That Harpers Open Letter

[_EAllusion]

This is a flat out dishonest description of my opinion of people on the list. That you almost immediately resort lying on subjects like this is a tell regarding what you think about your capacity to engage them.

Projection much? You're the one introducing the KKK as somehow benefitting from the letter and its signatories.

I said nothing like this.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Margaret Atwood. This one sound unfamiliar to me. Just kidding! It's almost as if she's one of the most famous 20th century authors still alive. Let's take a stroll through Google-land with regard to Ms. Atwood...

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

"Margaret Eleanor Atwood CC OOnt CH FRSC (born November 18, 1939) is a Canadian poet, novelist, literary critic, essayist, teacher, environmental activist and inventor."

Boy, she sounds like a real piece of crap who hates trans folks and would totally get EA's KKK analogy!

"Atwood's works encompass a variety of themes including gender and identity, religion and myth, the power of language, climate change, and "power politics"."

Here's a list of her awards, in case anyone needs a primer on Ms. Atwoods credentials:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Atwood#Awards

Gee. I wonder why someone like her would be concerned with today's 'cancel culture' climate to the point of signing on to this letter? We're only few writers deep into this list and I'm so moved by their act I've gone back and re-read the letter three times now.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

You just described the letter; clear, simple to the point one of its most common criticisms is it's practically above needing to have been said.

You then undermine your point by then inserting the purity test for who qualities as a suitable ally in sharing this message.

To be clear my "purity test," shared by noted anti-free speech, radical leftist cancel culturists like Ken White, is that it's a bad idea to have your petitionary letter include a large range of people whose interest is self-serving and/or concern trolling about free speech because it might lead people to think the argument for free speech is a fig leaf to create space for prejudice in social discourse free of consequence because for some it clearly is.

[_honorentheos]

Schmo, you began your point saying the OP was pointless because of a reason.

No I didn't. Thank you for confirming my suspicion.

I essentially said the letter was well and good, except that it assumes good faith participants.

And since you don't believe people are, it was pointless. Come on, man. Quit being sense about this point.

I disagreed with that reason. You said, Nope. So I went on the offensive to point out why the nope was wrong.

No I didn't. Thank you for confirming the second instance.

You just noped again.

You said it was about values, not facts. My contention was that the major value we should care about is adherence to facts. If I take your line of reasoning, you're autocratically telling me my values are wrong. Why are you shutting me down? We can go round and round on this all day.

My point wasn't that facts don't matter. It was that you will never get everyone to agree on the facts, ever, but especially if you don't first agree that debate and voicing ones views is essential. How else is everyone going to come to agree on the facts? You seem to assume your position is self evidence so if someone doesn't share it they are stupid or lying so whats the point? In other words, to demonstrate good faith a person has to agree with you. That's irrational.

[_Some Schmo]

According to Google Maps, the driving distance between Portland, Oregon and Denver Colorado is about 1,242 miles (obviously this varies depending on the actual starting and ending points). This is something I consider a fact.

If someone comes to me and says, "I could jog from Portland to Denver in a couple days," and I point out the driving distance, claiming it would be impossible, it's not a valid opinion that I'm disputing. I'm pointing out a fact which renders their "opinion" invalid. The other person needn't agree with the fact, and I needn't engage them any further should they choose to ignore it.

That's the point, honor. I'm not stifling free speech. I'm saying a discussion with people who ignore facts is not worth the effort to me. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept.

[_honorentheos]

You just described the letter; clear, simple to the point one of its most common criticisms is it's practically above needing to have been said.

You then undermine your point by then inserting the purity test for who qualities as a suitable ally in sharing this message.

To be clear my "purity test," shared by noted anti-free speech, radical leftist cancel culturists like Ken White, is that it's a bad idea to have your petitionary letter include a large range of people whose interest is self-serving and/or concern trolling about free speech because it might lead people to think the argument for free speech is a fig leaf to create space for prejudice in social discourse free of consequence because for some it clearly is.

