Look, it seems to me you are arguing there has to be some shared set of basic beliefs that you call facts that must be shared for good faith debate to occur. Yeah. Finding where people share common ground is often one of the first things one attempts to discover when debating someone with whom one disagrees. It's usually discovered through debate and inquiry.
That's not what I'm arguing at all. I'm arguing that if you have a signed petitionary letter expressing a point of view meant to persuade the public, who the signatories are matters for the public's understanding of the contextual meaning of the letter. The point of letters like this is to express a solidarity of opinion on the subject with the authority of the signers carrying weight for the reader. When a bunch of former DoJ officials from administrations going back to LBJ condemned the actions of Bill Barr's DoJ, the list of signatories was meant to tell you that these people's familiarity with and interest in preserving the values of the rule of law in federal justice enforcement is the principle concern and their argument is not a hypocritical partisan attack. If the letter was instead signed by a bunch of people known for their hypocritical partisan attacks, the likely understood meaning would shift.
I am saying that by including people who say things like the letter, but are really after a motte and baily argument to create more freedom to have a platform to express prejudiced views sans social consequence, you risk people interpreting the letter to represent that point of view. To be succinct, the Jenn Kamp Rowlings on the list might make people think that letter means what Jenn Kamp Rowling means and not what Margaret Atwood means. And what Jenn Kamp Rowling means is, "stop giving me grief for my transphobic comments and accept they are part of a reasonable debate (or I'll sue you)." If people have that interpretation, it directly undermines the professed value of the letter as it signals that free speech is a sham argument. I am asking for clarity of message, which you then falsely equate to a leftist purity test because that's a thing you know about.
Again, I'd like to know what the process was like for soliciting signatures. From people who did sign and have commented on the process, it sounds like they had only a partial awareness of who this was going out to before signing off. The full list is weighted with people who faced backlash for published comments, some unfairly, but also plenty of fair examples. It has a noticeable bias towards figures an older person might know about. Was someone like, "Matty Yglesias keeps getting in hot water for the occasional dumb tweet. Let's ask him?" What's the thought process here?
You want me to go down the list and point out all the examples of what I'm talking about?
No. I want you to present you arguments against Jesse Singal to go beyond assertion to actual demonstration of what makes for his being an example you selected off the list as a person one ought to be cautious of inviting to this sort of project. He has views on transgender identity you don't agree with. Ok. So share them and show what it is that makes him so bad.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Look, it seems to me you are arguing there has to be some shared set of basic beliefs that you call facts that must be shared for good faith debate to occur. Yeah. Finding where people share common ground is often one of the first things one attempts to discover when debating someone with whom one disagrees. It's usually discovered through debate and inquiry.
That's not what I'm arguing at all.
That was to Schmo, Mr. Banana Pants it's-all-about-me. It shouldn't have taken much to recognize that in context of the reply and prior conversation.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Again, I'd like to know what the process was like for soliciting signatures. From people who did sign and have commented on the process, it sounds like they had only a partial awareness of who this was going out to before signing off. The full list is weighted with people who faced backlash for published comments, some unfairly, but also plenty of fair examples. It has a noticeable bias towards figures an older person might know about. Was someone like, "Matty Yglesias keeps getting in hot water for the occasional dumb tweet. Let's ask him?" What's the thought process here?
Everything you say on this subject is about the purity test but you keep acting like you are being unfairly criticized for calling the argument you are making a purity test. To assert with the assumption all that is needed is your assertion is very much operating under a Law of 22 Prairial.
The people are collectively recognized as writers. The letter identified this as their common trait that brought people with underlying differing views on numerous other subjects together to caution against rising illiberalism among people on the left who like to claim a certain degree of belief in Western Liberalism as a concept. There is, without a doubt, a growing number of people that are favor authoritarian behaviours so long as they are imagined to be for the right side. History should have taught us that this slippery slope leads to abuse and the end of those very values. If the authors who signed on to the letter seem to appeal to an older audience, well...
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
honorentheos wrote:
Everything you say on this subject is about the purity test but you keep acting like you are being unfairly criticized for making the argument you are making being called a purity test.
When Boylan said in effect, "This is what I thought the letter meant, but when I saw who signed it, I realized it meant something else..." she's not talking about a purity test. She's talking about how the signers changed the contexutal meaning. Apparently struggling to understand the concept, you reacted by assuming she was shamed for wrong-think by others and wrote it off.
The people are collectively recognized as writers. The letter identified this as their common trait that brought people with underlying differing views on numerous other subjects together...
And yet this isn't just some random sampling of famous writers. It's noticeably not that. Seems like that statement should be taken more than at face value.
You are completely off your rocker here. One of the humorous things here is my criticism is mild compared a lot of liberal criticism floating out there that's just a google away.
honorentheos wrote:
Everything you say on this subject is about the purity test but you keep acting like you are being unfairly criticized for making the argument you are making being called a purity test.
When Boylan said in effect, "This is what I thought the letter meant, but when I saw who signed it, I realized it meant something else..." she's not talking about a purity test. She's talking about how the signers changed the contexutal meaning. Apparently struggling to understand the concept, you reacted by assuming she was shamed for wrong-think by others and wrote it off.
I did not know who else had signed that letter. I thought I was endorsing a well meaning, if vague, message against internet shaming. I did know Chomsky, Steinem, and Atwood were in, and I thought, good company.
The consequences are mine to bear. I am so sorry
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa