I'm teaching Argumentation right now, and I think there are a lot of valuable lessons to learn from the @Harpers letter, at least by way of negative example. Specifically, the signatories don't seem understand that argumentation has ethics. /1

A foundational principle in most liberal theories of augmentation is a universal, potential voice: anyone must be able to voice their view, and denying that voice is not only anti-reason, it is unjust and unethical. /2

At the same time, these liberal theories have denied voice to all kinds of vulnerable people (both directly and indirectly) by elevating "free speech" above all, i.e. it is more important to "sustain the marketplace of ideas" than it is to critique speech that silences others. /3

"Cancel culture," in most cases, is not about denying someone their voice. It is about recognizing and enacting consequences for the ways we use our voices. And now those who have enjoyed positions of power and privilege are asked to face those consequences. /4

I see "cancel culture" as a way to realign liberal argumentation, reemphasizing the material care for others above the abstract preservation of the sayable. Although it might look dire when taken to the extreme, social life is always a process of moderation (in both senses). /5

When I teach argumentation, I remind my students that their first obligation is to each other, and their next obligation is to the uncertainty giving rise to the debate. It is possible to argue without denying voice, without dehumanizing others. /6

There is a difference between critiquing speech and denying voice. The @harpers letter collapses the distinction and, in the process, denies voice to those who need it most.