Dear Donald Trump, Please Try to Block Publication of My Book, Too

Screen shot 2018-01-07 at 1.14.14 AM

 

Dear Donald Trump,

 

May I just say, Wow, Sir? You are really very impressive.

 

I know some people say you’re a stupid overgrown man child, but you really had an amazing comeback when you tweeted you were actually a “very stable genius.”

 

I mean “very stable genius”!

 

Well done, sir.

 

How could anyone ever come back from that devastating response?

 

Oh, and your answer to Michael Wolff was likewise inspiring.

 

He is such an ingrate.

 

You invited this guy, this reporter, into the White House – the Summer Mar-a-Lago – so he could conduct candid interviews and observe you and your staff for the express purpose of writing a book. Now that the book, “Fire and Fury,” is coming out, you see that it paints an unflattering picture of you. So you have your lawyers send Wolff a cease and desist letter attempting to stop its publication.

 

That is ballsy, sir.

 

Obama wouldn’t have done that. Neither would either of the Bushes, or Reagan or even your hero Andrew Jackson. They had too much respect for the First Amendment – whatever that is.

 

I hear it won’t work though. Wolff’s book was released early and it’s already a best seller, but I’ve got to take my hat off to you, sir, for your sheer bigly courage.

 

Wolff’s book’s already sold more than 250,000 copies and the author attributes much of that to your attempts to block publication.

 

But what does he know? He’s not President. You are, sir. And as you once said, “I’m like a smart person.”

 

That you are, sir. Not actually smart, but very much LIKE a smart person.

 

You know you’re so smart that I think you might want to consider blocking the publication of some other books, too.

 

Why should someone as YUGE and important as you focus all your energy on people like Wolff… and Kim Jong-un?

 

You know the other day I was walking by my local book store – yes, they still exist. Believe me! – and I saw another book you should really think about coming down on.

 

It’s called “Gadfly on the Wall: A Public School Teacher Speaks Out on Racism and Reform.”

 

It’s by this total nerd Steven Singer. He’s one of those liberal elites, an educator spending his whole day with little children most of whom are poor, black and brown.

 

Disgusting, right?

 

And his book’s all about how racism drives the movement to destroy public education through high stakes standardized testing, charter and voucher schools.

 

Wait. Did I just lose you there? I haven’t mentioned you in a few paragraphs.

 

Hold on.

 

Trump! Trump! TRUMP!

 

Is that better?

 

Good.

 

Anyway, you might not think his book has anything to do with you, sir, but if you take a look inside, you’ll see he slams you and your administration again and again.

 

The introduction, alone, contains these disrespectful zingers:

 

“…behold the glass menagerie of fools Trump has assembled to populate his administration…”

 

“…the tired rhetoric of Nazi Germany and the Jim Crow South coming out of his [Trump’s] mouth…”

 

“…Trump is a monster and he’s assembled a cabinet of monstrosities to back him up. But that doesn’t make him scary. The best way to fight monsters is to turn on the light. And we have the brightest light of all – the light of knowledge, experience and wisdom.”

 

“We can take Tiny Hands, the Bankruptcy King any day! This is a guy who couldn’t make a profit running casinos – you know, a business where the house always wins! You expect us to cower in fear that he’s going to take away our schools. Son, we’ve fought better than you!

 

Trump represents a clear and present danger to our nation, our people and our schools. But we represent a clear and present danger to him. He hasn’t even been sworn in yet and the clock is already ticking. He’ll be lucky to last four years in the ring with us.”

 

Ah! Such a nasty man!

 

It probably makes you want to grab this guy by his pussy!

 

Could you imagine the look on this dude’s face if you were to send him a cease and desist letter? If you offered a criticism of his failing school at a press conference? Even if you just sent out a withering tweet about this sad loser?

 

Can you imagine how something like that might affect the sale of his book?

 

It’s selling pretty well for a book about education, but a comment from you would have a huge effect.

