Open Letters- "Cancel Culture"

[Darth Richard II]

I think JKR is a bigot and transphobic and actively harmful. I don't even know how you could argue she isn't at this point.

I digress.

A friend tweeted this out so full disclosure, I don't know anything about the author's other stances on stuff, so if he's some sort of alt right nazi or something, I am unaware

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/cancel-culture-harpers-jk-rowling-scam_n_5f0887b4c5b67a80bc06c95e

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

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.

The 'problem' with the original letter itself is that it is actually very short, it highlights problems but in no real detail, and doesn't really offer up any sort of solutions. 

Maybe that wasn't the point of it, maybe it was simply a way for a bunch of people who have observed a certain trend to speak out and say that it worries them, and so making a statement of intent so that the conversation might become more widespread. It's fair to assume that for many these days any talk of 'free speech' leads them to dismiss it as a bunch of right wing racists who want to "spout their filth" without repercussions. Those who have signed that letter kind of disprove that theory, showing that the fears are shared across the board. 

But yeah, what are the solutions, and what are the actual problems to be solved. As I mentioned, the term 'cancel culture' is essentially meaningless because it is used to to describe a huge array of incidents and situations. 

For me the first issue to solve is a technological one. It's the internet and it's driving everyone crazy. Everything anyone says is ramped up to 100 within minutes, nuance is a thing of the past and reasoned conversation is something most people simply don't have time for. Unless you are going to dramatically change the way social media works, or literally ban twitter then I don't see what is going to change. The incentives for everyone are towards hyperbole and over reaction. 

But that the letter had a bunch of people on it who I think would vehemently disagree with each other on a number of issues saying that they would rather be able to talk about them than prevent others from speaking is an important aspect of the letter. 

I think we should care.

[Mosi Mynn]

Nick Cohen in The Guardian arguing that the attacks on the signatories of a letter fearing the future of free speech proved the letter’s point.  He's talking about the original Harpers letter.

[OldGimletEye]

I fully support the letter primarily I have liberal humanist outlook and not one primarily formed by post modernism and critical race theory.

Leftist that embrace the epistemological outlook of post modernism or CRT, in my view, are being fundamentally dishonest when they say they support free speech, but then really believe their is no such thing as objectivity and that knowledge is a just social construction, produced by groups vying for power. Its high time in my view, some of this nonsense gets corrected or challenged.

And there certainly has been a turn in leftist thought about free speech. You have people on left running around calling speech "violence". And there is another group that likes to shut it down by claiming certain speech makes them "unsafe", as if things we publicly dispute don't often have potential consequences for people.

And then you have ding bats who write:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/opinion/what-liberal-snowflakes-get-right-about-free-speech.html

Quote

The philosopher Jean-François Lyotard, best known for his prescient analysis in “The Postmodern Condition” of how public discourse discards the categories of true/false and just/unjust in favor of valuing the mere fact that something is being communicated, examined the tension between experience and argument in a different way.

Yeah, I don't give a flyin' fuck what Lyotard had to say.

And yet despite all this, there are still some on left in denial about this.

[OldGimletEye]

9 hours ago, Zorral said:

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.  

 

Nikole Hannah Jones can write whatever she likes. But, she makes an error, its fair to point that out. Her main thesis was claim that she could not ultimately support.

Also, its fair to criticize writers of the 1619 Project like Matt Desmond when they make suspect claims about the drivers of growth prior to the Civil War, for instance, citing people like Edward Baptist.

[OldGimletEye]

8 hours ago, Ran said:

Counter-letters that present, "Yes, we're for the free exchange of ideas EXCEPT FOR ...."

Except when its "violence" (never defined) or makes us feel "unsafe" (the threshold of which is never clearly defined, and frankly many topics of public interest have consequences for people whether were talking about such things as foreign policy, economic policy, or healthcare policy). Its often some huge exception that is so large you could sail an air craft carrier through it.

With some of these people its a game of calvin ball. The rules change daily, and you never know what they are.

Ones starts to get the notion, that many on the left, think they have fashioned a weapon to hurl at their enemies. But, I think rather, than fashion a spear, they are more like making a boomerang, which will come back and hit them squarely in the nose. I wonder how long before rightest get a hold of this stuff and refashion them for their own purposes.

[OldGimletEye]

8 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I think in the US context it's quite possible that the left eventually splits over this and the right stays in power even with just like 40 % of the vote.

Frankly, I think there is a big fight on the left brewing over this, that will have to be hashed out.

[Darth Richard II]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Except when its "violence" (never defined) or makes us feel "unsafe" (the threshold of which is never clearly defined, and frankly many topics of public interest have consequences for people whether were talking about such things as foreign policy, economic policy, or healthcare policy). Its often some huge exception that is so large you could sail an air craft carrier through it.

