Monica 's Reviews > The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure

❤️

Tracy wrote: "❤️"

Every time I think about these jerks and their messige I see red.

Gene wrote: "1) "Should we allow our feelings to take the lead, absolutely not."
2) "Every time I think about these jerks and their messige I see red.""

Lisa wrote: "The whole point is that much of what's now described as racist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic, really isn't. This is concept creep. That's why so many left-wing people are being cancelled. You ..."


Oh, look, trolls slithering into what is quite clearly a negative review to cherry-pick portions of my comments on a book I hated(you didn't catch me out the way you imagine. Do better with the next negative reviewer) and to privilege-splain bigotry and the apologia thereof!

So we’re clear, none but those in the marginalized groups under attack get to determine what constitutes hate-speech.

Secondly, if you disagree that I, a disabled black woman, am a human being who should be afforded human rights. The conversation is over before it begins.

If you believe that my ethnicity, sex and physical ability should preclude me from being given equal access to all opportunities for happiness and prosperity, the conversation is over before it begins.

If you believe that heterosexual, CIS gendered and American born whites are inherently superior to all other subjectivities, the conversation is over.

If you believe that we are living in a post-racist America wherein systemic racism is a “get-out-of-bootstrapping free” card for those who lack your privilege, there is no common ground.

You believe bigots should be admitted to the marketplace of ideas and that , for example, a white supremacist should be allowed to use class time to force marginalized people to defend/justify their existance/culture/viewpoints. I do not. What else is there to discuss?

In keeping with my tradition of barring bigots and bigotry apologia from my particular corner of said marketplace, welcome to my blocked list.

I love that you included the link to Scalzi’s blog! Perfect responses.

Nataliya wrote: "I love that you included the link to Scalzi’s blog! Perfect responses."

LOL!

I just thought I’d save us all some time.

Before I fumigated, I had one try to level an accusation of hypocrisy via a decontextualized sentence from the review and a seemingly contradictory reply to a comment.

The other was your garden variety, humiliatingly uninspired “my subjective experience of the text is the correct one because I agree with the authors” wall-o-text, complete with regurgitated Fox News buzz words, shaky right wing narratives, received phrases and political neologisms/talking points.

If folks want to politely clarify something they feel I’ve misunderstood or for me to expound on a critique, we’re good to go.

Folks who want to projectile vomit their sociopolitical pet-peeves all over my review will get the electrified fist and, that won’t be nearly as pleasant as what Scalzi recommends.

Marcus wrote: "At the risk of being blocked etc etc, which hopefully you won’t do, I’m not trolling you, I don’t think Haidt would disagree with most of what you said. College kids shouldn’t be subjected to verba..."
Hi, Marcus,

Your reply comes under the heading of polite disagreement; I only block and delete trolls.

While I can appreciate your interpretation of Haidt’s thesis, that was not the message I received.

I’d agree if we were just talking about the intellectual and social knocks (these are essential for producing well-rounded and rhetorically sophisticated students at all levels) from which echo-chambers protect us.

However, Hate is launching an all too common complaint about the increasingly hostile environment that bigots are facing as they try to mobilize college students in America’s culture war.

I read it as yet one more version of the “fine people on both sides” argument, one that tries in places to present as fact the justifications that the terrified, privileged, tribalistic and statis anxious use to legitimize their repugnant ideas about marginalized groups.

My question to you is, how do you define “challenging ideas”?

Are we talking classroom debates about Intelligent design?

Are we talking about “teaching the controversy” RE: creationism?

Is this about putting a God, one in which all students may not believe, “back into the schools”

Do we owe it to “socially awkward,” “hypermasculine” men with “mommy issues” to submit for students’ approval “red dress” rape and sexual harassment apologia as victims of sexual violence either leave or cry silently in the back of the room?

Are we simply talking robust debates on the validity of biological essentialism as a “natural” barrier between women and male dominated fields” or privileging the "women belong at home or in soft fields" argument?

