I hadn't heard when The Rehearsal is coming back, so now I'm dreading that. I can't not watch it. But it is almost certain to be even more appalling than the first season.
I was wondering what was going on with The OC, was looking forward to its return. I hope LaToya feels better and is able to return to finish it soon.
Until then, I’m looking forward to The Rehearsal- the conversations for The Curse were already pretty interesting and this is bound to keep things up- and Daredevil. I still wish Invincible could be covered, and I doubt that it’ll happen with later seasons, but it would be nice to talk about it.
You can talk about it in the Chat feature anytime! We’re also due for an Episodic Discussion, I’ve just been swamped. I know my boyfriend would definitely reply to a Chat thread, though.
Myles: I'm glad you're staying on Substack, but I actually totally disagree with your ambivalence about it.
As someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about content moderation (I was a member of the team setting policy at Nextdoor for many years), I think Substack's approach gets it pretty much exactly right. You linked to Jonathan Katz's "Nazi Problem" piece on The Atlantic, but for the benefit of your readers here are three far better takes on that controversy:
As for the Jude Doyle article you link to claiming Substack is platforming anti-trans writers, I haven't read almost anything by Glen Greenwald or Katie Herzog (and hadn't even heard of Grahm Linehan), so perhaps that may be true of them. But it's definitely not true of Andrew Sullivan, Bari Weiss, nor Jesse Singal who Doyle also makes that claim for. While it's true that these writers are all critical of the abuses of some trans activists and the way they have played fast and loose with the truth, I would challenge anyone to point to anything they have written that is anti-trans.
But even for folks who disagree about that, I don't understand the argument for why Substack should be treating them differently than Google or Apple or Visa or any other product that these folks use. Do you also believe that these companies should be refusing to sell their products to folks whose politics you disagree with?
Similarly, if the folks at Amazon decided that your politics were bad for America, do you think it would be appropriate for them to refuse to sell your books?
Why do you think it's appropriate for Substack (or Amazon or Google or Visa) to decide what we should be able to read?
Why you do you think that piece indicates Sullivan is transphobic Pokey?
As context (for people who may not be very familiar with Andrew Sullivan), he is a gay man who is arguably the person most responsible catalyzing the gay marriage movement in the late 1980s. Sullivan has been making the case for years that he believes that many adolescents who aren't actually trans are being treated with puberty blockers (and in some cases gender reassignment surgeries) that they will come to regret. He is particularly angry about this because he believes that many of these kids feel the way they do because they are actually homosexual and have been internalizing societal homophobia.
This article is about the Cass report in Britain essentially validating his argument. So again Pokey, I'm curious why you believe this piece is transphobic? Are there specific quotes you would point to or do you simply believe that any argument against giving adolescents puberty blockers on demand is transphobic?
For the most part, I'm not sure there's really much to be accomplished by dragging out this discussion any further given the positionality thus far, but I'll make this point: any phrase that positions marginalized individuals as powerful through fearmongering of their cultural authority is inherently supportive of the marginalization of those people. There is no need for "just asking questions" skepticism to rely on these tropes unless there is an underlying desire to undermine their safe inclusion in society.
"any phrase that positions marginalized individuals as powerful through fearmongering of their cultural authority"
Not really sure what you're talking about here Myles, but if it's the phrase "Big Trans" and you think that phrase is referring to transgender individuals, you've completely misunderstood Sullivan's argument. You can see a fuller explanation in my reply to Pokey, but Sullivan is talking here about GLAAD. HRC, and WPATH.
The piece is so transparently transphobic, that there is zero chance your question is being asked in good faith. You don't even have to click the link to see an example.
Look, I could spend all day writing an essay about how transphobic that article is. Breaking down point for point that nobody will bother to read.
But I will just say this, the literal title is transphobic. So is the sub title for that matter. Like the article can't go three words, it's right in the link, and if people don't see that then to break it down further feels rather pointless.
In the off chance you are actually asking I will elaborate on the title. Transgender is an adjective that describes a person's immutable trait. The phrase 'big trans' is no different from saying 'big jew' or big black' and "holding 'big trans' to account" is a loaded nonsense phrase.
