 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| An attempt to cancel the cancellation of 'Cancel Culture' by Commander Tansin A. Darcos 08/07/2020, 2:39pm PDT | ||||
 |
 |
|||
| An attempt to cancel the cancellation of 'Cancel Culture'
Paul Robinson, August 7, 2020 Please feel free to reproduce this article A group of over 150 intellectuals including writers, educators and professionals, signed an open letter objecting to the caustic effects of "swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought," in society. What we might in the past have referred to as "Political Correctness on steroids," but is now known as "Cancel Culture." The letter, dated July 7, 2020, is to be published in the October 2020 issue of Harpers magazine, is titled "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate," is an attempt to argue against, that is, to "cancel 'Cancel Culture'." The original article can be found on the Internet Archive (note:response is very slow) or on the website of Harpers Magazine. I recommend you read the original letter because of what happened next. Some other intellectuals wrote a so called "letter in response" called "A More Specific Letter on Justice and Open Debate" published in Objective magazine July 10, 2020, which isn't so much a response as it is more like a hatchet piece. Apparently they can't refute what was said, so they have to lie about it and use distortion. This is my response to their response that seeks to cancel the cancellation of 'Cancel Culture'. I have, however, included a link to the original response so you can see I am not quoting them out of context. "They write, in the pages of a prominent magazine that’s infamous for being anti-union, not paying its interns, and firing editors over editorial disagreements with the publisher". I do not know if this is true or not; even if it is, it's an attempt to poison the well, by tarring the writers and signatories to the letter with the brush of the alleged misconduct of the publication it appears in. Are they certain that Objective magazine hasn't committed some forms of misconduct as well? Do they know all of the skeletons in its closet? "The signatories, many of them white, wealthy, and endowed with massive platforms, argue that they are afraid of being silenced, This is untrue. Not once do they say or even imply these issues currently affect them; their complaint is the treatment of other people, who do not have the ability to resist the coercive environment that these people are exposed to. "that so-called cancel culture is out of control, and that they fear for their jobs and free exchange of ideas" They also never say or imply that this problem is affecting them or has anything to do with their livelihoods. Nor does the phrase "cancel culture" appear in the original letter. "even as they speak from one of the most prestigious magazines in the country." That's the point. They have the capacity to declare their grievances in a popular magazine, where the victims of cancel culture might not have the means to expose the response imposed upon them. "But they miss the point: the irony of the piece is that nowhere in it do the signatories mention how marginalized voices have been silenced for generations in journalism, academia, and publishing." Presuming for the sake of argument this is true - which I have doubts about, since they do not mention what class or classes of people are '"marginalized" (it can't be black people since it points out later that black people are able to speak out) - because other people were mistreated they should not point out mistreatment occurring now? " Ironically, these influential people then use that platform to complain that they’re being silenced." Nope, it doesn't say or imply that either; again, it is a complaint about all the other people who experience disproportionate retribution for the things they have said. "The letter reads as a caustic reaction to a diversifying industry — one that’s starting to challenge institutional norms that have protected bigotry." No, it's a response to caustic reaction, in which someone says something that is considered to be inappropriate, and the reaction is out of proportion to the size of the error. "The writers of the letter use seductive but nebulous concepts and coded language to obscure the actual meaning behind their words, in what seems like an attempt to control and derail the ongoing debate about who gets to have a platform."This is pure deflection, as the letter speaks about the opposite, where minor mistakes (if they are mistakes) are blown out of proportion by others in order to silence ideas they don't like. "Their words reflect a stubbornness to let go of the elitism that still pervades the media industry, an unwillingness to dismantle systems that keep people like them in and the rest of us out." No, again, it's an attempt to highlight the intolerance to other people's ideas and to invoke excessive retribution for mistakes. "The Harper’s letter cites six nonspecific examples to justify their argument. It’s possible to guess what incidents the signatories might be referring to, and it’s likely that if they listed specific examples, most wouldn’t hold water. But the instances they reference are not part of a new trend at all, as we explain below. " They are, in fact, just guessing as to what they think are the issues involved. Anyone who bothers to look can see many cases of intolerance to unpopular ideas or excessive retribution for mistakes have occurred. Viva Frei, Montreal lawyer and YouTuber, stated in one of his vlawgs that minor mistakes people make now, that would have been ignored ten years ago, or at worst have gotten the person politely spoken to, pointing out they made a mistake, are now being pounced on to silence the person, or possibly to destroy their livelihood or even their lives. The article goes on to try and guess whom they think it might be referring to, then proceed to strawman the argument by picking what may be completely unrelated examples. "While the Harper’s letter is couched in the events of the last few weeks, it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It is actively informed by the actions of its writers, many of whom have championed the free market of ideas, but actively ensured that it is free only for them. It’s ironic that the letter gives highly sought-out space to some of the most well-paid and visible people in media, academia, and publishing. These are the same people who possess the money and prestige to have their ideas shared in just about any elite publication, outlet, or journal. " If they did not have this prestige, they wouldn't have the ability to speak out; those who are victims of the caustic effects of Cancel Culture have been so demonized and made so toxic to media outlets that they are effectively silenced. The next thing, rather than show that the comments are wrong, they proceed to attack the people who signed the document, another form of "guilt by association" in which they try to discredit the ideas by attacking the signatories. "Under the guise of free speech and free exchange of ideas, the letter appears to be asking for unrestricted freedom to espouse their points of view free from consequence or criticism." No one has asked for this. What is being complained about is excessive retribution. For example, if someone makes a mistake, or says something insensitive, asking them to apologize is reasonable; demanding they be fired and blacklisted is grossly excessive and disproportionate. "Their letter seeks to uphold a “stifling atmosphere” and prioritizes signal-blasting their discomfort in the face of valid criticism." There is a difference between criticism an lynch-mob mentality, which is what Cancel Culture is. |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
An attempt to cancel the cancellation of 'Cancel Culture' by 08/07/2020, 2:39pm PDT  |
