哈珀斯杂志上的公开信：美国一些所谓左派教授和作家对民主党的压制言论自由的高压也喘不过气来了 来源: yzout 于 2020-08-13 11:23:05 本文内容已被 [ yzout ] 在 2020-08-13 11:51:26 编辑过。如有问题，请报告版主或论坛管理删除. 以下信件将出现在该杂志10月号的“信件”部分中。我们欢迎您来信至[email protected]我们的文化机构正面临审判的时刻。强烈的种族和社会正义抗议活动导致对警察改革的逾期要求，以及对整个社会更大程度的平等和包容的广泛呼吁，尤其是在高等教育，新闻业，慈善事业和艺术领域。但是，这种必要的考虑也加剧了一套新的道德态度和政治承诺，这些倾向和态度倾向于削弱我们的公开辩论和容忍分歧的规范，以支持意识形态整合。当我们为第一个发展喝彩时，我们也反对第二个发展。自由主义的力量在全世界范围内不断增强，并在唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）中拥有强大的盟友，这对民主构成了真正的威胁。但是，决不能允许抵抗力量变成自己的教条或强制性品牌，而右翼煽动者已经在利用这种信条。我们要实现的民主包容，只有在反对各方出现的不容忍气氛的情况下才能实现。信息和思想的自由交换，是自由社会的命脉，每天都变得越来越狭窄。虽然我们已经期望在激进的权利上做到这一点，但审查性在我们的文化中也越来越广泛地传播：对反对意见的不宽容，对公众羞辱和排斥的时尚，以及以盲目的道德确定性解决复杂政策问题的趋势。我们坚持从各个方面进行强有力的甚至是苛刻的反语音的价值。但是现在，人们普遍听到听到对言语和思想上的违法行为做出迅速而严厉的报复的呼声。更令人不安的是，机构负责人本着恐慌性的损害赔偿控制精神，正在草率而过分地惩罚而不是进行改革。编辑因运行有争议的文章而被解雇；因涉嫌不真实而撤回书籍；禁止记者发表某些话题；对教授进行调查以引用课堂上的文学作品；研究员因进行同行评审的学术研究而被解雇；组织负责人因有时只是笨拙的错误而被赶下台。无论围绕每个特定事件有何论点，其结果都是稳步缩小可以说的范围，而没有报复的威胁。我们已经付出了更大的风险规避代价，在作家，艺术家和新闻记者中，他们担心如果脱离共识或什至缺乏足够的热心，就无法维持生计。这种令人窒息的气氛最终将损害我们这个时代最重要的原因。无论是专制政府还是不宽容的社会，辩论的局限性总是伤害那些缺乏权力的人，并使每个人都缺乏民主参与的能力。击败坏主意的方法是通过曝光，争论和说服，而不是通过沉默或希望他们消失。我们拒绝在正义与自由之间进行任何错误的选择，而这些错误选择离不开彼此。作为作家，我们需要一种文化，使我们有进行试验，冒险甚至犯错误的空间。我们需要保留真诚分歧的可能性，而不会造成严重的专业后果。如果我们不能捍卫我们工作所依赖的事物，那么我们就不应指望公众或国家为我们捍卫它。The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at [email protected]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.
人家就喜欢自己跟自己较劲，才可以将来跟儿女较劲。哈哈。为了将来一星半点爬藤的机会，宁可要床铺一摊散沙式的抗疫领导。
像你这样的想法非常的民主党。一看就是受权利统治的奴役思想。 在美国每个人都有权发表言论。 川粉为啥不能即批评ivy league， 一边送娃去上名牌大学？ 我就看不出这有啥矛盾的。
川粉可不是批评藤校这么简单， 是希望使用政府机器来审查“左派” 精英大学的那种！
不会是真的私底下在吃吃氯喹吧？