Harper's Letter on Justice and Open Debate

[Wells]

So Harper released a letter today decrying cancel culture, signed by the likes of Margaret Atwood and Noam Chomsky:

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

[T'Chenka]

I have to agree with this. Far left authoritarian "cancel culture" is harmful, especially in a modern context of social media hashtags and mobs that don't allow for nuanced discussion or critique. I'm okay with listening to people with offensive views, as it's a free country with free opinions. If they aren't especially harmful views, I don't see a need to "cancel" somebody. Will I stop supporting them? Yes. Will I vote against them? Yes. Will I lpudly criticize them? Yes. Should they lose their job? In many cases, no.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

The letter is not outstandingly written but makes its point well enough to be understood. Could be helped by being more specific and with some better organization. Also doesn't make any effort to explain in any tangible way why "illiberal" thoughts are harmful to anyone outside of elite circles; you can tell who this was written by and for, and it's not any of us.

The problem underlying the entire piece is that persuasion on merits is long-dead; indeed, this is why the letter was written in the first place. Now, persuasion (particularly on hot-button issues) happens mostly by appeal to identity, emotion, and moral authority. This letter is an appeal to a dying form of discourse.

Most of the criticisms are bad faith and willful misreadings that justify the existence of the letter in the first place. Most annoying of these critiques is the guilt-by-association that happens by highlighting the most unsavory positions of 2% of its signatories as an effort to tar the entire letter and by association all those who affixed their names to it. On the other hand, anyone signing the letter knew exactly what they were literally signing up for. Good for them. I don't have the clout or privilege of ending my career by signing something like this.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

cancel cancel culture #cancelcultureisoverparty

[T'Chenka]

cancel cancel culture #cancelcultureisoverparty

I don't even want to cancel cancel culture. I just want it to shrink to the point where it doesn't have society by the balls, and to the point where disagreeing with it is a common belief.

[Damocles]

Funnily enough, this is why I actually like being here, as opposed to more popular social media platforms. A traditional forum has a better opportunity to have a slower-paced, more in-depth discussion about the issues being presented. The pseudonymity lowers the stakes of the argument from an egoistic perspective, making it less likely for the users to shout and scream at each other, and more likely to produce rational arguments. Users can return to threads they like on successive days and come back to a multi-day dialogue with their interlocutor. Sites like Reddit are formatted in such a way that they give coverage only to that which gets a lot of clicks, rather than what drives discussions.

There’s a lot to like about this special place compared to the wider internet. Cherish it, and defend the principle of inclusion.

[dead0man]

guys guys guys, we've been told repeatedly that this "canceling" just doesn't happen and it's only college kids that try and shut down people they don't agree with.  This is nothing to worry about.  Plus, the nazi republican trumpheads are worse.

[GeneralMacArthur]

It's really a media-fueled phenomenon.  Twitter made the media lazy and now journalists just look to the latest hashtags to find what to cover and the top tweets for "what people are saying."

If you get #CancelHamilton #CancelGeorgeWashington #CancelJkRowling #CancelJesus #CancelAbrahamLincoln #CancelMLK or whatever trending, and people are bickering about it on Twitter, then the media reports on it as "starting a conversation" or "so-and-so faces backlash" etc.  Politicians and other public figures will be asked about it and reply with some generic bromide about "all voices should be heard" or "it's a conversation worth having" (see: Tammy Duckworth).

Well, no, it's not a conversation worth having.  All this stuff is ridiculous and angry Twitter mobs shouldn't be able to "start a conversation" nationwide just because 20 or so people decided to get together and be really really angry about something. 

[ilikeverin]

It's really a media-fueled phenomenon.  Twitter made the media lazy and now journalists just look to the latest hashtags to find what to cover and the top tweets for "what people are saying."

If you get #CancelHamilton #CancelGeorgeWashington #CancelJkRowling #CancelJesus #CancelAbrahamLincoln #CancelMLK or whatever trending, and people are bickering about it on Twitter, then the media reports on it as "starting a conversation" or "so-and-so faces backlash" etc.  Politicians and other public figures will be asked about it and reply with some generic bromide about "all voices should be heard" or "it's a conversation worth having" (see: Tammy Duckworth).

Well, no, it's not a conversation worth having.  All this stuff is ridiculous and angry Twitter mobs shouldn't be able to "start a conversation" nationwide just because 20 or so people decided to get together and be really really angry about something. 

Rather than #CancelCancelCulture, we should just #CancelAnyoneAtAllCaringAboutTwitter.

If every journalist got off Twitter, no one would think this "problem" is a problem.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/08/is-free-speech-under-threat-cancel-culture-writers-respond

Some fairly interesting commentary on this in the Guardian. Though I disagree with much of her argument, Nesrine Malik has laid the groundwork for a clever argument to get lefties on board against the worst kinds of cancellation:

In my view, the failure to make these distinctions clear is probably less an oversight and more of a convenient fudge. Because outrage about cancel culture can’t be credibly sustained when you start breaking down what it actually consists of. Companies hastily sacking people who have been mobbed online is about the bottom line and fear of bad PR. It raises interesting questions, but these are more about employment rights and the encroachment by bosses into areas of private opinion and conduct. Being piled on online is nasty, but it is broadly a function of how social media in particular and the internet in general has enabled bullying for the hell of it. Sometimes human beings are unpleasant, and certain platforms are designed to bring out the worst in them. That is separate to the demands for change emerging from many marginalised groups.

[Hindsight was 2020]

While there are examples like Shor’s firing of #cancelculture going too far the problem I have with this letter is that is conflates examples like that with JK Rowling and Bari Weiss going “wahh people on Twitter told me my borderline bigoted views are trash. I’m being silenced!”. And I generally tend to feel little sympathy for the “pc is going too far” people because many come from the latter camp then the former

[RI]

It's really a media-fueled phenomenon.  Twitter made the media lazy and now journalists just look to the latest hashtags to find what to cover and the top tweets for "what people are saying."

If you get #CancelHamilton #CancelGeorgeWashington #CancelJkRowling #CancelJesus #CancelAbrahamLincoln #CancelMLK or whatever trending, and people are bickering about it on Twitter, then the media reports on it as "starting a conversation" or "so-and-so faces backlash" etc.  Politicians and other public figures will be asked about it and reply with some generic bromide about "all voices should be heard" or "it's a conversation worth having" (see: Tammy Duckworth).

Well, no, it's not a conversation worth having.  All this stuff is ridiculous and angry Twitter mobs shouldn't be able to "start a conversation" nationwide just because 20 or so people decided to get together and be really really angry about something. 

Rather than #CancelCancelCulture, we should just #CancelAnyoneAtAllCaringAboutTwitter.

If every journalist got off Twitter, no one would think this "problem" is a problem.

It happens on other social media platforms as well, but Twitter is definitely the worst.

[Koharu]

https://twitter.com/AlishaGrauso/status/1280656364230995968?s=20
https://twitter.com/CBQPattyBoom/status/1280719476535840769?s=20
https://twitter.com/emrazz/status/1280615057295052801?s=20
https://twitter.com/rdonoghue/status/1280527349696663553?s=20

[Horus]

So because white men have been doing it for millennia the solution is to mimic their wrongdoings?

[QAnonKelly]

I really hate that Twitter has become such a big part of our discourse. I blocked the site on my phone. We shouldn’t be using a platform that’s only got a 280 character limit to have nuanced conversations.

[Koharu]

So because white men have been doing it for millennia the solution is to mimic their wrongdoings?

Way to miss the "this is consequences" part. Removing support from someone for being a jerk is acceptable, as opposed to how minorites have been cancelled for all of history, simply for being minorities. It's only news now because those who thought they could always get away with whatever behavior they wanted are realizing that's not the case.

[Devout Centrist]

It happens on other social media platforms as well, but Twitter is definitely the worst.

I think the character limit makes it significantly more difficult to have something resembling a decent discussion. Tweets are basically fire and forget. Until someone digs a rotten one up.

[Horus]

So because white men have been doing it for millennia the solution is to mimic their wrongdoings?

Way to miss the "this is consequences" part. Removing support from someone for being a jerk is acceptable, as opposed to how minorites have been cancelled for all of history, simply for being minorities. It's only news now because those who thought they could always get away with whatever behavior they wanted are realizing that's not the case.

