Open letter published to fight "Cancel Culture"

[pknopp]

Salman Rushdie signed that puppy. That's a blast from the past. He knows all about cancel cultures, or better yet, the eraser cultures.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Good stuff.

Salman Rushdie signed that puppy. That's a blast from the past. He knows all about cancel cultures, or better yet, the eraser cultures.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Good stuff.

J.K. Rowling is pissed because people are countering her positions. Period.

 

[Disir]

Salman Rushdie signed that puppy. That's a blast from the past. He knows all about cancel cultures, or better yet, the eraser cultures.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Good stuff.

Salman Rushdie signed that puppy. That's a blast from the past. He knows all about cancel cultures, or better yet, the eraser cultures.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Good stuff.

J.K. Rowling is pissed because people are countering her positions. Period.

No.

 

[pknopp]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

That's also known as retaliation and in some cases is unlawful.

I'd rather see it fade away culturally and keep the government out of it.

It's illiberal.

Are you saying that you expect people to self-regulate?

What I'm saying is that freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of all of our values, and that I support it.

So, I agree with Noam Chomsky on this and other issues.

Examples of others who agree with me:

Where has the government gotten involved and where has anyone stopped her (and others) from saying whatever they want?

Never, that I'm aware of. And, of course, I have made it abundantly clear already that that is not my point.

You're fine with it. I agree with President Obama, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Noam Chomsky, Salman freakin' Rushdie and many other liberals on this.

We disagree. And I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? The only thing I've been able to determine is the new label to a very old thing.

Free speech has never meant that there would never be any repurcussions because of that speech.

All you have to do is read the article and you'll know exactly what I'm saying. In addition to the very clear comments I have made on this thread.

I have made myself and my position (and that of Obama, Sanders, Warren, Chomsky and Rushdie) EXTREMELY clear.

That's all I can do.

None of those people ever argued that your speech could not be countered by others.

 

[Disir]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

That's also known as retaliation and in some cases is unlawful.

I'd rather see it fade away culturally and keep the government out of it.

It's illiberal.

Are you saying that you expect people to self-regulate?

What I'm saying is that freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of all of our values, and that I support it.

So, I agree with Noam Chomsky on this and other issues.

Examples of others who agree with me:

Where has the government gotten involved and where has anyone stopped her (and others) from saying whatever they want?

Never, that I'm aware of. And, of course, I have made it abundantly clear already that that is not my point.

You're fine with it. I agree with President Obama, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Noam Chomsky, Salman freakin' Rushdie and many other liberals on this.

We disagree. And I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? The only thing I've been able to determine is the new label to a very old thing.

Free speech has never meant that there would never be any repurcussions because of that speech.

All you have to do is read the article and you'll know exactly what I'm saying. In addition to the very clear comments I have made on this thread.

I have made myself and my position (and that of Obama, Sanders, Warren, Chomsky and Rushdie) EXTREMELY clear.

That's all I can do.

None of those people ever argued that your speech could not be countered by others.

And they still aren't arguing that. In fact, J.K. Rowling isn't arguing that.

 

[Mac1958]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

That's also known as retaliation and in some cases is unlawful.

I'd rather see it fade away culturally and keep the government out of it.

It's illiberal.

Are you saying that you expect people to self-regulate?

What I'm saying is that freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of all of our values, and that I support it.

So, I agree with Noam Chomsky on this and other issues.

Examples of others who agree with me:

Where has the government gotten involved and where has anyone stopped her (and others) from saying whatever they want?

Never, that I'm aware of. And, of course, I have made it abundantly clear already that that is not my point.

You're fine with it. I agree with President Obama, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Noam Chomsky, Salman freakin' Rushdie and many other liberals on this.

We disagree. And I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? The only thing I've been able to determine is the new label to a very old thing.

Free speech has never meant that there would never be any repurcussions because of that speech.

All you have to do is read the article and you'll know exactly what I'm saying. In addition to the very clear comments I have made on this thread.

I have made myself and my position (and that of Obama, Sanders, Warren, Chomsky and Rushdie) EXTREMELY clear.

That's all I can do.

None of those people ever argued that your speech could not be countered by others.

Yes, and that's obviously not what they're saying.

We've now said the same things five or six times. Unless you have a new point to make, I'm done.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[pknopp]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

That's also known as retaliation and in some cases is unlawful.

I'd rather see it fade away culturally and keep the government out of it.

It's illiberal.

Are you saying that you expect people to self-regulate?

