Harping on Harper's Magazine

Life is trying. I say that in light of recent events, be it The Coronavirus or how political figures globally have been embarrassing and frustrating people. There’s lots going on that’d stress anyone out, hence I’m conflicted about writing this. Why put myself through more stress? Call me a masochist, but I’m discussing Harper’s Magazine and their recent…I guess you could call it a “slip up”?

Harper’s Magazine, a publication that still doesn’t pay its interns, published an academic-level letter about public discourse. I won’t copy the full text, it’s verbose and long-winded for something so short, but it argues that not engaging in debate without freaking out is bad. It rails on “cancel culture”, even if it doesn’t use that phrase, and argues that exposing bad ideas, not shutting them down, is the best method for eliminating them.

There’s lots to unpack, like what constitutes as “open debate”, but what bugs me is the people who’ve signed it. Some, like Malcolm Gladwell, I have no issue with, especially if you know what they do for a living. But then you have names that make me scratch my head. A few even make me angry.

I won’t spend too much time whining about the document. While it bugs me on many levels, as many “victims” of cancel culture haven’t really been de-platformed, I agree with aspects of it. I find there’s an ingrained bias against those that don’t line up with the masses 100%, and so this feels like a kumbaya response from 150 people across the spectrum. But while it’s a nice sentiment, especially in this day and age, the signatories and their backgrounds raise more questions about the letter’s authenticity than the publication wants to admit.

Take Noam Chomsky, for instance. Anyone who’s encountered Israel discourse has heard the man’s name. He’s vehemently anti-Zionist, and he’s been openly criticized for some of his takes on the country. I’m not a fan for that reason, but I’ve always thought of him as someone who takes ardent stances. He’s the guy who openly chastised the media for not taking Donald Trump’s behaviour seriously, after all. So for him to put his name on a letter asking for a free-exchange of ideas that contradict his beliefs? I’m not sure what to take from that.

Then there’s David Frum. Anyone who’s old enough to remember the George Bush Jr. years will recall that he was active in his administration. He was Bush’s speechwriter (or one of them), and he was instrumental in convincing the public of invading Iraq with his “Axis of Evil” speech. Recently, however, Frum has been an anti-Trump conservative who attacks the president while reminding people of his older self on occasion. Him signing this letter actively frustrates me because it feels like he’s asking people to forget that he was partly responsible for the deaths of thousands of soldiers and Iraqis.

Perhaps the biggest offender’s JK Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books. Rowling’s a whole case to unpack, but her inclusion’s probably the most toxic. For those unaware, Rowling’s gone on frequently transphobic tirades on Twitter and Blocked people who challenge her. She’s become so toxic that the latest MMO bearing the Harry Potter name is trying to distance itself from her. Rowling signing this letter comes off as hypocritical, especially when factoring in the above information.

I mention all of this because it’s nigh-impossible to disassociate this letter from its signatories. And yes, I’m sure many of them believe what they’re signing was right. I’d also be remiss to slam all of them for extending an olive branch. But many of the signers come off as in-genuine, with chips on their shoulders and wanting to escape accountability. That’s inexcusable.

But I also think two issues are at play, and they’re directly related. The first is parameters. What, exactly, is a “fair debate”? Someone arguing that, God forbid, “raping children is okay, actually” would fall under the letter’s vague guidelines, even though arguing that position is abhorrent and would be grounds for immediate-dismissal in most cases. That there are no limits laid out is a problem.

The second is that of honest debate. Not every debater wants to engage fairly. There’ll always be individuals who don’t care to listen to the opposition fairly. And it’s these individuals who often have the loudest voices. I should know, I’ve Blocked many of them on Twitter!

It’s this that people have taken such personal offence with. Yes, I’m not guiltless. I’ve said stuff that might be “bad faith”. But I always ask for people to, respectfully, call me out, hard as that may be. Because I’m human, and, therefore, make mistakes.

I also think some of the backlash is unreasonable and bad faith too. Whether it’s the nasty criticism, or even some bigoted and bizarrely cartoonish remarks, there’s been plenty of toxic discourse as a result of this. And that’s not okay. It’s especially not okay because it obscures the original intent, which I’d hope wasn’t written in malice.

Regardless, I take issue with the fact that this letter exists, especially in-light of who’s endorsed it. The world might be messy, yes, but this nonsense doesn’t help. It glosses over how hurt many people have been by bad faith actors, and it ignores how so few of them have actually faced accountability. If anything, it highlights how these bad faith actors have “fallen upwards”, and we know what happens when someone does that!