The problem is portions of the activist left define jerk as "anyone who disagrees with me." In the process they end up cancelling to the bone leftists like Chomsky and Yglesias and continue the age old trend of eating their own over minor differences on fringe issues, completely losing sight of the bigger struggle.

And frankly, just being a jerk alone is not a good reason to cancel anyone.

[GeneralMacArthur]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/08/is-free-speech-under-threat-cancel-culture-writers-respond

Some fairly interesting commentary on this in the Guardian. Though I disagree with much of her argument, Nesrine Malik has laid the groundwork for a clever argument to get lefties on board against the worst kinds of cancellation:

In my view, the failure to make these distinctions clear is probably less an oversight and more of a convenient fudge. Because outrage about cancel culture can’t be credibly sustained when you start breaking down what it actually consists of. Companies hastily sacking people who have been mobbed online is about the bottom line and fear of bad PR. It raises interesting questions, but these are more about employment rights and the encroachment by bosses into areas of private opinion and conduct. Being piled on online is nasty, but it is broadly a function of how social media in particular and the internet in general has enabled bullying for the hell of it. Sometimes human beings are unpleasant, and certain platforms are designed to bring out the worst in them. That is separate to the demands for change emerging from many marginalised groups.

There would be no bad PR for companies to worry about if the Twitter Mob wasn't given power and voice so disproportionate to both its size and its credibility.

If I sit here on Atlas Forum and say "Bruno Mars must be cancelled for unapologetically appropriating black culture when he is actually a Puerto Rican, Hawaiian, Filipino Jew" nobody will pay any attention.  But I could voice that same opinion on Twitter, whip up a Twitter mob and get it trending, all of which requires minimal effort from a dozen or so people if you are already moderately popular.  Then suddenly it's a trending hashtag and within a week there will be articles and thinkpieces about "Bruno Mars faces backlash online for appropriation of black culture" and "this is a valuable conversation happening on social media."

The mob is so powerful that things like this can have a real impact on someone's life and career.  And the more disconnected the person is from the thing that made them noteworthy, the worse it is.  People will have a hard time hating Bruno Mars because his main selling point is his personality and charisma.  To like what he puts out, which everyone does, you pretty much have to like him.  But take someone like JK Rowling.  You can like Harry Potter and hate JK Rowling.  So people have learned to hate her.  The less power you have the more power the mob has to destroy your life.

Twitter mobs shouldn't have this power.  The solution isn't to beg them to use it responsibly.  We're already seeing how poorly that's going.  The solution is to take away that power.

[Koharu]

So because white men have been doing it for millennia the solution is to mimic their wrongdoings?

Way to miss the "this is consequences" part. Removing support from someone for being a jerk is acceptable, as opposed to how minorites have been cancelled for all of history, simply for being minorities. It's only news now because those who thought they could always get away with whatever behavior they wanted are realizing that's not the case.

The problem is portions of the activist left define jerk as "anyone who disagrees with me." In the process they end up cancelling to the bone leftists like Chomsky and Yglesias and continue the age old trend of eating their own over minor differences on fringe issues, completely losing sight of the bigger struggle.

And frankly, just being a jerk alone is not a good reason to cancel anyone.

No, they're defining it as anyone who is a bigot and unwilling to change. And that is a good enough reason to "cancel" people. And, honestly, being a jerk is also a good enough reason. But as someone who was bullied my entire childhood, I have a zero-tolerance policy for a*****es. There is no excuse for that behavior. If you can learn from it and apologize, excellent! But if you're going to defend it (or the a*****ery of others), mmnope you're not with the time or effort to have in my life.

[Horus]

So because white men have been doing it for millennia the solution is to mimic their wrongdoings?

Way to miss the "this is consequences" part. Removing support from someone for being a jerk is acceptable, as opposed to how minorites have been cancelled for all of history, simply for being minorities. It's only news now because those who thought they could always get away with whatever behavior they wanted are realizing that's not the case.

The problem is portions of the activist left define jerk as "anyone who disagrees with me." In the process they end up cancelling to the bone leftists like Chomsky and Yglesias and continue the age old trend of eating their own over minor differences on fringe issues, completely losing sight of the bigger struggle.