 

It would sell like hotcakes – by which I mean sell badly because who eats hotcakes, anymore, just McDonalds and KFC and well done steak with ketchup, Am-I-Right?

 

When you say something, people listen.

 

When you said, “Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I noticed,” you boosted sales of his 1845 “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave” through the roof. It’s almost like people wanted to check to see if you really mentioned someone who died in 1895 like he was a contemporary figure walking around, going on TV and giving interviews.

 

Since you took office, you got the cash registers ringing with increased sales of “1984” by George Orwell, “March: Book One” by John Lewis, “It Can’t Happen Here” by Sinclair Lewis, and “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood.

 

Everything you touch just turns to gold!

 

Or perhaps it already was gold, since you take your morning constitutional on a gold throne.

 

Take out your smart phone, sir, and give this Steven Singer and his book a good spanking.

 

Call your lawyers into the bathroom and have them draft a letter.

 

The book is called “Gadfly on the Wall: A Public School Teacher Speaks Out on Racism and Reform.”

 

You want to make sure to include that in the tweet or letter.

 

It’s available at AmazonBarnes & NobleIndieBoundBooks-A-Million and as an E-book on Amazon.

 

Make sure everyone can see that is the book you’re criticizing.

 

You’ll have an incredible impact on the author.

 

After a smack from you, his life – and pocketbook – will never be the same.

 

So get out your tweeter, sir. And let’s sell some books!

 

I mean teach this guy a lesson. Then enjoy a steaming cup of covfefe.

 

Please.

Advertisements

Two Theories Why Facebook Keeps Blocking Me When I Write About School Privatization

 AdobeStock_115924725-1080x675 

Facebook blocked me.

 

Again.

 

What did I do?

 

Did I post Russian-sponsored propaganda?

 

Nyet.

 

Did I post Nazi or racist memes?

 

Nein.

 

Did I post fraudulent or debunked accounts of factual events?

 

No.

 

So what did I do?

 

I had an opinion.

 

I took that opinion and wrote about it. I backed it up with facts, analogies, literary references and examples from my own experience as a classroom teacher in public school.

 

I took all that, wrote it up in a blog called “The False Paradise of School Privatization,” and posted it on Facebook.

 

It was the same kind of thing I do several times a week.

 

Write a blog. Post it on various Facebook pages and on Twitter.

 

And wait to see if anyone reads it.

 

But this time – BOOM!

 

I hadn’t even posted it to a handful of pages before the cyber arm of Mike Zuckerberg’s robo-security came down on me.

 

The same thing happened in October when I wrote an article called “School Choice is a Lie. It Does Not Mean More Options. It Means Less.”

 

I had hoped that that first time was just a fluke or that by now I had since sufficiently proven myself to be a human being and not some nefarious bot.

 

But no such luck.

 

After posting my latest article a few times on Monday, I got this message:

 

“ACTION BLOCKED

 

You have been temporarily blocked from performing this action.”

 

And I got a choice of clicking on:

 

“This is a mistake”

 

Or

 

“OK”

IMG_8706

So I clicked on “This is a mistake,” and got the following:

 

“Thanks for letting us know.”

 

My only choice was to click “OK.”

IMG_8707

At some point I got a message telling me that I was blocked until Dec. 11 – a full week from my offense.

 

And now I have limited use of the social media platform.

 

I can still see posts.

 

I can like posts.

 

For some reason, I can even post and comment on my own page. But I can’t comment or post on other pages without getting the same error message.

 

At least I can’t do it consistently.

 

I’ve experimented and found that sometimes I can share posts to different pages. Sometimes I can’t.

 

It’s a bizarre, wonky system.

 

And it gets in the way of my work as an education blogger.

 

Facebook has more than 1.5 billion accounts. That includes more than 80% of all Americans.

 

Sharing my blog on the site gets me more readers than anywhere else.

