Open letter denouncing the "restriction of debate".

[Tony L]

I must admit I find Bragg incredibly irritating, the richer he becomes the more Working class he sounds. Rather affected IMO, but his heart is in the right place I suppose.

I’ve got his first 45rpm mini-album, Life’s A Riot With Spy V. Spy, and I saw him play several times around that time (just him and a guitar and a little amp, just what he could carry on the train). He was certainly working class then. He has become rather more political and articulate in the decades since, which for me doesn’t actually add much to what I liked so much about his debut (edge, directness, simplicity). I certainly view him as a thoroughly decent bloke and a protest singer in the truest historic sense of the term. His debut remains the only album I own, as it is with so many artists, but I follow him on Facebook as he just talks sense and has an interesting perspective. I like the guy.

 

[Woodface]

I’ve got his first 45rpm mini-album, Life’s A Riot With Spy V. Spy, and I saw him play several times around that time (just him and a guitar and a little amp, just what he could carry on the train). He was certainly working class then. He has become rather more political and articulate in the decades since, which for me doesn’t actually add much to what I liked so much about his debut (edge, directness, simplicity). I certainly view him as a thoroughly decent bloke and a protest singer in the truest historic sense of the term. His debut remains the only album I own, as it is with so many artists, but I follow him on Facebook as he just talks sense and has an interesting perspective. I like the guy.

I have that album somewhere & also the one he did of Woody Guthrie songs, the main virtue is its ascending value on vinyl

I am afraid I am very wary of affectation & I think he falls into that category these days.

 

[Thorn]

John Stuart Mill recommended a voting test before universal suffrage existed (he was one of the very few to argue for female suffrage before the Suffragist movement emerged towards the end of the 19th century). His proposed test was very simple; the ability to write one's name and perform a simple mathematical calculation would suffice. He also argued that the more educated a person was, the more votes he or she should have, up to a maximum of five votes per individual.

So Eton and Oxford should entitle you to how many votes?

 

[Joe Hutch]

So Eton and Oxford should entitle you to how many votes?

Eton just the one, Oxford three (from memory). Ah, here we are:

'Moreover, Mill argued in favour of a system of plural voting, with an ‘ordinary unskilled labourer’ having one vote, increasing to five or six votes for a member of ‘any profession requiring a long, accurate and systematic mental cultivation, - a lawyer, a physician or surgeon, a clergyman of any denomination, a literary man, an artist, a public functionary.’ University graduates would be allowed at least five votes as a matter of course.'

 

[Kirk]

So Eton and Oxford should entitle you to how many votes?

Eton and Oxford types believe they are born to rule in the image of God; manifest destiny, "I am inevitable..." sort of stuff. Far too important for pesky things like votes and democracy .

 

[Tony L]

Eton just the one, Oxford three (from memory). Ah, here we are:

'Moreover, Mill argued in favour of a system of plural voting, with an ‘ordinary unskilled labourer’ having one vote, increasing to five or six votes for a member of ‘any profession requiring a long, accurate and systematic mental cultivation, - a lawyer, a physician or surgeon, a clergyman of any denomination, a literary man, an artist, a public functionary.’ University graduates would be allowed at least five votes as a matter of course.'

The sad thing is this whole elitism thing, be it through wealth, background, academia, or any combination thereof still persists to this day. In many respects this whole ‘cancel culture’ furore is just another child tantrum from those who think they are somehow entitled to five or more votes and are utterly furious that racial minorities, LGBT folk, people with a non state-sanctioned religion or whatever now have a near-equal voice and ability to create and respond to conversation without enforced boundaries or limits. It is a simple power thing. I can’t help but read the aforementioned Harpers letter in a whiney ‘Eric Cartman tantrum voice’ in my head. It really is just an elite whinging that they no longer own, define and control the platforms of discourse. That and a degree of self-pity that no one wants to pay them to speak at universities etc anymore.

 

[Joe Hutch]

The sad thing is this whole elitism thing, be it through wealth, background, academia, or any combination thereof still persists to this day. In many respects this whole ‘cancel culture’ furore is just another child tantrum from those who think they are somehow entitled to five or more votes and are utterly furious that racial minorities, LGBT folk, people with a non state-sanctioned religion or whatever now have a near-equal voice and ability to create and respond to conversation without enforced boundaries or limits. It is a simple power thing. I can’t help but read the aforementioned Harpers letter in a whiney ‘Eric Cartman tantrum voice’ in my head. It really is just an elite whinging that they no longer own, define and control the platforms of discourse. That and a degree of self-pity that no one wants to pay them to speak at universities etc anymore.

