150 public figures sign open letter decrying cancel culture

[The Emerald Legion]

On the flip-side, boycotting a company because it simply won't fire an employee whose views have no impact on their products is not a mentality we should encourage.

That's a point we'll have to agree to disagree on. I very much support boycotting companies that don't fire racists, transphobes, homophobes, etc. The only problem here as far as I'm concerned is proving the fact the person in question is a racist, etc. -which in an emotionally-controlled mob is extremely hard to do.

So, you're saying it would be acceptable to harass your employer until they fire you if we disagree with what you have to say?

Personally, I find that utterly unacceptable.

[Esternial]

On the flip-side, boycotting a company because it simply won't fire an employee whose views have no impact on their products is not a mentality we should encourage.

That's a point we'll have to agree to disagree on. I very much support boycotting companies that don't fire racists, transphobes, homophobes, etc. The only problem here as far as I'm concerned is proving the fact the person in question is a racist, etc. -which in an emotionally-controlled mob is extremely hard to do.

Exactly, and to me this is something where the false positives - ruining an innocent person's career - are unforgivable. I guess we will unfortunately have to agree to disagree.

The collateral isn't worth that snug, (in my opinion) self-serving feeling.

[The Philippine Islands of Luzviminda]

I am against cancel culture as it is emotionally charged but you OP, show the same type of behavior as the ones you are denouncing. There is no need for a purge of "far-left, cancel-culture extremists." Against this issue, we must not take drastic action but rather educate participants of this phenomenon and not contribute in it ourselves.

[BurritoBowl]

Publicly shaming and harming bigots to the degree they lose careers/friends/status/homes is the only cultural weapon against bigotry that actually has teeth. It should be encouraged.

[Nuroblav]

That's a point we'll have to agree to disagree on. I very much support boycotting companies that don't fire racists, transphobes, homophobes, etc. The only problem here as far as I'm concerned is proving the fact the person in question is a racist, etc. -which in an emotionally-controlled mob is extremely hard to do.

So, you're saying it would be acceptable to harass your employer until they fire you if we disagree with what you have to say?

Personally, I find that utterly unacceptable.

"What? You like pineapple on pizza? WHAT IS THIS? People like you don't belong on our workplace!"

I agree with you here: companies shouldn't be firing people simply because of a difference in opinion, especially if it isn't getting in the way of their job or others.

Publicly shaming and harming bigots to the degree they lose careers/friends/status/homes is the only cultural weapon against bigotry that actually has teeth. It should be encouraged.

Even if it's something that they have moved on from? That's happened before...

[Galloism]

I'd say this is the same reason black people didn't get hired at many businesses in the south prior to the civil rights act, or were fired if the business owner made a mistake and hired them - if a grocery store hired a black employee, the number of customers they had would go down, as a number of racist white people would choose not to shop there. This makes that employee not profitable.

To that end, a law saying you can't fire people for being black, or refuse to hire them for being black, was a good law, as it gave the business a defense against the mob.

While I don't agree with you comparison, I can see your point. That doesn't change the problem of "people not wanting to watch a racist guy's movies" though. That was fixed through a process of reforming the society from the top-bottom in case of blacks not being allowed to work. I feel like doing the opposite is... redundant.

Well, again, most of us aren't complaining about how cancel culture is hurting millionaire actors.

It's about how it hurts little people. IE, the woman who showed up lampooning Megyn Kelly defending blackface by wearing a halloween costume of Megyn Kelly in blackface. It probably wasn't a good idea, but this middle class worker who does graphic design didn't deserve to be fired over it.

That's what is being complained about.

To that end, I think a law protecting workers from retaliation for non-work hours activities would be a good law.

[The Emerald Legion]

Publicly shaming and harming bigots to the degree they lose careers/friends/status/homes is the only cultural weapon against bigotry that actually has teeth. It should be encouraged.

I'm sorry, but thats an incredibly bigoted opinion.

Bigotry noun
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

[Vistulange]

What a garbage poll and a garbage OP.

That said, I agree, somewhat, with the contents of the letter, even though they admittedly sound odd coming from certain signatories. At least, it's a problem in Turkey, with folks being effectively lynched before public opinion when nothing whatsoever indicating their guilt in the event being present. I would prefer a properly functioning system of law and the presumption of innocence before getting out the pitchforks, but that's just me.

