Harper's Open Letter on Open Debate

[beginner2011]

I genuinely like and respect the vast majority of regular posters on this forum, and I appreciate being challenged in my own thinking on the variety of topics that come up. Per this topic, after having read both the open letter to the LSA and the Harper's "Letter on Justice," I'm a bit confused. It looks like professionals in a specific field (Linguistics) raised objections to awarding another professional in that specific field (Pinker) with an honorary title. Their objections centered around his conduct as a professional, and they appear face valid.

In response, posters here have strongly endorsed this statement:

Exactly, the cancel culture ideological purity test mentality is just as dangerous as right wing fascism. Either path leads to the suppression of science and progress.

Can you define what you mean by "the cancel culture ideological purity test mentality" (CCIPTM)?

Can you give me an example of how CCIPTM is as dangerous as right wing fascism?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Can you define what you mean by "the cancel culture ideological purity test mentality" (CCIPTM)?

Can you give me an example of how CCIPTM is as dangerous as right wing fascism?

To the first question, it's that any thought/idea, even those based on data and empiricism, that go against a certain agreed upon orthodoxy, are anathema and should be silenced. Furthermore, the person who voiced that idea/thought, needs to be removed from any public or private position that they exist in.

As for a historical example, we have things like the Great Purge of intelligentsia and academics. The CCIPPTM is not a new or novel concept.

 

[beginner2011]

To the first question, it's that any thought/idea, even those based on data and empiricism, that go against a certain agreed upon orthodoxy, are anathema and should be silenced. Furthermore, the person who voiced that idea/thought, needs to be removed from any public or private position that they exist in.

As for a historical example, we have things like the Great Purge of intelligentsia and academics. The CCIPPTM is not a new or novel concept.

Genuinely not trying to strawman here, so let's just talk about the specific example you referred to initially:

Do you think it is appropriate for a group of professionals in Linguistics to express their objection to the behavior of a member of their field (i.e., Pinker), and call for his removal from an honorary list due to their objections?

In the abstract:

Do you think it is appropriate for someone who expresses a thought/idea to ever be removed from a public or private position they hold because of that thought or idea?

 

[WisNeuro]

Do I think it's appropriate? No. Do I think they have the right to ask it, sure.

In the abstract, yes.

I'll have to pick this up another time, need to run some errands.

 

[beginner2011]

Do I think it's appropriate? No. Do I think they have the right to ask it, sure.

In the abstract, yes.

I'll have to pick this up another time, need to run some errands.

So it sounds like there are instances where you agree that the CCIPTM is appropriate. I'd be curious to hear where you think the line is.

In the Pinker case, I do think that it's appropriate for a group of linguists to object to him being awarded an honorary title if they find the thoughts/ideas he expresses to be irresponsible and a poor representation of their field.

I'm also aware that I'm bias because I have limited respect Pinker as an academic given his prior critiques of behaviorism, which reflected either laziness, stupidity, or bad faith -- none of which are a good look. (Edit: For reference, a review of one of his most highly-cited works where he equates BF Skinner with Stalin and Mao: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.5210/bsi.v12i1.81.pdf)

 

[R. Matey]

Do you think it is appropriate for someone who expresses a thought/idea to ever be removed from a public or private position they hold because of that thought or idea?

Curious, What's your opinion of the tenure system?

 

[beginner2011]

Curious, What's your opinion of the tenure system?

Honestly, I haven't thought much about it since I don't intend to pursue it myself. My general attitude is that a time-limited tenure makes more sense than the current limitless tenure. I don't know a ton about the specific policies or how tenure is structured, though. I'm just aware of the downward pressure placed on early career scientists when someone holds a tenured position long past the point where they're actively engaged in their duties as a professor to the degree they once were.

What do you think of it? I can guess as to how that's related to this conversation (tenure is a rudimentary protection against professional removal), but curious why you brought it up?

 

[futureapppsy2]

I get that in the public sphere to an extent, but I'm not sure where that fits in within the academic debate. Do we have to sacrifice academic thought to further social justice? I reject the notion that it's either/or.

I don't think so--I genuinely believe that one of the deepest signs of caring about a topic is to rigorously study it, and legitimate lines of academic research being shut out genuinely concerns me (e.g., the fact that people can't publish research on detransitioning formerly-trans identified people or formerly-questioning-but-now-cisgender-identified people without getting shouted down and sometimes forced to retract their articles for reasons not based on scientific accuracy. Their experiences are in the minority in the trans community, but they do exist and should be studied to understand them [e.g., what is at play here?]).

That said, bigotry can definitely be baked into academic thinking, and all results have to be interpreted through a world view, so it's a bit short-sighted to hold up academic debate as a space free from both systemic and individual prejudices and discrimination, and I don't blame academics from marginalized groups for getting exhausted by having to defend their very humanity to their colleagues because it is exhausting, frustrating, and invalidating and academia is exhausting, frustrating, and invalidating enough as a baseline.

 

[R. Matey]

What do you think of it? I can guess as to how that's related to this conversation (tenure is a rudimentary protection against professional removal), but curious why you brought it up?

