4 ms·

A More Specific Letter on Justice and Open Debate

12 points by jasonhansel 6y ago

mellosouls 6y ago
The Harper's letter was so vague, wishy-washy and weak in it's "defence" of free speech, it predictably gave ammo, courage and free range to people who must otherwise be feeling very worried that their 1984-style antics are being increasingly called out by the mainstream. They suspect that their opponents are still weak from fear of cancellation, and it shows here in this response, which is a good and confident counter-punch. Incidentally, a footnote demonstrates the claim they are arguing against - people (left, right, whatever) should not be afraid of arguing in a civil and constructive way, so why are they suggesting that is not happening? 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.
- Mary-Jane 6y ago
  That one sentence rather undermined the bulk of the rest of the letter: if, as they argue "cancel culture" isn't a real thing then why are they afraid if being cancelled? I think they address in part; POC and other minorities don't have "institutional power" to protect them like white cis men (presumably) do. The argument would have been more effective IMO if they focused on that point rather than shaming the signatories, but that wasn't the point. "Counter punch" is indeed a good word for what they were doing here.
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    Yes I agree with that - I think the argument against their perceived weakness in institutions is that academia/media/tech are generally claimed to be left-dominated by the right. But even if it is, that is not the same as POC and minorities having material power, even in those places. But the historical lack of power is a powerful argument to pursue and use in counter as here - but they have to be prepared for the "well, all those institutions are run by liberals now" response. I don't see anything but weakness in the left's denial of the obvious witch-hunts - they should not protest so much perhaps but examine honestly in good faith the complaint, and bear in mind that while this is currently (mostly but not entirely) a disease of the left, conservatives need also to remember their own equivalent purges in the McCarthy years. This is a human flaw, and acknowledging it while maintaining the right to defend against institutional legacy power structures and discrimination or bias seems a more healthy and constructive way forward.
aklemm 6y ago
This is an excellent counter point to that letter specifically, and to the specious, whining right-wing agitators, in general.

12 points by jasonhansel 6y ago

The Harper's letter was so vague, wishy-washy and weak in it's "defence" of free speech, it predictably gave ammo, courage and free range to people who must otherwise be feeling very worried that their 1984-style antics are being increasingly called out by the mainstream. They suspect that their opponents are still weak from fear of cancellation, and it shows here in this response, which is a good and confident counter-punch. Incidentally, a footnote demonstrates the claim they are arguing against - people (left, right, whatever) should not be afraid of arguing in a civil and constructive way, so why are they suggesting that is not happening? 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.

Mary-Jane 6y ago
That one sentence rather undermined the bulk of the rest of the letter: if, as they argue "cancel culture" isn't a real thing then why are they afraid if being cancelled? I think they address in part; POC and other minorities don't have "institutional power" to protect them like white cis men (presumably) do. The argument would have been more effective IMO if they focused on that point rather than shaming the signatories, but that wasn't the point. "Counter punch" is indeed a good word for what they were doing here.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  Yes I agree with that - I think the argument against their perceived weakness in institutions is that academia/media/tech are generally claimed to be left-dominated by the right. But even if it is, that is not the same as POC and minorities having material power, even in those places. But the historical lack of power is a powerful argument to pursue and use in counter as here - but they have to be prepared for the "well, all those institutions are run by liberals now" response. I don't see anything but weakness in the left's denial of the obvious witch-hunts - they should not protest so much perhaps but examine honestly in good faith the complaint, and bear in mind that while this is currently (mostly but not entirely) a disease of the left, conservatives need also to remember their own equivalent purges in the McCarthy years. This is a human flaw, and acknowledging it while maintaining the right to defend against institutional legacy power structures and discrimination or bias seems a more healthy and constructive way forward.

aklemm 6y ago

This is an excellent counter point to that letter specifically, and to the specious, whining right-wing agitators, in general.