From a forthcoming issue of Harpers Magazine. It's short, so I'm just going to quote the whole thing. The list of signatories is interesting.

Since this topic tends to run through pretty much all online politics discussion (as a meta-discourse), it seems worth having a thread on.

Everyone who signed that is a Nazi and should be cancelled immediately.

The most annoying thing about this debate is its constant framing as a topical pressing crises of the present, when certain sections of the community have been making the exact same complaint since the 70s.

To be honest, it lost me when it talked about who was exploiting this environment, as it played in to the very thing they seem to be against. Anything not progressive has been labeled alt/far-right for the past several years, and those are the only groups they specifically criticize. To me, it's clear the left is exploiting this cultural shift. Don't get me wrong, it tries, but they couched it too much. I mean, you have self-admitted marxist organization leading the face of these protest, and you are worried about right wing demagoguery exploiting it?

I would guess people have been arguing about this sort of thing a lot longer than that, and probably will be forever to come.

You remind me that the other day we were watching Downton Abbey (but you could substitute any similar period drama) and thinking "now this is some social control." So I think you have a point. To some extent I think the arguments are the same, only the context has changed. It seems meaningful to me that in the past enforcement of social norms was very strong, but also very local. Social media have definitely broadened the scope in an interesting way.

I'm not sure I know how to evaluate the question of whether this is particularly a crisis in this moment. I hear and read enough examples that seem dubious to me, and it does seem like things have changed a lot over the last 20 years, though not mostly for the worse, I don't think. But it's hard to say how meaningful that is in some larger perspective. In any case, I'm sure I think that at least some people are overzealous in their commitments. And I also think it's interesting to think about how social norms function and where they breakdown. But if I'm skeptical of at least some of what gets called "cancel culture," I am also definitely very skeptical of a lot of the counter-framing too.

Things in the 70s were far worse. People routinely were being denied tenure or had positions not renewed for speaking out against the Vietnam War. Quite a few of the first generation of mathematicians on Wall St some from this group

I don't think you are the intended audience. Sometimes I feel like this idea of presenting an argument tailored to your audience is something that's gotten lost in the internet era, probably because the audience is always everyone.

And maybe in some ideal sense it seems like that shouldn't be the "right" approach to persuasion. But people being people, it seems like a pretty good idea. If the goal is to persuade people who are generally on the left that they ought to care about the excesses of movements on the left, then it makes sense to start from premises they will agree with.

More accurately, "wahhhh it's just the left" is simply wrong.

I get that, but you have to tell the hard truth, and that letter does not do it.

I know you need your feeding for the day, but I did not say "just the left". You do know you are the audience for the letter, right?

If you didn't mean "just the left" then what on earth are you complaining about? The subject of the letter very obviously includes the left, even you understood that in your original post.

Is your objection simply that the letter didn't make you FEEL like enough libs were owned? This won't make you FEEL good if they don't come out and say "bad leftists! bad!"? lol

Ironically, you engage in the exact behavior they are talking about, but I'm pretty sure you don't think they are talking about people like you, becasue they don't make that clear. That's my objection.

You're wrong! So, good to see you can withdraw your objection

I think you making it about my "feelings" kind of shows differently.

Why do you always have to make this about him and pre-suppose his feelings?

There's definitely a word for this kind of behavior...

I think it's clear I'm not the one talking about people's "feelings", and it's clear I was being critical of behavior exhibited in the post I was responding to, so I was not even "pre-supposing". It's clear you projected Goofy's behavior onto me, and are now gaslighting me. #toxic

Well yea, but its since the 70s, when the right had to give up actually censoring in the way you describe, that they have gone on and on about not being able to say X and Y because of illiberal liberals.

However its always parsed as a new and current danger, basically because its a projection and paranoia more than an a reality.

See what I mean WN? They think the authors are talking about censoring RW folks, while completely ignoring what is occurring to Pinker, and others, mostly apolitical folks, like what is occuring to Halle Berry, who lost a role due transgender activism.

Me: "Yes, I'm fully aware this letter is talking about 'people like me'"
You: "No you're not, I don't believe you"
Also you: "You guys are the toxic ones"

lolol

What is it that you think is happening to Pinker?

In a thread in this very forum IHIV is happy to dismiss a PHD summary as nonsense. No other language used.

That is debate for you.

Debating whether the sky is blue is stupid, the fact it was a PHD who wrote nonsense, is irrelevant.

Amazing.

Where you typed the word nonsense, I read whoooooosh.