Harper's Letter on Justice and Open Debate

[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.

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Canceling" itself is a bullsh*t notion that encompasses everything from targeted harassment and stalking to any criticism of a bigoted opinion (because, you know, apparently it's now anti-free speech to criticize opinions). This is part of what's so insidious about it, since it allows the harassers to obfuscate what they are doing, but it is quite telling that the self-appointed guardians of free speech would embrace this framing and use it to obfuscate in the other direction.

[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.

What are you referring to here exactly? The letter in the OP? I'm not sure what you're talking about specifically.

Yeah, I'm talking about rich, powerful, socially influential people who suffer no meaningful impediment to spreading their ideas (and indeed have been doing so for years) whining that they are being silenced and that the lofty principles of free speech are under threat whenever their views are being challenged. These people are not the real victims (indeed, in some cases they themselves are encouraging harassment) and their criticism only reinforces the underlying logic of these sterile culture wars and therefore provide cover for the continued harassment and dogpiling that does happen in progressive spaces.

I'm not in the mood to go through the letter and point out why this criticism falls flat, but you see where I'm going with this, right? If not, let's pick up this conversation later.

[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.

What are you referring to here exactly? The letter in the OP? I'm not sure what you're talking about specifically.

Yeah, I'm talking about rich, powerful, socially influential people who suffer no meaningful impediment to spreading their ideas (and indeed have been doing so for years) whining that they are being silenced and that the lofty principles of free speech are under threat whenever their views are being challenged. These people are not the real victims (indeed, in some cases they themselves are encouraging harassment) and their criticism only reinforces the underlying logic of these sterile culture wars and therefore provide cover for the continued harassment and dogpiling that does happen in progressive spaces.

I'm not in the mood to go through the letter and point out why this criticism falls flat, but you see where I'm going with this, right? If not, let's pick up this conversation later.

Oh okay. Yeah, in the context of WHO wrote / signed the letter, I can see your point for sure. I just think the letter in and of itself, as it's own seperate entity, is a good thing, at least in theory. Somebody needs to advocate for this. It's a shame if the messengers are hypocrites, as the message us IMO important.

In cases like this, the messenger is the message. Do you genuinely see anyone's minds being changed by this? Just look at this thread. People who were already hand-wringing about cancel culture are latching onto it saying "see? I was right!" and people who reflexively reject any criticism of online left-wing culture will just take it as entitled rich people being entitled rich people.

It also doesn't help, though, that this letter display no substantive understanding of the way in which "cancel culture" actually operates, or the underlying psychology that explains it. Again, for that, I highly recommend Contrapoints' video (or some of Peter Coffin and Angie Speaks's earlier videos, which relate it to an even broader structural/sociological analysis). This is very surface-level and designed to preach to the choir.