the ask@AAR: How’s the discussion here working out for you?
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 ask@AAR: 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!
I really don’t have much to add to the discussion. I’ve been coming to AAR for almost 10 years now. I had taken a long break from reading romance and came to AAR looking to get reacquainted with the genre, and it was very helpful. I found a lot of books and authors back then, and began binging quite heavily on romance. The site has been great for finding new books and authors to read. I’ve slowed down on my romance reading in the last year, but still like keeping up with what’s being published in case it stirs my interest. IRL, I don’t really have anyone to talk to about books. AAR has always seemed open to civil discussions and been friendly, welcoming and respectful, so I keep returning–sometimes as a lurker just reading reviews and comments, and sometimes dipping into discussions that interest me and as my limited time permits. I appreciate the efforts that go into keeping a site like this running.
Wow! I am late to the party, but I am impressed at the thoughtful comments generated by Dabney’s excellent questions. Thank you for asking! To me, this is a great discussion. People have been thoughtful, respectful, and even educational. Would that all message boards (or governments or workplaces or families…) operate at this level.
I’ve been lurking here since the beginning of 2020, and I am grateful to have this as a refuge from all the stuff that is going on out in the world. As for me, I prefer to stay away from politics. If that were a big part of the conversation, I would not check in as often.
From my short time here, I believe there is a good balance between creating a safe space (as outlined in the “About” link above) and free speech. But perhaps I haven’t seen a situation get out of hand? I don’t have time to read everything. I think it’s important to always keep in mind the rules set forth in the “About” section when posting, and I wonder if this is something that could be highlighted from time to time to keep it in the forefront of people’s minds? Some sites tolerate a lot of nastiness, and if you have new people coming in who are used to different norms, then they will need to be educated on this site’s norms. If they are educated and not willing to be respectful, then they bear the consequences.
There are several misrepresentation in the comments about what we’re guaranteed in regards to free speech
1: Ones freedom of speech does not apply to the internet, individual laws and countries mostly govern said protocols. If you’re American, your freedom of speech guarantees you and the press from protection from the government. It doesn’t mean that people don’t have the right to call you out online.
2: “Cancel culture” is not people disliking a comment you made on the internet. “Cancel culture” is doxxing, abuse, threats, and damage to ones livelihood, and in many cases it stems from actual abuse the person has meted out to others online .
What is ‘doxxing’?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing
“is the Internet-based practice of researching and publicly broadcasting private or identifying information (especially personally identifying information) about an individual or organization.”
Thank you!
So many insightful and eloquently articulated comments here! There’s no way I could ever say what Lieselotte said or Chrisreader said or Carrie G said or what was said in many other great comments in a way that didn’t sound as if I was just stealing their words and then putting them together in a shabbier way – I so very much agree with them, and they’ve all put it so perfectly. Then again, perhaps I don’t have to. Perhaps what follows in all its possible awkwardness will do just fine. (I’m trying to embrace this attitude.)
I have now visited this site for a bit over a year, I think, and started to participate a little in the discussions during this autumn. I’ve been following the discussions avidly ever since I found this place, however, and just reading what people here think about a myriad of subjects and all sorts of books – I’ve always found it fascinating and greatly educational.
Group discussions have not worked for me in real life. I am simply too slow and nobody likes a person who, in their desperate attempt to keep up with others, ends up just sitting there with a blank expression on their face, looking at no one and saying nothing.(That’s unfortunately what I’m like when I concentrate intensely.) And while I’m okay with not being liked, and would never expect the whole group to proceed at my pace, having several neurodevelopmental disorders doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t like to exchange thoughts every once in a while. Nor does it make the situation any less frustrating.
