What do you think?
Rate this book
‘I Find That Offensive!’
When you hear that now ubiquitous phrase "I find that offensive," you know you're being told to shut up. Social discourse is now dominated by competitive offence-claiming. But how did we become so thin-skinned? This book blames three official multiculturalism's relativistic conflation of tolerance with positive "recognition," narcissistic identity politics, and finally therapeutic educational interventions such as anti-bullying campaigns. Claire Fox is a British libertarian writer. She is the founder of the Institute of Ideas think tank and a broadcaster and social commentator, appearing regularly on BBC television and radio.
179 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2016
43 people are currently reading
637 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
June 15, 2016
In December 2014, a group of students at UCLA staged a march in protest of the Ferguson verdict. Campus police were called out to block them from a university building. One of the security guards was black, and a group of protesters rounded on him, castigating him for implicitly supporting racism by not allowing them in. ‘As a black man, have you ever experienced racism?’ a girl demands. ‘Yes ma'am, I grew up in Jackson, Mississippi,’ he replies, ‘where there were white-only bathrooms. I know exactly what racism looks like.’
Her response is to scream, ‘You are a black man! You are kept down by your race even if you won’t accept it! It is a fact of your life!’, which, incredibly, draws cheers from the crowd. Later, when he tries to argue that ‘Race isn't important’, the putatively liberal crowd chants ‘YES IT IS! YES IT IS!’ at him. The spectacle of a mob of white children hectoring a black man about racism is too gross even to laugh at; if you think I'm exaggerating, see the video for yourself – if anything, it's worse than I make it sound.
Fast forward to last Hallowe'en, and the breathtakingly awful Christakis affair at Yale. It started when the university sent out a mass email reminding students to avoid ‘culturally unaware or insensitive choices’ when picking out Hallowe'en costumes. Erika Christakis, a lecturer who lived with the students at Silliman College, sent out a well-argued and thoughtful response, wondering whether young adults were really best served by having their clothing policed by education authorities. The backlash to this email was hysterical: she was forced to leave her teaching post, and her husband Nicholas, the Master of Silliman College, was confronted by protesters who screamed and swore in his face. Watch the video: it's quite amazing to see the contrast between his attitude – that he has a duty to listen and respond to even the most intemperate abuse – and the attitude of the girl shouting at him, for whom an admission of guilt and an apology is the only thing he can be allowed to say. Last month, both Christakises were finally forced to resign from Yale.
These are two of the most familiar examples of the current trend of anti-free speech insanity affecting campuses. Many other instances could be adduced – the first part of this book gives you a whole catalogue of them, many of which I had to look up because I couldn't believe they could really be true. It's a trend that is animated by a complex mixture of factors – the giddy rush of having the moral high ground, the elevation of victimhood, the ‘catastrophisation’ of normal stresses and strains, the medicalisation of anxiety, and of course the perfectly laudable aim of securing social justice for marginalised groups.
My reaction in general to these things has been to ignore them, to dismiss them as an occasional quirk of American socialisation, or, if pushed, to laugh at them. Claire Fox believes this is inadequate. She points to a number of ways in which these attitudes have become accepted, institutionalised, and begun to affect education specifically and people's ability to deal with life in general, and on both sides of the Atlantic.
Students at the University of California in Santa Barbara have demanded trigger warnings on troubling works of literature (Mrs Dalloway can trigger suicidal thoughts, while Ovid's Metamorphoses involves too much sexual abuse), and legal professors at other universities have said that they are no longer going to teach rape law at all because students cannot cope with it. In Britain, the NUS has recently been discussing a motion to replace applause with jazz hands because it's less traumatic. Universities have ‘disinvited’ (or banned) such dangerous guests as Germaine Greer, secular campaigner Maryam Namazie, gay rights pioneer Peter Tatchell, classicist Mary Beard, and feminist activist Julie Bindel, because they hold views which do not fit with the current accepted narrative. Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum has changed all the ‘offensive’ titles in its collection of artworks (so Simon Maris's Young Negro Girl (1900) is now Young Girl Holding a Fan). The concept of ‘safe spaces’ – not, I think, an awful idea in principle – have become generalised and diffuse until many people are living in an echo chamber of reinforcement, and now genuinely feel ‘that contradictory opinions to their own beliefs’ are ‘the cause of real harm’.
Behind all this Fox sees a culture of what she calls ‘toxic victimhood’ – a new rhetorical world where ‘subjective experience becomes key’, and one has to present one's own scars in order to be allowed to participate in any discussion.
Sexual politics is especially thorny. As the new waves of feminism continue, as Fox sees it, to ‘splinter into even pettier, narrow identity grouplets’, those who feel left out have nevertheless been playing by the same rules. So we now have endless ‘meninist’ and other men's rights movements, whose purpose seems to be to portray men as victims too by going on about prison rape and life expectancy. But these things, important as they are, have nothing to do with my idea of being a man, just as modern feminism has little to do with many people's idea of being a woman. (I have called myself a feminist for more than fifteen years, quite happily and proudly. But I really have to pick and choose now. While I'd love my little daughter to grow up to smash the patriarchy, I am also extremely concerned that she doesn't grow up with the impression that she is a disenfranchised victim who should be obsessing over life's uncongenialities.)
But having won this ‘Oppression Olympics’, even victims can fall foul of modern discourse if they fail to stick to the script. This was made clear recently when rock legend Chrissie Hynde was torn apart by self-appointed feminist experts because – discussing an incident of sexual assault in her past – she commented, ‘Possibly getting off your face and getting out of it, hanging out with motorcycle gangs and being lairy is inadvisable.’ This kind of thing is now ‘victim-blaming’. Please, women, speak out about your sexual abuse, but only if you say exactly what we want you to.
I remember hearing Germaine Greer give a lecture where she said that there were worse things than rape, and in her view it would be less stressful for victims if the whole concept were abolished and considered as general sexual assault. This led to a sharp discussion, as you might imagine, but things have moved on a bit since those days. Having spent time talking to students about sexual violence, Fox concludes that they've ‘internalised the fact that “rape” and sexual assault [are] unquestionably the most heinous thing’ imaginable, a ‘crime beyond forgiveness’ whose ‘victims would never be able to get over it’.
Though it should be obvious, I suppose I should stress here that the point is not about which perspective is ‘right’. The point is that debate must be allowed to take place and not be silenced (Greer is now persona non grata on university campuses, because of her views on assault and transgenderism among others). It is not just that people with unpopular opinions should be allowed, but that theirs are the voices that most urgently need to be protected, cultivated and heard. This is the great tradition of English liberalism which goes back to Milton's Aeropagitica, through John Stewart Mill, and which is manifested in such things as Christopher Hitchens's defence of Holocaust denier David Irving.
Anyway, it is easy to stack up problems. What is good about this book is that Fox resists the temptation to make it a rant about ‘youth culture’, pointing out the many millennials who are equally disgusted by these trends or who just deal with things more calmly . Fox also refuses to blame the perpetrators themselves, seeing them as the natural result of years of poor social policies.
I can't agree with everything in this book. It is a polemic, and her argument is given in its strongest form for the sake of clarity, which sometimes leads to an erosion of nuance. There are also times when I think she is just wrong. Angrily surveying the often-pusillanimous criticisms of Charlie Hebdo, for instance, she comments with sarcasm: ‘Charlie Hebdo staff, it seems, deserved it.’ But that won't do: if Chrissie Hynde can be criticised without calls of victim-blaming, then so can Charlie Hebdo. Their right to free speech must be defended, but their content is still open to criticism, otherwise Fox is claiming exactly the kind of victim privilege that she elsewhere derides.
But these are minor complaints for a book which tries, admirably, to go beyond pointing and finger-wagging and look for causes and possible solutions. It's a clear-headed but pissed-off examination of a cultural environment that should make everyone righteously angry.
Her response is to scream, ‘You are a black man! You are kept down by your race even if you won’t accept it! It is a fact of your life!’, which, incredibly, draws cheers from the crowd. Later, when he tries to argue that ‘Race isn't important’, the putatively liberal crowd chants ‘YES IT IS! YES IT IS!’ at him. The spectacle of a mob of white children hectoring a black man about racism is too gross even to laugh at; if you think I'm exaggerating, see the video for yourself – if anything, it's worse than I make it sound.
