Three Ways to Be Naked

1.

When I was six years old

I was so afraid of skeletons

that I wished I didn’t have one.

Living with death as the foundation of your body

is like

Sharing a fleshy home

with your mortality as a roommate.

Ten years later, I was a goth kid

wearing the skeletons in my closet.

Sometimes bones are too bare to bear.

I tell women,

“If some guy annoys you by asking for nudes,

tell him,

‘I’ve got something better. These are next level nudes.’

And then send him your X-Rays.”

2.

I think stripping is the opposite of therapy.

Instead of laying out your insecurities as laundry to be ironed,

Dancers disrobe to put on

an invincible, cybernetic self

with a glitter aura,

Slick with Teflon-coated sweat.

In therapy, you pay someone else

to watch you undress.

Calling an analyst a “shrink”

is saying we’re diminished by therapy

When it’s more like dancing under a microscope.

3.

People look at others

with the eyes of a hungry surgeon

and see themselves

through Photoshopped funhouse mirrors.

Instagramming our meals is just a next-level selfie.

A selfie is, “Look at my face.”

A food picture is, “…and look what goes into my face!”

We consume ourselves and each other

Jumping bones

Finding bones to pick

Picking bones clean.

We make fun of selfies, but

Every great work of art throughout history

has essentially been a selfie,

Creators calling out, “I am here!”

Graffiti tagging the walls of time.

It turns out

The emperor has never had clothes.

But he’s always had a damn good Snapchat filter.

Why does night feel supernatural?

The world feels supernatural at night, because nighttime opens up more possibilities for imagination. I think this is for three reasons.

You might be thinking less about work or daily practicalities. There’s more time for introspection. Even if you’re not tired, you’re also slipping more into a dreamlike state which allows for abstraction.

Another reason is that shadowy spaces naturally spark our imagination. Sometimes it’s in a fearful way, but fears can be creative.

Also, it’s because we can see the stars. This always feels like magic. Preexisting formations make us want to create; outer space absorbed into inner space. The galaxy reminds us of the seemingly endless expanse we can begin, bit by bit, to fill with ideas. 

Well-behaved doggos rarely make history.

This was Slinky, 1995-2010. She was the worst-behaved dog I ever had the pleasure to know.

In this photo, she’d been outside and had gotten her dog bed all wet from the rain. So, ever the problem solver, she stuffed herself into the cat bed to get that one soggy instead. She was sneaky, but not especially clever. One time somebody put a Milk Bone on her head. She just sat there, looking increasingly confused, until it fell off.

Slinky’s eyes looked like she was wearing smeared makeup reminiscent of Alice Cooper. Her ears were so long she used to trip over them as a puppy. Her first owner used to put them up on her head in a scrunchie.

My dad had explained our pets by saying, “Freckles is a good dog, but Slinky is a funny dog.” This was accurate. She must have been the inspiration behind the phrase, “And on that day, not a solitary fuck was given.”

This dog wouldn’t beg for treats or attention. She would demand it. Whenever somebody new came to visit, she’d “bork” at them incessantly, roll over, and frantically move her tiny legs in a “pet me” motion. Her immediate assumption was, “Well, you’re here for ME.”

Slinky didn't fear other animals, but was afraid of balloons because of the popping sound. She was even wary of bubblegum because of the balloon resemblance. She used to knock over the trash can and spread it all over the floor in a greasy, reeking treasure trail that looked like her art project. My brother once filled the garbage can with balloons to discourage this (and it worked).

Slinky was never picky about food. If somebody made chicken and then dumped the grease outside, she’d run out and start licking the grease off the leaves.

She devoured bags of chocolate and candy, but somehow never got sick. Our other dog, Freckles, was the tattletale. Freckles woke me up one morning because she urgently wanted to show me something. She led me up the stairs, stopping to check if I was following. She brought me to an ajar door and started scratching. Inside, Slinky was consuming Halloween candy with the fervor of someone binge-watching a Netflix show.

There are plenty of other “bad Slinky” stories, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind. Slinky, you were completely comfortable in the wrinkly Basset Hound skin that made you look like a melted candle. And whenever I hear PTAF’s song “Boss Ass Bitch,” I think of you.

Reaching new Hawthorne Heights

I went to Emo Night at Orange Ale House yesterday and fucking loved it.