With some of these people its a game of calvin ball. The rules change daily, and you never know what they are.

Ones starts to get the notion, that many on the left, think they have fashioned a weapon to hurl at their enemies. But, I think rather, than fashion a spear, they are more like making a boomerang, which will come back and hit them squarely in the nose. I wonder how long before rightest get a hold of this stuff and refashion them for their own purposes.

Is that a joke? The right has been doing this shit forever.

[OldGimletEye]

5 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Is that a joke? The right has been doing this shit forever.

Then why does the left insist on giving it intellectual credence. Just imagine the next time the right starts some hair brained war, and the left protest, and the right claims, they can't protest because it makes people "unsafe".

[Darth Richard II]

OK, well, one, this popped up on my twitter right after I typed that

Two, I have no idea what you are actually talking about. I feel like @sologdinneeds tp pop in to translate.

[OldGimletEye]

Just awhile back a Mexican American man, Emmanuel Cafferty, who was just a regular working guy, lost his job because somebody decided to "cancel" him. His alleged crime, making a white supremacist symbol. But, it seems, it was just working guy cracking his knuckles, while his arm was hanging out the driver's side window.

David Shor likely lost his job likely because he tweeted a study from a political science professor, though Civis denies it.

In my view if the left doesn't try to clean some of this stuff up, its going to end up looking bad.

[IlyaP]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

n my view if the left doesn't try to clean some of this stuff up, its going to end up looking bad.

I wasn't aware they all got together and had a meeting where they agreed on things in uniform. 

[OldGimletEye]

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

For me the first issue to solve is a technological one. It's the internet and it's driving everyone crazy. Everything anyone says is ramped up to 100 within minutes, nuance is a thing of the past and reasoned conversation is something most people simply don't have time for. Unless you are going to dramatically change the way social media works, or literally ban twitter then I don't see what is going to change. The incentives for everyone are towards hyperbole and over reaction. 

I think it comes down to making cancel culture clarify and commit to terms and tactics they use.  For instance, when they speech makes them "unsafe" they need to be made to commit to a principle where they will distinguish between "safe" and "unsafe" speech. Don't let them get away with changing its meaning every 5 seconds. Question them on every term and definition they use and make them defend it. When they use a term, don't presume you know what it means. Ask them what it means.

Its like arguing with Republicans about socialism. The meaning changes so much, you don't what in the hell your arguing about.

[mormont]

11 hours ago, Ran said:

Has Rowling attempted to deny the right of freedom of speech to others? I bet you she hasn't.

Well, that depends. Do we count threats to sue unless someone retracts a statement as denying the right of freedom of speech?

I'm not sure I do. I think Rowling has the right to sue, and that's a recognised consequence of exercising your freedom of speech.

But there's no denying that being threatened with legal action by someone who has the resources and fame not only to make good on that threat, but to exert a considerable amount of power in court, is a more serious threat to freedom of speech than anything JK Rowling herself has complained volubly about experiencing as a result of expressing her transphobic views. In other words, either JK Rowling is herself denying freedom of speech here, or she is incorrect when she complains about her own freedom of speech being infringed.

And this is the core complaint about the Harpers' letter. Not that freedom of speech isn't a good and worthwhile thing to defend. But that the list of signatories contains a lot of people who continue to have and use massive platforms to express their freedom of speech, and who mostly seem to be grumbling that people have the temerity to disagree with them. It's not to be taken seriously as a defence of free speech, because it's not addressed to governments that are locking up dissidents, it's addressed to people who get annoyed on Twitter.

5 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

And there certainly has been a turn in leftist thought about free speech. You have people on left running around calling speech "violence". And there is another group that likes to shut it down by claiming certain speech makes them "unsafe", as if things we publicly dispute don't often have potential consequences for people.

OTOH, it's undeniable that some speech *is* violent and makes us feel unsafe. And that this speech is often defended by the cry of 'free speech' as an absolute right, which it never has been. As outlined above, it has consequences. If you can sue someone for libel, why can't you stop people from making threatening speech or calling for genocide?

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think it comes down to making cancel culture clarify and commit to terms and tactics they use.  For instance, when they speech makes them "unsafe" they need to be made to commit to a principle where they will distinguish between "safe" and "unsafe" speech. Don't let them get away with changing its meaning every 5 seconds. Question them on every term and definition they use and make them defend it. When they use a term, don't presume you know what it means. Ask them what it means.

What it means doesn't matter. If you make someone 'feel' unsafe well that is not something you can challenge or disprove. Someone says they 'feel' unsafe and therefore it must be true. 

But I think this goes back to my point about the internet, it amplifies a lot of these systems and incentives. The incentive to get any level of attention is to shout the loudest and to be the biggest victim. Now we have different groups dividing off and arguing with each other over who is the more oppressed. So the bar for what speech is 'violence' gets lowered every single time. 

