Bought and read your book recently. Really enjoyed your perspective and thank you for having the courage to speak out when there is so much personal risk. I have historically voted for democrats, live in a liberal area and most of my friends are liberal. Unfortunately the WP is our hometown paper and most of my friends believe everything they read (I used to myself). It’s hard to have conversations about cultural or political issues without sounding a little crazy in these groups. Especially when all the major institutions seem to be on board with the insanity of our current state. I recently decided that I would try the approach of not talking about politics at all with friends, like back to n the 70’s when it was considered impolite. I’ll just stay educated and vote for who I vote for. But then I see women like you, Bari Weiss, etc and think I should do more. It’s hard (and scary) to rock the boat!!
Thank you so much, Becky! If you enjoyed the book, I would really appreciate a review on Amazon. It really helps give the book visibility (dang algos run everything) ;-)
Yes, definitely a challenging time to speak up -- especially in my industry (entertainment). My partner constantly frets that I’m one blog post away from being “cancelled” by my colleagues/clients. But I’m a firm believer that if we follow our hearts and remain true to ourselves, the universe will find a way to keep us on our path. What I know for certain is that being quiet and standing down is not who I am, it’s not who I’ve ever been, and I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
Amen, sister. Keep holding space open for the truth and for heart. The universe will honor this, I promise you. You may not win all of the battles, but we will turn the tide eventually. As an old, battle-scarred veteran of holding space open for heart, it's worth it to stay true to that which drives you from deep within. Trust it.
The below quote has been my guidestar all of my life and I'm not giving up yet, in spite of the current insanity. Revenge and self-righteousness will not prevail. Love will find a way.
“Goodbye," said the fox. "And now here is my secret, a very simple secret: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.”
Congrats! This exposure is a huge win. One thing not many people discuss is how many Americans have been virtually unaware of what is going on in this ideological witchhunt. I know that I've had to educate many of my liberal friends and even then, it takes some of them a while to wake up to how pernicious and blatantly unfair this whole thing is.
It's a war of language and labels conducted by adults who act like immature 7th graders but who are highly skilled in language arts and rhetoric, well organized and so convicted of their own rightness that they have become zealots. We all know that successive waves of zealots (and wars) destroyed the Library of Alexandria over several centuries. Precious archives of human knowledge lost forever. Not to mention the viciousness of religious wars in Europe which led to the formation of the United States itself. Zealotry has power and can be incredibly destructive.
But, as you suggest, if we calmly and unequivocally state our truth over and over again, it will erode the vengeful spirit that lies behind this rigid ideology. I have encountered increasing numbers of gays and lesbians in particular who are turning away from this extreme ideology. And there are many others.
Sadly, we recently lost a liberal who dedicated his life to practicing the tenets of liberal philosophy: to to encourage and lift up the disadvantaged and work for equal opportunity for all. Richard Bilkszto founded the Toronto chapter of FAIR and was an icon in the education system. He was bullied to death by a rapacious DEI (or should I say DIE) group backed by a weak school board and administration. Here was an iconic liberal - not the enemy by any stretch - who was working toward the goals of justice and equality and pro-humanism - and he was punished and hounded to death simply for having the courage to disagree with the extreme views of these grifters.
They don't care what color or creed anyone is. A few months ago, Tabia Lee, a diversity consultant, was let go by De Anza college in Cupertino for not preaching an extreme version of DEI. She was too "humanist" and wouldn't subscribe to dehumanizing white people. So, they fired her. And she is black. They don't care. They will have their revenge or die trying, even if they take out some of their own.
That said, a civilized society can't support this type of puritanical/witch hunt behavior without some kind of reckoning. I think the only reason that it's lasted so long is they have played a very clever long-game of institutional capture (ref. Paolo Freire) and they haven't made the mistake of leveraging deadly force or political coup, something that would wake people up very quickly. But, pushing heretics to suicide is ok. Destroying people's lives and careers is ok. Fragmenting and sometimes destroying families is okay. Terrorizing and publicly shaming people is ok. Tossing out basic rules of fairness and civility is ok. Introducing the concept of shaming people for the color of their skin into therapy is ok (yes, I'm looking at you APA - how many people will you drive to suicide with this tactic, eh?).
It's a pernicious, underhanded game catalyzed by a seriously toxic set of academic theories masquerading as a quasi-religious quest for justice and spread by a class of human for whom posturing and it's resultant gatekeeping is more important than breathing (the chattering classes/PMC).
Human beings are now and always will be more than our power relations and structures. There is more that motivates most of us than power. Using this lense to describe the world is like experiencing only the tail of the elephant and declaring it the whole. The whole ideology is a giant synecdoche and a solipsism, a chimera. Luckily, the objective world will be their Achilles heel. No matter how they might try, they can't erase reality. They can't change the fundamental nature of the physical universe. They can't make 2 + 2 = 5. No one is going to buy this long term.
It's like that scene in a Wrinkle in Time where the children are on the mountain with Mrs. Whatsit in her Pegasus form, and they watch a blazing star obliterate the black thing that blocks light. She explains to them that this was a star that sacrificed itself to fight the black thing. And that our history was replete with such opposition - Jesus, Rembrandt, Buddha, Bach - luminaries of heart and imagination. Richard Bilkszto was one such courageous human and there have been many others who have sacrificed everything to make a statement against this vengeful creed. Keep the faith and keep pouring that faith into the world. Pro-humanism, love, fair play - they will win - in spite of everything.
Wow, I had not heard about Richard's experience in Toronto! It amazes me that DEI zealots have not yet realized the obvious: when you find it necessary to resort to a scorched earth policy -- silencing everyone who disagrees with you with a blunt club -- you aren't winning; you're losing. Most people know the difference between truth and nonsense, and no amount of cajoling, guilting, shaming, or gaslighting will convince them otherwise.
Your Wrinkle in Time metaphor reminds me of a portion of my presentation at FreedomFest about the power of light.
When we're in a dark room and someone lights a single candle, what happens? The entire room changes. Suddenly, that single point of light allows us to see SO much. That single point of light is able to push back the darkness. And each time we add another candle, the darkness retreats further.
It doesn’t take much light to defeat darkness. That’s how powerful light is. That’s how powerful each and every one of us is 🙏🏾
You are correct. I've already decided I will take a bullet before I will submit. I fought my way out of a shaming, abusive childhood. Not going back into that box for anything.
And also, in spite of not being an Xtian, I love this verse from the bible: “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” John 1:5
*It's a war of language and labels conducted by adults who act like immature 7th graders but who are highly skilled in language arts and rhetoric, well organized and so convicted of their own rightness that they have become zealots.*
Such adult zealots have long helped me make a case for youth liberation, i.e., granting full civil rights to people under 18 and treating them according to their individual merits and the quality of their life experiences, not the mere quantity. This is because many adults do not behave any better than the traits we ascribe to young kids, and in fact, the wave of kids getting involved with the "gender affirmation" nonsense is largely due to adults pushing the trend on them. Let us also not forget the older adults running the corporations and government, who likewise make terrible decisions on a regular basis.
*It's a pernicious, underhanded game catalyzed by a seriously toxic set of academic theories masquerading as a quasi-religious quest for justice and spread by a class of human for whom posturing and it's resultant gatekeeping is more important than breathing (the chattering classes/PMC).*
It's main purpose, by the capitalists who formulate it, is to keep the various groups comprising the working class separated into competing factions who are pissed off at each other. This spurious ideology hoodwinks people with specific personality traits and/or emotional issues by appealing to a dark part of the human psyche: one seeking revenge on others, and a desire to play the righteous moral crusader by doing so. They found a perfect, establishment-approved outlet for their anger and bitterness, much as earlier generations of psychopaths and serial killers did by joining the military or by becoming bounty hunters.
*I think the only reason that it's lasted so long is they have played a very clever long-game of institutional capture (ref. Paolo Freire) and they haven't made the mistake of leveraging deadly force or political coup, something that would wake people up very quickly.*
That, and due to the unfortunate emotional appeal these tenets have to our darker emotional impulses, as described above. Would it truly have gotten this far in the Western world, particularly America, if it did not have so many emotionally unstable people? The capitalist class and the government it controls was well aware that they could harness and focus the pervasive emotional issues caused by their system into tricking elements of the Left into defending its institutions, much as Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union did in the past. Brilliant... and sad.
*I have encountered increasing numbers of gays and lesbians in particular who are turning away from this extreme ideology. And there are many others.*
As have I. Emotionally stable LGBTs, those who are relatively well-adjusted and not filled with bitterness over the past, and those lacking the specific personality traits that make "woke" ideology appealing, are all turned off by this mentality, at least eventually. The majority of LGBTs simply want to live their lives in peace and be openly accepted with equal rights by the heteronormative majority. Hence, they are well aware that promoting hatred against, and demanding entitlements from, the heteronormative majority is simply going to result in an equally angry backlash, which is already fueling a resurgence of the Regressive Right. It is also driving an increasing number of angry heteronormative white men who feel alienated & abandoned by the Left, and even many women & LGBTs who resent hatred being promoted in their name, into the ranks of the Right -- and sometimes into its more Extreme manifestations.
The Classical Left succeeded in keeping these traditional bigots at bay and even garnering their tolerance for openly LGBT lifestyles in their midst. But shoving said lifestyles down their nose, pushing it on their kids in schools (where the kids lack their civil rights and are captive audiences for the curricula) to try and create large numbers of synthetic LGBTs, and alienating them from heteronormatives who otherwise would have been their friends and accepted them as people is threatening to reverse many of the the civil rights they earned over a long period of struggle by fighting the fight mostly *the correct way.*
I also extend my condolences over Richard. It is in his name and the name of other brave souls like him that we continue his legacy of fighting for *real* civil liberties and genuine equality for everyone.
You might enjoy this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM4qvDs6Hdc "Diversity is a Ruling Class Ideology There are some very good insights in this video. It's long but worth it.
