That Harpers Open Letter

[_EAllusion]

So Rowling threatens legal action against someone saying she shouldn't be allowed around children during a rather public open debate over her apparent radical form of second wave feminism based beliefs and so you know her heart. Because that's how Robespierre rolled. Heads, that is.

I know her heart? Lol. I know what she's said. Rowling does not, in fact, favor robust tolerance of criticism because Rowling herself does not display robust tolerance of criticism. It's not like she apologized for doing something that goes against everything she believes in due to a fit of anger. Menacingly threatening to sue people for critical comments, an act would get laughed out of court in the US due to the first amendment, is the exact reverse opposite of the literal reading of the letter. But some people say things that sound like the letter when they're interested in condemning specific criticism they do not like. Then it's all, "the free exchange of information and ideas is the lifeblood of a liberal society" and people shouldn't be so hard on them. Is that what the letter is doing? For some people, yeah. My position is let's not confuse the audience. At one point, you decided to criticize this this by mocking worrying what 3rd party's will think, which is a hell of a thing to argue when the whole point of the letter is to persuade 3rd party's to think something.

[Guest]

At one point, you decided to criticize this this by mocking worrying what 3rd party's will think, which is a hell of a thing to argue when the whole point of the letter is to persuade 3rd party's to think something.

That one point being immediately after you shared it because it isn't worry about third parties thinking, but your thinking projected onto third parties in order to control second parties. It's the format of, "I don't think this way but others will so you need to do things this way which has the side effect of not saying the thing you just said because my view of whose voice is legitimate actually is pretty narrow...like those third parties whose thinking I tell you to worry about. Otherwise, they might not think like me and that would be wrong "

[_EAllusion]

I realize some people are clearly still buying Gladwell's books, but I was under the impression that news of his hackneyed work in the service of storytelling and serial misleading had penetrated pretty far. Guess that's a controversial, damning take for honor still.

[_honorentheos]

I realize some people are clearly still buying Gladwell's books, but I was under the impression that news of his hackneyed work in the service of storytelling and serial misleading had penetrated pretty far. Guess that's a controversial, damning take for honor still.

Hey, look at you all making a fallacious argument like the board tosser you are. How cheeky and quaint at the same time. I guess that's an accomplishment of some kind.

[_EAllusion]

I regret to inform you that Stephen Pinker, who you listed right along side Gladwell, had caught on to Gladwell's game a long time ago and has written about his means of crafting pseudoscience in the name of a good yarn. Guess he's in the pile of people who something or other.

[_honorentheos]

I regret to inform you that Stephen Pinker, who you listed right along side Gladwell, had caught on to Gladwell's game a long time ago and has written about his means of crafting pseudoscience in the name of a good yarn. Guess he's in the pile of people who something or other.

Again, you seem to forget the whole plurality of views thing is fine, no purity test or conformity required. Heck, people can even detest one another and I don't feel an automatic need to take sides. So...you know. Tribunal away. That's your thing.

[_EAllusion]

I regret to inform you that Stephen Pinker, who you listed right along side Gladwell, had caught on to Gladwell's game a long time ago and has written about his means of crafting pseudoscience in the name of a good yarn. Guess he's in the pile of people who something or other.

Again, you seem to forget the whole plurality of views thing is fine, no purity test or conformity required. Heck, people can even detest one another and I don't feel an automatic need to take sides. So...you know. Tribunal away. That's your thing.

It's a terrible, telling offense when I think Malcolm Gladwell - the author known for spinning anecdotes and poorly informed scientific observations into highly readable if wildly misleading scientific ideas then taking them on the corporate speaking tour where he is treated like a corporate self-help guru - is a charlatan. If other people think that... hey, you're not a black and white thinker here.

And just because Gladwell thinks its neat when vengeful billionaires use nuisance lawsuits to destroy media outlets when it so happens those outlets are serial critics of him, that doesn't mean he's not a good faith defender of strong moral and political commitments to open debate and tolerance of different viewpoints. Can't know what is in his heart, right?

Gee, I have no idea why someone who isn't personally committed to free speech might suspect not everything is on the up and up here.

[_Chap]

Again, you seem to forget the whole plurality of views thing is fine, no purity test or conformity required.

Given the choice of promoting 'plurality of views' by including (say) a religious enthusiast who advocates burning at the stake of non-believers, I'd go for limits rather than inclusivity. I doubt that you would want to decide differently. And there are plenty of other examples.

[_honorentheos]

Are you accusing someone on the list of advocating such? I doubt you'd be able to reasonably come up with a name who fit your description without substantial reliance on Google who even remotely landed in the cross-section of "religious zealot and advocate for burning non-believers at the stake" and "prominent writer and/or artist".

[_honorentheos]

Again, you seem to forget the whole plurality of views thing is fine, no purity test or conformity required. Heck, people can even detest one another and I don't feel an automatic need to take sides. So...you know. Tribunal away. That's your thing.

It's a terrible, telling offense when I think Malcolm Gladwell - the author known for spinning anecdotes and poorly informed scientific observations into highly readable if wildly misleading scientific ideas then taking them on the corporate speaking tour where he is treated like a corporate self-help guru - is a charlatan. If other people think that... hey, you're not a black and white thinker here.

Or, he was deemed an ok person to target in your who's who of people with whom one shouldn't be seen in public because you, personally, don't like him for reasons. You tried to then hide under Steven Pinker's coat tails while doing so, ignoring Pinker apparently understands being in the room with people he might not otherwise associate with in the case of the letter is part of the point.