> There are also some leading Black intellectuals, including the historian Nell Irvin Painter, the poets Reginald Dwayne Betts and Gregory Pardlo, and the linguist John McWhorter. And there are a number of journalists, including several opinion columnists for The New York Times.
Given the climate at the Times right now, this is brave.
This is about Twitter. And it's almost exclusively about Twitter.
Even the article says "on social media, the reaction was swift, with some heaping ridicule," because that's what social media is. Then there are some tweets embedded.
Twitter does not represent real people. It is not a town square, and I've seen no evidence of a widespread cultural change in real life.
It's hard to remember that when we can't see real people. But I think it matters.
> Another person who signed, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in an effort to stay out of the growing storm, said she did not know who all the other signatories were when she agreed to participate, and if she had, she may not have signed.
Always condemn 'the enemy', even when you agree with them. Anything else could be interpreted as a sign of disloyalty.
> Always condemn 'the enemy', even when you agree with them. Anything else could be interpreted as a sign of disloyalty.
Less cynically, the concern may reasonably be that the relationship to claims certain of the signatories have made about the relation of particular events to the broad themes the letter raises alters the message of the letter when they are associated with it.
Given the climate at the Times right now, this is brave.