More specifically, are we now supposed to substitute the “sexist hiring practices are repugnant and harmful” message for the idea that “employers have a duty to protect their business from *unqualified* employees and to protect the traditional American family from selfish career women whose natural inferiority is a liability in the field”

Is hate arguing for the liberation of disagreement from the prison of political correctness or for the admission of MRAs, PUAS, Honey Badgers, GamerGaters, Incels, Klan members and fundamentalist, rape victim blaming anti-abortionists to the clubhouse for ideas worth considering?

The problem is that, for me, Hate’s argument doesn’t go far enough to distinguish itself from those of the Rush Limbaughs, Ann Coulters and VoxDays of the bunch.

The best I can say is that, rather than making their arguments outright, he’s advocating for their right to win hearts and minds.

I’d hoped he’d aim his critiques at the “fine people on both sides”; what he actually does is complain about the snubbing of privilege protecting factions among the “soldier” pools.

As is demonstrated by America's current sociopolitical climate, many, many CIS gendered Straight white males are scared to death of obsolescence and want to rest control of certain institutions from the "undesirables"; this includes academic discourse communities.

I think that, for the privilege protectors, it’s less about coexistence and more about dominance and, if we’re talking dominance, I stand firmly on the side of the “godless,” “ball-busting,” “n** loving,” “bleeding heart SJWs.”

Something tells me that if the "controversial," "snubbed perspectives" were the dominant ideology on college campuses, we'd be talking about an entirely different book, one warning of the encroachment of "dangerous"feminist, sex positive and antiracist ideas.

Maybe that’s just my cynicism talking. 😊

Marcus wrote: "Thanks for your reply. I didn't read it as him wanting to protect privilege, or any other ideology, or that he's anywhere near Limbaugh/Coulter, etc. Was there somewhere specific in the book that y..."

My position is that Haidt’s thesis is not especially unique when read in a wider context. In fact, it echoes some of the same sentiments issuing from right wing corners about the explosion of political correctness on college campuses.

I read Haidt’s book as an urgent plea for the protection of young, impressionable and politically valuable hearts and minds from the kind of “concept creep” that endangers the privilege protecting status quo.


I also find the position that marginalized groups need to be exposed to bigotry for their own good to be tone deaf and beneath contempt.



I read him against the backdrop of impassioned and embittered defenses of controversial right-wing spokespeople like Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann coulter (for the record, the protesters who allegedly restricted the movements of people wanting to hear Coulter speak are problematic) who believe that objectively terrible ideas deserve a place at the table.

As for textual evidence, let’s start with this:

“The notion that a university should protect all of its students from ideas that some of them find offensive is a repudiation of the legacy of Socrates, who described himself as the “gadfly” of the Athenian people. He thought it was his job to sting, to disturb, to question, and thereby to provoke his fellow Athenians to think through their current beliefs, and change the ones they could not defend”

Who are Ann Coulter, Vox Day or Yiannopolos if not the “[gadflies]” of sociopolitical discourse?

Also, implicit in this passage are several things, the first among them being the notion that those offended by problematic things are in the minority.

It’s the classic “the lurkers support me in email” argument.

And personally, I think there is a special place in hell for the “tolerate my intolerance or you’re a freedom hating hypocrite” argument, especially when we’re trying to equate anti-racist speakers with white nationalist speakers/rape-apologists with feminist speakers. Any equivalence between these groups is false on its face and, more importantly, very bigoted. I also have to wonder about Haidt’s intended audience, because marginalized groups’ lives have and continue to suffer from “gadfly” infestations.

There’s also this:

“A culture that allows the concept of “safety” to creep so far that it equates emotional discomfort with physical danger is a culture that encourages people to systematically protect one another from the very experiences embedded in daily life that they need in order to become strong and healthy.”

But who, exactly, is being protected, and why?

He can’t possibly be talking about the non-white, disabled, LGBTQIA or female “victims” of a “protective” culture, as none such exists for them.


