150 public figures sign open letter decrying cancel culture

[Diarcesia]

One should stick with higher norms not to please the ruling class, but because it is the right thing to do. It's for that reason why minor disagreements do not normally devolve into total, literal war.

If you continue to struggle within legitimate means in good faith when your opponent refuses to do the same, you are not only continually losing negotiating ground, you are also teaching your opponents that them acting in bad faith will be met with exactly no retaliation.

I agree, a hundred and one percent. This is a tough thing to balance. I'm not asking you to be doormats for opponents that are out to destroy you. I'm saying that, in the quest to better this world, people should be vigilant that they don't become the thing they sought to destroy.

It is possible to be principled without being pushovers.

[Plzen]

It's very difficult, watching every word you say in every context, lest any three word grouping be yanked out of context and used against you, even when the context makes it clear what you were talking about. It's been a problem for a lot of years on account of my gender, but even worse now.

I would hope it goes without saying that my support is conditional on various secondary factors, of which one certainly is having the right targets.

I would certainly hope the municipal government shuts down any attempt to organise a street march advocating for genocide, but that doesn't make me anti-demonstration, merely against normalisation of genocide. Obviously whether I consider a struggle acceptable has much to do with who is being struggled against and for what reason, which simple phrases like "public demonstration" or "cancel culture" don't give any indication of. These things refer to the method, the how of struggle, and when I say that I support cancel culture the implicit limitation is: given the other factors are otherwise acceptable.

[The Emerald Legion]

It's very difficult, watching every word you say in every context, lest any three word grouping be yanked out of context and used against you, even when the context makes it clear what you were talking about. It's been a problem for a lot of years on account of my gender, but even worse now.

I would hope it goes without saying that my support is conditional on various secondary factors, of which one certainly is having the right targets.

I would certainly hope the municipal government shuts down any attempt to organise a street march advocating for genocide, but that doesn't make me anti-demonstration, merely against normalisation of genocide. Obviously whether I consider a struggle acceptable has much to do with who is being struggled against and for what reason, which simple phrases like "public demonstration" or "cancel culture" don't give any indication of. These things refer to the method, the how of struggle, and when I say that I support cancel culture the implicit limitation is, given the other factors are otherwise acceptable.

Yes it does. You are anti-free speech if you reject anyone's right to say literally anything.

[Diarcesia]

I would hope it goes without saying that my support is conditional on various secondary factors, of which one certainly is having the right targets.

I would certainly hope the municipal government shuts down any attempt to organise a street march advocating for genocide, but that doesn't make me anti-demonstration, merely against normalisation of genocide. Obviously whether I consider a struggle acceptable has much to do with who is being struggled against and for what reason, which simple phrases like "public demonstration" or "cancel culture" don't give any indication of. These things refer to the method, the how of struggle, and when I say that I support cancel culture the implicit limitation is, given the other factors are otherwise acceptable.

Yes it does. You are anti-free speech if you reject anyone's right to say literally anything.

It's a tough call. It's legitimate for free speech to not cover those that incite violence. Now, what if the definition of speech that incites violence gets expanded?

[Plzen]

Yes it does. You are anti-free speech if you reject anyone's right to say literally anything.

Is anyone other than the most radical of libertarians in favour of free speech, if that's the standard for free speech we are using?

Would you support, for instance - oh, as a "hypothetical" example that actually happened a couple times - the right of a journalist in a major news broadcaster to discuss the military's current deployment and operational plans during a time of war?

[Uiiop]

It's very difficult, watching every word you say in every context, lest any three word grouping be yanked out of context and used against you, even when the context makes it clear what you were talking about. It's been a problem for a lot of years on account of my gender, but even worse now.

I would hope it goes without saying that my support is conditional on various secondary factors, of which one certainly is having the right targets.

I would certainly hope the municipal government shuts down any attempt to organise a street march advocating for genocide, but that doesn't make me anti-demonstration, merely against normalisation of genocide. Obviously whether I consider a struggle acceptable has much to do with who is being struggled against and for what reason, which simple phrases like "public demonstration" or "cancel culture" don't give any indication of. These things refer to the method, the how of struggle, and when I say that I support cancel culture the implicit limitation is, given the other factors are otherwise acceptable.

