Objectively intelligent.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This author is clever. Most of the social justice movements of the day fit the definition of moral panics. So he applies the term to the Harper’s Letter.

But that’s cheap, and this editorial is childish.

The Harper’s Letter argues for more dialogue, and less shaming and punitive reaction. It argues that adults can disagree with one another, and that cancel mobs are, well, mobs. Idiots, I’d argue. Naive, angry cranks. Unserious people who are high on righteousness.

But their “counter speech,” to borrow Kara Swisher’s definition of it (in which she badly attempted to defend it against Scott Galloway in their most recent podcast, and in which dispute Galloway crushed her), is also speech. These silly overheated nuts, these low rent Robespierres, have a right to scream for the deplatforming of those they don’t like.

An as they’re going to soon learn, the majority of us have a right to ignore them.

Twitter isn’t reality. The shame mob isn’t in your yard. The best thing about their speech, like the speech they object to, is one can simply choose not to tune into it.

I see no reason to entertain the arguments of people who argue against tolerance for all reasonable free speech. We are adults. We can all ignore the trolls. We can see who is arguing in bad faith. If the children wish to throw feces on Twitter and demand their views not be challenged or alleged impolitic pundits be shamed, we can and should simply disengage. Leave them to eat each other alive, as they will.

The best things to complain about are the ones that aren’t happening.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This author is clever. Most of the social justice movements of the day fit the definition of moral panics. So he applies the term to the Harper’s Letter.

But that’s cheap, and this editorial is childish.

The Harper’s Letter argues for more dialogue, and less shaming and punitive reaction. It argues that adults can disagree with one another, and that cancel mobs are, well, mobs. Idiots, I’d argue. Naive, angry cranks. Unserious people who are high on righteousness.

But their “counter speech,” to borrow Kara Swisher’s definition of it (in which she badly attempted to defend it against Scott Galloway in their most recent podcast, and in which dispute Galloway crushed her), is also speech. These silly overheated nuts, these low rent Robespierres, have a right to scream for the deplatforming of those they don’t like.

An as they’re going to soon learn, the majority of us have a right to ignore them.

Twitter isn’t reality. The shame mob isn’t in your yard. The best thing about their speech, like the speech they object to, is one can simply choose not to tune into it.

You seem to be under the impression that cancel culture, whatever that is, is peculiar to the left. So when a lot of people are protesting in the streets, exercising their First Amendment rights about police brutality, and a right-wing Senator ignores what they are protesting about and calls for the military to suppress the protests, that's not cancel culture, even though you have someone literally calling for the government to use military force to prevent people from expressing themselves. But if other people object to the Senator getting to air his views, unedited, in the New York Times, that is cancel culture apparently. In your world, the military suppression of protests in the street is not a free-speech problem to even be noticed, but it's very important that Senator Cotton get to have his say in the New York Times as opposed to Breitbart or FOX News or his own websites, etc. People are marching in the street because they don't have a way to be heard. Senator Cotton has his own press secretary, and there is no conceivable world in which he will be silenced or cancelled.

I see no reason to entertain the arguments of people who argue against tolerance for all reasonable free speech.

Strangely, this standard applies only to people on the left. What you seem to call cancel culture is rife on the right, but it doesn't bother you at all -- you just define it out of existence. Senator Cotton calls for suppressing speech he doesn't like -- "arguing against tolerance for reasonable free speech," it can hardly be denied -- and you are not only willing to entertain his views, you think it's a problem that anyone disagrees.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You seem to be under the impression that cancel culture, whatever that is, is peculiar to the left. So when a lot of people are protesting in the streets, exercising their First Amendment rights about police brutality, and a right-wing Senator ignores what they are protesting about and calls for the military to suppress the protests, that's not cancel culture, even though you have someone literally calling for the government to use military force to prevent people from expressing themselves. But if other people object to the Senator getting to air his views, unedited, in the New York Times, that is cancel culture apparently. In your world, the military suppression of protests in the street is not a free-speech problem to even be noticed, but it's very important that Senator Cotton get to have his say in the New York Times as opposed to Breitbart or FOX News or his own websites, etc. People are marching in the street because they don't have a way to be heard. Senator Cotton has his own press secretary, and there is no conceivable world in which he will be silenced or cancelled.



