Substack Reads is designed to showcase the remarkable work and fascinatingly varied perspectives that have found a home on the platform. We welcome thoughtful criticism and conversation, but comments that are off-topic, rude, disparaging, or derogatory will be removed. In other words: If you can’t say something kind, at least say something interesting.
It's amazing to me that you're including people KNOWN for misinformation and still smugly dismissing criticism as "the other side is wrong and evil". Oh wait, it's not amazing, because you paying people like Taibbi and Gabbard while pretending to be neutral arbiters is business as usual and the sole reason I'll never pay writers through this site.
I discovered long ago that almost no one desired my participation in their nifty _polis_ so I confine myself to useless sniping. Go bomb some other body.
Your post is appreciated because it flushed Sophia out by her own approval of the dog whistle distinctive of one the two current majors in Communis Americanus
Apparently, some disagree with the proposed featured Substack participants, but even if their objections are based in fact, we all will have an opportunity to use our independence of mind to sort through it all. Isn't that what critical thinking is all about? Try it. You might like it.
I share the disdain for various people on the list, but I’d be interested to see how those partisans fare in a discussion with people I consider more serious. You can count me as one of the few on the left who don’t automatically dismiss this idea. I’d rather wait til I see it in action to dismiss it, if that’s what I end up doing. I don’t want to listen to Tulsi, Taibbi, etc., on their own, but as participants in a serious conversation where they’ll have to defend their claims and positions— I’m very interested.
I understand that position, but I’m somewhat different from a lot of people. Whenever and wherever people are patting themselves on the back for NOT listening to someone, or NOT reading something, you won’t find me in that group. I’m not worried about them degrading me.
I have listened to Taibbi (I used to respect his writing) and now he is consistently wrong. The argument that we should continue to listen to people once they have proven themselves to lack credibility makes no sense. Would you continue to listen to a doctor who has been giving false and dangerous advice to people repeatedly?
Tabbi fell off a cliff and hit his head years ago. There was a point where he made observations about imperically objective facts which illuminated the facts in a way that hadn't occured to me, but today he mostly seems to crawl around the edges of conspiracy theories and ask for trust concerning the bizarroworld conclusions he comes to.
I don’t know the first two, and the second two you mention would not be the people I would list as serious critical thinkers. They’re both professional partisans, which is not a crime, but I’m more interested in listening to a person like Chris Cilizza. He regularly says stuff he thinks is borne out by evidence, even though many of his readers get mad about it. He doesn’t pander. But it also should be said that he’s not a policy person, he’s a political scientist.
50 Headlines That Reveal Wash. Post Reporter Chris Cillizza's Obsession With The Clinton Email Story
Chris Cillizza has written more than 50 posts mentioning Hillary Clinton's emails since March on his Washington Post politics blog The Fix, nearly all of them issuing dire warnings about the supposedly “massive political problem.”
The New York Times first wrote about Clinton's email during her tenure at the State Department on March 2, when they falsely reported she had violated federal requirements by using a private email account. Since then, mainstream media outlets have attempted to find some scandal in the email story, often pushing various falsehoods and being forced to issue corrections after the fact. To date, there has been no evidence of any lawbreaking.
Cillizza has been a major contributor to this effort, repeatedly claiming the email story “just keeps getting worse” and that it's “not going away,” while claiming Clinton has an “honesty problem” and should “start panicking.”
Just this week, Cillizza wrote a post headlined “Just when you thought the e-mail story couldn't get worse for Hillary Clinton ...” The post misleadingly tried to repackage old email stories as new developments in the “scandal.”
Democratic politicians, corporate/DNC media, and some posters here have adopted the tactic of defining political disagreement as “hate,” and "raw sewage" rather than the product of a good-faith difference in world view. You are probably on board with the government censorship regine.
Political disagreement on some things is fine, but routinely engaging in stochastic terrorism (which Dana Loesch does) is not. There is no exploring "good-faith" differences in world views with people who have not acted in good faith consistently for years.
How could I know if I'm on board with "the government censorship regine" without first asking, "what the heck are you talking about"?
Further, can you point to a single instance in which a Democratic politician has called something "hate" that was not in fact "hate"?
If you have no confirmed explanations or examples of the above, I will assume you are acting in bad faith.
I read the linked text and it is an announcement of an anti-hate campaign in California. I saw no mention of any censorship in the campaign . . . UNLESS . . . that dastardly liberal governor CENSORED his own call for censorship so we don't even know he's doing it! Wow!
Marcia, you must be a big fan of hate speech if you want to defend it against an imaginary censorship campaign!
Wow! So many disreputable people referenced here - Matt Taibbi, Tulsi Gabbard, Dana Loesch, etc. They spread disinformation and rhetorical poison in the political discourse. That they are being advertised as some kind of antidote to political malaise is ridiculous.
