Resignation Letter

Content that has the right to exist based on free speech protections does not by extension have the right to exist on any/all platforms. Different publishing platforms have standards they hold themselves to. For arguments sake, the NY Times does not generally allow white nationalists to write Op-Eds espousing their POVs, without clear messaging around context. White nationalism lies outside the NYTimes unique Overton window.

Its my view that 'cancel culture' isn't a new phenomenon; in the past, those with views outside the Overton window were not 'cancelled' per-se, they were instead 'pre-cancelled', by never being allowed to attain prominent statuses in the first place (how many KKK members were members of the NYTimes Op-Ed board; was their exclusion a result of cancel culture?). IMO 'cancel culture' is the effect of the Overton window moving more quickly than in the past, where individuals who have been able to attain prominent positions now find themselves outside the shifted Overton window. So the fact that this is happening to thinkers of prominent status is new, but excluding views outside the Overton window (the fundamental bit) is not.

I draw the distinction, because in my mind there are two debates to be had; (1) cancel culture is a new phenomenon and is anti-ethical to the ideals of free speech that American society has espoused in the past, and (2) cancel culture is not new but instead the Overton window has shrunk, and is shifting more quickly.

Anecdotally I see many arguments that reject 'cancel-culture' with the logic of (1); exclusion of voices/ideas is a result of a new phenomenon ('cancel culture'), and by relying on a large dose of appealing to tradition (America has never "cancelled" voices before) we can therefore reject any exclusion as a-priori wrong. If we argue instead within the context of (2), one cannot say that exclusion of ideas is a-prori wrong, instead one has to defend whether a particular idea deserves to be included/excluded from the Overton window.

So an idea is automatically moral if a majority of people approve of it?

I’ll add some ideas. I hope you can accept them.

I think you and a number of other posters have alluded to or directly referenced a “progressive agenda”. And, others have mentioned attacks on “freedom”.

To me, those are some powerful and emotional phrases. And, they’re also so vague and able to encompass pretty much everything that one doesn’t agree with. To me, as someone with casual knowledge of linguistic manipulation, this seems very suspicious and designed.

Then, there’s the fact that I believe I’m a moderate. I have a subscription to the NYT. I like it. I think the journalism and writing are top notch. I generally skip the opinion page because it’s pretty boring, but when I do read it, I think it’s a often a bit tailored to the most ardent of NYT subscribers.

Because I’m a NYT subscriber, I’m often called a “progressive”, Apparently, because I’m against racism and other forms of individual oppression, I’m also considered a “progressive”. They don’t seem to care if I’m for state’s rights (I’m American) or low taxes or capitalism Or rights to firearms, or anything.

What if you’re being manipulated by a influence operation? Why do I say this? Because I genuinely try to empathize with The people who call me this (on-line, at work, family members, etc.) But, instead of giving me specific details, they just cite things that are completely unrelated to me: Antifa, Soros, Bill Gates, or whatever the buzz is that week. And, eventually they grumble some more about “freedom” and drop it.

So, here’s an opportunity for you. Lay down a believe that’s so controversial, that you think it will be censored and oppressed, and I promise to read it and empathize with your point of view. And, I’m sure others will, too.

First, reporting a lack of intelligence that directly links those actions to Antifa, especially only a week after the first protest, does not mean there was no direct link. But have a counterpoint, from some people who already had some intelligence: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/law-enfo...

> "U.S. police officials said they are examining both local and out-of-state actors focused on creating damage and inciting violent confrontations with police (and possibly other protesters) in the name of anarchist and antifa causes."

> "They prepared to commit property damage and directed people who were following them that this should be done selectively and only in wealthier areas or at high-end stores run by corporate entities."

> "And they developed a complex network of bicycle scouts to move ahead of demonstrators in different directions of where police were and where police were not for purposes of being able to direct groups from the larger group to places where they could commit acts of vandalism including the torching of police vehicles and Molotov cocktails where they thought officers would not be."

Beyond even Antifa and similar groups, my first point is largely about the statement "garden variety robbers unassociated with any political group."

There have been many protests throughout America's history. Most of them are done peacefully. Clearly most of them do not approach the level of violence and destruction that the recent riots and looting accomplished--riots and looting that coincided with those protests. Are we to believe this is largely coincidence?

The images and videos of the damage and looting that was done are out there. Windows, doors, and even entire buildings destroyed and ransacked, with "F* cops", "F* 12", "ACAB", &c. scrawled on the remains. Smashing, grabbing, chanting, it's all out there. There was obviously a political statement meant by many if not most of those people. This is made even more obvious when there are political groups that make statements such as: "By any means necessary", "No justice, no peace", "Give us what we want or we'll burn down the system", &c.

These are obviously politically-motivated actions. You cannot bear witness to all of the radical statements that have been made, also bear witness to the radical acts carried out and publicly supported, and then say the two are not related.