Yes, I know, I'm a little bit late this week with my second post. I do have a good excuse, but as a supervisor thoughtfully opined the other day, "The truth makes a poor excuse." (yes, this was her actual retort when I told her the truth about why I didn't do something), so instead of uttering the truth, we'll simply continue to stumble along in willful ignorance while you think of a good lie to tell me in the comments that will pass for a good excuse for being late with a post. The more outlandish, the more believable it will be.
Anyways, I was motoring through my day trying to think of something, anything actually, to blog about. I had a few thoughts swirling about, but nothing of any real consequence formed solidity. I thought about family, and the lack of everyone being in the same place at the same time, but then I thought, "Nah, who wants to read about me whining about my family? What's the fun in that?"
So, I hooked onto the next swirl, gambling. I figured since my post on smoking was a homerun (got two shares on Google+), I could write one on gambling. But alas, it wasn't meant to be. Whereas I put a little time, effort, and research into the smoking post (when a post takes me 1 1/2 hours to write, you can bet your sweet bippy that it's gonna be a winner), there was no way in H-E-Double-Toothpick that I was gonna put that kind of effort into a post being written on short notice.
Finally, I decided to try one last time to hook on another swirl: SEX.
February 27, 2015
February 23, 2015
When Ya Gotta Pimp, It Better Be Eye Candy Personified
Time now for the pimping...um...marketing segment of Father's Nature Corner, because after all, talking about my writing is one of the three original tenets of my blogging career, with the other two being my acerbic/mellow wit and something else that momentarily escapes my snow hazy (got socked with bi-weekly snowstorms since January 1st) memory.
Over this past weekend that featured several inches of non-soft fluffy white stuff, I received a very small order (like 5) of print copies of my latest novel, which are available for roughly 30% off the Amazon cover price for the wickedly low price of $7.50 plus tax.
Additionally, I have available for purchase, the original version of the same novel, also at the same ridiculously low price of $7.50 plus tax.
And as an added bonus if you act now or in the future, I will throw in absolutely-positively-no-silly-strings-attached-free-as-a-wind-swell-on-a-beach, a copy of my short story trilogy Broken Promises, available from Smashwords in all major formats.All the details and samples that you can possible want/need/crave/must have can be had at Books By G.B. Miller:
To purchase a copy of the aforementioned books click on this link.
To sample the book before buying, click on this Smashwords link.
To read the synopsis, click on this link. Please note that the link redirects to my adult blog.
And finally, if you want to check out the Amazon reviews for Line 21, you can click on the Amazon link.
Finally, I take both plastique (PayPal), money orders and if you're really adventurous, that funky green stuff with the pictures of famous dead people.
(c) 2015 by G.B. Miller. All Rights Reserved
February 19, 2015
Socialized Media
Yesterday (2/18), I decided to perform another installment of migrating myself from my personal Facebook page to my public Facebook page. So the first thing I did was to take advantage of the new "call to arms" button that they added to all the business pages, by creating a "shop now" button for people to purchase my modest output of books.
And like most new things that I try for the 1st time, I had issues setting it up. Every time I added my Books by G.B. Miller addy, Facebook would give me an error message. So after having no luck using IE11, I moved to Chrome and still had the same problem, although I did get a more specific error message. I gave it some very tiny thought, then decided to experiment by putting in my Tumblr book blog addy. Imagine not to my surprise, it took the Tumblr addy without a problem.
So apparently the fact that my Blogger book blog addy is still in Facebook jail (went hardcore about a two years ago pimping my commercial debut) is preventing me from using it as a direct link to that "shop now" button. Which in my opinion sucks major giraffe testicles.
I really didn't want to use the Tumblr addy for "shop now" button link, as it would require people to click on way too many links to get from there to my Blogger book blog. So, I did the next best thing: I added the link to Cedar's Mountain. Now before you start telling me that I made a faux paux, let me tell you that I did no such thing. If you click on the link, the one and only post that pops up describes all four books that I have out, each one complete with a very short background dump plus direct purchase links.
