One of the great joys of 2020 has been the tenor, complexity, and abundance of the conversations here at AAR. We’ve had so many excellent, interesting, and, yes, feisty discussions here this year.
The 2020 post that’s generated the most comments is the [email protected]: What’s your topic deal breaker? one published in June. That garnered 183 comments and got several of our readers rather wound up about contemporary American politics. (It is 2020!) In it, like several other posts this year, the discussion veered into the accusatory and I asked those involved to stop.
and
I’ve tried to have it both ways at AAR. I’d like for everyone to feel at home here and I’d like for us all to accept the views of those with whom we disagree. It’s a tough act. Several commenters have sent me furious emails–not as many as have sent me happy emails, but still–saying that by allowing some sorts of speech we are innately silencing those who feel oppressed by that speech. A few other commenters have publically quit the site, dismissing AAR as an unsafe space.
Safe spaces and free speech are difficult things to simultaneously accomplish and it’s true that I personally value the latter over the former when I must choose. I’d prefer not to choose and that wish drives the choices I make as the site’s moderator.
I’m curious how you feel about the discussion here. Is it working for you? What do you think we are doing well? What could we do better?
And if you don’t feel comfortable commenting publicly, please feel free to email me.
Thanks and happy chatting!
It mostly works well for me. I skip or ignore the comments that become too volatile and I try to keep my own comments fairly broad. Using “I” statements and avoiding “you” statements makes that easier!
I feel like this is a safe space, but I think we need to keep in mind that there are always going to be individuals who will feel unsafe. Free speech is also more crucial to me than protecting the feelings of others, but we CAN be respectful in the ways we exercise free speech. Mostly, I think we accomplish that, but it is important to listen when someone indicates that what is being said is hurtful to them. It may not be possible to change that, but we can acknowledge and give them an opportunity to explain. If you have ever been part of a collective, this is basic stuff. EVERYONE gets the chance to comment an NO ONE gets attacked. But it can get very emotional and fraught, and querying someone about their opinions is not only fair, its expected.
Dabney does a great job of herding the cats, and it probably feels like a thankless one most of the time. So, thank you Dabney!!
:-)
I was just thinking about the debates, and how interesting and topical they are, how wide-ranging and simply interesting – you are a very valuable source of intelligent exchange, in a time when it is hard to find debate that is intelligent, respectful, gives room to others, .. – being reduced by the limitations of Corona right now, I feel your importance as part of my life.
Thank you to everyone who takes part, too!
I am happy to be the first to kick this off, and to kick it off with a heartfelt positive note:
From my heart, I thank you for providing the forum and the care.
I am happy with the discussions, and the freedom provided, and with the “safety barriers ” you make at some points.
It works for me.
I mean:
I occasionally get quite quite upset:
I occasionally dislike where a topic goes, and I fervently disagree with some opinions.
Also, of course, I would sometimes draw the lines slightly differently in your shoes, just because my limits are different, in understanding, in cultural background, in detail, or in emotional makeup – but that is the nature of personal decision and responsibility, which I honor.
On the whole, you do it deeply right, for me, and you do it in public, in a virtual – which is a great achievement and burden in these times of oh so difficult communication.
I am happy that the container you are creating and caring for is as it is, also happy that I am not the one making the tough calls, and can just distance myself if something does not work for me, at a given time.
So -I feel great gratitude to AAR and to you for providing this venue, Dabney!
And I honor and thank you for your care and hard work – you cannot disconnect when the going gets hard, and you are carrying the visibility and the potential personal reactions of people – I could not do it, and I deeply value that you exist, and this forum does.
Elegantly summed up, Lieselotte. You have expressed my feelings 110%. I would not have been coming here for 20+ years if AAR hadn’t managed to steer the course between the rocks so superbly well. And, like you, I also thank all of the contributors new and old who make this place so interesting and worthwhile.
OK, this made me cry.
Thank you.
