What do we value when we value ignorance and hypocrisy?

Ben Smith's article in the New York Times (November 28, 2021) observes that it's easier to handle "an information crisis...than a political one." Some "well-meaning communications experts" have tended to believe, Smith writes, that "if only responsible journalists and technologists could explain how misguided Mr. Trump’s statements were, surely the citizenry would come around." Unfortunately, they "never quite understood that the people who liked him knew what was going on, laughed about it and voted for him despite, or perhaps even because of, the times he went 'too far.'" And that is still how they feel. It's not a lack of information. Some people deliberately choose falsehood. That is their politics.

On that note... Spotted on Twitter, an argument:

"Hemry, Local Bartender" says: People who take health precautions during pandemic — vaccines, masks — tend to assume that people who deliberately avoid these precautions are missing some information. But maybe they just understand any sort of public health measure as totalitarian. For them, there are no shades of lockdown. Their values might be "completely withdrawn from the social compact." When others incorrectly assume that they have certain values, it further "violently alienates them." And there may be nothing you can do to change their minds. You can't give them values like empathy and solidarity. As long as they lack relevant values, you can't give them information (usefully organized facts for particular purposes). They will do nothing with the information.

I've been confused by the rightwing rhetoric about "NO MORE LOCKDOWNS" and misinterpreting it as cynical demagoguery, since we never had a real "lockdown" and the most stringent pandemic measures ended over a year ago. But they're just coding every health measure as "lockdown"

— Hemry, Local Bartender (@BartenderHemry) November 29, 2021

It seems obvious now in retrospect but it really is just purely binary to these people; taking the barest minimum precautions (e.g. an "indoor mask mandate" where guests can remove their masks to eat and drink") is tantamount to unfettered totalitarianism in their minds

— Hemry, Local Bartender (@BartenderHemry) November 29, 2021

The upshot is I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding when we say people are "living in two different realities" or victims of misinformation because therein is an assumption that if they had better information they would make a better choice. I don't think that's true

— Hemry, Local Bartender (@BartenderHemry) November 29, 2021

I think, and again this seems obvious now, that these are people who have constructed a value system that is almost completely withdrawn from the social compact as we generally understand. I.e. better information doesn't alter their ethical framework.

— Hemry, Local Bartender (@BartenderHemry) November 29, 2021

That is to say, the assumption that people are making decisions based on different value systems that still have important common features is sometimes just disastrously wrong. Sometimes there's a key piece missing and the assumption that it's there just violently alienates them.

— Hemry, Local Bartender (@BartenderHemry) November 29, 2021

Anyway it seemed quite bleak to me in the moment and does still more to me now after further thought because I don't think there is anything you can do to help these people that isn't going to further anger them. They just can't be allowed to hold power.

— Hemry, Local Bartender (@BartenderHemry) November 29, 2021

Several days ago, I had a brief online exchange with a blogger (not Hemry; someone else). This blogger made a strange, incoherent argument. I've squinted at it trying to put it into some logical order. Roughly, this was his position. This is as coherent as I can possibly make it.

He says: (1) Our ethical choices are “authentic” only if we have total individual freedom. When we instead constrain ourselves to manage collective risk, we’re focusing on an abstraction. It’s a hyperobject whose justification we don’t fully understand. Since we don’t understand it, we’re not making a truly ethical choice. We’re only ethical when we make choices whose extended ramifications we fully understand.

He also says: (2) There is a coronavirus, but people don’t die of it. They die, instead, of unspecified “political and economic” causes that are being blamed on the virus. Therefore, transmitting the virus is “solidarity.” (I guess his reasoning is that, if enough of us get the virus — as if over 260 million confirmed cases and over 5 million deaths worldwide is not yet enough evidence — we will eventually realize the true political and economic causes of other people's deaths? Seems to be a kind of scientific experiment to isolate variables?)

(1) and (2) are apparently contradictory, though. (1) says not to act on things you don't understand. (2) says let's run a biology experiment on each other and deliberately give each other disease to find out why 5 million people are said to have already died of that disease so that we can better understand it. That’s this guy's value system. That's "ethical engagement" (1) and "solidarity" (2) to him. In a sense, the contradiction — the hypocrisy — is what he values.

I think that is similar to what Hemry the Bartender points out.

Then, this: Not everyone on the right believes in total individual freedom all the time, of course. There are right-wing arguments for imposing restrictions on many people's bodies. Notably, they generally want to restrict a woman's right to choose abortion. Upon reading Michelle Goldberg's article in the New York Times yesterday, a related question posed itself to me this way: Is it that some people sincerely believe that totalitarian coercion ought to apply to some people and not others (e.g. women of childbearing age and not men), or are they deliberately, strategically hypocritical because hypocrisy proves to be a successful political strategy for them? In other words, do they sincerely hold any ideals, or do they just seek power?

"It's standard bully behavior for a bully to always cast themselves as the victim of their own behavior. It's standard behavior of an abuser to reverse the victim and offender, to claim the people they dehumanize are dehumanizing them by resisting them, to claim that what they are doing to others is being done to them. Doing so demonstrates the supremacist belief that only supremacists matter. Hypocrisy is a virtue to a supremacist.

We should know this very well by now, but all the same we seem persistently immune, culturally speaking, to this knowledge."

— A.R. Moxon, Apology Not Accepted, The Reframe, Nov 3, 2024

Four podcasts that teach about a broad range of topics

The Very Short Introductions Podcast "Launched by Oxford University Press in 1995, Oxford's Very Short Introductions series offers concise and original introductions to a wide range of subjects — from Public Health to Buddhist Ethics, Soft Matter to Classics, and Art History to Globalization." See if the topics interest you! Ologies "Alie Ward is a Daytime Emmy Award-winning science correspondent for CBS’s "The Henry Ford's Innovation Nation with Mo Rocca,” and host of “Did I Mention Invention?” on the CW. She hosts "Ologies," a comedic science show named one of Time Magazine’s top 50 podcasts." You're Wrong About Hosts: Michael Hobbes and Sarah Marshall. As described by Wikipedia, "the show explores misunderstood media events interrogating why and how the public got things wrong." This Day in Esoteric Political History

Several books of literary criticism, with focus on African-American fiction and metafiction

Here are several books that were recommended in a study of African-American metafiction.

"In From Behind the Veil, Robert Stepto shows that the history of African American literature has been a movement toward the invention of a self-authenticating voice. In Self-Discovery and Authority in Afro-American Narrative, Valerie Smith traces the development of voice from nineteenth-century autobiography, illustrating the resilience and adaptability of first-person narration. Gayl Jones [in Liberating Voices: Oral Tradition in African American Literature] makes ‘freeing the voice’ the central trope of her study of the oral tradition in African American literature.” Madelyn Jablon. Black Metafiction: Self-Consciousness in African American Literature. University of Iowa Press, 1997. p. 112.

More books that Jablon mentions: .

Phillip Brian Harper, Framing the Margins: The Social Logic of Postmodern Culture Clarence Major, The Dark and Feeling: Black American Writers and Their Work Henry Louis Gates, Loose Canons: Notes on the Culture Wars Gerald Graff, Literature Against Itself: Literary Ideas in Modern Society Toni Morrison, Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination

Here's Jablon's book:

Against ecological catastrophe, all of humanity should be playing on the same side

Two recent podcast episodes that mention climate change, on the periphery, but in nuanced ways.

First, this episode of the Rachel Maddow show, "Steven Bannon indicted (again), giving new teeth to January 6th Committee" (13 November 2021). It is guest-hosted by Ali Velshi. At the end, climate activist Bill McKibben is interviewed about the failures at the COP26 climate conference. Velshi quotes an 11-page online article from McKibben's Substack blog: "It's gone from talking about phasing out coal to phasing out unabated coal, from talking about ending fossil-fuel subsidies to ending inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies. And on the deepest question, how much and how fast we're planning to cut emissions heating the planet, there's been no real advance." McKibben responds that the COP26 conference in Glasgow was hampered by U.S. politics. "Truly, this is not what people had hoped for. We're not catching up to the physics of global warming at this pace." (41:40–41:45) "For folks who don't think this is existential" — that is, not an emergency — "we're making progress" since any tiny incremental improvement, by definition, counts as progress over whatever we had before. "But better progress doesn't matter if the Earth is going to flood and burn." (43:00–43:17) McKibben responds: "Here's our problem: Most political questions that we talk about, we solve at some level by compromises. The problem with climate change is: it's not quite like that. The real debate that's going on isn't Republicans vs. Democrats, or industry vs. environmentalists, or Americans vs. Chinese. Those are all important subjects. But the real underlying debate is: Human beings versus physics. And the problem with that debate is: Physics is immature. It refuses to compromise. It doesn't know how to negotiate at all. It just does what it wants to do. And our job is to meet its challenge. The scientists have told us that if we wanted to meet those temperature targets we set in Paris which are a bare minimum for civilizational thriving then we have to cut emissions in half by 2030. That's possible. Scientists and engineers have done a great job in lowering the cost of solar power, wind power, and batteries to the point where this is the cheapest energy on the Planet Earth. But we still have to overcome both inertia and the vested interests of the fossil fuel industry which is on full display again in Glasgow. There are 500 fossil fuel lobbyists there; that's bigger than the delegation of any country gone to Glasgow."(43:18–44:42)

(Bannon, by the way, was described in Naomi Klein's 2023 book Doppelganger as "now a full-time propagandist for authoritarian and neofascist movements from Italy to Brazil.")

Second, this episode of the Ezra Klein show, "How Far-Right Extremism Invaded Mainstream Politics" (16 November 2021).

The historian Nicole Hemmer guest-hosts the episode. Her work "focuses on right-wing media and American politics. She is an associate research scholar with the Obama Presidency Oral History Project at Columbia University and the author of Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics." Twitter: @PastPunditry. She is interviewing the historian Kathleen Belew, who co-edited A Field Guide to White Supremacy and wrote Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America, "which tells the story of how groups — including the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and Aryan Nations — coalesced into a radical white-power movement after the Vietnam War. These groups were united by a core set of beliefs about the threats of demographic change and governmental overreach, perceived hostility toward white Americans and the necessity of extra-political, often violent, action to achieve their aims." Twitter: @kathleen_belew

How does a sense of victimization influence right-wing politics? Hemmer said that these are "increasingly extreme and increasingly apocalyptic politics. Right? Because if you constantly feel that you are being victimized, that something is being stolen from you, there is a level of emotion that comes along with that." (52:30–53:00) "Different kinds of 'end times' scenarios," including climate change, can influence that, Belew responded. (53:28-53:35) In reality, "we have a series of imminent threats to our way of life...We have intensely polarized conversations about what that is and what it means." Unfortunately, "we are not talking to each other about anything, right to left, anymore," and "we're consuming different narratives about the end of the world and different imaginaries about what the future might look like. We have not had the big conversation, collectively, about our history." (54:05–54:35)

"Is there a difference between the apocalypticism around demographic change and the apocalypticism around climate change?"
"I think one huge difference is where it directs our energy. A fear of climate change directs people to work together to solve common problems and creates an idea of global citizens who will have to face a crisis together or perish. At its most extreme, a fear of demographic change as we see in the white power movement causes people to encamp, to guard resources, to isolate, and to — at its most extreme — commit acts of violence against people they see as 'other.'" (55:45–56:25)

Both comments are making a similar point: Against ecological catastrophe, all of humanity should be playing on the same side.

