A new era of censoriousness?

brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,386
An interesting article here that talks about recent censorious leaning in the worlds of publication and speech.  The quote that stands out here is:

"...the letter goes on to decry what it calls “a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity”.

Hitting out at how a “panicked damage control” is leading to the delivery of “hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms”, the letter criticises how “editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organisations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes”.

The article points towards a distinct aggressiveness toward those who voice opinions that  others disagree with.  We hear a lot about "tolerance", but the ideas presented her beg the question, "How tolerant are we as a society?"  It's one things to strongly disagree with an opinion, and other to disallow dissension and opposing views.  Do we want this kind of suppression- let alone censorship- to proliferate?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jul/08/jk-rowling-rushdie-and-atwood-warn-against-intolerance-in-open-letter

Thoughts are very much welcome/encouraged but please consider reading the article first.







“In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
-James Allen










«13

Comments

  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 21,610




  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 21,610
    ^^^
    I was watching a bit on this last night; though I love all things Cleese, this particularly struck me. 

    I’ll read the article once I properly wake up. 
  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 15,654
    edited July 9
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     
    Post edited by dankind on
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 1,407
    brianlux said:
    An interesting article here that talks about recent censorious leaning in the worlds of publication and speech.  The quote that stands out here is:

    "...the letter goes on to decry what it calls “a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity”.

    Hitting out at how a “panicked damage control” is leading to the delivery of “hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms”, the letter criticises how “editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organisations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes”.

    The article points towards a distinct aggressiveness toward those who voice opinions that  others disagree with.  We hear a lot about "tolerance", but the ideas presented her beg the question, "How tolerant are we as a society?"  It's one things to strongly disagree with an opinion, and other to disallow dissension and opposing views.  Do we want this kind of suppression- let alone censorship- to proliferate?

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jul/08/jk-rowling-rushdie-and-atwood-warn-against-intolerance-in-open-letter

    Thoughts are very much welcome/encouraged but please consider reading the article first.







    I didn’t read this specific article but did read others about this yesterday (and posted about it elsewhere, lol). I agree with much of what was said and have been troubled by the lack of tolerance shown by both sides the last several years. I do appreciate that both left and right are held accountable for this. We all need to open our ears and minds (myself included) and work ourselves back to the mindset of not agreeing with someone but standing firm on their right to express themselves (with reasonable limits like not promoting violence against anyone).

    Or, we need to adopt the George Carlin mentality of if you don’t like what’s on tv, change the channel (a comment made on one of the articles I read, lol).
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,386
    brianlux said:
    An interesting article here that talks about recent censorious leaning in the worlds of publication and speech.  The quote that stands out here is:

    "...the letter goes on to decry what it calls “a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity”.

    Hitting out at how a “panicked damage control” is leading to the delivery of “hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms”, the letter criticises how “editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organisations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes”.

    The article points towards a distinct aggressiveness toward those who voice opinions that  others disagree with.  We hear a lot about "tolerance", but the ideas presented her beg the question, "How tolerant are we as a society?"  It's one things to strongly disagree with an opinion, and other to disallow dissension and opposing views.  Do we want this kind of suppression- let alone censorship- to proliferate?

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jul/08/jk-rowling-rushdie-and-atwood-warn-against-intolerance-in-open-letter

    Thoughts are very much welcome/encouraged but please consider reading the article first.







    I didn’t read this specific article but did read others about this yesterday (and posted about it elsewhere, lol). I agree with much of what was said and have been troubled by the lack of tolerance shown by both sides the last several years. I do appreciate that both left and right are held accountable for this. We all need to open our ears and minds (myself included) and work ourselves back to the mindset of not agreeing with someone but standing firm on their right to express themselves (with reasonable limits like not promoting violence against anyone).

    Or, we need to adopt the George Carlin mentality of if you don’t like what’s on tv, change the channel (a comment made on one of the articles I read, lol).
    LOL, I'm always up for Carlin advice!
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,386
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • static111static111 Posts: 904
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,386
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable

    I've always had the free speech bug.  :wink:
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 2,544
    JK Rowling is probably the reason for that "edit."  She's not just skeptical, she's making a point to almost be on a crusade against the notion that trans women are women. 
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,386
    OnWis97 said:
    JK Rowling is probably the reason for that "edit."  She's not just skeptical, she's making a point to almost be on a crusade against the notion that trans women are women. 

