i found meg's idea about "it's a business decision" to allow free speech but not porn to be sort of superficially compelling, but to lose fidelity completely upon examination. if you're hosting a book club, it's one thing to permit or encourage challenging ideas about literature and another to let people digress into the sexual predilections or problems with bowel movements.
it's just not situationally appropriate and no one want the interaction to go that way. therefore, the host makes a choice. it has nothing at all to do with business. neither does this.
the host simply made a choice about the focus of their community.
further, it seems deeply hypocritical of meg to on the one hand demand curation rights to "not make it that sort of place" which at the same time denying them to substack on porn when they "don't want to make it that place." (and let's face it, porn is hardly a suppressed commodity online where creators are desperate to fins some way to publish)
it's a fake issue to generate fake enragement to hide fake claims from scrutiny.
Meg's flouncing about how somebody who left a mildly critical comment was sent there by CJ Hopkins to avoid her block was my favorite. She reminded everybody that CJ had 18k+ subscribers and lamented that they could all come and torment her while CJ was blocked, so why won't Substack do the right thing and get rid of CJ once and for all?
Not only was there any evidence that CJ set off a dog pile -- there was no evidence that the person who commented came to Meg's comments from CJ's site. But that single polite but skeptical comment was evidence that she was in danger of being attacked by radical fascists.
It's all so performative and so tiresome. Blocking requires a few seconds of your time and will take care of 99%+ of all trolls immediately. And the remainder will generally lose interest after a while if ignored. But they will create all kinds of imaginary dangers to get their imaginary hall monitor sash.
it’s not about “safe spaces” it’s about erecting an aristocracy of the malformed and insane so they can invert the persecution fantasies they have generated for themselves as an excuse for their own failures to strive and attain and become resilient into a weaponized outward facing manifestation of bullying and tyranny of the other side.
The narcissist reversal is the standard operating procedure for cluster-b types. It goes by a few different names, DARVO is the other one, Deny Attack Reverse Victim & Offender. Lobaczewski called it the "reversive blockade" where the liar lies with the complete opposite of the truth so observers/independent parties try to find "the average" of the two sides. His book, Political Ponerology is a must-read to grok why governments and corporations succumb to corruption given a long-enough timeline.
Excellent analysis! CW Spengler is a spambot troll just trying to manufacture a controversy and take advantage of the ensuing Streisand effect. His kind is best treated by ignoring him, as well as by utilizing the block/ignore feature on notes and banning him from your own stack if he starts spamming up your comment section. But as you note, such nazi trolls are vanishingly rare on this site, especially compared to the much larger number of good-faith dissident thinkers and skeptics that the Karens want to control via censorship. Thankfully, Substack (at least so far) is not taking the bait.
i found meg's idea about "it's a business decision" to allow free speech but not porn to be sort of superficially compelling, but to lose fidelity completely upon examination. if you're hosting a book club, it's one thing to permit or encourage challenging ideas about literature and another to let people digress into the sexual predilections or problems with bowel movements.
it's just not situationally appropriate and no one want the interaction to go that way. therefore, the host makes a choice. it has nothing at all to do with business. neither does this.
the host simply made a choice about the focus of their community.
further, it seems deeply hypocritical of meg to on the one hand demand curation rights to "not make it that sort of place" which at the same time denying them to substack on porn when they "don't want to make it that place." (and let's face it, porn is hardly a suppressed commodity online where creators are desperate to fins some way to publish)
it's a fake issue to generate fake enragement to hide fake claims from scrutiny.
Meg's flouncing about how somebody who left a mildly critical comment was sent there by CJ Hopkins to avoid her block was my favorite. She reminded everybody that CJ had 18k+ subscribers and lamented that they could all come and torment her while CJ was blocked, so why won't Substack do the right thing and get rid of CJ once and for all?
Not only was there any evidence that CJ set off a dog pile -- there was no evidence that the person who commented came to Meg's comments from CJ's site. But that single polite but skeptical comment was evidence that she was in danger of being attacked by radical fascists.
It's all so performative and so tiresome. Blocking requires a few seconds of your time and will take care of 99%+ of all trolls immediately. And the remainder will generally lose interest after a while if ignored. But they will create all kinds of imaginary dangers to get their imaginary hall monitor sash.
it’s not about “safe spaces” it’s about erecting an aristocracy of the malformed and insane so they can invert the persecution fantasies they have generated for themselves as an excuse for their own failures to strive and attain and become resilient into a weaponized outward facing manifestation of bullying and tyranny of the other side.
The narcissist reversal is the standard operating procedure for cluster-b types. It goes by a few different names, DARVO is the other one, Deny Attack Reverse Victim & Offender. Lobaczewski called it the "reversive blockade" where the liar lies with the complete opposite of the truth so observers/independent parties try to find "the average" of the two sides. His book, Political Ponerology is a must-read to grok why governments and corporations succumb to corruption given a long-enough timeline.
Excellent analysis! CW Spengler is a spambot troll just trying to manufacture a controversy and take advantage of the ensuing Streisand effect. His kind is best treated by ignoring him, as well as by utilizing the block/ignore feature on notes and banning him from your own stack if he starts spamming up your comment section. But as you note, such nazi trolls are vanishingly rare on this site, especially compared to the much larger number of good-faith dissident thinkers and skeptics that the Karens want to control via censorship. Thankfully, Substack (at least so far) is not taking the bait.