The problem with these kinda terms in general is that there isn't a 100% agreed definition on cancel culture as method.

For example i'm sure you don't mean you support death threats when you say you support cancel culture. But it makes sense for these other posters to group that in to cancel culture at large.

Another way of looking at this is that what makes "Cancel Culture" as it is by those who use the term is both method and thought they're complaining about. Wrongful demonization and how people act on that.

[Liriena]

An open letter in response to the original open letter.

[Galloism]

conditional on various secondary factors, of which one certainly is having the right targets.

Which, of course, is weaponized in our society in a sexist and racist way, especially by the cancel culture we're seeing now.

[The Lone Alliance]

If those social conservatives who haven't lifted a finger to help their opposition when it was that opposition that was suffering from informal censorship and mob judgement are suddenly going to start crying about how much of a threat to democracy cancel culture is now that it's starting to target their beliefs and their voters, I'm going to interpret that crying as the hypocritical crocodile tears that they are.

What about the liberals like me, who helped you with all my might when it was you, and still want to help those who would be victimized by you?

What about us?

Liberalism is going to be reactionary at this rate.

After all that support of "Free speech" means supporting people saying "unsafe words" which is now reactionary.

[Uiiop]

An open letter in response to the original open letter.

This is indeed is what i was talking about earierler.
I disagree with the main point that there isn't any trends but i think it's criticism of the original's framing, examples, and unacknowledged hypocrisy are still vaild.

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

Actually, we want bigotry to stop - a lot of this cancel culture stuff is based on bigotry. But it's reverse direction bigotry, so it's ok.

Yes, unironically. Shame reactionaries whenever possible.
This is basic Paradox of Tolerance stuff, seriously.

the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

According to Popper, the sort of view you claim to defend would seem to leave room for "reactionaries" to give rational arguments for their views in the public sphere, so long as they don't resort to or encourage violence.

Are you willing to listen to "reactionary" arguments? Or will you deny us even that?

[Galloism]

An open letter in response to the original open letter.

Notably, a response which leans heavily into prejudice plus power rhetoric:

the irony of the piece is that nowhere in it do the signatories mention how marginalized voices have been silenced for generations in journalism, academia, and publishing.

Eye for an eye! How biblical.

The content of the letter also does not deal with the problem of power: who has it and who does not. Harper’s is a prestigious institution, backed by money and influence. Harper’s has decided to bestow its platform not to marginalized people but to people who already have large followings and plenty of opportunities to make their views heard. Ironically, these influential people then use that platform to complain that they’re being silenced. Many of the signatories have coworkers in their own newsrooms who are deeply concerned with the letter, some who feel comfortable speaking out and others who do not.

Gotta love this - because if influential people sign it, it's a sign of their power and can be disregarded. But if uninfluential people sign it, it's pointless little penny ante shit and can be ignored. Catch-22.

And notably, most likely many who would have liked to sign the letter, but felt they couldn't because they would get "cancelled" for supporting basic liberal ideals.

The writers of the letter use seductive but nebulous concepts and coded language to obscure the actual meaning behind their words, in what seems like an attempt to control and derail the ongoing debate about who gets to have a platform. They are afforded the type of cultural capital from social media that institutions like Harper’s have traditionally conferred to mostly white, cisgender people. Their words reflect a stubbornness to let go of the elitism that still pervades the media industry, an unwillingness to dismantle systems that keep people like them in and the rest of us out.

Someone needs to quote this portion directly, and use their secret decoder ring to translate it.

[Ostroeuropa]

An open letter in response to the original open letter.

Notably, a response which leans heavily into prejudice plus power rhetoric:

the irony of the piece is that nowhere in it do the signatories mention how marginalized voices have been silenced for generations in journalism, academia, and publishing.

Eye for an eye! How biblical.

