Olde Europe
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2014
- 6,025
- 4,523
- 2,065
What a disappointing cop out.
A black youth speaking out against the daily abuse he's facing at the hands of the lynch mob in blue will learn soon enough what it really means to be "canceled".
Those who lack power have always been canceled upon speaking out and daring to disagree. Ask any woman speaking out against harassment at the workplace. But that's not what occasioned this letter. What occasioned this letter was, say, a NYT editor resigning for letting through Tom Cotton's epic call for civil war to be published on the pages of the NYT. As it turned out, that editor didn't even read the piece, and didn't do his job, properly. So, now that Whitey is being taken to account, the whining starts, and the usual suspects join in.
Of course, it all depends on the quality of the argument brought forward for each cancellation, including the conclusions drawn. But the authors wouldn't have any of this, they breezily dismiss the very basis for their own arguments and go on virtue signaling and resolutely grab the victim card. Evidence? Naw, self-proclaimed victims ... of sumpthin' don't need no eff'n evidence.
There is none, not for the allegedly narrowing "boundaries of what can be said" - arguably that's the opposite of the truth - and also none for any "price in [the form of] greater risk aversion among writers". There was never greater freedom for women to speak out than exists now, neither for gays, and even trans people speak out. On the downside, some White supremacist mouth-breathers and similar fascists have their speaking gigs canceled. Of course, that is then presented as "suppressing speech", when, quite plainly, it is not. There is the old "false dichotomy" gamble again, either every venue needs to be open to everybody, no matter how odious and contemptible, or speech is being suppressed, and it's content unknowable. This is, of course, ludicrous in its interested simplicity, not least because these gigs are being canceled exactly BECAUSE the contents are well known in advance. There is an argument to be made that society can, and probably should, protect itself against normalizing degrading and hate speech, the effects of which - as usual - fall on the most vulnerable and powerless. Not that you'd hear a single word about these from the honorable letter writers.
The biggest blooper comes in the most high-brow proclamation of the letter writers' determined refusal to accept the "false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other." There is no such false choice presented. What the good folks behind the letter omit, of course, is that both justice and freedom rest on a set of rules followed by all, because without following rules protective of the freedoms of others, and the most vulnerable in particular, freedom is just as dead as is justice. Societal haggling over what these rules are, or should be, is as old as humankind. It's messy, runs into dead ends, and occasionally creates collateral damage. However, these hagglings themselves are, at their core, exercises of freedom of speech, which the brave letter writers in their staggering simplicity also omit.
[The] heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.
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.
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.
A black youth speaking out against the daily abuse he's facing at the hands of the lynch mob in blue will learn soon enough what it really means to be "canceled".
Those who lack power have always been canceled upon speaking out and daring to disagree. Ask any woman speaking out against harassment at the workplace. But that's not what occasioned this letter. What occasioned this letter was, say, a NYT editor resigning for letting through Tom Cotton's epic call for civil war to be published on the pages of the NYT. As it turned out, that editor didn't even read the piece, and didn't do his job, properly. So, now that Whitey is being taken to account, the whining starts, and the usual suspects join in.
Of course, it all depends on the quality of the argument brought forward for each cancellation, including the conclusions drawn. But the authors wouldn't have any of this, they breezily dismiss the very basis for their own arguments and go on virtue signaling and resolutely grab the victim card. Evidence? Naw, self-proclaimed victims ... of sumpthin' don't need no eff'n evidence.
There is none, not for the allegedly narrowing "boundaries of what can be said" - arguably that's the opposite of the truth - and also none for any "price in [the form of] greater risk aversion among writers". There was never greater freedom for women to speak out than exists now, neither for gays, and even trans people speak out. On the downside, some White supremacist mouth-breathers and similar fascists have their speaking gigs canceled. Of course, that is then presented as "suppressing speech", when, quite plainly, it is not. There is the old "false dichotomy" gamble again, either every venue needs to be open to everybody, no matter how odious and contemptible, or speech is being suppressed, and it's content unknowable. This is, of course, ludicrous in its interested simplicity, not least because these gigs are being canceled exactly BECAUSE the contents are well known in advance. There is an argument to be made that society can, and probably should, protect itself against normalizing degrading and hate speech, the effects of which - as usual - fall on the most vulnerable and powerless. Not that you'd hear a single word about these from the honorable letter writers.
The biggest blooper comes in the most high-brow proclamation of the letter writers' determined refusal to accept the "false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other." There is no such false choice presented. What the good folks behind the letter omit, of course, is that both justice and freedom rest on a set of rules followed by all, because without following rules protective of the freedoms of others, and the most vulnerable in particular, freedom is just as dead as is justice. Societal haggling over what these rules are, or should be, is as old as humankind. It's messy, runs into dead ends, and occasionally creates collateral damage. However, these hagglings themselves are, at their core, exercises of freedom of speech, which the brave letter writers in their staggering simplicity also omit.