And as the loudest voice wins, they tend to claim to speak for everyone. "This speech makes ***** group feel unsafe".. is a comment which is rarely backed up by numbers, it is just a claim with some some shouting behind it. It is often completely meaningless. 

The internet also reduces all issues down to the most simplistic soundbites and memes. If it is shareable on your instagram then it must be true, if I can shrink an entire concept into an easily digestable tweet then great! Therefore people can say things which sound good when you look at them on their face and tap into a general sense that something being true, without ever having to examine it in any detail. 

 

[Heartofice]

I also think the repeated criticism of this letter that it’s ‘ a bunch of rich people with huge platforms complaining about not having a platform’ misses the point entirely.

A bunch of people nobody had heard of doesn’t really get much traction if they sign a letter. There are household names on that list and they are using their status to highlight an issue that doesn’t just affect them.

JK Rowling got into this whole trans debate after defending someone who had lost their job for voicing opinions on trans matters, that person wasn’t famous or powerful or rich. 
 

It’s really not about a bunch of rich people complaining that people disagree with them, that is a simplistic and ignorant take on the whole matter. The same system affects ordinary people in the same way, and the direction of travel is moving quickly towards more over reaction and censoriousness, and less around discussion of different points of view.

[Ran]

 

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

Well, that depends. Do we count threats to sue unless someone retracts a statement as denying the right of freedom of speech?

No, the law's recognition of freedom of speech does not extend to libel or defamation. The tweet she responded to was deleted following this, apparently on the advice of lawyers and because the writer admitted that they lacked "clarity" in their statement (i.e. a weasely admission that the broad statement they made was libelous) and followed that up with a narrower and more precise statement that remains up while throwing a sullen jab at the idea that if it weren't for Rowling's wealth her libel would have stayed up. The lesson she should take out of this is to use protected speech, not that the law is stifling her.

 

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

But there's no denying that being threatened with legal action by someone who has the resources and fame not only to make good on that threat, but to exert a considerable amount of power in court, is a more serious threat to freedom of speech

I would not consider libel or defamation protected speech, so this scenario has no impact on freedom of speech. Yes, there is a threat when protected speech is falsely accused of not being protected, and this certainly happens. This is why organizations like the ACLU, EFF, CBLDF, FIRE, etc  exist (at least in the US), and I'm sure there are equivalents in the UK.

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

than anything JK Rowling herself has complained volubly about experiencing as a result of expressing her transphobic views. In other words, either JK Rowling is herself denying freedom of speech here, or she is incorrect when she complains about her own freedom of speech being infringed.

Rowling is not libeling or defaming individuals and expecting to get away with it.

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

But that the list of signatories contains a lot of people who continue to have and use massive platforms to express their freedom of speech, and who mostly seem to be grumbling that people have the temerity to disagree with them.

All the cases they indirectly cite in the letter, such as that of David Shor, as genuine issues have nothing to do with them personally. Is Chomsky really a person grumbling about people disagreeing with him? 

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

 

As outlined above, it has consequences. If you can sue someone for libel, why can't you stop people from making threatening speech

Incitements to violence to individuals or groups are not protected speech in the U.S.

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

or calling for genocide?

Sounds like an incitement to violence to me. Is this proteced in the UK? I am surprised. 

[Gaston de Foix]

41 minutes ago, Ran said:

Sounds like an incitement to violence to me. Is this proteced in the UK? I am surprised. 

No.  Britain and all the ECHR countries have a far less absolutist free speech model than the U.S.  

But isn't the question Ran, not about intent (always a hard thing to gauge) but effect? If the authors are right that speech is being chilled, then the question is are they right?  And what, if anything, should be done about it? Looking at this debate mainly through the lens of JKR, IMHO, is a mistake.   

[IlyaP]

53 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

JK Rowling got into this whole trans debate after defending someone who had lost their job for voicing opinions on trans matters, that person wasn’t famous or powerful or rich. 

For the purposes of preventing an argument and/or headaches: said person didn't technically lose their job - rather, their contract was not renewed. That's a distinction worth noting.

(Caveat: I'm not having a go at you or attacking you - I simply wanted to clarify a small point with minimal fuss and ideally not have it be a big deal. Please.) 

[The Marquis de Leech]

7 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I fully support the letter primarily I have liberal humanist outlook and not one primarily formed by post modernism and critical race theory.

I support the letter because I have an understanding of history. If one is happy to suppress views one doesn't like, one can't very well turn around and complain about McCarthyism. Et cetera. Too many Leftists seem to think that history bends only in their direction... no, it doesn't, and some of us are familiar with what right-wing attacks on freedom of speech look like. 

That Rowling has attached her name to this is neither here nor there. It doesn't affect my opinion of her (a profoundly negative one), but it doesn't invalidate the letter.