Yes, as an idea (not necessarily always as a practice) it allows academics to freely exchange ideas without harm of removal for said ideas. I was wondering if you think academics should be removed from their positions for their ideas. You called it rudimentary. I don't know what you mean by that.

 

[beginner2011]

Yes, as an idea (not necessarily always as a practice) it allows academics to freely exchange ideas without harm of removal for said ideas. I was wondering if you think academics should be removed from their positions for their ideas. You called it rudimentary. I don't know what you mean by that.

As in a simple or basic form of protection. Like the Hammurabi's code of academic protection for freedom of thought.

 

[R. Matey]

As in a simple or basic form of protection. Like the Hammurabi's code of academic protection for freedom of thought.

Your statement implies limits.

 

[beginner2011]

Your statement implies limits.

Not sure what you're getting at, and I think we're veering off topic here, but I was suggesting that tenure is not a well-thought out protection against professional removal because of the downsides I mentioned. In the same way Hammurabi's law of "an eye for an eye" is a rudimentary way of writing law for criminal justice, tenure is a rudimentary way of addressing freedom of thought in academia.

Edit: Are you asking if I think it is appropriate for someone who has tenure to be removed from their position for expressing some ideas? Yes, I can imagine an extreme scenario where I believe that would be appropriate. E.g., a tenured professor begins to advocate for cannibalism or something.

 

[WisNeuro]

So it sounds like there are instances where you agree that the CCIPTM is appropriate. I'd be curious to hear where you think the line is.

It's a tough line. I believe that any private entity can hire/fire for a pretty wide variety of reasons. In the academic sphere the bar is pretty high when discussing empirical thought. If someone is making an argument based on actual data, let's discuss the data, methodology, etc. Rather, we attack the thought itself, with no regards to the actual data.

That said, bigotry can definitely be baked into academic thinking, and all results have to be interpreted through a world view, so it's a bit short-sighted to hold up academic debate as a space free from both systemic and individual prejudices and discrimination, and I don't blame academics from marginalized groups for getting exhausted by having to defend their very humanity to their colleagues because it is exhausting, frustrating, and invalidating and academia is exhausting, frustrating, and invalidating enough as a baseline.

I don't claim that academia is free of bias and prejudice, even with respect to empirical data. But, we can address the data/methodology/statistics of studies, rather than dismissing something outright with no discussion. I can get the idea that you're talking about, but I think if the alternative is the purging of anything but a certain wing of thought, you will drive people away from wanting to ally with the change you want to see. If you make my choice dichotomous because we reject nuance or the continuous nature of these concepts, my choice will not be the false dichotomy.

 

[R. Matey]

Are you asking if I think it is appropriate for someone who has tenure to be removed from their position for expressing some ideas? Yes, I can imagine an extreme scenario where I believe that would be appropriate. E.g., a tenured professor begins to advocate for cannibalism or something.

You asked:

Do you think it is appropriate for someone who expresses a thought/idea to ever be removed from a public or private position they hold because of that thought or idea?

I brought up tenure as a social structure that is currently in place that protects people from being removed for their ideas and asked you if you agreed with it and if you do where are the limits of that protection? It's relevant because we're talking about whether or not people should be removed from their positions for their ideas.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

The flipside of this, however, is that marginalized people get really exhausted of constantly having to defend our right to exist and basic humanity and that it can be legitimately dangerous in some cases. So, it's tricky, because the dialogue of "hey, please respect my basic humanity" gets really old, because it is so slow to end, if it ever does.

Let's put aside "right to exist and basic humanity" since that is a wholly different topic (I am actually not sure where such a topic is actually a debate in academia). Importantly (for me), this was a new concept when I recently heard this argument. The idea that one should not have to keep providing empirical (or theoretical) evidence for their side when someone questions their data (or theory) b/c even questioning the experience is a form of discrimination is hard for me to swallow.

I've seen this recently discussed in the context of quantitative research vs. qualitative research. Or questioning the evidence on bias research.

I have a hard time seeing how a lack of discussion can ever lead to a lasting cultural change.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Let's put aside "right to exist and basic humanity" since that is a wholly different topic (I am actually not sure where such a topic is actually a debate in academia).

Disabled people and trans people still "get" to have that discussion in academic circles--do they deserve basic rights? Are they "real"? Do their experiences have any validity? Should they be included in the conversation? etc.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Disabled people and trans people still "get" to have that discussion in academic circles--do they deserve basic rights? Are they "real"? Do their experiences have any validity? Should they be included in the conversation? etc.

Pardon my ignorance but I am not sure what you are referring to. Is there a serious group of academics arguing against basic rights for disabled indivuals or trans folk? Included in what conversations? Not sure what validity of experience means.

 

[beginner2011]

It's a tough line. I believe that any private entity can hire/fire for a pretty wide variety of reasons. In the academic sphere the bar is pretty high when discussing empirical thought. If someone is making an argument based on actual data, let's discuss the data, methodology, etc. Rather, we attack the thought itself, with no regards to the actual data.

