Harper's Letter on Justice and Open Debate

[Koharu]

snip

Is that why Terry Crews is in the midst of a 'controversy' for expressing his view that BLM should not become black lives better? JK Rowling? This is a matter of opinions, and anyone who has the wrong one, be they man or woman, black or white, can be an acceptable target for people to pounce upon.

I'm not familiar with the Terry Crews issue so I can't comment on it.

JK Rowling is posting anti-trans propaganda. People are asking her to stop and sharing information that counters her view. That isn't "pouncing," that's discussion. She doesn't like that her views are being questioned and she's lashed out at her fans and complained via this letter that she's not allowed to "discuss" things. But those talking to her are trying to discuss the issues and why what she's saying is inappropriate. She's the one trying to shut down conversation.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

https://twitter.com/AlishaGrauso/status/1280656364230995968?s=20

Accountability to increasingly incendiary mobs who themselves are accountable to nobody? This isn't really a good thing.

https://twitter.com/CBQPattyBoom/status/1280719476535840769?s=20

Seeing a lot of this view and it treats claims about the current moment as comparative and not absolute and aspirational. Maybe I didn't read the letter closely enough but I don't know why people are treating the analysis like it's comparative. Just because free speech was less open historically doesn't mean that the current climate doesn't produce failures like what the letter vaguely hints at.

https://twitter.com/emrazz/status/1280615057295052801?s=20

Ignoring the obvious fact that tons of signers were non-white and/or women, this point is typically vacuous considering the source (I mean the twitter user, not you). It's not a defense; it's another comparison apropos of nothing that nobody really asked for.

https://twitter.com/rdonoghue/status/1280527349696663553?s=20

People who can sign are able to do so because of their wealth and status; this is something that the signers are pretty candid about. There are lots of other people who did not sign because they do not have the standing or privilege to do so. There's a selection bias here. People who use this line of complaint either don't understand this or are purposefully being disingenuous because they have been trained by modern discourse to think highlighting privilege is a sufficient rebuttal to any argument. It's not.

[Koharu]

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.

There's no surprise in him signing this. He said in 2012 that has book wouldn't be published because of "climate of fear and nervousness." So if this letter had been written in 2013 he would have signed it then, too. So his opinion definitely doesn't make it more weighty.

[HisGrace]

There shouldn't be consequences for opinions, there should be consequences for actions, which oddly enough the far left is opposed to much of the time.

Even if we're going to accept that people should be punished for opinions, the punishment should be proportionate to the harm caused. Losing your job because you hurt someone's feelings on twitter is not justice, it's over the top revenge. If someone says something mean to you either say something mean back or gasp be an adult and move on with your life. Anything beyond that is disproportionate.

[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.

There's no surprise in him signing this. He said in 2012 that has book wouldn't be published because of "climate of fear and nervousness." So if this letter had been written in 2013 he would have signed it then, too. So his opinion definitely doesn't make it more weighty.

We had these same problems in 2012/2013 too even if not to the same extent. Regardless of when he said what I don't see how someone who has faced violence for their words warning others about limiting free speech can not have weight to it.

[Koharu]

https://twitter.com/AlishaGrauso/status/1280656364230995968?s=20

Accountability to increasingly incendiary mobs who themselves are accountable to nobody? This isn't really a good thing.

https://twitter.com/CBQPattyBoom/status/1280719476535840769?s=20

Seeing a lot of this view and it treats claims about the current moment as comparative and not absolute and aspirational. Maybe I didn't read the letter closely enough but I don't know why people are treating the analysis like it's comparative. Just because free speech was less open historically doesn't mean that the current climate doesn't produce failures like what the letter vaguely hints at.

https://twitter.com/emrazz/status/1280615057295052801?s=20

Ignoring the obvious fact that tons of signers were non-white and/or women, this point is typically vacuous considering the source (I mean the twitter user, not you). It's not a defense; it's another comparison apropos of nothing that nobody really asked for.

https://twitter.com/rdonoghue/status/1280527349696663553?s=20

People who can sign are able to do so because of their wealth and status; this is something that the signers are pretty candid about. There are lots of other people who did not sign because they do not have the standing or privilege to do so. There's a selection bias here. People who use this line of complaint either don't understand this or are purposefully being disingenuous because they have been trained by modern discourse to think highlighting privilege is a sufficient rebuttal to any argument. It's not.

