The Harper’s letter is aimed against having to present the right credentials to voice an opinion; the letter you pointed to as a ‘rebuttal’ starts off with attacking the credentials of Harper’s magazine as a way of challenging the legitimacy of the views expressed in the letter. I pointed that out, and you claimed it was fine to argue in this way.
…yep.
No you didn’t. There is nothing wrong with attacking the so-called “moral stand” of the publication where the letter appeared. Especially when that “moral standing” shows the publication to be a fucking big shitload of hypocrisy. And nothing in those two sentences in any way resembles " how Harper’s pays its staff has bearing on the truthfulness of the arguments in the letter." I didn’t say it, the letter never said it.
They aren’t “well known events.” Who the fuck knew who the fuck David Shor was, or who had heard of the consulting firm that fired him? There was even debate in this very thread that they were actually talking about him.
If you were referring to James Bennet then you are not only misrepresenting what actually happened, but demonstrating why a primary source is required. James Bennet wasn’t fired. He resigned. And he didn’t resign merely because he “published a controversial piece.” He never even read it before it got published for fucks sakes. On review the paper found there had been “a significant breakdown in our editing processes.” This wasn’t the first time he had fucked up. He deserved to go.
Why?
The letter didn’t choose to use the word “alleged.” That was an editorial decision that I made. Its perfectly common to allow sources to remain off the record. Harper’s is perfectly capable of coming out and saying that the source is wrong: they haven’t done so. So why can’t you accept this seemingly uncontroversial thing to stand but are content to completely misrepresent what happened at the New York Times?
Except yes, if you read the thread, people were guessing about what the letter actually meant.
The Harper’s letter was a load of hot garbage. At the moment the police are rioting in the streets, America has probably the most corrupt administration in its entire history, a pandemic is tearing through the country. The Harper’s letter is not about an important issue.
You make a lot of assumptions. The research doesn’t back those assumptions up.
…so its arguing against a strawman then? Who is demanding “the right credentials” to voice an opinion?
You are incorrectly characterizing the rebuttal. It didn’t talk about internships or unionization to "challenge the legitimacy of the views expressed in the letter. They did it to point out the complete and utter hypocrisy of Harper’s. The difference is important.
Do you have an objection to free speech? Assuming for the sake of argument that your characterization is correct (which it isn’t) then why wouldn’t it be “fine” to argue in that way?
No.
Their hypocrisy (or lack thereof) has no bearing on the integrity of the arguments presented in the letter. A serial killer can craft an argument for why murder is wrong. His hypocrisy doesn’t invalidate the argument itself.
You did. I’ll repeat what I posted earlier:
The rebuttal said:
James Bennet’s firing (or forced resignation, whichever you prefer) made national news. J.K. Rowling’s tweets about gender reassignment trended worldwide. They’re famous enough.
I did.
Not everyone needs to know something for it to be well known. Besides, even if we grant that absolutely nobody on Earth knew of David Shor, the other examples were very well known.
I’m not misrepresenting what happened. Bennett received explosive push back on the Cotton editorial and was pushed out of the Times as a consequence. This was ludicrous, as the Cotton editorial espoused a view that was shared by over 58% of registered voters.
So what? You think no-one read it prior to publication? He, or his staff, would’ve known what was in it before it went to press.
The paper looked for a fig-leaf to justify their forcing him out in response to unreasonable public pressure.
Maybe he’d F*'d up before, but publishing Cotton’s editorial wasn’t an F* up. Again, Cotton’s position is a popular one among the general public.
Because I don’t trust their source’s characterization of what Harper’s told him.
I don’t need their name, just evidence to show that Harper’s characterized the letter in the way they described.
I didn’t misrepresent what happened at the Times.
Again, the fact that some people aren’t familiar with a thing doesn’t mean that it isn’t widely known.
In your opinion. An issue doesn’t have to be as important as a pandemic to qualify as being important. And free expression is always an important issue because without it other problems become harder to solve.
