That Harpers Open Letter

[_EAllusion]

You sure like having your hand held for a libertarian. Telling.

When you read Moby Dick, do you think, "clam chowder represents my discontent with Twitter?"

[_honorentheos]

I can see how your white whale hunt took your thoughts in that direction.

[_EAllusion]

Now that Thomas Chatteron Williams has completed a speed-run on embarrassing himself on the Internet in defense of Bari Weiss, it certainly seems likely that was more central to the original writing, if not the interpretation of others.

In other news, Bari Weiss has voluntarily resigned from the NYT, blaming group-think and a lack of intellectual diversity for it. She blames a culture of internal and online bullying, presumably not referring to herself. As is her wont, it contains some misleading innuendo about what criticisms of her ordinarily concern, which I'm sure is going to provoke some incensed response. She complains that the NYT didn't do enough to punish her in-house critics' online comments. Ah,"free speech." Seems like she's going to continue with her lifelong habit of gunning for people's jobs for speech she doesn't like under the guise of protecting her free expression.

Related to this, the odd thing about that is the NYT op-ed page, for all its soliciting of terrible opinions in the name of diversity (especially under Bennet), doesn't come close to reflecting the actual diversity of American discourse. There's a conspicuous absence of the alt-right that dominate conservative politics at the moment, for instance. The page mostly runs the full spectrum of atypical centrist conservatives / alt-lite types to moderate liberals. The closest it normally will get is Bari Weiss promoting skull-measurers in the the name of free speech, but the true-blue Brietbart opinion writers rarely appear even though they far more accurately reflect the thought-leaders and general public of the conservative movement. The underlying problem is that the NYT has standards. While it tolerates a certain amount of dishonesty and disreputable opinion if it is done with fluency and the affectations of intellectualism, it exists at fundamental cross-purposes with the great bulk of conservative culture's approach to persuasion. So it ends up recruiting oddballs that in no way fulfill the mission that people who defend its more sketchy figures often imagine it to be striving for.

[_EAllusion]

Seems like if you are a decent writer and have the right connections, you can build a whole career on writing bad opinions, then writing about the illiberalism of people for criticizing your bad opinions, then write about the illiberalism of the people for criticizing your bad argument about illiberalism, and repeat this in an infinite loop. There's an audience for that dance.

[_EAllusion]

It occurs to me that Bari Weiss is very similar to Dr. Peterson. She says something stupid or offensive based on sloppy thinking or research, receives criticism for it, then responds to that criticism by highlighting the worst examples (in some cases exaggerating or misrepresenting them) to paint her critics as an irrational mob both to discredit criticism of her and to portray herself as a perpetual victim relaying hard truths her lessers cannot cope with. If that's not DCP's MO, I don't know what is. They even are similar in both frequently taking up the role of martyr for free speech while having a long trail of aggressively encouraging others they have influence over to be censorious on their behalf.

If this is what I'm supposed to be concerned about, I am, but my main concern is making sure people don't think this is what free speech defense looks like. And I'm someone who is annoyed by and suspicious of leftist groups being overzealous in enforcing a orthodoxy, sometimes if only because it makes them feel like they're doing something righteous.

[_Some Schmo]

I think this article nails the proper response to the Harpers letter:

The “free speech debate” isn’t really about free speech

[_honorentheos]

I think this article nails the proper response to the Harpers letter:

The “free speech debate” isn’t really about free speech

The real debate here is not about the principle of free speech, but the much grayer question of how we draw its boundaries. What kinds of speech should be morally out of bounds? What sorts of speakers should be excluded from major platforms? When can giving a platform to one kind of person actually make it harder for other people to speak their minds freely? And what kinds of social sanctions, like public shaming or firing, are justified responses to violations of these social norms?

The real debate is how to restrain freedom of speech to a defined orthodoxy?

Jesus.

If you think that is right, you are demonstrating why the letter in it's most innocuous form was necessary due to how far from basic principle the thinking has drifted.

[_Some Schmo]

The real debate is how to restrain freedom of speech to a defined orthodoxy?

Jesus.

Did you actually read the article, honor?

Yes, it's a fu-cking paradox. It's in the same ball park as In order to maintain peace, we must prepare for war. Spend some time wrapping your head around it.

[Guest]

The real debate is how to restrain freedom of speech to a defined orthodoxy?

Jesus.

Did you actually read the article, honor?

Yes, it's a fu-cking paradox. It's in the same ball park as In order to maintain peace, we must prepare for war. Spend some time wrapping your head around it.

Yeah. Take this for an example of why I think it's bad writing:

Self-styled free speech advocates often describe their opponents using historical analogies, likening them to Mao’s cultural revolutionaries or the French Revolution’s Jacobins. But in reality, social justice advocates see themselves as vindicating the rights to free expression for marginalized people who have traditionally been limited in their ability to express themselves.

Notice the phrase, "in reality" describing how so-called social justice advocates see themselves?

That's a dead give away what you are reading is a propoganda piece by a partisan who is presenting one side as "reality" and the other side as wrong.

The author goes to a communications expert to explain how elites have been the gatekeepers of the old orthodoxy of what is acceptable and what isn't as a criticism. That was a wow moment for me.

It's a garbage article. You like it for the same reasons Ajax likes Breitbart. It's not making good points. It's telling you you are right and those who disagree with you are wrong without actually illuminating the discussion. It's a tuning fork that you resonated to. Yay!

[_Some Schmo]

It's a tuning fork that you resonated to. Yay!

Wow... it must be awesome to be the only unbiased person in the world, honor. You're sooooo lucky.

Christ.

Alrighty, then. You just keep fighting the good fight, SQW.