Loved: “Hence, they are well aware that promoting hatred against, and demanding entitlements from, the heteronormative majority is simply going to result in an equally angry backlash, which is already fueling a resurgence of the Regressive Right. It is also driving an increasing number of angry heteronormative white men who feel alienated & abandoned by the Left, and even many women & LGBTs who resent hatred being promoted in their name, into the ranks of the Right -- and sometimes into its more Extreme manifestations.”
I've noticed this for some time now. The extreme left is creating the extreme right. Just like the extreme right of the Jim Crow era (combined with the puritanical notions of the early 20th century progressive left - eugenics, quest for a perfect society, temperance movement, post-modernist philosophy) fed into the creation of the extreme left. Vicious cycle.
Yes, the suicide of Richard makes me weep. We need more Richards on this planet, not less. I understand the despair that drove him to kill himself. There are days when it is hard to live in this world.
And I can think of no better way to get justice for Richard by using the power of words to take out all of these bullies. They need to be opposed, because they are a toxic, destructive force to democracy, actual progress, and the well-being of decent people.
Okay. Maybe we should write a "Story," as "Medium" calls them, and post that story to Medium or somehow create a record of this. Yours, mine, and Monica's all seem to have this "gender" or "gender activism" theme. It is such a quirky thing. How could all three of these incidents get recorded and published...?
okay, you are in as the fourth! But since posting my idea I have received constant notices of "likes" and no practical advice as to how or where to publish. It sounds like it is a lot more than "four," but we can start with four. What if we live in a world where there is nowhere to pubish?
The two places where you can pretty much expect not to get censored are Substack and one's own website. Substack has pretty much taken a hands-off approach to censorship as is evidenced by the right-wing writers here, like Bari Weiss, who haven't gotten deplatformed. Glenn Loury here got a video censored on YouTube recently because it debated and critiqued trans ideology. Not Medium, but his assistant, can't remember the guy's name, a recent immigrant to the US, reached out to Substack to understand their censorship policy and you REALLY have to eff up to get censored or banned here. Like, you have to practically threaten to kill someone important or express what actually was 'hate speech' before it got 'wokenized'. Chris Fox and the already-mentioned Steve QJ, both on Substack, have been censored by Medium. I know someone else I could reach out to who could find others.
If you/we publish somethign here on Substack, I'll repost it on my own blog, growsomelabia.com/blog, with everyone's permission. And we can share on social media, if we dare :)
I've also recently been deplatformed from Vocal.media for "transphobic' articles (i.e., gender critical) and CounterSocial, a Twitter alternative, most likely because of my recent article noting that the right is more scientific than the left on the lack of science behind 'gender affirming' care and that not only red states were pulling back on providing it, but so were the most liberal countries in Europe based on its lack of evidence. There is no quickly way to get deplatformed than the criticize, challenge, and annoy transgender totalitarians.
There's no way the article would get banned or suspended on Substack.
Another place you can go to avoid getting suspended or banned if you want to do videos is Rumble, which is owned by Locals. They are a free speech-friendly alternative to YouTube.
Sadly, many new forums like Medium appear on a regular basis and start out good, but eventually the Woke Syndrome hits the administration and they bow down to threats from the government or give into the temptation to go for those ESG credit scores offered by the likes of BlackRock. Hence, it's pretty silly when the "woke" sometimes claim that they are anti-capitalist, since all identity politics is one method used by the capitalist class to promote the emotionally-charged Culture Wars, whose purpose is to distract the working class from the Class War.
Of course, the Right is more than happy to conflate the Regressive Left and its "Cultural Marxism" with the Classical Left and Classical Marxism as actually formulated by Marx and Engels.
And we all know that the wokes will label us "right-wing" for publishing on Substack or Rumble.
Or, even worse than that, a world where we could only publish something if we stuck to a specific, pre-approved POV? Is that journalism? Not at all; it's enforced pandering. It would mean that writers weren't actually writers, as all they would be allowed to do is parrot establishment talking points. Sadly, in a democracy people can find many ways to get around freedom of speech protections, one of which is labeling a POV that is either unpopular or goes against the narrative proposed by the corporate-state coalition as "hate speech" or equating it with "harassment" or "violence."
"enforced pandering" huh? "https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pandering" I had to look up "pandering" as got all flummoxed there! Well, there you go again, Nigro! That was a little over me little head but it does seem to work (for those intelligent enough to get it). So, the N. Y. Times wold be forcing their writers to pander to the "weaknesses...of others". I am outraged all over again, in fact!
It’s an exciting time, to say the least! And it does feel like an awakening.
I think a dedicated plurality has drawn a line in the sand, and we are holding our ground. Standing firm. We know the truth is like water: even in the tightest spaces, it will eventually manage to find its way out.
I, too, attended FREEDOM FEST in Memphis, as an Exhibitor (Booth Staff) for my beloved BRAVER ANGELS (braverangels.org). 😇🇺🇸 As an Organization working hard to help heal America's Polarization, we are helping to teach people how to speak to one another across our divides with CIVILITY and CURIOSITY, learning from one another personal perspectives and (perhaps) mischaracterizations of one another.
I wish that I had the opportunity to meet you while we were enjoying the exciting and enlightening opportunities offered at FREEDOM FEST. Maybe next year? I'll search YouTube for your Break-Out Session and look forward to hearing your presentation!
Thank you so much for sharing your disappointing experience. Being a PAID SUBSCRIBER to MEDIUM from their inception (as a small way to support their up and coming platform) I'm very disheartened to hear about you experience. I'll be revisiting my support of MEDIUM seeing that their commitment to "Free Speech" has proven questionable.
Thank you for standing up for the rights of those participating in Women's Sports by calling out the unfair advantage of allowing those born as biological males to compete against biological females.
I am not as aware of the challenges to the Lesbian Community, but I hope to learn more from your Presentation and Writing.
Thank you, Rita! I hope you enjoyed FreedomFest as much as we did. Hope to attend next year and see you there.
The climate on Medium changed dramatically and rapidly post-COVID. Once upon a time, I was a top writer, and Medium curators routinely selected my articles for the splash page. But groupthink has set in quickly, and then platform has become a different beast entirely.
WOW! What an unexpected turn of events. I can't even begin to imagine the confusion you must have felt.
We'd love to have you join us for a CIVIL and CURIOUS conversation at braverangels.org! We attempt to listen and learn on ALL issues which have so deeply depolarized our country.
Jul 23, 2023·edited Jul 23, 2023Liked by Monica Harris
Congrats! Hope you can get together with other canceled Mediums with ostensible lefty cred and pitch something to the NYTimes, if you can, and offer yourselves as sources. Not so much to get them to publish it, they'd want to take a new angle since it's already been done as an op-ed. But to get them thinking about it. It they did something on the issue later they might quote you.
That’s an excellent idea, Hazel. I will look into it. Just not sure how I’d go about identifying/locating Medium-censored folks...
Big Tech feels comfortable silencing us because they’ve convinced unsuspecting/trusting Americans that censorship is necessary to blunt “misinformation” and “hateful speech.”
But when more people realize that average, reasonable people are also falling victim to this broadening attack on free speech, they’ll be forced to reckon with this cognitive dissonance.
It’s a lot likeJan 6. Every protester who showed up in D.C. was painted as a racist, extremist, insurgent. But then we learned that scores of law-abiding people were also arrested and jailed for no reason.
The Controllers justify their abusive tactics by claiming they’re only taking rights from “bad people, but they’re really taking rights from everyone. That’s the only way to trick people in a democratic society into surrendering their freedom.
You could ask on social media. I would love to see a whole whack of us get together and challenge Medium, make an issue out of their censorship. The left suffers from the delusion that only the right censors (the right censors too) but we've got to start challenging our own on this too, because it's getting out of hand. I've written three articles on left-wing censorship in the past few months.
We need especially to bring back the *real* meaning of 'hate speech' - not just anything the Loony Left disagrees with. 'hate speech' used to mean something real, now I hear, 'so and so supports hate speech' and I think, "Like, *real* Trumpy Proud Boys hate speech, or did someone say 'transwomen are men' again or defend JK Rowling?"
I’m very impressed with recent developments in the UK. You were lucky to have JKR breaking the ground for you. She took a lot of heat and paid dearly, but history will remember her for the hero she is.
I’m actually a Texan, but I follow a lot of UK writers. Do you read Unherd? Good source. But yes, there is a lot of pushback against the anti-female, trans agenda in the UK. Transhumanism is not pro women.
Jul 24, 2023·edited Jul 25, 2023Liked by Monica Harris
To Monica and Jacob Silverman: I agree with Jacob that we should all get together and co-publish an article on Substack about how this "woke" agenda is now infiltrating the administration of Medium. Before doing that, to offer you substantive evidence of what I said, I would like to present first a link to the article on Medium that I responded to, and then my commentary in response to it that got me suspended for "hateful" content about "a group with protected characteristics" (meaning entitled, *not* oppressed) that the Mainstream Liberals use as a bulwark against dissent about a very deservedly controversial medical procedure and in its latest bid to combat "heteronormativity" and gender being accepted as an objective biological reality (as opposed to "gender identity," a purely psychological phenomenon which can indeed be fluid).
What follows will be the first of the two posts I made in response to that which I was told violated Medium's "community standards." I have also found evidence that my account on Medium seemed to have been shadow banned by the platform's algorithms for a time.
For the sake of brevity and greater relevance, I will leave out the points I made to the author regarding her snide attitude towards men. Note how I clearly made my response from the perspective of a Classical Leftist, and *not* a conservative. Excerpts from the author I responded to are in quotes. I will have to send in multiple parts, starting with the first of my posts.
This is the first of my two suspended posts to Medium author Michelle Teheux. I will put any specific points made by Michelle that I responded to in quotes.
Part 2 and my first banned post:
As far as the Culture Wars go, this was a good response, Michelle. Kudos, and many claps! But... let's get the perspective from a Classical Leftist on this.