Clearly disinformation, misinformation, malinformation don't exist - plus they're not dangerous. If someone were to say that Mitchell Coak lives entirely on cockroach meat, that couldn't possibly be disinformation.
Exactly. I am very interested in what some might have to say. But for sure, not Tulsi Gabbatd. I already know what she will say. So gonna pass on this.
Matt Taibbi? Dana Loesch? Tulsi Gabbard? Finally - some balance!
I'm on board with this - while some of the other names are repulsive to me, unlike many in the comments here I have never wanted an echo chamber, nor to silence those with whom I disagree - I just want balance.
Reading the comments attacking truth tellers like Tabbi and Tulsi just proves once again those on the left can not stand dissent because their entire worldview is built upon lies they tell themselves over and over again thinking that since that’s all they hear it most be true. But a lie is still a lie no matter how many times it’s told nor by who tells it. Things like Masks worked in reducing the spread of COVID. It was a lie and is still a lie. The MRNA injections were safe and effective. Again nothing but lies. They are neither safe 17 million died worldwide from them nor are they effective otherwise why do you need more than one????
Russia spreads vaccine disinformation because they want Americans to die preventable deaths. If you are an actual American helping them achieve this evil goal, WHY?
Marcia, you must really like Putin to try to pass his crimes off as old news!
No one here is standing up for Iran, so why did you throw that in? Is it possible for the Russian government and the Iranian government to both be threats? Or are you just in the habit of throwing "whataboutisms" into every conversation?
Turns out “reality” is Russian for wishing chaos, violence, destruction, and societal collapse on all Americans. In no particular order. I know alcoholism sucks, but wouldn’t it be easier to just develop an AA infrastructure rather than inflict mass rape and torture on Ukraine and mass death by disinformation on Americans?
The point is whether it is a disservice to present known liars as credible sources of information.
You can listen or not listen - but that doesn't address the question of whether you have the cognitive ability to sort facts from lies. If you don't have that ability, you are likely to believe the lies and reject the facts, which makes your brain a garbage can.
Substack Reads is designed to showcase the remarkable work and fascinatingly varied perspectives that have found a home on the platform. We welcome thoughtful criticism and conversation, but comments that are off-topic, rude, disparaging, or derogatory will be removed. In other words: If you can’t say something kind, at least say something interesting.
Maybe, y'all should ban me from substack. Cuz some of the names you listed ain't good names for gathering honest information.
There is always a chance an open minded person might learn something from a surprising source.
Maybe even a Bad Name
Which names are you referring to? I follow a lot of these. I wonder if the ones I follow are the ones you refer to.
Without knowing which ones you’re referring to, your comment seems empty. It seems contentious, but without content.
It sounds like you know something the rest of us don’t. Do you you care to share?
What is very clear to me is that the other side is wrong and evil.
It's amazing to me that you're including people KNOWN for misinformation and still smugly dismissing criticism as "the other side is wrong and evil". Oh wait, it's not amazing, because you paying people like Taibbi and Gabbard while pretending to be neutral arbiters is business as usual and the sole reason I'll never pay writers through this site.
This would be your opportunity to offer examples and have dialogue with others, doing so would be more useful than blanket accusations.
You can do be better than this, Hamish.
I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but it is possible for one side to be wrong and evil and for the other side to be correct to point that out.
It's also a convenient moral dodge when dehumanization is satisfying and thought takes time. Just ask the Tutsis.
What is the "it's"? What's the moral dodge? Ask the Tutsis what? Can you try again, but this time make it coherent?
hi
That must be me.
I discovered long ago that almost no one desired my participation in their nifty _polis_ so I confine myself to useless sniping. Go bomb some other body.
Your post is appreciated because it flushed Sophia out by her own approval of the dog whistle distinctive of one the two current majors in Communis Americanus
one OF the two
Whaaaaat?
Apparently, some disagree with the proposed featured Substack participants, but even if their objections are based in fact, we all will have an opportunity to use our independence of mind to sort through it all. Isn't that what critical thinking is all about? Try it. You might like it.
👍💯
I share the disdain for various people on the list, but I’d be interested to see how those partisans fare in a discussion with people I consider more serious. You can count me as one of the few on the left who don’t automatically dismiss this idea. I’d rather wait til I see it in action to dismiss it, if that’s what I end up doing. I don’t want to listen to Tulsi, Taibbi, etc., on their own, but as participants in a serious conversation where they’ll have to defend their claims and positions— I’m very interested.
Matt Taibbi or Tulsi Gabbard degrade anyone who would bother to take the time to be around them. This whole thing is appalling.
I understand that position, but I’m somewhat different from a lot of people. Whenever and wherever people are patting themselves on the back for NOT listening to someone, or NOT reading something, you won’t find me in that group. I’m not worried about them degrading me.
