Open Letters- "Cancel Culture"

[Larry of the Lawn]

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Do you support the Studio’s choice to refuse to employ people with whom they disagreed politically?  

And for clarities sake there is nothing illegal about the choice to “exclude” or “de-platform”.  I’d just like you to admit it is the same tactic used by the blacklisters from the second “Red Scare”.

What tactic?  What example?  Bennet? JK Rowling?

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

James Gunn, for about 4 months?

Was he reported to the government?  Or did he just lose a job for public comments he made?  I fucking hate Disney but I don't really see how what they did should be illegal.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

What tactic?  What example?  Bennet? JK Rowling?

Well, Steve Pinker was targeted:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/2020/07/10/steven-pinker-beats-cancel-culture-attack/%3ffbclid=IwAR0EEeOV-5HaQswgw45VaaZqpU07mtsDZH7yolqOCTt69Qtw1iMnf4INHT0&amp

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Was he reported to the government?  Or did he just lose a job for public comments he made?  I fucking hate Disney but I don't really see how what they did should be illegal.

Where did I say de-platforming is or should be illegal?  I’m pointing out the similarity of tactics.  Not claiming this is or should be illegal.

[Larry of the Lawn]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Well, Steve Pinker was targeted:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/2020/07/10/steven-pinker-beats-cancel-culture-attack/%3ffbclid=IwAR0EEeOV-5HaQswgw45VaaZqpU07mtsDZH7yolqOCTt69Qtw1iMnf4INHT0&amp

People take issue with stuff he said, try to get him removed from a position, the LSA declined to do so.  Where's the attack on free speech?  Where's the censorship?  This sounds like good old public discourse to me.  

[Larry of the Lawn]

You are aware that some of the signatories of the letter have done exactly this stuff you're upset about, right?  Tried to get people fired for their views?  Do you understand why that might make some people think the letter is some posturing bullshit?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

People take issue with stuff he said, try to get him removed from a position, the LSA declined to do so.  Where's the attack on free speech?  Where's the censorship?  This sounds like good old public discourse to me.  

If that is a tactic you like, yes.  I’m not fond of the meta action of seeking to prevent amplification of an individuals words.  I prefer to see the person refuted.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If that is a tactic you like, yes.  I’m not fond of the meta action of seeking to prevent amplification of an individuals words.  I prefer to see the person refuted.

So you could see then, why the open letter seems hypocritical?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

You are aware that some of the signatories of the letter have done exactly this stuff you're upset about, right?  Tried to get people fired for their views?  Do you understand why that might make some people think the letter is some posturing bullshit?

And they were wrong to do so in my earnest opinion.  Does that make them wrong to stand up for an open exchange of ideas now?

Are you going to suggest we aren’t all hypocrites in some form or fashion or that hypocrisy invalidates good ideas when offered?

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And they were wrong to do so in my earnest opinion.  Does that make them wrong to stand up for an open exchange of ideas now?

Are you going to suggest we aren’t all hypocrites in some form or fashion or that hypocrisy invalidates good ideas when offered?

 

I'm suggesting that the letter itself is fairly meaningless, and being used as a tool to silence voices that are already marginalised, and to protect existing power structures.  I'm suggesting that the examples it likely (again, admittedly making an assumption here) alludes to aren't in fact examples of attacks on the free exchange of ideas, as I've already detailed here. 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

I'm suggesting that the letter itself is fairly meaningless, and being used as a tool to silence voices that are already marginalised, and to protect existing power structures.  I'm suggesting that the examples it likely (again, admittedly making an assumption here) alludes to aren't in fact examples of attacks on the free exchange of ideas, as I've already detailed here. 

 

So, if Steve Pinker were never heard from publicly again, that’s okay because he’s been heard before?

Why do you think Margaret Atwood and Norm Chomsky were signatories to the letter?

[kairparavel]

It's the consequences they don't like and that's just too bad. De-platforming isn't silencing. Having to either consider your shitty viewpoint for a bit or seek out other ways to spread it isn't cancelation, it's a pause. 

Harper's is published in a country that has this First Amendment thing but also has something called Free Speech Zones. So why can't it be the same for general discourse?

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, if Steve Pinker were never heard from publicly again, that’s okay because he’s been heard before?

Why do you think Margaret Atwood and Norm Chomsky were signatories to the letter?

Huh?  As long as Pinkers books or writings aren't being burned or banned I'm not sure I see the issue here 

I think Atwood and Chomsky signed on because the letter itself is a bunch of platitudes that are tough to disagree with.  

The Pinker example is the only thing even close to what they could be alluding to in the letter:

Quote

More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. 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.

Can you show someone actually getting silenced over any of this?  Is there an editor other than Bennet who this could apply to?  What researcher was fired for circulating a peer reviewed study?  Who was ousted for what was just a clumsy mistake?  

Eta: that's why I'm calling the letter a strawman argument.  The things it's alleging haven't been shown to have happened.  So what are they referring to?  