I'm not a proponent of blanket censorship, only very selective common sense censorship (and most of you know I have a very high tolerance of strange stuff). And the one thing that absolutely pisses me off, is when someone who isn't me labels a benign link of mine as suspicious, which in turn prevents me from using it on a given website.
So a happy camper I am not today. I don't like it when I finally decide to take a specific action on something after waffling about it for a few months, only to have an annoying semi-permanent glitch pop up to rain on my parade, or as Judge Judy would famously titled her memoir about her time in family court, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
(c) 2015 by G.B. Miller. All Rights Reserved.
And like most new things that I try for the 1st time, I had issues setting it up. Every time I added my Books by G.B. Miller addy, Facebook would give me an error message. So after having no luck using IE11, I moved to Chrome and still had the same problem, although I did get a more specific error message. I gave it some very tiny thought, then decided to experiment by putting in my Tumblr book blog addy. Imagine not to my surprise, it took the Tumblr addy without a problem.
So apparently the fact that my Blogger book blog addy is still in Facebook jail (went hardcore about a two years ago pimping my commercial debut) is preventing me from using it as a direct link to that "shop now" button. Which in my opinion sucks major giraffe testicles.
I really didn't want to use the Tumblr addy for "shop now" button link, as it would require people to click on way too many links to get from there to my Blogger book blog. So, I did the next best thing: I added the link to Cedar's Mountain. Now before you start telling me that I made a faux paux, let me tell you that I did no such thing. If you click on the link, the one and only post that pops up describes all four books that I have out, each one complete with a very short background dump plus direct purchase links.
I'm not a proponent of blanket censorship, only very selective common sense censorship (and most of you know I have a very high tolerance of strange stuff). And the one thing that absolutely pisses me off, is when someone who isn't me labels a benign link of mine as suspicious, which in turn prevents me from using it on a given website.
So a happy camper I am not today. I don't like it when I finally decide to take a specific action on something after waffling about it for a few months, only to have an annoying semi-permanent glitch pop up to rain on my parade, or as Judge Judy would famously titled her memoir about her time in family court, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
(c) 2015 by G.B. Miller. All Rights Reserved.
February 16, 2015
Smoking? It's All Good!
The other day I was doing some serious thinking (and I knew it was serious 'cause I saw smoke coming from my ears) about a popular vice that perpetually have all segments of society up in arms, and after I had finished, I thought, "Let's see what kind verbiage I can spew for on an unsuspecting readership." "This will be a cool topic to write about!"
It's funny how a major vice can be looked at/viewed/considered with such diverse opinions, yet for the most part, has been portrayed in a (mostly) positive-to-neutral light, with shades of hypocriscy thrown in for good measure.
Now I'm sure you're asking this blogger, "How in the world can smoking be portrayed in positive light? Are you mad?"
Frankly, no. But before I answer part one of the question, let me give you a very brief background dump.
I am a non-smoker, although I did try it when I was a teenager (really smart since I have asthma). Never got addicted, which made it a helluva lot easier to quit. I've had friends who were smokers, and for the most part we got along fine. I've had a few late family members who were smokers, of at least one who passed away from cancer that was related to smoking. I do not push my views on others and although I am somewhat hypersensitive to smoke, that's more due to working in smoke free buildings for the better part of 20 years than anything else.
Now, to elaborate, I am not mad when it comes to tobacco. While I don't smoke, I do have some fond memories of tobacco in my lifetime. For example, my next door neighbor was a hardcore pipe smoker, so I got to know almost instantly whenever he was outdoors. When I used to deliver the morning newspaper, there was an older gentleman who drove down my street smoking a big cigar. He would drive down my street at the exact same time every day, so it was easy to tell whether or not I was running behind with my deliveries.
And like a certain segment of the population, I do enjoy the aroma of a good quality cigar, as well as good quality pipe tobacco. I also feel that when a person smokes a good quality cigar, they give off an aura of self-confidence that can drift into arrogance. Which is why I will sometimes write a scene or two that features my characters smoking quality cigars (usually with Connecticut tobacco, which is a cut above most domestic tobaccos).