 

Twitter is great and certainly more free. But when you push out a tweet, no one sees it unless they’re looking at their feed at that exact moment. Unless it gets retweeted – or you’re a famous unhinged former reality TV star turned President, then people seek out your own personal brand of nuclear-apocalypse-threatening madness.

 

So why does this keep happening to me?

 

I have two theories.

 

1) I am being purposefully censored by Facebook.

 

2) Facebook algorithms are targeting me because of how I post.

 

Let’s look at the first theory.

 

 

Could someone be actively censoring me?

 

Yes.

 

The proposal has a certain plausibility because the powers that be at Facebook undoubtedly disagree with what I have to say.

 

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, is a huge supporter of edtech, standardized testing and school privatization. He’s spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to make public schools rely more heavily on high stakes tests, evaluating teachers on their students’ scores and pushing Personalized Education software packages on public schools. And when that doesn’t pan out, he’s even backed his own charter schools to do the same.

 

But that’s not all.

 

Since early January of this year, he’s had Campbell Brown on the job as the arbiter of truth for his on-line platform.

 

That’s right.

 

Brown, a school privatization lobbyist and former NBC and CNN personality, heads Facebook’s News Partnership Team.

 

The newly created position was part of Zuckerberg’s attempt to limit fake news on his social media platform while prioritizing information in the mainstream media.

 

What exactly is fake news? Whatever Campbell Brown says it is.

 

This is quite a lot of power to give one person, especially someone who has a reputation for partisanship.

 

Brown, after all, co-founded a charter school propaganda network called The 74, funded – unsurprisingly – by Betsy DeVos, Republican mega-donor and current Secretary of Education.

 

After leaving the anchor’s desk, Brown has had a second career helping corporations destroy public schools and public school teachers.

 

And she does. Not. Like. Me.

 

Let’s just say we’ve gotten into a few Twitter skirmishes.

 

When she became the face of a New York lawsuit attacking teacher tenure in 2014, she received a tidal wave of public backlash. So she went on the Colbert Report to complain about how those fighting for workplace protections for themselves and their students were “silencing the debate” on how best to reform public education.

 

I responded with a blog called “Shhh! Who’s Silencing the Debate on Real Education Reform” claiming that Brown was actually doing the very thing she claimed to be decrying in shutting out teachers’ voices and rights.

 

She responded by cherry picking her rudest critics and tweeting “Sorry Steve but sadly this is not what I characterize as debate,” as if I had had anything to do with these comments.

IMG_8708

As if any movement should be judged by its most extreme elements.

 

As if attacking someone’s job, someone’s kids and their future was fine so long as you did so with a smile and a polite comeback.

 

I don’t condone personal attacks, but I certainly understand them. In any case, Brown used the extreme fringes of her critics to condemn us all and conveniently refused to engage us – even those who had been unceasingly polite.

 

That lawsuit eventually failed, but Brown somehow landed on her feet.

 

Now she’s the one who gets to choose truth and falsity on Facebook.

 

Could she be actively working against people like me?

 

Yes.

 

Could she be directing Facebook’s programmers to select against posts that are negative to her pet projects?

 

Yes.

 

But there’s no way to know if she’s actually doing it.

 

Which brings me to my second theory.

 

Perhaps mindless Facebook algorithms are targeting me because of how I post.

 

I do, after all, try to post my articles on as many pages as I can.

 

They’re mostly pages focused on education and education policy with a few political and anti-racism sites thrown in, too.

 

Maybe I’m posting too quickly.

 

I might be triggering one of Zuckerberg’s bots to think I’m a bot, too, spamming up the works with advertising.

 

However, there’s a few problems with this theory.

 

Let’s say it’s true.

 

Why would that, alone, be reason to block me?

 

I’m not posting advertisements. I’m not asking for money. My blog doesn’t sell adds other than those WordPress puts on there, itself, so I can keep the page for free.

 

If an algorithm is stopping me because it thinks I’m unfairly selling something, it’s the result of some badly written code, indeed.

