That Harpers Open Letter

[_EAllusion]

Or, he was deemed an ok person to target in your who's who of people with whom one shouldn't be seen in public because you, personally, don't like him for reasons. You tried to then hide under Steven Pinker's coat tails while doing so, ignoring Pinker apparently understands being in the room with people he might not otherwise associate with in the case of the letter is part of the point.

When did I say that Gladwell shouldn't be seen in public? I'd say to quote me, but you've developed a sad habit of just quoting me with completely incorrect interpretations of what I said, so maybe don't quote me? I didn't say that, though.

What I did say is that Gladwell's behavior is not consistent with the spirit of robust tolerance of free speech and is better interpreted as someone who thinks only certain speech should not result in criticism or professional consequences and this confuses the message of people who are more consistent/open about boundaries. Some people, believe it or not, are hypocrites who use the idea of free speech as a fig leaf. Perhaps they on the one hand prefer criticism of them be muted because of "free speech" but also have a highly censorious attitude towards what they dislike. Maybe they think people shouldn't stop spending their money on publications that promote race science because free speech, but want people who criticize Isreal's policies to lose their jobs. For people who need reinforcement on the importance of free speech, I'd prefer that's not what they think of when they think of free speech advocacy because I prefer free speech advocacy to promote the values that undergird actual free speech.

To quote Ken White's point, again:

That's because of the fundamental deal behind First Amendment values: you can't use the government to punish speech because the marketplace of ideas, the private sector, society's "more speech" is the best way to address "bad speech," not government action.

So. What if your emphasis in supporting First Amendment values is attacking "more speech" as illegitimate?
People: Censor this speech!
Defenders: No, counter it with more speech.
People: okay, [more speech]
Defenders: No, not like that.

I think this emphasis has the natural and probable effect of conveying to people that "the deal" is ____.

For some people, "free speech" is the right to say what they want amplified by resources they demand free from any criticism them for it. For others, it's not that. That the letter doesn't do a good job of making distinctions and is signed by numerous examples of people who are self-serving, disingenuous, and/or hypocritical about this does not help convey the message of people whose interest is not that.

Because I think Gladwell is an example of counterproductive messaging on a letter doesn't mean I think he "shouldn't be seen in public." You've tried to connect the fact I think his pop-science writing is pseudoscience to this, but they are distinct points. He's a talented hack who isn't a reliable source of information on the things he writes about, but if he wants to say things, nothing is stopping him. You're quite the hysterical snowflake here, aren't you?

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/u7rfdh/re ... olen-skate

Maybe the underlying problem here is assuming that you care about free speech when you just might be someone mostly who cares about protecting sources you personally think are fine from criticism, boycotts, and the like. That sure would explain why you keep demanding to know what's wrong with Jessie Signal et. al. have said despite that not being the topic being talked about.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

In today’s iteration of “Pieces of crap Idiots Who Didn’t Know Signing on to Letter Enables the KKK” is Louis Begley. His wiki bio:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Begley

This dumb Jewish Harvard graduate and US Army veteran who escaped the Holocaust and who became a power lawyer who is best known for his writing (one book was made into a movie that was marginally successful - ha, what a loser) clearly had no idea he was being used to further people like Charlie Kirk‘s (?????) social agenda on Twitter or something.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Morgan Spurlock, documentary filmmmaker once loved by the left, once gave a speech at schools where he mocked McDonald's for hiring "retards" in his quest to take jabs at McDonald's. He thought McDonald's having developmentally disabled employees was great, hilarious line of attack. He did this in front of special needs students who had to be escorted out. Standup guy, that Spurlock.

When criticized for this, with some people questioning whether he be the person schools choose to hire for speeches, he said he was giving a lesson in "free speech" and implied not giving him a forum to speak at schools where he'll promote prejudice against the cognitively disabled would be an assault on his free speech.

While Spurlock tends to be anti-censorship, one can't help but get the impression that his version of "free speech" includes "don't criticize or turn your back on Morgan Spurlock."

If Morgan Spurlock signed a letter saying the values of free speech are important, even if I agreed with the literal content of the letter, I might worry about the message people would get from it if they're at all familiar with Spurlock's views about what free speech is. That's my point. It's meant as a counterpoint to other arguments about this that also accept that Morgan Spurlock is who he is.

I am interacting with the premise that there are, in fact, plenty of people who have this problem signing the thing. There is a whole universe of conversation where this is not a controversial point. Honor decided to go at every angle, but was insistent that this be proved even though that's taken for granted to make a point. And when Gladwell's hypocrisy is discussed by happenstance, he plugs away anyway.

[_EAllusion]

In today’s iteration of “Pieces of ____ Idiots Who Didn’t Know Signing on to Letter Enables the KKK” is Louis Begley. His wiki bio:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Begley

This dumb Jewish Harvard graduate and US Army veteran who escaped the Holocaust and who became a power lawyer who is best known for his writing (one book was made into a movie that was marginally successful - ha, what a loser) clearly had no idea he was being used to further people like Charlie Kirk‘s (?????) social agenda on Twitter or something.