For instance, the rebuttal letter. It’s chock full of attacks, not against the substance of the letter, but against the credibility of its signatories—apparently completely oblivious to the fact that thereby, it’s not making any headway whatever in challenging the letter it seeks to rebut.
The thing is that the hypocrisy of Harper’s is entirely besides the point, so why note it at all? Would there not have been a rebuttal if the letter had been presented in a non-hypocritical publication?
Oh, please. You’re achieving nothing but a watering down of the notion of free speech by such inanely hyperbolical appeals. I’m pointing out that a certain form of argument is logically fallacious; that’s why it’s not ‘fine’ to argue this way. I mean, obviously, you can do it: it just makes you look like you can’t muster up any actual arguments for your position. I’m not challenging your right to speak in this way—everyone’s entitled to making a fool of themselves in whatever way they see fit—I’m challenging the effectiveness of doing so.
Reading the ‘rebuttal’, I have to say I’m wondering if what’s really at issue here isn’t just a brute difference in intuition about what sort of argument is effective in supporting one’s position. A significant portion is devoted, not to criticism of the points raised in the letter, but instead, aimed against those who signed it. This is all completely devoid of any argumentative force—at least, to my way of thinking. If Hitler signs off on a letter extolling the virtues of vegetarianism, that letter doesn’t acquire a moral stain by this association; if one aimed to ‘rebut’ said letter and argue for a pro-carnist stance, pointing out that Hitler was a bad guy does exactly zero work.
So why is it so important to the authors of the rebuttal to cast doubt on the moral pedigree of both the publication in which the letter appeared, and those that signed off on it? Indeed, why do they feel ‘hurt and dismayed’ that some of the signatories are from the ranks of those they considered allies? Why did Jennifer Finney Boylan feel moved to retract her signature, solely based on who else had signed the letter? Apparently, she was fine with its content, but only as long as it comes endorsed by the right sort of people.
And I think the obvious answer here is that, in their eyes, what’s important is not the factual content of the letter, but rather, whether it springs from the right sort of fount—and hence, to them, attacking that source is tantamount to attacking the actual content. To me, of course, it’s just so much empty rhetoric, a waste of space that could’ve gone to more sensible arguments and has an air of desperation—failing to find legitimate arguments, they have to rely on fatuous attacks against the source, instead (this is a bit hyperbolic; there are arguments in the rebuttal that carry some legitimacy). But if you genuinely believe that it’s a legitimate form of argument to call into question a claim by questioning its source, then maybe that’s not really what’s happening. And furthermore, since the original letter itself is essentially an exhortation not to judge a viewpoint by whether it comes from the appropriate moral pedigree, and whether its originator keeps the right company, the resistance against it becomes much more readily explicable—perhaps, to them, not considering the source of a claim is just as anathema as doing so is to me.
If that’s the case, however, I’m not sure how to proceed. It’s an axiomatic difference. It’s just clear to me that, logically, who said what doesn’t matter, as opposed to what was said. How am I to argue against somebody who rejects this? After all, my arguments don’t come from the right place (presumably), so they can be disregarded. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
…exactly. The letter never argued (as you claimed) that the hypocritical actions of Harper’s invalidated the argument itself. Your claim is a strawman. Concession accepted.
It isn’t reasonable at all. If I had intended to say " Harper’s position on unionization and how much Harper’s pays its staff is germane to the arguments propounded in the letter" then I would have said " Harper’s position on unionization and how much Harper’s pays its staff is germane to the arguments propounded in the letter."
But that isn’t what I said. I said what I said. You’ve taken my words and inverted my meaning in order to advance a false narrative of your own devising.
It isn’t a matter of “what I prefer.” Its a matter of what the facts are in this case. He wasn’t fired. He resigned. He wasn’t “fired for running controversial pieces” as the Harpers article claimed. That simply isn’t true.