I'll agree with some of this. Privilege alone isn't a sufficient rebuttal. However, it isn't intended to be the only rebuttal. It's one of many.

The rest we'll have to disagree on. I think they are important observations and also indicate some of why this is happening now. In addition, the "cancellation" of minorities has also been unaccountable to anyone, either. Who could be the correct source for accountability? I don't think there is one. In democracy, we turn to "the people" for accountability, so a "mob" is an accurate representation of our society insomuch as there can be an accurate representation of people who are kept from power via disenfranchisement. American government is not holding bigots accountable, and even those trying to go through the current channels to fix that issue are being blockaded.

In addition, there is no attack on freedom of speech. People can and will say what they want. I find that premise to be completely laughable and that's part of why I find this letter so pretentious. Yes, the public, especially on Twitter, is holding people accountable for what they say, but that is not an infringement of free speech. To use a very obviously example, if I were to call someone the n-word, I would be shunned by people of good conscience, because I would have displayed my thoughts on Black folks. What is happening beyond that that requires such an outcry?

If people like JK Rowling are upset that people don't want to put up with their bigotry, okay, fine. But don't blame a lack of free speech or claim you're being silenced or that it's an "illiberal culture." It's people being tired of dealing with bigotry and explaining why it's bad and cutting you out of their lives and letting others know that you want to keep spouting bigotry. This pandemic has us all exhausted, and knowing that someone likes to say awful stuff means I can avoid having to deal with them and save myself some energy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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 the consequences often don't fit the crime, see the case of Justine Sacco. Or someone getting fired because they made a single stupid racist joke a decade ago, or the recent case of someone being fired for simply quoting a political study. There's no nuance or second chances allowed.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

The rest we'll have to disagree on. I think they are important observations and also indicate some of why this is happening now.

Sure, I think it's good historical context for broad understanding, but I don't see it as effectively rebutting anything in the letter.

In addition, the "cancellation" of minorities has also been unaccountable to anyone, either. Who could be the correct source for accountability? I don't think there is one. In democracy, we turn to "the people" for accountability, so a "mob" is an accurate representation of our society insomuch as there can be an accurate representation of people who are kept from power via disenfranchisement. American government is not holding bigots accountable, and even those trying to go through the current channels to fix that issue are being blockaded.

Beyond the first sentence, I can't agree with this. Democratization is happening due to social media, which is good in some respects, but has a lot of negative consequences. The big three American social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram) have designed themselves in ways that either promote disinformation (Facebook) or incentivize users into nasty dogpiling, context-flattening, and give disproportionate and overrepresentative voice to extreme viewpoints (Youtube does this too).  Given that this is the medium through which mobs operate in 2020, there is no think these platforms are going to be any sort of fair or representative mechanism for justice.

Put another way, I don't want twitter/facebook mobs running the country any more than I want them running who publishes at the Times. We effectively have a Facebook President right now. It's not going so well. You can think we're facing widespread institutional rot (because we are) but that doesn't mean you replace the institutions with an app with a bird logo.

In addition, there is no attack on freedom of speech. People can and will say what they want. I find that premise to be completely laughable and that's part of why I find this letter so pretentious. Yes, the public, especially on Twitter, is holding people accountable for what they say, but that is not an infringement of free speech. To use a very obviously example, if I were to call someone the n-word, I would be shunned by people of good conscience, because I would have displayed my thoughts on Black folks. What is happening beyond that that requires such an outcry?

What I am concerned about is disproportionate punishment for transgressions. Online mobs premised around public shaming are purposefully vindictive and seek to produce lifetime consequences for people with no standard for redemption or rehabilitation. You don't need to think "free speech" is under attack to be inherently distrusting of a culture that promotes these norms. I find the cancellation movement abhorrent because I value fair and restorative justice, not because I'm especially interested in the opinions of transphobes.

Speaking of which...

If people like JK Rowling are upset that people don't want to put up with their bigotry, okay, fine. But don't blame a lack of free speech or claim you're being silenced or that it's an "illiberal culture." It's people being tired of dealing with bigotry and explaining why it's bad and cutting you out of their lives and letting others know that you want to keep spouting bigotry. This pandemic has us all exhausted, and knowing that someone likes to say awful stuff means I can avoid having to deal with them and save myself some energy.

