Read on Twitter
THREAD: @TomChivers wrote an article disagreeing with this cartoon I did.
It's probably the most-read cartoon I've made. (If I had known, I would have worked harder on the drawing.) https://twitter.com/barrydeutsch/status/1024567665094930432
It's probably the most-read cartoon I've made. (If I had known, I would have worked harder on the drawing.) https://twitter.com/barrydeutsch/status/1024567665094930432
A cartoon like this one works by stripping away all nuance and "yes buts" from a situation, until nothing is left but a single naked idea for us to laugh at.
Tom's article rightly points out nuances the comic leaves out. Which is fair enough. https://unherd.com/2020/12/how-the-mob-can-silence-you/
Tom's article rightly points out nuances the comic leaves out. Which is fair enough. https://unherd.com/2020/12/how-the-mob-can-silence-you/
Still, there are a few things I'll point out.
First, Tom, consider what @Popehat calls "the doctrine of the Preferred First Speaker." When A speaks and B responds, B is expected to modulate their speech to avoid chilling A's speech - but not vice versa.
https://www.popehat.com/2013/12/21/ten-points-about-speech-ducks-and-flights-to-africa/
First, Tom, consider what @Popehat calls "the doctrine of the Preferred First Speaker." When A speaks and B responds, B is expected to modulate their speech to avoid chilling A's speech - but not vice versa.
https://www.popehat.com/2013/12/21/ten-points-about-speech-ducks-and-flights-to-africa/
Take Suzanne Moore, an anti-trans bigot who famously resigned from The Guardian after 338 Guardian writers wrote an open letter decrying transphobia in the Guardian's editorial choices. Moore wasn't named, but it's obvious her work was part of what the letter-writers meant.
(CW: Transphobia).
Moore has used demeaning language to attack trans women - for example, by tweeting "People can just fuck off really. Cut their dicks off and be more feminist than me. Good for them.”
Moore has used demeaning language to attack trans women - for example, by tweeting "People can just fuck off really. Cut their dicks off and be more feminist than me. Good for them.”
Chivers elides this in his defense of Moore, saying that Moore thinks "trans people should be treated with respect."
Maybe Moore would say that if asked, but she certainly hasn't lived up to it.
Maybe Moore would say that if asked, but she certainly hasn't lived up to it.
Before Moore resigned, three trans writers resigned from the Guardian because of the transphobia they perceived there. It's fair to assume Moore was part of that.
When Moore resigns out of discomfort with what her colleagues wrote, that's being silenced...
When Moore resigns out of discomfort with what her colleagues wrote, that's being silenced...
But when Moore's colleagues resigned because of transphobia from Guardian writers like Moore, it isn't.
If contributing to an atmosphere that makes your colleagues resign is "silencing" when done TO Moore, then why not when done BY Moore? https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/guardian-staff-trans-rights-letter
If contributing to an atmosphere that makes your colleagues resign is "silencing" when done TO Moore, then why not when done BY Moore? https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/guardian-staff-trans-rights-letter
Partly, it's the doctrine of the preferred first speaker.
But it's also simple bias in which stories get talked about, and how they get framed, when it comes to "cancel culture."
But it's also simple bias in which stories get talked about, and how they get framed, when it comes to "cancel culture."
(Speaking of double-standards, can you imagine the cries of "cancel culture!" and "silencing!" if "woke" people leaked the authors of a letter that was released without names to avoid harassment? Like Moore did to her critics, with zero objections from Chivers et al?)
Chivers is criticizing behavior that's pretty common on both the right and the left. But ALL his many examples are singling out people in the "woke" left for criticism.
It's a pattern that's so common that it's hard to even see it.
It's a pattern that's so common that it's hard to even see it.
This is why I can't sign on to the fight against "cancel culture"; the people waging that fight are anti-"woke," and give similar or identical behavior a pass when it comes from within their own ranks. https://twitter.com/barrydeutsch/status/1281510367508623360
Lots of people who are anti-"cancel culture" are perfectly happy to harass the "woke" into silence or try to get them fired.
They've even done this, more than once, in the name of opposing "cancel culture."
***Anti-"cancel culture" is anti-woke, not anti-censorship.***
They've even done this, more than once, in the name of opposing "cancel culture."
***Anti-"cancel culture" is anti-woke, not anti-censorship.***
One last point, a point which is both trivial (in that it's not important to Chivers' argument), but also touches on free speech issues of far greater importance than anything else his column mentions.
Chivers writes, "if the only people who have permission to complain about being silenced are the ones who are literally silenced, then — by definition — we will never hear about it."
Putting aside the silly "permission" language (did my cartoon say anything about anyone needing permission?), I'd point out that Chivers' claim is objectively wrong.
Of course there are people who are literally silenced who we hear about.
Of course there are people who are literally silenced who we hear about.
For example, prisoners who had been talking to reporters, until we suddenly don't hear a word from them because the prison cuts off their mail or throws them into solitary.
They're completely silenced. We no longer can hear a word they say. But we can still know of their case.
They're completely silenced. We no longer can hear a word they say. But we can still know of their case.
There are other examples. I wrote a whole thread about this. https://twitter.com/barrydeutsch/status/1024567665094930432
So why is Chivers unaware of cases where people are silenced in the most literal way, by government agents with guns?
I imagine it's because the writers Chivers reads don't mention it; so Chivers doesn't know about it. https://twitter.com/barrydeutsch/status/1327328108215635969
I imagine it's because the writers Chivers reads don't mention it; so Chivers doesn't know about it. https://twitter.com/barrydeutsch/status/1327328108215635969
And it becomes a vicious circle of ignoring the worst victims of censorship while yammering constantly about the silencing effects of criticism of successful columnists.
I don't think Chivers is doing this on purpose. I think it's just a matter of who he's reading.
I don't think Chivers is doing this on purpose. I think it's just a matter of who he's reading.
But I do think Chivers - and all columnists who write about free speech - should resolve to find out about people who are being shut up in the most literal fashion. And to write at LEAST one article about those cases for each article they write about "cancel culture."
End rant!
End rant!
Aaargh! I put in the wrong link in one of the tweets above.
Here's the link to a thread of examples of people who are being silence. https://twitter.com/barrydeutsch/status/1327311629508255745
Here's the link to a thread of examples of people who are being silence. https://twitter.com/barrydeutsch/status/1327311629508255745