The function of white supremacy is to divide minoritized groups along the line of Black and white America.

Fighting among minoritized communities is pleasing to the oppressor.

That’s the goal.
That’s how the oppressors stay in power.

— Priti (“Pree-thee”) (@pritinemani) October 11, 2022

The value of strategic lying does not mean it is ethical to lie

In Gordon Bonnet's post "Shame, Lying, and Archie Bunker" (Skeptophilia blog, November 9, 2021), he resurfaced a 2013 opinion piece. Creationists, specifically David F. Coppedge for Creation Evolution Headlines, responded to a 2013 science paper, "Cooperation Creates Selection for Tactical Deception," by Luke McNally and Andrew L. Jackson. They titled the response "Evolutionists Confess to Lying." In that response, they argue (as Bonnet paraphrased it)

that because the paper supports an evolutionary edge for people who are deceptive, it is equivalent to the evolutionary biologists stating, 'Ha ha! We were lying all along!'

Image by PicsbyFran from Pixabay

The creationists' response is interesting — in an embarrassing way, as Bonnet points out.

Of course, there's a crucial distinction between descriptive and normative accounts of behavior: observing what people actually do, contrasted with judging what they ought to do. When scientists talk about "survival of the fittest," they are speaking descriptively. (This bears saying, unfortunately, endless millions of times.) Obviously, lying is sometimes a tactical advantage, especially when you are no longer trying to build up a reciprocally altruistic relationship but you are instead prepared to consider this your "final interaction," steal the bag, and go home. Lying, stealing, etc. can be lucrative in the short-term and in the long-term, but that doesn't mean you should do it, since what is lucrative — for yourself, for your offspring, for your social group — is not always ethical. That is, I'd say, definitional/axiomatic regarding the meaning of ethics. The word "ethics" exists to mean something different from "self-interest," and neither word is identical with "natural selection" (since sacrifices may contribute to the group's survival, so they can be simultaneously altruistic and self-interested).

Fundamentalist theists often point to a book and say: That's ethics, right there. You don't have a holy book? Then you have no ethics. The secular humanist may respond that ethics is a very complicated discourse that exists in the world as a function of human thought and behavior, but such a statement does not satisfy the fundamentalist and only generates the response: See, you are ignorant. You can't point to "ethics" as a concrete thing that fits in a shoebox. Therefore, you have no ethics at all.

Creationists routinely misrepresent descriptions of natural selection as recommendations for what humans ought to do. However, evolutionary pressures might be better understood as a constraint: sometimes they help determine what ethics is (insofar as they promote survival and group loyalty), but sometimes we have to fight against them to live ethically (caring about others). Our brains are wired to do something (e.g. fight or flight), while our conscious ethical choices seek a better outcome (e.g. nonviolent elimination of the threat, which takes time and thought). Whatever has helped humans survive throughout a long evolutionary past, dating back to when we were amoebas or whatever, isn't identical with what we consider ethical behavior right now.

Under certain assumptions of "intelligent design" whereby God determines human interests and human ethics and also guides evolution, self-interest might equate to ethics — since, under that worldview, God could choose whatever he liked and make it come to pass. This would eliminate the need for ethical discourse, as then we would only be obligated to say and do whatever increased our own bank accounts, because, according to God's rules in this alternate reality thought experiment, selfish behavior is good behavior by definition. Then we could say that, if God had wanted us to behave in some other way, he would have made survival feel less wonderful. But no one is claiming this. Not "intelligent design" creationists (I don't imagine?), and not atheists, either, rather few of whom are amoralists.

Refusing or being "unable to distinguish between truth and lies" is the definition of a bullshitter (per Harry Frankfurt), not a liar. If no human being could distinguish truth from lies, no one could choose to lie; no scientist could identify someone else's lying as a conscious strategy (since it's not conscious); and no scientist could analyze their unconscious choice either, since (as Bonnet pointed out in ALL CAPS in his blog post) if the scientist doesn't know which statements are false, they can't analyze the outcomes of making true and false statements.

How does a person even go from the obvious truism of sometimes people lie for strategic gain to the misinterpretation/oversimplification of these falsehoods are always told unconsciously, i.e. people never know when they're 'lying' to the outright non sequitur of if you believe that, then you also believe there is no way for any third party to evaluate what is true or false because there is no objective reality?

The fundamentalists' rhetorical question "How can anyone overcome what evolution has built into them?" is not asked seriously. Simply identifying an influence or a tendency doesn't mean it can't be overcome. The same question could be turned around at the Christians: "How can anyone overcome what Satan is telling them to do?" and they would similarly dispense of it: Apparently we humans just ARE able to make choices. Because pointing out a specific existing force should not immediately lead to a discussion of determinism/free will. If someone wants to talk about materialism/idealism implying determinism/free will, OK, but the mere pronunciation of the word "evolution" needn't always take us there. If someone feels that determinism/free will is the only philosophical or scientific debate that matters, that's fine for them regarding their own special interest, but their urge to steer the debate in that direction doesn't reflect anything inherent in the word "evolution."

The fundamentalists' rhetorical question "How can [the atheists] know what is true?" is yet another deflection. The same question could be turned around at Christians. Christians ask how atheists/scientists know what is true; similarly, a scientist might ask how a theologian knows what is true. But right now, in this context, this debate is a deflection because knowledge sources weren't the original topic.

Neither of these two epistemological questions — How can anyone overcome a tendency? How does anyone know what's true? — inherently privilege theism/creationism over atheism/science, so Christian fundamentalists aren't justified in "dismissing" all of science on the grounds that atheists/scientists are "deceivers" about the very nature of truth and self-knowledge. Christian fundamentalists can try asking those two epistemological questions about their own worldview and see what happens. But, of course, it is the nature of fundamentalism to be unable to interrogate itself and to dismiss opponents out of the starting gate.

