Thank you all so very much

Image: Pierre Bamin

Wow. A few weeks back, I asked for help to save my website More Than Two. I’m now over three-quarters of the way to the crowdfunding goal for my legal expenses to help save the site. Once again, thank you all so much. I am incredibly grateful for your generosity.

I would like to share a little bit more about what’s happening. First, a little bit of context. (Don’t worry, I’ll be brief.)

The Backstory

I started writing about polyamory on the web in 1997, when my first writings about non-monogamy went online on xeromag.com. These pages quickly became by far the most popular part of xeromag.com. Before long, they were the most popular polyamory content on the internet in terms of monthly visitors.

In 2006, I registered the domain morethantwo.com. At first, this URL simply displayed the poly content hosted on xeromag.com.

I also started talking about writing a book called More Than Two in 2006. A poly activist who was heavily involved in the early poly community offered to underwrite the costs of writing the book. By late 2006 I’d written sample chapters and a content outline and started shopping the idea of the book around to publishers. Throughout 2007 and 2008, with the continued financial support of my patron, I refined the content outline and sample chapters of More Than Two, and kept looking for a publisher who might be interested. (I eventually accumulated about fifty rejection slips, many of which said some variation on “we don’t think a how-to book on polyamory will sell, but if you ever write a memoir we’d be interested.”)

In 2011, I spun off the polyamory content from Xeromag as its own site. I separated the poly content on xeromag onto morethantwo.com, and also published the outline of the book More Than Two on this domain name.

In 2012, I met my former partner. In 2013, she brought up my book project and suggested a collaboration. We co-founded a publishing company called Thorntree Press (we chose that name because we had our first date on Hawthorne Street in Portland), and in 2014, we published More Than Two.

In 2018, I left Vancouver and that relationship. We began trying to disentangle our financial affairs, since we still jointly owned Thorntree Press. My former partner wanted me to give her my shares of the company. I declined. This led to a long legal dispute which is still ongoing.

What’s happening now?

Three things, one of which is common knowledge and two of which aren’t.

  1. In November 2021, we had a mediation in front of Judge Karsten Rasmussen. The details of that mediation are covered by a confidentiality agreement, but at the end of it, the judge, my attorney, and her attorney at the time believed we had arrived at a meeting of the minds.

    Following the mediation, her attorney attempted to add a new term to the settlement which would have me turn over possession of the domain morethantwo.com to her.

    I declined, as this wasn’t discussed at the mediation. I’ve poured countless thousands of hours of work into building the site (and in 2018 it was recognized by archivists at the Library of Congress as a site of cultural and historical significance).

    Since then, she has replaced her attorney.  She does not consider the  mediation to have been binding.
  2. In January of 2022, my former partner filed for a registered trademark on the phrase “More Than Two.” My lawyer, who specializes in intellectual property, informs me that if she establishes ownership of this trademark, she may be able to seize the domain name morethantwo.com under WIPO action.

    You can see the trademark application here.

    My lawyer is confident that we can oppose her claim to the trademark, since I can show use of it going back to 2006, but also warns me that opposing a trademark is a very expensive and time-consuming undertaking. I have already paid him the initial sum of money to oppose the trademark filing, and provided him with the materials necessary to draft an opposition filing.
  3. On March 17, 2022, she filed a lawsuit in Multnomah County Court to petition that the courts declare the November settlement void.

These three things together threaten the continued existence of the More Than Two site. She has already indicated she wishes to have the domain turned over to her, and she is attempting to claim a trademark that would give her the benefit of sixteen years of work I’ve done.

Thanks to your generosity, I have been able to provide my lawyer with the litigation retainer he needs to oppose her trademark application and to represent me in court.

However, this is not the end of the road! I expect this matter to continue to be expensive. I have already taken on considerable debt in this matter.

Over the last sixteen years, I’ve poured my heart and soul into this site. I could simply turn it over to her and allow her to take the trademark, but I think it’s wrong to surrender all my hard work for someone else to take advantage of.

Again, thank you all for your incredible support. I can’t tell you how much it means to me.