I set myself a limit for how deep I'm willing to get into discussions about social matters with strangers on the Internet nowadays because it's all just so futile. (Look at who's running the USA nowadays!) So I'll just outline my thoughts in bullet points:
* Whenever I see "Big -X-" as a descriptor, I see it as a critique of the capitalists trying to control or invade a space to make a buck. So I don't see "Big Jew" or "Big Trans" as offensive terms. It's describing the industries that have sprung up around these groups.
* Nevertheless, even if the headline *was* bigoted, the 1500-ish word article under it isn't, and in fact links the reader to the source material for their argument and invites them to make up their own mind.
* I *was* actually asking and don't really bother trolling people on the Internet. I have better things to do with my time! As I'm sure you do as well. There's no shortage of genuine bigots to be found on the Internet. This example you've provided just doesn't convince me, is all.
In case it's not clear to anyone, when Sullivan writes "Big Trans", he is obviously playing off "Big Pharma" ("Big Tobacco", "Big Oil", etc.), and he is specifically talking about organizations like HRC, GLAAD, and WPATH.
And he makes that reference because a central point he is making is that these organizations, like "Big Pharma", are not working in the best interest of the public but rather in the best interest of their own organizations.
It's clever writing, not transphobia. In a different context, he would undoubtedly refer to HRC and GLAAD as "Big Gay" or "Big Queer." He's criticizing organizations, not transgender people generally. And when he talks about hold "big trans to account", he even explains exactly what he means. In fact, the whole article is about that.
Here are the concluding paragraphs that summarize his perspective>
"In a sane world, the doctors who pushed these lucrative treatments and the leaders of the transqueer groups responsible for the wreckage of so many young gay and lesbian lives should resign in shame. So should the MSM journalists who were stenographers for these fanatics, acting to suppress the truth rather than expose it. So should the gay doctors who supported this insanity. This was — and remains — a horrifying case of gays betraying our own — and the most vulnerable and helpless among us.
History will be brutal to those responsible. But almost certainly not brutal enough."
Now, to be clear, I don't really agree with Sullivan. I think he probably somewhat overestimates the damage that has been caused by transgender treatment of adolescents and is being too harsh on the motives of the folks he disagrees with. That said, I think it's obviously wrong to describe the argument he is making as "transphobic." When people like you do that Pokey, it's pretty clear to me that you're using these accusations as an excuse not to have to grapple with the substance of the points he is making.
If it's so transparent Pokey, it should be easy to explain why.
I believe (and I'm confident that Sullivan does too) that transgender people should not be discriminated against and should be treated with the same respect given to non-transgender people (which includes things like using the names and pronouns they prefer).
Is that not sufficient? What else do you believe needs to be true for someone not to be transphobic?
My guess is that you're not doing so because your explanation will make you look foolish by making claims that most people will find unreasonable, but perhaps there is another explanation.
Or you can just leave the debate here (almost certainly what you will do), which I think helps demonstrate why Substack's approach to moderation is so needed.
See I am reading stuff like this in the article "But they [doctors] can hardly now look in the eyes of parents they emotionally blackmailed into transing their child"
Basis? There are a lot of statements like this and references to the NY Post and other Sullivan articles, but not much in the way of scientific or medical journals other than the Cass Report itself which he mainly paraphrases. without citation. A lot of his language is this sort of characterization. I have not read the Cass report itself. If it was merely quoting sections of that to support an argument, I might be OK, but I find Andrew to typically be quite smug and close-minded in his opinions.
Anyway, I certainly didn't describe the articles I linked to as "levelheaded." As it happens, Elle Griffin's piece is but what makes both Freddie and Ben fun is the fact that they are frequently over the top.
But in this case, they are also spot on. That being said, if you're only going to read one of the three pieces, it should certainly be Elle's (which is why I listed it first).
Thanks for keeping us up to date on Substack and your thought process. It's important people are aware of the conversation on the topic and the realities even if nothing changes on the Episodic Medium side. I definitely understand your position!
Now back to tv -
So excited [kristen-wiig-excited-snl.gif] for Daredevil and the coverage here! We recently rewatched all of DD, The Punisher S1, and Defenders in preparation, and only have Punisher S2 to go. I didn't remember much of the plot at all, and have watched a lot of tv and grown as a viewer since they all came out in 2017-2019 ish, so it was super cool to be able to kind of experience such great shows for the first time. Genuinely some excellent superhero television (I know that was the opinion at the time as well), hoping for similar quality in Born Again. What the stars etc have been saying about their own excitement is giving me hope, and initial reviews are positive!