The content of the letter also does not deal with the problem of power: who has it and who does not. Harper’s is a prestigious institution, backed by money and influence. Harper’s has decided to bestow its platform not to marginalized people but to people who already have large followings and plenty of opportunities to make their views heard. Ironically, these influential people then use that platform to complain that they’re being silenced. Many of the signatories have coworkers in their own newsrooms who are deeply concerned with the letter, some who feel comfortable speaking out and others who do not.

Gotta love this - because if influential people sign it, it's a sign of their power and can be disregarded. But if uninfluential people sign it, it's pointless little penny ante shit and can be ignored. Catch-22.

And notably, most likely many who would have liked to sign the letter, but felt they couldn't because they would get "cancelled" for supporting basic liberal ideals.

The writers of the letter use seductive but nebulous concepts and coded language to obscure the actual meaning behind their words, in what seems like an attempt to control and derail the ongoing debate about who gets to have a platform. They are afforded the type of cultural capital from social media that institutions like Harper’s have traditionally conferred to mostly white, cisgender people. Their words reflect a stubbornness to let go of the elitism that still pervades the media industry, an unwillingness to dismantle systems that keep people like them in and the rest of us out.

Someone needs to quote this portion directly, and use their secret decoder ring to translate it.

It's worth noting that the left-idpol conceit that they're "Giving voice" to the marginalized is flat out untrue. The ideology they are peddling is very unpopular among minorities, and is chiefly something White Middle Class people like.

Also worth noting that *almost every single signature* is a Journalist or Journalism academic. Very diverse, very cool. Also, the irony of a bunch of Journalists accusing others of having platforms they're misusing.

This is just Gamergate all over again. People accuse Journalists of being shit, Journalists throw a tantrum and reference eachother saying it's not true to say "It's a fact that it isn't true", and people take their clique seriously rather than noting that maybe the people on trial shouldn't be their own judges.


"We're concerned Journalists have too much power and no accountability and are using it to make society worse"

"Well, we're not. So there's no need for any changes or any accountability for our profession.".

Hmm.

Yup.

Same as Gamergate.

[New Bremerton]

-snip-

I'll summarise my entire attitude to this in a single sentence, then.

If those social conservatives who haven't lifted a finger to help their opposition when it was that opposition that was suffering from informal censorship and mob judgement are suddenly going to start crying about how much of a threat to democracy cancel culture is now that it's starting to target their beliefs and their voters, I'm going to interpret that crying as the hypocritical crocodile tears that they are.

Or, even shorter:

I will take my ideological opponents' criticism of my ideological allies' behaviour seriously when those opponents doing the criticising stop engaging in the exact same behaviour.

My thoughts exactly, only replace "social conservatives" with woke leftists. It's interesting how they throw a fit and scream about free speech being eroded when they're the ones being canceled by Zionists and (rightly or wrongly) labeled as racists and antisemites simply for criticizing Israel. This is what happened to Rebecca Long-Bailey when Keir Starmer fired her. If the Left will not stick up for liberals like me, don't expect me to speak out when the mob comes for them. They built their illiberal, cancel-culture meatgrinder. Now they can lie in it. You reap what you sow.

You would be exactly right if this was Malaysia or Singapore or some illiberal, non-Western society we're talking about where the tables are flipped and it's the fascists and conservatives doing the oppressing and canceling. Have an unflattering opinion of Islam? You can have 11 years in prison. Think the government's detention of illegal migrants is racist? You can look forward to being doxxed, harassed, and potentially charged with "sedition" and "misuse of communications equipment" while the government and its racist, Islamist, and fascist supporters demand that you apologize for "insulting all Malaysians" for daring to call the government racist. Think being LGBT is perfectly a-ok? You may be arrested, rounded up, and "re-educated" Xinjiang-style on "proper behavior" in accordance with the precepts of Islam. This is right-wing cancel culture in action, and these intolerant, non-Western conservatives will eventually reap what they sow too and rightly so. The very fate of Malaysian democracy hangs in the balance, and this is why I characterize cancel culture as an existential threat to democracy in the long run.