For one thing, the trans community was making great strides towards acceptance by the 2000s... which was great. The social conservatives were backing down, which was terrific. But then, circa 2010s, they hit a snag... because the Mainstream Liberals had to start going crazy about the issue, getting "in your face" about it, pushing an agenda that tried to convince numerous young people they were "trans" and to have their bodies carved up and injected with experimental hormones simply due to emotional issues or common doubts about their sense of identity and sexuality... and to try pushing the narrative that trans people were not rare (as you acknowledge) but make up a huge minority. It was part of the liberal agenda to demonize "heteronormality" and try to denounce the very concept of gender.
This was not the fault of trans people, as most of them are normies who want simple acceptance and equality and are happy to do it the right way, which was working for them. They are content with the fact that they are a rare demographic, as long as they are treated as respectfully as the majority demographic. They are also perfectly reasonable about going through certain medical evaluations to ensure that surgically altering and hormonally modifying a healthy human body is warranted and not likely to come back to bite them.
Now, let me give you credit where it's due, Michelle... you are not batshit crazy about this matter. However, you do overlook the complicity of the Mainstream Liberal agenda that has caused a lot of these problems and provoked the social conservatives to start their shit again... and, as a member of the Classical Left who wants to see continued acceptance for trans people without having them exploited to push an insane agenda disguised as a means of "advancing" their rights and reclaim the Left from what the liberals have become, I am not going to give them the free pass for this and blame only the conservatives. The conservative social agenda can be kept at bay, but part of that requires keeping the liberal agenda of social engineering at bay too. That's where we on the Classical Left come in, and why I think our perspective is necessary.
You made many good points. However, the question of "what constitutes a man?" depends on how you want to define the criteria. There is a reasonable, objective biological answer to that question, which does indeed have to do with the presence or absence of a penis, a vagina, breasts capable of feeding an infant, a womb, etc.
If you want to bring the definition into an entirely social context, that is fine. But it does not negate the reality of biology, and I think it poses good questions about biological men who identify socially and emotionally as women sharing prisons with biological women, sharing bathrooms, and competing in professional sports in areas where biological women perform. These are legit debates to have, and asking these questions do not automatically denote bigotry, nor are they indicative of a conservative social agenda.
What we need is an outright civil libertarian agenda that is fair to all sides of reasonable questions and all demographics sans any hatred or bitterness towards any of them. Both social conservatives and those with a contemporary mainstream liberal agenda fall short of that civil libertarian mark, and are more intent on advancing one demographic at the expense of another rather than being fair to all sections of every aisle, so to speak.
"Yes, whether you have a penis does matter in one instance: If you’re about to have sex with someone who prefers penises."
I sincerely commend you, Michelle, for being okay with the fact that most heterosexual men are going to consider the presence of a penis on a potential partner to be a deal-breaker for a romantic pairing. Not all liberals do! A trans woman is going to be distinct from actual biological women despite identifying as one on a social/emotional/spiritual level, and this has to be taken into consideration.
"I do not believe that anyone is pushing young people into being trans by a prescribed agenda. Young people are questioning, more and more, the significance of gender roles because the traditional ones do not apply so rigidly. Liberals are typically more accepting of questioning gender roles, whereas conservatives are usually not open to this and use the Bible as some sort of basis for their opinions."
Thank you for the response, Suz.
Alas, I cannot agree with the liberal assessment of the situation that you mention. There are numerous examples of elementary schools pushing this sort of agenda and telling kids, who are currently captive audiences of the mandatory schooling system, that they are "likely" to be trans, or gay, or non-binary if they have any type of emotional issues, or if they happen to have aesthetic interests commonly attributed to the opposite gender in our culture, or just in general in a misguided, authoritarian, and very politically motivated attempt to oppose 'heteronormativity' and established gender roles, which is a clear attempt to actually utilize a form of social engineering to manufacture synthetic LGBTQ folks and even to eliminate the very scientific conception of gender.
The great majority of LGBTQs have no interest in identity politics or imposing their feelings on anyone else, and are content with letting kids find out for themselves what their predilections may be; and if they genuinely suspect they have such feelings, to look up the relevant info on it themselves, which can be readily provided by value-netural support services dedicated to scientific objectivity with no political agenda.
Moreover, there is now an actual profession called "gender affirmation" that is filled with social workers and therapists motivated by the SJW agenda. They actually exert pressure on doctors and surgeons to inject young teens with experimental puberty-suppressing hormones and [various] forms of cosmetic surgery without requiring them to undergo reasonable medical assessment to determine if they possess a genuine case of gender dysmorphia and would likely benefit from the radical medical/surgical alteration of a healthy body over the long term, as has been the standard medical procedure for decades. Any doctor who protests on reasonable medical grounds are shamed and attacked as "transphobic." So are activists and journalists motivated by civil libertarian concerns.
"Young people are questioning, more and more, the significance of gender roles because the traditional ones do not apply so rigidly."
True. I was among such kids before it became fashionable to do so. However, like many such kids (not all), I correctly saw myself as a heterosexual male who simply did not conform to all expected gender roles or attributes, such as an interest in sports and cars. At the time, I was not pressured into thinking that this meant I might actually be a girl, or gay, or trans, or "non-binary," etc. That was fortuitous, since it turned out that me, and many others who broke such rules of gender expectations back then, were nothing of the such. This agenda was also not around back then to try and convince naturally gay or lesbian students that they might be trans or non-binary. This is the perspective that Classical Leftists like myself are trying to convey and return [society] to.
"Liberals are typically more accepting of questioning gender roles, whereas conservatives are usually not open to this and use the Bible as some sort of basis for their opinions."
That is how liberals used to be, before the SJWs subsumed and tainted the political tendency over the last two decades, and the Mainstream Left morphed into something that is a dark caricature to what it used to be. Now, they push a very authoritarian agenda based on hatred of white male heterosexuals but disguised (very poorly) as a means of promoting "tolerance and diversity."
Moreover, they are supported and sanctioned by the Democrats and many corporations for the purpose of getting the working class to fight amongst each other and distract us from extremely important economic issues and destructive policies like perpetual war that affect us all. This way, we finger-point at each other rather than at the system and its mere handful of actual beneficiaries. It also encourages liberals in large numbers to continue supporting capitalist politicians as long as they happen to be registered Democrats.
Also, and importantly, people who object to this agenda are not all conservatives motivated by the Bible. Many are Classical [Leftists] like myself, or more moderate conservatives, strong civil libertarians, or people who subscribe to no stringent political or religious ideology, who are opposed to identity politics and the imposition of its authoritarian tenets on adults and kids alike. Especially with kids, because they currently lack the civil rights to resist these impositions as effectively as adults. Unfortunately, contemporary liberals are conditioned to overlook these problems or not see them as an issue when they crop up, and to dismiss all opposition to them as examples of conservative/Christian bigotry. This is not the case, which I am here pointing out.
Now, Monica, you and the rest of your readers can read what I said, along with the article and comment I responded to. Please tell me how in the name of reason either of those two comments of mine were "hateful" or "disempowering" to trans people, or even LGBTQ people in general? And why are trans characteristics considered "protected", i.e., above all criticism? Now Medium is doing this too? I strongly encourage everyone who reads this to speak up and to abandon Medium in favor of Substack, because it seems the former is rapidly becoming yet another Mainstream Liberal echo chamber.
Censorship of this sort is *not* democratic by any traditional definition of the term. Why not simply let my comments be left to public scrutiny, so people can decide *for themselves* if I am truly being "hateful" or "disempowering" to trans folks or any other "marginalized" group?
Thank you for sharing all this, Frenchy! All such aggrieved parties should indeed link up with Monica to co-author a piece on Substack pointing out what is going on with Medium, and with this wave of censorship in general before it infects the administration of any other forum.
I obviously didn’t write the headline, but I think the problem goes deeper than that. The underlying article that Medium censored was titled “ Marginalizing Protected Groups in the Name of Equity and Inclusion Is the ‘New Normal’”.
Censorship is rampant these days, but it’s being “justified” by use against certain groups (extremists, white supremacists, conspiracy theorists, blah blah blah). I suspect that the headline was intended to make the point that censorship now clearly extends far beyond these groups. Lots of people sleeping. Gotta find some way grab their attention ;-)
Re “well-meaning white people”: I think most white people have good intentions and want to do what they can to help eliminate injustice. Many of them are simply going about it the wrong way. IMO.
Many usages are common. I want to know why *you're* dumping people of extremely diverse ethnic origins into one basket, and then exhorting the basket-contents on what you think they ought to do.
Would your purposes not have been served by saying "Americans should...?" Ought everyone not look at the problems of class rather than of ethnicity?
Ah, I think I better understand your position now.
To be clear, I specifically used “white people” in the context of anti-racism ideology, which exhorts white people (based on the common usage above) to do their part to eliminate systemic racism by acknowledging their inherent biases, the inherent challenges of POC, accepting shame/guilt for their privilege, etc. I based the article on a specific encounter I had with a group of people at our son’s school who subscribe to this mindset. My message to them is that class — not race/ethnicity — is what we should all be focusing on.
It was not my intent to suggest that only people of European ancestry should look at the problems of class vs race, but rather to encourage those in that group — who are obsessed with systemic racism — to instead focus on class.
In fact, you’ll note that the vast majority of my writing focuses on the pressing issue of class in the U.S. FYI I also try, whenever possible, to make this point to my POC friends/colleagues. Unfortunately, when delivered to POC in the “educated” class, the message falls on deaf ears. By contrast, POC outside the educated class are extremely aware and receptive to the message. Make of that what you will.
I think it's only the neurotic subset of otherwise healthy liberalism obsessed with anti-racism ideology.
In my view what we all ought to be focused on is decency towards one's neighbors and letting that spread outward. Reformation movements always become tyrannies.
You know there's a difference between basic difference of political opinion and spreading blatant misinformation, right? Why are you including RFK Jnr as one of your examples? It makes you look unworthy of attention, because you're aligning with pure crazy.
(a) It’s a difference that’s irrelevant in a free society.
(b) There was not one bit of misinformation in the article I posted on Medium. Out of curiosity, did you read it?
