Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="datreus" data-source="post: 9106125" data-attributes="member: 7042671">You seem to be purposefully misunderstanding what was said. 'Indigineity' is a different experience for each person from a given Indigenous background, much less people from different backgrounds.That post comes VERY close to the 'I speak for all Indigenous peoples due to having some Indigenous heritage' and that is so troubling on so many levels. This is something that regularly causes vast issues within indigenous communities, and between different cultural groups. The fact there are other Indigenous writers on this project who seemingly don't have any issues, and this person drags them in without permission and casts vague aspersions in their direction is incredibly problematic and something that needs to be examined.There's a real problem with some 'progressive' people that they instantly leap to defend alleged minorities simply due to that marker. That's a behaviour that's not actually progressive, but is a performative action by that person to make themselves feel validated - and having looked at conversations around this issue, that's happening quite a lot here indeed.'But I would say trying to destroy a native tribe in the narrative just because there are "too many Native American Tribes", stripping the Native American character of two tribes, trying to make all Nordic/Germanic Werewolves Nazis, refusing to give Native Americans their proper grammatical respect, and not dealing seriously with the appropriation of Native Sacred Items, gods, and context all pretty much smack of racism to me.'You do get that is just an ex-employee claiming that is what happened, right? That they have provided incredibly limited screenshots of conversations that most definitely have been removed from context (for good or ill)? That there's clearly dozens or scores or conversations beyond those one or two lines held not only between these two people but many others?  That this is a clearly aggrieved person making a direct attack on a person/organisation that they know doesn't have an equal right of reply due to both the framing of the post and the need for a company to remain above getting mired in online squabbles? When the angry side is clearly presenting a curated and tailored argument precisely aimed at eliciting a certain kind of response and actively removing context and agency from other people involved to advance their own position then yes, it becomes questionable.That's not to say these allegations are not true, at least in part. But seeing a fraction of the picture and being told that's the whole thing is a very different consideration, especially when there are potential personal motives involved.</blockquote>

Verification