beliefs, and searching, desperately, zealously, for any shred of tiny implicit microaggression that might be interpreted as—NOT CONSCIOUSLY—but subconciously biased.

As I said in my first reply to you, institutions have abandoned the attempt to prove any form of explicit bias because there is none. There is no explicit racial bias. They are given to the clouds, saying that the subconscious association white people have to themselves and "chairs" despite their favoring of other races proves racial privilege.
So you must address these posts. Qualify your statement that the majority, Whites, have racial privilege, or even majority privilege, that is not attributable to cultural differences or circumstantial ones. You can also ask for specifics about my arguments or to address the applicability of my analogies with Somalia and the Sons A&B.

>>24461177
>There is no explicit racial bias.
Let me qualify this further with an asterisk.*

*There is no explicit bias in favor of white people. White people are explicitly biased against themselves and in favor of other races, and other races are explicitly biased against white people.

Yea I'm not reading all that. You win or whatever.

>>24461185
This is the /lit/ board and the read would be less than 10 minutes even if you check my sources. How can you consider yourself rational when your beliefs stem from an unwillingness to engage with information that contradicts your preconceived notions?

>>24460993
>LEAVE THE SYSTEMICALLY RACIST MULTIBILLION DOLLAR TRADITIONAL PUBLISHING INDUSTRY ALONE
what a brave little defender you are

>>24452519 (OP)
This sort of affirmative action in any of the arts or sciences is uncalled for in current times. Nowadays, no one in these areas is prejudiced against for being a black content provider, so there is no need for affirmative action. This is simply virtue signalling at it's most vile.

>>24461301
It's not affirmative action. It's jsut responding to the market.

>>24452531
blacklisted or listed black?

>>24460656
notice I get no examples, of all the lynchings.

>>24460970
>I'm mixed race but I'd never accept being shortlisted because of it.
have a (you). Any minority member, that would say that? Has my respect.

It's because 80% minimum of the industry is female. That's both editors and agents. This is prima facie evidence of gender-based discrimination within the publishing industry. Without a class action lawsuit, things will never change. Somebody has to stand up and file suit on behalf of all the unpublished anons out there.

>>24461940
It's not. They were already selecting for stories that match profitability before this, and that happened to be white men and women. More than likely the policy change was in response to the #PublishingPaidMe scandal because blacks were getting paid less upfront by publishers (again, according to you, this would be "responding to the market"): https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/6/17/21285316/publishing-paid-me-diversity-black-authors-systemic-bias
So there is a legal motive possibly (afraid of being sued or boycott for racism, so they have to be racist against whites) and we see the profit motive is not realistic because black authors are still underperforming even with a lot of astroturfing. In 2024 for example, Percival Everett, who has been extremely astroturfed by media for years, only barely beat a somewhat fresh and almost unknown white author by less than 1%.
>Chris Whitaker from 2024 https://www.amazon.com/All-Colors-Dark-Chris-Whitaker-ebook/dp/B0CP93N5S2/
>Percival Everett from 2024 https://www.amazon.com/James-Novel-Percival-Everett-ebook/dp/B0C8MGS6GR/
Obviously these one off comparisons don't say much, but we can also see something interesting with how even Amazon structures their best selling lists. The screenshot lists a black author second despite having fewer sales than many other authors, including multiple white males, who aren't even included in the best sellers list at all (only marked such when doing a normal search): https://www.amazon.com/Audible-Studios-on-Brilliance-Friends/dp/B0DJRQR52T/
Jakob Kerr is a white male listed long after far worse performing black, asian, and white female authors in the current 2025 list: https://www.amazon.com/Dead-Money-Novel-Jakob-Kerr-ebook/dp/B0D2W1B4KN/

In other words, white males are performing well despite Amazon exherting an extremely large amount of force to astroturf black and female authors, and when we compare the overall sales, white males are still selling better on average. (I'm going to hopefully compile actual data on this soon) Amazon has also had a specific program to amplify black voices for years, I know this because my mother is a white author that complained about it despite being far leftist: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/entertainment/amazon-shares-the-books-movies-shows-and-songs-that-celebrate-black-creators Note that this initiative ALSO started less than one year before Angry Robot publishing changed its policy! Interesting!
So we know that therebis explicitly discriminatory policy towards white male authors in the same ways as stated before even on Amazon. White males are ALSO being discriminated against and must compete with black authors being astroturfed for an apparently not-for-profit motive (it may be to avoid legal ramifications from perceived discrimination against minorities).

I have work today but I'll get around to actual data, hopefully better stats than semi-equivalent cases, and interesting editorial moves.

>>24462189
>White males are ALSO being discriminated against and must compete with black authors being astroturfed for an apparently not-for-profit motive (it may be to avoid legal ramifications from perceived discrimination against minorities).
may also be because white authors can perform similarly even without astroturfing, or amazon is trying to create a new consumer market but I need to work

>>24462189
Despite winning a Pulitzer last month and getting lots of media shilling and Amazon shilling, his new novels sell worse than my mom's. Unironically.

>>24462215
>will be released on October 21, 2025
Well maybe that's because they haven't been released yet

>>24462310
I was talking about the 3 ones that were released in English after Whitaker's book obviously. That's why the screenshot extends downwards until it reaches James. I used the term novel incorrectly because I was comparing two novels before.

>>24460649
Im being dead serious when I say I cannot be convinced it isn’t an agent doing it.

>>24462215
>his new novels sell worse than my mom's
i hope you are selling better than your mom's

>>24462559
>>>24460649
>Im being dead serious when I say I cannot be convinced it isn’t an agent doing it.

that, or just a particularly irritating liberal redditor. They frequent \pol\ just like ticks. They're irritating, but can't kill you. KEK. I think when some \pol\ refugees stared coming in, the assholes followed them. It never used to be this bad here. I maybe liked it better, when it took a week to get a reply. We get or action now, but most of it isn't high quality. I like to motherfuck a shill once in a while, then I go back to ignoring them or just being a wise ass. Like I'd listen to anyone, with that shitty of an attitude.

>>24462189
It's actually depressing how nonsense the Amazon algorithm is. Amazon is promoting books from random authors that have no history and get no sales. When searching for books, the algorithm regularly recommends authors from random genres or authors that have nothing to do with the search terms. Nothing is transparent either. When you use the filters, at least half of the results do not match the filters (even things like date).

How can one algorithm be so opaque and astroturfed and how?