How Do I Choose the Topics I Write About?

I have a day job and a lot of other things that I pursue other than my writing at this website. Thus, I am selective about the topics I write about. How do I choose my topics? One of my rules of thumb is to avoid writing about the things that are already getting lots of attention by corporate media. I often have nothing to add to that coverage.

I write about things that concern me, especially things that are not getting much widespread coverage. I gauge that lack of widespread coverage by talking with friends and acquaintances, many of whom are quite busy with their jobs and raising their families. They don't have much time to tap into the "news." They tend to get their "news" by browsing headlines of corporate media. Often, when I mention something I've learned from social media, they are surprised or confused. This brings to mind a quote from the Stoics:

A highly relevant warning from one of the Stoics from Ancient Rome:

If a person gave away your body to some passerby, you’d be furious. Yet you hand over your mind to anyone who comes along, so they may abuse you, leaving it disturbed and troubled—have you no shame in that?

—Epictetus, Enchiridion , 28

[We interrupt this article with a public service announcement]

Browsing headlines and articles from corporate media (on either the left or the right) is "handing over your mind" to people with an agenda. They are often acting as the paid PR department for the Democrats or Republicans. What is their main quest? To get re-elected. What's the best and most efficient way to get re-elected? To lie to the public. To claim that they are doing a GREAT job. To claim that the other party is evil. To argue that it is an existential imperative to vote for them. To divide us. To refuse to admit that on most issues (e.g., warmongering and being obeisant to their corporate masters and to Wall Street) they serve as a uni-party.

And they are very good at fooling us, especially when they strike up close partnerships with U.S. security state (FBI, CIA, DHS) and social media corporations to censor U.S. citizens, which the Democrats have excelled at. This censorship has been proven many times over by the Twitter Files.

Therefore, a gentle reminder: Resist the temptation to hand over your mind to enticing headlines. Read widely. Read the "enemy." Read independent media, reporters who are financially supported by their readers, not by the people they are purportedly reporting on.

[Now back to the article]

Why do I write about the things I write about rather than other things? Jesse Singal recently published an excellent post on this issue: “Why Do You Write About This Rather Than That?” Is Almost Always A Lazy And Unserious Derailing Tactic." An excerpt:

One of my main critiques of left-of-center intellectual life is that it feels like there’s been a surge of energy spent not on developing and debating specific arguments and counterarguments, but on developing derailing tactics — ways to avoid even having potentially edifying conversations in the first place.

Some derailing tactics involve simply responding not to the claim being made, but to another, much sillier claim. A says “Some dogs bite people,” and B responds “A is saying we should euthanize all dogs in case they bite people!” Yawn. B will always get 100 times the retweets, unfortunately.

Other forms of derailing involve impugning someone’s very interest in the subject they’re talking about. One very common, very annoying version of this is to accuse them of being interested in the wrong thing — basically a form of zoomed-out whataboutism. I’ve obviously encountered this and you’ll see a ton of it everywhere. Maybe the most common version is lobbed at individuals on the left who are concerned about illiberalism on the left, who are accused of ignoring the more pressing threat of right-wing illiberalism or fascism or whatever...

When I see this coming from academics or journalists, which I do a lot, I find it quite frustrating and anti-intellectual. To the extent this claim is undergirded by any actual thought — and I do think the point is to derail rather than to raise genuine questions — the theory seems to be that intellectual or journalistic inquiry should be guided by utilitarian calculations. You shouldn’t spend your time, or at least not much of it, on a particular beat or concern if there are more “important” concerns elsewhere.

Jesse then sets out some of the problems with common derailing strategies:

What you decide what to focus on as a writer is based on a complicated swirl of variables." I follow my interests each day and I often pick from a vast set of notes and ideas that I have accumulated over the years. On other occasions, I comment on something interesting I spotted on Twitter.

"Journalists and academics also are concerned with finding a niche."

"Journalists and academics are also allowed to get tired of things! I’m tired of Trump. I don’t want to write about him anymore."

"[I]t isn’t always clear which stories will and won’t turn out to be important until journalists actually take the time to look into them."

"“Only a small number of people are affected by this” is, more broadly, a frequently callous argument."

"[T]here is often a fundamental level of bullshit — or at least hypocrisy — to these arguments, because the people making them often have rather niche interests themselves."

All of these thoughts resonate with me. Jesse is an excellent writing and his article is a good read - I recommend you go to Jesse's website to read his entire article.

Continue ReadingHow Do I Choose the Topics I Write About?

The Danger of an “Inert People”

"Without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; public discussion is a political duty." Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurrence in Whitney v California

"A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right. A man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice. A man dies when he refuses to take a stand for that which is true." -Martin Luther King Jr.

“You can't be neutral on a moving train.” Howard Zinn

Continue ReadingThe Danger of an “Inert People”

Stanford Law School Earns an “F” in Student (and DEI Administrator) Behavior

FIRE's letter to Stanford Law School, based on behavior as bad as what we saw last year at Yale Law School and see here.

