Censorship on Demand

Source: https://sites.psu.edu/worldwidewomen/censorship-effects-on-society/

 

Censorship group: We have a list of 200 books we would like removed from the library's shelves immediately!

Library: Well, let's take a look here and...umm, actually we don't have any of those titles in our library.

Censorship group: We're going to go after your collection policy!

Library: But why? We don't have those titles here.

Censorship group: But according to your policy, you could! Someday! Maybe! Possibly!

The above dialogue is not an imagined scenario, it is my way of presenting something that really happened in the United States of 'Murica. Now that the Karens and Chads have lost the masking policies as a form of self-congratulatory faux activism, they're once more focusing on ideas. It's all in the name of the children, of course, because that's how they accomplish their agenda. Everybody who has a different way of thinking is "grooming" the poor innocent kids as if they don't groom them to become pro-censorship, anti-science wackjobs with blatant self-worth issues. 

There is an organization comprised of, surprise-surprise, conservative women who are aggressively trying to do everything they can to make censorship great again. Why do I say "again?" Well, there was a time when it was the norm in this country. In fact, the notion of unfettered access to ideas is relatively new on the United States timeline. The name of this group is, unironically, MomsforLiberty. And in case you're wondering, they have been largely successful in their attempts to keep kids away from scary concepts such as American's actual history and the fact that not everybody is straight.

Operating under the guise of advocating for parental rights, what they're really saying is they want to be able to be part of a society while at the same time not being in any way responsible to that society. It should come as no surprise that these privileged stay-at-homes (mostly) want to have their proverbial cake and eat it, too. They are, after all, used to getting their own way because of who they are. I know, I know. I'm indulging in supposed "identity politics" or whatever rightwing catchphrase is the hip one these days, but facts are still facts no matter how they are labeled.

Like their counterparts in other, similar movements, they proceed from a false premise (See image to the left). The idea that schools, libraries and society at large are somehow attempting to "co-parent" their precious kids is absurd and small-minded. The role of these entities is to provide access to materials to a broad demographic and, if there is teaching occurring, it is for the betterment of the society as a whole. If you don't agree with making your child a well-rounded citizen, homeschool them and keep them in your bubble.

That's not good enough for MomsforLiberty though. Their mission is to wash across the country and effect change in their wake. They see themselves as warriors in the cause of childhood purity and, frankly, they have just enough actual precedent to make themselves seem credible to the misinformed. That's how these groups with their dubious origins become forces to be reckoned with. And make no mistake, they are indeed that.

There is a reason glad-handing opportunists such as Ron DeSantis are so cozy with them. They are a large voting bloc and they vote for anybody who parrots their views. Florida has been their most successful battleground so far but they have chapters in nearly every state. And if the rumors are true and this organization actually requires loyalty oaths and photos of members, we are looking at a totalitarian attempt at policing ideas that will not end with school libraries.

For a list of MomsforLiberty's "accomplishments," click here

Fanaticism at War with Creativity (and it's winning)

 

It's obvious now in the U.S. that we got used to thinking all the censorship and persecution was in the past. Movies are made about it and tons of books have been written on the subject. Most of these presumed an evolved, more aware society looking back on a terrible time with the perspective of those who have learned "the lesson" and moved forward. 

It turns out the religious fanatics were quietly getting themselves into positions where they could enact sweeping censorship across the entire nation, the South in particular. This is not an altogether surprising event to me. I have been tracking the Religious Right's mostly successful strategy since the 1990s. Once they realized Ronald Reagan was not the Evangelical-friendly president they'd been hoping for, they set their sites on more realistic targets. Local school boards, City Councils, small-town mayoral elections and even courtrooms were slowly infiltrated by them until the time came for them to begin enacting their agenda for social control in the name of spiritual salvation.

And they were really, really good at it too.

"Questionable" books began to be challenged in school libraries. Laws were passed that would never have withstood the light of day a mere decade before. Harmful deprogramming techniques aimed at gays gained popularity in certain circles and there was a bizarre shift from blaming Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus to hailing them as wonderful because in their view, these people needed to be slaughtered in order to bring on those wonderful End Times. But that's okay because they will be given a second chance to accept Christ as the messiah and everybody will live happily ever after for a thousand years because ancient people couldn't conceive of a number larger than that.

But let's take a quick step back. This is a highly motivated, resentful and frighteningly large group of Americans who have felt marginalized and disrespected for generations. And, to be fair, they kind of were. Most mainstream so-called "secular" Americans saw them as little more than a pack of ignorant hayseeds, members of a vocal minority whose predilection for following flawed, charismatic nutjobs had descended into self-parody. And, to be fair, they kind of had. 