On the whole, I’ve enjoyed these discussions—and I especially like the way some of the conversations veer into unexpected territories. I prefer topics that (at least on the surface) do not appear to be political, but I’ve entered the fray on a couple of the political issues raised here. I have tried to be respectful in my responses (possibly not always successfully), but I much prefer the romance-centric questions that elicit comments about books, authors, plots, tropes, etc. than when we argue about whether or not putting children in cages is actually, ya know, putting children in cages. Presumably, all of us—regardless of where we are on the political spectrum—are here because we love romance novels and enjoy discussing them. If I want to debate whether sitting on someone for nine minutes while they repeatedly tell you they’re having trouble breathing is acceptable behavior, there are plenty of other places I can go to do that. What I can’t do at those places is get into a deep dive about the antagonists-to-lovers trope or discuss whether the use of the c-word in romance is empowering or degrading. I think you do a great job of moderating, Dabney. I know it can’t be easy to stop so many disparate opinions from becoming personal attacks. I just prefer when the focus of these questions and the comments are about the books we love and want to discuss with others.
While I too come here for discussions of “romance-centric questions that elicit comments about books, authors, plots, tropes, etc. ” I like that the discussions “veer into unexpected territories”, even if the territories are themselves uncomfortable. And I accept that because it is unexpected, it can end up being political or otherwise not what I originally / really want to discuss. And that I am richer for ending up with debates outside my comfort zone.
I feel that way too. I grow the most when I have to take seriously arguments that, at first, I don’t agree with.
I think your comment is perfect. There are so many places to go to discuss politics but so few to discuss romance novels. The genre gets so little respect that it’s a pleasure to visit AAR. I think Romance, like SF/F, obeys Sturgeon’s law: 90% of SF/F is crap, but then 90% of anything is crap. We may disagree on which books/authors/tropes fall on either side of that divide, but we respectfully disagree. And if (mixed metaphor alert) the discussion of a particular book/author/trope starts to fall off the rails or go off topic into more dangerous territory, Dabney and the others at AAR manage to contain the tempest to a teapot, for which I’m grateful.
If I’m allowed, as I’m on the “inside” so to speak – I think Dabney does a good job here of allowing people to express their opinions but of cracking down on anyone who makes personal attacks. As far as I can recall, the only people who’ve ever left publicly are those who didn’t like the fact that she allows ALL voices to be heard and not just the ones that align with a particlar point of view.
Co-sign.
I don’t always like some of the voices I hear here, but I’d rather not like some than for voices to be silenced. I can, and do, move away from discussions that upset me personally. I have the ability to engage or not. I’d rather have that ability than to have it removed. For example, being a white middle class woman I will always beat least partially blinded by my privilege, and it’s ok for me to get called on it, even if it’s uncomfortable and even it I get defensive. I can disengage, or if I’m up for it, I can engage and learn.
I won’t participate in political discussions simply because I feel strongly about it and know it’s generally fruitless to engage with others who feel just as strongly, but in the opposite direction. I’d rather discussions have at least some tie to books/romance. But like I said, I am free to simply ignore conversations I don’t feel comfortable with, so I’m ok with differing opinions.
I think Dabney and the staff do a great job with the balancing act.
I’m definitely on the side of free speech but I also never want to see someone get personally attacked. It takes a deft hand to manage the discussions here and I think Dabney does this perfectly and graciously.
The amount of places where you can see and engage in discussions that are open, original, thoughtful and truly diverse without ugly personal remarks tolerated are shrinking and shrinking.
While it’s fun to speak with people who agree with all of your opinions, I don’t think I’ve personally learned from that the way I have discussing things with someone who thinks differently. I am an adult (as I assume all the other posters here are) and I can certainly take someone disagreeing with me, not liking what I like or interpreting something differently. I am also open to persuasion- if you think I’m wrong explain to me why you think so. I’ve changed my mind before on things and will surely do it again. The one thing I do know is name calling never works.
Reading is by nature a solitary experience (in general) and I love that intimate connection with a story when I am reading. I come here to share my loves and hates, test my theories and enjoy others thoughts and recommendations.
It’s no secret that I love AAR, the discussions, the people and probably about 99.999999% of the posts. Keep up the great work!
