Yesterday – for the second time – my husband pleaded on face book for celebrities (though honestly, most people, unless they are known for politics, could benefit from taking his advice) to stop posting political stuff.
This is actually something I’ve found brought up in conversation a lot, with other professionals (and fans) in recent months. Without exception everyone who talks about people posting politics or religion on their status says “I lost all respect for him/her.” This, btw, often regardless of whether the person speaking agrees with them or not. And as you know I’ve got fans, acquaintances and friends of whom Stalin would say “Whoa, that’s too extreme” and others of whom Professor Bernardo de La Paz would say “Don’t you think we need just A LITTLE social organization.” I’ve also never made any secret to which extreme I belong, though I only post it on FB if there’s a literary or funny tie-in.
(Needless to say you are excepted from this if you are a celebrity BECAUSE of politics, if your day job or a significant portion of your day job is pundrity and/or if most of your friends are “political friends.” Then politics is part of your public image and not commenting on it would be rather like my not commenting on writing, science fiction or the slow collapse of publishing.)
So I echoed my husband’s status, with an added Heinlein quote. You know the one. The one about how if you want to vote but don’t know whom to vote against, ask a well-intentioned fool.
Needless to say it was two comments to the predictable defense that celebrities post this KNOWING they’re going to lose fans and that they do it “because they feel so strongly about the topic.”
To which I call Bull Hockey. No. Double reverse Bull Hockey with a cherry on top.
Most of the political statuses I see from the “famous” (a word for which, btw, there are many definitions when we come to my field) people in my field (and others) amount to “The other side are poopy faces. Look what poopy faces they are.”
What they post – often echoes from “news” sites usually fit at least two of these characteristics and often all of them: They’re vapid with no substance behind them; they’re based on horribly distorted information, which doesn’t take very long to reveal as such; they’re so incredibly, out there partisan that they’re only going to convert the converted; they have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the poster, personally and are about people the poster would never consider voting for, never, ever, ever, not in a thousand years.
If, to be blunt, these posts were made by middle school girls about other middle school girls, they would qualify the poster as a “mean girl.” Actually most of them sound like they do.
And that’s your clue for what these posts REALLY are.
Look, it might seem like I’m not qualified to write about people desperately wanting to belong to a group because frankly I don’t care. There are maybe two dozen persons in the entire world for whose good opinion I care, and some I only care about their good opinion in specific areas. I live my life as I wish to – dress and dine wherever I enjoy, from the top to the bottom – and care nothing for what “group” this fits me into. I belong to no group and I pay no dues of membership. (Well, except to SFWA, but… that gives me a handy directory.)
HOWEVER let me assure you this doesn’t mean that the wish to belong was left out of my makeup. Like all humans, I was born to be a social animal and to belong to a group. It’s built in, right, it’s how our species survived.
Being hades’s own outlier, I was never too good at making like I belonged. At best, I could strive to belong to multiple groups (or at least I tend to be claimed by several groups at once, each of them convinced I’m just humoring the others.) Beyond that – the hades’s outlier thing – that tendency which seems to be normal to become more and more yourself as you age has now taken over.
I’m not going to say I don’t care what anyone thinks. Harsh words over my craft will bring me to my knees, even if totally unfounded. An accusation of disloyalty from a friend I care about (only one of those recently, and she was right, though it was more an effect of my being sleep deprived and acting without thinking) will upset me. Consciousness of having hurt someone I love will make me miserable.
BUT I don’t care what any group thinks of my membership in another group or of my being insufficiently loyal to them. Given the political opinions I’m blessed with; given my musical tastes; given even my taste in attire and fun activities, if you think I belong to a group, you’re probably wrong. And any attempts at making me fall in line (the great “sisterhood” are the only ones who’ve tried, by using middle-school tactics. Oddly – don’t you think? – they fail to work and make me more p*ssy than ever. Go figure) will bring about retaliation often in a humorous form.
I’ve paid for this professionally, but let me tell you, it’s worth the price. It gives me the right to sit outside the glass palaces waving both middle fingers in the air. And it gives me the right to tell you: Stop it, just stop it.
