Open letter denouncing the "restriction of debate".

[Joe Hutch]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53330105

'Some 150 writers, academics and activists - including authors JK Rowling, Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood - have signed an open letter denouncing the "restriction of debate".

They say they applaud a recent "needed reckoning" on racial justice, but argue it has fuelled stifling of open debate.

The letter denounces "a vogue for public shaming and ostracism" and "a blinding moral certainty".

[...]

One signatory - Matthew Yglesias, co-founder of liberal news analysis website Vox - was rebuked by a colleague on Tuesday for putting his name to the letter.

Vox critic at large Emily VanDerWerff, a trans woman, tweeted that she had written a letter to the publication's editors to say that Yglesias signing the letter "makes me feel less safe at Vox".

But VanDerWerff said she did not want Yglesias to be fired or apologise because it would only convince him he was being "martyred".

One signatory recanted within hours of the letter being published.

Jennifer Finney Boylan, a US author and transgender activist, tweeted: "I did not know who else had signed that letter.

"I thought I was endorsing a well-meaning, if vague, message against internet shaming."

She added: "I am so sorry."

Get a grip FFS!

Also:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53311867

'Last October, former President Barack Obama challenged cancel culture and the idea of being "woke" - a term describing being alert to injustices and what's going on in the community - saying change was complex.

"I get a sense among certain young people on social media that the way of making change is to be as judgemental as possible about other people," Mr Obama said.

"The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws."

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

One signatory recanted within hours of the letter being published.

Jennifer Finney Boylan, a US author and transgender activist, tweeted: "I did not know who else had signed that letter.

"I thought I was endorsing a well-meaning, if vague, message against internet shaming."

She added: "I am so sorry."

Thereby shaming the other signatories to the letter, on the internet.

 

[Joe Hutch]

An object lesson in reading the small print before signing anything. (As if I do that. I like the 'Privacy Options' bit on The Daily Mash; one option to tick is long and verbose; the other just says 'Whatever').

 

[gassor]

The trans discussion seems nuanced to the nth degree of nuancing. I'm out.

 

[Coda II]

An object lesson in reading the small print before signing anything. (As if I do that. I like the 'Privacy Options' bit on The Daily Mash; one option to tick is long and verbose; the other just says 'Whatever').

Have read through the text of the letter and just wanted to be clear what the issue is here: is it the text itself or the list of people who have put their names to it?

 

[Marchbanks]

Get a grip FFS!

It’s unlike the BBC to offer such a forthright opinion.

 

[Joe Hutch]

Have read through the text of the letter and just wanted to be clear what the issue is here: is it the text itself or the list of people who have put their names to it?

I think the issue is (some of) the people who've signed it. The text itself is fairly bland:

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

'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.'

I'm guessing the signatories will have seen phrases such as 'Donald Trump' and 'right-wing demagogues' and thought 'Yeah, down with that sort of thing', then seen that it had also been signed by some less-than-ideologically-sound' people, and regretted their decision.

 

[Coda II]

I think the issue is (some of) the people who've signed it. The text itself is fairly bland:

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

'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.'

I'm guessing the signatories will have seen phrases such as 'Donald Trump' and 'right-wing demagogues' and thought 'Yeah, down with that sort of thing', then seen that it had also been signed by some less-than-ideologically-sound' people, and regretted their decision.

Thank you. So irrespective of the actual message it is a not wanting to be seen to endorse something that is also endorsed by people you don't agree with thing.

 

[Joe Hutch]

Yes. Which is weird, really. Either you're in favour of free speech, or you're not.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

There seems to be an aspect of the whole Trans debate which is so nuanced I can't actually follow it any more. I don't know whether any other signatories have recanted, and the two Trans activists are being singled out, or whether it is just those two who have recanted, but the comments from Emily Van der Werff are bullying, plain and simple.

 

[Seeker_UK]

We will always seek to find groups we belong to and we will always seek to identify that group both by what's common and it's difference to others. As we all start to identify ourselves a being part of a growing multitude of one or more of ever more specific unique demographics / identities, it's only to be expected that there will be a lot of internecine arguments.

