7 ms·

>Substack already tends to specialize on hyper-conservative and anti-woke ramblings; I'm curious to see how this will play out in the long term. Probably very

>Substack already tends to specialize on hyper-conservative and anti-woke ramblings; I'm curious to see how this will play out in the long term. Probably very well, for the same reason that Joe Rogan's podcast is the most listened to podcast in the US: those views are widely accepted by about 50% of the population. Despite your pejorative labelling you aren't actually finding extreme minority viewpoints on substack, you're finding modern-day mainstream conservative perspectives. The readership potential is huge.

bambax 5y ago
Well, to mention just one example, "The Abbey of Misrule" (https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com) pushes antivaxx rhetoric. I don't know if that represents "50% of the population" (let's hope not) but it's abhorrent in any case.
- Lascaille 5y ago
  I read all of the articles that are available for free by that author and didn't see anything out of the ordinary. Well within the overton window. Y'all really think that moderate conservative writing - it didn't stray in terms of emotion into what I would consider rhetoric - is abhorrent? Wow. That's some thick-walled bubble you're in.
  - bambax 5y ago
    We have different ordinaries.
    - Lascaille 5y ago
      Yeah. You're the one calling this service - which has attracted a sizeable number of perfectly mainstream conservative writers - 'the perfect honeypot.' We definitely do have different ordinaries.
- Gareth321 5y ago
  I don't find any of this offensive or extreme. Easily within the mainstream conservative spread. I think you need to broaden your news sources.
  - bambax 5y ago
    > Internment. Mandatory medication. Segregation of whole sections of society. Mass sackings. A drumbeat media consensus. The systematic censoring of dissent. The deliberate creation by the state and the press of a climate of fear and suspicion. What could possibly justify this? Perhaps the combination of a terrible pandemic which killed or maimed large percentages of those it infected, and the existence of a safe and reliable medicine which was proven to prevent its spread. This, of course, is what we are said to be living through. This is the Narrative. > But it is clear enough by now that the Narrative is not true. Covid-19 is a nasty illness which should be taken seriously, especially by those who are especially vulnerable to it. But it is nowhere near dangerous enough - if anything could be - to justify the creation of a global police state. [1] If you don't see the conspiracy theory in this, then I can't help you. (Me, all I need is the capital N at "Narrative".) [1] https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com/p/the-vaccine-moment-part-one https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com/p/the-vaccine-moment-par...
    - cheeseomlit 5y ago
      That all sounds pretty accurate and reasonable to me. I guess we can't help each other.
    - native_samples 5y ago
      It doesn't posit the existence of a conspiracy anywhere. "Narratives" can be emergent phenomena, just like religion is. It doesn't require cigarette smoking men in back rooms. You seem to be particularly triggered by the word narrative - ignore that word if you like, or mentally replace it with "what governments tell us" and which part of what was said above is false?
- laretluval 5y ago
  Thanks for the rec! This looks like something I'll be adding to the list of Substacks I check regularly.
  - bambax 5y ago
    You're welcome! Substack is fast becoming a perfect honeypot.
- isaacremuant 5y ago
  "Antivaxx rethoric" is just more labeling to dismiss people for not complying with whatever the new authoritarian push is. Hell, all the labels get put together and people who opposed Lockdowns and hurtful covid policies got called racist far right anti vaxxers because it's easier than using actual data. Much of the "anti lockdown/mask/covid vaccine mandates" was and is slowly vindicated day by day no matter how much money or power you throw into the mix to convince people otherwise. The Pfizer publications https://youtu.be/7YOD9drZasM https://youtu.be/7YOD9drZasM are definitely being ignored by most media but are just one more nugget that those you called anti vaxxers that wanted the right to make their own risk analysis were right and those who sold you a lie did it knowingly. Abhorrent is your intolerance and the happiness with which much of the population pushed segregation and deshumanization.
  - stef25 5y ago
    > The Pfizer publications https://youtu.be/7YOD9drZasM https://youtu.be/7YOD9drZasM are definitely being ignored by most media but are just one more nugget that those you called anti vaxxers that wanted the right to make their own risk analysis were right and those who sold you a lie did it knowingly. Nobody doesn't have the right to make their own risk analysis. That's assuming they're capable of it and we both know that's not the case. It really serves no purpose to link to these kind of videos, the ones with an official sounding title and authored by "a retired nurse teacher" who nonetheless calls himself "doctor". If people don't waste 20+ min of their day sitting through the entire video and then picking it apart to have an endless back and forth of "ok but what about this other 90 page garbage pdf report I found" then it's like you've won the argument that nobody wants to have in the first place. This kind of stuff is rotting the internet from within like there's no tomorrow.
    - Lascaille 5y ago
      >Nobody doesn't have the right to make their own risk analysis. That's assuming they're capable of it and we both know that's not the case. You start out by saying that people have the right to make their own risk analysis, suddenly add on a condition (if they're capable of it), determine (by yourself?) that they're not capable of it, invalidate your initial conclusion and end up saying (without saying) that people actually don't have the right to make their own risk analysis. Now that's abhorrent.

bambax 5y ago

Well, to mention just one example, "The Abbey of Misrule" (https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com) pushes antivaxx rhetoric. I don't know if that represents "50% of the population" (let's hope not) but it's abhorrent in any case.