I had a strange premonition that comments in general at AAR were going to become a topic for the ASK. Sorry if I’ve become the unintentional main rabble-rouser around here. :)
Like so many here have already said, I deeply appreciate the work you do at AAR to police politeness rather than ideas, opinions, viewpoints, and whatever else you want to call them. Yes, I have a lot of areas in which I could improve. I’ll be the first to admit my diplomacy skills need work and that I have an unfortunate tendency to put my keyboard in my mouth. But the times I’ve had to be taken to task for getting too personal never made me feel I messed up so badly that I would have to leave AAR forever (okay, maybe one or two scares, but nothing that couldn’t be smoothed out by taking some deep breaths and coming back later to clarify my points or duck out of the discussion as gracefully as possible when I could handle it emotionally). That’s why I’m really disappointed some longtime members of this forum have emphatically quit. Where else do they expect to find a venue that encourages diversity of thought, eagerness for discussion, and opportunities for learning via communication exchange like this? Believe me, I’ve flitted about all over the internet and never found a place like this.
As for “safe spaces,” I really think that’s a concept that has been taken way too far in today’s society. Of course, I want people to be treated as individuals, not get harassed or called names, or have to suffer general jerky behavior. And yes, I think it’s a good thing that certain crass behaviors that were once common and “acceptable” in certain circles, like throwing around ethnic slurs willy-nilly, is finally considered uncouth and totally beneath polite society. Not saying it doesn’t go on anymore, just saying society as a whole no longer tolerates what was once commonplace and largely unquestioned.
But I think there’s a huge difference between the improvements I’ve mentioned and the often petty meltdown culture of today. Colleges, for example, used to be bastions of wildly radical thought and centers for tough debates/conversations. Now we have college students throwing tantrums like two year olds and demanding safe spaces with coloring books because they don’t like the idea of someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum being invited to give a lecture. Is this supposed to be progress? To me, it sounds more like regression.
And this troubling cultural shift not confining itself to college campuses either. Look at any Twitter fight among full grown adults and you’ll see what I mean. It’s like our society has become largely incapable of handing diversity of thought or seeking out common ground or, heaven forbid, expressing nuance. Whatever happened to forming coalitions or agreeing to disagree? What really worries me are “silencing” terms and slogans sneaking into the lexicon like “hate speech shouldn’t be allowed [legally]” (uh, who gets to define that?) or “fair speech, not free speech” (what does that even mean?).
Cancel culture is also a real scare for many, especially among those in the arts- writing, acting, etc. I realize everyone’s tolerance level is different, but I’m deeply concerned about this growing class of permanently outraged social media warriors who seemingly have nothing better to do than complain about authors and demand they get fired. This should be setting off a lot of alarm bells for anyone concerned about freedom. Because, historically, members of the artisan class are often the first to be attacked when tyranny is coming.
In short, thanks Dabney, for the speech-preserving work you do at AAR- as well as putting out the fires as they arise. I am sorry to hear you have been getting angry e-mails (yikes!), but no one ever said taking a stand for something was easy. Hang in there!
“Colleges, for example, used to be bastions of wildly radical thought and centers for tough debates/conversations. Now we have college students throwing tantrums like two year olds and demanding safe spaces with coloring books”. With respect, I think that is a tad dismissive. I am a postgraduate student and we frequently have radical debates on controversial topics. There is however a difference between engaging in robust and intelligent debate on controversial issues and promoting harmful views which dehumanize marginalised groups of people. Safe spaces attempt to prevent the latter, though I admit that trying to police the boundary between free speech and harmful speech is an extremely difficult task. I think that Dabney has done an excellent job in navigating this boundary, always intervening with tact, sensitivity and intelligence. Thank you Dabney! I also think that every person posting on this forum is generally careful with their words, and is always willing to listen to different points of views. As Chrisreader eloquently points out, I learn more from those who disagree with me. In short, I love it here!
I can only speak to my own experience. I live in one of America’s most famous college towns where I went to graduate school. My undergraduate alma mater is right down the road. Many of my friends work at these institutions. Additionally, over the past ten years, I’ve had four children attend four different colleges/universities.
In all six places, the silencing of conservative/traditional/libertarian views is real. My youngest son went to an Ivie famous for its liberalism–he sat in classrooms where students shouted down other students for speaking from a place of privilege. Many professors openly downgraded work from more conservative students.
At my alma mater, my friends who teach there are all exceedingly careful now–almost all of them have been accused by some student of creating an “unsafe” classroom at some point. (These professors are, to a person, politically liberal, compassionate teachers who’ve taught for decades and, until the past five years, had unblemished records.)
Interestingly, this atmosphere is less monolithic at less “prestigious” schools. My daughter got her undergraduate and masters degrees in Engineering from a school–my favorite of the four my kids attended–whose reputation has been soaring in recent years but still isn’t in the top 50. That school was vastly more tolerant of differing views than the higher ranked schools her brothers went to.