I'm not especially interested in Frums, Gladwells, Weisses, etc. of the list. The vast majority of signatories are people who have committed no easily-identifiable transgressions. A letter that was signed only by J.K. Rowling would be uninteresting. A letter that is signed by writers, researchers, journalists who a healthy liberal society relies on saying they feel unable to perform their work in the current climate is what makes this worth taking seriously.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The fact that JK Rowling is in there decrying the fact that she received criticism for dehumanizing an entire demographic makes this letter laughable. She's the one who is really oppressed by society apparently. She lost her entire massive net worth and was thrown in jail over it!? Oh wait, none of that happened, she was just criticized over it. So this is just yet another product of hysterical, exaggerated hand-wringing over suffering the lightest of consequences for one's actions on the internet. I guess that's why they threw Salman Rushdie in there, as if him being included somehow makes his story the same for everybody in it.

 It's worth taking seriously even less when you consider how some of those who penned it were tricked into not knowing what exactly they were signing like trans activist Jenny Finn Boylan:

https://twitter.com/JennyBoylan/status/1280646004136697863

I guess she was included to as a shield to excuse those like Rowling and grant it some sort of legitimacy.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Another thing that is aggravating about cancel culture is the absurd hyperbole people use when (mis-)characterizing what one person said.  It's like a contest to see who can find the most intense way to condemn the accused, or who can slap the most extreme label on them.

Rowling is a perfect example.  Here, according to Wikipedia, is the exact Rowling quote everyone is so up in arms about.

If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth.  The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women - ie, to male violence - ‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences - is a nonsense.  I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so.

She has also said that she is against underage transition therapy.

To my knowledge, these are views that are quite commonplace among liberals (conservatives are an entirely different story) and would have been near-universal 5-10 years ago.  Yet to hear some people tell it, Rowling is an "extreme bigot", a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist", a "propagandist of hate", and so on and so forth.  It seems like the most common reaction on Twitter to the Harper Letter has been to condemn the entire thing as a joke because the hated enemy JK Rowling signed onto it.

These are views that Rowling should be allowed to have and express without having her entire career destroyed.  If you disagree, tell her.  But let's not act like all that's happening here is people simply disagreeing with her.  There is an aggressive campaign going on to try to destroy Rowling's entire reputation by characterizing what she said as some Hitler-style extremist hate.  And people who aren't familiar with the actual quote believe it.  People are also attacking everything and everyone associated with Rowling, which damages her career and life in general.  Look no further than the Harper Letter itself for evidence of this.

People act like the debate over trans identity, trans politics, trans sports and issues, underage transition therapy, like that's all been resolved and anyone who deviates is some sort of massive bigot.  Without taking a side on this issue I can tell you very bluntly that it is not resolved.  Even in the most liberal, secular nations of the western world, more than half of the populations would probably agree with Rowling's statements.  Go outside of the United States or Western Europe, and my goodness.  Gay marriage won acceptance because the debate was had in an open sphere and people were shown, clearly, why it was non-threatening and deserving of acceptance.  With trans issues, the effort to suppress any dissenting viewpoint and destroy anyone who disagrees with you will just lead to a massive, angry, resentful set of people who believe they're right, but aren't allowed to talk about it.  It feels good to lash out but it is counter-productive to your movement, even taking the personal damage to Rowling out of the picture.

[GeneralMacArthur]

People with loud voices are given power.  They can use that power to destroy others.  In many cases, those "others" are afraid of that, and stay silent, thus making the loud voices even louder, and giving them even more power.

Just look at the reaction to this letter.  From what I've seen, the vast majority of Twitter is mocking it and attacking everyone associated with it.  Matt Yglesias may be suffering permanent career damage for signing on.  So, too, will plenty of other signatories.

This Atlas poll currently stands at nearly 90% support for the letter.  But even in this thread, the loudest voices are the ones arguing against the letter and lashing out at the people who wrote it and the people who try to defend it.  If you just read the thread, you'd think the letter was extremely controversial.  In reality, this is a sentiment the vast majority of Atlasians, and the even vaster majority of Americans, agree with.