What I find hypocritical is how many of these avowedly secularist, anti-racist, feminist, pro-LGBT leftists knowingly or unknowingly enable these intolerant, deeply misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, racist, authoritarian, Malay supremacists and radical Islamists fucking my country up by labeling critics of Islam as racists and "Islamophobes". The Malaysian far-right and the Western far-left are literally tied at the seam on the issue of Islam, proving the horseshoe theory absolutely right. This kind of blatant and absolutely shameless hypocrisy where leftists collude with Islamist and Muslim fundamentalist bigots in order to stifle legitimate criticism of one and only one major religion and shut down any honest discussion while pretending to be dead-set against far-right bigotry in all its forms is perhaps the biggest reason I take their woke, "progressive" BS with a massive pinch of salt. Many of the signatories of the open letter share more or less the same view. I have no doubt liberal New Atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins would've signed on as well, as would liberal Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz.

I don't believe Sarah Haider, a liberal, ex-Muslim atheist and one of the signatories, is any kind of rich, privileged hypocrite, nor is she white or male. She has had to endure racist, xenophobic abuse on the right, condescending, essentializing, woke BS on the left, as well as death threats, doxxing, and constant harassment and ostracism from her Muslim peers. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another prominent ex-Muslim and New Atheist with a similar background of escaping misogynistic slavery, ostracism from her former community, and even attempts on her life, has expressed her vocal support for the open letter. She and Maajid Nawaz have been smeared by none other than the SPLC as "anti-Muslim extremists" for their critical views on Islam, for which both have retaliated accordingly with lawsuits. Those who attempt to cancel others must in turn be canceled themselves before they have a chance to ruin yet more lives just to feel good about themselves behind the anonymity of a screen and the fleeting click of the Send button.

Western leftists and non-Western rightists are essentially cut from the same authoritarian, cancel-culture cloth. Liberals in the middle like me and many of the letter's signatories are being screwed on both sides. The Left has absolutely no moral high ground to stand on. When they find that they're the ones being canceled, then it serves them absolutely right and I will not shed a single tear for them.

[Proctopeo]

Notably, a response which leans heavily into prejudice plus power rhetoric:



Eye for an eye! How biblical.



Gotta love this - because if influential people sign it, it's a sign of their power and can be disregarded. But if uninfluential people sign it, it's pointless little penny ante shit and can be ignored. Catch-22.

And notably, most likely many who would have liked to sign the letter, but felt they couldn't because they would get "cancelled" for supporting basic liberal ideals.



Someone needs to quote this portion directly, and use their secret decoder ring to translate it.

It's worth noting that the left-idpol conceit that they're "Giving voice" to the marginalized is flat out untrue. The ideology they are peddling is very unpopular among minorities, and is chiefly something White Middle Class people like.

Also worth noting that *almost every single signature* is a Journalist or Journalism academic. Very diverse, very cool. Also, the irony of a bunch of Journalists accusing others of having platforms they're misusing.

This is just Gamergate all over again. People accuse Journalists of being shit, Journalists throw a tantrum and reference eachother saying it's not true to say "It's a fact that it isn't true", and people take their clique seriously rather than noting that maybe the people on trial shouldn't be their own judges.


"We're concerned Journalists have too much power and no accountability and are using it to make society worse"

"Well, we're not. So there's no need for any changes or any accountability for our profession.".

Hmm.

Yup.

Same as Gamergate.

It really is basically all just journalists and "journalists", jeez. I guess that explains why Liri loves it so much, but I'd rather side with Noam Chomsky, for all his flaws, than Carlos Maza.

[Hirota]

Yes, unironically. Shame reactionaries whenever possible.
This is basic Paradox of Tolerance stuff, seriously.

the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

According to Popper, the sort of view you claim to defend would seem to leave room for "reactionaries" to give rational arguments for their views in the public sphere, so long as they don't resort to or encourage violence.

Are you willing to listen to "reactionary" arguments? Or will you deny us even that?

Its good that at least one other person has read more than a single clipped footnote by Popper. Gives me hope that there are plenty of people on NSG not as intellectually lazy as Kowani.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's worth noting that the left-idpol conceit that they're "Giving voice" to the marginalized is flat out untrue. The ideology they are peddling is very unpopular among minorities, and is chiefly something White Middle Class people like.

