It’s messed up that they don’t allow sex workers. If they’re going to allow Nazis to make money then they should allow sex workers also. Not spammers though. Lol that’s where I draw the line.
Great initiative, though, let's be real, Substack has LONG had this problem. It hasn't been a secret. Which is why so many have been looking for alternatives (that don't really exist).
Dec 14, 2023·edited Dec 14, 2023Liked by Mark Dykeman
As I quote here https://innerlifecollaborative.substack.com/p/the-survivor-dilemma: "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me."
Thanks for this - an essential post. Please count me in for all future efforts to rid Substack of this horror. Add my name - no one who supports the far right or terrorism should be allowed a platform. These are not legitimate positions in any respect. Not at all.
I actually had to ponder this for a while, Mark, which as an ethicist, is unusual. I ended up consulting my wife, who is Jewish American, and this is what she said:
1. That we need to know EXACTLY what these people are up to and thus their views should be made as public as possible.
2. That we should not give up an inch regarding generating sympathy or allowing them to play the victim in any way, which they could do if they are 'cancelled' in various fora.
I myself would add:
3. Their views must be public so that they can be confronted with superior thought and argument, in order to help demonstrate their inadequacy to the facts.
As far as 'hate speech' is concerned, setting boundaries can be difficult in a free society, or one that attempts to be so. This is another issue, perhaps a 4th, wherein if one bans certain voices, one is acting just like the fascists. Consider the following two paragraphs:
1. Leonard Bernstein was a great conductor and musician who dreamed of being a great composer. He knew very well that he was not and hence there was sometimes a trace of bitterness about him, in spite of the oft pure joy he emulated when bringing out the best performances in others. He was not immune to projecting this auto-resentment against others, as in his treatment of Steven Sondheim, for example. He was also a passable music theorist, and his 1973 Norton lectures are certainly worth watching, though I could have done better. The fact that he had a Jewish background certainly helped his ability to network early on; his mentor was none other than Aaron Copland, for instance. But the idea that this was, in his case, a deciding factor, is highly unlikely given his own personal talent.
2. Bernstein is a typical example of a Jew who, in spite of his mediocre pretense at composition was able to get himself a prestigious career and the adoration of millions. The only reason such people are so enabled is because the Jews have a lock on the culture industries, both high and low, and they actively conspire to keep others out of it. The dominant presence of Jews in the arts and entertainment allows them to frame the very questions the rest of us are able to imagine, and decoy our senses away from the fact they run the show, and continue to do so whether or not any of them have any real talent. The fact that some may have some ability is taken as just a better way to hoodwink the rest of us, who are told that we can't participate in cultural affairs because we're inferior in our gifts.
I think most of us would agree that paragraph 2 is quite offensive, and also manipulative of the facts at hand, whereas paragraph 1 simply presents a description and subsequent interpretation of those same facts. Interpretations by their nature are open and debatable. In my example, I would have to go out and prove I could do better than Bernstein at the Norton's - I can't play piano so my lectures would perhaps not be as exciting, at the least - and I would never be invited to do so. I take it that #2 is more of the style of presentation of the persons you named in your letter - I had never heard of any of them - but you can see that setting up boundaries regarding what constitutes 'hatred' is a challenge. I deliberately couched #2 in such language that implied that 'Jews' were by nature manipulators and self-interested, and that they would go to any length to secure the sources of ideas in any culture they had 'joined'. If this is the kind of thing that is being purveyed on SubStack and elsewhere, we absolutely need to hear of it and the sooner the better, so I would suggest that, as noble as your effort was in this case, that it is a mistake and that we need rather to blow it all wide open.
I will be writing a more scholarly piece about another phrase, a notorious one, that you cited in your letter, so I hope readers will look for that later this weekend. - Cheers, Greg
Well that certainly puts a different light on it, so I am not disagreeing with you on such a point of mutable policy pertaining to this server. I can only suppose then that money is a variable, though it can't be the only one as erotic writing would also generate cash flow for them as well, one supposes. Ideally one would be consistent in the application of policy. Its beyond me why writings by sex workers, if not themselves pornographic, should be banned.
I should rephrase my general point then and suggest that in cases where there is no third variable, such as profits or some other editorial standard, though one that seems obscure to me here, then we need to be as public as possible with viewpoints that contain dangerous or reckless biases. Thank you for clarifying your intent.
I would feel more comfortable if this server simply served all comers, no matter how vexing, in order to best serve the culture as a whole. We cannot be rid of ignorance unless it is confronted directly and publicly, in the same way that any shadow is dispelled by the brightest lights that can be shone upon it.
I tip my hat to you for this Mark. 💪🏼💪🏼💪🏼🙏🏼
Yikes. And thanks!
Add my name! I’m also against known terrorist groups and fundraising for terrorism and violence. Shocking, I know.