In the Pinker case no one is proposing that the guy lose his job, as far as I understand it. My read is that some linguists are objecting to their professional association awarding him with an honorary title. As you mentioned, raising the objection is certainly within their right. From the sounds of it I'm more sympathetic to the complainants than you are. Perhaps you can speak more to the substance of your counter-arguments.

Another example where this type of thing occurred was when James Watson (of DNA fame) was stripped of his academic titles: 'Father of DNA' James Watson Stripped of Honors Over More Ugly Racism Comments

 

[WisNeuro]

Yes, they advocated he lose certain honorifics for political reasons. The complainants used misquotes and out of context cites to "prove" their point, rather than actually answering the data. They can do it, sure, but the organization loses credibility if it moves to IMO. This is hardly an isolated incident, hence the open letter from people across the political spectrum.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Pardon my ignorance but I am not sure what you are referring to. Is there a serious group of academics arguing against basic rights for disabled indivuals or trans folk? Included in what conversations? Not sure what validity of experience means.

Yes. As a disabled academic who researches disability-related issues, I've been told that my academic credentials are irrelevant (that I'm a "community member", not an academic, and that my only value is in being a "good story"--to which I really just want to go toe-to-toe on CVs), that my experiences of ableism in academia are irrelevant, that respecting the stated language preferences of disabled academics and non-academic community members is too much of an ask, that even reasonable accommodations--like not having steps to a conference podium--are too much of a request, etc. Other disabled colleagues report similar, and we take our lumps and keep going, but it's honestly exhausting. There's been empirical research on disabled grad students to quantify and qualify these things for academic conversations, and it's helped some, but there's still a tremendous amount of ableism that people are just pretty cool with having there. In the face of COVID-19, ableism has been front and center in a lot of healthcare rationing conversations, especially early in the pandemic, and a lot of people were just chill with it.

 

[beginner2011]

Yes, they advocated he lose certain honorifics for political reasons. The complainants used misquotes and out of context cites to "prove" their point, rather than actually answering the data. They can do it, sure, but the organization loses credibility if it moves to IMO. This is hardly an isolated incident, hence the open letter from people across the political spectrum.

Can you point to where this happened? The MJ article you cited doesn't actually provide any counter-arguments of its own, it just uses highly charged language and links a bunch of people the author claims are experts who denounce the objections. I looked in to two of the links and was not impressed at all by their arguments. There are about a dozen links provided in the MJ article, was there one that was particularly compelling to you?

A couple of samples:

(1) The Purity Posse pursues Pinker

The Woke are after Pinker again, and if he’s called a racist and misogynist, as he is in this latest attempt to demonize him, then nobody is safe. After all, Pinker is a liberal Democrat who’s donated a lot of dosh to the Democratic Party, and relentlessly preaches a message of moral, material, and “well-being” progress that’s been attained through reason and adherence to Enlightenment values. But that sermon alone is enough to render him an Unperson, for the Woke prize narrative and “lived experience” over data, denigrate reason, and absolutely despise the Enlightenment.

Biased AF. No thanks. Not going to read the rest.

(2)

I would guess Pinker was hasty/sloppy in the words of his tweet, but he was encouraging his followers to read the article, which I don’t think any of the petitioners could object to.

This is just the conclusion of her argument to counter point 1 from the objection. She basically concludes that Pinker's complete mischaracterization of a linked article was "hasty/sloppy" and not part of a larger pattern...which is contradicted by the other 6 points.

Again, not a strong case for the "misquotes and out of context cites" claim that you're making. Also it's not clear what you mean by "answering the data" because Pinker isn't making any claims based on data either, as far as I can tell.

 

[WisNeuro]

Biased AF. No thanks. Not going to read the rest.

And this pretty much summarizes the crux of the issue.

 

[beginner2011]

And this pretty much summarizes the crux of the issue.

It's really difficult to take someone seriously who frames a carefully worded objection to an academic award as, 'tHe WoKe aRe TrYiNg tO uNpErSoN a MiLd MaNnErEd ScIeNtIsT! MaRxIsTs ArE CoMiNg fOr YoUr bAbIeS!!!!' (my caps). But alright, I'll read further.

The author goes on to claim that the below tweet is an accurate summary:

Data: Police don't shoot blacks disproportionately. Problem: Not race, but too many police shootings.

Of an article that states the below:

The data is unequivocal. Police killings are a race problem: African-Americans are being killed disproportionately and by a wide margin. And police bias may be responsible. But this data does not prove that biased police officers are more likely to shoot blacks in any given encounter.
Instead, there is another possibility: It is simply that — for reasons that may well include police bias — African-Americans have a very large number of encounters with police officers. Every police encounter contains a risk: The officer might be poorly trained, might act with malice or simply make a mistake, and civilians might do something that is perceived as a threat. The omnipresence of guns exaggerates all these risks.
Such risks exist for people of any race — after all, many people killed by police officers were not black. But having more encounters with police officers, even with officers entirely free of racial bias, can create a greater risk of a fatal shooting.
Arrest data lets us measure this possibility. For the entire country, 28.9 percent of arrestees were African-American. This number is not very different from the 31.8 percent of police-shooting victims who were African-Americans. If police discrimination were a big factor in the actual killings, we would have expected a larger gap between the arrest rate and the police-killing rate.