(c) Re RFK, Jr.: Respectfully, crazy is all a matter of perspective in these times. I certainly don’t agree with every single point on his platform, but I appreciate that he is addressing agency capture by corporate interests and censorship, which I believe are presently the greatest threats to our constitutional democracy.
I should add that I firmly oppose U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war, a conflict with ill-defined goals that could bring us to the brink of a nuclear confrontation. I stand with any candidate who opposes this nonsense, and RFK, Jr. is one of the few who do.
Calling RFK "crazy," as that commenter did, is what is actually crazy. What, exactly, is sane about Biden and Harris, notorious capitalist war mongers who broke every promise they made to the working class and are now picking fights with nuclear-armed nations like Russia and China just to keep the war economy going? I think supporting either of the capitalist duopoly is the very definition of craziness. I commend you for not falling into that trap, Monica, and being one of my heroes in the process.
Lol, nah, this absolutely bizarre response going off on a complete tangent and bearing no relation to my reply is crazy. The fact that I see RFK jnr for a conspiracy theorist whose widely acknowledged to be spreading harmful misinformation has zero to do with Biden or my opinion about him.
Jul 25, 2023·edited Jul 25, 2023Liked by Monica Harris
No, it's not a bizarre tangent, but is completely the point. Are you not going to vote for Biden/Harris? Are you not angry at RFK for presenting a primary challenge to them ? How is RFK a conspiracy theorist? That term is often used by liberals to denote "someone who disagrees with the Democratic narrative."
I'm not talking about your article. I didn't accuse you of spreading misinformation. You could have left RFK jnr off your list. He's harmful to autistic people. I said nothing about the Ukraine war. RFK jnr portrays autistic people as tragic animals. He's not to be taken seriously.
Apologies, I apparently misunderstood you. You asked me if I recognized the difference between basic difference of political opinion and spreading blatant misinformation, and I assumed you were referring to my article.
Also, I mentioned Ukraine as one of the reasons that I support RFK, Jr. That's just as relevant as autism, which was a reason that you gave for not supporting him.
I think this exchange perfectly captures one of the biggest problems we're having in our discourse today. You've pivoted to RFK, Jr -- who I mentioned incidentally in explaining my absence from Substack -- but you didn't address the substance of the article that is the subject of this thread. You think that someone I like is crazy, and so my thoughts must be "unworthy of attention." But "guilt by association" is not a way to advance productive dialogue.
So, apart from my association with RFK, Jr., do you have a problem with anything I've written in the article, such that it would make me "unworthy of attention"? May we stick to the merits of the subject matter at issue and not get distracted with personalities and ad hominems?
Only governments can censor. For private publications, it's called 'editing.' Use of the airwaves, which are government owned via the FCC, Goverment can make guidelines, but no direct censorship save for wartimes
Censorship actually isn’t limited to government actors:
“Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies.”
I think what you’re referring to is restriction of free speech prohibited by the First Amendment, which only applies to government action. But here’s the rub that our Founding Fathers never contemplated: if private corporations align with government agencies, they can effectively act as proxies to accomplish what the government cannot legally.
I addressed this a couple of years ago, before there was concrete evidence of government collusion with Big Tech:
I edit and moderate several left to progressive publications and websites. We chose the articles and editorials we like from within that perspective. We don't run articles or opinions from the fascists and 'Christian' white nationalists, save for a few occasions when we report on a debate. At time, I'll also find a good anti-Trump defense of the Constitution on 'The Bulwark,' and re-run it. The point: I am not 'censoring' the rightwing views I exclude. Short of 'fire in a crowded theater,' a high bar, they are free to have their own publication's and speak their minds.
If you’re an editor, you might want to consider remedial training. You seem to conflate “censorship” with first amendment violations. And one thing is certain, the amount of censorship exercised by various platforms is stunning, and utterly incompatible with the values of liberalism and free dialogue.
Does 'free dialogue' mean I have to turn over a portion of my pages to my main adversaries? I think not. We can engage each other's views--and we do--via volleys of polemics and other argument back and forth between our publications, as we see worthwhile. The field of ideas is contested terrain, where we seek to encircle, isolate and defeat the bad with the good, and often redefine each in the process. Failure or weakness in doing so is how the 'Deming School' and the 'Solid South' restored and anti-Black and anti-democratic hegemony across the 'redeemed South and elsewhere. We can't let today's fascists do it again.
To be clear, the issue of censorship isn't nearly as concerning when it happens on a website with a few hundred thousand, or even a million, visitors (I'm probably making assumptions about your website, but I'm assuming it doesn't have Medium-level traffic?)
However, censorship IS a concern when a platform (a) reaches an extremely large number of people, (b) rigidly adopts and advances the same narratives that the government dispenses, and (c) works with the government to ensure these narratives are adhered to. This is the problem with Big Tech censorship.
We now know that many social media platforms actively work with government agencies to censor Americans. Is Medium part of this effort? I don't know. But I do know that it rigorously polices content that even remotely deviates from the prescribed government narrative, and that is something we should all be concerned about instead of rationalizing this undemocratic behavior.
As I mentioned earlier, the real issue isn't censorship, per se, which is completely legal. The issue is government use of private media companies to bypass the First Amendment, which is illegal. This is the very problem that Judge Doughty identified in his ruling three weeks ago:
I think, Carl, that censoring in the name of stopping "fascism" is the equivalent of injecting someone with penicillin as an antidote to an allergic reaction to penicillin. The methods you use to combat fascism has to be the opposite of what fascism actually is. And you cannot combat prejudice against black people by viciously attacking white people and trying to obtain entitlements for the former. The problem in the first place was entitlement by one group over another. Equality and freedom of speech cannot be established by simply reversing the flow of the hatred and bigotry, or censoring unpopular speech.
So you are a “moderator” who views his job as keeping people with opposing views off “my platform”? Is that moderating in the sense of being an impartial referee or is that indistinguishable from being a censor? And also a moderator who characterizes people with whom he disagrees as similar to racists of the old south or fascists.
Seriously, are you capable of self reflection at all? Or is furthering an agenda such an overpowering imperative as to justify any behavior whatsoever?
We have a range of views--socialists, communists, pro-Bernie liberals, FDR Democrats and such. As an editor and moderator, my job is to see that they all can have friendly exchanges, or just get their separate views out. But we are united against the GOP fascists. No need to give them our turf. They have plenty of their own, and more money as well. Finally, even in our journals, mine is often a minority view. I have many friends I disagree with, but have no need to to label them as neo-Confederate racists. I do self-reflection all the time, knowing my weaknesses. What justifies any behavior is seeking truths while opposing injustice. As a Marxist, my core value is the self-emancipation of the working class and all the oppressed, and through that, all humankind.
Labeling actual egalitarians as "racists", "fascists," etc is what Mainstream Liberals do. They are not seeking actual equality and freedom for everyone. They want to mostly retain the current class-divided system and simply invert which groups hold the most positions of entitlement. Hatred and tribalism distorts one's perception of reality, making a narrative based on belief more important than historical lessons or actual empirical observations. People who think that racism against blacks in American society is as bad as it has ever been are not concerned about reality; they are concerned with pushing an agenda that has nothing to do with actual freedom and equality. They are seeking control while using minority demographics to do it, by pretending to be doing it all for them.
Jul 24, 2023·edited Jul 24, 2023Liked by Monica Harris
That doesn't happen, Carl, when Mainstream Liberals take control over privately owned but massively utilized social media platforms like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Medium. There needs to be large social media and news outlets that belong to the commons, otherwise the prevailing attitudes favored by the wealthy and popular will control everything. It's not easy to just start your own forum or newspaper when you lack the money to do so.
I am not a writer, but I have heard that more than once, that they don't even ask the author about the headline. Regardless, I have 2 adult daughters and am pro-woman! (I hope I would feel that way regardless.)
Bought and read your book recently. Really enjoyed your perspective and thank you for having the courage to speak out when there is so much personal risk. I have historically voted for democrats, live in a liberal area and most of my friends are liberal. Unfortunately the WP is our hometown paper and most of my friends believe everything they read (I used to myself). It’s hard to have conversations about cultural or political issues without sounding a little crazy in these groups. Especially when all the major institutions seem to be on board with the insanity of our current state. I recently decided that I would try the approach of not talking about politics at all with friends, like back to n the 70’s when it was considered impolite. I’ll just stay educated and vote for who I vote for. But then I see women like you, Bari Weiss, etc and think I should do more. It’s hard (and scary) to rock the boat!!
Thank you so much, Becky! If you enjoyed the book, I would really appreciate a review on Amazon. It really helps give the book visibility (dang algos run everything) ;-)
Yes, definitely a challenging time to speak up -- especially in my industry (entertainment). My partner constantly frets that I’m one blog post away from being “cancelled” by my colleagues/clients. But I’m a firm believer that if we follow our hearts and remain true to ourselves, the universe will find a way to keep us on our path. What I know for certain is that being quiet and standing down is not who I am, it’s not who I’ve ever been, and I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
Amen, sister. Keep holding space open for the truth and for heart. The universe will honor this, I promise you. You may not win all of the battles, but we will turn the tide eventually. As an old, battle-scarred veteran of holding space open for heart, it's worth it to stay true to that which drives you from deep within. Trust it.
The below quote has been my guidestar all of my life and I'm not giving up yet, in spite of the current insanity. Revenge and self-righteousness will not prevail. Love will find a way.
“Goodbye," said the fox. "And now here is my secret, a very simple secret: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.”
― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
I could have written this post, but the LA times is my local paper. Here's to independent thinkers.
Congrats! This exposure is a huge win. One thing not many people discuss is how many Americans have been virtually unaware of what is going on in this ideological witchhunt. I know that I've had to educate many of my liberal friends and even then, it takes some of them a while to wake up to how pernicious and blatantly unfair this whole thing is.
It's a war of language and labels conducted by adults who act like immature 7th graders but who are highly skilled in language arts and rhetoric, well organized and so convicted of their own rightness that they have become zealots. We all know that successive waves of zealots (and wars) destroyed the Library of Alexandria over several centuries. Precious archives of human knowledge lost forever. Not to mention the viciousness of religious wars in Europe which led to the formation of the United States itself. Zealotry has power and can be incredibly destructive.
