“Violent ideologies”? Do they mean those that call for *unjustified* violence, or are they going to insist on a general *pacifism*? And who gets to decide which classes are, or ought to be, “protected”? Caplan is right: Substack management has taken a step into quicksand.
"...advance violent ideologies, including anti-Semitism...". Now I'm confused. Is anti-Semitism good or bad these days? It must be really hard to be woke.
"Violent ideologies" is nonsense- speak, intellectual fraud, and the tell that one is being played for a fool.
Approximately everyone believes in an ideology which sanctions violence under some conditions. And that's actual physical forceful violence, not fake Orwellian """violence""".
If you get to pick and choose which violence-ideas get a pass and which get crushed then under such an illusory standard you can go after anyone for any reason at any time. Which, duh, that's what woke always does.
They include the great replacement theory in their list of violent ideologies. This is mainstream enough to have been discussed by Tucker Carlson. Whatever people think of it, it amounts to noticing the decline in white populations by percentage, primarily as a result of mass immigration policies. Observations anyone can make by reading demographic stats.
It is typically the Left making something of it, usually boasting about the decline of whites. Many minorities have done this too.
How do they get away with this? Do you think they actually believe these things are violent ideologies?
It's all part of the political game. If there are categories that the law or a critical mass of socially influential people think are worthy of censoring, then people are going to try to exercise control by claiming to the maximum extent they can get away with that everything they don't like fits inside one of those categories, and everyone they don't like is bad and also worthy of penalty if they tolerate that stuff even in the slightest. There is literally no limit to how much people will distort the definitions of words to accomplish these goals so long as their reference social group allows them to get away with it.
If one is not going to be able to sustain a zero-rules policy then the trouble is finding a way to plant a flag at any other arbitrary point, anchored well enough to resist the inevitable constant pressure to give up yet more ground. The easiest way to do this is to outsource it, for example, to SCOTUS to be in accordance with first amendment law. Substack's statement brings Brandenburg to mind, and that's the hilltop that provides them with the strongest defensive position available.
Hanania has called for like 20% of the Palestinian population to be killed and the entire Gaza Strip ethnically cleansed. I have to think that violates the terms of service (I do not think Hanania should be removed for this).
Interestingly, despite my general extreme distaste for Hanania, I don't think there's an actual solution to the conflict that isn't forcible integration of the population so they cease being radicalized. And I don't know if that will actually work. But it doesn't seem like "hide under the Iron Dome" is necessarily going to work, either, sadly.
I'm in agreement with Hanania, but not the part where 80% emigrates to the west. Either they got to Egypt or 100% die.
I'm simply stating that it's quite obvious that what he's saying violates red lines of even the most liberal free speech codes on such platforms. I would give those red lines up, but if they exist and its enforced selectively then its clearly just who/whom.
If you go on his sub stack there are several essays about Israel/Palestine. His desire to ethnically cleanse Gaza is quite on display.
I don't remember if the 20% figure was in his essays or one of his tweets. He uses his twitter feed for the more outrageous statements he thinks will get ratioed and drive traffic to his sub stack (also you get paid by the click on twitter these days).
So it's not quite the 'bending to the Woke' moment that we feared. I suppose the lax mainstream reporting on it though will lead to constant attention from the children's crusade and therefore constant articles and attempts to remove content.
But my confidence in the Substack team has increased, after being initially worried.
Nazis, Nazis, Nazis; so lame and unspecific. The real Nazis are dead, gone - history!
Why can’t we just say they lie, cheat, steal, rape, murder, etc. I guess it’s too much work; and once you lay out the specifics, they can be debated. Wouldn’t want that.
A thousand years from now, will we still be accusing people of being Nazis? Will there be Nazigate?
The woke see no issue in blurring distinctions. They'll call advocates of voluntary reprogenetic technologies like embryo selection (like me) eugenicists, which they can say are basically Nazis. An unfortunate development. The move from "racist" to "white supremacist" to "Nazi" has taken force because if this blurring of language. Now, they cannot go further. Who is more reviled than Nazis? But people will stop taking this accusation seriously....hopefully.
Fads go in cycles, and the power of the woke ideology appears to be showing some cracks. This may be wishful thinking on my part, but at least I feel like I'm seeing some cracks. If that cycle really is beginning to turn, it could be promotion of specifics on the woke agenda that suddenly merit suspension and blocking, and the slippery slope could turn against them. I'm not speaking in favor of such a turn, as I tend to agree with Bryan that speech should not be regulated, but proponents of such controls should always keep in mind that if the controls are there, they will eventually be used against those who pushed to implement them.
