Open letter published to fight "Cancel Culture"

[Dale Smith]

If you owned a company and an employee was filmed calling a kid with
Down's Syndrome a "retard" and the film went viral, would you discipline
that employee in any way?

What if they just said something is retarded?

Respond to both, please.

Answer my question, LL???? Could your postings hold up to scrutiny of being doxxed and having a horde of people calling for your firing because they didn't like what you have posted and the insulting rhetoric???????

 

[Dale Smith]

Authoritarians always have an excuse to shut down, intimidate and/or punish opposing views.

A fundamental trait of authoritarianism.

Nobody is shutting down views. People are responding to views. Businesses are responding to people who are responding to views. You simply refuse to see the difference.

You even used a graphic of a cop with a gun to illustrate that you don’t understand this issue. Nobody is suggesting that people are stopped from expressing themselves. Nobody is advocating for the arrest of anyone for expressing themselves.

No, you and your ilk are simply wanting to affect their ability to make a living is all. You are not fooling anyone, you hypocritical sack of shit.

 

[Mac1958]

Authoritarians always have an excuse to shut down, intimidate and/or punish opposing views.

A fundamental trait of authoritarianism.

Nobody is shutting down views. People are responding to views. Businesses are responding to people who are responding to views. You simply refuse to see the difference.

You even used a graphic of a cop with a gun to illustrate that you don’t understand this issue. Nobody is suggesting that people are stopped from expressing themselves. Nobody is advocating for the arrest of anyone for expressing themselves.

I'll side with the people who wrote the letter. And with Obama, Sanders, Warren, Rushdie, Chomsky, Harris and many others.

We all see quite a different story. Clear as a bell.

 

[Olde Europe]

Who is being stopped from saying anything which they want to say?

Good question.

Let's sharpen that stiletto a bit, shall we? What IDEA couldn't be expressed, to the effect it cannot be defeated in the realm of proper debate?

Moreover, once this idea had been expressed and was actually defeated (assuming such thing actually exists), what would be the consequences?

Crickets.

To the surprise of exactly no one.

Of course, we all know what kinds of "ideas" are being met with the most opprobrium: It's everything surrounding the issue of "Their" "inferiority", asserted, or implied. And that's why we see predominantly reactionary White males screeching their pinheads off about "authoritarian" notions of PC and the egregious imposition Those people be treated with respect. Also, outside of academia, there is no such thing as a "defeated idea" - the public discourse is populated by zombie ideas galore, defeated decades ago, but still shambling along to this very day, ranging from "tax cuts pay for themselves" to "women can't control themselves" and way beyond.

The letter writers make it abundantly clear, they are out there to defend their professional liberty to write whatever they please, dumb mistakes included, without repercussions. So far, so good. Everybody is free to be as self-serving as they want. They aren't the ones carrying the additional burden if Rightardia runs with their notion of freedom of speech and re-normalizes the N-word (and similar zombie-"ideas"). That would be Those people, returned to the 1950s, getting their daily dose of denigration and humiliation. Not a single word about Them to be found in that fabulous letter.

Now, let's not forget how suppression of ideas actually works, and how danger ensues subsequently: Everyone who viewed, rightly, Trump as a crook and an incompetent clown is gone from this administration, and the Yes-Men have taken over. Everyone who dares to expose Trump's disinformation on Covit-19 is the target of Rightardia, and urged to be fired, such as Dr. Fauci, who has been sidelined and muffled already. The CDC are being pressured to rework their school opening guidelines because the Orange dunce deems them too restrictive and a hindrance to his reelection plans. People are actually dying and even more are going to die because of that. There is real danger in suppressing ideas - yet none in giving long-defeated zombie ideas and their promulgators and hateful propagandists short shrift. Also, there is no danger involved in corporations canceling ad buys because they don't want their product be associated with White supremacists and other Nazis. But it's exactly the right kind of people screeching about "freedom of speech" on this occasion. The 1950s have called. I hear they want their village idiots back.

 

[Dale Smith]

Who is being stopped from saying anything which they want to say?

Good question.

Let's sharpen that stiletto a bit, shall we? What IDEA couldn't be expressed, to the effect it cannot be defeated in the realm of proper debate?

Moreover, once this idea had been expressed and was actually defeated (assuming such thing actually exists), what would be the consequences?

Crickets.

To the surprise of exactly no one.

Of course, we all know what kinds of "ideas" are being met with the most opprobrium: It's everything surrounding the issue of "Their" "inferiority", asserted, or implied. And that's why we see predominantly reactionary White males screeching their pinheads off about "authoritarian" notions of PC and the egregious imposition Those people be treated with respect. Also, outside of academia, there is no such thing as a "defeated idea" - the public discourse is populated by zombie ideas galore, defeated decades ago, but still shambling along to this very day, ranging from "tax cuts pay for themselves" to "women can't control themselves" and way beyond.

