A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

Wed Jul 8 23:31:51 UTC 2020

I say everyone should ask to sign it....You in?

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 7:03 PM John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is a gross generalisation but the old 'we need more robust
> debate!' complaint tends to come from people in positions of power or
> who are used to being heard without question, at about the point when
> their voice is beginning to be questioned or is simply ignored.
> Claiming you're being censored or cancelled or deplatformed is a
> terrific way of shutting down conversations and silencing critics,
> rather than engaging with their criticisms or bolstering your own
> arguments. Rowling is obviously the most current case, with defenders
> using the 'now now, let her speak' defence as if utterances are
> without consequence.
> Of course there are many voices that are seldom heard and are used to
> not being heard, but I doubt they were invited to sign an open letter
> in Harper's.
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 4:41 AM Laura Kelber <laurakelber at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I loathe a number of the signers but agree with the content. I was glad
> to
> > see Zephyr Teachout's signature. The more progressives who sign on, the
> > less reactionary it becomes.
> >
> > If even signing this modest document carries the threat of
> excommunication,
> > then the contents matter.
> >
> > The editor states that this will be printed in the October issue of the
> > magazine, so the signature list is in flux. I suspect that most
> > progressives won't have the guts to sign. The centrists and reactionaries
> > on the list are preaching to their own choir and don't have to worry.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020, 11:03 AM Jonathon Hunt <jhuntstl at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't have a job right now and am exhausted after spending my day
> > > yesterday getting people out of jail who were violently arrested for
> > > protesting police violence, but after I rest a bit I may make time to
> read
> > > the letter as I am sure the letter signed by David Frum raises some
> oh-so
> > > important points about free speech.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 11:57 AM Gary Webb <gwebb8686 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ***Paul Beatty lol not the dude from Deliverance
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > > On Jul 8, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Gary Webb <gwebb8686 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Has anyone read Kanye’s interview:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2020/07/08/kanye-west-says-hes-done-with-trump-opens-up-about-white-house-bid-damaging-biden-and-everything-in-between/#488b548047aa
> > > > >
> > > > > I kind of missed the whole Kanye thing. Some younger friends are
> fans,
> > > > and I’ve read some very esoteric social media discussions about his
> > > albums.
> > > > I probably disagree with about 99 % of what he says, but I admire his
> > > > spirit. The whole interview kind of reads like Ned Beatty’s The
> Sellout.
> > > > >
> > > > > The birthday party lol... but it would be foolish to underestimate
> him,
> > > > in 2016 this would be dismissed as laughable nonsense... in 2020 he
> gets
> > > an
> > > > interview in Forbes... in 2024?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > >
> > > > >>> On Jul 8, 2020, at 7:25 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> It is.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Like all those political purity tests I read about in the "bad'
> > > > movements
> > > > >> of history, LOL.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 7:15 AM Mark Thibodeau <
> jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> I know that one of the signers taking her name off is a trans
> > > advocate,
> > > > >>> for whom the presence of JKRowling and Jesse Signal probably
> > > represent
> > > > a
> > > > >>> bridge too far (causing her to demand that her name be removed
> AND
> > > beg
> > > > her
> > > > >>> Twitter followers to please forgive her for the incalculable
> damage
> > > > that
> > > > >>> affixing her name to such a diabolical document has no doubt
> already
> > > > >>> wrought upon The CommunityTM.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> It's all just so ridiculously lunatic.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Jerky
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2020, 7:06 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Agree, Hasty and virtually ad hoc..and FOR intellectuals in the
> > > PUBLIC
> > > > >>>> SPHERE--see Habermas---
> > > > >>>> and academic sphere mostly. I doubt if he was asked.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> What is so unexpectedly infuriating is how contentious this has
> > > > already
> > > > >>>> become, Matty
> > > > >>>> Yglesias has been complained to his mannagement about BY A
> > > > COLLEAGUE....??
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> A couple other "liberals" are now regretting they signed
> because of
> > > > some
> > > > >>>> non-liberals (it seems) who signed, which
> > > > >>>> is kinda self-refuting, no?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 6:37 AM Mark Thibodeau <
> > > jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> i dunno... the list of signatures is actually kind of small,
> in my
> > > > >>>>> opinion.
> > > > >>>>> Small enough that I don't consider the lack of Pynchon's name
> (or
> > > > >>>>> Delillo's, or Vollmann's, or Price's, all of whom have actually
> > > > >>>>> contributed
> > > > >>>>> pieces to Harper's in recent years) to be particularly
> noteworthy.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> For what it's worth, I agree with the general sentiment of the
> > > letter
> > > > >>>>> AND I
> > > > >>>>> wear antifa t-shirts tees (figuratively... I don't actually
> own any
> > > > >>>>> sloganwear),
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Cheers!
> > > > >>>>> yer old pal Jerky
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 6:24 AM Kai Frederik Lorentzen <
> > > > >>>>> lorentzen at hotmail.de>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> So many smart people signed this necessary letter, --- Pynchon
> > > > didn't.
> > > > >>>>>> Was he just too lazy? Didn't they ask him? Or does he really
> wear
> > > > >>>>>> 'antifa'-t-shirts?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> + Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial.
> Powerful
> > > > >>>>>> protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue
> > > > demands
> > > > >>>>>> for police reform, along with wider calls for greater
> equality and
> > > > >>>>>> inclusion across our society, not least in higher education,
> > > > >>>>> journalism,
> > > > >>>>>> philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also
> > > > >>>>>> intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political
> commitments
> > > > that
> > > > >>>>>> tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of
> > > > differences
> > > > >>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>> favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first
> > > > development,
> > > > >>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>> also raise our voices against the second. The forces of
> > > illiberalism
> > > > >>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>> gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful
> ally in
> > > > >>>>> Donald
> > > > >>>>>> Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But
> resistance
> > > > must
> > > > >>>>>> not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or
> > > > coercion—which
> > > > >>>>>> right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic
> > > > inclusion
> > > > >>>>>> we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the
> > > intolerant
> > > > >>>>>> climate that has set in on all sides.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a
> > > > liberal
> > > > >>>>>> society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have
> come to
> > > > >>>>>> expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also
> spreading
> > > > more
> > > > >>>>>> widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a
> vogue
> > > for
> > > > >>>>>> public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve
> complex
> > > > >>>>>> policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the
> value
> > > of
> > > > >>>>>> robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But
> it
> > > is
> > > > now
> > > > >>>>>> all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution
> in
> > > > >>>>>> response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.
> More
> > > > >>>>>> troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of
> panicked
> > > > damage
> > > > >>>>>> control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments
> > > > instead
> > > > >>>>>> of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running
> controversial
> > > > >>>>>> pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity;
> > > journalists
> > > > are
> > > > >>>>>> barred from writing on certain topics; professors are
> investigated
> > > > for
> > > > >>>>>> quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired
> for
> > > > >>>>>> circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of
> > > > >>>>>> organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy
> > > > mistakes.
> > > > >>>>>> Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the
> result
> > > > has
> > > > >>>>>> been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said
> without
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>>> threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater
> > > risk
> > > > >>>>>> aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for
> > > their
> > > > >>>>>> livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack
> > > > sufficient
> > > > >>>>>> zeal in agreement.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital
> > > causes
> > > > of
> > > > >>>>>> our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive
> > > > government
> > > > >>>>>> or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack
> power
> > > and
> > > > >>>>>> makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The
> way
> > > to
> > > > >>>>>> defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion,
> not by
> > > > >>>>> trying
> > > > >>>>>> to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice
> between
> > > > >>>>> justice
> > > > >>>>>> and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As
> writers we
> > > > need
> > > > >>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>> culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking,
> and
> > > > even
> > > > >>>>>> mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith
> > > > >>>>> disagreement
> > > > >>>>>> without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the
> > > very
> > > > >>>>>> thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the
> public or
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>>> state to defend it for us. +
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>> --
> > > > >>>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > > > --
> > > > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > >
> > --
> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>