That Harpers Open Letter

[_honorentheos]

Another name on the list:

https://susiemadrak.com/2020/07/08/so-i ... is-letter/

So I signed this letter. And all hell broke loose. Apparently I am a wealthy, privileged, and powerful public intellectual (hah!) who is plotting against BLM and trans people — pretty much proving the point of the letter. (Guilt by association!)

In case you’re interested, the specific reason I signed is a clause that’s included in most book contracts now that allows a publisher to cancel a book contract in cases of public condemnation — i.e. Twitter mobs. Not actual crimes, but social media. Sigh:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/arts ... iTs62iWxJ3

And from the NYT article:

“We’re not just a bunch of old white guys sitting around writing this letter,” Mr. Williams, who is African-American, said. “It includes plenty of Black thinkers, Muslim thinkers, Jewish thinkers, people who are trans and gay, old and young, right wing and left wing.”

“We believe these are values that are widespread and shared, and we wanted the list to reflect that,” he said.

Signatories include the leftist Noam Chomsky and the neoconservative Francis Fukuyama. There are also figures associated with the traditional defense of free speech, including Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as some outspoken critics of political correctness on campuses, including the linguist Steven Pinker and the psychologist Jonathan Haidt.

The signers also include some figures who have lost positions amid controversies, including Ian Buruma, the former editor of the New York Review of Books, and Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., a Harvard Law School professor who left his position as faculty dean of an undergraduate residence amid protests over his legal defense of Harvey Weinstein.

There are also some leading Black intellectuals, including the historian Nell Irvin Painter, the poets Reginald Dwayne Betts and Gregory Pardlo, and the linguist John McWhorter. And there are a number of journalists, including several opinion columnists for The New York Times.

Nicholas Lemann, a staff writer for The New Yorker and a former dean of Columbia Journalism School, said that he rarely signs letters, but thought this one was important.

“What concerns me is a sense that a lot of people out there seem to think open argument over everything is an unhealthy thing,” he said. “I’ve spent my whole life having vigorous arguments with people I disagree with, and don’t want to think we are moving out of this world.”

The principle of open argument, he added, becomes especially important outside liberal-leaning enclaves, “where people don’t have the option of shutting down these supposedly completely unacceptable views.”

[_EAllusion]

+
You deceitful ____. You didn't associate them on the list, you acted like they were just two random names you pulled from the list and happened to find a common claim they had been accused of cancel culture complaints.

That's not true at all. You're, I don't know, kinda dumb honor. Like, you're not literally stupid, but you get brain worms on an awful lot of subjects that crosses whatever firm boundaries you have set up in your mind. I said they share a similar status for similar reasons. That they are associated with one another is the point. I'm saying it's not random. Hence I I talk about it not being random. I was making a point that people on the list are not a random selection of writers from all walks of life, but rather are the result of a curated list of people contacted who, at least in some instances, seem selected because, quoting me, ""some people clearly were solicited because of some relationship to disapprobation received for controversial/wrong views." It isn't a totally amazing random happenstance that Jesse Singal and Katie Herzog, relatively insignificant figures in the big scheme of things, were solicited to sign this because this isn't just a random cross-section of famous writers. There's actual themes in the list.

This was presented as evidence that the list was infested with names who were problematic based on your criteria of problematic.

That's not what it was. But reading things you disagree with maybe isn't your forté?

Holy ____ you have zero regard for truth.

This is the behavior of your online gatekeepers of the illiberal orthodoxy. Behold! The man!

Lol.

The fun thing is while I'm saying, "the message here is confused because of the context" and you're declaring me Robespierre because you're a hysterically undisciplined thinker who tries to affect being very serious, people really are being viciously attacked by actual leftists for having signed the thing. I don't think anyone has been sent to guillotine yet, though.

If you want to keep following me around like a puppy dog saying, "How dare you question Jesse Singal?! Prove it, man" that's your right, but I don't take you seriously and my comments are for people who don't need that.

[_honorentheos]

+
You deceitful ____. You didn't associate them on the list, you acted like they were just two random names you pulled from the list and happened to find a common claim they had been accused of cancel culture complaints.