Also worth noting that *almost every single signature* is a Journalist or Journalism academic. Very diverse, very cool. Also, the irony of a bunch of Journalists accusing others of having platforms they're misusing.

This is just Gamergate all over again. People accuse Journalists of being shit, Journalists throw a tantrum and reference eachother saying it's not true to say "It's a fact that it isn't true", and people take their clique seriously rather than noting that maybe the people on trial shouldn't be their own judges.


"We're concerned Journalists have too much power and no accountability and are using it to make society worse"

"Well, we're not. So there's no need for any changes or any accountability for our profession.".

Hmm.

(Image)

Yup.

Same as Gamergate.

It really is basically all just journalists and "journalists", jeez. I guess that explains why Liri loves it so much, but I'd rather side with Noam Chomsky, for all his flaws, than Carlos Maza.

I think we're now at the "Buy a saddle" stage for Journalists. You know the thing.


Gamergate; "You're a horse."
Journalists: *Punches Gamergate in the nose*
Trump: "You're a horse"
Journalists: "You're a jerk."
Chomsky, Rushdie, Attwood et al: "You're a horse."
Journalists: "Does everyone who isn't us think we're horses?"
Planet: "Yes."
Journalists: "Time to go shopping for a saddle.".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR1UKc905xw

[Baltenstein]

-snip-

I'm not quite sure where you are trying to get at, here. Honestly, "social conservatives" aren't a monolithic bunch, just as "social democrats" aren't. Put me together with a British social democrat and I'm fairly certain we'll have a couple dozen bullet points of disagreement, yet, we're both social democrats.

No, I'm afraid I don't quite buy into the premise of "rules for me because I'm right". I don't have this odd belief where I genuinely believe that my thoughts are the correct form of thought, and I believe it to be necessary to hold a healthy amount of scepticism for even my own beliefs. I don't deal in this narrative of a massive conflict of ideas where one type of idea, presented in a monolithic light, must conquer the other type of idea, also perceived to be monolithic. Life is a lot of gray, and I fail to see any whites. I see some blacks, certainly - I wouldn't classify Hitler as gray - but nowhere do I see "white".

Random thought: I wonder if it's still okay to use "black" and "white" in US public discourse in the way you just did.

[Proctopeo]

It really is basically all just journalists and "journalists", jeez. I guess that explains why Liri loves it so much, but I'd rather side with Noam Chomsky, for all his flaws, than Carlos Maza.

I think we're now at the "Buy a saddle" stage for Journalists. You know the thing.


Gamergate; "You're a horse."
Journalists: *Punches Gamergate in the nose*
Trump: "You're a horse"
Journalists: "You're a jerk."
Chomsky, Rushdie, Attwood et al: "You're a horse."
Journalists: "Does everyone who isn't us think we're horses?"
Planet: "Yes."
Journalists: "Time to go shopping for a saddle.".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR1UKc905xw

Yes. It appears as if the renegades who dared criticize journalists were right all along. That would very much explain the continued, fervent defamation campaign against the movement, would it not?

[Luminesa]

An open letter in response to the original open letter.

Notably, a response which leans heavily into prejudice plus power rhetoric:

the irony of the piece is that nowhere in it do the signatories mention how marginalized voices have been silenced for generations in journalism, academia, and publishing.

Eye for an eye! How biblical.

The content of the letter also does not deal with the problem of power: who has it and who does not. Harper’s is a prestigious institution, backed by money and influence. Harper’s has decided to bestow its platform not to marginalized people but to people who already have large followings and plenty of opportunities to make their views heard. Ironically, these influential people then use that platform to complain that they’re being silenced. Many of the signatories have coworkers in their own newsrooms who are deeply concerned with the letter, some who feel comfortable speaking out and others who do not.

Gotta love this - because if influential people sign it, it's a sign of their power and can be disregarded. But if uninfluential people sign it, it's pointless little penny ante shit and can be ignored. Catch-22.

