People I've blocked on Substack and why

I haven't done this on Shitter, since it's its own universe, and never really had to do it here on Blogger, and you can't really, anyway (though I can and do moderate comments and not just for spam) but, since this and Substack overlap for me in some way, I decided to start developing a curated list of people I've blogged on Substack.

I've missed a number of early ones; I could go through my list over there, but I'd have to unblock them to figure out WHY I blocked them in the first place.

With a list started from scratch, I can do that at the time.

Allen: Both a Uki-tankie and an Israeli genocide denier, who claims every Gazan action of recent years has happened without provocation, and that, on the other issue, Russia has been committing at least cultural genocide against Ukraine for 200 years, along with accepting Ukrainian hasbara (sic) on other things.

Paolo Kirk: Pre-emptive block for someone who is antisemitic, not just anti-zionist, and who also needs about eight rabies shots, all administered at once. 

ML: Zionist, antivaxxer pseudoscience, wingnut culture warriors all in their reads. Plus, anybody who has 200 Substacks in their "reads" is virtue signaling. 

Michael Lynch: Antivaxxer, climate science denialist, probably alt-whiter combined with Christian nationalism, cutter of blank checks to Putin because of that.

Amuse: Restacked by Lynch, and a general nutter I'd already blocked on Shitter. 

Clinton Tankersley: A diehard, lying Zionist, complete with tropes in this piece guested at Ed Buckner's place, that the media is anti-Israel, that mass rapes actually happened

A number of those people get me to noting that once again, contra the lying pseudo-leftist Noah Berlatsky, horseshoe theory is real. 

The Haeft? A goy Zionist (and Christian nationalist Reform UK supporting Canadian pan-Anglosphere nutter).

Stacey Saadi? A wingnut in general, and a hasbaraist in particular. There IS NO SUCH THING as "an accidental Zionist." 

Penelope Bullis? Per my Substack note: Do I block someone who just followed me, because they’re a 9/11 truther, antivaxxer an alt-med/pseudo-med Mercola type beyond that, New Age quackery beyond that, and other types of nutter? Probably, though maybe not immediately. Oops, you follow Curtis Yarvin, aka Mencius Moldbug as well. And, at least one anti-semitic, not anti-Zionist account.

Eric Tollefson. Libs of TikTok is also on Substack? Oh shit? You follow them? Bye! 

==

Not blocked, but unsubbed again? 

First, from Sy Hersh. He was becoming more and more "Captain Obvious" (in cases where he wasn't wrong) and putting up the paywall bar after one paragraph of Captain Obvious comment. Then, some non-leftist thought he'd harsh my mallow when I posted a Substack note to that end. Since I started writing this, he's gotten worse. "Is Trump in Cognitive Decline," Oct. 7, paywalled. Or, Sept. 17, the first of a three-part series about explaining AI, with the fun of Hersh talking about "the cloud" and the Captain Obvious of the person who's interviewed in all three parts talking about AI's electricity use. No shit. 

Second, the Column Blog by Adam Johnson. I largely agree with what he says, but he doesn't write that that often, and he doesn't have much unique stuff. Plus, for reasons unknown, maybe that I called him a pseudoleftist, a non-skeptical leftist or whatever, he's blocked me on Shitter. 

Third, Palestine is Still the Issue, for "platforming" Jim DeBrosse's nutbar conspiracy theory within the already nutbar world of JFK conspiracy theories, that Israel whacked Jack. (I'm still debating on unfollowing Tim Shorrock again, as a JFK conspiracy theorist himself.)

Fourth, Ed Buckner was originally here, but this got so long as to get a separate piece.

Fifth, and both on Substack and Shitter? Bye to Zei Squirrel. He is a Charlie Kirk conspiracy theorist, claiming, per this Shitter link in this Substack piece:

This one might get its own post. And eventually did.

 

==

As you would expect, this will be regularly updated, and the first update is just three days after I posted.

Nutter William Pounds, because he is a nutter. 

Esteban Yehudeem, an ultra-Zionist mouthbreather. 

Calling out the Greenwald tankies at Substack for their horseshoe-theory Gnosticism

The Dissident, often spot-on, had a semi-fail recently in his attack on Eoin Higgins’ new book about Glenn Greewald and Matt Taibbi. Per the header, and per my comments there, I’m focused on Glennwa.d

First, I'd already read Ken Silverstein's take on the book. (Sidebar: Ken and I very much agree in our takes on Glennwald.)

My biggest critique on Higgins' take on Glennwald in particular is that he thinks Glenn was once a leftist. Oh, uh, wrong! Very wrong. Otherwise, Glenn has a history of sexism that goes back to before he was famous and other things. And, that’s what stirred up the tankies. And yes, tankies you are.

