…as has been pointed out several times in this thread alone and in other threads you’ve participated in, James Bennet put himself in the position where he had to resign. It wasn’t for “posting an unpopular opinion”. There was a “significant breakdown in the editing processes”, the article contained " factual inaccuracies and a needlessly harsh tone" and “The essay fell short of the NYT standards and should not have been published." It wasn’t the first time Bennet had fucked up. Resigning was appropriate.
For this we have only Sullivan’s word. I remain unconvinced.
Irrelevant.
A large number of noted and respected writers/thinkers/philosophers co-signed a letter agreeing that there is a problem with censorship of ideas that don’t conform with prevailing ideological views. They don’t claim that all views are good or right or above criticism. They claim there is a disturbing trend to suppress speech and see that a bad thing. This did not used to be a controversial point of view among liberals, especially with regards to journalism and academia.
I don’t need the NYT editorial staff to think for me. I can usually spot a garbage opinion when I read one.
Well, I don’t have a ready-made solution (but of course, having a solution in hand isn’t a prerequisite to be allowed to point out a problem). And bad situations may arise completely organically.
I think one thing that can be done is to promote what’s known as cross-cutting cleavages—I outlined this above. Essentially, the idea is that rather than focusing on those (often narrow) issues where we’re at odds, it helps to start from those where we have shared ground. When we perceive our specific in-group as threatened, we switch to exclusionism and ‘circle the wagons’, so to speak:
“It’s as though some people have a button on their foreheads, and when the button is pushed, they suddenly become intensely focused on defending their in-group … But when they perceive no such threat, their behavior is not unusually intolerant. So the key is to understand what pushes that button.”
What pushes that button, Stenner and others find, is group-based threats.
The existence of cross-cutting cleavages diminishes the clean sorting into in-group and out-group, fostering the recognition that ‘they’ are ‘us’ in many more cases than they are not. Hence, promoting awareness of such orthogonal ways of partitioning people can avoid the above ‘button’ being pushed, and thus, lessen the impulse to ostracize:
Scholars have long recognized the necessity of cross-cutting cleavages to healthy democracy. In his classic study, the Social Requisites of Democracy, Seymour Martin Lipset, for example, noted that “the available evidence suggests that the chances for stable democracy are enhanced to the extent that groups and individuals have a number of cross-cutting, politically relevant affiliations”.
More specifically, research has linked cross-cutting cleavages with toleration, moderation and conflict prevention.
So one way to lessen the tendency of the spectrum of opinions to fracture into self-reinforcing in-groups is to engage with others not just on the basis of those issues where you’re divided, but also, on those where you’re united—thus, avoiding a simplistic painting of another as a mere ‘other’, or ‘enemy’. The world simply doesn’t cleanly partition into enemies and allies; even those with similar goals may disagree on how to obtain them, and those with differing goals may find common ground elsewhere.
We could thus ask ourselves where the other really stands on certain issues. Where do we agree, where do we differ? Is the disagreement substantial, or merely on the surface? Let’s say we’re talking about feminism. A genie approaches us with the offer to end sexual discrimination and inequality with a snap of their fingers. Do we believe that the other would accept that offer? Would we? If yes, then we’re at least broadly aligned; that’s something that can be built upon. If no, then it might be that there’s no common ground to be had.
Of course, the difficult part comes only afterwards: nobody might know exactly what ‘ending inequality’ would mean, for instance. That’s where the debate starts; but now, we have grounds based on which we can enter the debate as united by a common goal, and only separated by our opinion on how to reach that goal, or perhaps how that goal should be understood, exactly. But we don’t start on opposite sides of a chasm anymore, and can work together, refining our mutual understanding, rather than against one another, seeking to define the boundaries of our in-group.
Relatedly, as I pointed out in the other thread, the Aztecs had an interesting take on moral philosophy:
This, too, urges us not to think of each other as separated loci of moral action, but rather, understand that we’re all in this together. Even if we’re opposed to one another in view, that might be due to moral error—people may get things wrong, but that doesn’t necessarily make them wicked. We can try to aid them in becoming better at walking the slippery Earth, rather than considering them irrevocably stained by their failings.