I have listened to Taibbi (I used to respect his writing) and now he is consistently wrong. The argument that we should continue to listen to people once they have proven themselves to lack credibility makes no sense. Would you continue to listen to a doctor who has been giving false and dangerous advice to people repeatedly?
What 'false and dangerous advice' has Taibbi given? You're just silly.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/matt-taibbi-why-republican-trump-left-wing.html
https://link.motherjones.com/public/35592388
https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/the-fundamentally-conservative-worldview-of-matt-taibbi/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/happened-man-matt-taibbi-spars-182912610.html
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/22/matt-taibbi-cant-comprehend-that-there-are-reasons-to-study-propaganda-information-flows-so-he-insists-it-must-be-nefarious/
What counts as "silly" to you?
Tabbi fell off a cliff and hit his head years ago. There was a point where he made observations about imperically objective facts which illuminated the facts in a way that hadn't occured to me, but today he mostly seems to crawl around the edges of conspiracy theories and ask for trust concerning the bizarroworld conclusions he comes to.
Citation needed
Don’t hold your breath. Lotsa trolls whining here.
Don’t hold your breath. Lotsa trolls whining here.
I don’t know the first two, and the second two you mention would not be the people I would list as serious critical thinkers. They’re both professional partisans, which is not a crime, but I’m more interested in listening to a person like Chris Cilizza. He regularly says stuff he thinks is borne out by evidence, even though many of his readers get mad about it. He doesn’t pander. But it also should be said that he’s not a policy person, he’s a political scientist.
First of all, it's Cillizza, not Cilizza. Second, he is awful:
From Media Matters: https://www.mediamatters.org/washington-post/50-headlines-reveal-wash-post-reporter-chris-cillizzas-obsession-clinton-email
50 Headlines That Reveal Wash. Post Reporter Chris Cillizza's Obsession With The Clinton Email Story
Chris Cillizza has written more than 50 posts mentioning Hillary Clinton's emails since March on his Washington Post politics blog The Fix, nearly all of them issuing dire warnings about the supposedly “massive political problem.”
The New York Times first wrote about Clinton's email during her tenure at the State Department on March 2, when they falsely reported she had violated federal requirements by using a private email account. Since then, mainstream media outlets have attempted to find some scandal in the email story, often pushing various falsehoods and being forced to issue corrections after the fact. To date, there has been no evidence of any lawbreaking.
Cillizza has been a major contributor to this effort, repeatedly claiming the email story “just keeps getting worse” and that it's “not going away,” while claiming Clinton has an “honesty problem” and should “start panicking.”
Just this week, Cillizza wrote a post headlined “Just when you thought the e-mail story couldn't get worse for Hillary Clinton ...” The post misleadingly tried to repackage old email stories as new developments in the “scandal.”
I too am listening to the crickets...
Ok, I'll bite - Tulsi and Taibbi are as serious as it gets. Like cancer stage four serious?
So interesting to note how “tolerant and inclusive” many of the comments from the left are.
How tolerant are you of having your toilets backing up and flooding your house with raw sewage?
Democratic politicians, corporate/DNC media, and some posters here have adopted the tactic of defining political disagreement as “hate,” and "raw sewage" rather than the product of a good-faith difference in world view. You are probably on board with the government censorship regine.
Political disagreement on some things is fine, but routinely engaging in stochastic terrorism (which Dana Loesch does) is not. There is no exploring "good-faith" differences in world views with people who have not acted in good faith consistently for years.
How could I know if I'm on board with "the government censorship regine" without first asking, "what the heck are you talking about"?
Further, can you point to a single instance in which a Democratic politician has called something "hate" that was not in fact "hate"?
If you have no confirmed explanations or examples of the above, I will assume you are acting in bad faith.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/09/26/california-continues-to-lead-in-the-fight-against-hate/
I read the linked text and it is an announcement of an anti-hate campaign in California. I saw no mention of any censorship in the campaign . . . UNLESS . . . that dastardly liberal governor CENSORED his own call for censorship so we don't even know he's doing it! Wow!
Marcia, you must be a big fan of hate speech if you want to defend it against an imaginary censorship campaign!
And so to all you disagree with.
People should be "tolerant and inclusive" of lies and conspiracy theories?
Nate Silver? The man who hides behind a paywall to prevent criticism and works for Republican mega donor Peter Thiel? That Nate Silver?
Or Tulsi Gabbard, who has joined the ranks of people shilling for Russia. Boy I sure can't wait to hear what these two have to say.
Wow! So many disreputable people referenced here - Matt Taibbi, Tulsi Gabbard, Dana Loesch, etc. They spread disinformation and rhetorical poison in the political discourse. That they are being advertised as some kind of antidote to political malaise is ridiculous.
Disinformation - a Minitrue approved term.
