Ugh. Someone needs to stop reading the Babylon Bee. People seem to be enjoying this series but to me it comes off as extremely childish and bratty. This blog talks about not demonizing the other side and not using ad hominem attacks, but I see my colleagues referred to as “kooks” recently in the comments, and then you keep publishing this juvenile nonsense, how am I supposed to believe this blog is in good faith? Please don’t attempt satire unless you are good at satire, it’s painful to those of us who are not IDW fanbois and who are reading for actual intellectual content. It’s embarrassing and it makes the blog look extremely NOT serious.
Also, this blog seems intent on defending Moms for Liberty, which I can only see as being contrarian for contrarian’s sake. I understand the phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” but when you look around and all your “friends” are kind of awful, you might want to reconsider your stance.
I agree about the satire thing--I roll my eyes when one of these pieces pops up. I think that lampooning one's opponents sucks.
But I disagree about the "friend and enemy" mindset. I think an honest conversation (recorded without editing or editorializing and shared widely) between an ethically sound librarian and a representative of Moms for Liberty could be fascinating and helpful for people of all sorts. If one side is intransigent or ungrounded or unreasonably stiff-necked, wouldn't that be useful to know? If both sides are equally doctrinaire (but equally grounded) and there is a simple stand off, wouldn't that be useful to know? And if one side is indeed obviously right and the other dead wrong, wouldn't THAT be most useful of all, if it becomes clearly apparent? But it seems being able to witness the contrast directly would be most useful.
"I have no enemies, and no hatred. None [who have oppressed or opposed me] are my enemies. While I’m unable to accept your surveillance, arrest, prosecution or sentencing, I respect your professions and personalities, including those who act for the prosecution at present...
"For hatred is corrosive of a person’s wisdom and conscience; the mentality of enmity can poison a nation’s spirit, instigate brutal life and death struggles, destroy a society’s tolerance and humanity, and block a nation’s progress to freedom and democracy. I hope therefore to be able to transcend my personal vicissitudes in understanding the development of the state and changes in society, to counter the hostility of the regime with the best of intentions, and defuse hate with love....
"I do not feel guilty for following my constitutional right to freedom of expression, for fulfilling my social responsibility as a citizen. Even if accused of it, I would have no complaints."
If the goal is bridging the gap between librarians and Moms4Whatever then sure, but with this “satire” you’re just taking the vitriol and pointing it in a different direction, so if ever this blog wanted to bridge the gap between *librarians* with different ideologies, then this series sets that effort waaaaaaaay back. There’s no way I can’t see this as pedantic and insulting towards people with my views, and being mocked does not make me want to reach across the aisle and find common ground. You’re ensuring the people you say you’re trying to convince will never read or take seriously the message you say it’s so important to send. How exactly does that help ANYTHING?
Yeah, I don't know. I don't know that creative writing is super helpful, which is why these pieces strike me a little bit as "come closer so I can slap you." But I AM a contrarian, so up to now I've worried a bit that my aversion to these pieces was because I personally can't help but disagree with groups once they hit a certain size. Groups of people get dumber the bigger the group gets. And smug presumption--satirizing one's opponents' views is a behavior borne of smug presumption--is one of the dumb behaviors that groups engage in on the way up.
This blog needs to decide if it wants to be persuasive or if it wants to “dunk on the dummies”. I’ve learned through experience that you can’t have it both ways.
Any time I see a group use a neutral value almost nobody would disagree with in their ideological project, warning bells goes off. This goes for "anti-racism", "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion", "Pro-Life", "Pro-Choice" but also for "Liberty" "Family Values/Family Studies" etc. Tie your highly dubious ideological moralizing project to a broad value most people agree with, then when they object you say "what, you like racism?" or "You must hate families!".
I think Blocked and Reported does a good job of covering this stuff and how lots of things get conflated - there are indeed normie sensible backlashes to ridiculous Gender Unicorn style children's books, but those instances quickly become captured by tradcons who never made their peace with getting Jesus out of schools, birth control and gay marriage and see a neat line to "transwomen are women" from the loss of prayer in school and acknowledgement that gay people exist Normie pushback to both woke nonsens and overt tradcon/America First simplicities quickly get captured by more extreme ideologues. If you live in the South, there is no organized normie pushback to wokeness that doesn't quicky get entangled with the Moral Majority. If only we had a "both y'all dumb" movement of angry centrists tired of both sides culture warring in public institutions. But sadly we don't. I think it depends on where you are from - if you are from a really blue state you are only familiar with blue state silliness. But if you are from the Bible Belt, you immediately see the "God Hates Fags" people are doing to take over any normie pushback to woke silliness because you have seen these people all your life. It is hard for people in California or Oregon to understand, but in north Florida where I live, confederate flags are far more common than rainbow flags and far more people think gays are going to hell than transwomen are women. And these people are every bit as ideological and censory as the woke are. I have no idea what to do politically - I can't vote for DeSantis/Rufo (who aren't principled at all on these issues) but I also want an end to the woke silliness I see in academia where I work. Bur putting evangelical Christians who literally think unbelievers can and should burn in hell for eternity on public school boards (who can't be trusted anymore than Kendi and D'Angelo could be) and firing people for their political beliefs as Rufo/Spier/Corcoran have done at New College isn't the way to do it.