For those of you who wish to follow what’s going on, I have created a timeline here, which I will keep updating as the legal situation unfolds.

“Orwellian”? I don’t think so.

In which Franklin ventures an unpopular opinion.

Okay, so we live in a time when the word ‘Orwellian’ is used rather a lot, often by people who clearly haven’t read any Orwell. (“The liberals don’t want to shop at Hobby Lobby! That’s so Orwellian!” “That dude got fired for going to a Nazi rally That’s so Orwellian!” No. No, it isn’t.)

But I’m going to offer a hot take, which is that Nineteen Eighty-Four hasn’t aged particularly well. I’ll even go further: the ideas in it don’t map well onto modern society, current political events notwithstanding.

Yes, yes, I know, it’s a literary classic. Yes, yes, I know, lots of people say it’s more relevant today than ever.

I disagree—not because I think everything now is all sunshine and roses, but because Orwell wrote from a specific place and time, with a particular set of assumptions, and as a result the dystopia he imagined isn’t the dystopia we got.

Orwell envisioned a future of old-school authoritarian totalitarianism, very much rooted in Post-WWII geopolitics, where totalitarians looked like Joseph Stalin and government enforcement looked like the East German Stasi.

Who would’ve guessed the real Big Brother would be a weedy computer nerd with poor social skills in a cheap T-shirt?

He projected his ideas about authoritarianism onto the technology of the day, imagining TV sets broadcasting State propaganda, and cameras in every room sending images back to the State apparatus.

He never imagined a pervasive Panopticon might just as easily be turned against the State. In an age where we all carry cameras with us everywhere we go, corruption and police brutality can be recorded and exposed.

He also could not imagine a society where common communications media were anything other than top-down—he was still trapped in a broadcast-television mindset, where content creation was centralized and transmitted out to the population.

We live in a much more decentralized world, a world where citizens are empowered in ways that Orwell couldn’t (and didn’t) imagine. Because of that, his vision feels very old-school, very Grandpa’s Dictatorship.

Who would’ve guessed the real Big Brother would be a weedy computer nerd with poor social skills in a cheap T-shirt?

It turns out—surprise!—that everyone in the 40s and 50s was 100% wrong about how societies work.The free and vigorous exchange of ideas doesn’t mean that good ideas rise to the top. Giving everyone instantaneous access to the world’s sum total of facts and knowledge doesn’t lead to a more enlightened society. Instant, unfettered worldwide communication doesn’t break down barriers, erode prejudice, promote egalitarianism, or increase understanding.

It took a long time for me to wrap my head around this. I was one of those naive optimists, back in the era before a pervasive Internet. Turns out that shit doesn’t happen. All the optimistic forward thinkers from the 1940s through the 1990s were utterly, 100% wrong.

Ah HA ha ha ha ha! Good one! Now pull my other leg, Mr. Mill!

Dystopia is here, but it isn’t Grandpa’s “boot stamping on a human face forever.” That’s so last-century.Today’s authoritarianism is agile, data-driven, shaped by analytics and A/B testing, tested with focus groups, refined with demographic polling, all of it carefully tailored for different market segments.

Todays doublethink and thoughtcrime aren’t engineered by the Ministry of Truth and pushed out by the police apparatus. They’re crowdsourced, enshrined in tribal identity politics, and enforced by the Twitter rage generator and the 4chan hate machine. Offenders aren’t whisked away for extraordinary rendition; instead, the rage of the internet is summoned upon perceived offenders, anyone who appears to support perceived offenders, anyone standing too close to perceived offenders.

In this dystopia, narratives matter more than facts, secret courts are replaced by the court of public opinion, and we don’t need the Stasi to enforce this because we enforce it on ourselves.

George Orwell was right that the impulse toward authoritarianism is written deep in the social DNA of Western societies, he was just wrong that authoritarianism is always top-down. Turns out, paradoxically, it’s often bottom-up.He thought government would need to control our speech and our thought to control us.

Nope.

Give us unfettered communication and unlimited access to knowledge and we’ll do it ourselves.