There’s this as well:
““From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly, so that you will come to know the value of justice. I hope that you will suffer betrayal because that will teach you the importance of loyalty. Sorry to say, but I hope you will be lonely from time to time so that you don’t take friends for granted. I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either. And when you lose, as you will from time to time, I hope every now and then, your opponent will gloat over your failure. It is a way for you to understand the importance of sportsmanship. I hope you’ll be ignored so you know the importance of listening to others, and I hope you will have just enough pain to learn compassion. Whether I wish these things or not, they’re going to happen. And whether you benefit from them or not will depend upon your ability to see the message in your misfortunes.”

Hahahahahaha! Because people of marginalized groups haven’t experienced any of this by the time they get to college, Haidt prescribes a collegial supplement to the 24/7 stuff they can’t escape.

At first glance, the above reads as a pretty evenhanded piece of advice to children from all walks of life.

But again, I ask, who, exactly, is his audience?

Most children from disadvantaged backgrounds and marginalized groups will have learned this before their fifth-grade culmination.

And can you really not understand why the following sentiment would be disgusting for non-cis gendered SWMs?

“teaching kids that failures, insults, and painful experiences will do lasting damage is harmful in and of itself. Human beings need physical and mental challenges and stressors or we deteriorate.”

I also disagree that we live in a post (insert problematic belief system here) era; one need only look to the white house and the portion of the electorate to whom its current occupant owes his power (we’ll leave the foreign interference discussion out of this) to see why. Tens of millions of people and the electoral college cast their votes for someone who pandered to holders of those very belief systems.

The results have been deadly, disproportionately so.

Lastly, I’m not so much the overly-emotional (I’ve seen “passionate” aimed at women and POC far too many times not to recognize the meaning here) girl-activist as I am a member of several marginalized groups that have and continue to be targeted and eliminated.

Books like this try to gain popularity for and grant legitimacy to ideas that directly endanger me and mine.

They endanger anyone who happens not to be an able-bodied, straight, white, CIS gendered male.

The El Paso shooters, Dylann Roofs and Kyle Rittenhouses are not outliers. The best you can claim is that those likely to commit news-worthy hate crimes are in the minority.

Even then, you couldn’t claim that marginalized groups are safer in America than they ever were.

Given that fact, why should any institution of higher learning allow white supremacists to influence or legitimate the ideas held by other current or potential Kyle Rittenhouses?

Also, your implication that my reception of Haidt’s ideas is rooted primarily in a racially motivated ad hominem attack is…interesting.

You have no way of knowing this, but I am just as critical of Candace Owens, Larry Elder, Tim Scot, Marco Rubio, and all other white supremacists of color.

The “you’re the real bigot” trope doesn’t really work here.

More to the point, I do believe that Haidt is speaking from a place of privilege, as are many of his defenders.

Finally, I do agree with the following:
“This is an essential part of our story. Americans now bear such animosity toward one another that it’s almost as if many are holding up signs saying, `Please tell me something horrible about the other side, I’ll believe anything!’ Americans are now easily exploitable, and a large network of profit-driven media sites, political entrepreneurs, and foreign intelligence agencies are taking advantage of this vulnerability.”

It just so happens that only one side happens to have the facts(we need only review the other side's own words and deeds)and stand on the right side of history at the moment. The other has been successfully coopted by objectively terrible people holding objectively terrible positions and doing objectively terrible things.

To be clear, I am all for holding class discussions of controversial issues. I’m even for canonizing via course syllabi extremely problematic texts for discussion and analysis.
I think content/trigger warnings should be a courtesy, not a requirement and that students likely to be triggered have a responsibility to review the course syllabus and schedule and speak with the instructor ahead of time.
They may need to either drop the course or try to work out an alternative assignment.

I draw the line at legitimizing Nazism, misogyny and other dangerous ideologies as a nod to “freedom.”

I also think it interesting that Haidt’s criticisms are decidedly right-friendly, going all the way back to his 2012 appeal to left-leaning people to play nice with conservatives.

Again, I suspect that had the ideology of the “dominant” been dominant on college campuses, we’d be reading an entirely different book.

Marcus wrote: "Hey Monica, thanks again for your reply. I think see what you mean, and largely agree with the spirt of your reply. Your primary concern seems to be that there are a lot of people who already suffe..."