    Yeah, that's her part.  But I didn't see this as being just about her.  She just happens to be the most famous of the signers.  Her presence actually detracts from the message because of that.
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 1,407
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable
    I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,386
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable
    I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

    For sure.  Hate speech, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc., those need to be held accountable.  But simply stating an opinion- even one that is strong opposing one's own opinion, I don't see as worthy of censorship.
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • static111static111 Posts: 904
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable

    I've always had the free speech bug.  :wink:
    lol god damn it!!!!!
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 1,407
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable
    I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

    For sure.  Hate speech, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc., those need to be held accountable.  But simply stating an opinion- even one that is strong opposing one's own opinion, I don't see as worthy of censorship.
    Over time I've found some of the most interesting and informative discussions have been with people of different (even opposite) viewpoints, both here (the only other forum I was active on was for the show 24, lol) and in real life.  I just hope the people on the other end have felt the same, lol.
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016
  • static111static111 Posts: 904
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable
    I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable
    I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

    For sure.  Hate speech, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc., those need to be held accountable.  But simply stating an opinion- even one that is strong opposing one's own opinion, I don't see as worthy of censorship.
    I'm not speaking of legal repercussions, but if you are the Costco idiot that "feels threatened" or some Karen Supreme wannabe, or someone that speaks legal hate speech, be prepared for the societal consequences of being called out. Don't like it, put a mask on, stop being a karen, quit saying racist shit and explaining it away that it was a different time or saying that your views on trans are right because of science...keep your shit to yourself in other words if you can't take the heat.  The worst thing for free speech is people pretending they have to give it space and legitimacy if it is harmful.   If you have some backward fucked up view that's great, say it don't spray it, but don't expect the rest of us to put you on a pedestal as a "free speech" warrior, and if what you are saying infuriates a bunch of people be ready to reap the whirlwind.  Your right to speech is protected but that doesn't include a shield to the consequences of your words and it was never meant to.  Let's not forget Trump, that guy has free speech, but we would all better off if no one legitimized his nonsense or gave him a platform.
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 1,407
    static111 said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable
    I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable
    I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

    For sure.  Hate speech, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc., those need to be held accountable.  But simply stating an opinion- even one that is strong opposing one's own opinion, I don't see as worthy of censorship.
    I'm not speaking of legal repercussions, but if you are the Costco idiot that "feels threatened" or some Karen Supreme wannabe, or someone that speaks legal hate speech, be prepared for the societal consequences of being called out. Don't like it, put a mask on, stop being a karen, quit saying racist shit and explaining it away that it was a different time or saying that your views on trans are right because of science...keep your shit to yourself in other words if you can't take the heat.  The worst thing for free speech is people pretending they have to give it space and legitimacy if it is harmful.   If you have some backward fucked up view that's great, say it don't spray it, but don't expect the rest of us to put you on a pedestal as a "free speech" warrior, and if what you are saying infuriates a bunch of people be ready to reap the whirlwind.  Your right to speech is protected but that doesn't include a shield to the consequences of your words and it was never meant to.  Let's not forget Trump, that guy has free speech, but we would all better off if no one legitimized his nonsense or gave him a platform.
    Thanks for clarifying, funny enough some of what you said is my own mindset when posting.  Since I identify as a right-leaning individual I know some of my opinions won't be popular around here and post with the expectation of blowback but the hope for discussion.  I've had to put up with some nasty (and inaccurate) labels as a result (not so much here, thankfully), and I work to not generalize or name call myself.  Calling out public persons is fair game though (see my comments about my current Prime Minister in the Canadian Politics thread, lol).
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,386
    static111 said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable
    I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable
    I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

    For sure.  Hate speech, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc., those need to be held accountable.  But simply stating an opinion- even one that is strong opposing one's own opinion, I don't see as worthy of censorship.
    I'm not speaking of legal repercussions, but if you are the Costco idiot that "feels threatened" or some Karen Supreme wannabe, or someone that speaks legal hate speech, be prepared for the societal consequences of being called out. Don't like it, put a mask on, stop being a karen, quit saying racist shit and explaining it away that it was a different time or saying that your views on trans are right because of science...keep your shit to yourself in other words if you can't take the heat.  The worst thing for free speech is people pretending they have to give it space and legitimacy if it is harmful.   If you have some backward fucked up view that's great, say it don't spray it, but don't expect the rest of us to put you on a pedestal as a "free speech" warrior, and if what you are saying infuriates a bunch of people be ready to reap the whirlwind.  Your right to speech is protected but that doesn't include a shield to the consequences of your words and it was never meant to.  Let's not forget Trump, that guy has free speech, but we would all better off if no one legitimized his nonsense or gave him a platform.