And frankly, just being a jerk alone is not a good reason to cancel anyone.

No, they're defining it as anyone who is a bigot and unwilling to change. And that is a good enough reason to "cancel" people. And, honestly, being a jerk is also a good enough reason. But as someone who was bullied my entire childhood, I have a zero-tolerance policy for a*****es. There is no excuse for that behavior. If you can learn from it and apologize, excellent! But if you're going to defend it (or the a*****ery of others), mmnope you're not with the time or effort to have in my life.

I was also bullied throughout my childhood... Don't really see how that's relevant. I guess we must have a different definition of bully.

[GeneralMacArthur]

So because white men have been doing it for millennia the solution is to mimic their wrongdoings?

Way to miss the "this is consequences" part. Removing support from someone for being a jerk is acceptable, as opposed to how minorites have been cancelled for all of history, simply for being minorities. It's only news now because those who thought they could always get away with whatever behavior they wanted are realizing that's not the case.

The problem is portions of the activist left define jerk as "anyone who disagrees with me." In the process they end up cancelling to the bone leftists like Chomsky and Yglesias and continue the age old trend of eating their own over minor differences on fringe issues, completely losing sight of the bigger struggle.

And frankly, just being a jerk alone is not a good reason to cancel anyone.

No, they're defining it as anyone who is a bigot and unwilling to change. And that is a good enough reason to "cancel" people. And, honestly, being a jerk is also a good enough reason. But as someone who was bullied my entire childhood, I have a zero-tolerance policy for a*****es. There is no excuse for that behavior. If you can learn from it and apologize, excellent! But if you're going to defend it (or the a*****ery of others), mmnope you're not with the time or effort to have in my life.

Most of the people doing the cancelling are far bigger jerks than the people being cancelled.

[Farmlands]

snip

Is that why Terry Crews is in the midst of a 'controversy' for saying that BLM should not become black lives better? JK Rowling? This is a matter of opinions, and anyone who goes outside the norm, be they man or woman, black or white, is liable to become an acceptable target for people to focus on.

[HisGrace]

Let's also note Salman Rushdie, who had an assassination attempt against him, once had a 3 million dollar price on his head, and is still on hit lists, signed this. If he thinks the current climate is threatening to free speech maybe people should sit up and listen.

Of course if the Satanic Verses controversy happened today wokesters would all be siding with the jihadists because Islam is apparently the only religion in the world everyone has to be 100% reverent towards even if you are not a member.

[Beet]

I don't think this is a clear either/or. The vast majority would agree that some people, e.g. neo-Nazis for example, deserve to be cancelled, while for instance, David Shor does not. There is an ocean of difference between the two. It is not simply a question of "Cancel Culture is good" vs. "Cancel Culture is bad." Ezra Klein has a point when he says that the boundaries of free speech are, to some extent, about who has power. This is true. As for myself, I am still working through what I think would be the appropriate criteria for saying that someone should be cancelled.

Generally for me it comes down to two things-- punching up vs. punching down, and the health of society. On the first one, marginalized groups have more leeway to speak than dominant groups. That one is pretty self-explanatory. Of course, sometimes more than one party is marginalized, and then it becomes tricky. Trans activists claim marginalization as trans, whereas JK Rowling claims marginalization as a biological female. They both claim marginalization. In that case, I think both claims need to be taken seriously.

The health of society is the second one and this is where it I think the "woke" crowd goes wrong. Cancelling neo-Nazis benefits a healthy society, because if their views became widespread, it would be highly destructive of American society. On the other hand, cancelling David Shor is detrimental to a healthy society because axing someone for quoting an academic paper that could be seen in some corners as concern trolling, even though it is simply bringing to light an academic paper, is disproportionate punishment. This involves a judgement call that whatever harm comes from axing Shor, whatever harm to an atmosphere of intellectual freedom that allows us to explore valid ideas, outweighs whatever perceived harms might come to BLM by supporting a belief that violent protests don't help the cause. That's a judgement call. It's a judgement call, I think, everyone makes one way or the other.*

* It also raises the question of making judgement calls on behalf of identities you are not a part of. Most of the time however, members of identities involved in a controversy have differing individual opinions, and in that case none are necessarily authoritative.