[Ifreann]

Something amusing about all of this is that the left, the actual left, the people who start a conversation with "Capitalism sure is shit" and then five minutes later are at each other's throats over slight differences in tendency, has been discoursing it up about cancel culture for months. Contrapoints made a video about this six months ago, which itself came some months after she'd been cancelled for the second or third time, and there was plenty of talk about cancel culture then too.

---

Thus rises reactionary liberalism.

---

Cancel culture is when someone says something you don't like and you threaten to ruin their lives unless they delete it.

(Image)

Rowling is well within her legal right to retaliate against any serious attempt to cancel her i.e. by smearing her as some kind of pedophile. She was merely responding in kind. Vile SJWs such as Nicola Spurling should be given a taste of their own medicine. Cancel the cancelers and let them reap what they sow.

Also, loving the overwhelmingly positive response to my poll.

That you frame this as revenge is just absurd. What could Nicola Spurling possibly have done to disturb JK Rowling's huge pile of money? How could the just response to criticising an immensely rich and powerful public figure be to destroy the life of her critic? Talk about disproportionate.

---

Thus rises reactionary liberalism.

---

Cancel culture is when someone says something you don't like and you threaten to ruin their lives unless they delete it.

(Image)

They tried to shut her down but she shut their ass down real quick.

She doesn't give a shit about free speech, she just wants to be able to attack trans people without anyone responding or judging her. An already powerful woman is pretending to be suffering censorship because her power isn't absolute. In the social media age when she says that Autistic people don't have the ability to know their own gender identity, and are being fooled into believing they're transgender, Autistic people can get in her mentions and tell her to shut the fuck up. And clearly she can't handle that.

---

tbf political correctness has gotten too far. in the beginning it was ok now it's morphing into a lowkey version of what the nazis did, just under a red/pink coat of paint.

What exactly do you think the nazis did?

Ratioed innocent Jews on Twitter.

---

It's not so much that it didn't destroy her as it can't. In all ways that matter, Rowling-and for that matter, the vast majority of the signatures of this letter, are immune to all the fallout of cancel culture save for perhaps public respect.

No they're not, for much the reason she lays out in her letter. Cancel culture empowers her political opposition, and politics often imposes on the lives of even the wealthy and powerful.

Cancel culture will lead to Labour taking power in Britain and seizing all of Rowling's wealth?

WTF, I love cancel culture now.

---

What?

If you kick someone out of their job for complaining about woke culture, theyre more likely to kill someone than they are to change their ways.

Let's not take away peoples jobs and kids over politically incorrect things

Explain to me how Rowling can lose her job as the author of a very famous series of books, adapted into films, and also a play, and also a new series of films, and also a different series of books she writes under a pen name. Internet jokes about Harry Potter being written by Hatsune Miku aside, you cannot fire her from being the creator of things she created, and no amount of yelling at her on Twitter can take away the money she has made from that.

But maybe you don't mean the rich and powerful people who signed this letter, maybe you mean ordinary people who lose their job because of their political opinions. Who do you think is actually fighting for them? The reactionary liberals who write books and give interviews and host Netflix specials about how they're being silenced? Or the left, supposedly the villains of the piece, the people who are trying to end at-will employment and strengthen unions and worker's rights?

---

Salman Rushdie also signed it. So, you know. When the guy who has Islamic Fundamentalist Fatwahs leveled at him for his work says he see's this as part of the same fight, maybe that's a sign.

So did Attwood, of the handmaidens tale fame.

Rushdie rang a bell, but I wasn't sure. And I forgot Attwood.

That said, in line with another post I made, one further complaint I have against this letter is that it acknowledges the dangers of free speech being used to chill other people's free speech (which is good and reasonable), but frames this as being a unilateral problem.

I don't think that Attwood is going to stay in favour with the reactionary liberals since she said trans rights.

---

Minorities are killed, beaten up, harassed and deprived of livelyhood as I'm typing this response. I've yet to see any of them "concerned citizens" being "wiped from the earth". So - please, stop.

This is literally untrue/already illegal in the event it is true.

---

Delete twitter, which I believe is the biggest driver of cancel culture, then.

You are, in a sense, correct. All these famous people only care about "cancel culture" because social media allows ordinary people to pierce the celebrity bubble and speak directly to them. Make that go away, delete Twitter, and they wouldn't care any more.

[The Emerald Legion]

She doesn't give a shit about free speech, she just wants to be able to attack trans people without anyone responding or judging her. An already powerful woman is pretending to be suffering censorship because her power isn't absolute. In the social media age when she says that Autistic people don't have the ability to know their own gender identity, and are being fooled into believing they're transgender, Autistic people can get in her mentions and tell her to shut the fuck up. And clearly she can't handle that.