This is my very, very lengthy and probably final reply, as I doubt very seriously that you and I are going to totally agree.

That said, this has to be one of the more civil discussions I’ve had with an opponent in quite some time. 😊 My interpretation of your complement might be a case of “hurt foot once more stepped on” than it is an outright accusation of racism or sexism.

I’ve seen women and minorities meet the business end of that kind of attack in enough discussions with sociopolitical opponents that “passionate” most definitely reads as a dogwistle, a cousin of the tone argument designed to impeach the credibility of marginalized folks on the grounds that they are “being hysterical” or “overly emotional.”

I am glad to know that this may not have been your intention.

I disagree that I am mounting a straw man argument because, as Haidt has implied in his previous interviews and writings, he appears to be an advocate for the admission of problematic and dangerous beliefs to the clubhouse for ideas worth considering.

TCOTAM read as more of the same, though I get that you read this text differently than I did.


More importantly, his prescription for “fragility” only escapes bigotry if it speaks honestly about who, exactly, his intended audience happens to be.

If he’s arguing that for their own good, marginalized groups need to experience more of what they already do, that’s problematic, especially if he isn’t specific enough about the contents of the syringe or the gage and length of the needle.

That argument would harm all but those students who enjoy automatic and unearned privilege and power

Class or campus screenings of Mississippi Burning, Schindler’s list or American History X are one thing.

An educator allowing a classmate to present serious arguments for segregation and/or eugenics is something else, entirely.

With the latter, what do disabled or non-white classmates learn, other than the kid with the Pokémon backpack is a bigot who thinks people like them should be controlled or prevented from birth?

To continue, if Haidt is prescribing an inoculation against general fragility and under preparedness for society, the argument is less problematic.

I am a staunch advocate for allowing children from all walks of life to explore horror, violent videogames, dangerous sports,” controversial” reading material (even that with which I disagree) and anything else that sends moral panicking pearl clutchers into apoplexy.

I think the “everyone gets a trophy” philosophy is harmful to slackers and achievers alike.

On a side note, I’m not talking about social welfare programs that, according to some, “underwrite poor decisions” or “reward life’s losers.”

At any rate, I spent my early college days devouring white nationalist and pro-life articles for the expressed purpose of arming myself in discussions of integration, xenophobia, abortion, feminism and men’s rights.

This is why I was ready to critically engage in and with discussions of and papers on these issues.
However, had I been in class or on campus when an Ann Coulter or VD came to speak, I’d have felt as unsafe as I might had a Klan member in full regalia been present.

The privileged students would probably get an important learning experience. I’d likely get to wonder whether or not I’d be targeted for ridicule, or worse.

In that case, what would I have “learned” that I didn’t already know?

To continue, I neither explicitly stated nor tacitly suggested that Haidt’s employment of the Socrates metaphor was derogatory; I understand exactly what he meant.

What I said was that not all “gadflies” are created equal and that they are already a plague for many groups.

In terms of shaking up the status quo, certain “[gadflies]” like Milo or VD do more harm than good because they “say the quiet part aloud.

More specifically, they advocate for the kind of society that many SWMs and SWFs desire, whether or not they admit it.

This is why preservers of the actual status quo (SWMs and their women and children as the automatic recipients of privilege and power) can no longer argue “no true Scotsman,” and it appears that they aren’t even bothering.

This is why Haidt’s argument is so dangerous, because it advocates for the normalization of attitudes held by folks like VD, Kyle Rittenhouse and other extremists, attitudes that belong on the fringes and shadows of society.

I’m also a firm believer in marginalized groups getting to determine what constitutes hate speech, as giving that kind of thing to those invested in delegitimating cases of discrimination will ultimately lead to environments wherein nothing is racist and everything is “acceptable”

This does not mean that BLM and feminist groups get to intimidate or harm people who want to hear VD advocate for white male rule.

I think it rather useful to know who the campus bigots are so you can avoid them.