This in turn suggests that removing police racial bias will have little effect on the killing rate. Suppose each arrest creates an equal risk of shooting for both African-Americans and whites. In that case, with the current arrest rate, 28.9 percent of all those killed by police officers would still be African-American. This is only slightly smaller than the 31.8 percent of killings we actually see, and it is much greater than the 13.2 percent level of African-Americans in the overall population.

Huh?

 

[WisNeuro]

Yes, he is pointing at data that says that per encounter, killings are not all that different, the issue is that there are many more encounters between police and Blacks/POC. So, in terms of killings by police, he is not wrong. He is claiming that reducing police shootings overall is a good thing. In essence, the real issue would seem to point to finding the causes for the increase in encounters and look for solutions to that. His tweet could definitely have been more nuanced, and I do not know his original intent, but simply raising that datapoint is anathema to some.

 

[WisNeuro]

For anyone interested in the original post and point of the thread, good for and againsts of the open letter

Is free speech under threat from 'cancel culture'? Four writers respond

An open letter has ignited a heated discussion on the limits of political debate

www.theguardian.com

 

[beginner2011]

For anyone interested in the original post and point of the thread, good for and againsts of the open letter

Is free speech under threat from 'cancel culture'? Four writers respond

An open letter has ignited a heated discussion on the limits of political debate

www.theguardian.com

Thanks for sharing this. Much more balanced discussion of the issue.

For the record, if I were a linguist I'm not sure I would sign my name to that Pinker petition (not even considering it since I'm not a linguist). I don't think the case was made very strongly, but I do respect the arguments made and the willingness to take the risk of signing on to the petition.

On a relatively unrelated note, I would like to re-iterate that I think his book, "The Blank Slate," sucks and I haven't read any of his other work because of that fact.

 

[WisNeuro]

As a point of information, it is neither a petition per se, nor is Pinker the designated author. He is merely one of many varied signatories.

 

[beginner2011]

As a point of information, it is neither a petition per se, nor is Pinker the designated author. He is merely one of many varied signatories.

I was referring to the original anti-Pinker petition. The Harper's open letter is inoffensive enough and makes a fair point that I don't believe I've ever indicated I disagreed with; there are limits to appropriate criticism and it's important to be considered in how we critique ideas. The grey area of where the line is drawn is where I've disagreed with you and others. I think the Pinker petition is appropriate criticism, but I wouldn't sign it. It seems like many here think the Pinker petition is totally out of bounds and inappropriate.

 

[WisNeuro]

Ah, good to know. And, while I am fine with criticism, as long as it's ground in something real, I disagree with the asking for removal from positions for anything aside from grievous offenses. Organizations are free to do what they want. If an organization I belonged to caved to the petition writers, I'd voice my disagreement and resign from that organization. I can still act towards issues of social good, I simply refuse to do so under threat to toe an arbitrary line.

 

[futureapppsy2]

ABA had a similar issue come up when Dick Mallott was slated to get a major award soon after he gave a keynote at another conference where he called his female grad students “little bitches” who didn’t listen to him about not getting married and got his mic cut (during his keynote). He withdrew from the award.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Yes. As a disabled academic who researches disability-related issues, I've been told that my academic credentials are irrelevant (that I'm a "community member", not an academic, and that my only value is in being a "good story"--to which I really just want to go toe-to-toe on CVs), that my experiences of ableism in academia are irrelevant, that respecting the stated language preferences of disabled academics and non-academic community members is too much of an ask, that even reasonable accommodations--like not having steps to a conference podium--are too much of a request, etc. Other disabled colleagues report similar, and we take our lumps and keep going, but it's honestly exhausting. There's been empirical research on disabled grad students to quantify and qualify these things for academic conversations, and it's helped some, but there's still a tremendous amount of ableism that people are just pretty cool with having there. In the face of COVID-19, ableism has been front and center in a lot of healthcare rationing conversations, especially early in the pandemic, and a lot of people were just chill with it.

It is seriously unfortunate to hear that. I obviously believe you. I have a hard time imagining how someone like you gets questioned about their academic cred. From what I have seen you post, your creds seem stellar (I am envious). Though, there is a certain type of academician that is just an a-hole and there seems to be one in every other program. The lack of respect for preferred language is also something that continues to boggle my mind.

If you are active in Div 22, then we likely know the same people (I am not a member but I am married to a member). Through my partner, I hear a lot about these issues but I am always surprised about some of the stuff I hear.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

On a relatively unrelated note, I would like to re-iterate that I think his book, "The Blank Slate," sucks and I haven't read any of his other work because of that fact.

I think the beginning of the book superbly ties together the ideas of the blank slate, noble savage, and the ghost in the machine. A really accessible and well structured exploration of historical biases in understanding human behavior. The rest of the book provides a varying level of support for evolutionary forces on human behavior. This is the issue with a lot of evolutionary psychology research. Some of it is poorly supported but an interesting view of behavior.

