Quote:
Originally Posted by adder
|
This author is clever. Most of the social justice movements of the day fit the definition of moral panics. So he applies the term to the Harper’s Letter.
But that’s cheap, and this editorial is childish.
The Harper’s Letter argues for more dialogue, and less shaming and punitive reaction. It argues that adults can disagree with one another, and that cancel mobs are, well, mobs. Idiots, I’d argue. Naive, angry cranks. Unserious people who are high on righteousness.
But their “counter speech,” to borrow Kara Swisher’s definition of it (in which she badly attempted to defend it against Scott Galloway in their most recent podcast, and in which dispute Galloway crushed her), is also speech. These silly overheated nuts, these low rent Robespierres, have a right to scream for the deplatforming of those they don’t like.
An as they’re going to soon learn, the majority of us have a right to ignore them.
Twitter isn’t reality. The shame mob isn’t in your yard. The best thing about their speech, like the speech they object to, is one can simply choose not to tune into it.
I see no reason to entertain the arguments of people who argue against tolerance for all reasonable free speech. We are adults. We can all ignore the trolls. We can see who is arguing in bad faith. If the children wish to throw feces on Twitter and demand their views not be challenged or alleged impolitic pundits be shamed, we can and should simply disengage. Leave them to eat each other alive, as they will.