So it had been over a decade since I’d last had anyone to talk literature with. Over time, this site had started to feel like a place where it wouldn’t be too scary to try again. Where it would be okay to possibly make a fool out of myself. Use my clunky English. Perhaps make mistakes and hopefully just laugh them off if they aren’t that big and only affect me, and in other cases naturally apologize, learn and strife to do better in the future. And it has. It has been more than okay in fact – it has been wonderful. I mean, I’m still rather often if not the last then one of the last commenters and it still takes me embarrassingly long time to answer other people’s comments, but because the discussions go on for several days, and because if I don’t understand or have forgot some part of someone’s comment I can go and read it again, I can indeed participate a little. To me it’s a big change and means a great deal. So I guess what I’m trying to say with this long-winded personal story is that the way you’ve organized the discussions here and the way people have treated me have made it possible for someone who is different like me – autistic with learning disabilities – to do something that’s been impossible before.
So yeah, I am very grateful for this site. For the simple fact that it exists. For the reviews and the people who write them. For the steals and deals. For the discussions. For the power search, tags, recommendations, older articles, everything – I mean, this place is such a cornucopia of all things romance novel related. It cannot be easy to run this site. It cannot be easy to moderate the discussions. Not just anyone could write the kind of reviews we see here – it takes both skill and deep understanding of the genre. I thank everyone involved for their time and hard work – I greatly appreciate it and think you’re doing an excellent job! And all the people who come here to discuss, I thank you too for sharing your thoughts – I consider it a gift and have learned much.
Lovely comment annik. If this is you being “clunky” with your words, may we all be so clunky! Speaking for myself, I love it when I see a fresh voice jump in.
I know from the number of responses AAR gets when they do a big poll that there must be exponentially more people who look here than comment so when someone “new” comes to comment it makes me happy to see that they felt welcome or inspired to comment.
Like you, this is my primary outlet and source of inspiration for romance reading so when the community gets a little larger I feel like its a gift to everyone here.
Annik, I thought your comments were very articulate and well thought-out. You may have challenges, but you seem to manage with them quite nicely!
Welcome to the site and the discussion threads, I always appreciate new voices and opinions.
Thank you Dabney for the hugs and Chrisreader and KesterGayle for your kind words!
I too had noticed that there seemed to be more people participating in the polls than commenting. Plus I knew I was there, just reading, and figured surely I couldn’t be the only one. I can think of many reasons why a person might not want or be able to join in the discussions. Maybe for some it will become possible to participate more at some point in the future as happened with me, which would be wonderful, and maybe for some it never will and that’s okay too. I think it’s important to have the option to just come to the site and read the comments even if one cannot join in, as I know that sometimes just being able to get another perspective and read other people’s thoughts on a subject you find important can be a lifeline.
It is good to hear I’m doing alright communicating in English. I consider it one of my biggest accomplishments in life that I’ve actually been able to learn another language and can read and with more difficulty write in it. I had the hardest time studying English in school, and I am so, so glad that when it became clear that I wouldn’t be studying any languages after the 9th grade I had the sense to recognize that I would have to actively use English or all the sweating and crying over the school books would have been for nothing. So I decided to start reading fiction books in English as well as in my own language. At first it was shockingly hard as I’d thought I actually knew the language. Knew my foot! It took me weeks to read one book and even with a dictionary glued to my other hand I missed so much I could barely understand what was going on. But it got better. Now, after a bit over two decades, I feel kind of weird reading fiction in my own language because I do it so much less often. It is a simple fact that I wouldn’t be writing this now had I not made that decision back then and then kept on reading.
Anyway, thank you so much for the warm welcome! I am looking forward to the discussions to come! :)
I would not know you are not a native speaker of English by your posts. You write very well. When I worked retail, I tried to assure my customers who apologized for not speaking “good” English. I’m impressed when anyone can speak more than one language and I told them they are doing so much better than I am, because I only know English. (And my two English teacher siblings assure me I mess English up quite often enough!)
I have a neighbor from Poland who has an impressive English vocabulary. Once she was hunting around for the word she wanted, then apologized for her ‘poor English’. Like we native English speakers never do that! I just told her that her English was better than my Polish (nonexistent) and left it at that.
