Jesse Singal, incidentally, is one of those folks who has been commonly described as "cancelled" in the discourse on cancel culture but is still around not being cancelled doing things like signing this letter. He might not get future glossy magazine spreads, and as we all know, freedom of speech means unfettered access to publication in high circulation magazines. Katie Herzog, listed as a podcast host, shares a similar status for similar reasons. It is strange when you think about it that this totally random sample of famous writers includes so many people who are associated with facing backlash of criticism for writing that promotes prejudice towards trans people. It's not like that's a super common thing to have happen to you. It's almost as if the list isn't just some random sample of famous writers, but maybe there was a list of people to contact that didn't include the known universe of writers that was shaped by the editorial decisions of the people who solicited the signatures.
Still not actually sharing the content with which you take issue but instead relying on social noise to do the lifting. Got it.
When I looked him up his podcast and an interview he did with Nick Gillespie at Reason were two of the hits. Katie Herzog is his co-host on the podcast and was a participant in the interview. So...you lifted two names from a specific incident you are familiar with here? Care to go into details? Or just tell us that the list is a basket of deplorables, take your word for it?
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
EA provides his approach to ensuring the goal of freedom of expressing is preserved...
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…
Naturally, the judgement of whether or not a person is reasonable or just in mind and judgement is by their conforming to EA's position.
That's how authoritarians work.
So, again, feel free to make an actual case. You chose a person to represent your argument here. Support the argument.
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
My contribution is that metatextual awareness of who the signatories are helps convince people that this might just be a fig leaf argument for concern trolls and hypocrites invested in protecting the public space to express personal prejudices sans social consequences. That doesn't mean this is what Margaret Atwood is doing. It means that Margaret Atwood joined hands with people probably doing that and it's a mixed message.
Let’s outline a few important features of rhextortion. One important thing is that the rhextortionist knows exactly what the target means. The potential misinterpretation is entirely in the hands of generally unnamed third parties who are not present. The rhextortionist then presents themselves to the target as doing them a favor. Here, for example, the target learns from the rhextortionist what the target themselves “wants.” How kind! They’re not the ones trying to control your language; they’re simply warning you that the misinterpretation is out there, somehow, without commenting on whether it’s justified.
Now, what’s the goal of the rhextortionist? Let’s just look at the facts. When someone prevents you from saying P on the grounds that someone else might interpret it as meaning Q, you haven’t been prevented from saying Q. You’ve been prevented from saying P. A realist has to assume that the goal, therefore, is to prevent people from saying P.
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
[quote=Icarus]People already have the right to express anything they want aside from hate speech.[/quote]
I want the discussants to read that line, and then to read it about a dozen more times. The sheer danger, and lunacy, of that thinking is or at least ought to be self-evident. That’s what the signatories are warning against. That’s a far-Left position. And it gets authoritarian in a blink of the eye. Do we really want people like Icarus in charge of defining hate speech? Or me? Or ldsfaqs? Or Trump? Or Ellen Pao, former CEO of Reddit? Or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Or Louis Farrakhan? Or David Duke? Or Utah Trump dick sucker Greg Hughes?
Meanwhile, my comments were addressing an internal debate about what it means to have the list of signatories be what it is. That's why such an otherwise harmless letter generated so much heat. My point is to reject the idea one must avoid bad associations in favor a more nuanced idea about the meaning and purpose of petitionary letters.
So your authority on the list should be sufficient to convict, assuming all share your view of the participants and their general unworthiness. Got it.
Your point here seems to be the signatories are collectively poison to the content and surficial purpose of the letter. Even to the point you then behave as if the signatories are collectively sanctioning institutional restrictions on speech by association.
Nice.
No, that's a straight up moronic reading of what you just quoted. It's that my opinion addresses an argument that already acknowledges something that you either disagree with or are ignorant of. It is for the people who already agree with something. Much in the same way that if there was a letter on the importance of scientific freedom that had 30% global warming denialists as its signatories and I commented on what that means, I might not be interested in addressing the person who keeps wanting to debate the validity of global warming because they think there's lots of good skeptical arguments and want to see them addressed in detail. My comments aren't for you, bro. That doesn't mean I'm saying global warming is true based on my personal authority. That's pure, uncut nonsense. I'm saying that I have comments for people who already see the global warming denialists as not necessarily interested in scientific freedom per se in their rhetoric.
My comments don't have to be addressed to what you think or want to think. I am talking about what it means to sign a statement with other people who are reasonably interpreted has having meaning differing from yours.