[GeneralMacArthur]

The fact that JK Rowling is in there decrying the fact that she received criticism for dehumanizing an entire demographic makes this letter laughable. She's the one who is really oppressed by society apparently. She lost her entire massive net worth and was thrown in jail over it!? Oh wait, none of that happened, she was just criticized over it. So this is just yet another product of hysterical, exaggerated hand-wringing over suffering the lightest of consequences for one's actions on the internet. I guess that's why they threw Salman Rushdie in there, as if him being included somehow makes his story the same for everybody in it.

 It's worth taking seriously even less when you consider how some of those who penned it were tricked into not knowing what exactly they were signing like trans activist Jenny Finn Boylan:

https://twitter.com/JennyBoylan/status/1280646004136697863

I guess she was included to as a shield to excuse those like Rowling and grant it some sort of legitimacy.

That Jenny Boylan statement is exactly the sort of thing we're talking about with guilt by association.  She read the letter and agreed with it and signed it.  Now that she found out JK Rowling also signed it, she has to issue an apology and "face the consequences."  Consequences of what?  The fact that Rowling signed the letter doesn't change its contents at all.  The issue is that the online mob has made Rowling so toxic that people can't afford to be associated with her anymore.  That's not "the lightest of consequences."  That's real damage to her career.  That's real damage to her personal life.  Since you apparently agree with it, congratulations.  "Dehumanizing an entire demographic" is yet another hyperbolic mischaracterization of what Rowling actually wrote.

The fact that she is rich and will still be rich after all this doesn't matter.  It's just a distraction.  It's not OK to attack and bully someone and try to destroy their life just because they have more wealth and power and privilege and whatever else you want to use.

[Horus]

Nothing Rowling said was remotely hateful. I don't see how she's wrong. I love my trans brothers and sisters very much, but am more convinced than ever that the T needs to be separated from the LGB. You guys face a completely different set of issues and it has nothing to do with who you're attracted to.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Cancel culture is real, and it can be a serious problem (watch Contrapoints' video on it, it's the best examination of the topic I've seen anywhere) but these people are not victims and their entitled whining and sophomoric appeals to empty platitudes bring nothing of value to the conversation.

[T'Chenka]

Cancel culture is real, and it can be a serious problem (watch Contrapoints' video on it, it's the best examination of the topic I've seen anywhere) but these people are not victims and their entitled whining and sophomoric appeals to empty platitudes bring nothing of value to the conversation.

You just said yourself that it can be a serious problem. Of you or I say it, the average person isn't going to read our critiques of it. If these people say it, average people will see the critiques. If there is a problem in society, even if it's only a problem sometimes, SOMEBODY has to say SOMETHING or nothing is ever going to change.

[afleitch]

https://mobile.twitter.com/jbenton/status/1280950746310160384

JK having a normal one.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1280834668552769536

Jeet Heer (who signed it but appears to regret it) noting that some cancel culture obsessives literally cancelled an entire democratic election in a foreign nation.

https://mobile.twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1280993277433413633

This is corporate media v social media. Columnists and writers vs broadly young, broadly more diverse 'online' opinion media and the influence that has. And the investigatory power of that media. The letter in itself said nothing; it doesn't even define what it's defending and what it's accusing others of.

[StateBoiler]

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.

The Reason article about this was pretty good I thought and drove a bulldozer through the "should you let Nazis talk" point as being the perennial strawman. They interestingly look at this more as freedom of association in the end instead of freedom of speech.

...

I think less so than meets the eye. The problem with the would-you-publish-a-Nazi hypothetical is that it's almost always hypothetical because—happily!—America still hates Nazis after all these years. I can think of exactly one case where a person who is in my professional and ideological orbit—who I once did a paid journalism seminar for—was revealed via thorough reporting in 2019 to have been ringleader of a literally pro-Hitler "Morning Hate" email group in which mostly young Washington types engaged in racist and anti-Semitic one-upmanship.

Here's what happened when Nazi-LARPer John Elliott was unmasked: Every right-of-center organization cut ties with the racist bastard. Honorable conservative commentators like the Washington Examiner's Timothy P. Carney wrote pieces with headlines like, "It's time to create a conservative ecosystem that doesn't welcome racists," arguing that: "Conservatives don't give it enough attention, but one of the greatest evils in the U.S. today is rank racial inequality….Conservatives ought to make it a priority to fight for the fundamental dignity and equality of racial minorities who have been denied that dignity and equality."

