The backlash against the student letters is understandable--the associated harassment is too far, but it's understandable and within reason for people to feel that they were insensitive, or otherwise objectionable.
But artists signing a letter of this description:
> Thousands of artists, academics and cultural workers, including Velasco, signed the Oct. 19 open letter, which supported Palestinian liberation and criticized the silence of cultural institutions about the Israeli bombing of residents in Gaza… In it, the signatories “call for an end to the killing and harming of all civilians, an immediate cease-fire, the passage of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and the end of the complicity of our governing bodies in grave human rights violations and war crimes.” … The Oct. 19 open letter met condemnation, drawing responses by figures in the art world. On WhatsApp, campaigns were organized to dissuade advertisers from working with the magazine.
By far most of the substance there shouldn't be controversial, especially in the presumably liberal-leaning art world.
This has all been far more aggressive than the "cancel culture" decried by the right, but one hears crickets about it from the usual free speech absolutists.
> By far most of the substance there shouldn't be controversial, especially in the presumably liberal-leaning art world.
An academic who has likewise seen censorship of this issue affect his own career has written an entire book about this 'progressive except for Palestine' phenomenon.
The substance might be less controversial if it also called on Hamas to release the 200+ hostages it still holds. As it is, its own silence rightly attracts criticism.
This pains me deeply, because I'm a woke leftist bleeding heart socialist liberal lefty. I believe that Israel's right-wing government has treated the Palestinians with bad faith for decades.
But I also think that the left has bought too easily into Palestinian propaganda, as evidenced here by the exclusion of the very clear and real atrocities that sparked this reprisal. Hamas has Jewish genocide incorporated directly into its charter. Netanyahu has badly mis-handled the Palestinians, but the alternative of simply throwing open the border between Gaza and Israel is also plainly unacceptable.
Calls for peace need to acknowledge that the cycle of violence includes both sides before we can even begin to untangle it. Excusing the atrocities of October 7 makes the situation much worse, instead of better.
I hear you on the hostages, that makes sense as part of any ceasefire.
> but the alternative of simply throwing open the border between Gaza and Israel is also plainly unacceptable.
I don't know that anyone is asking for that, or whether or not it is good, but, assuming the letter did suggest that, does that merit the kind of treatment the signatories received? Like, it might be a stupid and totally unreasonable ask (again, IDK enough about this), but I don't see how asking it could be that morally condemnable.
> Excusing the atrocities of October 7 makes the situation much worse, instead of better.
Did the letter do that? I didn't read the full text, just what was excerpted in this blog post.
There are many understatements in your post regarding the treatment of the Palestinians lol
Do you feel the same about all the statements on the attacks we have seen from corporations, even recently, that are totally silent on the death count and maltreatment of Palestinian civilians here? Because those statements absolutely exude the attitude that Palestinian innocents do not count or exist at all, and that the side those statements are on is totally innocent, which is basically the exact attitude for which a lot of the pro-Palestinian statements are being criticized.
In talking about "throwing open the border" I'm talking about the longstanding conflict between the left and Israel. Israel is consistently accused of "apartheid", which I feel is unjust. They do indeed have a wall between them and Gaza -- a wall that usually prevents attacks like the one on October 7th. That is not at all comparable to the situation in South Africa, and I think that the false equivalence demeans both situations.
I think that statements condemning the October 7th attacks are perfectly reasonable in excluding references to the Palestinians. That was not an act of warfare. It had no chance of accomplishing any political goal. It was a sadistic atrocity, in a way that its high body count alone obscures. This situation is not well served just by totting up the numbers of corpses.
That accounting is made murkier by the way Hamas uses its citizens as human shields. Hamas has been using civilian apartment buildings for years -- long before October 7 -- to attack Israel. Israel issues warnings before the buildings are attacked, and Hamas has been accused of forcing the residents to stay. That accusation sounds shocking, but given the events of October 7 (which went far beyond mere massacre of innocents to include rape, torture, and mutilation), it's unfortunately easy to believe.
As I said before, I do think that it was right and good to tell Israel to stop its settlements in the West Bank. They should have implemented the Oslo Accords long ago. Crimes committed by settlers should be laid at the feet of the Likud government.
