3 ms·
Yah, good question. Some example in this bit would have been good: > While annoying, I wasn’t particularly concerned about these developments because I thought
by twaitt 6y ago
Yah, good question. Some example in this bit would have been good:
> While annoying, I wasn’t particularly concerned about these developments because I thought that this was an open platform with plenty of writers I disagreed with. However, it’s become clear that Substack is specifically seeking out these big named writers. In some cases they’ve paid them large six figure advances to move to Substack. It doesn’t take much effort or intellect to spend your time denouncing movements for justice, and now there is big money to be made doing it.
- D13Fd 6y agoI thought the Andrew Sullivan example was pretty enlightening. He is a person who has interesting views on many, many issues. Yes, I definitely find some of his views on trans and race issues repugnant or downright disgusting. But he raises them with an open mind, airs dissenting views, and often (especially on his podcast) provides a platform for alternatives. For example, he recently hosted a respectful discussion with Mara Keisling, a trans rights activist, about trans issues. She definitely came out on top on most of the points, and hearing the back-and-forth really helped to improve my understanding of the issues. Is Sullivan the kind of person who deserves to be de-platformed? Was it wrong for Substack to invite him to its platform? No, in my opinion. He's not pushing an ideology or trying to silence others. He's just a persuasive writer with some very wrong-headed and gross views on some things. We're never going to advance as a society if everyone who holds a diverse opinion is silenced.