That Harpers Open Letter

[_honorentheos]

The reach for the KKK was just an outrageous move but not the thing with which I take primary issue. I've made the point multiple times that your attempt to say the letter fails due to association with adjacency alliance to, say, the KKK or whatever bad thing you think you can insert and get away with because people signed onto it with whom you disagree on matters you feel are bad things is a blatant slight of hand trick. It would be silly you even went there yet it seems that's the move on the Twitter by those who appear intent on erecting their guillotine and rounding up the enemies among us who pretend to be friends.

[_EAllusion]

The reach for the KKK was just an outrageous move but not the thing with which I take primary issue. I've made the point multiple times that your attempt to say the letter fails due to association with adjacency alliance to, say, the KKK or whatever bad thing you think you can insert and get away with because people signed onto it with whom you disagree on matters you feel are bad things is a blatant slight of hand trick. It would be silly you even went there yet it seems that's the move on the Twitter by those who appear intent on erecting their guillotine and rounding up the enemies among us who pretend to be friends.

I picked the KKK because an obvious example where it should illustrate the difference between advocating for their rights and joining their bad faith messaging about their rights. That you find the KKK abhorrent, but not, say, Jesse Singal is scrambling your ability to read a simple argument even the whole point of that construction is to pick a bad group that deserves its rights to be defended. The KKK is literally the quintessential example of this kind of argument with the ACLU being its defender. This is the classic analogy, you doofus. And yeah, there's a difference between the ACLU defending the KKK in court and the ACLU signing off with the KKK on persuasive essays in terms of likely public impact. Because that is a thing people can and do distinguish.

And while you repeatedly complain about using the KKK to illustrate a principle in a free speech discussion of all things, you're comparing me to french revolutionaries in the reign of terror.

[_honorentheos]

So what makes Jesse Singal abhorrent? Until you said his name above I had not heard of him. A Google search offered clues to why you might assign him qualities of the KKK but I'd rather let you spell it out.

And yeah, I think you demonstrate uncomfortable traits in common with what gave rise to the Reign of Terror. Not hiding that at all.

[_EAllusion]

So what makes Jesse Singal abhorrent? Until you said his name above I had not heard of him. A Google search offered clues to why you might assign him qualities of the KKK but I'd rather let you spell it out.

And yeah, I think you demonstrate uncomfortable traits in common with what gave rise to the Reign of Terror. Not hiding that at all.

I'm not saying Jesse Singal is literally the KKK. You're being an idiot. I'm saying the fact that you find the KKK, but not him abhorrent is irrelevant.

"How dare you bring up the KKK to illustrate a point about defense of free speech?" said no one who has ever paid any attention to free speech discussions before.

And yes, you are the type of person who reads, "It probably muddles the message when you join a petitioned defense of free speech with people's whose interest in free speech is to insulate themselves from social disapprobation" as French revolution talk.

[_Some Schmo]

All I can say, honor, is that you aren't being the champion to free speech you think you are here.

If you want to debate something, another thing to value might be actually considering what other people say before jumping on it. I've seen three instances of you responding to me in this thread alone where I thought, "He basically ignored what I just said."

But sure, you can say whatever the hell you want. I suppose in your mind, that means not even having the same conversation.

[_EAllusion]

Incidentally, one of the people on the list I didn't recognize is Neil Blair who, as it turns out, is Jenn Kamp Rowling's agent. That's weird, huh? It does make you wonder about the process for circulating this and who was behind it. The list has definite themes. Like, why are trans commentators, including a who's who of people known for sketchy opinions, such prominent feature? Who made sure they had a chance to sign? This isn't just a random collection of intellectuals.

Contrary to what honor apparently thinks, who signs open letters like this is ordinarily understood to be part of the message and help contextualize it. Or, rather, honor might get that in other contexts but has a hard time coping with the notion when the complaint is that a bunch of people on the list can reasonably be interpreted as advocating for opening up more space in public discourse for prejudice sans social consequence with motte and bailey tactics and this likely impacts the message of people who aren't doing that.

Somebody or some people had a list of people to send the letter to. What's their thought process about who to solicit? While Harper's has been asked that question, so far they've just declined to comment. A few people who declined to sign have had some comments about it, but they don't have any insight to share here either.

[_Icarus]

The argument isn't with the value an individual assigns to debating a subject. It is over the fundamental value of protecting the right to expression of views with which one might not agree.

Ya, well, that's not a right that is in any danger here so what are you whining about? People have the right to express wrong opinions. People already have the right to express anything they want aside from hate speech. People with functioning brains choosing to dismiss them out of hand does not equate to people being stripped of their rights.

[_Icarus]

The letter is pretty clear in urging caution towards impulses on the left shared with the worst actors on the right towards not just stifling speech but going after people's careers for having views on subjects with which they don't agree. Blurring it into right wing attacks to be able to dismiss it is an example of the thing being warned against.

So you're saying we should strip away the rights of companies that choose to disassociate with known bigots? They should let their business suffer the consequences because of the ignorant actions of one of its employees?

When a Karen goes on a public rant about how black people are a virus in society that needs to learn to be more self sufficient and stop relying on her tax dollars, if she were one of my employees I'd fire her in a heartbeat and the only person you should be complaining to over this is Karen who made the conscious choice to do this knowing full well she was being recorded.

[_EAllusion]

I think Ken White is correct that you see a lot of motte and bailey argument here.

The academic witchhunt against Rebecca Tuvel for her article in Hypatia was bad.

Sure sure.

The story surrounding David Shor losing his job was infuriating.

No doubt.

And people need to stop trying to cancel Jenn Kamp Rowling for saying prejudiced things about trans people. And Quilette contributors shouldn't be shouldn't be attacked for publishing race science. And MAGAMASTER1488 shouldn't have lost his public relations job for going on a racist tirade in a Wendy's. And...

Wait, what?

When you give these people the mantle of what free speech defense looks like, you risk persuading people that "free speech" is just a fig leaf for people to behave poorly rather than a mutually beneficial protective shield against bad actors.

[_EAllusion]

I wonder if the people who think of me as a free speech zealot will get a kick out of seeing me compared to Robespierre for offering mild criticism of the Harper's letter that agrees with the sentiment by questions its effectiveness as a persuasive document.