Thank you for standing up for free speech and independent writers. I certainly don't agree with every writer on here, but I appreciate you letting us (the readers) decide what we read. People on both the right and left are becoming increasingly censorious, and having a platform committed to free ideas is refreshing. P.S. Heather Cox Richardson's daily overview is my favorite read of the day. Thank you for introducing me to her work.
Good. Not great but good. Most concerning is the portion of the article on not allowing 'hate' which is always the trap door used for illiberal censorship.
You folks are working this out and so far I like the effort and direction--it's not perfect, but what is especially now when the slightest move left or right (up or down) has someone climbing up your ass. Glad to be on the platform and pleased with your biz model (which also helps MINE) and I'll continue to support it and recommend it to my colleagues.
This is bullshit, Graham Linehan is actively violating your supposed anti hate, doxxing, and harassment rules. Absolutely embarrassing for you to publish this.
Not at all, he is fighting/attacking an ideology he disagrees with. No different than having a writer who defends communism and a writer who vehemently opposes communism. Secondly, even though the web is international Substack is US based and as far as I know, the 1A has not been repealed.
Well, these "dating profiles" are by autogynephiliac men who claim the right to transgress against women as their civil right. Paraphilias are not civil rights, and our sex-segregated spaces, including the right to date lesbians without harassment by men, are not the stage for your sissy pornographic fetish.
This is sexual harassment and Graham Lineham is calling it out. He's the Ronan Farrow for women, calling out how heterosexual transwomen are threatening biological women on dating sites, in women's shelters, in women's prisons, in changing rooms, and in competition for woman-only seats and awards.
Graham Linehan is a man who signed up for the dating app, and he harassed the women who are on there in good faith and for the purposes of the app, not to shame and abuse the users. THAT is sexual harassment. As a woman, don't I have the right to tell Linehan to get the fuck off that site? Him and his cohorts are the only threats I see.
If Linehan identifies as a lesbian tomorrow, do you still have the right to tell him to "get the fuck off a site" for lesbians/queer people etc?
Because that's the entire point. In Trans ideology, any heterosexual male at any time can simply "identify" as a "lesbian" and the instant he declares it, the rest of us must pretend it's true. The HER app literally has males with full lumberjack beards listing themselves as 'lesbians'.
So Caroline, how do we tell a heterosexual predatory male with a full beard abusing gender ideology to be in lesbian spaces, vs a heterosexual male with a full beard who claims he is a lesbian and...idk, somehow apparently is one? What's the difference?
"So Caroline, how do we tell a heterosexual predatory male with a full beard abusing gender ideology to be in lesbian spaces, vs a heterosexual male with a full beard who claims he is a lesbian and...idk, somehow apparently is one? What's the difference?"
Personally i have no problem with trans women who state they are trans putting up profiles on lesbian dating sites. If someone puts up an honest profile on a dating site, then others can make an informed decision as to whether they want to contact that person.
What I believe is that these men are not women--they are predators--and that men cannot become women for the purposes of then having sex with lesbians--and women have a natural right to defend ourselves against transgressors into our spaces. Otherwise, we are barn animals and pets without agency and the capacity for self-defense.
I get your point and this one is a bit more borderline but I would argue that it falls under the public interest rule, that it's in the interest of the public to learn that men are invading women only spaces. Secondly, as he's British, the media there have a long tradition of mud racking journalism. Definitely not highbrow but still considered journalism.
In case no one knows- Linehan exposed a pedophile sympathizer/enabler of being hired by Reddit. This person moderated many forums aimed at young people. They are a well known public figure who was suspended from 2 political parties in the UK for questionable activities/judgment related to children. No doxxing occurred, and everything was in the public realm. This person then started deleting and banning all mention of their name on Reddit, abusing their power. Enter Streisand effect.
So now, Trans activists and Woke alike are gunning for Linehan, wanting him destroyed because he takes a very critical stance on how people who assume certain identities seem to filter into positions of power they readily abuse, and how safeguarding is ignored when it comes to Identity politics.
BS. Trans activists are all over social media, creating campaigns to destroy any target that questions their orthodox. They use the most insane, underhanded tactics I've seen for a so-called "right side of history" movement. Take JK Rowling. She has scarcely ever said anything remotely transphobic, but the hateful insanity aimed at her by the woke mob has been going on for over a year. Article after article trying to smear and cancel her for simply believing biology is real. Trans activists have tried to get her books banned and are accusing her of every sin they can using the language of "progress". This is what happens to anyone who pushes back against the lunacy. Lesbians are regularly banned from their apps for stating they only want to date female people. Same with gay men who state they are strictly same-sex attracted. Trans women have become moderators of almost every lesbian forum, website, dating app. Reddit's largest lesbian sub, r/actuallesbians has NO lesbian moderators. They are all Transwomen who center themselves and ban anyone who questions the colonization. They organized to nuke any forum that tried to be for female people only.
Journalist Jesse Singal is constantly targeted by the Trans mob and they harass him regularly, declaring him some "far right" boogeyman when he is clearly left wing but simply writes objectively which used to be a journalists *job*.