Hopefully, it's just a painful period of readjustment for society and the damage won't be too irreversible.

 

[Woodface]

It is pretty terrible when you cannot consider the viewpoints of others, I think ‘agreeing to differ’ is a perfectly fine position to hold.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

We will always seek to find groups we belong to and we will always seek to identify that group both by what's common and it's difference to others. As we all start to identify ourselves a being part of a growing multitude of one or more of ever more specific unique demographics / identities, it's only to be expected that there will be a lot of internecine arguments.

Hopefully, it's just a painful period of readjustment for society and the damage won't be too irreversible.

I'm struck, though, by the irony of Trans activists using tactics akin to 'othering' about people they've taken against.

 

[Joe Hutch]

There was an interview with one of the signatories (Anne Applebaum) on R4 this morning. She was asked if she'd signed the letter as an act of solidarity with J K Rowling. She replied that she didn't know that Rowling had signed it, and she herself had signed it simply because she agreed with the sentiments expressed in the letter.

 

[Tarzan]

There seems to be an aspect of the whole Trans debate which is so nuanced I can't actually follow it any more. I don't know whether any other signatories have recanted, and the two Trans activists are being singled out, or whether it is just those two who have recanted, but the comments from Emily Van der Werff are bullying, plain and simple.

That's because it is b------s

Think folk are at point of just not caring/listening any more.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

That's because it is b------s

Got to the point of just not caring/listening any more.

I'm afraid I'm moving in that direction. I have a friend and former colleague who is trans, she transitioned over 25 years ago so I consider myself to have long been aware of, and sympathetic to, the issues faced by trans people. But I would genuinely be wary of discussing matters with some of the current activists lest my attitude be found wanting in some crucial regard. I don't think this is doing the movement any favours. Hopefully it's a blip.

 

[gassor]

There seems to be an aspect of the whole Trans debate which is so nuanced I can't actually follow it any more.

Great minds and all that. See above.

 

[Tarzan]

I'm afraid I'm moving in that direction. I have a friend and former colleague who is trans, she transitioned over 25 years ago so I consider myself to have long been aware of, and sympathetic to, the issues faced by trans people. But I would genuinely be wary of discussing matters with some of the current activists lest my attitude be found wanting in some crucial regard. I don't think this is doing the movement any favours. Hopefully it's a blip.

Scared to go out the house for fearing of 'triggering' anything/anyone or being told you are this and that constantly- subliminal messages on a lot of TV channels ( sports channels especially.)- nuts to this l am going for a lie down.

 

[Seeker_UK]

I'm struck, though, by the irony of Trans activists using tactics akin to 'othering' about people they've taken against.

There will always be some within any organisation / group who will go that bit further. Sadly, it's that which gets picked up on because either (a) it sells papers (all aboard the Outrage Bus), (b) Can present a chance to make them an object of ridicule ("People's Front of Judea" LOL), (c) It presents an opportunity to try to invalidate the broader aims of the group or worse to point out that they *clearly* represent the community they are part of and thus proves the whole community is teh evil (think back to ISIS and the Muslim Communities) and the enemy of 'normal decent' people.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

There will always be some within any organisation / group who will go that bit further. Sadly, it's that which gets picked up on because either (a) it sells papers (all aboard the Outrage Bus), (b) Can present a chance to make them an object of ridicule ("People's Front of Judea" LOL), (c) It presents an opportunity to try to invalidate the broader aims of the group or worse to point out that they *clearly* represent the community they are part of and thus proves the whole community is teh evil (think back to ISIS and the Muslim Communities) and the enemy of 'normal decent' people.

This is why I wondered, upthread, whether the two individuals who had recanted had been singled-out (ie others had also recanted, but not named).

It did feel to me, though (as one who admittedly has only a secondhand grasp of the situation here) that a key objection was because of JK Rowling's participation. And, if so, then those who recanted should, ironically enough, not have signed in the first place as they seem to be perpetuating the sort of situation the letter complains about.