Bravo on your commentary! I had read the FT article earlier. Your points regarding shoddy reporting which uses generalizations and "totalizations" rather than actual factual numbers and the debasement of terminology to the point a word loses its essence were well articulated and impactful. The Goering quote is haunting, mostly because it is so observable today. Thank you..
Thank you friend. I wanted to be sure I was clear about why words matter, so I’m glad it got through! Now let’s share a next glass of wine and talk about more beautiful things
Yeah you can’t win ‘em all, and I know the Atlantic journalist is far more talented than his piece gives him credit, but hot damn, let’s have some historical context at least
Agreed, but in this case, I think they knew exactly what they were doing. Let's not forget that The Atlantic has also made a recent push into the newsletter space.
In Waiting for Godot, Vladimir and Estragon get into a bout of name-calling, which ends with one calling the other the worst insult possible: "Critic!" I suspect if Beckett were writing it today, he'd have gone with "Journalist!" But I admit it's a tough call.
Our populist faschist problem has been coming at us since Carter hired an image consultant. Not one thing, but that Clinton made a slew of decisions based on straight up and down polling of his base, for example. Look at our libraries throwing away their copies of Louis Aragorn when not checked out for 2 years. My contribution to the banality of evil problem was to notice that the Nazis used sound systems to yell hatred of the Juden. Many were persuaded by the passional rock and roll in being yelled at in that way. I checked out Jay Cantors fiction about Kafka l night because I have a Max Brod problem. Do I throw away Kafka because, let's say I donot write like K did from 11 pm till 4 am? Thanks.
Jimmy Carter? Huh. I’d probably go back a bit further than the 1970s for the roots of populist fascism and/or white supremacy as a political principle in the US of A. It’s not really about one party or another in my mind (I can also think of a few presidents other than Clinton and Carter if we want to get into divisive political debates). It’s more
of a historical issue that is endemic to a nation that had National Socialists traveling from Germany to the USA during the 1930s to study Jim Crow Laws and Native American reservations so they could implement institutionalized bigotry back in Nazi Germany. From there, we’d have to go back to the roots of the country to understand why there are so many white supremacists still running around ... in my mind, it always goes back to the beginnings. Also just a pro tip: if you’re not writing in German, or qualifying your use of the word, using the term “Juden” to refer to Jewish people doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Right. And my grndprnts generatiin Ww2 in trying to place themselves as equals among humans would listen to authors who mystified the human genome by saying it was logical to say there were real races. It comforted them when-because they took time to read- they contemplated the fates of the Nicarauguan Bluefields strikers being gunned down. They said to themselves alas! The little brown people lack the mental equipment to be born on a freshly exploitable island continent. I do think the Dawn of Everything was the most read book of recent years. Which should be a corrective for me meeting like yourself who is careful abt giving ground to popular ideas. Honest to porcupines and the last gentle forest creatures, I have sidestepped Rimbaud's bellow to be absolutely modern at my peril. Poetry does not pay, so why should I look for my ancestors among neanderthals if I cannot bring you the real copro banana. But Wengrow I think is a start in both directions. Have you seen archaeologists talkin g beside the point of that book? The Davids were idealogical enough to know it would happen, their argument stands as a more accurate probablistic articulation of adult humans in prehistory than projecting Babylonian politics backwards.
"Honest to porcupines and the last gentle forest creatures, I have sidestepped Rimbaud's bellow to be absolutely modern at my peril. Poetry does not pay, so why should I look for my ancestors among neanderthals if I cannot bring you the real copro banana. But Wengrow I think is a start in both directions. " These sentences contain worlds within them ... befuddling, to be sure, but damn intriguing.
It is only that poets since print was invented have looked each one for a pet age to see their ancestors. I have good evidence in my preferences and like people pleasing behavior that I was formed in the Freud's Vienna world. This Alfred Teach puts a spin on Freud where all of us are dedicated to playing hard to get to a destructive degree and he basically has me at the word Freud. But in order to use the language of earth and birth and modernly microrrhyssia we feel we need to be adopted by some tribe prior to say Dante assassinating his rivals in flaming shit. For example any poet could write a sarcastic poem entitled God is not Dead. We only donot do it because we would be airing obvious grievances abt the years that folks lose in eternities of basement Byzantiums of copper and adolescent sorrow. So despite that was good enough for Yeats, we reach farther for some soul democracy . Has been known to work to stop the world spinning for half an hour, in its effect.
