I've never been a fan of the Twitter model with its super short form. There's not enough there to develop an idea, except for certain threads.
Social media algorithms do promote the "rich get richer" scenario as algorithmic popularity begets popularity, much as a snake can eat its own tail.
I've noticed that Substack also goes this route and hope that maybe you will consider changing it up, at least sometimes. What I mean by this is that Substack promotes (in various articles, interviews, etc.) stacks that are already popular, that is to say those that are in the least need of promotion. A similar phenomenon occurs in listings. If at times smaller publications also received some Substack level love, both the creator and Substack could benefit.
However it goes, I'm enjoying the ability to have control over my odd (weird?) fiction and appreciate the work that you've put into the tools that make it possible. I get value and inspiration here, both from the Substack articles and various authors of fiction, essay, and other commentary. Thanks.
"I've never been a fan of the Twitter model with its super short form."
It is very Orwellian, isn't it? Akin to the abolishment of vocabulary to a handful of double-meaning words, the shortform effectively stifles speech and encourages shortsighted, kneejerk, out-of-context, rapid-fire messages, better optimised for a rapid barrage of insults than the deep philosophical leanings.
I think Substack's format reverses that trend, without (somehow) hitting the issues that plagued Blogger or WordPress. I think it is the much needed context in the modern information age.
Yes, you've said it quite nicely. Shortsighted, knee jerk, and frequently way the hell out of context. Attempting to go deeper on Twitter mostly doesn't work. Seems people like the entertainment value found in who can cut the "best" insult in the fewest characters.
I abhor small talk. The twitter format forced me (before permanent expulsion) to be concise in my thoughts and delivery. In some ways, it was great discipline... but I often contend that small talk comes from small minds~ and given the plethora of left-leaning, woke saturation on that platform, perhaps it's best to let sleeping dogs lie. I still look forward to being reinstated, once Musk cleans house and restores sanity over there, but it'll never again be my favorite social media pitstop, 'cause I have way too much head and heart to impart. :~)
What does left leaning mean? This is the kind of generalisation that I would have thought is an example of what Substack might abhor. It appears to be an insinuation that any ideas that might embrace social values in contrast to total individualism is bad. As for WOKE; it's another of those generalisations that is meaningless apart from the fact that it implies something or someone is somehow bad.
Depends on who's using the term, and how it's being used (obviously). Aside from being grammatically incorrect, racially derived, driven, sanctioned and turned into a colloquialism during the Biden-time administration, I hate it as much as I detest the too-often, overused greeting "hey," which makes full grown adults sound like the teenagers who gave birth to it. I for one, wanna reinvigorate the adjective, "bitchin!"
"As for WOKE; it's another of those generalisations that is meaningless"
Actually, the term is often used to refer to a subset of political actions, practically always in relation to 'social justice', who would historically often go around screaming people needed to 'Wake Up' and declaring they are already 'awake' [woke] and that everyone else was 'asleep'.
So I would reject the assertion it is 'meaningless'. It has history and connotations, and the colloquial political usage by people has relevance to them.
That is an interesting and good explanation of the term, WOKE. As you rightly say it is used in relation to social justice. But there is nothing wrong with 'social justice' itself so it would appear that the negative connotation has got to do with people who, you explain, are screaming at others to 'wake up' to these social issues around justice. The problem, I see, with your definition is that 'WOKE' would equally apply to people who have different opinions on social justice and also scream loudly that they are in the right.
It would appear to me that what is really at the heart of this matter is the alarm that the term 'social justice' evokes in many people. Even the word 'social' triggers reactions of hate for anyone who might use such terms and somehow this term WOKE appears to engender this violent reaction to anything prefaced with the word 'social'.
I'm an Irishman and European and we live in a Republic that embraces social justice and ideas around social responsibilities around all our citizens especially, for example, those who find themselves seriously disadvantage through lack of educational or work opportunities. We don't always fully live up to our responsibilities but we do take them as necessary criteria for a civil society.
As an outside observer of American life I think the USA is really in a perilous state. The term WOKE has somehow become a mindless catch-word implying someting sinister about thos e who use it.
"But there is nothing wrong with 'social justice' itself"
"Social justice" - like many shallow, virtue signalling terms - often doesn't actually involve any sort of social justice. People who work under it try to abuse white kids telling them they're racist simply for being white (which is such a meta-level of paradox and hypocrisy), telling companies to remove customers who say things they don't like (if you've ever been censored or deplatformed on Twitter you can thank the so-called 'social justice' movement), whilst often engaging in fraud and financial corruption themselves.
Case in point, the BLM leader who took $14 million to buy a mansion and never split the money with the other BLM members.