I do differentiate between cigars and cigarettes, because for the most part (in my opinion), cigarettes fill a necessary junkie-style fix. Feel the same way about chew as well, And above all, cigars give you better bang for your buck, because you get quality over quantity all the time.
However, there lies the hypocrisy.
One of the ways that all 50 states set their budgets is an over-reliance of the so-called "sin tax", which in this particular case, is heavy taxation on tobacco. In Connecticut, the state minimum for a pack of non-generic/non-Indian cigarettes, after you factor in the various taxes, is roughly $8.75, not including sales tax. So if you're a cigarette smoker in Connecticut, to buy a carton of cigs will cost you roughly a week's salary, which is roughly $100.
To put that in proper perspective, when I started working grunt retail in 1986, the price of a pack of cigarettes was $1.25+tax. When I left grunt retail in 2001, the price per pack was about $2.75+tax and a carton of smokes would run you about $25+tax.
Now, most states have anti-smoking programs, and some, like New York, feature some seriously depressing PSA's to nudge you in the direction of quitting. Problem is, they and everyone else, doesn't really want you to quit. The more smokers that quit, the more the budgetary bottom line gets destroyed. Less smokers equals less taxes collected which equals less revenue. And since most states are purely incapable of performing fiscal restraint (mine is notorious for that), you know that having lots of ex-smokers is a very bad thing. Ex-smokers means raising taxes yet again.
Bottom line: smoking, while not good for your health one bit, is good for your economic well being. And because it's good for your economic well being, you know damn well that states are going to find ways to recruit the younger generation to smoke, thus filling up those financial coffers yet again.
So this realist says, if you're gonna smoke, spend your money on good quality cigars. Less habit forming and it makes you like you got some brain cells in that noggin of yours. Because as you know, quality trumps quantity, and in today's world, quality is the name of the game.
(c) 2015 by G.B. Miller. All Rights Reserved.
It's funny how a major vice can be looked at/viewed/considered with such diverse opinions, yet for the most part, has been portrayed in a (mostly) positive-to-neutral light, with shades of hypocriscy thrown in for good measure.
Now I'm sure you're asking this blogger, "How in the world can smoking be portrayed in positive light? Are you mad?"
Frankly, no. But before I answer part one of the question, let me give you a very brief background dump.
I am a non-smoker, although I did try it when I was a teenager (really smart since I have asthma). Never got addicted, which made it a helluva lot easier to quit. I've had friends who were smokers, and for the most part we got along fine. I've had a few late family members who were smokers, of at least one who passed away from cancer that was related to smoking. I do not push my views on others and although I am somewhat hypersensitive to smoke, that's more due to working in smoke free buildings for the better part of 20 years than anything else.
Now, to elaborate, I am not mad when it comes to tobacco. While I don't smoke, I do have some fond memories of tobacco in my lifetime. For example, my next door neighbor was a hardcore pipe smoker, so I got to know almost instantly whenever he was outdoors. When I used to deliver the morning newspaper, there was an older gentleman who drove down my street smoking a big cigar. He would drive down my street at the exact same time every day, so it was easy to tell whether or not I was running behind with my deliveries.
And like a certain segment of the population, I do enjoy the aroma of a good quality cigar, as well as good quality pipe tobacco. I also feel that when a person smokes a good quality cigar, they give off an aura of self-confidence that can drift into arrogance. Which is why I will sometimes write a scene or two that features my characters smoking quality cigars (usually with Connecticut tobacco, which is a cut above most domestic tobaccos).
I do differentiate between cigars and cigarettes, because for the most part (in my opinion), cigarettes fill a necessary junkie-style fix. Feel the same way about chew as well, And above all, cigars give you better bang for your buck, because you get quality over quantity all the time.
However, there lies the hypocrisy.