If you speak, write, or read more than one language I say bravo!
KesterGayle, I love your answer to your neighbor! I also really admire her (your neighbor, that is) and anyone who can fluently speak another language. I find it SO much harder to speak English than read or write it. I have trouble with communicating even in my own language, so sometimes I try to practice speaking English by eliminating all the interpersonal stuff, and do speaking exercises alone. It is still not good. And I’m not just being modest. I really wish I had kept practicing speaking English with the same determination as I did reading.
In general, I think it’s pretty usual for people who are not conversing in their first language to feel self-conscious especially when they are speaking with a native speaker. I remember when I could still travel, I visited several countries here in Europe, and it felt so different speaking English with a German hostel worker or Greek shopkeeper or whoever when both of our pronunciation was what it was and neither of our grammar was perfect. All that mattered was that we managed to understand each other. Then I went to London and felt so much more self-conscious about the way I speak. All I could think was that if I open my mouth I’ll be butchering this beautiful language in front of someone who can spot every mistake I make. Yet every time I’ve heard any non-native speaking my language I’ve been just floored that they’ve actually gone and learned this super difficult language. I couldn’t have cared less about their possible mistakes. So I know my reaction didn’t really make sense, but I couldn’t help it and I still can’t.
annik,
English is different in every country that speaks it. Words are frequently pronounced differently, even spelled differently. For example, here in the US the final letter of the alphabet is pronounced “Z”, and in most of the UK it’s “Zed”. And there is the slang and the idioms and the way we appropriate words from other languages because nothing else works as well. There are regional accents that can be like listening to another language altogether! Its a complicated, fluid, and ever-changing language.
For you to be able to speak a second language at all is huge, and if you lived a while in a country that speaks English predominantly you’d pick it up pretty fast since you already learned in once. I think you’re very articulate in your written English, and in today’s world with the internet, spoken language can be nearly irrelevant.
So very glad you feel confident and happy to join in the discussions here, Annik, and with such an articulate voice! The discussions have been the best part of AAR for me over the last 20 years. It’s always satisfying for me when voices from many places join in and “the more the merrier”!!
That is such a lovely thing to say – thank you so much!
I find it so impressive and admirable that this site has been around for so long and that there are AAR veterans such as yourself still around. :)
First, I love that people talk here about a variety of books they like/dislike. (I’ve been too busy reading Zemindar to get into this discussion.)
Even more than that, I enjoy a site where people can disagree without attacks, name-calling, etc. Yes, the free speech guaranteed by the constitution only means that the government can’t censor you. Outside of that, common courtesy demands that you allow people to speak before you, calmly and rationally, explain why they are wrong. I have absolutely no patience with people who consider vituperation to be disagreement. This may put me out of step with the contemporary world, but I don’t much like the contemporary world, so that’s okay by me.
First and foremost:
Like many others have already expressed, I deeply appreciate AAR as a place to talk about books and to find new books to read. As someone who has stepped up in my life (not to just volunteer a few hours but) to actually “run” various non-profit organizations, I’m particularly appreciative of Dabney and the rest of the staff who put so much effort into making the site work for as many readers as possible.
Second:
I’ve enjoyed many of the @ask columns and I’ve learned a lot from everyone’s comments. I understand they add something to the site that entices all of us to log in more frequently, because there’s usually something interesting going on or to talk about. But sometimes the conversations devolve beyond being interesting or helpful, and I check out. But if the columns are driving away readers? They aren’t worth it if it puts the whole site at risk.
More specifically:
I don’t know how often I contribute with comments to @ask blog posts. I generally find that someone else will express what is essentially my opinion far more eloquently than I can. If someone else has already communicated what I believe, I’m sure I clicked a “like” button* and left it at that (although see note at bottom). It doesn’t feel productive to be repetitive beyond a simple statement of agreement. I don’t come to AAR for a fight or to defend a position. As others have pointed out, there are lots of places on the web for that if you are into it.