I said they share a similar status for similar reasons. That they are associated with one another is the point. I'm saying it's not random. Hence I I talk about it not being random. I was making a point that people on the list are not a random selection of writers from all walks of life, but rather are the result of a curated list of people contacted who, at least in some instances, seem selected because, quoting me, ""some people clearly were solicited because of some relationship to disapprobation received for controversial/wrong views." It isn't a totally amazing random happenstance that Jesse Singal and Katie Herzog, relatively insignificant figures in the big scheme of things, were solicited to sign this because this isn't just a random cross-section of famous writers. There's actual themes in the list.

You picked one name then presented a second name and went, "wow this list includes a lot of people with similar issues. That says something about this list." The two names you picked and not once presented as collaborators on a podcast are...(checks notes) collaborators on a podcast. So random.

Screw you.

[_honorentheos]

If you want to keep following me around like a puppy dog saying, "How dare you question Jesse Singal?! Prove it, man" that's your right, but I don't take you seriously and my comments are for people who don't need that.

So you don't have to actually support a comment and refuse to engage in the conversation taking place here because you are talking to people who are already on board with your view. Echo chamber much, bro?

Yeah. It seems you are regurgitating some Twitter argument but like someone who memorized a few chess moves you toss the board when it stops playing the way you want it to go.

The entire thing with Singal goes back to you saying association with him should be problematic for self evident reasons. But apparently not defensible reasons. Nice, bro. Real smart.

Asking you to support your point is highlighting one of the problems with outrage culture. You asserted something and say, "Back away if you don't want that to get on you" without actually demonstrating what it is exactly the person said that's so problematic. When ask d, you said he has transphobic beliefs or something anti-trans. Basically, "I'm doing you a favor by saying you don't want to be seen with that guy in public." Ok. Why not? "He's transphobic" ok, you keep saying that but that's just you asserting things. "You can Google it". Perhaps. But you seem to know what he said that's so bad so I'm asking you.

[_EAllusion]

You can't help but notice the list of signatories contains a fair amount of people who are have self-serving and/or hypocritical interest in wanting to prevent people saying bad things about them or people disassociating with them for their bad views. There are people who are famous for being concern trolls, famous for complaining about not getting the platform they wanted while trying to deny the same to others, and so on. There are people like, for instance, Jenn Kamp Rowling who don't really care about free speech and don't support free speech in the spaces they control. They are trying to use their power over cultural institutions to suppress criticism and professional consequences for them.

Honor doesn't notice this, but who cares? That's a him problem. Lots of people do and they're talking about it. There is a debate about what to do about this fact. Some people say that you shouldn't associate with those people or join them in agreement even if you agree with them on this because it is wrong to amplify their views. On the most extreme end, some of those people think failure to retract is is implicit endorsement. Some people say that you should ignore the signatories and just focus on the literal content of the letter and what they personally agreed with. These people aren't disagreeing about who a Bari Weiss or Jesse Signal, two names I have previously mentioned, are. They disagree about what should be done about it or what that means.

My position, echoed by a famous free speech advocate I extensively quoted and several other people I choose not to quote, is that the sentiment behind the letter seems fine and I don't begrudge people for signing it, but the practical effect is wanting because you undermine your argument when expressed it in a way that can be confused with the bad actors on the list. To someone making the argument regarding bad associations, I say that's too close to just being ad hominem. To someone saying the signatories shouldn't matter, I submit that they do alter the understood meaning of a text and we shouldn't ignore that. If a letter said, "We should secure the future for our children" who would disagree with that? If I told you that the signatories are Richard Spencer, Ajax18, and a sentient MAGA hat, maybe you'd agree that the literal content of the sentence isn't the only thing that influences the understood meaning.

The content of the letter doesn't help here as it makes lofty appeals rather than addressing specific examples, so it's wide open to motte and bailey arguments that envelop commentary on "cancel culture.". You want to advocate for these people, not with them when trying to be persuasive. Read the room.

The way Honor bristles at analogies that use more offensive examples to illustrate a principle suggests that maybe he doesn't disagree with the actual argument being made so much as he thinks the things said be all the people on this list is within the realm of legitimate debate that should be tolerated and not too harshly criticized, but doesn't feel the same way about advocacy for a white ethnostate or whathaveyou. It doesn't matter though. I'm discussing one thing and he wants to discuss another.