Lately Face Book has become a hideous experience, made more so by their helpful decision to start tagging the posts with what they’re “about” and putting them first on the summary page when I log on. Thank you so much. That means that when I log on, I’m assailed by inane opinions, half of them offensive to me and almost all of them superficial and silly.
And what I hear is “twit, twit, twit.” Why do I hear that? Because that’s what these noises are. Having determined that all the “intelligent” and “good” and particularly all the people who can advance their careers are on one side of the political divide (an impression fostered by way too much reliance on the media’s attempt to create an impression of consensus over the last… oh, fifty years and an impression that’s wrong, except possibly for the career advancing bit if you are the appropriate political color) these people are posting these things to say “I belong, I belong.”
Interestingly my FB friends who are political pundits (at least part time) post less of these ridiculous screeds. Usually the most political things they post is a leading tag and a link to their article or post. And that’s just proof of what I’m saying: they already belong to a group, so they have no need to flap wings and scream.
In the end, as Terry Pratchett says, the noises that birds make are all about territory and sex. Turns out the noises writers make are not much different. “I belong here, I belong here.” And “I’m cool and enlightened, sleep with me” are at the back of this spate of annoying vitriol.
Only consensus is NOT what you think it is. In fact, if you look at both UNBIASED polls and at voting results (less at those, since most of our population doesn’t vote) we are a very closely divided country. So by definition, your attack posts are offending fifty percent of your reading/watching/listening public.
I’m a political animal. I understand having strongly held opinions. But NOTE that I blog about politics elsewhere and NOT in the blog that’s devoted to my writing. I might despise someone’s political opinions, but if they love, say, Daring Finds, I want them to keep reading it. Heck, I want them to keep enjoying it too.
No, I don’t keep politics out of my writing. Impossible to, though I tried to for years. If I do, my work reads bland and blah. BUT I also treat politics in my writing at a deeper level: at the level of living decisions and choices. And guess what, I read authors I disagree with who treat politics at that level in their writing – this does not include taking a break to tell me what you think of a politician currently in power. Besides dating the book, that amounts to the same as FB status vitriol – and I ENJOY them. And if you really care about politics that much – so much that they’re a part of how you live – and you’re a fiction writer, I’m FAR more likely to be converted to your opinion (or at least admit you have a point) if you treat politics like that than if you scream at me “That side” (and by extension you, if you agree with them) “are poopy faces.”
So, if you’re known for something other than political punditry, stop the “identification posts”. You’re not making any friends, and you’re not helping your cause in any way. If you really want to make with the group markers, just post “I am in the same group with x y and z and I think they’re the coolest.” You’ll sound like a middle school girl, of course, but at least you won’t sound like a MEAN and borderline psychotic middle school girl. I might for the rest of your life imagine you in a pink sweater, a plaid skirt and little socks with ponpons, but at least I’ll go on reading you. And if your books make a cogent cause, who knows, you might bring me to agree with your opinions, at least those that are more than identifying signals.
According To Hoyt 
Amen Sister Sarah!!!!
LikeLike
This post wonderfully explains almost exactly why on FB (since it’s also a reflection of my professional life as a computer consultant) I rarely post much.
I’m not going to echo ALL (or most) the partisan stuff I agree with because I’m not out to piss off friends and clients. If I do say something i try to stick to the facts and not name-calling. Finally – if all I have to say is “ditto” and I can’t add anything… ‘shrug”. Why bother “me-too”ing to look cool?
LikeLike
Facebook is such a confounded nuisance. If it wasn’t for a couple of closed professional groups, and some relatives who live overseas, I wouldn’t go near the damned thing.
Have to admit the entire Facebook IPO issue has me laughing. All of our pets have Facebook accounts, even the ones that have died in the last couple of years. Facebook is going to sell advertising to a German Shepard/Husky/Wolf Cross Breed that died of old age? Yeah, right.
