Link on 16 January 2024, 15:15 CET
Something quite bizarre happened to me on Substack over the holidays. I’ve written a recap of the incident for Eye on The Press, which also includes what I inted to do about it:
This Hopkins guy is quite the character… I mean, there’s ill-advised and there’s this shit. And that’s me saying this. 
My reply:
I mean. This is the point where even I am not gonna grace him with a reply anymore. 
Reading this, I’m a little surprised by his reaction, the only explanation that I can think of is that he is so on edge that he sees attacks all around.
I don’t believe you intended to attack him, only pointing out that he is on shaky grounds.
He is also trying to argue that he is not, but from your article, you are not against challenging these laws, but it will not be a piece of cake!
I dunno what it is. Maybe he’s talked himself so deep into being a satirist that he’s seeing everything as satire and disregarding that the more important thing is how his audience feels about it?
On a sidenote, that swastika on his book triggers me to no end. It’s such a half-hearted, badly photoshopped botch-job. I mean, if you intend to go there, go there. Make it big, black and bold. Own it.
That would probably also make it easier to convince people that it’s satire…
Maybe I am oldschool, but… Too me, saying you’re a professional satirist doesn’t make it so. Satire is an art form. It’s often very subtle, if done well. He just comes across as crass and clumsy to me. At least the limited stuff I’ve seen from him.
Believe me, if I attack someone, you know. I’d either call him some very obvious swearwords, loudly, or I’d be incredibly vicious and mean.
If you put yourself out there like that, you need to be open to people thinking they need to set the record straight if you talk shit. That is the Prime Directive of writing for public consumption. Sadly, almost everyone who does it is very bad at that.