If only these censorious groups were mostly peopled by those making common sense arguments about empirical accuracy and age apropriateness. They may contain those people but they are quickly captured by good old -ashioned religous trad cons - here in Florida they engage in concept creep every bit as bad as the woke vis a vis racism to define anything they don't like into categories. "Groomer" is their "transphobia". If only we had a Moms for Common Sense instead of a battle between "transwomen are women" and "God Hates Fags" where nobody is operating in good faith. I think there are both liberal "useful idiots" for woke nonsense as well as "common sense centrist" "useful idiots' for tradcons attempting to take over education and basically do what the woke does except for "Judeo Christian Family American values". You can see the challenges in Florida go quickly from absurdities like the Gender Unicorn to just anything that mentions that some people are gay. Rufo and Moms for Liberty simply want to use woke tactics for their own ideological ends.
I was a children's librarian in the 90s in some conservative areas, and there were lots of families against books/decorations having to do with Halloween, and I had a mom yank her children out of a story time in which I read the folk tale "The Teeny Tiny Woman." I was also reprimanded by a teacher when I read a LeRoi Jones poem in a classroom that had the word "damn" in it. Needless to say, I (inwardly) rolled my eyes at the "conservatives" back then.
But it seems the regime is really pushing for censorship these days and will accomplish it however it can. The "progressives" will push for censorship through critical theory; the right will push for censoring the censoriousness of critical theory; the progressives will advocate for material for children that is so boundary pushing that the right will have no choice but to counter with attempts to censor.
It is diabolically clever, I will give the regime that.
I agree with the point here that accusing all concerned parents of acting in bad faith, of being "hateful" and bigoted etc. is doing serious harm to our civic discourse, and puts publicly-funded libraries squarely on the battlefield of the culture war, rather than as a venue for genuine dialogue.
Richard Hanania wrote a piece on his substack where he posited that political choices are often a matter of deciding whose slippery slope seems worse and more likely, not a matter of actually supporting the program of who you end up voting for. And that is what makes it so easy for ideologues to dominate the process.
This satire makes me think of a new book by Fredrik deBoer --How the Elites Ate the Social Justice Movement. (Simon & Schuster, 2023)-
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/How-Elites-Ate-the-Social-Justice-Movement/Fredrik-deBoer/9781668016015
This would make an excellent script for a TV show.
Brilliant.
Then what happened?!
Ugh. Someone needs to stop reading the Babylon Bee. People seem to be enjoying this series but to me it comes off as extremely childish and bratty. This blog talks about not demonizing the other side and not using ad hominem attacks, but I see my colleagues referred to as “kooks” recently in the comments, and then you keep publishing this juvenile nonsense, how am I supposed to believe this blog is in good faith? Please don’t attempt satire unless you are good at satire, it’s painful to those of us who are not IDW fanbois and who are reading for actual intellectual content. It’s embarrassing and it makes the blog look extremely NOT serious.
Also, this blog seems intent on defending Moms for Liberty, which I can only see as being contrarian for contrarian’s sake. I understand the phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” but when you look around and all your “friends” are kind of awful, you might want to reconsider your stance.
I agree about the satire thing--I roll my eyes when one of these pieces pops up. I think that lampooning one's opponents sucks.
But I disagree about the "friend and enemy" mindset. I think an honest conversation (recorded without editing or editorializing and shared widely) between an ethically sound librarian and a representative of Moms for Liberty could be fascinating and helpful for people of all sorts. If one side is intransigent or ungrounded or unreasonably stiff-necked, wouldn't that be useful to know? If both sides are equally doctrinaire (but equally grounded) and there is a simple stand off, wouldn't that be useful to know? And if one side is indeed obviously right and the other dead wrong, wouldn't THAT be most useful of all, if it becomes clearly apparent? But it seems being able to witness the contrast directly would be most useful.
"I have no enemies, and no hatred. None [who have oppressed or opposed me] are my enemies. While I’m unable to accept your surveillance, arrest, prosecution or sentencing, I respect your professions and personalities, including those who act for the prosecution at present...
"For hatred is corrosive of a person’s wisdom and conscience; the mentality of enmity can poison a nation’s spirit, instigate brutal life and death struggles, destroy a society’s tolerance and humanity, and block a nation’s progress to freedom and democracy. I hope therefore to be able to transcend my personal vicissitudes in understanding the development of the state and changes in society, to counter the hostility of the regime with the best of intentions, and defuse hate with love....
"I do not feel guilty for following my constitutional right to freedom of expression, for fulfilling my social responsibility as a citizen. Even if accused of it, I would have no complaints."