I wrote a post about the slippery slope before this latest decision but I actually like where Substack ended up. They held the line on not banning Nazis and threw a bunch of Substackers out for inciting violence.
I think fans of free speech should celebrate this as a victory and congratulate Substack for holding the line.
Is anyone forced to read anything on Substack or any other platform? Why these communists always have to dictate what is good or bad for people? Can they mind their own business? We can decide on our own if we want to read something or not.
"If you give a mouse a cookie" ... next, he'll demand a glass of milk. Or something like that. It was a great children's book with a message that is appropriate here. So was "If You Give a Moose a Muffin."
Maybe Substack should talk to Pano Kanelos and Bari Weiss about the University of Austin's speech evaluation outsourcing plan to avoid slipping on these slopes and getting captured in the way all the rest did.
“Violent ideologies”? Do they mean those that call for *unjustified* violence, or are they going to insist on a general *pacifism*? And who gets to decide which classes are, or ought to be, “protected”? Caplan is right: Substack management has taken a step into quicksand.
Does Bukele locking up all the criminals constitute a call to violence?
When people call Russians Orcs it seems to be OK, but I doubt the same is true in reverse.
Russians are Orcs? I thought the public consensus was that it was people of African Decent. Which was why TSR changed them.
Any state with a police force is using violence. All political ideologies that advocate the existence of a state are advocating violence.
So when they say "violent ideologies" they just mean "ideologies we decide we don't like".
Fully agreed. Give them a finger and they’ll bite your whole hand off. The only good reaction is deadpan silence, zero response in either direction. If you do have to respond, copy Elon: https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/29/23981928/elon-musk-ad-boycott-go-fuck-yourself-destroy-x
"...advance violent ideologies, including anti-Semitism...". Now I'm confused. Is anti-Semitism good or bad these days? It must be really hard to be woke.
"Violent ideologies" is nonsense- speak, intellectual fraud, and the tell that one is being played for a fool.
Approximately everyone believes in an ideology which sanctions violence under some conditions. And that's actual physical forceful violence, not fake Orwellian """violence""".
If you get to pick and choose which violence-ideas get a pass and which get crushed then under such an illusory standard you can go after anyone for any reason at any time. Which, duh, that's what woke always does.
They include the great replacement theory in their list of violent ideologies. This is mainstream enough to have been discussed by Tucker Carlson. Whatever people think of it, it amounts to noticing the decline in white populations by percentage, primarily as a result of mass immigration policies. Observations anyone can make by reading demographic stats.
It is typically the Left making something of it, usually boasting about the decline of whites. Many minorities have done this too.
How do they get away with this? Do you think they actually believe these things are violent ideologies?
It's all part of the political game. If there are categories that the law or a critical mass of socially influential people think are worthy of censoring, then people are going to try to exercise control by claiming to the maximum extent they can get away with that everything they don't like fits inside one of those categories, and everyone they don't like is bad and also worthy of penalty if they tolerate that stuff even in the slightest. There is literally no limit to how much people will distort the definitions of words to accomplish these goals so long as their reference social group allows them to get away with it.
If one is not going to be able to sustain a zero-rules policy then the trouble is finding a way to plant a flag at any other arbitrary point, anchored well enough to resist the inevitable constant pressure to give up yet more ground. The easiest way to do this is to outsource it, for example, to SCOTUS to be in accordance with first amendment law. Substack's statement brings Brandenburg to mind, and that's the hilltop that provides them with the strongest defensive position available.
Hanania has called for like 20% of the Palestinian population to be killed and the entire Gaza Strip ethnically cleansed. I have to think that violates the terms of service (I do not think Hanania should be removed for this).
Interestingly, despite my general extreme distaste for Hanania, I don't think there's an actual solution to the conflict that isn't forcible integration of the population so they cease being radicalized. And I don't know if that will actually work. But it doesn't seem like "hide under the Iron Dome" is necessarily going to work, either, sadly.
I'm in agreement with Hanania, but not the part where 80% emigrates to the west. Either they got to Egypt or 100% die.
I'm simply stating that it's quite obvious that what he's saying violates red lines of even the most liberal free speech codes on such platforms. I would give those red lines up, but if they exist and its enforced selectively then its clearly just who/whom.