    I don't see that this is saying something Trump (or something someone else you and I may disagree with or even loathe) says should be legitimized by those of us who disagree with it.  But should they be allowed their opinion- even if we think it is fucked up bullshit?  I say yes, for sure.  As soon as you take away the right to someones opposing view, you enter a world I for one am not interested in. 
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 21,610
    Second attempt here, but where does common sense come in? Yes, the yelling fire situation, etc. I’m more concerned about silencing (your valid or perceived) opposition. Speak your mind, defend it intelligently, and let the chips fall where they may.

    Or - such a concept! - keep an open mind and make a small effort to see the other’s point of view. 

    Lastly, some people are just itching to be offended - by anything, anyone. 
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,386
    hedonist said:
    Second attempt here, but where does common sense come in? Yes, the yelling fire situation, etc. I’m more concerned about silencing (your valid or perceived) opposition. Speak your mind, defend it intelligently, and let the chips fall where they may.

    Or - such a concept! - keep an open mind and make a small effort to see the other’s point of view. 

    Lastly, some people are just itching to be offended - by anything, anyone. 

    Very well said- right on!
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • static111static111 Posts: 904
    edited July 9
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable
    I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable
    I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

    For sure.  Hate speech, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc., those need to be held accountable.  But simply stating an opinion- even one that is strong opposing one's own opinion, I don't see as worthy of censorship.
    I'm not speaking of legal repercussions, but if you are the Costco idiot that "feels threatened" or some Karen Supreme wannabe, or someone that speaks legal hate speech, be prepared for the societal consequences of being called out. Don't like it, put a mask on, stop being a karen, quit saying racist shit and explaining it away that it was a different time or saying that your views on trans are right because of science...keep your shit to yourself in other words if you can't take the heat.  The worst thing for free speech is people pretending they have to give it space and legitimacy if it is harmful.   If you have some backward fucked up view that's great, say it don't spray it, but don't expect the rest of us to put you on a pedestal as a "free speech" warrior, and if what you are saying infuriates a bunch of people be ready to reap the whirlwind.  Your right to speech is protected but that doesn't include a shield to the consequences of your words and it was never meant to.  Let's not forget Trump, that guy has free speech, but we would all better off if no one legitimized his nonsense or gave him a platform.

    I don't see that this is saying something Trump (or something someone else you and I may disagree with or even loathe) says should be legitimized by those of us who disagree with it.  But should they be allowed their opinion- even if we think it is fucked up bullshit?  I say yes, for sure.  As soon as you take away the right to someones opposing view, you enter a world I for one am not interested in. 
    I'm not saying take away their right.  They have every right to speak.  they do not have the right to be heard or protected from the potential fiscal consequences or job losses etc.  Case in point  aren't we all trying to Cancel Donald by taking away his job?
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,386
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable
    I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable
    I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

    For sure.  Hate speech, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc., those need to be held accountable.  But simply stating an opinion- even one that is strong opposing one's own opinion, I don't see as worthy of censorship.
    I'm not speaking of legal repercussions, but if you are the Costco idiot that "feels threatened" or some Karen Supreme wannabe, or someone that speaks legal hate speech, be prepared for the societal consequences of being called out. Don't like it, put a mask on, stop being a karen, quit saying racist shit and explaining it away that it was a different time or saying that your views on trans are right because of science...keep your shit to yourself in other words if you can't take the heat.  The worst thing for free speech is people pretending they have to give it space and legitimacy if it is harmful.   If you have some backward fucked up view that's great, say it don't spray it, but don't expect the rest of us to put you on a pedestal as a "free speech" warrior, and if what you are saying infuriates a bunch of people be ready to reap the whirlwind.  Your right to speech is protected but that doesn't include a shield to the consequences of your words and it was never meant to.  Let's not forget Trump, that guy has free speech, but we would all better off if no one legitimized his nonsense or gave him a platform.

