44 comments recovered from the Pushshift database.
DadaBigfoot · July 7, 2020, 10:41 p.m.
So you have chosen...UwU
RavenclawSisters · July 7, 2020, 11:14 p.m. · 1 reply
What the hell is this post title?
Chunkeeguy · July 7, 2020, 11:54 p.m.
Chomsky throws his hat in with the people who are in line to be cancelled by TRAs in their 21st century Reign of Terror
parsons525 · July 7, 2020, 11:22 p.m. · 1 reply
150 fresh TRA targets
Sawcapra · July 8, 2020, 5:23 a.m.
Honestly might as well make them work for it. I’m happy to see a respected and a diverse bunch of people stand up against the itchy trigger finger of cancel culture. I think it’s the first obstacle to really putting the Gender Critical argument in the public eye for good
throawaybecause6 · July 8, 2020, 12:19 a.m. · 1 reply
Chomsky is a swerf already per their standards because he said you should abolish the porn industry so
lmaonope333 · July 8, 2020, 3:53 a.m. · 5 replies
I mean I'm against the mainstream porn industry because its predatory but if a woman wants to do porn or only fans that's her choice and I respect it
throawaybecause6 · July 8, 2020, 4:02 a.m.
How do you know whether it was really their choice though? If they had been given the same paycheck for a normal job don’t you think they would have chosen a regular job instead?
pcosthrowaway25828 · July 8, 2020, 4:41 a.m. · 1 reply
Don't support women humiliating themselves on camera for money.
This is not empowering, this is not to be respected, it's to be heavily discouraged.
realShustyRackleford · July 8, 2020, 8:47 a.m.
It's always a worry when money is involved. I used to put out some naughty videos under a fake name and, honestly, I did it for fun because I'm into it and I still love those videos, BUT there was never any money involved. I lived quite happily as a tattooist for my money (a lot of pride and identity come from skill building) so I could post as and when the mood hit me. It really was a purely me thing.
However if I was doing it for money I'd have to treat it like a job and stream regularly (now I'm a bit of a perv and even I wouldn't have been in the mood half the time and there's something humiliating in pretending you are), I would have to deal with disgusting regular clients with a self deprecating degree of 'respect' and cost up the value of my sexuality.
I considered it for sure, there's good money there, but my pride would never have it, it's much too personal. Loads of people work jobs they don't like for a living sure, I mean I get up and personal with all kinds of naked and gross in tattooing with utmost professionalism and that's a job I want, but letting others get up close and personal with all your gross and naked? That's not just miserable work, it's a paid violation of the self.
Sawcapra · July 8, 2020, 5:27 a.m. · 1 reply
I think in essence we all want to support female empowerment but at the end of the day the porn industry is patriarchal, people who watch and make porn contribute to an industry that kidnaps, rapes and exploits women for male entertainment and profit. Until a day comes where you can consume porn without endorsing an abusive system I think we should stand against it in unity
Jumpersplant · July 8, 2020, 10:11 a.m.
Porn is damaging in so many ways, even if it was made completely ethically (an impossibility), it's still not a good idea to engage in it. It teaches your brain to objectify others and not to mention the mental health effects.
Tamerlane2020 · July 8, 2020, 6:45 a.m.
Only fans is porn.
lucretiamott1 · July 8, 2020, 8:20 a.m.
Even if an individual woman chooses that path the existence of the industry as a whole is degrading to ALL women.
Tweeders55 · July 8, 2020, 12:32 a.m. · 1 reply
Feeling unsafe for writing on an online political rag like Vox? That's rich. What a jerk. Go JK.
jjdub7Gay Man · July 8, 2020, 7:34 a.m. · 1 reply
Imagine the chaos at Vox if one of those "journalists" ever misplaced the company thesaurus.
Tweeders55 · July 8, 2020, 7:43 a.m.
You must be old it's Google time. 🤔
JonnotheMackem · July 8, 2020, 2:31 a.m. · 5 replies
One signatory recanted within hours of the letter being published.
