Several days ago, I posted a link to my essay Concealment: Should I Have Used a Pen Name? in a private writers group on Facebook. The admin always holds links in mediation prior to approval. Usually the process takes a few minutes to an hour, but after a day went by, I figured I’d gone too far and he wasn’t going to approve it.
However, 24 hours later it appeared. Either he was too busy to approve of it prior to that time (doubtful, since he’d been active in the group all along), or he was pondering whether or not to approve it, maybe even consulting others.
Well, it was approved, and discussion in the group was pretty interesting and generally positive. That is, until this one, offered by an admin of another writers group to which I do not belong (and I don’t plan on asking to join):
Generally speaking, it’s hard to study the humanities and develop an appreciation of the arts and come away believing that militarism, class and racial divisions, the unlimited acquisition of money, religious dogma, adoration of dictators, etc. are wonderful things. More than anything else, that’s why artists and entertainers tend to be liberal (in the historical sense of western democracy and liberalism). …If you write mainly to make money, be assured there are markets for fiction catering to people who still think Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Jefferson Davis, and Richard Nixon were swell role models.
Here’s my response:
I sense a rebuke, [name redacted], but one of the points of my wee missive has to do with being judged by my “labels” and not as a human being. Let me know when you stop thinking of me as a stereotype. Thanks.
This fellow proved my point in a nutshell. From his perspective, people in the “arts” are overwhelmingly liberal and leftist for the points he made above, but get this. Anyone who isn’t on board with that perspective, may well be seen in the light of “militarism, class and racial divisions, the unlimited acquisition of money, religious dogma, adoration of dictators” as well as spiritual associates with “Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Jefferson Davis, and Richard Nixon.”
Really. It’s that polar. Either you soar with the progressive angels or you are slumming with the greatest mass murders in human history.
Granted, this is only one person’s opinion, but I am concerned that it represents a lot of folks who have studied “the humanities and have developed an appreciation for the arts,” people who are more than ready to stereotype the rest of us.
This won’t be a lengthy article. Mr. “I am freely virtue signaling today” is just another confirmation of the blind bias that seems to be prevalent in the “humanities.” While some people of faith tend to be heavy on “religious dogma,” I seriously doubt my critic could possibly understand any other reason for a person to turn to the Creator, and that their faith might produce positive and beneficial actions for individuals and groups as opposed to “class and racial divisions.”
More’s the pity.
I’m a moderate and got it from both sides, so I hear ya. When I disagreed with the left I was in with the rightwing dictators. When I disagreed with the right, I was in with the babykilling libtards. Facebook = 🤮
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, that’s another one of my concerns. Some folks on the right are so angry, they seem to want to wage a war. All I want to do is tell a good story and believe it’s possible to “rub elbows’ with different people representing varying points on the ideological scale. Granted, as has been pointed out to me on many occasions, I have my own biases and character flaws, so obviously I don’t qualify for sainthood. The point is though, it’s not about being a perfect person, it’s about the struggle to communicate and connect with those folks who aren’t like you. That isn’t easy, especially when some folks think that if you aren’t like them, you are automatically Hitler.
LikeLike
Update: My critic has offered something of a “left-handed” olive branch and I’ve offered mine. Let’s see where we go from here.
LikeLike
You mentioned “lablels”, which I agree seem to be a feature of “knee-jerk” reactionism that refuses to engage in any analytical thinking and argument about the actual values, consequences, or implications of one or another assertion of opinion or view. Thus no discussion can occur to persuade or dissuade either respondent to a disagreement. Dismissal of any respondent who has been labeled, and thereby placed into a box of predetermined enemies, is a sign of misanthropic disrespect of fellow human beings as well as of lacking confidence in the intellectual defensibility of one’s own views. One ought to be able to expect better from those who claim to have studied the humanities.
LikeLike
Here’s where we’ve gotten to so far:
It certainly seems as if this guy has an ax to grind and is putting me in the hot seat. Well, I did ask the question, but I don’t feel like being put under the microscope on his terms, and frankly I shouldn’t have to. If this person wants to know more about me, he could try reading my blog (which I’m sure he hasn’t) and if he doesn’t agree with me, that’s too darn bad. It may come to the point where I tell him that and then he goes off feeling justified in his moral superiority.
LikeLike
I am very glad that I am not in that group. This person has proven that they are ignorant of history and forms of government.
“shorthand for those things and people I listed” I suspect a more correct statement would be “shorthand for those things and people I don’t like”.
After seeing this, and a few other similar comments, I think I’ll stick to lurking in the Mad Genius Club blog and the Conservative-Libertarian alliance on MeWe.
As far a using a pen name goes, I would mention that many great writers have used a nom de plume – Mark Twain jumps to mind. They serve as a barrier between the reader/fan and the writer’s privacy.
LikeLike
He’s responded to me two more times, and the last one gives me an easy out. All I have to do is not respond. I’m sure in his own mind, he will claim moral victory over the “evil Nazi.” So be it. Here is what he had to say. Let’s hope it ends here:
I almost said something like, “The door swings both ways” but that would just add fuel to the fire, so to avoid the aggravation of dealing with a classic internet troll and out of respect for the admin of the group I posted my link in, I will keep silent.
Let’s hope he doesn’t decide to follow the original link here. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
“it does imply a certain willingness to deceive, to be dishonest to achieve “professional success.”
*cough* Samuel Clemons, Stephen King, Robert Heinlien, Isacc Asimov, Anne Rice, Michael Crichton, Agatha Christi, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson and Eric Arthur Blair, would disagree that it is dishonest. 😉
LikeLike
Yeah, well…he’s kept quiet so far and so will I. Then end.
LikeLike
I will say this, there have always been problems with inclusion in the humanities. I think that it is widespread. One of my favorite thinkers is Roger Scruton. I do not agree with the majority of his political dogma. But the man can think, write, process, and explain. I look forward to continuing to read his work.
LikeLike
Thanks for commenting, W.D., and welcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Check out some of my writings on the classics. I’d welcome a conservative opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person