The letter writers make it abundantly clear, they are out there to defend their professional liberty to write whatever they please, dumb mistakes included, without repercussions. So far, so good. Everybody is free to be as self-serving as they want. They aren't the ones carrying the additional burden if Rightardia runs with their notion of freedom of speech and re-normalizes the N-word (and similar zombie-"ideas"). That would be Those people, returned to the 1950s, getting their daily dose of denigration and humiliation. Not a single word about Them to be found in that fabulous letter.

Now, let's not forget how suppression of ideas actually works, and how danger ensues subsequently: Everyone who viewed, rightly, Trump as a crook and an incompetent clown is gone from this administration, and the Yes-Men have taken over. Everyone who dares to expose Trump's disinformation on Covit-19 is the target of Rightardia, and urged to be fired, such as Dr. Fauci, who has been sidelined and muffled already. The CDC are being pressured to rework their school opening guidelines because the Orange dunce deems them too restrictive and a hindrance to his reelection plans. People are actually dying and even more are going to die because of that. There is real danger in suppressing ideas - yet none in giving long-defeated zombie ideas and their promulgators and hateful propagandists short shrift. Also, there is no danger involved in corporations canceling ad buys because they don't want their product be associated with White supremacists and other Nazis. But it's exactly the right kind of people screeching about "freedom of speech" on this occasion. The 1950s have called. I hear they want their village idiots back.

Spoken like a true commie fuck that wants one rule for his commie pals and one set of rules for the other. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

 

[JoeB131]

As opposed to them AND CHINESE people coming over here? You really are as fucking stupid as I have always suspected and you confirmed it. I think his policy is a 1,000 times

Well, since you aren't a medical doctor, what you think is kind of irrelevant, Dmitri.

The problem is, even if you think the racist travel ban was a good idea (it wasn't) the only thing you gained was time. Trump did not use the time productively. He downplayed it, said it would clear up by Easter, called it a hoax.. etc.

Covid is real just like the common cold is, the flu, etc, etc but we didn't shut the entire fucking country down because of it. We don't stop interacting with each other because of it.

Yeah, it's real and a lot more deadly.

Of course you commie fucks are totally onboard with it because you believe that it helps the commie cause come election. I also find it hilarious that you shoot off that big fucking commie mouth of yours about how I am a "ROOSKIE" and then I give you a way to prove it?

Guy, you'd have to be nuts to call a Russian Troll... pretty much the next thing that happens is you find all these mysterious charges on your credit card.

Also, frankly, you are really creeping me out, man.

Here's the thing... we were probably heading into Recession without Covid, Covid just made it hit a lot faster, and yes, it means that the Democrats will probalby sweep in November. The biggest problem the GOP has, is that other than being the Cult of Trump, what does it stand for? Libertarians are supporting putting kids into cages, Christians are defending adultery with porn stars, Security Conservatives are supporting bailing on our commitments to the Middle East and Europe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.”

Some great ideas, there. But this is going to miss the mark by about a million miles. Nobody wants to hear this lecture from important figures with large platforms. Nobody who should hear it, anyway. It's a lot easier to say everything is solved with discussion, when you can broadcast your thoughts on a large platform and then retreat safely to a rich cocoon. So, people protest. They do what is in their power, like boycotts. Chomsky, if anyone, should know a little bit about both.

For example, people have been decrying systemic racism in law enforcement for decades. And now the protests cannot be ignored, and changes are starting to occur. Do you think people behind this movement are going to listen, when told they are "doing it wrong", by people with broad platforms who should have been doing more about this, using their influence? Ha, no, they will laugh in those people's faces, and fairly justifiably so.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.”

Your crotch must be sore from straddling the fence...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.”

So you are no longer Dem leaning???

Greg

He's DEM SOLID

Don't let his game bullshit you. He claimed to LOATHE Hillary but still voted for her.

I like Mac but he's as fake as a 3 dollar bill

 

[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.

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.

No. They were a small group within the publishing company that wanted J.K. Rowling not to be published simply because she said that your sex doesn't change. You are born either male or female. She supports trans people. The publishing company listened to them and then said...........well, no she makes us money.

Cancel Culture is that group of people who think that you should lose your job, your home, and everything you own because they don't like your view. That's dumb as hell.

 

[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.

No. They were a small group within the publishing company that wanted J.K. Rowling not to be published simply because she said that your sex doesn't change. You are born either male or female. She supports trans people. The publishing company listened to them and then said...........well, no she makes us money.

Cancel Culture is that group of people who think that you should lose your job, your home, and everything you own because they don't like your view. That's dumb as hell.

Kinda like Trump was with Kaepernick?

 

[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.

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.

No. They were a small group within the publishing company that wanted J.K. Rowling not to be published simply because she said that your sex doesn't change. You are born either male or female. She supports trans people. The publishing company listened to them and then said...........well, no she makes us money.

