Scan barcode
jillian_lw's review against another edition
4.0
After finishing I Find that Offensive by Claire Fox, I find myself with mixed feelings. There are parts of her thesis that ring true— free discourse with respectful consideration of all viewpoints is a pillar of democratic society. I do think that this is essential, even when certain viewpoints are considered offensive. I can also see her point about the coddling of Millennial youth. Having been taught from a young age that we are valuable and unique, we readily believe it. I found the section in part II entitled "Culprit: student voice" especially resonant when Fox observed, "Fees turned what was once a teacher-pupil relationship into a service-customer one" (123). Although a close read of this point goes beyond the scope of this book, her observation acknowledges that the imposition of cripplingly high university fees has shifted the balance of power away from university officials. When students are courted as consumers, it follows logically that they expect to be catered to as consumers. This systematically undermines the authority of professors and administrators to act as moral arbitrators and disciplinarians to their students.
Back to my impressions of the book as a whole: Fox's declaration that "You all need to toughen up and make a virtue of the right to be offensive" (178) has some truth to it, but doesn't completely hold. She seems to generally dismiss emotional reactions to offensive speech, behavior and associations. I would counter that the ability to proffer objective and cool-headed responses to offensive stimuli is asking a lot in the immediate aftermath of an offense. Furthermore, I don't believe that infusing offended reactions with authentic human emotion automatically invalidates the reaction. President Obama's tearful condemnation of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting comes to mind.
Fox posits that instead of reacting to the offensive with histrionics, offenders should be challenged to a debate in which their ideas are thoroughly unpacked, and valid criticisms are entertained. This approach doesn't hold up when the "offense" is a dismissal of a person or group's humanity. Fox urges, "Whether you are Snowflakes or anti-Snowflakes, you need to learn the trick of turning subjective outrage into measured, passionate, coherent argument capable of convincing others..." (178). To my knowledge, the white supremacist rally-goers in Charlottesville, Virginia were not open to the suggestion of entering a Battle of Ideas with counter-protestors. Should the onus fall to women, people of color, Jews, queerfolk etc. to convince neo-Nazis and religious extremists that they are human beings, entitled to equal treatment in free society?
Back to my impressions of the book as a whole: Fox's declaration that "You all need to toughen up and make a virtue of the right to be offensive" (178) has some truth to it, but doesn't completely hold. She seems to generally dismiss emotional reactions to offensive speech, behavior and associations. I would counter that the ability to proffer objective and cool-headed responses to offensive stimuli is asking a lot in the immediate aftermath of an offense. Furthermore, I don't believe that infusing offended reactions with authentic human emotion automatically invalidates the reaction. President Obama's tearful condemnation of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting comes to mind.
Fox posits that instead of reacting to the offensive with histrionics, offenders should be challenged to a debate in which their ideas are thoroughly unpacked, and valid criticisms are entertained. This approach doesn't hold up when the "offense" is a dismissal of a person or group's humanity. Fox urges, "Whether you are Snowflakes or anti-Snowflakes, you need to learn the trick of turning subjective outrage into measured, passionate, coherent argument capable of convincing others..." (178). To my knowledge, the white supremacist rally-goers in Charlottesville, Virginia were not open to the suggestion of entering a Battle of Ideas with counter-protestors. Should the onus fall to women, people of color, Jews, queerfolk etc. to convince neo-Nazis and religious extremists that they are human beings, entitled to equal treatment in free society?
mrsdallogay's review against another edition
1.0
I don't disagree with Claire Fox as much as I thought I would. Some of her points are fair enough, mainly I agree with her on the fact that identity politics doesn't make you an authoritative voice on a given topic simply because of your identity. And that the continual recourse to 'victimhood' is tiring. That being said, she's a member of the Brexit party whose libertarianism extends to the belief that the government should not ban child pornography. It's clear we're in for an interesting time here.