At my job there would be excellent cause to fire me or cancel a contract for just a clumsy mistake.  Because even clumsy mistakes can have severe consequences.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

Huh?  As long as Pinkers books or writings aren't being burned or banned I'm not sure I see the issue here 

I think Atwood and Chomsky signed on because the letter itself is a bunch of platitudes that are tough to disagree with.  

The Pinker example is the only thing even close to what they could be alluding to in the letter:

Can you show someone actually getting silenced over any of this?  Is there an editor other than Bennet who this could apply to?  What researcher was fired for circulating a peer reviewed study?  Who was ousted for what was just a clumsy mistake?  

I’m currently unaware of other specific examples but I wonder if others who have more free time than I do might provide some?

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I'm suggesting that the letter itself is fairly meaningless, and being used as a tool to silence voices that are already marginalised, and to protect existing power structures.  I'm suggesting that the examples it likely (again, admittedly making an assumption here) alludes to aren't in fact examples of attacks on the free exchange of ideas, as I've already detailed here. 

 

This is actually quite a broad statement. Whose voices is the letter attempting to silence? Which power structures are they trying to protect? Which voices are marginalised? 
 

It’s fine to critique the letter but if you offer up the same vague platitudes that you criticise the letter for then it’s hard to understand your point.

4 minutes ago, kairparavel said:

It's the consequences they don't like and that's just too bad. De-platforming isn't silencing. Having to either consider your shitty viewpoint for a bit or seek out other ways to spread it isn't cancelation, it's a pause. 

This is part of the problem, statements like this. The absolutism that ‘this is shitty behaviour’ , absolutely certainty that what someone said or did is terrible or morally repugnant. Actually in most of the cases I’ve seen mentioned that simply isn’t the case, often it’s just that one side of the argument disagrees with the other. Usually it is the left which declares any disagreement with the orthodox opinion to be ‘sinful’. 

Mostly these are matters of debate, but to take such an absolutist viewpoint and treat disagreement as matters of good vs the evil is something we need to cut out

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

This is actually quite a broad statement. Whose voices is the letter attempting to silence? Which power structures are they trying to protect? Which voices are marginalised? 
 

It’s fine to critique the letter but if you offer up the same vague platitudes that you criticise the letter for then it’s hard to understand your point.

This is part of the problem, statements like this. The absolutism that ‘this is shitty behaviour’ , absolutely certainty that what someone said or did is terrible or morally repugnant. Actually in most of the cases I’ve seen mentioned that simply isn’t the case, often it’s just that one side of the argument disagrees with the other. Usually it is the left which declares any disagreement with the orthodox opinion to be ‘sinful’. 

Mostly these are matters of debate, but to take such an absolutist viewpoint and treat disagreement as matters of good vs the evil is something we need to cut out

I suspect the response is to point out we are being “absolutist” in response...

[Ran]

Davis Shor was fired for sharing Omar Wasow's research. The link is to Jonathan Chait's rundown of the incidents, while here if you follow the tweet you can get a link through to the normally-premium Chronicle of Higher Education article on Omar Wasow, his research, and reactions to it in academia:

 

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Davis Shor was fired for sharing Omar Wasow's research. The link is to Jonathan Chait's rundown of the incidents, while here if you follow the tweet you can get a link through to the normally-premium Chronicle of Higher Education article on Omar Wasow, his research, and reactions to it in academia:

 

Yes, David Shor's "thought crime" was to tweet a paper that contradicted current left wing orthodoxy.

Making statements about the fundamental nature of things, that have no direct connection with race or related matters, ie statements about the individual and his relationship to society or the nature of knowledge production can get you into hotwater. Saying something like, "I think people should be treated as individuals" can get you into trouble, or saying "I think objective truth exist", or "I think the scientific method is the best way to discover things"" can get you into trouble.

[Knight Of Winter]

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I wonder how long before rightest get a hold of this stuff and refashion them for their own purposes.

Oh they already had, long time ago. Where I'm from, far-righters have repeatedly sued the hell out of people for expressing their opinion or criticizing right-wingers, using phrases like "they offended us with their speech" or "they violated our feelings". Fortunately they had very limited success. 

Really, the short-sigthedness of leftists who try to censor free speech never ceases to baffle me. They support censorship thinking that they'll always and ever be the ones doing the censoring. The idea that this same principle will (and already has been) used by right never seems to cross their mind. And when it does inevitably happen again, I'm willing to bet they'll start complaining about "being silenced", "systematically oppressed" ,"being told not to raise their voices" or something similar.

Seriously, considering someone's personal sentiment of feeling unsafe, or feeling offended as valid grounds for punishing the speaker has never worked well even in theory, and much less in practice. In my opinion, free speech and free discourse are one of the few fundamental values of our civilization, in some form responsible for numerous advances is sciences, human rights, arts, journalism and others. Restricting it should be done only in extreme circumstances: and only two good examples that come to mind are libel/defamation and inciting to violence.

[OldGimletEye]

29 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Oh they already had, long time ago. 

Well yes, some of this stuff seems eerily close to the stuff that came out the neo-cons and the Bush Administration.

Criticisms of US foreign policy meant you just "hated America". Or criticisms of the abuse of civil rights meant you "supported terrorism".

Criticisms of military tribunals made people "unsafe".