Now I worry that by not engaging more, I’ve allowed some commenters I agree with to feel “shouted down” or unsupported or marginalized.
It is all well and good to say/believe that free speech is important “as long as the attacks aren’t personal”. But in the social media space where the ink is essentially free, and the comments just. keep. coming, it becomes piling on; and it would feel personal to me if I were participating, even if another commenter has used the most general language to make her/his/their case one. more. time.
Third:
I want AAR to survive and prosper; and for that to happen, people need to want to visit the site and to support it by contributing – not just financially but with thoughtful content via
comments. The challenge for all of us as commenters is to know when we are contributing to an interesting conversation vs. trying to win an argument. Perhaps stating an opinion one time, or making a (new) point one time, should be sufficient?
*I get very uneven results clicking the like and don’t like buttons. I don’t believe they accurately reflect AAR community opinions as a result. But that doesn’t mean others see those “like” and “don’t like” counts and think they mean something about both the comment and the people who support AAR. How big a factor are these buttons to whatever else is going on with the question about @ask columns? Should the site retain them?
Personally, I dislike the buttons. They promote cancel culture, IMO.
I do not get feelings of warmth and acceptance from this website when–for example–I see perfectly acceptable posts (e.g., a post like “I thought the hero was not that bad, but I could not stand the heroine”) get heavily downvoted. And often, no comment is left to explain the downvote. Why bother? Just cancel the post.
If a reader cares enough about a post one way or the other, the reader should leave a comment explaining why.
And to nblibgirl as well: Thank you both for raising this. I have been thinking about the buttons as well during the discussion here. Leaving a brief comment to express a POV in a discussion is of immensely more value than just clicking a frown/smile. I have seen logical, well- argued, thoughtful, emtional comments “frowned” upon (even some of my own once or twice) when the contributor has taken the time and effort to post them. When I look at the button “scores”, I wonder what the frownee/smilers are thinking. And I wonder if the button “votes” could be responsible for driving away commentors, some who have been here a long time. Maybe this is an @ask topic for debate.
I don’t use the buttons or even really look at them. They’d be easy enough to get rid of.
I only use the like button and treat it as a „thank you for writing this“.
and they are unreliable, they come and go, sometimes a comment has 8, then a day later only 2.
so i mostly treat them as a marginal extra, would not miss them.
Dabney, I also think in some cases the downvote button is being used to express disapproval of the poster, not the post itself. That’s concerning.
Reddit has upvote/downvote buttons, too. On Reddit, people learn to “curate” what they post for fear of being downvoted. (Downvoting can ultimately result in some loss of posting privileges, or in your post being buried toward the bottom of a thread where it is less likely that others will see it.)
Some Redditors have stated that they use a second Reddit account to post opinions they know will be unpopular, so that their “regular” account is not impacted by the downvoting.
That is very, very sad.
Woah! I did not realize that about Reddit downvotes and curating comments. Yikes!
I was aware of some other issues on Reddit, such as the eroticauthors subreddit considering making users post a certain number of comments on other subreddits, ostensibly to weed out newbies with “stupid questions answered in the FAQ.” Their house, their rules. Fine. And I get some of the board mod’s frustration with commenters who clearly didn’t read the directions. But this suggestion brought a lot of upset because many people use Reddit for just one subreddit, so this proposed policy would have forced new eroticauthors Redditors to post stuff they had no interest in- clogging up other community’s forums. I’m glad AAR is nice to newbies as well as veteran posters- and doesn’t make rules like, “You must have x number of posts on (insert forum name here) in order to qualify for writing an AAR post!”
Nan, I participate in several subreddits (forums, for those who don’t know what a subreddit is). I use Reddit primarily because it is one of the only places I can find forums for certain topics I’m interested in.
