Tolerance in the 21st century

Wait, wait, I think I get it now.

If I am insufficiently hateful of a hater who hates, I am therefore a secret hater? And in order to absolve myself of being a secret hater, I have to loudly and publicly hate the hater more than anyone else who presently hates the hater who hates, and this will prove that I am not a secret hater, because I will have hated the hater the way the haters of the hater say I need to hate the hater because he hates? Hating is now how you prove you’re not a hater. You just have to hate the people the anti-hate haters approve of hating!

Because being an anti-hater is all about hating the haters who hate, even if they’re not really hating, but you think they secretly hate anyway. Because all of us are secret haters who have to be shown our hatred, by the hating haters of hate who hate all secret haters. So that in order to become an anti-hater, you must hate yourself for being a secret hater, who then goes on to hate the hating haters the haters of hate say you have to hate in order to become an anti-hater who formerly hated in the wrong way. But once you hate in the right way, you are magically absolved of being a hater, and can go around hating on everyone you want.

Advertisements

213 thoughts on “Tolerance in the 21st century

  1. I have decided to surrender the field and accept that I am a Hater and I am Intolerant,. They won.

    NOW that said, “I” am the one who gets to decide whether, who and what I Hate,. And whether, who and what I am Intolerant of. . No one else does. This works for me like the story of the Boy Cried Wolf shriek at me often enough and over and over again that I am intolerant a hater, and a racist.

    My reaction will become OK so I am. Now WHAT do YOU propose to DO about it?
    Come and make my Day just try something

  2. I think in a lot of cases, it’s not that the “haters” are bad people, it’s that they’re deluded. Totally insane. However, unlike in the 70s when they would be getting proper help, now they’re running the show.

  3. I confess. I hate lies. I hate snobbery. I hate pretentious wilful ignorance. I hate malicious mischief. I wish to submit my application for the rank of Hater, Second Class.

  4. I too hate. I hate snobs, back stabbers, cowards, and child molesters. I hate those who spew out their emotions instead of at least making an attempt to argue logically. I hate authoritarians, I hate smarmy holier than thou,pajama boy manlets and their angry female cohorts telling me, from every nook and cranny of the culture, that I am a bad person, a bigot, a homophobe, a misogynist, and an all around evil person who needs to sit down, shut up, and go away,

    They will not talk to us like human beings. They will not even hear the words that come out our mouths without re-interpreting them to fit into their narrative of us. So be it. When all normal means of communications fail, the only way to get your point across is conflict. As Conan said just before he flung his dagger into the cult guard’s gut, “Enough talk!”

  5. That’s a real high level of discourse you’ve got going, here. Personally, I don’t really see how you win, if winning means you get to hang out with folks like Chad and kentuckydan. But hey, it takes all kinds, maybe that’s the route you saw your career going. Congrats!

  6. Beautifully put! I’ve often wondered at the inherent contradiction in the SJW “shut up and be tolerant!” message. I think you nailed it.

  7. @Nathan – have you tried to engage with some of the ‘opposition’? I have, and it was an exercise in futility. You can show them a passage in a book or an article or a blog or a tweet, and they will insist on interpreting it to suit themselves. I had one tell me context didn’t matter, in the case of one quote they’d dredged up, and not ten posts later, in regard to another quote, context DID matter, all of a sudden. I can’t – not won’t, but can’t, as in ‘am unable to’ – comprehend that kind of approach to debate. It – well, ‘dishonest’ is the kindest thing I can think of to call it, and about the only one I can use in mixed company.

  8. You went to bed with dogs and now you have fleas. Could you at least be a tad less whiny about it? Take some responsibility instead of weasling out. You knew about rabid puppies before the nomination slate came out. You took their support, as far as I am aware of you never questioned it.
    You had no problem associating with a man who publically says it would be ok to shoot me or to throw acid in my face (I’m advocating girl’s education and I am a feminist). And now you cry, because me and many other people think that this reflects on your (lack of) character?

  9. “Jeanne ‏@fangirlJeanne 1h1 hour ago @hannahmosk @EileenShyler I could go on for day show toxic masculinity and white supremacy affect gay men.”