Fast forward to last Hallowe'en, and the breathtakingly awful Christakis affair at Yale. It started when the university sent out a mass email reminding students to avoid ‘culturally unaware or insensitive choices’ when picking out Hallowe'en costumes. Erika Christakis, a lecturer who lived with the students at Silliman College, sent out a well-argued and thoughtful response, wondering whether young adults were really best served by having their clothing policed by education authorities. The backlash to this email was hysterical: she was forced to leave her teaching post, and her husband Nicholas, the Master of Silliman College, was confronted by protesters who screamed and swore in his face. Watch the video: it's quite amazing to see the contrast between his attitude – that he has a duty to listen and respond to even the most intemperate abuse – and the attitude of the girl shouting at him, for whom an admission of guilt and an apology is the only thing he can be allowed to say. Last month, both Christakises were finally forced to resign from Yale.
These are two of the most familiar examples of the current trend of anti-free speech insanity affecting campuses. Many other instances could be adduced – the first part of this book gives you a whole catalogue of them, many of which I had to look up because I couldn't believe they could really be true. It's a trend that is animated by a complex mixture of factors – the giddy rush of having the moral high ground, the elevation of victimhood, the ‘catastrophisation’ of normal stresses and strains, the medicalisation of anxiety, and of course the perfectly laudable aim of securing social justice for marginalised groups.
My reaction in general to these things has been to ignore them, to dismiss them as an occasional quirk of American socialisation, or, if pushed, to laugh at them. Claire Fox believes this is inadequate. She points to a number of ways in which these attitudes have become accepted, institutionalised, and begun to affect education specifically and people's ability to deal with life in general, and on both sides of the Atlantic.
Students at the University of California in Santa Barbara have demanded trigger warnings on troubling works of literature (Mrs Dalloway can trigger suicidal thoughts, while Ovid's Metamorphoses involves too much sexual abuse), and legal professors at other universities have said that they are no longer going to teach rape law at all because students cannot cope with it. In Britain, the NUS has recently been discussing a motion to replace applause with jazz hands because it's less traumatic. Universities have ‘disinvited’ (or banned) such dangerous guests as Germaine Greer, secular campaigner Maryam Namazie, gay rights pioneer Peter Tatchell, classicist Mary Beard, and feminist activist Julie Bindel, because they hold views which do not fit with the current accepted narrative. Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum has changed all the ‘offensive’ titles in its collection of artworks (so Simon Maris's Young Negro Girl (1900) is now Young Girl Holding a Fan). The concept of ‘safe spaces’ – not, I think, an awful idea in principle – have become generalised and diffuse until many people are living in an echo chamber of reinforcement, and now genuinely feel ‘that contradictory opinions to their own beliefs’ are ‘the cause of real harm’.
Behind all this Fox sees a culture of what she calls ‘toxic victimhood’ – a new rhetorical world where ‘subjective experience becomes key’, and one has to present one's own scars in order to be allowed to participate in any discussion.
[I]f a victim aggressively accuses you of offence, it is dangerous to argue back, or even to request that they should stop being so hostile, should you be accused of ‘tone policing’, a new rule that dictates: ‘[Y]ou can never question the efficacy of anger…when voiced by a person from a marginalised background.’ No wonder people are queueing up to self-identify into any number of victim camps…
Sexual politics is especially thorny. As the new waves of feminism continue, as Fox sees it, to ‘splinter into even pettier, narrow identity grouplets’, those who feel left out have nevertheless been playing by the same rules. So we now have endless ‘meninist’ and other men's rights movements, whose purpose seems to be to portray men as victims too by going on about prison rape and life expectancy. But these things, important as they are, have nothing to do with my idea of being a man, just as modern feminism has little to do with many people's idea of being a woman. (I have called myself a feminist for more than fifteen years, quite happily and proudly. But I really have to pick and choose now. While I'd love my little daughter to grow up to smash the patriarchy, I am also extremely concerned that she doesn't grow up with the impression that she is a disenfranchised victim who should be obsessing over life's uncongenialities.)
But having won this ‘Oppression Olympics’, even victims can fall foul of modern discourse if they fail to stick to the script. This was made clear recently when rock legend Chrissie Hynde was torn apart by self-appointed feminist experts because – discussing an incident of sexual assault in her past – she commented, ‘Possibly getting off your face and getting out of it, hanging out with motorcycle gangs and being lairy is inadvisable.’ This kind of thing is now ‘victim-blaming’. Please, women, speak out about your sexual abuse, but only if you say exactly what we want you to.
I remember hearing Germaine Greer give a lecture where she said that there were worse things than rape, and in her view it would be less stressful for victims if the whole concept were abolished and considered as general sexual assault. This led to a sharp discussion, as you might imagine, but things have moved on a bit since those days. Having spent time talking to students about sexual violence, Fox concludes that they've ‘internalised the fact that “rape” and sexual assault [are] unquestionably the most heinous thing’ imaginable, a ‘crime beyond forgiveness’ whose ‘victims would never be able to get over it’.
The definitions of rape being used by the pupils were very broad, incorporating everything from unwanted advances to regretted sex, and were being discussed as though it was an imminent threat to each and every one of them.
Though it should be obvious, I suppose I should stress here that the point is not about which perspective is ‘right’. The point is that debate must be allowed to take place and not be silenced (Greer is now persona non grata on university campuses, because of her views on assault and transgenderism among others). It is not just that people with unpopular opinions should be allowed, but that theirs are the voices that most urgently need to be protected, cultivated and heard. This is the great tradition of English liberalism which goes back to Milton's Aeropagitica, through John Stewart Mill, and which is manifested in such things as Christopher Hitchens's defence of Holocaust denier David Irving.
Anyway, it is easy to stack up problems. What is good about this book is that Fox resists the temptation to make it a rant about ‘youth culture’, pointing out the many millennials who are equally disgusted by these trends or who just deal with things more calmly . Fox also refuses to blame the perpetrators themselves, seeing them as the natural result of years of poor social policies.
They have been reared on stories about how vulnerable and in need of protection they are. Adult society has fed them a diet of anxieties and provided the language of safety and risk aversion that now threatens liberal values of tolerance and resilience […] we have socialised children and young adults to think of themselves as weak and fragile, reared them to believe that name-calling can lead to mental illness, that without therapy they won't be able to deal with independence, criticism or exams. This process has enfeebled them. They really are suffering a crippling malady. But it is one constructed by older generations' policies. With no clear idea of how to resolve things, the way they are taking ownership of this situation is even more destructive: they are starting to pathologise politics.
I can't agree with everything in this book. It is a polemic, and her argument is given in its strongest form for the sake of clarity, which sometimes leads to an erosion of nuance. There are also times when I think she is just wrong. Angrily surveying the often-pusillanimous criticisms of Charlie Hebdo, for instance, she comments with sarcasm: ‘Charlie Hebdo staff, it seems, deserved it.’ But that won't do: if Chrissie Hynde can be criticised without calls of victim-blaming, then so can Charlie Hebdo. Their right to free speech must be defended, but their content is still open to criticism, otherwise Fox is claiming exactly the kind of victim privilege that she elsewhere derides.
But these are minor complaints for a book which tries, admirably, to go beyond pointing and finger-wagging and look for causes and possible solutions. It's a clear-headed but pissed-off examination of a cultural environment that should make everyone righteously angry.
March 17, 2017
This may or may not become a full-on essay, bitches, but I got some beef that's been stewing for a loooong time now, and it's gotta be articulated. SO LET'S DO IT.
Once upon a time, back in the early 2000s, fan culture on the internet was a fairly easy-going place. Like, people would scream at each other if they had different favourite characters but, y'know. What I mean is that you could pretty much like anything you wanted. You weren't policed by your peers (in fact -- the darker the better, in some cases). You were expected to put warnings if you were posting things that might offend, but rarely did anyone get mad at you for writing them -- they just heeded the warnings and moved on. It wasn't perfect, utopia ain't a thing -- but it worked.
Fast forward 10-15 years. The hub of fandom is now Tumblr, also the hub of "SJW"s (social justice warriors) who fight long and hard, generally online, for their supposedly equality-based version of reality. Because fans and SJWs are in close quarters, the cultures start to bleed into each other. You now have a fan culture where 'social justice' is a key component of both discussion and fanworks (fics, art, etc.). Now, this isn't inherently a bad thing -- it's actually massively valuable, and a key part of why I am (and love) teaching. Being critical of what you hear, read & watch is wildly important: don't for a second think I am advocating blind media consumption, at any point, EVER.
But things got a bit...sticky, over in Tumblr land. See, people got annoyed with people saying things they didn't want to hear. They (correctly) realized that fiction can influence and, at times, provide examples and models. They didn't want to be hurt or offended by things that they viewed as unequivocally, objectively, wrong. All of which is fair.