Looking forward to the pure weirdness that is The Rehearsal as well.
If you liked the Punisher character in DD S2, I highly recommend the show. Season 1 goes deeper into the military apparatus behind Frank's family loss, and is also a great story about military veterans coming home to the US and what life is like for them. Lots of excellent action and a few new wonderful characters, of course.
I quite liked Season 1 of Punisher and the relationships introduced therein but admit to losing interest in Season 2, which I never made it through. It seemed very escort-mission at the start.
FWIW Myles, I'm glad you're remaining on Substack. As jeffkahrs notes, it means I don't have to track an account and subscription with yet another bloody online service. I don't make moral judgements of people based on where they decide to publish their writing. I'd always prefer to engage with the writing itself, and EM has some of the best in the business!
RE: Substack. I think you are doing the best you can. TBH, there is a cost when people leave. For me, I have already made the decision to not renew a few newsletters because I don't want another account to track. I am not sure what I would do about EM. I do not envy your position
It was designed to fill a hole in the schedule due to the strikes, and there hasn’t been a gap in the schedule where it makes sense. We’ll see what late summer brings. Spring was always going to be too crowded.
I hadn't heard when The Rehearsal is coming back, so now I'm dreading that. I can't not watch it. But it is almost certain to be even more appalling than the first season.
reality horror
I was wondering what was going on with The OC, was looking forward to its return. I hope LaToya feels better and is able to return to finish it soon.
Until then, I’m looking forward to The Rehearsal- the conversations for The Curse were already pretty interesting and this is bound to keep things up- and Daredevil. I still wish Invincible could be covered, and I doubt that it’ll happen with later seasons, but it would be nice to talk about it.
You can talk about it in the Chat feature anytime! We’re also due for an Episodic Discussion, I’ve just been swamped. I know my boyfriend would definitely reply to a Chat thread, though.
I’d be interested in Invincible coverage or conversations, too.
Myles: I'm glad you're staying on Substack, but I actually totally disagree with your ambivalence about it.
As someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about content moderation (I was a member of the team setting policy at Nextdoor for many years), I think Substack's approach gets it pretty much exactly right. You linked to Jonathan Katz's "Nazi Problem" piece on The Atlantic, but for the benefit of your readers here are three far better takes on that controversy:
- Elle Griffin's open letter: https://www.elysian.press/p/substack-writers-for-community-moderation
- Ben Dreyfuss: https://www.calmdownben.com/p/substack-doesnt-have-a-nazi-problem
- Freddie DeBoer: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-cant-censor-away-extremism-or
As for the Jude Doyle article you link to claiming Substack is platforming anti-trans writers, I haven't read almost anything by Glen Greenwald or Katie Herzog (and hadn't even heard of Grahm Linehan), so perhaps that may be true of them. But it's definitely not true of Andrew Sullivan, Bari Weiss, nor Jesse Singal who Doyle also makes that claim for. While it's true that these writers are all critical of the abuses of some trans activists and the way they have played fast and loose with the truth, I would challenge anyone to point to anything they have written that is anti-trans.
But even for folks who disagree about that, I don't understand the argument for why Substack should be treating them differently than Google or Apple or Visa or any other product that these folks use. Do you also believe that these companies should be refusing to sell their products to folks whose politics you disagree with?
Similarly, if the folks at Amazon decided that your politics were bad for America, do you think it would be appropriate for them to refuse to sell your books?
Why do you think it's appropriate for Substack (or Amazon or Google or Visa) to decide what we should be able to read?
" But it's definitely not true of Andrew Sullivan"
Uhhh
https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/will-big-trans-be-held-to-account-3ad
Why you do you think that piece indicates Sullivan is transphobic Pokey?
As context (for people who may not be very familiar with Andrew Sullivan), he is a gay man who is arguably the person most responsible catalyzing the gay marriage movement in the late 1980s. Sullivan has been making the case for years that he believes that many adolescents who aren't actually trans are being treated with puberty blockers (and in some cases gender reassignment surgeries) that they will come to regret. He is particularly angry about this because he believes that many of these kids feel the way they do because they are actually homosexual and have been internalizing societal homophobia.