As to politics, well, since politically I’m so far right wing that I make Ron Paul look like a Communist and I’m so far left Wing that I make Barrack Obama look like a Fascist, I generally don’t agree with anyone. It is fun writing about politics from my unique point of view. I have a lot of fun pointing out that there is no Conservative political party in the United States or Canada. Classical Right and Left wing politics don’t exist in North America any more. Pity.
Wayne
LikeLike
I laughed out loud at a reTweet that was along the lines of, “Facebook’s Public Offering was more a failure of their security settings.” (I don’t have any Facebook presence at all — something I actually attribute to their lack of ability to read people’s Facebook pages, and want to reply, and get sucked in. Livejournal let me read first, and that got me into it. Twitter is slowly seducing me so I can more-easily follow some friends and toss my two cents in. *sigh* But Facebook? I can’t do anything there, so all I am is frustrated, not tempted.)
LikeLike
“by definition, your attack posts are offending fifty percent of your reading/watching/listening public.”
I had to explain this to a member of my online writing group when he stuck a gratuitous attack on what he thought was a safely unpopular group into one of his stories. Dead silence in return. I still wonder if he processed what I said.
For reason of self-protection, I try to avoid learning anything about authors so I can continue to enjoy their work. But when they stick their malicious and ill-informed opinions into their books, they breach the fourth wall, and I won’t buy their work in the future.
One of the reasons I break my own rule and read your blog is that you are so gloriously unconcerned with belonging. Your opinions, even when I don’t agree with them, have the feeling of authenticity, and lack malice.
LikeLike
Arguably I owe you an apology – I do post a lot about politics. In my defense, I don’t do it just to say “hey, I’m one of the cool kids”. I’m doing it specifically to provoke argument, between friends who are smart people with interesting opinions and whose fact collection is different than mine.
LikeLike
Ori
There is a marked difference between posting about things that interest you and the endless, relentless posting of articles where you just “discovered” how poopy faced the other side is. NO, seriously. THAT’s what I was protesting against. Also, you don’t post “a lot” about politics, not nearly as much as my colleagues have been doing recently. Also, though you’re very important to those of you who know you, you’re NOT a celebrity whom I first met through his art. So, no, you didn’t offend me.
Again, there’s a world of difference between even posting “I disapprove of this” or “I like this” and postings that are basically ad hominem with very little leavening like “See how insane the other side has got” or “The other side is the scum of the Earth” or “Anyone who agrees with the other side is the scum of the Earth.” Also, I’ve never seen you do a vapid post. I confess most of the time I don’t post on your postings, not even when they’re about me, because I have (thank the economy) enough stress in my life without political arguments. BUT being fascinated by interesting minds, I understand your point about wanting to watch the argument.
LikeLike
Well, I’m pretty sure the politicians on the other side ARE poopy faces, or at least that they suffer from delusions of adequacy when it comes to managing society. Then again, the politicians I prefer tend to be the same way.
BTW, Olaf the very deep Octopus says we are all the scum of the earth. That’s why we’re on the top of the ocean ;-) .
LikeLike
“At best, I could strive to belong to multiple groups (or at least I tend to be claimed by several groups at once, each of them convinced I’m just humoring the others.)”
This sounds like my own high school experience. And now that I’ve jumped on the “me too” bandwagon, I’ll just go back to my corner and lurk some more. ;)
LikeLike
But… why must you hide? We’re all friendly here. Stay a while. Have a cat.
LikeLike
I don’t think I have ever seen a Facebook update or comment which made me think more highly of the person who made it. Only less so.
LikeLike
Coff. MINE are highly enlightened, and mostly about kids and cats. Don’t you go hating on kids and cats. :)
LikeLike
I’ve been saying this for years (only I was using “doo-doo head”). It’s all about belonging to the Cool People and spitting on Those People. I didn’t think to call them “Junior High Mean Girls,” but I will from now on. ^_^
LikeLike
Loved a quote I heard the other day from an older lady (paraphrase):
My grandkids feel sorry for me because we didn’t have Facebook. In my day we had the telephone book and watching other people’s vacation movies was a punishment.