But, as you suggest, if we calmly and unequivocally state our truth over and over again, it will erode the vengeful spirit that lies behind this rigid ideology. I have encountered increasing numbers of gays and lesbians in particular who are turning away from this extreme ideology. And there are many others.
Sadly, we recently lost a liberal who dedicated his life to practicing the tenets of liberal philosophy: to to encourage and lift up the disadvantaged and work for equal opportunity for all. Richard Bilkszto founded the Toronto chapter of FAIR and was an icon in the education system. He was bullied to death by a rapacious DEI (or should I say DIE) group backed by a weak school board and administration. Here was an iconic liberal - not the enemy by any stretch - who was working toward the goals of justice and equality and pro-humanism - and he was punished and hounded to death simply for having the courage to disagree with the extreme views of these grifters.
They don't care what color or creed anyone is. A few months ago, Tabia Lee, a diversity consultant, was let go by De Anza college in Cupertino for not preaching an extreme version of DEI. She was too "humanist" and wouldn't subscribe to dehumanizing white people. So, they fired her. And she is black. They don't care. They will have their revenge or die trying, even if they take out some of their own.
That said, a civilized society can't support this type of puritanical/witch hunt behavior without some kind of reckoning. I think the only reason that it's lasted so long is they have played a very clever long-game of institutional capture (ref. Paolo Freire) and they haven't made the mistake of leveraging deadly force or political coup, something that would wake people up very quickly. But, pushing heretics to suicide is ok. Destroying people's lives and careers is ok. Fragmenting and sometimes destroying families is okay. Terrorizing and publicly shaming people is ok. Tossing out basic rules of fairness and civility is ok. Introducing the concept of shaming people for the color of their skin into therapy is ok (yes, I'm looking at you APA - how many people will you drive to suicide with this tactic, eh?).
It's a pernicious, underhanded game catalyzed by a seriously toxic set of academic theories masquerading as a quasi-religious quest for justice and spread by a class of human for whom posturing and it's resultant gatekeeping is more important than breathing (the chattering classes/PMC).
Human beings are now and always will be more than our power relations and structures. There is more that motivates most of us than power. Using this lense to describe the world is like experiencing only the tail of the elephant and declaring it the whole. The whole ideology is a giant synecdoche and a solipsism, a chimera. Luckily, the objective world will be their Achilles heel. No matter how they might try, they can't erase reality. They can't change the fundamental nature of the physical universe. They can't make 2 + 2 = 5. No one is going to buy this long term.
It's like that scene in a Wrinkle in Time where the children are on the mountain with Mrs. Whatsit in her Pegasus form, and they watch a blazing star obliterate the black thing that blocks light. She explains to them that this was a star that sacrificed itself to fight the black thing. And that our history was replete with such opposition - Jesus, Rembrandt, Buddha, Bach - luminaries of heart and imagination. Richard Bilkszto was one such courageous human and there have been many others who have sacrificed everything to make a statement against this vengeful creed. Keep the faith and keep pouring that faith into the world. Pro-humanism, love, fair play - they will win - in spite of everything.
Wow, I had not heard about Richard's experience in Toronto! It amazes me that DEI zealots have not yet realized the obvious: when you find it necessary to resort to a scorched earth policy -- silencing everyone who disagrees with you with a blunt club -- you aren't winning; you're losing. Most people know the difference between truth and nonsense, and no amount of cajoling, guilting, shaming, or gaslighting will convince them otherwise.
Your Wrinkle in Time metaphor reminds me of a portion of my presentation at FreedomFest about the power of light.
When we're in a dark room and someone lights a single candle, what happens? The entire room changes. Suddenly, that single point of light allows us to see SO much. That single point of light is able to push back the darkness. And each time we add another candle, the darkness retreats further.
It doesn’t take much light to defeat darkness. That’s how powerful light is. That’s how powerful each and every one of us is 🙏🏾
You are correct. I've already decided I will take a bullet before I will submit. I fought my way out of a shaming, abusive childhood. Not going back into that box for anything.
RE: Light - absolutely! Marianne Williamson comes to mind: https://www.personalgrowthcourses.net/stories/williamson.ourdeepestfear.invitation
And also, in spite of not being an Xtian, I love this verse from the bible: “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” John 1:5
You shining an amazing light. Thank you. 🌼
❤️
Well said, Jacob!
*It's a war of language and labels conducted by adults who act like immature 7th graders but who are highly skilled in language arts and rhetoric, well organized and so convicted of their own rightness that they have become zealots.*
Such adult zealots have long helped me make a case for youth liberation, i.e., granting full civil rights to people under 18 and treating them according to their individual merits and the quality of their life experiences, not the mere quantity. This is because many adults do not behave any better than the traits we ascribe to young kids, and in fact, the wave of kids getting involved with the "gender affirmation" nonsense is largely due to adults pushing the trend on them. Let us also not forget the older adults running the corporations and government, who likewise make terrible decisions on a regular basis.
*It's a pernicious, underhanded game catalyzed by a seriously toxic set of academic theories masquerading as a quasi-religious quest for justice and spread by a class of human for whom posturing and it's resultant gatekeeping is more important than breathing (the chattering classes/PMC).*
It's main purpose, by the capitalists who formulate it, is to keep the various groups comprising the working class separated into competing factions who are pissed off at each other. This spurious ideology hoodwinks people with specific personality traits and/or emotional issues by appealing to a dark part of the human psyche: one seeking revenge on others, and a desire to play the righteous moral crusader by doing so. They found a perfect, establishment-approved outlet for their anger and bitterness, much as earlier generations of psychopaths and serial killers did by joining the military or by becoming bounty hunters.
*I think the only reason that it's lasted so long is they have played a very clever long-game of institutional capture (ref. Paolo Freire) and they haven't made the mistake of leveraging deadly force or political coup, something that would wake people up very quickly.*
That, and due to the unfortunate emotional appeal these tenets have to our darker emotional impulses, as described above. Would it truly have gotten this far in the Western world, particularly America, if it did not have so many emotionally unstable people? The capitalist class and the government it controls was well aware that they could harness and focus the pervasive emotional issues caused by their system into tricking elements of the Left into defending its institutions, much as Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union did in the past. Brilliant... and sad.
*I have encountered increasing numbers of gays and lesbians in particular who are turning away from this extreme ideology. And there are many others.*
As have I. Emotionally stable LGBTs, those who are relatively well-adjusted and not filled with bitterness over the past, and those lacking the specific personality traits that make "woke" ideology appealing, are all turned off by this mentality, at least eventually. The majority of LGBTs simply want to live their lives in peace and be openly accepted with equal rights by the heteronormative majority. Hence, they are well aware that promoting hatred against, and demanding entitlements from, the heteronormative majority is simply going to result in an equally angry backlash, which is already fueling a resurgence of the Regressive Right. It is also driving an increasing number of angry heteronormative white men who feel alienated & abandoned by the Left, and even many women & LGBTs who resent hatred being promoted in their name, into the ranks of the Right -- and sometimes into its more Extreme manifestations.
The Classical Left succeeded in keeping these traditional bigots at bay and even garnering their tolerance for openly LGBT lifestyles in their midst. But shoving said lifestyles down their nose, pushing it on their kids in schools (where the kids lack their civil rights and are captive audiences for the curricula) to try and create large numbers of synthetic LGBTs, and alienating them from heteronormatives who otherwise would have been their friends and accepted them as people is threatening to reverse many of the the civil rights they earned over a long period of struggle by fighting the fight mostly *the correct way.*
I also extend my condolences over Richard. It is in his name and the name of other brave souls like him that we continue his legacy of fighting for *real* civil liberties and genuine equality for everyone.
It's Lightwing, but thanks!
You might enjoy this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM4qvDs6Hdc "Diversity is a Ruling Class Ideology There are some very good insights in this video. It's long but worth it.
Loved: “Hence, they are well aware that promoting hatred against, and demanding entitlements from, the heteronormative majority is simply going to result in an equally angry backlash, which is already fueling a resurgence of the Regressive Right. It is also driving an increasing number of angry heteronormative white men who feel alienated & abandoned by the Left, and even many women & LGBTs who resent hatred being promoted in their name, into the ranks of the Right -- and sometimes into its more Extreme manifestations.”
I've noticed this for some time now. The extreme left is creating the extreme right. Just like the extreme right of the Jim Crow era (combined with the puritanical notions of the early 20th century progressive left - eugenics, quest for a perfect society, temperance movement, post-modernist philosophy) fed into the creation of the extreme left. Vicious cycle.
Yes, the suicide of Richard makes me weep. We need more Richards on this planet, not less. I understand the despair that drove him to kill himself. There are days when it is hard to live in this world.
However, lest we descend into despair ourselves, we must always look for hope: https://www.nas.org/blogs/statement/faculty-begin-fight-for-academic-freedom-at-harvard People are rising up to fight back. Awareness is growing.
And I can think of no better way to get justice for Richard by using the power of words to take out all of these bullies. They need to be opposed, because they are a toxic, destructive force to democracy, actual progress, and the well-being of decent people.
We need to get you in on this collab article too, Lightwing :-)
Wow! Powerful words! Thank you!
thanks. I was shocked to have MY blog removed by Medium!
I too got suspended on Medium for critiquing the "gender affirmation" craze.
I can’t imagine how many of us there are by now. Hundreds?
Steve QJ has had articles suspended as well and is expecting to be completely suspended at some point.
Me too, as I stated in my comment above.
Okay. Maybe we should write a "Story," as "Medium" calls them, and post that story to Medium or somehow create a record of this. Yours, mine, and Monica's all seem to have this "gender" or "gender activism" theme. It is such a quirky thing. How could all three of these incidents get recorded and published...?
okay guys. I wrote mine. Now to figure out where to publish it... (it's in my laptop, less than one page)
Please consider including me if you do...I got banned after my third miscreant article. Two of the three involved gender ideology critique.
okay, you are in as the fourth! But since posting my idea I have received constant notices of "likes" and no practical advice as to how or where to publish. It sounds like it is a lot more than "four," but we can start with four. What if we live in a world where there is nowhere to pubish?