Eloquently and logically stated. I remember when I used to be part of a lit community, mass fear and fearmongering was commonplace. It was contagious (it influenced me!). So was name-calling and cancellations instead of having good faith dialogue and investigations. It's disheartening to see it on Substack, but not surprising. When something is propagated so extensively, it becomes fact, as others don't necessarily fact check others, but take their word for it.
It’s so easy for us humans to resort to our most primordial instincts ... and it’s why having conversations like this is, in fact, a form of rebellion and resistance against the ugliest parts of ourselves. When name calling becomes virtuous, it becomes particularly caustic ... I myself had to rewrite the piece a few times before I remembered that what my elementary school teachers said about being kind to each other, Lo and behold, is actually the hardest wisdom to impart. Here’s to at least trying 🥃
Alas, I wouldn't go so far as saying it's okay, but since the world is not okay, pretending a massive newsletter service platform can stick to a reality in which everything seems okay feels like the wrong priority. There will always be someone one-degree more objectionable than we think we can tolerate ... but for better and for worse, that, too, is a lesson in tolerance. Bullies tend to be lonely, and are far more terrified of seeming alone than being called bullies ... so here's to paying attention to what matters and saying good riddance to all the rest!
Jan 13·edited Jan 13Liked by Samuél Lopez-Barrantes
Much ado has been made about those newsletters not making any money on Substack. You mention this yourself. It's offered as evidence of deception or false statements by those who have written about their objections (in good faith), as well as an argument, seemingly, that it's okay, so long as they don't make money. It's a hollow point. Most writers on Substack don't make any money. Most hateful people don't make a profit from their hate. I don't see this as being a debate winning point.
Unfortunately, Americans throw the terms Nazi and fascism around like confetti, and thus fail to address or even understand dangerous political and social problems on their own doorstep. Or at least fail to grasp basic concepts and cause and effect. This fundamental failure has muddied what should have been a pretty straightforward concern.
The Substack responses have been glib and embarrassing. The collusion involved in the defence letter is icky from every angle. The arrogance and ignorance is concerning.
When the owners of a platform become the constant trainwreck headline, it's not good for anyone. We've all seen this with ex-Twitter. It's not trivial, because yes, there are far more important things to be talking about than the perversities of social media.
This will blow over. Until the next time. Until the next ham fisted defence of the indefensible.
In the meantime, we can all seek out the better minds and the better places, whether on Substack or elsewhere.
Fair point re: profit or no profit, the problem goes deeper and is obviously a national problem in the USA generally speaking. From what I gather from your comment, is it safe to glean that you believe b/c Substack has "failed to grasp basic concepts of cause and effect," that hate speech will proliferate on the platform? I am genuinely curious to know how you would go about moderating these supposed "pro-Nazi" newsletters differently, and if you think resorting to algorithm (like Facebook uses) would be better or worse in regards to maintaining freedom of speech. do think it's important to stress that as far as any legitimate investigation is concerned, Substack's lack of response / underwhelming response at least matches the lack of real evidence that there's actually a "Nazi problem" on the platform.
In any case, thanks for your response & continuing the discussion. To your point, we must seek better minds and better places, wherever those spaces exist, whilst also continuing to analyze, improve, and reflect upon the imperfect spaces in which we all have to live, work, communicate, and figure out a way to make writing work for us.
I don't believe that hate speech will proliferate on Substack, even though Substack has a poor track record, by which I simply mean, this isn't their first romp around the block with controversy.
As we've seen, the most effective form of defense is to attack, discredit, diminish, distort. I've found this irksome to watch, from a whole bunch of Substack users, and from the words and behaviors of Substack owners. It's not edifying.
It's certainly a sign of the times in the US of A that so many conversations start from a position of criticism or snarkiness versus genuine discussion ... alas, like all cycles, this, too, shall pass
I think it's really brave to say this right now. But I'm glad writers like you exist. I've always felt that the word Nazi was being cheapened because it is so casually thrown around, usually to label people who are obviously not Nazis but happen to share a different point of view. That's disturbing on so many levels. If name calling happens during discussions, I think it has already stopped being one.
Thank you Elizabeth, it’s certainly not bravery driving me to say it, but I’ll take the compliment! Nobody likes Nazis and nobody wants to be deemed a Nazi (except, I presume, Nazis), which is why it’s so fascinating how vastly differing our opinions are about how to handle the issue. This piece was my take, to the extent that it’s any sort of proposal at all. Mostly I’d just like to live in a world that is slightly less reactionary
“Genocide“ unless you understand the story of 500 nations in the New World, you don’t know the meaning of the word.......