Explain to me how Rowling can lose her job as the author of a very famous series of books, adapted into films, and also a play, and also a new series of films, and also a different series of books she writes under a pen name. Internet jokes about Harry Potter being written by Hatsune Miku aside, you cannot fire her from being the creator of things she created, and no amount of yelling at her on Twitter can take away the money she has made from that.

But maybe you don't mean the rich and powerful people who signed this letter, maybe you mean ordinary people who lose their job because of their political opinions. Who do you think is actually fighting for them? The reactionary liberals who write books and give interviews and host Netflix specials about how they're being silenced? Or the left, supposedly the villains of the piece, the people who are trying to end at-will employment and strengthen unions and worker's rights?

(Image)

You mean the people literally implying that she shouldn't be allowed near children for disagreeing with them? The people making death threats and more? Why? Because she doesn't agree with Trans politics. Because to be utterly blunt, outside your hip lefty bubble, Trans politics are widely viewed as outright fucking insane.

Again, the fact that she can't be silenced doesn't mean there aren't people being silenced. She has the fortunate status of being a bestselling author.

And the unions are a part of the problem. The unions are literally just a money funnel for the Democrats.

[Galloism]

On the flip-side, boycotting a company because it simply won't fire an employee whose views have no impact on their products is not a mentality we should encourage.

That's a point we'll have to agree to disagree on. I very much support boycotting companies that don't fire racists, transphobes, homophobes, etc. The only problem here as far as I'm concerned is proving the fact the person in question is a racist, etc. -which in an emotionally-controlled mob is extremely hard to do.

Ok, what do you intend these people to do to live?

This is a serious question, btw. Without work, they won't have a home, or food, or anything. Are you trying to make people homeless? Is your goal to increase starvation? Do you plan to support racists through taxes?
What's your end game?

[Grootfries Rijk]

That's a point we'll have to agree to disagree on. I very much support boycotting companies that don't fire racists, transphobes, homophobes, etc. The only problem here as far as I'm concerned is proving the fact the person in question is a racist, etc. -which in an emotionally-controlled mob is extremely hard to do.

Ok, what do you intend these people to do to live?

This is a serious question, btw. Without work, they won't have a home, or food, or anything. Are you trying to make people homeless? Is your goal to increase starvation? Do you plan to support racists through taxes?
What's your end game?

I don't particularly care about what happens to them afterwards, really. I suppose they can do whatever everyone with a criminal record would in a similar situation.

[Galloism]

Ok, what do you intend these people to do to live?

This is a serious question, btw. Without work, they won't have a home, or food, or anything. Are you trying to make people homeless? Is your goal to increase starvation? Do you plan to support racists through taxes?
What's your end game?

I don't particularly care about what happens to them afterwards, really. I suppose they can do whatever everyone with a criminal record would in a similar situation.

So your goal is to increase crime, then.

(Btw, how we treat ex-felons is atrocious in our society, and the fact that you just want to add to what is already a horrible injustice is... well... I don't know how to classify it, except it's horrible and you should be ashamed.)

Really, that's a horrible opinion and if your justice were applied to you, you would be cancelled. Enjoy your life of crime, citizen.

[Grootfries Rijk]

I don't particularly care about what happens to them afterwards, really. I suppose they can do whatever everyone with a criminal record would in a similar situation.

So your goal is to increase crime, then.

(Btw, how we treat ex-felons is atrocious in our society, and the fact that you just want to add to what is already a horrible injustice is... well... I don't know how to classify it, except it's horrible and you should be ashamed.)

(I mean, You didn't ask me how I thought ex-felons should be treated like.)

[Galloism]

So your goal is to increase crime, then.

(Btw, how we treat ex-felons is atrocious in our society, and the fact that you just want to add to what is already a horrible injustice is... well... I don't know how to classify it, except it's horrible and you should be ashamed.)

(I mean, You didn't ask me how I thought ex-felons should be treated like.)

I mean, here's the thing. The way we treat ex-felons is atrocious, and you said, without any qualifications, you want to add to it. This implies you want them treated exactly like the way ex convicts are now.

That's a really horrible opinion. If karma existed, you would be cancelled for it, and have to figure out how to survive on a life of crime.

[Grootfries Rijk]

(I mean, You didn't ask me how I thought ex-felons should be treated like.)