But they stopped saying, "Let's talk about this critically," and instead: they started telling people to stop writing about it. And yelled and screamed at them until they did: "You're racist/homophobic/misogynistic/etc.! There's NO excuse! There's NO debate! You're JUST WRONG." And that movement started snowballing. And soon, being a "good" fan became a question of moral purity -- a very specific moral purity, outlined and dispersed by very reactionary people, people who do not care to educate but would rather you just not do it, okay, and don't you dare question me, because I'm right and whatever you're doing that I disagree with is wrong.
And that's where it gets rough, for me -- as both a lover and a teacher of media.
Now I have to insert a disclaimer before I go any further: my values are very heavily centered on education. I'm a teacher by trade and a learner by hobby. Frankly: I believe that education, not so much in the classroom but in the world, is the most valuable thing we can engage in. I do not think that we learn by reading and discussing the same ideas we already know. We learn by encountering new things. When articulating and expressing our opinions in debate, we layer and refine them. When faced with things we do not know and cannot fathom, things that infuriate and anger us, things that scare and hurt us, we do feel all those negative things -- but we also learn from them.
Now listen: learning is not easy. It is hard fucking work. And think back to the things you've learned that have actually stuck: not high school content, I bet? No. Shit that you struggled with, shit that you cared about, shit that you were challenged on or passionate about. We learn, TRULY learn, when we are faced with extremes ---- not with status quo or safety.
Claire Fox, in what is ultimately a diatribe on the balance (or lack thereof) between freedom of speech and taking offense, doesn't touch too much on this pedagogical point -- but I think, in some ways, it informs her thinking. Fox is staunchly on the "freedom of speech" side of the debate -- calling out today's youth (myself included!), derisively, as the "Snowflake generation."
In brief, her argument:
1. Kids born 1980+ were raised & taught by people who coddled them, emotionally/physically/psychologically. They were also told they were special 'snowflakes', unique & relevant just because they existed.
2. This coddling & cooing led to an entitled generation that never really 'grew up' in the traditional sense, meaning they still sought out and required "homey", safe environments in the real world (including universities). Adult supervision meant kids never learned how to deal with conflict or criticism on their own.
3. Labelling & identity politics became a space where people could define themselves in an otherwise messy, confusing world -- in other words, a safe foothold to latch to.
4. Because the 'Snowflakes' are so easy to offend, and so immature in their conflict resolution, they throw tantrums when they don't get their way. This extends to wanting 'safe spaces' in all places at all times, so they never encounter something that might disrupt their status quo.
5. This, if it continues, will mean the death of free speech -- because everything, at one point or another, particularly when taken out of context, can offend. People will and do live in fear of saying "the wrong thing" in case they start a Twitter war (incidentally -- Black Mirror's got some good episodes about this).
So.
It's an interesting, if not overly original, perspective, though I don't agree with all of Fox's points. For example -- she maligns an entire generation while expressly saying that it's the fault of those who came before. One of her weakest points is when she whines about how bratty and irritating Snowflakes are because they want their way, and their way is the worst, and it's exclusively their way, no one else experienced it ----- but then spends a solid section of a chapter explaining how young people are put on panels as tokens, but all the ideas and actions are really coming from Boomers/Gen X. So, uh...it's NOT actually exclusive to Snowflakes? Everyone in previous generations is also easily offended and pissed off by stuff? I'm confused...
But that said: I picked up this book because I have been seriously fucking frustrated by people on the far left, these days, and I need to start figuring out where I stand. Now I am far left -- I believe people should be free to do what they want and be as they are without judgment, and that we should be kind to and respect each other. But, as I said, I ALSO believe that we should all be able to explore ideas -- all ideas, any idea you want, because you can't really learn unless you do that exploring. You don't have to agree with it; often, you shouldn't agree with it -- but you do have the right to dive in, take a look around, and see what you can bring back and what you would never want. We have to learn to move forward. We will not do that if every potentially offensive word or option is closed to us. We will definitely not learn if texts, ideas, and history are destroyed because they retroactively offend.
It seems to me that, at the core, what most SJWs advocate is stasis: a world where people see and think the same fundamental things, where words & ideas are policed and authority (not patriarchal, of course, but in reverse: the words of those with the LEAST privilege, the most vulnerable and the most hurt, are often considered most valid in these circles, regardless of argument) is held in the highest regard.
But as I said: utopia ain't a thing.
It is literally impossible to create a world where everyone thinks and believes the same things. It will certainly never happen by telling people who disagree with you to shut up because they're privileged. Privilege absolutely exists -- white, cis, male, straight, all of it -- that's not what I'm saying. But you won't get rid of it by telling people they're horrible for having it. What I'm saying is that how these arguments take place -- with massive hurt and offense, with no regard for educating and respecting others, without understanding the fundamental truth that humanity will ALWAYS disagree with itself -------
It is so deeply counterproductive.
Claire Fox articulates some of this in her book (with no regard for giving offense, of course), and she doesn't do a phenomenal job. At times, she is articulate and convincing. But there is no love in this book -- no desire for anything better, just the hope of protecting 'freedom of speech' without really explaining why it matters. This battle seems personal for her, which is fine -- but she obviously doesn't like young people, and in that, she's falling into the exact line that the people she argues against take. You can't scream at people, tell them they're stupid, wrong, pathetic, and expect them to listen.
I do not want to live in a mindless, safe utopia. But I don't want to live in Claire Fox's world, either, where people make rude, crass jokes and spew hate speech just because they can, because their rights are protected.
There has to be another way.
Wait.
There is a place where you can explore all the things you don't get to in real life. That place where you can freely encounter offensive and confusing ideas and sit with them, privately, for awhile -- try to figure out where they fit with your self, how you could discuss them if someone asked. Where you meet people and see inside their heads, their backstories and contexts -- can even empathize with some of those who live lives you'd consider horrendous. Where anything is game, where worlds are created and destroyed and possible and it all happens in that rich emotional space where you learn best.
Fiction matters.
Stories matter.
Talking about and criticizing these things matters.
Encountering other ideas matters, as much as being kind to each other, as much as being angry with each other, as much as running the whole gamut of human emotion, including stress and fear and rage ------ because we will not truly improve, we will never actually change, as a race or as individuals, without it.
I want to be loving and respectful, but I do not want to be safe.
Feel free to take offense.
Once upon a time, back in the early 2000s, fan culture on the internet was a fairly easy-going place. Like, people would scream at each other if they had different favourite characters but, y'know. What I mean is that you could pretty much like anything you wanted. You weren't policed by your peers (in fact -- the darker the better, in some cases). You were expected to put warnings if you were posting things that might offend, but rarely did anyone get mad at you for writing them -- they just heeded the warnings and moved on. It wasn't perfect, utopia ain't a thing -- but it worked.
Fast forward 10-15 years. The hub of fandom is now Tumblr, also the hub of "SJW"s (social justice warriors) who fight long and hard, generally online, for their supposedly equality-based version of reality. Because fans and SJWs are in close quarters, the cultures start to bleed into each other. You now have a fan culture where 'social justice' is a key component of both discussion and fanworks (fics, art, etc.). Now, this isn't inherently a bad thing -- it's actually massively valuable, and a key part of why I am (and love) teaching. Being critical of what you hear, read & watch is wildly important: don't for a second think I am advocating blind media consumption, at any point, EVER.
But things got a bit...sticky, over in Tumblr land. See, people got annoyed with people saying things they didn't want to hear. They (correctly) realized that fiction can influence and, at times, provide examples and models. They didn't want to be hurt or offended by things that they viewed as unequivocally, objectively, wrong. All of which is fair.
But they stopped saying, "Let's talk about this critically," and instead: they started telling people to stop writing about it. And yelled and screamed at them until they did: "You're racist/homophobic/misogynistic/etc.! There's NO excuse! There's NO debate! You're JUST WRONG." And that movement started snowballing. And soon, being a "good" fan became a question of moral purity -- a very specific moral purity, outlined and dispersed by very reactionary people, people who do not care to educate but would rather you just not do it, okay, and don't you dare question me, because I'm right and whatever you're doing that I disagree with is wrong.
And that's where it gets rough, for me -- as both a lover and a teacher of media.
Now I have to insert a disclaimer before I go any further: my values are very heavily centered on education. I'm a teacher by trade and a learner by hobby. Frankly: I believe that education, not so much in the classroom but in the world, is the most valuable thing we can engage in. I do not think that we learn by reading and discussing the same ideas we already know. We learn by encountering new things. When articulating and expressing our opinions in debate, we layer and refine them. When faced with things we do not know and cannot fathom, things that infuriate and anger us, things that scare and hurt us, we do feel all those negative things -- but we also learn from them.
Now listen: learning is not easy. It is hard fucking work. And think back to the things you've learned that have actually stuck: not high school content, I bet? No. Shit that you struggled with, shit that you cared about, shit that you were challenged on or passionate about. We learn, TRULY learn, when we are faced with extremes ---- not with status quo or safety.
