4 ms·

how about considering that the people telling you they're being silenced is a group of privileged folks unaccustomed to being pushed back upon publicly, with "c

how about considering that the people telling you they're being silenced is a group of privileged folks unaccustomed to being pushed back upon publicly, with "cancel culture" as the reactive appellation for that push back?

philwelch 6y ago
The fact that the set of people complaining about this includes people famous for openly discussing controversial ideas that they have received pushback and worse for in the past sort of refutes that. Do you really think this is the first time anyone has pushed back against Noam Chomsky? Salman Rushdie had a fatwa declared on his life over a book he wrote. I think these people are very well accustomed to being pushed back upon publicly.
- clairity 6y ago
  no, most of the noise is from people who aren't as well-known or intellectually rigorous as chomsky and rushdie (whether you agree with them or not). these well-known rhetoriticians expect and likely welcome the pushback (obviously the counterarguments, not the threats on their lives). theirs is the exceptional context, not the exception that invalidates the general condition.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    The fact remains that both Chomsky and Rushdie signed the Harpers open letter and are hence two of the people publicly advocating on behalf of the people who have been silenced. You simply can’t honestly claim that this is an overreaction from people who aren’t used to pushback.
    - clairity 6y ago
      no, it's a rejection of your argument from authority, not a supporting claim of "overreaction from people who aren’t used to pushback". if you think there are other substantial coutnerclaims, please make them.
      - philwelch 6y ago
        You said: “the people telling you they're being silenced is a group of privileged folks unaccustomed to being pushed back upon publicly, with "cancel culture" as the reactive appellation for that push back?” Which I interpreted as: “the only people who complain about cancel culture are unaccustomed to pushback” and disproved by counterexample. It occurs to me now that perhaps you didn’t mean “all”. You meant “some”. That’s called nutpicking and it means your original claim wasn’t substantial enough to discuss in the first place.

philwelch 6y ago

The fact that the set of people complaining about this includes people famous for openly discussing controversial ideas that they have received pushback and worse for in the past sort of refutes that. Do you really think this is the first time anyone has pushed back against Noam Chomsky? Salman Rushdie had a fatwa declared on his life over a book he wrote. I think these people are very well accustomed to being pushed back upon publicly.

clairity 6y ago
no, most of the noise is from people who aren't as well-known or intellectually rigorous as chomsky and rushdie (whether you agree with them or not). these well-known rhetoriticians expect and likely welcome the pushback (obviously the counterarguments, not the threats on their lives). theirs is the exceptional context, not the exception that invalidates the general condition.
- philwelch 6y ago
  The fact remains that both Chomsky and Rushdie signed the Harpers open letter and are hence two of the people publicly advocating on behalf of the people who have been silenced. You simply can’t honestly claim that this is an overreaction from people who aren’t used to pushback.
  - clairity 6y ago
    no, it's a rejection of your argument from authority, not a supporting claim of "overreaction from people who aren’t used to pushback". if you think there are other substantial coutnerclaims, please make them.
    - philwelch 6y ago
      You said: “the people telling you they're being silenced is a group of privileged folks unaccustomed to being pushed back upon publicly, with "cancel culture" as the reactive appellation for that push back?” Which I interpreted as: “the only people who complain about cancel culture are unaccustomed to pushback” and disproved by counterexample. It occurs to me now that perhaps you didn’t mean “all”. You meant “some”. That’s called nutpicking and it means your original claim wasn’t substantial enough to discuss in the first place.