Except JK Rowling’s tweets weren’t used as an example of the things they were complaining about. So if you take away Bennet’s resignation (which they lied about) then you are left (apparently: they aren’t specific at all) with a handful of obscure anecdotes that we have since learnt (through this thread) have been as badly disingenuously presented as the Bennett story.
Well congratulations.
No they were not. Which books were withdrawn? Which journalists were barred from writing certain topics? Which professors were investigated for quoting works of literature? Which heads of organizations were ousted for clumsy mistakes? These are all obscure incidents that have been amplified in certain circles and in some cases (as with Bennett) deliberately distorted. The rest of us haven’t heard about them at all except in the context of this particular debate.
He did receive “explosive push back” but that was not why he resigned. Bennett was an editor on the so-called “paper of record.” It should be expected there be push back on editorial decisions that they make. Thats what should happen in a free and open society.
But that pushback wasn’t what made Bennett resign. He never read the article before it was published. There was a severe breakdown in the NYT editing process. I’ve cited all of this. If the editing process was followed as normal there is a very good chance Cotton’s article would never have been published. That isn’t censorship. That’s just the newspaper doing its job.
I think that (as the NYT has stated) that there was a severe breakdown in the NYT editing process, and that Bennet resigned as a result. “Not reading the article” was probably one of the many things that was part of the severe breakdown.
Uh huh. Its all a conspiracy. The NYT is lying. Gotcha.
Of course it was a fuck up. The NYT has a editorial review process, it wasn’t followed correctly here. It doesn’t matter how popular a position is the NYT is under no obligation to publish anything.
Why not?
You’ve got that evidence. Somebody’s recollection is evidence.
Except that you did. Both you and the Harper’s letter claimed he was fired (when he resigned) and you both claimed that it was for reasons that the NYT uncategorically dispute.
Its not the fact that people “aren’t familiar with a thing.” Are you 100% sure they are talking about David Shor, and they aren’t talking about another incident?
Of course its “my opinion.” Just as your position that “this is important” is entirely your opinion as well.
The only people arguing against free expression appear to be the signatories of the Harper’s letter. I’m all for free expression. If people want to “explosively push back” on an editorial written in the newspaper of record I’m all for that. Bring it on.
…being “chock full of attacks” (which it wasn’t) is not “demanding the right credentials to voice an opinion.” Can you quote the part of the letter that demanded the right credentials in order to voice an opinion?
Because it isn’t just about the hypocrisy of the publication. JK Rowling threatened a random twitterer with a lawsuit over a tweet. Jesse Singal regularly shames transgender people on his twitter feed and quote-tweets them to sic his followers after them. Bari Weiss harassed professors she considered to be “anti-Israel” and tried to shame media into getting them to fire a freelance journalist.
Many of the signatories to the letter are perfectly happy to practice “cancel culture.” What they object to is when people try to “cancel them.” Pointing out the hypocrisy of this is a perfectly valid rebuttal.
Except the rebuttal never made the argument you claimed they did. So the effectiveness of an argument that they never made was never actually in question.
Its interesting that you have chosen not to debate the actual substance of the rebuttal letter but to argue against a strawman version of that letter. You decry that they “called people out” yet you devote word after word to ad hominem attack. If you actually plan on talking about any specific points in the rebuttal let me know.
There is another letter to consider about this subject - A More Specific Letter on Justice and Open Debate
Some of the signatores of the first letter have stated regret also.
That would require me to quote half the letter, which is against board rules. Thankfully, you seem to be perfectly capable of figuring out the relevant sections yourself:
This. It’s exactly this: the argument being made here is that those individuals don’t have the right moral pedigree to be allowed an opinion. This is the red thread snaking through the entire rebuttal: from the approving way in which the story of Jennifer Finney Boylan retracting her signature once she learned whom she’d thereby associate with is relayed, to the point that while the list of signatories is diverse, it’s still not diverse enough, to the hurt felt due to allies betraying the writers of the rebuttal by signing the letter, to the focus on Harper’s moral transgressions (does the German version of the letter make a better point by appearing in Die Zeit?), to the repeated focus on views and actions of its signatories.