    I don't see that this is saying something Trump (or something someone else you and I may disagree with or even loathe) says should be legitimized by those of us who disagree with it.  But should they be allowed their opinion- even if we think it is fucked up bullshit?  I say yes, for sure.  As soon as you take away the right to someones opposing view, you enter a world I for one am not interested in. 
    I'm not saying take away their right.  They have every right to speak.  they do not have the right to be heard or protected from the potential fiscal consequences or job losses etc.  Case in point  aren't we all trying to Cancel Donald by taking away his job?

    Committing a crime is not the same as having an opinion.
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,386
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • static111static111 Posts: 904
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable
    I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable
    I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

    For sure.  Hate speech, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc., those need to be held accountable.  But simply stating an opinion- even one that is strong opposing one's own opinion, I don't see as worthy of censorship.
    I'm not speaking of legal repercussions, but if you are the Costco idiot that "feels threatened" or some Karen Supreme wannabe, or someone that speaks legal hate speech, be prepared for the societal consequences of being called out. Don't like it, put a mask on, stop being a karen, quit saying racist shit and explaining it away that it was a different time or saying that your views on trans are right because of science...keep your shit to yourself in other words if you can't take the heat.  The worst thing for free speech is people pretending they have to give it space and legitimacy if it is harmful.   If you have some backward fucked up view that's great, say it don't spray it, but don't expect the rest of us to put you on a pedestal as a "free speech" warrior, and if what you are saying infuriates a bunch of people be ready to reap the whirlwind.  Your right to speech is protected but that doesn't include a shield to the consequences of your words and it was never meant to.  Let's not forget Trump, that guy has free speech, but we would all better off if no one legitimized his nonsense or gave him a platform.

    I don't see that this is saying something Trump (or something someone else you and I may disagree with or even loathe) says should be legitimized by those of us who disagree with it.  But should they be allowed their opinion- even if we think it is fucked up bullshit?  I say yes, for sure.  As soon as you take away the right to someones opposing view, you enter a world I for one am not interested in. 
    I'm not saying take away their right.  They have every right to speak.  they do not have the right to be heard or protected from the potential fiscal consequences or job losses etc.  Case in point  aren't we all trying to Cancel Donald by taking away his job?

    Committing a crime is not the same as having an opinion.
    What crime has he been found guilty of?
  • static111static111 Posts: 904

    Once again AOC for the win.  Read the whole thread.  https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1281388656935284736?s=21
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,386
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable
    I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    dankind said:
    A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

     

    I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.
    You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable
    I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

    For sure.  Hate speech, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc., those need to be held accountable.  But simply stating an opinion- even one that is strong opposing one's own opinion, I don't see as worthy of censorship.
    I'm not speaking of legal repercussions, but if you are the Costco idiot that "feels threatened" or some Karen Supreme wannabe, or someone that speaks legal hate speech, be prepared for the societal consequences of being called out. Don't like it, put a mask on, stop being a karen, quit saying racist shit and explaining it away that it was a different time or saying that your views on trans are right because of science...keep your shit to yourself in other words if you can't take the heat.  The worst thing for free speech is people pretending they have to give it space and legitimacy if it is harmful.   If you have some backward fucked up view that's great, say it don't spray it, but don't expect the rest of us to put you on a pedestal as a "free speech" warrior, and if what you are saying infuriates a bunch of people be ready to reap the whirlwind.  Your right to speech is protected but that doesn't include a shield to the consequences of your words and it was never meant to.  Let's not forget Trump, that guy has free speech, but we would all better off if no one legitimized his nonsense or gave him a platform.

    I don't see that this is saying something Trump (or something someone else you and I may disagree with or even loathe) says should be legitimized by those of us who disagree with it.  But should they be allowed their opinion- even if we think it is fucked up bullshit?  I say yes, for sure.  As soon as you take away the right to someones opposing view, you enter a world I for one am not interested in. 
    I'm not saying take away their right.  They have every right to speak.  they do not have the right to be heard or protected from the potential fiscal consequences or job losses etc.  Case in point  aren't we all trying to Cancel Donald by taking away his job?