Strangely, this standard applies only to people on the left. What you seem to call cancel culture is rife on the right, but it doesn't bother you at all -- you just define it out of existence. Senator Cotton calls for suppressing speech he doesn't like -- "arguing against tolerance for reasonable free speech," it can hardly be denied -- and you are not only willing to entertain his views, you think it's a problem that anyone disagrees.

1. I did not agree with Cotton or support his form of cancel culture. I think he has a right to say what he likes, and we have a right to ignore it. I said the same thing about left wing cancel culture. If you read my post, you read me stating that cancel culture freaks have a right to ask for people to be cancelled, and like Cotton, we have a right to ignore them.

2. People marching are trying to be heard. People demanding that those who disagree with them be canceled are trying to prevent others from being heard. People who ask the military to shut down peaceful protests are trying to prevent others from being heard.

3. The right is absolutely engaged in cancel culture. Trump is right now attempting to ban Tik Tok under some guise of national security. But the thing with the right is, they never succeed at canceling anyone. Everybody ignores them when they cry for firing of a pundit they dislike, or when they attempt a boycott. Focus on the Family and Brent Bozell boycotted all sorts of media and products advertised on shows they disliked for years, and it was almost always futile. The left, OTOH, is quite effective in scaring corporate lackeys who’ll happily jump into the latest virtue signaling orgy. I’m advocating we take the power away from the left exactly the same way we denied it to Bozell — ignore the cancellers.

It’s happening already. The very use of words like cancel culture and deplatforming is perniciously delegitimizing the extreme left and its cancel culture. If people keep mocking it, continue calling its adherents loony, and ignore it, it will fade.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

3. The right is absolutely engaged in cancel culture. Trump is right now attempting to ban Tik Tok under some guise of national security. But the thing with the right is, they never succeed at canceling anyone. Everybody ignores them when they cry for firing of a pundit they dislike, or when they attempt a boycott.

This is not true (ask any of the various leftist faculty who have been fired) and 45 may we’ll be right about Tik Tok.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Spoken like a true hypocrite. I made more last week on Tesla stock than I did from my job.

And "poof" then it's gone.



Fuck the rich!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. I did not agree with Cotton or support his form of cancel culture. I think he has a right to say what he likes, and we have a right to ignore it.

No one in the whole wide world disagrees with you about that. The question is whether the New York Times should be publishing his call for suppression of First Amendment rights with military force. You said yes. You don't just think he has a right to say what he likes -- you think it's important that other people be exposed to his intolerance for free speech. I am not holding my breath for you to say that the New York Times ought to be publishing the lefty critics of the Harper's letter, who are responding to speech they don't like with speech, rather than calling for guns in the streets.

2. People marching are trying to be heard. People demanding that those who disagree with them be canceled are trying to prevent others from being heard. People who ask the military to shut down peaceful protests are trying to prevent others from being heard.

Yes. And you are strangely tolerant of calls for the military to suppress speech.

3. The right is absolutely engaged in cancel culture. Trump is right now attempting to ban Tik Tok under some guise of national security. But the thing with the right is, they never succeed at canceling anyone. Everybody ignores them when they cry for firing of a pundit they dislike, or when they attempt a boycott. Focus on the Family and Brent Bozell boycotted all sorts of media and products advertised on shows they disliked for years, and it was almost always futile. The left, OTOH, is quite effective in scaring corporate lackeys who’ll happily jump into the latest virtue signaling orgy. I’m advocating we take the power away from the left exactly the same way we denied it to Bozell — ignore the cancellers.

I think you're just empirically wrong about this. Who has been silenced by the left?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Have you demanded in a public forum that a conservative candidate for office put forth credible plans for justice reform? Have you worked against our private incarceration industry when you were in a position to do so, despite it being to your advantage to align with them?

Have you stared down the snarling face of pure evil without flinching and then, angrily but calmly, put your hand up and said “Stop”?

Have you dived without hesitation into a swirling maelstrom of freezing floodwaters in order to save a litter of innocent puppies seconds before they were about to be pulled under for the last time?