I used to have long, futile arguments with a bloke on AN Other forum who argued for examinations to decide if a person should be eligible to vote. My concerns were essentially the same as yours over a government-regulated internet: who would set the questions, who would mark the exams, and, more crucially, who would decide what the 'correct' answers should be. Ironically, we were debating at a time when Blair was in power, and the bloke I was arguing with thought that exams would prevent Socialist governments (because he classified Blair as a Socialist) from gaining power. He couldn't grasp the point that any government would ensure that any exam questions would produce the 'correct' answers from its own perspective.

 

[mansr]

twitter mobs have to be OK as a general principle. it does give regular people a lot of convenient power. that said, if you're going to invoke the mob and go after someone that way, it had better be for a very good reason -- the sort of reason you could march in the street for and broadcast on signs. you also have to go easy on calls to have the person fired (especially non-millionaires) and there should always be some avenue to redemption. otherwise, the mob is like a gang of bullies.

That's exactly what it's about. People screaming their heads off on Twitter is fine by me. It's when people lose their jobs, sometimes within hours, as a result that we have a problem. This has happened. We have a problem. Telling the victims, such as that electrician in San Diego, that what they experienced didn't actually happen is deeply insulting. Just as insulting, in fact, as telling black people that racism isn't a thing.

the other thing i failed to do is scrutinize that harper's signatory list carefully. i have a proper subscription to the magazine (which is excellent) and was waiting to get it in the mail. the general statement is perfectly fine. the list of signatories, upon close examination, is tremendously problematic

I don't understand reactions like this. If the statement is good, it's good. What exactly is "problematic" about some specific people putting their name under it? Is it that they are people you (and I'm directing this at all those who express this view, not just vuk) dislike, and you find the idea of agreeing with them on anything at all upsetting? Sure, they may not have personally suffered dire consequences at the hands of a Twitter mob (they're rich, after all). Does that make them hypocrites? Maybe a little, but there's also nothing wrong with taking a stand for those less fortunate. If the same letter was signed by electricians and bakers, I somehow doubt it would get published by Harper's, much less receive the attention it has.

PS: can someone teach vuk to capitalise properly.

 

[mansr]

I used to have long, futile arguments with a bloke on AN Other forum who argued for examinations to decide if a person should be eligible to vote. My concerns were essentially the same as yours over a government-regulated internet: who would set the questions, who would mark the exams, and, more crucially, who would decide what the 'correct' answers should be. Ironically, we were debating at a time when Blair was in power, and the bloke I was arguing with thought that exams would prevent Socialist governments (because he classified Blair as a Socialist) from gaining power. He couldn't grasp the point that any government would ensure that any exam questions would produce the 'correct' answers from its own perspective.

Calling Blair a socialist should immediately disqualify a person from voting.

 

[Tony L]

PS: can someone teach vuk to capitalise properly.

He is an anti-capitalist. It is the oldest joke on the internet! ;-)

 

[mansr]

He is an anti-capitalist. It is the oldest joke on the internet! ;-)

Oh well, at least he punctuates.

 

[Joe Hutch]

I don't understand reactions like this. If the statement is good, it's good. What exactly is "problematic" about some specific people putting their name under it? Is it that they are people you (and I'm directing this at all those who express this view, not just vuk) dislike, and you find the idea of agreeing with them on anything at all upsetting? Sure, they may not have personally suffered dire consequences at the hands of a Twitter mob (they're rich, after all). Does that make them hypocrites? Maybe a little, but there's also nothing wrong with taking a stand for those less fortunate. If the same letter was signed by electricians and bakers, I somehow doubt it would get published by Harper's, much less receive the attention it has.

Of course, for most of us non-Americans, only a few of the names would have meant anything at all, and even for Americans the stand-out names would probably be Margaret Atwood, J K Rowling and Salman Rushdie. (I've just done a quick skim through the list of signatories, and recognise maybe another half-dozen, all writers and critics, and none of them problematic from my POV). The point, though, as you say, is 'Do I agree with the sentiments expressed in the Open Letter?', not 'Do I agree with everything that all the other signatories may have said and done?'

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

That's exactly what it's about. People screaming their heads off on Twitter is fine by me. It's when people lose their jobs, sometimes within hours, as a result that we have a problem. This has happened. We have a problem. Telling the victims, such as that electrician in San Diego, that what they experienced didn't actually happen is deeply insulting. Just as insulting, in fact, as telling black people that racism isn't a thing.

I don't understand reactions like this. If the statement is good, it's good. What exactly is "problematic" about some specific people putting their name under it? Is it that they are people you (and I'm directing this at all those who express this view, not just vuk) dislike, and you find the idea of agreeing with them on anything at all upsetting? Sure, they may not have personally suffered dire consequences at the hands of a Twitter mob (they're rich, after all). Does that make them hypocrites? Maybe a little, but there's also nothing wrong with taking a stand for those less fortunate. If the same letter was signed by electricians and bakers, I somehow doubt it would get published by Harper's, much less receive the attention it has.

PS: can someone teach vuk to capitalise properly.