---

Around 2016 various philosophers started describing Trump using Frankfurt’s technical sense of bullshit. But then it was pointed out Trump isn’t even a bullshitter: he doesn’t see propositions as truth-tracking at all. He sees words as things you just arrange in whatever way will ‘win’ an exchange.

[image or embed]

— Patrick Stokes (@patstokes.bsky.social) May 31, 2024 at 6:09 PM

---

If you like this stuff, go over to Gordon Bonnet's Skeptophilia blog and press the "Follow" button in the sidebar, please.

Wyoming Republican Party: Politicians can't challenge the party line

In January 2021, Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, as chair of the House Republican Conference, voted along with the majority of House representatives (232–197) to impeach President Trump for "incitement of insurrection." On February 9, the state party in Wyoming passed a resolution to censure Cheney for this vote. (The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump several days later.)

Despite being censured by her party, Cheney went on to serve as Vice Chair of the House January 6th Committee which investigates the insurrection. In November 2021, the Wyoming Republican Party voted to cease recognizing Cheney as a party member, citing the language it had used in its February censure.

This outcome is hardly surprising, but what I want to note here is the odd language use by the Wyoming party. The party said that evidence for impeachment needs to be "quantifiable" (clearly, it does not, since not all evidence is expressible in numbers) as well as "undisputed" (which again, it does not, since if it were undisputed there would be no purpose of a House vote on whether to bring charges, nor of a Senate trial regarding the charges. Precisely because the truth might eternally remain disputed, the majority decision is used to determine the outcome.)

So how should we make sense of what the Wyoming Republican Party is saying? Looks like they really mean: All Republican politicians are expected to have a united front; they are not permitted to dispute the position that their party's leadership assumes for them.

Wyoming Republican leaders voted this weekend to no longer recognize Rep. Liz Cheney as a member of their party following her repeated criticisms of former President Donald Trump. https://t.co/c9y3AYI9do

— Casper Star-Tribune (@CSTribune) November 15, 2021

The state party used the term "quantifiable evidence of High Crimes or Misdemeanors” in its February censure, and it quoted that phrase in its November resolution. Generally, is such evidence ever really expected to be *quantifiable*? Were they trying to say "tangible"?

— Tucker Lieberman (@tuckerlieberman) November 16, 2021

Their claim that the evidence has to be "undisputed" does not make any sense either, since the existence of a dispute—past, present, and/or future—is the reason for holding a vote.

Seems that they really mean: Individual politicians aren't free to dispute their own party's line.

— Tucker Lieberman (@tuckerlieberman) November 16, 2021

Castration in 'The Temple of My Familiar' by Alice Walker

Two stories in Alice Walker's 1989 novel The Temple of My Familiar discuss castration.

The first is an origin myth of womb envy that leads to misogyny.

"What the mind doesn't understand, it worships or fears. I am speaking here of man's mind. The men both worshiped and feared the women." The men try "to show their worshipful intent" and bring the women "feathers, bones, bark for dyes, animal teeth and claws" (since the women are mostly vegetarian and don't cultivate hunting skills). The men finally observe "that some of the children the women were making bore a striking resemblance to themselves," and the men raise the boys. Finally they discover "that the life that woman produced came out of a hole at her bottom! But not the hole man also had." The men chose to become priests, "that they could be the ones through whom life passed! They began to operate on themselves, cutting off and flinging away their maleness, and trying to fashion a hole through which life could come." The men died, and they learned to "cut off the balls," and "not the whole of the genitals," and to abandon the task of creating "the hole through which life passes." Instead: "What they remembered was that they must be like women, and if they castrated themselves at a certain age — the time of puberty, when they chose or were chosen for the priesthood — they could sound like woman and speka to the universe in woman's voice." This was the meaning of being a priest in those days. With these castrations, their pain seemed to last longer than women's pain in childbirth, and they complained and resented women, developing "hatred of woman."

Mr. Hal tells a story:

"Lulu was the name Lissie had had when she was part of a harem in the northern pan of Africa... how happy she was in the harem, because themaster was old and sickly and had hundreds of women it tired him just to see, not to mention to try to do anything to, and Lissie (Lulu) had had two lovers. One of them was another woman in the harem, named Fadpa, and the other was one of the eunuchs, named Habisu, whose job it was to keep the women from running away. They used to all sit around and plot about how to run away together, but Habisu was afraid to leave the safety of the harem, and he liked the sweets the women shared with him and the colorful clothing he got to wear. He was from a poor family, and he thought it wasn't such a bad thing to give up his nuts for such pleasant room and board. Now I don't know whether this was really the truth or whether Lissie was committing slander on poor Habisu." Eventually Lulu and Fadpa "became devoutly religious" and "could perform miracles." They prayed for their freedom for 80 years and were finally freed from the harem at ages 96 and 103." In a different part of the story, later, he says: "I could see in her [Lissie's] eyes the hundreds of times she had suffered in giving birth, and I swore it would never happen again, and my desire for her, for sex with her or with any woman, died, and I became a eunuch myself. I just knew I would never be able to deal with making love to a woman ever again."

UN Secretary-General on COP26 conference: 'We did not achieve these goals'

As reported by Annabelle Timsit in The Washington Post yesterday:

“We must end fossil fuel subsidies, phase out coal, put a price on carbon, protect vulnerable communities from the impacts of climate change and make good on $100 billion climate finance commitment to support developing countries,” United Nations Secretary General António Guterres said in a video after the agreement won approval from nearly 200 nations. “We did not achieve these goals at this conference...”