Have you stood alone in a desert sand storm, parched and burnt but unbroken, on your quest to find a downed plane carrying the only sample of a vaccine for a secret and deadly virus that would soon be unleashed upon the world by ISIS?

Until you can answer all of these questions in the affirmative, shut your mouth and do not dare criticize Sebastian. He has fought the fight of a hundred thousand brave and tireless men over the span of many centuries. And now it is time for him to retreat to his garden to tend to his investments and real estate holdings. Because . . . Voltaire.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No one in the whole wide world disagrees with you about that. The question is whether the New York Times should be publishing his call for suppression of First Amendment rights with military force. You said yes. You don't just think he has a right to say what he likes -- you think it's important that other people be exposed to his intolerance for free speech. I am not holding my breath for you to say that the New York Times ought to be publishing the lefty critics of the Harper's letter, who are responding to speech they don't like with speech, rather than calling for guns in the streets.



Yes. And you are strangely tolerant of calls for the military to suppress speech.



I think you're just empirically wrong about this. Who has been silenced by the left?

I am not strangely tolerant of articles calling for military suppression of protests. I am quite unstrangely in favor of allowing such views to be aired and rejected. I am similarly in favor of allowing the idiot left to call for deplatforming as often and loudly as it likes because there is a growing backlash to it which will cure it. But that only happens if we give it more airtime and attention so people can watch it become increasingly absurd.

People are both exhausted by these strident virtue signalers and sick of them. This is leading to them being branded as crazy and frivolous. They are increasingly being mocked, and what can be mocked can be ignored. And once ignored, it disappears.

Re the empirical thing, are you serious? Loads of public figures and media people are being silenced or forced to walk back uncontroversial statements. Just today, Bari Weiss quit the NYTimes under duress. Look it up.

Taibbi is very much the exception. He’s Teflon because he has the balls to say, “Don’t give a fuck.”

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Have you stared down the snarling face of pure evil without flinching and then, angrily but calmly, put your hand up and said “Stop”?

Have you dived without hesitation into a swirling maelstrom of freezing floodwaters in order to save a litter of innocent puppies seconds before they were about to be pulled under for the last time?

Have you stood alone in a desert sand storm, parched and burnt but unbroken, on your quest to find a downed plane carrying the only sample of a vaccine for a secret and deadly virus that would soon be unleashed upon the world by ISIS?

Until you can answer all of these questions in the affirmative, shut your mouth and do not dare criticize Sebastian. He has fought the fight of a hundred thousand brave and tireless men over the span of many centuries. And now it is time for him to retreat to his garden to tend to his investments and real estate holdings. Because . . . Voltaire.

It’s a complex life. I do what I can, but I also have a lifestyle to maintain.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Re the empirical thing, are you serious? Loads of public figures and media people are being silenced or forced to walk back uncontroversial statements. Just today, Bari Weiss quit the NYTimes under duress. Look it up.

The story of Bari Weiss leaving the times is just shocking, after all she did for them. She discovered people like Monica Lewinsky and Randall Kennedy! But then, management listened more to public opinion than to her!!! And, after she publicly criticized her colleagues and made public what they said in private, and only changed what they said a little when she broadcast it in public (well, a little here and there and a bit more just to make sure it was understood what she thought they meant even if they didn't say it), they had the temerity, the absolute fucking anti-semitic temerity, to criticize her!!!! HOW CAN SHE HAVE FREE SPEECH IF PEOPLE KEEP CRITICIZING HER!!!!!!

Sure, at least according to her resignation letter, no one told her to leave, but it was clear they didn't appropriately value her!!!!! After all, without her, the NY Times would have never heard of Monica Lewinsky!!!!! So she resigned with great visibility, because everyone should always look at what she does (did I mention that she is the one who introduced the NY Times to Monica Fucking Lewinsky!), and will now begrudgingly go sell her book and show up for highly paid sessions where she can talk about her grievances and remind everyone how important she is.

It's all there in her resignation letter, which she is putting out on the internet because the awful twitter people who tell the NY Times Opinion Page what to do (which was, after all, her job) need to make her trend!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

This is not true (ask any of the various leftist faculty who have been fired) and 45 may we’ll be right about Tik Tok.

He may be right about Tik Tok but that’s not why he’s going after it.

