Dear Subscriber,
Censorship of Reading Increases While Teen Reading Decreases
In my research, I’ve discovered that while reading overall is decreasing, the rate among teens is even worse. If you combine this with the increase in censorship (both by Conservative and Liberal folks), it doesn’t bode well for a rise in fascist or communist powers and reactionary groups who get most information from peers and/or social media powers, who are now (thanks to Clarence Thomas and his crew) giving a free pass to the online controllers of social media when it comes to terrorists (i.e. anybody protesting violently in the streets) because of being “groomed” by special interest groups online.
Remember: “Grooming” doesn’t necessarily have to be by sexual perverts. Corporations and special interest and/or politically correct groups can do it also.
This article seems to show that teens in the U.S.A. are reading less than they ever did. I would hazard a guess that reading for entertainment has also lessened in older age groups, as well as in the young. As a teacher for over 30 years, in the classroom, online, and in hybrid formats, this frightens me. Why? Pay attention, and I’ll show you. On the other hand, if you’re a teen and/or the person who no longer reads for longer than fifteen seconds on a screen, then you probably won’t. I will give three examples why reading and deep diving into topics is necessary for clear critical thinking for the modern human mind:
Example 1: Conservative Moms for Liberty Groups
To all the religious and non-sectarian trans and homophobic parents: Please remember that “forbidden fruit” is often what children search for if they don’t get an impartial explanation about realities in the world that are legal and accepted by their peers and by others. If they don’t become informed by their parents and/or teachers, then they will become informed in other ways.
On the other hand, it doesn’t mean trans and gay lifestyles should receive “special treatment” over and above other lifestyles, which is often the case.
But as long as these lifestyles and marriages are protected by the Federal Government (which may change), then parents should consider discussing, without bias, the realities of those lifestyles with their children. Or else, the “forbidden fruit temptations” will work against the entire family structure. When their children turn legal age, at any rate, it will be a moot point.
Example 2: Scientific Study Requires Freedom of Inquiry for Both Students and Teachers
Example 3: Giving a Free Pass to Giant Social Media Corporations
I find the fact that Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion on this decision to be quite ironic. He’s being investigated for showing favoritism and accepting gifts from billionaires. Using basic international common sense one would believe that the only advanced technology most developing nations have is cell phones. This means that the terrorists who use social media to organize other terrorists for recruitment understand how directly they can inspire violence. It seems the Supreme Court doesn’t understand that fact.
Clarence Thomas and the current conservative court always look through the lens of United States capitalism. The parties they protect are the biggest capitalists. They don’t seem to care about countries that have no democracy or capitalism infrastructure as yet. If these giant social media companies like Google and Twitter are not being held responsible, then what happens when/if there are organized and home-grown terrorists in the United States, such as occurred in Washington D. C. on January 6, 2021? Are the companies again not responsible for the ensuing violence, even violence by police and arresting officers?
In fact, if/when an authoritarian government comes to power in the United States, even a fascist dictatorship, then won’t these gun manufacturers and big technology communicators also be shielded from harm the way they were in Nazi Germany when the people tried to fight their power over them? The banks are also being shielded from paying back what they owe, which began in 2008 with the “too big to fail” bail-outs from the People. The People were able, at one point in the U.S. history, to live from the interest they placed in their bank accounts, fully protected by the Government. In fact, in 1980, you could get 19% interest in your bank savings account!
Today, only the very wealthy can afford to take the risks and who have the power to make money from their investments. This is true, even though the highest paid professionals work in investments and not the jobs open to most citizens.