All of which, of course, only goes so far. There are gulfs too far to be bridged. But that doesn’t mean none can be. And of course, the Aztecs also sometimes sacrificed their children to placate various gods, so perhaps one should take their moral reasoning with a grain of sand. 
Or, you know… what @Half_Man_Half_Wit said. Brilliantly.
I still disagree that speech is being suppressed. This is about social consequences, which is very different from censorship.
…since the publication of that letter written by “noted and respected writers/thinkers/philosophers” we found out that many of the signatories colluded to ensure Glenn Greenwald wouldn’t sign the letter because of other signers objection to his political views, Rowling has threatened legal action against a children’s website forcing them to apologise and withdraw (not the first time Rowling has done this) Jesse Signal is demanding retractions for things that he obviously has done and he has a history of trying to get people fired, the mere fact that these alleged “noted and respected writers/thinkers/philosophers” co-signed a letter doesn’t make them credible and it doesn’t mean they aren’t giant hypocrites and it doesn’t mean we should give a fuck what these people have to say.
Well I’ve got evidence to back up my position. You have both crafted and are repeating a narrative you’ve constructed out of thin air. In the pit that’s acceptable. But in Great Debates I"m gonna ask you to back up what you’ve said. Is it your position that the NYT editorial staff are lying? Did the article in fact not have factual inaccuracies? Did Bennet actually read the article before publication despite his admission that he didn’t?
Here’s the thing. I can agree that leaving Glenn Greenwald out was wrong, yet still agree with the tenet of the argument. And that’s an okay position to hold. Which is at the core of this argument. That it’s a resistance to an absolutist, all or nothing, with us or against us, mindset.
Okay. Ready?
It is not, nor has it ever been my position that NYT staff are lying. The article was shit and I do not support Cotton’s views. However, I am happy to let Cotton’s opinion fail on it own lack of merit. I do not feel the need to punish the editor for Cotton’s shortcomings because it is an opinion column, not a front page news or investigative journalism article.
Social consequences are a type of censorship.
I would say that prohibiting social consequences is a much grander form of censorship.
On the one hand, you have powerful, influential people who are being held to account for the views that they advocate for in public. On the other hand, you have pretty much powerless people, whose only way to contribute to public discourse is with their collective voice.
It’s already a hell of a power imbalance, and what I am hearing is complaint that it isn’t imbalanced enough.
…here’s the thing. You are free to do whatever the fuck you like. But many of these alleged “noted and respected writers/thinkers/philosophers” are in my opinion horrible people that hold hypocritical views and I don’t give a fuck about their opinions. So the mere fact that they all signed a letter (that in my opinion was a pretty bullshit letter anyway that contained zero evidence the problem they were addressing actually needed to be addressed) says absolutely nothing about why we should take Sullivan’s word about anything he said.
So you agree that James Bennet put himself in the position where he had to resign. It wasn’t for “posting an unpopular opinion”. There was a “significant breakdown in the editing processes”, the article contained " factual inaccuracies and a needlessly harsh tone" and “The essay fell short of the NYT standards and should not have been published."
Those are the words of the NYT editorial staff. If they weren’t lying, isn’t that a clear and obvious evidence that Bennet fucked up, and that resignation was appropriate?
Except Bennet wasn’t punished for the Cotton’s shortcomings. Bennet is the fucking editor. What is it exactly do you think the job of an editor is? Its the job of the editor to ensure editorial standards are met, to ensure that there are no factual inaccuracies. But Bennet didn’t even read the fucking article before publication. That alone is a significant fail. Its the responsibility of the editor to ensure that the authors shortcomings are covered, even in editorial articles. This is standard practice in newsrooms all around the world. Bennet fucked up here and deserved to go. This isn’t a poster case for “identity politics.” The editor of the NYT was not put in a position where he had to resign for publishing an unpopular (even shitty) opinion. This was an editor who screwed up big time and he knew it so he fell on his sword.
But I’m not talking about prohibiting social consequences. Social consequences are very important when it comes to hateful, racist, bigoted speech. On that I’m sure we can all agree.