As for one side being more factual than the other, until someone produces cast-iron proof that democrats are satanic, cannibalistic pedophiles bent on destroying the world and that they’re all communists/socialists who want to turn America into Venezuela, I’m okay with arguing that the Fox News crowd are the pushers of lies.

Until someone produces cast-iron proof that covid is a liberal hoax and part of a plan to stomp on the president and the “murican” freedom he protects, I’m okay with identifying the right as liars.

Until I see anyone on the other side acknowledge that white supremacists used BLM protests as cover for their own attacks on minority businesses, I’m perfectly alright with calling the other side a bunch of liars.

Until I read a conservative, any conservative, put forth an accurate, non-defensive /terrified/status anxious characterization of BLM and their protesters, I’m okay with painting our side as the side with the facts.

Until I see or hear any cog in the conservative media machine condemn white supremacist, pro-covid spreading protesters as harshly as they condemn BLM protesters, I’m alright with claiming that we, not they, are on the right side of history.

Hell, I’ll even settle for conservatives admitting that we do not, in fact, live in a post-civil right, post-feminist society and that they benefit from the society we *do* have.

The Lincoln project makes an effort because it suits them, but I’d like more acknowledgment.

You are right that the world is one huge gray area.

The problem is that one side operates on the darker end of the spectrum; one need only scan Breitbart or other such conservative news outlets to see why and how.

You are right that No one corners the market on factual, unbiased information

The problem is that most of the biased, non-factual information seems to issue primarily from the right.

At the very least, they’re allowing the liars, spinners and conspiracy theorists to stand as figures emblematic of the movement/culture/ideology.

If my view seems banal, it’s because things haven’t changed, as the persistence of Trumpism in America handily demonstrates.

We are, indeed, at a unique point in history, one in which the future of our democracy and of the relative safety of marginalized groups is on the line.

This concern for American society as we know it runs across all political stripes, and only one end of the spectrum seems to be leading the charge toward fascism.

The only difference here is that they’re admitting what others on that side have avoided owning because political suicide.

Finally, See this list of objectively terrible things (hardly an exhaustive list):
Families separated and Children in cages because they come from s**hole countries rather than from “Norway.”

Children suffering and/or dying in custody because “they aren’t from Idaho”

The federal response to the covid pandemic.

Covidiot behaviors, most especially among those who pull guns on people trying to enforce mask/social distancing requirements.

Kyle Rittenhouse’s behavior and the right’s overwhelming support thereof.

Sacrificing the nation’s elderly population for the sake of the economy.

The abandonment of Puerto Rico following one of the most devastating natural disasters they’ve ever faced.

Nearly a quarter of a million, mostly preventable deaths and millions more preventable infections being shrugged off as “acceptable deaths” and “Darwinism at work.”

Rape and domestic violence apologia.

The roll back of women’s reproductive rights.

The erosion of the rule of law for financial and political gain.

Marcus wrote: "Just a couple points and I'll also let it go.

I'm imagining a scale that ranks every idea from "violence inciting" to "totally innocuous." At an abstract level we probably agree--somewhere on tha..."

First, with regard to my challenge question, I get that a lot. 😊

To continue, I’ll try and keep this brief.

First, I’ll concede to not speaking as clearly as I should have regarding sides and facts.

At the moment, one side seems to perpetuate and thrive on outright lies, lies that get repeated by their news outlets and supporters.

It is these very lies that translate to the kinds of votes that cost lives and threaten democracies.

You are right that MSNBC and other politically-slanted news outlets have a vested interest in keeping people angry and playing on their fears. This is why I look to international news outlets for the facts.

Right now, reports seem to contradict most of the “facts” coming from the Whitehouse and rightwing media.

I wish that weren't true and that the choice of who to believe was more difficult than it is. It isn't.

Simply put, at this moment in time, reality has a liberal bias, and the other side has little to offer but spin and outright untruths.

Fox News, Breitbart and other right-wing outlets are guiltier than most, as they have and continue to present as fact the non-lethality of covid 19, make excuses for the lies coming out of Washington and mischaracterize BLM as anarchists and domestic terrorists while valorizing white supremacists.