The fact is, mainstream media is captured by the woke mob and refuses to report honestly on these issues. If you don't like Linehan, *don't read his stuff*. If you resent Substack for allowing people to write against the Orthodox, *don't use it*. Take your authoritarianism back to Twitter, where they allow MAPS to flourish but ban lesbians for stating they are female homosexuals. Utopia!
Actually the first victim of the GayKK cancel culture could have been Anita Bryant waaaay back in the 70's. The war on Dr Laura was a long time ago also. The civil war amongst the alphabet people is both funny and scary. Funny to see the homosexuals getting to endure the same type of bullying straight people have been putting up with for decades. A bit of their own medicine. It is scary for obvious reasons. Anytime the media supports a bullying campaign, it is scary.
Maybe someone else has already made the point (I haven't read all the comments), but has it occurred to you that most readers would never have heard of Graham Linehan had you not complained about his posts? Caroline, ironically, you and others like you, may be Graham Linehan's greatest promoters.
I actually watched his TV for years! I haven't since I discovered how hateful he is. I have faith that bigots don't need my help to find other bigots. What I find ironic is that everyone here arguing on behalf of Linehan doesn't seem to have any facts about him beyond that he hates trans people and is thus worth defending, whereas I actually had stake in Linehan being a successful, worthy person, and I am a woman online, who everybody is sooooo worried about defending, and yet you all trot out the same talking points without showing a hint of insight, empathy or wit. But since I have the power to convince you to read, might I suggest one of those books with a thinly veiled metaphor to teach small children how to have empathy and compassion?
Only first names are there, names that the people themselves posted to the site. No addresses or phone numbers are listed. It's not doxxing.
Nor is it harassment or anti hate. Just because you disagree with, and don't like something, doesn't make it hate or harassment. Nor should something be banned just because you don't like it.
It is harassment and hate. The site is a private site that requires you to make a profile and agree to their terms to join. He's not doing this for any reason other than to target and harass trans people. It should be banned because he is providing targets to his audience, targets he picked solely based on hate. That's not simply annoying or distasteful, it's dangerous.
It would appear that he's bringing attention to the fact that Trans men have signed up on a LESBIAN dating app. And the photos of those profiles are the proverbial "receipts".
For a person who takes the stand that Trans men are NOT women, and definitely not lesbians, it's actually a pretty powerful piece.
I get that you apparently disagree with him, and that's fine. But, as I noted elsewhere, the world doesn't have to bend to your view or interpretation.
Um, Linehan is a MAN who signed up for a lesbian dating app. Those are women. If you're so concerned about men being in women's spaces why aren't you condemning Linehan for being on there?????
What on earth are you talking about? I didn't make any claim other than that Linehan is using the app under a false identity to harass people. If you are refuting that it is a "lesbian dating app," take it up with your anonymous buddy, who characterized it that way in the first place.
You are completely sidestepping my point. Linehan violated the spirit of the site and the users. Science is undeniably not on your side, so I wouldn't bring that into this if I were you.
I believe he chooses these targets, using info they've provided, because they've actively attacked, deplatformed, and/or threatened another woman. There are tens of thousands of rape and death threats sent online by transactivists to women and girls each year who question how biological males are able to enter their spaces. I'm proud to be one of his subscribers. Graham is advocating for vulnerable women. Why are you so obsessed with us? Why do you need to police our speech?
How the fuck would that work? How would he access location based profiles of people on HER? You have to go on the app, give your gender identity, and agree to their terms of services. He is the only man who went on the site illicitly and violated the terms of services. He made the site more dangerous for the women on it with HIS presence.
You guys will feel unbelievable pressure from above to fold. You need to protect your access to financial institutions as well, because they will come after that.
But always remember, you have a winning hand, because, when it starts getting tough, we subscribers will support you.
If you need help, you should call on us, and we will detect our talent, time and resources to protect what is being created here!
The cast majority of us care, and while you shouldn't take us for granted, our combined effort is a powerful resource you can deploy.
“We do not allow hate, defined as publishing content or funding initiatives that call for violence, exclusion, or segregation based on protected classes. This does include serious attacks on people based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, or medical condition.”
This is an extremely vague and troubling standard, particularly its reference to “exclusion, or segregation.” In fact, will you forgive my expression: I hate it. Are you going to block my comment because of my virulent dislike of the way your standard is worded? If I start a religion and sanctify it, will you be okay with it?
I am biracial, black and white, bisexual, and non religious (and an atheist). And I mention this so people don’t just assume I’m some evangelical Christian white supremacist trump worshipper and thus just dismiss my perspective. There is a lot of *hatred* toward such a stereotypical “right-wing extremist” and unfortunately some people won’t listen to anyone who even likes the same food as someone categorized as such. So let me make myself clear: I’ve never eaten Chick-Fil-A.
Would it be a violation for an author to suggest that atheists shouldn’t be allowed to vote? Would it be a violation for an author to suggest that black people be made to sit at the back of a bus? Would it be a violation for an author to suggest that it should be permissible to have black only public schools? Would it be a violation for an author to suggest that atheists not be permitted to attend a Christian ceremony? Would it be a violation for an author to suggest that transgender women be excluded from women only college sports leagues? Would it be a violation for an author to suggest that white people be allowed to be excluded from black fraternities on college campuses? Would it be a violation for a Catholic to suggest that an atheist be excluded from eating their magical crackers? All of these things would arguably be problematic based on your policy, while I think any platform that actually honors free speech should not find them problematic—even if owners of platform may find some of them bad.