Claire Fox, in what is ultimately a diatribe on the balance (or lack thereof) between freedom of speech and taking offense, doesn't touch too much on this pedagogical point -- but I think, in some ways, it informs her thinking. Fox is staunchly on the "freedom of speech" side of the debate -- calling out today's youth (myself included!), derisively, as the "Snowflake generation."
In brief, her argument:
1. Kids born 1980+ were raised & taught by people who coddled them, emotionally/physically/psychologically. They were also told they were special 'snowflakes', unique & relevant just because they existed.
2. This coddling & cooing led to an entitled generation that never really 'grew up' in the traditional sense, meaning they still sought out and required "homey", safe environments in the real world (including universities). Adult supervision meant kids never learned how to deal with conflict or criticism on their own.
3. Labelling & identity politics became a space where people could define themselves in an otherwise messy, confusing world -- in other words, a safe foothold to latch to.
4. Because the 'Snowflakes' are so easy to offend, and so immature in their conflict resolution, they throw tantrums when they don't get their way. This extends to wanting 'safe spaces' in all places at all times, so they never encounter something that might disrupt their status quo.
5. This, if it continues, will mean the death of free speech -- because everything, at one point or another, particularly when taken out of context, can offend. People will and do live in fear of saying "the wrong thing" in case they start a Twitter war (incidentally -- Black Mirror's got some good episodes about this).
So.
It's an interesting, if not overly original, perspective, though I don't agree with all of Fox's points. For example -- she maligns an entire generation while expressly saying that it's the fault of those who came before. One of her weakest points is when she whines about how bratty and irritating Snowflakes are because they want their way, and their way is the worst, and it's exclusively their way, no one else experienced it ----- but then spends a solid section of a chapter explaining how young people are put on panels as tokens, but all the ideas and actions are really coming from Boomers/Gen X. So, uh...it's NOT actually exclusive to Snowflakes? Everyone in previous generations is also easily offended and pissed off by stuff? I'm confused...
But that said: I picked up this book because I have been seriously fucking frustrated by people on the far left, these days, and I need to start figuring out where I stand. Now I am far left -- I believe people should be free to do what they want and be as they are without judgment, and that we should be kind to and respect each other. But, as I said, I ALSO believe that we should all be able to explore ideas -- all ideas, any idea you want, because you can't really learn unless you do that exploring. You don't have to agree with it; often, you shouldn't agree with it -- but you do have the right to dive in, take a look around, and see what you can bring back and what you would never want. We have to learn to move forward. We will not do that if every potentially offensive word or option is closed to us. We will definitely not learn if texts, ideas, and history are destroyed because they retroactively offend.
It seems to me that, at the core, what most SJWs advocate is stasis: a world where people see and think the same fundamental things, where words & ideas are policed and authority (not patriarchal, of course, but in reverse: the words of those with the LEAST privilege, the most vulnerable and the most hurt, are often considered most valid in these circles, regardless of argument) is held in the highest regard.
But as I said: utopia ain't a thing.
It is literally impossible to create a world where everyone thinks and believes the same things. It will certainly never happen by telling people who disagree with you to shut up because they're privileged. Privilege absolutely exists -- white, cis, male, straight, all of it -- that's not what I'm saying. But you won't get rid of it by telling people they're horrible for having it. What I'm saying is that how these arguments take place -- with massive hurt and offense, with no regard for educating and respecting others, without understanding the fundamental truth that humanity will ALWAYS disagree with itself -------
It is so deeply counterproductive.
Claire Fox articulates some of this in her book (with no regard for giving offense, of course), and she doesn't do a phenomenal job. At times, she is articulate and convincing. But there is no love in this book -- no desire for anything better, just the hope of protecting 'freedom of speech' without really explaining why it matters. This battle seems personal for her, which is fine -- but she obviously doesn't like young people, and in that, she's falling into the exact line that the people she argues against take. You can't scream at people, tell them they're stupid, wrong, pathetic, and expect them to listen.
I do not want to live in a mindless, safe utopia. But I don't want to live in Claire Fox's world, either, where people make rude, crass jokes and spew hate speech just because they can, because their rights are protected.
There has to be another way.
Wait.
There is a place where you can explore all the things you don't get to in real life. That place where you can freely encounter offensive and confusing ideas and sit with them, privately, for awhile -- try to figure out where they fit with your self, how you could discuss them if someone asked. Where you meet people and see inside their heads, their backstories and contexts -- can even empathize with some of those who live lives you'd consider horrendous. Where anything is game, where worlds are created and destroyed and possible and it all happens in that rich emotional space where you learn best.
Fiction matters.
Stories matter.
Talking about and criticizing these things matters.
Encountering other ideas matters, as much as being kind to each other, as much as being angry with each other, as much as running the whole gamut of human emotion, including stress and fear and rage ------ because we will not truly improve, we will never actually change, as a race or as individuals, without it.
I want to be loving and respectful, but I do not want to be safe.
Feel free to take offense.
November 21, 2018
I'm glad I read this book, because it's good to challenge our beliefs and opinions. And I do agree, on a very simplistic level, with Fox's argument: that we've all become a little too sensitive and quick to take offence (and to use the label of 'offence' to silence others), that we can overstate the harm caused by certain people or language, that we need to listen to others rather than just shout them down, and that resilience is important.
But this is not the way to argue any of those points. It's not by any means a balanced argument: Fox really wears her opinion on her sleeve, and won't even begin to countenance another viewpoint. Everyone who agrees with her shows "down-to-earth common sense", everyone who disagrees "screams", "explodes" and "reacts with fury". Those on her side, who hand out misogynistic leaflets or send abusive Twitter messages are quite reasonably "venting their frustrations at petty bans"; those against her are "brazenly screaming in indignation". She defends #NotAllMen and #GamerGate, and calls 4Chan "witty" and "mischievous".
I won't list them all, but there are also several massive leaps of logic, eg. when discussing the Charlie Hebdo shooting she says: "Charlie Hebdo staff, it seems, deserved it", when absolutely nothing quoted in the preceding pages says or even suggests that conclusion.
Fox is also enraged by various measures used to protect children; she applies them to herself and her own parenting style and says shouting down at children and making them care for their siblings are all perfectly normal. She even says that the suggestion not to "put inappropriate expectations on a child that are over and above their capabilities" just means having typical high expectations for your child, even though the statement clearly uses the words 'inappropriate' and 'above their capabilities', which to me doesn't suggest anything typical about it.
The thing is, Claire Fox, those guidelines aren't about you. Your own kids aren't going to social services about you. My wife runs a severe-and-complex-needs nursery, and not surprisingly there's a lot of social work interaction and a lot of reporting of unhealthy and negligent parenting. These guidelines are for children like that – ones who actually are being mistreated. We may not agree with everything the social work department does, but they need to have some guidelines somewhere, and from what I've seen of actual children in the actual world, these guidelines aren't just scaremongering. Fox spends the whole book being critical of those who take everything personally and make it all about them – and then she takes it personally and makes it all about her.
Fox is also adamant that the only reason that students report high levels of stress is that they're entitled snowflakes, not that they are reasinably worried about entering a world with low job security, little chance of owning a house before they're 40, and a political and environmental situation that could, at best, be described as a trash fire.
Anyway! I agree that we all need to learn to be resilient, and that 'that's offensive' isn't a sensible way to shut someone up. But it's a shame that Fox's fairly reasonable point is lost in these faulty arguments. She ends up doing exactly what she accuses the rest of the world of doing: getting enraged over others' behaviour and intentionally misinterpreting what other people say to make them seem stupid and unreasonable.
But this is not the way to argue any of those points. It's not by any means a balanced argument: Fox really wears her opinion on her sleeve, and won't even begin to countenance another viewpoint. Everyone who agrees with her shows "down-to-earth common sense", everyone who disagrees "screams", "explodes" and "reacts with fury". Those on her side, who hand out misogynistic leaflets or send abusive Twitter messages are quite reasonably "venting their frustrations at petty bans"; those against her are "brazenly screaming in indignation". She defends #NotAllMen and #GamerGate, and calls 4Chan "witty" and "mischievous".
I won't list them all, but there are also several massive leaps of logic, eg. when discussing the Charlie Hebdo shooting she says: "Charlie Hebdo staff, it seems, deserved it", when absolutely nothing quoted in the preceding pages says or even suggests that conclusion.
Fox is also enraged by various measures used to protect children; she applies them to herself and her own parenting style and says shouting down at children and making them care for their siblings are all perfectly normal. She even says that the suggestion not to "put inappropriate expectations on a child that are over and above their capabilities" just means having typical high expectations for your child, even though the statement clearly uses the words 'inappropriate' and 'above their capabilities', which to me doesn't suggest anything typical about it.