So far, we have one horseshoe-theory type New Age lite who reads a Canadian alt-right alt-white MAGAt parallel, one alt-right who reads Chris. Rufo and Bari Weiss as well as Glennwald and is a bit horseshoey but not as much, a non-skeptical leftist or “leftist” who follows Tara Reade (barf), two COVID antivaxxers or just general antivaxxers, and a general “fiscal conservative.” Multiple readers also follow Aaron Maté, whom Ken has taken down before. Aaron's about 50 cents on the dollar. Another, with a comment that has nothing to do with Dissident's comment, reads a Shakespeare authorship Substack (conspiracy theory) and another devoted to American Values 2024 fellating Brainworm Bobby. Another? Reads include Robert Malone (yes, him) and Tulsi Gabbard as well as Tracey. Another follows "Angry Christian Patriot," clearly a Christian nationalist type site, as well as Erick Erickson, and a wingnut State of Jefferson type Oregon blog. Another follows Paul Thacker, conspiracy theorist, antivaxxer, and general pseudoscience peddler, as I have noted.

Another day, more notes. A Michael Shellenberger follower who also follows Leighton Woodhouse, Abigail Shrier and Stacks about Brainworm Bobby, Thomas Massie, a Rand Paul fellator site, an anti-"woke" one and others. (Shrier is half wrong, but not fully, on transsexual and transgender issues. She's also a full-on Zionist.)  A second Shellenberger reader who's also another Rufo and Weiss reader.

Another day? A possible actual leftist — one nutty enough to read the nutbar Rainer Shea. A Taibbi toady who reads all four (hope there's not more!) of Matt's Stacks. A Tracy & Shellenberger reader, who also reads a gun nut Substack and one that rocks a Confederate flag for their logo. Another Shellenberger reader plus reading the Rand Paul fellator site.

It's also, I'm guessing, per responses I've seen to Ken as well, fairly indicative of Glennwald tankies.  In the worse, you have a Michael Tracey follower and someone who looks like a cheap Putin shill at times and is also a bit on the COVID wingnut spectrum. Another of Ken's commenters reads a 9/11 truther triangulationist (yes, the Bill Clinton type triangulation, with said person presenting their own Gnosis about 9/11 "truth"), Joe Mercola and others.  And Ken also mentions "hate mail."

Again, this is why I identify as a SKEPTICAL leftist.

Contra the Glennwald Tankies.

That said, the receipts?

The biggie, to the facts of the matter of the reality of Glennwald and his relationship with the likes of Pierre Omidyar? That’s the total ass-kicking Mark Ames and Yasha Levine gave him back in 2013.

An extraction from that:

Greenwald’s leftist and anarchist fans have always had an almost cult-like faith in his judgment, seeing him as little less than a digital-age Noam Chomsky. But now they’re reeling from cognitive dissonance …

And another:

After we published Mark's piece, I was concerned, based on past experience, that some of Greenwald's supporters might try to divert from the key points raised in our coverage by trying to smear Pando, Mark or others who work here.

Which mirror something in Ken Silverstein’s piece. His words, interviewing Higgins:

Taibbi and Greenwald both insist, preposterously at this point, that they didn’t change, their critics have.

Beyond that?

First, I said Greenwald lied about his support for the Iraq War. Contra the tankie who brushed that off? Per this piece, he then attacked those who called out his lying and then doubled down on his lies. #fact

While I’m here scattershooting, let’s call out Glennwald’s other hypocrisies. Like his hypocrisy about the ACLU when it was censoring its own board of directors.

Or how he can strawman when it serves his libertarian interests. Don’t forget — he’s a libertarian and always has been. He’s not a librul let alone a leftist, and Green types who have made that claim make me barf.

More on him not being a librul let alone a leftist? He and his late husband, David Miranda, in Brazilian terms were not just 1 percenters but 0.1 percenters. Now, yes, rich people can be leftist, but it’s pretty damned uncommon.

Greenwald has also told lies related to the Edward Snowden book. And since I mentioned Matthew Hale at the Dissident for the tankies, he committed grossly unethical behavior related to that. (While I’m here, Snowden’s book is not all that.)

Regarding the various pull quotes? Yeah, the commenters at The Dissident and at Ken’s piece, as far as the Glennwald tankies, are pretty much like that. My experience at the former, in response to me, was a mix of whataboutism, handwaving, and burden-shifting.

Finally? This is why, at least in a modified form, horseshoe theory is true. The left-liberal at best Noah Berlatsky is wrong in claiming it’s not. Of course, since he’s also written for Reason, he has reason to say that.

Not only many of the commenters, but many of the Stacks they follow, illustrate horseshoe theory.

And, yes, I think many of these people, with many of the Stacks they follow, illustrate well my contention that conspiracy theory is a new form of Gnosticism. (Conspiracy theory is also where the tips of the horseshoe theory shoe often meet.)

Coronavirus week 94: About that Nuremberg Code

First, antivaxxers, given that last week today was the 80th anniversary of the Wannsee Conference, where the Final Solution was formalized, it's offensive as hell, odious and disgusting to be comparing immunologists, virologists and vaccine administering doctors and nurses to Josef Mengele, which is essentially what you're doing.

Second, it's a lie, twice over.

First of all, none of the above modern health care professionals is deliberately harming anybody.