Unfortunately your rules regarding “hate”—I’m guessing you don’t care if people tell nazis to go to hell—is bullshit. Hate is not immoral—hating particular things is arguably immoral. Banning all hate, regardless of its target, is itself immoral—and ironically, an act of hate.
Religions particularly express their own forms of hatred—it is logically impossible to both protect the free expression of religion and ban “hate”. And it is absurd to expect people who are objects of religious hatred never to express hostility to that irrational hatred. That too, could arguably be “hate”, and toward particular religions.
So please reconsider your rules. I’d suggest starting by reading some classical liberal perspectives on free speech and that which are the foundation of the first amendment. I mean only if substack actually doesn’t want to end up just being controlled by the Church of the Awoken like so many other corporate entities out there. It is not enlightened, it is not progressive. It is degenerate.
I would also note that religions often exclude people from other religions. So such a religion wouldn't be allowed to promulgate its doctrines on Substack. Which means that Substack would be excluding people based on religion!
To be fair the line between "incitement" and journalistic reporting has always been a bit hazy. Which is why many countries provide journalists bit more protection than usual. Protections which most american journalists now sadly abuse in their witch hunts.
Twitters crybullies already in the comments section whining that you don't cave to them. Good for you to show some backbone and allow people to write what they want, as long as its not illegal by law.
Still, if I were you I would just cordon off erotica/porn to a different section with disclaimer on the site. Allowing both makes the rules less vague, while at the same time porn is like an anchor on any internet site, that makes sure theres always going to be an active community in it, ad infinitum. Also makes reporting about kink-communities or erotic art much easier.
Thank you for this statement. Increasing censorship online - especially when prompted by organized campaigns by ideological and/or bad faith actors - is exactly why many of us support Substack. The platform is a little bit of hope in a very bleak landscape and I genuinely hope you continue this transparent commitment to “the marketplace of ideas”. As long as that is the case you will find a lot of people to support your mission. Thank you.
Sounds ok to me . I can not begin to tell you how many sites I’ve been knocked off for simply stating cdc facts off of a pubic website because it does not fit there point of view. I joined this site specifically to talk about ideas and actually specific policy to repair problems that the USA and the world has . 🙏 thank you
"Transphobia" is becoming meaningless as a term since it's applied to just about everything that isn't 100% empathically in agreement with the current Gender ideology.
No. Transphobia would be fear. Hatred is not fear although fear may lead to hatred. Likewise white Supremacist phobia is just as likely to lead to hatred. But I’m guessing you have no problem with people hating white supremacists. Am I wrong?
Actually, fear was associated with the term homophobia when it first emerged. And fear--anxiety--is not an uncommon response from people who I have told I am bisexual.
But then the term "phobia" was used by many people to refer to anything that some other person disliked and feel they shouldn't dislike. The absurdity is not with my argument, it is with people who continue to use words that have -phobia attached to them with no intent to describe a fear but rather just to express their hatred. It is irrational for a person who hates people who are bigoted against homosexuals labeling such bigots "homophobes" when they don't even think the bigots are afraid of homosexuals. It doesn't matter that I may sympathize with their contempt for the bigots; I do not sympathize with the irrational use of language to express our emotions and judgements.
If you you don't use "transphobia" as including the meaning "fear of trans", you should probably use another word because "phobia" has an uncontroversial meaning. Personally I am opposed to butchering language out of ignorance or ideology.
Furthermore, there are people who literally are afraid of people who are trans or transgenderism in general. There is a fear of what the acceptance of people who are trans will do to their society, etc. In fact, I have not come across anyone who has a bigotry against transgender people who do not simultaneously fear something about them. Have you?
You're mistaken. It actually "literally" does. Read more. Learn more. Do better.
If you want to convey your thoughts more precisely, learn to use correct terms to express yourself instead of trying to redefine the centuries old agreed on definition of "phobia" to suit whatever your ever changing nonsensical, politically motivated, vacuous, empty virtue signalling whims of the day are.
“Transphobia” means something, while “virture signaling” is precisely the empty politically motivated untalk that you speak of. So many conservatives accuse people of what they consistently do, snowflake.
Already have. Its not a good argument. You are welcome to make it yourself here, though, so I can dissect and demolish it.
But regardless -- did I say anything about tolerance? No I didn't. Try responding to my actual comment. People who say they are "anti-hate" are being hypocritical and illogical. A better stance is that we are anti particular hate.
Popper was talking about a very specific kind of intolerance, viz, intolerance that seeks to suppress the free expression rights of others through threatened or actual violence.
Oddly enough it is the people who talk casually about "punching Nazis" who are much closer to what Popper suggests society doesn't tolerate, but that rarely comes up in the use of the meme.
When someone changes the DISCOURSE that one is ostracized eventually. How you speak/write is how you think. And someone who does not heel to the DISCOURSE will be tossed out. Galileo well knew this and would have been burned if he had not recanted that the earth followed around the sun instead of being the center of the universe. Example: Trump destroyed the Insatitutionalized Pilitical Discourse so now the transparency is obvious to all of us. A bright light shines on the lies we used to let go as ideoology we did not identify.