    Committing a crime is not the same as having an opinion.
    What crime has he been found guilty of?
    Semantics.  :lol:

    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,386
    static111 said:

    Once again AOC for the win.  Read the whole thread.  https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1281388656935284736?s=21

    I'll find time to read more later (it's almost movie time!) but I read the first few where she talks about "cancelled culture".  Neither the word "cancel", "culture", nor the phrase "cancelled culture" are in the letter I posted.  Maybe a different topic or different spin on something similar?   I'll look at it more later.

    And by the way, the only thing I'm in favor of cancelling is ARP junk mail and magazines.  Old fogy stuff!
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • hrd2imgnhrd2imgn Southwest Burbs of ChicagoPosts: 4,301
    Political correctness is essential point of the woke  mobs unless you are part of the woke mob.  One of the most hypocritical notions of thw century.  In your outrage it is okay to be the very thing you despise.  

    The woke mob is no better than a petulant child demanding more ice cream.  Killing in the  name of, is still killing.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,386
    hrd2imgn said:
    Political correctness is essential point of the woke  mobs unless you are part of the woke mob.  One of the most hypocritical notions of thw century.  In your outrage it is okay to be the very thing you despise.  

    The woke mob is no better than a petulant child demanding more ice cream.  Killing in the  name of, is still killing.

    I appreciate and admire the goals of those- especially younger people- to promote a more equitable society, speak out against racism, demand an end to police brutality, put an end to homophobia, and (highest on my own list of priorities) take better care of the planet that sustains us.  What I have trouble with from ALL sides is people being unwilling to listen to each other and allowing all voices to be heard.  I may not like what someone else says, but if we deny someone the right to speak their mind, we deny everyone's right.  (And of course I'm not saying it's OK to yell "fire" in a crowded theater or threaten others, etc.)

    My other concern is with people jumping on band wagons without educating themselves first.  I read a lot of stuff on social media written by people who seem to think they are enlightened.  Shit, I'm almost 69 and I still have a lot to learn.  I think we all do.
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • what dreamswhat dreams Posts: 1,508

    Bari Weiss resigns from New York Times, says ‘Twitter has become its ultimate editor’

    By 
    July 14, 2020 at 4:33 p.m. EDT

    New York Times opinion writer Bari Weiss, who attracted considerable controversy both internally and externally, resigned from the newspaper this week, the company confirmed Tuesday.

    In a lengthy note about her Monday departure, Weiss criticized the Times for caving to the whims of critics on Twitter and for not standing up for her after she said she was “bullied” by Times staffers.

    “The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people,” she wrote. “Nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back.”

    Weiss came to the Times in 2017 from the Wall Street Journal as part of former opinions editor James Bennet’s vision to show the “many shades of conservatism and many shades of liberalism." But she quickly became a lightning rod for both her social media posts and her published writings, including a large feature on the “intellectual dark web” — a collection of media personalities and thinkers whom she described as “locked out of legacy outlets” — and an essay criticizing college protest movements, in which she cited a hoax Twitter account. She blamed a far-left “mob" for attacking her following several errors she made.

    "Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor,” Weiss wrote in her resignation letter. “As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions”

    Hours after the Times confirmed Weiss’s departure, writer Andrew Sullivan announced he was leaving New York Magazine by the end of the week. He, like Weiss, has lamented that the current cultural and political climate stifles open debate.

    “I have no beef with my colleagues, many of whom I admire and are friends,” Sullivan tweeted. “The underlying reasons for the split are pretty self-evident.” But he expressed solidarity with Weiss: “The mob bullied and harassed a young woman for thoughtcrimes. And her editors stood by and watched."

    During her tenure at the Times, Weiss cast herself as a centrist liberal concerned that far-left critiques stifled free speech. She wrote about anti-Semitism and the Women’s March, praised cultural appropriation and warned of the limits of #MeToo in a widely discussed column about Aziz Ansari, which inspired a “Saturday Night Live” sketch.

    Weiss has long complained about “cancel culture" — she signed a controversial open letter published by Harper’s this month on the subject. Her critics have accused her of hypocrisy, accusing her of singling out a writer in attempt to get her fired, and her own history as a campus activist who took aim at professors.

    In her resignation latter, Weiss wrote “my forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views,” some of whom, she said, had called her “a Nazi and a racist.”

    “What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity,” she wrote. “If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.”