What I understand is happening is that this approach is also being applied against far more nuanced ideas where an accepted view is questioned and that in and of itself is seen as an unacceptable challenge or thread to an entire ideological position.
To be clear, I wasn’t asking for your permission.
We done?
…to be clear, I wasn’t giving you permission.
That really depends on whether or not you continue to claim that " The editor of the NYT was put in a position where he had to resign for publishing an unpopular (even shitty) opinion." Because that wasn’t what happened.
But that’s just the thing. If someone thinks that something is hateful or racist or bigoted, they should speak up.
If they are wrong, then they will be a lone voice against a massive platform. It is only if they are able to convince others that the speech is hateful, racist, or bigoted that there is anything approaching parity in power between the individual making the statements, and the society that they are being made to.
If the problem is that some rando on the internet will criticize you unfairly, then just get over it. It happens. If your problem is that you offended large numbers of people to such an extent that they organize to make their voice heard, then maybe you actually are in the wrong.
I understand that what you understand is happening that it is being applied against nuanced ideas where an accepted view is questioned. I do not agree that such a case has been made. All I see is people expressing their opinion on what others have chosen to put into the public sphere, and powerful influential people being upset that people would dare to criticize them.
Make no mistake, if there is any attempt at censorship here, it is an attempt by those with power, those with platforms, those who wield influence who are trying to silence the powerless into simply accepting their contribution to the public they have to say without daring to contradict them. What they want is for people to shout down eachother, to have a chilling effect on complaints for fear of being called a part of “cancel culture”, rather than to look up and call their statements into question.
There are many nuanced reasons given to call some of these public figures into question. And when they just get called, “Cancel Culture”, then it is not those objecting to the words of those in power who are missing the naunce.
One last time, with feeling:
I believe the editor should have been given a mulligan BECAUSE it was more important to expose the shitty opinion expressed by Cotton to a large audience and to have that opinion face public scrutiny. That should have been the focus. Instead it became about Bennet’s failure to do his job and the subsequent public PR/HR circus.
When the Cotton story came out, I was on the side that thought that it was not wrong for the NYT to publish it. I thought that the counter editorials written justified its inclusion. I’m not convinced that I am wrong on that, I am aware that that is a minority opinion on this board.
However, it was not just over this story, it was not just over what Cotton said that he found himself less than welcome. It was a pattern of sloppy journalism and bias. The Cotton piece just being the most egregious and visible of his mistakes, not that it was published, but the whole history of how that piece came to be and to be published. Though I did not object to the piece being in the Times, once I found out what happened behind the scenes, how it got included, I did agree that serious mistakes were made on the part of the editor.
How many mulligans should a person be given. If their failure is large enough and public enough, does that make them more or less deserving of a mulligan?
…what part of “this isn’t the first time he fucked up” did you not get the first time? How many mulligans should an editor get? And are you finally conceding that he actually did fuck up here, its just that you think he should be given another chance, because “reasons?”
Tom Cotton is a serving US Senator who already has the biggest platform on the planet. He is part of the administration. His shitty opinions had already been exposed to a large audience. He was already facing public scrutiny. We aren’t talking about a marginalised voice here. (The type of voice routinely ignored by the likes of the NYT). They didn’t need to publish this op-ed (that the NYT actually pitched to Tom Cotton, he wanted to talk about something else), they could have held him accountable exactly the same way they hold every other public figure to account. You don’t have to allow everyone to publish an unfiltered editorial to expose them to scrutiny. Just report on it, just like everyone else.
It seems to me that someone like Sullivan, having been a lifelong conservative who has made a career of publicly expressing his generally conservative opinions, is no stranger to criticism from the left. That he has voiced his concerns that he finds himself facing an inhospitable work environment now, after all these years, tells me there is something to what he, and others like him, are saying.
Understand, I’m not defending Sullivan’s conservative views. I have both agreed and disagreed with many of his opinions over the years. But I don’t recall ever thinking that he was someone whose ideas were in any way dangerous or too stupid for a public platform. I think he’s generally added value to the conversation. So from a larger perspective of whether contrarian voices are being unfairly silenced, I think its something worth talking about.