Thank you! We have such problems like claustrophobia and agoraphobia. These are example of acute and of severe 1) fear of small rooms, elevators and so on and 2) a fear of open spaces. Xenophobia etc. can more easily be transformed into hate, but is nevertheless based on fear.
I doubt that you are actually confused. Redefining opposition to a controversial ideology as "hate" is a tactic used by ideologues to avoid criticism of their programme. I would think it more likely that you are committed to that tactic than confused. Substack is right to uphold free expression even the teeth of this tactic being widely deployed.
doesn't phobia mean fear? not hate? and therefore better addressed by the courage of dialog, education and honesty? Rather than the darkness and suppression of censorship? would we defeat insanity and fear by becoming propagators of fear and insanity ourselves?
As a Substack writer, I remain deeply disappointed by these posts. This narrowing of your terms today seem purely defensive and even specious, a narrowing that retroactively excuses bad behavior and leaves room for more organized harassment campaigns that launch or thrive on this very platform.
You're free to go back to Twitter or whatever irrelevant blogging site that hired you, if you dont like the fact people can critisize things here that dont fall to your ridiculous line of political correctness.
Thanks for permission, but as long as I'm on Substack and the company gets a cut of my newsletter's subscription money, I'll offer my criticism however I feel like offering it: which is in civil tone. If differing opinions bother you, consider departing the comment section.
"a narrowing that retroactively excuses bad behavior" sounds like someone didn't get censored that you want to be censored. Is that a misinterpretation on my part, kind sir?
"leaves room for organized harassment that launch or thrive in this platform". Straight out from the mouth of a generic Twitter "journalist", they all repeat this false rhetoric, you included.
And the thing is, these rules dont leave room for harassment. Incitement for violence and doxxing are already forbidden as they should, since especially the former one is also illegal by law. Feel free to provide examples of actual harassment that fall into those two categories on this site. Criticism is not harassment.
I am looking at competing products at the moment but I haven't made any decisions. I've been writing for this platform for 15 months and have built a modest following here, so if I did leave it would require considering a number of factors, logistical and otherwise.
"Irrelevant blogging site"? Lol. Very cool and useful term that isn't in any way completely meaningless. Also, Gary is a respected writer and you're an anonymous coward in the comment section so have fun with that.
Very cool thing for a gigantic coward to say and very predictable. Have fun with your irrelevant blogging site criticisms, very thought-provoking stuff.
Thank you for standing up for free speech and independent writers. I certainly don't agree with every writer on here, but I appreciate you letting us (the readers) decide what we read. People on both the right and left are becoming increasingly censorious, and having a platform committed to free ideas is refreshing. P.S. Heather Cox Richardson's daily overview is my favorite read of the day. Thank you for introducing me to her work.
Good. Not great but good. Most concerning is the portion of the article on not allowing 'hate' which is always the trap door used for illiberal censorship.
I'd say "porn" is always the first censorship door - but "hate" makes its case too.
It's porn - far and away, porn.
Try being hated on by a Right Wing Right Male like e.pierce, and tell me that!
It blows my mind; Substack’s utter insistence in using common sense to interpret their content guidelines.
If this doesn’t convince you that those trying to cancel Substack are simply malcontents and misanthropes, nothing will.
You folks are working this out and so far I like the effort and direction--it's not perfect, but what is especially now when the slightest move left or right (up or down) has someone climbing up your ass. Glad to be on the platform and pleased with your biz model (which also helps MINE) and I'll continue to support it and recommend it to my colleagues.
This is bullshit, Graham Linehan is actively violating your supposed anti hate, doxxing, and harassment rules. Absolutely embarrassing for you to publish this.
Not at all, he is fighting/attacking an ideology he disagrees with. No different than having a writer who defends communism and a writer who vehemently opposes communism. Secondly, even though the web is international Substack is US based and as far as I know, the 1A has not been repealed.
Well, these "dating profiles" are by autogynephiliac men who claim the right to transgress against women as their civil right. Paraphilias are not civil rights, and our sex-segregated spaces, including the right to date lesbians without harassment by men, are not the stage for your sissy pornographic fetish.
This is sexual harassment and Graham Lineham is calling it out. He's the Ronan Farrow for women, calling out how heterosexual transwomen are threatening biological women on dating sites, in women's shelters, in women's prisons, in changing rooms, and in competition for woman-only seats and awards.
Graham Linehan is a man who signed up for the dating app, and he harassed the women who are on there in good faith and for the purposes of the app, not to shame and abuse the users. THAT is sexual harassment. As a woman, don't I have the right to tell Linehan to get the fuck off that site? Him and his cohorts are the only threats I see.
If Linehan identifies as a lesbian tomorrow, do you still have the right to tell him to "get the fuck off a site" for lesbians/queer people etc?
Because that's the entire point. In Trans ideology, any heterosexual male at any time can simply "identify" as a "lesbian" and the instant he declares it, the rest of us must pretend it's true. The HER app literally has males with full lumberjack beards listing themselves as 'lesbians'.
