ADVERTISEMENT

Elanor Roosevelt

great-minds-discuss-ideas-average-minds-discuss-events-small-minds-discuss-people-eleanor-roosev-prints.jpg


This is about The Letter

If you haven't read it, you should. Signed by several dozen opinion makers, writers, and commentators including people like David Frum, Gary Kasparov, J.K. Rowling and Norm Chomsky, the authors make the point that the current culture and public debate stifles the free and uninhibited exchange of ideas and is doing significant if not irreparable damage to our society.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.
The critical response to this letter from many quarters has been swift. CNN published a typical response in a piece called The Problem with the Letter. Not surprisingly, the CNN piece is not at all about the letter. Instead, and significantly, CNN's complaint is all about who wrote the letter. This brings me back to the Elenor Roosevelt quote. Our country was founded on ideas, ideas coming from great minds. Like the frog in the pot of boiling water, the public discourse in America has gone from ideas to people. From great minded important issues to small minded petty issues. We just celebrated America's birthday. Nowhere was the discussion about the ideas of the first modern government controlled by the consent of the governed. Instead we now focus on who proposed those ideas and left them to us to use. The magnificent ideas contained in the words of government of the people, by the people, and for the people, give way to discussions about, well, people.

After the civil war, Grant, Lincoln, Johnson, and many others spoke about the needs of reunification and provided pardons and amnesty to Confederates in return for loyalty to the United States. That was good then. Now it is bad as we throw those efforts at reconciliation on the trash heap as we once again speak of traitors and treason. So much for coming together. So much for the ideas we were founded on and won a war to preserve.

As is said in The Letter, "The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away." I'd add that the way to defeat bad ideas is not to talk about who stated an idea. Great minds discuss ideas. Small minds discuss people.
Excellent post, COH.
 
Frankly, it scares me too. Right now anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers have equal footage to real experts. But I think we will eventually correct that.

Would it be correct of my to refuse to see a Jenny McCarthy show because she is an anti-vaxxer? I think it would be.
But what if she’s funny? Have you seen BASEKETBALL?
 
When I was a freshman at IU I came out of Ballentine after an early morning class and a bunch of dudes were making out in protest.

I thought to myself 'wow, okay, I don't see that everyday. Ugh, gross, dudes making out'.

However I was horrified at the reaction around them.

A guy on a bike screamed 'die ******s!!!'. Some Bible chicks were yelling that they were going to hell and then out of nowhere somebody threw rocks at them.

It literally looked like the end of the movie Bruno.

A year or so later we were discussing gays in the military and my argument was it reminds me of the segregation of the military that African Americans had to go through. Remember when white people said 'I don't know if I could trust a n##### to have my back in a foxhole.'

In this case it was 'you can't trust a fag in a foxhole, he's probably looking at me wanting to f#$k me!!!

In both cases if you took the side of the black dude or the gay dude, many times you were ostracized, called a n#$$#$lover or a fag yourself if not physically threatened.

So yeah, right wingers complaining that their feelings are getting hurt and they are being picked on can cry me a river.

Bottom line, if you come into a subject with grace, humility and ask to have a discussion most of the time you're going to have a peaceful discussion.

When you come into a discussion with 'the radical left wants to control what I say whaa whaa whaa ' then f#$k off.
Um....what?
 
Gee...doesn't sound like you feel I'm your "bud". That's okay. I still have tons of respect for you, but "they" posts suck. Are they groupthink?
Sure, “they” posts suck. But not as badly as responses that refuse to acknowledge there is a problem with your side.
 
While I wish it wasn’t quite so vague, I certainly co-sign the gist of the letter. Cancel culture is a plague on our society and while you have a right to call for the cancellation of Terry Crews on Twitter, it doesn’t make you look enlightened and only contributes to the mob mentality so commonplace now with social media.