But note that those are on the West Bank, not Gaza. Gaza had been turned over to the Palestinians in 2009. Hamas has run it since they won the election -- and refused to hold any more elections. This wasn't about mistreatment, and it's perfectly reasonable for corporate statements to link Israel's crimes in the West Bank to the situation in Gaza.
That's why I think that this letter is such a mistake. The situation is complex and ugly, and it's not well served by a shallow, one-sided understanding. Omitting a return of the hostages is merely missing something that "makes sense". It demonstrates a failure to recognize how thoroughly Palestinian propaganda has distorted the genuine problems. Much of what they think they know "regarding the treatment of the Palestinians" is a lie -- and I say that having reiterated that I'm well aware that there are some genuine truths buried among the lies.
I don't think you're as much of a "bleeding heart" as you claim (which is fine--you don't have to be, and we'd have a problem in fact if everyone was some over-compassionate woke lefty) if you can't feel that the kind of conditions placed on Gaza merit more moral opprobrium and that "that statements condemning the October 7th attacks are perfectly reasonable in excluding references to the Palestinians". Especially since what I am talking about are statements made weeks after, when the Palestinian death toll climbed into the thousands, any sort of sentiment expressing concern for Palestinian life is routinely condemned as "pro-Hamas", and any sort of criticism of Israel's actions is attacked as "anti-semitic", as if being the victim of an atrocity confers upon a country a blank check to inflict the same on other civilians.
You're calling a lot "Palestinian propaganda", but really, you seem to just be parroting the opposite type of propaganda, in which western media is suffused. And I'm not too much of a partisan of this conflict, IMO; I don't have too strong of an opinion as to whether the situation is "apartheid" or whether Israel's current actions amount to "genocide". I don't disagree with blaming Hamas for this latest outbreak of war. I don't really care that much about Palestinian statehood (no ethnic group or nation has a right to any land or country, in my view). In general, I don't begrudge Israel the right to take military action to reclaim their hostages and strike a blow against Hamas.
But I am deeply disturbed by how aggressively most of the West has come to agree that Palestinian civilians and innocents fail to matter. One would hope that the same people who support #BlackLivesMatter would see what's happening now and call it out, but that seems not to be the case; this is even more egregious than waving thin blue line flags, and otherwise liberal people are all in on it.
The problem, I think, is that the things I'm accusing Hamas of are so horrific that they sound like the sort of lies somebody would make up. Surely they don't shoot people trying to leave buildings that Israel has said they're going to bomb just so that they could use it for propaganda. And even if I provided you video evidence of it, the source of that is always going to be the IDF, so it's "propaganda" regardless of its authenticity.
And yet it's true, so we've in a bind here. You don't want to believe it; I sure as hell don't want to believe it. But if you take a second to think about what the consequences would be, you'd find that they're consistent what we've seen: an awful lot of civilians dead, but not nearly what you'd expect from a campaign of genocide.
It's not about Israel inflicting "the same" on other civilians. It's about the fact that Hamas is using those civilians as human shields. If the Palestinians turned over the Hamas leadership, and insisted that they not pursue their attacks from inside hospitals and residences, then the Israeli attack would stop instantly.
Yes, I hate the way this makes my progressive credentials look weak. But this is the truth, as best I can tell it, and I'm not going to equivocate with it when the source of conflicting assertions is the same people who raped and tortured people who could not possibly have anything to do with their situation.
I think you partly misunderstand where our disagreement lies.
For example, I'm willing to believe those allegations regarding Hamas (or at least assume their truth arguendo), but I find it extremely naive to think this isn't largely about inflicting revenge and retribution on Palestinians, and that "[i]f the Palestinians turned over the Hamas leadership, and insisted that they not pursue their attacks from inside hospitals and residences, then the Israeli attack would stop instantly."
> Yes, I hate the way this makes my progressive credentials look weak.
Well, they look non-existent to me. Which is fine--I'm not "progressive", either. But I'm not sure you should really make the claim (just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of falsely portraying your views).
I was I could probably make a cogent argument for how you are selectively choosing to not apply the same progressive principles of interpretation, viewing power structures, etc., that you normally do, and have bought into a worldview and attendant justifications that you would likely not accept or would find highly suspect in other contexts.