 

When programmers write code, that’s not impartial. It betrays their values. It betrays certain decisions about what’s acceptable and what isn’t.

 

For instance, I keep getting advertisements from Facebook asking me to pay money to the social media network so that they’ll post my articles on other people’s site for me.

 

I get reminders like “Boost this post for $3 to reach up to 580 people.”

IMG_8712

Oh, really?

 

So I’m blocked because I posted my own writing to sites that have accepted me as a member and whose membership includes many I consider friends and colleagues. But for a fee, Facebook will post that same article to various sites filled with people I’d consider to be complete strangers.

 

Somehow that doesn’t “violate community standards” – the reason they said they blocked me in October.

 

This is very telling.

 

It seems to indicate that there is nothing wrong with what I’m doing, per se. It’s just that Facebook wants to encourage me to let them do it for me – so they can monetize my account.

 

They’re stopping me from doing this on my own, because they think I’m a sucker who should pay them for the right to communicate with others.

 

And that’s a very real possibility.

 

These blockages may not be political. They may be a simple marketing strategy.

 

So what can I do about it?

 

Well, first I need to wait a week until my account is unfrozen and I get back all the features Facebook users usually enjoy.

 

Then I can try to go back to the way things were posting my articles at all my favorite virtual watering holes.

 

Only slowly.

 

Much more slowly.

 

I figure if I only post once every five minutes or so, I can have my article at all the places that seem to like having them in about the course of an evening.

 

But I have a life, damn it!

 

I can’t spend the twilight hours posting and waiting and posting and waiting.

 

I guess another alternative is to rely on friends to post for me.

 

Spread the love.

 

Have others circulate my articles far and wide.

 

And that’s a great strategy. It’s very hard for Facebook to do anything about it.

 

But it requires me to impose on others. I don’t like doing it.

 

My readers, friends and supporters have lives, too.

 

They have more important things to do than post my writing all over the Internet.

 

So where does that leave me?

 

I’m not sure.

 

If I continue as I have, I’m bound to be blocked and thrown in Facebook Jail again.

 

Even if I don’t, I’m at the mercy of the wealthy elites who control the network.

 

And if the FCC does away with Net Neutrality, as they’re threatening to do in a matter of days, it may not even matter.

 

Regardless of where I post on Facebook, my blog site will probably be slow to the point of molasses and maybe even shut down entirely.

 

This is the brave new world of the plutocracy unrestrained.

 

This is American fascism triumphant.

 

I am only a single point of the resistance.

 

My voice is only as powerful as those who share it.


 

If Facebook, Twitter or WordPress somehow takes me down, I’ve written a book, “Gadfly on the Wall: A Public School Teacher Speaks Out on Racism and Reform,” now available from Garn Press. Ten percent of the proceeds go to the Badass Teachers Association. Check it out!

book-1

I Was Blocked From Facebook for Criticizing School Privatization

facebook

 

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”
-George Orwell

 

I have had many strange experiences as an education blogger.

People have adapted my writing into a play.

People have written to express a sincere desire for my death.

I’ve had a teacher send me pictures of essays his composition students wrote in response to one of my articles.

 
And I’ve had people email my workplace demanding I be fired.

I guess Internet fame is a mixed bag.

But after more than three years of blogging about education and social justice issues while teaching in the public school system, there’s one thing I’ve never experienced before: censorship.

This is social media, after all.

I’ve got no advertisers to please, no editor breathing down my neck. I can write whatever I want.

That’s the benefit of being a blogger. No one can stop you from telling the truth.

Well, no one except Facebook, apparently.

For the first time in my blogging career, I was blocked from Mark Zuckerberg’s social networking platform because I had the audacity to post my blog to it.

Now keep in mind I’ve been doing just that every week since July, 2014.

Moreover, the article I posted was in no way different from my previous work.

The article is called “School Choice is a Lie. It Does Not Mean More Options. It Means Less.” You can read it HERE

But almost as soon as I posted it to the Facebook page I keep for my blog, Gadfly on the Wall, I got a message saying I was blocked for a week for “violating community standards.”