Jennifer Finney Boylan, a US author and transgender activist, tweeted: "I did not know who else had signed that letter.
"I thought I was endorsing a well-meaning, if vague, message against internet shaming."
She added: "I am so sorry."
You couldn’t make it up.
Takseen · July 8, 2020, 4:29 a.m. · 1 reply
It's bizarre. Either you agree with the contents of the letter or you don't, no matter who else signed it.
JonnotheMackem · July 8, 2020, 4:42 a.m.
Precisely.
If I agree with a statement that says freedom of speech is important, and I then find out a holocaust denier also agreed with it, it doesn’t mean I’m a holocaust denier.
Sawcapra · July 8, 2020, 5:33 a.m.
Yeah this is exactly what bugs me about TRAs, they only support things that are fashionable. Their entire movement have been energised by fashion. The second they find out someone they don’t consider fashionable agrees with them on a subject they’ll denounce it to keep everything presentable.
Personally I feel like their supporters are so herd-minded that they might actually try cancel this trans author had they stood by the open letter. This is all going to end in tears I swear
Mycatsnameispepper · July 8, 2020, 8:31 a.m.
Ah, but in Cancel Culture, one is judged by their associations. An act that aligned with that of JK Rowling, however tangentially, would fail the Purity Test, and she would herself be cancelled.
crlody · July 8, 2020, 8:47 a.m.
Lol facepalm, self-censoring really isn't any better!
Jumpersplant · July 8, 2020, 10:11 a.m.
The irony is completely lost
hxmxsxxxal · July 8, 2020, 2:45 a.m. · 1 reply
why do they make absolutely everything about them?? they aren’t mentioned once in the letter but still have a hissy fit saying that it’s all about attacking them.
Chunkeeguy · July 8, 2020, 3:36 a.m.
Malignant narcissism
lucretiamott1 · July 8, 2020, 8:28 a.m. · 2 replies
Anyone should be able to say anything they want. There are some vile things nobody wants to hear - example - extreme racism. The correct response to that kind of speech is not to clamp the speaker's mouth shut. The correct response to ignore it. Don't give it attention, don't give it an audience. Leave them alone, to shout into the wind.
crlody · July 8, 2020, 8:52 a.m.
Yes exactly! It's really not that difficult of a concept.
59ekim · July 8, 2020, 9:28 a.m. · 1 reply
This is not a sound strategy. Racist speakers aren't popular because anti-racists give them exposure, they're popular because other racists seek them out.
lucretiamott1 · July 8, 2020, 9:30 a.m. · 1 reply
Problematic speech is of course... problematic. The issue is where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide?
We can all agree that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater isn't acceptable free speech. What else should be banned?
59ekim · July 8, 2020, 9:46 a.m. · 2 replies
I don't know, but all I'm saying is that problematic speech isn't shouted into the wind, we can't pretend ignoring it will make it go away.
lucretiamott1 · July 8, 2020, 9:53 a.m.
I mean I agree with you, it's just where do you draw the line. That's a big issue...
Jumpersplant · July 8, 2020, 10:13 a.m. · 1 reply
It might not make it go away but it doesn't mean we need to censor people for wrong think
59ekim · July 8, 2020, 10:21 a.m. · 2 replies
Someone says "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children", you say "it's just a harmless opinion, let them be".
It's amazing the power of the TRAs. The turned a fairly banal "free speech is good" letter into something that blew up Twitter entirely because a few people on the trans punch-a-terf list signed (including Jesse Singal, whom I wouldn't even call a full-blown TERF). It isn't about anything else or about literally any other marginalized group. Here's an example of one of these classic narcissistic men making it ALL about them. https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1280666236754579458?s=20
verusckaWoman · July 8, 2020, 9:34 a.m. · 1 reply
Here is the letter from Harper’s this article is talking about:
A Letter on Justice and Open Debate
July 7, 2020
The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at letters@harpers.org
Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.