Re leftists fired, I’m sure they’re have been a few. But if you run the simple stats on % of college profs and admin which lean left vs. right, you realize it’s impossible for anything even remotely close to equivalence in “cancel” terminations to exist.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The story of Bari Weiss leaving the times is just shocking, after all she did for them. She discovered people like Monica Lewinsky and Randall Kennedy! But then, management listened more to public opinion than to her!!! And, after she publicly criticized her colleagues and made public what they said in private, and only changed what they said a little when she broadcast it in public (well, a little here and there and a bit more just to make sure it was understood what she thought they meant even if they didn't say it), they had the temerity, the absolute fucking anti-semitic temerity, to criticize her!!!!

Sure, at least according to her resignation letter, no one told her to leave, but it was clear they didn't appropriately value her!!!!! After all, without her, the NY Times would have never heard of Monica Lewinsky!!!!! So she resigned with great visibility, because everyone should always look at what she does (did I mention that she is the one who introduced the NY Times to Monica Fucking Lewinsky!), and will now begrudgingly go sell her book and show up for highly paid sessions where she can talk about her grievances and remind everyone how important she is.

It's all there in her resignation letter, which she is putting out on the internet because the awful twitter people who tell the NY Times Opinion Page what to do (which was, after all, her job) need to make her trend!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

You’ve made no point here. If we compare the heft of her letter to the weak and incoherent attack you’ve made upon it, the only conclusion to be reached is you were better off not commenting on her.

The argument that these reporters who are fired or pushed out by left wing nuts are actually fired for being lousy reporters does not apply in most instances. It’s a dodge - a way for the left to defend itself without defending itself, without reaching the merits on which it would lose. And it’s particularly lacking in Weiss’s case. She was quite successful, controversial, and brought a lot of eyeballs to the Times. Just as Taibbi is single handedly keeping Rolling Stone’s political coverage section afloat.

The Times didn’t want her to leave. She’s exactly the kind of smart provocateur media outlets desire. Unfortunately, the orthodox reporters around were not so comfortable in having their “religion” criticized by heretics like her.

She’ll do well, it’s true. We should not feel badly for her and she does not ask us to do so. Her letter is “fuck off,” not “woe is me.”

We should feel badly for the Times.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I am not strangely tolerant of articles calling for military suppression of protests.

I'll leave to the audience to decide whether you are equally tolerant of all threats to free speech, be it a hippie on Twitter or a US Senator urging that the military suppress protests. I guess I missed the part where you told everyone that the New York Times should be giving op-ed space to the lefty critics of the Harper's letter.

Re the empirical thing, are you serious? Loads of public figures and media people are being silenced or forced to walk back uncontroversial statements. Just today, Bari Weiss quit the NYTimes under duress. Look it up.

I said, who is being silenced, and you say Bari Weiss? Whatever is happening with her, she is not being "silenced." She just wrote a book that some people really liked and some people really did not like. But not for the pandemic, she would have been on an international book tour this spring, something you can read about on her web site, next to her press clips. Clearly you are using "silenced" as a euphemism for something else.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You’ve made no point here. If we compare the heft of her letter to the weak and incoherent attack you’ve made upon it, the only conclusion to be reached is you were better off not commenting on her.

The argument that these reporters who are fired or pushed out by left wing nuts are actually fired for being lousy reporters does not apply in most instances. It’s a dodge - a way for the left to defend itself without defending itself, without reaching the merits on which it would lose. And it’s particularly lacking in Weiss’s case. She was quite successful, controversial, and brought a lot of eyeballs to the Times. Just as Taibbi is single handedly keeping Rolling Stone’s political coverage section afloat.

The Times didn’t want her to leave. She’s exactly the kind of smart provocateur media outlets desire. Unfortunately, the orthodox reporters around were not so comfortable in having their “religion” criticized by heretics like her.

She’ll do well, it’s true. We should not feel badly for her and she does not ask us to do so. Her letter is “fuck off,” not “woe is me.”

We should feel badly for the Times.

Bari Weiss is going to make a lot of money posing as a victim of the New York Times, because people like you eat that shit up uncritically.

eta: And now Andrew Sullivan is being silenced too! Oh the humanity!