I mean, here's the thing. The way we treat ex-felons is atrocious, and you said, without any qualifications, you want to add to it. This implies you want them treated exactly like the way ex convicts are now.

That's a really horrible opinion. If karma existed, you would be cancelled for it, and have to figure out how to survive on a life of crime.

Fair enough.

[Ifreann]

She doesn't give a shit about free speech, she just wants to be able to attack trans people without anyone responding or judging her. An already powerful woman is pretending to be suffering censorship because her power isn't absolute. In the social media age when she says that Autistic people don't have the ability to know their own gender identity, and are being fooled into believing they're transgender, Autistic people can get in her mentions and tell her to shut the fuck up. And clearly she can't handle that.

Explain to me how Rowling can lose her job as the author of a very famous series of books, adapted into films, and also a play, and also a new series of films, and also a different series of books she writes under a pen name. Internet jokes about Harry Potter being written by Hatsune Miku aside, you cannot fire her from being the creator of things she created, and no amount of yelling at her on Twitter can take away the money she has made from that.

But maybe you don't mean the rich and powerful people who signed this letter, maybe you mean ordinary people who lose their job because of their political opinions. Who do you think is actually fighting for them? The reactionary liberals who write books and give interviews and host Netflix specials about how they're being silenced? Or the left, supposedly the villains of the piece, the people who are trying to end at-will employment and strengthen unions and worker's rights?

(Image)

You mean the people literally implying that she shouldn't be allowed near children for disagreeing with them? The people making death threats and more?

When I said "Autistic people can get in her mentions and tell her to shut the fuck up", what I meant was "Autistic people can get in her mentions and tell her to shut the fuck up". I'm sorry if my straightforward post confused you by not secretly being the argument you want me to be making.

Why? Because she doesn't agree with Trans politics. Because to be utterly blunt, outside your hip lefty bubble, Trans politics are widely viewed as outright fucking insane.

I think you have a problem here. Your enemies can't both be the insane fringe that the public in general doesn't agree with, and also have so much support that they can force businesses to fire people with public shaming campaigns. Pick one.

Again, the fact that she can't be silenced doesn't mean there aren't people being silenced. She has the fortunate status of being a bestselling author.

And the unions are a part of the problem. The unions are literally just a money funnel for the Democrats.

Unless workers can unionise, employers will always have more power. Even if it's illegal to fire someone for being their political opinions, one person who just lost their job is probably going to have a very difficult time suing their employer. One unemployed person is going to run out of money to pay for a lawyer before a business that could afford to fire that person and keep operating runs out of money to pay their team of lawyers. I don't like the Democrats any more than you, though obviously for very different reasons, but if you want workers to be protected from being fired by their employers for their political opinions, you need unions.

[The Emerald Legion]

You mean the people literally implying that she shouldn't be allowed near children for disagreeing with them? The people making death threats and more?

When I said "Autistic people can get in her mentions and tell her to shut the fuck up", what I meant was "Autistic people can get in her mentions and tell her to shut the fuck up". I'm sorry if my straightforward post confused you by not secretly being the argument you want me to be making.

Why? Because she doesn't agree with Trans politics. Because to be utterly blunt, outside your hip lefty bubble, Trans politics are widely viewed as outright fucking insane.

I think you have a problem here. Your enemies can't both be the insane fringe that the public in general doesn't agree with, and also have so much support that they can force businesses to fire people with public shaming campaigns. Pick one.

Again, the fact that she can't be silenced doesn't mean there aren't people being silenced. She has the fortunate status of being a bestselling author.

And the unions are a part of the problem. The unions are literally just a money funnel for the Democrats.

Unless workers can unionise, employers will always have more power. Even if it's illegal to fire someone for being their political opinions, one person who just lost their job is probably going to have a very difficult time suing their employer. One unemployed person is going to run out of money to pay for a lawyer before a business that could afford to fire that person and keep operating runs out of money to pay their team of lawyers. I don't like the Democrats any more than you, though obviously for very different reasons, but if you want workers to be protected from being fired by their employers for their political opinions, you need unions.

You mean the argument she's never made? She doesn't complain about people disagreeing with her, it's specifically people harassing her. You can't exactly complain I'm misrepresenting your argument, when the argument you want me to argue is a misrepresentation of hers.


No. Fringe movements can generate enough noise in the modern day and age, particularly when signal boosted by people who don't understand and are just acting outraged because team politics.

