On Being Blacklisted • Hacker News Board

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#111

Post by betwixthewires » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 1:53 AM UTC

yew wrote: post #15

hirundo wrote: post #12

Is there anyone that wants to defend this blacklisting of the author by the Chicago Review for writing this article [0]? That is, not to reconfirm that they do indeed have the right to do so, but to argue that they are right to do so? Maybe some of us can avoid this fate if we understand the grounds for it, since they decline to make it explicit. What did he say that was not just wrong, but so wrong that he should no…

Yes? I've just read the article. It's a collection of crypto-fascist dog whistles about race; it barely merits being called an opinion. (It is an example of why the academic personnel pool needs the thorough cleaning it's currently getting.) Anyone who declined to associate with the author would be right to do so. There aren't many people who don't understand what this kind of article is really about. The Chicago Rev…

Oh come off it. "Dog whistle" is just a made up term used by dishonest bullies to accuse people of saying things they didn't say. I challenge you to list the "dog whistles" in the original article referenced.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#112

Post by refenestrator » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 1:55 AM UTC

slibhb wrote: post #105

richardwhiuk wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of the best (by a number of standards) poetry ever written is deeply political.

Lots of art is political. But what makes art good has nothing to do with its politics.

It has to do with truth.

Great art and comedy both can illuminate truth in a way that prose and rhetoric can't touch, because they can approach it obliquely and not get hung up on the details.

This get missed by the overly ideological, and you can tell because they produce bad art and no comedy.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#113

Post by monkeypizza » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 1:58 AM UTC

marshmallow_12 wrote: post #90

dkdk8283 wrote: post #45

Let’s please collectively agree to abolish cancel culture. Opposing ideas cause growth. Singular ideologies do not lead to growth or change.

Abolish is a synonym of cancel. Culture is the product of collective agreements. You Sir, are in fact suggesting we create a cancel, cancel culture. Instead of eradicating the evil, you are embracing it.

Yes, this is a coherent, stable proposal. For a tolerant society to adopt complete tolerance, even of things designed to destroy their society, is unstable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#114

Post by ttt0 » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 1:58 AM UTC

richardwhiuk wrote: post #55

dkdk8283 wrote: post #45

Let’s please collectively agree to abolish cancel culture. Opposing ideas cause growth. Singular ideologies do not lead to growth or change.

Not really. You are basically arguing that anyone who provides a platform for viewpoints, must provide a platform for any viewpoint, no matter how abhorent they (and their readers) might find it.

You said it like it's an unthinkable thing to do, but it used to be a policy - FCC fairness doctrine.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#115

Post by phendrenad2 » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 1:58 AM UTC

rsj_hn wrote: post #14

"“we believe the essay does not align with Chicago Review’s editorial and political agenda.”" It's interesting that some academic literary magazines are now being forced to admit they have political agendas, which is a step in the right direction. People like Kunin are the conscience of our generation, daring to stand up to the mobs and tell the truth - a political act that conflicts with the Chicago Review's agenda.…

> some academic literary magazines are now being forced to admit they have political agendas

I think "have political agendas" is a logical leap. If your employees or customers are going to be angry with you for working with someone, you don't work with that person. To go against the wishes of your employees and customers would be having a political agenda.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#116

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 1:59 AM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #12

Is there anyone that wants to defend this blacklisting of the author by the Chicago Review for writing this article [0]? That is, not to reconfirm that they do indeed have the right to do so, but to argue that they are right to do so? Maybe some of us can avoid this fate if we understand the grounds for it, since they decline to make it explicit. What did he say that was not just wrong, but so wrong that he should no…

> Is there anyone that wants to defend this blacklisting of the author by the Chicago Review for writing this article?

Well, first, “blacklisting” for an exclusionary practice is a poorly chosen term for an act by a single actor and not a coordinated action across a group of theoretically competing actors.

Second, are you looking for a defense of the act within Chicago Review’s “editorial and political agenda” (which is difficult for any outside actor since they haven't specified what it is) or are you looking for a debate on that agenda (again, difficult for any outside actor for the same reason) or an argument for why a similarly situated might be justified on the basis of some set of goals which may not be Chicago Review’s agenda or for defense of a set of goals which might justify it that may not be Chicago Review’s agenda?

Because the last two seem like a pure waste of time while the first two seem like a waste of time if you aren't specifically asking the Chicago Review editorial staff.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#117

Post by rayiner » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 2:00 AM UTC

richardwhiuk wrote: post #55

dkdk8283 wrote: post #45

Let’s please collectively agree to abolish cancel culture. Opposing ideas cause growth. Singular ideologies do not lead to growth or change.