The thing is, Claire Fox, those guidelines aren't about you. Your own kids aren't going to social services about you. My wife runs a severe-and-complex-needs nursery, and not surprisingly there's a lot of social work interaction and a lot of reporting of unhealthy and negligent parenting. These guidelines are for children like that – ones who actually are being mistreated. We may not agree with everything the social work department does, but they need to have some guidelines somewhere, and from what I've seen of actual children in the actual world, these guidelines aren't just scaremongering. Fox spends the whole book being critical of those who take everything personally and make it all about them – and then she takes it personally and makes it all about her.
Fox is also adamant that the only reason that students report high levels of stress is that they're entitled snowflakes, not that they are reasinably worried about entering a world with low job security, little chance of owning a house before they're 40, and a political and environmental situation that could, at best, be described as a trash fire.
Anyway! I agree that we all need to learn to be resilient, and that 'that's offensive' isn't a sensible way to shut someone up. But it's a shame that Fox's fairly reasonable point is lost in these faulty arguments. She ends up doing exactly what she accuses the rest of the world of doing: getting enraged over others' behaviour and intentionally misinterpreting what other people say to make them seem stupid and unreasonable.
July 10, 2018
Please refer to GR friend Warwick's review of this title, he expresses everything I feel about the book in a way that's beyond my capabilities: Warwick's Review (If you see this, I hope you don't mind me linking to your review, Warwick)
This book was a real eye-opener for me. I mean, I am aware there have been some rumblings about the stifling of free speech but I didn't know it was this bad. Just check out the Nicholas Christakis/Yale University incident video through this link: Christakis video. I literally could not believe what I was seeing. If this had happened back when I was in uni, everyone involved would have been on the next bus home.
This book was a real eye-opener for me. I mean, I am aware there have been some rumblings about the stifling of free speech but I didn't know it was this bad. Just check out the Nicholas Christakis/Yale University incident video through this link: Christakis video. I literally could not believe what I was seeing. If this had happened back when I was in uni, everyone involved would have been on the next bus home.
May 4, 2017
Read Warwick's review; since I teach Language and Taboo option this year, I bought a copy for the school library. I read the thing, taking copious notes (I don't follow British media that closely, and many things Fox covers - the book is very fresh - were new to me). I started talking about the book in the staff room on Monday; on Tuesday there already was a waiting list.
This April, my students, after three years of challenging and controlled education, are going away to study in the U.K. When I read them fragments from this book, to make them aware of what they might encounter, they stared at me, amazed. I intend to give a farewell speech on how actually getting pushed to achieve is a terrific educational privilege these days:/
This April, my students, after three years of challenging and controlled education, are going away to study in the U.K. When I read them fragments from this book, to make them aware of what they might encounter, they stared at me, amazed. I intend to give a farewell speech on how actually getting pushed to achieve is a terrific educational privilege these days:/
May 14, 2016
This is a superb assessment of where we are today. As someone who thought they knew just how perniciously undemocratic and intolerant the educational world in particular had become, I Find That Offensive managed to shock and disturb even me. The litany of offence-claiming examples Claire reels off in the first section of the book had me looking them up in disbelief. “Once victimhood becomes such a valued social commodity, it leads to a desperate search for it.”
The book is structured in three parts. The second identifies the causes of a deeply unpleasant contemporary cultural climate that finds offence everywhere, and like a child with its fingers in its ears, forbids all discussion. The third is in the form of a series of letters to the Generation Snowflake who have set themselves up as champions of injustice but who, as the author points out, “occupy an academy rotting from within.”
Anyone whose professional life involves them working with children or students, especially those who ardently believe they are doing good, should read this book and think critically about their role.
The book is structured in three parts. The second identifies the causes of a deeply unpleasant contemporary cultural climate that finds offence everywhere, and like a child with its fingers in its ears, forbids all discussion. The third is in the form of a series of letters to the Generation Snowflake who have set themselves up as champions of injustice but who, as the author points out, “occupy an academy rotting from within.”
Anyone whose professional life involves them working with children or students, especially those who ardently believe they are doing good, should read this book and think critically about their role.
November 7, 2017
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?
February 10, 2017
A survey of safe spaces, trigger warnings, and how the hypersensitivity of the "millennial" generation has silenced debate in many instances. 'I find that offensive!' raises many interesting suggestions as to how this current climate of suppressing divergent opinions came about but, even for a polemic, it's too one-sided and is too lenient on the trolls who are arguably weaponising free speech. Still, I found it's overarching message of believing in your opinions and asserting your right to speak quite inspiring.
February 16, 2018
Thought provoking. Much to agree with though I found her lacking some empathy and unfairly belittling of certain thinking, e.g self-esteem which Fox seems to find to be self-indulgent rather than a means of building the very resilience she encourages elsewhere.
May 8, 2017
When wading through the first chapter of I Find That Offensive!, I found myself agreeing to the observations, arguments and evidence presented regarding today's growing politically-correct, easily-offended and hypersensitive culture. C. Fox hones in her focus on Generation Snowflake and extreme activists known as SJWs (Social Justice Warriors) that claim victimhood and hypersensitivity to shut down any form of constructive engagement and debate.
C. Fox's clarity in expression is what makes this text one of the most refreshing, sober argument against the PC-loving, trigger-warning culture. Though her lightly-masked snide tone could sometimes be off-putting. However, unlike most articles that attacks Generation Snowflake, C. Fox argues with a level-head and treats her subjects with a degree of respect (and disappointment) - as well as refraining from generalizing a whole generation, acknowledging those who don't share these values. She spends the second chapter tracing the origins to the generation before who have smothered so much protection over their children, leading to what we're dealing with today.
This culture, as C. Fox rightfully points out, has seeped into academia, an area where critical discussions and debate on issues is a crucial aspect to the intellectual process. But even the academia has forgotten its true purpose. A recent example would be Rebecca Tuvel, who is now facing a witch-hunt for her theoretical paper published in a feminist-philosophy journal. These are very important discussions slowly being censored due to the offense-taking and hypersensitive culture. Out of all things, this I agree with C. Fox the most.
However, as I progressed towards the second-half of the book, I found myself disagreeing with several assertions. Namely about the effects of verbal assaults being disproportionate. Words can hurt, and do deal emotional damage. While SJWs and activists may have staked claim to several psychological terms, such as trauma to win points, C. Fox's dismissal of the impact verbal abuse (where properly identified) detracts a little from her otherwise valuable arguments. Her examples may apply to instances of the playground (which she does use) but not in situations of abusive relationships, and death threats. Impact and reactions are relative, but that does is not a reason for dismissal.
George Carlin has said some very insightful things about words and how political correctness masks the truth.
I Find That Offensive is a brief and ranty study into how today's culture of hypersensitivity and political-correctness could stifle and eventually censor free speech. How meaningful engagements, criticisms and dire debates could be shut down because we can't learn to listen to the other side, because anything can be an assault on one's personal sense of being. How the over-eagerness of SJWs to claiming victimhood does nothing to further the important and actual conversation of civil rights.
I may not agree with everything you say, C. Fox. But I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
C. Fox's clarity in expression is what makes this text one of the most refreshing, sober argument against the PC-loving, trigger-warning culture. Though her lightly-masked snide tone could sometimes be off-putting. However, unlike most articles that attacks Generation Snowflake, C. Fox argues with a level-head and treats her subjects with a degree of respect (and disappointment) - as well as refraining from generalizing a whole generation, acknowledging those who don't share these values. She spends the second chapter tracing the origins to the generation before who have smothered so much protection over their children, leading to what we're dealing with today.
This culture, as C. Fox rightfully points out, has seeped into academia, an area where critical discussions and debate on issues is a crucial aspect to the intellectual process. But even the academia has forgotten its true purpose. A recent example would be Rebecca Tuvel, who is now facing a witch-hunt for her theoretical paper published in a feminist-philosophy journal. These are very important discussions slowly being censored due to the offense-taking and hypersensitive culture. Out of all things, this I agree with C. Fox the most.
However, as I progressed towards the second-half of the book, I found myself disagreeing with several assertions. Namely about the effects of verbal assaults being disproportionate. Words can hurt, and do deal emotional damage. While SJWs and activists may have staked claim to several psychological terms, such as trauma to win points, C. Fox's dismissal of the impact verbal abuse (where properly identified) detracts a little from her otherwise valuable arguments. Her examples may apply to instances of the playground (which she does use) but not in situations of abusive relationships, and death threats. Impact and reactions are relative, but that does is not a reason for dismissal.
George Carlin has said some very insightful things about words and how political correctness masks the truth.
