I don't engage on "the letter" because it is obviously about norms within left-leaning institutions and my opinion is irrelevant.
But I do find it interesting; almost everyone involved is saying something different from what they actually really mean.
But I do find it interesting; almost everyone involved is saying something different from what they actually really mean.
Okay, fine, it's this:
1. Narrow vs wide range of accepted discourse
2. Left-tilted vs center-left range of accepted discourse
3. Lesser vs greater threshold for proof of guilt
4. [perceived] moral clarity and privilege-balancing vs [perceived] civility and logical rigor
1. Narrow vs wide range of accepted discourse
2. Left-tilted vs center-left range of accepted discourse
3. Lesser vs greater threshold for proof of guilt
4. [perceived] moral clarity and privilege-balancing vs [perceived] civility and logical rigor
And again, the fight is about those things within the big liberal institutions, not the stuff outside.
In each case, "the letter" is more associated with the second option, while the culture it's responding to (and that dislikes the letter) is more associated with the first.
In each case, "the letter" is more associated with the second option, while the culture it's responding to (and that dislikes the letter) is more associated with the first.
With respect to axis #4; if you're attached to one side you probably think "my side has all the strengths and the other people don't have any of the strengths."
Maybe so. But it's clear which side touts which values more, even if they don't live up to them. (Hence, "perceived.")
Maybe so. But it's clear which side touts which values more, even if they don't live up to them. (Hence, "perceived.")
I'd say the debates about (3) and (4) break out into the open reasonably often.
(1) and (2) are the more veiled debates. Some people don't want to admit they're to the right of their interlocutor. Some people don't want to admit they want to narrow the window of accepted views.
(1) and (2) are the more veiled debates. Some people don't want to admit they're to the right of their interlocutor. Some people don't want to admit they want to narrow the window of accepted views.
Because people play coy about the real issues, lots of time gets wasted on fake debates:
a) is "cancel culture" real?
b) do you mean nobody should ever get fired?
c) what about Trump?
These topics aren't useful for actually hashing out the disagreement.
a) is "cancel culture" real?
b) do you mean nobody should ever get fired?
c) what about Trump?
These topics aren't useful for actually hashing out the disagreement.
re: a) "Is cancel culture real?"
There's an obvious real phenomenon happening and people just want to frame it in a way that's more favorable to their views. This is just boring word games.
There's an obvious real phenomenon happening and people just want to frame it in a way that's more favorable to their views. This is just boring word games.
re: b) "Should nobody get fired?"
In truth everyone sometimes supports a firing. Some people more often, some less often, and for different reasons, and so on.
Some people get tricked into a "principled no-firing stance" that will eventually be revealed to have exceptions.
In truth everyone sometimes supports a firing. Some people more often, some less often, and for different reasons, and so on.
Some people get tricked into a "principled no-firing stance" that will eventually be revealed to have exceptions.
re: c) "What about Trump?"
The sides engaged on this version of the "cancel" debate are left of center and do not support Trump or Republicans generally.
There are things to discuss here, but they don't advance the discussion of liberal institutions in any way.
The sides engaged on this version of the "cancel" debate are left of center and do not support Trump or Republicans generally.
There are things to discuss here, but they don't advance the discussion of liberal institutions in any way.
My sympathies of course lie with the "letter" side more than the "anti-letter" side.
But I do have rhetorical or logical quibbles with their stated position. And I hope I've kept my descriptions here neutral for the sake of good social science-y discussion.
But I do have rhetorical or logical quibbles with their stated position. And I hope I've kept my descriptions here neutral for the sake of good social science-y discussion.
Arguably people like me (center-right-libertarian) are just an extension of this spectrum--I'm just a couple of steps farther along on some of the main axes of debate than the letter-signers.
I've called myself an outsider to this, but that's not 100% true in all scenarios. If Team Letter runs a big successful counteroffensive it's very plausible that my inclusion in liberal institutions would be on the table.
Whether that's a feature or a bug is up to you, I guess.
Whether that's a feature or a bug is up to you, I guess.