Colonialists accomplished what Hitler tried. Hundreds of entire nations wiped out. Culture, language, music, art, everything. Gone. Dozens upon dozens before White man ever met them.
Not to take away from your point, just strive for professionalism....eh?
Oh I think there must be a misunderstanding?This essay by no means discounts the reality that of course, Hitler based a lot of state policies on sending Nazis to the USA in the 1930s to study Jim Crow Laws and Native American reservations ... the history of colonialism is the longest story of genocide in history, no doubt. This doesn’t discount the reality of the Nazi genocide, though ... did I suggest otherwise? If so please do tell me where and I shall gladly amend it!
You did not make such a claim. My point was, you left out the biggest genocide ever perpetrated. I think that’s a gross error on your part. That’s all.
Ah, apologies I misunderstood. Yes, I did fail to discuss the horrors of centuries of colonialism in my response piece about the debate surrounding “Substack Nazis.” Maybe I can look forward to reading your own piece on the subject of colonialism to further the discussion 🙏🏼
Jan 16·edited Jan 16Liked by Samuél Lopez-Barrantes
HEB3...Correct, and important to tip the hat to reality, and this reminds me of the millions of Victorian victims in China and India...that us Americans too often fail to fathom. When it comes to genocide, there is no shortage of them...now or then.
What more can a Substack writer ask for? Truly, thanks for taking a chance on the book, and what an honor it is to be the first vote of monetary confidence! It’s moments like these that make it clear why Substack has truly built a community worth fighting for.
Thanks for the shout good sir. I'm curious what you mean by the non-existent content damaging Substack. It sounds like a riddle.
Bravo on your commentary! I had read the FT article earlier. Your points regarding shoddy reporting which uses generalizations and "totalizations" rather than actual factual numbers and the debasement of terminology to the point a word loses its essence were well articulated and impactful. The Goering quote is haunting, mostly because it is so observable today. Thank you..
Thank you friend. I wanted to be sure I was clear about why words matter, so I’m glad it got through! Now let’s share a next glass of wine and talk about more beautiful things
I agree 100%! Words matter. Historical facts matter. The Atlantic, which is usually to be applauded for their articles, really blew it on this one.
Yeah you can’t win ‘em all, and I know the Atlantic journalist is far more talented than his piece gives him credit, but hot damn, let’s have some historical context at least
Agreed, but in this case, I think they knew exactly what they were doing. Let's not forget that The Atlantic has also made a recent push into the newsletter space.
What a compelling essay!
Merci mon amie, see you soon in the salon!
In Waiting for Godot, Vladimir and Estragon get into a bout of name-calling, which ends with one calling the other the worst insult possible: "Critic!" I suspect if Beckett were writing it today, he'd have gone with "Journalist!" But I admit it's a tough call.
Oh, Shalom! Doth you dare conflate such insidious terms?
"Why people have to complicate a thing so simple I can't make out."
Samuel Beckett on “Waiting for Godot,” 1955
That was perfect and I thank you; but more than that, my father would.
Thank you, Ben. Wherever your father is, I'm glad to hear it resonates with his spirit
Thank you for your logical and levelheaded approach to clearing this up!
Our populist faschist problem has been coming at us since Carter hired an image consultant. Not one thing, but that Clinton made a slew of decisions based on straight up and down polling of his base, for example. Look at our libraries throwing away their copies of Louis Aragorn when not checked out for 2 years. My contribution to the banality of evil problem was to notice that the Nazis used sound systems to yell hatred of the Juden. Many were persuaded by the passional rock and roll in being yelled at in that way. I checked out Jay Cantors fiction about Kafka l night because I have a Max Brod problem. Do I throw away Kafka because, let's say I donot write like K did from 11 pm till 4 am? Thanks.