The two places where you can pretty much expect not to get censored are Substack and one's own website. Substack has pretty much taken a hands-off approach to censorship as is evidenced by the right-wing writers here, like Bari Weiss, who haven't gotten deplatformed. Glenn Loury here got a video censored on YouTube recently because it debated and critiqued trans ideology. Not Medium, but his assistant, can't remember the guy's name, a recent immigrant to the US, reached out to Substack to understand their censorship policy and you REALLY have to eff up to get censored or banned here. Like, you have to practically threaten to kill someone important or express what actually was 'hate speech' before it got 'wokenized'. Chris Fox and the already-mentioned Steve QJ, both on Substack, have been censored by Medium. I know someone else I could reach out to who could find others.
If you/we publish somethign here on Substack, I'll repost it on my own blog, growsomelabia.com/blog, with everyone's permission. And we can share on social media, if we dare :)
I've also recently been deplatformed from Vocal.media for "transphobic' articles (i.e., gender critical) and CounterSocial, a Twitter alternative, most likely because of my recent article noting that the right is more scientific than the left on the lack of science behind 'gender affirming' care and that not only red states were pulling back on providing it, but so were the most liberal countries in Europe based on its lack of evidence. There is no quickly way to get deplatformed than the criticize, challenge, and annoy transgender totalitarians.
There's no way the article would get banned or suspended on Substack.
Another place you can go to avoid getting suspended or banned if you want to do videos is Rumble, which is owned by Locals. They are a free speech-friendly alternative to YouTube.
Sadly, many new forums like Medium appear on a regular basis and start out good, but eventually the Woke Syndrome hits the administration and they bow down to threats from the government or give into the temptation to go for those ESG credit scores offered by the likes of BlackRock. Hence, it's pretty silly when the "woke" sometimes claim that they are anti-capitalist, since all identity politics is one method used by the capitalist class to promote the emotionally-charged Culture Wars, whose purpose is to distract the working class from the Class War.
Of course, the Right is more than happy to conflate the Regressive Left and its "Cultural Marxism" with the Classical Left and Classical Marxism as actually formulated by Marx and Engels.
And we all know that the wokes will label us "right-wing" for publishing on Substack or Rumble.
Or, even worse than that, a world where we could only publish something if we stuck to a specific, pre-approved POV? Is that journalism? Not at all; it's enforced pandering. It would mean that writers weren't actually writers, as all they would be allowed to do is parrot establishment talking points. Sadly, in a democracy people can find many ways to get around freedom of speech protections, one of which is labeling a POV that is either unpopular or goes against the narrative proposed by the corporate-state coalition as "hate speech" or equating it with "harassment" or "violence."
"enforced pandering" huh? "https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pandering" I had to look up "pandering" as got all flummoxed there! Well, there you go again, Nigro! That was a little over me little head but it does seem to work (for those intelligent enough to get it). So, the N. Y. Times wold be forcing their writers to pander to the "weaknesses...of others". I am outraged all over again, in fact!
Thrilled for you...interesting to ponder on the awakening of America.
It’s an exciting time, to say the least! And it does feel like an awakening.
I think a dedicated plurality has drawn a line in the sand, and we are holding our ground. Standing firm. We know the truth is like water: even in the tightest spaces, it will eventually manage to find its way out.
Monica,
CONGRATULATIONS on the success of your writing! 🎉
I, too, attended FREEDOM FEST in Memphis, as an Exhibitor (Booth Staff) for my beloved BRAVER ANGELS (braverangels.org). 😇🇺🇸 As an Organization working hard to help heal America's Polarization, we are helping to teach people how to speak to one another across our divides with CIVILITY and CURIOSITY, learning from one another personal perspectives and (perhaps) mischaracterizations of one another.
I wish that I had the opportunity to meet you while we were enjoying the exciting and enlightening opportunities offered at FREEDOM FEST. Maybe next year? I'll search YouTube for your Break-Out Session and look forward to hearing your presentation!
Thank you so much for sharing your disappointing experience. Being a PAID SUBSCRIBER to MEDIUM from their inception (as a small way to support their up and coming platform) I'm very disheartened to hear about you experience. I'll be revisiting my support of MEDIUM seeing that their commitment to "Free Speech" has proven questionable.
Thank you for standing up for the rights of those participating in Women's Sports by calling out the unfair advantage of allowing those born as biological males to compete against biological females.
I am not as aware of the challenges to the Lesbian Community, but I hope to learn more from your Presentation and Writing.
Blessings ~
Thank you, Rita! I hope you enjoyed FreedomFest as much as we did. Hope to attend next year and see you there.
The climate on Medium changed dramatically and rapidly post-COVID. Once upon a time, I was a top writer, and Medium curators routinely selected my articles for the splash page. But groupthink has set in quickly, and then platform has become a different beast entirely.
WOW! What an unexpected turn of events. I can't even begin to imagine the confusion you must have felt.
We'd love to have you join us for a CIVIL and CURIOUS conversation at braverangels.org! We attempt to listen and learn on ALL issues which have so deeply depolarized our country.
I'm a Sex Therapist from Sydney Australia and tried to have this article published. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/conundrum-trans-women-matty-silver/?fbclid=IwAR035z8pgX0b3gG7G9-3nz2VGHmKeMaCGnabQsif4vlTcg3tJCmcepsSrHM
Not a single paper or publications wanted to publish it. NO-ONE actually even responded.
I am not surprised, Matty…
Then you publish it here, on Substack, Matty. It won't get censored here :-) And we would all benefit from it!
Congrats! Hope you can get together with other canceled Mediums with ostensible lefty cred and pitch something to the NYTimes, if you can, and offer yourselves as sources. Not so much to get them to publish it, they'd want to take a new angle since it's already been done as an op-ed. But to get them thinking about it. It they did something on the issue later they might quote you.
That’s an excellent idea, Hazel. I will look into it. Just not sure how I’d go about identifying/locating Medium-censored folks...
Big Tech feels comfortable silencing us because they’ve convinced unsuspecting/trusting Americans that censorship is necessary to blunt “misinformation” and “hateful speech.”
But when more people realize that average, reasonable people are also falling victim to this broadening attack on free speech, they’ll be forced to reckon with this cognitive dissonance.
It’s a lot likeJan 6. Every protester who showed up in D.C. was painted as a racist, extremist, insurgent. But then we learned that scores of law-abiding people were also arrested and jailed for no reason.
The Controllers justify their abusive tactics by claiming they’re only taking rights from “bad people, but they’re really taking rights from everyone. That’s the only way to trick people in a democratic society into surrendering their freedom.
You could ask on social media. I would love to see a whole whack of us get together and challenge Medium, make an issue out of their censorship. The left suffers from the delusion that only the right censors (the right censors too) but we've got to start challenging our own on this too, because it's getting out of hand. I've written three articles on left-wing censorship in the past few months.
We need especially to bring back the *real* meaning of 'hate speech' - not just anything the Loony Left disagrees with. 'hate speech' used to mean something real, now I hear, 'so and so supports hate speech' and I think, "Like, *real* Trumpy Proud Boys hate speech, or did someone say 'transwomen are men' again or defend JK Rowling?"
Boom! Yes, exactly!
You go girl! The UK is much more pro-female than America.
I’m very impressed with recent developments in the UK. You were lucky to have JKR breaking the ground for you. She took a lot of heat and paid dearly, but history will remember her for the hero she is.
I’m actually a Texan, but I follow a lot of UK writers. Do you read Unherd? Good source. But yes, there is a lot of pushback against the anti-female, trans agenda in the UK. Transhumanism is not pro women.
Love Unheard! Great stuff, especially their investigative reporting. Really appreciated the job they did during the pandemic.
This is wonderful news!
To Monica and Jacob Silverman: I agree with Jacob that we should all get together and co-publish an article on Substack about how this "woke" agenda is now infiltrating the administration of Medium. Before doing that, to offer you substantive evidence of what I said, I would like to present first a link to the article on Medium that I responded to, and then my commentary in response to it that got me suspended for "hateful" content about "a group with protected characteristics" (meaning entitled, *not* oppressed) that the Mainstream Liberals use as a bulwark against dissent about a very deservedly controversial medical procedure and in its latest bid to combat "heteronormativity" and gender being accepted as an objective biological reality (as opposed to "gender identity," a purely psychological phenomenon which can indeed be fluid).
Here is the link to the article I responded to: https://medium.com/minds-without-borders/do-penises-matter-869c9905a9df
What follows will be the first of the two posts I made in response to that which I was told violated Medium's "community standards." I have also found evidence that my account on Medium seemed to have been shadow banned by the platform's algorithms for a time.
For the sake of brevity and greater relevance, I will leave out the points I made to the author regarding her snide attitude towards men. Note how I clearly made my response from the perspective of a Classical Leftist, and *not* a conservative. Excerpts from the author I responded to are in quotes. I will have to send in multiple parts, starting with the first of my posts.
This is the first of my two suspended posts to Medium author Michelle Teheux. I will put any specific points made by Michelle that I responded to in quotes.
Part 2 and my first banned post:
As far as the Culture Wars go, this was a good response, Michelle. Kudos, and many claps! But... let's get the perspective from a Classical Leftist on this.
For one thing, the trans community was making great strides towards acceptance by the 2000s... which was great. The social conservatives were backing down, which was terrific. But then, circa 2010s, they hit a snag... because the Mainstream Liberals had to start going crazy about the issue, getting "in your face" about it, pushing an agenda that tried to convince numerous young people they were "trans" and to have their bodies carved up and injected with experimental hormones simply due to emotional issues or common doubts about their sense of identity and sexuality... and to try pushing the narrative that trans people were not rare (as you acknowledge) but make up a huge minority. It was part of the liberal agenda to demonize "heteronormality" and try to denounce the very concept of gender.
