This is a work in progress, which means you will find contradictions, random jumps and generally incomplete thoughts. An idea often attributed to Abraham Lincoln or Mark Twain (with zero evidence that either one said it) says that it’s better to keep one’s mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt. Here I open my mouth and remove any doubt. Feel free to give your input and comments because frankly while I disapprove of group-think, I believe it can raise useful questions and observations that refine a person’s thoughts and opinions.

I am a strong believer in freedom of speech. There are times I outright hate the results of some of that speech, but to me the freedom to speak is essential for any group of people.

The problem I keep running up against is that I want to say stuff on varying topics, or add to conversations started by others, but it seems like every subject that one can have an opinion on has been hyper-politicized. I’m not afraid to talk about politics but I don’t want my non-political statements being viewed politically when they’re not – and frankly most people seem unwilling to believe an opinion can be non-political

Tell me this: why is it wrong for authors or entertainers to get involved in politics? Aren’t many great works political in nature, and isn’t that what makes them great? So is it, then, that involvement in politics is what’s wrong? Or is it the destruction of an entertainment platform subverted to the political whims of its creator that is the problem?

The purpose of art when not solely for entertainment (“purely entertainment” art should inherently not at all be political) is to make one think, tear apart one’s beliefs and ideas and demand reevaluation of all those “truths” we believe self-evident and absolute.

You can change the world save the world make the world a better place without being political. Everything can be politicized, but not everything is inherently political.

The problem with artists (especially authors) taking sides in politics is that they have then invalidated themselves to talk objectively about something they disagree about. A great artist can not just see the good or bad in all sides of politics but can present it objectively and more meaningfully than flinging mud like everyone else does.

An artist who only seeks to convince people to their side of an argument (through art or simply through sheer celebrity) has betrayed art individually and as a whole (and what a flat world they’ve created, too). Artists of any sort enter into a social contract when they receive money from others for their work. They might become popular, and their work famous, but famous betrayal is still betrayal.

If you have to suppress your political voice and opinions until after you’re rich, you never should let the conversation be your politics, especially when you’ve become separated from reality because of riches. If the two grow up simultaneously or in tandem, those who follow you have been given fair warning or ample opportunity to know this and act accordingly. An artist that has no integrity has nothing, do they? [Note to self: not sure this last sentence fits the context without further explanation]

If your platform is political by nature, that’s one thing, but when your platform is not political and you are, you break the social contract that you entered yourself into on the outset.

You can have an opinion. You should have an opinion. But when you create a book platform or an acting platform or some other such platform, it’s not just rude – it’s disrespectful – to then turn that into a platform for your political machinations. And perhaps you don’t like the word “political” or you think something is more important than “mere politics,” but your opinion, whether backed up or not by others/science/religion/”truth”/organizations/experts/common sense/life/etc., is still your opinion whether you want it to be more than that or not. If you want a political platform (whether you use that word or not), don’t destroy the one you already built by trying to force it to be something you didn’t originally set out to make it. Build a separate, second platform where those who follow your first platform can go if they wish to see your thoughts on politics, but please don’t pretend that your first platform justifies forcing your opinions (and they are your opinions like it or not) down the throats of those who never would have gone near you if you had only ever been political in the first place.

Why are “artists” unable to channel their political views into masterful works that are super powerful and instead have to resort to the mindless humbug and hoohah that any other worthless politician resorts to?

Treading into politics and then “apologizing not apologizing” is placing yourself as superior to those who have followed your works up until that time, telling them they should be involved (in political issue #___) “because I say so” which is really cocky and narcissistic (“I know how the world should work and if you disagree with me ‘f@*# off’ “). When you suddenly go psycho-political with all your art, you destroy your social contract and you betray/hurt/disgust your admirers. They know how and where to turn to for politics (regardless of your implied opinion that they can’t think for themselves and come to similar or different conclusions than you do without your help), and if they had wanted a political discussion/conversation, they would have turned elsewhere, not to their source of entertainment. Yes they may like to know their idols think like they do, but entertainers should be focused on entertaining, not politics. Entertainers who are politicians are no longer entertainers, no matter how deep their entertainment might have been. Think of authors who write under multiple names in order to keep one work/genre separate from another – we respect them for putting the art above them the individual.

I often play devil’s advocate, even when to do so is unpopular or popular. I don’t care if it puts me in the majority or minority, the purpose is to look at things from multiple angles, even if you “know” you already have the correct one. [Note to self: not sure what purpose this paragraph has in this post]

Those who presume to claim the moral high ground cannot employ the same tactics they accuse others of using, because when they do, they become worse than hypocrites for they become the ones who set in motion the decay of all that’s good in the world. I’d argue the opposite is not inherently true: seeing those you claim moral superiority over using the tactics you use does not signify that you inherently are moral. of course it’s also moral hypocrisy to get mad at someone for not playing the moral superiority game. [Caution to self: Check that I don’t fall into the hypocrisies of this paragraph]

It’s not belief in a lie that …It’s keeping our eyes open to the world around us, seizing opportunities.

