The Internet Wars

The internet is a strange place -- sometimes wonderful, sometimes destructive.  During the pandemic the internet was a source of connection, but it also revealed how outlandish and brazen people can be when protected by the anonymity of a screen.  Over the last few years I've found some extremely helpful resources that wouldn't readily be available to me otherwise, but I've also scratched the surface of how distressing it can be when nothing is vetted in a free-for-all environment.

Recently I saw a few instances of how damaging it can be when everyone shares freely...or when no one takes time to closely consider what is being said.  I was part of an adoption support group on social media; there were two posts in quick succession that immediately raised red flags.  Both posts were seeking advice on issues that adoptees have clear thoughts on, yet the commenters were nearly unanimous in supporting the original posters (whose inclinations centered themselves instead of their children).  In both instances there wasn't a lot of grey area, despite what the posts suggested.  I find this happens quite often; posters look for help with claims that their situations are unique and therefore make a potentially troubling solution acceptable, yet nearly always the situations are anything but unique and the attempted justification is simply an end-run around what should be.  On both posts I spoke up to ask questions and offer a dissenting viewpoint -- not to argue for the sake of arguing, but to point out that the adopted parents were doing a real disservice to their children by not acknowledging that doing what is best isn't always the easiest or most comfortable route.  In both posts I was accused of not being supportive of the parents, despite my repeated insistence that the parents' convenience should not have been the priority.  While I already intended to leave the group given the nature of what it deemed "supportive", I never got the chance; I was removed instead by the admin.  While the outcome would have been the same, I was disheartened that disagreement was seen as disruptive instead of potentially productive.  The need to be right won over the need to not be self-centered, and before I was removed I mentioned that a parent-centered mentality is partly what gives others such a dim view of adoption.  There was no willingness to accept any self-responsibility, and such groups continue to flourish (without me as a member).  I'm certainly no expert on anything, but Little Man's arrival forced me to slowly start doing the hard self-reflection required to be his parent.  Humility isn't easy, but it's essential.  I feel for the children of those who aren't able or willing to do the same.

That very same night, I checked Twitter and stumbled across a post reporting that in Florida there was a move to ban the book "Chocolate Me!" by Taye Diggs with illustrations by Shane W. Evans.  This is a favorite of Little Man's, so it immediately caught my attention.  The book is about a little Black boy who questions why he is so different from his friends and comes home wishing he was more like them.  His mother reminds him that being Black is beautiful and how grateful she is for him.  It's a lovely book about self-acceptance, so why does something find this objectionable?  The official reason given for wanting to ban the book was "discussion of race", which to me is precisely the point.  Given the positive message of this lovely story, one has to wonder why someone thinks it is worthy of banning rather than celebration.  Someone who objects to the discussion of race is showing much more of themselves than they realize.  Much like the people in the social media groups I encountered, dissent is somehow more dangerous than progress.  I can't always change others' perspectives, but to not try ensures change will never occur.