Lascaille 5y ago
I read all of the articles that are available for free by that author and didn't see anything out of the ordinary. Well within the overton window. Y'all really think that moderate conservative writing - it didn't stray in terms of emotion into what I would consider rhetoric - is abhorrent? Wow. That's some thick-walled bubble you're in.
- bambax 5y ago
  We have different ordinaries.
  - Lascaille 5y ago
    Yeah. You're the one calling this service - which has attracted a sizeable number of perfectly mainstream conservative writers - 'the perfect honeypot.' We definitely do have different ordinaries.
Gareth321 5y ago
I don't find any of this offensive or extreme. Easily within the mainstream conservative spread. I think you need to broaden your news sources.
- bambax 5y ago
  > Internment. Mandatory medication. Segregation of whole sections of society. Mass sackings. A drumbeat media consensus. The systematic censoring of dissent. The deliberate creation by the state and the press of a climate of fear and suspicion. What could possibly justify this? Perhaps the combination of a terrible pandemic which killed or maimed large percentages of those it infected, and the existence of a safe and reliable medicine which was proven to prevent its spread. This, of course, is what we are said to be living through. This is the Narrative. > But it is clear enough by now that the Narrative is not true. Covid-19 is a nasty illness which should be taken seriously, especially by those who are especially vulnerable to it. But it is nowhere near dangerous enough - if anything could be - to justify the creation of a global police state. [1] If you don't see the conspiracy theory in this, then I can't help you. (Me, all I need is the capital N at "Narrative".) [1] https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com/p/the-vaccine-moment-part-one https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com/p/the-vaccine-moment-par...
  - cheeseomlit 5y ago
    That all sounds pretty accurate and reasonable to me. I guess we can't help each other.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    It doesn't posit the existence of a conspiracy anywhere. "Narratives" can be emergent phenomena, just like religion is. It doesn't require cigarette smoking men in back rooms. You seem to be particularly triggered by the word narrative - ignore that word if you like, or mentally replace it with "what governments tell us" and which part of what was said above is false?
laretluval 5y ago
Thanks for the rec! This looks like something I'll be adding to the list of Substacks I check regularly.
- bambax 5y ago
  You're welcome! Substack is fast becoming a perfect honeypot.
isaacremuant 5y ago
"Antivaxx rethoric" is just more labeling to dismiss people for not complying with whatever the new authoritarian push is. Hell, all the labels get put together and people who opposed Lockdowns and hurtful covid policies got called racist far right anti vaxxers because it's easier than using actual data. Much of the "anti lockdown/mask/covid vaccine mandates" was and is slowly vindicated day by day no matter how much money or power you throw into the mix to convince people otherwise. The Pfizer publications https://youtu.be/7YOD9drZasM https://youtu.be/7YOD9drZasM are definitely being ignored by most media but are just one more nugget that those you called anti vaxxers that wanted the right to make their own risk analysis were right and those who sold you a lie did it knowingly. Abhorrent is your intolerance and the happiness with which much of the population pushed segregation and deshumanization.
- stef25 5y ago
  > The Pfizer publications https://youtu.be/7YOD9drZasM https://youtu.be/7YOD9drZasM are definitely being ignored by most media but are just one more nugget that those you called anti vaxxers that wanted the right to make their own risk analysis were right and those who sold you a lie did it knowingly. Nobody doesn't have the right to make their own risk analysis. That's assuming they're capable of it and we both know that's not the case. It really serves no purpose to link to these kind of videos, the ones with an official sounding title and authored by "a retired nurse teacher" who nonetheless calls himself "doctor". If people don't waste 20+ min of their day sitting through the entire video and then picking it apart to have an endless back and forth of "ok but what about this other 90 page garbage pdf report I found" then it's like you've won the argument that nobody wants to have in the first place. This kind of stuff is rotting the internet from within like there's no tomorrow.
  - Lascaille 5y ago
    >Nobody doesn't have the right to make their own risk analysis. That's assuming they're capable of it and we both know that's not the case. You start out by saying that people have the right to make their own risk analysis, suddenly add on a condition (if they're capable of it), determine (by yourself?) that they're not capable of it, invalidate your initial conclusion and end up saying (without saying) that people actually don't have the right to make their own risk analysis. Now that's abhorrent.