• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Artists and Writers Warn of an ‘Intolerant Climate.’ Reaction Is Swift.

Nepenthe

Nepenthe

When the music hits, you feel no pain.
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
20,694
The idea that debate and logical discourse is the framework with which we have changed minds and shifted the Overton Window towards the side of progress is some white-ass nonsense.

Public forum debates have historically been nothing more than a free-wheeling past time of well-off assholes to flex how many philosophers and fallacies they read up on while hanging at the university or in a bar. For the minorities who are ultimately in the crossfire of these fleeting conversations about the systems that determine their quality of life, their battles have had to be primarily waged in the streets. For Pete's sake, America is on fire right now; we're fighting cops and knocking over statues and demanding that police as we know them in America cease to be. We're not hashing this shit out in the pulpit. And we're slowly but surely getting things done. You're welcome.

To say nothing of the fact that the highly-esteemed concept of debate inherently puts into the layman's head the belief that any idea that is being debated is worth the fucking effort, even if it's as stupid as climate change denial. Because after all, debate is what separates us from the animals! It is the only way with which goodness and morality are derived, and it is completely uninfluenced by the biases of the participants, audience, and platform holder! Surely it is the perfect method for determining our moral values! And assholes use this belief as a bully tactic and power play. "Debate me!" the conservative bullshitter proverbially screams in an @ towards whatever unlucky minority happened to cross his path on Twitter that day, immediately framing said minority as a coward or intellectually incapable of knocking him on his ass.

No, not everything needs a "conversation." Not everything needs to be "debated." And as I implied above, you don't even have to fucking explain your argument logically to win a debate. You just have to appear impassioned while appealing to people's existing biases and beliefs. And the audience doesn't have to do anything with the conclusion either. Minorities have been right about the poor treatment they receive from their oppressors since time immemorial, and we're still getting fucked over. Because people don't immediately respond to logic and reason. They respond quickest to exposure to different people, and actually facing consequences for their bullshit.

Fuck a debate. And this letter.
 
Jeremy

Jeremy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,639
Nepenthe said:
To say nothing of the fact that the highly-esteemed concept of debate inherently puts into the layman's head the belief that any idea that is being debated is worth the fucking effort, even if it's as stupid as climate change denial. Because after all, debate is what separates us from the animals!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Good post, but I would say that the decorum around reasoned debate has become even more misshapen in recent years with the Right largely abdicating itself of any responsibility to listen to expertise (see also attacks on universities and news institutions) while demanding that it be granted a voice in the public sphere (even for things are reprehensible as things like that Tom Cotton letter).

It's a lopsided notion of fairness from the jump.
 
Nepenthe

Nepenthe

When the music hits, you feel no pain.
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
20,694
Jeremy said:
Good post, but I would say that the decorum around reasoned debate has become even more misshapen in recent years with the Right largely abdicating itself of any responsibility to listen to expertise (see also attacks on universities and news institutions) while demanding that it be granted a voice in the public sphere (even for things are reprehensible as things like that Tom Cotton letter).

It's a lopsided notion of fairness from the jump.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agreed. Conservatives have gone buck wild in completely dismissing the idea of scientific and statistical expertise because the expertise almost always doesn't swing in their favor. Thus, the only way to try and present some sense of equivalency expected in debate between the right and the left is to simply poison the idea of experts entirely by calling them liberal shills or whatever. This forces liberals- God bless 'em- to play in conservatives' wheelhouse of batshit insane nuttery where all opinions have equivalent merit no matter which of those opinions have the backing of reality or not. And once you accept this foolishness, they can just play the game of screaming a lot or speaking like a Marvel character to run up the score.
 
Toxi

Toxi

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
17,550
A reminder that the failure of the "free marketplace of ideas" to actually filter out dangerous anti-science arguments is killing thousands of people.
 