What community, exactly, is that?

My article contains no hate speech. For once I even managed to control my own potty mouth.

This is just an examination of why charter and voucher schools reduce options for parents and students – not increase them.

It’s an argument. I lay out my reasons with reference to facts and make numerous connections to other people’s work and articles.

I don’t understand how that “violates community standards.”

A blogger friend of mine tells me that someone probably saw my article and reported it to Facebook as spam. That’s happened to him multiple times, he says, especially when he criticizes groups like Teach for America.

Perhaps that’s what’s happened here.

Some folks get so furious when I criticize their charter and voucher schools.

Maybe they saw my latest piece and just wanted to silence me.

I don’t know.

I suppose another option is that it came from Zuckerberg, himself.

He’s a big fan of school privatization. Perhaps he changed Facebook guidelines to crack down on people like me who throw shade on his pet school reforms.
Or maybe my work was targeted because I’m critical of President Donald Trump. I did, after all, write an article this week called “Donald Trump is a Pathetic Excuse For a Human Being” that includes a picture of the chief executive as a poop emoji.

 

Or maybe it was the National Rifle Association (NRA). The article before the school privatization piece was called “Guns and Profit – Why We’ll Do Absolutely Nothing New After This Las Vegas Shooting.” It was picked up by Commondreams.org, the LA Progressive and other left-leaning sites. Perhaps the firearms lobby had had enough.

Who knows? I’ve pissed off a lot of people in three years.

But I find it hard to believe I was actively targeted. I mean, this is still America, right?

Right?

Another option might be a rogue algorithm.

Facebook is known to use various processes or sets of rules to govern calculations about what should and should not be allowed on the site. After all, they can’t leave all these decisions to living, breathing, human beings. That would cost too much money. Better to leave it to bots and computers.

Perhaps something in my article tripped their robotic alarm bells. (ROBOT VOICE: He’s against Competency Based Education! EXTERMINATE!)

I guess I’ll probably never know.

In the meantime, Twitter is still open for my business. I can still share links in 140 characters or less – with hastags. And, the best part is that Trump might see it!

But what about friends not on the Twitterverse?

How do I even let people know what happened to me? Send a million separate emails!? Pick up the phone and – yuck – talk to people!?

I sent a note to friends through Facebook Messenger about what happened, but that soon stopped working on me. I can’t message anyone else now. Still, the story seems to have leaked.

People who know what’s happened have been kind enough to share the article. It’s being read and appreciated.

I don’t know if my Facebook imprisonment has had a major effect on its distribution. But it’s probably had some dampening effect.

I have to admit, it’s kind of frustrating.

After all this time, many of us rely on Facebook for so much. I’m a member of the Badass Teachers Association, a group of more than 64,000 members who use the social media platform to discuss, plan and engage in various actions against corporate school reform. I’m also in United Opt Out National. It’s increasingly difficult for me to help plan our protest in Washington, DC, without Facebook.

It never really hit me before how much of our lives flow through this one network.

If someone wanted to disrupt political organizations dedicated to reforming the status quo, censoring people and posts on Facebook could be very effective.

I haven’t been silenced, but I’ve been effectively muted. Most of my readers see my work through Facebook. Without it, my writing is out there, but much fewer people probably are in contact with it.

So I suppose that brings me to you, intrepid reader.

Somehow you found this article.

Assuming Zuckerberg and his bots don’t change their minds, I probably won’t be able to post this article to Facebook. So if you saw it, you found it somewhere else. Or perhaps a friendly radical took a chance and posted it on Facebook, themselves, defiant in the possibility that the social media gestapo might crash down on them.

Will you please do the same?

Share my story.

Let the world know what happened to me today.

It’s not the most important thing that’s happened this week. And hopefully it will all be settled in seven interminable days. 168 hours. 10,080 minutes. But who’s counting?