LikeLike
There’s a bed and breakfast place, blessed with many cats, and you can request a cat for your room for your stay (the cats are *always* booked far in advance, so reservations are strongly recommended). A blog that hands out a virtual cat to commenters is splendid and worthwhile and should be encouraged ;-) Maybe a little .gif movie, with purring? Very soothing.
LikeLike
I should take little movies of the animalia, with sound effects. We have one of Havelock-cat high-fiving. The older boy taught him to do it. It’s pathetic and adorable, both. I wonder if there’s a way to put the cat pictures on the side bar?
LikeLike
My favorite author of all time fits with what you’re talking about. Met her at a convention, told her that in a few years, hopefully we’d be on a panel together and she told me she looked forward to it with none of the signs of humoring a fan. So after the convention, I looked up her blogs, since she mentioned them constantly in the X number of panels she was in (I attended almost every one of them). She had one blog for her writing and one blog for her personal life. As loath as I was to to so, I had to stop reading the personal blog because for every interesting insight into her world, there were three insights to her personal opinions. I finally had to stop reading even her writing blog because politics started sneaking in there too. Total sad panda. Still read her books, since while her politics do seep in there, she makes sure to balance the other side with reasonable points and characters (they’re usually the adversaries or roadblocks into the hero characters doing what they want to do – but they’re rarely spitting evil, at least). But, yes. It’s bad enough watching friends and acquaintances parrot the current political fad/meme. (FWIW – I agree that it doesn’t matter if I agree with the celeb’s politics or not. It’s so not why I’m interested in them. And it’s a million times worse when what they post about degrades the other side.)
LikeLike
I find that having learned to view (most of) American Politics as a spectator sport has provided much enjoyment and reduced angst. Of course, living in North Carolina where ACC loyalties are nearly as divisive as politics (I estimate 45% of the state can’t stand Duke, 45% can’t stand Chapel Hill, and 10% can’t stand either one) encourages such attitude.
And really, when you get down to it, most political arguments are on the same level as sports: the strength of the expressed opinion varies inversely to the knowledge of the subject.
LikeLike
I forget who first pointed out the problem with that way of looking at it, viz., the ones who don’t want to get involved or choose a side are the battlefield. Whoever wins or loses, and however those terms are defined, the battlefield is pretty well guaranteed to get trampled.
Regards,
Ric
LikeLike
Ric, I didn’t say I don’t participate, just that I don’t take seriously most of the opinions expressed. Most of those opinions are not informed, considered or deeply held and I see no reason to pretend they are.
LikeLike
It’s a way of expressing tribalism, which is the bane of the human existence.
LikeLike
I dunno – based on the evidence, I think “thinking effectively” is the bane of human existence, as so many people apparently willingly avoid it. The problem with politics is that too many people think it matters, whereas it is more symptom than syndrome. I find myself inclined to agree with Milton Friedman:
I find myself inclined to agree with H. Beam Piper’s take on Venusian Politics. There they immediately jail and charge with criminal political malfeasance the loser of any election, and it is up to them to PROVE their innocence.
Or the political system in “Lone Star Planet” where it was legal to kill a practicing politician. The courtroom scene where they tried the killer of Austin Maverick was a beauty!
H. Beam Piper is still one of my favorite writers. I re-read his stuff regularly. I just wish he’d lived to write more of it.
Wayne
LikeLike
The problem with those solutions and analogous ones is that they amount to removing “wrong people”. Thing is, when it comes to running my life, all people are wrong (including me, unfortunately). Wasn’t it Hamilton who noted that if people were angels we wouldn’t need Government? It seems to me angels would still need management, but if only Good (or Right) people existed there’d be no need for the coercion that’s at the root of the definition of “government”.
Friedman’s notion seems plausible, but doesn’t offer any theories of how to get from here to there. The Founding Fathers’ solution might be regarded as a trivial case — if they can’t do much, it doesn’t matter whether they’re Wrong People or not. Marxists have an equally trivial solution, i.e., shoot Wrong People until only Good People are left. The one clearly hasn’t much staying power, and the other, well, one of my definitions of “Wrong People” is “willing to volunteer to shoot people”. Antique notions such as “honor” and “noblesse oblige” might well be regarded as groping attempts to set up a Friedmanesque situation, but clearly they’re easily and routinely corrupted.