One of the ways that all 50 states set their budgets is an over-reliance of the so-called "sin tax", which in this particular case, is heavy taxation on tobacco. In Connecticut, the state minimum for a pack of non-generic/non-Indian cigarettes, after you factor in the various taxes, is roughly $8.75, not including sales tax. So if you're a cigarette smoker in Connecticut, to buy a carton of cigs will cost you roughly a week's salary, which is roughly $100.
To put that in proper perspective, when I started working grunt retail in 1986, the price of a pack of cigarettes was $1.25+tax. When I left grunt retail in 2001, the price per pack was about $2.75+tax and a carton of smokes would run you about $25+tax.
Now, most states have anti-smoking programs, and some, like New York, feature some seriously depressing PSA's to nudge you in the direction of quitting. Problem is, they and everyone else, doesn't really want you to quit. The more smokers that quit, the more the budgetary bottom line gets destroyed. Less smokers equals less taxes collected which equals less revenue. And since most states are purely incapable of performing fiscal restraint (mine is notorious for that), you know that having lots of ex-smokers is a very bad thing. Ex-smokers means raising taxes yet again.
Bottom line: smoking, while not good for your health one bit, is good for your economic well being. And because it's good for your economic well being, you know damn well that states are going to find ways to recruit the younger generation to smoke, thus filling up those financial coffers yet again.
So this realist says, if you're gonna smoke, spend your money on good quality cigars. Less habit forming and it makes you like you got some brain cells in that noggin of yours. Because as you know, quality trumps quantity, and in today's world, quality is the name of the game.
(c) 2015 by G.B. Miller. All Rights Reserved.
February 12, 2015
Write Me A Story Daddy!
The other day, as per the typical norm, I was bored on my computer. Reading my blog subscriptions wasn't doing it for me, Facebook wasn't doing it for me, and I certainly wasn't motivated to actually WRITE a blog post. So I did what I usually do when I'm bored: I go on YouTube to watch music videos.
So went searching for a song, specifically a song which was cover of a Bee Gees song that I'd heard on the radio a week ago. First I thought it was done by Primus (because the band in question sounded like Primus) so off to a search I did go. Didn't find it, so I went searching for Bee Gee songs. Didn't find it either as I couldn't quite remember the snippet needed to find the song. But, while I was searching, throwing words together to form song titles, I somehow threw the words "American" and "Pie" together, and you can pretty guess what I came up with: multiple versions of the song.
However, I did come across a wickedly cool short film version of the song, which I would like to share with all of you. It's been one of my favorite all time story songs, and for those who don't know what a "story song" is, in a nutshell, it's considered to be both a good bathroom break song and the ultimate in flash fiction. I didn't realize it at the time, because I thought those kinds of songs were decently constructed, but decades later, they really were tightly compacted and exceptionally structured short stories. Harry Chapin was a very good proponent of writing those kind of songs (Cats In The Cradle and Taxi are two fine examples), and most artists have at least one song in their catalogue that qualifies as a story song, and at least one artist has built an entire career out of two versions of one perennial story song.
This one, however, has apparently spawned not only other covers, but interviews with other musicians who expound on the overall influence of this song to this day. You be the judge of the one song that Don McLean came to loathe so much that for years he refused to play it in concerts.
(c) 2015 by G.B. Miller. All Rights Reserved.
So went searching for a song, specifically a song which was cover of a Bee Gees song that I'd heard on the radio a week ago. First I thought it was done by Primus (because the band in question sounded like Primus) so off to a search I did go. Didn't find it, so I went searching for Bee Gee songs. Didn't find it either as I couldn't quite remember the snippet needed to find the song. But, while I was searching, throwing words together to form song titles, I somehow threw the words "American" and "Pie" together, and you can pretty guess what I came up with: multiple versions of the song.
