Open letter denouncing the "restriction of debate".
- Thread starter Joe Hutch
- Start date
DimitryZ
pfm Member
Further thoughts.
Overreaction by companies to fire people targeted by online outrage should be condemned and stopped.
However, it is the companies that are doing it. People routinely demand all kinds of crazy and reprehensible things on the internet, but it is people who act on those demands that bear the actual responsibility for it.
I don't think it is correct and proper to blame some random people who retweeted an angry tweet for the legal actions actual HR proffessional undertook.
A separate question is why companies take rash and ill-concidered actions in response to a moment of irational outrage by some random sampling of anonymous netizens. Perhaps it is their irrational fear of the "Viral Social Media" - phenomenon most middle age people don't understand - that is the problem here.
And that shouldn't be the pretext to silence people from their right to be foolishly outraged.
Overreaction by companies to fire people targeted by online outrage should be condemned and stopped.
However, it is the companies that are doing it. People routinely demand all kinds of crazy and reprehensible things on the internet, but it is people who act on those demands that bear the actual responsibility for it.
I don't think it is correct and proper to blame some random people who retweeted an angry tweet for the legal actions actual HR proffessional undertook.
A separate question is why companies take rash and ill-concidered actions in response to a moment of irational outrage by some random sampling of anonymous netizens. Perhaps it is their irrational fear of the "Viral Social Media" - phenomenon most middle age people don't understand - that is the problem here.
And that shouldn't be the pretext to silence people from their right to be foolishly outraged.
mansr
Objectionist
I distrust the persons mentioned and would double-check anything they said before changing my opinion based on it. Nevertheless, I'm sure they genuinely agree with my position on _something_ or other. If I were to find out about a specific opinion we shared, I wouldn't immediately change mine just for the sake of disagreeing with them. That would be a very stressful way to lead one's life.
mansr
Objectionist
I am not calling for anyone to be silenced. I am calling for them to be ignored.
vuk
\o/ choose anarchy
back in communist yugoslavia, there were only two TV channels in the early seventies (i imagine the same in was true in iron curtain nations). during the day, the first channel would fill up the time with lots of boring communist party speeches. the old joke was that, when you turned to channel two, a lone figure would be shaking his finger at you, asking "why aren't you watching channel 1"?!
that came to mind as i was tempted to quip: "but why would you want to do that?"
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
The alt-right does use the free speech argument as a way to progress their ends. But its, obviously, not the end of the matter and it's a point of legitimate debate amongst entirely reasonable people and indeed a very topical one.
Besides this line of reasoning would effectively mean you are accusing someone as reasonable as Joe Hutch of being a member of the alt-right rather than just someone who should have been born about 1890
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
This is worth reading as well, IMHO.
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...l-culture-and-problem-woke-capitalism/614086/
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
You might like this Peterson video.
And Cuck Philosophy in general, from who I have learnt a good deal : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSkzHxIcfoEr69MWBdo0ppg/videos
DimitryZ
pfm Member
I think we are dealing with a lot of ill-defined Orwellian Nuspeak. Lots of puprposefull confounding as well.
"Cancel culture," "call-out culture," denial of free speech, "de-platforming," "reputational damage," "proffessional consequences" are all being conflated and falsely connected to simple excercise of personal choice on social media.
This is definitionally wrong and has been recognized as such in free societies for a very long time. Speech is free of legal consequences in almost all cases. Actions, even those that can be legitimately inferred to have been influenced by above speech, are not immune. Actions are expressions of individual agency.
If you decide to fire an employee, ostensibly in fear of some outrage de jur on Twitter, without taking time to properly investigate and reach a rational decision, you can't claim the "Twitter made me do it," or "Twitter mob forced me."
"Cancel culture," "call-out culture," denial of free speech, "de-platforming," "reputational damage," "proffessional consequences" are all being conflated and falsely connected to simple excercise of personal choice on social media.
This is definitionally wrong and has been recognized as such in free societies for a very long time. Speech is free of legal consequences in almost all cases. Actions, even those that can be legitimately inferred to have been influenced by above speech, are not immune. Actions are expressions of individual agency.
If you decide to fire an employee, ostensibly in fear of some outrage de jur on Twitter, without taking time to properly investigate and reach a rational decision, you can't claim the "Twitter made me do it," or "Twitter mob forced me."
Tony L
Administrator
Agreed. You will notice the Jordan Peterson thread remains intact, I actually linked to it earlier. I do however have an absolute right to call Peterson exactly what I believe him to be, and I did so as forcefully as I could page after page!
With the Evergreen stuff I was annoyed by the three video fly-tip with no explanation of what they were, why anyone should be interested. I expect a video to be accompanied by a brief synopsis as many folk have very limited time and really can’t be expected to spend an hour and a half following something just dropped on a thread without explanation. In hindsight I shouldn’t have deleted it and I did actually repost the first part.
I agree with this too, in fact I made at least one post upthread stating how I was utterly baffled someone I otherwise like and respect (JKR) could be on the wrong side of the LGBT/identity debate. I also conceded that this is a subject I know very little about, though my argument, as ever, was to allow those at the very heart of it (the LGBTQ+ community itself) to position the goal-posts wherever they wish. JKR and I really should have the sense to STFU! I am just arguing that minorities should have the right to a platform of their definition and have the absolute right to be safe (and that is a very real issue here, LGBT folk are often murdered, beaten or maimed for their perceived differences). I’m really not trying to tell anyone how to think!
