5 ms·

The problem with this rebuttal is that it assumes that the high–level writers and editors are not themselves the illiberal and anti–speech proponents, gatekeepi

The problem with this rebuttal is that it assumes that the high–level writers and editors are not themselves the illiberal and anti–speech proponents, gatekeeping what perspectives are allowed to be represented in the first place. For example: Harper's Magazine, which published the recent open letter on cancel culture that Bari Weiss signed, doesn't pay its interns [1], ensuring that only those who can afford to work for free are allowed on the lowest rung of the ladder. If these high–level writers were truly concerned about open debate and a culture of curiosity, they might be more concerned about breaking down barriers such as that. Instead, they're worried that they, the people already at the top of the ladder, might get knocked down to the same level as the rest of us. [1] https://harpers.org/about/internships/ https://harpers.org/about/internships/

pas 6y ago
"Cancel culture" doesn't mean no word from them for ever after. It means they get demoted, dismissed, let go, fired, etc. People are losing positions, jobs, power, control, income, reputation, titles and whatnot because of various reasons. Usually due to the pressure of a largely invisible mob. For example the case of Stephen Hsu ( https://statenews.com/article/2020/06/michigan-state-geu-calls-to-remove-vp-research-administrator-stephen-hsu?ct=content_open&cv=cbox_latest https://statenews.com/article/2020/06/michigan-state-geu-cal... ) ... I have no idea if he's right or not, but it's true he's bad at PR and science communication. We know how regular big of a backstabbing parade the regular old natural science community is (string theory boo/yaay, money for colliders, SUSY, ITER/fusion vs something else). So it's not a surprise that social-adjacent science is even more hardcore in this regard, but this is likely too much and too fast. Yes, sure activism and change needs momentum, but people will be surprised when the hysteresis rears its head due to over-dampening. But this has happened already many times (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sociobiology:_The_New_Synthesis&oldid=950326477#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sociobiology:_The... and here's an another example https://www.reddit.com/r/gwern/comments/hoeqyg/stereotype_accuracy_one_of_the_largest_and_most/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gwern/comments/hoeqyg/stereotype_ac... ) and likely will happen again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Also, note, I'm not saying we shouldn't raise the bar for public (and semi-public) discourse. For example, as far as I know, adopting Codes of Conduct turned out to be quite okay, it laid the foundation for the way to deal with problems, gave a structure and rules to point at when someone crosses a line.
seibelj 6y ago
Rather than criticize the content of the letter, you attack Harper's for not paying interns, which is unrelated to the content. Classic tactic for silencing disagreement is to attack the source. What do you disagree with in the Harper's letter itself (the content, not the publication or the signatories), and why?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  The content ignores context of the discussion. Lies by omission are still lies, and trying to ignore them is bad faith to those who recognize them.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  Initially, I was criticizing the content, which is on its face false: we are discussing multiple widely–read pieces from prominent people who claim they are being "canceled" for their views. You claimed that they are speaking out for the benefit of less powerful writers. Since the goalposts have shifted to their intentions, attacking the source is absolutely relevant. I simply don't believe those intentions, given that these are people who themselves have prevented many diverse points of view from being heard in the first place.
  - seibelj 6y ago
    What do you disagree with in the Harper's letter itself (the content, not the publication or the signatories), and why? I assume you also support the letter, if it had appeared in a publication you approved of?
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      Again: > Initially, I was criticizing the content, which is on its face false: we are discussing multiple widely–read pieces from prominent people who claim they are being "canceled" for their views. If Alice makes a claim about herself, it is not "attacking the source" to say the claim is false. That also doesn't mean that the same claim would be false if Bob made it about himself. So, yes: if smaller writers who had actually been marginalized or excluded wrote an open letter claiming as much in a publication with a track record of publishing such voices, I might have supported it, because their claims might have actually been credible. Instead, a publication that works to homogenize journalism published a letter signed by powerful writers about how they are being "silenced". By virtue of the fact that millions of people are now discussing their views, that claim is self–evidently false.
jimbokun 6y ago
How do you know they support Harper’s not paying interns? Maybe they object to that, too.
istjohn 6y ago
This is what-about-ism, not a substantive objection. One need not point out every obstacle to open debate in order to identify one important obstacle to open debate.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  It's not what–about–ism because they're not neutral agents. I'm not saying "they say they want intellectual curiosity, but what about unpaid interns" — I'm saying "they say they want intellectual curiosity, but they are the ones actively preventing that from happening".
  - mancerayder 6y ago
    > neutral agents Please explain?
koheripbal 6y ago
wow... you are literally embodying the cancel culture by claiming that their opinion is irrelevant because of some HR pay practice you discovered that is totally orthogonal to the conversation? Should we cancel your opinion because of some seemingly inconsistent opinion you had in your comment history? This is exactly the practice of arguing the arguer, rather than the argument, and it's a bad faith tactic.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  > This is exactly the practice of arguing the arguer, rather than the argument, and it's a bad faith tactic. Her claim is that she, herself, is being exceptionally victimized and silenced; it’s literally impossible rebut this without arguing against her, specifically. Harper’s’ unpaid internships was a more general example. Had I been speaking about Bari Weiss specifically, I might have mentioned her support for deplatforming a Jewish speaker from Stanford [1], her attempts to get Arab professors fired [2] or her reports to other employees’ bosses in response to minor slights [3]. And even if my argument were to hinge on an orthogonal claim, you think that’s tantamount to “embodying cancel culture”? I haven’t called for any personal or professional consequences; literally all I’m doing is disagreeing with her. This is why so many roll their eyes when people start waxing on about cancel culture. What they really mean is that they don’t want to hear criticism of their opinions. [1] https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1125789271959277569?s=21 https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1125789271959277569?s=2... [2] https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-falsely-denies-her-years-of-attacks-on-the-academic-freedom-of-arab-scholars-who-criticize-israel/ https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals... [3] https://twitter.com/byjoelanderson/status/1268654308205006848?s=21 https://twitter.com/byjoelanderson/status/126865430820500684...
  - PunchTornado 6y ago
    no, they want people to get fired and lose sources of revenue. Look what's happening with uncle bob on twitter. Plenty of examples where people are kicked of conferences for wearing a red hat https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21484676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21484676 Jordan Peterson gets his offer to teach at Cambridge University rejected after a twitter cancel culture mob started attacking the Uni. You are chosing to ignore the cancel culture that exists.