Tanktop Girl

Tanktop Girl

Banned
Jun 12, 2019
22
Nepenthe said:
The idea that debate and logical discourse is the framework with which we have changed minds and shifted the Overton Window towards the side of progress is some white-ass nonsense.

Public forum debates have historically been nothing more than a free-wheeling past time of well-off assholes to flex how many philosophers and fallacies they read up on while hanging at the university or in a bar. For the minorities who are ultimately in the crossfire of these fleeting conversations about the systems that determine their quality of life, their battles have had to be primarily waged in the streets. For Pete's sake, America is on fire right now; we're fighting cops and knocking over statues and demanding that police as we know them in America cease to be. We're not hashing this shit out in the pulpit. And we're slowly but surely getting things done. You're welcome.

To say nothing of the fact that the highly-esteemed concept of debate inherently puts into the layman's head the belief that any idea that is being debated is worth the fucking effort, even if it's as stupid as climate change denial. Because after all, debate is what separates us from the animals! It is the only way with which goodness and morality are derived, and it is completely uninfluenced by the biases of the participants, audience, and platform holder! Surely it is the perfect method for determining our moral values! And assholes use this belief as a bully tactic and power play. "Debate me!" the conservative bullshitter proverbially screams in an @ towards whatever unlucky minority happened to cross his path on Twitter that day, immediately framing said minority as a coward or intellectually incapable of knocking him on his ass.

No, not everything needs a "conversation." Not everything needs to be "debated." And as I implied above, you don't even have to fucking explain your argument logically to win a debate. You just have to appear impassioned while appealing to people's existing biases and beliefs. And the audience doesn't have to do anything with the conclusion either. Minorities have been right about the poor treatment they receive from their oppressors since time immemorial, and we're still getting fucked over. Because people don't immediately respond to logic and reason. They respond quickest to exposure to different people, and actually facing consequences for their bullshit.

Fuck a debate. And this letter.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

ygjp22w.gif
 
Ramako

Ramako

Member
Jan 1, 2018
963
Canada
Tanktop Girl said:
Bad faith, concern trolling, dog whistles, and whataboutism.

Just say you want to say the N word without getting fired and go, my dude. Nobody's here for any "both sides" trash when trans BIPOC are literally being killed every day.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think this response only serves to prove the point I was trying to make, but if I'm really going to be called a fucking racist for what I posted (I'm a POC by the way), then I'm not going to bother engaging further because I know it's going to end up with me being fucking banned. So fine, whatever. I'm out.
 
dyelawn91

dyelawn91

Member
Jan 16, 2018
470
I wonder if the signatories were allowed to see a list of everyone who signed this letter before it was published? There's people there that I'm more than willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to (Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie, Nadine Strossen), and I wonder if they would have retracted their names before publication if they'd known how many bad-faith shit heels were also signing it. It's a pretty banal, easy to agree with thing on the surface of it, but then you look at the list of everyone who signed it and it's just...yikes.
 
krazen

krazen

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,147
Gentrified Brooklyn
A writer kind of nailed what I think is the irony of 'cancel culture' and how it boils down to people not being able to take criticism because they feel 'they are above it'



 
Jeremy

Jeremy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,639
dyelawn91 said:
I wonder if the signatories were allowed to see a list of everyone who signed this letter before it was published? There's people there that I'm more than willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to (Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie, Nadine Strossen), and I wonder if they would have retracted their names before publication if they'd known how many bad-faith shit heels were also signing it. It's a pretty banal, easy to agree with thing on the surface of it, but then you look at the list of everyone who signed it and it's just...yikes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Signatories were not made aware of the full list before signing on... The NYTimes explained how they were courted and how the letter itself was drafted.
 

Ravensmash

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,797
dyelawn91 said:
I wonder if the signatories were allowed to see a list of everyone who signed this letter before it was published? There's people there that I'm more than willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to (Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie, Nadine Strossen), and I wonder if they would have retracted their names before publication if they'd known how many bad-faith shit heels were also signing it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Quite possible that they didn't.