If you’re my age–cruising towards 60–and you were a left winger in college and in graduate school, the idea of college as a place that free speech is NOT encouraged is deeply distressing.
As an Ivy grad… nah. Our college Republicans are strong. Our professors were split. If you took Prof X, you knew he’d come from a certain perspective; Prof. Y would come from hers.
There are too many colleges, professors, and students to make any kind of statement like “colleges are hostile towards X.” Even if there is… there are some things I don’t mind being hostile towards. Conservatism/traditionalism have embraced a number of positions which are antithetical to education and humanist values. How, for instance, is a science professor supposed to make space for COVID deniers? Would it be a “hostile” environment to require the next generation of Mike Pences to work with women they are not married to on group projects?
Which, ultimately, applies to my feeling about AAR discussions. No, I DON’T believe “free speech above all.” That’s how COVID conspiracies get started and spread, and anti-Semitic propaganda gets shared, and climate change gets denied, and people die. In less weighty topics, “everyone should be allowed to talk” is still a position which favors the majority, because it will have the most people to speak.
I have definitely avoided engaging on some topics here because I know they’ll devolve. I have finite energy to spend on educating people and trying to make a difference. I’m going to spend in voting outreach rather than in what becomes time-suck online debate.
I respectfully disagree and side with the ACLU on free speech.
The problem with saying that certain opinions can’t be spoken means SOMEONE ultimately gets to decide who can speak and who cannot. You may agree with those decisions today and disagree tomorrow- but then it’s too late.
There is no way to insulate adults completely from hearing things they don’t want to hear-that does NOT however include personal attacks. Setting people up to believe that in life there will always be a screen so they can filter out unwanted opinions isn’t realistic.
Way back in the ‘olden days” when I was on campus, speakers were invited that were unpopular with other groups. We had plenty of protests and protesters that would often make the news. No one felt unsafe or threatened (I say this with firsthand knowledge) and there was never any attempts to bully the other side or physically intimidate anyone.
There are too many news stories recently of people trying to physically intimidate speakers on campus and I find it very troubling.
“In all six places, the silencing of conservative/traditional/libertarian views is real.” Thanks for corroborating my statement with your experiences, Dabney. I know it’s not just my imagination that many colleges (not all, of course) are becoming increasingly hostile to alternative viewpoints to the point of punitive grading, as you have said.
As I’ve said before, I also think it’s quite telling than a number of famous comedians like Jerry Seinfeld, Larry the Cable Guy, and Chris Rock now outright refuse to play college gigs because of a growing student body (and sometimes staff) who are increasingly offended by practically everything. I.e. they cannot take a joke even within the context of a stand-up comedy special. And if a squeaky clean comedian like Seinfeld has basically thrown his hands up on college gigs, that should say something. Who is honestly getting offended by Seinfeld’s material as opposed to his often far more controversial peers? Seriously, colleges used to have a reputation for being a bit naughty and edgy in their entertainment, to say the least. Now every little statement outside of the prescribed party line is subject to someone popping up and shouting, “You can’t say that! That’s racist/marginalizing/homophobic/white privileged/insert knee-jerk reaction complaint here.”
“…he sat in classrooms where students shouted down other students for speaking from a place of privilege.”
Right. As though every single student in that classroom somehow isn’t privileged to some extent. Obviously, some more (or a lot more) than others. But the fact every one of them is able to sit in a classroom making these arguments (or shouting others down) instead of doing dirty, dangerous, backbreaking work that so many have little or no choice about… the attitude is staggering.
To be honest, it sounds as if it is Seinfeld who needs to grow a thicker skin, if he is refusing to play at gigs because people are offended. Humour is subjective anyway, and there are clearly plenty of crowds who would appreciate his brand of humour more. In any case, I don’t think any of those comedians that you’ve mentioned are suffering from critique, just look at the size of their income. I think sometimes the concerns of cancel culture are overinflated. In the UK, people are frequently complaining about JK Rowling being cancelled for her views, but her books are still selling and she is still a billionaire. She is entitled to her views, but the trans folk that she has offended are equally entitled to decide not to support her anymore.