Like, I'm pretty moderate center-left and non-ideological in general, but I haven't ever felt more pushed towards leftist radicalization and wokeness than seeing a number of people emboldened by the media to downplay collective punishment in the form of pretty blatant slaughter, shutting down supplies of food and water to civilians, etc., and to delegitimize any viewpoints which express sympathy for Palestinian victims of this war. Although, I think more than left, I think it makes me more cynical/apathetic and uninterested in continuing to preserve or care for a society this blatantly hypocritical and unjust.
> Hamas has Jewish genocide incorporated directly into its charter.
For reference, the text of the Hamas charter:
> Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.
> Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage.
Trying to convince people to drop "cancel culture" is like trying to convince a nuclear power to dismantle its nuclear weapons -- it's simply an absurd proposition unless all parties agree to the same terms and those terms are enforced. Failing that, it's a massive strategic misstep to give up such a powerful tool. If you really want to end -- or at least mitigate the effect of -- "cancel culture," you should push for better labor laws and other legislative approaches to weakening the impact of "cancel culture" on its victims.
While I agree with your conclusion, it is in conflict with the premise: how do you expect lobbying for laws preventing sacking people for "mind crimes" if, as you say, it is the main weapon by which certain groups operate?
A rather thoughtful piece I thought; I'd guessed it had not been flagged as that would be too recursive. But now vanished from the front page for some reason. Ho hum.
It is now, but shortly after submission, when it had made it to the front page (10ish votes and 3-4 comments in 10 minutes) it just vanished from the front page -- not on the 2nd, 3rd etc. It was still on the "new" page and not marked as [dead] nor [flagged]. I'd not seen this kind of "shadow banning" before, and seems an odd target for it: the discussion is generally respectful, not that much shouting ...
censorship of ideas is a form of reverse marketing/advertising, instead of having an idea pushed on you its suppressed, either way you're trying to manipulate people and create a bias. imho this is bad, critical thinking and discussion is good. even if it ends in an agreement to not agree.
I wonder what is the thought process of people who flag this article? To me, it seems well written, it doesn't take sides, it makes an argument in favor of free speech, it is against power play. Could you briefly explain why you area flagging it?
It's an interesting read and an interesting perspective but he's arguing from a very absolutist position. "but I have previously argued that it is wrong to fire homophobes and racists..." But if you've got homophobes and racists in positions of power where they can freely abuse gays and foreigners, do you not fire them? Do you allow a place in society where they can freely express hate? What do you do?
I've wondered a lot about this and I don't know the answer. I'm not even sure this guy is suggesting an answer, but he is saying think carefully. Well I've thought about it and I think I reject it, but that doesn't mean I'm right. It's a tough one.
I'm minded to agree with him, I don't think you should sack homophobes, but you should sack homophobia. If they keep their personal views to themselves, leave them be.
I don’t understand the line drawn between math and politics. Politics has always been politics and math has always been math. Math isn’t suddenly politics and politics isn’t suddenly math
It's an example for everything inbetween: biology, sociology, psychology and so on. Certain areas are permanently blocked, you will receive no grants for them, and even if you are stupid enough and pursue the topic, you will never get published and your reputation will be destroyed.
A good example could be relationship between physical traits, such as race and biological sex, and psychological traits. We decided, for the good of the society, that there are no significant differences and that we will not pursue the matter at all. If someone crosses this barrier, they become an outcast.
But artists signing a letter of this description:
> Thousands of artists, academics and cultural workers, including Velasco, signed the Oct. 19 open letter, which supported Palestinian liberation and criticized the silence of cultural institutions about the Israeli bombing of residents in Gaza… In it, the signatories “call for an end to the killing and harming of all civilians, an immediate cease-fire, the passage of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and the end of the complicity of our governing bodies in grave human rights violations and war crimes.” … The Oct. 19 open letter met condemnation, drawing responses by figures in the art world. On WhatsApp, campaigns were organized to dissuade advertisers from working with the magazine.
By far most of the substance there shouldn't be controversial, especially in the presumably liberal-leaning art world.
This has all been far more aggressive than the "cancel culture" decried by the right, but one hears crickets about it from the usual free speech absolutists.