And notably, most likely many who would have liked to sign the letter, but felt they couldn't because they would get "cancelled" for supporting basic liberal ideals.

The writers of the letter use seductive but nebulous concepts and coded language to obscure the actual meaning behind their words, in what seems like an attempt to control and derail the ongoing debate about who gets to have a platform. They are afforded the type of cultural capital from social media that institutions like Harper’s have traditionally conferred to mostly white, cisgender people. Their words reflect a stubbornness to let go of the elitism that still pervades the media industry, an unwillingness to dismantle systems that keep people like them in and the rest of us out.

Someone needs to quote this portion directly, and use their secret decoder ring to translate it.

They also realize that...Noam Chomsky is not white, right?

[Uiiop]

An open letter in response to the original open letter.

Notably, a response which leans heavily into prejudice plus power rhetoric:

the irony of the piece is that nowhere in it do the signatories mention how marginalized voices have been silenced for generations in journalism, academia, and publishing.

Eye for an eye! How biblical.

The content of the letter also does not deal with the problem of power: who has it and who does not. Harper’s is a prestigious institution, backed by money and influence. Harper’s has decided to bestow its platform not to marginalized people but to people who already have large followings and plenty of opportunities to make their views heard. Ironically, these influential people then use that platform to complain that they’re being silenced. Many of the signatories have coworkers in their own newsrooms who are deeply concerned with the letter, some who feel comfortable speaking out and others who do not.

Gotta love this - because if influential people sign it, it's a sign of their power and can be disregarded. But if uninfluential people sign it, it's pointless little penny ante shit and can be ignored. Catch-22.

And notably, most likely many who would have liked to sign the letter, but felt they couldn't because they would get "cancelled" for supporting basic liberal ideals.

The writers of the letter use seductive but nebulous concepts and coded language to obscure the actual meaning behind their words, in what seems like an attempt to control and derail the ongoing debate about who gets to have a platform. They are afforded the type of cultural capital from social media that institutions like Harper’s have traditionally conferred to mostly white, cisgender people. Their words reflect a stubbornness to let go of the elitism that still pervades the media industry, an unwillingness to dismantle systems that keep people like them in and the rest of us out.

Someone needs to quote this portion directly, and use their secret decoder ring to translate it.

That just say people are hypocritical without saying whether or not they deserved it. Like i heard you say exactly the same shit about feminism all the time.

Did you even get to the part in which they agree one of the incidents cited by the letter is BS? They wouldn't use logic if they had exemptions.

You may disagree about on their overall impressions and whether specific incidents were bad or not. I certainly do on both now that i think about it. But you're straw-manning them not actually engaging. Just because they think the people who wrote the letter hypocritical does not mean they dispute their interpretation of events solely on that.

Notably, a response which leans heavily into prejudice plus power rhetoric:



Eye for an eye! How biblical.



Gotta love this - because if influential people sign it, it's a sign of their power and can be disregarded. But if uninfluential people sign it, it's pointless little penny ante shit and can be ignored. Catch-22.

And notably, most likely many who would have liked to sign the letter, but felt they couldn't because they would get "cancelled" for supporting basic liberal ideals.



Someone needs to quote this portion directly, and use their secret decoder ring to translate it.

They also realize that...Noam Chomsky is not white, right?

Their accusations are pointed to the intentions of the writers and organizers . Chomsky not being either doesn't matter.

[Diarcesia]

Notably, a response which leans heavily into prejudice plus power rhetoric:



Eye for an eye! How biblical.



Gotta love this - because if influential people sign it, it's a sign of their power and can be disregarded. But if uninfluential people sign it, it's pointless little penny ante shit and can be ignored. Catch-22.

And notably, most likely many who would have liked to sign the letter, but felt they couldn't because they would get "cancelled" for supporting basic liberal ideals.



Someone needs to quote this portion directly, and use their secret decoder ring to translate it.

That just say people are hypocritical without saying whether or not they deserved it. Like i heard you say exactly the same shit about feminism all the time.

Did you even get to the part in which they agree one of the incidents cited by the letter is BS? They wouldn't use logic if they had exemptions.