    She continues…

    “Yep, and that is just one of MANY ways that white supremacy hurts white people. White Beauty standards aren’t even realistic for most white women. The idealized version of feminine beauty is white, thin, young, able, and cis.”

    “Kate Elliott retweeted Aliette de Bodard @aliettedb · 3h 3 hours ago 5 Filipino speculative authors to watch for… hey there’s @rcloenenruiz @visyap @crashwong”

    “Kameron Hurley retweeted Sunil Patel @ghostwritingcow · 8h 8 hours ago ‘Diversity isn’t just politically important; it creates better stories.'”

    “K Tempest Bradford retweeted Saladin Ahmed @saladinahmed · Apr 22 Writers of color, ask other writers of color which editors they trust.”

    They never stop – not for one day. And it’s the same shit over and over and over and over again. They never get sick of regurgitating it, they never move on. It’s like the droning of an insect. They don’t understand the meaning of words, they dispense wisdom like Solomon from their internet view of the globe.

    Somehow in their enormous concern for humanity, they consistently manage to memory-hole who has to sign up for the draft, who commits the most suicides and who are the bulk of homeless people. They see suicides here, but never there, because they are so interested in larger humanistic principles. Masculinity is toxic in an exacting proportion to how much femininity never is.

    When is obvious obvious? To these people – never. SJWs could no more write a Constitution than a monkey could.

  10. There isn’t any virtue in being tolerant of ISIS.
    There isn’t any virtue in being tolerant of the KKK.
    There isn’t any virtue of being tolerant of the Khmer Rouge, Chairman Mao or Stalin.
    Hating people who seek to treat other brutally isn’t hypocritical. I doubt very much you actually believe that it is.

  11. I admire your tenacity, but I honestly believe that the cause is lost. I think it’s time to surrender the phrase “science fiction” just as we’ve surrendered the phrases “gay”, “tolerant”, “liberal” and so on.

    I believe that the genre name is irredeemably associated with empty polemic in the minds of the general reading public. Time for writers who want to play with ideas to call ourselves something else.

  12. I prefer to keep the name science fiction and reserve the most insulting name for our clown show: “intersectional gender feminists.” There is no stupider or more bizarre cult that has ever shown its face in SF.

  13. @Nina: If you think that Vox Day actually thinks that throwing acid in girls’ faces is okay, you’ve never bothered to actually read the article in question. That, or you don’t understand that one can use rationality to try and achieve irrational goals.

  14. Nina, you just find VD to be a convenient brush with which to paint the rest of us broadly. To that end, you will accept -uncritically – the worst you have heard him say or write. Even if it isn’t true.

  15. You had no problem associating with a man who publically says it would be ok to shoot me or to throw acid in my face (I’m advocating girl’s education and I am a feminist).

    This is a bold faced lie.

  16. Bless you, Brad. Bless you and your family. The viciousness you face from the narrow-minded, thought-controllers is an ulgy old story. Such people have always existed. Those who oppose them have always faced what you face now. So all the best to you for your courage and steadfastness in defending the open, inquiring mind. We need more like you.

  17. There isn’t any virtue in being tolerant of ISIS.
    There isn’t any virtue in being tolerant of the KKK.
    There isn’t any virtue of being tolerant of the Khmer Rouge, Chairman Mao or Stalin.

    The day Vox Day actual starts his master plan to engage in mass genocide and lynchings I’m sure Brad will express his disapproval.

  18. I think it’s worth quoting here what Vox actually wrote:

    “Using the utilitarian metric favored by most atheists, a few acid-burned faces is a small price to pay for lasting marriages, stable families, legitimate children, low levels of debt, strong currencies, affordable housing, homogenous populations, low levels of crime, and demographic stability.”

    Vox is neither an atheist nor a utilitarian. Just an accurate quote and a description of Vox defuses most of the criticism on this point. And the shrieking about Vox on this point just gets more ludicrous when one does include relevant context: PZ Myers had been asking what benefit there might be to throwing acid as described. (More here: http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2012/06/scientist-beats-up-pz.html ) Apparently some people are offended that Vox had the temerity to answer a question as posed.