It’s messed up that they don’t allow sex workers. If they’re going to allow Nazis to make money then they should allow sex workers also. Not spammers though. Lol that’s where I draw the line.
Great initiative, though, let's be real, Substack has LONG had this problem. It hasn't been a secret. Which is why so many have been looking for alternatives (that don't really exist).
As I quote here https://innerlifecollaborative.substack.com/p/the-survivor-dilemma: "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me."
If not on Substack, where will any of us find a LAST resort to CIVIL mindedness?
Thanks Mark.
Thanks for this - an essential post. Please count me in for all future efforts to rid Substack of this horror. Add my name - no one who supports the far right or terrorism should be allowed a platform. These are not legitimate positions in any respect. Not at all.
I actually had to ponder this for a while, Mark, which as an ethicist, is unusual. I ended up consulting my wife, who is Jewish American, and this is what she said:
1. That we need to know EXACTLY what these people are up to and thus their views should be made as public as possible.
2. That we should not give up an inch regarding generating sympathy or allowing them to play the victim in any way, which they could do if they are 'cancelled' in various fora.
I myself would add:
3. Their views must be public so that they can be confronted with superior thought and argument, in order to help demonstrate their inadequacy to the facts.
As far as 'hate speech' is concerned, setting boundaries can be difficult in a free society, or one that attempts to be so. This is another issue, perhaps a 4th, wherein if one bans certain voices, one is acting just like the fascists. Consider the following two paragraphs:
1. Leonard Bernstein was a great conductor and musician who dreamed of being a great composer. He knew very well that he was not and hence there was sometimes a trace of bitterness about him, in spite of the oft pure joy he emulated when bringing out the best performances in others. He was not immune to projecting this auto-resentment against others, as in his treatment of Steven Sondheim, for example. He was also a passable music theorist, and his 1973 Norton lectures are certainly worth watching, though I could have done better. The fact that he had a Jewish background certainly helped his ability to network early on; his mentor was none other than Aaron Copland, for instance. But the idea that this was, in his case, a deciding factor, is highly unlikely given his own personal talent.
2. Bernstein is a typical example of a Jew who, in spite of his mediocre pretense at composition was able to get himself a prestigious career and the adoration of millions. The only reason such people are so enabled is because the Jews have a lock on the culture industries, both high and low, and they actively conspire to keep others out of it. The dominant presence of Jews in the arts and entertainment allows them to frame the very questions the rest of us are able to imagine, and decoy our senses away from the fact they run the show, and continue to do so whether or not any of them have any real talent. The fact that some may have some ability is taken as just a better way to hoodwink the rest of us, who are told that we can't participate in cultural affairs because we're inferior in our gifts.
I think most of us would agree that paragraph 2 is quite offensive, and also manipulative of the facts at hand, whereas paragraph 1 simply presents a description and subsequent interpretation of those same facts. Interpretations by their nature are open and debatable. In my example, I would have to go out and prove I could do better than Bernstein at the Norton's - I can't play piano so my lectures would perhaps not be as exciting, at the least - and I would never be invited to do so. I take it that #2 is more of the style of presentation of the persons you named in your letter - I had never heard of any of them - but you can see that setting up boundaries regarding what constitutes 'hatred' is a challenge. I deliberately couched #2 in such language that implied that 'Jews' were by nature manipulators and self-interested, and that they would go to any length to secure the sources of ideas in any culture they had 'joined'. If this is the kind of thing that is being purveyed on SubStack and elsewhere, we absolutely need to hear of it and the sooner the better, so I would suggest that, as noble as your effort was in this case, that it is a mistake and that we need rather to blow it all wide open.
I will be writing a more scholarly piece about another phrase, a notorious one, that you cited in your letter, so I hope readers will look for that later this weekend. - Cheers, Greg
Well that certainly puts a different light on it, so I am not disagreeing with you on such a point of mutable policy pertaining to this server. I can only suppose then that money is a variable, though it can't be the only one as erotic writing would also generate cash flow for them as well, one supposes. Ideally one would be consistent in the application of policy. Its beyond me why writings by sex workers, if not themselves pornographic, should be banned.
I should rephrase my general point then and suggest that in cases where there is no third variable, such as profits or some other editorial standard, though one that seems obscure to me here, then we need to be as public as possible with viewpoints that contain dangerous or reckless biases. Thank you for clarifying your intent.
Okay, in response to Mark's mention of a notorious phrase, here is my attempt to move the historical conversation forward.
https://drgvloewen.substack.com/p/is-there-a-jewish-question
I would feel more comfortable if this server simply served all comers, no matter how vexing, in order to best serve the culture as a whole. We cannot be rid of ignorance unless it is confronted directly and publicly, in the same way that any shadow is dispelled by the brightest lights that can be shone upon it.
Damn. And I just shifted over to substack thinking it was a haven for intellectuals, not Nazi simpletons.