None of those examples you cite have anything to do with social justice. Social justice is a well defined idea. You are conflating the idea of people who conveniently misuse the term. It's like people claiming to be Christian who in effect adopt the most unchristian-like attitudes in their daily lives and attitudes towards other.
There is no enforcing body nor rulebook nor bible akin to Christianity for 'social justice' in which to scrutinise or compare, and unlike a religion where some sort of deity who enforces some rules is implied, there is no specific standard or gatekeeping that occurs in this context.
Social justice is defined by a combination of those who identify as the group, and what the group as a whole does in response when they commit crimes or hypocrisies.
I reject the association myself. I do not need to identify with an arbitrary movement in order to be fair handed with people.
Of course one does not need to be a member of a specific group to adopt the principles of social justice which in global terms covers Human Rights, Access, Participation and Equity in society. However specific groups like BLM is an example of racial inequality which is most definitely a social justice issue. So BLM does legitimately come under the umbrella of Social Justice. The same goes for any sub-group of society which is unfairly treated because they belong to that subgroup.
How some people behave within any subgroup is entirely a different matter but does not necessarily de-legitimise the group as a whole or their founding principles.
" one does not need to be a member of a specific group to adopt the principles of social justice which in global terms covers Human Rights, Access, Participation and Equity in society"
I don't consider it to have any principles, and certainly I would not be dictated to by some "global terms". After all, being fair handed is not the same as being dictated to by a global corporate set of groupthink ideologies that are out-of-touch with reality.
"How some people behave within any subgroup is entirely a different matter but does not necessarily de-legitimise the group as a whole or their founding principles."
It does if they proclaim to be bringing black equality and then disenfranchise black people without being called out in any meaningful context by the group. I'd call that a fraud or a scam.
"specific groups like BLM is an example of racial inequality which is most definitely a social justice issue. So BLM does legitimately come under the umbrella of Social Justice"
This contradicts your earlier point where you said:
"None of those examples you cite have anything to do with social justice. Social justice is a well defined idea."
How comes you couldn't recognise it as social justice before if it is a "well defined idea"?
You are right. I should have been more specific in my response. That's the danger of making sweeping statements which I did. I've since clarified my thinking on that.
I've never been a fan of the Twitter model with its super short form. There's not enough there to develop an idea, except for certain threads.
Social media algorithms do promote the "rich get richer" scenario as algorithmic popularity begets popularity, much as a snake can eat its own tail.
I've noticed that Substack also goes this route and hope that maybe you will consider changing it up, at least sometimes. What I mean by this is that Substack promotes (in various articles, interviews, etc.) stacks that are already popular, that is to say those that are in the least need of promotion. A similar phenomenon occurs in listings. If at times smaller publications also received some Substack level love, both the creator and Substack could benefit.
However it goes, I'm enjoying the ability to have control over my odd (weird?) fiction and appreciate the work that you've put into the tools that make it possible. I get value and inspiration here, both from the Substack articles and various authors of fiction, essay, and other commentary. Thanks.
"I've never been a fan of the Twitter model with its super short form."
It is very Orwellian, isn't it? Akin to the abolishment of vocabulary to a handful of double-meaning words, the shortform effectively stifles speech and encourages shortsighted, kneejerk, out-of-context, rapid-fire messages, better optimised for a rapid barrage of insults than the deep philosophical leanings.
I think Substack's format reverses that trend, without (somehow) hitting the issues that plagued Blogger or WordPress. I think it is the much needed context in the modern information age.
Yes, you've said it quite nicely. Shortsighted, knee jerk, and frequently way the hell out of context. Attempting to go deeper on Twitter mostly doesn't work. Seems people like the entertainment value found in who can cut the "best" insult in the fewest characters.
Amen.
I abhor small talk. The twitter format forced me (before permanent expulsion) to be concise in my thoughts and delivery. In some ways, it was great discipline... but I often contend that small talk comes from small minds~ and given the plethora of left-leaning, woke saturation on that platform, perhaps it's best to let sleeping dogs lie. I still look forward to being reinstated, once Musk cleans house and restores sanity over there, but it'll never again be my favorite social media pitstop, 'cause I have way too much head and heart to impart. :~)
What does left leaning mean? This is the kind of generalisation that I would have thought is an example of what Substack might abhor. It appears to be an insinuation that any ideas that might embrace social values in contrast to total individualism is bad. As for WOKE; it's another of those generalisations that is meaningless apart from the fact that it implies something or someone is somehow bad.
Depends on who's using the term, and how it's being used (obviously). Aside from being grammatically incorrect, racially derived, driven, sanctioned and turned into a colloquialism during the Biden-time administration, I hate it as much as I detest the too-often, overused greeting "hey," which makes full grown adults sound like the teenagers who gave birth to it. I for one, wanna reinvigorate the adjective, "bitchin!"
