Commentary

How writers can fight unreason

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged ethics honesty reason on by

American society is being torn apart by widespread efforts to deceive and distort. Two broadly defined groups dominate these efforts. One is associated with the Republican Party and Donald Trump and has the support of many elected officials. It has significant representation among media outlets but a limited presence in the academic world. The other is associated with the Democrats but tends to be on its fringes. It doesn’t have a lot of outright support in the mainstream media, but many outlets are reluctant to challenge its outrages. It’s very strong in academia.

The two factions always at each other’s throats, but they’re similar in many important ways. Their goal is power. Keeping their own group in line is as important as attacking those who disagree with them. The important thing is to control their followers and promote hatred of non-followers. They use similar techniques to deceive and control. They want fear and hatred to replace reason.

Writers of nonfiction (and even writers of fiction, in a less direct way) should be on the front lines to challenge all promoters of unreason, taking on their false statements and identifying their methods. It’s a tricky challenge. We’re all subject to manipulation when we let our guard down. We can’t always tell facts from fabrications. We’re each well-informed in some areas and ignorant in others.

Each of us will make mistakes, but we can all contribute to rebuilding a culture of reason. Always double-check the facts and look for logical fallacies. Be ready to call out any of these stunts:
(more…)

Negotiating a world of suppressed information 1

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary Writing and tagged coronavirus writing on by

When information on a topic is broadly suppressed, what are we writers supposed to do? There are two easy answers, both error-prone. One is to reject all claims that there’s suppression and call them a “conspiracy theory.” The other is to assume that whatever is being suppressed is true.

Let’s look at the hypothesis that COVID-19 originated in a lab in Wuhan and somehow escaped into the population. I don’t know if that’s true, but the circumstances make it a possibility worth investigating. There have been many attempts to discourage an examination of the question. A Vanity Fair article by Katherine Eban summarizes the battle.
(more…)

The “Pro Act” bill threatens free expression

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing Writing as business and tagged law liberty writing on by

The more I hear about the “Pro Act” bill (it’s not an act till Biden signs it), especially from its supporters, the more convinced I am that it’s a threat not just to writers’ livelihoods but to free expression.

As I wrote in an earlier post, the bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. On the surface, it just grants freelancers a freedom we didn’t have before, the freedom to deal with clients through organizations. This ignores the reality of labor law, which gives unions the power to compel employers by force of law to enter into agreements. Outsiders often have the choice of joining the union, giving the union money without joining, or not working for a unionized employer.
(more…)

An assault in Congress on freelance writers

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing Writing as business and tagged law liberty writing on by

Previously I’d written about California’s AB-5, which put heavy restrictions on the number of articles freelance writers could sell. That was ultimately amended, after some major companies stopped using freelancers.

A bill now in Congress is raising similar concerns. It’s different from AB-5 in important respects but is still disturbing. The “PRO Act” has passed the House of Representatives and gone to the Senate. It would require clients to treat freelance writers as employees, but only in certain respects. To be exempt, writers would have to pass all three requirements of the “ABC test”:
(more…)

Dr. Seuss becomes “Doctor Sues” (UPDATED: APPARENT FALSE REPORT)

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary News and tagged censorship liberty satire on by

Update: It now appears that the alleged legal threat by Dr. Seuss Enterprises was a forgery. A tweet by Seth Dillon claiming receipt of the legal notice is “no longer available.” A Daily Wire post which reported the supposed threat now has the following added at the top:

Seuss Enterprises told The Daily Wire that the legal threat is fake and that Seuss Enterprises never demanded the retraction.

“The purported legal notice is a fake. It did not come from Dr. Seuss Enterprises or anyone associated with the organization,” Seuss Enterprises told The Daily Wire.

This morning (April 20), I can’t find anything on Dillon’s Twitter feed either reaffirming or retracting the statement that they received a notice from the Seuss organization. We can all make mistakes (as the original version of this post shows), but we need to correct them, especially when they make someone look bad.

Sorry about conveying erroneous information. Now I have to go back to all the places where I posted links to this article and post updates.