Not really. You are basically arguing that anyone who provides a platform for viewpoints, must provide a platform for any viewpoint, no matter how abhorent they (and their readers) might find it.

“Anyone” is doing a lot of work in your sentence. Universities are given a huge amount of special dispensation by society because they of their commitment to free inquiry. A literary magazine at a university should embody those principles. If it doesn’t, then why give them a privileged place in society?

Back in the day conservatives alleged that “free inquiry” was a pretext and universities were a Trojan horse for radical leftism. This strain of thought vindicates those critics.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#118

Post by rayiner » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 2:01 AM UTC

cpr wrote: post #103

rayiner wrote: post #96

Kunin writes: “Look. I’m a weirdo. I have worshipped strange gods. I have strange opinions about various subjects, and I have published some of these opinions in books, essays, and poems. My sexual preferences are unusual, and I have written about them extensively. There are lots of statements in my published writing for people to take issue with. However, I must admit with some embarrassment that the views expressed…

You think First Things represents the far right? Maybe in some fevered hard left dreams...

I didn’t say that. The article touches on things that are happening in the far right, addition to the point being made.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#119

Post by ariabuckles » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 2:01 AM UTC

waterhouse wrote: post #102

ariabuckles wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pretty standard anti-inclusivity rant (although it starts by attempting to position itself as more than such), and then ends with an anecdote/strawman (which is contrary to every notion of inclusivity advocacy that I've seen) to propose that those advocating for inclusivity are the real people who want segregation. I think what a lot of the commenters are missing is that this article, and statements like "If I…

> I think what a lot of the commenters are missing is that this article, and statements like "If I must revise my teaching to conform to a popular view of inclusivity that I do not share" have an impact on not just his research, but also sends a message to his students: that he doesn't whether they feel safe being there matters, and that they don't deserve to have representation in studied works. You're making a jump…

I might be making a jump, because I've followed a lot of these discussions over time.

To my understanding (and as a disclaimer, I advocate strongly for it), "inclusivity" in general means making an environment safe for people of marginalized backgrounds. So to me, his declaration that inclusivity as a value ought to be up for debate seems to indicate he doesn't think it's a top priority that students of marginalized backgrounds feel welcome in his classroom.

Is that a jump? A bit, but it's based on seeing similar situations play out in other areas.

But the choice of curriculum was to my second point: I think students deserve the chance to study a wide variety of history and literary viewpoints, including when feasible some from backgrounds similar to theirs. There has been tons of literature written by black authors, written by women, written by LGBTQ folx. Often times those works have been, in the past, deliberately destroyed (like the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft) or not considered for publication (George Elliot choosing a pseudonym to publish outside romance), which is a significant component to why there are so many more white men authors historically.

If you teach a course where all the literature you choose is from white men, you really limit what history you are teaching, and you can subtly reinforce that others may not be welcome to succeed in literature. Inclusivity asks us to consider those implications and pick some variety of authors--there are many great writers of so many different backgrounds to choose from.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#120

Post by fatbird » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 2:02 AM UTC

refenestrator wrote: post #101

fatbird wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The others aren't burning them down, the others are making clear that they have conditions on participating, and if they're met, they're happy to do so. Triaging your project to get it done by excluding the one person who makes five others leave, by forcing the one guy out, is basic management. It's the basic stuff of editorial decisions. As for the larger case of "blacklisting", as Kunin describes it, the moral case…

How many degrees of separation can you get in here and still feel justified? Kunin opposed the idea of blacklisting in general, he didn't even endorse any person. So now, for those who refuse to be published in the same magazine as him, the chain goes "unspecified other" -> Kunin didn't disavow -> they can't publish anything where Kunin might also publish? There's not even a specific idea they're condemning besides g…

Kunin opposes blacklisting that resulted from others voting with their feet. He heaps scorn on the editors of the magazine, who have, I think, the best defense of their actions, namely that it was him or them, and they chose them so they could continue publishing.

Kunin's target is really the other contributors who effectively strongarmed the editors into ejecting him, and he later in his essay falls back on the old chestnut that the best response to terrible speech is better speech--an idea that the amplification argument is explicitly trying to reject.

So what's really being discussed here is whether the other contributors leaving is justified, and I think that this is the best form of freedom of expression. It's the most powerful form of expression to walk away from someone uttering something you find terrible to express. And when they sputter that you should engage them to demonstrate your own superiority of thinking, that's just demanding you amplify them as the price of showing off yourself. Sometimes, the better response is really to just walk away. This is the marketplace of ideas at its most effective.