Obviously I do also have another role as a forum owner. I am determined that this site remains a safe-space for the actually quite high number of minorities that enjoy it. That really is my responsibility and I’d be beyond mortified if I dropped the ball there. Sometimes that means I have to hit a little hard to ensure my position is unambiguous, but that is far better than the alternative.
Wilson
SCTV half wit
Bari Weiss has had enough at the NYT.
"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."
https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter
"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."
https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter
droodzilla
pfm Member
People are treating the letter as an abstract statement of belief, that exists in a vacuum. A classic liberal error.
It's not. It's a political act that takes place in a specific context where young people are routinely attacked for being "woke snowflakes" and so forth.
Therefore, given some of the other signatories, I would not sign that letter, even if I agreed with every word of it.
Examine your opinion by all means, but don't change it if you're sure it's right. Just find a way of expressing it that doesn't involve sharing a platform with Katie Hopkins.
Right or left, isn't it all just a small (but growing) contemporary ideology that seeks to impose itself through power and intimidation? - you are not with me so you are the enemy, you are a critic so you must be silenced (or cancelled), you are privileged etc., etc. which all translates into who gets a job, who publishes, who's in the in-group, who can say what to whom, who's my BFF etc.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Just when the internet could create a global family, it is enabling cliques. Human nature, perhaps.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
The alt-right does use the free speech argument as a way to progress their ends. But its, obviously, not the end of the matter and it's a point of legitimate debate amongst entirely reasonable people and indeed a very topical one.
Besides this line of reasoning would effectively mean you are accusing someone as reasonable as Joe Hutch of being a member of the alt-right rather than just someone who should have been born about 1890
I strongly object to that! 1830 would be nearer the mark.
PS It's only inside I'm reasonable, I actually make out that people just don't understand.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
Well, quite. If Anne Coulter, Nigel Farage and whichever other alt-right figure you care to mention stated that they were against cruelty to animals, would you feel the need to state that you were in favour of animal cruelty, or indifferent to it, just to show that you took exception to many or most of their views on other issues?
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
You are putting words into my mouth. I was not arguing for any barrier being placed on people's right to vote; indeed I agreed with TonyL that any 'fit to vote' examination would be impossible to frame and mark without the danger of bias creeping into the process. In the example I cited, the person was arguing for such exams because Labour was winning elections. Now people are arguing for them because the Tories are winning elections. But they're not something I'm in favour of.
The anti-vaxxers point has to do with an individual's choice adversely affecting others. As it happens, I am also against the Government legislating to enforce medication. However there are dozens of YouTube videos, viewed by millions of people worldwide, that make unsubstantiated claims about the dangers of vaccination. My view is that YouTube has a duty to, at the very least, place 'health warnings' on such videos to the effect that the claims they make are unsubstantiated, and pointing out the real dangers that can arise from non-vaccination. That is where I diverge from TonyL and the more 'libertarian' attitude in general. People should be able to make up their own minds, but if they only ever see one side of an argument (reinforced by the 'echo chamber' effect of social media), they are effectively hampered from making a free choice.
vuk
\o/ choose anarchy
@Tony L
often in one-on-one public showdown lectures, rather than just debate to win, the participants try to establish what they agree on within a particular subject of contention and push that as far as possible, before getting to the disagree part. with JKR, it seems to me that even within the trans domain, you and others are not in total disagreement with her, nothing like that, in fact. it's all down to the "trans women are women" issue, which seems pretty far up the tree. to tell you the truth, though, i don't even know exactly what that's supposed to mean. not in the sense of dismissing it, but are we talking about legal anti-discrimination framework, social interactions, cognitive anthropology, social science or simply everything? is "trans men are men" exactly the same issue, given there is no equivalent to radical feminism there? i am genuinely curious, if someone can explain the boundaries or scope, or if it actually means absolutely no boundaries or scope.
btw -- i've read this article in the NYT (plus "NTY-pick" reader comments) and that did little to clear things up:
Who Counts as a Woman?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/opinion/trans-women-feminism.html
often in one-on-one public showdown lectures, rather than just debate to win, the participants try to establish what they agree on within a particular subject of contention and push that as far as possible, before getting to the disagree part. with JKR, it seems to me that even within the trans domain, you and others are not in total disagreement with her, nothing like that, in fact. it's all down to the "trans women are women" issue, which seems pretty far up the tree. to tell you the truth, though, i don't even know exactly what that's supposed to mean. not in the sense of dismissing it, but are we talking about legal anti-discrimination framework, social interactions, cognitive anthropology, social science or simply everything? is "trans men are men" exactly the same issue, given there is no equivalent to radical feminism there? i am genuinely curious, if someone can explain the boundaries or scope, or if it actually means absolutely no boundaries or scope.
btw -- i've read this article in the NYT (plus "NTY-pick" reader comments) and that did little to clear things up:
Who Counts as a Woman?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/opinion/trans-women-feminism.html
Last edited: