In a lot of ways I think the veer into Lovecraft territory was probably not terribly helpful to the point about OA (I think the only utility it really had was to help shed some light on why people have different responses to lovecraft). My view on OA is this: it should be available, and we are going to have to live with the fact that different people will have different responses to OA (some will find it problematic, some won't see an issue with it, some will feel it is a product of its own time----even progressive for its time, and some will find it racist). They have a label on it, people do disagree on how productive that is, but I think most posters are not terribly invested in debating the merits or flaws of the label (I don't think they are especially useful, I have my misgivings, but it isn't like they changed content or removed the book). It is unclear if some people want it to be removed or not to me. To me that is the most concerning issue, the potentially removal of the book from sale or some kind of alteration to the content. But I think the best way to come to terms with past works is let people have conversations about them, but understand people will reach different conclusions about the content. Not everyone is going to find something problematic just because you do, not everyone is going to find something unproblematic just because you see no issue (and of course there are nuanced opinions ranging between those two poles). And even then, if people agree a work has problems, people will disagree on what that means in terms of its importance in the history of the hobby, what ought to be done about it (if anything), etc.
For me the other big issue of concern isn't OA itself or whether it is morally good, bad or indifferent, but how these conversations have played out negatively in the hobby. I don't want to dislike people just because they reached a different conclusion about how much stuff in OA is a problem than I have. Like I said, there are always going to be jerks on both side of any discussion, but I'd rather not allow them to be what we use to define the opposing viewpoints. I don't think OA is especially bad, and I disagree with many of the conclusions from the podcasts about it (largely because I don't share the same conclusions they do about Said---which I think really shapes how you see this issue), but I don't have to ascribe anything to that difference beyond they have a different set of assumptions than I do and are reacting to the text honestly (if differently from me). By the same token, people taking more charitable readings of OA are just measuring things differently than those who don't (they see the role of its context as different, they put greater priority on intent----as you see I think in the whole discussion about comlinesss). At the end of the day I am totally fine with others not being convinced of my take on OA, of my opinions about free expression. I think when we take the step beyond that, and start ascribing nefarious motives to people who disagree with us, it is like we are losing our ability to appreciate that other people have different beliefs, emotions, thoughts and perspective than we do. Increasingly this is my biggest concern when I have these conversations.
The fact that people show up to engage in a conversation like this, probably means they are looking for fruitful discussion more than anything. That doesn't mean consensus will be reached, it doesn't mean you will persuade people, but there is at least value is understanding where people are coming from even if their arguments don't convince you.
). Clearly there are going to be jerks like I said on either side, because debates like this can bring out the worst in people and can become excuses for being cruel. That is going to happen. But we don't have to assume everyone that disagrees with us has evil motivations.