You may disagree about on their overall impressions and whether specific incidents were bad or not. I certainly do on the latter. But you're straw-manning them not actually engaging. Just because they think the people who wrote the letter hypocritical does not mean they dispute their interpretation of events solely on that.

Reading both letters make it sound to me that it's mostly squabbling between two tribes cloaked in vague terminology, with very valid points sprinkled in between. Note: I didn't dismiss either out of hand.

[Diopolis]

That just say people are hypocritical without saying whether or not they deserved it. Like i heard you say exactly the same shit about feminism all the time.

Did you even get to the part in which they agree one of the incidents cited by the letter is BS? They wouldn't use logic if they had exemptions.

You may disagree about on their overall impressions and whether specific incidents were bad or not. I certainly do on the latter. But you're straw-manning them not actually engaging. Just because they think the people who wrote the letter hypocritical does not mean they dispute their interpretation of events solely on that.

Reading both letters make it sound to me that it's mostly squabbling between two tribes cloaked in vague terminology, with very valid points sprinkled in between. Note: I didn't dismiss either out of hand.

This is squabbling between two factions of the same tribe to try to get control of it, really.

[Galloism]

That just say people are hypocritical without saying whether or not they deserved it. Like i heard you say exactly the same shit about feminism all the time.

I don’t understand this response at all or what you’re trying to say.

Did you even get to the part in which they agree one of the incidents cited by the letter is BS? They wouldn't use logic if they had exemptions.

Yes, but since the original letter actually didn’t cite any specific incidents, they’re just making inferences. I’m also not familiar with all those cases, as when I read the original letter I thought of different cases in each instance than they did.

This probably means that both they and I are cherry-picking cases based on what we remember off hand, and thus they probably think of cases that fit their ideology and I thought of the ones that fit mine.

Which sort of makes sense - there’s been a lot of cases. They thought of the ones they could most easily debunk. And even then had to admit they had a point on one.

You may disagree about on their overall impressions and whether specific incidents were bad or not. I certainly do on the latter. But you're straw-manning them not actually engaging. Just because they think the people who wrote the letter hypocritical does not mean they dispute their interpretation of events solely on that.

Honestly, it’s a catch 22. If a bunch of random nobodies write it, it’s unimportant. If a bunch of important people write it, it’s hypocritical.

[Uiiop]

That just say people are hypocritical without saying whether or not they deserved it. Like i heard you say exactly the same shit about feminism all the time.

I don’t understand this response at all or what you’re trying to say.

Did you even get to the part in which they agree one of the incidents cited by the letter is BS? They wouldn't use logic if they had exemptions.

Yes, but since the original letter actually didn’t cite any specific incidents, they’re just making inferences. I’m also not familiar with all those cases, as when I read the original letter I thought of different cases in each instance than they did.

This probably means that both they and I are cherry-picking cases based on what we remember off hand, and thus they probably think of cases that fit their ideology and I thought of the ones that fit mine.

Which sort of makes sense - there’s been a lot of cases. They thought of the ones they could most easily debunk. And even then had to admit they had a point on one.

You may disagree about on their overall impressions and whether specific incidents were bad or not. I certainly do on the latter. But you're straw-manning them not actually engaging. Just because they think the people who wrote the letter hypocritical does not mean they dispute their interpretation of events solely on that.

Honestly, it’s a catch 22. If a bunch of random nobodies write it, it’s unimportant. If a bunch of important people write it, it’s hypocritical.

Basing it on what one of the writer of the original letter says they responded to isn't cherry picking itself.The letter explicitly mentioned where they got it from even if they didn't outright link it.

What i'm trying to say is that i read "They hypocritically ignore marginalized people who were canceled. And that is if they weren't one of the people who did it." as a separate point from "The examples they cite are BS". The latter isn't a result from the former in their argument and is more projection of your idea of the offended than the actual text.

They don't care that famous put their signatures on things per se but given what they think of the examples given it's clear to them that this group of famous people aren't hearing out the actual problem. If they did there the letter would have the marginalized included with celebs on this.