That Harpers Open Letter

[_honorentheos]

For those interested in seeing the parallel:
https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevoluti ... rial-1794/

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.

All you need to do is support your assertions with evidence, bro.

[_EAllusion]

Jesse. Stop making blind accusations and support them with your evidence of what constitutes his unsavory views one should shun.

My comments already assume people know who the signatories because they are premised on addressing a particular argument that takes that for granted. If you do not, that's a you problem. I don't know if your problem is ignorance or a defensiveness regarding your personal agreement with prejudices that you don't come out and say, but it's not the thing I'm discussing. If you want to do the "How dare you take issue with Quillette" dance, knock yourself out, but I'm talking about the dispute between people who says the diversity of meaning behind the signatures shouldn't matter if the content of the letter is fine and those who say it does. I say that the sentiment is fine, but the persuasive effect is wanting, which makes me exist on the tamer side of that dispute. If you're desperate to defend Jesse Singal's honor, awesomessauce for you, but that's not a thing that's being discussed. My comments are premised on a person who knows that this list of signers contains people who are doing I (and others) say they are doing. If that's not you, it sounds like this conversation isn't for you despite your repeated failed attempts to address points I actually am making.

That you react with, "Zomg! The guillotine is out!" suggests that you're not the cool rational head that you so desperately imagine yourself to be.

[_EAllusion]

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

Yeah...

Notice that she's setting up a contrast between what she thought the letter meant and what she now thinks. There's a few retractions that have this theme because it's apparently possible to notice that the thing you thought you were signing isn't what you thought it was after you see how it is presented in context.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Lessee... who's the next piece of crap that nefarious forces duped into signing this letter OR they're part of a cabal who wants to see the KKK retain its right to use the n-word...

John Banville

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Banville

Piece of crap alert! "...described as "the heir to Proust, via Nabokov", Banville himself maintains that W. B. Yeats and Henry James are the two real influences on his work." The animal rights activist (more or less), vegetarian, and presumably feminist Irish author is what could only be described as a progressive.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

My comments already assume people know that these people are guilty. If you do not, that's your problem.

FIFY

[_honorentheos]

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

Yeah...

Notice that she's setting up a contrast between what she thought the letter meant and what she now thinks. There's a few retractions that have this theme because it's apparently possible to notice that the thing you thought you were signing isn't what you thought it was after you see how it is presented in context.

Notice how she agreed with the content of the letter (P) but then was bullied into disassociating from it by people asking how she could associate with the others who had signed on (Q)? And the result is censorship of (P)?

[_honorentheos]

THE LAW OF 22 PRAIRIAL (1794)
The Law of 22 Prairial, passed in June 1794 by the Robespierre-dominated Committee of Public Safety, sought to expand the Terror by removing the rights of accused persons:

"The Revolutionary Tribunal is instituted to punish the enemies of the people. The enemies of the people are those who seek to destroy public liberty, either by force or by cunning. The following are deemed enemies of the people:

Those who have instigated the reestablishment of monarchy, or have sought to disparage or dissolve the National Convention and the revolutionary and republican government of which it is the centre;

Those who have betrayed the Republic in the command of places and armies, or in any other military function, carried on correspondence with the enemies of the Republic, laboured to disrupt the provisioning or the service of the armies;

Those who have sought to impede the provisioning of Paris, or to create scarcity within the Republic;

Those who have supported the designs of the enemies of France, either by countenancing the sheltering and the impunity of conspirators and aristocracy, by persecuting and calumniating patriotism, by corrupting the representatives of the people, or by abusing the principles of the Revolution or the laws or measures of the government by false and perfidious applications;

Those who have deceived the people or the representatives of the people, in order to lead them into undertakings contrary to the interests of liberty;

Those who have sought to inspire discouragement, in order to favour the enterprises of the tyrants leagued against the Republic;

Those who have disseminated false news in order to divide or disturb the people;

Those who have sought to mislead opinion and to prevent the instruction of the people, to deprave morals and to corrupt the public conscience, to impair the energy and the purity of revolutionary and republican principles, or to impede the progress thereof, either by counterrevolutionary or insidious writings or by any other machinations;

Contractors of bad faith… and squanderers of the public fortune…

The penalty provided for all offences under the jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Tribunal is death. The proof necessary to convict enemies of the people comprises every kind of evidence, whether material or moral, oral or written, which can naturally secure the approval of every just and reasonable mind. The rule of judgments is the conscience of the jurors, enlightened by love of the nation…

Every citizen has the right to seize conspirators and counterrevolutionaries, and to arraign them before the magistrates. He is required to denounce them as soon as he knows of them.

The accused shall be examined publicly in the courtroom. The formality of the preceding secret examination [deposition] is deemed to be superfluous; it shall take place only under special circumstances…

If either material or moral proofs exist, apart from the attested proof, there shall be no further hearing of witnesses, unless such formality appears necessary…

All proceedings shall be conducted in public and no written deposition shall be received, unless witnesses are so situated that they cannot come before the Tribunal…

The pleadings completed, the jurors shall formulate their verdicts and the judges shall pronounce the penalty in the manner determined by law…”

[_EAllusion]

My comments already assume people know that these people are guilty. If you do not, that's your problem.

Fixed it for you

It sure does seem like your objection here is more about describing people known for having platforms to promote prejudices in the public discourse that way. Hence the, "Tell me what's wrong with Jesse Singal?!l" exhortations. You don't know? Ok. But my comments can take that for granted. You don't even have to agree to understand the point made. You just have to hypothetically understand the premise. Since you disagree with the point being made even granting that true, it's not relevant. If you wish to change your opinion and agree what I said was fine if you grant the underlying idea about who has signed, then do so. Have a point of view and stick to it.

[Guest]

I get your premise. Hence the comparison to the Reign of Terror. You want to bring the Twitter argument here? Meh. My point is the very premise of the Twitter argument is flawed on grounds reflected in the letter that have damning historical parallels. So, you gave a name. Educate on what makes him such a terrible person that his views are disqualifying for being an advocate for freedom of expression. You assert, but resist defending that assertion. That's meaningful. It should be concerning to people who take the argument there are authoritarian impulses involved.

[_EAllusion]

Lessee... who's the next piece of ____ that nefarious forces duped into signing this letter OR they're part of a cabal who wants to see the KKK retain its right to use the n-word...

The KKK does retain it's right to use the n-word and supporting free speech means continuing to support the existence of that right. Weird flex for such a blatant strawman.

I specifically said, on page 1, that I was not condemning anyone for having signed the letter. I think the sentiment of the letter itself is innocuous. I described the letter as failing as a persuasive document because of the mixture of people that signed and their public records can create the unfortunate impression it favors the use of free speech as cover to insulate bad conduct from social consequences.

My opening post is a lengthy quote from an attorney who is one of the more famous free speech advocates in the country.