Secondly, as the US, and I believe all other major countries backing the Nuremberg Code, had some sort of vaccine (and quarantine) mandates in their laws, the Nuremberg Code obviously doesn't include that. Burden of proof is on you to show me wrong, per what I just stated above.

In fact, it's probably mis-cited in general. And, with that, I'll tackle all 10 points.

• First, it applies to research. Administration of a vaccine is NOT research. That said? The vaccine trials? All subjects were willing and informed. 
• Second, hells yes it yielded fruitful research. COVID is real, and the vaccines are helpful. (No, not perfect, but I'm not going to argue with antivaxxers who claim Pfizer said its was, who strawman #COVIDZero, etc. GFY.)
• Third, the vax development and trials were based on just such knowledge.
• Vax trials avoided unnecessary suffering.
• There was no a priori reason to believe the vaccines would cause death or disablement. When the Johnson and Johnson vax showed an increased risk of some blood clots, in fact it was put on hold for further study.
• Sixth, the degree of risk was not out of proportion to the obvious humanitarian impulse.
• Seventh, vax trials were conducted in ways such that medical intervention was ready if needed.
• Yes, the development, and the trials, were conducted by scientifically qualified people, as compared to most the antivaxxers being unqualified.
• Yes, test subjects had the right to leave a vax trial, as they do on research trials in general.
• Tenth, scientists were indeed ready to terminate the trials if necessary.

Oh, by the way, it's codified into Health and Human Services regulations.

Beyond THAT? Vaccine administration is NOT research. And, there was no mandate on any vaccine until after the Pfizer vax moved past EUA to full authorization.

Related to that, whether you're a MAGAt, a Greenwald-type libertarian, or a horseshoe theory Green? Bodily autonomy is NOT absolute, and it exists only in the constraints of society. That's why the old joke about how your rights end when your fist meets my nose (or in states with separate assault and battery laws, when your fist comes too close to my nose) is not just an old joke, it's the truth.

Per this Atlantic story, your right to smoke in a public place ended decades ago, for example. Related? Politico notes that low levels of conscientiousness, especially among people who tilt conservative politically (and I'm lumping L/libertarians there) is a leading marker of spreading fake news, including but not limited to COVID vaccines, of course.

Oh, also? Antisemitism still exists, just as it does in antivaxxers wearing Stars of David and trivializing the Holocaust. A person assuming I am a Jew engaged in it when I raised the Wannsee issue a week ago. And, it was a horseshoer.

Meanwhile, RFK Jr., although not mentioning the Nuremberg Code, did do the more general Nazis = vaccination claim at his DC rally over the weekend, and tried to piggyback on Anne Frank. AND? Maybe he didn't mention it, but signs at the rally DID say "Nuremberg Code."

And horseshoe theorizers among Greens (more and more, I realize that the Venn diagram overlap between "Green" and "lefist" is not huge, and is fuzzy, but Noah Berlatsky is still wrong on denying horseshoe theory exists) are more odious than wingnuts on this issue.

Besides, none of this is based on science. Antivaxxer groups were talking blather about COVID vaccines even before the first was created, or even before we had an idea we could create one.

Coronavirus Week 74A: More on WIV lab leak idea; but no, "gain of function" ≠ "bioweapons"

Sam Husseini is arguably right to talk about a "cover-up" by St. Anthony of Fauci, and Peter Dazsag outside the government, over the possibility of a lab lead at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He's right that the U.S. government should investigate itself. Now, could Pelosi really block an investigation unless Biden wanted to be blocked? I doubt it.

Was "gain of function" research involved? Yes. Per Jaime Metzl, I've already rejected Fauci's Jesuitical attempt to explain away this issue.

BUT!

I totally reject that bioweapons research is what this is. I totally reject the idea that Husseini seems to be playing with, that just because "gain of function" is involved, that makes it bioweapons.

Besides, if the US really wanted to do bioweapons research, it sure as hell wouldn't be working with a Chinese lab. Now, is it theoretically possible China, as it walled off the French after the lab was built, would have walled us off, too? Theoretically, yes. For this? Highly unlikely, that is, highly unlikely that we'd be allowed to be part of such research.

And, in this case, there would have been bigger alarms leaking from somewhere inside the US. Seriously, a Mike Pompeo with his CIA post would have been all over this.

I won't say that Sam Husseini is firmly in conspiracy theory territory. But, I think he has the toes of one foot there, at a minimum. 

In all of this, Husseini tells Ken Silverstein that he doesn't want to be in winger territory. And, he generally presents as a leftist. But, beyond arguably dipping his toes into conspiracy thinking, Sam's also going down the path of horseshoe theory. And yes, contra some leftists, at times I think it's real. Don't like that being stated? Then don't go down that road. (And, the fact that Husseini protests he's not? Per Shakespeare ....)

This is all what makes this not only wrong, but dangerous.

The alternative angle, which would arguably be more charitable, is that Husseini is an idiot, not a conspiracy theorist. (The two, of course, are nowhere near mutually exclusive.) But, I've seen Husseini in action before; he doesn't strike me as an idiot.

So, per Shakespeare? He probably doth indeed protest too much.