I remember when I was a kid and this behavior seemed mostly exclusive to the religious right. My friends and I were big WWF fans in the late nineties and the Parent Teacher Council was constantly organizing letter writing campaigns to get companies to stop advertising on WWF programming. They were within their rights to do this, as liberals are within their rights to boycott Goya because the CEO supports Trump. However, I believe what this really amounts to is trying to silence speech you do not agree with.

These sorts of boycott campaigns can be justified in the case of the anti-Apartheid movement or the divest from Israel movement, where the issue is human rights. But when we are just talking about speech you disagree with I think boycotts and Twitter cancel campaigns go way too far
 
You don’t understand cancel culture. You are too practicable and reasonable. It’s not about your individual choice, it’s about not being able to have conversations on ideas that break sole virtue signaling culture. It’s about controlling a signal to only result in woke propaganda nonsense.

The right has their own version of it - it’s just more subtle. If you wear a mask, you’re a puss. If you believe in AGW you don’t have a seat at the table. It’s the same thing, it’s just that it won’t cost you your job.


I guess I am not getting this. Is this akin to don't vote Obama because he knew Wright?

In our discussion, you mentioned Yglesies. The person that complained about him specifically said they did not want him fired.

I certainly agree it is possible some people are going too far. That is the nature of free speech anyway.

I know before group think created the cute name of "cancel culture", the complaint was about people protesting appearances by Coulter or Milo.

If there are incidents of people saying Reds fans are Nazis because of Schott once owning them, I agree. But back in the day protesting Schott was the right think to do.

I see a whole lot more of the latter. If people really are firing people for reading Rowling 20 years ago, that is ridiculous. If people are trying to form a boycott of her next work, that is the marketplace of ideas. Again, if the former is happening, I oppose it but I just do not see a lot of it happening. Maybe it is and I am missing it, I am wilfully ignorant on what celebrities do. I frankly am disappointed I know about Rowling her fear of the trans community.
 
I see a whole lot more of the latter. If people really are firing people for reading Rowling 20 years ago, that is ridiculous. If people are trying to form a boycott of her next work, that is the marketplace of ideas. Again, if the former is happening, I oppose it but I just do not see a lot of it happening. Maybe it is and I am missing it, I am wilfully ignorant on what celebrities do. I frankly am disappointed I know about Rowling her fear of the trans community.

What if people are contacting her publisher and trying to get them to drop the book? This is what happened to Woody Allen a few months back. It’s obviously legal but has a stifling effect on speech.
 
I guess I am not getting this. Is this akin to don't vote Obama because he knew Wright?

In our discussion, you mentioned Yglesies. The person that complained about him specifically said they did not want him fired.

I certainly agree it is possible some people are going too far. That is the nature of free speech anyway.

I know before group think created the cute name of "cancel culture", the complaint was about people protesting appearances by Coulter or Milo.

If there are incidents of people saying Reds fans are Nazis because of Schott once owning them, I agree. But back in the day protesting Schott was the right think to do.

I see a whole lot more of the latter. If people really are firing people for reading Rowling 20 years ago, that is ridiculous. If people are trying to form a boycott of her next work, that is the marketplace of ideas. Again, if the former is happening, I oppose it but I just do not see a lot of it happening. Maybe it is and I am missing it, I am wilfully ignorant on what celebrities do. I frankly am disappointed I know about Rowling her fear of the trans community.
The person had to explain she didn’t want him fired because it would’ve become a realistic possibility that Vox could’ve pursued that. Over a letter in which they advocate pursuing your marketplace of ideas. But the air is toxic right now that if one doesn’t tote the BLM mantra and the other woke mantra then it’s cancellable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
What if people are contacting her publisher and trying to get them to drop the book? This is what happened to Woody Allen a few months back. It’s obviously legal but has a stifling effect on speech.

Isn't that just the marketplace of ideas? They cannot do much more than try to convince people to not buy her books. If the publisher believes enough people will do that, they will win. If not, her book gets published.

Let us take it to an extreme, suppose anther Hitler emerges. He writes a book. Should people have a right to try and block its publishing? Or their national TV show?
 