However, I did come across a wickedly cool short film version of the song, which I would like to share with all of you. It's been one of my favorite all time story songs, and for those who don't know what a "story song" is, in a nutshell, it's considered to be both a good bathroom break song and the ultimate in flash fiction. I didn't realize it at the time, because I thought those kinds of songs were decently constructed, but decades later, they really were tightly compacted and exceptionally structured short stories. Harry Chapin was a very good proponent of writing those kind of songs (Cats In The Cradle and Taxi are two fine examples), and most artists have at least one song in their catalogue that qualifies as a story song, and at least one artist has built an entire career out of two versions of one perennial story song.
This one, however, has apparently spawned not only other covers, but interviews with other musicians who expound on the overall influence of this song to this day. You be the judge of the one song that Don McLean came to loathe so much that for years he refused to play it in concerts.
(c) 2015 by G.B. Miller. All Rights Reserved.
February 9, 2015
Vertically Challenged In A Bent Position
I've been having one of those months again, and it's still creating all kinds of havoc with my sanity. You know, those months. The kind of month in which you simply want to do a drive-by bitch slap on every single yahoo who is not your co-worker that has the audacity NOT TO ENGAGE BRAIN BEFORE PUTTING MOUTH IN GEAR.
The kind of month in which you really need a bathroom break song to find some kind of chi for your chai.
"Hey G.B.! What's a bathroom break song?"
Glad you asked. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the phrase "bathroom break song", here is a short explanation.
Back in the day, when radio stations used to play semi-fresh music and the jocks had brain cells, there would be the occasion where said jock would need to use the facilities. And since he or she was the only one there behind the mic, a very long song would be in order, usually those that would start clocking in at the 15+ minute mark. Like....
"Whipping Post (live)" by the Allman Brothers.
"Dazed and Confused (live)" by Led Zeppelin.
"Time Has Come Today (album cut)" by The Chamber Brothers.
"I Heard It Through The Grapevine (album cut)" by CCR.
"In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida (album cut)" by Iron Butterfly.
You get the basic idea.
Anyways, I got to thinking this past week (when am I not thinking) that it's high time I start doing something to puncture the ever expanding bubble of stress that has seem to encompass my waking hours.
So a couple of weeks ago, I decided that I needed to move forward, however incrementally, with my writing. In order to do that, I dug out from the dark recesses of my Timeline a well worn plan of attack:
1} Dig out the floppy binder that has one completed story and first four pages of another, and edit/take notes.
Like I said, I'm having one of those months again, in which not only every possible yahoo has bothered me to the point of wanting to do a drive-by bitch slap, but
Entering stage left is G.B.'s muse, who had decided to stop by this morning to see how things were going with her mentor, and suffice to say, she did not like what she was seeing. She quietly walks up behind and carefully places two fingers on his temple. Roughly a minute later she removes her fingers and frantically blows on them to kill the pain. Exhaling sharply, she quietly pulls out a syringe, taps it a couple of times, then jabs it hard into his buttocks. Shocked at first, G.B. quickly slides out of his chair to visit the ever popular la-la land, conveniently located on the ground. The muse grabs under his arms and gently places him on the ground. She lightly kisses his forehead, then takes a seat at the computer.
The kind of month in which you really need a bathroom break song to find some kind of chi for your chai.
"Hey G.B.! What's a bathroom break song?"
Glad you asked. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the phrase "bathroom break song", here is a short explanation.
Back in the day, when radio stations used to play semi-fresh music and the jocks had brain cells, there would be the occasion where said jock would need to use the facilities. And since he or she was the only one there behind the mic, a very long song would be in order, usually those that would start clocking in at the 15+ minute mark. Like....
"Whipping Post (live)" by the Allman Brothers.
"Dazed and Confused (live)" by Led Zeppelin.
"Time Has Come Today (album cut)" by The Chamber Brothers.
"I Heard It Through The Grapevine (album cut)" by CCR.
"In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida (album cut)" by Iron Butterfly.
You get the basic idea.