I see what you’re saying, certainly when it comes to comedians, authors, or whoever else with large incomes. They’re certainly not being financially hurt by rejecting or being rejected from certain venues. But I don’t think their wealth detracts from their point that college kids today (in America anyway) are often the ones with ridiculously thin skins compared to years past.
On that subject, I saw a documentary on YouTube by Vice the other day (probably a couple of years old, but still relevant) about this group that books comedians for a particular college. Now, this was admittedly a brief expose of one particular situation in one particular place, but I was shocked how much the three far-left people in charge sounded like the old far-right puritanical scolds when it came to deciding who or who shouldn’t be allowed to play gigs at their school. If only that were an isolated incident. I think a lot of people here who have dealt with 21st century college culture in much of America would agree that it isn’t. (Obviously, colleges aren’t a monolith, but there are certain observable trends.)
Or listen to any of the comedian guests on the Joe Rogan Experience. It’s not just Seinfeld, Rock, and Larry who are bewildered by an increasing culture of taking offense to everything. Lots of comedians are annoyed, hurt, afraid, frustrated, you name it because of backlash that hasn’t really been seen since the Lenny Bruce-era when comedians were fighting (sometimes legally) just to say a swear word on stage. Now the cries for silence are often coming from the same side of the political spectrum that used to accuse the other side of being prudes.
And I think Doug Stanhope made the good point that’s there’s less justification for hecklers and brouhahas than ever considering a potential audience member can spend a half hour or more on YouTube looking through clips of comedians’ material to see if it’s right for them or not instead of making a big self-righteous stink about it during or after. Interesting times we live in, that’s for sure.
Personally, I don’t find a lot of modern “comedy” funny any more. Some is quite vicious.
I’m actually with you about a lot of modern “comedy.” Comedy Central roasts, for example, can be pretty crude and mean-spirited, definitely not like the suggestive but generally tasteful Dean Martin roasts of the past. Plus, the Dean Martin roasters gave the impression of actually liking one another and ribbing each other in good-natured fun as opposed to some of the cutting, nasty stuff today. I remember poor Carrot Top during an interview wondering why he even goes to roasts anymore considering other comedians treat him like trash. :( Even Joe Rogan and Doug Stanhope- who can get pretty raunchy- wondered why he’s such a pariah in the comedy world, even though they aren’t fans of his work. Of course, Carrot Top has the ability to cry all the way to the bank, but still. Comedians, even rich ones, have feelings too.
While my tolerance for vicious and gross-out stuff is generally pretty high, there is definitely a dearth of relatively clean, funny stuff that isn’t bland. None of the network sitcoms today interest me because the jokes on the previews are so blah compared to their predecessors. It seems like on the one hand, you’ve got comedians who go full throttle with the in-your-face offensive material for shock value, and on the other hand, you’ve got scared networks and comedians who go way too far in the other direction of being so tame and afraid to poke fun at anything that they aren’t funny at all. This is all subjective, of course. But that’s basically my take on the state of comedy today.
Phew! This has certainly been an interesting tangent! :)
Your example of the viciousness of modern comedy is a Comedy Central roast?
Well, I didn’t want to call out some really nasty comedy material by name like “So and so is such a horrible comic. He said (blah blah blah).” It was just a general example. I’d rather not start yet another fight on an AAR board. :)
I had to circle back to this because I just saw some clips of the CC roasts on Facebook and I have to side with Nan on this one.
I hadn’t ever seen them before and my jaw was on the floor with what was said. Things that were not only pretty racist sounding but jokes about people who had considered suicide and the host joking they thought about the person committing suicide too. It was EXTREMELY uncomfortable and 99% of the stuff I didn’t laugh at.
“but jokes about people who had considered suicide and the host joking they thought about the person committing suicide too.”
Yikes! It’s admittedly been a while since I’ve watched a Comedy Central Roast because they had been getting gross rather than funny. (While gross certainly can be funny, it’s like the comedians were forgetting the second element.) And while I agree with George Carlin that you can make a joke about anything as long as you put it in the right context, it sounds like a number of comedians are forgetting about the “context” part in favor of shock value.
On a similar note, I went to a wedding a couple of years ago where the brother of the groom roasted him pretty badly. It was really brutal, not funny at all, and I felt genuinely sorry for the groom having his (formerly) private mental issues and dirty laundry aired in front of all the guests. It’s definitely one thing to roast someone in a spirit of camaraderie. It’s another thing to take out your demons on someone and then hide behind the shield of “comedy” to justify that kind of cruelty.