    Some suggested responses for intellectually honest people who bother to read what Vox says and disagree reasonably:

    1) “True but irrelevant, but I don’t think you are accurately describing the relevant tradeoff”
    2) “I’m not a utilitarian, I’m a deontologist, and I have an absolute rule against throwing acid in people’s faces no matter the benefit”
    3) “The harm of throwing acid in people’s faces in much larger than the benefit of the the other things listed, so it still doesn’t work under the utilitarian metric”

  19. I find it amusing to see Chad’s comment “They will not talk to us like human beings. They will not even hear the words that come out our mouths without re-interpreting them to fit into their narrative of us.” followed by Nick proving his point in the very next comment.

    Hating people who seek to treat other brutally isn’t hypocritical.

    This assumes you actually take the time to verify that the other people do indeed seek to treat you brutally. If someone seeks to harm you, fearing them and wanting to see the threat removed is a rational response. But we’ve come to define threat so broadly, that the same words and emotions we’d use for an existential threat now apply to everyone. We can equally speak of hating Communists, hating Libertarians and hating Yankees fans, and because we use the same words, the emotions have become similar.

    Christians are enjoined to ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’, but because many sinners now define themselves by the sin, they can’t see the difference. And because it suits their needs, they choose to view and frame that hate as existential, because it gives them an excuse to hate back.

  20. Diversity as it is expressed from within SFF’s intersectionalist cult is accompanied by so much anti-white, anti-male and anti-heterosexual sentiment I’m surprised more people don’t see it for the obvious con game it is. We have all of us in our lives had people say “Try this. It’s different. You might like it,” and it’s never couched in ideological jargon that is by an amazing coincidence so racially and sexually hostile. These jerks need a new line cuz they’ve worn this con game thin. No one believes a bunch of racist feminists are promoting “diversity.”

  21. Nick’s little sneer at me and Chad inspired me. I R now a $40 voting member. Thanks to him.
    Just think a week or so ago I had never heard of Sad or Rabid Puppies or Secret Masters Of Fandom on the snobs that have been sitting on the Hugos like dogs in a manger. I mean I read my first sci fi book when I was in the third grade on Midway Island over 50 years ago, But I guess I was never a Trufan, So tuff.

  22. It’s not really hard to understand their point of view at all. I have found that a majority of SJWs are utterly and completely unable to separate themselves from an argument. There is no hope of them being objective. That is why Nina thinks that VOX espouses the views of the Taliban. She has no concept of Vox playing devil’s advocate in their shoes. He isn’t saying they are right he is explaining the mindset. That is why they will reinterpret quotes to fit their narrative. That is why context matters when they are being quoted but doesn’t matter when others are quoted. In the end they are convinced they are always right so no objectivity is required.

  23. “I should add: please staple this to Arthur Chu’s head.”

    Microagression!

  24. Nina Loriot’s reasoning, clarified:

    Vox Day is a horrible person. Vox Day likes Brad’s writing. Therefore Brad’s work is tainted by Vox’s horribleness. A tainted work cannot be awarded the prize for Best Science Fiction.

    Notice what’s missing? Characters, plot, tempo, pacing, vision . . . all that technical writing stuff that one might experience by actually READING THE BOOK: totally irrelevent to Nina.

    Tainted.

    It’s people like you, Nina, whose “reasoning” caused Sad Puppies in the first place, and that inevitably led to more people saying “Yeah, me too!” including Vox Day and his Rabid Puppies. You brought this on yourselves.

  25. Remember the bit in The Diamond Age about hypocrisy?

    That people who claim to follow a set of rules will sometimes fail to live up to their claim?

    And that failure will be used by people without a moral code to condemn those people on the grounds of hypocrisy?

    So the failure to live up to a moral code doesn’t bother me near as much as moral pronouncements that contain what RAW called ‘strange loops’.

    Example.

    You hate me based on differences in skin color.

    Your hatred based on color differences is bad, because hatred based on skin color is bad.

    So hating everyone with your skin color is good.

    Although I really don’t know if that should be called hypocrisy, maybe illogical makes more sense.

