Yes, you nailed it.
I was conflating the two to a degree.
Wynn, however was canceled and left her platform for a while.
I’m glad to see her back, her contribution is significant.
1 Like
What is new, or perhaps old, is how now ordinary people can be targetted with massive campaigns for doing something stupid while someone has a camera pointed at them.
When people lived in tribes or villages gossip made sure everyone knew everything about everyone and that the social price for violating the established norms was very high. Then people moved to cities where they were more anonymous. Now we’re back to a global village. This is for better or worse, villages tend to get very conservative with a narrow range of opinions allowed, which may be nice if you like those values, not so good if you don’t.
10 Likes
I think we’re having a little disconnect on that term. I think you’re right to the extent that “debate” as you’ve laid it out has limited utility in changing the participants’ minds, especially when dealing with bad faith arguments. Ain’t nobody’s mind is going to be changed one way or the other if Ben Shapiro DESTROYS a liberal in a campus debate or vice versa.
What I’m saying in addition is I think that first particular notion of “debate” is a little narrow when considering the idea in the larger context of the marketplace of ideas. Your last sentence is also “debate,” as I understand it.
To pick an example, I’d argue that the words of Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth and Harriet Beecher Stowe were and are all part of the “debate” about slavery, not just the Lincoln/Douglas debates. The all form together the patchwork of ideas that move people (and the collective consciousness) to think a certain way, even if there may not be one specific argument that changes anyone’s mind on something so profound.
2 Likes
My open questions to Noam Chomsky (one of the signers): What would you say to the people who have been significantly and irreparably harmed due to the urgings of the haters? Is there actually any effective advice that would sway the haters and — if so — what is that advice?
Update: I sent my questions to Chomsky via his website contact info.
14 Likes
OMG, people are using their right to free speech to bring attention to bad actors in society. This must be a violation of free speech!
13 Likes
Is it all possible that Atwood and Chomsky think that they are condemning dangerous ideas by signing that letter?
To the extent we are haggling over which word to use, I’d say I don’t know why we’d call that a “debate” instead of a “ball game”. But I do think the choice of metaphor matters. “Debate” has an air of erudition to it. It includes something and excludes others. It certainly is a wide enough word to include Frederick Douglass, but is it a wide enough word to include the real societal fight over slavery? I mean, if some person who was tired of being enslaved killed a slaver with a garden hoe, is that part of the “debate”? Or if abolitionists got into a street fight with slavers? Because it was certainly part of the change, it was part of what was happening in society that led up to the end of slavery.
And we know now (they didn’t know then) that these weren’t debates, they were skirmishes in the prelude to war.
So I don’t think calling that period a period of “debate” makes sense. I think it distorts what was going on. America was grappling with it’s own evil. Some people reacted to that evil by saying, “We’ve got to stop being evil,” some people reacted to it by saying, “Let’s deny it’s happening until we die.” Those are two very common positions when a person comes face to face with something terrible they’ve been a part of. But there’s no debate between them, one of them is right and the other is wrong. A person who was okay with slavery who read pamphlets or heard a speaker and said, “Wow, slavery is terrible,” didn’t “change their mind”, they learned better, or more likely they admitted it to themselves that they already knew better.
So yeah, I don’t think debate is usually a good thing, and I think it matters that we don’t frame the fight against evil as a debate.
13 Likes
This needs to be tacked up to every lamppost, everywhere.
20 Likes
I think “they learned better” encompasses exactly what I was getting at. In any event, thanks for the interesting conversation.
4 Likes
I’ve probably posted this on this bulletin board before, but this 1984 Duke Law Journal article on “the marketplace of ideas” is increasingly relevant.
The author criticizes the trope that speech is like a capitalist “free market,” noting that assumptions of consumer rationality (already suspect when the market is an economic one) don’t translate to a marketplace of ideas because regular people aren’t generally qualified to determine what is true or false:
Holmes’s marketplace image does not necessarily emphasize the triumph of objective truth through rationality. The market can be viewed as a method of approaching truth that is preferable, in spite of its imperfection, to any method that relies on governmental determinations of the truth. A slightly different view of the marketplace posits that it does not matter whether any objective truth exists. Those views accepted in the marketplace are defined as true; those rejected are by definition false. This has been called the “survival” theory of truth. Viewed in this way, the marketplace is more egalitarian than rational. Individuals have the right to determine truth or falsity not necessarily because they are qualified to do so, but because it “is a deduction from the basic American agreement that public issues shall be decided by universal suffrage.”
This notion that more speech will necessarily lead to better speech is analogous to Rousseau’s unsupported belief that the Common Good will necessarily be normatively good. The Common Good doesn’t exist because it’s normatively good; it exists because that’s what a majority of people think it should be. Rousseau never really addresses this problem and just assumes that people won’t vote for bad things. Experience has certainly put the lie to that.
The question shouldn’t be, “Should we decide that some points of view are too toxic for the ‘marketplace of ideas’?” That answer is yes. Points of view that run contrary to our notions of liberty should be unwelcome. For example, a point of view that says members of certain minorities are subhuman, shouldn’t have rights, and can and should be subjugated by others. That point of view adds nothing to the “marketplace” and contravenes the (stated) fundamental principles of American society, while its mere presence in the marketplace gives it cachet. (“I saw this opinion in the pages of the venerated New York Times, therefore, there must be something to it …”)
The question should be, where is the threshold? This is a discussion we’re not having because we’re busy deciding whether there should even be a threshold.