I am not a Pinker fanboy and I think he gets lost in his own ideas. But to say it "sucks" is a bit of a stretch. I find parts are poorly supported by research but some parts are very well supported. However, it highlights the importance of bias in research that attributes human behavior to learning/social without controlling for genes. That is from an academic perspective. From a layperson perspective, his writing is very useful for disseminating scientific literacy and scientific findings.

I teach evolutionary psychology and had to educate myself since I am not an evolutionary psychologists. My conclusion is that there are some problems with evolutionary psychology research. Perhaps the biggest example is sex differences in jealousy, which is in every evo text I have looked over. Unfortunately, when I actually looked into the topic, the counter evidence was much stronger (men and women don't really differ in how/what they are jealous about). In this case, the theory overshadows the actual empirical evidence. I find this a travesty for the whole field. But, to be fair, every Abnormal Psych text I have ever looked over is also severely lacking (why are people still writing about the dopamine hypothesis for schizophrenia?).

I have a similar experience with The Better Angels of Our Nature. His overall point is spot on but some of the details are poorly supported or a bit misunderstood/misrepresented.

 

[ClinicalABA]

...
Take Rowling, one of the signatories, as an example. There was an attempted canceling of her because of her opinion on sex/gender. The strategy of going after employment because of disagreement about an issue that has a lot of nuance is a problem because it stifles the ability to process an issue...
What we are seeing today, in my opinion, is more aligned with living in a theocracy with attempted virtual stonings for deviating. E.g., Rowling. I’m not taking a position on Rowling’s points, only that she should be able to make them without being excommunicated.

I just think that Rowling is a bad choice of example to defend your position. How was she "cancelled"? Her relationships with almost all of us was fiduciary- we purchased her product(s). She, on her own accord and presumably voluntarily, went outside the author-consumer relationship and made public statements that went against the the views of many of her consumers (and- in the case of her equating medical trans-related medical interventions with conversion therapy- went against the empirical evidence). Many consumers then opted to end the fiduciary relationship. Actually, it was more of not continuing the fiduciary relationship, as she did not have to give back the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS she made from the fiduciary relationship). She continued, presumably vountarily, to escalate from a semantic argument (e.g., "why not say 'women' instead of "people who menstruate'), to a more polarizing positional stance (e.g., the TERF stuff), to an objectively incorrect statement (e.g., "gender re-assignment is just as bad for trans people as conversion therapy). She exercised her free speech (though I think you need to be cautious using this term outside the context of the first amendment as i don't believe she is in this country), very publicly, and others have exercised their free speech to deride her position and suggest ending any fiduciary relationships. Any call to remove her books is a bit too late, as they have already made her hundred of millions. Even if "cancelled," she'll be ok. Equating her "plight" with academic freedom may actually weaken the argument against "cancel culture."

and I think the latter is how we get a better society. For example, take gay marriage. It took a lot of discussion and education, humanizing, in the public sphere to get there. And, there is a fairly radical shift compared to where we were.

And imagine how much better it could have been for everyone if, instead of "a lot of discussion and education" we all just said "sure- if you want to get married go ahead. Good luck to you!" The problem is the ultimate control of the issue was in the hands of the people it affected the least, and thus the need for persistent debate and education. Seems to me that things haven't really been negatively impacted since gay marriage was permitted. Perhaps that is evidence that "a lot of discussion and education" was unnecessary and more obfuscation than anything else.

That is the gist of the problem- exercising your free speech rights from a position of power is VERY different than doing so from a position of less/no power. I think it is telling that now that peoples of historically low power are becoming more visible with their expressions of free speech, those who have historically held the power are now becoming more defensive.

That, to me, happened because of free speech.

As this seems to be a more global movement on both sides, it's going to be curious to see how the term "free speech" is used and evolves beyond it's oft misunderstood legal meaning in the US.

 

[ClinicalABA]

.. ala a theocracy

But the other side is trying to say that that you are only calling things out as a "theocracy" when it goes against the historical powers that be. We have a government whose policies have been dramatically shaped by white evangelical christian beliefs/donors for a very long time. Just yesterday the SCOTUS ruled that employers can deny certain medical care to employees due to religious beliefs. Yet calling out and asking that a rumored billionaire face consequences (and relatively inconsequential ones) for voluntary public statements that go against the beliefs of her consumers is set forth as an example of "theocracy"? I know we won't change each others' positions, but can you see where that might seems a bit of an "ok when we do it but not you" argument?

 

[WisNeuro]

But the other side is trying to say that that you are only calling things out as a "theocracy" when it goes against the historical powers that be. We have a government whose policies have been dramatically shaped by white evangelical christian beliefs/donors for a very long time. Just yesterday the SCOTUS ruled that employers can deny certain medical care to employees due to religious beliefs. Yet calling out and asking that a rumored billionaire face consequences (and relatively inconsequential ones) for voluntary public statements that go against the beliefs of her consumers is set forth as an example of "theocracy"? I know we won't change each others' positions, but can you see where that might seems a bit of an "ok when we do it but not you" argument?