In this post-fact dystopia, the government doesn’t create our reality, we choose the reality that best appeals to our biases and prejudices. Knowledge? That’s, like, just another opinion, man!

Live-stream writing event coming up!

Join me and my co-author Eunice Hung Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 11:00 AM Pacific time/7:00 PM London time for a live-stream event! We talk about the book publishing process, how to co-author together, and how to start your own novel…plus you’ll be able to watch us begin work on a brand-new book!

DETAILS

Image by pascal stöckmann. There’s something unsettling about a camera pointed square at you, isn’t there?

It’s almost here! Where did the time go?Join Eunice and I for a live-streaming event on April 23, where we will answer questions about writing a novel, co-authorship, publishing, details about the world of the Passionate Pantheon, the trials and tribulations of working entirely remotely, and whatever other general random tangents that our brains drag us to (based on past experience)!All this, plus you get to watch the very start of the writing process for the fifth novel in the Passionate Pantheon series!

When: Saturday, April 23, 2022, from 11 AM Pacific/2 PM Eastern/7 PM London time, for at least two hours (but knowing us, probably a lot longer, because we don’t know when to stop).

Where: Facebook Live. Follow us on Facebook for more information!

What: You know that saying, “Everyone has a novel somewhere inside”? One of the most common questions we hear is “I’ve always wanted to write a novel, but how do you get started?” Another is, “I’ve always wanted to write with someone else, but how do you write together?”

Why: You can get your answers questioned…wait a minute, strike that, reverse it. (Although we’re always happy to have our answers questioned, if there’s folks with more expert knowledge in the livestream!) Plus people who attend will get a secret perk when the crowdfunder for the third novel, The Hallowed Covenant, goes live!

We’ll address both of those questions (though protip, you probably won’t start your novel(s) in quite the same way we started ours!), and talk publishing, writing, and the creative process. We co-author in quite an unusual way, so if the way we work sounds appealing, let us tell you all the mistakes we made so you don’t have to!

You’ll also be able to watch us begin a brand spanking new novel together! (Caveat: spanking not included.)

We plan to create a new, blank Google Docs file and start the fifth Passionate Pantheon novel right in front of you. It won’t just be us telling you how to start a novel; you’ll be able to see it happen!

The process itself—the conversations we have, the mechanics of how we write, the world-building, all of it will be on display for the whole world to see, warts and all. (Gulp!) You’ll see the dead ends, the changes, the moments when the plot or characterisation clicks—all the things you’ll probably experience during writing yourself, played out live in front of your eyes.

Sign up for the mailing list to be notified early about the hows and wheres. We will also post more information on the website at Science Fiction Erotica by Eunice Hung and Franklin Veaux as the event draws near.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does it cost anything? Nope, it’s totally free.

Can I ask questions? Please do! We love questions, the quirkier the better!

Who is invited? Anyone over eighteen. These novels do contain erotic content, after all!

Do I need to be interested in science fiction erotica? Nope. You’ll probably find something valuable even if you’re interested in some other genre.

Have you ever done this before? Nope! We will be just as interested as you in how this goes. It may all crash and burn! Fun times.

Will you be repeating this sort of event in the future? Who knows! No idea. Depends on how well this first one goes, so I guess we’ll see!

My heartfelt thanks

Wow. I am…I’m speechless. Only a few days into my GoFundMe, you have donated more than five thousand dollars.

Thank you all so very much.

When I started out this week, I felt pretty hopeless. My former partner had filed a lawsuit, and filed to obtain the trademark for “More Than Two,” and after years of legal disputes I had no more resources to continue. I hate asking for help, but the website was not something I could bear to lose, so I finally reached out for help.  I am awed and humbled by your response. Thank you. I can’t express what your support means to me.

You all have been amazing. When I first started writing about polyamory way back in 1997, I wasn’t writing for an audience. I was writing for the earlier me, the person trying to figure all this out without the benefit of a community. 

When I started writing online, I wanted to talk about the things we learned (and the things we got wrong), so that other people like me didn’t feel quite as lost and alone as I did. I never expected these experiences to resonate with so many people.

