Harper's Letter on Justice and Open Debate

[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.

[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'.

[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?

[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?

Why are you talking about people who haven't signed it?  My post, and your post that I was replying to, were both about the people who did sign it but are now backpedaling and disowning it.

There are plenty of people who didn't sign it, probably because they weren't asked.  The list of signatories is an impressively extensive and diverse list of prominent intellectuals, artists, writers, thinkers, celebrities, and other high-profile individuals.  I don't think the letter is lacking for more signatures.

Other than that you're just making things up.  Who's "brigading those who critiqued it"?

I mean, I posted two examples above.

Here's another;

https://mobile.twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1281010243380678665

I was also going to share The Nation and Hong Kong activism specialist Wilfred Chan who critiqued the letter but he's also had to protect his tweets because he's been brigaded.

[afleitch]

https://mobile.twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1281224333738852354

Another signatory begging the 'free speech' activists to stop harassing another critic of the letter.

[afleitch]

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.

I think in short, because the letter doesn't define cancel culture the signatories to it define it by proxy. And the main issue isn't the political or culture war slant (Rowling signed it but so too did Atwood) but the hypocrisy of many of those who have signed it who have actively silenced critics or used corporate influence to do so. Which for those who see that, makes the letter hollow.

[afleitch]

This is just amazing. This is the guy who spearheaded the letter.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidKlion/status/1282741871866007553