George Monbiot wrote that,:

just as the complex natural systems on which our lives depend can flip suddenly from one state to another, so can the systems that humans have created. Our social and economic structures share characteristics with the Earth systems on which we depend. They have self-reinforcing properties – that stabilise them within a particular range of stress, but destabilise them when external pressure becomes too great. Like natural systems, if they are driven past their tipping points, they can flip with astonishing speed. Our last, best hope is to use those dynamics to our advantage, triggering what scientists call “cascading regime shifts”.

A fascinating paper published in January in the journal Climate Policy showed how we could harness the power of “domino dynamics”: non-linear change, proliferating from one part of the system to another. It points out that “cause and effect need not be proportionate”, a small disturbance, in the right place, can trigger a massive response from a system and flip it into a new state.

Monbiot says: "We could use this property to detonate positive change." With actions today, "small interventions by government could trigger cascading change." While "we should never underestimate the power of incumbency, and the lobbying efforts that an antiquated industry will use to keep itself in business," change is possible.

But that change did not come from COP26.

Found on Twitter: People crowdsource book recommendations

Seen on Twitter recently. People ask for book recommendations. Click into the thread and you'll see the replies.

Čeština: Nebeská etapa, 2007. Art by Eugene Ivanov. Creative Commons license

Hey team, a student just told me that he signed up for Intro to Soc to learn a sociological take on the roots of fascism. I am not teaching about said roots (it's a quarter system so I barely have time for the basics!). Any suggestions for this earnest and inquisitive student?

— CJ Pascoe (@c_j_pascoe) October 18, 2022

I want to read more prose poems! What anthologies or single-author books of prose poems do you recommend?

— Bethany Jarmul (@BethanyJarmul) October 18, 2022

Quick, everyone give me as many weird, obscure, experimental, totally unreadable book suggestions as possible

— goatboy (@giles_goatboy) November 18, 2022

what are your favorite experimental novels? (I know this is a very broad term, but I'm curious still what comes to mind)

— Amy Stuber (@amy_stuber_) May 29, 2023

I want to read a well-written Weird Western that is not full of unexamined racist, sexist, and otherwise exhausting and un-fun garbage. What should I try?

— M. A. Blanchard (@inquisitrix) October 19, 2022

hi. what's a poetry collection that's so complex/layered that you could write a dissertation on it, if given the chance? what's That Book for you rn?

— Despy Boutris (@itsdbouts) January 18, 2023

Hate to do a prompt, but. Who are some evil characters from recent fiction that have stayed with you? What are some moments of real evil that have stayed with you from fiction of the recent-ish (like, 5,10 years) that have stayed in your mind.

— Brandon (@blgtylr) January 19, 2023

Literary hive mind question: examples of surreal literary memoirs? Thanks in advance. ❤️

— Amy Cipolla Barnes (@amygcb) November 12, 2021

Noteworthy essayistic novels and novelistic essays in the vein of Robert Musil's Man without Qualities, W. G. Sebald's Rings of Saturn, J. M. Coetzee's Elizabeth Costello, Teju Cole's Open City, etc? Preferably by contemporary writers.

— Akin Akinwumi (@AEAkinwumi) September 25, 2022

Please I'm currently working on a project that revolves around Igbo mythology and traditions. Which books have you read that interrogate these topics with a much broader range? My friend recommended "After God Is Dibia," which is a fair and excellent read, but I do need more.

— Njoku Nonso (@NN_Emmanuels) February 24, 2023

I’d love to hear which single-author essay collections are your favorites, esp by BIPOC writers. I’m looking to trade out some texts in one of my courses next term, & I want to make sure I’m not missing anything phenomenal. (You can just list titles/authors; I’ll look them up 🙂)

— Mag Gabbert (@mag_gabbert) October 13, 2022

Want an absolutely screaming deal on my books (and many other people's)? Go to https://t.co/BeCQ7xPhFP
and use code CAP50 for **50% off** all books through the month of November!

SO much more pleasant than fighting crowds on Black Friday, am I right?

— Molly Ringle 📚 🏳️‍🌈 🏳️‍⚧️🧙‍♀️ (@mollyringle) November 8, 2021

Novels in which a first person narrator relates a story told to them by the protagonist, even letting them take the stage? Like Austerlitz, or the Outline trilogy?

— Antoine Wilson (@antoinewilson) September 28, 2021

What was your favorite literary climate writing published in the last year? Looking to update my syllabus last minute. Seeking essays, poems, short fiction, experimental creations…

— Emily Raboteau (@emilyraboteau) August 29, 2021

Any recs for poetry books on the climate crisis?

— Laura Villareal (@earthandstars) September 20, 2022

I'm also one of the hosts of the @ClifiBookClub, which started as a platform to rise awareness for the growing genre of "climate fiction," but has turned into more of a therapy group for climate grief. https://t.co/ED16l4DBoT

— Sim Kern (@sim_kern) July 4, 2021

Poetry people: I'm teaching a class on ecopoetry in a couple of weeks. What are your favorite environmental poems that resist/complicate the tropes/traditions of nature writing (i.e.—no "wandering lonely as a cloud," ect.)?

— Madison Jones (@poetrhetor) April 3, 2023

Best books about grief and grieving? Not self-help/pop psych stuff. Classics. Poets. Essays. Would especially love anything that lets history and politics in or considers grief over the loss of ideals/ideas as well as individuals.

— Alyssa Harad (@alyssaharad) October 14, 2022

What is a page-turning novel you couldn't put down, preferably scifi/fantasy/speculative

— Matt (@MJHaugen) November 11, 2021

Looking for #BookRecommendations!
I just read “This Is How You Lose the Time War” and loved it! What other literary sci-fi /speculative books published in the last decade and preferably written by women can you recommend?

— Claire Polders (@clairepolders) November 10, 2021

Alright, gang, what's your favorite single-author collection of weird fiction of the last, I don't know, 50 years?