So, where did that leave us? Simply put, with a two-sided coin sitting on its side in the middle of a field of general apathy. On one side of that coin sits a large, angry, delusional minority of religious zealots whose entire lives have been spent in a veritable echo chamber of self-righteousness and magical thinking. On the other sits their opposite extreme, far left social engineers with an alarming level of self-interest pushing various agendas with no real awareness of what they are up against. Meanwhile, on that field of apathy, we have small groups of people just starting to open their eyes and realize what's happening while they watch their streaming shows and stupidly put the names of their children on signs outside their houses complete with the names of their schools as celebration. 

The demands for censorship we are seeing are primarily but by no means exclusively coming from the Right. The difference is the Right's agenda is far more organized because Right-wingers tend to think alike whereas one of the strengths and weaknesses of Left-wingers is their lack of constant, mindless agreement with one another. But where exactly are these calls for book banning coming from and who is initiating them? You might be surprised by the answer:

Surprised? You probably are. Who would have expected school and library boards to issue more challenges than political and religious groups? Who expected the number of elected officials doing it to be lower than the percentage of librarians and teachers? The second column tracks with conventional wisdom, however, as does the third one. It is interesting to note how much importance is placed on the written word vs. other types of media. No matter what, words on a page (or a screen) still cause more discomfort than images and songs. The reason for that should be obvious. Their entire worldview is based on the written words in a book they believe is the only one anybody needs because all of the answers are found in its pages.

Here's the part so many non-believers and rationally minded believers do not get about these people. They indulge in constant magical thinking. In their minds, all fiction is based on belief, most of it running contrary to theirs. They are a bizarre combination of irrationality and literal-mindedness that makes it nearly impossible for them to grasp metaphor and subtlety, let alone allegorical social commentary. In fact, those words are meaningless to them because their over-simplified worldview is based on the most basic concept of good vs. evil resulting in simplistic reward or punishment. There is no nuance there.

This is why when these groups are challenged to present one specific example of why they consider a book unacceptable, they either cannot do it or can't be bothered to even try. What's the point in offering specifics when the entire thing is based on Satanic appeasement? Trust me, when they use the word "Worldly," it's not a positive thing. The actual definition of that word is someone who is well-rounded and educated, but they use it to mean someone who is by default in league with the devil because they are "of the world." The world is evil because of humanity's fall from Grace, despite the efforts of Jesus in the New Testament to usher in an Age of Grace.

It is this very contradictory nature that makes it impossible to reason with book banners who are doing it for religious reasons. Reason is just another way of moving away from God in their estimation. Science is the devil's religion, at least that's what a similar-minded friend once said to me in a matter-of-fact tone of voice.  Funnily enough, following the tiny bit of logic contained in that mentality, one would think politics would be the devil's playground. Yet Evangelicals have been infiltrating local government for decades so they could enact their peculiar brand of American Christianity. Library boards, school boards and city councils were just the beginning. They are well beyond that now and their lack of willingness to engage in the realm of ideas is slowly affecting our lives in ways that are becoming more and more apparent.

(If you wish to join the fight against library censorship, contact these fines folks and make your voices heard)

Book Banning & the Death of Discomfort

 

Last month Young Adult Fiction author Bill Konigsberg wrote what is perhaps the best written, most comprehensive refutation of book banning I have seen. It was in reference to his novel, "The Bridge" (pictured to the left) which deals with teenage suicide. In his letter, Konigsberg tries to speak rationally to irrational people in a tragically pointless appeal to their intellects. If there have been any responses from the "concerned parents" who wish to remove his work from school libraries, I haven't seen it. 

It's doubtful they will engage him in a battle of wits when they are so poorly equipped. Book banners are not thinkers, they are reactors. They allow emotion and beliefs of a mostly archaic nature to guide their choices. There's also an element of tribalism in their decision-making, whether it be racial or religious in nature. It's often both. These are people who lack the ability to think beyond themselves, the pinnacle of provinciality. 

Most often, the parents demanding book removals from school libraries see the world in a severely limited way. It is a form of magical thinking that frames all issues into an odd combination of advocacy and promotion. Because so many of them operate based on nothing but faith, they are unable to grasp the concept of presenting ideas just for discussion or as a challenge to preconceived notions. This is threatening to the magical thinker because an alternate view only exists to lure them away from the absolute certainty of the system they follow. For example, Yoga cannot be positive in its purest form because it has a spiritual component. That automatically means there is evil encoded in its rituals and one must be on guard against its conniving ways. For the magical thinker, the only good alternate idea is one that has been co-opted by their belief system.