And when the Unions decline to do so? I'm not joking when I say that the few Unionized places Ive ever worked at, the Unions literally told you how you should vote. They'd hand you a sheet of paper telling you to vote for these people.

Unions in America are corrupt, and not worth the costs of supporting in their present incarnation.

[Hirota]

No. Fringe movements can generate enough noise in the modern day and age, particularly when signal boosted by people who don't understand and are just acting outraged because team politics.

I agree - Ifreann is pushing a false dilemma.
Twatter is disproportionate and non-representative of the public in general and it's most prolific users make the bulk of tweets, yet it is overly influential - see the multiple examples of when journalists will take an article about 5 people on the entire planet holding obnoxious opinions and make a story out of it.

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

Publicly shaming and harming bigots to the degree they lose careers/friends/status/homes is the only cultural weapon against bigotry that actually has teeth. It should be encouraged.

Bait

[Kowani]

Publicly shaming and harming bigots to the degree they lose careers/friends/status/homes is the only cultural weapon against bigotry that actually has teeth. It should be encouraged.

I'm sorry, but thats an incredibly bigoted opinion.

Bigotry noun
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

I don’t know why on Earth reactionaries can’t seem to thread the needle on the paradox of tolerance.

[Ifreann]

When I said "Autistic people can get in her mentions and tell her to shut the fuck up", what I meant was "Autistic people can get in her mentions and tell her to shut the fuck up". I'm sorry if my straightforward post confused you by not secretly being the argument you want me to be making.

I think you have a problem here. Your enemies can't both be the insane fringe that the public in general doesn't agree with, and also have so much support that they can force businesses to fire people with public shaming campaigns. Pick one.


Unless workers can unionise, employers will always have more power. Even if it's illegal to fire someone for being their political opinions, one person who just lost their job is probably going to have a very difficult time suing their employer. One unemployed person is going to run out of money to pay for a lawyer before a business that could afford to fire that person and keep operating runs out of money to pay their team of lawyers. I don't like the Democrats any more than you, though obviously for very different reasons, but if you want workers to be protected from being fired by their employers for their political opinions, you need unions.

You mean the argument she's never made? She doesn't complain about people disagreeing with her, it's specifically people harassing her. You can't exactly complain I'm misrepresenting your argument, when the argument you want me to argue is a misrepresentation of hers.

Rowling did argue in her anti-trans manifesto that Autistic people are vulnerable to being "transed" because being Autistic prevents them from understanding themselves well enough to know if they're really trans or not.

No. Fringe movements can generate enough noise in the modern day and age, particularly when signal boosted by people who don't understand and are just acting outraged because team politics.

Noise doesn't provoke action by big businesses with PR departments. Do you know why every Pride month loads of businesses hang rainbow flags and all that shit? Because they've run the numbers and there's more money in doing that than not.

And when the Unions decline to do so? I'm not joking when I say that the few Unionized places Ive ever worked at, the Unions literally told you how you should vote. They'd hand you a sheet of paper telling you to vote for these people.

Unions in America are corrupt, and not worth the costs of supporting in their present incarnation.

Cool, so walk me through how some minimum wage worker can successfully sue Amazon if they're fired for voting Trump in 2020, without a union.

---

No. Fringe movements can generate enough noise in the modern day and age, particularly when signal boosted by people who don't understand and are just acting outraged because team politics.

I agree - Ifreann is pushing a false dilemma.
Twatter is disproportionate and non-representative of the public in general and it's most prolific users make the bulk of tweets, yet it is overly influential - see the multiple examples of when journalists will take an article about 5 people on the entire planet holding obnoxious opinions and make a story out of it.

You understand that this open letter is exactly such a thing. A bunch of journalists and other public figures are kicking up a fuss because their replies are full of pictures of a pig shitting on his own balls, as if the abuse they get online portents the end of free speech as we know it.

[The Emerald Legion]

You mean the argument she's never made? She doesn't complain about people disagreeing with her, it's specifically people harassing her. You can't exactly complain I'm misrepresenting your argument, when the argument you want me to argue is a misrepresentation of hers.

Rowling did argue in her anti-trans manifesto that Autistic people are vulnerable to being "transed" because being Autistic prevents them from understanding themselves well enough to know if they're really trans or not.

No. Fringe movements can generate enough noise in the modern day and age, particularly when signal boosted by people who don't understand and are just acting outraged because team politics.

