Harper's Letter on Justice and Open Debate

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.