We find this to be nothing more than centrist chest-beating, written by people who apparently do not understand, or do not actually stand behind, what they penned down, who understand that some...
Exemplary
The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.
The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.
We find this to be nothing more than centrist chest-beating,
We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.
written by people who apparently do not understand, or do not actually stand behind, what they penned down,
The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation.
who understand that some speech can have a chilling effect, claiming concern for the weakest while failing to act in a manner consistent with their claims,
The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.
and who seemingly have yet to step out of their ivory tower.
We do not find amusing how rationality morphed into this Kafkian amalgamation of Spock's "logic", pop culture-understanding of logical fallacies, and the silly idea that everything can and should be debated - ad infinitum, if necessary.
We find the emphasis on abstract topics, that somehow only ever concretize in the same discussions about the same culture war issues, to be concerning.
We do not appreciate the cooling effect - and consequent evaporative cooling - that being treated as a mere intellectual exercise, by people with no skin in the game, can have on the speech of the minorities being targeted.
What you need to keep in mind is the context and subtext of the article. The thing about these kinds of articles, open letters, whatever, is that shorn of examples or specifics that some might...
What you need to keep in mind is the context and subtext of the article. The thing about these kinds of articles, open letters, whatever, is that shorn of examples or specifics that some might find objectionable, they're presented in a way that's practically impossible to disagree with, and carry no real information on the "controversy" that they're writing about within the text. The subtext is practically the only part that carries information.
The subtext of this article is that it's expressing concerns about the direction that academia is taking at a time when it's confronting a long history of entertaining, platforming, and even promoting the ideas of white supremacists, transphobes, and other bigots out of, generously, some misguided sense of "free academic inquiry". There is of course a case for teaching controversial subjects and ideas, but that's accepted by most of the people calling for academic reform. The overwhelming majority of the activists that this letter decries are also believers in free academic inquiry, and don't want information censored or whatever, but contextualized so that universities aren't just acting as repeaters for bad ideas. The text of the article is staking out a position in a debate that does not exist, which gives the subtext of the article rather more sinister implications.
Then I invite you to read up on what you posted and in what context it was published - it generated plenty of discussion since it was posted, a year ago - and to refrain, in the future, from...
In other words, you made a compelling argument against an enemy to which I am likely opposed myself, but I fail to recognize it in the letter I actually read.
Then I invite you to read up on what you posted and in what context it was published - it generated plenty of discussion since it was posted, a year ago - and to refrain, in the future, from starting new threads on said overly abstract, apparently generic topics with sources you have not vetted for foghorns, dogwhistles, fortification planning, infamous authors and such.
In my opinion, the letter reads something like: "Conservatism is doing many bad things and we commend the efforts made to stop them from happening. However, we think many of those who oppose them...
In other words, you made a compelling argument against an enemy to which I am likely opposed myself, but I fail to recognize it in the letter I actually read.
In my opinion, the letter reads something like:
"Conservatism is doing many bad things and we commend the efforts made to stop them from happening. However, we think many of those who oppose them whom we are a part of are doing a lot of the same bad things. We oppose the bad things happening people in academia, like us even if they're being done by the opposition which we are a part of, and believe something closer to free-speech absolutism than 'academia' does."
Taken at face value this is fine, but given it's IMO fairly clear the letter opposes purported leftist censorship in/of academia and says we should be less opposed to people who a go against the norm in academia, which is to say people who aren't supportive of left-wing causes and movements. The people who wrote this didn't overtly say so, but I think it's clear that's what they mean just because what they do explicitly say that academia's behavior towards opposing viewponts is becoming similar to the right, which is a very common talking point of the American right.
Regardless, the person you replied to talks about evaporative cooling and minorities leaving this site because of posts like this and about how hollow arguing over stuff like this is if the people affected negatively by social conservatism face problems like being denied Healthcare. I think this probably means he doesn't really care that much about the piece in itself, he just doesn't think something, anything, that resembles a right-wing talking point belongs in Tildes and is worth arguing over at any scale because people have and will tune out of the site entirely because of arguing over posts like this one, regardless of where it comes from and how vague the letter actually is.
I wish they had shared the specific examples they are trying to invoke, since the context of each case is so important. Is anyone really being 'silenced' though? If you post blantantly terrible...
Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes.
I wish they had shared the specific examples they are trying to invoke, since the context of each case is so important.
The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.
Is anyone really being 'silenced' though? If you post blantantly terrible transphobic rhetoric on your Twitter and personal blog (referencing JK Rowling who is one of the signatories of this letter) then people will respond to that and call you out, but nobody is forcing your publisher to drop you or forcing you or your hosting providers to take down your content.
There is also a difference between a thoughtful critique of bad content and a Twitter pile-on. Even if you are sharing transphobic and bigoted ideas, I don't think you deserve to have your Twitter feed overloaded with threats of violence, rape and murder. If cancelling wants to retain its legitimacy as a form of attack against maligned influencers then it needs to separate itself from dogpiling.
Ultimately I feel like Twitter is the main problem here. Should people be able to voice a controversial opinion? Yes. Should other people be able to critique those opinions? Yes. Do some people wield their power as influencers to spread misinformation and bigotry? Yes. Should those instances of misinformation and bigotry be called out? Yes. But Twitter doesn't help any of this, it just feeds on the reward cycles of our brains by reducing to zero the effort required to broadcast a single sentence to millions of people. Good discourse does not happen like that, it requires thoughtful and intentional shaping of multiple sentences, in private, possibly in private collaboration with others, before it is put out in to the world -- hmm just like how this piece was written perhaps? 🙃 Likewise, because people can dogpile so easily on Twitter is feeds this chilling effect where people don't feel like they can safely talk about controversial issues, because they worry about the effects of the mob on their careers and relationships.