[QUOT
I guess I am not getting this. Is this akin to don't vote Obama because he knew Wright?

In our discussion, you mentioned Yglesies. The person that complained about him specifically said they did not want him fired.

I certainly agree it is possible some people are going too far. That is the nature of free speech anyway.

I know before group think created the cute name of "cancel culture", the complaint was about people protesting appearances by Coulter or Milo.

If there are incidents of people saying Reds fans are Nazis because of Schott once owning them, I agree. But back in the day protesting Schott was the right think to do.

I see a whole lot more of the latter. If people really are firing people for reading Rowling 20 years ago, that is ridiculous. If people are trying to form a boycott of her next work, that is the marketplace of ideas. Again, if the former is happening, I oppose it but I just do not see a lot of it happening. Maybe it is and I am missing it, I am wilfully ignorant on what celebrities do. I frankly am disappointed I know about Rowling her fear of the trans community.
You wrote in this post: "The person that complained about him specifically said they did not want him fired."

This reminds me of this famous "warning" during Prohibition how a person could buy prepackaged dried wine grapes and yet prevent fermentation of the dreaded, evil alcoholic wine by heeding this:

"If you were to purchase one of these bricks, on the package would be a note explaining how to dissolve the concentrate in a gallon of water. Then right below it, the note would continue with a warning instructing you not to leave that jug in the cool cupboard for 21 days, or it would turn into wine."​

Oh, no! We wouldn't want that to happen, would we? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...-wine-industry-survive-prohibition-180956412/

Now, come on, why would a critic say out of the blue that he did not want someone fired? Golly, gee whiz. Whatever in the world would make a critic think that firing someone would be a possible outcome of the critic's scorn?

C'mon, admit it. You're a smart contributor. You know I'm right.
 
Isn't that just the marketplace of ideas? They cannot do much more than try to convince people to not buy her books. If the publisher believes enough people will do that, they will win. If not, her book gets published.

Let us take it to an extreme, suppose anther Hitler emerges. He writes a book. Should people have a right to try and block its publishing? Or their national TV show?
Oops, you must have forgot -- Hitler DID write a book.

He also committed actions as he described in the book. Hitler is absolutely not an example of what happens when free speech is denied. Hitler didn't just speak it -- he did it.
 
Isn't that just the marketplace of ideas? They cannot do much more than try to convince people to not buy her books. If the publisher believes enough people will do that, they will win. If not, her book gets published.

Let us take it to an extreme, suppose anther Hitler emerges. He writes a book. Should people have a right to try and block its publishing? Or their national TV show?
I don’t think it’s the marketplaces of ideas but I also don’t know how you are defining that term.

I know you said extreme example but I don’t think you can equate Hitler with Woody Allen. Besides, Hitler’s book is still widely available in the US.

And you have a right to try to block anything. I am not arguing otherwise. Just that it is an illiberal idea. I read a book by a convicted murderer, Mumia Abu Jamal, in college. He maintains his innocence but is his crime not worse than what Woody is accused (not convicted) of? Where do we draw the line?
 
Isn't that just the marketplace of ideas? They cannot do much more than try to convince people to not buy her books. If the publisher believes enough people will do that, they will win. If not, her book gets published.

Let us take it to an extreme, suppose anther Hitler emerges. He writes a book. Should people have a right to try and block its publishing? Or their national TV show?
So, anything to defend completely indefensible attacks on free speech Marv?

on edit: you’re still not fully understanding the full ramifications. Trying to get someone or something cancelled might result in a temporary propaganda victory for the woke, but in the end it leads to either:
  1. If everything is racist / transphobic/ misogynistic, etc then nothing really is anymore - you get tuned out
  2. A complete void of competing thought on any idea that bucks the virtuous decisions of the cadre of the woke and then we’re all screwed
 
Where do we draw the line?

That is my point, there is a line, my take is others are arguing there is no line. We know there is a line at yelling fire, there are other lines.

