Again, very glad that people hold such passion for a thing they enjoy, but it disturbs me when people go to battle (which is somewhat ironic as that was the point of the original article).

We could play a game of dictionary definitions if you like

Flare-up

1. a sudden occurrence of flame

2. a sudden occurrence or expression of anger

3. an occurrence in which something (such as violence or a disease) suddenly begins or becomes worse

Yes being ever so slightly facetious.

But as we are all mostly well disposed to each other, I didn’t think there was anything in either of the uses of it, between us here. So that’s okay if we are all friends and we all sort of know each other and generally get along. But this is all in public, in print, so…

As to self censorship, that’s interesting. Is it self censorship to modify your words so as to be as clear as possibly as to your meaning, to cause as little offense as possible? Do you really feel there is an increase in the self – suppression of views?

What first got me interested in all of this was tracking the changes to the reporting (reporting is generous, let’s say the retelling) of the events surrounding the SFWA changes last year, how that story changed not only when those diametrically opposed to the changes retold the story but even when it was retold by neutral commentators. If you never went back to the source material you were left with the impression it was all just a bit of a kerfuffle, over there, in America. The retelling of that story continues to the point now where SFWA is credited with Jonathan Ross withdrawing (an extreme example).

We don’t as a community report or record or criticize ourselves very well(professionally), probably because we are too small and its too hard to maintain journalistic detachment, when everyone knows each other.

A lot of emphasis has been placed on the words we use and the power they hold, and I’m the first to agree that words should be chosen wisely. What I sometimes find… worrisome is the increasing need for what appears to be a form of self-censorship (yeah, that’s probably going to come back and bite me on the arse).

We’re emotive beings, so the words we use are, more often than not, going to be emotive — it’s the nature of the beast. Are we getting to the stage that every blog or FB post, tweet, comment needs to be analyzed from every angle to ensure inclusivity for all before hitting the enter button? Certainly, there are words that are designed to be inflammatory (you can usually spot those pretty quickly), but the tone of an article/post in its entirety is also pretty easy to spot. I can tell when someone uses language to poke the bear, and I won’t waste my time or my energy on someone looking for page-hits or notoriety for the sake of notoriety. I’ve better things to do.

As a society, inclusivity is a right not a privilege. As authors, editors and publishers, we make our living with words. Does this mean we’re held to a higher standard? I’d hope we’re held to the same standard. Equality goes across the board, no matter your race, gender, beliefs or sexual-preference.

I’m now sitting here wondering whether I should hit the ‘post comment’ button, but as Robert said: once more into the breach…