Jesse Singal, incidentally, is one of those folks who has been commonly described as "cancelled" in the discourse on cancel culture but is still around not being cancelled doing things like signing this letter. He might not get future glossy magazine spreads, and as we all know, freedom of speech means unfettered access to publication in high circulation magazines. Katie Herzog, listed as a podcast host, shares a similar status for similar reasons. It is strange when you think about it that this totally random sample of famous writers includes so many people who are associated with facing backlash of criticism for writing that promotes prejudice towards trans people. It's not like that's a super common thing to have happen to you. It's almost as if the list isn't just some random sample of famous writers, but maybe there was a list of people to contact that didn't include the known universe of writers that was shaped by the editorial decisions of the people who solicited the signatures.
Still not actually sharing the content with which you take issue but instead relying on social noise to do the lifting. Got it.
When I looked him up his podcast and an interview he did with Nick Gillespie at Reason were two of the hits. Katie Herzog is his co-host on the podcast and was a participant in the interview. So...you lifted two names from a specific incident you are familiar with here? Care to go into details? Or just tell us that the list is a basket of deplorables, take your word for it?
I listed Katie Herzog because she's often listed in close association with Jessie Singal as an example of people taken out by "cancel culture" specifically on the issue of transphobia. Jesus. Here's an NYT article as an example if that'll make you happy:
As a random sample of influential writers, it's bizarre that she'd be in the list. Maybe not "Jenn Kamp Rowling's agent" bizarre, but bizarre nonetheless. But it's not a random sample of influential writers. Some people clearly were solicited because of some relationship to disapprobation received for controversial/wrong views.
Don't take my word for it. You want to keep demanding I prove global warming to you and I'm telling you no. I am not having that conversation right now. My comments are for those who already agree with a position because there is a dispute inside of that agreement I wanted to address. My comments took it as a given that Bari Weiss types are concern trolls and that Jenn Kamp Rowling types are engaged in self-serving reaction to personal criticism and disassociation. You don't have to agree, but from the get go, I took that as a premise to make a comment. If you are so interested in this subject and don't want to personally subject me to your whims, then read up.
That article referencing the above article also closely associates Jesse Signal and Herzog in this way. I was not coming out of left field for noticing what connects them on the list. This article mentions Quillette, which I have referred to multiple times, as " the online magazine devoted to rebranding conservative ideas as courageous defenses of free speech." I think it's even more specific. It tries to rebrand arguments specifically associated with prejudices as that. You don't agree? Throw yourself a parade.
People come along and notice there's actually a lot of Quillette going on in on the list. Some people have said that the decent people signing this shouldn't be associated with them. I say, "Hold the phone. Let's clarify. It's more that this might confuse the message and taint defenses of free speech. You don't want people thinking that "free speech" means what Quilette is doing. This is counterproductive messaging strategy."
You then enter the chat and are all, "Debate me on Quillete, bro. I need a 5 paragraph essay with your best lines of evidence now." Nah, man. I wasn't talking to you. For one, you appear to be completely off your rocker.
You want to keep demanding I prove global warming to you and I'm telling you no. I am not having that conversation right now. My comments are for those who already agree with a position because there is a dispute inside of that agreement I wanted to address.
You aren't having a conversation with anyone in this thread, then. This is your insertion and demand to argue based on a premise being challenged that you refuse to defend against reasonable charges. You're dodging because you want to have a debate popular among similarly minded people - people whose views are questionable based on the multiple points brought up here in this thread on this board.
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
That article referencing the above article also closely associates Jesse Signal and Herzog in this way. I was not coming out of left field for noticing what connects them on the list.
You deceitful ____. You didn't associate them on the list, you acted like they were just two random names you pulled from the list and happened to find a common claim they had been accused of cancel culture complaints. This was presented as evidence that the list was infested with names who were problematic based on your criteria of problematic.
Your exact statement:
Katie Herzog, listed as a podcast host, shares a similar status for similar reasons. It is strange when you think about it that this totally random sample of famous writers includes so many people who are associated with facing backlash of criticism for writing that promotes prejudice towards trans people.
I pointed out they work together on a podcast where they have shared this accusation and then appeared together elsewhere to defend their position so it's not random chance the claim against one appeared against the other.
Holy ____ you have zero regard for truth.
This is the behavior of your online gatekeepers of the illiberal orthodoxy. Behold! The man!
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