The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.
This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.
Elliot Ackerman
Saladin Ambar, Rutgers University
Martin Amis
Anne Applebaum
Marie Arana, author
Margaret Atwood
John Banville
Mia Bay, historian
Louis Begley, writer
Roger Berkowitz, Bard College
Paul Berman, writer
Sheri Berman, Barnard College
Reginald Dwayne Betts, poet
Neil Blair, agent
David W. Blight, Yale University
Jennifer Finney Boylan, author
David Bromwich
David Brooks, columnist
Ian Buruma, Bard College
Lea Carpenter
Noam Chomsky, MIT (emeritus)
Nicholas A. Christakis, Yale University
Roger Cohen, writer
Ambassador Frances D. Cook, ret.
Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project
Kamel Daoud
Meghan Daum, writer
Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis
Jeffrey Eugenides, writer
Dexter Filkins
Federico Finchelstein, The New School
Caitlin Flanagan
Richard T. Ford, Stanford Law School
Kmele Foster
David Frum, journalist
Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University
Atul Gawande, Harvard University
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University
Kim Ghattas
Malcolm Gladwell
Michelle Goldberg, columnist
Rebecca Goldstein, writer
Anthony Grafton, Princeton University
David Greenberg, Rutgers University
Linda Greenhouse
Rinne B. Groff, playwright
Sarah Haider, activist
Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern
Roya Hakakian, writer
Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution
Jeet Heer, The Nation
Katie Herzog, podcast host
Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College
Adam Hochschild, author
Arlie Russell Hochschild, author
Eva Hoffman, writer
Coleman Hughes, writer/Manhattan Institute
Hussein Ibish, Arab Gulf States Institute
Michael Ignatieff
Zaid Jilani, journalist
Bill T. Jones, New York Live Arts
Wendy Kaminer, writer
Matthew Karp, Princeton University
Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative
Daniel Kehlmann, writer
Randall Kennedy
Khaled Khalifa, writer
Parag Khanna, author
Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University
Frances Kissling, Center for Health, Ethics, Social Policy
Enrique Krauze, historian
Anthony Kronman, Yale University
Joy Ladin, Yeshiva University
Nicholas Lemann, Columbia University
Mark Lilla, Columbia University
Susie Linfield, New York University
Damon Linker, writer
Dahlia Lithwick, Slate
Steven Lukes, New York University
John R. MacArthur, publisher, writer
Susan Madrak, writer
Phoebe Maltz Bovy, writer
Greil Marcus
Wynton Marsalis, Jazz at Lincoln Center
Kati Marton, author
Debra Mashek, scholar
Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago
John McWhorter, Columbia University
Uday Mehta, City University of New York
Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University
Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
Samuel Moyn, Yale University
Meera Nanda, writer and teacher
Cary Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine
Mark Oppenheimer, Yale University
Dael Orlandersmith, writer/performer
George Packer
Nell Irvin Painter, Princeton University (emerita)
Greg Pardlo, Rutgers University – Camden
Orlando Patterson, Harvard University
Steven Pinker, Harvard University
Letty Cottin Pogrebin
Katha Pollitt, writer
Claire Bond Potter, The New School
Taufiq Rahim, New America Foundation
Zia Haider Rahman, writer
Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin
Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institution/The Atlantic
Neil Roberts, political theorist
Melvin Rogers, Brown University
Kat Rosenfield, writer
Loretta J. Ross, Smith College
J.K. Rowling
Salman Rushdie, New York University
Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment
Daryl Michael Scott, Howard University
Diana Senechal, teacher and writer
Jennifer Senior, columnist
Judith Shulevitz, writer
Jesse Singal, journalist
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Andrew Solomon, writer
Deborah Solomon, critic and biographer
Allison Stanger, Middlebury College
Paul Starr, American Prospect/Princeton University
Wendell Steavenson, writer
Gloria Steinem, writer and activist
Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Harvard Law School
Kian Tajbakhsh, Columbia University
Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University
Cynthia Tucker, University of South Alabama
Adaner Usmani, Harvard University
Chloe Valdary
Lucía Martínez Valdivia, Reed College
Helen Vendler, Harvard University
Judy B. Walzer
Michael Walzer
Eric K. Washington, historian
Caroline Weber, historian
Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers
Bari Weiss
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Garry Wills
Thomas Chatterton Williams, writer
Robert F. Worth, journalist and author
Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Matthew Yglesias
Emily Yoffe, journalist
Cathy Young, journalist
Fareed Zakaria
Institutions are listed for identification purposes only.