Jimmy Carter? Huh. I’d probably go back a bit further than the 1970s for the roots of populist fascism and/or white supremacy as a political principle in the US of A. It’s not really about one party or another in my mind (I can also think of a few presidents other than Clinton and Carter if we want to get into divisive political debates). It’s more
of a historical issue that is endemic to a nation that had National Socialists traveling from Germany to the USA during the 1930s to study Jim Crow Laws and Native American reservations so they could implement institutionalized bigotry back in Nazi Germany. From there, we’d have to go back to the roots of the country to understand why there are so many white supremacists still running around ... in my mind, it always goes back to the beginnings. Also just a pro tip: if you’re not writing in German, or qualifying your use of the word, using the term “Juden” to refer to Jewish people doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Right. And my grndprnts generatiin Ww2 in trying to place themselves as equals among humans would listen to authors who mystified the human genome by saying it was logical to say there were real races. It comforted them when-because they took time to read- they contemplated the fates of the Nicarauguan Bluefields strikers being gunned down. They said to themselves alas! The little brown people lack the mental equipment to be born on a freshly exploitable island continent. I do think the Dawn of Everything was the most read book of recent years. Which should be a corrective for me meeting like yourself who is careful abt giving ground to popular ideas. Honest to porcupines and the last gentle forest creatures, I have sidestepped Rimbaud's bellow to be absolutely modern at my peril. Poetry does not pay, so why should I look for my ancestors among neanderthals if I cannot bring you the real copro banana. But Wengrow I think is a start in both directions. Have you seen archaeologists talkin g beside the point of that book? The Davids were idealogical enough to know it would happen, their argument stands as a more accurate probablistic articulation of adult humans in prehistory than projecting Babylonian politics backwards.
"Honest to porcupines and the last gentle forest creatures, I have sidestepped Rimbaud's bellow to be absolutely modern at my peril. Poetry does not pay, so why should I look for my ancestors among neanderthals if I cannot bring you the real copro banana. But Wengrow I think is a start in both directions. " These sentences contain worlds within them ... befuddling, to be sure, but damn intriguing.
It is only that poets since print was invented have looked each one for a pet age to see their ancestors. I have good evidence in my preferences and like people pleasing behavior that I was formed in the Freud's Vienna world. This Alfred Teach puts a spin on Freud where all of us are dedicated to playing hard to get to a destructive degree and he basically has me at the word Freud. But in order to use the language of earth and birth and modernly microrrhyssia we feel we need to be adopted by some tribe prior to say Dante assassinating his rivals in flaming shit. For example any poet could write a sarcastic poem entitled God is not Dead. We only donot do it because we would be airing obvious grievances abt the years that folks lose in eternities of basement Byzantiums of copper and adolescent sorrow. So despite that was good enough for Yeats, we reach farther for some soul democracy . Has been known to work to stop the world spinning for half an hour, in its effect.
Eloquently and logically stated. I remember when I used to be part of a lit community, mass fear and fearmongering was commonplace. It was contagious (it influenced me!). So was name-calling and cancellations instead of having good faith dialogue and investigations. It's disheartening to see it on Substack, but not surprising. When something is propagated so extensively, it becomes fact, as others don't necessarily fact check others, but take their word for it.
It’s so easy for us humans to resort to our most primordial instincts ... and it’s why having conversations like this is, in fact, a form of rebellion and resistance against the ugliest parts of ourselves. When name calling becomes virtuous, it becomes particularly caustic ... I myself had to rewrite the piece a few times before I remembered that what my elementary school teachers said about being kind to each other, Lo and behold, is actually the hardest wisdom to impart. Here’s to at least trying 🥃
Yes, indeed. I love the scratched off parts! It adds a bit of humor.
Ah, thank you! It's a style that for some reason comes naturally to me
Aces! :)
So long as they're not making money, it's okay, then. Glad that's been sorted.
Alas, I wouldn't go so far as saying it's okay, but since the world is not okay, pretending a massive newsletter service platform can stick to a reality in which everything seems okay feels like the wrong priority. There will always be someone one-degree more objectionable than we think we can tolerate ... but for better and for worse, that, too, is a lesson in tolerance. Bullies tend to be lonely, and are far more terrified of seeming alone than being called bullies ... so here's to paying attention to what matters and saying good riddance to all the rest!
Much ado has been made about those newsletters not making any money on Substack. You mention this yourself. It's offered as evidence of deception or false statements by those who have written about their objections (in good faith), as well as an argument, seemingly, that it's okay, so long as they don't make money. It's a hollow point. Most writers on Substack don't make any money. Most hateful people don't make a profit from their hate. I don't see this as being a debate winning point.
Unfortunately, Americans throw the terms Nazi and fascism around like confetti, and thus fail to address or even understand dangerous political and social problems on their own doorstep. Or at least fail to grasp basic concepts and cause and effect. This fundamental failure has muddied what should have been a pretty straightforward concern.