I don't think the actual letter itself is too egregious like some think - I do think reasoned debate is a benefit to us all.

However, it's hard not to query the motives of some of the signatories (JK being the most prominent example - especially when she's hardly being cancelled but has a devoted following of supporters who cheer on her every bloody tweet!), which taints it somewhat.
 
Palette Swap

Palette Swap

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
11,210
Besides the intellectually suspicious "okay let's gloss over the reality of specific cases, because appealing to a case by case scrutiny and critical judgment might get in the way of a good moral panic", there are so many things that don't line up here.

This is kind of the same argument, but this is vague as hell and ends up affirming empty platitudes anyone can latch onto, without ever having to detail why they agree and what it means concretely.

Consequently, anyone who signs this should understand they're giving cover to bad faith actors. I'm generous enough to imagine some of the signers are defending some liberal ideal of healthy debate, except they should know in 2020 that this stance is used to defend bigots and their right to a platform, or even their right to not face answers. If you're an intellectual in 2020 and don't understand that, this means you're either one of these actors or you don't understand a very simple underlying principle of discourse in this age, that includes political discourse. And honestly, you should take the time to understand the world rather than making hasty surface judgments and signing dumb letters. if you can't, retire.

This is not new. Debates, arguments, calling out reactionary ideas has been going on forever. Deciding to uncritically wear rose tinted glasses to call out this new "cancel culture" is wild. The real underlying complaint seems to be the massification of dissenting opinions and the way they're expressed. In this regard, I find it absolutely remarkable that someone who's written such intellectually thin tripe as JKR, while trying hard to signal millions of people they can harass dissenters, would somehow complain about that.

Finally, at its heart, this is a broken argument that will always boil down to "shut up when you tell me to shut up". It's only there to meticulously build up an artificial moral high ground, while making sure the most privileged needn't fear their pedestal might shake.

TLDR: weak and lazy argument for participation trophies that wouldn't deserve a passing grade.
 

Deleted member 58846

User requested account closure
Banned
Jul 28, 2019
5,086
I'm really disappointed to see Margaret Atwood's name attached to this vapid and empty tripe. I thought she was better than this.
 
zashga

zashga

Losing is fun
Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,200
I read the letter, and it's a whole lot of self-interested handwringing. It avoids specific examples, probably in a bid to get a wide range of people to sign off on it, but that also makes it obviously hollow and hypocritical. It just kind of feels like a bunch of self-appointed luminaries decrying the fact that common people on social media might take issue with what they say. It's transparently an attack on pushback, not a defense of free speech or the open exchange of ideas.

We're not going back to the old days where a handful of media elites controlled public discourse. These alleged free speech advocates will have to come to terms with the fact that their editor isn't the only one who can call them on bad or hurtful ideas anymore.
 
iksenpets

iksenpets

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,490
Dallas, TX
It seems to me like "cancel culture" has been pretty much a constant in society, it's just that what the common culture seems cancelable has shifted. How many people got shunned from polite society over the years for saying something deemed unpatriotic or blasphemous or whatever. Try saying anything pro-socialism 50 years ago, or publicly associating with blacks or gays. Unpopular opinions will always be met with some level of opprobrium, and that's fine. That's real free speech, your right to say it and everyone else's right to say their condemnations. Are some people going to be overzealous about it, demanding an unrealistic level of purity and going overboard in their demands for social sanction, or just be sort of dicks about how they choose to criticize relatively minor transgressions? Of course. There will be people who suffer unjust consequences, always. But again, that's a constant, and hardly worth elevating to any sort of prominence as a social issue. There's no getting rid of assholes or keeping people from going a bit overboard. All you can do is make sure that free speech has its basic legal protection from the power of the state coming down against it — which right now the only real risk to seems to be the conservative campaign against social media companies — and the the occasional institutions that have some protection for minority viewpoints, things like tenure allowing for protected income for academics regardless of what line of research they pursue or what they publish, remain in place — which again, really only seems under threat from conservative plans to gut higher education.

