That Harpers Open Letter

[_honorentheos]

If Jenn Kamp Rowling is the example you reach for after inserting the KKK into the argument, you're obviously manufacturing the kind of criticism worthy of having it's motives questioned.

[_EAllusion]

If Jenn Kamp Rowling is the example you reach for after inserting the KKK into the argument, you're obviously manufacturing the kind of criticism worthy of being questioned over it's intentions.

I used the KKK to illustrate a point I was making. If you have a response to it, feel free. If you plan on ignoring the point and imputing bad motives via 3rd party quote again, you're also free to do that.

I used Jenn Kamp Rowling as a specific example of someone who even very recently has displayed hostility to free speech (of the type that is unlawful in the US) signing the letter defending free speech to suggest that people might pick up that this opinion isn't necessarily a good faith argument defending free speech in the abstract. I, for one, would prefer people not see free speech as a grift run by people who don't want to be shunned for saying bad things because they didn't like the experience.

If you're actually interested in being persuasive, it's entirely possible to defend free speech without getting the Bari Weiss crew together to taint your message with concern trolling.

[_honorentheos]

If Jenn Kamp Rowling is the example you reach for after inserting the KKK into the argument, you're obviously manufacturing the kind of criticism worthy of being questioned over it's intentions.

I used the KKK to illustrate a point I was making. If you have a response to it, feel free. If you plan on ignoring the point and imputing bad motives via 3rd party quote again, you're also free to do that.

I used Jenn Kamp Rowling as a specific example of someone who even very recently has displayed hostility to free speech (of the type that is unlawful in the US) signing the letter defending free speech to suggest that people might pick up that this opinion isn't necessarily a good faith argument defending free speech in the abstract. I, for one, would prefer people not see free speech as a grift run by people who don't want to be shunned for saying bad things because they didn't like the experience.

If you're actually interested in being persuasive, it's entirely possible to defend free speech without getting the Bari Weiss crew together to taint your message.

Again, arguing that defending P requires not looking like Q while being the one claiming it looks like Q to shut down an argument about P is exactly the sort of thing being discussed as a problem. You just inserted the KKK in as a bad example to do exactly this redirection. That's not making a point. It's proving the counter point and then doubling down on it when it was pointed out for being what it was. I mean, Jenn Kamp Rowling is famous but hardly the most noteworthy signatories. Chompsky? Pinker? Gladwell? Rushdie?

[_EAllusion]

Again, arguing that defending P requires not looking like Q while being the one claiming it looks like Q to shut down an argument about P. You just inserted the KKK in as a bad example to do exactly this redirection. That's not making a point. It's proving the counter point and then doubling down on it when it was pointed out for being what it was.

You haven't addressed a single point I've made honor. If the KKK makes you get the vapors, replace every instance where the word "KKK' is located with something you find more within the bounds of acceptable opinion, but disreputable. How about a march of people advocating to ban transition operations for trans people? Does that work for you? If you'd like, you can just replace it with {S} because the point remains regardless of the input so long as you understand there's a distinction between messaging about the group's rights and joining that group's bad faith messaging about their rights in terms of its potential impact on public opinion. Advocate for them, not with them.

I know you think you can just shout me down by imputing bad motives, because that's so different from "cancel culture," but it doesn't change that there are specific points being made.

[_EAllusion]

https://Twitter.com/JennyBoylan/status/ ... 4136697863

She's deeply apologizing for signing the letter even though she agreed with it. Why? Because she recognized that the contextual meaning of the document changes based on how it is presented. My creationist example wasn't exactly hypothetical, as religious apologists have circulated seemingly harmless petition letters to snare scientists to agree only later to present it in a way that contextually suggests they are providing support to the creationist position. The literal content being agreed with doesn't change, but how it is likely to be interpreted does. This isn't as extreme, but it presents a similar issue how the meta-text alters the likely understood meaning of the text.

[_honorentheos]

The point is you are the one assigning the letter to the parallel. You explicitly toss in KKK or whatever other group you wish to poison the well (the Q) and then say if a person wanted to defend P they shouldn't have associated it with Q...because people who signed the letter that can be read on its own merits has a diverse field of signatories which is also part of the point. If purity of message is P to you, then I guess you'll have to round up a group of buddies who meet your definition of worthy to carry the message that is, what again? Resistance to Donald Trump and authoritarians on the right? Except that wasn't the point. The point was, as a value freedom of expression needs to have safeguards on the left.