As far as having to curate or sensor posts prior to posting, I find it depends on the subreddit. As you’ve seen, each subreddit decides its own posting rules and guidelines. I think some subreddits do a much better job than others at protecting/allowing diversity of opinion (as long as one is civil).
There is a very large subreddit that I used to look at but that I rarely read anymore, because its members have become increasingly hostile toward people who disagree with the prescribed viewpoint.
And yep, I’ve personally seen at least two posters mentioning having a second Reddit account reserved for posts they think will be unpopular.
Thanks for clarifying what goes on behind the scenes at Reddit, stl-reader. Now and then, I lurk on a few- or they pop up during general Google searches- but that’s about the extent of my involvement.
“I rarely read anymore, because its members have become increasingly hostile toward people who disagree with the prescribed viewpoint.” Yes, I’ve heard of complaints about Reddit in that department from other posters as well. Unfortunately, I think it’s a problem that is infecting a big chunk of the internet lately.
On that subject, I think some of the posters who emphatically quit AAR were expecting the same shut-down culture that’s become endemic throughout various social media platforms. And then they got upset that AAR is sticking to its guns about allowing civil disagreements rather than cancelling/banning controversial posters and/or posts altogether. Too much of social media is turning into high school cliques…
I like the “like” button because it means I can show my agreement without writing another post saying “agree!” or “Good point.” Posting these sorts of “like” comments could potentially clog up a discussions with dozens of needless posts, making everything more difficult to find and follow. I never have used a “dislike” button, and don’t see the need for one. If there is something I disagree with about a post enough to dislike, I will comment on it. Liking a post conveys a simple thing, disliking a post can convey so many things that it’s useless, imo. I would get rid of the dislike button.
People pressing a frowny face on your comments is not equable to cancel culture. No one is doxxing you, no one is telling others not to buy what you have to sell or telling others not to spend time with you, they’re just saying they don’t like your opinion.
I agree with that. very much.
Not agreeing with me is always unpleasant for me, even on very minor points, I feel the short sting of it. But I need to accept it as part of like, and if people give me a frowny face, I can take it. This is not cancel culture to me, and a bit of unpleasantness is a necessary boundary when interacting with others.
That said, it is nicer to have only the smiley face, and taking the effort to express a disagreement in words when it is important to me to do so is a reasonable burden to take, in such a forum as here.
Let’s try this. Upvoting is the only button allowed!
I didn’t see this before I posted above.This was my suggestion. I think having everyone comment with “Thank you” or “Agree!” with posts they like will make popular discussions unwieldy and mean scrolling through lots of non-discussion “like” posts to get to the meat. Keep the “like” and get rid of the”dislike.”
So far, I like the upvote button only for a lot of the reasons mentioned above. My big concern a while back was the potential use of a single button where the overall “like” meter slid up and down instead of having two separate “scores.” I.e. If 10 people disliked a post and one person liked it, the commenter had a score of -9, making it look like nobody liked the post. I’m glad you haven’t decided to do that!
I like this Dabney!
I don’t like this at all. If some feel that the frowny face buttons were a sign that they were being “cancelled,” others (like me) felt as if they were an accurate representation of how the masses felt about the comment at hand.
I hear you. That said, I think dropping the frowny faces makes more people feel more comfortable which, for me, is a good thing.
Since I’m the one who brought up the faces, let me be more clear: the technology functioned inconsistently. I could click a “like” (or vice versa) and both like and “not like” would increment. I could click “like” (or vice versa) and only the “like” would increment. I could click “like” and be told I’d already voted when I had not. I could click on either button and nothing would happen. I’ve gotten into the habit of refreshing before every comment/like attempt, so I don’t think my cache was the problem. But something about the faces was screwy. Hence my question about using them at all.
