Pretty much none of the 6 pages of posts in this thread actually address the arguments of the letter (which isn't really surprising given Wookie, Goofy and Itshot are doing the majority of the posting).

The letter seems to argue (among other arguments) that the climate of censorship and oppression, even (especially?) when coming from the left, makes it difficult and dangerous for journalists/writers to perform their work. And in a larger sense this climate will make society less free and democratic, and ultimately harm everyone, including the people that the censorship is supposed to be working for.

The actual claims/concerns of the article seem reasonable. And again, most of the criticism (in this forum and in society at large) don't really address the claims of the article at all.

These are the same complaints comedians made last year just applied to writing and academia fields.

Who is that letter addressing? There is no manager of cancel culture that you can complain to. It's an emergent phenomenon. It just happens spontaneously, there is no guiding force directing it that has levers we can control. Even if we all agreed cancel culture was the worst thing ever we couldn't prevent it, even if we all agreed it was the best thing ever we couldn't make it happen more often. It is a natural result of the social dynamics of a non material social environment. It's idiotic to argue about the merits of something we have no control over.

FB, TWTR, GOOG, etc. got a carve out from Congress regarding defamation lawsuits. End the carve out or change the law maybe?

Schlitz mmmm has a good take imo.

tomdemaine also has a good point. Everyone that wants to “heard” basically can be. Deal with it.

I think the usa will get there eventually but I not a fan of the usa approach to put it mildly.

Tom's 'nothing can be done' is funny. People adjust to new phenomena (even emergent ones!) and things change.

Of course people will adjust but they will adjust based on the underlying material conditions of reality not whether 500 random idiots think it's bad that people are getting cancelled. Or that 500 other random idiots think it's great that people are getting cancelled. If you want to change cancel culture you need to change the material world.

It's such a nice idea that people adjust based on reality that I don't want to argue with it.

To be fair, this entire subforum is about arguing idiotically about the merits of things we have no control over.

The entire internet.

Any time anyone complains about censorship over "disagreement," without ever specifying just what the disagreement was about, they are acting in bad faith. Twas always true for 2+2 posters, and it's true here. Opinions have consequences, and that is unavoidable. Seeking to avoid the consequences of one's opinions without actually arguing for the opinion on its merits but instead to circumvent that by arguing instead that criticism or consequences of that opinion constitutes censorship is simply to seek the validity and endorsement of the opinion while knowing full well that it cannot be defended on its merits.

For all the critics of so-called "cancel culture" who cry about how certain opinions should be debated in the marketplace of ideas rather than censored, why are they unable to answer their critics who think they should be canceled and make a convincing argument to them that their opinion is good on its own merits and instead have to whine about how any loss of prominence of the place of their opinion constitutes censorship? To whine about censorship over disagreement is to completely abdicate the debate in the marketplace of ideas and to instead seek enshrined prominence outside of that debate.

Do you agree that it is acceptable for an employer fire an employee who talks trash about their own company on social media? Do you agree that if a newspaper publishes a Richard Spencer editorial arguing for ethnic cleansing on the way to a white ethno-state, it's acceptable to organize a boycott of the paper unless the editor who authorized the article is fired? If so, there is no such thing as "cancel culture," there is only a disagreement about where exactly the lines are drawn. Opinions have consequences, and arguing that certain opinions deserve carve-outs so as to be free of consequences is just trying to enshrine them without actually having to argue in favor of them.

Says the guy whose whole forum, that he moderated, got nuked for blatant censorship of opinions and arguments he didn't like.

Lol you moron Mason shut the forum down because he disagreed with us. He cancelled us.

I have to come to MrWookies defense here, don't make it about him. He actually made an on topic post without attacking anyone. I love your point, though.

In response to the first highlighted, that means if someone writes an article about their concerns of systemic racism, if they don't outline exactly what those systems are they are arguing in bad faith? Clearly, there are venues to go into detail and venues to make general statements without going into detail, and this was the latter. I have no doubt, in a more appropriate venue all 150 of those writers could give detailed articulations of their concerns, and besides the article itself briefly gives a few examples of exactly what they are talking about. So this is just a poorly thought out statement IMO.

As far as the second highlighted you seem to be making a Neoliberal markets based argument that whatever the market decides is ultimately right. So if the market decides that a newspaper editor should be fired for publishing an Opinion article from a US Senator that is deemed beyond the pale, then the market is right.

And to throw your own logic back at you, I am guessing you don't think that a homeless person with no job should be awarded the same wealth that you have (although Victor might?), so according to your logic this means there is no such thing as systemic wealth inequality and it is merely a question of where to draw the line.

Anyways, the 150 or so signatories of that letter seem to be arguing in this case the market is not in a very optimal place, and we will all suffer for it. I am guessing that although your intuition is to let the market decide in this instance, you don't have as much faith in the efficacy of the market when it comes to how it has determined wealth should be distributed, and in that instance you would be more sympathetic towards a general argument that wealth should be distributed more equally for the good of everyone.

And again, if a group of 150 or so academics wrote an open article about their concerns of wealth inequality, if they didn't completely suss out the details you wouldn't claim them of arguing in bad faith?

That actually seems to be the point the authors of the article were making. The authors are arguing (among other points) that if you foster an atmosphere of intolerance and censorship, it can and likely will cynically be used by authoritarians against your interests.

Wookie and Goofy and the rest of you did exactly this and became victims of the culture you created. In the same vein, the authors are arguing that this atmosphere of intolerance and censorship will ultimately be cynically perverted to hurt the very people it is purporting to serve.

But only one side ****ing whines about it constantly.

It's a completely ridiculous idea to imagine that Mason would've pulled the stick out of his ass if we were just kinder to racists. He didn't like his cherished beliefs about the honour of the confederacy etc getting owned constantly so he cancelled us.

When you keep (easily) winning a debate you create a culture that justifies your censorship.

Who knew.

I am pretty sure Mason never nuked any other popular forums at the height of their popularity. I don't think it was a cosmic coincidence the one popular forum he decided to nuke was the one that was the most intolerant and had a climate of censorship.

fyp and no it wasn't.

Well, until recently I dont remember a lot of white people "whining" about systemic racism. I think it is human nature not to be particularly empathetic towards the plight of others when things are going just fine for you. You seem to be arguing this tendency is completely fine, at least in this instance.

I don't know about fine. I just think it's an inevitable consequence of online spaces. The only hard social currency online is in-group clout and the only surefire way to get in-group clout is to identify and admonish out-groupers. So long as we live our lives online and as long as our social relationships are subordinate to the market and therefore ultimately transactional in nature cancelling will be a thing.

This is not directed, or meant to pick on Tomdemaine, but rather to make a point.

This type of warped view of reality is what occurs when you operate in an echochamber. Tom really believes it was about being kinder to racist. He does not grasp his definition of racist is different than conventional use, one that most people would reject. It's a term that evolved within the echochamber, and was applied liberally and incorrectly so many times to lose any specific meaning. He didn't realize this occured. For Tom, a racist is literally the figment of the imagination of the collective echo chamber, a nondescript boogie man, which is different than what most people would consider a racist, which is what leads to his bizarre interpretation of events, and his obliviosness to the absurdity of his conclusion, but he believes it to be true. They turned the term racist into a meaningless pejorative.

"...if we were just kinder to A**H***s", is what he is really saying. A*******s being anyone the echo chamber doesn't like.

Who is supposed to be fooled by these lies? Everyone reading this remembers Mason’s tantrum.

Stop making it about another poster, hypocrite. Attack his argument.