This was not the fault of trans people, as most of them are normies who want simple acceptance and equality and are happy to do it the right way, which was working for them. They are content with the fact that they are a rare demographic, as long as they are treated as respectfully as the majority demographic. They are also perfectly reasonable about going through certain medical evaluations to ensure that surgically altering and hormonally modifying a healthy human body is warranted and not likely to come back to bite them.
Now, let me give you credit where it's due, Michelle... you are not batshit crazy about this matter. However, you do overlook the complicity of the Mainstream Liberal agenda that has caused a lot of these problems and provoked the social conservatives to start their shit again... and, as a member of the Classical Left who wants to see continued acceptance for trans people without having them exploited to push an insane agenda disguised as a means of "advancing" their rights and reclaim the Left from what the liberals have become, I am not going to give them the free pass for this and blame only the conservatives. The conservative social agenda can be kept at bay, but part of that requires keeping the liberal agenda of social engineering at bay too. That's where we on the Classical Left come in, and why I think our perspective is necessary.
You made many good points. However, the question of "what constitutes a man?" depends on how you want to define the criteria. There is a reasonable, objective biological answer to that question, which does indeed have to do with the presence or absence of a penis, a vagina, breasts capable of feeding an infant, a womb, etc.
If you want to bring the definition into an entirely social context, that is fine. But it does not negate the reality of biology, and I think it poses good questions about biological men who identify socially and emotionally as women sharing prisons with biological women, sharing bathrooms, and competing in professional sports in areas where biological women perform. These are legit debates to have, and asking these questions do not automatically denote bigotry, nor are they indicative of a conservative social agenda.
What we need is an outright civil libertarian agenda that is fair to all sides of reasonable questions and all demographics sans any hatred or bitterness towards any of them. Both social conservatives and those with a contemporary mainstream liberal agenda fall short of that civil libertarian mark, and are more intent on advancing one demographic at the expense of another rather than being fair to all sections of every aisle, so to speak.
"Yes, whether you have a penis does matter in one instance: If you’re about to have sex with someone who prefers penises."
I sincerely commend you, Michelle, for being okay with the fact that most heterosexual men are going to consider the presence of a penis on a potential partner to be a deal-breaker for a romantic pairing. Not all liberals do! A trans woman is going to be distinct from actual biological women despite identifying as one on a social/emotional/spiritual level, and this has to be taken into consideration.
My second suspended post was a comment in reply to this brief response I got from one of the author's readers, a commenter using the screen name Suz Ex Machina at: https://tenaciouskarateg73.medium.com/i-do-not-believe-that-anyone-is-pushing-young-people-into-being-trans-by-a-prescribed-agenda-f85899255537 . As before, I will use her/his excerpted remarks I responded to in quotes (I suspect that it was Suz Ex Machina who reported my comments to the Medium administration).
"I do not believe that anyone is pushing young people into being trans by a prescribed agenda. Young people are questioning, more and more, the significance of gender roles because the traditional ones do not apply so rigidly. Liberals are typically more accepting of questioning gender roles, whereas conservatives are usually not open to this and use the Bible as some sort of basis for their opinions."
Thank you for the response, Suz.
Alas, I cannot agree with the liberal assessment of the situation that you mention. There are numerous examples of elementary schools pushing this sort of agenda and telling kids, who are currently captive audiences of the mandatory schooling system, that they are "likely" to be trans, or gay, or non-binary if they have any type of emotional issues, or if they happen to have aesthetic interests commonly attributed to the opposite gender in our culture, or just in general in a misguided, authoritarian, and very politically motivated attempt to oppose 'heteronormativity' and established gender roles, which is a clear attempt to actually utilize a form of social engineering to manufacture synthetic LGBTQ folks and even to eliminate the very scientific conception of gender.
The great majority of LGBTQs have no interest in identity politics or imposing their feelings on anyone else, and are content with letting kids find out for themselves what their predilections may be; and if they genuinely suspect they have such feelings, to look up the relevant info on it themselves, which can be readily provided by value-netural support services dedicated to scientific objectivity with no political agenda.
Moreover, there is now an actual profession called "gender affirmation" that is filled with social workers and therapists motivated by the SJW agenda. They actually exert pressure on doctors and surgeons to inject young teens with experimental puberty-suppressing hormones and [various] forms of cosmetic surgery without requiring them to undergo reasonable medical assessment to determine if they possess a genuine case of gender dysmorphia and would likely benefit from the radical medical/surgical alteration of a healthy body over the long term, as has been the standard medical procedure for decades. Any doctor who protests on reasonable medical grounds are shamed and attacked as "transphobic." So are activists and journalists motivated by civil libertarian concerns.
"Young people are questioning, more and more, the significance of gender roles because the traditional ones do not apply so rigidly."
True. I was among such kids before it became fashionable to do so. However, like many such kids (not all), I correctly saw myself as a heterosexual male who simply did not conform to all expected gender roles or attributes, such as an interest in sports and cars. At the time, I was not pressured into thinking that this meant I might actually be a girl, or gay, or trans, or "non-binary," etc. That was fortuitous, since it turned out that me, and many others who broke such rules of gender expectations back then, were nothing of the such. This agenda was also not around back then to try and convince naturally gay or lesbian students that they might be trans or non-binary. This is the perspective that Classical Leftists like myself are trying to convey and return [society] to.
"Liberals are typically more accepting of questioning gender roles, whereas conservatives are usually not open to this and use the Bible as some sort of basis for their opinions."
That is how liberals used to be, before the SJWs subsumed and tainted the political tendency over the last two decades, and the Mainstream Left morphed into something that is a dark caricature to what it used to be. Now, they push a very authoritarian agenda based on hatred of white male heterosexuals but disguised (very poorly) as a means of promoting "tolerance and diversity."
Moreover, they are supported and sanctioned by the Democrats and many corporations for the purpose of getting the working class to fight amongst each other and distract us from extremely important economic issues and destructive policies like perpetual war that affect us all. This way, we finger-point at each other rather than at the system and its mere handful of actual beneficiaries. It also encourages liberals in large numbers to continue supporting capitalist politicians as long as they happen to be registered Democrats.
Also, and importantly, people who object to this agenda are not all conservatives motivated by the Bible. Many are Classical [Leftists] like myself, or more moderate conservatives, strong civil libertarians, or people who subscribe to no stringent political or religious ideology, who are opposed to identity politics and the imposition of its authoritarian tenets on adults and kids alike. Especially with kids, because they currently lack the civil rights to resist these impositions as effectively as adults. Unfortunately, contemporary liberals are conditioned to overlook these problems or not see them as an issue when they crop up, and to dismiss all opposition to them as examples of conservative/Christian bigotry. This is not the case, which I am here pointing out.
My words on the matter:
Now, Monica, you and the rest of your readers can read what I said, along with the article and comment I responded to. Please tell me how in the name of reason either of those two comments of mine were "hateful" or "disempowering" to trans people, or even LGBTQ people in general? And why are trans characteristics considered "protected", i.e., above all criticism? Now Medium is doing this too? I strongly encourage everyone who reads this to speak up and to abandon Medium in favor of Substack, because it seems the former is rapidly becoming yet another Mainstream Liberal echo chamber.
Censorship of this sort is *not* democratic by any traditional definition of the term. Why not simply let my comments be left to public scrutiny, so people can decide *for themselves* if I am truly being "hateful" or "disempowering" to trans folks or any other "marginalized" group?
The post that got me banned in November 2021:
https://www.growsomelabia.com/post/is-it-even-possible-for-dave-chappelle-to-punch-down-on-transfolk
The second suspended article: https://www.growsomelabia.com/post/what-s-so-terrible-about-race-changers-like-rachel-dolezal (This one, as I recall, was chosen for distribution before the Wokenazis took it down)
The first to be taken down: https://www.growsomelabia.com/post/white-people-who-hate-white-people-are-racist
My good-bye to Medium: https://www.growsomelabia.com/post/bye-bye-medium-com
Thank you for sharing all this, Frenchy! All such aggrieved parties should indeed link up with Monica to co-author a piece on Substack pointing out what is going on with Medium, and with this wave of censorship in general before it infects the administration of any other forum.
Chris Fox got back to me this morning; he's in of we do anything.
Sounds good! We should most definitely do something.
Like start with a Zoom call?
I'm down for that. Lets see if we can get Monica, Jacob, and Chris Fox down for that too.
You think maybe it's part of the problem to have a headline line that?
Again with identity leading top, front and center, rather than your legal credentials and viewpoint as an actual woman.
PS: https://medium.com/bigger-picture/the-antiracist-quagmire-27bb4bbc9857
"Well-meaning white people?"
I obviously didn’t write the headline, but I think the problem goes deeper than that. The underlying article that Medium censored was titled “ Marginalizing Protected Groups in the Name of Equity and Inclusion Is the ‘New Normal’”.
https://monica697.substack.com/p/marginalizing-protected-groups-in
No mention of my identity in that headline.
Censorship is rampant these days, but it’s being “justified” by use against certain groups (extremists, white supremacists, conspiracy theorists, blah blah blah). I suspect that the headline was intended to make the point that censorship now clearly extends far beyond these groups. Lots of people sleeping. Gotta find some way grab their attention ;-)
Re “well-meaning white people”: I think most white people have good intentions and want to do what they can to help eliminate injustice. Many of them are simply going about it the wrong way. IMO.
Who is "white people?" Why are you viewing Americans of very diverse ethnic heritages as one group?
What a remarkably patronizing pair of sentences.
It’s a common cultural descriptor in the 21st century, but I would say this fairly accurately captures the definition:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people
Thanks for directing us to this link, Monica.
My pleasure!
Many usages are common. I want to know why *you're* dumping people of extremely diverse ethnic origins into one basket, and then exhorting the basket-contents on what you think they ought to do.
Would your purposes not have been served by saying "Americans should...?" Ought everyone not look at the problems of class rather than of ethnicity?