I didn't consider myself an "emo kid" in the genre's heyday. I used to make fun of it, and pop punk, while rationalizing that the music I liked wasn't actually in that category. It was part of the whole "I'm into metal and emo is just flimsy tin foil" mentality. In hindsight, it was so silly to be elitist about. I love a variety of music, but there are three appeals of emo and pop punk (for me): the nostalgia, the surrounding community that bonds over it, and the fact that the lyrics are melodramatically angsty but the songs are upbeat and energetic.

I was happy to see the variety of ages. There were people in their thirties who remembered Good Charlotte and Death Cab for Cutie. There were the 22-year-olds screaming along to Paramore. There was music I remember from eighth grade. It spanned from the early to late 2000s. Some people dressed up. Others were people who used to wear fishnet shirts and Chuck Taylors, but still love the scene even if they don't sport the style anymore. It's more about the music and social bonds than the clothes. We came of age in the time when scene first reared its shaggy bleached head, and you had to drape your hair over one eye because the world was too sad to look at with both.

I saw so many people I knew. We were all bouncing in a continuous wave while skeletons and mummies danced over the projection screen. People wore glow necklaces as halos. We passed around a microphone and yelled into it together. Those unfamiliar with this subculture might think it's confusing how the lyrics "I can fall asleep tonight or die, because you kill me" could be sung with such joy.

Experiences like that are unique because you're in a crowded space with everyone talking, but you know what they're all saying. You're speaking the same words, but the lyrics mean something different to everyone. "There's a story at the bottom of this bottle" could remind someone of booze-fueled open mic nights, while reminding somebody else of soda bottles they stored money in as a child. Everyone has their own story at the bottom of a different bottle, and all of these bottles are floating in one wave, mixing their contents.

At some point during the night, a guy tried to pick me up by saying, "You look sad. What's the matter?" I bet that's his designated line to use at emo night. My sister told me, "That's not negging; it's therapisting."

One time the music stopped and a host yelled, "Here's something to dry these emo tears!" and then showered us with streamers and Silly String.

When I went into the room with all the music, Mike worried I'd been swallowed by the crowd. Then he saw that I loved it. Any night that ends with me jumping up and down and covered in Silly String is a good one.

When someone presses the "dislike" button

Lessons that, for most of us, can be very hard to swallow:

-The fact that a person dislikes you doesn’t always mean they don’t know you well enough.
-The fact that someone dislikes you doesn’t automatically mean they are an asshole. It also doesn’t mean that you’re an asshole.
-It’s okay to not be fond of somebody who likes you. The same goes for vice versa.

On the first point: We all want to believe that everybody would like us if they knew us better, and that any person’s aversion is based on misinformation. Unfortunately, this isn’t true. If a person looks at me and doesn’t like what they see, it doesn’t necessarily mean their lenses need a new prescription. They could be seeing real flaws that are deal breakers for them. They could be seeing personality traits that are objectively neither good nor bad, but are simply not compatible with themselves. They could be seeing qualities that remind them of bad memories or sometimes their own insecurities. I’m not for everyone, and neither are you. This is all right. It’s not okay for somebody to be nasty and hostile, but we’re all allowed our own feelings. If I do have a flaw that is consistently pointed out, then it’s my responsibility to work on it. However, I shouldn’t do it with the end goal of winning any specific person’s friendship. It also doesn’t help to bury oneself in shame. That can actually stop us from making improvements.

Regarding the second point: Sometimes a person will dislike you for a terrible reason. They may be bigoted or prejudiced. They may have a prior commitment to animosity because of malicious intentions, and that does reflect badly on their character. They might just feel unfavorable toward most people. But, in other circumstances, there could be valid reasons for an aversion. The most common reactions seem to be to vilify the person who doesn’t like you, or to internalize it and decide there must be something wrong with you. As I said, it doesn’t have to mean any personal failing for either party. It could just be incompatibility.

As for the third point: Although we’re much more apt to like people who appreciate us, the fact that someone is fond of you doesn’t mean you’re obligated to return that feeling. That doesn’t mean it’s justifiable to be a jerk, but you’re not an unkind person for not wanting to hang out with them or be close. Likewise, it’s not weird or pathetic to like somebody who doesn’t seem interested in you. In that case, it helps to not internalize their disinterest (although that’s easier said than done), and it’s important to respect their boundaries and not push a relationship.