— Zach (@robop_style) November 9, 2021

also: ur top fav collections by trans poets?

— Despy Boutris (@itsdbouts) November 3, 2021

I'm building a syllabus for a class on trans and non-binary poetics this fall! What are some individual poems (or essays, or performance pieces) that you think it would be a mistake to exclude?

— Chase Berggrun (@patriphobe) August 5, 2022

Click on it. Right click, save. Zoom in for Trans stories by Trans and gender diverse writers in just about every genre.

We are taking part in the #TransRightsReadathon -- today is day 1. On day 1 you get a giant chart! Link in bio for donating opportunities. pic.twitter.com/FiD0moS3oy

— ABOLISH THE POLICE (@RoomofOnesOwn) March 21, 2023

today is the first day of the #TransRightsReadathon created by @sim_kern so here are a few recs if you want to join (and just to read more trans books all year round) pic.twitter.com/RnueuqR6yQ

— liz (@anesidcra) March 20, 2023

Help me out here because I can only think of about ten who are living: Black historical fiction writers? I need names!

— DeMisty D. Bellinger Wants What's Best for You: Me (@DeMistyB) September 22, 2021

FRIENDS: I'm looking to read as many academic & critical texts on Black masculinity, queer theory, & trans studies as possible over the next few months. can u send me recs🥺👉🏾👈🏾

— KB Brookins (@earthtokb) February 16, 2023

what are your absolute fav queer / trans novels in translation? looking for recs that will wreck me 🙆🏻

— M Crane they/them (@mcrane_12) June 10, 2023

PS please feel free to add more suggestions for books of horror by Asian authors here!

— Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (@flightofsand) September 20, 2021

Book Thread for 2021. Here we go!! pic.twitter.com/7y2PEpjv19

— Melissa Boles (@melloftheball) January 6, 2021

Your fave books where the creative and critical enact each other, are embedded in each others’ DNA? I’m thinking like Maggie Nelson, Tina Chang’s Hybrida, Anna Tsing’s Mushroom at end of world. Thank you!

— Nomi Stone (@Nomi_Stone) November 22, 2021

What books would you recommend to help ease a very painful break-up? 💔 Any/all kinds of books considered--poetry, fiction, nonfiction, self-help/spiritual, etc. (Asking for a friend. Really.)

— Michael Taeckens (@mtaeckens) November 23, 2021

The feminine urge to make lists of novels that are not The Handmaid’s Tale but that address how women are viewed in America.

— Maris Kreizman (@mariskreizman) December 2, 2021

I'm looking for some experimental writing, poetry practices that are intensely self-reflexive. Self-referentiality, self-annotation, self-editing, self-commentaries.I feel like there should be some key practitioners using this method, but none are coming to mind. Can anyone help?

— Nathan Allen Jones (@nathan_xones) December 2, 2021

Hey poet twitter, if I wanted to read more contemporary poetry collections in 2022, what would you recommend as can't miss? I like plant imagery, folklore, and nerdy pop culture shit. Would love to support new and rising poets (no matter their age)

— Jen Julian (@jennicjul) December 4, 2021

I'm teaching a class in the fall on scams and hoaxes. Any recommendations for short stories, series, movies, etc.?

— Katie Walker (@KatieNWalker) March 26, 2022

Is there a thread going of LGBTQ+ horror authors who are selling books? ✨ If not, can we get one going? Share your links & covers!

— Samantha Kolesnik (@samkolesnik) June 2, 2022

Does anyone have any recommendations for lesbian novels that aren't like The Well of Loneliness or The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo?

— Ari Drennen (@AriDrennen) January 24, 2023

I need trans positive YA book recs! For a trans woman! I know plenty that have trans masc characters (feel free to recommend me some anyway), but are there any with characters who are trans women?

— shark boy 🏳️‍⚧️ PREORDER SIR CALLIE 📚 (@biblioqueer) October 16, 2022

I want to follow more people who have trans men in their books! Preferably adult books, but it's okay if you write YA. I just find they're often absent in adult queer fiction, and I'd like to start a list ♥

— Shane🖤Blackheart (they/them) (@ShaneBlkheart) October 16, 2022

i'm working on a piece for @autostraddle & i want you to tell me your fave indie queer books published during the pandemic! i'm using "queer" broadly on purpose & i'm focusing on indies published in 2020-2022 bc i know how rough it has been! tell me what you've loved reading! 📚

— vanessa ✨ (@vanessapamela) June 27, 2022

What are the works of fiction that have exposed you to the most extraordinary diction—words or constructions that otherwise might have escaped you but now remain inscribed?

— Lorenzo Servitje, PhD MPH (@kilojoule_) August 28, 2022

Hey #WritingCommunity can you recommend some single author #flashfiction collections? Not novella in flash - I'm interested in the difference!

— KatieHWrites (@KatieLHWrites) April 18, 2022

Writers (or readers), what's an example of a RECENT novel that uses two or more timelines (eg, one contemporary one historical)? HORSE by Geraldine Brooks is one. Others?

— Clifford Garstang (@cliffgarstang) September 4, 2022

This has probably been asked before, but I'm curious: what's your comfort book?

What's the book you re-read over and over again, and return to when you're in need of a familiar friend?

— Blake Johnson (@bjohnsonauthor) September 16, 2022

Currently seeking ghost novels that are both well written & kind of obscure. Please help, need ghosts.

— Katy Kelleher (@KatyKelleher) September 16, 2022

Hey, literary twitter: I'm calling my next class "The Short Form", using everything from poems, to stories, to novels. What short novels (or novellas) should I include (probably not much more than 100 pages)? Hit me
(by the way, I love doing this!)

— Rabih Alameddine (@rabihalameddine) September 24, 2022

I would like to read more queer NOVELLAS. Especially with trans characters. Can anyone recommend any? (Authors, feel free to promote your queer novellas here.)

