3 ms·

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 dis

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.
    - seibelj 6y ago
      It sounds like you are immediately suspect of anyone who has had success and thus become "powerful" (successful). The signatories of the Harper's letter, such as Noam Chomsky, Thomas Chatterton Williams, and Salman Rushdie, are successful because they have had long careers and widespread general praise for their work. Smaller, newer writers aren't "marginalized", they are early in their careers and need to work for a long time to break out in a cutthroat industry. The signatories of the letter make the person who disagrees with the current orthodoxy, and still supports free speech, feel safer and in good company for doing so. Signing a letter is quick and doesn't stop them from also helping solve all the other issues they believe in - people can do two (or more!) things at once. I am a lot less interested in political statements from people - you, me, the guy down the street - who are not luminaries in their respected fields. I am much more interested when such a diverse and respected group of people have those views. As a footnote, you say "might have supported it". Imagine hypothetically that it was published in some underground zine signed by unknown writers. What in the letter did you disagree with? It's a brief letter, there should be something in there that is clearly risque if you "might" support it?
- istjohn 6y ago
  How have the authors prevented many diverse points of view from being heard? You're going to need more than "they signed onto an open letter published in a magazine that has unpaid interns."

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.
  - seibelj 6y ago
    It sounds like you are immediately suspect of anyone who has had success and thus become "powerful" (successful). The signatories of the Harper's letter, such as Noam Chomsky, Thomas Chatterton Williams, and Salman Rushdie, are successful because they have had long careers and widespread general praise for their work. Smaller, newer writers aren't "marginalized", they are early in their careers and need to work for a long time to break out in a cutthroat industry. The signatories of the letter make the person who disagrees with the current orthodoxy, and still supports free speech, feel safer and in good company for doing so. Signing a letter is quick and doesn't stop them from also helping solve all the other issues they believe in - people can do two (or more!) things at once. I am a lot less interested in political statements from people - you, me, the guy down the street - who are not luminaries in their respected fields. I am much more interested when such a diverse and respected group of people have those views. As a footnote, you say "might have supported it". Imagine hypothetically that it was published in some underground zine signed by unknown writers. What in the letter did you disagree with? It's a brief letter, there should be something in there that is clearly risque if you "might" support it?
istjohn 6y ago
How have the authors prevented many diverse points of view from being heard? You're going to need more than "they signed onto an open letter published in a magazine that has unpaid interns."