Take a look at karate if you don't believe me. I'll even make it easy for you. Take a look at this website. Read their bullshit spin job on the history of martial arts where they try to justify their outright theft or cultural appropriation by citing other cultures with martial arts traditions from the ancient world that were not Asian in origin. They weren't Christian either but who needs details to spoil a good lie? They even somehow include creationism and the absurd claim that Earth is 6,000 years old as a method for whitewashing their use of  a non-Christian fighting art. If they have concerns over the "strong occult powers entrenched in Asian practice," why don't they practice one of the other arts they mention from Egypt and Pakistan? 

Quick answer: They don't need to. They already control the narrative.

But they don't control the narrative of books like "The Bridge" or Art Spiegelman's "Maus," another title these tireless parental crusaders have gone after because it makes their sensibilities all squirmy. The latter is an even more egregious example of book banning. These close-minded individuals took this man's father's life experience during the Holocaust and got rid of it because there is foul language and some nudity. One parent even accused the school library of "promoting" these things by carrying the book. Once more we return to magical thinking, where no idea is up for discussion because it only exists to disrespect the Absolute Truth. Instead of talking about these elements of a story and placing them in proper context, i.e. the supposed "sexual explicit behavior" in Konigsberg's book of which there is none. I read it.

I read "Maus" too. So I can tell you without fear of contradiction that only a person with little to no ability to use basic cognition would be offended by it or even want to prevent their teenaged child from reading it.

Despite my obvious disdain for the realm of dogmatic reactionary claptrap coming from the majority of these parent watchdogs, there is another aspect to all of this that I feel is being either ignored or going unnoticed. 

Much of what gets read these days is fluff. It's been that way for decades, especially in the mainstream Fiction world. Sadly, there are two celebrities we can thank for that. Oprah started it with her book club and Reese Witherspoon has continued it with hers. Both of these women, neither of them authors of fiction, do what most non-experts do when it comes to selecting titles for their respective clubs. They choose what they like based on how the books make them feel. Sometimes there's a challenge embedded in the stories, but somehow things usually work out favorably by the end. Discomfort becomes a temporary thing, the method by which the reader can be transported into a tale that will ultimately make them feel good about themselves and the choices they have made in life.

That is, of course, a generalization. I know Oprah recommended books such as "The Bluest Eye" by Toni Morrison which, by no means, ends in a mostly positive place. And I'm not even referring to the book clubs these two famous actors endorse as trash peddlers. There are plenty of quality works on their lists. But the readership is not looking for stories that pull them too far out of their comfort zones. And if adults feel this way, they naturally assume they must protect children from the opposite as well.

Discomfort is important. Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse Five" wasn't written so that we could applaud the bombing of Dresden. He was there. He lived it. And just like Spiegelman, he wanted to share that part of himself with the world in an attempt to help his fellow humans understand what we are capable of and why we must expose ourselves to things that don't make us feel good about ourselves. Not all reading is for entertainment. I would expect even the least educated parents out there to know that titles in a school library are there because students can learn from them. 

Even when they have naughty words and side-boob and make us wonder if our beliefs suck and need to be changed.

On Being Told What to Write

 

So, here we are again entering the horrifying world of Prior Review and Content Control. I swear this topic comes up every so often as a matter of course these days, and nowhere is it more prevalent outside of politics than in the world of genre fandom. This particular incident was pretty extreme, reminding me of a certain Batman movie's devoted, fanatical base about twelve years ago whose ire and outrage resulted in several attacks when I posted a link to my review on the now defunct Yahoo! Message Boards.

This time was different, however. Not only did it take place on Facebook, but it also resulted in a volley of personal and professional attacks. The fanboy Battalion has mutated since those days of simply telling a person they were wrong and sending threatening emails to professional film critics for not liking a movie they adored. 

I wouldn't have even known about this if not for the fact that a Facebook friend had posted her views on James Gunn's "The Suicide Squad" by referring to it as basically a stupid failure. I concurred, posting my blog post/review to show her just how much. You can read that here. I saw a dissenting comment from a guy whose name shall remain undisclosed (I'll refer to him as "Soy" based on a comment another friend made) which I read and immediately forgot all about. However, at some point between me not being online for a while and finally going back on, my Facebook friend had unfriended and blocked this individual for comments she found obnoxious.

Like any juicy scandal-loving 'Murican, I decided to look him up. To my delight, I found that he had reposted the above review and written a disdainful commentary about it. This was so his like-minded, sycophantic followers could start making insulting comments about the review itself, the writing of it, and the various word choices they deemed pretentious. The post was public, so it was easy for me to jump in, first by thanking Soy for the repost and then responding to some of the comments about the review. I found it interesting how Soy kept trying to make it seem as if me seeing negative comments about something I wrote was some sort of turnabout is fair play situation instead of an expected part of being a writer...Almost as if he was some uber-nerd twit who didn't know what the hell he was talking about.