So Caroline, how do we tell a heterosexual predatory male with a full beard abusing gender ideology to be in lesbian spaces, vs a heterosexual male with a full beard who claims he is a lesbian and...idk, somehow apparently is one? What's the difference?
"So Caroline, how do we tell a heterosexual predatory male with a full beard abusing gender ideology to be in lesbian spaces, vs a heterosexual male with a full beard who claims he is a lesbian and...idk, somehow apparently is one? What's the difference?"
Perfect response. And << c r i c k e t s >>
It seems like he isn't violating the rules though.
Personally i have no problem with trans women who state they are trans putting up profiles on lesbian dating sites. If someone puts up an honest profile on a dating site, then others can make an informed decision as to whether they want to contact that person.
What I believe is that these men are not women--they are predators--and that men cannot become women for the purposes of then having sex with lesbians--and women have a natural right to defend ourselves against transgressors into our spaces. Otherwise, we are barn animals and pets without agency and the capacity for self-defense.
Nm, I saw that some of their names were posted.
The only defense I can think of is that it's public information.
It's poor taste to do such a thing though, in my opinion
First names, as put up on the platform. Some observations:
1. a first name typically isn't enough to identify someone
2. Substack's policy doesn't ban mentioning names
3. as name someone uses on a dating site is just a handle; it may not be there real name
Having said all that, if I was Graham Linehan I would have blocked out the names.
Maybe also Substack could have an explicit policy on whether they consider it OK to match real world names with online identities.
Yes, our thinking is alike on this.
It's not public, you have to create an account and agree to their terms of services to see people's profiles.
Also, there's no public interest rule here! This isn't journalism! It's a hateful, obsessed man's rants.
If someone earns their money writing for Substack, how is that any less journalism than earning their money writing for a newpaper?
How is this information not in the public interest?
Are you violating the "hate rule" by posting this link? In case you forgot, you are on a slippery slope.
Get off of the slope and you won't have this censorship problem.
I get your point and this one is a bit more borderline but I would argue that it falls under the public interest rule, that it's in the interest of the public to learn that men are invading women only spaces. Secondly, as he's British, the media there have a long tradition of mud racking journalism. Definitely not highbrow but still considered journalism.
If they have done something wrong you need to call the police.
Some names were erased; some weren't.
In case no one knows- Linehan exposed a pedophile sympathizer/enabler of being hired by Reddit. This person moderated many forums aimed at young people. They are a well known public figure who was suspended from 2 political parties in the UK for questionable activities/judgment related to children. No doxxing occurred, and everything was in the public realm. This person then started deleting and banning all mention of their name on Reddit, abusing their power. Enter Streisand effect.
So now, Trans activists and Woke alike are gunning for Linehan, wanting him destroyed because he takes a very critical stance on how people who assume certain identities seem to filter into positions of power they readily abuse, and how safeguarding is ignored when it comes to Identity politics.
I'm thankful Substack isn't bending to the mob.
That has nothing to do with it. I didn't even know who that reddit person was. Linehan's behavior is well documented and extensive.
BS. Trans activists are all over social media, creating campaigns to destroy any target that questions their orthodox. They use the most insane, underhanded tactics I've seen for a so-called "right side of history" movement. Take JK Rowling. She has scarcely ever said anything remotely transphobic, but the hateful insanity aimed at her by the woke mob has been going on for over a year. Article after article trying to smear and cancel her for simply believing biology is real. Trans activists have tried to get her books banned and are accusing her of every sin they can using the language of "progress". This is what happens to anyone who pushes back against the lunacy. Lesbians are regularly banned from their apps for stating they only want to date female people. Same with gay men who state they are strictly same-sex attracted. Trans women have become moderators of almost every lesbian forum, website, dating app. Reddit's largest lesbian sub, r/actuallesbians has NO lesbian moderators. They are all Transwomen who center themselves and ban anyone who questions the colonization. They organized to nuke any forum that tried to be for female people only.
Journalist Jesse Singal is constantly targeted by the Trans mob and they harass him regularly, declaring him some "far right" boogeyman when he is clearly left wing but simply writes objectively which used to be a journalists *job*.
The fact is, mainstream media is captured by the woke mob and refuses to report honestly on these issues. If you don't like Linehan, *don't read his stuff*. If you resent Substack for allowing people to write against the Orthodox, *don't use it*. Take your authoritarianism back to Twitter, where they allow MAPS to flourish but ban lesbians for stating they are female homosexuals. Utopia!
Actually the first victim of the GayKK cancel culture could have been Anita Bryant waaaay back in the 70's. The war on Dr Laura was a long time ago also. The civil war amongst the alphabet people is both funny and scary. Funny to see the homosexuals getting to endure the same type of bullying straight people have been putting up with for decades. A bit of their own medicine. It is scary for obvious reasons. Anytime the media supports a bullying campaign, it is scary.
Ahh, the @SadyDoyle Defense!
Maybe someone else has already made the point (I haven't read all the comments), but has it occurred to you that most readers would never have heard of Graham Linehan had you not complained about his posts? Caroline, ironically, you and others like you, may be Graham Linehan's greatest promoters.
