I used to love Stephen King as a writer. I still consider It, Firestarter, and The Stand some of my favorite Stephen King novels. As a kid I remember sitting terrified in the house alone, reading Misery, and starting at every noise, with my dad’s revolver by my side… just in case.

Such was the intensity of King’s writing.

As I grew up, I began to slowly understand King’s politics, and although I disagreed with nearly all his views, I admired his ability to keep me in suspense and evoke horror, trepidation, and anxiety.

Oddly, his works never evoked joy or relief – only a feeling of dread, as I swallowed entire works, sitting home alone sick from school, which happened quite often. I never really thought about that before…

Over the past decade, King became ever more liberal, ever more unhinged – especially after Donald Trump was elected President – and ever more willing to kow-tow to the screeching progressives who used their Twitter accounts to amplify their shrieking for social “justice.”

Legislators, you need to impeach Blabbermouth Don or force him to resign before he kills us all. He is no longer competent to serve as Chief Executive, if he ever was.

— Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 3, 2018

Stephen King rarely tweets about his work as an author anymore. His days are spent squealing hysterically about Donald Trump and apologizing to the “victims of the day” about the latest perceived slight they happened to have unearthed on his Twitter feed.

Stephen King doesn’t stand up to the unhinged histrionics of the squawking proglodytes like JK Rowling did recently when she refused to lick social justice zealot taint after she tweeted out her support for a researcher who was fired for saying that although transgender individuals can change their outward appearance, male-to-female transgenders remain male and can never be, biologically, “women.”

In other words, a scientist was shitcanned for stating scientific fact, and Rowling – while definitely a liberal – also understands that firing someone for their views is abhorrent to the very idea of freedom, and firing a woman scientist whose findings and research don’t support the social justice zealot cause du jour, is repugnant to the very idea of women’s rights.

And for that, the social justice zealots decided that Rowling needed to be “canceled.”

But this is JK Rowling we’re talking about. The woman wrote some of the best selling books of all time. She has a gargantuan fan base and Scrooge McDuck levels of money. She doesn’t need neurotic transgender activists to support her. So when they demanded she genuflect at the altar of political correctness and issue an apology, Rowling simply stayed quiet. And when psychotic transgender activists magnanimously offered to reeducate her, Rowling’s reps simply gave them the finger.

A rep from GLAAD also tells Variety that the organization reached out to Rowling’s PR team and offered to facilitate an off-the-record discussion between the best-selling author and members of the trans community. Rowling’s reps declined.

Stephen King, however, is not that brave.

In a recent tweet – ostensibly in response to criticism that the Oscar nominations this year are woefully lacking “people of color” – Stephen King surprised me by bravely and honestly contending that he would never “consider diversity in matters of art.” He wrote “It seems to me that to do otherwise would be wrong.”

Ooooooh, that will never do, Mr. King.

And sure enough, the social justice outrage was palpable!

UNCONSCIOUS PREJUDICE!

YOU HAD AN EASIER TIME GETTING PUBLISHED THAN PEOPLE OF COLOR! (For the record, King started writing short stories in 1967 and was so poor, he couldn’t pay a traffic fine until he sold a short story. He didn’t even get his first book accepted for publication until six years later. You know what he did? He worked. He wrote. He submitted his work for publication tirelessly. Meanwhile, NK Jemisin – whom everyone worships as a science fiction woman of color goddess of some sort who overcame all these obstacles – had her debut novel nominated for the 2010 Nebula Award, and short-listed for the James Tiptree Jr. Award. Her debut novel – that’s her first one – was also nominated for the Hugo Award, and the World Fantasy Award and won the Locus Award for Best First Novel in 2011.)

PRIVILEGE! (Yeah, that’s some privilege there.)

YOU’RE SAYING THAT QUALITY WOULD SUFFER BECAUSE OF DIVERSITY! (He said no such thing, of course, but social justice nutjobs read what they want into others’ words to maintain their victim status.)

And of course, Stephen King folded like a cheap lawn chair under a fat ass.

The most important thing we can do as artists and creative people is make sure everyone has the same fair shot, regardless of sex, color, or orientation. Right now such people are badly under-represented, and not only in the arts.

— Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020

The weak backpedal was met with understandable consternation from both sides of the aisle. The grievance mongers and malcontents immediately woke-scolded King, instructing him that this is precisely why considering “diversity” in nominations is not wrong. The folks who understand that diversity is a neutral concept – neither good nor bad – when accepted objectively, ridiculed King for his attempt to stroke the lavender-scented labia of the screeching proglodytes, manstrating himself at the shrine of their grievances.

Diversity, where it strengthens us, it’s a positive. Diversity for diversity’s sake, without consideration for quality of thought or effort, weakens us, and is a negative.

Stephen King is terrified that progressive activists – who make up about 8 percent of the population – will somehow not like him anymore if he doesn’t lick their jackboots. So instead of acknowledging the validity of his own thoughts, his rightful acknowledgment and recognition of quality over giveaways and special dispensations, he issues a weak caricature of an “apology,” groveling to the perpetually aggrieved in hopes that they won’t cancel him too.

The fact that Stephen King – a literary giant – feels the need to play obsequious sycophant to a bunch of infantile, shrieking malcontents says quite a bit about his confidence in his own work and his quality as an author.

Maybe that’s why I never felt a sense of relief or joy when reading King’s books. A miserable human being, who is so unsure of his own worth probably doesn’t understand how to evoke that emotion in others.

Featured image courtesy of phozographer on Flickr; CC 2.0 Some rights reserved.