And besides, there are ample venues for you to get out there opinions publishes. These various radical centrist, we love free speech web publications and newsletters have been popping up left and right since this whole cancel culture debate started. And there are plenty of conservative outlets out there who would be thrilled to publish whatever "actually the left is wrong about X" takes. You're just mad you can't publish them in the left-of-center outlets people see as respectable, and that your personal friends don't like them.
 

Deleted member 42055

User requested account closure
Banned
Apr 12, 2018
11,215
zashga said:
We're not going back to the old days where a handful of media elites controlled public discourse. These alleged free speech advocates will have to come to terms with the fact that their editor isn't the only one who can call them on bad or hurtful ideas anymore.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

100% yup and the people itt twisting it to " but , but my free speech "... you're on the wrong side of history, but I suspect you're insulated nicely in your non-POC bubble so you'll be fine don't worry
 
Altairre

Altairre

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,049
Nepenthe said:
Agreed. Conservatives have gone buck wild in completely dismissing the idea of scientific and statistical expertise because the expertise almost always doesn't swing in their favor. Thus, the only way to try and present some sense of equivalency expected in debate between the right and the left is to simply poison the idea of experts entirely by calling them liberal shills or whatever. This forces liberals- God bless 'em- to play in conservatives' wheelhouse of batshit insane nuttery where all opinions have equivalent merit no matter which of those opinions have the backing of reality or not. And once you accept this foolishness, they can just play the game of screaming a lot or speaking like a Marvel character to run up the score.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There is absolutely no merit in debating people when you have an overwhelming scientific consensus, especially when it comes to shit like literally denying someone's identity and humanity. This is how it should go: "Look at these studies and statistics that explain why it is an overwhelmingly good idea to recognize that trans women are women." - "Well alright then, I guess that's that". Anything beyond that is just playing into their hand because you let them pretend that there is a reasonable way to challenge what should be basic common knowledge. And let's face it, even IF there was a way to challenge it from a scientific perspective, it sure as fucking shit wouldn't come from the dipshits in the "DEBATE ME" crowd. JK Rowling is a TERF. Even if you somehow, for whatever reason, agree with some of the messaging in this letter, why would you ever put your name beside hers. This is especially true since the very reason why she signed this letter is because people she's mad that people call her out for, ya know, being a fucking TERF. You legitimize her position and for that I will feel free to dismiss the entire thing out of hand regardless of what your intentions may have been. Next time you want to bring attention to something, maybe just don't legitimize a TERF.
 
jroc74

jroc74

Member
Oct 27, 2017
28,995
lowmelody said:
As far as I'm concerned every single person that decries "cancel culture" is insecure about thier fuckery being exposed or is defending the fuckery of somebody close to them.

When someone uses the term "cancel culture" I lose all trust and respect I ever had for them. Otherwise they would unequivocally stand with the victims that for the first time are endowed with social agency and a voice through "cancel culture." They are no longer relegated to a passive straight jacket while the privileged railroad them without a second thought to the consequences and that's a scary thought to would-be abusers.

Misguided or not, willful or not, the result is always the same for the vulnerable that these people set themselves in opposition to.

The term "social justice warrior" has only ever been demonized by what can only be described as "status quo warriors". Only the privileged and ignorant can defend the status quo.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Stop It

Stop It

Bad Cat
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,350
Ramako said:
I think this response only serves to prove the point I was trying to make, but if I'm really going to be called a fucking racist for what I posted (I'm a POC by the way), then I'm not going to bother engaging further because I know it's going to end up with me being fucking banned. So fine, whatever. I'm out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Funny how you picked that post to respond to yet didn't even bother noticing mine or lowmelody fantastic post.