What I'm saying is that freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of all of our values, and that I support it.

So, I agree with Noam Chomsky on this and other issues.

Examples of others who agree with me:

Where has the government gotten involved and where has anyone stopped her (and others) from saying whatever they want?

Never, that I'm aware of. And, of course, I have made it abundantly clear already that that is not my point.

You're fine with it. I agree with President Obama, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Noam Chomsky, Salman freakin' Rushdie and many other liberals on this.

We disagree. And I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? The only thing I've been able to determine is the new label to a very old thing.

Free speech has never meant that there would never be any repurcussions because of that speech.

All you have to do is read the article and you'll know exactly what I'm saying. In addition to the very clear comments I have made on this thread.

I have made myself and my position (and that of Obama, Sanders, Warren, Chomsky and Rushdie) EXTREMELY clear.

That's all I can do.

None of those people ever argued that your speech could not be countered by others.

And they still aren't arguing that. In fact, J.K. Rowling isn't arguing that.

The article is little more than vast generalizations. Are there people hypocritical with their support of countered speech?

Of course, they always have been. Countering speech is not a problem. Hypocrisy most certainly is.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For those who stand to become the immediate victims of right-wing fascism it's difficult to say if they are overreacting to white supremacy trying to become a mainstream political ideology.

Antifa, BLM and the American Taliban itself are all left wing

 

[pknopp]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

That's also known as retaliation and in some cases is unlawful.

I'd rather see it fade away culturally and keep the government out of it.

It's illiberal.

Are you saying that you expect people to self-regulate?

What I'm saying is that freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of all of our values, and that I support it.

So, I agree with Noam Chomsky on this and other issues.

Examples of others who agree with me:

Where has the government gotten involved and where has anyone stopped her (and others) from saying whatever they want?

Never, that I'm aware of. And, of course, I have made it abundantly clear already that that is not my point.

You're fine with it. I agree with President Obama, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Noam Chomsky, Salman freakin' Rushdie and many other liberals on this.

We disagree. And I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? The only thing I've been able to determine is the new label to a very old thing.

Free speech has never meant that there would never be any repurcussions because of that speech.

All you have to do is read the article and you'll know exactly what I'm saying. In addition to the very clear comments I have made on this thread.

I have made myself and my position (and that of Obama, Sanders, Warren, Chomsky and Rushdie) EXTREMELY clear.

That's all I can do.

None of those people ever argued that your speech could not be countered by others.

Yes, and that's obviously not what they're saying.

We've now said the same things five or six times. Unless you have a new point to make, I'm done.

Oddly you are unable to make a point.

 

[Disir]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

That's also known as retaliation and in some cases is unlawful.

I'd rather see it fade away culturally and keep the government out of it.

It's illiberal.

Are you saying that you expect people to self-regulate?

What I'm saying is that freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of all of our values, and that I support it.

So, I agree with Noam Chomsky on this and other issues.

Examples of others who agree with me:

Where has the government gotten involved and where has anyone stopped her (and others) from saying whatever they want?

Never, that I'm aware of. And, of course, I have made it abundantly clear already that that is not my point.

You're fine with it. I agree with President Obama, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Noam Chomsky, Salman freakin' Rushdie and many other liberals on this.

We disagree. And I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? The only thing I've been able to determine is the new label to a very old thing.

Free speech has never meant that there would never be any repurcussions because of that speech.

All you have to do is read the article and you'll know exactly what I'm saying. In addition to the very clear comments I have made on this thread.

I have made myself and my position (and that of Obama, Sanders, Warren, Chomsky and Rushdie) EXTREMELY clear.

That's all I can do.

None of those people ever argued that your speech could not be countered by others.

And they still aren't arguing that. In fact, J.K. Rowling isn't arguing that.

The article is little more than vast generalizations. Are there people hypocritical with their support of countered speech?

Of course, they always have been. Countering speech is not a problem. Hypocrisy most certainly is.

This is the letter.

A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

July 7, 2020 The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at [email protected] Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police...

harpers.org

Countering speech is different than having a small group of people in a publisher's office throwing a tantrum and refusing to have anything to do with a book because of a difference in opinion.

I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing and that you don't believe half the shit that you are spewing. Either that or you have a severe lack of knowledge and awareness about the cancel culture.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Now if the government decides to not allow her to speak, then I'll join her.

Cancel Culture is about culture, not the government.

And there is a profound difference between not buying something from someone and actively working to impede or damage them.

