I announced my new book here about 6 weeks ago (here).  I didn’t think to look at comments on that post because (1) not looking at comments on blog posts is generally advisable and (2) it was a post announcing a book release!  To explain: I wouldn’t think there would be any comments at all.  Of course, some might have written to say congratulations or ask why anyone would write a book on such a topic or something like that, but I didn’t think there would be anything substantive to say.  The post, after all, had nothing more substantive than a very brief abstract.  I didn’t even think to post an image of the book.  I’ll rectify that latter issue here:

I just looked at the comments and there is actually an interesting substantive discussion there!  As one reader (Tedd) notes much of that discussion leads to the conclusion that “we need to have a debate about what constitutes ‘harm’ and some method — however temporary — of agreeing on a working definition.”  Another reader (Peter from Oz) asks the others “What makes anyone think that there isn’t toleration of social non-conformists now?”  Here’s the thing: I offer a conceptual analysis of both harm and toleration in the book!  I may be wrong about either, of course (fwiw, many who’ve actually read what I say about harm seem to think I’m wrong about that and many who’ve actually read what I say about toleration seem to think I’m right about that).  I’m sure there is much wrong in the book.  But I hope you’ll all take a look; if nothing else, the work analyzing the nature of harm and toleration may be of use in the sorts of debates that the readers discuss in their comments.  I also offer what I think is a somewhat novel defense of toleration.  And the second half of the book, is all normative analysis.  There is certainly much to disagree with there!

One normative issue I don’t discuss in the book but which those commenting were interested in has to do with free speech.  For my view on that, see my “Psychological Harm and Free Speech on Campus.”