There are complex reasons for why some people click with each other and others don’t, and it doesn’t always reflect on character. It’s easy to get hung up on the people who don’t like us, even if we get along well with most people. The helpful thing is to do the best we can, and find those who both understand and enjoy us. There are plenty who will.

"Thirteen Reasons Why," and the problem with stories about young suicide

I’ve seen some posts about a new Netflix series based on a novel, “Thirteen Reasons Why.” It’s a young adult story, but it resonates with a lot of adults as well. I want to explain why the premise of this book troubles me. It’s not an isolated theme; I have seen multiple popular books follow this storyline. To be clear, I’m not criticizing anybody who enjoyed the book or the Netflix series. This story moved many people, and you have a right to enjoy whatever you do. Also, I’m not saying the author had no right to write this. I am very wary of artistic censorship and don’t want to discourage creativity. But I believe that in the interest of compassion and good taste, some topics ought to be approached more thoughtfully.

“Thirteen Reasons Why” is about the suicide of a 17-year-old girl named Hannah who was bullied. Shortly beforehand, she recorded a series of thirteen cassette tapes. They were sent to thirteen people, explaining why each of them were responsible for her death. A friend of hers had agreed to anonymously deliver them. The narrative is told through the perspective of Clay, a boy who Hannah addressed on one of the tapes. He has just received them and is listening to her story.

I spotted the book in a store a few months ago and was put off by the premise. Then I learned it was a bestseller and that it’s even on the summer reading list of some high school teachers, intended to help them understand teen bullying and suicide. They facilitate group discussions on this book. I recently watched the first episode of the series on Netflix. Not because I was drawn in, but because I wanted to see if my initial impression would hold up.

The introduction opens with a sketchy animated bicycle, drawn in the style of the animations from Juno. I like that style, but there was something a little jarring. It set the tone for something twee and cute. The first episode begins with a shot of the recently deceased Hannah’s locker, adorned with layers of adoring notes from her classmates. “I love you,” “I miss you,” “You were so beautiful.” There are hearts and paper flowers and a photo of her smiling and gorgeous. She narrates from the first scene, speaking from her cassette tape. This makes it seem like she’s watching and aware of how everyone reacts.

As the episode plays out, there are several issues made apparent. The first is that her suicide, while accurately portrayed as tragic, is romanticized. I get the impression that it’s supposed to be poetic. It sends the message that killing yourself in high school will immortalize you as young and beautiful. It will redeem your own transgressions and leave everyone in awe of you, talking about how wonderful you are. It’ll be a great form of revenge, leaving everyone sorry for any way they’ve done you wrong. You’ll be a high school celebrity preserved in a heart-shaped photograph behind rose tinted glass.

This is the last message that a high schooler struggling with mental health issues needs to absorb. I know because I was one of those kids. If this book had come out when I was fifteen, I would have eaten it up with a spoon. This was partly because of life situations and partly because of innate depression. Some people dismissed it as attention seeking. While I did seek unhealthy attention in my mid-teens, the self destruction was not insincere. It stemmed from genuine distress and genuine crises in my environment. While “Thirteen Reasons Why” would not have influenced me to kill myself, it would have lured me into further fixation with that topic. I would have romanticized it, believing the horrible cliché that suicidal people are “just angels who want to go home.”

Overwhelmingly, people don’t have helpful beliefs about suicide. Many vilify those who do it, saying they are selfish and cowardly. Others will almost canonize those who have made that choice. Although these responses are opposite, both come from the glorification of suffering. 

People who condemn victims of suicide feel that suffering is meaningful, and that you are cutting corners if you end your life to escape. That’s why they call it cowardly. (Some may have been traumatized by a loved one’s suicide and are angry, feeling abandoned. That’s understandable, but becomes harmful when used to condemn everyone who feels suicidal.) On the other hand, people who romanticize suicide victims seem to believe that suffering, in itself, makes you noble. It’s the idea that a person is a hero because they experienced terrible pain. It is true that many of us find meaning in our pain and can use that to develop more empathy. But framing suffering as heroic only encourages people to become stuck in such suffering, and can discourage others from offering help. This shows up in every societal level, from interpersonal relationships to political “bootstrap theory.”