Why's that? Can't actually debate? What happened to the free expression of ideas and thoughts or is that only when you're being agreed with? Of course it's easier to take a more "extreme" post and paint everyone who disagrees with you as shouting you down while ignoring actually doing what you're claiming to defend.
 

Deleted member 25606

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
8,973
Tanktop Girl said:
Just say "all lives matter" and go, my dude. Nobody's here for any "both sides" trash when trans BIPOC are literally being killed every day.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
On one hand I seriously don't think "each and every individual" is a horrible person as much as some people saw a vaguely worded statement that seems okay if somewhat naive (my big issue being an intellectual should maybe make you more discerning about that to begin with) and then it becomes apparent with who signed it what the point really was which is why some are already trying to distance themselves/be removed from it.
AcidCat said:
I wouldn't expect this letter to go over well here on ERA so that's no surprise. I pretty much agree with it though.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
On the other hand what is to agree with in the statement itself? Who is truly being cancelled or having their voices silenced (hint, they are not called Marginalized groups for nothing) and some of the more prominent names (Rowling and Signal come to mind) are famous and in JK's case it's happening right now of arguing in bad faith, using bad science, relying on "fringe" experts, arguing to emotions versus actual established medical facts while also literally trying to silence, bludgeon with speech, and bully anyone who calls them out on it. So saying it's in bad faith is NOT a stretch. And not all ideas are equal and there is free speech and expression of ideas, their is also backlash and consequences since most free speech laws protect from government institutions.

It's a nothing statement against a problem that doesn't exist by people that want to spew hate uninterrupted and without consequence, and ironically more than one of the problematic signees have tried to get critics/dissenting voices fired/demonetized/deplatformed so there is also that do as I say not as I do element here.

Oh, and the thing that pisses me off most is that people like Rowling who is looking to spread hatred/false facts and bad science/"concern" about trans people, something that has been shown to actually increase both real world transphobia and violence including murder of trans people while she also actively tries to get her critics removed/internet hate mobs to harass those critics, usually trans people who suffer the effects of what she shoots out into the world all while being more successful than ever while juggling all kinds of Harry Potter media are hiding behind people like Rushdie, which while I am dissapointed that one I get since he has lived in hiding for years because of death threats including Fatwas from leaders of nation states because he once wrote a novel that was less than charitable about Islam. Yeah, JK is so oppressed.

Tell me again what you agree with?
 
Last edited:
Nacho

Nacho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,114
NYC
This is truly fucking insane. Like, how is public discourse ANY different structurally than how it's been for the last however many decade, except that new ideas shifting towards tolerance and anti-white dominance are now gaining a larger vocal backing?

Wanting free-wheeling, unchallengable discourse where your ideas, what you say and do require no consequences is exactly what props up a white-male, majority dominated society. And it's only ever invoked when white-male dominated ideas are challenged.
 
Palette Swap

Palette Swap

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
11,210
Nacho said:
This is truly fucking insane. Like, how is public discourse ANY different structurally than how it's been for the last however many decade, except that new ideas shifting towards tolerance and anti-white dominance are now gaining a larger vocal backing?

Wanting free-wheeling, unchallengable discourse where your ideas, what you say and do require no consequences is exactly what props up a white-male, majority dominated society. And it's only ever invoked when white-male dominated ideas are challenged.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think a lot of us agree that the major evolution they're complaining about here is how easily widespread opinions are. They're in favor of a free market of ideas as long as they corner it. That's why Rowling writing trans women aren't women is seemingly more okay than me writing Rowling is a despicable bigot. That's her legitimate turf, while we're all squatters who should know their place.
 
PeskyToaster

PeskyToaster

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,314
Just because you're an author or an artist doesn't mean you're qualified to spout off either. Like JK Rowling wrote some children's books so now she gets to philosophize on the rights other groups of people and we're supposed to meaningfully debate her just because she's got a megaphone?

