I'm not sure what prompted this in the first place.Had the ACM done anything that was perceived as wrong? In my view, the letter seems to be a contradictory ad

I'm not sure what prompted this in the first place.Had the ACM done anything that was perceived as wrong? In my view, the letter seems to be a contradictory admixture of Progressivism and Rationalism. > Such actions have included calls for academic boycotts, attempts to get people fired, inviting mob attacks against ‘offending’ individuals That's a Rationalist perspective, which I endorse. And, as a "rationalist", it's been my observation that it's the progressive that indulge in this kind of behaviour. The so-called "cancel culture". > Scientific work should be judged on the basis of scientific merit Sure, but obvious comment is obvious. Why bring it up? > No individual should suffer harassment or attack based on their personal or political views, religion, nationality, race, gender, or sexual orientation. Oh, here we go. The statement, whilst logical and indisputable enough in its expression, betrays a pushing of a Progressive agenda. > Scientific discourse should be based on mutual respect Sure dude, whatever. Do you really need to write that in a letter? And why the ACM in particular? > In short, challenging and debating ideas is always acceptable and ought to be encouraged. Imagine going up to Isaac Newton and saying this. I imagine he'd give you a puzzled look as if you were slightly backwards. Are the signatories rationalists, or progressives? It's difficult to tell. My suspicion is that although it is rationalist on its surface, it is covertly progressive. Progressivism: always pushing an agenda covertly, never speaking in plain words. That's my take, anyway. I don't have much karma to burn.