lairacunda · July 9, 2020, 5:05 p.m.
Pretty brave for academics, or anyone in this climate.
MadAzza · July 8, 2020, 1:09 p.m.
This letter thrills me!
Edit: All the different voices in agreement of free expression is so important.
RadarFemef · July 8, 2020, 2:06 p.m.
He’s a man, he will never be targeted for harassment in the same way. That’s part of how we know that sexism is alive and well and gender might be a social construct but sex isn’t.
Aunpasoportucasa · July 8, 2020, 3:48 p.m. · 1 reply
This is all very ironic. Who do you think this is going to affect in the end?
lairacunda · July 9, 2020, 5:06 p.m. · 1 reply
I think it's going to get them fired.
Aunpasoportucasa · July 9, 2020, 8:57 p.m.
I mean when freedom of speech is gone for everyone for a while, do we think enablers will run the show forever? What happens when the people who are really against it all are a majority in power?
So you have chosen...UwU
What the hell is this post title?
Chomsky throws his hat in with the people who are in line to be cancelled by TRAs in their 21st century Reign of Terror
150 fresh TRA targets
Honestly might as well make them work for it. I’m happy to see a respected and a diverse bunch of people stand up against the itchy trigger finger of cancel culture. I think it’s the first obstacle to really putting the Gender Critical argument in the public eye for good
Chomsky is a swerf already per their standards because he said you should abolish the porn industry so
I mean I'm against the mainstream porn industry because its predatory but if a woman wants to do porn or only fans that's her choice and I respect it
How do you know whether it was really their choice though? If they had been given the same paycheck for a normal job don’t you think they would have chosen a regular job instead?
Don't support women humiliating themselves on camera for money.
This is not empowering, this is not to be respected, it's to be heavily discouraged.
It's always a worry when money is involved. I used to put out some naughty videos under a fake name and, honestly, I did it for fun because I'm into it and I still love those videos, BUT there was never any money involved. I lived quite happily as a tattooist for my money (a lot of pride and identity come from skill building) so I could post as and when the mood hit me. It really was a purely me thing.
However if I was doing it for money I'd have to treat it like a job and stream regularly (now I'm a bit of a perv and even I wouldn't have been in the mood half the time and there's something humiliating in pretending you are), I would have to deal with disgusting regular clients with a self deprecating degree of 'respect' and cost up the value of my sexuality.
I considered it for sure, there's good money there, but my pride would never have it, it's much too personal. Loads of people work jobs they don't like for a living sure, I mean I get up and personal with all kinds of naked and gross in tattooing with utmost professionalism and that's a job I want, but letting others get up close and personal with all your gross and naked? That's not just miserable work, it's a paid violation of the self.
I think in essence we all want to support female empowerment but at the end of the day the porn industry is patriarchal, people who watch and make porn contribute to an industry that kidnaps, rapes and exploits women for male entertainment and profit. Until a day comes where you can consume porn without endorsing an abusive system I think we should stand against it in unity
Porn is damaging in so many ways, even if it was made completely ethically (an impossibility), it's still not a good idea to engage in it. It teaches your brain to objectify others and not to mention the mental health effects.
Only fans is porn.
Even if an individual woman chooses that path the existence of the industry as a whole is degrading to ALL women.
Feeling unsafe for writing on an online political rag like Vox? That's rich. What a jerk. Go JK.
