Comments by "Harry Stoddard" (@HarryS77) on "Noam Chomsky On Harper's Letter Backlash" video.
-
11
-
10
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
Yeah. It's a vague, ill-defined, and incoherent term. And, I think, an essentially right-wing, classist framing.
Even if we just take the example of JK Rowling, was it "cancel culture" when the right criticized her for gay Dumbledore or black Hermione? No. It was only when people in the trans community and allies criticized her for a pattern of transphobic remarks.
Was it "cancel culture" when David Wright was suspended and then demoted? No. But it was cancel culture when protesters barred Charles Murray from speaking.
The fact is that no individual, not even an entire ideology, is owed this or that platform. Every outlet exercises editorial control, and, ironically, in the mainstream that editorialism tends to hew to the right or to the status quo.
If anything, this letter reveals an anxiety among traditional shapers of opinion - columnists, academics, novelists, journalists - about the ability of the public to directly criticize them and to try to hold them accountable however possible in absence of some ready-made, institutional recourse for criticism and accountability.
7
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thewayofthefist5666 First, if you're not aware of and able to recognize the context in which the the letter was published - ie pushback against Rowling for her transphobia - you just weren't paying attention. If the letter were written in the wake of David Wright's suspension and demotion following another dubious Project Veritas sting, informed readers would recognize the context, however vague the letter itself was. (Of course, no such high profile lament on "cancel culture" was written on Wright's behalf.)
I never said Rowling wrote it. Wikipedia's mentions Thomas Chatterton Williams "spearheading" it. If you don't know who TCW is, he's what we might call a liberal conservative in that he functions as a liberal who can comfortably espouse conservative opinion so that other liberals don't have to feel dirty about agreeing, as for instance when he decries rap music and "black culture," or in this case bemoans the left's attack against freeze peach.
One thing you mention is sort of correct, but not for the reason you think. The letter is incredibly vague. It mentions no specific circumstances. It could almost have been written 50 years ago or 50 years in the future and the reader could graft onto it whatever meaning they choose. It does a poor job - if it even could be said to attempt to - to discuss what "cancel culture" is, why it exists, and what to do about it.
What the letter does do is recite liberal (I use the word pejoratively) platitudes and point the finger at the left. Because the letter is so vague it both never has to publicly own up to its own impetus (which is, proximally, the hullabaloo over Rowling) nor the fact that "cancelling" has long been a feature of modern society, more often deployed by the right, as in the cases of Norman Finkelstein, David Wright, Linda Sarsour, and countless others. By failing to be specific, the letter creates an air of unfalsifiability: cancel culture could be anything, but never what it's shown not to be. It also avoids dealing with union-busting, anti-labor laws, nor the many attacks against leftists. In other words, it doesn't address it sociologically but as a political axe to grind against a marginal group. Its vagueness allows it to skirt the fact, amid its reactionary campus panic - that "silencing" on campuses is rare and that more left and liberal professors are silenced for their opinions, according to a Georgetown study. The omission of this data, while emphasizing the left as the newfound perpetrator of cancelling, reinforces the letter's status as a reactionary, classist document.
There are some legitimate concerns about strangers being able to trall through someone's history and do unnecessary damage to their life. There's also a problem with corporations and HR departments being able to weaponize "cancelling" or "wokeness" as a mere pretext to fire an employee. Because the letter is so vague and written from a PMC perspective, it cannot and does not seriously address those concerns. Ironically, while the right and center are silent on solutions, the left does have some possible answers, like implementing restorative justice techniques where possible instead of termination.
Signing off on the reactionary context and content of the letter is precisely a "gift to the right," even if Chomsky isn't capable of seeing that. It legitimizes them as victims and targets marginal voices within the public as enemies of society.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thewayofthefist5666 I'll say it for the umpteenth time, if you want to live in the real world, you can't just abstract moral values from material contexts. Context matters.
Let's say that a notable paper published in the early 2000s an open letter decrying the rise of Islamic extremism. It was written by a warhawk and extolled the virtues of democracy and criticized leftists for providing cover to terrorist ideologies. Conservatives co-signed, but so did liberal dupes like Thomas Friedman, Michael Ignatieff, Christopher Hitchens, and Bill Keller.
Someone of Noam's stature is asked to co-sign. He doesn't believe in the dogma and authoritarianism of Wahhabism. He likely thinks that, for its failings, capitalist democracy is preferable to theocratic monarchy. He may be aware that terrorism isn't unique to Islam, nor is it a particularly concerning phenomenon for most people in the world. And he probably disagrees with the ultimate goals of the authors and signatories.
It shouldn't be surprising that such a man declines to sign. And in fact, Chomsky spent the 00s criticizing people like Hitchens for a glaring double standard and harmful policies because when it comes to foreign policy Noam is able to discern that context matters when it comes to messaging. Elliot Abrahms criticizing Venezuela has very different real world implications and meanings than if a socialist does. All I'm asserting is that Chomsky should apply to the public discourse on speech the same standard he gives to foreign policy and to not legitimize hysterical, reactionary martyr myths.
1
-
1
-
@thewayofthefist5666 I'm sorry you don't comprehend anything that we're discussing.
You say that Chomsky (and your) take on the issue isn't abstract; it's "direct" (which isn't the opposite of abstract, but we'll let that go). Then you say that freedom of speech should be protected period, which is an abstraction, you fucking idiot. It's a claim about a universal, transhistorical value regardless of material reality, historical context, or political consequences - that's an abstraction. As you even conceded, the letter was vague; it dealt with no specific (direct) events.
You're also committing the same sort of butthurt whinge many of the signers are guilty of - namely, mistaking "palpable" criticism for a sign of aggrieved dogmatists and cEnSoRsHiP.
Your assessment of the "argument" either reveals how disingenuous you are, or how stupid. The disagreement is not about David Frum or someone else co-signing: it's in the context and content of such a letter that would invite the likes of a David Frum, JK Rowling, or Bari Weiss to sign on. They are barometers, not the issues of contention. Unless you're silly enough to think that they would sign on to a letter that cites the data I described previously or that discusses the systems of capitalist suppression that preserve "speech" for the few.
This is not about "shaming" Chomsky. The fact that you can't discern criticism from shaming is highly revealing.
I also take it as revealing that you haven't been able to respond to a single point I've made but continue to dance around the meta of the topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chomskyan4life If you were talking to someone who had never read Chomsky and considered him irrelevant, maybe this "president of the Chomsky fanclub" schtick you're doing would work.
But you're not. I've read a large chunk of what Chomsky's written, including his linguistic work. I've probably seen every interview he's done up to the late 00s. I have a lot of respect for Chomsky. Which is precisely why I don't revere and idolize him, treating his every utterance and opinion as though it were unalloyed truth.
It's almost as ridiculous and degrading to pretend that he's the most censored person in America. That's hysterical, and you've adduced no evidence to support it. Is he really more "censored" (you seem to have a very vague notion of what that means) than Mike Davis? Than Angela Davis? Than Michael Albert? Than Michael Parenti? Than Norman Finkelstein? Than Mumia Abu-Jamal? Than Chelsea Manning or Ed Snowden? None of these people, excepting the last two, to my knowledge have appeared on network TV, at least not as often as Chomsky. Most are not published by mainstream publishers. Some have and are being actively persecuted by the state.
What would be Chomsky's response if you wrote to him and said he was the most censored person in modern US history? What would he say if you argued that he was more persecuted, censored, and ignored than Mumia, Fred Hampton, Kwame Ture, Snowden, Finkelstein, or any number of dissidents and activists?
It's nice that you like Chomsky. But you need to expand your horizons, grow up, and stop idolizing another human being.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1