This suspicion was compounded by the fact that he seemed hellbent on telling me what I should have written, and how I should have written it. The review, in his opinion, lacked "nuance," a word he seemed to have just learned sometime this week and couldn't  wait to use over and over until he sounded like a special needs parrot. I began to wonder: What exactly had him so upset and offended? My dislike of the material, the way I presented it, or the fact that I didn't gently take him by the hand and explain every sentence and word choice so he didn't soil his diaper? I suspect it was all three.

In the midst of Soy's kiss-ass geek patrol calling my writing terrible and saying how much it sucked, he kept telling me how I should have written my review. Oh, and he used the word "nuance."

A lot.

I've dealt with guys like this before. They represent both cheeks on the political butt. Extreme righties tend to indulge the behavior more often, but extreme lefties do it, too. The tactic is to lure the person onto their page, insult them and then let their friends attack them from all angles while appearing to be the reasonable one "just trying to make a point." It is a tactic employed by both bully and bullied alike. It hasn't ever worked on me when dealing with people who were much better at it, and it sure as shit didn't work on me this time.

The intellectual lightweights on Soy's page were barely a distraction, but they definitely brought the entertainment value. Yet despite the constant back-and-forth with such gems as "I want to kill your high school English teacher 'cause you suck" and other award-winning zingers of the highest level, Soy was still telling me what and how to write.

Deciding I'd had enough fun with the dingleberries, I focused instead on the post's originator and his repeated insistence that my post lacked...sigh...NUANCE. 

At this point, I'd already had a relatively decent back-and-forth with the one person not necessarily following Soy's orders who had expressed an interest in knowing what my opinion of the movie might be now that the initial hostility had faded. And to be fair, I did give Soy one point: The review was not a *GROAN* nuanced take on the film. It wasn't intended to be; it was written as an extension of my Facebook live posting. Soy even admitted my views on the handling of Viola Davis' character were pretty accurate.

The conversation could have, and probably should have, ended there. We had found a point on which we agreed and did not agree on the rest because Soy had issues with the way it was presented. Fair enough. I've stopped reading many a novel for similar reasons. The difference is, I didn't contact the author and tell them how they should have written the novel. I moved on. It's what grownups do. Soy, on the other hand, chose this as a hill to die on, a cause he could not relinquish. He was, in essence, the fanboy cliché nobody can stand; a know-it-all expert on all things with no foundation in any of them who thinks he has the right to police content. 

I owe no one who isn't paying me for my work anything. The mere fact that he was ignorant of the difference between a journal-like blog post and a professional film review shows that he proceeded from a false assumption. I certainly don't feel obligated to some random shit-starter on social networking to accommodate him with my writing, nor am I fazed by a bunch of followers of this person to feel that I need to alter my writing style. Awards, positive reviews and over thirty published stories speak for themselves. Besides, anyone who gets that angry over someone's opinions about a silly movie has more emotional issues than I am qualified to deal with.

I will thank Soy and his too-cool friends for the blog post material. It's difficult to not write about someone who accuses me of getting upset about a post when the post I am responding to is literally the result of the person getting upset about a post, throwing a tantrum, and trying to gain validation. Pointing out a person's lack of self-awareness doesn't usually go well, and I wound up blocked for my efforts. 

However, in the interest of helping people get past their soft, squishy ego problems, may I submit for their use...

Oh, I almost forgot:

NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE
NUANCE

Religious Fanatic Takes "Steal this Book!" to Heart but it's the Wrong Book.

Apparently an anthology I am in offended the delicate sensibilities of at least one self-appointed soldier for the Lord. At least, that's how the anthology's publisher is interpreting it.

It makes sense, based on how the petty crime took place. You can get the whole story here but here's a pull quote in case your clickin' finger is sore:

"...other books were left alone, as was a tablet and some cash..."

B Cubed Press Bob Brown's response to the thief is pretty entertaining because, ultimately, the fact that fiction can still cause this reaction in people means it still has the power to transform and to make people think. That is worth more to me than any financial reward my story gained.

The funny thing is, the only reason I even know about this is because I happened to be on my Amazon Author page where a newer reader review of the anthology mentioned the theft.  You can read that review here and even though the reader doesn't mention my story (how dare they?) it's a glowingly positive one that might not have happened if some jackass hadn't tried to censor what you're able to read.