Cancel Culture is that group of people who think that you should lose your job, your home, and everything you own because they don't like your view. That's dumb as hell.

Kinda like Trump was with Kaepernick?

State your case.

 

[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.

No. They were a small group within the publishing company that wanted J.K. Rowling not to be published simply because she said that your sex doesn't change. You are born either male or female. She supports trans people. The publishing company listened to them and then said...........well, no she makes us money.

Cancel Culture is that group of people who think that you should lose your job, your home, and everything you own because they don't like your view. That's dumb as hell.

Kinda like Trump was with Kaepernick?

State your case.

We all know what happened. He called for that SOB to be fired.

 

[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.

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.

No. They were a small group within the publishing company that wanted J.K. Rowling not to be published simply because she said that your sex doesn't change. You are born either male or female. She supports trans people. The publishing company listened to them and then said...........well, no she makes us money.

Cancel Culture is that group of people who think that you should lose your job, your home, and everything you own because they don't like your view. That's dumb as hell.

Kinda like Trump was with Kaepernick?

State your case.

We all know what happened. He called for that SOB to be fired.

Do you think I am a fan of Trump or is this your attempt to change the subject to Trump?

 

[Andylusion]

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.”

There is truth in that, which I have warned about many times.

The left-wing wants to have cancel culture enshrined in law, so they can use that hammer on views they don't like.

But the moment you give government a weapon like that, that weapon can be turned against you as well.

If you seek to control the freedom of speech of say the NRA, by eliminating their ability to support candidates that hold their views.. the moment you give government that hammer to hit people with, someone is going to gain control of that hammer, and use it against the Teachers Unions, the government Unions, the Environmental organizations, and left-wing universities.

This is the first time Chomsky said something, that was not in Linguistics, and was not utterly incompetent.

 

[Andylusion]

Free speech is not the right to have no one counter your speech.

Counter with speech, yes. Counter with punishment and intimidation, no.

There is a very clear distinction there.

People are saying "I do not support what she is saying". They have as much right to say that as she does to say what she says.

Is that all that happens in Cancel Culture, in the big picture?

If so, why is it called "Cancel Culture" to begin with?

People love to come up with these new labels for things that are not new for some reason.

I guess it helps push the news. "Cancel Culture"?

Whats that? Click.

As an example. I watched a documentary on an underground comic book writer that got himself into trouble over his comics. Now I will agree that the part where the government got involved was wrong.

But there is a reason they were "underground" comics that had to print their own material. Publishers simply weren't interested in their work.

They didn't have an obligation to publish it.

We're talking about J.K. Rowling, and other published people, targeted and attacked for making common sense statements.

If what you said was true, then people like Chomsky wouldn't be commenting on it, would they?

Why are clearly prominent left-wingers, speaking out against this insanity, if as you say, it's just some underground comic book writer?

 

[justinacolmena]

Thanks to the pussification of this country, I doubt cancel culture is going anywhere.

There's a whole event planning and catering industry. If conservatives are planning to attend, they push the option of legal marijuana to "weed out" clean and sober people who might be politically dangerous opponents to leftist caterers and food servers, not to mention HVAC volunteers who might put a bong going to set the appropriate atmosphere. Does anyone know what time it is? Is anyone actually on time to show up for these "events"?

Appointment-setters, astrologers, gang-daters, and psychics are all in it together. What sort of "event" are people planning with a schedule set in stone, but too many drug deals and mass shootings going down to get to any real business?

 

[Dale Smith]

As opposed to them AND CHINESE people coming over here? You really are as fucking stupid as I have always suspected and you confirmed it. I think his policy is a 1,000 times

Well, since you aren't a medical doctor, what you think is kind of irrelevant, Dmitri.

The problem is, even if you think the racist travel ban was a good idea (it wasn't) the only thing you gained was time. Trump did not use the time productively. He downplayed it, said it would clear up by Easter, called it a hoax.. etc.

Covid is real just like the common cold is, the flu, etc, etc but we didn't shut the entire fucking country down because of it. We don't stop interacting with each other because of it.

Yeah, it's real and a lot more deadly.

Of course you commie fucks are totally onboard with it because you believe that it helps the commie cause come election. I also find it hilarious that you shoot off that big fucking commie mouth of yours about how I am a "ROOSKIE" and then I give you a way to prove it?

Guy, you'd have to be nuts to call a Russian Troll... pretty much the next thing that happens is you find all these mysterious charges on your credit card.

Also, frankly, you are really creeping me out, man.

Here's the thing... we were probably heading into Recession without Covid, Covid just made it hit a lot faster, and yes, it means that the Democrats will probalby sweep in November. The biggest problem the GOP has, is that other than being the Cult of Trump, what does it stand for? Libertarians are supporting putting kids into cages, Christians are defending adultery with porn stars, Security Conservatives are supporting bailing on our commitments to the Middle East and Europe.