That sounds really uncomfortable. I cannot imagine roasting someone at their wedding of all places even thought I know it’s done. For me weddings are about being sentimental.
Yeah the CC Roast clips I saw weren’t all that funny IMHO and seemed really mean spirited. I was thinking if it was a man hosting it instead of the woman I feel sure they would be getting way more pushback. Standing there and calling a person fat and ugly to their face in a very brutal way is just as cruel when a woman does it.
Yes to all of this. I mean, I can see telling innocuous, humorous anecdotes during a toast but what I sat through was just plain nasty.
As for the CC Roasts, I think they’re another example of what I was saying about comedy today either being so in your face or way too tame. I’m reminded of the drag queen, Coco Peru, who mused years ago that when he went on a public bus just wearing makeup, he got a ton of flack. But when he did full drag no one said anything. Likewise, his name sake, a drag queen named Coco who was from Peru, got away with appearing on television in full drag- in a rather conservative, macho country- without any hassle. Coco Peru concluded from this that there’s something about “going all the way” that makes people leave you alone versus just being a little out of line where everyone jumps all over you. I think some of these really extreme comics are acting on that principle- whether they realize it or not. Ironically, because their material is so cruel and disgusting, it acts as a kind of shield against criticism. Whereas tamer comics who might make a suggestive remark get slammed for being “racist, homophobic, misogynist, fatphobic,” or whatever other label you can think of.
It certainly works that way in literature too. Until recently, romance wasn’t taken seriously enough as a genre to induce vitriol on social media. Now, you have a bunch of people who fall to pieces if a white character wears a qipao but are oddly silent when a scene of blatant and criminal sexual harassment of minors in “No Offense” is largely ignored or justified. Very strange…
Thanks for fighting the good fight, Nan, your posts are always thoughtful and full of common sense.
Thank you for the vote of confidence, stl-reader. I think you’re the first person to ever say I’m “full of common sense.” It sure beats being full of something else. ;-)
Agreed. But then I am sorry about those who left here because, even if I didn’t perhaps agree with the tone and tenor of their “fight”, it made for stimulating discussion.
Me too.
I’m with you and the ACLU on this one. This is right from their site and I endorse all of it.
‘The First Amendment to the Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Restrictions on speech by public colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. Such restrictions deprive students of their right to invite speech they wish to hear, debate speech with which they disagree, and protest speech they find bigoted or offensive. An open society depends on liberal education, and the whole enterprise of liberal education is founded on the principle of free speech.
How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When we grant the government the power to suppress controversial ideas, we are all subject to censorship by the state. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. Where racist, misogynist, homophobic, and transphobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech — not less — is the answer most consistent with our constitutional values.“
Excellent quote, Chrisreader! I couldn’t have said it better than you and the ACLU.
Also, I believe that suppressing speech- especially of the off-the-wall conspiracy theory variety- actually does more damage than letting them talk. Because shutting them down just gives them more fodder with their supporters and potential supporters. If they get banned, they can say, “See? See! I told you there was a conspiracy about (insert topic here). If there wasn’t, why would they try to cover it up? That’s proof positive folks!” Whereas if you just let them rant and rave, they sound a lot crazier instead of gaining too much credence. Do I have any proof of this? Not really. It’s just heavily observation-based.
I think that what I’m bothered about in the discussions of cancel culture and limitations on free speech is that it so often focuses on the actions of the left and ignores what is done on the right. Conservatives have boycotted Nike when it partnered with Colin Kaepernick, boycotted Starbucks for cups and hiring refugees, boycotted Nordstrom for dropping Ivanka Trump products, and demanded that CNN fire certain correspondents after they’ve criticized the president. I’m not saying cancel culture isn’t egregious wherever it occurs, but I do want to point out that it’s not limited to liberals.
I have no problem with people putting their pocketbooks behind whatever they support and not buying what they don’t. We’ve seen it from everything from Chik-fil-a to Nike and with both brands on other sides of the aisle neither seems to have been hurt.
What I do have a problem with is public colleges and institutions being forced to cancel speakers because of either protests or genuine fear for the speaker’s safety.