- Doc

How long are you gonna work on this strawman?

[_EAllusion]

Incidentally, the people coming for Matthew Yglesisas' et. al's head very much have interpreted the letter to mean something like what Bari Weiss means when she talks about "free speech." It's not hypothetical that it would have this effect. It's having that effect out in the wild. I think this is unfair to Yglesisas and company, but is predictable given the context. I submit that having the Bari Weiss's name on it makes that an easier thing to happen. It's not a reach for a person to look over the signatories and decide this isn't a comment about whether people should be criticized or avoided, but who gets to cause that treatment and who doesn't. I come in an say, "Well, the sentiment of the letter seems fine, but I would agree the message is muddled given the public record of some of the people who signed it" and all of a sudden I'm a leftist jihadist sharpening the guillotine.

A narrower letter that complained about specific examples, say David Shor, wouldn't have the same effect or even the same supporters and would result in a different debate, but would benefit from not making people think we're talking about the fact that Martin Amis has a harder time securing favorable terms for a book deal in his retirement years because he is reported to have said horrible things about Muslims. The letter deliberately chooses to rely on lofty rhetoric and vague references, so if you're gonna go that route and want to have a letter that functions via its solidarity of opinion, then actually having a solidarity of opinion matters. This doesn't mean that everyone must agree on everything - that's a silly strawman - but rather that they must be generally on the same page about what the content of the letter means based on their public statements and actions. And they're not. Are we talking about just wanting to open up the public discourse to more prejudice with not as much criticism or professional difficulty or not? Free speech's self appointed defenders aren't always actually interested in free speech per se. That's the first lesson of watching people defend free speech.

[_honorentheos]

Or, he was deemed an ok person to target in your who's who of people with whom one shouldn't be seen in public because you, personally, don't like him for reasons. You tried to then hide under Steven Pinker's coat tails while doing so, ignoring Pinker apparently understands being in the room with people he might not otherwise associate with in the case of the letter is part of the point.

When did I say that Gladwell shouldn't be seen in public? I'd say to quote me, but you've developed a sad habit of just quoting me with completely incorrect interpretations of what I said, so maybe don't quote me? I didn't say that, though.

Nor did I say you said that. I said, "Be seen with", as a question if freedom of association. Which is essentially what you are wanting to argue as best as can be said if your perpetual claim to be debating with people not in this board.

So, below, you again explain why you think it's best not to associate with Gladwell on projects like this because you see his imperfections as damaging the cause:

What I did say is that Gladwell's behavior is not consistent with the spirit of robust tolerance of free speech and is better interpreted as someone who thinks only certain speech should not result in criticism or professional consequences and this confuses the message of people who are more consistent/open about boundaries. Some people, believe it or not, are hypocrites who use the idea of free speech as a fig leaf. Perhaps they on the one hand prefer criticism of them be muted because of "free speech" but also have a highly censorious attitude towards what they dislike. Maybe they think people shouldn't stop spending their money on publications that promote race science because free speech, but want people who criticize Isreal's policies to lose their jobs. For people who need reinforcement on the importance of free speech, I'd prefer that's not what they think of when they think of free speech advocacy because I prefer free speech advocacy to promote the values that undergird actual free speech.

And then we are back to the P/Q point.

So, I don't know. Learn to read or something.

[_honorentheos]

Incidentally, the people coming for Matthew Yglesisas' et. al's head very much have interpreted the letter to mean something like what Bari Weiss means when she talks about "free speech." It's not hypothetical that it would have this effect. It's having that effect out in the wild. I think this is unfair to Yglesisas and company, but is predictable given the context. I submit that having the Bari Weiss's name on it makes that an easier thing to happen. It's not a reach for a person to look over the signatories and decide this isn't a comment about whether people should be criticized or avoided, but who gets to cause that treatment and who doesn't. I come in an say, "Well, the sentiment of the letter seems fine, but I would agree the message is muddled given the public record of some of the people who signed it" and all of a sudden I'm a leftist jihadist sharpening the guillotine.

A narrower letter that complained about specific examples, say David Shor, wouldn't have the same effect or even the same supporters and would result in a different debate, but would benefit from not making people think we're talking about the fact that Martin Amis has a harder time securing favorable terms for a book deal in his retirement years because he is reported to have said horrible things about Muslims. The letter deliberately chooses to rely on lofty rhetoric and vague references, so if you're gonna go that route and want to have a letter that functions via its solidarity of opinion, then actually having a solidarity of opinion matters. This doesn't mean that everyone must agree on everything - that's a silly strawman - but rather that they must be generally on the same page about what the content of the letter means based on their public statements and actions. And they're not. Are we talking about just wanting to open up the public discourse to more prejudice with not as much criticism or professional difficulty or not? Free speech's self appointed defenders aren't always actually interested in free speech per se. That's the first lesson of watching people defend free speech.

The content of the letter itself is hardly discussed. But yeah, we get it. The Twitter corners you haunt are full of yokles who judge based on association so when the letter intentionally included a diverse cross-section of writers with an almost guaranteed intention to provoke those corners because everyone can find someone in the list to dislike including others on the list, well...