The message is: if you don’t have the right moral standing, if you don’t hang with the right crowd, you don’t have the right to an opinion. In trying to thus ‘cancel’ the letter, the rebuttal illustrates its point well, showing that this is a) a thing, and b) a problem.
Pointing out another’s logical error is not an ad hominem attack, unless you think that asking for logical soundness is an unfair requirement the other is incapable of meeting.
…
Anyhow, to try and get back to the topic somewhat, the thing I’m worried about is that this sort of insistence on moral purity may escalate, and in the end, cost the progressive side some hard-won liberties, at a time where it’s crucial to cement and extend them. It’s a pattern that’s repeated in history: the revolution devours its children—like the French Revolution overthrowing the monarchy in favor of a republic, only to culminate in Napoleonic dictatorship. As anyone with even the slightest whiff of monarchist leanings to them—according to their accusers—found themselves climbing up the steps to the guillotine, resistance galvanized, and in the end, Robespierre met the same fate, and Napoleon rose.
This is something that has to be opposed, if we want to work towards a more egalitarian society. This is a goal that can only be achieved by engagement and discourse—not by ostracism and moral purity tests. Those that hold different views are not, thereby, evil and to be shunned—they may be (there are evil people), but they may also be confused, scared, or simply mistaken. By putting all of them together indiscriminately, we’re giving them grounds for unifying—against the progressive values society needs, at this point perhaps more than ever.
…half the letter didn’t “demand the right credentials in order to voice an opinion.” That’s utter nonsense. Surely you can quote a single sentence?
Nope.
Absolutely not.
The argument being made is the argument that I made.
I didn’t once talk about the “the right moral pedigree to be allowed an opinion”. I defend their right to express their opinion! They can say whatever the fuck they like.
Why did you decide to re-contextualise what I actually said? Can you stop doing that please? It isn’t very polite.
Whats a “red thread?”
And what does any of this wall of text have to do with anything in the letter, or anything that I said?
My message is: they have a right to write the letter! They have the right to say whatever the fuck they want to say. And I don’t see anyone, especially the authors of the rebuttal letter, saying otherwise. Who exactly are you talking about?
Unless you have a problem with free and open speech there isn’t a problem here.
You haven’t pointed out any logical errors. You’ve been ranting about random stuff, thats all.
Nobody is insisting on moral purity. There was nothing in the rebuttal letter that needs to be “opposed.” You either want to live in a society that has free and open speech or you don’t.
I did that, regarding Harper’s magazine. The entire rebuttal is full of it; you zeroed in on some of that yourself. It’s alleged that due to the hypocrisy of the publication and the signatories, the letter’s complaints aren’t valid (which only makes sense if you assume that what moral standing somebody raising an argument has impinges on that argument’s validity).
As you put it:
The thing is, it’s not. A murderer can argue that murder is wrong, and be perfectly right about that; pointing out they’re in fact a murderer does nothing to discredit their argument.
Sorry, that might’ve been a Germanism—it seems the idiom doesn’t exist in English. A ‘red thread’ is a thematic undercurrent running through a text (for example).
It points out that the argument being made is one that starts from the moral standing of the signatories and the publication, their opinions, their associations and whatnot, and uses that to call into question the points being made in the letter—which is logically fallacious, and moreover, indicative of exactly what the Harper’s letter points toward.
Again with the hyperbole; you’re actually going to manage to wear the point out if you’re not careful. But pointing out that an argument is bad isn’t saying that they don’t have the right to make it; they shouldn’t have, since a bad argument for one’s own position is always worse than a good argument for an opposing position, but, as I said, everyone’s free to embarrass themselves.