I can only speak to the UK experience, and have found that there is generally a mixture of views in my institution. I have certainly never seen anyone shouted down for their opinion (whether they are liberal or conservative), and there is a significant number of professors who are more conservative in their opinions. I have found that the more compelling lecturers/tutors are those who are willing to adapt to new views, and to listen to the concerns of their students.
Just throwing out there that the first amendment specifically says “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Romance novel review sites are not Congress and don’t have to be.
One of my favorite blogs is Go Fug Yourself, where they run a very tight commenting ship. It’s practically the only place where you dare to read the comments on a Meghan Mariel article, or where you know an overweight actress’s outfit can be assessed in terms of style without descending into vile name calling.
Go Fug Yourself is, again, not Congress. No greater social or moral purpose would be served by allowing people to slur Meghan Markle. There is no need for free speech absolutism on a fashion analysis site.
I don’t think anyone here is endorsing name calling and it’s not tolerated. And there’s a big difference between saying no one should post disgusting names about Megan Markle and saying no can can ever say anything negative about her or her clothing choices. That to me is the distinction. Someone thinking her wedding dress had too many wrinkles isn’t the same as someone writing hateful things.
Yes, I agree.
It’s important to distinguish between the aims of a particular organization, institution, or group and the actions of specific individuals who might be inhibiting or preventing the community from coming together to achieve those goals.
I wouldn’t join a Morman bible study group to discuss atheism. Using Meghan Markle as a convenient way to express racism on a fashion blog is similarly beside the point.
Just because someone dislikes or criticizes Meghan Markle does not automatically make them racist. FWIW until recently she identified as Caucasian on all her academic and professional applications.
And Markle’s squad is vicious and goes after children and start rumors that have no truth. So I really don’t she’s the best example.
I never suggested that anyone who dislikes or criticizes Meghan Markle is automatically racist.
But I do believe a discussion of her self-identification on academic and professional applications and whether her squad spreads rumors are immaterial to a community forum that comes together to discuss personal style.
Similarly, if I wrote here, “I don’t want to read X romance novel because I worry it expresses racism”, I believe that’s relevant to this community. If someone replied, “racism isn’t real”, I’d consider that both irrelevant (in the context of discussing romance novels as an online community) and offensive.
I favor safe space, and I say that as a person who votes for civil rights before anything else. Free speech is a civil right, which means it pertains to one’s role as a citizen. Any of us has a complete right to stand on our property and say whatever we want.
HOWEVER: Once we are in a space that belongs to someone else, what we say can and should be limited by the person to whom that space belongs. In this case, it’s fair to say AAR belongs to the founders, moderators, and bloggers.
It belongs to commenters too, but we need to accept that we don’t own it. We might throw a buck or two in the pot as sponsors or advertisers, but we still don’t own AAR any more than we own Goodreads or Amazon just because we post a review.
I am not that easy to offend, and I have no true triggers. There is no trauma in my history. So my limits for putting up with comments that I think are stupid or offensive are set pretty wide. (Meaning: I can ignore BS. It doesn’t hurt me, I don’t feel that I need to engage with it, I can wave it off.) But I am LUCKY, and cushioned, and walled off. Many people are not. Many people have good reasons to have tight limits for the kind of commentary they’re willing to tolerate.
On the other hand, some people genuinely are oversensitive, easily offended, solipsistic, looking for something to complain about, and/or hyperfocused on making their own point no matter what. :-)
We are in someone else’s living room here. We don’t throw hot coffee on another guest, and we don’t shit on the rug.
So true. I think it’s very important to remember that, here in the United States at least, Freedom of Speech means that the government cannot imprison you for expressing your opinion; what it does NOT mean is that (1) others have to listen to or agree with your opinion; (2) others are not permitted to disagree with your opinion; (3) you are protected from the consequences of what you say (the government may not imprison you for posting racist screeds on Facebook, but your employee might not feel so benign); and/or (4) others are obliged to provide a platform for you to air your views. As I said above, I would prefer that not every discussion about romance novels devolve into a right versus left, Dem versus Republican, Liberal versus Conservative argument, but if it does, I hope we can agree to disagree and move on.