EDIT Just saw this letter was published on Jul 7 2020, I wonder if there have been any good responses to it or if Harpers have a follow-up?
We find this to be nothing more than centrist chest-beating,
written by people who apparently do not understand, or do not actually stand behind, what they penned down,
who understand that some speech can have a chilling effect, claiming concern for the weakest while failing to act in a manner consistent with their claims,
and who seemingly have yet to step out of their ivory tower.
We do not find amusing how rationality morphed into this Kafkian amalgamation of Spock's "logic", pop culture-understanding of logical fallacies, and the silly idea that everything can and should be debated - ad infinitum, if necessary.
We find the emphasis on abstract topics, that somehow only ever concretize in the same discussions about the same culture war issues, to be concerning.
We do not appreciate the cooling effect - and consequent evaporative cooling - that being treated as a mere intellectual exercise, by people with no skin in the game, can have on the speech of the minorities being targeted.
What you need to keep in mind is the context and subtext of the article. The thing about these kinds of articles, open letters, whatever, is that shorn of examples or specifics that some might find objectionable, they're presented in a way that's practically impossible to disagree with, and carry no real information on the "controversy" that they're writing about within the text. The subtext is practically the only part that carries information.
The subtext of this article is that it's expressing concerns about the direction that academia is taking at a time when it's confronting a long history of entertaining, platforming, and even promoting the ideas of white supremacists, transphobes, and other bigots out of, generously, some misguided sense of "free academic inquiry". There is of course a case for teaching controversial subjects and ideas, but that's accepted by most of the people calling for academic reform. The overwhelming majority of the activists that this letter decries are also believers in free academic inquiry, and don't want information censored or whatever, but contextualized so that universities aren't just acting as repeaters for bad ideas. The text of the article is staking out a position in a debate that does not exist, which gives the subtext of the article rather more sinister implications.
Then I invite you to read up on what you posted and in what context it was published - it generated plenty of discussion since it was posted, a year ago - and to refrain, in the future, from starting new threads on said overly abstract, apparently generic topics with sources you have not vetted for foghorns, dogwhistles, fortification planning, infamous authors and such.
In my opinion, the letter reads something like:
"Conservatism is doing many bad things and we commend the efforts made to stop them from happening. However, we think many of those who oppose them whom we are a part of are doing a lot of the same bad things. We oppose the bad things happening people in academia, like us even if they're being done by the opposition which we are a part of, and believe something closer to free-speech absolutism than 'academia' does."
Taken at face value this is fine, but given it's IMO fairly clear the letter opposes purported leftist censorship in/of academia and says we should be less opposed to people who a go against the norm in academia, which is to say people who aren't supportive of left-wing causes and movements. The people who wrote this didn't overtly say so, but I think it's clear that's what they mean just because what they do explicitly say that academia's behavior towards opposing viewponts is becoming similar to the right, which is a very common talking point of the American right.
Regardless, the person you replied to talks about evaporative cooling and minorities leaving this site because of posts like this and about how hollow arguing over stuff like this is if the people affected negatively by social conservatism face problems like being denied Healthcare. I think this probably means he doesn't really care that much about the piece in itself, he just doesn't think something, anything, that resembles a right-wing talking point belongs in Tildes and is worth arguing over at any scale because people have and will tune out of the site entirely because of arguing over posts like this one, regardless of where it comes from and how vague the letter actually is.
I wish they had shared the specific examples they are trying to invoke, since the context of each case is so important.
Is anyone really being 'silenced' though? If you post blantantly terrible transphobic rhetoric on your Twitter and personal blog (referencing JK Rowling who is one of the signatories of this letter) then people will respond to that and call you out, but nobody is forcing your publisher to drop you or forcing you or your hosting providers to take down your content.
There is also a difference between a thoughtful critique of bad content and a Twitter pile-on. Even if you are sharing transphobic and bigoted ideas, I don't think you deserve to have your Twitter feed overloaded with threats of violence, rape and murder. If cancelling wants to retain its legitimacy as a form of attack against maligned influencers then it needs to separate itself from dogpiling.
Ultimately I feel like Twitter is the main problem here. Should people be able to voice a controversial opinion? Yes. Should other people be able to critique those opinions? Yes. Do some people wield their power as influencers to spread misinformation and bigotry? Yes. Should those instances of misinformation and bigotry be called out? Yes. But Twitter doesn't help any of this, it just feeds on the reward cycles of our brains by reducing to zero the effort required to broadcast a single sentence to millions of people. Good discourse does not happen like that, it requires thoughtful and intentional shaping of multiple sentences, in private, possibly in private collaboration with others, before it is put out in to the world -- hmm just like how this piece was written perhaps? 🙃 Likewise, because people can dogpile so easily on Twitter is feeds this chilling effect where people don't feel like they can safely talk about controversial issues, because they worry about the effects of the mob on their careers and relationships.
EDIT Just saw this letter was published on Jul 7 2020, I wonder if there have been any good responses to it or if Harpers have a follow-up?
A more specific letter on justice and open debate
Fantastic, thank you! :)
I find this podcast to be a pretty good breakdown of several of the issues of the letter, as well as being a good media analysis podcast all around.