This sort of thing is why I’ve wondered whether there might be just some brute difference in preconditions for acceptable reasoning at play here. The article repeatedly and insistently appeals to the signatories’ moral character and to that of the publication in which the letter appeared by way of discrediting the letter itself. This is clearly fallacious: it’s attacking the source in lieu of attacking the argument itself.
Then tell me: what’s the point of attacking the moral standing of Rowling, Singal, Harper’s, etc.? It’s like trying to rebut a math paper by pointing out that its author once gave back the wrong amount of change!
…I zeroed in on the things I agreed with. You’ve made certain claims about the rebuttal but you refuse to back up your claims. Don’t use me as a shield.
There is nothing “alleged” about any hypocrisy on display. The hypocrisy is there. And nobody is claiming that being a hypocrite impinges on an argument’s validity. They are simply pointing out the hypocrisy, which is something they are allowed to do.
And the only person talking about “moral standing” at the moment is you.
Of course it is!
We aren’t talking about fucking murderers for fucks sakes. If someone is being a hypocrite it is perfectly fine to point at them and say “you are being a fucking hypocrite.” That isn’t an attempt to “discredit an argument.” They are simply saying “you are a fucking hypocrite.”
The word “moral” doesn’t appear once in the rebuttal, let alone “moral standing”. I think its about time you retired that word from your vocabulary regarding this. Perhaps you should talk about things that actually did appear in the rebuttal, and not things that you imagined appeared in the article?
Not hyperbole. You talked about “moral purity”, escalation, the French Fucking Revolution, and the fucking guillotine. In response. To. A. Letter.
The next step to a strongly worded letter is not going to be people getting their heads chopped off. Don’t accuse me of hyperbole. You either defend their right to write the letter or you don’t.
You did much more than simply argue that "the argument was bad. You wrote this:
That isn’t a mere critique of the letter. That’s you taking the letter on a slippery slope to revolution. And you want to accuse me of hyperbole?
Except it didn’t. It didn’t mention morals at all. When it mentioned people they mentioned people for specific and relevant reasons.
They didn’t attack their moral standing. (But you certainly like to use the world moral!!!) They pointed out they are being hypocrites. Some threaten lawsuits. Some try to get people fired. Some set their followers after people. This is all “cancel culture.” This is the thing they are allegedly fighting against, but they have no problem practising it themselves. Don’t you object to that?
Sure, if they want to just throw up meaningless chaff as a distraction, that’s fine. But why not talk about bunnies, instead? Cute, fluffy bunnies!
In other words: you’re now relegated to arguing that the bulk of your ‘rebuttal’ to the Harper’s letter wasn’t actually concerned with ‘rebutting’ anything, but just wanted to talk about unrelated hypocrisies for, well, reasons I guess.
OK, it seems we’re now at the point where I’ll repeat my argument, only for you to go ‘nuh-uh’, so I guess there really isn’t a high likelihood of anything productive coming out of this exchange anymore.
Sure, if that gives you a feeling of moral (there’s that word again!) superiority, go for it! It’s just not doing any work as a counter of the Harper’s letter.
And I didn’t claim it does. We don’t need to use the same vocabulary. The point remains, though, that if they talk about somebody’s hypocrisy, they’re talking about their moral character, whether they use that word or not.
No. I think if you read my last post again, you’ll find that I explicitly prefaced that part with a disclaimer of wanting to return to the point in the OP (as opposed to discussing your rebuttal letter). I pointed to an article that shows some historic examples of escalating purity spirals, arguing that we need to guard ourselves against that; that’s got nothing to do, per se, with the rebuttal letter, other than that it’s an example of the sort of litmus test being used to certify whether one falls on the right side of the opinion spectrum or not.
And pointing to historic precedent isn’t claiming that everything’s going to happen in exactly the same way. I’m not thereby claiming that people are going to start chopping off heads, and frankly, pretending I do makes you seem rather desperate for arguments.
Again, the paragraphs you quote are quite clearly prefaced as wanting to get away from the discussion of the rebuttal, and back to the original topic at hand.