"The problem is, even if you think the racist travel ban was a good idea (it wasn't) the only thing you gained was time. Trump did not use the time productively. He downplayed it, said it would clear up by Easter, called it a hoax.. etc. "

Only a dipshit like you commie fucks would believe that allowing people from China to come over here where the Wuhan flu was released to begin with is "racist". This COVID-19 strain of the flu attacks those with underlying health conditions and those most susceptible to infection as it attacks the linings of the lungs,. So why have you a voided the fact that 5 blue state governors insisted that COVID positive patients that showed no symptoms were quarantined in nursing homes? Only to an idiot (such as yourself) would that make any sense at all. These blue states had more deaths by far than adjoining countries to China. South Vietnam has NO deaths from COVID-19. India that has almost three times the population of America has only accredited 20,000 deaths to this all encompassing virus? Taiwan, only 7 deaths? Bangladesh with a population of 162 million only have around 2,200 hundred deaths?

New Jersey ALLEGED Covid-19 deaths = 15,000
New York Alleged Covid 19 deaths = 32,500 plus
Pennsylvania Alleged Covid deaths = 6,800
Massachusetts Alleged Covid deaths = 8,200 plus and they only have a population of 6.7 million people.
Illinois Alleged Covid deaths= 7,200 plus and the population of that state has a population of 12.6 plus million. Your state has a death rate from COVID-19 (counting those that died from some other cause but allegedly tested positive for Covid-19) is less than .0007 percent of the population.

Imagine that?????

"Guy, you'd have to be nuts to call a Russian Troll... pretty much the next thing that happens is you find all these mysterious charges on your credit card"

That is hilarious since you could hide your number. I gave you mine and freely......you are simply a gutless coward.

"Here's the thing... we were probably heading into Recession without Covid, Covid just made it hit a lot faster, and yes, it means that the Democrats will probalby sweep in November. The biggest problem the GOP has, is that other than being the Cult of Trump, what does it stand for? Libertarians are supporting putting kids into cages, Christians are defending adultery with porn stars, Security Conservatives are supporting bailing on our commitments to the Middle East and Europe"

I wouldn't bet on that just yet. As I recall, you were CERTAIN that the Hildebeast was a sure bet in 2016. What those sitting on the sidelines have seen is the communist DNC exposing itself for what it truly is. Your communist party has been it's own worst enemy and all Trump had to do was allow your comrades to self-implode. Your commie party has placed it's hope on a pedophile acting candidate that has about three marbles rolling around in his head. The most revealing facts that "Pedo-Joe" and his actions around female S.S agents and his penchant for grabbing young girls to "smell" their hair hasn't been made a public spectacle....yet. It hasn't even got interesting yet and once this COVID-19 scare is revealed for the psy-op that it is and perpetuated by the commie left? I suspect that the DNC will not be able to raise even chump change to keep those like AOC, Pelousy, Illhan Omar and other radical leftists from mounting much of a charge. I might be wrong but I refuse to underestimate the resolve of those that don't want any part of your commie utopia.

 

[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.

No. They were a small group within the publishing company that wanted J.K. Rowling not to be published simply because she said that your sex doesn't change. You are born either male or female. She supports trans people. The publishing company listened to them and then said...........well, no she makes us money.

Cancel Culture is that group of people who think that you should lose your job, your home, and everything you own because they don't like your view. That's dumb as hell.

Kinda like Trump was with Kaepernick?

State your case.

We all know what happened. He called for that SOB to be fired.

Do you think I am a fan of Trump or is this your attempt to change the subject to Trump?

I was simply providing an example for you. I didn't change the subject.

 

[pknopp]

Free speech is not the right to have no one counter your speech.

Counter with speech, yes. Counter with punishment and intimidation, no.

There is a very clear distinction there.

People are saying "I do not support what she is saying". They have as much right to say that as she does to say what she says.

Is that all that happens in Cancel Culture, in the big picture?

If so, why is it called "Cancel Culture" to begin with?

People love to come up with these new labels for things that are not new for some reason.

I guess it helps push the news. "Cancel Culture"?

Whats that? Click.

As an example. I watched a documentary on an underground comic book writer that got himself into trouble over his comics. Now I will agree that the part where the government got involved was wrong.

But there is a reason they were "underground" comics that had to print their own material. Publishers simply weren't interested in their work.

They didn't have an obligation to publish it.

We're talking about J.K. Rowling, and other published people, targeted and attacked for making common sense statements.

If what you said was true, then people like Chomsky wouldn't be commenting on it, would they?

Why are clearly prominent left-wingers, speaking out against this insanity, if as you say, it's just some underground comic book writer?

I never said that. I don't really have any obligation to address something I never said. I have addressed the issue more than once though.