Or – who knows – perhaps I’ll be cleared of all charges, write a new article and the same thing will happen when I try to post it.

I don’t know.

In the meantime, I’m going to spend some time off the computer.

Maybe I’ll open the doors and windows, let in some natural light and see what this “outside world” is like that people used to talk about.

See you in a week.

Live from Facebook Jail,

The Gadfly on the Wall

#FreeGadfly

Taking Back Your Name – The Pros and Cons of Political Correctness

introduction

 

“What I think the political correctness debate is really about is the power to be able to define. The definers want the power to name. And the defined are now taking that power away from them.”
Toni Morrison

“Never trust anyone who says they do not see color. This means to them, you are invisible.”
Nayhyirah Waheed

 

Call me Steve.

Not Steven. Not Stephen. Certainly not Steveareno.

It’s a preference. My preference. My choice. And if people want to be in my good graces, they’ll comply with my wishes.

There’s nothing strange or unreasonable about this. We do it all the time – usually when we’re being introduced to someone.

“Hi. I’m Steve.”

“Nice to meet you, Steve. I’m Elisha.”

“Elisha? What a beautiful name!”

“Thank you, Steven.”

“Please. Call me Steve.”

Is there anything wrong with that? Does that stifle conversation? Does it stop people from talking freely to each other?

No. Certainly some names are hard to pronounce or – in my case – remember. But overcoming those hurdles is just common decency. It’s not too much to ask – especially if you’re going to be dealing with this person for an extended length of time.

The idea that allowing people to define themselves somehow shuts down conversation is rather strange. But it’s the essence of opposition to political correctness.

“Political correctness is tyranny with manners,” said conservative icon Charlton Heston.

I wonder if he would have felt the same if we’d called him Charlie Hessywessytone.

A more fleshed out criticism comes from President George H. W. Bush who said, “The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain expressions, even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship.”

Is that true? Is political correctness really censorship? That’s the conflation made by many conservatives and even some liberals. After all, popular Left-wing comedian Bill Maher sarcastically calls his HBO show “Politically Incorrect,” and he often rails against the practice.

There’s a kernel of truth to it. We are asked to change the way we speak. We’re asked to self-censor, but we already do this frequently without wailing against a loss of free speech.

Human beings are subject to various impulses, but as adults, we learn which ones we can act on and which we shouldn’t. I may think it would be hilarious to run into a crowded movie theater and yell, “FIRE!” However, I know that doing so – while possibly funny to a certain kind of person – would result in injuries and trauma as moviegoers stampede out of the theater. So I don’t do it. Is that censorship? Maybe. But it’s censorship with a small c.

The Hestons, Bushes and Mahers of the world seem to think political correctness is more like Capital C Censorship. But this is demonstrably false.

That kind of Censorship is the act of officials, possibly agents of the government, a corporation or some other formal bureaucracy. But political correctness has nothing to do with officials. There are no censors. There are only people who ask to be named a certain way.

A censor looks at a news report of military operations in Iraq and deletes material that would give away the army’s location. Political correctness is nothing like that. It involves someone asking others to refer to themselves THIS WAY and not THAT WAY.

The penalties for violating Censorship are official. Ask Chelsea Manning who is serving a 35-year prison sentence for doing just that. The penalties for violating political correctness are social. You may be criticized, condemned or disliked.

If you criticize Manning for releasing classified documents to Wikileaks, you’re not violating political correctness. That’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it. However, Manning is a trans woman who is going through hormone replacement therapy. If you refer to her as “him” you are violating political correctness. You’re naming her in a way that violates her wishes. The penalty is not a prison sentence. It’s a sour look.

So political correctness is not Censorship. In some ways, the confusion comes from the term “political correctness,” itself.

Though its origins are hard to pin down, it appears to have been coined by the Soviets to mean judging “the degree of compatibility of one’s ideas or political analysis with the official party line in Moscow.” At least that’s what the International Encyclopedia of Social Studies says.