[_honorentheos]

Except you aren't discussing anything. You inserted someone's quote which I noted had the unfortunate issue of censorous results because it demands unrealistic purity for realization which, when presented as, "It's not me you need to worry about, but people might think..." the correct conclusion is it still results in shutting down the call for self reflection that is dangerously like the authoritarian impulses of the right. At its core, defending freedom of expression is about defending a value rather than vetting content for it's correctness. Then you poisoned the well in your response by saying, "Hey, the ACLU doesn't join Klan rallies when they defend the Klan's right to free speech so people who don't want to get soiled by association shouldn't sign onto letters where bad people have also signed." And then proceeded to say I didn't get why the insertion of the Klan into the analogy was not well poisoning because it is a classic example for these kind of arguments.

You seem to.expect discussions to follow scripts and then get bossy when they don't follow the script. And they don't follow the script you think they have to because the arguments you import over are poor arguments with flaws. Oh, sorry smart people are behind these arguments that are also yours because smart people, so, you know. The argument doesn't need defended.

But yeah, call me stupid for not following your script. Toss the board, bro. Whatever helps you look at yourself in the mirror.

[_EAllusion]

Except you aren't discussing anything. You inserted someone's quote which I noted had the unfortunate issue of censorous results because it demands unrealistic purity for realization which, when presented as, "It's not me you need to worry about, but people might think..." the correct conclusion is it still results in shutting down the call for self reflection that is dangerously like the authoritarian impulses of the right.

Yeah, who thinks about the persuasive effect of a letter that is attempting to persuade people? That's crazy talk. One should write persuasive letters with utter disregard to whether they're actually likely to produce the intended persuasive effect in its audience.

This isn't specific enough. The worry is actually that by associating your argument with people who express it in bad faith or mean something different than you, your audience might learn to associate your argument with that instead which weakens cultural support of your position. If I wrote a letter about the importance of curtailing FBI abuse, but half the people signing the letter were Trump figures in various stages of being prosecuted for crimes they've committed, I might cause people to think my critques of FBI abuse are a sham defense and become more dismissive of critiques like it. It's a good idea to avoid that.

You try to equate this with leftwing purity testing because that's a box you know to fit it into, but it's just making sure one's message is likely to land. The problem with joining the KKK in a letter expressing support of free speech is people know the KKK says that in bad faith as a means to preserve space to express their prejudice while seeking opportunity to deny it to others. Joining them stands a high probability of being taken the wrong way and undermining support for the position you are defending.

The problem with joining Bari Weiss (e.g.) in a defense of "free speech" is Bari Weiss uses this as a cudgel to quell criticism of dubious views and joining her stands a high probability of being taken the wrong way and undermining cultural support of free speech. You want to distance yourself from the people whose defense of first amendment protections or liberal tolerance of opposing views is a means to say say that the public space shouldn't be as critical of their personal prejudices and sketchy habits. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from criticism or a right to limitless platforms, and it's a good idea to not make people think otherwise.

[_EAllusion]

Malcolm Gladwell, someone you mentioned, was a rabid fan of the destruction of Gawker by a vengeful billionaire because he didn't like fact that Gawker frequently wrote criticism of him. Doesn't seem like a dude who is just abstractly a purist when it comes to the values of free speech in the marketplace of ideas. If someone's thinking cap gets on and they notice this, they might come away with the impression that this letter is what Malcolm Gladwell means and not what, I don't know, Jeet Heer means. This is bad for the cause of free speech.

[_EAllusion]

Incidentally, Gawker once described Gladwell as the thinking CEO's Stephen Covey and I laughed for a very long time.

[_honorentheos]

Malcolm Gladwell, someone you mentioned, was a rabid fan of the destruction of Gawker by a vengeful billionaire because he didn't like fact that Gawker frequently wrote criticism of him. Doesn't seem like a dude who is just abstractly a purist when it comes to the values of free speech in the marketplace of ideas.

You seem to have forgotten our roles here. I'm not the one arguing for purity. I don't think anyone is without blemish, and frankly find it weird your made this point.