Also are we even debating if they aren't listening. These authors and artists can put this list in front of me and I have to read it but will they hear what I have to say? Will I get a personal response? Will I actually be debating or is this just another avenue for them to push their ideas onto me and I have no way of responding. What kind of debate is that? Where's the exchange of ideas if you're just going to ignore everyone else who isn't personally asked by Harper's Magazine to sign a letter?

Granted, we do have a way to respond. Through social media. So they were okay with the exchange of ideas when it was just exchanging them with their ingroup but now that everyone can see it and respond, suddenly we have a huge problem. Now that there are actual consequences for mouthing off bullshit, it's suddenly the death of democracy. Nah, this IS democracy. You put the idea out there and the People will let you know if it's good or not. Majority rules.
 
Nacho

Nacho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,114
NYC
Palette Swap said:
I think a lot of us agree that the major evolution they're complaining about here is how easily widespread opinions are. They're in favor of a free market of ideas as long as they corner it. That's why Rowling writing trans women aren't women is seemingly more okay than me writing Rowling is a despicable bigot. That's her legitimate turf, while we're all squatters who should know their place.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Exactly. Rowling doesnt even engage in debate, which is readily available on Twitter, her platform of choice. She uses it to TELL people what the 'truth' is, and people who challenge her are censoring her. Back when I actually cared to delve into those threads, her only responses would be to thank people for supporting her 'truth', or to attack random people who didnt agree, by referencing something irrelevant in the profile of some random replier with like 2 followers as if a burn on some nobody proved her point. She's fucking sad.
 

FormatCompatible

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,071
They really are scared shitless that they can't spout their hateful, bigoted rhetoric without their fame shielding them from the consequences, huh?

AcidCat said:
I know, shocking when someone disagrees with the hive mind. I'll just say I am a proponent of free speech and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Transparent as fuck.
 
Stop It

Stop It

Bad Cat
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,350
PeskyToaster said:
Just because you're an author or an artist doesn't mean you're qualified to spout off either. Like JK Rowling wrote some children's books so now she gets to philosophize on the rights other groups of people and we're supposed to meaningfully debate her just because she's got a megaphone?

Also are we even debating if they aren't listening. These authors and artists can put this list in front of me and I have to read it but will they hear what I have to say? Will I get a personal response? Will I actually be debating or is this just another avenue for them to push their ideas onto me and I have no way of responding. What kind of debate is that? Where's the exchange of ideas if you're just going to ignore everyone else who isn't personally asked by Harper's Magazine to sign a letter?

Granted, we do have a way to respond. Through social media. So they were okay with the exchange of ideas when it was just exchanging them with their ingroup but now that everyone can see it and respond, suddenly we have a huge problem. Now that there are actual consequences for mouthing off bullshit, it's suddenly the death of democracy. Nah, this IS democracy. You put the idea out there and the People will let you know if it's good or not. Majority rules.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Bingo.

The free exchange of ideas doesn't work if some people get to say who is or isn't allowed to speak.

The irony here is that the voices being now told to shut up* by these signatories are the ones who should've been valued before over those who took undue influence thanks to their positions within the establishment.

*And that's exactly what this backlash against so called "cancel culture" is. It's the people who have never been told to shut up for a minute and listen to others, finally being told that they ain't special, and that their views will be called out if they're wrong, hurtful, or continues to marginalise others.
 
GuessMyUserName

GuessMyUserName

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
5,169
Toronto
Only half-way through the thread but already laughing at this exchange.

"Cancel culture is going too far!"
"Examples?"
"Cole Sprouse didn't do anything wrong and then he didn't get cancelled for it"

... oh somebody please stop the cancel culture it's gone too far
 

alexthekid

Member
Oct 1, 2018
102
Ramako

Ramako

Member
Jan 1, 2018
963
Canada
Stop It said:
Funny how you picked that post to respond to yet didn't even bother noticing mine or lowmelody fantastic post.