The term came to prominence in the United States in conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza’s book “Illiberal Education.” He disparaged affirmative action as a kind of political correctness that gave preference to (what he saw as) unqualified minority students over whites in college admissions.

So the first mention of the term in the USA was simply to disparage liberal political policies. It was a ham-handed way of comparing the Left with the Soviets. Yet somehow this term has become the handle by which we know simple civility. It’s kind of hard to feel positively about a concept that begins with a mountain of unearned negative connotations.

Conservatives know the power of getting to name something. It’s their go-to propaganda tactic and lets them control much of the debate. For instance, that’s why the Right loves to call Social Security an “entitlement.” There’s truth to it because you’re entitled to getting back the money you pay in, but it’s full of unearned negative connotations as if these people were somehow demanding things they don’t deserve.

In essence, political correctness shouldn’t be political at all. It’s just kindness. It’s just being a decent human being. Don’t purposefully call someone by a name they wouldn’t appreciate. Respect a person’s ownership of their own identity.

And for some people that’s hard to do. Their conceptions of things like gender, sexuality, race and religion are extremely rigid. The only way to be a man is THIS WAY. The only way to be spiritual is THAT WAY. But if they give voice to these ideas in the public square – especially in the presence of people who think differently – they will be frowned upon.

But is this really so dissimilar to the crowded movie theater? Refusing to acknowledge someone else’s identity is harmful to that person. It tramples the soul similarly to the way their body would be trampled in a stampeded exit. So you shouldn’t do it.

The result is an apparently much more tolerant society. It’s no longer okay to use racial, cultural, gender and sexual stereotypes in public. You’re forced to give other people consideration – or else face the consequences of being disliked. And on the surface, that’s a much more inviting world to live in.

However, there is a glaring problem. In some ways, this has made public discourse more antiseptic. People don’t always say what they mean in the public square. It’s not that they’ve changed the way they think about the world. They’ve just learned to keep it to themselves until they’re around like-minded individuals. They reserve their racist, classist, sexist language for use behind closed doors.

This is why when I’m at a party peopled exclusively by white folks, some partygoers may let racial epithets slip out. And we all laugh nervously to be polite. Or maybe it’s more than politeness. Maybe for some it’s to relieve the tension of such refreshing candor like taking off a girdle. Fwew! Here, at least, I can say what I really think without having to worry about people looking down on me for it!

Since such reactions occur mostly in homogeneous groups, it makes the world look much more enlightened than it really is. Pundits and policymakers look around and cheer the end of these social ills when they haven’t ended at all. They’ve merely gone underground.

And so we have an epidemic of colorblind white people who can’t see racism because of the gains of political correctness. Somehow they forget those unguarded moments. Somehow they haven’t the courage to examine their own souls. Or perhaps they don’t care.

And so we have the conundrum: which is better – to live in a world where all individuals have the right to name themselves or to live in a world where our most basic prejudices are on display for all to see?

Personally, I pick political correctness, and here’s why.

Words are important. We think in words. We use them to put together our thoughts. If we continue to respect individuals’ names in word, eventually we’ll begin to do so in thought and deed.

This isn’t mind control. It’s habit. It’s recognizing an ideal and working toward it. As Aristotle taught, the way to become a good person is to act like one. Eventually, your preferences will catch up with your habits.

I think that’s what’s happening today. Look at the children. They’re so much less prejudiced and racist than we, adults. This is because they’ve learned political correctness first. They didn’t have to unlearn some archaic white-cisgender-centrism. This is normal to them, and I think that’s a good thing.

Obviously some people will balk at this idea. They will look at this ideal as reprehensible. They want to return to a world where women were little more than property, a world where black people knew their place, where sexual identity was as simple as A or B.

But I think most of us recognize that this is not a world where we’d want to live. Modern society can be scary and confusing but trying to respect everyone as a person isn’t a bad thing. It’s consideration, concern, warmth.

Perhaps the best way to love your fellow humans is to call them by their proper names.