Open Letters- "Cancel Culture"

[Mosi Mynn]

A letter by a group of writers, academics and others, including JK Rowling, Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood, has been published expressing concern about what they see has a recent weakening of debate and toleration of different points of views.

This has received a lot of comment, including this letter by other luminaries which acts as a counter-argument.

Not sure if this is the right forum for this, but the most famous names are writers, so I though I'd put it here - please move it if it belongs elsewhere.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Thanks  for posting this, was considering starting a thread earlier this week.  There wouldn't be much wrong with the first letter except for you know, the context of our times, and everything pointed out in the response.  

This was one of the other responses to it that I really enjoyed.

a taste:

 

Quote

...

In this formulation of society, what matters is what generates a “culture” that leaves “us [writers] room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes.” A little dabble of transphobia to get the blood flowing, as it were. A letter more attuned to material reality might observe that, for most people, there is little, if any, “room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes” in modern society. Most Americans are an unexpected medical bill or car crash away from bankruptcy. Black people, in particular, need not even actually engage in any “experimentation, risk taking, or mistakes” for their lives to be ruined, or taken from them. What was Tamir Rice’s mistake? Breonna Taylor’s? But the ability of non-writers to make mistakes without being ground to dust by the economy and the state is not “the lifeblood of a liberal society.” People are not the lifeblood of the letter’s ideal society. No, it is J.K. Rowling’s tweets that are the lifeblood of society. Not, you know, actual lives or actual blood.

I can already hear the cries of whattaboutism. But limiting one’s review of the letter to the arena of expressive activity does not redeem it in the slightest. Once more, the moral agency of mere normals is ignored outright. The letter opens with passive-voice praise of “[p]owerful protests for racial and social justice.” By the letter’s reckoning, these protests may as well be a naturally occurring phenomenon. There are “protests.” Missing are the protestors. Missing are the expressions of concern about the “dire [and decidedly non-professional] consequences” of the violent reactionary response to the protests: the countless protestors beaten, run over, shot, chemically attacked, and jailed. Protestors, after all, are not the “lifeblood of a liberal society.” And, it follows, that attempts to mow down protestors (and attempts to legalize the act of running over protestors) are not a threat to the lifeblood of society. It’s Matt Yglesias’s posts that are the lifeblood of society, and making fun of how bad they are that is the threat.

...

[Zorral]

This gatekeepers' letter's rhetorical tone sounds remarkably similar to that of the US history gatekeepers' letter demanding the NY Times shut down the Pulitzer winning 1619 Project, and publicly apologize for its errors lies. Sean Wilentz rides again.  I guess?  Though in all truth, those incredibly indulged public intellectuals etc. never ever even dismount, not even in their dying breaths.  

 

[Heartofice]

A lot of the talk of ‘cancel culture’ is difficult because the term itself is so vague and takes in a number of different incidents and events. 
 

Both sides talk in imprecise terms as a way of deflecting the others arguments. Lumping it all into one simple story is unhelpful. People are talking past each other.

There is however definitely a problem which I think is caused by social media in particular where often people won’t  actually listens to the content of someone’s speech, instead they make grand assumptions about what someone is saying and over react. If someone says something you ‘think’ you disagree with it’s better to ask them what they meant rather than going for the jugular and over react to it.

I do applaud the original letter however, that so many people who would normally disagree with each other can agree on one issue is a good thing.

[Poobah]

We live in an age of where the spread of rhetoric, propaganda, and lies is easier than ever; invoking free speech and claiming to be victim of bullying when many ultimately call you on your lies doesn't make you any more virtuous or less the villain. Rowling only seeks to stifle those voices raises against hers with more obfuscation.

[Mosi Mynn]

I've added Cancel Culture to the thread title to make it a bit more obvious what it is about.  I've put it in quotation marks as not everyone is calling this argument the same thing.  

[Zorral]

Bothsides! immediately invoked!

[Darth Richard II]

Nah fuck those people. Rich people mad they’re getting called out on their shit.

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Nah fuck those people. Rich people mad they’re getting called out on their shit.

You forgot to say white male.. oh right..

[Ran]

Quote

Joseph Poole7 hr "Many signatories on our list noted their institutional affiliation but not their name, fearful of professional retaliation. It is a sad fact, and in part why we wrote the letter.” That last statement pretty much contradicts this response and proves the point of the Harpers letter.

Rather on point.

Instead of assuming that Noam Chomsky, Deirdre McCloskey, Bill T. Jones, et. al. are saying things other than what they're saying, perhaps just assume they are genuinely concerned about the free exchange of ideas. Counter-letters that present, "Yes, we're for the free exchange of ideas EXCEPT FOR ...." are not, in fact, for the free exchange of ideas.

[Darth Richard II]

Nah, these are just famous people mad that free speech has consequences. Same shit different year.

[Ran]

Just now, Darth Richard II said:

Nah, these are just famous people mad that free speech has consequences. Same shit different year.

The people who signed the counter-letter without being able to put their names for fear of retribution for expressing their opinions are actually famous people who are mad that free speech has consequences? Why did they "sign" the counter-letter, then? And which famous people are they?

