In the insular media bubble, everyone can't stop talking about "The Letter"

"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."

Does this sound like the kind of message that would anger the progressive liberals in the media and on Twitter? 

This message is the crux of "The Letter," an open letter on "Justice and Open Debate" which was published in Harper's magazine this week, and signed by approximately 150 individuals who identify as members of the left. The signers are an interesting group - JK Rowling (Harry Potter) and Margaret Atwood (The Handsmaid's Tale). Colleagues who were on opposite sides of the Tom Cotton op-ed debate (Bari Weiss and Michelle Goldberg). Malcolm Gladwell. Fareed Zakaria.

This ended up being controversial. Smeared first as a "cancel culture" treatise, those who claim cancel culture doesn't exist were mad about these well-off journalists and professors who would dare give it attention. Then there was the "guilt by association" element - 'well how can you sign something that was also signed by this bad person?!' It became a big controversy at Vox, where a senior journalist Matt Yglesias was among those who signed the letter, and Emily VanDerWerff published her own letter in response. Ezra Klein, the founder of Vox, sent what seemed like a subtweet. It was a lot of drama! Gladwell put the whole thing succinctly: "I signed the Harpers letter because there were lots of people who also signed the Harpers letter whose views I disagreed with. I thought that was the point of the Harpers letter."

This whole debate about "The Letter" is both important and not important - and it reminds me of "The Dress." The Dress was a BuzzFeed story published five years ago that was an optical illusion. Some saw blue and black, while others saw it as white and gold. Was the letter a bunch of whiny elitists complaining about a non-existent problem, or was it a powerful statement about a growing issue in American culture? No matter how much you argue with the other side, they'll never see anything different. Instead of an optical illusion, it’s an intellectual illusion.

But what's important about The Dress is there is a right answer - the dress manufacturer said the dress was blue and black. Just like with "The Letter" there is a correct answer too. Some may not like the phrase "cancel culture" but to deny there is a climate now of overreacting to "microaggressions" or perceived bias by firing and, well, cancelation, is to deny reality. It's not about the 150 people who signed the letter - they'll be fine. It's about these "innocents" like Yascha Mounk recently documented - caught in the crossfire of a culture war they did not want to be a part of.

In Sunday's newsletter, the return of two content sections in Fourth Watch - Two Truths and a Lie (Microaggression Edition) and "Blocked" (featuring the first of four new stories of people who have blocked me on Twitter)...