Ah, I think I better understand your position now.
To be clear, I specifically used “white people” in the context of anti-racism ideology, which exhorts white people (based on the common usage above) to do their part to eliminate systemic racism by acknowledging their inherent biases, the inherent challenges of POC, accepting shame/guilt for their privilege, etc. I based the article on a specific encounter I had with a group of people at our son’s school who subscribe to this mindset. My message to them is that class — not race/ethnicity — is what we should all be focusing on.
It was not my intent to suggest that only people of European ancestry should look at the problems of class vs race, but rather to encourage those in that group — who are obsessed with systemic racism — to instead focus on class.
In fact, you’ll note that the vast majority of my writing focuses on the pressing issue of class in the U.S. FYI I also try, whenever possible, to make this point to my POC friends/colleagues. Unfortunately, when delivered to POC in the “educated” class, the message falls on deaf ears. By contrast, POC outside the educated class are extremely aware and receptive to the message. Make of that what you will.
I think it's only the neurotic subset of otherwise healthy liberalism obsessed with anti-racism ideology.
In my view what we all ought to be focused on is decency towards one's neighbors and letting that spread outward. Reformation movements always become tyrannies.
You know there's a difference between basic difference of political opinion and spreading blatant misinformation, right? Why are you including RFK Jnr as one of your examples? It makes you look unworthy of attention, because you're aligning with pure crazy.
(a) It’s a difference that’s irrelevant in a free society.
(b) There was not one bit of misinformation in the article I posted on Medium. Out of curiosity, did you read it?
(c) Re RFK, Jr.: Respectfully, crazy is all a matter of perspective in these times. I certainly don’t agree with every single point on his platform, but I appreciate that he is addressing agency capture by corporate interests and censorship, which I believe are presently the greatest threats to our constitutional democracy.
I should add that I firmly oppose U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war, a conflict with ill-defined goals that could bring us to the brink of a nuclear confrontation. I stand with any candidate who opposes this nonsense, and RFK, Jr. is one of the few who do.
Calling RFK "crazy," as that commenter did, is what is actually crazy. What, exactly, is sane about Biden and Harris, notorious capitalist war mongers who broke every promise they made to the working class and are now picking fights with nuclear-armed nations like Russia and China just to keep the war economy going? I think supporting either of the capitalist duopoly is the very definition of craziness. I commend you for not falling into that trap, Monica, and being one of my heroes in the process.
Every one of us who is standing their ground and resisting this madness is a hero, brother 👊
Lol, nah, this absolutely bizarre response going off on a complete tangent and bearing no relation to my reply is crazy. The fact that I see RFK jnr for a conspiracy theorist whose widely acknowledged to be spreading harmful misinformation has zero to do with Biden or my opinion about him.
No, it's not a bizarre tangent, but is completely the point. Are you not going to vote for Biden/Harris? Are you not angry at RFK for presenting a primary challenge to them ? How is RFK a conspiracy theorist? That term is often used by liberals to denote "someone who disagrees with the Democratic narrative."
I'm not talking about your article. I didn't accuse you of spreading misinformation. You could have left RFK jnr off your list. He's harmful to autistic people. I said nothing about the Ukraine war. RFK jnr portrays autistic people as tragic animals. He's not to be taken seriously.
Apologies, I apparently misunderstood you. You asked me if I recognized the difference between basic difference of political opinion and spreading blatant misinformation, and I assumed you were referring to my article.
Also, I mentioned Ukraine as one of the reasons that I support RFK, Jr. That's just as relevant as autism, which was a reason that you gave for not supporting him.
I think this exchange perfectly captures one of the biggest problems we're having in our discourse today. You've pivoted to RFK, Jr -- who I mentioned incidentally in explaining my absence from Substack -- but you didn't address the substance of the article that is the subject of this thread. You think that someone I like is crazy, and so my thoughts must be "unworthy of attention." But "guilt by association" is not a way to advance productive dialogue.
So, apart from my association with RFK, Jr., do you have a problem with anything I've written in the article, such that it would make me "unworthy of attention"? May we stick to the merits of the subject matter at issue and not get distracted with personalities and ad hominems?
You really are a bright light in a dark room!
Only governments can censor. For private publications, it's called 'editing.' Use of the airwaves, which are government owned via the FCC, Goverment can make guidelines, but no direct censorship save for wartimes
Censorship actually isn’t limited to government actors:
“Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
I think what you’re referring to is restriction of free speech prohibited by the First Amendment, which only applies to government action. But here’s the rub that our Founding Fathers never contemplated: if private corporations align with government agencies, they can effectively act as proxies to accomplish what the government cannot legally.
I addressed this a couple of years ago, before there was concrete evidence of government collusion with Big Tech:
https://monica697.substack.com/p/when-big-tech-claims-private-companies
Since the release of the Twitter files, however, we now know that private-government collusion is a “thing.”
A free society ceases to remain free the moment its citizens choose to abandon common sense and delude themselves.
I edit and moderate several left to progressive publications and websites. We chose the articles and editorials we like from within that perspective. We don't run articles or opinions from the fascists and 'Christian' white nationalists, save for a few occasions when we report on a debate. At time, I'll also find a good anti-Trump defense of the Constitution on 'The Bulwark,' and re-run it. The point: I am not 'censoring' the rightwing views I exclude. Short of 'fire in a crowded theater,' a high bar, they are free to have their own publication's and speak their minds.
If you’re an editor, you might want to consider remedial training. You seem to conflate “censorship” with first amendment violations. And one thing is certain, the amount of censorship exercised by various platforms is stunning, and utterly incompatible with the values of liberalism and free dialogue.
Does 'free dialogue' mean I have to turn over a portion of my pages to my main adversaries? I think not. We can engage each other's views--and we do--via volleys of polemics and other argument back and forth between our publications, as we see worthwhile. The field of ideas is contested terrain, where we seek to encircle, isolate and defeat the bad with the good, and often redefine each in the process. Failure or weakness in doing so is how the 'Deming School' and the 'Solid South' restored and anti-Black and anti-democratic hegemony across the 'redeemed South and elsewhere. We can't let today's fascists do it again.
To be clear, the issue of censorship isn't nearly as concerning when it happens on a website with a few hundred thousand, or even a million, visitors (I'm probably making assumptions about your website, but I'm assuming it doesn't have Medium-level traffic?)
However, censorship IS a concern when a platform (a) reaches an extremely large number of people, (b) rigidly adopts and advances the same narratives that the government dispenses, and (c) works with the government to ensure these narratives are adhered to. This is the problem with Big Tech censorship.
We now know that many social media platforms actively work with government agencies to censor Americans. Is Medium part of this effort? I don't know. But I do know that it rigorously polices content that even remotely deviates from the prescribed government narrative, and that is something we should all be concerned about instead of rationalizing this undemocratic behavior.
As I mentioned earlier, the real issue isn't censorship, per se, which is completely legal. The issue is government use of private media companies to bypass the First Amendment, which is illegal. This is the very problem that Judge Doughty identified in his ruling three weeks ago:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/04/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-00104656
I think, Carl, that censoring in the name of stopping "fascism" is the equivalent of injecting someone with penicillin as an antidote to an allergic reaction to penicillin. The methods you use to combat fascism has to be the opposite of what fascism actually is. And you cannot combat prejudice against black people by viciously attacking white people and trying to obtain entitlements for the former. The problem in the first place was entitlement by one group over another. Equality and freedom of speech cannot be established by simply reversing the flow of the hatred and bigotry, or censoring unpopular speech.
So you are a “moderator” who views his job as keeping people with opposing views off “my platform”? Is that moderating in the sense of being an impartial referee or is that indistinguishable from being a censor? And also a moderator who characterizes people with whom he disagrees as similar to racists of the old south or fascists.
Seriously, are you capable of self reflection at all? Or is furthering an agenda such an overpowering imperative as to justify any behavior whatsoever?
We have a range of views--socialists, communists, pro-Bernie liberals, FDR Democrats and such. As an editor and moderator, my job is to see that they all can have friendly exchanges, or just get their separate views out. But we are united against the GOP fascists. No need to give them our turf. They have plenty of their own, and more money as well. Finally, even in our journals, mine is often a minority view. I have many friends I disagree with, but have no need to to label them as neo-Confederate racists. I do self-reflection all the time, knowing my weaknesses. What justifies any behavior is seeking truths while opposing injustice. As a Marxist, my core value is the self-emancipation of the working class and all the oppressed, and through that, all humankind.
Labeling actual egalitarians as "racists", "fascists," etc is what Mainstream Liberals do. They are not seeking actual equality and freedom for everyone. They want to mostly retain the current class-divided system and simply invert which groups hold the most positions of entitlement. Hatred and tribalism distorts one's perception of reality, making a narrative based on belief more important than historical lessons or actual empirical observations. People who think that racism against blacks in American society is as bad as it has ever been are not concerned about reality; they are concerned with pushing an agenda that has nothing to do with actual freedom and equality. They are seeking control while using minority demographics to do it, by pretending to be doing it all for them.
That doesn't happen, Carl, when Mainstream Liberals take control over privately owned but massively utilized social media platforms like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Medium. There needs to be large social media and news outlets that belong to the commons, otherwise the prevailing attitudes favored by the wealthy and popular will control everything. It's not easy to just start your own forum or newspaper when you lack the money to do so.
Really enjoyed this thread with you and Carl- relate to Christofer’s POV but really appreciated the exchange.
Thank you for reading and for the support, Colleen!
I dislike that you felt the need to announce your "identity" in the headline, but I get it in this context. Thank you for defending women!
Agree. I’m not wild about the headline (that I was not consulted about, for the record). But as you say, in context I get what they were trying to do.
I am not a writer, but I have heard that more than once, that they don't even ask the author about the headline. Regardless, I have 2 adult daughters and am pro-woman! (I hope I would feel that way regardless.)
Congrats Monica!
Thanks, Francois!
Congratulations Monica. Unplugged reader here (you and I recently "conversed" via email).
Of course! Good to see you, Cat 😀