Help needs to be delivered in more than one form. You need friends and social relationships, but friends are not therapists and shouldn’t be placed in that role. Emotional support is distinct from depending on one or several people to solve all our problems. I have made that mistake in the past, and have been on the receiving end as well. It’s a huge weight to hear somebody say, “You’re the only one I can count on” or “You’re the only reason I can get up in the morning.” If you have mental health problems yourself, they can be triggered by that type of emotional drain. At the same time, many people with those problems are afraid to reach out because they think that talking about it at all will be a burden. This is why balance needs to be sought, and more than one type of help is needed. Friendship and therapy can’t replace one another.

In stories like “Thirteen Reasons Why,” the message is that suicide could have been prevented if others reached out, and that unkind treatment drives people to suicide. It’s true that many people have said they decided to continue living because others were helpful. It’s true that social isolation and bullying contribute a great deal to suicide, especially for teenagers. It’s hard to envision a world outside of high school when you’re that young. But in “Thirteen Reasons Why,” Hannah explicitly blames the people on her tapes. Some of the acts committed against her were horrific, while others were petty. The author wanted to communicate that even seemingly trivial things can add up. That’s true, but the kids in the story who committed the less aggressive acts will now spend the rest of their lives shackled to the idea that they made her kill herself, all for getting jealous or gossiping or making a hurtful comment. They did all of these things as kids. This doesn’t mean they weren’t responsible for their behavior, but I don’t think a person should be damned for life because of a shitty thing they once did in high school. The author, Jay Asher, may not have condoned her behavior. But the overall story conveys the idea that these kids were responsible for her death and that suicide is an appropriate act of revenge.

Hannah sends the tapes to Clay and, in the beginning, states that he is one of the reasons she is dead. But then later, in the ninth tape, she apologizes for implicating him in this. She tells him he is the nicest person she ever met and that he didn’t make her feel suicidal. She says she had actually fallen in love with him and wished they had more time together.

I know the audience had to wait to hear Clay’s tape in order to create suspense, and to offer a cliffhanger. But in the context of the story, it was cruel. It came across as manipulation. She knew he had feelings for her and had been a good friend. Hannah initially blamed Clay—knowing full well that he had never harmed her—and then strung him along to make him listen, only to basically say, “Just kidding; it wasn’t your fault.” All of this sounds terrible. And adding that she would have been his girlfriend if she had chosen to live will haunt him for the rest of his life. He will always wonder if he could have prevented this.

It’s relevant to the plot that Hannah is beautiful, which the other characters respond to with jealousy and frustrated attraction. I can see how that would play into the story, but it implies that her death was even more of a loss because she was pretty. I have never found a story about an unattractive girl who died tragically. This isn’t only an issue with “Thirteen Reasons”; it’s an ever-pervasive theme. As it adds up, it drives home the message that pretty girls’ lives are more valuable. Specifically waifish, doe-eyed, white, artsy, indie, middle class or wealthy girls. They are the source of endless fascination, the Manic Pixie Dream Girl whose life came to a tragic end. This is a trope I call “Manic Pixie Dead Girl.”

It’s notable that much of the bullying was slut-shaming. The author may have intended to show that slut-shaming causes damage, but that message was diluted by the fact that Hannah had never done the sexual things she was accused of. It was repeatedly stated that she was “innocent,” that she had never done more with Justin than kiss him. Not only that, but it was her first kiss. The rumors were presented as even worse because they were lies. But why should it matter whether or not it was true? Isn’t it wrong for people to bully others about their sex lives to begin with? How was it anybody’s business if Hannah had hooked up with Justin, or whether it was her first kiss or her fiftieth? The gossip wasn’t bad because it was untrue; it was bad because it was judgment in the first place.

I’ve heard a lot of people say they liked this story, including some who have been bullied and have been suicidal. Jay Asher has said that numerous teens have reached out to him to thank him for writing the book. I’m glad it has been helpful for so many. I’m happy this book exists for them. Maybe my reaction is unusual, but some of these implications worry me. Suicide shouldn’t be portrayed as a cute, quirky hipster trend; as a way to make others sorry; or as a way to gain permanent love.

Why I Encourage Ex-Trump Supporters

It is annoying to hear a former Trump supporter become regretful for selfish reasons. It’s tiresome when they regret their vote only because they are getting screwed over, not because they care about anyone else’s struggles. There is bound to be some “serves you right” schadenfreude that accompanies this, as that’s a natural reaction. That being said, I have recently been seeing an influx of blogs and thinkpieces making fun of regretful former Trump supporters. I’m concerned with the ones that explicitly say, “I don’t want you to change your mind. You made your bed; now lie in it.”

