I recently saw a blog where every time the author posted an article, he’d get the few same usual yes-men agreeing with everything he had to say. Clearly, he was preaching to the choir. One day he was fed up, driven to the point of saying something like, “A jest, a barb! Any kind of criticism will do!”
Of course, most content creators are looking for constructive criticism or interesting discussions that fuel debate in their comments section.
It seems to get social media engagement, one must say something so wrong that everyone on the internet comes out of the woodwork to correct you, or so right that it’s clear you’re directly over some target you weren’t supposed to notice.
Being over the “wrong” target draws out the normies who will likely agree with you, PLUS it draws out the opposition to try to damage control you. These damage controllers could be people in-the-know, bots programmed to create the appearance of a grassroots movement (a.k.a. “astroturfing”), or Useful Idiots, also programmed in a similar way.
Because, you see, there are simply some opinions you’re Not Allowed to Have.
Author John A. Douglas recently said something so right that it was clear his crosshairs were over a sacred cow. And all he did was make the simple, yet timely observation that fantasy books are no longer marketed toward men.
It was a sensible observation any given normie could agree with, and that’s why his message resonated to the tune of 25 million impressions.
TradPub and their Journalist army have lately been proclaiming that men don’t read fiction anymore – and pretend like it’s some great mystery as to why.
Yet all one has to do is glance at the fantasy section of any retail bookstore to see the truth: Nearly all the book covers are designed to look like Romantasy.
They often look like decorative floral Kleenex packages adorned with pink ribbons, featuring girlbosses or their hunky boyfriends–or girlfriends. Seeing those, it’s no wonder why men won’t pick up new books off the shelf anymore.
Of course, men do still read. But they were forced out of the current trend-driven market by feminist marketers. Something you’re not supposed to notice, I guess.
The men who still read shop at used bookstores instead. Or they find what they want at Amazon because, despite the company’s many shortcomings, they do have a pretty great search tool. One can still find books men would enjoy there – the kinds you won’t find taking up any precious shelf space at Wal-Mart or Books-a-Million.
I was also “over the target” recently with my Brandon Sanderson post in my little corner of the internet. Once it hit about 200 likes, the social justice army–which I didn’t hear a peep from prior–came out of the woodwork with comments that each fell under three flavors:
- “Gay people exist.” (Object permanence babies.)
- “I could sense there was something disingenuous with your article. Should’ve known it would be a bait and switch.” (Attempts to discredit the author.)
- “Did you ever stop and think that maybe Brandon grew up and you’re the one with the outdated homophobic take?” (Peer pressure & name calling – “Get with the times, man.”)
Of course, none of these three flavors of comment were coming from genuine places. They were propaganda trying to parasitically leech off the organic site traffic to get The Message across – a message that requires gaslighting (because none of it is based in truth).
In short, my post challenged their gaslighting. And they didn’t like that very much. So they felt the need to step in and do damage control only because my post was getting attention. Or–if they’re Useful Idiots–they felt like this was their opportunity to step in and virtue signal by loudly proclaiming they have Opinion Everyone Else Is Supposed To Have.
But since they don’t have a truthful foundation to argue from, they must resort to casting aspersions upon the writer rather than confront the argument itself.
They did the same thing to John A. Douglas, but to the Nth degree. Mostly ad-hominem tactics: Mean-spirited comments. Online bullying. Peer pressure, you name it. They attack you as a person because they have no real argument to fall back on.
That’s why engaging with these people is a losing proposition – It will only bring more attention to their misinformation campaign. Acknowledging such a comment at all gives their argument more credence than it deserves, encouraging them to throw attention-seeking temper tantrums in the future.
These are people who completely missed the point and aren’t interested in a conversation or genuine debate. They didn’t read the article and don’t care to. They’re attacking what they think someone with dissenting opinions might say or think.
(And their beliefs on what we believe are also based on lies.)
Lies beget more lies until you have a Jenga-esque tower that will one day collapse because, again, there’s at best a flimsy foundation at its base. (That’s why they can’t create stories that stand the test of time. And that’s why John’s post went grassroots-viral without the help of some New York ad agency.)
But these people have already made up their minds by sitting in one too many sensitivity trainings. They cannot be convinced otherwise without experiencing some kind of “Come to Jesus” moment. I’m not willing to provide that moment unless they come to me with a genuine interest to talk things out.
But fortunately, comments like these were few and far between. 99% of the exchanges–both private and public–were pleasant and positive experiences. And, like magic, the negative comment factory seemed to stop just as quickly as it started. So, lucky stars, whatever algorithm was targeting me finally decided to give up.
But even if these commenters weren’t human, someone put those bots out into the world and programmed them to think the way they do. So it’s clear there’s at least a few people out there who still need our prayers.
I’d also like to add that there’s no such thing as “homophobia” – It’s an invented term to pretend normal, everyday folks are somehow afraid of gay people. I’ve… never met a single person who’s afraid of gay people. The entire notion is ridiculous.
Most gay people don’t feel the need to inject their identity into everything they say, do, and watch. But for some reason, the loud online ones like to bully and harass and victimize… while pretending they’re the victims.
So what did I mean by “object permanence babies?” Newborns think mommy’s puppet is gone every time she hides it behind the crib. But when she brings it back, baby is delighted to see it still exists.
Liberals have a serious problem with object permanence, too. They have to constantly see themselves depicted in every story or they somehow don’t exist.
Object permanence babies are why we now have to suffer the absurd idea of wheelchair AD&D characters.
Gay people exist. But they also have a bad habit of unexisting themselves. Propaganda is their only means of survival. And it’s a negative-sum game. This brand of propaganda directly caused an unnatural spike in transgenderism and sexual deviancy that has far surpassed Sodom and Gomorrah levels.
It reminds me of this chart, which seems to indicate there was something odd in the the propaganda being served to Boomers during their prime:
(Note that the spike is normalizing as the Boomers die off.)
So how does one propagandize adult children? Easy: Pick a target and add sexual deviancy. For extra spice, pick something traditionally associated with childlike innocence such as a coloring book, a lollipop, a Little Golden Book, or a rubber ducky.
Child’s rocking horse? Duct-tape a dildo to it.
Come to think of it, haphazardly duct-taping something phallic where it doesn’t belong is exactly what’s being done in many of these cases. I guess that’s what passes for propaganda these days.
Of course, if I don’t duct-tape a dildo to my rocking horse, that doesn’t mean dildoes don’t exist. It just means that maybe I don’t want one on my rocking horse.
I don’t have a problem with these things “existing” in a story so long as they serve the narrative whole in some meaningful way. But most of the time, they don’t. Most of the time, it’s just a big floppy thing hanging off the book that doesn’t belong there.
But then I have to ask myself: If I ever created a work where a dildo was somehow a necessary and intrinsic part of the coherent whole, did I create something truly good? Will it stand the test of time?
Or did I go out of my way to contort my story just so I could “naturally” include The Message?
Nick Enlowe 