Roxane Gay shares how publishing on Substack fits into the broader constellation of her writing life
"I don’t subscribe to people I disagree with. Not because I want to live in an echo chamber, but because I’m not going to give them my money. And also, I just don’t think that they’re interesting or smart." What???
" I definitely think that there are some people on Substack who should not be on Substack and who should not be allowed to share truly toxic and dangerous perspectives"
Disgusting. Why is Substack promoting this woman who disagrees with the foundational spirit of the platform. Tyrants like her ruined every platform for free and fair communication and now they are here to destroy this place with their views.
"I don’t subscribe to people I disagree with. Not because I want to live in an echo chamber, but because I’m not going to give them my money. And also, I just don’t think that they’re interesting or smart. -- What an arrogant piece of shit . . .
I appreciate that Substack published this interview. I think it shows a consistency of values (if they believe in free speech, let Roxane Gay express that she believes in censorship.) I was also put off by the "interesting or smart" line. Then again, I, too, have unsubscribed from Substacks for the same reason, when I found I not only disagreed with the person politically but felt like I was wasting my time on emotionally-draining outrage or stupidity. Context is everything. I do try to engage with a variety of writers on here, though. I go by quality and clarity of thought over where someone sits on the political spectrum. Oftentimes what I find is, with the best writers, I have points of both agreement and disagreement. I'll be reading along and think "Yes, preach! No, no, wait, not like that. Bad example." And I love that feeling. I like being made to feel uncomfortable and I like being forced to re-examine my own reasoning by writers I generally respect.
The part about maintaining an inconsistent schedule made me feel seen.
Woke agenda is what got me cancelled on Medium and now I see an interview with someone prominent on that platform that oppressed the voices of facts and reason. Bad interview (as anyone can plainly see with her fascist undertones here). Do better Substack.
I LOVE that Substack has the confidence and open-mindedness to highlight a writer whose views run contrary to the basic principles and premises of the platform. This only increased my trust and respect for Substack!
Not good. Uninspired, ideologically-captured writer that does a great job of exemplifying today's narrow-minded "intellectuals." Gay commits the worst sin a writer can: being a bore.
I appreciate Substack's commitment to giving spotlight to many perspectives, including those who openly denigrate the very act of spotlighting different perspectives, but this feels like a spoonful of medicine I didn't need or want.
Hope to see more writer spotlights that are genuinely interesting, up-and-coming, or embody the kind of inquisitive, readerly community Substack initially relied on!
Again, I appreciate that you are trying to promote successful people as a way of showing that there’s benefits to being on Substack but why does Roxane Gay need your help?
She’s published multiple books that have been reviewed by some of the biggest establishment publications in the world. She’s been on the New York Times Best Sellers list, an editor for a magazine, been a visiting professor at one of the most prestigious universities in the world. She’s also worked for Marvel Comics.
Why does she need your help by promoting her?
I loathe RG, she’s done nothing but promote patriarchal oppression and project her own self loathing on to other women. She regularly states that she’s a subset of her own sex class in deferment to dysphoric paraphiliac men. She can’t define herself or other women without including men. She’s a ladies auxiliary MRA activist that defends patriarchal oppression under the banner of a rainbow flag.
Roxane and I have more in common then I thought; interesting! Much to learn from
Inclusion includes those you disagree with. You don't have to do a paid subscription, but don't pretend to be enlightening if you believe in censorship.
We can subscribe to anyone we wish to. I think reading the work of those we might disagree with is beneficial. After all, our opinion might be wrong. We learn from others, they may even convince us that we are right, if their reasoning proves false.
We all have limited time, using our subscriptions wisely is good, but let’s be open to debate.
I found RG’s comment about not subscribing to people she disagrees with refreshing. No one is obligated to spend time/energy on things they at just piss them off.
And for everyone hitting the fainting couch in this thread; how long have you been subscribed to The Audacity?
Roxane Gay is very smart and a voice worth listening to. It seems this post has provoked the very trolls she mentions. Thank you @substack for this post and it’s clear to me that there is no intention to censor people who do not violate community guidelines. Be nice, be cool. Relax. There’s bigger fish to fry.
(in a plaintive voice) Is modern good? :)
I so appreciate this post...dipping my toe in substack and this is helpful. Reading the comments of angry, ignorant people, however, makes me want to stay curled up in my cozies with my essays safely on Google Drive.