"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???
Yeah, this caught my attention too. People she disagrees with are stupid. She’s in favor of censoring them as well. Then again, I suppose that is emblematic of “the modern writer.”
I subscribe to people, who have a large readership, even if I disagree with the author (certain limitations apply, because i can't stand lies beyond a certain limit). It is, after all, impossible to fully agree with anyone. My favorite is A Midwestern Doctor, whose authenticity and integrity are unique, although he sometimes represents views that I cannot condone.
I don't subscribe to "authors" who demand money up front, reserve articles for paid subscribers, or disallow comments by free subscribers (Jon Rappoport is the sole exception).
Substack is one of the few places, where commenters can still talk freely, and I am grateful for that. In my Substack, I expect people to get together, share ideas in a respectful and civilized manner (although I've never banned anyone for a single minute); my goals are to inform, to entertain, and to inspire. Nobody has to agree with me and nobody has to pay me (those, who believe I'm worth it, still volunteer to do so).
" 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 . . .
Substack is founded on the belief that writers and their work deserve respect. We ask that you keep conversations civil in the comments of this publication. Respect one other’s perspectives and life experiences in your conversations, and refrain from cruel or derogatory language.
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.
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.
Hey there. The goal of this publication is to offer guidance and inspiration to writers - not writer promotion. Sometimes that will be from emerging voices who have found success, sometimes it will be from established voices with wisdom to share. Roxane is a long-time online writer, from whom we feel our entire writer community could learn about how she's built her career and sees online writing amidst her other work. But we love sharing stories from all stripes of writers, and you'll see us continue to do that.
Yes but you do realize that it serves both purposes right? I have a background in marketing and digital media, I know how this works.
I can appreciate that she has insight that might be valuable to people and I applaud her for that.
But you pride yourself on being pro-free speech and allowing people to say what they need to. Yet in this very piece, she explicitly says that she thinks that there are people who shouldn’t be on Substack. She’s promoting the idea of the removal of people from your platform based on the fact that she doesn’t like what they say.
Do you see how that conflicts with your stated goals of being an open platform? And how by having her speak with your voice by having her on your main page, you are openly promoting that viewpoint?
Of course, as someone who believes in free speech, I don’t she should be removed from the platform. But I had planned to be exclusive to Substack for the foreseeable future. Now I have to consider other options.
Criticizing Substack is fair game. We welcome and value critiques of Substack and its policies (as long as you keep the language civil). There are plenty of writers who use Substack who disagree with us in some form.
Which is admirable and I applaud you for being willing to do that. However, many people have seen this story before. Lots of the people here have come because people like Roxane Gay and other people who advocate against free speech come to platforms like this. Many of them have been kicked off other platforms.
What generally happens is that people with big audiences come to the platform, most of them with large audiences and reputations to maintain. They become a disproportionate amount of value for the platform. As a result, they advocate to the platform that people who might damage their reputation be removed from the platform. And because the platform is dependent on these people with large audiences for their continued existence, they give them what they want. Eliminating what are considered "problematic people".
How exactly are you going to prevent this from happening?
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.
Substack is founded on the belief that writers and their work deserve respect. We ask that you keep conversations civil in the comments of this publication. Respect one other’s perspectives and life experiences in your conversations, and refrain from cruel or derogatory language.
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 didn't specify which writers she thinks are unintelligent or toxic. Maybe she refers to racists and homophobes. Yet these commenters just assume that she needs to broaden her views.
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.
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.
What is with this horrendous trend in America - which I find especially horrifying coming from writers - for censorship of things they don't agree with?
"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."
Who gets to judge what are "truly toxic and dangerous perspectives?"
I have a sneaking suspicion that she would find Messy Times toxic and dangerous.... I suppose that is a compliment.
I would suggest the snowflakes out there either learn to engage in a dialogue to try some good old fashioned persuasion, or just avoid reading ideas they don't like.
"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???
Yeah, this caught my attention too. People she disagrees with are stupid. She’s in favor of censoring them as well. Then again, I suppose that is emblematic of “the modern writer.”
I subscribe to people, who have a large readership, even if I disagree with the author (certain limitations apply, because i can't stand lies beyond a certain limit). It is, after all, impossible to fully agree with anyone. My favorite is A Midwestern Doctor, whose authenticity and integrity are unique, although he sometimes represents views that I cannot condone.