You know that Cancel Culture, PC, Critical Theory are methods of the Frankfurt School, right?



IT IS CULTURAL MARXISM!!!


https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/07/07/tech/facebook-civil-rights-meeting/index.html
Those leftist organizations are brow-beating Facebook because they won't ban or censor Trump.

IT'S THE LEFT, 58!!! WAKE UP!!

THEY ARE FUCKING COMMIES!!!

Those are the assholes who AVOID discourse because otherwise, THEY LOSE.

AND WHO DO THEY WANT TO WIN????

 

[pknopp]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

That's also known as retaliation and in some cases is unlawful.

I'd rather see it fade away culturally and keep the government out of it.

It's illiberal.

Are you saying that you expect people to self-regulate?

What I'm saying is that freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of all of our values, and that I support it.

So, I agree with Noam Chomsky on this and other issues.

Examples of others who agree with me:

Where has the government gotten involved and where has anyone stopped her (and others) from saying whatever they want?

Never, that I'm aware of. And, of course, I have made it abundantly clear already that that is not my point.

You're fine with it. I agree with President Obama, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Noam Chomsky, Salman freakin' Rushdie and many other liberals on this.

We disagree. And I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? The only thing I've been able to determine is the new label to a very old thing.

Free speech has never meant that there would never be any repurcussions because of that speech.

All you have to do is read the article and you'll know exactly what I'm saying. In addition to the very clear comments I have made on this thread.

I have made myself and my position (and that of Obama, Sanders, Warren, Chomsky and Rushdie) EXTREMELY clear.

That's all I can do.

None of those people ever argued that your speech could not be countered by others.

And they still aren't arguing that. In fact, J.K. Rowling isn't arguing that.

The article is little more than vast generalizations. Are there people hypocritical with their support of countered speech?

Of course, they always have been. Countering speech is not a problem. Hypocrisy most certainly is.

This is the letter.

A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

July 7, 2020 The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at [email protected] Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police...

harpers.org

Countering speech is different than having a small group of people in a publisher's office throwing a tantrum and refusing to have anything to do with a book because of a difference in opinion.

Publishers have always done that. At times it may have been one person. Take your book to another publisher. (And yes, I said the same about the baker).

I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing and that you don't believe half the shit that you are spewing. Either that or you have a severe lack of knowledge and awareness about the cancel culture.

"Cancel Culture" is nothing more than a phrase created by people who want to spout a position without any response from those who believe differently.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

That's also known as retaliation and in some cases is unlawful.

I'd rather see it fade away culturally and keep the government out of it.

It's illiberal.

Are you saying that you expect people to self-regulate?

What I'm saying is that freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of all of our values, and that I support it.

So, I agree with Noam Chomsky on this and other issues.

Examples of others who agree with me:

Where has the government gotten involved and where has anyone stopped her (and others) from saying whatever they want?

Never, that I'm aware of. And, of course, I have made it abundantly clear already that that is not my point.

You're fine with it. I agree with President Obama, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Noam Chomsky, Salman freakin' Rushdie and many other liberals on this.

We disagree. And I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? The only thing I've been able to determine is the new label to a very old thing.

Free speech has never meant that there would never be any repurcussions because of that speech.

Why are their repercussions for saying all lives matter..or wearing a shirt that says all lives splatter ...or getting denied entry to college becuase youre a trump supporter

 

[2aguy]

Thank goodness. It's about time some well-known voices spoke out against "Cancel Culture".

J.K. Rowling, Bari Weiss Sign Letter Calling for Open Debate

J.K. Rowling, Bari Weiss, Noam Chomsky, and more than 100 other writers, scholars, and academics signed an open letter calling for "open debate" and an end to cancel culture, sparking backlash from both liberal and conservative pundits.

www.mediaite.com

The letter addressed the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests and calls to defund the police — acknowledging that the demands are over due while warning against cancel culture and being intolerant of differences.

“But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity,” the letter read. “The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.”

The letter warned that liberals are forming their own version of censorship, one that President Donald Trump and “right-wing demagogues” thrive off of.

“This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time,” the letter added. “The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation.”

It isn't Trump supporters getting people fired. It isn't Trump supporters burning, looting and killing Blacks in Black neighborhoods in cities controlled by the democrat party.

Everything you fools pretend Trump and his supporters are supposed to do, the democrat party is actually the ones doing it........getting people fired, getting people canceled and their lives ruined......burning, looting and killing Blacks.....that is what the democrat party is actually doing...

