Funny, considering that Weiss rose to prominence for, among other things, trying to get critics of Israeli policy fired.
Interesting.
Bari Weiss resignation: Palestine advocates decry ‘hypocrisy’ of NYT columnist
But the article ends with this:
I don’t know too much about Bari Weiss’ history - do you have any links to articles which show she advocated for the firing of people critical of Israeli policy? I have read that she tweeted a number of Erin Biba’s employers once which does appear pretty hypocritical, but this article indicated that she expressed regret for doing so and deleted the tweet, which seems to indicate that she recognized what she did was wrong. It could also be possible that her opposition to cancel culture is a more recent belief of hers (ie. perhaps it developed only after she became a target of cancel culture).
I haven’t checked all of the claims of this article, and I’m not particularly a big fan of Glenn Greenwald, but what I did check (about a quarter of the criticism in the article) appeared accurate to me.
[quote=“octopus, post:136, topic:843199, full:true”]
That’s absolutely false. Letting so-called ‘peaceful protesters’ go on a crime spree is far worse than anything Trump did after the crime spree.[/quote]
I am not sure where your “absolutely” came from, but there was no rioting occurring in Lafayette Park at the time that peaceful protestors, along with actual employees of St. John Church, were gassed and forced away from the church and out of its premises for Trump to make his little parade for a photo-op. The only crime was the action committed by Trump and Barr.
Personally I don’t really care whether Weiss is a hypocrite or not, I’m more concerned that society doesn’t continue down this path of forced conformity and blocking free speech.
PS. Why aren’t you a fan of Greenwald?
Largely because he’s been a contributor for white nationalist Tucker Carlson’s TV show for a few years, not to challenge his despicable views, but to support him, at least when he criticizes the Democratic party.
Oh right. I have a right-wing friend who really despises Greenwald, so apparently he’s managed to piss off both sides. I gather he’s pretty keen on free speech, though.
What does he criticise in the Democratic party?
Mostly the investigations into Trump, IIRC, and especially the investigations for obstruction of justice.
Very good article making the argument that this whole big debate isn’t about free speech, but rather it’s about the social consequences of speech.
I read the article. It seems like the article concludes, not is so many words, that it’s a distinction without a difference.
Ideas on both the left and the right that were previously unthinkable are becoming mainstream with striking speed. New information environments have empowered some social groups and weakened others.
Navigating this type of change is difficult. People and institutions are going to make mistakes, even when acting with the best of intentions; journalists and academics will be cruelly mobbed on social media and fired for bad reasons.
Such incidents do not, however, mean that the very idea of free expression is under assault.
(bolding mine)
It kind of does when it gets unfairly marginalized and shouted down, as acknowledged in the previous sentence.
But this was already happening, and always has been. The difference is that instead of happening to mostly women and minorities who said something their mostly wealthy white male bosses didn’t like, now it’s also happening to some of those influential and wealthy white bosses. And they don’t like it, so they’re making a big stink about suddenly facing the same potential for consequences for their speech as the little people they’d been shitting on for decades and more.
Well, screw those assholes. Not every conversation is about them. When that letter was signed by multiple noted writers and philosophers of our time, they weren’t talking about them with respect to censored/cancelled speech.
ETA: Even if they are in some cases, Maya Angelou didn’t say, “When you know better, turn the tables”.
I don’t think any decent person has a problem with this. Or with this (from the article):
“Fostering an environment in academia or newsrooms that is hostile to people’s given identities is not pro-free speech,” Gillian Branstetter, a founding member of the Transgender Journalists Association, tells me. “When you see Twitter institute a ban on misgendering or deadnaming in its policies … that actually expands free speech, because it [fosters] free communication.”
And I think the article lays out a correct model for how social progress and free speech are not in principle in conflict at all:
It helps to think of this debate as taking place on a spectrum. Social justice advocates think the bands of acceptable opinion and arguments shouldn’t be narrowed, precisely, but rather pushed to the left — shifted to include formerly excluded voices from oppressed communities and to sideline voices that seek to continue their exclusion.
But I think the above quote is completely disingenuous as a representation of what is actually happening on the intellectual left. The problem is precisely that those who adhere to critical theory dogma are very much narrowing the spectrum of “acceptable” debate. It’s ridiculous to suggest that thoughtful commentators like Bari Weiss and Andrew Sullivan should be ejected from the debate because they make people feel “unsafe”,
that their commentary falls into the same category as that of misgendering bigots or racists who really should be just told to fuck off.
But they weren’t “ejected from the debate”. They’re still part of “the debate”, at least if they want to be. They won’t have any problem getting eyes on their views. No one owes them a platform. I used to be a regular reader of Sullivan, but IMO he went downhill fast starting with the Kavanaugh thing. He either developed a massive blindspot or always had it and I just missed it. Good riddance to him from his New York column. And good riddance to Weiss from the NYT too – I’ve never thought she was an interesting writer. They aren’t owed columns just because they disagree with progressives.
Neither Weiss nor Sullivan has been ejected because they lack readership and their respective papers have decided to cut them loose. They are not owed anything nor are they making any such claim. They both claim that they are leaving because of an inhospitable work atmosphere from their co-workers and lack of support from leadership.
So what? Good riddance to subpar writers.
Well, maybe you think that, but they clearly don’t, they feel that they were bullied out of their positions. And this is the moot point in the “free speech” debate, not any of the other uncontroversial aspects that you describe above.
It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with their views. The point is that they are both clearly people who are respectful and tolerant of their fellow human beings, there are not creating a hostile environment or making anyone “unsafe”. I’m less familiar with Bari Weiss, but Andrew Sullivan is an insightful and valuable commentator, even if I disagree with him at least half the time.
The question at hand is not whether actual bigots should be ejected from the debate, or whether old white misogynists can be fired for their misogyny, it’s the extent to which the free exchange of ideas among decent human beings is being stifled.
That is certainly one way to look at the issue. Another way to look at it is that as a reader you simply skip over their opinion columns or write letters to the editor with your own personal critique of their writing. Add your voice to the conversation, as it were.
It’s not. Or at least it’s not WRT Weiss and Sullivan. They can still write all they want. They aren’t obligated a platform, or even the support and friendship of their coworkers.