We cannot all, all the time, handle everything being politicized. Sometimes we need a breath of fresh air that does not remind us of how miserable or difficult our lives are, something that lets us get away from our troubles and worries. If I were to be political, I would not be able to provide that because too often our politics are so intense that it’s unhealthy. Maybe you can accuse me of enabling escapism or not standing up when you feel something needs to be commented on, but I feel it’s just as necessary that people be able to take a step back from everything and refresh for their own mental/emotional/physical/spiritual welfare. Even if only for the sake of mental health, I want to ensure that everyone has a place they can turn to in order to gather their wits.

This week I finally got tired of everybody’s pretend political expertise, which is to say I grew tired of everyone playing the political “holier than thou” game through hogging Facebook, Twitter, news and other feeds rather than realizing that a couple of posts at most is necessary if you’re going to delve into the vocally-political as a means to destroy the respect so many people have for your work(s) or whatever made you famous in the first place, which is all to say that even if you are famous, hogging everyone’s feeds is not going to get your opinions/beliefs across anymore than one or two posts will, an amount which I personally think is more powerful than the pile of dross people are individually spewing out.

Let’s talk politics. Or rather, let’s talk about why I generally avoid politics on this site and on Twitter. Facebook is a different realm to me, but even there if I get involved in politics, it’s usually debate (not arguments) on other people’s political posts.

I realize there are people who use their name or position to promote a political idea or philosophy, and while I respect that, I am of the opinion that children’s authors should strive not to use their name for political movements or agendas at least during the time they’re focused on writing children’s books. I give great credit to children’s authors who pause their political agendas while writing in order to prevent (un?)intentional manipulation of their readers.

I’d have to admit that what I write is probably steeped in a philosophy of sorts, but the purpose is not to promote an agenda. The goal of my writing, if I have a goal, is to make you think, to make you analyze everything you know or think you know, and to cause you to reevaluate all. If I throw politics all over it, I’m using my storytelling to influence you politically.

To me a great example would be J. K. Rowling. She’s been heavily involved in political causes (especially “these days”), but during the writing of Harry Potter, those opinions were not aired to the world (I don’t consider Rita Skeeter and Cornelius Fudge to be “political statements” per se, but I understand if you do). It’s possible the only reason she didn’t constantly spout political statements back then is the fact that she didn’t Tweet during that time, but we don’t really know.

I respect the separation of “entertainment” from politics and politics from “entertainment.”

Of course this does not extend to authors of “adult books” where politics may be the underlying story. Children are easily influenced and very often manipulated, but I don’t want to be one of those people manipulating kids. To me, that’s straight up wrong.

Although I know many people will disagree with this, I don’t view human rights or the violation of human rights as a political subject. To me, these should be immune to political squabbles, but unfortunately they aren’t. And of course this raises the question of how I distinguish what’s political and what’s not, because “couldn’t I just say anything’s not political and then talk about it?” Hypothetically yes, but I’ll lay a groundwork frame. [note to self: remember to do this]

What are your thoughts on political statements in children’s books?

We like to push boundaries in life, yet in defense of drowning media and entertainment with politics, we rely on the argument that “it’s always been that way.” Surely I’m not the only one who sees the contradiction of mindset?

Original: Scatological humor (“potty jokes”) has been with us since the times of Ancient Greece, but does that glorify it? Does that make it a form of noble entertainment?

Revised: The ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes is known as the “father of comedy.” Best known for his play Lysistrata, Aristophanes’ works were often a commentary on life and politics. Perhaps his most effective methods relied on scatological humor. Yes, “potty jokes” have been around since ancient times, but does that fact glorify them? Does it make them a form of noble entertainment? Or, rather, does it speak to Aristophanes’ skill that he could take the crassest of forms and successfully raise it on a pedestal?

creating a platform and then using that platform for other means/purposes is to play a game of bait and switch.

This section begins to forget that I’m writing about entertainers, shifting towards a general assessment on political conversation as a whole:

A thought-provoking Tweet I think I love:

Whatever the outcome, I love that there’s a vote on #brexit. US might be a stronger union if states had that argument every few decades.

— Adam D. Bradley ن (@docbradley) June 24, 2016

An idea often attributed to Abraham Lincoln or Mark Twain (with zero evidence that either one said it) says that it’s better to keep one’s mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt. [Here I open my mouth and remove any doubt]

…

If you have nothing to add to the conversation, you do accomplish nothing more than creating an echo chamber, repeating ideas that others have repeated that and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated. It’s because of repetition that lies are spread instead of truth, that great quotes are falsely attributed, that the guilty go free and the innocent are condemned. We like repetition when it benefits our side, even if that repetition requires a lie, but the true seeker of truth needs to get over her or his own ego and destroy the false echo chambers as often as possible. Only then can truth be freed.

Non-politicking