11 Likes
He was married to Padma Lakshmi and apparently was pretty horrible to her:
Ms. Lakshmi suffered from endometriosis, a painful uterine disorder in which tissue grows outside the organ. The struggles of dealing with it — she had extensive surgery — upended their sex life and contributed to the demise of their marriage, she writes. Ms. Lakshmi said Mr. Rushdie at one point called her “a bad investment” and was insensitive to her medical condition even as she tried to recuperate.
11 Likes
OK, that’s pretty shitty.
3 Likes
I get there are a lot of shitty people who signed on to the letter, but there are reasonable people on there as well, such as Noam Chomsky.
There are many things to say on what this letter supports, but honestly, I think the best voice I’ve heard on this is Natalie Wynn in her video on canceling.
Its a much deeper subject then simply public shaming someone. I think its primarily judged by the outcomes of canceling truly horrible people (usually wealthy and influential), but one that doesn’t take into account a lot of adverse outcomes when less influential people become the target of canceling. Several cases of which, Natalie references in her video.
Another good article of the adverse effects of canceling, Trashing (1976).
…
There’s a great amount of schadenfreude to be had when people like Ben Shapiro are chased away from college campuses, but it’s a tragedy when someone, not nearly as well known, with no support network such as August Ames commits suicide. Was what they said okay? No. But I think the outcome was one that shouldn’t have happened.
In the end, I don’t want to be part of it. I’d rather spend my time advocating for things that I believe are right, always pushing towards something positive, then spending my energies countering, or de-platforming another person.
8 Likes
This deserves more upvotes. SInce the letter didn’t use specific cases but tried to be “meta”, he boiled down their examples to what he thought were the cases in question and showed why each was entirely justified.
Frankly, my take on the whole thing has been this is just another coat of lipstick on the pig they like to refer to as “politically correct” speech. It’s another way of trying to shut up anyone who disagrees with them. They’ve got huge platforms and tons of money, and they simply can’t STAND that folks without those things can band together and make their voices heard.
No one is being canceled. They’re free to say whatever dumb shit they like. They just don’t have the right to say it without being called out on it any more. People will turn away from them and refuse to allow them to cash in on their views. And that really pisses off these elitists, who are used to having the mic all to themselves.
Keep up the good work. Keep speaking out. We’re not going to be heard all the time, or even most of the time. But when people are banding together and taking on these shitty viewpoints, we’re making a difference.
15 Likes
The long and short of it with regard to JK Rowling’s support of the letter is this.
She doesn’t like trans people. She claims that they rape people in restrooms. People call her out for that falsehood. She claims she doesn’t like being “canceled”; so she blindly sides with people who are worried they might be “canceled” too like folks who joke about, openly advocate and/or perform acts of sexual assault on women in places including restrooms.
I’m sorry but, how did she end up having more money than the queen of england? Does she actually realize how her terf bullshit ends up flying back into her face by signing her support for this letter?
17 Likes
I’d argue that this is one of the fundamental aspects of the marketplace of ideas, and it’s central to what I think this letter misunderstands/misrepresents. Our notions of what is and isn’t outside the purview of being up for debate, or the social consequences for going outside those norms, are some pretty important first principles.
(to be absolutely clear, I’m agreeing with your premise that there are toxic ideas that don’t get to have a seat at the table and we shouldn’t pretend that “debating” someone’s humanity is like debating what the top marginal tax rate should be–I’m saying this is the process showing that the marketplace is working)
Nobody is being silenced. Free speech existed long before the internet. And even back then most people were unlikely to get published in a notable newspaper or appear on a TV talk show to offer opinions. Then as now, you can go stand on a soapbox on the town green and blather whatever you want (and you can expect anyone listening to disagree with you, loudly if necessary; same as it ever was)
The one thing the internet changed is that if you say something ignorant or hateful it’s there for all to see, either in video or audio or print, and everyone can comment on it, and you will know immediately about how people feel, whereas in the past the volume of dislike might not come back to you quite so efficiently.
Looking at the names of the signatories I get this is really about money, they fear a loss of income if they say something that will bring bad publicity. We all say stupid stuff sometimes, apologize and get on with life. If you foolishly said something out of pure ignorance then admit it, even if it makes you look dumb, and be honest and humble about it.
While not specifically addressed in the Harper’s letter but maybe tangential, I hate that on a strictly personal level social/political disagreement leads to splintering. I have seen my circle of friends segregate themselves, usually over misunderstandings or rumors, and it can feel puritanical. Maybe they’re just using political correctness as an excuse to shun someone they didn’t really like anyway. Fair enough. I try to remain friends with everyone, even when my friends aren’t talking. I sometimes mention “my local Trumper”-- an older guy I know who I kind of dislike (and not just because of his politics)-- I try to remain friendly with him. If you’re friendly with someone they are more likely to trust you, and if they trust you they will be more open to your opinions.
(sorry, slightly off topic.)
6 Likes
Sorry, but I don’t need “free exchange of information and ideas” with people whose information and ideas are abhorrent and wrong. They don’t deserve my ear. If that makes me an intolerant libt*rd cancel culture snowflake who’s stuck in my own bubble, then whatever. I’ll fucking own it.
So many racial epithets! Which one to use? The struggle is real! 
24 Likes
30 Likes
Even reasonable people can be wrong. Chomsky is not some damn god whose every word is gospel. He’s wrong on a number of things, in fact. Doesn’t diminish the quality of his good work, but it does show he’s not right about everything.
The key point that lots of people are making is that pretty much NONE of these people have been silenced, but that lots of marginalized people HAVE been by this kind of free speech rigidity.
29 Likes