  26. “All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women… We call on all men to give up their male privilege and support women’s liberation in the interest of our humanity and their own.” – radical feminist Redstockings Manifesto of 1969, which was included in the essay anthology Sisterhood Is Powerful, itself widely credited with helping to start the second wave feminist movement in the US, and cited by the New York Public Library as “One of the 100 most influential Books of the 20th Century”

    “Brianna Wu @Spacekatgal · Apr 19 All men benefit from structural sexism. Men bragging about moderate views doesn’t make them intelligent, it makes them unaware of privilege.”

    “Feminist Frequency (Anita Sarkeesian) Verified account ‏@femfreq 6h6 hours ago There’s no such thing as sexism against men. That’s because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society.”

    “Feminist Frequency (Anita Sarkeesian) retweeted Veerender Jubbal @Veeren_Jubbal · Nov 1 Not all white people are racist; but every white person does benefit from racism. Please, listen to people of colour, and their experiences.”

    Any more doubts where these morons are coming from? Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian are not critiquing video games. They are critiquing men – “all men.” That includes all whites and heterosexuals.

    The same is true of SJW ideology in SFF. It is the same ideology from the same source – radical feminism.

  27. Okay, after reading that “hate” doesn’t look like a word anymore.

    @Nina Loriot: It is not the responsibility of anyone here to correct your lack of understanding and knowledge of what Puppies actually stand for or what Day actually believes. This isn’t Puppies 101. This isn’t Vox Day 101. Go do you own research and come back when you are enlightened and capable of conversing on a higher level than that of an ignorant hater.

  28. I think it was Correria who dunnit. He distilled the toxic ideology of the SJW from that complex contradictory schmoz you are struggling with, Brad – and distilled distilled it to a level of ignorance that is almost elegant in its simplicity:

    “The answer to racism and sexism is racism and sexism. And if you don’t agree with that, it is because you are a racist and a sexist.”

    I don’t care for his fiction but the man has a stunning clarity of thought. I got stuck in the same poop-loop logic that Brad did as I tried to sort out how these idiots think and damn near set all that rotten wood between my ears on fire with it. Some people are truly blessed with the ability to see things for what they are and sum them up with the precision of a scalpel.

  29. RE: malcolmthecynic says: “The day Vox Day actual starts his master plan to engage in mass genocide and lynchings I’m sure Brad will express his disapproval.”

    Which about sums up the Sad/Rabid unbalanced sense of outrage.
    No concern about what Vox Day does unless he demonstrably starts an actual program of violence on the one hand…
    ..on the other hand if “CHORFs” nominate a silly story about somebody pretending someone else is a dinosaur? Massive outrage.

  30. In the olden days a Guy with a ray gun was about American males exercising their manifest destiny and conquering the universe. Because, in broad strokes, that was the only story people (or at least publishers) were interested in.

    Now, that story is still told, because it’s good fun, but now there are lots of other stories that can be legitimately illustrated with that same image. That first story didn’t somehow claim forever the image of a dude with a ray gun.

    You can’t “claim” a visual for a certain type of story. That visual belongs to any story it could possibly illustrate.

  31. Tolerance means celebration. Free speech only applies to approved ideas. Hating the haters means that you can lie about what haters think and say. Also, disapproval or even disinterest is hate and violence. Everyone thinking the same approved thoughts equals diversity.

    And someone claimed that Puppies were redefining the English language.

  32. “Cecily Kane retweeted Jeanne @fangirlJeanne · 11h 11 hours ago What I am responsible for is how I do not contribute to sexism and rape culture.”

    Does that sound like a blurb for a diverse new story about ray-guns or a confused sociopathic idiot?

    #YesAllFoucauldians

  33. No concern about what Vox Day does unless he demonstrably starts an actual program of violence on the one hand…
    ..on the other hand if “CHORFs” nominate a silly story about somebody pretending someone else is a dinosaur? Massive outrage.

    Well, there are complaints that the Hugos no longer reward the best Sci-Fi, of which the silly story is a prime example. I don’t know that the silly story is outrageous in and of itself. If you want things worthy of outrage, there is the libel from such major publications as Entertainment Weekly and the recent expelling of the Honey Badger brigade from the Calgary Comic Con, those are real outrages, because there is real harm.