Entering stage left is G.B.'s muse, who had decided to stop by this morning to see how things were going with her mentor, and suffice to say, she did not like what she was seeing. She quietly walks up behind and carefully places two fingers on his temple. Roughly a minute later she removes her fingers and frantically blows on them to kill the pain. Exhaling sharply, she quietly pulls out a syringe, taps it a couple of times, then jabs it hard into his buttocks. Shocked at first, G.B. quickly slides out of his chair to visit the ever popular la-la land, conveniently located on the ground. The muse grabs under his arms and gently places him on the ground. She lightly kisses his forehead, then takes a seat at the computer.
February 4, 2015
ISWG Post #6!
 |
| IWSG |
No, it's not hump day. No, it's not Prince Spaghetti day. And it's definitely not Sweet Polly Purebred.
It's the post that ya'll been waiting fer, that post that only pops up on the first Wednesday of the month so that all us insecure writers across the blog-o-sphere can share all of our individual experiences, the gud, the baaaaaad and the plug ugly.
Believe it or not, I had a real problem in coming up with a topic, simply because work has been kicking my buttocks from here to there, and from there to here.
Fortunately, one presented itself not less than 3 minutes prior to sitting down in front of this computer.
Deadlines.
As a writer, collectively we are used to working with ultra-tight deadlines so that we can have a shiny new product ready for the finicky people (i.e. editors, agents, beta readers) who we are beholden to. We may not like those kind deadlines, but its a necessary evil in our chosen line of work.
And then there are those deadlines that are self-inflicted.
You know the kind I'm talking about. Those arbitrary deadlines that we impose on ourselves to either motivate us (HA!) or destroy us (that's the ticket). In my particular case, those artificial deadlines that I've imposed on myself in the past few years have been for the most part, epic flame outs. The last solid deadline that I made for myself and managed to keep, was re-releasing my commercial debut. I wanted to get it back out last year, and I managed to do just that.
Prior to that, most of the deadlines I've inflicted on myself have been absorbed so much fluid as to make them utterly useless. But I still keep trying to bring some desperately needed order to my writing life by setting these deadlines, in the faint hope that I'll actually act upon them.
How 'bout you? How do you handle deadlines, self-inflicted or otherwise?
(c) 2015 by G.B. Miller. All Rights Reserved.
February 2, 2015
Hypocrisy
One of the two main reasons why I started blogging in 2008 (one was to practice my writing) was to get rid of the hypocritical censorship that was being inflicted on me in the chat rooms. The website in question, Topix.net, would often selectively enforce its own T.o.S. when it came to "offensive" postings, so that if two people wrote a similar comment about something, one would get punished and one would not.
So at the suggestion of a cyber friend, I moved myself to the blog world, where I didn't have to deal with any censorship issues. That lasted until I decided to practice the art of self-censorship, in which I would pop a short paragraph warning people about the content of a particular post. I also applied my self-censorship to two of my blogs (one active, one not) so that people would have a choice on whether or not they wanted to visit the blog.
I bring this up because I'm now seeing firsthand the hypocritical/insidious practice of selectively censoring images/content on Facebook, and I thought it would be a good idea to share a little of my FB world with my readers.
Apparently, Facebook has a serious issue with the male body, specifically, eye candy and/or gay portrayals of everyday occurrences and/or male modeling.
There is a photographer, Michael Stokes Photography, who advertises/shares his work on Facebook and who has been threatened/harassed by Bible Thumpers (a derisive term that is used to describe some conservative Christians who go far above and way beyond the accepted definition of what a conservative Christian is) because of it. This harassment has basically resulted in him getting thrown into FB, banned from posting and threatened with having his personal & professional pages merged together.
A few weeks ago, after another atrocious banning that stemmed from showing two gay actors sharing a kiss, a friend of mine formed a page called End Abusive Actions & Features on Facebook. This page for formed with two goals in mind, to bring attention to the abuse being inflicted on Mr. Stokes (who also had a cover of a book about the Holocaust pulled as well) and the hypocritical nature of the censorship as it applies to the LGBT community.
