Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stefano Rinaldelli" data-source="post: 8112689" data-attributes="member: 6791994">[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/writers-blocked[/URL]Thanks to Mercurius for the link.[URL unfurl="true"]https://reason.com/2017/12/28/sensitivity-readers-are-the-new-thought/[/URL][URL unfurl="true"]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/24/books/in-an-era-of-online-outrage-do-sensitivity-readers-result-in-better-books-or-censorship.html[/URL]If you read this articles, you can understand what can happen and unfortunately happens when, instead of leaving artist free to express themselves and judge their work with your own personal sensitivity, we try to codify what must be written and what not, using a unit of measurement that it is impossible to define in exact ways.Worst, what happens when this code of conduct is put in the hands of editors that can be easily become paranoid about a probable rush of reproach in social media.With this post I'd like to promote a collective reflection about this issue and hope that this trying is done in an acceptable mean by forum admin and staff.I know that the topic is sensitive, many times has happened that trying to promote this reflection in another threads I end up with a warning, so I trust in your intelligence to avoid provocations or blatant trolling.My two cent about the whole "sensitive code" issue is that is intrinsically flawed because it aims to prevent the interpretation of writings. Unlike allegory, which is in the intentions of an author, interpretation is in the mind of the reader. Too many times people assume that their interpretation of writings is a voluntarly allegory done by the author.Let me give you an example: Lord of The Rings in the '70 in Italy was simultaneously the manifesto of extreme right and extreme left political movement. What if an editor, worried about possible interpretation of the readers, had tryied to prevent both tendencies at the same time? He would ultimately end up with a tremendous headache, at least.Who can onestly proclaim to be able to pose a limit or express a code of conduct about that? How to avoid drifting toward editorial paranoia?</blockquote>

Verification