look, i don’t know what i expected from this book, but i didn’t think we were going to sit here and defend rowling. highly considering dnfing

rowling and forstater have caused MATERIAL HARM!! this is not simply a matter of ‘free speech’ for ‘believing that there is a biological basis for womanhood’ or that ‘sex matters’ (which is a phrasing that i find icky). they lobby against legislation dude and have said some vile vile things

Also last chapter we defended neo nazis marching in jewish communities, but now we’re criticising cancel culture? is not that also free speech? oh right, because it’s ‘gaslighting’ and only happens for ‘relatively minor mistakes or unfashionable opinions’ ?????

ヽ(｀⌒´メ)ノ

i understand why skokie is being brought up in this book — it's a landmark ruling — but i feel like certain details are being left out by the book that would force there to be some nuance in the discussion.

the author failed to mention that skokie initially allowed the NSPA to march, but the Jewish community expressed their discomfort (naturally, it's a neo-Nazi march and they're mostly Holocaust survivors) which led to the 3 ordinances. one of the ordinances was literally prohibiting them to wear military uniform. and after the supreme court ruling, the NSPA didn't even march in skokie, they marched in chicago.

again, i can still intellectually understand being in favour of the SC ruling. but, there is no recognition of the jewish community's expressed discomfort, and also even acknowledgement that the march could have possibly led to violence.

I am very very hesitant about the start of this book. Equating people who want repercussions for hate speech as ‘well-intentioned authoritarians’ (or something similar) is . . . strange. Considering that you used transphobia as the initial example to prove this point is weird too lmao. This discussion requires more nuance than what has been presented thus far, but I’m only 4% done so hoping that this improves. ┐(´ー｀)┌