--A paraphrase of Liu Xiaobo
If the goal is bridging the gap between librarians and Moms4Whatever then sure, but with this “satire” you’re just taking the vitriol and pointing it in a different direction, so if ever this blog wanted to bridge the gap between *librarians* with different ideologies, then this series sets that effort waaaaaaaay back. There’s no way I can’t see this as pedantic and insulting towards people with my views, and being mocked does not make me want to reach across the aisle and find common ground. You’re ensuring the people you say you’re trying to convince will never read or take seriously the message you say it’s so important to send. How exactly does that help ANYTHING?
I mean I’m that “other side” you say you want to hear your ideas, and here I am, learning about the other side, and for my effort I get made fun of.
Yeah, I don't know. I don't know that creative writing is super helpful, which is why these pieces strike me a little bit as "come closer so I can slap you." But I AM a contrarian, so up to now I've worried a bit that my aversion to these pieces was because I personally can't help but disagree with groups once they hit a certain size. Groups of people get dumber the bigger the group gets. And smug presumption--satirizing one's opponents' views is a behavior borne of smug presumption--is one of the dumb behaviors that groups engage in on the way up.
This blog needs to decide if it wants to be persuasive or if it wants to “dunk on the dummies”. I’ve learned through experience that you can’t have it both ways.
Word.
Any time I see a group use a neutral value almost nobody would disagree with in their ideological project, warning bells goes off. This goes for "anti-racism", "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion", "Pro-Life", "Pro-Choice" but also for "Liberty" "Family Values/Family Studies" etc. Tie your highly dubious ideological moralizing project to a broad value most people agree with, then when they object you say "what, you like racism?" or "You must hate families!".
I think Blocked and Reported does a good job of covering this stuff and how lots of things get conflated - there are indeed normie sensible backlashes to ridiculous Gender Unicorn style children's books, but those instances quickly become captured by tradcons who never made their peace with getting Jesus out of schools, birth control and gay marriage and see a neat line to "transwomen are women" from the loss of prayer in school and acknowledgement that gay people exist Normie pushback to both woke nonsens and overt tradcon/America First simplicities quickly get captured by more extreme ideologues. If you live in the South, there is no organized normie pushback to wokeness that doesn't quicky get entangled with the Moral Majority. If only we had a "both y'all dumb" movement of angry centrists tired of both sides culture warring in public institutions. But sadly we don't. I think it depends on where you are from - if you are from a really blue state you are only familiar with blue state silliness. But if you are from the Bible Belt, you immediately see the "God Hates Fags" people are doing to take over any normie pushback to woke silliness because you have seen these people all your life. It is hard for people in California or Oregon to understand, but in north Florida where I live, confederate flags are far more common than rainbow flags and far more people think gays are going to hell than transwomen are women. And these people are every bit as ideological and censory as the woke are. I have no idea what to do politically - I can't vote for DeSantis/Rufo (who aren't principled at all on these issues) but I also want an end to the woke silliness I see in academia where I work. Bur putting evangelical Christians who literally think unbelievers can and should burn in hell for eternity on public school boards (who can't be trusted anymore than Kendi and D'Angelo could be) and firing people for their political beliefs as Rufo/Spier/Corcoran have done at New College isn't the way to do it.
Cute.
I read this FOR the satire!
If only these censorious groups were mostly peopled by those making common sense arguments about empirical accuracy and age apropriateness. They may contain those people but they are quickly captured by good old -ashioned religous trad cons - here in Florida they engage in concept creep every bit as bad as the woke vis a vis racism to define anything they don't like into categories. "Groomer" is their "transphobia". If only we had a Moms for Common Sense instead of a battle between "transwomen are women" and "God Hates Fags" where nobody is operating in good faith. I think there are both liberal "useful idiots" for woke nonsense as well as "common sense centrist" "useful idiots' for tradcons attempting to take over education and basically do what the woke does except for "Judeo Christian Family American values". You can see the challenges in Florida go quickly from absurdities like the Gender Unicorn to just anything that mentions that some people are gay. Rufo and Moms for Liberty simply want to use woke tactics for their own ideological ends.
I was a children's librarian in the 90s in some conservative areas, and there were lots of families against books/decorations having to do with Halloween, and I had a mom yank her children out of a story time in which I read the folk tale "The Teeny Tiny Woman." I was also reprimanded by a teacher when I read a LeRoi Jones poem in a classroom that had the word "damn" in it. Needless to say, I (inwardly) rolled my eyes at the "conservatives" back then.
But it seems the regime is really pushing for censorship these days and will accomplish it however it can. The "progressives" will push for censorship through critical theory; the right will push for censoring the censoriousness of critical theory; the progressives will advocate for material for children that is so boundary pushing that the right will have no choice but to counter with attempts to censor.
It is diabolically clever, I will give the regime that.
I agree with the point here that accusing all concerned parents of acting in bad faith, of being "hateful" and bigoted etc. is doing serious harm to our civic discourse, and puts publicly-funded libraries squarely on the battlefield of the culture war, rather than as a venue for genuine dialogue.
Richard Hanania wrote a piece on his substack where he posited that political choices are often a matter of deciding whose slippery slope seems worse and more likely, not a matter of actually supporting the program of who you end up voting for. And that is what makes it so easy for ideologues to dominate the process.