These are just the top three lies, but there have and continue to be many, many others.

Perpetual liars have zero credibility with me, especially when their lies are a direct threat to me and mine, so while the lies coming out of the left are amusing and easily ignored, the ones coming out of the right are dangerous.

It also bears repeating that trading in current spokespeople might be an effective strategy for garnering credibility among those for whom bigotry hasn’t determined which “facts” are worth taking seriously.

When you’ve got everyone from the proverbial men on the street to senators and cabinet members parroting the same lie, even as members of their own political party shout the truth to the rooftops, you’ve got a serious credibility problem, especially when the people doing most of the talking are terrible people who advocate for objectively terrible policies that hurt groups they hate and to which they do not belong.

With regard to “the line,” it’s not just about avoiding violence, it’s about creating a productive environment for all students.

Legitimating white supremacist, homophobic, ableist and other bigoted rhetoric via its admission to the table for ideas worth considering does not a productive learning environment make.

One thing some don’t seem to realize is that the placement of that line is often informed by privilege; why would anyone with the luxury of gliding through life unmolested by bigots be especially concerned about the constitutive criteria for problematic or dangerous ideas?

If you, your friends and loved ones are all insolated, automatic recipients of power and privilege, the impact of language on groups to which you and yours do not belong probably isn’t going to be that big a concern.

One need only research the demographics of anti-PC groups and my case rests.

I’m not so much concerned about the violent consequences of pushback; if, in an effort to strike a blow against political correctness, someone let’s fly with a slur and catches an elbow or fist, thems the breaks, both for the aggressor and the victim.

My problem is that people seem to conflate the right to say something with the right to say something with impunity.

That’s not how this works.

If you present for the class’s consideration the notion that universities should be racially segregated, you don’t get to cry “first amendment violation!” when you catch flack for it.

Likewise, if you give a PowerPoint outlining the many ways in which gender transgressive women bring rape and other forms of violence on themselves, your whining is equally ridiculous.

I'll add that the same is true of those who try to push the notion of whiteness and bigotry as mutually inclusive concepts.

We can avoid that altogether by drawing a line that protects all rather than favoring the privileged group.

We can avoid more by not automatically rallying around bigots when the consequences of repugnance fall on their heads.

Bottom line, my sympathies are primarily with those who regularly meet the business end of privilege.

those who got it by dent of skin color, physical ability, sex, gender and sexual orientation will always enjoy its fruits in all of the ways that matter most, no matter what happens on a given campus.

PS: Those worried about fragility might consider Robin DiAngelo’s thoughts on the topic.

Kev wrote: "Lol “my worst will be kinder than you deserve” badass ... based on your review I think we found exactly who the book is talking about"

Oh, look, an America hating, white supremacist seditionist in the wild!

And he comes armed with all of the brilliance of a protector of unearned privilege.

His pretending to have understood one word of my review is kind of cute.

So triggered is he that he saw fit to squat and drop a wreaking pile of dudebro brand excrement for my consideration.

If his is an example of a non-coddled mind, America is indeed headed for failure.



Good thing 81, 000, 000 Americans saw fit to punt his dear leader (the Trumpism is strong with this one) into the political trash heap where he belongs.

Next order of business, load all of his supporters and followers of his sociopolitical philosophy onto the nearest spacecraft bound for the sun.

Kindly choke on a gonorrhea infected donkey dick, you worthless bag of fascist scum.

But before you do, get the fuck out of this review space.

I’ll help.

Marcus wrote: "loll"

In all fairness, the worning at the opening of this review is clear.

More importantly, note the difference between my response to you and the one he got.

You came to discuss; he came to troll, and he couldn't have picked a worse time to try me.

Alex wrote: "I love Goodreads for this reason. Look at how amazing this discourse is. People respectfully talking about books, while at odds. The teacher side of me thinks I should save this conversation in cas..."


The middle of the thread is quite instructive.

Come to think of it, contextualized via a discussion of the rhetorical situation, the entire thread might be instructive.

