Regardless of one’s political views, I think most of us can agree that modern U.S. (and some Western) society has become a minefield: If you say something that is perceived as wrong by some group of people (whatever the view may be, or whatever that group may be,) you will get pounced on. You just stepped on the verbal landmine.
This is related to cancel culture, but more than that - Trumpers will also pounce on someone who opposes Trump, as if Trump sic’d his dogs on that target.
More than 150 renowned individuals signed an open letter a few days ago calling for tolerance of opposing viewpoints. The list includes some big names: Signatories included author J.K. Rowling, journalist Fareed Zakaria, Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie, Garry Kasparov, Margaret Atwood and Gloria Steinem.
Certainly people have the “free speech” right to pounce on others - after all, if one has the right to air an unpopular view, another has the right to pounce on them (verbally) for that view (although increasingly, the pouncing these days is more literal than figurative.) But it’s worth discussion as to whether or not this sort of minefield culture is healthy for society.
It’s often said that one sign that you are with a gaslighting spouse or family member is if you feel afraid to speak your mind and feel the need to carefully tweak whatever you are about to say, before you say it, so as to not set off their volcano outburst. That is where a minefield culture - doxxing, shouting, trying to punish someone for an opposing view - leads us. It doesn’t help discussion; it stifles it. it doesn’t help communication; it hinders it.
But I only partially agree with the original post.
When in the company of Trumpers-in-the-family, I don’t keep my Democratic registrtion a secret. But I’m more careful not to say something implying intolerance of the right than I am with people I know are all anti-Trump. Another way of saying it: When I’m with Trumpers, I’m on my best, or better, behavior.
I didn’t read the letter as a get out of (emotional) jail free card for insulting those with whom I strongly disagree.
Similarly, I love the Harper’s letter but am not sure about the OP here. I strongly endorse the maxim from John Stuart Mill (adjusted not to be so gendered, of course):
“Every man who says frankly and fully what he thinks is so far doing a public service. We should be grateful to him for attacking most unsparingly our most cherished opinions.”
What concerns me about cancel culture is not that they say mean things about other people but that they get them fired or drummed out of organizations, thus making others reluctant to speak out for fear of the same fate.
As an immigrant with no party affiliation, I have a different perspective for you to consider :
Is the cancel culture a result of the “duopoly” political system ? In my opinion, A republican doesn’t have a great option going into this election and neither does a democrat.
I used to work for a major American company which shared the market with another major US company. They had no real incentive to innovate or better their product, all they cared about, was to show the customers, how bad the competitors product was. Do you think something like that is happening in the political system ?
We talk about how the police system is flawed and how the system needs an overhaul. What about the political system ?
Sometimes people get shouted down in an unreasonable way.
But this was always true. Until quite recently, it was generally minorities, or women, or gay people, or trans people, or poor people, or others outside the mainstream power of wealthy straight white Christian men, who got shouted down.
Now, a lot of people who are wealthy, white, straight, Christian, and/or men are getting shouted down, and they don’t like it. A lot of them have power and influence, so they’re making a big stink about it.
But that’s not the problem in our society. The problem is the same as it’s always been - exploitation, oppression, bigotry, misogyny, discrimination, etc. The bad guys are the same as they were 50 or 100 or even 200 years ago.
For once, I agree with Chingon. OP is not referring to anything new. I just finished watching a documentary of the Beatles, and John Lenon’s “bigger than Jesus” quip comes to mind. So does the song, “You can’t do that”.
It always has been true and I’ve always, that I can remember, been against it.
If the editorial page editor of the New York Times was once fired for allowing an anti-racist article – don’t recall an example, but must have happened, certainly at other papers – I’m against it. Just as I’m against the idea that my tender mind (whose body does pay for a subscription) can’t be exposed to to Tom Cotton.
The line between fair and strong criticism, and cancelling, is admittedly fine. I think J. K. Rowling is a legitimate victim of cancel culture, but it’s a borderline case. The forced resignation of the executive editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, another paper I subscribe to, was not a borderline case.
Are these problems as big as police brutality, or Donald Trump? No, but we can pay attention to more than one social problem – even ones that often, not always, affect white men.
For some values of “perceived as” and of “pounced on,” this is exactly as it should be.
If you say something that is, demonstrably, wrong (e.g. an anti-vaxxer promoting false claims), people should speak up against those claims.
They should attack the things you say, not you as a person. People can disagree and still be kind and respectful to each other. But if you double down and refuse to listen to correction, then it becomes, at least a little bit, about what kind of person you are and not just about what you say.
(That said, I agree with the gist of the letter, as described in the OP’s linked article.)
I agree with the gist of the letter too. Sadly, I don’t think it will make a difference, one, because it’s a letter, and two, it’s too anodyne. I mean, a lot of people signed up on this because other than than the shots at the right, it’s basically vague and not particularly strongly worded. Cancel culture is not even said.
There are signatories that are backing off not because the letter was untrue, but because of other people that signed it. Which basically proves this is a problem, because you cannot even tenuously associate with someone that you agree on ONE issue with, if they hold other positions you do not agree with.
This needs to be talked about publicly, vigorously, and not just on some letter by people of influence other than center and center right people like Joe Rogan. No pussyfooting around.
Wealthy and influential people are scared of the social consequences if they take certain positions. This isn’t new - what’s new is the positions they’re worried about.
‘It’s always been this way, therefore it’s OK’?
‘It’s always been this way, therefore we don’t need to address it’?
‘It’s always been this way, therefore it always will be this way’?
Sometimes, things that have always been this way need to change.
People should get shouted down for some opinions. The KKK and Nazis, for example, should get shouted down. Society gains nothing by refraining from socially sanctioning their advocates.
Some speech shouldn’t be tolerated. That’s why statues are coming down. Freedom of speech doesn’t protect only the expression of abstract ideas, it also protects advocacy, recruitment, calls to action, and lies that can be used for heinous purposes. We must support the First Amendment but we don’t have to publicly support or even tolerate everything that it allows. One idea is not as good as any other.
However, I will have to be in charge of what is tolerated and what is not. I don’t trust anyone else to make that decision.
I think people are just as opinionated as they ever were, but it’s just they get listened to now. Which is good when it comes to things like systemic police brutality, but there have to be limits. Not every grievance needs or even deserves attention.
Society. Sometimes they get it wrong, sometimes they get it right. In the past, society was mostly wrong, but hopefully this is changing for the better.
My sole point is to dispute the implication in the first paragraph of the OP that this is some recent or new phenomenon. It hasn’t become minefield, it has been a minefield.
As for whether a society should or shouldn’t allow repercussions for heterodox signals, I don’t see how a human-based system could prevent them.