Pointing out somebody is a hypocrite is pointing out a moral flaw in their character. Either, they intended for that to be relevant to the criticism of the Harper’s letter; then, it’s a fallacious argument (and that is quite clearly the intent, even if it’s never stated explicitly). Or, they didn’t; then, it’s wasted space. So either, the rebuttal is a mess of bloated non-argument, or it’s fallacious. You can pick which—though the case for the letter is textually stronger—but neither makes it look great.
…pointing out that many of the signatories of the letter is not “meaningless chaff” and it isn’t a distraction. Think of it this way, are we off-topic in this thread discussing how some people who want to “cancel cancel culture” are proponents of “cancel culture” themselves? Would I get a warning for that? How about if this discussion degenerated into a chat about fluffy bunnies?
It is perfectly valid to point at people wanting to “cancel cancel culture” and say “these people that want to cancel cancel culture practice cancel culture themselves.” Its okay to say that. It really is.
Of course it is. Everybody “cancel culture” in some way of form. You are trying to “cancel” the rebuttal letter here in this very thread.
Nope. They are talking about hypocrisy. Moral character is a very different thing. If they intended to use it they would have used it. If I intended to use it I would have used it myself, but I haven’t.
It was ridiculous overblown hyperbole.
There is no chance, NO CHANCE AT ALL, that cancel culture is going to lead us down the road to chopping off peoples heads. Its not gonna happen.
I don’t even think you’ve actually read the letter. I’m still waiting for evidence of your claim “demanded the right credentials in order to voice an opinion.” The hypocrisy claims were a fraction of the rebuttal, and the only person who has quoted from the actual rebuttal has been me.
The rebuttal isn’t “a mess of bloated non-argument” and it isn’t “fallacious”. Its a very specific rebuttal that addresses what was actually written in the Harpers letter, bit by bit. It addresses the fact that the Harpers letter misleads. It addresses the fact that Harpers mislead. And you would know all of this if you’ve read the actual rebuttal.
No, but just because something’s permissible doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
It definitely, absolutely, unquestionably is. It’s just bad rhetoric, is all.
No, I’m just saying their arguments are bad. Debating isn’t cancel culture; claiming somebody doesn’t have the right to speak, or calling into question the validity of their arguments based on their opinions or associations, is.
Calling somebody a hypocrite is absolutely to say they’re morally flawed. Hypocrisy, in moral psychology, is ‘the failure to follow one’s own expressed moral rules and principles’; and thus, to act immoral by one’s own professed standards.
Which nobody claimed it will, so I’m not sure whence the need for yelling.
I’ve read it, multiple times now. I’ve even acknowledged that it makes some valid points—the original letter could’ve been less vague, the examples pointed to are questionable in places, though I don’t completely agree with the rather tendentious interpretation presented in the rebuttal, and a couple of other things.
What’s at issue, however, is that all of this completely falls on its face by the rebuttal being an example of the very thing the Harper’s letter is decrying. You can deny it all you like, but the appeals to the hypocrisy of the undersigned absolutely are an attempt to delegitimize the letter by pointing out its tainted association; otherwise, they’d simply have no reason to be there. If I say, in context of engaging somebody in debate, oh and by the way, they’ve also been stealing candy from children, then I’m not simply bringing up an independent fact for the curious, I’m trying to delegitimize their character, and by association, their position.
…and who are you to judge whether or not something is a good idea?
What does “bad rhetoric” even mean? And who are you to judge?
And in reality “cancel culture” isn’t really people trying to “cancel”, its people asking questions, people choosing to debate. It is absolutely right to call people out for their actions, who they associate with, there is nothing wrong with that, and you will never, ever be able to stop it happening.
We aren’t having a discussion about “moral psychology” for fucks sakes. That isn’t the only definition.
Except for the person who bought it up: who happens to be you.
The Harper’s letter is an example of the very thing the Harper’s letter is decrying.