I would never had read his work if it were not for Caroline. Thanks!
I actually watched his TV for years! I haven't since I discovered how hateful he is. I have faith that bigots don't need my help to find other bigots. What I find ironic is that everyone here arguing on behalf of Linehan doesn't seem to have any facts about him beyond that he hates trans people and is thus worth defending, whereas I actually had stake in Linehan being a successful, worthy person, and I am a woman online, who everybody is sooooo worried about defending, and yet you all trot out the same talking points without showing a hint of insight, empathy or wit. But since I have the power to convince you to read, might I suggest one of those books with a thinly veiled metaphor to teach small children how to have empathy and compassion?
No one is arguing for a specific person. They are arguing for academic freedom, even for whats-his-name-object-of-your-bulleying.
Only first names are there, names that the people themselves posted to the site. No addresses or phone numbers are listed. It's not doxxing.
Nor is it harassment or anti hate. Just because you disagree with, and don't like something, doesn't make it hate or harassment. Nor should something be banned just because you don't like it.
It's really simple. Don't read his articles.
It is harassment and hate. The site is a private site that requires you to make a profile and agree to their terms to join. He's not doing this for any reason other than to target and harass trans people. It should be banned because he is providing targets to his audience, targets he picked solely based on hate. That's not simply annoying or distasteful, it's dangerous.
It would appear that he's bringing attention to the fact that Trans men have signed up on a LESBIAN dating app. And the photos of those profiles are the proverbial "receipts".
For a person who takes the stand that Trans men are NOT women, and definitely not lesbians, it's actually a pretty powerful piece.
I get that you apparently disagree with him, and that's fine. But, as I noted elsewhere, the world doesn't have to bend to your view or interpretation.
Um, Linehan is a MAN who signed up for a lesbian dating app. Those are women. If you're so concerned about men being in women's spaces why aren't you condemning Linehan for being on there?????
The people that are in the pictures in Linehan's piece are hairy men - to a man.
"meet millions of lesbian, bisexual, & queer people" is what Her claims. Quite different from what you claim.
What on earth are you talking about? I didn't make any claim other than that Linehan is using the app under a false identity to harass people. If you are refuting that it is a "lesbian dating app," take it up with your anonymous buddy, who characterized it that way in the first place.
No, those are trans men. At least to anyone who actually believes science.
You are completely sidestepping my point. Linehan violated the spirit of the site and the users. Science is undeniably not on your side, so I wouldn't bring that into this if I were you.
I believe he chooses these targets, using info they've provided, because they've actively attacked, deplatformed, and/or threatened another woman. There are tens of thousands of rape and death threats sent online by transactivists to women and girls each year who question how biological males are able to enter their spaces. I'm proud to be one of his subscribers. Graham is advocating for vulnerable women. Why are you so obsessed with us? Why do you need to police our speech?
How the fuck would that work? How would he access location based profiles of people on HER? You have to go on the app, give your gender identity, and agree to their terms of services. He is the only man who went on the site illicitly and violated the terms of services. He made the site more dangerous for the women on it with HIS presence.
The comments on substack are clearly in need of slashdot style moderation if it hopes to have a future.
They are not closeted if they have a Grindr profile. That would be the opposite of closeted.
An app that almost anyone can join and participate in is "everybody on the internet".
If you out on Grindr, you are out to anyone who uses Grindr, which is quite likely to include people who know IRL who don't know you're gay.
Others have already addressed this. If you've made a Grindr profile, then you've outed yourself.
And any of them could take a screenshot and post it up on FB, Twitter, Tik Tok or any other social media site.
Thanks for conceding the point.
Substack is awesome.
You guys will feel unbelievable pressure from above to fold. You need to protect your access to financial institutions as well, because they will come after that.
But always remember, you have a winning hand, because, when it starts getting tough, we subscribers will support you.
If you need help, you should call on us, and we will detect our talent, time and resources to protect what is being created here!
The cast majority of us care, and while you shouldn't take us for granted, our combined effort is a powerful resource you can deploy.
Remember it.
detect = dedicate. cast = vast.
“We do not allow hate, defined as publishing content or funding initiatives that call for violence, exclusion, or segregation based on protected classes. This does include serious attacks on people based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, or medical condition.”
This is an extremely vague and troubling standard, particularly its reference to “exclusion, or segregation.” In fact, will you forgive my expression: I hate it. Are you going to block my comment because of my virulent dislike of the way your standard is worded? If I start a religion and sanctify it, will you be okay with it?
I am biracial, black and white, bisexual, and non religious (and an atheist). And I mention this so people don’t just assume I’m some evangelical Christian white supremacist trump worshipper and thus just dismiss my perspective. There is a lot of *hatred* toward such a stereotypical “right-wing extremist” and unfortunately some people won’t listen to anyone who even likes the same food as someone categorized as such. So let me make myself clear: I’ve never eaten Chick-Fil-A.