No one has an absolute right to have a book published, if we have that right I am ready to submit my book. But if I wrote a publisher and told them they had to publish my book, they would laugh. Rowling has a right to be considered, nothing more and nothing less.

I have no interest in boycotting Rowling. I am in no way arguing I agree with any boycott. I am arguing people have a right to write a publisher and say, "do not publish x". It sounds like the other side is saying those people have no such right.
 
That is my point, there is a line, my take is others are arguing there is no line. We know there is a line at yelling fire, there are other lines.

No one has an absolute right to have a book published, if we have that right I am ready to submit my book. But if I wrote a publisher and told them they had to publish my book, they would laugh. Rowling has a right to be considered, nothing more and nothing less.

I have no interest in boycotting Rowling. I am in no way arguing I agree with any boycott. I am arguing people have a right to write a publisher and say, "do not publish x". It sounds like the other side is saying those people have no such right.

Let me add to this, I think Nazis have a right to protest. But people have a right to show up and protest the Nazis. And if Nike were to sponsor the Nazi protest, people have a right to organize against Nike. But if the government hands out permits to march they do not have a right to not allow the Nazis.

Where am I wrong?
 
Let me add to this, I think Nazis have a right to protest. But people have a right to show up and protest the Nazis. And if Nike were to sponsor the Nazi protest, people have a right to organize against Nike. But if the government hands out permits to march they do not have a right to not allow the Nazis.

Where am I wrong?
You’re not wrong you’re using extreme hyperbole.

Let me give you a practical example. A friend of mine is being coerced to put an equality sticker on her cube at work. She’s the only one who hasn’t done it...and her colleague are pissed and trying to get her cancelled. The problem is she’s the best account rep at the company.

she is not bigoted in any way - if she were we wouldn’t be friends. Rather, she doesn’t want to put the sticker on it because she doesn’t want to be coerced. Do you get it now?
 
You’re not wrong you’re using extreme hyperbole.

Let me give you a practical example. A friend of mine is being coerced to put an equality sticker on her cube at work. She’s the only one who hasn’t done it...and her colleague are pissed and trying to get her cancelled. The problem is she’s the best account rep at the company.

she is not bigoted in any way - if she were we wouldn’t be friends. Rather, she doesn’t want to put the sticker on it because she doesn’t want to be coerced. Do you get it now?
I'd link to the Seinfeld episode where Kramer is chided for not wearing the ribbon, but I suspect that would be a faux pas.
 
That is my point, there is a line, my take is others are arguing there is no line. We know there is a line at yelling fire, there are other lines.

No one has an absolute right to have a book published, if we have that right I am ready to submit my book. But if I wrote a publisher and told them they had to publish my book, they would laugh. Rowling has a right to be considered, nothing more and nothing less.

I have no interest in boycotting Rowling. I am in no way arguing I agree with any boycott. I am arguing people have a right to write a publisher and say, "do not publish x". It sounds like the other side is saying those people have no such right.

I have not read any of the Harry Potter books but let’s be real, anything she writes is going to make her publisher millions so it is nothing like you asking them to publish a book (unless you are a best selling author).

I don’t think anyone is arguing people don’t have a right to ask publishers not to publish books by authors they don’t like, no matter how inane their reasoning. My argument, and I think it is the same or similar as those who wrote/signed the letter, is that such actions are illiberal and serve only to stifle speech.
 
You’re not wrong you’re using extreme hyperbole.

Let me give you a practical example. A friend of mine is being coerced to put an equality sticker on her cube at work. She’s the only one who hasn’t done it...and her colleague are pissed and trying to get her cancelled. The problem is she’s the best account rep at the company.

she is not bigoted in any way - if she were we wouldn’t be friends. Rather, she doesn’t want to put the sticker on it because she doesn’t want to be coerced. Do you get it now?
Right. Or my buddy’s daughter whose college team is all going to wear BLM armbands. She comes from a huge family of cops and doesn’t want to wear one. The coercion she’s receiving is brutal.
 
