A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

Thu Jul 16 10:49:31 UTC 2020

Yes, David, thanks muchly.

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 5:56 AM Mark Thibodeau <jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Brilliant. Thanks for sharing! Bookmarked for sure.
>
> Jerky
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 4:43 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> https://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2020/07/wrongthink.html
>>
>> It's the Intellectual Dark Singularity! Where on the same strange
>> Tuesday, Andrew Sullivan gets the sack from New York Magazine.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:40 AM Mark Thibodeau <jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bai Weiss is a human stain, not to mention an intellectual lightweight
>>> spewing  cliched inanities, whose own hiring was a bit of performative
>>> stunt tokenism meant to prove something (Zeus knows what) to
>>> conservatives.
>>>
>>> Bet the Times has no regrets about that now, eh wot?
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>> Yer old pal Jerky
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 7:29 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > The Human Stain, allusion intended.
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 7:25 AM Kai Frederik Lorentzen <
>>> > lorentzen at hotmail.de>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > Since you mention the NYT ...
>>> > >
>>> > > + ... But the lessons that ought to have followed the
>>> election—lessons
>>> > > about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity
>>> of
>>> > > resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of
>>> ideas to
>>> > a
>>> > > democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus
>>> has
>>> > > emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that
>>> truth
>>> > > isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already
>>> known
>>> > to
>>> > > an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.
>>> > >
>>> > > Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has
>>> > > become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform
>>> have
>>> > > become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a
>>> > kind
>>> > > of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to
>>> satisfy the
>>> > > narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read
>>> > about
>>> > > the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught
>>> that
>>> > > journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of
>>> history.
>>> > > Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the
>>> needs
>>> > of
>>> > > a predetermined narrative.
>>> > >
>>> > > My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant
>>> > > bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called
>>> me a
>>> > > Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m
>>> > > “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be
>>> > friendly
>>> > > with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are
>>> openly
>>> > > demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors
>>> regularly
>>> > > weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if
>>> this
>>> > > company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis
>>> > next
>>> > > to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me
>>> as a
>>> > > liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be
>>> met
>>> > with
>>> > > appropriate action. They never are.
>>> > >
>>> > > There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile
>>> work
>>> > > environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I
>>> know
>>> > > that this is wrong.
>>> > >
>>> > > I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go
>>> on
>>> > > inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the
>>> > > public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders
>>> have
>>> > > stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage.
>>> > > Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not
>>> > > require bravery.
>>> > >
>>> > > Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the
>>> > truth
>>> > > is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a
>>> liability
>>> > at
>>> > > The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write
>>> > > something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it
>>> > > ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security
>>> (and
>>> > > clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a
>>> > > unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship
>>> has
>>> > > become the norm.
>>> > >
>>> > > What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme
>>> selectivity.
>>> > > If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and
>>> > their
>>> > > work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital
>>> > > thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the
>>> > > proper targets.
>>> > >
>>> > > Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago
>>> would now
>>> > > get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a
>>> piece is
>>> > > perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social
>>> media,
>>> > the
>>> > > editor or writer avoids pitching it ... +
>>> > >
>>> > > https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter
>>> > >
>>> > > Am 09.07.20 um 22:33 schrieb rich:
>>> > >
>>> > > good explanation for why Pynchon didnt sign. everybody so angry
>>> > >
>>> > > curious there were no really humorous quarantine stories featured in
>>> the
>>> > > NYTimes magazine 'fiction issue' this week. so serious our current
>>> slate
>>> > of
>>> > > established writers.
>>> > >
>>> > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 7:32 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> <
>>> > mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > 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> <
>>> > 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>
>>> <
>>> > 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> <
>>> > 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> <
>>> > 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> <
>>> > 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> <
>>> > 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
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > 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
>>>
>>