So the Nazi hypothetical isn't that hard to work through when the evidence is that thick. How does that compare to the last six weeks of people losing their jobs after their bosses, under duress, chose to no longer associate with them? Let's just look at the comparative wrongdoing and due process in three recent cases Reason has mentioned:

* A 54-year-old government contractor was fired after the Washington Post outed her in a 3,000-word article as having attended a Halloween party two years prior in a blackface costume satirizing Megyn Kelly's racial views.

* A San Diego Gas and Electric Co. employee was fired days after a stranger took a picture of him in his truck making with his fingers an "OK" sign that was interpreted as a white power gesture.

* A 28-year-old political scientist was fired from his Democratic consulting firm days after tweeting respectable research indicating that violent protests are less effective at changing policy in the preferred direction than nonviolent protests.

Were these examples of exercising freedom of association? Well, sure, but—not unlike racist speech!—these are bad exercises of that freedom. If we can be negatively judgmental about speech, surely we can also be negatively judgmental about associative behavior, particularly when it's a panicked attempt to chase off a due process–hating mob.

 https://reason.com/2020/07/08/lefties-hate-on-liberal-open-letter-on-free-speech/

[StateBoiler]

There shouldn't be consequences for opinions, there should be consequences for actions, which oddly enough the far left is opposed to much of the time.

Even if we're going to accept that people should be punished for opinions, the punishment should be proportionate to the harm caused. Losing your job because you hurt someone's feelings on twitter is not justice, it's over the top revenge. If someone says something mean to you either say something mean back or gasp be an adult and move on with your life. Anything beyond that is disproportionate.

Pro wrestling the past few weeks has dealt with a sexual assault crisis, mostly UK wrestlers due to the UK's drinking culture. A lot of names of wrestlers came out of the woodwork. A lot of those were deserved, but there were also people that were literally looking for something going back in time on Twitter or rumors or anything on people they hated. It's very French Revolution Reign of Terror-ish. That's our society right now. I hate this person for an ulterior reason, so let me go find something that will force him or her to be gone. It's the 21st-century version of "enemy of the state".

Frankly, any person with a public profile should never use Twitter in my opinion. Hire a PR firm to only post stuff about you but make it clear it's not you.

[Figueira]

I agree with the text of the letter itself, but I almost certainly don't agree with every one of those people's reasons for signing it. Some of them are hypocrites.

[GeneralMacArthur]

And the backlash has started.  When I wrote my response to this thread yesterday, it stood at 34 Yes and 4 No.  Since then, 2/3rds of the new votes have been No.  Meanwhile, people who signed onto the letter are having to find lame excuses to disavow their signatures and apologize.

The text of the letter hasn't changed.  What's changed is the public reaction to it.

When it first came out, it was reported on neutrally in the media.  Just the facts, just what the letter said.  People were overwhelmingly in favor of it and the signatories were proud to be on it.

Now, the Twitter mob has spent 48 hours screaming at the top of its lungs, and the media is reporting on that.  We're getting the "backlash" or "what people are saying" stories.  And by "people", the media means "the loudest voices on Twitter", who are of course issuing the most hyperbolic condemnations possible.  And of course they are!  The letter directly attacks the source of their power -- their ability to whip up hate mobs and destroy people's lives.  So now that the "backlash" is the story, suddenly everyone is changing their opinion.

Now we're all supposed to be against the letter, because that's the "right" opinion.  And all those celebrities and writers and intellectuals who signed it are having to deal with that backlash, which scares them, and the easiest path is to simply disavow your signature and say "I didn't actually read the letter" or something like that.

[afleitch]

And the backlash has started.  When I wrote my response to this thread yesterday, it stood at 34 Yes and 4 No.  Since then, 2/3rds of the new votes have been No.  Meanwhile, people who signed onto the letter are having to find lame excuses to disavow their signatures and apologize.

The text of the letter hasn't changed.  What's changed is the public reaction to it.

When it first came out, it was reported on neutrally in the media.  Just the facts, just what the letter said.  People were overwhelmingly in favor of it and the signatories were proud to be on it.