This article is about the Cass report in Britain essentially validating his argument. So again Pokey, I'm curious why you believe this piece is transphobic? Are there specific quotes you would point to or do you simply believe that any argument against giving adolescents puberty blockers on demand is transphobic?
For the most part, I'm not sure there's really much to be accomplished by dragging out this discussion any further given the positionality thus far, but I'll make this point: any phrase that positions marginalized individuals as powerful through fearmongering of their cultural authority is inherently supportive of the marginalization of those people. There is no need for "just asking questions" skepticism to rely on these tropes unless there is an underlying desire to undermine their safe inclusion in society.
"any phrase that positions marginalized individuals as powerful through fearmongering of their cultural authority"
Not really sure what you're talking about here Myles, but if it's the phrase "Big Trans" and you think that phrase is referring to transgender individuals, you've completely misunderstood Sullivan's argument. You can see a fuller explanation in my reply to Pokey, but Sullivan is talking here about GLAAD. HRC, and WPATH.
The piece is so transparently transphobic, that there is zero chance your question is being asked in good faith. You don't even have to click the link to see an example.
I read it and it's not transphobic at all? It's advocating skepticism of pharmaceutical companies and activists?
Genuinely baffled here.
Look, I could spend all day writing an essay about how transphobic that article is. Breaking down point for point that nobody will bother to read.
But I will just say this, the literal title is transphobic. So is the sub title for that matter. Like the article can't go three words, it's right in the link, and if people don't see that then to break it down further feels rather pointless.
In the off chance you are actually asking I will elaborate on the title. Transgender is an adjective that describes a person's immutable trait. The phrase 'big trans' is no different from saying 'big jew' or big black' and "holding 'big trans' to account" is a loaded nonsense phrase.
That is just the start.
I set myself a limit for how deep I'm willing to get into discussions about social matters with strangers on the Internet nowadays because it's all just so futile. (Look at who's running the USA nowadays!) So I'll just outline my thoughts in bullet points:
* Whenever I see "Big -X-" as a descriptor, I see it as a critique of the capitalists trying to control or invade a space to make a buck. So I don't see "Big Jew" or "Big Trans" as offensive terms. It's describing the industries that have sprung up around these groups.
* Nevertheless, even if the headline *was* bigoted, the 1500-ish word article under it isn't, and in fact links the reader to the source material for their argument and invites them to make up their own mind.
* I *was* actually asking and don't really bother trolling people on the Internet. I have better things to do with my time! As I'm sure you do as well. There's no shortage of genuine bigots to be found on the Internet. This example you've provided just doesn't convince me, is all.
I hope you have a wonderful day :)
In case it's not clear to anyone, when Sullivan writes "Big Trans", he is obviously playing off "Big Pharma" ("Big Tobacco", "Big Oil", etc.), and he is specifically talking about organizations like HRC, GLAAD, and WPATH.
And he makes that reference because a central point he is making is that these organizations, like "Big Pharma", are not working in the best interest of the public but rather in the best interest of their own organizations.
It's clever writing, not transphobia. In a different context, he would undoubtedly refer to HRC and GLAAD as "Big Gay" or "Big Queer." He's criticizing organizations, not transgender people generally. And when he talks about hold "big trans to account", he even explains exactly what he means. In fact, the whole article is about that.
Here are the concluding paragraphs that summarize his perspective>
"In a sane world, the doctors who pushed these lucrative treatments and the leaders of the transqueer groups responsible for the wreckage of so many young gay and lesbian lives should resign in shame. So should the MSM journalists who were stenographers for these fanatics, acting to suppress the truth rather than expose it. So should the gay doctors who supported this insanity. This was — and remains — a horrifying case of gays betraying our own — and the most vulnerable and helpless among us.
History will be brutal to those responsible. But almost certainly not brutal enough."
Now, to be clear, I don't really agree with Sullivan. I think he probably somewhat overestimates the damage that has been caused by transgender treatment of adolescents and is being too harsh on the motives of the folks he disagrees with. That said, I think it's obviously wrong to describe the argument he is making as "transphobic." When people like you do that Pokey, it's pretty clear to me that you're using these accusations as an excuse not to have to grapple with the substance of the points he is making.
If it's so transparent Pokey, it should be easy to explain why.
