Does anyone in media ever stop to ponder what this says about the state of the industry
One of the main industry-wide campaigns going on in the media right now is providing support to professional adult journalists who say they are "afraid to open Twitter." That's a real thing that's happening, and to be a media member in good standing you're obligated to play long
Yeah, I hear this sentiment often from women, but mostly in private
Like clockwork, the subject of the Substack post accuses me of "silencing survivors of trauma" by writing about her public journalistic conduct
I guess the idea is that I should've checked into her private medical history before writing a post involving her public professional behavior? WTF is the operating principle here? This is a Washington Post national political reporter! (Would respond directly but I'm blocked)
Just for the record, journos are now swarming this post to once again demand the censorship and destruction of Substack. Because my post is literally going to get journalists killed. I guess they’re pretty mad
I would love for someone to calmly explain how exactly this Substack “silences” women journalists, as the journalists have not been prevented from speaking in the slightest? Indeed, they appear to still be posting
I’m confused, is this person “inciting harassment” against me? I don’t see it that way -- just the ordinary rough and tumble of Twitter -- but I’m trying to understand when harsh criticism becomes “harassment” per the definition they’re using? 🤔
Or maybe everyone with a large enough platform who chooses to engage on controversial subjects “has to deal with consistent harassment,” and the real question is whether you turn that into some kind of weird self-pitying ideology to bludgeon your critics with. Just a thought
This post provides ample reason to conclude that contemporary gender identity activists are 100% operating from within an easily-discernible ideology. They're perfectly entitled to that ideology: but denying its existence is a form of what's sometimes called "gaslighting"
This is elaborated on in the post, but as an early proponent of same-sex marriage one thing I've had to grapple with is that social conservatives were correct to foresee that the enactment of same-sex marriage would not placate LGBT activists, but instead further radicalize them
A central reason why the current media landscape is so constricted and stifled: the logic underlying demands to combat "Russian disinformation" has now been fully inculcated into journalists' overall advocacy for the suppression and censorship of speech mtracey.substack.com/p/how-the-cens…
Russiagate was a crucial forerunner to this ongoing outbreak of journalist-led censoriousness, but of course most journos eagerly helped amplify and propagate Russiagate so how would they even be aware of the damage they inflicted
Substack is only a "debacle" if you've been indoctrinated into believing you possess some eternal right to regulate the free-flow of information on the internet according to your political preferences. Russiagate kicked that indoctrination into overdrive
The bottom line: pressure on Substack to censor/regulate is going to escalate at an accelerating pace from this point forward, because journalists fundamentally motivated by petty jealousies and resentments are going to campaign for its destruction under the pretext of "safety"
Yes, I admit I'm biased in favor of Substack not being destroyed by self-important domineering cry-bullies
Catching up on Scottish politics, which are in turmoil as evidence mounts that the government engineered a scheme to "take down" a prominent political figure with false sexual misconduct charges, leading to a Party schism that may imperil the entire Independence project. Whoops
Speaking of Scotland's ruling party, they've also just ushered through a new "Hate Crime" bill which criminalizes "stirring up hatred" by "displaying, publishing or distributing" materials which members of various identity groups may "reasonably" deem "threatening or abusive"
Imagine the sheer breadth of scenarios whereby the law could apply to social media. (Also apparently applies to totally private communications.) SNP's justice minister has touted this "world-leading approach," and it wouldn't be surprising for certain US officials to follow suit
ANNOUNCEMENT! I have officially joined the land of Substack. It was probably inevitable. But I'm very excited about the opportunities the platform affords. And most of all, looking forward to making insufferable people's heads explode mtracey.substack.com/p/officially-d…
I am following the laissez faire Substack model where for the first little while, everything published will be freely available to everybody. However, you can still sign up for the paid version right away. Eventually some kind of regulatory schema will kick in though so ACT FAST!
^Clarification, there's no paywall or anything for at least the first month or so. "Paid version" just means that you choose to pay for a subscription, which for now offers the exact same stuff as a free subscription
1) Become professional adult journalist 2) Opine/report on controversial subjects 3) Receive criticism online 4) Claim your "life has been destroyed" by this criticism despite the institutional backing of your employer, the New York Times
Taylor Lorenz is circulating the manifesto of a new group called "Coalition Against Online Violence" which defines "violence" as harsh criticism online. This is becoming the new standard in the media industry, and its intended effect is to stifle criticism against public figures
If you are this traumatized and disconsolate from your adult professional choices, that's unfortunate and hopefully you have mental health resources available. But using it as a battering-ram to stigmatize as "violence" all criticism of you, a public figure, is totally absurd