4 ms·

Nobody owes you a free publishing platform. He expects that by calling the publishers of some journal "craven" and "scared", that he's going to elicit a reversa

Nobody owes you a free publishing platform. He expects that by calling the publishers of some journal "craven" and "scared", that he's going to elicit a reversal of their decision, and positive response from them, something to the effect of "oh, how dare we deny your article, woe unto us, we were so dreadfully wrong"... Really? The biggest takeaway that I got from his December essay, and this one? A sense of self righteous entitlement, that whatever he writes must be of such great import and merit that of course publishers should be falling all over themselves to print it. Has he taken the time to sit back and consider that maybe he's not as critically important to the English language literature scene as he believes himself to be? In general, insulting your potential publishing platform only serves to burn bridges. So, good luck with that, guy.

sneak 6y ago
Indeed, and similarly we are permitted to discuss publishing platforms' editorial decisions and merits thereof.
ttt0 6y ago
I guess, but that's a weird point to make in the context of (self-)censorship in the academic world. Just saying.
josephg 6y ago
> He expects that by calling the publishers of some journal "craven" and "scared", that he's going to elicit a reversal of their decision Thats not my read of the situation. I agree that if his goal was to convince the authors, it would make sense for him to be more accomodating. And it wouldn't make sense to call them out in public. But thats not his goal here. To my eyes, this piece takes a shot at the culture which produced their editorial decision. He's calling cancel culture (and its adherents) craven and scared, using this situation as an example.
- walrus01 6y ago
  What I find amusing is that the same center-right and right-wing mouthpieces that complain the loudest about 'cancel culture' have themselves been deeply involved in attempting to 'cancel' things for the past 40 years, anything they dislike or find distasteful, a random assortment of which includes. rap music and any music with "vulgar" lyrics (PARENTAL WARNING labels on CDs) harry potter (satanic magic messages offending the christian right) construction of neighborhood mosques (we can't have a foreign religion in our white christian suburb, can we???) french fries (remember freedom fries???) lgbtq rights womens' reproductive rights frank discussion of endemic police brutality just about anything new, foreign, liberal, confusing or ethnically diverse else that would upset the sensibilities of a deep red state bible belt voter.
  - dnissley 6y ago
    I generally agree with you here, but all opponents of cancel culture are not on the right. E.g. me. I can count on one hand the number of republicans I've voted for -- none of which were at the federal level. It's wrong when people on the right do it, as well as now when those on the left do it.
  - beaconstudios 6y ago
    There are plenty of people with liberal viewpoints that are against both of these groups of cancellers, myself included. Progressive cancel culture is cancerous and so is Conservative cancel culture. So too was the red scare and the inquisition and the Salem witch hunts. Moral panics as a general concept are ridiculous and dangerous to society regardless of political affiliation.
  - slibhb 6y ago
    "The right wing censored us during the 20th century, now it's our turn"
  - scared_liberal 6y ago
    Many actual liberals who admire the open and uncensored leftism of 1970 think that both the right wing censorship and the now prevalent not-woke-enough censorship are repulsive. Except that one of these can only be criticized anonymously.
  - JoshuaDavid 6y ago
    I don't think those are the same people. For example, one of the most vocal people I know who is speaking out against the culture of censorship is a school librarian. During the early '00s, she organized and promoted Banned Book Week events every year, against the wishes of the rather conservative community, because she thought it was important to have the freedom to read and form your own opinions. Some people just don't like censorship.
  - pochamago 6y ago
    Shouldn't that make us more sympathetic to the issue? In all the fights over those issues it was a constant among the left that free discussion is vital. Was that really just an attractive political stance, held only until it was no longer useful? I don't want to believe that, I have to believe that people were sincere and we can return to it as a universal principle.
throwaw4ybio 6y ago
If his goal is to change the publisher's mind, calling them "craven" is a terrible rhetorical tactic.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  Well, while I happen to have a sympathetic view of the author's plight, the goal ( and the tactic ) is not to change anyone's mind. Quite the contrary, the goal is re-entrench and have people rage against cancel culture. And it works. Facebook may have perfected it, but it does not mean a more elaborate click-baiting mechanisms were not adopted by humans. In fact, clearly, they were. Rage, sorry, engagement, sells.
1shooner 6y ago
This is not how I read this. He is reacting to the phenomenon (he is calling 'blacklisting') of an editorial staff contradicting their own decisions under threat of power by unknown third parties motivated by ideological disagreement. If he had been offered a 'free publishing platform', there would be nothing for him to discuss.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

sneak 6y ago

Indeed, and similarly we are permitted to discuss publishing platforms' editorial decisions and merits thereof.