Couldn’t have put it better myself DiscoDollyDeb! Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Oh, I think you’re both absolutely right. Any website can say, “My house, my rules.” And I have no problem with that. What worries me are the shrinking number of venues willing to entertain differences of opinion. Websites that used to take more of a hands-off, Wild West approach are increasingly succumbing to pressure to rein in their commenters, and businesses are a lot more trigger happy when it comes to firing employees for making controversial remarks outside of the office.
Now, should companies be allowed to make those decisions? Of course! But I find it troubling when censorship on social media, which never really used to be a thing, is suddenly becoming the norm. Or that raucous complaints about controversial books on Twitter have enough power to scare publishers into dropping authors like a hot potato to avoid looking bad to what may amount to nothing more than a noisy minority.
As for laws about imprisoning people for expressing a “forbidden” opinion, I am quite disturbed this is the norm in many countries- including in the Western world. Are relentless social media complainers the first step toward encouraging such freedom-curtailing measures in the States? I hope not. But, just for a concrete example, I do know a lot of erotica authors were terrified that the vague language in FOSTA/SESTA (fight online sex trafficking act) would outlaw the kinds of books they write. Indeed, many publication venues for erotica got super scared and quit accepting it all together or radically changed the types of smut they would allow on their site for fear of being imprisoned on the grounds of “promoting prostitution.” For now, it has been a largely false, overblown scare. But the fear and threat of something controlling speech at the legal level is still there, FOSTA/SESTA being only one such cause for concern.
I live in a German speaking country and we have Laws on Nazi content as a limit to free speech = if you publish Nazi ideology or opinions, deny the Holocaust or write certain types of white supremacy things you commit a criminal offense.
It was a historical necessity after WWII.
And it was my normal.
Additionally, we are less liberal than US/UK when it comes to libel, making it harder for the press to publish certain types of insinuations (or unproven facts) about specifically named persons.
I learned about the US views on free speech many years ago because Nazis published in US materials intended for our markets and could do that, because of the wide free speech approach there.
I write this because, Nan, you mention finging it shocking that liberal Western democracies have limits on free speech. Germany and Austria have them for the reasons above.
I understand both positions.
And I see the dangers and limits of both.
I often think a lot of the debate around freedom of expression is shaped by whether we think people can be trusted. It’s always a tough call.
I agree that you should respect the place and the host, and personally I have found some of the worst writing is from people who don’t like that the moderators won’t do what they tell them to do.
I want to begin by saying, I think that All About Romance is a terrific reference for the romance genre and I’m personally so, so grateful that it exists as it does. Across the board, the reviews are informative, entertaining, and well-written (not to mention often hilarious!), the men and women who comment are so welcoming, interesting, and helpful, and it’s a joy to check in with this community. Dabney, I know you’re responsible for creating such an amazing environment and it can’t be easy. I’m so thankful you’ve put in all the hard work you have.
Every once and awhile, I have noticed that there have been times when the discussion has gone a little sideways and I’ve wondered if there isn’t a way to keep that from happening in the future.
Perhaps, the definition of “personal attacks” is a little narrow?? Expressing racism, misogyny, antisemitism, transphobia, homophobia, biphobia, Islamophobia, ableism, or fatphobia on a public forum – even if the expression isn’t aimed at a specific individual – is still an attack on people in that forum who are nonwhite, female, Jewish, trans, gay, bisexual, Muslim, disabled, or fat.
Also, how can free speech exist without safe spaces? By allowing expressions of discriminatory bias and personal prejudice to go unchecked, marginalized voices are effectively suppressed. Free speech isn’t achievable when some people feel safer than others.
“Perhaps, the definition of “personal attacks” is a little narrow?? Expressing racism, misogyny, antisemitism, transphobia, homophobia, biphobia, Islamophobia, ableism, or fatphobia on a public forum – even if the expression isn’t aimed at a specific individual – is still an attack on people in that forum who are nonwhite, female, Jewish, trans, gay, bisexual, Muslim, disabled, or fat.”
And this is where I waiver on my earlier statement that I think all voices should be welcome. If expressions of this kind become tolerated here on AAR without close moderation and distancing, I would find it difficult to stay. I am the mom of a trans daughter, have bisexual children, a disabled daughter, a biracial soon-to-be son-in-law, and a daughter that struggles with weight. It goes without saying we are a family of advocates and activists.
That said, I feel like efforts have been made by moderators to isolate such comments as individual opinion. Non-engagement with such comments by the rest of us can hopefully discourage more.