Now, the Twitter mob has spent 48 hours screaming at the top of its lungs, and the media is reporting on that.  We're getting the "backlash" or "what people are saying" stories.  And by "people", the media means "the loudest voices on Twitter", who are of course issuing the most hyperbolic condemnations possible.  And of course they are!  The letter directly attacks the source of their power -- their ability to whip up hate mobs and destroy people's lives.  So now that the "backlash" is the story, suddenly everyone is changing their opinion.

Now we're all supposed to be against the letter, because that's the "right" opinion.  And all those celebrities and writers and intellectuals who signed it are having to deal with that backlash, which scares them, and the easiest path is to simply disavow your signature and say "I didn't actually read the letter" or something like that.

So what you're saying is that they had agency to sign the letter but don't have agency to disavow it?  It has to be a 'mob'.

[GeneralMacArthur]

So what you're saying is that they had agency to sign the letter but don't have agency to disavow it?  It has to be a 'mob'.

There's no actual reason for them to disavow it.

It's not like anything has happened in the last two days to change their opinion of the contents of the letter.

It's not like the contents of the letter changed since they read it and signed it.

They're not disavowing it because their beliefs changed, or because they actually disagree with what they earlier agreed with.

They are disavowing it because the aggressive Twitter mob is bullying them into it.  Plain and simple.

Right now the Twitter mob is trying to label everyone who signed onto it as an ally of that monstrously hateful nazi bigot, JK Rowling, and therefore also permanently an enemy of marginalized communities (especially LGBT).  That's the strategy.

A lot of the people who signed it have fragile careers, or careers based on seeming "woke" or like they're a voice for some marginalized community.  They can't afford to have that label slapped on them and suffer the consequences on social media for the rest of their careers.  They don't want to have every article they write or tweet they send about LGBT issues get swarmed with hateful comments saying "I can't believe people still listen to this bigoted bitch who defends transphobia."  So they are backing out.

That is what's happening.  And it's deeply ironic because it's proving the letter correct 100 times over.

[afleitch]

So what you're saying is that they had agency to sign the letter but don't have agency to disavow it?  It has to be a 'mob'.

There's no actual reason for them to disavow it.

It's not like anything has happened in the last two days to change their opinion of the contents of the letter.

It's not like the contents of the letter changed since they read it and signed it.

They're not disavowing it because their beliefs changed, or because they actually disagree with what they earlier agreed with.

They are disavowing it because the aggressive Twitter mob is bullying them into it.  Plain and simple.

Right now the Twitter mob is trying to label everyone who signed onto it as an ally of that monstrously hateful nazi bigot, JK Rowling, and therefore also permanently an enemy of marginalized communities (especially LGBT).  That's the strategy.

A lot of the people who signed it have fragile careers, or careers based on seeming "woke" or like they're a voice for some marginalized community.  They can't afford to have that label slapped on them and suffer the consequences on social media for the rest of their careers.  They don't want to have every article they write or tweet they send about LGBT issues get swarmed with hateful comments saying "I can't believe people still listen to this bigoted bitch who defends transphobia."  So they are backing out.

That is what's happening.  And it's deeply ironic because it's proving the letter correct 100 times over.

Do you think those who haven't signed because it's nothing more than a puff piece are against free speech? Do you think those who pointed to those who signed it having a recent history of trying to get people silenced or fired and thought; no, I'd rather not keep company with hypocrites for the sake of a vague letter perhaps not more concerned with free speech? Especially when defenders of the letter are brigading those who critiqued it?

[GP270watch]

 What should happen to a person like this who is openly racist to an Asian family simply trying to enjoy a meal?

 

 I'm fine with canceling this person.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Cancel culture is real, and it can be a serious problem (watch Contrapoints' video on it, it's the best examination of the topic I've seen anywhere) but these people are not victims and their entitled whining and sophomoric appeals to empty platitudes bring nothing of value to the conversation.

You just said yourself that it can be a serious problem. Of you or I say it, the average person isn't going to read our critiques of it. If these people say it, average people will see the critiques. If there is a problem in society, even if it's only a problem sometimes, SOMEBODY has to say SOMETHING or nothing is ever going to change.

Bad-faith critiques based on misrepresentations, faulty logic and platitudes are not helpful to solving the problem, and if anything are more likely to make it worse.