— Ri 📚 (@biblioqueer) December 16, 2021

What are the science fiction, fantasy, speculative, and horror books you're most excited about in 2023? Doing a big preview for @Polygon again.

— Adam Morgan 🦃 (@adamm0rgan) November 4, 2022

Looking for book recs once again: name a book with prose so beautiful it made you linger over sentences.

— Sarah Nicolas aka Sarah N Fisk (@Sarah_Nicolas) October 4, 2022

I want to read something that breaks rules, that's beautiful and super strange, and maybe kind of makes me gasp. Like I want to be reminded of all the possibilities for writers doing this art we do. What should I read?

— Miciah Bay Gault (@miciahbay) August 18, 2022

Strangest most exceptional novel of the last five years? Thinking of assigning a single short novel to my advanced fiction students this semester wonder what it should be

— Sam Allingham (@SamSamAllingham) August 4, 2022

I’m looking for novels about houses or with houses at the center. So far I have: House of Sand and Fog, House of Spirits, The Turner House, Moses Ascending. Any other ideas? #houses #books #home

— Tiphanie Yanique (@tiphanieyanique) November 24, 2022

Ok bookseller friends, and anyone else who can answer this: a cousin of mine is excellent at fixing cars, an engine whisperer, but he doesn’t read fiction. Besides King’s Christine, what novels feature automobiles in interesting ways?

The other auto fiction, so to speak.

— Alexander Chee (@alexanderchee) September 8, 2022

Looking for recommendations of poets who have written about tarot, or are actively writing about tarot.

— Aaron Kent (@GodzillaKent) August 16, 2022

Working on something and need your help. Name some must read self published horror authors. And go!

— Brad Proctor (@brad_proctor) November 12, 2022

so far I have W-3 by Bette Howland, the Collected Schizophrenias By @esmewang, the House of God by Samuel Shem, maybe?

— Menorahcai P. Martin (@MordecaiPMartin) December 12, 2022

If you were teaching a course called “Black Radical Joy” what would be some of the material on the syllabus?

— Dr. Frank Leon Roberts (@DrFrankRoberts) December 22, 2022

which black thinker - who isn't basically canonical at this point (e.g., du bois, fanon, hartman) - should we probably be reading right now?

— jerome (@_jrrdy) November 9, 2022

You got some epistolary short stories for me, bonus points for horror? Links, pls!

— 蔡一芝 (addie tsai) has no chill & is proud of it (@addiebrook) January 18, 2023

Google doc: Wandering, Meditative, Plotless [or Peripatetic] Books

Google doc: Poetic, Beautiful, Slim novels

Pink News explains the problems with the BBC's coverage of trans topics

Yesterday, Pink News published this Twitter thread. It explains why people are upset about recent BBC coverage of trans topics.

The BBC has recently come under fire after publishing an anti-trans article, which generated thousands of complaints. The controversy deepened when one woman quoted in the article called for the 'lynching' of trans women. Here's the story – and all our coverage – so far: (1/11)

— PinkNews (@PinkNews) November 5, 2021

Firstly, some background: the BBC is regularly criticised for its coverage of trans people. Last year, senior MPs branded the BBC “institutionally transphobic“. It has also been called out for “uncritically platforming” anti-trans groups https://t.co/o9mOwiWw9o (2/11)

— PinkNews (@PinkNews) November 5, 2021

On 26 October, the BBC published an article titled “We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women”, which was widely condemned, in part because it was based on a survey of 80 people conducted by a known anti-trans group. https://t.co/6VVWq2HKoe (3/11)

— PinkNews (@PinkNews) November 5, 2021

More than 20,000 people signed an open letter to the BBC criticising the article for suggesting that “transgender women generally pose a risk to cisgender lesbians" and calling the study "deeply flawed" https://t.co/WbroEetL3p (4/11)

— PinkNews (@PinkNews) November 5, 2021

One person who complained was @LindaRiley8, publisher of lesbian magazine DIVA ,who said: “I don’t understand why BBC News has published an article perpetuating the idea that trans women are sexually preying on lesbians https://t.co/GTnSi8VE8l (5/11)

— PinkNews (@PinkNews) November 5, 2021

One person who complained was @LindaRiley8, publisher of lesbian magazine DIVA ,who said: “I don’t understand why BBC News has published an article perpetuating the idea that trans women are sexually preying on lesbians https://t.co/GTnSi8VE8l (5/11)

— PinkNews (@PinkNews) November 5, 2021

A BBC journalist was then criticised after praising the much-reviled article and appearing to compare it to the broadcaster’s investigation into Jimmy Savile. Guardian journalist @OwenJones84 described the comparison as "Beyond belief, frankly." (6/11) https://t.co/DW4dWs0lPX

— PinkNews (@PinkNews) November 5, 2021

Despite the searing backlash, the BBC doubled down on defending the article, claiming that it went through 'a rigorous editorial review process'.https://t.co/5wcs4ScyGR (7/11)

— PinkNews (@PinkNews) November 5, 2021

The journalist behind the article claimed that nobody with an opposing view point would speak to her. However, one trans woman told PinkNews that she was interviewed by the BBC but her interview was not included as it ‘didn’t fit their narrative’. https://t.co/kbxb9P6Qbl (8/11)

— PinkNews (@PinkNews) November 5, 2021

One of the people who WAS quoted was porn actor Lily Cade, who said she once declined to shoot a porn scene with a trans woman. After publication, Cade began posting extreme and horrifying calls for violence against trans women on her blog: https://t.co/Wo28iJGiTF (9/11)

— PinkNews (@PinkNews) November 5, 2021

After Cade – accused by multiple cis women of sexual assault – called for trans women to be 'lynched' and 'executed', the BBC removed her from the article and admitted that it was aware of her “inappropriate behaviour” before publication https://t.co/TDWUjer3Nq (10/11)

— PinkNews (@PinkNews) November 5, 2021

Where next for the BBC? We'll have to wait and see. However, whatever the next developments are, You can rest assured that PinkNews will cover them in depth. You can find all of our BBC coverage here: https://t.co/imc8y8GmfR (11/11)

— PinkNews (@PinkNews) November 5, 2021

Please also note that the BBC made this podcast series.

