Guardian article about Kate Clanchy "The book that tore publishing apart: ‘Harm has been done, and now everyone’s afraid’"

[miri1985]

www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jun/18/the-book-that-tore-publishing-apart-harm-has-been-done-and-now-everyones-afraid

Interesting article but Sarah Ditum said it on twitter better than I could "I think it's a major flaw that this article broadly assumes good faith on the part of cancel-culture agitators. A lot of them are perfectly self-interested and borderline sociopathic" twitter.com/sarahditum/status/1538144622643494912?cxt=HHwWgIC-3dCYy9gqAAAA

about four posters proceed to fill the thread by simply repeating their opinion about KC ad nauseum

Denigrating the contributions from posters with a different view from your own is an interesting approach, but it really is not the killer argument some of you seem to think it is.

It’s not the cultural elite who objected to this book - they published it and awarded it prizes. They didn’t notice. It’s the very people the book was about who criticised it.

Censorship is a big subject - would you be arguing to the toss to this extent over holocaust denial, incitement to terrorism, extreme porn I wonder.

No, because those are completely different topics. Do try to keep up.

It’s the very people the book was about who criticised it.

But that's just not true. The very people the book was about defended the book, supported KC and wrote to the bookseller in support of her words.

‘It’s not the cultural elite who objected to this book - they published it and awarded it prizes. They didn’t notice. It’s the very people the book was about who criticised it.’

But if you gain the power to censor what you don’t like, you become a cultural elite, don’t you? That’s not vulnerability, it’s power. You can’t have both.

This is a classic example of shutting down discussion.

A group say they don’t want to be patronised, you say everyone is, dismissing that perspective and attempting to de-validate it.

It’s the same type of mentality that seeks to rewrite Black Lives Matter as All Lives Matter.

What about the wider and more important implications of debate around racism? That’s been completely ignored by posters seeking to reframe criticism of racism as ‘personal taste’.

That's just not true. That's not remotely a fair characterisation of the discussion or what anyone has said. It's like you've got a sledgehammer and you just want to bludgeon everything with it. People have been trying to discuss the various aspects of this issue and you're just trying to bludgeon everyone into silence.

‘A group say they don’t want to be patronised, you say everyone is, dismissing that perspective and attempting to de-validate it.’

So disagreement is shutting you down? In what way is that true, rather than a manifestation of your dislike of disagreement? I’m happy talking, please go on.

The topic is censorship.

If you defend the right to offend people of colour in general but not who are Jewish that requires some explanation.

‘If you defend the right to offend people of colour in general but not who are Jewish that requires some explanation.’

You are moving the goalposts. Nobody has said there should be no right to ‘offend’ Jewish people in print. That’s a blasphemy law. What people have said is that in some extreme circumstances (for example Holocaust denial) they might not oppose censorship, but usually they do.

A group of her students wrote in support. But they don’t represent all her students and they don’t represent all her readers.

In the Clanchy book there is a reference to a nose of a certain physical appearance, and some people were offended by this, and by the perception of stereotyping. I understand that. It’s still not proportionate to equate that description with Holocaust denial and say that because some people don’t like it, she should be censored.

Don't their views matter to you? Why not? Since they are, in your words, the very people the book was about?

You didn’t disagree. When I pointed out that the freedom to offend poc results in a society in which they are not free to not be patronised and stereotyped, you didn’t say “I disagree with that” you said “nobody is” as if racial stereotyping is no more offensive and ignorant than any other kind and the targets just have to suck it up.

I am someone with relatives who died in the Holocaust. I read the book with interest and enjoyment. Its imperfections didn't stop me enjoying it. Perfect books do not exist. I note that totalitarian regimes of all shades are very inclined to restrict what can be published.

‘You didn’t disagree. When I pointed out that the freedom to offend poc results in a society in which they are not free to not be patronised and stereotyped, you didn’t say “I disagree with that” you said “nobody is” as if racial stereotyping is no more offensive and ignorant than any other kind and the targets just have to suck it up.’

It may well be more offensive than some other kinds of offensive. But still, I disagree with you that - out with extreme cases - people have the right to censor things even when they offend. I’m sorry you are bothered by my disagreement but it isn’t an attempt to shut you down. I just think you’re wrong.

If you defend the right to offend people of colour in general but not who are Jewish that requires some explanation.

I don't 'defend the right to offend people of colour'. That's nonsense.

But since this is clearly just going to turn into a row where I’m accused of all sorts of unsubstantiated things, I’ll leave it at that.

you said “nobody is” as if racial stereotyping is no more offensive and ignorant than any other kind and the targets just have to suck it up

Everything you wrote except "nobody is" is just stuff you made up in your head. Try to respond to what people are actually saying instead of making things up. Things will go better for you.

So there was no equation of anti-Semitic stereotyping with Holocaust denial, the latter was raised in the context of censorship not the descriptions in the book. Although of course the foundation of Holocaust denial is anti-semitism.

That's the thing. They don't want a discussion. They want a dictatorship and are quite happy to throw around whatever accusations in order to shut down the conversation.

And any attempt at serious discussion turns (somehow) into an attempt to shut this poster down, when obviously we are just disagreeing.

I note that totalitarian regimes of all shades are very inclined to restrict what can be published.

Yes. While telling you that it's for your own good!

The tactics are obvious. It's frustrating but I just try to remember that others are reading along and making their own minds up.

I can see you can’t grasp the implications of that poster’s words, I wouldn’t expect it frankly.

If nobody is free to go about without being patronised and stereotyped - do you hold all kinds of stereotypes are equal?