pas 6y ago

"Cancel culture" doesn't mean no word from them for ever after. It means they get demoted, dismissed, let go, fired, etc. People are losing positions, jobs, power, control, income, reputation, titles and whatnot because of various reasons. Usually due to the pressure of a largely invisible mob. For example the case of Stephen Hsu ( https://statenews.com/article/2020/06/michigan-state-geu-calls-to-remove-vp-research-administrator-stephen-hsu?ct=content_open&cv=cbox_latest https://statenews.com/article/2020/06/michigan-state-geu-cal... ) ... I have no idea if he's right or not, but it's true he's bad at PR and science communication. We know how regular big of a backstabbing parade the regular old natural science community is (string theory boo/yaay, money for colliders, SUSY, ITER/fusion vs something else). So it's not a surprise that social-adjacent science is even more hardcore in this regard, but this is likely too much and too fast. Yes, sure activism and change needs momentum, but people will be surprised when the hysteresis rears its head due to over-dampening. But this has happened already many times (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sociobiology:_The_New_Synthesis&oldid=950326477#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sociobiology:_The... and here's an another example https://www.reddit.com/r/gwern/comments/hoeqyg/stereotype_accuracy_one_of_the_largest_and_most/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gwern/comments/hoeqyg/stereotype_ac... ) and likely will happen again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Also, note, I'm not saying we shouldn't raise the bar for public (and semi-public) discourse. For example, as far as I know, adopting Codes of Conduct turned out to be quite okay, it laid the foundation for the way to deal with problems, gave a structure and rules to point at when someone crosses a line.