Would it be a violation for an author to suggest that atheists shouldn’t be allowed to vote? Would it be a violation for an author to suggest that black people be made to sit at the back of a bus? Would it be a violation for an author to suggest that it should be permissible to have black only public schools? Would it be a violation for an author to suggest that atheists not be permitted to attend a Christian ceremony? Would it be a violation for an author to suggest that transgender women be excluded from women only college sports leagues? Would it be a violation for an author to suggest that white people be allowed to be excluded from black fraternities on college campuses? Would it be a violation for a Catholic to suggest that an atheist be excluded from eating their magical crackers? All of these things would arguably be problematic based on your policy, while I think any platform that actually honors free speech should not find them problematic—even if owners of platform may find some of them bad.
Unfortunately your rules regarding “hate”—I’m guessing you don’t care if people tell nazis to go to hell—is bullshit. Hate is not immoral—hating particular things is arguably immoral. Banning all hate, regardless of its target, is itself immoral—and ironically, an act of hate.
Religions particularly express their own forms of hatred—it is logically impossible to both protect the free expression of religion and ban “hate”. And it is absurd to expect people who are objects of religious hatred never to express hostility to that irrational hatred. That too, could arguably be “hate”, and toward particular religions.
So please reconsider your rules. I’d suggest starting by reading some classical liberal perspectives on free speech and that which are the foundation of the first amendment. I mean only if substack actually doesn’t want to end up just being controlled by the Church of the Awoken like so many other corporate entities out there. It is not enlightened, it is not progressive. It is degenerate.
Yeah I've ranted to Casey Newton several times on that very point. How do we define hate, too often it's political
I would also note that religions often exclude people from other religions. So such a religion wouldn't be allowed to promulgate its doctrines on Substack. Which means that Substack would be excluding people based on religion!
To be fair the line between "incitement" and journalistic reporting has always been a bit hazy. Which is why many countries provide journalists bit more protection than usual. Protections which most american journalists now sadly abuse in their witch hunts.
You can't have yellow journalism without journalistic reporting.
Twitters crybullies already in the comments section whining that you don't cave to them. Good for you to show some backbone and allow people to write what they want, as long as its not illegal by law.
Still, if I were you I would just cordon off erotica/porn to a different section with disclaimer on the site. Allowing both makes the rules less vague, while at the same time porn is like an anchor on any internet site, that makes sure theres always going to be an active community in it, ad infinitum. Also makes reporting about kink-communities or erotic art much easier.
Thank you for this statement. Increasing censorship online - especially when prompted by organized campaigns by ideological and/or bad faith actors - is exactly why many of us support Substack. The platform is a little bit of hope in a very bleak landscape and I genuinely hope you continue this transparent commitment to “the marketplace of ideas”. As long as that is the case you will find a lot of people to support your mission. Thank you.
Sounds ok to me . I can not begin to tell you how many sites I’ve been knocked off for simply stating cdc facts off of a pubic website because it does not fit there point of view. I joined this site specifically to talk about ideas and actually specific policy to repair problems that the USA and the world has . 🙏 thank you
Transphobia is hate. "We do not allow hate." I'm confused.
What you call 'transphobia' is often not actually transphobic. This is the problem.
Yep; well said; People rushing to get offended should understand the method first before playing the victim or virtue signal
"Transphobia" is becoming meaningless as a term since it's applied to just about everything that isn't 100% empathically in agreement with the current Gender ideology.
No. Transphobia would be fear. Hatred is not fear although fear may lead to hatred. Likewise white Supremacist phobia is just as likely to lead to hatred. But I’m guessing you have no problem with people hating white supremacists. Am I wrong?
Transphobia doesn't literally mean fear of trans people, just like homophobia doesn't literally mean fear of gay people. That is an absurd argument.
And transphobia doesn't literally mean HATE of trans people
The "Other" is a long time fear of animals and humans
Actually, fear was associated with the term homophobia when it first emerged. And fear--anxiety--is not an uncommon response from people who I have told I am bisexual.
But then the term "phobia" was used by many people to refer to anything that some other person disliked and feel they shouldn't dislike. The absurdity is not with my argument, it is with people who continue to use words that have -phobia attached to them with no intent to describe a fear but rather just to express their hatred. It is irrational for a person who hates people who are bigoted against homosexuals labeling such bigots "homophobes" when they don't even think the bigots are afraid of homosexuals. It doesn't matter that I may sympathize with their contempt for the bigots; I do not sympathize with the irrational use of language to express our emotions and judgements.
If you you don't use "transphobia" as including the meaning "fear of trans", you should probably use another word because "phobia" has an uncontroversial meaning. Personally I am opposed to butchering language out of ignorance or ideology.
Furthermore, there are people who literally are afraid of people who are trans or transgenderism in general. There is a fear of what the acceptance of people who are trans will do to their society, etc. In fact, I have not come across anyone who has a bigotry against transgender people who do not simultaneously fear something about them. Have you?
Word associations lead to censorship and fear of words.
Haha, okay, you are actually a pretty excellent troll
The meat for the psychoanalyst
Irigaray:"The littel girl is a little boy."
You're mistaken. It actually "literally" does. Read more. Learn more. Do better.
If you want to convey your thoughts more precisely, learn to use correct terms to express yourself instead of trying to redefine the centuries old agreed on definition of "phobia" to suit whatever your ever changing nonsensical, politically motivated, vacuous, empty virtue signalling whims of the day are.
Language poverty leads to all of this.
