censorship

150 Top Intellectuals Sign Open Letter Decrying Cancel Culture

Numerous public figures including Noam Chomsky and Salman Rushdie oppose totalitarian march of ” ideological conformity”.

Published

1 year ago

7 July, 2020

Paul Joseph Watson

Getty Images

150 of the world’s top intellectuals, authors and activists have signed an open letter decrying leftist cancel culture, censorship and the totalitarian march of “ideological conformity.”

Signatories include liberal icon Noam Chomsky and ‘Satanic Verses’ author Salman Rushdie.

The letter, which was published by Harpers Magazine, is also signed by J.K. Rowling, Fareed Zakaria, Garry Kasparov, and, perhaps surprisingly, feminist activist Gloria Steinem.

“The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides,” states the letter, highlighting how “the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted” as a result of “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.”

“Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a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,” states the letter.

The cancel culture has finally provoked an articulated and organized push-back from actual liberals https://t.co/2H3khPT5rO pic.twitter.com/MkfoiNJsrK

— Bojan Pancevski (@bopanc) July 7, 2020

This is creating a climate of risk aversion that is preventing anyone from dissenting from the monolithic consensus of social justice rhetoric, creating a “stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time,” according to the letter.

The letter highlights the fact that there are still some genuine “liberals” left in society who are willing to stand behind the increasingly endangered species of free speech.

However, some would ask where they’ve been hiding for the past three years since mass censorship, particularly by monopolistic social media giants, has been significantly ramped up.

The idea that an open letter will do much to stop the rampaging virus of cancel culture is also up for debate. Why don’t these intellectuals organize a major conference or a massive protest march to showcase their principles?

The irony of course is that if this letter gains any traction at all, its signatories will immediately become targets for cancellation from the unhinged, woke far-left.

The full letter is reprinted below.

——————————————–

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.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet

———————————————————————————————————————

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

censorship

PayPal Co-Founder Warns Financial Giant is Creating De Facto ‘No Buy List’ by Banning Dissidents

Says Silicon Valley’s woke crusade will cause more extremism.

Published

2 days ago

2 August, 2021

Paul Joseph Watson

SOPA Images via Getty Images

PayPal co-founder David Sacks warns that the financial giant is creating a de facto ‘no buy list’ by banning people for their opinions, a move that will actually increase extremism in the long term.

In an article posted on Bari Weiss’ Substack newsletter, the investor explains how PayPal’s role has been completely reversed from its initial objective of helping ordinary people not be dependent on large financial institutions to start a business.

“But now PayPal is turning its back on its original mission. It is now leading the charge to restrict participation by those it deems unworthy,” writes Sacks.

The entrepreneur argues that by partnering with the likes of the ADL and the SPLC, PayPal has allowed itself to be used as a tool by far-left activist outfits to censor ideological opposition.

“I have no desire to defend genuinely hateful or extremist groups,” writes Sacks. “Indeed, when I was COO at PayPal, we regularly worked with law enforcement to restrict illegal activity on our platform. But we are talking about something very different here: shutting down people and organizations that express views that are entirely lawful, even if they are unpopular in Silicon Valley.”

The @ADL is highly politicized group: completely liberal and aligned with the DNC, just a tad more pro-Israel in their focus but otherwise no differences. This is yet another union between establishment liberalism and Big Tech to control and censor the internet. https://t.co/UI5OrBYB1e

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 26, 2021

He points to White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s pernicious announcement that the Biden administration is working with Facebook to directly censor information related to COVID-19 and her insistence that other platforms should mirror Facebook’s censorship policies at the behest of the government.

“The suppression of speech by the government is blatantly unconstitutional under the First Amendment,” writes Sacks, noting that PayPal is now a fully signed up member of Silicon Valley’s purge of undesirables.

“Now PayPal has gone much further, creating the economic equivalent of the No-Fly List with the ADL’s assistance. If history is any guide, other fintech companies will soon follow suit. As we saw in the case of speech restrictions, the political monoculture that prevails among employees of these companies will create pressure for all of them to act as a bloc.”

“When someone mistakenly lands on the No-Fly List, they can at least sue or petition the government for redress. But when your name lands on a No-Buy List created by a consortium of private fintech companies, to whom can you appeal?”

All hail the supreme leader and commander of the ministry of Facebook, Jen Psaki.
pic.twitter.com/HtjZznXJWS

— Rising serpent 🇺🇸 (@rising_serpent) July 16, 2021

Sacks highlights how the monopolies created by fintech giants and the way they act in unison when banning individuals or groups is literally creating a society where dissidents will find it difficult to even function in society.

“Kicking people off social media deprives them of the right to speak in our increasingly online world,” he writes.

“Locking them out of the financial economy is worse: It deprives them of the right to make a living. We have seen how cancel culture can obliterate one’s ability to earn an income, but now the cancelled may find themselves without a way to pay for goods and services.”

Sacks concludes by noting that the same resentment against elites that handed Trump victory in 2016 is merely being re-created by Silicon Valley, while their stated policy goal of reducing “extremism” is actually having the opposite effect.

“If we continue down this path, a far more dangerous demagogue could emerge. I implore my successors at PayPal and other Big Tech companies to stop throwing kindling on the fires of populism by locking people out of the online public square and the modern web-based economy. Silenced voices and empty stomachs are fuel for the very extremism you claim to oppose,” writes Sacks.

He warns that deplatforming is creating “hordes of desperate people, denied a voice and livelihood,” who will simply vote for an autocratic dictator the first chance they get.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet

———————————————————————————————————————

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

ALERT!

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Get early access, exclusive content and behinds the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

———————————————————————————————————————

censorship

Apple Bans ‘Tinder For Unvaxxed’ After Media Snitches on Company

Bloomberg contacted Apple and it was immediately removed.

Published

3 days ago

2 August, 2021

Paul Joseph Watson

NurPhoto via Getty Images

Apple removed an app from its store that offered dating services for the unvaccinated after media outlet Bloomberg News snitched on the company.

After top dating apps such as Tinder and Bumble partnered with the White House to take the COVID-19 jab, a new app called Unjected was launched to cater for the vaccine hesitant.

Launched by two women in Hawaii, the service sought to appeal to “like-minded people that support medical autonomy and free speech.”

Despite going strong for several months, the app was kicked off the Apple store after Bloomberg grassed up the company by contacting Apple and publishing a hit piece.

“Apple removed the app from its App Store after being contacted by Bloomberg News,” reported the outlet. “In an email to Unjected, Apple said the app “inappropriately refers to the Covid-19 pandemic in its concept or theme.”

The app also appears to be hanging by a thread on the Google Play store, where it is “under review” for describing COVID vaccines as “experimental mRNA gene modifiers,” “bioweapons” and “nano-technology microchips.”

The company subsequently posted a video to Instagram stating, “Apparently, we’re considered ‘too much’ for sharing our medical autonomy and freedom of choice… So, of course, Apple removed us.”

However, that video is now gone and the company’s Instagram account cannot be found and has presumably also been deleted.

As we previously highlighted, despite their link with soaring STDs, dating apps previously attempted to take the moral high ground by allowing people to reject users who hadn’t taken the coronavirus jab.