The democrat party under obama used the IRS to deny tax status to conservative groups.....the democrat party under obama used the FBI, CIA, DOJ, State Dept. to attack the opposition political party during the election and then continued to use it to attack the new President......we have the notes that show obama and joe biden were in on it from the beginning....

Everything you guys accuse Trump and his supporters of doing, the democrat party is actually doing...

Do you even understand that?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Cancel Culture" is nothing more than a phrase created by people who want to spout a position without any response from those who believe differently.

Ummm no. Cancel Culture is "don't say anything or allow anyone else to say anything I don't like or we will get you fired/cancelled."

 

[pknopp]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

That's also known as retaliation and in some cases is unlawful.

I'd rather see it fade away culturally and keep the government out of it.

It's illiberal.

Are you saying that you expect people to self-regulate?

What I'm saying is that freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of all of our values, and that I support it.

So, I agree with Noam Chomsky on this and other issues.

Examples of others who agree with me:

Where has the government gotten involved and where has anyone stopped her (and others) from saying whatever they want?

Never, that I'm aware of. And, of course, I have made it abundantly clear already that that is not my point.

You're fine with it. I agree with President Obama, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Noam Chomsky, Salman freakin' Rushdie and many other liberals on this.

We disagree. And I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? The only thing I've been able to determine is the new label to a very old thing.

Free speech has never meant that there would never be any repurcussions because of that speech.

Why are their repercussions for saying all lives matter..or wearing a shirt that says all lives splatter ...or getting denied entry to college becuase youre a trump supporter

View attachment 360880

A vast generalization (outside of one example).

People post "All Lives Matter" all over the place. Nothing happens to them.

Law enforcement officials have to be careful with what they do or it can show a bias in a court of law. An employer has always been able to take actions upon your actions and that has nothing to do with free speech.

I said I disagreed with suspending the student. She had no right to not be countered though which is all that has happened to J.K.

 

[pknopp]

"Cancel Culture" is nothing more than a phrase created by people who want to spout a position without any response from those who believe differently.

Ummm no. Cancel Culture is "don't say anything or allow anyone else to say anything I don't like or we will get you fired/cancelled."

Sorry, is J.K. still espousing her beliefs or not?

 

[JoeB131]

Stormy, one more time- Trump did not win any more white people than Romney did. YOU KEEP REPEATING THIS FUCKING LIE that he was some great revolt against "Political Correctness". Reality- White folks are just as awful as they've always been.

Trump won because black folks stayed home and white people who should have known better figured that since the Polls had Hillary ahead, they could safely protest vote for third party loons.

Telling white people that their racism,misogyny or homophobia is acceptable.... because, gosh, we wouldn't want to judge you...

 

[JoeB131]

Ummm no. Cancel Culture is "don't say anything or allow anyone else to say anything I don't like or we will get you fired/cancelled."

Um, yeah, it's more like, "Don't say stuff that will embarrass your employer or you will get fired." This is hardly anything new.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

That's also known as retaliation and in some cases is unlawful.

I'd rather see it fade away culturally and keep the government out of it.

It's illiberal.

Are you saying that you expect people to self-regulate?

What I'm saying is that freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of all of our values, and that I support it.

So, I agree with Noam Chomsky on this and other issues.

Examples of others who agree with me:

Where has the government gotten involved and where has anyone stopped her (and others) from saying whatever they want?

Never, that I'm aware of. And, of course, I have made it abundantly clear already that that is not my point.

You're fine with it. I agree with President Obama, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Noam Chomsky, Salman freakin' Rushdie and many other liberals on this.

We disagree. And I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? The only thing I've been able to determine is the new label to a very old thing.

Free speech has never meant that there would never be any repurcussions because of that speech.

Why are their repercussions for saying all lives matter..or wearing a shirt that says all lives splatter ...or getting denied entry to college becuase youre a trump supporter

View attachment 360880

A vast generalization (outside of one example).

People post "All Lives Matter" all over the place. Nothing happens to them.

Law enforcement officials have to be careful with what they do or it can show a bias in a court of law. An employer has always been able to take actions upon your actions and that has nothing to do with free speech.

I said I disagreed with suspending the student. She had no right to not be countered though which is all that has happened to J.K.

Uh boy
its not a vast generalization its been snowballing for decades now and is only getting progressively worse.
I can't wait till the elites move to kill all these useful idiots .
I'm gonna piss on thier empty headed graves