[Darth Richard II]

Oh, I am unaware of any counter letter. Maybe I missed something. I'm referring to the original open letter.

[Darth Richard II]

Two things then I need a break. Trying to limit my internet time.

And, best thing I heard, not sure where, that i think sums the original letter up. "They do not believe in free speech. They believe in free speech for them."

 

[Ran]

Any idiot that thinks Noam Chomsky is not for free speech should be disregarded, as should anyone who believes the claim from third parties. To quote him:

Quote

“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”

 

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah, that's one signer among many. I'd say Rowling's signature pretty much cancels that out.

[Ran]

Just now, Darth Richard II said:

Yeah, that's one signer among many.

What do you know about most of them? What other people tell you? 

Just now, Darth Richard II said:

 

I'd say Rowling's signature pretty much cancels that out.

Has Rowling attempted to deny the right of freedom of speech to others? I bet you she hasn't. You may vehemently disagree with her expressed opinions on any number of matters, may find them hurtful or even poisonous, but the reason she has a right to express them is the very same reason you have a right to express your own opinions. 

If the letter was, "We stand in support of the notion that the Earth orbits the sun, and BTW the Earth is round", and J.K. Rowling signed this, would you then consider taking the opposite position?

 

 

 

 

[Mosi Mynn]

52 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Oh, I am unaware of any counter letter. Maybe I missed something. I'm referring to the original open letter.

This is the counter-letter I linked to in the OP.  I think there are others out there too.

[DaveSumm]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

A lot of the talk of ‘cancel culture’ is difficult because the term itself is so vague and takes in a number of different incidents and events. 

Both sides talk in imprecise terms as a way of deflecting the others arguments. Lumping it all into one simple story is unhelpful. People are talking past each other.

There is however definitely a problem which I think is caused by social media in particular where often people won’t  actually listens to the content of someone’s speech, instead they make grand assumptions about what someone is saying and over react. If someone says something you ‘think’ you disagree with it’s better to ask them what they meant rather than going for the jugular and over react to it.

Yea pretty much this. The original letter is very carefully devoid of anything you could latch a response on to, and so all the counter articles are forced to assume what they’re talking about. Feels like maybe the original is getting more oxygen than it deserves - either it’s read to the letter and it’s a fairly uncontroversial statement about free speech, in which case, whoop dee doo. Or it’s a coded message arguing for privileged people to continue to be allowed to have large platforms to say controversial things, in which case, who cares? Ignore it, let it die.

[Gaston de Foix]

Let me try to work through this debate as neutrally as I can. 

The conversation involves people talking past each other because the signatories of the letter are defending its abstract content.  The opponents of the letter are attacking its performative implications in light of the identities of the signatories and the politics of the moment. 

I have to say the abstract content is a salutary statement of principles and inoffensive to me.

But of course to divorce it from its context is (so the argument goes) to strip it of its meaning. I suspect even the much-maligned Matt Yglesias would accept that that is the case.  We are not talking about government regulation or suppression of speech.  We are talking about social suppression or organized social opposition to certain speech acts.  These instances of social suppression or anger are themselves instances of freedom of speech.  And there is an argument that if you step into a sewer you will get shit on your shoe.  If you make provocative (or transphobic) statements on twitter....{N.B. this not a value judgment on defenders or critics of JKR,  simply a criticism of twitter}

So the argument for the signatories is that they are for free speech, "freedom for the thought we hate"; and the opponents are trying to use social organizing and ostracizing techniques to suppress that speech by attacking the individuals in personal terms and accusing them of bigotry or prejudice.  It's hard for me to see why criticism, even overblown and personal criticism, should be suppressed.  After all if we are going to be viewpoint neutral then whether its JKR or David Irving, claims about motives and agendas are inescapable if you step into the public arena.  Some of it may be unserious, in bad faith, wrong, or ugly or all at once.  But that's just the way the cookie crumbles, and nobody applies the Marquess of Queensbury rules to public debate.  

The most powerful objection that I think the signatories can make is that by attacking or rebutting not just the speech, or even the author's motives, but by attacking their livelihood, by "cancel culture", society is chilling unpopular opinions and ideas. 

And this, I have to say, I don't buy.  There's a reason why India's independence movement and the BDS movement both sought to influence economic activity.  In the single most moving speech of the 20th century, MLK's speech to the sanitation workers of Memphis, he specifically called out Coca-Cola and Wonder Bread for their treatment of African-Americans.  I just don't see how, without engaging in impermissible viewpoint discrimination, you can distinguish those categories of speech from cancel culture.  Trump's hateful comments a few years about the NFL firing Colin Kaepernick  and other players who took a knee was also an instance of cancel culture, just from the right.  

In short, cancel culture is not an attack on free speech.  It is free speech.  This not to say that I think JKR is a bigot or is transphobic.  And I think the signers of the Harper's letter are well-meaning and sincere for the most part.  But I do have to conclude (against my original instincts and inclinations) they are wrong.