Noise doesn't provoke action by big businesses with PR departments. Do you know why every Pride month loads of businesses hang rainbow flags and all that shit? Because they've run the numbers and there's more money in doing that than not.

And when the Unions decline to do so? I'm not joking when I say that the few Unionized places Ive ever worked at, the Unions literally told you how you should vote. They'd hand you a sheet of paper telling you to vote for these people.

Unions in America are corrupt, and not worth the costs of supporting in their present incarnation.

Cool, so walk me through how some minimum wage worker can successfully sue Amazon if they're fired for voting Trump in 2020, without a union.

---

I agree - Ifreann is pushing a false dilemma.
Twatter is disproportionate and non-representative of the public in general and it's most prolific users make the bulk of tweets, yet it is overly influential - see the multiple examples of when journalists will take an article about 5 people on the entire planet holding obnoxious opinions and make a story out of it.

You understand that this open letter is exactly such a thing. A bunch of journalists and other public figures are kicking up a fuss because their replies are full of pictures of a pig shitting on his own balls, as if the abuse they get online portents the end of free speech as we know it.

Which is irrelevant.

Y'know it's kind of funny. The left wing in America likes to play this shell game a lot. Flying a rainbow flag is cheap, easy, and requires almost nothing from them. Most Americans aren't so outright homophobic that they get upset about it either.

This has nothing to do with Cancel Culture. Cancel Culture doesn't take advantage of some majority status. It's a sudden alarming shock mob that's intent is to get the legendarily risk averse corporate America to knee jerk into compliance.

I don't know. How do they do that when the Union is the one persecuting them while also stealing their money?

Maybe we could have legal insurance? Just like any other big fee.

[Proctopeo]

I saw this blog post from what seems to be a left-wing author who has a good take on this whole thing.

And so this open letter in Harper’s about free speech and debate. Please, think for a minute and consider: what does it say when a completely generic endorsement of free speech and open debate is in and of itself immediately diagnosed as anti-progressive, as anti-left?

Emphasis not mine.

[Ifreann]

Rowling did argue in her anti-trans manifesto that Autistic people are vulnerable to being "transed" because being Autistic prevents them from understanding themselves well enough to know if they're really trans or not.



Noise doesn't provoke action by big businesses with PR departments. Do you know why every Pride month loads of businesses hang rainbow flags and all that shit? Because they've run the numbers and there's more money in doing that than not.


Cool, so walk me through how some minimum wage worker can successfully sue Amazon if they're fired for voting Trump in 2020, without a union.

---

You understand that this open letter is exactly such a thing. A bunch of journalists and other public figures are kicking up a fuss because their replies are full of pictures of a pig shitting on his own balls, as if the abuse they get online portents the end of free speech as we know it.

Which is irrelevant.

"You're misrepresenting her arguments!"
"No, she did argue that"
"That's irrelevant!"

Y'know it's kind of funny. The left wing in America likes to play this shell game a lot. Flying a rainbow flag is cheap, easy, and requires almost nothing from them. Most Americans aren't so outright homophobic that they get upset about it either.

Exactly. The public at large is either supportive of or apathetic towards these shows of support for the LGBT+ community, so making those shows of support earns some good will and earns a little ire. On the balance it makes money so up go the rainbow flags. Same reasoning is applied to firing people who become publicly controversial.

This has nothing to do with Cancel Culture. Cancel Culture doesn't take advantage of some majority status. It's a sudden alarming shock mob that's intent is to get the legendarily risk averse corporate America to knee jerk into compliance.

You would have me believe that a lunatic fringe of politics has somehow tricked the companies who spend small fortunes on market research into believing that they are actually the majority and that to defy them is to risk losing all their customers? You would have me believe that social media platforms, whose entire business model is gathering as much information about their users as possible so as to sell that to advertisers, can be fooled about what the majority of their users want by a tiny and unpopular minority?

I don't know. How do they do that when the Union is the one persecuting them while also stealing their money?

Maybe we could have legal insurance? Just like any other big fee.

Bad idea to rely on a business whose financial interest lies in never giving you any money if they can avoid it.

---

I saw this blog post from what seems to be a left-wing author who has a good take on this whole thing.

And so this open letter in Harper’s about free speech and debate. Please, think for a minute and consider: what does it say when a completely generic endorsement of free speech and open debate is in and of itself immediately diagnosed as anti-progressive, as anti-left?

Emphasis not mine.

Appeals to free speech can be, and have been, made in bad faith.