Do you have a link to where Hanania said that?
I don't think he ever called for killing 20% of Gazans. This may be a misrepresentation of this: https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1733853263332622413.
You can read his article on the topic here: https://www.richardhanania.com/p/israel-must-crush-palestinian-hopes.
If you go on his sub stack there are several essays about Israel/Palestine. His desire to ethnically cleanse Gaza is quite on display.
I don't remember if the 20% figure was in his essays or one of his tweets. He uses his twitter feed for the more outrageous statements he thinks will get ratioed and drive traffic to his sub stack (also you get paid by the click on twitter these days).
Jesse Singal got the original Substack statement and, sure enough, it's being misleadingly reported by Platformer and others. (https://open.substack.com/pub/jessesingal/p/platformers-reporting-on-substacks).
So it's not quite the 'bending to the Woke' moment that we feared. I suppose the lax mainstream reporting on it though will lead to constant attention from the children's crusade and therefore constant articles and attempts to remove content.
But my confidence in the Substack team has increased, after being initially worried.
Thanks for the update - really appreciate some more information that reassures.
Jesse has written another piece which suggests Katz was lying all along
Oooh, I will check it out. Thanks!
It is a few Substacks that broke the existing rules, nothing more. The mainstream have to report it as a triumph.
I do think they view Substack as a threat. It certainly has more interesting content.
Nazis, Nazis, Nazis; so lame and unspecific. The real Nazis are dead, gone - history!
Why can’t we just say they lie, cheat, steal, rape, murder, etc. I guess it’s too much work; and once you lay out the specifics, they can be debated. Wouldn’t want that.
A thousand years from now, will we still be accusing people of being Nazis? Will there be Nazigate?
First they came for the Nazis
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Nazi
Then they came for the Antisemites
And I did not speak out
Because I was not an Antisemite
Then they came for Hamas...
Bad news for us. I had the hope Substack would be for the freedom of expression
The woke see no issue in blurring distinctions. They'll call advocates of voluntary reprogenetic technologies like embryo selection (like me) eugenicists, which they can say are basically Nazis. An unfortunate development. The move from "racist" to "white supremacist" to "Nazi" has taken force because if this blurring of language. Now, they cannot go further. Who is more reviled than Nazis? But people will stop taking this accusation seriously....hopefully.
Overuse tends to damn them. As you say, where do you go from Nazi? Supernazi?
They give no thought for tomorrow. That is true of most movements based on emotion. There is no grand strategy beyond destruction.
Fads go in cycles, and the power of the woke ideology appears to be showing some cracks. This may be wishful thinking on my part, but at least I feel like I'm seeing some cracks. If that cycle really is beginning to turn, it could be promotion of specifics on the woke agenda that suddenly merit suspension and blocking, and the slippery slope could turn against them. I'm not speaking in favor of such a turn, as I tend to agree with Bryan that speech should not be regulated, but proponents of such controls should always keep in mind that if the controls are there, they will eventually be used against those who pushed to implement them.
It is reality they fear, not censorship. Men aren't actually women, and fewer are buying the climate shenanigans. Just two examples.
I wrote a post about the slippery slope before this latest decision but I actually like where Substack ended up. They held the line on not banning Nazis and threw a bunch of Substackers out for inciting violence.
I think fans of free speech should celebrate this as a victory and congratulate Substack for holding the line.
https://raggedclown.substack.com/p/who-should-we-ban-next
There is a slippery slope, and
They are constructing the slope, and
They are deliberately applying oil to the slope, and
They are mocking people who are calling them out for it, and
They are looking for more people to herd towards the slope.
Is anyone forced to read anything on Substack or any other platform? Why these communists always have to dictate what is good or bad for people? Can they mind their own business? We can decide on our own if we want to read something or not.
"If you give a mouse a cookie" ... next, he'll demand a glass of milk. Or something like that. It was a great children's book with a message that is appropriate here. So was "If You Give a Moose a Muffin."
Maybe Substack should talk to Pano Kanelos and Bari Weiss about the University of Austin's speech evaluation outsourcing plan to avoid slipping on these slopes and getting captured in the way all the rest did.
"the great replacement theory"
Watch out Bryan. I know your in favor of The Great Replacement, but I suspect even acknowledging it exists will be considered foul play.
https://manifold.markets/benjaminIkuta/will-bryan-caplan-still-be-on-subst?r=YmVuamFtaW5Ja3V0YQ