I registered the domain More Than Two in 2006, when I began talking about putting my experiences into a book to be called More Than Two. For a long time, this domain redirected to the polyamory writings I hosted at Xeromag, then in 2011 I made More Than Two into a full-fledged Web site of its own and moved my writings over here. 

This site touched so many lives that in December of 2018, the Library of Congress selected the More than Two website for archiving as a “historic collection of Internet materials.” The Library of Congress archivist told me, “We consider your website to be an important part of this collection and the historical record.”

To have another person try to take possession of my trademark and domain name, after so many years of work, is one of the most crushing, disheartening things I’ve ever experienced.

Writing about my experiences helped me to find a community of like-minded people, first online and later in person. Now that community has been there for me once again.

I don’t know what the future holds. My lawyer tells me he is optimistic we may likely prevail, both in the lawsuit and in the trademark dispute. But litigation is costly no matter who wins, and always a bit of a roll of the dice. I’ve been forced to borrow money—a lot of it—just to pay my legal fees (and rent!) up to this point, so your support means more to me than you will ever know. I couldn’t do this without you.

Many people have messaged and emailed to ask me if they can donate privately through PayPal rather than GoFundMe. The answer is yes; my PayPal address is franklin (at) franklinveaux (dot) com. I am setting up a separate bank account to track the GoFundMe and PayPal contributions, and my legal expenses. As this unfolds I plan to post regular updates about what’s happening and where the money goes.

Again, thank you all so much.

I need your help

Friends, I urgently need your help. A former partner is currently trying to claim my trademark, and take the domain “More Than Two.”

For more than sixteen years, I have worked to make my site a resource for relationship ideas and advice. Now the site is under threat. Someone I was once romantically involved with is attempting to claim the trademarks for “More Than Two” and take the website and domain name itself.

I have been writing about polyamory on the web since 1997, and I have poured thousands of hours into writing on the domain name More Than Two since 2006. I cannot express in words how disheartening it is to pour so much time, love, and effort into something, and receive countless emails from people who say how much it has changed their lives, only to have someone else try to come along and take it away.

In addition to that, my ex also filed a lawsuit attempting to nullify a legal settlement we arrived at in November.

Unfortunately, defending myself from these actions in court is incredibly expensive. I have never made any  money from the website; for decades it has been a labor of love I’ve given away for free. (I recently placed advertising on the site, which pays for most of the site’s expenses most months.)

I hate asking for help, but I also hate that someone else may take away something I’ve worked on for so long. At this point, I don’t know what else to do.

I’ve started a crowdfunder to raise money to defend the site. Please, if you can help at all, even with a dollar or two, it would mean a lot to me. I get so many emails from people who tell me how much the site has meant to them and how it’s improved their lives. I want to make sure it remains available for future visitors too. This site means a lot to me personally, and a lot to other people as well. Please help me save it.

https://www.morethantwo.com/savemorethantwo.html

Goodbye, Kyla, I miss you

Two days ago, my cat Kyla died.

It happened with little warning. She was still eating and drinking, but her weight crashed, until in less than a week she was skinny enough I could feel her ribs when I pet her. She would bat at the side of her face with her paw when she ate, as if she were in pain.

That happened once before, and the problem turned out to be an abscessed tooth. I took her to the vet, they removed the tooth, that evening she was clearly feeling better and by week’s end she’d rebounded.

On Friday, I brought her to the vet, expecting the same thing.

She never made it home.

The vet did her lab work and came back with the diagnosis: end-stage, terminal kidney failure.


I first met Kyla on October 6, 2010. I didn’t think I wanted a new kitten. She thought I was wrong.

I’d gone with my partner Zaiah to visit her parents, who had a litter of Tonkinese kittens. Kyla climbed in my lap and snuggled up to me. For the rest of my time there, she stayed with me, always returning to my lap whenever I moved her.

“No,” she said. “You’re my person now. That’s it.”

Zaiah kept telling me “I think you have a kitten now.”

“No, no, no,” I said, “I don’t need a kitten.”

I had a kitten anyway.

Kyla spent the first three years of her life living on my shoulder.