The Substack responses have been glib and embarrassing. The collusion involved in the defence letter is icky from every angle. The arrogance and ignorance is concerning.
When the owners of a platform become the constant trainwreck headline, it's not good for anyone. We've all seen this with ex-Twitter. It's not trivial, because yes, there are far more important things to be talking about than the perversities of social media.
This will blow over. Until the next time. Until the next ham fisted defence of the indefensible.
In the meantime, we can all seek out the better minds and the better places, whether on Substack or elsewhere.
Fair point re: profit or no profit, the problem goes deeper and is obviously a national problem in the USA generally speaking. From what I gather from your comment, is it safe to glean that you believe b/c Substack has "failed to grasp basic concepts of cause and effect," that hate speech will proliferate on the platform? I am genuinely curious to know how you would go about moderating these supposed "pro-Nazi" newsletters differently, and if you think resorting to algorithm (like Facebook uses) would be better or worse in regards to maintaining freedom of speech. do think it's important to stress that as far as any legitimate investigation is concerned, Substack's lack of response / underwhelming response at least matches the lack of real evidence that there's actually a "Nazi problem" on the platform.
In any case, thanks for your response & continuing the discussion. To your point, we must seek better minds and better places, wherever those spaces exist, whilst also continuing to analyze, improve, and reflect upon the imperfect spaces in which we all have to live, work, communicate, and figure out a way to make writing work for us.
I don't believe that hate speech will proliferate on Substack, even though Substack has a poor track record, by which I simply mean, this isn't their first romp around the block with controversy.
As we've seen, the most effective form of defense is to attack, discredit, diminish, distort. I've found this irksome to watch, from a whole bunch of Substack users, and from the words and behaviors of Substack owners. It's not edifying.
It's certainly a sign of the times in the US of A that so many conversations start from a position of criticism or snarkiness versus genuine discussion ... alas, like all cycles, this, too, shall pass
Until the next one, which will look remarkably similar to this one.
I think it's really brave to say this right now. But I'm glad writers like you exist. I've always felt that the word Nazi was being cheapened because it is so casually thrown around, usually to label people who are obviously not Nazis but happen to share a different point of view. That's disturbing on so many levels. If name calling happens during discussions, I think it has already stopped being one.
Thank you Elizabeth, it’s certainly not bravery driving me to say it, but I’ll take the compliment! Nobody likes Nazis and nobody wants to be deemed a Nazi (except, I presume, Nazis), which is why it’s so fascinating how vastly differing our opinions are about how to handle the issue. This piece was my take, to the extent that it’s any sort of proposal at all. Mostly I’d just like to live in a world that is slightly less reactionary
Congrats, Samuel Lopez-Barrantes. Sorry for skimming your essay, but this was enough for me to buy your book, today.
This was the first money we have ever paid connected to Substack in any way, and I follow the people of Substack every day.
“Genocide“ unless you understand the story of 500 nations in the New World, you don’t know the meaning of the word.......
Colonialists accomplished what Hitler tried. Hundreds of entire nations wiped out. Culture, language, music, art, everything. Gone. Dozens upon dozens before White man ever met them.
Not to take away from your point, just strive for professionalism....eh?
Oh I think there must be a misunderstanding?This essay by no means discounts the reality that of course, Hitler based a lot of state policies on sending Nazis to the USA in the 1930s to study Jim Crow Laws and Native American reservations ... the history of colonialism is the longest story of genocide in history, no doubt. This doesn’t discount the reality of the Nazi genocide, though ... did I suggest otherwise? If so please do tell me where and I shall gladly amend it!
You did not make such a claim. My point was, you left out the biggest genocide ever perpetrated. I think that’s a gross error on your part. That’s all.
Ah, apologies I misunderstood. Yes, I did fail to discuss the horrors of centuries of colonialism in my response piece about the debate surrounding “Substack Nazis.” Maybe I can look forward to reading your own piece on the subject of colonialism to further the discussion 🙏🏼
HEB3...Correct, and important to tip the hat to reality, and this reminds me of the millions of Victorian victims in China and India...that us Americans too often fail to fathom. When it comes to genocide, there is no shortage of them...now or then.
Yes. Sadly. “There is no shortage of them.”
Hey beautiful, horrible summation
What more can a Substack writer ask for? Truly, thanks for taking a chance on the book, and what an honor it is to be the first vote of monetary confidence! It’s moments like these that make it clear why Substack has truly built a community worth fighting for.
Very well said.
This is insightful
merci!
Thank you!