    Weiss’s letter drew concern from many readers with her claim that some Times colleagues have “openly demeaned” her on the company’s internal Slack messaging platform.

    “It’s one thing that many of our readers and staff disagree with @bariweiss’ views — fine,” tweeted Times correspondent Rukmini Callimachi. “But the fact that she has been openly bullied, not just on social media, but in internal slack channels is not okay.”

    Corners of the pro-Trump Internet and conservative lawmakers also seized upon Weiss’s resignation letter — “eloquent, profound, incisive — and true," wrote Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) — as evidence that the newspaper stifled views that veered from the left.

    Atlantic staff writer Caitlin Flanagan tweeted that the way the Times treated Weiss “is unconscionable. It’s not civil, It’s not in the reader’s interest, and the well-documented culture of extreme harassment will, I hope, now come to light. This is the biggest media story in years.”

    Talk show host Bill Maher wrote: “As a longtime reader who has in recent years read the paper with increasing dismay over just the reasons outlined here, I hope this letter finds receptive ears at the paper. But for the reasons outlined here, I doubt it.”

    Some of her critics, though, chafed at Weiss’s portrayal of herself as a victim, arguing that the “mob” outrage her work has inspired is essentially the kind of free speech she purports to champion. “If your entire brand is that you’re going to say the things you think people don’t want said, then it’s completely disingenuous to act surprised when there’s blowback,” tweeted journalist and web publisher Elizabeth Spiers. “Or to suggest that it’s somehow unfair, as if everyone owes you their silence.”

    In a statement Tuesday, acting editorial page editor Kathleen Kingbury said, “We appreciate the many contributions that Bari made to Times Opinion." A spokesperson for the Times said that Sulzberger does not plan to issue a public response to Weiss’s letter.

    Kingsbury assumed the role previously occupied by Bennet, who resigned last month after staffers revolted against the paper for its decision to publish a controversial op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) that argued for military incursion into U.S. cities racked by protests against police violence. Many staffers argued that it was dangerous to give Cotton’s argument the platform of the Times’s opinion page, and that it would put black people in particular danger. They also noted Cotton included claims debunked by the Times’s own reporting.

    The internal drama played out on social media, and many staffers took exception with Weiss’s characterization of it as a “civil war inside The New York Times between the (mostly young) wokes the (mostly 40+) liberals," noting that the criticism came from a range of Times employees.

    Bennet and publisher A.G. Sulzberger initially defended the decision to publish the essay as part of the section’s mission to present a range of opinions. But following the considerable outcry among staffers, the newspaper abruptly announced the Cotton op-ed had gone through "a rushed editorial process” and “did not meet our standards.”

    On Tuesday, Kingsbury said she is "personally committed to ensuring that The Times continues to publish voices, experiences and viewpoints from across the political spectrum in the Opinion report. We see every day how impactful and important that approach is, especially through the outsized influence The Times’s opinion journalism has on the national conversation.”

    This story has been updated.

  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,386

    Bari Weiss resigns from New York Times, says ‘Twitter has become its ultimate editor’

    By 
    July 14, 2020 at 4:33 p.m. EDT

    New York Times opinion writer Bari Weiss, who attracted considerable controversy both internally and externally, resigned from the newspaper this week, the company confirmed Tuesday.

    In a lengthy note about her Monday departure, Weiss criticized the Times for caving to the whims of critics on Twitter and for not standing up for her after she said she was “bullied” by Times staffers.

    “The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people,” she wrote. “Nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back.”

    Weiss came to the Times in 2017 from the Wall Street Journal as part of former opinions editor James Bennet’s vision to show the “many shades of conservatism and many shades of liberalism." But she quickly became a lightning rod for both her social media posts and her published writings, including a large feature on the “intellectual dark web” — a collection of media personalities and thinkers whom she described as “locked out of legacy outlets” — and an essay criticizing college protest movements, in which she cited a hoax Twitter account. She blamed a far-left “mob" for attacking her following several errors she made.

    "Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor,” Weiss wrote in her resignation letter. “As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions”

    Hours after the Times confirmed Weiss’s departure, writer Andrew Sullivan announced he was leaving New York Magazine by the end of the week. He, like Weiss, has lamented that the current cultural and political climate stifles open debate.