If this sentiment comes from people who are most directly affected by his policies, I get it and am not going to suggest you respond differently. But I’ve seen a whole lot of this generated by middle class white people who are not Trump’s targets. Your feelings are valid—and, again, a sense of “I told you so” is normal. Even so, it’s counterproductive to tell Trump supporters, “I don’t want you to change your mind.” That’s effectively saying, “I don’t want you to learn. I don’t want you to become a better person.” When it comes from a middle class, white, non-immigrant citizen, it sounds privileged. When a person supports Trump for bigoted reasons, privileged people are the primary ones who can afford to tell them, “I don’t want you to change. I want you to stay bigoted because then I can feel gratified when bad things happen to you.” A marginalized person is more likely to want bigots to change their minds, because that affects their lives.

This is how I feel when people gloat about Trump supporters losing their health insurance, particularly if the gloater has secure health insurance and a good job. “If I’m going down, I’m taking you with me” is understandable, even though I disagree with the idea. But “I’m doing fine and I want you to lose your basic safety” is not something I can support. This comes down to “You made this choice; now suffer the consequences.” I agree that Trump supporters need to face negative consequences in order to understand the harm. However, no lesson is learned if those consequences include dying because they can’t afford treatment of a manageable disease. They also won’t learn if they lose access to higher education, as they will be deprived of resources that may enable them to change their minds. Saying that a person should be allowed to die of cancer because they’re a Trump supporter is still saying that people should be allowed to die of cancer if they can’t afford treatment. It’s supporting a system in which people lose their healthcare. This is similar to saying that rapists should be raped as punishment.

I don’t believe anyone is obligated to reach out to Trump supporters, but there is a difference between reaching out and just refraining from saying, “Don’t change your mind.” Within the far right, this is used to deter members from looking into other perspectives. They tell them, “See? Even if you change your mind and your whole way of thinking, the left will never accept you.” This is not the reason why Trump supporters think the way they do, but it doesn’t help the situation.

If some ex Trump supporters never move beyond primary self-interest, then that’s wrong. Still, the fact that they initially changed their minds because a policy affected them doesn’t mean they’ll always look at it with self-interest. It can start out that way, and then branch out into concern for others who are unlike themselves. A complete about-face rarely happens within one conversation. It can take years. The fact that someone is ignorant now, or is just starting to come out of it because they were harmed, doesn’t mean they’re forever irredeemable. When they are first starting to question their previous assumptions, that is when they most need encouragement from those who are willing. Encouragement is different from undue praise. It’s saying, “I’m glad you’re now seeing it this way. There are many ways in which he’s harming this country, and I’d like to talk about this more.”

How many of us on the left have improved our own values over the years? By improvement, I don’t mean becoming more ideologically pure. I mean compassionate, and nuanced, and understanding of potential. A hard leftist who says “I hope none of the Trump supporters ever change their minds” is by no means the moral equivalent of a Trump supporter who voted for him because they hate immigrants and condone sexual assault. I don’t know how much hope there is for the latter (although I’d like to think there’s hope for everyone). But to forget that we have also come from places of ignorance, and that we have sometimes been motivated because we were personally hurt, is to make ourselves morally unimpeachable. That position can become dangerous, no matter who it’s assigned to.

When the underprivileged are not political

I often hear the opinion that saying “I’m not political”, or choosing to avoid conversations about politics, is an act of privilege. That only sheltered people have the option of non-involvement. I would agree that if you’re personally effected by an issue, you are far more likely to care about it. I also recognize that people who are poor, or non-white, or immigrants, or women, or not straight, are often judged as “being political” when they’re just relaying their everyday experiences, because their existence itself is deemed political. All of this is true. But there are also ways in which marginalization can prevent political focus. Here are some examples.

A person who is homeless and living on the street is more likely to be focused on the basics of everyday survival than on contemplating political topics. If you’re expending all your time and energy trying to find food and shelter, you’re not going to spend hours reading about politics on the internet. You (most likely) won’t attend marches. You don’t have money to donate to causes, and can’t boycott products because you need to take what you can get.

Back in the fall of 2011, I was involved with the Occupy movement in New Haven. I’m glad to have taken part, as I learned a lot and met some wonderful people. Many of them made efforts to give to the homeless people on the New Haven green, which was good. They gave them food and offered a media platform to those who wanted one. But not every homeless person was enthusiastic. Some of the Occupiers were sleeping in tents on the green, and a homeless woman informed me she didn’t like it because “me and my friends need this space.” There was a notable moment when a fellow Occupier tried to high-five a homeless man in solidarity. He shook his head, clearly not enjoying the gesture. I’m not going to assume that none of the homeless people cared about politics, but many were too focused on their immediate needs to invest themselves in philosophical theories and keep up on current events.

If a person is not homeless but still living in urgent poverty, they may be too busy to pay attention to politics, get involved in community organizations, or similar things. They could be working so many hours that they barely have time to sleep, let alone dedicate large blocks of time to an ideology.

Additionally, mental health can play into this. I know people who disengage from social justice issues and choose not to involve themselves in political conversations—not because they’re apathetic, but because it will throw them into a psychological crisis. Extensive involvement in these things can be very detrimental to some peoples’ mental health, particularly if they struggle with depression, anxiety, PTSD, or agoraphobia. There are people with these conditions who choose to be involved, and that’s perfectly fine. But I respect the choice to disengage for their own well-being. Sometimes the ones who are most impacted by these topics are the ones who most need to pick and choose their battles, or else they strain themselves to the breaking point.

Some who are impacted by these social issues don’t have access to education that will teach them about it. Some are politically invested, but not liberal. I know people of marginalized identities who have right-wing values. Some don’t have the time, and others care so much that it drains them and they need to maintain distance for the sake of their health.

Many privileged people are involved in politics—and that can be a problem when they’re out of touch with others. It’s true that privilege can also play into non-involvement or apathy, but it can be more complicated than that.

Ethical publishing, and the bleach-blond elephant in the room

Roxane Gay, the author of “Bad Feminist,” is someone I greatly admire—both as a writer and as a person. She was recently set to have a book published by Simon & Schuster. She decided to cancel the deal upon learning that TED Books, a Simon & Schuster imprint, is going to also publish a project by Milo Yiannopoulos. In her words, “I can’t in good conscious let them publish it while they also publish Milo.” (While her book wasn’t going to be published by the same specific group that published Milo, there is a company link. TED is a Simon & Schuster offshoot that publishes works by conservative authors.)

I have heard of other authors making similar decisions. There are Thought Catalog writers who have pulled their work from the site because it provided a platform for some sexist, homophobic, and otherwise bigoted perspectives.

This is a decision I respect, and I understand the reasoning. This is a self-sacrificing choice for an author. They’re losing exposure and sometimes money for the sake of their principles. Roxane Gay acknowledged that she is financially comfortable enough to do this. She said she is “in a fortunate enough position to make this decision, so I’m putting my money where my mouth is.” Her ideals, combined with her understanding that not everybody can afford to make monetary decisions based on ideals, is one of the many reasons I respect her.

And if I were in that position, I am not sure I would make the same choice.

Part of this is because I am financially dependent and have nearly no income. I’m also an unknown writer with very few platforms. However, there’s a second reason I might make a different choice.

Milo Yiannopoulos is a thoroughly repugnant person who is not just an irritation, but a danger. He is a spokesman for the neo Nazi movement. If every author who stands against his beliefs were to pull their books from a publication, one of two things would happen.

Scenario one: The publishing company will stop selling his writings, and the writings of any of his peers. They will cease to give him a platform, and he will receive no more money from them.

Scenario two: With all progressive (or at least not regressive) voices gone, what will remain of that company’s clientele will be hateful, bigoted perspectives. They will become the voice of the company. In order to keep their business afloat, they will cater solely to that crowd and seek out more far-right extremists. Far-right fanatics who were previously obscure will then gain more publicity and a bigger following. It will become an expanding alt-right echo chamber.

Hopefully Scenario One would be the result, but I would be too afraid of the second scenario to risk that. If Scenario Two were to happen, I don’t believe in any way that the authors who pulled their books would be at fault. It is not their fault that there are scary hateful extremists in the world, and it is understandable they would want no affiliation. This is more than understandable; it’s ethical.

We would be hard pressed to find a company that has never published anything offensive, no matter how many forward-thinking authors they also include. Regardless, there’s a difference between publishing a garden variety “family values” crank, and publishing a Nazi sympathizer. Unfortunately, a company could point to their progressive authors whenever they want to evade responsibility for Milo. They could say, “We’re not sexist or racist or anti-Semitic; we published Roxane Gay!” Roxane Gay was most likely aware of that, and chose to circumvent the possibility.

It is also possible that a far-right author could refuse to publish with Simon & Schuster because they publish liberals. They could just as easily say, “I won’t work with them, because I want no affiliation with leftists.” The more outnumbered they are, the less comfortable they feel in that space.

I commend Gay for that value judgment, as well as anyone else who would share that conviction. Notwithstanding, I wouldn't fault a person who said, “I’m not going to take my voice away from this company. It contains a regressive voice, but it can also contain mine. Mine will counter the ignorance. And hopefully more voices will join my own, so my peers within this company will outnumber the bigots.”

Either decision can be based on honorable principles. I just hope the people with those principles win out, wherever they choose to publish their work.

The complex philosophies of MLK

Part of what makes Martin Luther King, Jr. such a fascinating figure is how he has been interpreted in so many different ways. Over the years, his quotes have been used—and misused—to promote completely opposite agendas. This isn’t because he contradicted himself; he didn’t. Rather, it’s because his ideas are more complex than many understand. They’re used in a similar manner to religious scripture. It is ironic, and very harmful, when a white person thinks they can claim ownership over his philosophies and tries to use him to discourage black activists.

These are some of my favorite quotes of his, all of which are frequently cited to argue he believed in one thing—and then referenced by others to claim he believed the opposite.

There are people (mainly white social conservatives) who will claim King believed in “colorblindness” and thought that distinct races should not be recognized or delineated, that race shouldn’t even be addressed. They cite this quote of his: “I look forward confidently to the day when all who work for a living will be one with no thought to their separateness as Negroes, Jews, Italians, or any other distinctions.”

But when that quote is used to support a “colorblind” perspective, let’s remember that MLK also said this: “I know there is strength in the differences between us. I know there is comfort where we overlap.” (Audre Lorde, a black socialist feminist philosopher, later elaborated on this sentiment when she said it is not our differences that divide us, but our failure to celebrate those differences.)

There are people who emphasize MLK’s pacifism with these quotes:

“We must learn to live together as brothers, or we are going to perish together as fools.”

“Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.”

“Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.”

And yes, King was anti-violence. Unfortunately, too many white people who are opposed to Black Lives Matter and other pro-black movements will use those quotes to say those groups should stop addressing racism. They label every protest a riot and mistake pacifism for passiveness. MLK never said people should accept abuse with a smile, nor that hating one’s oppressors is just as bad as the oppression itself.

In fact, he said: “But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.”

He received a lot of hate for that statement.

There are those who will argue he was a moderate because of his stance on nonviolence. However, nonviolence doesn’t mean he supported a “middle ground” or refused to take sides. In that regard, this is what he said:

“First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Klu Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice, who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action’, who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a ‘more convenient season.’ Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is more bewildering than outright rejection.”

Interestingly, the vlogger Kat Blaque made a video in which she recited that quote, and a commenter then called her a hateful extremist. She replied that it wasn’t her quote; it was something said by Dr. King.

Along the same vein is this statement from MLK: “The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be…The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.”

Some will claim King was a capitalist because he said, “Communism forgets that life is individual.” But, within context, this is the complete quote: “Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social. And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor in the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis.”

Some say MLK was a feminist because he famously said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” But he never called himself a feminist. Ella Baker, a high profile Civil Rights activist of the ‘60s, left the Southern Christian Leadership Conference because King didn’t want women to be leaders within it. However, he did support women being ordained as ministers, which was unusual at the time. As wonderful as King was in regards to racial justice, he didn’t address gender equality in all the ways he could have. He wasn’t perfect. But his wife, Coretta Scott King, spoke at feminist conferences and later supported gay rights.

There are conservatives who argue that MLK was against affirmative action because he said he wanted his children to be judged by the content of their character. But he also said, “Society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro.”

So Martin Luther King was a very intriguing thinker and activist. He said things that people on both the right and the far left would disagree with, as well as agree with. Much of his approach was inspired by liberal Christianity. Try as many might, he can’t fit into a specific box. This is because his specialty was in breaking down barriers, whether they be boxes or red tape or walls. And, although he is no longer living, I believe he can still break down any wall that an infamous leader may want to build today.