I Find That Offensive is a brief and ranty study into how today's culture of hypersensitivity and political-correctness could stifle and eventually censor free speech. How meaningful engagements, criticisms and dire debates could be shut down because we can't learn to listen to the other side, because anything can be an assault on one's personal sense of being. How the over-eagerness of SJWs to claiming victimhood does nothing to further the important and actual conversation of civil rights.
I may not agree with everything you say, C. Fox. But I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
March 31, 2023
This is more balanced than a sceptical free-speech-hating member of the mainstream left might imagine. It also doesn't pretend we have much to be positive about, because we don't.
If I was the sort of person who believed in identity politics and wanted everything to be a hate crime and I'd be a happy person, because that mentality is winning in Western society.
One thing this short book highlighted to me is that you cannot satirise the far-left any more. Quite simply anything can be racist now, and there's a mentality where people are desperately looking for ways to see racism where in reality there is none.
An interesting perspective I'd never thought about before is now the anti-free speech left is now co-opting the language of psychology. This has become a device to bypass the need to debate someone: just think of 'Islamaphobic', 'transphobic' and even 'whorephobic' for a start. It's like they're saying you're mentally ill so you don't need to have your arguments defeated with better one. These words come up all the time now: there's no need to explain to Paul Nuttall what's wrong with his policies -- just call them Islamophobic and you win the argument.
Another perspective that was really brought home is just the cult of being weak and pathetic. Basically, people are trying to outdo each other in being evermore sensitive, weak and pathetic. Why not be offended by something when instead you could pretend to be really offended? If in doubt, always be offended.
People seem to want to present themselves as under attack even when they're not, so they can achieve victim status. Think of the 2017 Women's Marches in the US and UK. Just because Trump made a joke on a bus in 2005, that must mean he hates women and wants to turn them into second class citizens. So then a bunch of some of the most comfortable, privileged, white, middle-class women who've ever walked the earth went on a march to pretend they were under threat in some way.
To sum up, there is little appetite for basic human freedoms among millenials and therefore the West and probably humanity at large is totally fucked. Soon, the level of personal freedom in the West will be so non-existent we may as well have surrendered to Adolf Hitler in the Battle of Britain in 1940.
If I was the sort of person who believed in identity politics and wanted everything to be a hate crime and I'd be a happy person, because that mentality is winning in Western society.
One thing this short book highlighted to me is that you cannot satirise the far-left any more. Quite simply anything can be racist now, and there's a mentality where people are desperately looking for ways to see racism where in reality there is none.
An interesting perspective I'd never thought about before is now the anti-free speech left is now co-opting the language of psychology. This has become a device to bypass the need to debate someone: just think of 'Islamaphobic', 'transphobic' and even 'whorephobic' for a start. It's like they're saying you're mentally ill so you don't need to have your arguments defeated with better one. These words come up all the time now: there's no need to explain to Paul Nuttall what's wrong with his policies -- just call them Islamophobic and you win the argument.
Another perspective that was really brought home is just the cult of being weak and pathetic. Basically, people are trying to outdo each other in being evermore sensitive, weak and pathetic. Why not be offended by something when instead you could pretend to be really offended? If in doubt, always be offended.
People seem to want to present themselves as under attack even when they're not, so they can achieve victim status. Think of the 2017 Women's Marches in the US and UK. Just because Trump made a joke on a bus in 2005, that must mean he hates women and wants to turn them into second class citizens. So then a bunch of some of the most comfortable, privileged, white, middle-class women who've ever walked the earth went on a march to pretend they were under threat in some way.
To sum up, there is little appetite for basic human freedoms among millenials and therefore the West and probably humanity at large is totally fucked. Soon, the level of personal freedom in the West will be so non-existent we may as well have surrendered to Adolf Hitler in the Battle of Britain in 1940.
March 14, 2017
I bought the book direct from the publisher, delivery to be by first class post. A week or so later there was no sign of it so I pointed out to the publisher that I could have saved a third of the price by buying it from Amazon and got it quicker. The book quickly arrived, with another one free. It was then I noticed that the author was Claire Fox. Oh, surely not that hideous woman from the Moral Maze on the wireless? The very same. For those who have not heard of the Moral Maze it is a programme led by a chairman, where 4 regular guests, usually employed by quangos or failed politicians discuss moral issues with invited guests. The show boils down to 4 over-inflated egos trying to out-shout each other to prove how clever they are. I didn't have much hope for this book.
I come across plenty of snowflakes from day to day, online, offline, the buggers must seek me out, but perhaps it's because I am so outspoken. People blocking the pavement? "Squeeze through that small gap next to the fat woman" I tell my partner. The fat woman is usually motivated to move more quickly than usual, and may spend the rest of the day thinking about whether she needed all those pies, so I get to pass along unimpeded, and she gets a free weight assessment. Everyone's a winner. Or there are the poor teachers who have to make sure every child gets a prize, so that talentless waste of space at the back gets a prize for sitting nicely. It was all different in my day of course. Scraped knees and bumps on our heads from falling off bikes on concrete surfaces was a way of life, and you learnt from them. These days, Generation Snowflake sit indoors playing their games machines and working out how they can increase their victim status.
The dreadful Claire Fox covers all of this perfectly, and surprisingly women don't come out of it very well. Feminists and students are busy making fools of themselves, and our kids are growing into thin-skinned individuals who wouldn't know resilience if it was wrapped in a kipper and they were whacked with it, obviously lightly on a soft play surface, with a safe place and a therapist nearby.
I come across plenty of snowflakes from day to day, online, offline, the buggers must seek me out, but perhaps it's because I am so outspoken. People blocking the pavement? "Squeeze through that small gap next to the fat woman" I tell my partner. The fat woman is usually motivated to move more quickly than usual, and may spend the rest of the day thinking about whether she needed all those pies, so I get to pass along unimpeded, and she gets a free weight assessment. Everyone's a winner. Or there are the poor teachers who have to make sure every child gets a prize, so that talentless waste of space at the back gets a prize for sitting nicely. It was all different in my day of course. Scraped knees and bumps on our heads from falling off bikes on concrete surfaces was a way of life, and you learnt from them. These days, Generation Snowflake sit indoors playing their games machines and working out how they can increase their victim status.
The dreadful Claire Fox covers all of this perfectly, and surprisingly women don't come out of it very well. Feminists and students are busy making fools of themselves, and our kids are growing into thin-skinned individuals who wouldn't know resilience if it was wrapped in a kipper and they were whacked with it, obviously lightly on a soft play surface, with a safe place and a therapist nearby.
December 17, 2021
claire fox can say all she wants how people are soooo offended nowadays but she wrote a whole book about how offended she is at not using slurs or whatever, i dont fucking care why shes offended. its so petty and stupid and shes genuinely a terrible writer. just a joke claire!
edit: i have a feeling this book caused a bit of a polemic on here which is why goodreads is so adamant about not displaying my review on my profile. honestly my first write up of this review was incredibly aggressive because i think entitlement and arrogance are two of the most vile personality traits to possess. claire fox literally wrote a book called 'in praise of elitism'. she embodies entitlement to other peoples lives despite calling herself a libertarian. no one can tell her what to say but she can tell everyone how to feel and when to feel it because she believes she has the right to police the neurological processes that make you human. it is self righteous and arrogant written with some of the most childish arguments ive ever read that essentially boil down to 'you cant make me care about other people because thats authoritarian.' do you even have friends like jesus christ
i was determined not to let this book get under my skin because i fully chose to read it knowing id hate it but the nonsense GR is putting me through is honestly outrageous lol. lemme get this straight: authors can get their terrible opinions platformed on amazon sites but i cant tell them how much they fucking suck? isnt that the point of a book review site? isnt that the point of this so often exalted unlimited free speech people like fox demand we all have at all times? mocking the dead at a funeral should be acceptable because what if i WANT to do it. your emotions make me sad, and we all know i am the god of this universe. i can really go on all day but i think rn im just angrier at goodreads for basically refusing to let me yell at a british politician via an angry book review.
edit: i have a feeling this book caused a bit of a polemic on here which is why goodreads is so adamant about not displaying my review on my profile. honestly my first write up of this review was incredibly aggressive because i think entitlement and arrogance are two of the most vile personality traits to possess. claire fox literally wrote a book called 'in praise of elitism'. she embodies entitlement to other peoples lives despite calling herself a libertarian. no one can tell her what to say but she can tell everyone how to feel and when to feel it because she believes she has the right to police the neurological processes that make you human. it is self righteous and arrogant written with some of the most childish arguments ive ever read that essentially boil down to 'you cant make me care about other people because thats authoritarian.' do you even have friends like jesus christ
i was determined not to let this book get under my skin because i fully chose to read it knowing id hate it but the nonsense GR is putting me through is honestly outrageous lol. lemme get this straight: authors can get their terrible opinions platformed on amazon sites but i cant tell them how much they fucking suck? isnt that the point of a book review site? isnt that the point of this so often exalted unlimited free speech people like fox demand we all have at all times? mocking the dead at a funeral should be acceptable because what if i WANT to do it. your emotions make me sad, and we all know i am the god of this universe. i can really go on all day but i think rn im just angrier at goodreads for basically refusing to let me yell at a british politician via an angry book review.