    “I have no beef with my colleagues, many of whom I admire and are friends,” Sullivan tweeted. “The underlying reasons for the split are pretty self-evident.” But he expressed solidarity with Weiss: “The mob bullied and harassed a young woman for thoughtcrimes. And her editors stood by and watched."

    During her tenure at the Times, Weiss cast herself as a centrist liberal concerned that far-left critiques stifled free speech. She wrote about anti-Semitism and the Women’s March, praised cultural appropriation and warned of the limits of #MeToo in a widely discussed column about Aziz Ansari, which inspired a “Saturday Night Live” sketch.

    Weiss has long complained about “cancel culture" — she signed a controversial open letter published by Harper’s this month on the subject. Her critics have accused her of hypocrisy, accusing her of singling out a writer in attempt to get her fired, and her own history as a campus activist who took aim at professors.

    In her resignation latter, Weiss wrote “my forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views,” some of whom, she said, had called her “a Nazi and a racist.”

    “What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity,” she wrote. “If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.”

    Weiss’s letter drew concern from many readers with her claim that some Times colleagues have “openly demeaned” her on the company’s internal Slack messaging platform.

    “It’s one thing that many of our readers and staff disagree with @bariweiss’ views — fine,” tweeted Times correspondent Rukmini Callimachi. “But the fact that she has been openly bullied, not just on social media, but in internal slack channels is not okay.”

    Corners of the pro-Trump Internet and conservative lawmakers also seized upon Weiss’s resignation letter — “eloquent, profound, incisive — and true," wrote Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) — as evidence that the newspaper stifled views that veered from the left.

    Atlantic staff writer Caitlin Flanagan tweeted that the way the Times treated Weiss “is unconscionable. It’s not civil, It’s not in the reader’s interest, and the well-documented culture of extreme harassment will, I hope, now come to light. This is the biggest media story in years.”

    Talk show host Bill Maher wrote: “As a longtime reader who has in recent years read the paper with increasing dismay over just the reasons outlined here, I hope this letter finds receptive ears at the paper. But for the reasons outlined here, I doubt it.”

    Some of her critics, though, chafed at Weiss’s portrayal of herself as a victim, arguing that the “mob” outrage her work has inspired is essentially the kind of free speech she purports to champion. “If your entire brand is that you’re going to say the things you think people don’t want said, then it’s completely disingenuous to act surprised when there’s blowback,” tweeted journalist and web publisher Elizabeth Spiers. “Or to suggest that it’s somehow unfair, as if everyone owes you their silence.”

    In a statement Tuesday, acting editorial page editor Kathleen Kingbury said, “We appreciate the many contributions that Bari made to Times Opinion." A spokesperson for the Times said that Sulzberger does not plan to issue a public response to Weiss’s letter.

    Kingsbury assumed the role previously occupied by Bennet, who resigned last month after staffers revolted against the paper for its decision to publish a controversial op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) that argued for military incursion into U.S. cities racked by protests against police violence. Many staffers argued that it was dangerous to give Cotton’s argument the platform of the Times’s opinion page, and that it would put black people in particular danger. They also noted Cotton included claims debunked by the Times’s own reporting.

    The internal drama played out on social media, and many staffers took exception with Weiss’s characterization of it as a “civil war inside The New York Times between the (mostly young) wokes the (mostly 40+) liberals," noting that the criticism came from a range of Times employees.

    Bennet and publisher A.G. Sulzberger initially defended the decision to publish the essay as part of the section’s mission to present a range of opinions. But following the considerable outcry among staffers, the newspaper abruptly announced the Cotton op-ed had gone through "a rushed editorial process” and “did not meet our standards.”

    On Tuesday, Kingsbury said she is "personally committed to ensuring that The Times continues to publish voices, experiences and viewpoints from across the political spectrum in the Opinion report. We see every day how impactful and important that approach is, especially through the outsized influence The Times’s opinion journalism has on the national conversation.”

    This story has been updated.


    I used to think the NY Times was a great paper- and it some ways it still is- but I've grown wary of the tendency for people to think, "Well hey, I read it in the times.  It must be true!"  The problem is, I've seen several instances where the news in the Times is really an editorial and some reader don't know the difference.  The Times could actually be a good source for brushing up on one's skepticism and critical thinking skills. 

    As for Twitter- I'm very wary of that place!
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










Sign In or Register to comment.