---

Update: Here's what's happening at the New York Times in 2023:

"The New York Times is racked with internal dissent over internal dissent — a development stemming from multiple open letters sent last week to newspaper management taking issue with the paper’s recent coverage of transgender youth.

* * *

The NewsGuild of New York, which represents Times journalists, tells the Erik Wemple Blog that Times employees have been called into 'investigatory meetings' related to their participation as signatories. An informed source says that disciplinary actions are underway.

The tough talk from management prompted a rebuke from Susan DeCarava, president of the NewsGuild, which is in the midst of contentious collective bargaining negotiations with the Times. The coherence of the don’t-attack-your-colleagues rule is questionable, noted DeCarava, since the paper in 2020 published a critique by op-ed columnist Bret Stephens of the Times’s own 1619 Project."

— "The New York Times newsroom is splintering over a trans coverage debate." (unpaywalled) Opinion by Erik Wemple. Washington Post. 24 Feb 2023.

Podcasts on reading and writing

Resources found on Twitter. You have to click into the Twitter thread to see any/all replies.

What are your favorite book podcasts?

— Hannah Grieco (@writesloud) November 1, 2021

is there a great writing craft podcast? like something I can listen to while I do the dishes and the toddler is screaming in the background and instead I can pretend I'm getting my MFA

— Bethany Marcel (@bethmarcel) October 2, 2021

🔊spend some of your weekend with us at THE CHAPBOOK! catch up w featured writers, editors, and excerpts from upcoming chapbooks! links to listen: https://t.co/LpYaaZ4MNH pic.twitter.com/2V5svJVe7o

— Bull City Press 🐂 (@BullCityPress) September 19, 2021

Podcaster and poet Angela Rideau @poemsfromyheart joins @JE_Torres_Lopez to explore taboos, their relationship to trauma, and how our taboo resistance is both a revolutionary act and a step toward healing. Musical Guest: Mallika Vie.https://t.co/Fetb9OgmcU

— The Nasiona (@TheNasiona) July 6, 2021

Our first episode of Archetypist Bookends has dropped: Field Recons (read like a writer) and what we mean by "an analytics-based podcast"https://t.co/NpytE6d4C0#amwriting #writing #writingcommmunity #BookTwitter #writerslift #podcast #BookRecommendations #readingcommunity

— Archetypist Podcast (@Archetypist_Pod) November 1, 2021

Geese overhead going south, full moon repair, and this morning I put my headphones in while walking the dog to hear my very first episode of @slowdownshow https://t.co/EyT1n69VYI

— Ada Limón (@adalimon) September 21, 2021

Consider recording a poem for a new podcast: https://t.co/HkWJsJLa6t

— poeticpost (@thepoeticpost) October 19, 2021

We are looking for guest to come on the our podcast to talk horror let us know if your interested! pic.twitter.com/KkNFTOYvEF

— BodybagPod (@BodybagPod) September 13, 2021

Updated episode! @kunderscoremons talks building diverse booklists for field recons, literary agents, & why reading recently pubbed fiction is important#WritingCommunity#amwriting #Reading #amwritingfantasy #scifi #sciencefiction #podcasting #bookends https://t.co/IAw9F9lJPV

— Archetypist Podcast (@Archetypist_Pod) November 10, 2021

Hello! We have a shiny new Twitter account, and I know you're all so excited to follow it!

We also have a shiny new episode, taking a look at The Elusive Shift by Jon Peterson through the lens of community.https://t.co/bp40fdHkwo

— Trying to be Kind (@KindTrying) October 9, 2021

Certain stages of sleep are like meditation perhaps and clears the mind for more piercing thought and clearer connections?
Wayne Dyer ~ Do Not Go Back To Sleep [What It Means To Wake Up At 3am] https://t.co/ncGalhSdK0

— Amy Phelps (@amyferg) November 9, 2021

Marcus Aurelius: 'Always think of the universe as one living organism...'

"Always think of the universe as one living organism with a single substance and single soul, and observe how all things are submitted to the single perceptivity of this one whole, all are moved by its single impulse..."
Marcus Aurelius. Meditations. Trans. Maxwell Staniforth, 4:40. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1964. Quoted by Jacob Needleman. Why Can't We Be Good? New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2007. p. 143.

"The land is one organism. Its parts, like our own parts, compete with each other and co-operate with each other. The competitions are as much a part of the inner workings as the co-operations. You can regulate them--cautiously--but not abolish them."
Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac: With Essays on Conservation from Round River. New York: Ballantine Books, 1970 (originally 1949). p 190.

"The new view is based on solid research...their findings lead to the conclusion that separateness is out of the question in Nature. The biosphere is all of a piece, an immense, integrated living system, an organism."
Lewis Thomas, Foreword to Microcosmos. Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan. California: University of California Press, 1986, 1997. p. 9.

“Here is what I learned once I began studying whooping cranes: only a small part of studying them has anything to do with the birds. Instead we counted berries. Counted crabs. Measured water salinity. Stood in the mud. Measured the speed of the wind.
It turns out, if you want to save a species, you don’t spend your time staring at the bird you want to save. You look at the things it relies on to live instead. You ask if there is enough to eat and drink. You ask if there is a safe place to sleep. Is there enough here to survive?”
"The Crane Wife." CJ Hauser. The Paris Review. July 16, 2019.