It is possible to disagree strongly with the SCOTUS ruling AND disagree with cancel culture/suppression of ideas and discussion. These are not incompatible beliefs. You can disagree with this suppression no matter the political leaning of the person perpetrating it.

 

[ClinicalABA]

It is possible to disagree strongly with the SCOTUS ruling AND disagree with cancel culture/suppression of ideas and discussion. These are not incompatible beliefs. You can disagree with this suppression no matter the political leaning of the person perpetrating it.

Of course it is. That wasn't my point in choosing that example. I was attempting to point out how it can seem disingenuous to use the "theocracy" label when describing the behavior of the relative minority/non-white/non-cis/queer "protesters" when, in fact, there is evidence that the majority engages in actual theocratic practices.

Let me be clear- I don't support cancelling/suppressing ideas by anyone. It leads to such things as me- a 50 year-old, highly educated person raised and living in perhaps one of the most liberal areas of the country having never heard about the Tulsa Massacres or "Black Wall Street" until a month ago. I just think that, when arguing against it, you need to account for the fact that you (the collective "you",not you in particular) weren't arguing against and- more concerning- weren't even aware of it happening when it was being done by members of the dominant, ruling culture.

In the previous posts, I was also just trying to point out that i think JK Rowling is a poor example to use in the argument.

 

[foreverbull]

I understand that free speech is protected in our country and healthy debate is a good thing, but the part I have a hard time with the most is debating things that relate to human rights of groups of people (I.e. debating about what a woman can do with her own body, debating whether LGBT folks should be able to live safely/equally protected in a society under the law, debating whether a group of people “deserves” to be denied citizenship, etc.). I have a hard time understanding why basic human/equal rights should be up for debate at all, because to me, that signifies that some people just lack empathy for others and are fine with discriminating, and for many years there have been no consequences for this thinking or oppressive actions taken by said folks. To have to repeatedly debate some of these human rights topics sometimes seems like legitimizing the discriminatory stance. I don’t know a lot of folks whose hearts and minds changed via debates—many change when they personally meet someone from X group and see the direct effect of whatever the discrimination was or work together with someone from that group toward a common goal.

Since we brought up JK Rowling, her words are dangerous and wildly inappropriate. She called using language like “people who menstruate” as “hostile” towards her, and then turned around and said trans men are women—invalidating the entire trans identity. I know far more about the topic and research than she does, and the topic is nuanced, but she has millions of followers and some folks saying “her essay was so thoughtful and fact-based” when she didn’t actually cite a single study, just threw out cherry-picked numbers and used fearmongering tactics, but using more sophisticated language, so people seem to give her opinions more weight. An oft-cited study about trans children desisting later on that she referred to but didn’t cite had TERRIBLE methodology (counting children who didn’t return to the gender clinic as “desisting” and including gay boys who liked to play with dolls as having gender dysphoria—sublicnical gender dysphoria was included!). And yet Rowling pretends to speak from a place of sudden expertise and has a lot of people listening and thinking she’s a transgender identity expert. It’s mind boggling. If she were in academia, she wouldn’t get by with this kind of debate. My concern is that her words could have real world consequences of emboldening folks who don’t believe that trans identity exists and who believe that womens’ rights and trans rights are somehow mutually exclusive, further dividing marginalized groups and pitting them against each other (hmmm, who does this ultimately benefit?).

If she were in academia using the same tactics/arguments without any original research to back herself up, I would hope that tenure wouldn’t keep her from having to face any consequences whatsoever. I’m not saying being fired, necessarily, but it’s irresponsible to argue so in-depth outside of one’s knowledge area. If she were a gender researcher and published a study, the academic community could simply rebut with other research.

My thoughts are still forming on the topic, but as I said, sometimes I question the value of debate given that many folks are more easily persuaded by emotions and not facts. But I do understand the danger of stifling opinions, so it’s a complicated topic.

Germany outlawed use the use of the Swastika if I’m not mistaken—is this a problem since it limits free speech? Limiting hate speech is a big debate going on right now for Facebook and other social media outlets.

 

[beginner2011]

I don’t think it’s a race/minority issue in terms of the theocratic piece. It’s ideology. I don’t think it’s minorities/non-white/non cis-gendered driving cancel culture. Note, the letter was signed by an ideologically, identity diverse set of people. This is about ideas.

It seems like one could easily agree with the Harper's Letter and also advocate publicly that Rowland's behavior and ideas are harmful and she should lose her status as a cultural touchstone for her tone-deaf and misinformed opinions. Perhaps where there is some disagreement is whether Rowland should be punished.

I think one's response to the question of punishment has to do with differing objectives in the situation.

Some possible objectives:
1. Stop Rowland from spreading and validating harmful ideas to others. (punish ok!)
2. Change Rowland's mind. (punish not recommended)
3. Stand up for those harmed by Rowland's speech. (punish ok!)
4. Virtue signal. (punish ok!)
5. Discourage others who agree with Rowland from speaking up. (punish ok!)

 

[beginner2011]

I'd favor 2 generally speaking. Express your opinion. Maybe change her mind, maybe change people's minds that think like her. Maybe not.

