That the guy who set up the Harper's letter approvingly linked to a Freddie deBoer blogpost arguing that the only reason to disagree with the letter is because you hate free speech is a little on the nose, but reality works out that way sometimes.
Freddie deBoer: "So how can someone object to an endorsement of free speech and open debate without being opposed to those things in and of themselves? You can’t. And people are objecting to it because social justice politics are plainly opposed to free speech."
This isn't free speech advocacy, and it's not thoughtful debate on divisive issues of consequence. It's fatuous in-group name-calling, and it doesn't help to advance the project of honest discussion across ideological lines.
Saying you're for free speech and open debate is the easiest thing in the world. Acting like it is much, much harder.
There are lots and lots of people criticizing the Harper's letter from within a framework of civil libertarianism, or from within frameworks compatible with civil libertarianism. I'm seeing very little engagement with those people by the letter's signatories and defenders.
Instead I'm seeing the letter's defenders doing a lot of dunking on easy targets, a lot of tweets screenshot out of context to make them look stupid, and a fair amount of public shaming of signatories who have withdrawn their support for the letter.
If the entire premise of your project is that the health of society depends on thoughtful debate across ideological lines, but you're unwilling or unable to engage with your critics when they emerge, then what the hell are you even doing?
And of course #notallsignatories. Some of the folks who've signed have engaged in this kind of dialogue in the past, and I'm sure some are doing it now in places I'm not seeing. (Also, my DMs are open, people.)
But if you're on the fence about the letter—if you don't understand why people would be angry about it, or think that rejection of it is necessarily a validation of its claims—take a look at what I'm describing.
I want to go back and underscore the point at the top of this thread. The guy who spearheaded the Harper's letter linked approvingly to a piece from Freddie deBoer that engaged in completely scurrilous, fact-free denunciation of the letter's critics.
And deBoer is, of course, a guy who withdrew from public life just three years ago after it became clear that—and he was compelled to admit that—he had invented multiple false allegations of sexual assault in order to smear someone he had a public political disagreement with.
If you believe in free speech and robust debate, and you fear people losing their reputations and livelihoods due to political disputes, why on earth would you signal-boost an ugly rant by someone who has admitted to making up rape charges to try to silence a hostile critic?
I'll ask that question again, and ask it directly to Thomas Chatterton Williams:
If you fear people losing their reputations and livelihoods due to political disputes, @thomaschattwill, why on earth would you signalboost a tendentious screed on the topic that was written by someone who has admitted to inventing rape charges to try to silence a hostile critic?
It's a serious question, @thomaschattwill. deBoer's piece assumes the worst of your critics, and does so in a way that precludes further debate. And it was written by someone who has engaged in behavior that ranks with the absolute worst and most vile of those you condemn.
And the question is one I'd ask of any other signatory of the letter, and of anyone defending it—do you think deBoer's piece advanced the discussion? Do you think, as @thomaschattwill apparently does, that it was a useful intervention into this ongoing debate?
Do you think that anyone who criticizes the Harper's letter is doing so, must necessarily be doing so, because they're hostile to free speech, or that making such a declaration is evidence of thoughtfulness or seriousness or a desire for actual debate and discussion?
If you're going to hand the mic to a guy who has invented rape lies to smear his opponents so he can argue that "social justice politics are plainly opposed to free speech," then why on earth should I take anything you have to say on the topic of "cancel culture" seriously?
My DMs are open.