"As for WOKE; it's another of those generalisations that is meaningless"
Actually, the term is often used to refer to a subset of political actions, practically always in relation to 'social justice', who would historically often go around screaming people needed to 'Wake Up' and declaring they are already 'awake' [woke] and that everyone else was 'asleep'.
So I would reject the assertion it is 'meaningless'. It has history and connotations, and the colloquial political usage by people has relevance to them.
That is an interesting and good explanation of the term, WOKE. As you rightly say it is used in relation to social justice. But there is nothing wrong with 'social justice' itself so it would appear that the negative connotation has got to do with people who, you explain, are screaming at others to 'wake up' to these social issues around justice. The problem, I see, with your definition is that 'WOKE' would equally apply to people who have different opinions on social justice and also scream loudly that they are in the right.
It would appear to me that what is really at the heart of this matter is the alarm that the term 'social justice' evokes in many people. Even the word 'social' triggers reactions of hate for anyone who might use such terms and somehow this term WOKE appears to engender this violent reaction to anything prefaced with the word 'social'.
I'm an Irishman and European and we live in a Republic that embraces social justice and ideas around social responsibilities around all our citizens especially, for example, those who find themselves seriously disadvantage through lack of educational or work opportunities. We don't always fully live up to our responsibilities but we do take them as necessary criteria for a civil society.
As an outside observer of American life I think the USA is really in a perilous state. The term WOKE has somehow become a mindless catch-word implying someting sinister about thos e who use it.
"But there is nothing wrong with 'social justice' itself"
"Social justice" - like many shallow, virtue signalling terms - often doesn't actually involve any sort of social justice. People who work under it try to abuse white kids telling them they're racist simply for being white (which is such a meta-level of paradox and hypocrisy), telling companies to remove customers who say things they don't like (if you've ever been censored or deplatformed on Twitter you can thank the so-called 'social justice' movement), whilst often engaging in fraud and financial corruption themselves.
Case in point, the BLM leader who took $14 million to buy a mansion and never split the money with the other BLM members.
None of those examples you cite have anything to do with social justice. Social justice is a well defined idea. You are conflating the idea of people who conveniently misuse the term. It's like people claiming to be Christian who in effect adopt the most unchristian-like attitudes in their daily lives and attitudes towards other.
The one example I give - BLM (Black Lives Matter) explicitly identify themselves as a social justice organisation (https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/black-lives-matter-growth-new-social-justice-movement/).
The individual who purchased the mansion not only identifies as BLM, but as one of the co-founders (
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/controversial-blm-co-founder-doled-out-8-million-of-groups-money-for-canadian-mansion-financial-records-show). I could also reference the black businesses that were destroyed during the BLM protests (https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2020/09/06/no-justice-as-blm-burns-black-owned-business-in-rochester/).
There is no enforcing body nor rulebook nor bible akin to Christianity for 'social justice' in which to scrutinise or compare, and unlike a religion where some sort of deity who enforces some rules is implied, there is no specific standard or gatekeeping that occurs in this context.
Social justice is defined by a combination of those who identify as the group, and what the group as a whole does in response when they commit crimes or hypocrisies.
I reject the association myself. I do not need to identify with an arbitrary movement in order to be fair handed with people.
Of course one does not need to be a member of a specific group to adopt the principles of social justice which in global terms covers Human Rights, Access, Participation and Equity in society. However specific groups like BLM is an example of racial inequality which is most definitely a social justice issue. So BLM does legitimately come under the umbrella of Social Justice. The same goes for any sub-group of society which is unfairly treated because they belong to that subgroup.
How some people behave within any subgroup is entirely a different matter but does not necessarily de-legitimise the group as a whole or their founding principles.
" one does not need to be a member of a specific group to adopt the principles of social justice which in global terms covers Human Rights, Access, Participation and Equity in society"
I don't consider it to have any principles, and certainly I would not be dictated to by some "global terms". After all, being fair handed is not the same as being dictated to by a global corporate set of groupthink ideologies that are out-of-touch with reality.
"How some people behave within any subgroup is entirely a different matter but does not necessarily de-legitimise the group as a whole or their founding principles."
It does if they proclaim to be bringing black equality and then disenfranchise black people without being called out in any meaningful context by the group. I'd call that a fraud or a scam.
"specific groups like BLM is an example of racial inequality which is most definitely a social justice issue. So BLM does legitimately come under the umbrella of Social Justice"
This contradicts your earlier point where you said:
"None of those examples you cite have anything to do with social justice. Social justice is a well defined idea."
How comes you couldn't recognise it as social justice before if it is a "well defined idea"?
You are right. I should have been more specific in my response. That's the danger of making sweeping statements which I did. I've since clarified my thinking on that.