Dear President Tessier-Lavigne:

FIRE is once again deeply concerned about the state of free expression at Stanford University after a student-organized Stanford Law School speech by U.S. Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan was disrupted last night,2 with at least one report that his remarks ended some 40 minutes earlier than planned as a result. The apparently successful exercise of the heckler’s veto by attendees determined to disrupt Judge Duncan’s remarks, at a Federalist Society- sponsored event, is troubling enough. But FIRE must also express our deep concern regarding Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach’s temporary removal of Duncan from the podium—against his wishes—to offer commentary appearing to promote censorship. Dean Steinbach pinballs between praising free speech, accusing Judge Duncan of “harm,” and asking him if what he has to say is important enough to justify upsetting students. She ultimately suggests Stanford may wish to consider abandoning its free expression commitments altogether to prevent the “harm” allegedly inherent in hearing views with which one may disagree in the future . . .

[added March 11, 9pm CT]

Stanford issues a not-very-serious apology to Judge Duncan. Obvious step #1 would be to fire the DEI representative of Stanford. It is my suspicion that this is the kind of behavior that DEI departments promote, totally in line with what occurred at Judge Duncan's lecture. How about looking into that? How about suspending/expelling numerous law students?

Continue ReadingStanford Law School Earns an “F” in Student (and DEI Administrator) Behavior

FIRE’s Position on Government Attempts to Ban there Teaching of Divisive Concepts

FIRE's Position on government attempts to ban the teaching of divisive concepts in schools:

FIRE has been tracking and engaging with legislation that would regulate how race and sex is discussed on college and university campuses.

In the past few years, this typically came in the form of bans on training or teaching so-called “divisive” concepts. This legislative season appears no different as several states in the past three months have either issued executive orders or introduced legislation on this topic.

These states include Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

While FIRE takes no position on bill provisions that apply to the K-12 context, in which states generally have broader authority to set curricula, it’s worth noting that even with such broad authority, K-12 legislation could face vagueness challenges if it does not clearly set forth what it prohibits.

We also do not oppose provisions that would regulate or prohibit mandatory non-credit-earning training at institutions of higher education. Restrictions on the content and views expressed during non-credit-earning training doesn’t infringe on the First Amendment or principles of academic freedom because the content of those trainings constitute the government’s own speech. The government is allowed to regulate its own speech and that of government agencies under its control. We also acknowledge that the government can prohibit institutions from compelling students or faculty to communicate personal agreement with views they do not hold.

FIRE, however, does oppose legislation that would institute curricular bans on particular concepts or ideologies at institutions of higher education. These curricular bans threaten academic freedom — which protects the rights of faculty to teach and assert positions as they see fit — and disregards decades of judicial precedent confirming the critical importance of academic freedom in higher education.

FIRE will fight any legislation that crosses the bright line that prohibits the government from banning ideas in college classrooms. Indeed, FIRE is currently fighting Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act” in federal court, a law passed last year that restricts instruction on eight concepts related to “race, color, national origin, or sex” in college classrooms. After we filed suit, the court halted enforcement of the law, recognizing that it violates the First Amendment rights of students and faculty."

Note about proposed Missouri legislation:

"Missouri’s HB 75 would prohibit an employee of an institution of higher education from requiring or making “part of a course,” eight concepts related to race or sex stereotyping. Like Florida’s Stop WOKE Act, this provision threatens free speech and academic freedom by regulating what faculty members are allowed to say in their classrooms.

Continue ReadingFIRE’s Position on Government Attempts to Ban there Teaching of Divisive Concepts

Michael Shellenberger’s Testimony to the House Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government

Michael Shellenberger testified before Congress on March 9, 2023. This is the Executive Summary of his presentation:

In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned of “the acquisition of unwarranted influence… by the military-industrial complex.” Eisenhower feared that the size and power of the “complex,” or cluster, of government contractors and the Department of Defense would “endanger our liberties or democratic processes.” How? Through “domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money.” He feared public policy would “become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Eisenhower’s fears were well-founded. Today, American taxpayers are unwittingly financing the growth and power of a censorship-industrial complex run by America’s scientific and technological elite, which endangers our liberties and democracy. I am grateful for the opportunity to offer this testimony and sound the alarm over the shocking and disturbing emergence of state-sponsored censorship in the United States of America.

The Twitter Files, state attorneys general lawsuits, and investigative reporters have revealed a large and growing network of government agencies, academic institutions, and nongovernmental organizations that are actively censoring American citizens, often without their knowledge, on a range of issues, including on the origins of COVID2 , COVID vaccines3 , emails relating to Hunter Biden’s business dealings4 , climate change5 , renewable energy6 , fossil fuels7 , and many other issues.

I offer some cautions. I do not know how much of the censorship is coordinated beyond what we have been able to document, and I will not speculate. I recognize that the law allows Facebook, Twitter, and other private companies to moderate content on their platforms. And I support the right of governments to communicate with the public, including to dispute inaccurate and misleading information.

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingMichael Shellenberger’s Testimony to the House Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government