seibelj 6y ago

Rather than criticize the content of the letter, you attack Harper's for not paying interns, which is unrelated to the content. Classic tactic for silencing disagreement is to attack the source. What do you disagree with in the Harper's letter itself (the content, not the publication or the signatories), and why?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
joshuamorton 6y ago
The content ignores context of the discussion. Lies by omission are still lies, and trying to ignore them is bad faith to those who recognize them.
jakelazaroff 6y ago
Initially, I was criticizing the content, which is on its face false: we are discussing multiple widely–read pieces from prominent people who claim they are being "canceled" for their views. You claimed that they are speaking out for the benefit of less powerful writers. Since the goalposts have shifted to their intentions, attacking the source is absolutely relevant. I simply don't believe those intentions, given that these are people who themselves have prevented many diverse points of view from being heard in the first place.
- seibelj 6y ago
  What do you disagree with in the Harper's letter itself (the content, not the publication or the signatories), and why? I assume you also support the letter, if it had appeared in a publication you approved of?
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    Again: > Initially, I was criticizing the content, which is on its face false: we are discussing multiple widely–read pieces from prominent people who claim they are being "canceled" for their views. If Alice makes a claim about herself, it is not "attacking the source" to say the claim is false. That also doesn't mean that the same claim would be false if Bob made it about himself. So, yes: if smaller writers who had actually been marginalized or excluded wrote an open letter claiming as much in a publication with a track record of publishing such voices, I might have supported it, because their claims might have actually been credible. Instead, a publication that works to homogenize journalism published a letter signed by powerful writers about how they are being "silenced". By virtue of the fact that millions of people are now discussing their views, that claim is self–evidently false.

jimbokun 6y ago

How do you know they support Harper’s not paying interns? Maybe they object to that, too.

istjohn 6y ago

This is what-about-ism, not a substantive objection. One need not point out every obstacle to open debate in order to identify one important obstacle to open debate.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
It's not what–about–ism because they're not neutral agents. I'm not saying "they say they want intellectual curiosity, but what about unpaid interns" — I'm saying "they say they want intellectual curiosity, but they are the ones actively preventing that from happening".
- mancerayder 6y ago
  > neutral agents Please explain?

koheripbal 6y ago

wow... you are literally embodying the cancel culture by claiming that their opinion is irrelevant because of some HR pay practice you discovered that is totally orthogonal to the conversation? Should we cancel your opinion because of some seemingly inconsistent opinion you had in your comment history? This is exactly the practice of arguing the arguer, rather than the argument, and it's a bad faith tactic.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
> This is exactly the practice of arguing the arguer, rather than the argument, and it's a bad faith tactic. Her claim is that she, herself, is being exceptionally victimized and silenced; it’s literally impossible rebut this without arguing against her, specifically. Harper’s’ unpaid internships was a more general example. Had I been speaking about Bari Weiss specifically, I might have mentioned her support for deplatforming a Jewish speaker from Stanford [1], her attempts to get Arab professors fired [2] or her reports to other employees’ bosses in response to minor slights [3]. And even if my argument were to hinge on an orthogonal claim, you think that’s tantamount to “embodying cancel culture”? I haven’t called for any personal or professional consequences; literally all I’m doing is disagreeing with her. This is why so many roll their eyes when people start waxing on about cancel culture. What they really mean is that they don’t want to hear criticism of their opinions. [1] https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1125789271959277569?s=21 https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1125789271959277569?s=2... [2] https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-falsely-denies-her-years-of-attacks-on-the-academic-freedom-of-arab-scholars-who-criticize-israel/ https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals... [3] https://twitter.com/byjoelanderson/status/1268654308205006848?s=21 https://twitter.com/byjoelanderson/status/126865430820500684...
- PunchTornado 6y ago
  no, they want people to get fired and lose sources of revenue. Look what's happening with uncle bob on twitter. Plenty of examples where people are kicked of conferences for wearing a red hat https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21484676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21484676 Jordan Peterson gets his offer to teach at Cambridge University rejected after a twitter cancel culture mob started attacking the Uni. You are chosing to ignore the cancel culture that exists.