4, 5, are unethical in my opinion.
3 can be done without placing her in the basket of deplorables
1 is interesting to me. Sounds a bit evil on the surface of it.

I included 4 for cynical and facetious reasons.

RE: #1 and #5
Do you think it's ever harmful for people to have public platforms to spread harmful and toxic ideas? One extreme example that comes to mind is Alex Jones and INFOWARS spreading the Pizzagate conspiracy that led a Gunman to a family owned pizza parlor in DC.

To my mind, stopping him from spreading toxic paranoid delusions via public criticism, objecting to his continued presence on platforms like YouTube, and not supporting sponsors is appropriate.

 

[beginner2011]

I don't know. I wouldn't have shut down infowars. There's a line between talking and violence. A Sanders supporter shot up a baseball game attended by republican gov officials. Sanders shouldn't be deplatformed for that. There are laws for libel and slander. If Alex Jones violated that, prosecute him for that. If Sanders violated that, prosecute him for it. But, this trend to having a judge of "fake news," . . That sound a lot like a movement toward central control of what is an allowed interpretation of news. Not a society i'd aspire to shaping.

I think you're conflating criminal prosecution with the various other forms of punishment that can occur. That is, the introduction of aversive stimuli (e.g., public criticism) and the withdrawal of appetitive stimuli (e.g., positive public attention). Notice that I specifically mentioned Alex Jones being removed from youtube, losing sponsors, and public criticism in my last post.

 

[beginner2011]

I’m not. I understand.

Uhh, ok. Do you think it is ever appropriate to choose not to support a public figure because of the speech of the public figure? Is it ever appropriate to tell others that you will not support a public figure because of their speech? Is it ever appropriate to discourage another person from supporting a public figure due to their speech?

If you're not conflating the two, then it sounds like you're saying the only appropriate course of action is through the courts, which is an astonishingly naive and rigid belief, to my mind.

EDIT:
I see that you edited your post to add in this part:

I think there’s a debate to be had, given how Twitter, Reddit and YouTube operate in our society, that they are effectively public forums. Today, being banned from Twitter, Reddit and YouTube is effectively a central authority silencing you.

 

[WisNeuro]

Not supporting is not the same as not allowing speech. Not supporting would be not following a person on twitter/youtube/etc, as opposed to restricting one's access to those outlets.

 

[foreverbull]

"I have a hard time understanding why basic human/equal rights should be up for debate at all."

Easy to say, but there's a lot to unpack and the transgender issue, as an example, is relatively new in the public discourse space. Think about issues like bathroom use (made the news, right? controversial) or athletic participation (should people with genetically driven years of increased testosterone compete against people without that advantage in sports?) or even eligibility for programs we've instituted to deal with disparities associated with sex (e.g., women owned business initiatives). These are things that have legitimate consequences in terms of how they're addressed.

While you're right that Rowling has a powerful voice, trying to ridicule, censor, deplatform, and demonetize her seems an aggressive response to someone trying to work through these issues. She's not an academic.

This isn't a simple problem. "Hate speech" as you say. Is Germany right to ban the Swastika. Is it ok to deplatform, ridicule and censor people like Richard Spencer or David Duke. If your governor is caught in blackface, Virginia, should he be removed from office? My knee jerk response is ban the Swastika, ridicule Spencer/Duke, but don't deplatform, and vote the governor out at the next opportunity. But, we see a blurring of what is being grouped with these more clear cases of hate (Duke) with people like Rowling, who are taking a position that may be misguided, but isn't doing so (apparently) from a position of hate. That seems . . . off to me.

The road of designating "hate speech" is a slippery one.

In reference to hate speech designation and some human rights issues in terms of logistics and details, yes, it can be complicated in discussions of gender identity. I don’t have easy answers to this and can see that it could be a slippery slope, but I also think there can be effects of tolerating hateful speech, as well.

JK Rowling is not really working through anything, seemingly—she’s made up her mind based on her arguments. And if she was thinking through the issues, I’m not sure why she’d publicly publish such an essay that is one-sided. If she wanted to engage in a dialogue, that isn’t the way to do it. I just don’t see JK Rowling facing serious consequences for this other than losing some future money and experiencing some backlash on social media; she can still publish books and still has a lot of money (she could self-publish with her money, even, should her publisher drop her). She wasn’t banned from social media, per my understanding. So are you saying that the social media backlash was too extreme for someone who came to some pretty strong conclusions based on misunderstanding research and comparing hormone treatment to gay conversion therapy? The kinds of arguments she is making are extreme. But she still has the right to share her opinion, which hasn’t been taken away.

I’ve also seen people face backlash for not reading the “right” books on social justice issues, so I’m aware that there are some folks who are just very extreme on social media and are taking away from equality movements by picking bones with people who are trying to educate themselves. It’s rare, but frustrates me and reminds me that every group and movement has its extreme members. Do I believe Rowling is part of this group trying to educate herself in good faith? No, I think she learned enough to cherry-pick and try to bolster her argument as a non-expert. So I think some of the backlash is warranted, but definitely not threats of violence, banning her from Twitter, etc.

