one more thing and then i'll stop: i have noticed praise for "mistakes" cropping up in free speech discourse recently. Here it is in the Harper's letter

i find it telling because it really doesn't make sense! especially in a mag like Harper's, with such a well-known accuracy fetish. the reason you read Harper's is because, ideally, there aren't mistakes: pieces go through a rigorous editing and fact-checking process

also, a lot of these signatories have high-paid media jobs with more resources to avoid mistakes than the vast majority of journalists! they employ fact-checkers, assistants, and work with editors who devote a lot of time to their pieces

this kind of feels to me like people at the elite levels of this industry are asking to be held to a lower standard: of accuracy, research, curiosity, responsiveness to criticism, and accountability

i don't want to coddle these people lol. it matters Malcolm Gladwell makes a mistake. it matters if Noam Chomsky makes a mistake! all of JK Rowling's mistakes have mattered. i can't wrap my mind around the idea of writing off their fuck-ups as the product of ignorance

this is, once again, about the difference between free speech and who gets to be a public intellectual. love free speech, but everyone with a brain can see that you don't get to be a public intellectual if you're insensitive, incurious, lazy, and reactive

we can hold these people to a higher standard! it's possible! we deserve diverse, curious, empathetic people writing in our magazines, getting funding from our universities, and writing the books we read. im excited for that to happen. end of thread