Again, we seem to all agree on the what that you are saying. You aren't defending the why. Your purity test is an assertion. You want to make a point that has substance? What exactly is it that Sangal said that makes him a Q soiling the P so you say the issue here is association with bad people? Otherwise, you are operating under a version of the Law of 22 Prairial.

[_honorentheos]

According to Google Maps, the driving distance between Portland, Oregon and Denver Colorado is about 1,242 miles (obviously this varies depending on the actual starting and ending points). This is something I consider a fact.

If someone comes to me and says, "I could jog from Portland to Denver in a couple days," and I point out the driving distance, claiming it would be impossible, it's not a valid opinion that I'm disputing. I'm pointing out a fact which renders their "opinion" invalid. The other person needn't agree with the fact, and I needn't engage them any further should they choose to ignore it.

That's the point, honor. I'm not stifling free speech. I'm saying a discussion with people who ignore facts is not worth the effort to me. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept.

We agreed that your valuation as an individual ought to include the option to not engage with someone because you think that's pointless. That's a form of expression, and I agree you ought to be able to choose it.

The OP was about defending the right to expression in the face of illiberalism. I said I disagreed with your first comment because it was about the value of free expression and you said, nope. So, while I appreciate you demonstrating that it can be frustrating to engage with someone who is stubbornly resistant to debate it isn't that I missed your point. You just seem to be overlapping and separating a couple of issues as suits the situation.

If you think freedom of expression is valueless without first agreeing on facts then we disagree fundamentally. I said before that if it is merely a case of not seeing the point if engaging with others the meh. That's your choice but it isn't on topic.

[_Some Schmo]

No I didn't. Thank you for confirming my suspicion.

I essentially said the letter was well and good, except that it assumes good faith participants.

And since you don't believe people are, it was pointless. Come on, man. Quit being sense about this point.

Wow, man. Unreal.

I never made any generalizations about people's willingness to be good faith debaters. If I actually thought nobody was, I wouldn't talk to anyone, now would I?

No I didn't. Thank you for confirming the second instance.

You just noped again.

OMG! Decent! Oh wait... that's supposed to be a good thing. Or is it? What's your position again?

My point wasn't that facts don't matter. It was that you will never get everyone to agree on the facts, ever, but especially if you don't first agree that debate and voicing ones views is essential. How else is everyone going to come to agree on the facts? You seem to assume your position is self evidence so if someone doesn't share it they are stupid or lying so whats the point? In other words, to demonstrate good faith a person has to agree with you. That's irrational.

*sigh*

I'm not sure why I'm bothering with this. You're superimposing your own narrative over what I've written. This is a bad habit of yours, incidentally.

What's irrational is the idea that I need to entertain every point of view there is available. I've never said people have to agree with my opinions for me to engage them. That's fu-cking ridiculous.

Your problem appears to be an inability to distinguish facts from opinions.

[_honorentheos]

My Google of Singal turned up a few hits like an article in The Atlantic and on Reason on the subject of gender identity that I figured would be where you took issue.

But what isn't clear is why you view what he said to be abhorrent. You are asserting it. I want an example not an assertion.

I didn't say what he said was abhorrent. The exact quote is, "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."

You're way over the bananas line today. You are clearly saying Singal should not be an ally to the cause of free speech when done right, so don't associate with him if you want to make a case for freedom of expression. Abhorrent was your word, but the point is you don't like what he says and think he shouldn't be a signatory on a good version of this letter.

No where in this sentence do I call him abhorrent.

You argued that I should find him unsavory at the least. Abhorrent was your word choice when you acted like my issue was with the mere mention of the KKK rather than your well poisoning behavior that, while expected, went right for the board toss out of the gate which I found surprising.

But again, feel free to use this internet thing we have going on to demonstrate your case against Singal rather than just assert it as a given.

[Alf'Omega]

The OP was about defending the right to expression in the face of illiberalism. I said I disagreed with your first comment because it was about the value of free expression and you said, nope.

Dude, take the two seconds to click the first page of the thread and re-read it. Hopefully, you realize how wrong the above quote is.

I actually do consider you a good faith debater, which is why I've pursued this conversation. There's a lot about which we disagree. How do you reconcile my behavior, if you think I have to have your agreement to talk to you?