High-level writers need to push back against illiberal and anti-free speech proponents to give cover for the lower ranks. If even the top tier writers can't speak their mind, does the lowly intern or new hire stand a chance?
For example: Harper's Magazine, which published the recent open letter on cancel culture that Bari Weiss signed, doesn't pay its interns [1], ensuring that only those who can afford to work for free are allowed on the lowest rung of the ladder. If these high–level writers were truly concerned about open debate and a culture of curiosity, they might be more concerned about breaking down barriers such as that. Instead, they're worried that they, the people already at the top of the ladder, might get knocked down to the same level as the rest of us.
What do you disagree with in the Harper's letter itself (the content, not the publication or the signatories), and why?
You claimed that they are speaking out for the benefit of less powerful writers. Since the goalposts have shifted to their intentions, attacking the source is absolutely relevant. I simply don't believe those intentions, given that these are people who themselves have prevented many diverse points of view from being heard in the first place.
I assume you also support the letter, if it had appeared in a publication you approved of?
> Initially, I was criticizing the content, which is on its face false: we are discussing multiple widely–read pieces from prominent people who claim they are being "canceled" for their views.
If Alice makes a claim about herself, it is not "attacking the source" to say the claim is false. That also doesn't mean that the same claim would be false if Bob made it about himself.
So, yes: if smaller writers who had actually been marginalized or excluded wrote an open letter claiming as much in a publication with a track record of publishing such voices, I might have supported it, because their claims might have actually been credible.
Instead, a publication that works to homogenize journalism published a letter signed by powerful writers about how they are being "silenced". By virtue of the fact that millions of people are now discussing their views, that claim is self–evidently false.
The signatories of the letter make the person who disagrees with the current orthodoxy, and still supports free speech, feel safer and in good company for doing so. Signing a letter is quick and doesn't stop them from also helping solve all the other issues they believe in - people can do two (or more!) things at once.
I am a lot less interested in political statements from people - you, me, the guy down the street - who are not luminaries in their respected fields. I am much more interested when such a diverse and respected group of people have those views.
As a footnote, you say "might have supported it". Imagine hypothetically that it was published in some underground zine signed by unknown writers. What in the letter did you disagree with? It's a brief letter, there should be something in there that is clearly risque if you "might" support it?
Please explain?
Should we cancel your opinion because of some seemingly inconsistent opinion you had in your comment history?
This is exactly the practice of arguing the arguer, rather than the argument, and it's a bad faith tactic.
Her claim is that she, herself, is being exceptionally victimized and silenced; it’s literally impossible rebut this without arguing against her, specifically.
Harper’s’ unpaid internships was a more general example. Had I been speaking about Bari Weiss specifically, I might have mentioned her support for deplatforming a Jewish speaker from Stanford [1], her attempts to get Arab professors fired [2] or her reports to other employees’ bosses in response to minor slights [3].
And even if my argument were to hinge on an orthogonal claim, you think that’s tantamount to “embodying cancel culture”? I haven’t called for any personal or professional consequences; literally all I’m doing is disagreeing with her.
This is why so many roll their eyes when people start waxing on about cancel culture. What they really mean is that they don’t want to hear criticism of their opinions.
[1] https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1125789271959277569?s=2...
[2] https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals...
[3] https://twitter.com/byjoelanderson/status/126865430820500684...
You are chosing to ignore the cancel culture that exists.
I don’t know what’s happening to Uncle Bob on Twitter, but right now his account has 150,000 followers. So, what consequences is he actually suffering here?
What if you switched out the MAGA hat for one bearing the rebel flag or a misogynistic slur? It seems eminently reasonable to me for a conference to kick people out for refusing to remove a superfluous article of clothing that makes other attendees feel unwelcome.
Jordan Peterson’s offer was rescinded not because of a “twitter cancel culture mob” but by students and faculty at the University, who absolutely have a right to decide whom to allow into their community: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/cambridge-...
Shor was accused of “anti-Blackness” for seeming to suggest, via Wasow’s research, that violent protest is counterproductive. (Wasow is Black.) “At least some employees and clients of Civis Analytics complained that Shor’s tweet threatened their safety,”
For example the case of Stephen Hsu ( https://statenews.com/article/2020/06/michigan-state-geu-cal... ) ... I have no idea if he's right or not, but it's true he's bad at PR and science communication.
We know how regular big of a backstabbing parade the regular old natural science community is (string theory boo/yaay, money for colliders, SUSY, ITER/fusion vs something else). So it's not a surprise that social-adjacent science is even more hardcore in this regard, but this is likely too much and too fast. Yes, sure activism and change needs momentum, but people will be surprised when the hysteresis rears its head due to over-dampening.
But this has happened already many times (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sociobiology:_The... and here's an another example https://www.reddit.com/r/gwern/comments/hoeqyg/stereotype_ac... ) and likely will happen again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also, note, I'm not saying we shouldn't raise the bar for public (and semi-public) discourse. For example, as far as I know, adopting Codes of Conduct turned out to be quite okay, it laid the foundation for the way to deal with problems, gave a structure and rules to point at when someone crosses a line.
Worker cooperative can be more efficient than traditional company in some sectors, did you ever read any piece on that?
I mean, the two time i went in the US, i was in really liberal and even socialist environment, and very few seems to even have heard of worker cooperative, so it would be surprising, but HN always surprise me positively, so why not.
"worker cooperatives site:nytimes.com"
Any one challenging power should probably play to win.
Edit: Spoiler for all the kids: Your generation didn't invite sex either.