A while back at church I was asked to write a short article for the newsletter about the anti-racism discussion group I had participated in. The other members had all had their turn and now it was mine. So I wrote what was in my heart, even though I knew that some of the things I had to say might not be "politically correct." I did so because I wanted to see what I was dealing with. Not surprisingly, my article was rejected. So I rewrote it again, using all the right phrases--and this time it was accepted. For weeks afterwards people came up to me and said "I LOVED your article in the newsletter!" They just gushed over it. It made me feel funny because I knew the truth. That article was BS. If I didn't exactly lie, I didn't exactly tell the truth either. I told them what they wanted to hear and they ate it up.
A few weeks later I was having a conversation with the editor who rejected my initial article. We were talking about the anti-racism workshop the group was trying to get a grant for. The one that cost $400 for the full session and $100 for the introductory. Now, I am somewhat of a cheapskate, money does not come easy for me, and so I tend to question the price of things. I want to make sure I am getting full value for my dollar. Specifically, I brought up the fact that we had several "graduates" of the program here in the congregation; couldn't we use them to put on a workshop for a fraction of the same price rather than hiring professional speakers? She paused. "Well," she said, "it is not that simple. You see, the topic is such a sensitive one that you really need trained moderators . . . otherwise things might get out of hand." In other words, don't try this at home, folks.
Now, I let the matter go at that. But I am not interested in shelling out my hard-earned money if what I am getting into is a group-think session, where the appropriate responses and conclusions are predetermined, and God help you if you disagree. And that is what I strongly suspect it is, based on the two articles I wrote. One was candid, and it was rejected. The other was not, and it was praised to the skies. That tells me a lot about what I am dealing with. I am willing to listen and learn but in the end I reserve the right to have my own opinions and come to my own conclusions on my terms and in my own time. Unfortunately, I don't think that would be considered an acceptable answer in that setting. If I went, I'd have to make sure I stuck to parroting the party line and never once let on what I am really thinking.
There was a time when I once believed in candor. That when people said that they wanted open and honest discussions, they really meant it. But having been too many times the only one in the room with an unpopular/incorrect/offensive opinion or question, I've learned to keep a lot of things to myself. Even in this new church where I feel more at home than any other.
Sadly, I am finding that even here, I am having to watch my step. Someone took offense at something I wrote, and I got a message that one of my blog entries was being blocked from public viewing as a result. Even though the moderator admitted that my intent was not to cause offense. The reason given is that what I wrote about is a sensitive topic and this is supposed to be a safe place, and so forth. Ok, that is fine. I accept that. I understand that. But it is not compatible with free speech. A choice has to be made. If safety and acceptance is your priority, then the price is that there are some things that can only be talked about privately, not in a public forum. If free speech is your priority, then the price is that somebody somewhere is probably going to be offended. Ideally, we should all strive to be mindful of others. But that is not always possible--unless you stifle discussion on certain topics. That is called censorship. It is something that I have a personal issue with.
This last week we saw in France how things can get really, really ugly when some people don't like what others are saying. From what I understand, the magazine Charlie Hebdo makes no pretense at trying to be politically correct, sensitive, or mindful. It routinely goes out of its way to offend people. On purpose. And some people got really, really offended, and now other people are dead as a result. Should Charlie Hebdo not print the things it prints? There are some people who would say, Yes! That the only permissible free speech is that which does not offend, does not make people uncomfortable, does not make people feel unsafe. Given the wide range of things people can get upset about, that doesn't leave much room for discussion--and definitely not on anything sensitive. Do we really want to go that route? Where people don't say what is really on their minds?
This will be my last blog here at Aspies Central. I am sorry if I have offended any readers. I understand that this is supposed to be a safe place. I respect that. But the price that I have to pay as a writer in order to maintain that safety is much too high for me to pay. If I have to hold back, if I have to say to myself, now, this could potentially upset someone, I'd better not say it, I'd better not ask these questions, then I am limited in what I can say. I am choosing free speech, not safety, and that is why I am choosing to leave.
A few weeks later I was having a conversation with the editor who rejected my initial article. We were talking about the anti-racism workshop the group was trying to get a grant for. The one that cost $400 for the full session and $100 for the introductory. Now, I am somewhat of a cheapskate, money does not come easy for me, and so I tend to question the price of things. I want to make sure I am getting full value for my dollar. Specifically, I brought up the fact that we had several "graduates" of the program here in the congregation; couldn't we use them to put on a workshop for a fraction of the same price rather than hiring professional speakers? She paused. "Well," she said, "it is not that simple. You see, the topic is such a sensitive one that you really need trained moderators . . . otherwise things might get out of hand." In other words, don't try this at home, folks.
Now, I let the matter go at that. But I am not interested in shelling out my hard-earned money if what I am getting into is a group-think session, where the appropriate responses and conclusions are predetermined, and God help you if you disagree. And that is what I strongly suspect it is, based on the two articles I wrote. One was candid, and it was rejected. The other was not, and it was praised to the skies. That tells me a lot about what I am dealing with. I am willing to listen and learn but in the end I reserve the right to have my own opinions and come to my own conclusions on my terms and in my own time. Unfortunately, I don't think that would be considered an acceptable answer in that setting. If I went, I'd have to make sure I stuck to parroting the party line and never once let on what I am really thinking.
There was a time when I once believed in candor. That when people said that they wanted open and honest discussions, they really meant it. But having been too many times the only one in the room with an unpopular/incorrect/offensive opinion or question, I've learned to keep a lot of things to myself. Even in this new church where I feel more at home than any other.
Sadly, I am finding that even here, I am having to watch my step. Someone took offense at something I wrote, and I got a message that one of my blog entries was being blocked from public viewing as a result. Even though the moderator admitted that my intent was not to cause offense. The reason given is that what I wrote about is a sensitive topic and this is supposed to be a safe place, and so forth. Ok, that is fine. I accept that. I understand that. But it is not compatible with free speech. A choice has to be made. If safety and acceptance is your priority, then the price is that there are some things that can only be talked about privately, not in a public forum. If free speech is your priority, then the price is that somebody somewhere is probably going to be offended. Ideally, we should all strive to be mindful of others. But that is not always possible--unless you stifle discussion on certain topics. That is called censorship. It is something that I have a personal issue with.
This last week we saw in France how things can get really, really ugly when some people don't like what others are saying. From what I understand, the magazine Charlie Hebdo makes no pretense at trying to be politically correct, sensitive, or mindful. It routinely goes out of its way to offend people. On purpose. And some people got really, really offended, and now other people are dead as a result. Should Charlie Hebdo not print the things it prints? There are some people who would say, Yes! That the only permissible free speech is that which does not offend, does not make people uncomfortable, does not make people feel unsafe. Given the wide range of things people can get upset about, that doesn't leave much room for discussion--and definitely not on anything sensitive. Do we really want to go that route? Where people don't say what is really on their minds?
This will be my last blog here at Aspies Central. I am sorry if I have offended any readers. I understand that this is supposed to be a safe place. I respect that. But the price that I have to pay as a writer in order to maintain that safety is much too high for me to pay. If I have to hold back, if I have to say to myself, now, this could potentially upset someone, I'd better not say it, I'd better not ask these questions, then I am limited in what I can say. I am choosing free speech, not safety, and that is why I am choosing to leave.