Just the opposite. The market place of ideas must be a free and unregulated market. Nobody should control it. However, we are drifting towards the notion that virtuous victimhood and the developing right not to be offended are controls. The tools of the trade for those who want to control the marketplace are everywhere and include screams of racism, hate speech, I'm offended, silence is violence, and much more. Those who wield the controls are mostly individuals and organizations, but these people also advocate for government control. We all should be scared of that.
I think we probably need government control now when there is none.
It’s a tough discussion and America has it. China doesn’t.
 
Right. Or my buddy’s daughter whose college team is all going to wear BLM armbands. She comes from a huge family of cops and doesn’t want to wear one. The coercion she’s receiving is brutal.
I understand and empathize. I’m for wearing it without making it an issue. You can obviously support both. But, ya.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
You’re not wrong you’re using extreme hyperbole.

Let me give you a practical example. A friend of mine is being coerced to put an equality sticker on her cube at work. She’s the only one who hasn’t done it...and her colleague are pissed and trying to get her cancelled. The problem is she’s the best account rep at the company.

she is not bigoted in any way - if she were we wouldn’t be friends. Rather, she doesn’t want to put the sticker on it because she doesn’t want to be coerced. Do you get it now?

Yes, and I would agree that is going too far. I just think these examples are not as common and goes to my point, there IS a line and we are debating where.

I see LeBron is refusing to wear an equality sticker on his uniform. I am sure he gets pushback for that. But it was not long ago where someone wanting to have such a sticker would be punished. My guess is there was a time in the not too distant past that someone wanting an equality sticker in their cube would have been pressured not to. Both are probably wrong, just showing the scales balancing.
 
Right. Or my buddy’s daughter whose college team is all going to wear BLM armbands. She comes from a huge family of cops and doesn’t want to wear one. The coercion she’s receiving is brutal.

And in this case I think the pressure was wrong, but just months ago the people wanting to make a statement would be pressured not to,
 
I see LeBron is refusing to wear an equality sticker on his uniform. I am sure he gets pushback for that. But it was not long ago where someone wanting to have such a sticker would be punished. My guess is there was a time in the not too distant past that someone wanting an equality sticker in their cube would have been pressured not to. Both are probably wrong, just showing the scales balancing.

He is choosing to have his name on the back of his jersey instead of one of the pre-approved (by the NBA and players association) messages, which includes equality, vote, enough and other fairly innocuous phrases. I prefer names on the back of the jerseys myself but to each their own.
 
And in this case I think the pressure was wrong, but just months ago the people wanting to make a statement would be pressured not to,
and i think that's it. it's not so much the message. the message, while arguable as to whether it's components are flawed, is noble imo. and these kids and their coach are undoubtedly well-intentioned and on the good side of the ledger. it's just the delivery and the pressure that attends same that's wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: glmiu11 and brianiu
I'd link to the Seinfeld episode where Kramer is chided for not wearing the ribbon, but I suspect that would be a faux pas.
Another example is the chastity belt pledge. Churches used to pass those out and, if a high school kid didn't want to sign up, he/she would be outed and shamed.
 
Right. Or my buddy’s daughter whose college team is all going to wear BLM armbands. She comes from a huge family of cops and doesn’t want to wear one. The coercion she’s receiving is brutal.
Likely none of those giving her pressure really understand the situation on either sides. But they match to the beat of the drum and turn into zombies. That’s the secondary issue with cancel culture.
 
Yes, and I would agree that is going too far. I just think these examples are not as common and goes to my point, there IS a line and we are debating where.

I see LeBron is refusing to wear an equality sticker on his uniform. I am sure he gets pushback for that. But it was not long ago where someone wanting to have such a sticker would be punished. My guess is there was a time in the not too distant past that someone wanting an equality sticker in their cube would have been pressured not to. Both are probably wrong, just showing the scales balancing.
It’s not showing the scales balancing. People are telling her boss they don’t feel comfortable working with her. That’s bullshit. Not balance. It’s an abomination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
Likely none of those giving her pressure really understand the situation on either sides. But they match to the beat of the drum and turn into zombies. That’s the secondary issue with cancel culture.
Maybe. I think people can wear it while supporting both sides without being a sheep zombie.
 