She stayed with me everywhere. She rode around on my shoulder all the time, she slept curled up on top of me. I don’t know what makes cats choose one person over another, but once that choice is made, they’re quite stubborn about it.

No matter what I was doing, she wanted to be a part of it. She was so insistent about this, I even ended up using her as a scale for talking about the sizes of different styles of programmable microcontrollers, after she photobombed a picture I was taking.

She went camping with us (and had a great time).

Whenever I worked on a novel with my co-author Eunice, Kyla could be found, as often as not, curled up on my lap. I had to be careful about what I left on the computer desk, because she had a path she would follow—floor to bed to night stand to desk to lap—when she wanted to curl up with me, and anything in her path would quite likely get knocked to the floor.

On Friday, the vet laid out the news in stark terms: Kyla’s kidneys had failed. I could spend many thousands of dollars on veterinarian ICU and there was a small chance she might rebound briefly, but the odds were against it. Without that, she was unlikely to live through the weekend. Even with the most aggressive intervention, she was still unlikely to live the weekend.

So I made the difficult choice to say goodbye.

It still hasn’t really sunk in. I still catch myself thinking “I wonder where Kyla is—oh.” I’m emotionally wrung out.

Goodbye, Kyla. I was privileged to know you.

Watch the birth of a new book!

She lives in London. I live in Portland. This is what our writing sessions look like.

My co-author Eunice Hung and I have now finished four books together in our far-future, post-scarcity science fiction theocratic erotica series. The first two, The Brazen Altar and Divine Burdens, are out now. The third, The Hallowed Covenant, goes to press in a few months, and the fourth, Unyielding Devotion, publishes next year.

The reward for finishing a novel is you get to start a new one, so we’re gearing up to start the fifth, as-yet-untitled book.

And for this one, we’re trying an experiment. We have a ton of ideas we plan to introduce in the fifth novel…and we want to invite you along for the ride!


For Book Five, we’re planning something really unusual. (Fitting, because our writing process is also unusual.) We’ve had countless people ask how we work together, and countless more ask “how do you even write a novel, anyway?”, and one of the rules of good writing is “show, don’t tell,” so…

Beginning in April, we want to live-stream the start of Book Five. That means you can ask questions, see the conversations we have before and as we’re developing a book, and watch how the story changes from concept to final printed book. If it goes well, we might even consider making this a repeated event.

Whether you’re a fan of the Passionate Pantheon series or just interested in the process of how co-authorship works, or you simply want to write a book but don’t know how to start, we hope you’ll find the live-stream interesting.

We’re just starting to plan it all. As the plan comes together, we’ll be posting on the Passionate Pantheon blog. Interested? Drop me a comment!

Chasing Down a Malware Network

A few days ago, I leveled a Horde frost mage to max level in World of Warcraft. Anyone familiar with the game knows exactly what happens next: the mad scramble to gear up a new Level 60 to be able to run mythics and raids, so that you can get even more loot to run higher-level mythics and raids…thus does the MMO hamster wheel go ’round and ’round.

So I did what every newly-minted level 60 does, of course: I turned to Google. My new 60 has a rather abysmal heirloom staff, so my first priority was finding the best way to loot better weapons.That’s when it started.Take a look, dear readers, at this Google search, and see if you can tell me what’s peculiar.

These results outstrip some of the most popular WoW sites on the Net, which is a bit peculiar itself…but more to the point, what are they doing on a site about pilates? And a German photography site? And why are they all called “untitled”?

Curious, and smelling something weird and sinister, I did what I always do when I see something that might be the tip of some kind of mass hack or compromise: I clicked on the links.

And each one of them bounced me back to a new Google page.Even more curious, I copy-pasted one of the links (after unmangling it, of course; damn you, Google, for mangling link URLs in your search links), and saw:

This is a “keyword stuff”—a page designed to appeal to Google, not to any human reader, simply by being crammed full of popular Google keywords and search phrases.

But look at the bottom of the page. It’s a bunch of randomly-generated three-character links.Curiouser and curiouser.Now well and truly engaged, cup of tea forgotten next to my keyboard, I logged out of WoW and fell down the rabbit hole.