I believe (and I'm confident that Sullivan does too) that transgender people should not be discriminated against and should be treated with the same respect given to non-transgender people (which includes things like using the names and pronouns they prefer).
Is that not sufficient? What else do you believe needs to be true for someone not to be transphobic?
It is easy to explain why, I did so above.
No. You didn't explain why.
My guess is that you're not doing so because your explanation will make you look foolish by making claims that most people will find unreasonable, but perhaps there is another explanation.
Or you can just leave the debate here (almost certainly what you will do), which I think helps demonstrate why Substack's approach to moderation is so needed.
See I am reading stuff like this in the article "But they [doctors] can hardly now look in the eyes of parents they emotionally blackmailed into transing their child"
Basis? There are a lot of statements like this and references to the NY Post and other Sullivan articles, but not much in the way of scientific or medical journals other than the Cass Report itself which he mainly paraphrases. without citation. A lot of his language is this sort of characterization. I have not read the Cass report itself. If it was merely quoting sections of that to support an argument, I might be OK, but I find Andrew to typically be quite smug and close-minded in his opinions.
Here's a good levelheaded take on free speech issues/links to Freddie deBoer
Heh. Here is my six word summary of FdB:
Always provocative, frequently interesting, rarely wise
Anyway, I certainly didn't describe the articles I linked to as "levelheaded." As it happens, Elle Griffin's piece is but what makes both Freddie and Ben fun is the fact that they are frequently over the top.
But in this case, they are also spot on. That being said, if you're only going to read one of the three pieces, it should certainly be Elle's (which is why I listed it first).
I'm not going to read any of them. Please stop bothering us
That’s the intellectual spirit Eric.
But a quick hint: if you’re not interested in engaging with someone, simply don’t reply to their comments.
Thanks for keeping us up to date on Substack and your thought process. It's important people are aware of the conversation on the topic and the realities even if nothing changes on the Episodic Medium side. I definitely understand your position!
Now back to tv -
So excited [kristen-wiig-excited-snl.gif] for Daredevil and the coverage here! We recently rewatched all of DD, The Punisher S1, and Defenders in preparation, and only have Punisher S2 to go. I didn't remember much of the plot at all, and have watched a lot of tv and grown as a viewer since they all came out in 2017-2019 ish, so it was super cool to be able to kind of experience such great shows for the first time. Genuinely some excellent superhero television (I know that was the opinion at the time as well), hoping for similar quality in Born Again. What the stars etc have been saying about their own excitement is giving me hope, and initial reviews are positive!
Looking forward to the pure weirdness that is The Rehearsal as well.
I watched Daredevil and Jessica Jones (flawless first seasons, slightly diminishing returns) but never saw Punisher. Is it worth catching up on?
If you liked the Punisher character in DD S2, I highly recommend the show. Season 1 goes deeper into the military apparatus behind Frank's family loss, and is also a great story about military veterans coming home to the US and what life is like for them. Lots of excellent action and a few new wonderful characters, of course.
I haven't watched since it first dropped, but FWIW I remember really liking both seasons.
I quite liked Season 1 of Punisher and the relationships introduced therein but admit to losing interest in Season 2, which I never made it through. It seemed very escort-mission at the start.
And of course, Andor!
hi! are there any plans to cover vince gilligan’s new show (currently referred to as wycaro), which is set to release this year?
FWIW Myles, I'm glad you're remaining on Substack. As jeffkahrs notes, it means I don't have to track an account and subscription with yet another bloody online service. I don't make moral judgements of people based on where they decide to publish their writing. I'd always prefer to engage with the writing itself, and EM has some of the best in the business!
RE: Substack. I think you are doing the best you can. TBH, there is a cost when people leave. For me, I have already made the decision to not renew a few newsletters because I don't want another account to track. I am not sure what I would do about EM. I do not envy your position
I really appreciate the transparency around Substack, and I can understand the decisions around that. Thank you.
I have no issue remaining on Substack. I enjoy having a platform to read the content I want, and I find it very easy to ignore the rest.
Myles, do you expect to continue recapping Traitors whenever next season airs? I have so been enjoying the coverage.
Hey whatever happened to "LOST?"
It was designed to fill a hole in the schedule due to the strikes, and there hasn’t been a gap in the schedule where it makes sense. We’ll see what late summer brings. Spring was always going to be too crowded.