Last point first, I believe vuk is 'anti-capitalism' and this is his own little joke.

On the other stuff, I broadly agree. I do however recall a bit of a fuss on Jolyon Maugham's Twitter feed early this year when he confessed to killing a fox with a baseball bat when it invaded his chicken coop. It led him to withdraw from Twitter for a couple of months because the signal to noise ratio became unworkable, not to mention the highly personal and intimidating nature of some of the abuse. Which meant the causes and issues he routinely drew my and others' attention to went unheeded, by me at least. Even after that hiatus, when he came back, the lynch mob still took the occasional snipe.

You may disagree with my assessment, but I like and respect Jolyon Maugham. He is 'establishment' in the absolute sense (he's a QC) but I see his work as an important counterpoint to the sort of self-serving government we are currently enduring, so his Twitter feed is important in spreading the word.

 

[Tony L]

I used to have long, futile arguments with a bloke on AN Other forum who argued for examinations to decide if a person should be eligible to vote. My concerns were essentially the same as yours over a government-regulated internet: who would set the questions, who would mark the exams, and, more crucially, who would decide what the 'correct' answers should be. Ironically, we were debating at a time when Blair was in power, and the bloke I was arguing with thought that exams would prevent Socialist governments (because he classified Blair as a Socialist) from gaining power. He couldn't grasp the point that any government would ensure that any exam questions would produce the 'correct' answers from its own perspective.

In an ideal world it would almost certainly be beneficial if voters had at least a little basic grounding in political theory, e.g. understood the core concepts of capitalism, socialism, marxism, fascism etc, but assessing this in a genuinely unbiased and neutral manner would be impossible, so it is clearly a terrible idea!

PS FWIW I believe in a proper proportional democracy and I’d personally give the vote to absolutely everyone it is possible to give it to, e.g. I’d dramatically reduce the voting age too (14 would be a good start, maybe at 0.5 of an adult until 16). I would also want prisoners and many of the more able mentally disabled to have the right should they wish (the criteria being that they understood what voting was and they wanted to participate). The key thing is it needs to be a proper representative democracy, which obviously we do not have at present.

 

[Minio]

PS: can someone teach vuk to capitalise properly

Does he lose votes for that?
I'm chuffed. I get 5.

 

[mansr]

Of course, for most of us non-Americans, only a few of the names would have meant anything at all, and even for Americans the stand-out names would probably be Margaret Atwood, J K Rowling and Salman Rushdie. (I've just done a quick skim through the list of signatories, and recognise maybe another half-dozen, all writers and critics, and none of them problematic from my POV). The point, though, as you say, is 'Do I agree with the sentiments expressed in the Open Letter?', not 'Do I agree with everything that all the other signatories may have said and done?'

Yeah, I recognise only a handful of names too. Of the supposedly "problematic" and otherwise talked-about ones, I've only ever heard of JKR before. As for Salman Rushdie, I think we can all agree he has experienced extra-judicial punishment of the worst kind.

 

[sean99]

Last point first, I believe vuk is 'anti-capitalism' and this is his own little joke.

On the other stuff, I broadly agree. I do however recall a bit of a fuss on Jolyon Maugham's Twitter feed early this year when he confessed to killing a fox with a baseball bat when it invaded his chicken coop. It led him to withdraw from Twitter for a couple of months because the signal to noise ratio became unworkable, not to mention the highly personal and intimidating nature of some of the abuse. Which meant the causes and issues he routinely drew my and others' attention to went unheeded, by me at least. Even after that hiatus, when he came back, the lynch mob still took the occasional snipe.

You may disagree with my assessment, but I like and respect Jolyon Maugham. He is 'establishment' in the absolute sense (he's a QC) but I see his work as an important counterpoint to the sort of self-serving government we are currently enduring, so his Twitter feed is important in spreading the word.

It was an extraordinary lack of judgement to tweet about killing the fox. We all have moments in life when we are forced to do something we find very unpleasant but we don’t tweet about them because that might convey the message that deep down we enjoy it, or are attention seeking.

 

[Cav]

I see you are not picking up my antivaxxer example...

Only because it is not relevant. People are entitled believe what they want and to make choices as they see fit.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

It was an extraordinary lack of judgement to tweet about killing the fox. We all have moments in life when we are forced to do something we find very unpleasant but we don’t tweet about them because that might convey the message that deep down we enjoy it, or are attention seeking.

I agree, and I think it taught him a salutary lesson: your Twitter followers are not your friends, don't think of them as you'd think of dinner party guests, for example.

 

[Joe Hutch]

What baffles me is why people feel the need to tweet about such things. It wasn't a case of 'well, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but ...', just something that needed to be done, but need not be spoken or written about. As ever, the cost far exceeded the benefit (if there was any benefit, apart maybe from the catharsis of confession).