[_honorentheos]

Let's isolate out a key part of the letter as a reminder of why this guilt by association, privileged signatories who aren't threatened by actually being cancelled argument is hyperventilating about something outside of the letter itself but rather knee-jerk behaviour on the part of those on Twitter being targeted by the letter:

Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. 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.

Let's be real here. The Twitterverse that exploded over this was going to explode no matter what. No list of signatories would be sufficiently woke or enlightened or pure or whatever to be fully acceptable. Folks like EA are going to play internet for points because that's what they do.

The point is to push back, to create space for other parties to feel like there is support for not being bullied by this Twitteratti mob.

[_EAllusion]

Since it has generated so much conversation, there has been investigative reporting in how the letter's signatures have come together, and multiple people are claiming it was presented to them in a misleading fashion by misrepresenting the final product or showing only the fellow signatories that would be apt to agree with their general outlook. Perhaps someone here might want to argue they're covering their ass by lying, but that would be an interesting demonstration of how some people's hearts can be known, but others can't.

Also, for people who don't know, the thing Bari Weiss is most famous for is branding figures popular with the alt-lite with dubious views as the brave rebels of free speech while attacking criticism of them with the implication that it is free speech opposition. Her work focuses on portraying "cancel culture" as conservatives tend to use the term as an issue of overriding importance with a focus on collecting brickbat stories to craft a narrative of supports the former point. She does this while having literally built a career on trying to silence people she disagrees with, including trying to get professors and journalists fired. The message is to stop being mean to Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, but critics of Isreal need to to be shut up. She basically is a more fluent Charlie Kirk in this regard, which makes it interesting that it's so god damn offensive to bring up Charlie Kirk's name in an analogous point while declaring her good people. Bari Weiss is exactly the sort of person who bemoans cancel culture when someone doesn't want David Rubin to be invited to give a commencement address, but also has a semi-professional role of trying to get people whose views she doesn't like minimized. It's an effort to change the boundaries of socially acceptable opinion more towards gamergate and less towards Noam Chomsky. That's her main schtick, and her entire career from college into the present has been based around maligning leftwing activists, sometimes presented as a concern about "free speech". She has a job at NYT's editorial department to basically act as a concern troll to spice things up.

The list includes multiple people in the neighborhood of this in terms of their relationship to free speech. It's dotted throughout. People who agree with this have opinions on it. I come along and think in response to those opinions, "Well, interpreted literally the letter is fine, but given the vagueness and who signed it, I'm not sure this is effective as an act of persuasion."

[_EAllusion]

Let's isolate out a key part of the letter as a reminder of why this guilt by association, privileged signatories who aren't threatened by actually being cancelled argument is hyperventilating about something outside of the letter itself but rather knee-jerk behaviour on the part of those on Twitter being targeted by the letter:

Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. 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.

Let's be real here. The Twitterverse that exploded over this was going to explode no matter what. No list of signatories would be sufficiently woke or enlightened or pure or whatever to be fully acceptable. Folks like EAllusion are going to play internet for points because that's what they do.

The point is to push back, to create space for other parties to feel like there is support for not being bullied by this Twitteratti mob.

The letter is complaining about overzealous leftwing actors not respecting the values of free speech and improperly shrinking the boundaries of tolerated opinion by inappropriately chilling viewpoints with professional threats. Knowing the letter can be interpreted to be talking about examples where this has actually happened, I'm fine, but also knowing the letter is using the exact same rhetoric people, including people whose name signed on the dotted line, that use idea of free speech as a means to attack critical speech, and I understand the consternation. If this letter is talking about what happened to Jenn Kamp Rowling, then the letter sucks, because there's no threat to "free speech" in what happened to Jenn Kamp Rowling. (P.S. There's a good chance the Jenn Kamp Rowling thinks the letter refers to things like what happened to Jenn Kamp Rowling). The letter has a lot of signatories who have faced backlash in the form of criticism and disassociation, some unfairly, and many quite fairly, and zero I immediately recognize that have been actually "cancelled" in any meaningful way by leftwing people. Are we talking about them? Some readers certainly might think so. Their name, after all, is right there.

The letter by its nature is talking about something "outside the letter" because the letter doesn't give any specific examples. It's general and vague. Who are the people the letter is referring to? What have they done? Why is that bad? Spelling that out might've (read: definitely would have) changed who signed it. Instead, we're left with something generic and innocuous, but easily read in context as everything from a caution against what happened to Rebecca Tuvel to an effort to open up the public discourse to more acceptance of transphobic writing without criticism. As a persuasive document, this is wanting in its focus.

I've seen criticism of this as a bunch of of the most influential people in the English speaking world complaining that their privileged position to say whatever they want is being attacked by other people's free expression. This is the elite complaining that the riffraff want to have a voice and threaten their seat at the table. I think this is quite unfair because I think they actually are an odd collection of people who don't mean the same thing by the same words. But that's also a criticism of the presentation. Because then it's likely to fail in its purported mission.