I don't subscribe to "authors" who demand money up front, reserve articles for paid subscribers, or disallow comments by free subscribers (Jon Rappoport is the sole exception).
Substack is one of the few places, where commenters can still talk freely, and I am grateful for that. In my Substack, I expect people to get together, share ideas in a respectful and civilized manner (although I've never banned anyone for a single minute); my goals are to inform, to entertain, and to inspire. Nobody has to agree with me and nobody has to pay me (those, who believe I'm worth it, still volunteer to do so).
A Midwestern Doctor is my favorite too. We'll agree to agree on this one! 🙂
The greatest mark of my intelligence is how closely I agree with you. Now you say it. It is true.
I can learn most from people who disagree with me. Am I unintelligent? /joking
" 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 agree. I think it's great that Substack gives everyone a voice, but this wouldn't have been the one I would have promoted. Oh, well.
Well, she can try, I guess.
"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 . . .
Substack is founded on the belief that writers and their work deserve respect. We ask that you keep conversations civil in the comments of this publication. Respect one other’s perspectives and life experiences in your conversations, and refrain from cruel or derogatory language.
Her post is disrespectful and antithetical to the spirit of Substack as stated.
Writers that do not respect other writers do not deserve nor should they expect respect from readers and other writers alike.
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.
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!
I certainly appreciate the open-mindedness, just not the bad taste. Why anyone would want to subscribe to such a terrible attitude is beyond me.
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?
Hey there. The goal of this publication is to offer guidance and inspiration to writers - not writer promotion. Sometimes that will be from emerging voices who have found success, sometimes it will be from established voices with wisdom to share. Roxane is a long-time online writer, from whom we feel our entire writer community could learn about how she's built her career and sees online writing amidst her other work. But we love sharing stories from all stripes of writers, and you'll see us continue to do that.
Yes but you do realize that it serves both purposes right? I have a background in marketing and digital media, I know how this works.
I can appreciate that she has insight that might be valuable to people and I applaud her for that.
But you pride yourself on being pro-free speech and allowing people to say what they need to. Yet in this very piece, she explicitly says that she thinks that there are people who shouldn’t be on Substack. She’s promoting the idea of the removal of people from your platform based on the fact that she doesn’t like what they say.
Do you see how that conflicts with your stated goals of being an open platform? And how by having her speak with your voice by having her on your main page, you are openly promoting that viewpoint?
Of course, as someone who believes in free speech, I don’t she should be removed from the platform. But I had planned to be exclusive to Substack for the foreseeable future. Now I have to consider other options.
Criticizing Substack is fair game. We welcome and value critiques of Substack and its policies (as long as you keep the language civil). There are plenty of writers who use Substack who disagree with us in some form.
Which is admirable and I applaud you for being willing to do that. However, many people have seen this story before. Lots of the people here have come because people like Roxane Gay and other people who advocate against free speech come to platforms like this. Many of them have been kicked off other platforms.
What generally happens is that people with big audiences come to the platform, most of them with large audiences and reputations to maintain. They become a disproportionate amount of value for the platform. As a result, they advocate to the platform that people who might damage their reputation be removed from the platform. And because the platform is dependent on these people with large audiences for their continued existence, they give them what they want. Eliminating what are considered "problematic people".
How exactly are you going to prevent this from happening?
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.
Substack is founded on the belief that writers and their work deserve respect. We ask that you keep conversations civil in the comments of this publication. Respect one other’s perspectives and life experiences in your conversations, and refrain from cruel or derogatory language.
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 didn't specify which writers she thinks are unintelligent or toxic. Maybe she refers to racists and homophobes. Yet these commenters just assume that she needs to broaden her views.
Guess what? She is a terrible person that all can easily see.
Why should that matter in addressing the value of an opnion?
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.
Disliking or disagreeing isn't being a "troll". If she's allowed her opinion, so are we. That's how things in the adult world work.
(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.
What is with this horrendous trend in America - which I find especially horrifying coming from writers - for censorship of things they don't agree with?
"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."
Who gets to judge what are "truly toxic and dangerous perspectives?"
I have a sneaking suspicion that she would find Messy Times toxic and dangerous.... I suppose that is a compliment.
I would suggest the snowflakes out there either learn to engage in a dialogue to try some good old fashioned persuasion, or just avoid reading ideas they don't like.