ttt0 6y ago

I guess, but that's a weird point to make in the context of (self-)censorship in the academic world. Just saying.

josephg 6y ago

> He expects that by calling the publishers of some journal "craven" and "scared", that he's going to elicit a reversal of their decision Thats not my read of the situation. I agree that if his goal was to convince the authors, it would make sense for him to be more accomodating. And it wouldn't make sense to call them out in public. But thats not his goal here. To my eyes, this piece takes a shot at the culture which produced their editorial decision. He's calling cancel culture (and its adherents) craven and scared, using this situation as an example.

walrus01 6y ago
What I find amusing is that the same center-right and right-wing mouthpieces that complain the loudest about 'cancel culture' have themselves been deeply involved in attempting to 'cancel' things for the past 40 years, anything they dislike or find distasteful, a random assortment of which includes. rap music and any music with "vulgar" lyrics (PARENTAL WARNING labels on CDs) harry potter (satanic magic messages offending the christian right) construction of neighborhood mosques (we can't have a foreign religion in our white christian suburb, can we???) french fries (remember freedom fries???) lgbtq rights womens' reproductive rights frank discussion of endemic police brutality just about anything new, foreign, liberal, confusing or ethnically diverse else that would upset the sensibilities of a deep red state bible belt voter.
- dnissley 6y ago
  I generally agree with you here, but all opponents of cancel culture are not on the right. E.g. me. I can count on one hand the number of republicans I've voted for -- none of which were at the federal level. It's wrong when people on the right do it, as well as now when those on the left do it.
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  There are plenty of people with liberal viewpoints that are against both of these groups of cancellers, myself included. Progressive cancel culture is cancerous and so is Conservative cancel culture. So too was the red scare and the inquisition and the Salem witch hunts. Moral panics as a general concept are ridiculous and dangerous to society regardless of political affiliation.
- slibhb 6y ago
  "The right wing censored us during the 20th century, now it's our turn"
- scared_liberal 6y ago
  Many actual liberals who admire the open and uncensored leftism of 1970 think that both the right wing censorship and the now prevalent not-woke-enough censorship are repulsive. Except that one of these can only be criticized anonymously.
- JoshuaDavid 6y ago
  I don't think those are the same people. For example, one of the most vocal people I know who is speaking out against the culture of censorship is a school librarian. During the early '00s, she organized and promoted Banned Book Week events every year, against the wishes of the rather conservative community, because she thought it was important to have the freedom to read and form your own opinions. Some people just don't like censorship.
- pochamago 6y ago
  Shouldn't that make us more sympathetic to the issue? In all the fights over those issues it was a constant among the left that free discussion is vital. Was that really just an attractive political stance, held only until it was no longer useful? I don't want to believe that, I have to believe that people were sincere and we can return to it as a universal principle.

throwaw4ybio 6y ago

If his goal is to change the publisher's mind, calling them "craven" is a terrible rhetorical tactic.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
Well, while I happen to have a sympathetic view of the author's plight, the goal ( and the tactic ) is not to change anyone's mind. Quite the contrary, the goal is re-entrench and have people rage against cancel culture. And it works. Facebook may have perfected it, but it does not mean a more elaborate click-baiting mechanisms were not adopted by humans. In fact, clearly, they were. Rage, sorry, engagement, sells.

1shooner 6y ago

This is not how I read this. He is reacting to the phenomenon (he is calling 'blacklisting') of an editorial staff contradicting their own decisions under threat of power by unknown third parties motivated by ideological disagreement. If he had been offered a 'free publishing platform', there would be nothing for him to discuss.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]