3 ms·
> "I don't know what a 'protected class' is, but let's say it means ..." Come on, Margaret Atwood. You can do better than this. "Protected class," "inciting,"
by Zanni 3y ago
> "I don't know what a 'protected class' is, but let's say it means ..."
Come on, Margaret Atwood. You can do better than this. "Protected class," "inciting," and "credible threat" are all specific legal terms, and you can look them up rather than invent your own definitions in service of your argument.
Later ... "anyone displaying the insignia or claiming the name is in effect saying ..." [emphasis added]
"In effect" is doing a lot of work here and is not in accordance with the Content Guidelines (not Terms of Service).
A swastika is a symbol of hate, and Substack could choose to ban display of such symbols, but they don't. A symbol alone is not the same as an incitement to violence.
And the reason they don't ban hate symbols, I'm guessing, is that they would have to list them explicitly. And how do you categorize, for instance, the Palestinian flag or the Israeli flag? There are large, non-overlapping populations of people in this country claiming that one or the other are symbols of hate.
I'm no fan of Nazis, and if Substack wants to deplatform them, I'm all for it, but they'll need to rewrite their Content Guidelines to do it. And in the meantime, I wish the folks campaigning against them would bring a little more rigor to their arguments.
- LargeTomato 3y agoI, too, found the author surprisingly obtuse. I'm actually surprised she's a famous poet. The subtitle "You cannot be both A and non-A, it's simple logic" and then leaving that idea aside was distracting and came off like a young child using big words to sound smart.
- flumpcakes 3y ago> Come on, Margaret Atwood. You can do better than this. "Protected class," "inciting," and "credible threat" are all specific legal terms, and you can look them up rather than invent your own definitions in service of your argument. I think she did a fine job of laying out her argument so everyone could understand. A "protected class" implies there are classes that are not protected. Atwood was making it clear that that protected class should mean any groupable people by trait. > And the reason they don't ban hate symbols, I'm guessing, is that they would have to list them explicitly. You don't have to list things explicitly to ban them. A no swearing policy doesn't list every swear word publicly. A no homophobia policy doesn't explicitly list every act of homophobia possible. > A symbol alone is not the same as an incitement to violence. I think a group of people protesting with certain symbols would be a call to violence. Symbols convey meaning. Some symbols have been used and associated with humanity's worst acts and carry with it that meaning. > And how do you categorize, for instance, the Palestinian flag or the Israeli flag? State flags are state flags, I'm not sure you can categorically call them symbols of hate. A Hamas flag (a group of people that have specifically called for the death of all Jews) is a symbol of hate, despite a non-zero number of people thinking otherwise.