You do know that Orwell knew about disinformation and that 1984 was about how effective and dangerous it is.
Wait, WHAT?
Disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, oh my! The three horsemen of the infopocalypse.
This PSA presented by the Ministry of Truth.
Clearly disinformation, misinformation, malinformation don't exist - plus they're not dangerous. If someone were to say that Mitchell Coak lives entirely on cockroach meat, that couldn't possibly be disinformation.
Three statements - one <dis>, one <mis>, one <mal> information.
I eat cockroach meat
I eat rabbit eyes
Barry is a NPC
Mark each statement with the correct <info> tag.
Exactly. I am very interested in what some might have to say. But for sure, not Tulsi Gabbatd. I already know what she will say. So gonna pass on this.
And, hopefully, we will get the chance to tell them so.
My sentiments exactly.
Thanks for organizing this series. I enjoy hearing others' viewpoints.
Wow. Whenever a post draws so many ad hominem attacks, I'm in!
Me too!
Yep, wasted space and time for a popcorn meme
Matt Taibbi? Dana Loesch? Tulsi Gabbard? Finally - some balance!
I'm on board with this - while some of the other names are repulsive to me, unlike many in the comments here I have never wanted an echo chamber, nor to silence those with whom I disagree - I just want balance.
This... is a good step in the right direction.
What balance is this? On one side, people who are credible. On the other side, people who are not.
Unfortunately, as been said here already, balance has to include those we feel endanger our democracy and freedoms.
WTF am I saying!
Balance has to include somebody who does not want to burn the house down and someone who does.
Balance is what people use to muddy up facts.
From a Scottish point of view, this is a very funny headline. 👮♂️
Came here to say exactly this. Scarper, it’s the polis!
love the contrasting definitions of idiot and community!
Yes, I’ll be fascinated to see what Tulsi Gabbard, a literal agent of Russia, will be saying about the election.
Meaning I won’t actually be paying any attention to the heaping pile of garbage this sounds like.
This list is just bizarre. You have very good people who write in Substack and this was the list you came up with?
I would be so very disappointed if that list was made to gather clicks.
Of course it was.
D'ya think?
Reading the comments attacking truth tellers like Tabbi and Tulsi just proves once again those on the left can not stand dissent because their entire worldview is built upon lies they tell themselves over and over again thinking that since that’s all they hear it most be true. But a lie is still a lie no matter how many times it’s told nor by who tells it. Things like Masks worked in reducing the spread of COVID. It was a lie and is still a lie. The MRNA injections were safe and effective. Again nothing but lies. They are neither safe 17 million died worldwide from them nor are they effective otherwise why do you need more than one????
Russia spreads vaccine disinformation because they want Americans to die preventable deaths. If you are an actual American helping them achieve this evil goal, WHY?
Please keep drinking the kool aid.
Kool-aid or poison? The age-old debate. I’ll take Kool-aid, please, preferably the sugar-free packets. Crasha-bang-a-boom-a-bamma.
No matter one’s politics, Russia is evil!
Oh come on. You have any problem with Iran assassination plots and funding terrorism across the Mideast? Russia is so yesterday....
Russia seems to be very much TODAY -
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/hsi-washington-dc-investigation-leads-war-crimes-charges-4-individuals-affiliated
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-accuse-russia-effort-influence-2024-election-cnn-2024-09-04/
Marcia, you must really like Putin to try to pass his crimes off as old news!
No one here is standing up for Iran, so why did you throw that in? Is it possible for the Russian government and the Iranian government to both be threats? Or are you just in the habit of throwing "whataboutisms" into every conversation?
I have just learned that when reality speaks, it says things that un-reality would say!
The truth shall set you free.
Your “reality” bites. Wouldn’t that be a great name for a movie?
Anti vax is so Californian.
Turns out “reality” is Russian for wishing chaos, violence, destruction, and societal collapse on all Americans. In no particular order. I know alcoholism sucks, but wouldn’t it be easier to just develop an AA infrastructure rather than inflict mass rape and torture on Ukraine and mass death by disinformation on Americans?
What you say, Sergey?
You’re so much in your bubble you still believe that Biden is cognitive and sharp as a tack.
P.s. your language skills suck. We don’t say “is cognitive”. Da? Ya get it, Sergey?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts you have just proven my theory.
That real Americans detest Russian trolls? Goooood…
You’re as clueless as Harris is.
lol Sergey
Wow. I’m surprised. I thought Substack readers were more open minded. These comments…wow. No one is forcing anyone to listen.
How open is your mind? So open that it can be used as a garbage can?
So don’t listen
The point is whether it is a disservice to present known liars as credible sources of information.
You can listen or not listen - but that doesn't address the question of whether you have the cognitive ability to sort facts from lies. If you don't have that ability, you are likely to believe the lies and reject the facts, which makes your brain a garbage can.