November 2, 2016
This book is an attack on the politically-correct, offence-taking culture that has permeated parts of the western world in recent times, especially among the young. Much of the author's observations are correct on these ideas. Fox writes that people, particularly the young, have become increasingly intolerant of those who hold a different opinion, especially if it deviates from their arbitrarily constructed liberal ideology. Folks strongly adhere to certain beliefs, apparently believing themselves to be angels against the forces of darkness, when much of what they think is random and much of what they do/say is about in-group signalling rather than a commitment to noble principles. Much of this should be clear, but the author is here to point it out to us. The author describes how it's largely the fault of the older generation who cultivated this atmosphere which enabled the creation of 'generation snowflake'. All this makes the presence of Donald Trump all the more shocking. The author did miss the hugely contradictory and hypocritical beliefs/actions among those she's attacking: all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. I think the concept of moral cleansing can explain some of what we observe; folks do something that brings moral brownie points which in turn allows them to attack others without any sense of dissonance.
February 19, 2017
What Fox is essentially arguing is that we have collectively lowered our standards for what constitutes offence, whether it be in the form of sexism, racism, religious discrimination, and bullying generally, as well as what constitutes mental illness and abuse.
This ubiquitous standard-lowering is, as Fox argues, responsible for the over-sensitiveness of the millennial generation: we have convinced ourselves that any minor challenge constitutes some fundamental injustice caused to our person.
It thus becomes easy to explain away the hardships of life by transferring blame onto abstract entities, namely 'the establishment' or 'the patriarchy.' We shrink away from responsibility while at the same time thinking ourselves entitled to be even more fulfilled than our predecessors. In all, we are oxymoronic; but particularly moronic.
Overall, I Find That Offensive! is an effective critique of the 'Snowflake Generation,' one that we all ought to read in order to understand the perils of the PC world, and learn how to combat them.
This ubiquitous standard-lowering is, as Fox argues, responsible for the over-sensitiveness of the millennial generation: we have convinced ourselves that any minor challenge constitutes some fundamental injustice caused to our person.
It thus becomes easy to explain away the hardships of life by transferring blame onto abstract entities, namely 'the establishment' or 'the patriarchy.' We shrink away from responsibility while at the same time thinking ourselves entitled to be even more fulfilled than our predecessors. In all, we are oxymoronic; but particularly moronic.
Overall, I Find That Offensive! is an effective critique of the 'Snowflake Generation,' one that we all ought to read in order to understand the perils of the PC world, and learn how to combat them.
November 26, 2016
"Snowflakes": the millenniums as constantly protesting everything that threatens "safe space" and makes them "feel" uncomfortable.
Having taught and making serious demands on students, I have had more than one serious upset about news of what's going on in higher education, whether the elimination of [John C.] Calhoun College (Yale), Woodrow Wilson School (Princeton), etc., etc.
"To recap, we--adult society--have scared the young by 'catstrophising' an endless list of existential fears, made them over-anxious about their own bodies and abuse from adults and peers, have elided abusive words with physical violence, medicalised the perfectly natural upsets of growing up, and knee-jerk assumption that they need to be protected in order to be safe. At the same time, we have shielded them from criticism, suspended our critical judgement to massage their self-esteem, privileged and fawned over their student voice (at the expense of our only adult authority), and adapted education around their desires and interests.
"We have . . . created our own over-anxious but entitled, censorious thin-skinned Frankenstein monster: Generation Snowflake" (pp. 143-44).
Amen.
Having taught and making serious demands on students, I have had more than one serious upset about news of what's going on in higher education, whether the elimination of [John C.] Calhoun College (Yale), Woodrow Wilson School (Princeton), etc., etc.
"To recap, we--adult society--have scared the young by 'catstrophising' an endless list of existential fears, made them over-anxious about their own bodies and abuse from adults and peers, have elided abusive words with physical violence, medicalised the perfectly natural upsets of growing up, and knee-jerk assumption that they need to be protected in order to be safe. At the same time, we have shielded them from criticism, suspended our critical judgement to massage their self-esteem, privileged and fawned over their student voice (at the expense of our only adult authority), and adapted education around their desires and interests.
"We have . . . created our own over-anxious but entitled, censorious thin-skinned Frankenstein monster: Generation Snowflake" (pp. 143-44).
Amen.
November 24, 2017
Can we still learn if we can not have a ‘healthy debate’? Can we still teach if we have to exclude topics like sexual-abuse or rape-law from our law degrees, and historic works from out literary courses, because it might "trigger" emotions. Can we still keep a professional, academic distance when undergrads want to feel ‘homely’ on campus?
How to deal with our new creature, “the over-anxious but arrogant, easily-offended but entitled, censoriously thin-skinned Frankenstein monsters: Generations Snowflake?”
Fox writes about her concerns with this new generation. What happened with our free speech? And how did we become a ‘walking on eggs society’….
I am not always sharing Fox's political views and this book is sometimes a bit of a rant (especially the end of part II), but it is a good read and very well written.
How to deal with our new creature, “the over-anxious but arrogant, easily-offended but entitled, censoriously thin-skinned Frankenstein monsters: Generations Snowflake?”
Fox writes about her concerns with this new generation. What happened with our free speech? And how did we become a ‘walking on eggs society’….
I am not always sharing Fox's political views and this book is sometimes a bit of a rant (especially the end of part II), but it is a good read and very well written.
December 17, 2017
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.
August 7, 2017
useful
can be applied to other issues than gender. change chapter3 headers to several other causes e.g. political issues such as nationalism and curb tit for tat vulgar abuse. Restores civilised debate. Got me thinking .Sorry Snowflakes, I won't write anything nasty here but your lack of historical perspective says much about your intellectual capacity. Well done Claire Fox for some spirited reasoning.
can be applied to other issues than gender. change chapter3 headers to several other causes e.g. political issues such as nationalism and curb tit for tat vulgar abuse. Restores civilised debate. Got me thinking .Sorry Snowflakes, I won't write anything nasty here but your lack of historical perspective says much about your intellectual capacity. Well done Claire Fox for some spirited reasoning.
March 8, 2020
A brilliant work on how we need to stop using "victimhood" capital as a means to silence anyone who disagrees with any of our opinions. She wants us to stop using the phrase "I find that offensive" as a way to avoid desperately needed conversations and to generally just grow a backbone. Brilliantly written, very-well argued, so-called "generation snowflake" and "anti-snowflake" people can both learn a lot from this book.
December 19, 2019
For someone who argues against a culture of complaining and misrepresentation, the author sure does complain and misrepresent a lot. She deals with a tendency rooted in small groups but treats it as an analysis of a generation. More than anything, the book comes off as suggesting that the author finds the youth offensive.
July 17, 2016
I certainly don't agree with everything Fox says (and a lot of it I outright disagree with), but the discussion around censorship and social media is a very rich topic to be mined. (Snowflakes feel free to disagree.)
September 4, 2016
Although it was presented as primarily a UK endeavor, it was worth reading as an American facing the same situation with different players, different names, same game and same "rules." Time for the snowflakes to do their ultimate meltdown and become useful and productive members of society.
January 1, 2017
A concise exploration of the problem of millenial infantilisation which begins entertainingly with stories of their excesses and warped values before describing why their behaviour is the fault of their parents and teachers, and what we can do to fix it.
November 21, 2017
Rabidly reactionary, not just without adding anything to the subject, but going out of its way to offend. Rabid reactionaries will enjoy it, mild reactionaries might just about enjoy some of it, everybody else will find it a waste of time. At least I did
September 12, 2019
Brief book from across the pond about the modern day world in which so many take offense at seemingly everything. I’ll end my comments on this subject here, as it’s probably best to share them only with close friends, family and, of course, the pets.
August 14, 2017
A worrying look at the future
This an interesting short book concerning the recent threats to freedom of speech in academia and in the wider world.
This an interesting short book concerning the recent threats to freedom of speech in academia and in the wider world.
