Letter on justice and open debate

[Treehugger]

Do you agree with the signatories of this letter on justice and open debate?

[downer]

Yes.

[marshwiggle]

Great statement.

Which is why, sadly, it will be ignored completely by the media and many (most???)
academics.

[nebo113]

Great statement.

Which is why, sadly, it will be ignored completely by the media and many (most???)
academics.

Given that it is covered by NYT today.....

[marshwiggle]

Great statement.

Which is why, sadly, it will be ignored completely by the media and many (most???)
academics.

Given that it is covered by NYT today.....

Where? I looked all over the homepage, and searched the page for "justice", and didn't find it.

[jimbogumbo]

Great statement.

Which is why, sadly, it will be ignored completely by the media and many (most???)
academics.

Given that it is covered by NYT today.....

In today's WaPO Morning Mix also. Home page.

Where? I looked all over the homepage, and searched the page for "justice", and didn't find it.

[namazu]

Great statement.

Which is why, sadly, it will be ignored completely by the media and many (most???)
academics.

Given that it is covered by NYT today.....

Where? I looked all over the homepage, and searched the page for "justice", and didn't find it.

NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/arts/harpers-letter.html

[writingprof]

There's already a movement afoot to fire Matthew Yglesias for his contribution to the effort.  He probably won't be the only one.  Indeed, the letter may end up being a good test of where one is in one's career.  If you're too big to cancel (Helen Vendler), sign away!  If you're already on thin ice for previous crimes (Francis Fukuyama, every white man on the list), watch out.

As for the text itself, I'm annoyed that they couldn't resist sprinkling some ridiculous anti-conservatism on top of an otherwise solid argument.  "But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting."

Tell me, please, how the Right could push back against the Left's excesses in a manner that couldn't be characterized as "exploiting" them.

[marshwiggle]

As for the text itself, I'm annoyed that they couldn't resist sprinkling some ridiculous anti-conservatism on top of an otherwise solid argument.  "But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting."

Tell me, please, how the Right could push back against the Left's excesses in a manner that couldn't be characterized as "exploiting" them.

I consider it simply a reflection of the fact that the statement is aimed mostly at people on the far left, who, at the moment, are most against free speech, and so it's a reminder that extremist behaviour on one end of the spectrum fosters extremism at the other end as well.

[mamselle]

Nothing free doesn't cost anything.

M.

[Anselm]

There's already a movement afoot to fire Matthew Yglesias for his contribution to the effort.  He probably won't be the only one.  Indeed, the letter may end up being a good test of where one is in one's career.  If you're too big to cancel (Helen Vendler), sign away!  If you're already on thin ice for previous crimes (Francis Fukuyama, every white man on the list), watch out.

As for the text itself, I'm annoyed that they couldn't resist sprinkling some ridiculous anti-conservatism on top of an otherwise solid argument.  "But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting."

Tell me, please, how the Right could push back against the Left's excesses in a manner that couldn't be characterized as "exploiting" them.

That may be a reference to David Horowitz and Turning Point USA.

[Parasaurolophus]

I think it's the usual whiners whining their usual whines. Every single one of the people who signed that letter has access to a major platform, and boy, do they ever use it. They're not being silenced; they never shut the fuck up. They're not concerned about restrictions on speech, they just don't like being criticized when they say stupid or awful things. We need to stop pretending that every "take" is as valuable as every other. The journalism of takes isn't journalism. That's what I think.

[Treehugger]

I think it's the usual whiners whining their usual whines. Every single one of the people who signed that letter has access to a major platform, and boy, do they ever use it. They're not being silenced; they never shut the fuck up. They're not concerned about restrictions on speech, they just don't like being criticized when they say stupid or awful things. We need to stop pretending that every "take" is as valuable as every other. The journalism of takes isn't journalism. That's what I think.

So I take it you disagree, but can only come up with an ad hominem argument. Not compelling.

[downer]

I think it's the usual whiners whining their usual whines. Every single one of the people who signed that letter has access to a major platform, and boy, do they ever use it. They're not being silenced; they never shut the fuck up. They're not concerned about restrictions on speech, they just don't like being criticized when they say stupid or awful things. We need to stop pretending that every "take" is as valuable as every other. The journalism of takes isn't journalism. That's what I think.

Seems like a very uncharitable interpretation of the words of the letter. The idea is that they are not particularly writing about defending their own freedom, since most of them already have plenty of power and security. They are defending other people.

Whatever their intentions, the central issue is whether the claims of the letter are plausible. And they are.

[Parasaurolophus]

I think it's the usual whiners whining their usual whines. Every single one of the people who signed that letter has access to a major platform, and boy, do they ever use it. They're not being silenced; they never shut the fuck up. They're not concerned about restrictions on speech, they just don't like being criticized when they say stupid or awful things. We need to stop pretending that every "take" is as valuable as every other. The journalism of takes isn't journalism. That's what I think.

So I take it you disagree, but can only come up with an ad hominem argument. Not compelling.

I was asked for my opinion, not an argument. Even characterized as an argument, however, it's not an ad hominem. The ad hominem is an informal fallacy, which means that you can't identify it based on its form alone; you need to consider the content. It's a fallacy of relevance, meaning it's only instantiated when the content presented is irrelevant. For an ad hominem, that means that the personal attack must be immaterial. That's patently not the case here.

I believe what you actually mean is that I've constructed a straw man. I don't think that's the case either, but it's a better fit for the facts.

Seems like a very uncharitable interpretation of the words of the letter. The idea is that they are not particularly writing about defending their own freedom, since most of them already have plenty of power and security. They are defending other people.

Whatever their intentions, the central issue is whether the claims of the letter are plausible. And they are.

You're right, I'm not being very charitable. That's because I'm pretty sure I've seen the same content bandied about endlessly for years now, and not to laudable ends. I look at the signatories, and all my flags are raised. They have not earned my trust; in fact, they've almost all earned my distrust. It's not at all clear to me that they're defending the "freedom" of the disempowered. It's not clear to me because (1) they're parrotting the same old narrative we've seen trotted out for years now as part of an explicit effort to legitimize absolutely shit ideas (many of them long-debunked), (2) it's mostly (although I'll grant it's not entirely) the same people who spend their columns promoting their shit ideas to "teach the controversy", (3) the letter is such vaguely worded pablum that it's hard to discern much concrete content beyond the concern for both-sidesism that I know (from their previous work) most of its authors are worried about, and (4) so, so many of the signatories spend their time and power punching down on these issues.