The book's central thesis is sloppy and unconvincing, blaming 'generation snowflake' (her term, not mine) on Gen X parents being too controlling etc. But I'm more concerned with the fact that Fox is one of many intellectuals who maintains a pig-headed adherence to the Enlightenment concept of 'free speech'. She continuously begs the viewer to take her side by calling upon them to be logical and rational, but this only made me less convinced with her argument. Furthermore the extent to which speech is ever truly free is debatable, but that's another philosophical argument altogether.
My main issue is that the particular 'attacks on free speech' she cites just aren't very good ones? She heralds some student who fought against attending a compulsory consent workshop as though he is the one in the right. Which... he isn't? I can't believe universities are attempting to reduce campus rape statistics by providing education on consent, god bless this young martyr who defiantly refused to go and had a lie in that morning instead. A true hero, his rationalism is so overwhelming I do believe the SJWs all dropped dead on the spot because of it.
I also think the book would have been better had she avoided the negatively connoted 'Snowflake Generation' or 'SJWs', although I suppose I may just be an SJW who needs a safe space. I would just say that language holds a lot of power, both communicatively and in the broader construction of society. Fox seems to believe the fact that people are now more aware of this is a bad thing, and would rather we allow language to run rampant.
A lot of Boomers get triggered over tattoos, piercings, abortion, people's weight, gender identity, sexuality and race. Essentially if you don't conform to their individualistic worldview then your very existence is 'wrong'. But of course 'generation snowflake' is the one stifling freedom of expression.
White people should never say the n-word, straight people should never say the f-word and you shouldn't purposefully misgender a person. Read a better book than this. Read any book not written by an out of touch old person whose intellectual complacency prevents them from thinking about the nuances of the younger generations' concerns with derogatory and offensive language!
The book's central thesis is sloppy and unconvincing, blaming 'generation snowflake' (her term, not mine) on Gen X parents being too controlling etc. But I'm more concerned with the fact that Fox is one of many intellectuals who maintains a pig-headed adherence to the Enlightenment concept of 'free speech'. She continuously begs the viewer to take her side by calling upon them to be logical and rational, but this only made me less convinced with her argument. Furthermore the extent to which speech is ever truly free is debatable, but that's another philosophical argument altogether.
My main issue is that the particular 'attacks on free speech' she cites just aren't very good ones? She heralds some student who fought against attending a compulsory consent workshop as though he is the one in the right. Which... he isn't? I can't believe universities are attempting to reduce campus rape statistics by providing education on consent, god bless this young martyr who defiantly refused to go and had a lie in that morning instead. A true hero, his rationalism is so overwhelming I do believe the SJWs all dropped dead on the spot because of it.
I also think the book would have been better had she avoided the negatively connoted 'Snowflake Generation' or 'SJWs', although I suppose I may just be an SJW who needs a safe space. I would just say that language holds a lot of power, both communicatively and in the broader construction of society. Fox seems to believe the fact that people are now more aware of this is a bad thing, and would rather we allow language to run rampant.
A lot of Boomers get triggered over tattoos, piercings, abortion, people's weight, gender identity, sexuality and race. Essentially if you don't conform to their individualistic worldview then your very existence is 'wrong'. But of course 'generation snowflake' is the one stifling freedom of expression.
White people should never say the n-word, straight people should never say the f-word and you shouldn't purposefully misgender a person. Read a better book than this. Read any book not written by an out of touch old person whose intellectual complacency prevents them from thinking about the nuances of the younger generations' concerns with derogatory and offensive language!
thewargrave's review against another edition
1.0
I couldn't stand this book. I bought it as an opportunity to see the other side of the argument to which I typically stand. Boy, did that not work out.
Fox purposefully misinterprets multiple events to fit her point and fails to grasp concepts like 'privilege' and 'gaslighting'. Fox also calls sopporting GamerGate a 'perfectly legitimate opinion' with no context attached.
This book didn't offend me, it pissed me off. Fox's seething disdain for 'Generation Snowflake' drops off the page. It infected my day and wasted my money.