Where do those links point? To other pages stuffed with keywords, of course.

This is how these results ranked so high in Google Search, above even well-regarded WoW sites like Icy Veins: Automated black hat SEO. Each page is populated with automatically-generated links to other pages also stuffed with keywords, which in turn point to still other pages stuffed with keywords…at least hundreds, possibly thousands, in all.

But why?The ‘why’ is suggested by some very peculiar behavior of these pages.

Continue reading

Some (more) thoughts on cancel culture

Okay, so. Let’s talk about cancel culture.

Cancel culture isn’t what a lot of folks think it is.

You can’t reasonably address the notion of what “cancel culture” is until you first address what it isn’t. Cancel culture is not saying “I don’t like the way that company does business, so I’m not going to shop there.” Cancel culture isn’t “I don’t like what that person did, so I’m not going to watch her movies.” Cancel culture isn’t even “I don’t like what that company or that person did, so I’m going to tell others how I feel about them.”

All those things are simply you making your own choices. No company is entitled to your money; you’re not taking something away from a corporation that rightfully deserves it by not shopping there. No movie star is entitled to you seeing their movies. No TV comedian is entitled to have you watch their shows. No author is entitled to have you read their books.

Cancel culture, if we are to be intellectually honest, is something else. Cancel culture is the idea that someone or some company did (or you think they did) something wrong, so you aren’t going to patronize them, and you are going to try to force other people not to patronize them either.

Probably the classic example of cancel culture in United States history was McCarthyism, where the government used political witch hunts to force people out of their livelihoods because someone said their brother overheard their hairdresser telling someone else they might be Communist.

Anyone who stood by someone accused of Communism was also branded a Communist. Anyone who defended someone accused of Communism was also driven out of their jobs. Anyone who stood up and said “hey, wait a minute…” was branded a traitor and publicly hounded.

The most dramatic recent example of cancel culture was probably what happened to the Dixie Chicks, who incited the wrath of right-wingers by criticizing the Iraq war.

Many people stopped buying their albums. That’s not cancel culture.

However, they also demanded radio stations stop playing their music. They stalked and harassed managers of radio stations that played their music. They sent death threats to radio DJs who played their music. They phoned firebomb threats to venues that hosted their concerts.

That’s cancel culture.

Cancel culture is not “I will not patronize this person.” Cancel culture is “I will make sure nobody else patronizes this person.”

There are a lot of moving parts to cancel culture; while it predates the Internet (and possibly human civilization), the Internet has made it a flash phenomenon, able to incite enormous fury at the slightest breath.

And while in the past it has frequently been dominated by the political right—I laugh every time an American conservative accuses liberals of “cancel culture,” given the Dixie Chicks thing and the Starbucks thing, cancel culture is neither a left thing nor a right thing. Folks of all political persuasions do it.

Some of the key elements of cancel culture include:

Mass outrage. “Look what they have done! They have criticized our President/sold us out to Commies/said a bad thing/whatever! Outrage!!!” Often, the outrage comes with scanty supporting evidence, and frequently it’s presented with the most emotionally laden spin possible.

Appeal to popular narratives. Narratives are powerful. Human beings are a storytelling species; we understand the world through stories. The stories we tell ourselves—”the government is bad and trying to harm me,” “men are abusers; women are victims,” “nothing an opposing politician says is ever true,” “gay men are pedophiles”—shape our understanding and perception of the world. Stories we hear that fit our narratives tend to be believed without question. Stories that contradict our narratives tend to be rejected without consideration.

These two things often work in synergy. Something that contradicts or violates a narrative we accept will often generate a disproportionate emotional response…not only because it introduces cognitive dissonance, but also because these narratives are:

Tribal markers. The narratives we accept become the way we tell in-groups from out-groups. They are, in a literal sense, virtue signaling and identity politics; the people who believe the same narratives are ‘us,’ while those who reject our narratives are ‘them.’

A clearly defined Good Guy, clearly defined Bad Guy, and clearly defined crime—often, a crime against whatever values once made the Bad Guy a Good Guy. In the political right, this tends to be defiance of authority figures the Right accepts (President Bush, Donald Trump); in the political left, this tends to be perception of or accusation of sexual or social impropriety.

This is why the US left and US right accuse one another of “cancel culture” but don’t see what they themselves do as “cancel culture.” We didn’t cancel the Dixie Chicks; we responded to their unacceptable disrespect of our President! We didn’t cancel that comedian; we responded to defend disadvantaged groups from his attack!

Targeting not only of the person being canceled, but anyone nearby. Cancel culture is, by its nature, an attempt to coerce everyone into shunning the person or entity being canceled. The best way to do this? Target anyone who stands by that person or entity. Doing this sends a clear and unmistakeable message: Defend the person we are canceling and we will ruin you, too. People like to think of themselves as upstanding moral entities who will do the right thing under pressure. Threaten someone’s livelihood or reputation and I guarantee, guarantee, the overwhelming majority of those who think of themselves as good, stand-up people will fold like wet cardboard. There’s no percentage in having your own reputation ruined and your own livelihood destroyed for the sake of someone else. 

Intolerance of dissent. This same targeting happens to people who say “hold up a second, are you really sure this is what you say it is? Are you certain this person did what you think they did? Should we hear from this person?” Reminding someone in the throes of a full-fledged righteous wrath that stories have more than one side invites you to be cast out, set on fire, and nuked from orbit.

Rejection of nuance. Cancel culture thrives on self-righteousness. The people who engage in canceling truly, absolutely, 100% believe they are truly, absolutely 100% right. They truly believe they are on the side of the angels, casting out unutterable darkness itself. The idea that there might be anything other than a purely good side and a purely evil side lets the air out of that self-righteousness, and that invites in feelings of shame and guilt.

The trouble with all of this is it allows for no self-reflection and once started, cannot be recalled. The people who phoned bomb threats to Dixie Chicks venues continue, to this very day, to believe that what they did was right…because once you’ve taken that step, how can you sleep at night if you tell yourself ‘no, actually, I was over the top, I shouldn’t have done that’? Once you’ve accused something of some wrongdoing, even if on some level you know it isn’t true, you can’t take it back without the risk of that same outrage machine turning on you; you have to keep going. 

In 1937, Winston Churchill wrote:

Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers from which they dare not dismount.

He was talking about populism, but where populism is the politics of human tribalism writ large, cancel culture is the politics of human tribalism writ small, and the same idea applies. When you’ve saddled up that tiger, you don’t dare dismount lest it stop eating your enemies and eat you instead.

So what does this have to do with political correctness?

“Politically correct” is a fudge phrase. It’s like “respect” that way.

In 2015, a Tumblr user on a now-deleted blog wrote

Sometimes people use “respect” to mean “treating someone like a person” and sometimes they use “respect” to mean “treating someone like an authority”

and sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say “if you won’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “if you won’t treat me like an authority I won’t treat you like a person”

So when you hear the word “respect” in a political conversation, that should raise the small hairs on the back of your neck. Odds are good someone’s about to pull a lingusitic switcheroo on you, and if you don’t pay attention, you’re gonna get snookered.

Sometimes people use “politically correct” to mean “treating other people with decency and compassion” and sometimes people use “politically correct” to mean “adhering to a rigid dogmatic orthodoxy.”

And sometimes people will go into a conversation using it the first way, and when you agree you think that’s a fine idea, they’ll point at you and say “See! You’re just trotting out your identity-politics dogmatism!”

And then whatever idea you’d been advocating gets dismissed as empty virtue signaling.

It’s easy, oh so very easy, to pick up the torch and the pitchfork when you hear something that presses your emotional buttons. And yes, you do have buttons, and so do I, and so does everyone.

Outrage is the enemy of reason. It’s easy to get swept up in the righteous fury of outrage. I’ve done it. I struggle to name anyone who hasn’t. That outrage makes you a tool, a weapon in someone else’s hands…and sickeningly often, if you scratch the surface of justifiable moral outrage over some clear and obvious moral wrongdoing, you’ll find something cheap and tawdry beneath.

Something like money. Or influence. Or political power.