According to Facebook, and to a greater extent, what the average user sees/experiences, unless you're a big corporation (i.e. ESPN with their annual Body Magazine issue) or an icon in the gay community (i.e. Mr. Star Trek George Takei), if you post any image that shows the positive of being a male gay person (sorry for the weird phrasing) or semi-explicit nude of a guy, you can get the photo binged and you purged for 30 days.
Unless you're showing a semi-explicit nude picture of a woman or a semi-explicit lesbian scene, then you're basically okay.
The link up above to the story is just one of a growing crop, domestically and internationally, that is asking about the lack of consistency of Facebook's Standards & Practices. In ye olden days, I honestly think that FB would probably give lip service to this kind of issue, However, since they're a publicly traded company, they have no choice but to pay attention to it.
Because, as you all know, not all publicity is good for a company, especially if its bad publicity about a legitimate problem that the company has chosen to treat in a cavalier manner.
By the way, Blogger is very consistent about what it does and does not allow on their website for content, and has actively suggested to those thinking about posting that type of content (i.e. provocative and or X/NC-17 rated) to try either WordPress or Tumblr.
In the end, it doesn't really matter what your personal view point is on certain issues within the LGBT community, what matters is that people should be able to write/show what they want and/or what they do for a living, free from harassment/threats/censorship.
(c) 2015 by G.B. Miller. All Rights Reserved.
So at the suggestion of a cyber friend, I moved myself to the blog world, where I didn't have to deal with any censorship issues. That lasted until I decided to practice the art of self-censorship, in which I would pop a short paragraph warning people about the content of a particular post. I also applied my self-censorship to two of my blogs (one active, one not) so that people would have a choice on whether or not they wanted to visit the blog.
I bring this up because I'm now seeing firsthand the hypocritical/insidious practice of selectively censoring images/content on Facebook, and I thought it would be a good idea to share a little of my FB world with my readers.
Apparently, Facebook has a serious issue with the male body, specifically, eye candy and/or gay portrayals of everyday occurrences and/or male modeling.
There is a photographer, Michael Stokes Photography, who advertises/shares his work on Facebook and who has been threatened/harassed by Bible Thumpers (a derisive term that is used to describe some conservative Christians who go far above and way beyond the accepted definition of what a conservative Christian is) because of it. This harassment has basically resulted in him getting thrown into FB, banned from posting and threatened with having his personal & professional pages merged together.
A few weeks ago, after another atrocious banning that stemmed from showing two gay actors sharing a kiss, a friend of mine formed a page called End Abusive Actions & Features on Facebook. This page for formed with two goals in mind, to bring attention to the abuse being inflicted on Mr. Stokes (who also had a cover of a book about the Holocaust pulled as well) and the hypocritical nature of the censorship as it applies to the LGBT community.
According to Facebook, and to a greater extent, what the average user sees/experiences, unless you're a big corporation (i.e. ESPN with their annual Body Magazine issue) or an icon in the gay community (i.e. Mr. Star Trek George Takei), if you post any image that shows the positive of being a male gay person (sorry for the weird phrasing) or semi-explicit nude of a guy, you can get the photo binged and you purged for 30 days.
Unless you're showing a semi-explicit nude picture of a woman or a semi-explicit lesbian scene, then you're basically okay.
The link up above to the story is just one of a growing crop, domestically and internationally, that is asking about the lack of consistency of Facebook's Standards & Practices. In ye olden days, I honestly think that FB would probably give lip service to this kind of issue, However, since they're a publicly traded company, they have no choice but to pay attention to it.
Because, as you all know, not all publicity is good for a company, especially if its bad publicity about a legitimate problem that the company has chosen to treat in a cavalier manner.
By the way, Blogger is very consistent about what it does and does not allow on their website for content, and has actively suggested to those thinking about posting that type of content (i.e. provocative and or X/NC-17 rated) to try either WordPress or Tumblr.
In the end, it doesn't really matter what your personal view point is on certain issues within the LGBT community, what matters is that people should be able to write/show what they want and/or what they do for a living, free from harassment/threats/censorship.
(c) 2015 by G.B. Miller. All Rights Reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)