Why's that? Can't actually debate? What happened to the free expression of ideas and thoughts or is that only when you're being agreed with?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sorry for the delayed response as I take a long time to articulate my thoughts clearly (and I'll sheepishly admit that I was also kind of distracted by the Limited Run Games direct).

As I said above (and as evidenced by Tanktop Girl's response to me), I think there are some people in this thread that are going to assume I'm arguing in bad faith and possibly report me/try to get me banned, so I'm not sure it's worthwhile to engage further, but if you're calling me out specifically, I'll respond to your post.

Stop It said:
The very premise is flawed.

Because by best, you mean best of the "intellectual class", which is overwhelmingly white, male, and stale.

That's the problem with the "good or bad faith" non sequitur. Many of the people who are challenged literally have inhaled nothing but their own emissions for years and honestly believe what *they* say is good faith, and disagreement is the bad faith regardless of whatever it is or not.

"Cancel culture" is a non sequitur designed to continue to revoke the rights of the marginalised their equal voice in debate, instead of being classed as not as valuable by a system that is biased towards those with existing power and influence.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I agree that the intellectual class is overwhelming white, male, and stale and exerts more power and influence than marginalized voices. Thankfully that's been changing as more and more minorities enter the mainstream intellectual space. Maybe I'm coming off as a Pollyanna, but I see the tide turning everywhere on issues like LGBT rights and BLM, and in dramatic fashion, as evidenced by public polls on these topics now versus even five years ago. But I don't think public sentiment has been swayed because these old intellectuals have been silenced per se, but because those marginalized voices are becoming more empowered and have been making their voices heard - not just through scholarly articles and studies, but also through protest, art, social media, the dining room table, etc.

I'm not trying to say that marginalized voices shouldn't have a louder megaphone, and I'm not saying we have to defer to the intellectual establishment. I'm saying that we can engage in a debate without asserting that our opponents are acting in bad faith and without resorting to trying to silence our opponents simply because we disagree with them (see Tanktop Girl's response to my original post vs your response to my original post).

Of course if your opponent is disingenuously arguing in bad faith or has a radical and categorically disprovable position, then it's not worth engaging and not worth legitimizing. Of course if someone is advocating for things like white supremacy they should be silenced. That's not a concept that deserves any consideration, and giving it any consideration is dangerous. I'm not talking about that. But if someone has a mainstream opinion that I disagree with (e.g. whether to defund the police) or is merely privileged/ignorant to realities of being a marginalized person, I don't think it's helpful to assume that they're a secret bigot or fascist, and silence them or cut off all contact with them. I just don't think that's a winning strategy in the long run.
 

Deleted member 64609

Banned
Mar 18, 2020
2,434
The letter is crowdsourced nonsense and a lot of people signed without knowing (or caring) that multiple bigots and hypocrites who worked to silence voices they themselves didn't like also signed.

Of course that doesn't stop people from defending it because one of their faves pitched in...
 
KingK

KingK

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,854
enzo_gt said:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, that's a damn good thread that succinctly tears down the letter.

I'm a huge free speech advocate. Randos on Twitter engaging in "cancel culture" are literally just expressing their free speech lol. I don't get how these people don't see the blatant hypocrisy of their position.

Tom Cotton getting an op-ed in the NYT that literally calls for the US military to violently suppress the first amendment rights of protestors to freedom of speech and assembly is a quintessential example of free speech to these people. Meanwhile, the random Twitter masses who exercise their free speech to call out the bullshit and boycott the NYT in response are the would-be fascists? I don't recall any significant calls for Tom Cotton to be imprisoned or violently suppressed by the state for writing that op-ed (which again, ironically did call for violent suppression of speech by the state). He's free to write that bullshit, and other people are free to not financially support private institutions who choose to amplify that speech.

Like, free speech doesn't entitle anyone to any specific platform, and it doesn't shield you from social consequences or dissenting opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.