There’s an old adage about not discussing politics or religion in mixed company. While it’s difficult to do irl, it is a worthy ideal. There’s also the not so old adage “opinions are like a**holes, everybody has one”. I think you guys do a fairly good job of moderating these discussions. I follow several groups on FaceBook and have seen the group admins try to rein in comments that are hateful, insulting, and frequently off topic. The best admins use FB’s tools to ensure that all comments adhere to the group’s rules. I think that’s harder to do here as I don’t know what tools you have available to enforce civility. I don’t always agree with other people’s comments, but I do try to understand them. I know with FB, I frequently find myself biting my tongue and forcing my fingers away from the keyboard so that I don’t insult my gullible, kind hearted cousin’s wife when she spreads tin foil hatted conspiracy theories and political or religious bs. I try not to read her posts late at night so that I don’t go to bed gnashing my teeth. I try to remember that she is entitled to her opinions and she has many other qualities that make her a person worth knowing. I would hope other people would do the same for me.
Keep up the good work. While I don’t read every column posted, I always appreciate the lively discussions when I do.
I appreciate this site for the thoughtful book reviews and discussions on romance. Frankly, I come for the escape from the turbulent politics and stress of life. Discussions that devolve into divisive politics or contain factually untrue statements / misinformation are not attractive to me. I get a barrage of that every time I look at the news. In past years, the politics and misinformation were not present in AAR discussions. In the past, discussions on AAR were funny, thoughtful, informative (about romance novels and topics) but never divisive or hostile. I wish discussions could stay on the topic of books. There are plenty of political sites to discuss politics, but not many good book sites.
I miss the old Wild West forum here where topics varied hugely. On the other hand, as fiction holds up a mirror to the reality we live in, discussion of it will stray into all sorts of issues. I am not sure how discussion could remain strictly about “romance” (however that is defined) topics. I believe moderating here is very good and we benefit from that greatly.
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.
Again, I want to be clear: 99.9% of the discussions here are respectful, informative, and intellectually stimulating (this one included!). In my opinion, Dabney is doing a great job steering the AAR ship. Before I began commenting, I lurked here for years so I would count myself a huge fan of the site and I check in on a daily basis.
You’re right, when there have been comments made in the past that express the prejudice I outlined previously, the approach many of us (myself included!) have taken is isolation and non-engagement. There is nothing wrong with that tactic, but I don’t think it’s a response everyone is comfortable with (myself included). I worry that – by only disengaging or isolating discriminatory comments – the site has given it’s tacit approval to continued expressions of prejudice.
When I’ve read through the discussions in which people end up leaving the site, it strikes me that the heated nature of the conversation may have obscured the true reason for their departure. From what I’ve seen, I don’t think people are leaving because the community here is diverse in it’s political, social, or religious beliefs. Rather, they’ve left after broad yet vitriolic attacks on groups of people have gone unchecked.
As Carrie G points out, the community at AAR is nonwhite, trans, female, non-binary, bisexual, Jewish, gay, Muslim, fat, Hindu, asexual, disabled, or we all know and love someone who is. But I wonder if that fact has been obscured by a handful of intolerant comments that have expressed disgust, hostility or ignorance.
Well, I’m sure the community here includes people who don’t see themselves as hostile or ignorant but who may seem so to others.
In general, it’s my sense that the community here is pretty open minded and tolerant.
I agree! Overwhelmingly, the community here is open-minded and tolerant.
At the same time, there have been a tiny handful of specific comments that express prejudice or reveal hostility and ignorance. That’s not to say that those people aren’t open-minded and tolerant generally, but that those comments are not open-minded or tolerant. Instead, they’re expressing intolerance, ignorance, disgust, hostility, etc. and I wonder if there’s a way to moderate those comments, much the same way you or AAR moderates name calling and individual-to-individual personal attacks.
For instance, when people call each other names or insult one another on an individual basis, they might not see themselves as doing so, but you or AAR still step in and respectfully ask the person or people involved to stop. Similarly, if a person or people insults a group of people, could there be a way to step in and respectfully ask the person or people involved to stop?
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 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’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!
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.
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.
:-)
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.
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!!