It could just be that the best approximation is the Jefferson/Paine concept: clear ’em all out once in a while, and start over. It’d still be Wrong People, but at least the new bunch won’t have developed bad habits. That, of course, leads to violent fantasy — I’ve been thinking, lately, that I’d very much like to own RS Rolling Stone, and land it, once, in the plaza next to the Federal Triangle Metro station. This clearly identifies me as a Wrong People…
Regards,
Ric
LikeLike
Ric,
Might I remind you that Lucifer was an Angel? Even Heaven has seen its revolts. One third of the Heavenly Host followed Lucifer to Hell rather then bend their heads before God.
Read Milton’s Paradise Lost. Right before bed preferably, it’s a great soporific!
Wayne
LikeLike
I think Facebook actually makes the problem worse rather than better. People seem to be sorting themselves into echo-chamber cliques which never intersect. When most of a person’s friendships were with neighbors and co-workers, one had to deal with a fairly broad range of opinions in a tolerant manner. Now our friends are scattered across the country and we can “defriend” those who don’t share our enlightened beliefs.
LikeLike
I don’t know. I grew up in a society without computers — with barely television — and the only difference was that the cliques could (and did) put homemade bombs on each other’s porches and mailboxes.
LikeLike
Ah, the bad old days. The only difference between where you grew up, and where I grew up, is we didn’t put bombs in our neighbors mailboxes. We filled them with cow manure instead.
And our parents thought the height of fun was moving outhouses ten feet further back from the house, so when someone had the urge in the middle of the night…
Wayne
LikeLike
What, you mean they never thought of stretching saran wrap under the seat? ;)
LikeLike
I hate ALL politicians and wish them to slowly die screaming like a little girl who has just seen her dolly fall under the paving machine. I suppose that could alienate all my fans except the handful who will look at that and say – of course. I do think it has more future potential to gain the approval of like minded individuals than any party affiliation however.
You have not touched on the question of fans being put off by the predictive nature of a writer’s writing about near future political parties and nations. Heinlein for example postulated a repressive Theocracy in the United States. That didn’t seem to harm him.
LikeLike
No. But… the people he was writing for by and large felt the same way. And in a way he was right, he was just wrong on the nature of the “god” involved.
Actually I’m very put off by say mid-eighties novels that say things like “AHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh These people in power are going to have us live in slums by 2000.” With variations for nuclear war, etc. Also, btw, the mid-nineties shorts that had the world by now all parched desert (and the slightly earlier ones that had us covered by ice) make me want to seek out the writers and hit their heads hard with a thimble-finger.
LikeLike
“Actually I’m very put off by say mid-eighties novels that say things like “AHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh These people in power are going to have us live in slums by 2000.” With variations for nuclear war, etc. Also, btw, the mid-nineties shorts that had the world by now all parched desert (and the slightly earlier ones that had us covered by ice) make me want to seek out the writers and hit their heads hard with a thimble-finger”
I know exactly what your saying, Ian Douglas wrote some fairly good books, but I had to choke and gag my way past the “greenhouse effects” BS.
I don’t necessarily despise politics in novels, but I either have to agree with the author, or they better provide some good arguements for their side and opinions if I disagree with them. If you don’t put politics in your fiction, you better be writing a book without much human interaction if you want it to be realistic. I mean if your hero is in a survival situation in the wilderness there is no need for politics, but if your book is set in an international war, or is say an espionage thriller, and you don’t include politics, it’s probably going to seem pretty lame and bland.
LikeLike
Truly, i have no problems with authors putting politics in their novels, but get antsy when they ladle in Politics and get downright averse when they insert Polemics — even when I agree with the author. Not that i want to start anything, but the real problem I have with Ayn Rand isn’t her politics, it is that all her characters appear to be sock puppets for her politics.
LikeLike