The irony is that political correctness of the first sort—compassion, empathy, a sincere desire to see things from many perspectives, a rejection of the easy and convenient narrative—is actually the antidote to cancel culture, which rests on a foundation of political correctness of the second sort.

But political correctness of the second sort feels better. Picking up the torch and the pitchfork feels good. You feel like you’re in the right. You feel like a superhero. You feel like you’re riding into battle against evil itself. And best of all, you can do it easily, from home, without risking anything!

Funny thing about that. If what you’re doing makes you feel heroic without risking anything…maybe it’s not as heroic as you think it is.

How Facebook convinced me democracy is in trouble

Today, in The Street Finds its Own Uses for Things:

I noticed something funny when I logged into Facebook last week. My feed, which is normally filled with ads for video games, photography gear, and complicated kits for Stirling engines you can build at home, was absolutely jam-packed with ads for far-right pro-Trump merchandise, antigovernment T-shirts and posters, gun holsters, and “conservative news” sites.

And I mean jam-packed. I’ve never seen this quantity of advertising on Facebook before; literally an ad following every single friend post.

The whole secret of advertising on Facebook is you can target your ads. You can specify exactly who you want to see your ads; for example, when we ran ads for the first porn novel we co-authored, Eunice and I targeted people with an interest in reading who were 35 or younger and lived close to a university, figuring this would likely be the sort of person interested in far-future, post-scarcity science fiction smut.

So why would Facebook, that giant creepy Hydra in the cloud, show me alt-right ads when it knows I’m a lefty Portlander?

Because the advertisers know I won’t buy their products. They don’t care. That isn’t why they’re spending tens of millions of dollars on Facebook advertising.


So first, the ads.

I’ve gotten in the habit of aggressively blocking these ads when they appear, and blocking the companies that place them. Doesn’t matter. There are a zillion other companies placing near-ident0cal ads for near-identical products, and sometimes (this is a telling bit) even with the same stock photos.

The ads look lik e this:

If you ask Facebook “why did I see this ad?”, Facebook will show you the demographic the ad was targeting. And these ads are completely ignoring the laser-focused demographics Facebook likes to brag about. They’re shotguns, not sniper rifles.

So why? What’s the point? Why target so broadly, when it increases your spend without generating sales?

So here’s the thing:

I don’t believe they’re trying to generate sales.

That’s not the point. They aren’t interested in selling you gun holsters or T-shirts. I mean, if you buy some, that’s a bonus, but I believe these ads are a propaganda effort. The purpose is to put right-wing slogans and ideas in front of as many eyeballs as possible. They’re advertising ideas, not T-shirts.


The American political right is very, very good at propaganda. Liberals sneer at “Let’s Go Brandon,” the right-wing oh-so-clever “fuck Joe Biden,” but the thing is, it works. The people who use it don’t care that it’s juvenile. It makes them feel part of something. It’s a tribal identity marker.

And human beings like feeling like part of a tribe.

The hoodie up there that says “Proud member of the LGBFJB” community? It means “Let’s Go Brandon Fuck Joe Biden.” VClever? Not really. A great identity brand for a certain kind of person? Oh yeah.

And this brand is everywhere.

Branding and marketing and propaganda matter in political discourse. Arguably they matter more than policies and proposals and all that other wonk stuff.

They want this branding everywhere, and they’re willing to pay to make that happen.

People don’t make rational decisions. People make emotional decisions and then rationalize them. Often, those emotional decisions are predicated on feelings of belonging and inclusion. The right gets that, in its creepy way. The left? Not so much.


The thing is, the political left is doing nothing to counter any of this.

Do I think this Facebook propaganda is working?

Yes. Yes, I do.

It creates the illusion that right-wing ideas are more popular than they really are. It paints a false picture of what Americal looks like and what Americans want. It lets the right dominate the discourse in ways that the left won’t even try to counter.

The modern American right is intellectually and morally bankrupt, a seething cesspool of reactionary hate. But they get propaganda. They get it on an instinctive level, in ways that confuse lefties.

And that makes them far more effective than their numbers and policies alone would suggest.