 

[beginner2011]

Not supporting is not the same as not allowing speech. Not supporting would be not following a person on twitter/youtube/etc, as opposed to restricting one's access to those outlets.

I'm confused. Is the debate we're having about whether or not Twitter/YouTube/etc. should ever limit access to their platform based on the content of a user's speech? I'd certainly disagree with that claim, but we can have that debate.

My argument was that as an individual, it is not "unethical" or "evil" to have objectives consistent with 1/3/5 from my original post:

1. Stop Rowland from spreading and validating harmful ideas to others.
3. Stand up for those harmed by Rowland's speech.
5. Discourage others who agree with Rowland from speaking up.

As to the question of unrestricted free speech:

What is a public figure? What is the line for that? And further, putting pressure on YouTube to cancel Alex Jones is a method. But, one could also argue against jones and, if you win, Jones would get fewer views. What you are saying, in my view, is you don’t trust people to be able to determine for themselves what is good information. That’s anti free speech, in my opinion. It’s just being done through a proxy (a company with a monopoly over a commonly used communication format).

I don't know how to define a public figure, or where the line is. I think it's an open question. However, to malign the objectives of stopping harmful speech as "unethical" and "evil" seems off-base. Because of how rigidly you've framed the statement, it sounds like you're saying that me asking YouTube not to publish Alex Jones videos is "unethical" and "evil", even if I'm saying this to YouTube because Jones is telling his millions of viewers that Hillary Clinton is a !!DeMoN!! who is running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor, and those viewers are acting on this misinformation by bringing guns to the pizza parlor and threatening violence.

In fact, on the extreme end, you're saying that me telling my friend not to watch Alex Jones because I think he is a bad source of information is "unethical" and "evil".

You're right, I don't trust everyone to be able to determine for themselves what is good information. Don't we have ample evidence of that, at this point? Anti-vaxers, pizzagate, there are so many examples of this. De-platforming someone because they're abusing their platform is not the same as being "anti-free speech," in my opinion. That's not the same as criminalizing speech that I deem misinformation.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm confused. Is the debate we're having about whether or not Twitter/YouTube/etc. should ever limit access to their platform based on the content of a user's speech? I'd certainly disagree with that claim, but we can have that debate.

Just a clarification of an ambiguous statement.

 

[beginner2011]

Just a clarification of an ambiguous statement.

To clarify, @Jon Snow had edited his post to include the references to Twitter, etc. So I was not responding to that in my reply.

 

[WisNeuro]

To clarify, @Jon Snow had edited his post to include the references to Twitter, etc. So I was not responding to that in my reply.

Sounds good. My point is still the same, though, between support and removing access.

 

[beginner2011]

Not supporting is not the same as not allowing speech. Not supporting would be not following a person on twitter/youtube/etc, as opposed to restricting one's access to those outlets.

So this is a more complicated issue, because Twitter and YouTube are private businesses. Are you saying Twitter/YouTube etc. should be forced to publish speech on their website under all circumstances? If I'm reading @Jon Snow correctly then he is saying that there are circumstances where it is "perfectly reasonable" for me to advise my friend not to watch Alex Jones. What if I advise my friend not to use YouTube? What if YouTube decides that it harms their business interests if people stop using YouTube because of Alex Jones, so they stop publishing Alex Jones' speech? Where is the unethical/evil action in that sequence?

I think you (Wis and Jon) are approaching this too much in the abstract, and losing sight of the grey realities. As Zoe Williams said in that guardian piece:

We should think carefully before lining up behind an abstract, on either side – absolutes have a tendency to dissolve on contact with reality. And it’s in reality, of course, with its compromises and discomforts and competing demands, that we actually live.

I think it's also important to keep in mind, as people with advanced degrees and thus significant power in our society, what Nesrine Malik said:

To those unaccustomed to being questioned, this all feels personal. They have confused a lack of reverence from people who are able to air their views for the very first time with an attack on their right to free speech. They have mistaken the new ways they can be told they are wrong or irrelevant as the baying of a mob, rather than exposure to an audience that has only recently found its voice. The world is changing. It’s not “cancel culture” to point out that, in many respects, it’s not changing quickly enough.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think you (Wis and Jon) are approaching this too much in the abstract, and losing sight of the grey realities. As Zoe Williams said in that guardian piece:

I don't think either of us are, really. There are numerous historical precedents to the end of this slope. We don't have to speculate on the abstract possibilities, they've been borne out in different incarnations. If anything, I think that people are much too short-sighted and make knee jerk reactions, with solutions in search of problems with no forethought as to the unintended consequences of their actions.

 

[beginner2011]

I don't think either of us are, really. There are numerous historical precedents to the end of this slope. We don't have to speculate on the abstract possibilities, they've been borne out in different incarnations. If anything, I think that people are much too short-sighted and make knee jerk reactions, with solutions in search of problems with no forethought as to the unintended consequences of their actions.

Ok. I agree with you, and think most in this thread would, too. I also think that the same can be said about the end of the other slope.