Original post follows…

In March, I wrote that Dr. Seuss Enterprises faced a difficult situation. It now seems I was wrong. They’re just nuts. They discovered a satirical Babylon Bee article and are now threatening to sue.
(more…)

Harvard Library appoints content arbiter? 2

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged Harvard libraries racism on by

The Harvard Library has appointed an Associate University Librarian for Antiracism. The press release announcing the position says that “we are a center for knowledge supporting our faculty and students in pursuing antiracism through their research, teaching, and learning. It also extends to our partnerships and collaborative networks, where we aim to support equitable access to a diversity of content, easy engagement with trustworthy information, and thoughtful preservation for the future.”
(more…)

Thoughts on Uncle Hugo’s

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged bookstores on by

I’ve never been to Uncle Hugo’s bookstore. In fact, I’ve never been in Minnesota. But like many of you, I think now and then of Uncle Hugo’s Bookstore, which was destroyed by fire on May 31, 2020. An article which I read the other day reminded me of it in an infuriating way.

A fundraiser has been running since last year to try to restore the store in some form. Fans have been very generous, but half a million dollars is a huge amount to raise, and it’s still far short of its goal.

A recent article by Carz Nelson reports that there’s still hope. Owner Don Blyly remains determined. He’s still looking for a new location. Insurance helped, but much of what was in the store was irreplaceable. Old used books and signed editions can’t just be re-ordered.
(more…)

The Seuss affair 4

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary and tagged books censorship copyright on by

Dr. Seuss Enterprises has announced it will discontinue publication of six Dr. Seuss books. Its stated reason is that they “portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong.”

Whatever you think of this decision, you need to remember what every writer knows and many on the right forget: Publishers have no obligation to publish, except when they’re bound by a contract. The villain of the piece isn’t Dr. Seuss Enterprises, but absurdly long copyright terms. Theodore Geisel died in 1991. And to Think that I Saw It on Mulberry Street was published in 1937. It won’t enter the public domain until, I think, 2033.
(more…)

The decline of Apple’s Books app

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged Apple ebooks software on by

When it comes to Apple’s software, Plato may have been right. Every change is for the worse. Catalina is outrageously slow. The Books app on the iPad has always been an advertising medium, but it’s gotten really out of hand now.

A few days ago, The Magic Battery magically disappeared from my new iPad. I don’t know why. It’s still on the old iPad. My best guess is that it no longer allows Epub files which I created myself.

Another book, one of the few which I purchased from Apple, is now reachable only by going through a page advertising the other books in the series.
(more…)

Virtually absurd

This entry was posted in Commentary Techniques Writing and tagged usage writing on by

When you don’t see people face to face and all your interactions are by phone or over the Internet, life can take on an unreal quality. It feels as if we’re living virtual lives, not real ones. Maybe that’s why writers put the adjective “virtual” on virtually everything. Instead of real learning, we have “virtual learning.” There was talk of the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates having a “virtual debate,” apparently in lieu of actually debating. Yet perversely, people we barely know on Facebook are “friends,” not “virtual friends.”

We need to hang on to the reality of life. The term “virtual” means being not quite something or being simulated. If something is “virtually impossible,” it still has a glimmer of possibility.

Many things are now simulated on the Internet because we can’t do them in real life; there are virtual meetings, virtual classrooms, virtual attendance, etc. That’s legitimate. But the outcomes ought to be real. Virtual classrooms should result in real learning, or what’s the point? Distance doesn’t make things less real. People have debated by correspondence for thousands of years; why does distance suddenly make debates “virtual”?

The word “virtual” is an antonym of “literal.” Maybe the long history of abusing “literal” has made the abuse of its opposite inevitable. If you can say someone “literally exploded” when there was no explosion, then why not say you “virtually learned” when you actually learned?

“Virtual,” like “algorithm,” is a trendy word to stick everywhere because it makes the writer sound computer-smart. But it’s virtual smartness, just the appearance of it. Let’s hold on to what’s real in life and not dismiss everything we do at a distance as “virtual.”