“Transphobia” means something, while “virture signaling” is precisely the empty politically motivated untalk that you speak of. So many conservatives accuse people of what they consistently do, snowflake.
lololololol. bro, google the paradox of tolerance plz.
Already have. Its not a good argument. You are welcome to make it yourself here, though, so I can dissect and demolish it.
But regardless -- did I say anything about tolerance? No I didn't. Try responding to my actual comment. People who say they are "anti-hate" are being hypocritical and illogical. A better stance is that we are anti particular hate.
the only thing that can't be tolerated is intolerance. put simply.
Popper was talking about a very specific kind of intolerance, viz, intolerance that seeks to suppress the free expression rights of others through threatened or actual violence.
Oddly enough it is the people who talk casually about "punching Nazis" who are much closer to what Popper suggests society doesn't tolerate, but that rarely comes up in the use of the meme.
When someone changes the DISCOURSE that one is ostracized eventually. How you speak/write is how you think. And someone who does not heel to the DISCOURSE will be tossed out. Galileo well knew this and would have been burned if he had not recanted that the earth followed around the sun instead of being the center of the universe. Example: Trump destroyed the Insatitutionalized Pilitical Discourse so now the transparency is obvious to all of us. A bright light shines on the lies we used to let go as ideoology we did not identify.
wrong.. I WILL NEVER tolerate, crimes against children..better a millstone be hung round the neck of such perpetrators.
TOLERATE..WHAT A WEEK INSIPED DIVISIVE WORD " TOLERATE " is..
Infact I think the dictionary definition of tolerate should read, " absence of love"
yes. WE need to embrace the other, not tolerate the other
Zizek says that tolerance is the poison pill that is the seed of destruction in liberalism.
Lol who is hating on anyone?
Thank you! We have such problems like claustrophobia and agoraphobia. These are example of acute and of severe 1) fear of small rooms, elevators and so on and 2) a fear of open spaces. Xenophobia etc. can more easily be transformed into hate, but is nevertheless based on fear.
What sort of examples is substack not reining in?
I doubt that you are actually confused. Redefining opposition to a controversial ideology as "hate" is a tactic used by ideologues to avoid criticism of their programme. I would think it more likely that you are committed to that tactic than confused. Substack is right to uphold free expression even the teeth of this tactic being widely deployed.
doesn't phobia mean fear? not hate? and therefore better addressed by the courage of dialog, education and honesty? Rather than the darkness and suppression of censorship? would we defeat insanity and fear by becoming propagators of fear and insanity ourselves?
"trans ideology" lmao
Excellent, sensible way to moderate. Thank you for not caving in to the pitchfork mob.
Sounds reasonable, as the consumer, I will decide to stay or go based on how I am treated.
As a Substack writer, I remain deeply disappointed by these posts. This narrowing of your terms today seem purely defensive and even specious, a narrowing that retroactively excuses bad behavior and leaves room for more organized harassment campaigns that launch or thrive on this very platform.
You're free to go back to Twitter or whatever irrelevant blogging site that hired you, if you dont like the fact people can critisize things here that dont fall to your ridiculous line of political correctness.
Thanks for permission, but as long as I'm on Substack and the company gets a cut of my newsletter's subscription money, I'll offer my criticism however I feel like offering it: which is in civil tone. If differing opinions bother you, consider departing the comment section.
"If differing opinions bother you", says the person angry at his host site that they dont censor his fellow colleagues to his liking.
I don't know where from my two sentences you got that from, but I guess that's the point of anonymous comments like yours.
"a narrowing that retroactively excuses bad behavior" sounds like someone didn't get censored that you want to be censored. Is that a misinterpretation on my part, kind sir?
Yes, and an intentional misinterpretation at that.
"leaves room for organized harassment that launch or thrive in this platform". Straight out from the mouth of a generic Twitter "journalist", they all repeat this false rhetoric, you included.
And the thing is, these rules dont leave room for harassment. Incitement for violence and doxxing are already forbidden as they should, since especially the former one is also illegal by law. Feel free to provide examples of actual harassment that fall into those two categories on this site. Criticism is not harassment.
I would, and others have, but you're not worth any more of my time.
Is there a company that does a better job than substack in your opinion?
I am looking at competing products at the moment but I haven't made any decisions. I've been writing for this platform for 15 months and have built a modest following here, so if I did leave it would require considering a number of factors, logistical and otherwise.
ghost has been great about supporting my migration.
Thanks for that testimonial! I've been reviewing Ghost's migration FAQ this afternoon, a bit more closely after the above post from Substack.
lol you know critiquing isn't censorship, right? it's respect.
"Irrelevant blogging site"? Lol. Very cool and useful term that isn't in any way completely meaningless. Also, Gary is a respected writer and you're an anonymous coward in the comment section so have fun with that.
And your nose is so deep in his buttocks that I'm amazed you managed to breathe this tripe here to begin with.
Very cool thing for a gigantic coward to say and very predictable. Have fun with your irrelevant blogging site criticisms, very thought-provoking stuff.
Enjoy the blog of a nobody, assuming you're not just another bot account.
No, he is part of the Nobody Support Group at Substack.
Thanks for putting yourselves out there. I hope you stick to your guns.