Minor point - Claire Fox didn't popularise the term snowflake, no matter how much she attempts to plug that line. You can look to Fight Club for that one.
Fox purposefully misinterprets multiple events to fit her point and fails to grasp concepts like 'privilege' and 'gaslighting'. Fox also calls sopporting GamerGate a 'perfectly legitimate opinion' with no context attached.
This book didn't offend me, it pissed me off. Fox's seething disdain for 'Generation Snowflake' drops off the page. It infected my day and wasted my money.
Minor point - Claire Fox didn't popularise the term snowflake, no matter how much she attempts to plug that line. You can look to Fight Club for that one.
spokensilence9's review against another edition
5.0
So much to think through, process and talk and all of it in so little pages.
If there should be any book that can be said as “read before you die”, here’s my nomination.
If there should be any book that can be said as “read before you die”, here’s my nomination.
noacohen's review
3.5
I am sympathetic to Baroness Fox's position. I think the shutdown of debate in the name of mental security is a slippery slope, and the fact that the University of Oxford cannot discuss the issue of abortion in the name of student safety is extremely convincing.
I also found one of her key arguments interesting and convincing - that by placing undue emphasis on the significance of language we are compounding emotional harm. Reiterating that words threaten mental security causes them to do more psychological damage, thus perpetuating the vicious cycle.
However, the big oversight in this book is that it ignores a key - and to me, most significant - argument, which is that language can create an environment which exacerbates and inflames physical violence. While I don't believe that words themselves are violent, the constant airing of inflammatory or prejudicial views can create a physically dangerous environment. I don't believe that restricting speech is necessarily the solution, but I would have liked to see the author address this issue and hear her response.
Another point which I think was not well substantiated is about emotional abuse of children. What could have been an interesting chapter on the issue of poorly written and broad legislation, and the importance and complexity of articulating child protection laws, instead seems to utterly deny the existence of emotional abuse. Yes, telling off a child when they misbehave is not emotional abuse, and a law so broad that classifies it as abuse is ineffective and overly authoritarian. However, a parent who constantly belittles, demeans, and screams at a child, telling them they are worthless or should have been aborted, is abusive, even if they never raise a hand to them. I would have liked to see that assessed and see how Baroness Fox thinks we can better address this through legislation.
I also found one of her key arguments interesting and convincing - that by placing undue emphasis on the significance of language we are compounding emotional harm. Reiterating that words threaten mental security causes them to do more psychological damage, thus perpetuating the vicious cycle.
However, the big oversight in this book is that it ignores a key - and to me, most significant - argument, which is that language can create an environment which exacerbates and inflames physical violence. While I don't believe that words themselves are violent, the constant airing of inflammatory or prejudicial views can create a physically dangerous environment. I don't believe that restricting speech is necessarily the solution, but I would have liked to see the author address this issue and hear her response.
Another point which I think was not well substantiated is about emotional abuse of children. What could have been an interesting chapter on the issue of poorly written and broad legislation, and the importance and complexity of articulating child protection laws, instead seems to utterly deny the existence of emotional abuse. Yes, telling off a child when they misbehave is not emotional abuse, and a law so broad that classifies it as abuse is ineffective and overly authoritarian. However, a parent who constantly belittles, demeans, and screams at a child, telling them they are worthless or should have been aborted, is abusive, even if they never raise a hand to them. I would have liked to see that assessed and see how Baroness Fox thinks we can better address this through legislation.
pinknblue's review against another edition
4.0
This was such an intriguing read... it crosses political boundaries and makes you reflect on the world's current silencing of critical thought. Human thought and opinion should always be free and open to allow for discussion, conversation and most importantly challenge. We should all feel excited by the idea of someone disagreeing with us. A big learning curve for me recently has been to listen to the other side.. why do they think what they do? Why do I disagree? Claire's book offered me a lot I disagreed with - and I bloody loved it.
More...