I was listening to a discussion the BBC about the Reign of Terror under Robespierre over the holiday. One of the historians involved noted that most of the leaders of the terror were quite young and idealistic...so much so that what eventually halted th killing under the guise of law and protection of the people was the eventual dawning of a recognition that at some point any one could be brought up and beheaded on the grounds no one was without some snag that could be exploited against them.

The tendency to imagine the people being stoned are guilty comes from a certain shielding of the self behind the facade of being without sin oneself. Which is a lie perpetuated by aninimity and fear based conformity driving people to point out witches around them so as to not be called a witch themselves.

Your points are examples of the BS things going on, EA. It's worse than byiu chose to be so blatant doing it like you assume your righteous mask is a shield that allows it to go uncondemned for what it is. But the KKK? I didn't think you would be quite that bold to be so indiscrete. Yet here we are.

[_honorentheos]

https://Twitter.com/JennyBoylan/status/ ... 4136697863

She's deeply apologizing for signing the letter even though she agreed with it. Why?

Because she was told she was guilty of defending Q.

[_EAllusion]

I mean, Jenn Kamp Rowling is famous but hardly the most noteworthy signatories. Chompsky? Pinker? Gladwell? Rushdie?

Not sure why you think Gladwell is notable or why Pinker wouldn't be an example of what I'm talking about, but the list contains a fair amount of decent people put right up next to a bushel of people who have famously said sketchy things and faced backlash for it. Speaking of Rowling, there's an odd anti-trans subtheme on the list. I'm familiar with most on the list, and basically all are famous with large platforms in their respective worlds, though some are examples of supposed "cancelling" despite this.

Minus the retractions, you still have that mix. Since letters of this type are meant to express a form of solidarity of opinion on the subject at hand, that's where you run into a problem. Because you got a lot of folks whose version of free speech is really, "I should be allowed to say [insert dubious thing] or have close ties to [dubious people] and not be attacked so much" running along side people offering a more sincere defense of free speech. Since these things are meant to persuade and not make honor's both-sides organ feel all tingly, this is potentially counterproductive.

[_EAllusion]

https://Twitter.com/JennyBoylan/status/ ... 4136697863

She's deeply apologizing for signing the letter even though she agreed with it. Why?

Because she was told she was guilty of defending Q.

It appears that ignoring the argument and imputing bad motives is your one weird trick for this issue.

Boylan is a trans woman. The odds that she noticed that the list of names she was included with includes a who's who of people notorious for anti-trans writing who might not be so concerned with free speech per se almost certainly changed her mind about what her signature signaled.

[_EAllusion]

The point is you are the one assigning the letter to the parallel. You explicitly toss in KKK or whatever other group you wish to poison the well (the Q) and then say if a person wanted to defend P they shouldn't have associated it with Q...because people who signed the letter that can be read on its own merits has a diverse field of signatories which is also part of the point.

I think the point of the argument is clear.

If purity of message is P to you...

It's a good idea to have your messages be consistent and delivered with sincerity, yes.

I was listening to a discussion the BBC about the Reign of Terror under Robespierre over the holiday. One of the historians involved noted that most of the leaders of the terror were quite young and idealistic...so much so that what eventually halted th killing under the guise of law and protection of the people was the eventual dawning of a recognition that at some point any one could be brought up and beheaded on the grounds no one was without some snag that could be exploited against them.

I see you crawled off your fainting couch long enough to come up with a strained analogy to the Reign of Terror. Your concern about using less charged examples in an argument definitely is sincere and consistent.

Your points are examples of the ____ things going on, EAllusion. It's worse than byiu chose to be so blatant doing it like you assume your righteous mask is a shield that allows it to go uncondemned for what it is. But the KKK? I didn't think you would be quite that bold to be so indiscrete. Yet here we are.

Not once did you address the argument. Just a bunch of flailing complaint that I used the KKK and not whatever bad thing example that wouldn't make your heart flutter as much.