April 24, 2017
This book is a kind of reasoned polemic against what might be called one of the sensitivities of our time. It might seem contradictory to call something both "reasoned" and a "polemic" but it's the best label I can attach to an interesting book about a significant current issue – various people taking offence as well as others giving it, which might be called identity politics. Almost in tandem is the labelling of the current younger generation as "Snowflake" implying a kind of fragility and infantilism.
Neither of these related issues is simply a black and white choice, which is where Fox, for all her impressive erudition appears to be the majority of the time. Personally, i found this quite challenging when reading about an event where I thought some sensitivity was necessarily involved, but was presented with some pretty good logic, or the complex (to me) issue of the Charlie Hebdo killings, obviously unacceptable, but with the background feeling that its output was pretty juvenile as far as satire went, which was more or less the position of the London Review of Books at the time. So here there are two different issues, and possibly several others.
Last night I watched on the news a discussion between some ordinary Americans in which it was depicted as being founded on slavery by one person, for which there is much historical evidence, and by another as founded on freedom, for which there is other evidence. It as no accident that a black person presented the former and a white person the latter. I have my own view on this matter which isn't completely one way or the other. Here in Australia, as well as in the US, there can be a suggestion that the aggrieved party should just "get over it" a view analogous to expecting migrants to just fit in to whatever culture obtains in the new land, an expectation met or unmet according to shifting criteria.
Fox addresses this issue in a way by discussing recent attempts to have a statue of the noted imperialist Cecil Rhodes removed from public view at a university, because of his obvious racism. I personally find this problematic, partly because it takes something about the reality of the past out of public view, however unpleasant it might seem today. The author points to a related but greater problem, in my view, of universities adapting or jettisoning programs according to various sensitivities regarding topics of study that might alarm or stress some individuals, somewhat like having censorship guidelines or ratings. She considers that universities are there to challenge students, not accommodate their views, and points to a growing tendency for these institutions to respond to students demands, even in the notion of having campuses as safe places, much as, presumably, their home life would be. There are subtle distinctions here between what safety might mean, hence the fragility of the "Snowflake" label, somewhat paradoxically accompanied by the hurling of abuse at university staff and so on.
Who's to blame? Well, Fox puts the boot into the previous generation for various parenting practices, including "helicopter" activities. I'm not a parent, but I've seen this in action in various forms over the last 35 years or more, along with the straight-out abuse which seems perennial. This travels alongside the obvious problem of these children having to meet standards they're unlikely to meet, high grades, "you can be anything you want to be, if you work hard and have the passion" and other misleading statements.
This can be compulsive. Last Friday, a High School student had a letter published in the Age newspaper here, complaining about the somewhat depressing content of the books they had to read. Whatever the student meant, and there could be a number of things, to me it was at least a comment on the choice of material, as this has been a contentious issue for several decades regarding the kind of social realism in the prescribed texts. So it can be a question of over-representation of genre.
A letter today, from a female respondent, essentially said to the student that their parents and family will care for them and love them and so on, which to my mind was not necessarily relevant to the student's issue, or to the overall issue of reading and learning.
Another aspect raised by Fox is that public authorities are also in the business of over-protection. I think a lot of this has to do with risk management practices, which can tend to have a lack of nuance. Local councils and the like, in my lifetime authoritarian by nature, may simply be using a different method of laying down rules, not knowing what to say and resorting to the regulation of feelings and impressions without adequate thinking, perhaps no thinking at all.
Claire Fox is blunt and confronting and thinks people should tough it out more, or at least work though emotions to some kind of rational thinking. Some of what she said made me uncomfortable, and less certain of my earlier positions, and at times I thought that she might have needed more nuance. That isn't the aim of the book. Having said that, it's an intelligent read and it made me think, and I can't ask for much more than that.
Neither of these related issues is simply a black and white choice, which is where Fox, for all her impressive erudition appears to be the majority of the time. Personally, i found this quite challenging when reading about an event where I thought some sensitivity was necessarily involved, but was presented with some pretty good logic, or the complex (to me) issue of the Charlie Hebdo killings, obviously unacceptable, but with the background feeling that its output was pretty juvenile as far as satire went, which was more or less the position of the London Review of Books at the time. So here there are two different issues, and possibly several others.
Last night I watched on the news a discussion between some ordinary Americans in which it was depicted as being founded on slavery by one person, for which there is much historical evidence, and by another as founded on freedom, for which there is other evidence. It as no accident that a black person presented the former and a white person the latter. I have my own view on this matter which isn't completely one way or the other. Here in Australia, as well as in the US, there can be a suggestion that the aggrieved party should just "get over it" a view analogous to expecting migrants to just fit in to whatever culture obtains in the new land, an expectation met or unmet according to shifting criteria.
Fox addresses this issue in a way by discussing recent attempts to have a statue of the noted imperialist Cecil Rhodes removed from public view at a university, because of his obvious racism. I personally find this problematic, partly because it takes something about the reality of the past out of public view, however unpleasant it might seem today. The author points to a related but greater problem, in my view, of universities adapting or jettisoning programs according to various sensitivities regarding topics of study that might alarm or stress some individuals, somewhat like having censorship guidelines or ratings. She considers that universities are there to challenge students, not accommodate their views, and points to a growing tendency for these institutions to respond to students demands, even in the notion of having campuses as safe places, much as, presumably, their home life would be. There are subtle distinctions here between what safety might mean, hence the fragility of the "Snowflake" label, somewhat paradoxically accompanied by the hurling of abuse at university staff and so on.
Who's to blame? Well, Fox puts the boot into the previous generation for various parenting practices, including "helicopter" activities. I'm not a parent, but I've seen this in action in various forms over the last 35 years or more, along with the straight-out abuse which seems perennial. This travels alongside the obvious problem of these children having to meet standards they're unlikely to meet, high grades, "you can be anything you want to be, if you work hard and have the passion" and other misleading statements.
This can be compulsive. Last Friday, a High School student had a letter published in the Age newspaper here, complaining about the somewhat depressing content of the books they had to read. Whatever the student meant, and there could be a number of things, to me it was at least a comment on the choice of material, as this has been a contentious issue for several decades regarding the kind of social realism in the prescribed texts. So it can be a question of over-representation of genre.
A letter today, from a female respondent, essentially said to the student that their parents and family will care for them and love them and so on, which to my mind was not necessarily relevant to the student's issue, or to the overall issue of reading and learning.
Another aspect raised by Fox is that public authorities are also in the business of over-protection. I think a lot of this has to do with risk management practices, which can tend to have a lack of nuance. Local councils and the like, in my lifetime authoritarian by nature, may simply be using a different method of laying down rules, not knowing what to say and resorting to the regulation of feelings and impressions without adequate thinking, perhaps no thinking at all.
Claire Fox is blunt and confronting and thinks people should tough it out more, or at least work though emotions to some kind of rational thinking. Some of what she said made me uncomfortable, and less certain of my earlier positions, and at times I thought that she might have needed more nuance. That isn't the aim of the book. Having said that, it's an intelligent read and it made me think, and I can't ask for much more than that.
February 15, 2020
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!
April 14, 2025
An excellent and timely small book which tries to explain and understand why so many young adults find the real world such a frightening and threatening place these days. Mostly it is because they have been so insulated by over-protective parents, teachers and an increasingly nannying-state whilst at the same time they have been led to believe by those same mentors that they are truly special and precious and that the universe revolves around them. Which of course it might whilst they are still children at home and at school. But there comes a time when they have to face up and grow up and make their way ... and that's when reality bites ... and they don't like it.
As Ms Fox very succinctly and clearly steps through all the elements and agencies that are involved an at times depressing picture emerges ... whilst some of the examples she provides are truly risible and would surely have beggared belief 20 or 30 years ago they are still scary to me as an indicator of what our society has done to some in a generation that is part of our future. There will I am sure come a tipping point before too long at which common sense will reassert itself.
This is an updated edition of a book that first appeared in 2016 I think and I am sorry I missed it first time around. It is a thought provoking read but one with an ultimately hopeful message ... if only it were, as the flash across the front of my cover says, a book that 'at the beginning of each new academic year every fresher, indeed every student, should [or rather, would] read.'
As Ms Fox very succinctly and clearly steps through all the elements and agencies that are involved an at times depressing picture emerges ... whilst some of the examples she provides are truly risible and would surely have beggared belief 20 or 30 years ago they are still scary to me as an indicator of what our society has done to some in a generation that is part of our future. There will I am sure come a tipping point before too long at which common sense will reassert itself.
This is an updated edition of a book that first appeared in 2016 I think and I am sorry I missed it first time around. It is a thought provoking read but one with an ultimately hopeful message ... if only it were, as the flash across the front of my cover says, a book that 'at the beginning of each new academic year every fresher, indeed every student, should [or rather, would] read.'
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews