Be a Hydra. When Someone Tries to Chop your Head Off, Grow Two More.
When a woke mob tried to take down Bret Weinstein at Evergreen University in 2017, he was known to a few hundred students. All of his actual students loved Bret and stood up for him, but their peers who had drank the adrenaline-fueled kool-aid were dead set on their witch-hunting mission. Well, their attempts to silence him backfired. Sure, they may have succeeded in pushing a frightened administration into firing Bret, but the university has been on a downward spiral ever since. Meanwhile, as of the publishing of this blog post, Bret's YouTube channel has 387,000 subscribers. That figure does not include his podcast subscribers across other platforms. The mob may have won the battle, but they lost the war. In case you're not familiar with the story, Weinstein was vehemently accused of racism, surrounded and ultimately trapped by mobs of students screaming at him for hours. His crime was refusing to participate in a "day of absence" that a BIPOC group insisted all white students and faculty must adhere to as a symbol of solidarity with their community. He was responding to an email chain amongst faculty and staff, and voiced his opposition to the notion that they should adopt this requirement. Historically, that student organization had organized its own voluntary "day of absence" to bring awareness to their presence on campus. As classically liberal Weinstein pointed out, he has never had a problem with any group voluntarily choosing to absent itself in the name of any cause. His problem was that now, one group was demanding that another group should absent themselves. He refused to participate on matter of principle, because it is his belief that discrimination based on skin color is destructive and regressive. He also voiced a concern that if white people were expected to absent themselves as a sign of solidarity, then any who chose to attend that day, regardless of their reasoning, would be framed as racist, and possibly subject to a cascade of social consequences. The way the mob responded to him only confirmed this. I agree with Weinstein that we don't accomplish any genuine progress for society by encouraging segregation or discrimination based on skin color. If anything, it's a frightening step backwards. I also agree that it's one thing to say, "my friends and I are going to stay home from school today," and quite another to say, "if you care about us, you shouldn't go to school today." Some people care about healing intergenerational trauma. Some only care about seeking intergenerational vengeance. Don't underestimate the difference. One has the potential to end cycles of violence, while the other reinforces it. Weinstein's story teaches us many lessons, some more alarming than others. But there's at least one positive narrative to take from all this: courageous people can learn to become like hydras. Chop off our heads and we'll grow two back. I will be fully documenting all attempts to censor my freedom of speech.
An email I received this week:
Hi Stephanie,
[Name redacted] here with the Brighter Vision Support Team.
We've been contacted by someone claiming that you are violating the rules of a Facebook group that focuses on marginalized experiences of neurodivergent people by sharing screenshots and words that came from the group. Here are links to the blog posts they brought to our attention:
https://realtalktherapypdx.com/2654-2/
https://realtalktherapypdx.com/therapy-is-ableism-and-other-reckless-assumptions/
I can understand mistakes happen and you may have not been aware of these rules. If you'd like I'd be happy to help edit the content of these blog posts so you're no longer violating the Facebook group rules or I can just remove them.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this.
All the best,
My response:
Hello [name redacted],
I appreciate your help and that of other BV staff over the past year-plus that I've been working with you. However, I am bewildered by your attempt to control my freedom of speech.
The consequences of violating the rules of a Facebook group are that a member can be removed from the group. Knowing this, I voluntarily chose to leave the group. If you know of any laws or relevant contracts that state that violating the rules for membership of a given Facebook group can result in censorship outside of that group, I would be very interested in taking a look, and sharing that information with other advocates of free speech.
One of my reasons for leaving the group is that there is little tolerance in the group for viewpoint diversity. The fact that members have attempted to impede my freedom of speech outside the group by posting nasty comments on my blog and complaining to my website host further confirms my concerns about the tenor of this community, which seems vehemently opposed to free speech and unable to engage in the kinds of respectful, nuanced, adult dialogue that are necessary to help society move forward in the long haul.
I don't see how any of this is Brighter Vision's business or responsibility, or what gives you the authority to remove my blog post. I am also unsure why it's necessary for you to re-state the supposed intentions of that group; it gives me the sense that you have a bias in their favor. I am well aware of what that particular online community believes itself to be about, and I was in that group because I shared those values. However, obviously I have a divergent viewpoint about how best to fulfill those intentions. I am a mental health professional and I believe I have a moral obligation to address concerns about how members of my own community may be behaving in ways that are ultimately detrimental to mental health. My blog is an outlet for expressing those concerns, and it is a service I pay you to maintain.
In the first article, I used screenshots with names and pictures removed, and no identifying information. This being 2021, by now we have all seen thousands upon thousands of pictures on the internet in which people screenshotted one another's words and posted them elsewhere for commentary. Again, I accepted that the natural consequences of doing so in this case are that I am no longer a member of said group.
In the second, I quoted the author's words. I have had a private chat on Messenger with that author. She read my blog post and finds it reasonable. I can send screenshots if that interests you, but I'm not sure why it would be necessary, and I don't appreciate being put in a defensive position by a representative of a company I have hired to host a vehicle for my expression.
I have not violated any laws, and the content of my blog does not contain harassment, hate speech, threats, or any other inappropriate behavior. If you wish to persist with the attempt to control my freedom of speech, please show me where in my contract with Brighter Vision it states that BV has the authority to control the content of my blog. Or you may escalate this situation to a manager, or let me know how to transfer my website's hosting to a different company.
Regards,
Stephanie
Their reply:
Hi Stephanie,
Thank you for the reply.
My intentions with this email were to relay to you that someone had contacted us regarding your blog posts and to let you know that we are here to help with any edits to the posts should you need. It is important for us to let our clients know about these types of complaints.
All the best,
And finally, here's my last response.
Thanks for clarifying. I had initially gotten the impression that you were saying I had only two options: remove the posts, or edit them per your specifications. I’m glad to know those were only offerings, not requirements. All the best to you.