And yes, the day we can all walk back into the classroom and not contract and/or spread a deadly and highly contagious virus will be a glorious one, in deed.

Ed wrote: "Monica, you are truly an asshole"
LOL!

Another triggered, status anxious snowflake taking time to toddle into a negative review to whine because a complete stranger hated a book with which he agrees.

Well, Ed, that’s the beauty of “murica”; I get to be an asshole to intellectually bankrupt, unearned privilege protecting assholes like yourself.

Chew on a rotted donkey ball, you worthless sack of radioactive orc shit.
🖕

I hope you enjoy democratic rule.

LOL..one of the finest reviews I've read on here!

Marcus wrote: "sad."


Is it sad because I don't agree with you or because I treated those who do like the trolls they were.

Know what?

The answer doesn't matter.

Blocked.

spectator wrote: "god you are whiny. please block me you loser"

Says the shit-for-brains rando and probable Brexit voter who took time out of what must be a busy and fulfilling life to be whiny about my whiny review. LOL!

Drink bleach, please.

Alex wrote: "A maxim I live by is "People only accuse others of what they themselves are doing."

When I find myself throwing out accusations, I stop a moment and ponder where I am being the exact same.

Thank..."

Thanks, Alex.

My guess is that Marcus is displeased that I haven't been kind to the trolls on this review, most likely because they share his opinion of the book and agree with his political views.

I have no intention of treating them any differently than I said I would.

I expect this comment thread to be awash with all sorts of white supremacy, misogyny and other toxicity, because for some, status anxiety means that all is fair, most especially rank hypocrisy, retribution and, if you live in the US, armed insurrection.

There'll be more, and I'll deal with them all the same way.

Alex wrote: "Your sharpness reminds me of a British personality Katie....Hoppins, or Hashkins or Hokins or H-something. She confidently moves forward, unapologetically slamming her haters.

You've mentioned Bre..."


I can't say I have, but I'll have to check her out.

As for my sharpness, it's the kind that only comes out for trolls.

I follow a user whose review of this book was bombarded with troll droppings quite similar to these.

She chose not to dignify the hecklers with a response (I probably would have done better to follow her example), even as the dogpile got worse and worse.

I know several users who are afraid to review this book honestly because they don't want to be trampled by hordes of
repugnant, emotionally incontinent psychopaths who, in all likelihood, wouldn't so much as roll their eyes in a face to face confrontation lest someone nock their teeth down their throats.

This review is slowly but surely inching its way to the top of the book page, so others will soon toddle in to leave bog-standard crap for me to clean up.

I've seen it on women's reviews of The Handmaid's Tale, It Can't Happen Here and other politically charged books.

Monica, as usual I agree with your review. However, I am truly sorry that I lack the vocabulary and literary skills to put trolls into the deep, excrement filled holes they deserve.

Caroline wrote: "Monica, as usual I agree with your review. However, I am truly sorry that I lack the vocabulary and literary skills to put trolls into the deep, excrement filled holes they deserve."

Thanks. :)

Whack-a-troll doesn't necessarily require those things, especially when you know what's driving the trollage.

I suspect I may be using a hammer where simple bug spray should suffice, given the quality of the "arguments" they've been leaving.

In this case, folks are big mad because I'm panning their terrified, "let's stick up for poor, picked on bigots," moral panic of a book.

All they're doing is proving how right I and other negative reviewers are about the book and those who agree with it.

The best thing to do is swat them, scoop them up and punt them into the hole.

Minoudio wrote: "You prove their point in your hashtags alone."<

And you prove all of mine with your pointless comment.

Bye now.

*slow clap*
this review is amazing. thank you for this. the ugliest aspects of internet culture almost all come from the right and none of these contrarians ever want to admit that.

Tommen wrote: "*slow clap*
this review is amazing. thank you for this. the ugliest aspects of internet culture almost all come from the right and none of these contrarians ever want to admit that."



Thanks, and agreed.

While there are fire-breathing trolls on all points of the political spectrum, the most atrocious of them all seem to be concentrated on the right.