Tempted to just mute "cancel culture" going forward. But some supposedly people are failing to distinguish between ideas that are not discussed in the mainstream because they were discredited eons ago, and ideas that are not discussed because they're just sooooo provocative, edgy

And often the high profile writer who wants to re-litigate the old, bad ideas thinks they're new and edgy because he/she personally has some new packaging or angle or context. Reasonable people saying it's not worth the attention is not "cancelling" those ideas or people.

And there's not a single person who signed that Harper's letter who can't take their absolute worst, most toxic, stupid thing they want say and find a platform to amplify it. Someone will publish it and they could just say it here if they want.

Just because you want to re-litigate race science, or gender, or whether women are inherently bad at STEM, or whether the world is flat, doesn't mean reasonable people have to hear you out. They're not shutting you up, but you're not entitled to their attention either.

And there is, as always, the irony: this whining about supposed cancellation is taking place in an elite, high-prestige magazine.

This is not intellectual bravery; it's entitled whining.

Also: since this is apparently the format:

Elizabeth Spiers - New York University

Just one last thing and then I'll stop talking about this nonsense: there is some *incredible* narcissism in assuming that when people refuse to engage you, it's about their fear and weakness, and not the flawed nature of what you're putting out there.

(supposedly smart, that is)