Sure, “they” posts suck. But not as badly as responses that refuse to acknowledge there is a problem with your side.

Well...you're two for two. "Your side" posts suck almost as much as "They" posts. Looking forward to all of your insights on my "side". Make sure to work in "groupthink". :rolleyes:
 
You’re not wrong you’re using extreme hyperbole.

Let me give you a practical example. A friend of mine is being coerced to put an equality sticker on her cube at work. She’s the only one who hasn’t done it...and her colleague are pissed and trying to get her cancelled. The problem is she’s the best account rep at the company.

she is not bigoted in any way - if she were we wouldn’t be friends. Rather, she doesn’t want to put the sticker on it because she doesn’t want to be coerced. Do you get it now?

That's wrong, but it's not new. Ask any gay person who came out 20 years ago if they had to overcome social stigma. They just had to find their own voice. It didn't always work out great, unfortunately.

I'm not saying cancel culture is good. There's much truth in The Letter. But it's also true the marketplace of ideas is not exactly free and unregulated (cue @ivegotwinners).

People are ostracized and lose their jobs all the time for actions that are out of step with the mainstream. It's getting more notice now because it's happening to a new segment of society. That's the idea that ought to be discussed.

Firing someone over what they read is dangerous ground that is hard to imagine being defensible. But boycotting companies who choose to be political is a consumer's right.
 
Well...you're two for two. "Your side" posts suck almost as much as "They" posts. Looking forward to all of your insights on my "side". Make sure to work in "groupthink". :rolleyes:
Dumb. Keep it up, snark man. While anecdotal, this issue that’s a non-issue to you is what is making every independent voter I know (I know dozens) refuse to consider voting for Biden and local Democrats because there’s no pushback on this “non-issue.” Most of them wont vote for trump either. Your snark and your inability to see past the gates of LA doesn’t help.
 
I've got an outspoken female friend who cancels out wearing a mask along with mask wearers. She shops in another county because the county in which she resides requires wearing a mask in public.

She often visits us after being socially close to her anti mask buddies. Even brings snacks to go along with our cocktail hour (usually lasts closer to four hours).

In spite of our disagreements over masks, I would never cancel her out as a friend. I've asked myself if I would feel differently if either my wife or I came down with the virus and died. The answer is no, as we knew the risks we were taking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoosboot
Let me add to this, I think Nazis have a right to protest. But people have a right to show up and protest the Nazis. And if Nike were to sponsor the Nazi protest, people have a right to organize against Nike. But if the government hands out permits to march they do not have a right to not allow the Nazis.

Where am I wrong?

I don't think you are wrong in the sense of "right or wrong". But I think you are wrong with thinking that "protest" is an essential feature of the marketplace of ideas. One of the points of The Letter is that the free exchange of ideas is vital to a functioning society. If the ideas are bad, the way to defeat those is by exposure to persuasive counter arguments. When we see protests as speech we are well on our way to what has become the cancel culture. The cancel culture is not about free and open debate. It's about rejection and intolerance of opposing points of view--period.

There are reasons why we have reached this point, and I think most of those reasons flow from our failing educational system. Instead of discussing any idea, the education system is choosing ideas for approval and protesting all that are inconsistent.
 
Last edited:
Dumb. Keep it up, snark man. While anecdotal, this issue that’s a non-issue to you is what is making every independent voter I know (I know dozens) refuse to consider voting for Biden and local Democrats because there’s no pushback on this “non-issue.” Most of them wont vote for trump either. Your snark and your inability to see past the gates of LA doesn’t help.
People voted for Trump, because the left has a segment that wants to catch and kill.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT