The ideas in the @Harpers letter were destroyed on Twitter yesterday. Here's a thread/meta-thread.
Yesterday, a variety of public figures, from @jk_rowling to Malcolm @Gladwell to @SalmanRushdie signed a letter in Harper’s saying that "The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted."
harpers.org/a-letter-on-ju…
harpers.org/a-letter-on-ju…
Without feeling the need to bring any data, the writers of this letter opaquely referenced recent events like...
"Editors are fired for running controversial pieces" — presumably this is a reference to the @nytimes publishing Tom Cotton's editorial calling for an "overwhelming show of force" by the military to "subdue" Black Lives Matter protesters.
nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opi…
nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opi…
This editorial's tone, call for violence, and distortions of facts, led to an unheard of protest from staffers and mass cancellations of subscriptions. Who would want to support an organization that promoted that?
slate.com/news-and-polit…
slate.com/news-and-polit…
Maybe "cancel culture" is just the free market?
The editor resigned after the publisher noted "a significant breakdown in our editing processes" including, the editor reportedly not reading the piece before it was published. He wasn’t fired for being controversial; he was fired for doing a bad job.
nytimes.com/2020/06/07/bus…
nytimes.com/2020/06/07/bus…
"books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity" might be a reference to Naomi Wolf, where the publisher decided to cancel its U.S. release due to concerns about accuracy, which have long followed her work
nytimes.com/2019/06/05/boo…
nytimes.com/2019/06/05/boo…
So, do the Harper's signers then attest to the new book's accuracy? Or is the argument that publishers shouldn’t consider the accuracy of the work in their publishing decisions?
independent.co.uk/arts-entertain…
independent.co.uk/arts-entertain…
"professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class" may refer to a case in which a student complained that a white professor said a racial slur, one with a particularly violent and racist history.
theguardian.com/books/2019/aug…
theguardian.com/books/2019/aug…
This isn’t the deterioration of society. A student had the confidence to speak about language that even another professor agreed was inappropriate. The student raised the issue for formalized examination and debate. Why aren’t they applauding her care and vigilance?
"journalists are barred from writing on certain topics;"
This is simply [citation needed]
This is simply [citation needed]
"a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study;" may reference David Shor--a case in which no facts were made public about why he was fired, and he hasn’t been silenced. Without the facts, which side is rushing to judgement?
currentaffairs.org/2020/06/has-th…
currentaffairs.org/2020/06/has-th…
"and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes."
This might reference Bon Appétit’s editor, who resigned after a picture of him costumed as stereotyped depiction of Puerto Ricans surfaced.
nytimes.com/2020/06/08/din…
This might reference Bon Appétit’s editor, who resigned after a picture of him costumed as stereotyped depiction of Puerto Ricans surfaced.
nytimes.com/2020/06/08/din…
The photo helped employees also raise other issues of racial discrimination at the magazine. Was a "clumsy mistake" what made Bon Appétit only pay white editors for video appearances under his leadership?
Or it could have been a reference to James Watson, an unscrupulous former scientist, current intellectual fossil, who was outed from leading Cold Spring Harbor lab for his unsupported and outrageous racial claims. Do they think he should be reinstituted?
nytimes.com/2019/01/01/sci…
nytimes.com/2019/01/01/sci…
If they really had some convincing cases, it sure would have helped to point to them. Without examples, it’s as though they think the argument can be made just based on the names of the signers.
Failing to name the examples is not innocent.
In fact, writers who decry these kinds of events as “cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial” are depending on their own hyperbole, oversimplification, and panic. Usually what leads to firing is a more complex history of failure
currentaffairs.org/2020/06/has-th…
currentaffairs.org/2020/06/has-th…
It’s the same Fox News trick used to silence #MeToo: attempt to convince everyone that allegations are levied for minor missteps. See, for instance, @celestekidd’s @NeurIPS comments on what this distortion does to the “climate for men”:
If there aren't good actual examples to illustrate their point, what's going on? I think @ParkerMolloy's take is exactly spot on here:
In other words, it's fear of losing status and turf:
It's about prominent intellectuals not wanting everyone to have a say because they themselves don't like being criticized online.
This letter is about writers wanting their own words to never have consequences: "We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences." That must mean you're supposed to keep buying their books no... matter... what?
This is the most remarkable line because it simultaneously says they want to protect THEIR speech, but censor YOUR speech—stop your "call” if it's asking for consequences.
Their hypocrisy is not limited to the letter. Outside of the letter, these are not standards many of these signers abide by.
For people who complain about “a vogue for public shaming”, the Harper’s signers sure seem to do it a lot.
Chomsky famously cancel-cultures some of his own taxes to protest U.S. militarism. (But don’t *you* decide to stop giving the @nytimes money when it publishes a call for the military to use “overwhelming force” on civilians.)
chomsky.info/19670323/
chomsky.info/19670323/
All it takes is a single tweet for @jk_rowling to push discourse to the level of calling her lawyers to stop people who say things she doesn't like.
And of course these people who chant about productive public discourse are often less accommodating in private, especially when the topic concerns failures of their own ideas:
Twitter is a common target of complaints by signers. Even though @twitter is pretty much nothing other than open—and for many consequence-free—discourse, which is what they asked for:
Real believers in free discussion would cherish social media platforms like @twitter that allow compelling points to be amplified—no matter who made them. Twitter is undiluted free speech.
The Harper’s letter signers should be delighted that people care enough about ethics to change what they buy or subscribe to based on moral failings, and that companies must respond to this. They would be happy people take their words seriously enough to have consequences.
And the Harper’s letter signers should recognize the absurdity of the most successful millionaire and billionaire writers complaining about how much they have been stifled, when other people *actually are*.
The signers of the Harper’s letter should compare their writing to the vibrant response from others online who do exactly what the signers claimed is missing: people on @twitter discussed, exposed, and rejected their trite idea.