If I say, in the context of a debate, “you are being a hypocrite”, what I am saying is “you are being a hypocrite.” That’s it. That isn’t a failing of the rebuttal. Its simply accurate. Rowling threatened to sue a twitterer until they removed that tweet. Is that cancel culture or not? Bari Weiss tried to get an academic fired. Is that cancel culture or not? Why should we take the Harpers letter seriously, when it is obvious that some of the signatories don’t really give a fuck?
I’m not judging, I’m giving reasons. The reason here being that it’s a logically fallacious argument, which hence fails to make the point that’s ostensibly at issue. That’s what makes it bad: it fails to do what it sets out to do.
That’s the brute disagreement I see again. Just because that’s the way things are, I don’t accept that they always will be that way, or that trying to stop it isn’t worthwhile. What I’m arguing against is that calling people out for who they associate with is used as a matter of deligitimizing their points of view—which is anathema to an open society (apart from being logically fallacious).
Please. Don’t be willfully obtuse. If I call somebody a hypocrite, I’m saying they’re morally flawed. There’s really no discussion here.
No. I have pointed to historical examples of purity spirals, which have tended to undo the gains made by earlier progressive movements, as an illustration of why such spirals are a danger to progress. This doesn’t entail a claim that I believe people are going to cut off heads, and the insinuation is rather ridiculous and desperate.
Great! So we’re agreeing this is a thing, and it’s a bad thing?
These are in contradiction: the first part claims that calling these people hypocrites doesn’t have any argumentative impact (in other words, is just superfluous chaff), while the second makes exactly the argument I’ve been claiming is being made: due to the hypocrisy of its signatories, the Harper’s letter should not be taken seriously.
…which “logically fallacious argument?” Be specific.
I’m gonna call people out for hanging our with transphobes, I’m gonna call people out who hang out with white supremacists, I’m gonna call people out who hang out with the alt-right. I’m gonna call people out who hang out with people who want to take away the rights of people I know, of people that I love.
And there is nothing wrong with that.
Please. Don’t be willfully obtuse. If I call somebody a hypocrite, I’m calling them a hypocrite. There’s really no discussion here.
There are no fucking “purity spirals” going on. The people who are trying to undo the gains made by earlier progressive movements are some of the signatories to the letter.
And you literally used the word guillotine while ranting about the French Revolution. You can’t get more “chopping peoples heads off” than that.
What is a thing?
Not in contradiction at all. The rebuttal letter stands for itself. “superfluous chaff” are your words, not mine, and I’ll ask you again to stop recontextualizing my words. I said what I said.
OK, at this point, I think my willingness to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding arguing in good faith has just run out. The argument I’ve repeatedly decried as fallacious:
The Harper’s letter isn’t to be taken seriously because its signatories are hypocrites.
Seriously, are you not capable of grasping that I was indeed talking about the French Revolution there? The means by which undesirable opinions were removed in that case, was, yes, the guillotine. That doesn’t entail that this is the only means by which this can occur, nor that I believe this is or will be happening any time in the present issue. The point I was making was one about how policing the purity of your allies leads to internal fractionalization, which endangers the gains made so far. That doesn’t mean that it’s always the guillotine by which this is enacted.
(Bolding mine) That thing.
You said what you said, but fail to realize what it implies.
…LOL.
The letter shouldn’t be taken seriously because its a load of pompous tosh written by privileged individuals who can dish it out but can’t take it. But that’s just my opinion. If you want a specific nuanced take on why we shouldn’t take it seriously then read the rebuttal letter. Its all covered there.
I know exactly what you were talking about. But this so called “cancel culture” isn’t a problem. We are talking about a handful of cases, and most of those cases have been blown out of proportion. The cases that were listed by the Harper’s letter were all debunked in the rebuttal. You’ve got nothing to worry about.
What about that thing? Are you agreeing with me that the Harper’s letter was a “bad thing”?
Nope. You are just so invested in winning a rhetorical victory that you are missing the nuance from what I’ve said.