Imagine the chaos at Vox if one of those "journalists" ever misplaced the company thesaurus.
You must be old it's Google time. 🤔
One signatory recanted within hours of the letter being published.
Jennifer Finney Boylan, a US author and transgender activist, tweeted: "I did not know who else had signed that letter.
"I thought I was endorsing a well-meaning, if vague, message against internet shaming."
She added: "I am so sorry."
You couldn’t make it up.
It's bizarre. Either you agree with the contents of the letter or you don't, no matter who else signed it.
Precisely.
If I agree with a statement that says freedom of speech is important, and I then find out a holocaust denier also agreed with it, it doesn’t mean I’m a holocaust denier.
Yeah this is exactly what bugs me about TRAs, they only support things that are fashionable. Their entire movement have been energised by fashion. The second they find out someone they don’t consider fashionable agrees with them on a subject they’ll denounce it to keep everything presentable.
Personally I feel like their supporters are so herd-minded that they might actually try cancel this trans author had they stood by the open letter. This is all going to end in tears I swear
Ah, but in Cancel Culture, one is judged by their associations. An act that aligned with that of JK Rowling, however tangentially, would fail the Purity Test, and she would herself be cancelled.
Lol facepalm, self-censoring really isn't any better!
The irony is completely lost
why do they make absolutely everything about them?? they aren’t mentioned once in the letter but still have a hissy fit saying that it’s all about attacking them.
Malignant narcissism
Anyone should be able to say anything they want. There are some vile things nobody wants to hear - example - extreme racism. The correct response to that kind of speech is not to clamp the speaker's mouth shut. The correct response to ignore it. Don't give it attention, don't give it an audience. Leave them alone, to shout into the wind.
Yes exactly! It's really not that difficult of a concept.
This is not a sound strategy. Racist speakers aren't popular because anti-racists give them exposure, they're popular because other racists seek them out.
Problematic speech is of course... problematic. The issue is where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide?
We can all agree that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater isn't acceptable free speech. What else should be banned?
I don't know, but all I'm saying is that problematic speech isn't shouted into the wind, we can't pretend ignoring it will make it go away.
I mean I agree with you, it's just where do you draw the line. That's a big issue...
It might not make it go away but it doesn't mean we need to censor people for wrong think
Someone says "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children", you say "it's just a harmless opinion, let them be".
It's amazing the power of the TRAs. The turned a fairly banal "free speech is good" letter into something that blew up Twitter entirely because a few people on the trans punch-a-terf list signed (including Jesse Singal, whom I wouldn't even call a full-blown TERF). It isn't about anything else or about literally any other marginalized group. Here's an example of one of these classic narcissistic men making it ALL about them. https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1280666236754579458?s=20
Here is the letter from Harper’s this article is talking about:
A Letter on Justice and Open Debate
July 7, 2020
The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at letters@harpers.org
Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.
The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.
This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.
Elliot Ackerman
Saladin Ambar, Rutgers University
Martin Amis
Anne Applebaum
Marie Arana, author
Margaret Atwood
John Banville
Mia Bay, historian
Louis Begley, writer
Roger Berkowitz, Bard College
Paul Berman, writer
Sheri Berman, Barnard College
Reginald Dwayne Betts, poet
Neil Blair, agent
David W. Blight, Yale University
Jennifer Finney Boylan, author
David Bromwich
David Brooks, columnist
Ian Buruma, Bard College
Lea Carpenter
Noam Chomsky, MIT (emeritus)
Nicholas A. Christakis, Yale University
Roger Cohen, writer
Ambassador Frances D. Cook, ret.
Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project
Kamel Daoud
Meghan Daum, writer
Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis
Jeffrey Eugenides, writer
Dexter Filkins
Federico Finchelstein, The New School
Caitlin Flanagan
Richard T. Ford, Stanford Law School
Kmele Foster
David Frum, journalist
Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University
Atul Gawande, Harvard University
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University
Kim Ghattas
Malcolm Gladwell
Michelle Goldberg, columnist
Rebecca Goldstein, writer
Anthony Grafton, Princeton University
David Greenberg, Rutgers University
Linda Greenhouse
Rinne B. Groff, playwright
Sarah Haider, activist
Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern
Roya Hakakian, writer
Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution
Jeet Heer, The Nation
Katie Herzog, podcast host
Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College
Adam Hochschild, author
Arlie Russell Hochschild, author
Eva Hoffman, writer
Coleman Hughes, writer/Manhattan Institute
Hussein Ibish, Arab Gulf States Institute
Michael Ignatieff
Zaid Jilani, journalist
Bill T. Jones, New York Live Arts
Wendy Kaminer, writer
Matthew Karp, Princeton University
Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative
Daniel Kehlmann, writer
Randall Kennedy
Khaled Khalifa, writer
Parag Khanna, author
Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University
Frances Kissling, Center for Health, Ethics, Social Policy
Enrique Krauze, historian
Anthony Kronman, Yale University
Joy Ladin, Yeshiva University
Nicholas Lemann, Columbia University
Mark Lilla, Columbia University
Susie Linfield, New York University
Damon Linker, writer
Dahlia Lithwick, Slate
Steven Lukes, New York University
John R. MacArthur, publisher, writer
Susan Madrak, writer
Phoebe Maltz Bovy, writer
Greil Marcus
Wynton Marsalis, Jazz at Lincoln Center
Kati Marton, author
Debra Mashek, scholar
Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago
John McWhorter, Columbia University
Uday Mehta, City University of New York
Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University
Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
Samuel Moyn, Yale University
Meera Nanda, writer and teacher
Cary Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine
Mark Oppenheimer, Yale University
Dael Orlandersmith, writer/performer
George Packer
Nell Irvin Painter, Princeton University (emerita)
Greg Pardlo, Rutgers University – Camden
Orlando Patterson, Harvard University
Steven Pinker, Harvard University
Letty Cottin Pogrebin
Katha Pollitt, writer
Claire Bond Potter, The New School
Taufiq Rahim, New America Foundation
Zia Haider Rahman, writer
Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin
Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institution/The Atlantic
Neil Roberts, political theorist
Melvin Rogers, Brown University
Kat Rosenfield, writer
Loretta J. Ross, Smith College
J.K. Rowling
Salman Rushdie, New York University
Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment
Daryl Michael Scott, Howard University
Diana Senechal, teacher and writer
Jennifer Senior, columnist
Judith Shulevitz, writer
Jesse Singal, journalist
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Andrew Solomon, writer
Deborah Solomon, critic and biographer
Allison Stanger, Middlebury College
Paul Starr, American Prospect/Princeton University
Wendell Steavenson, writer
Gloria Steinem, writer and activist
Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Harvard Law School
Kian Tajbakhsh, Columbia University
Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University
Cynthia Tucker, University of South Alabama
Adaner Usmani, Harvard University
Chloe Valdary
Lucía Martínez Valdivia, Reed College
Helen Vendler, Harvard University
Judy B. Walzer
Michael Walzer
Eric K. Washington, historian
Caroline Weber, historian
Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers
Bari Weiss
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Garry Wills
Thomas Chatterton Williams, writer
Robert F. Worth, journalist and author
Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Matthew Yglesias
Emily Yoffe, journalist
Cathy Young, journalist
Fareed Zakaria
Institutions are listed for identification purposes only.
Pretty brave for academics, or anyone in this climate.
This letter thrills me!
Edit: All the different voices in agreement of free expression is so important.
He’s a man, he will never be targeted for harassment in the same way. That’s part of how we know that sexism is alive and well and gender might be a social construct but sex isn’t.
This is all very ironic. Who do you think this is going to affect in the end?
I think it's going to get them fired.
I mean when freedom of speech is gone for everyone for a while, do we think enablers will run the show forever? What happens when the people who are really against it all are a majority in power?