  34. RE: Julie Pascal says: “Making fun of a silly story equals outrage.”
    No, making fun of a silly story doesn’t equal outrage. If Puppies (sad or otherwise) was a movement dedicated to mocking “CHORF” fiction it might have some merit – at the very least it would have a sense of humor.
    Instead we have this bizarre display of people jumping through verbal hoops to explain that no matter how obnoxious Day’s statements about women become they somehow don’t really matter BUT if a conservative isn’t winning enough awards in a vote of fans that is appalling persecution.
    It is a straight forward double-standard: Day’s defenders insist that it is all just words and hence don’t really matter – but at the same time the words of SJW or “CHORFs” is somehow actual persecution when it comes to conservatives.

  35. Nyq is intolerant of ISIS, KKK and Chairman Mao. I don’t care, they didn’t write any SF/F books so shun them all you want. But the moment one of them writes a SF/F book, then Nyq has a problem: could a book written by a Bad Person ever be a Good Book? Is it worth the risk to one’s ideological purity to actually read the book?

    The Sad Puppies outrage comes because people like Nyq say NO, it is not possible for a Bad Person to write a Good Book; therefore, I don’t need to read the book to know that it should not be awarded the Hugo. I can rightly shun the Bad Person’s book, unread.

    Except . . . shunning authors based on ideology instead of writing ability is the exactly the kind of thing done by ISIS, the KKK and Chairman Mao, who we are shunning precisely because they shun authors based on ideology instead of writing ability.

    You aren’t opposed to the methodology of oppression used by ISIS, KKK and the Chairman, Nyq, you only object to the results. That’s not the moral high ground; it’s the swamp.

  36. Nina: if Rabid Puppies did not exist, you would find another reason to be upset. If Sad Puppies did not exist, Rabid Puppies would still exist, and you’d be upset anyway. There are no goal posts in this called “Nina doesn’t get upset” so I choose not to worry about it. I won’t bend over backwards to satisfy people who will simply look for another excuse to be angry.

  37. “Robert Stacy McCain @rsmccain · 23h 23 hours ago Remember: If you disagree with a feminist, your disagreement proves that you are a rape apologist who hates women. #tcot #YesAllWomen”

    #YesAllHateHateNotHateUngoodTimes

  38. Tolerance means celebration. Free speech only applies to approved ideas. Hating the haters means that you can lie about what haters think and say. Also, disapproval or even disinterest is hate and violence. Everyone thinking the same approved thoughts equals diversity.

    That’s the essential hot mess, Julie! Precisely!

  39. Instead we have this bizarre display of people jumping through verbal hoops to explain that no matter how obnoxious Day’s statements about women become they somehow don’t really matter BUT if a conservative isn’t winning enough awards in a vote of fans that is appalling persecution.

    No, we have this bizarre display of people responsible for obnoxious comments about conservatives, whites and men stating that Vox’s obnoxious comments are beyond the pale but their own obnoxious comments are obviously tolerable. We have the people who got mad and threw a fit because SF&F wasn’t as diverse as they’d like when it came to superficial appearances getting mad that we insist that SF&F has to be ideologically diverse too.

    It’s amazing that when not enough SJWs are winning the award, there’s a demand to bring in more outsiders, but when it’s pointed out that the result is ideologically one sided the response from the SJWs is ‘this is our award, no outsiders’.

  40. “But the moment one of them writes a SF/F book, then Nyq has a problem”
    I don’t have a problem with people writing a SF/F book. Write away.

    “Is it worth the risk to one’s ideological purity to actually read the book?”
    I don’t have a problem with reading books that aren’t aligned to my ideology. I’m not a libertarian but I think the libertarian perspective is one that in general suits a wide range of Sci-Fi. On the other think of how much high fantasy at least implicitly endorses the notion of hereditary monarchy – doesn’t bother me, don’t think it bothers most people even though monarchism is a stupid ideology.
    The people who are banging their chest and trying to push books off the Hugos because of their ideology are the Puppies, not people like me.

    The challenge for conservative writers is to write good books that will win awards. It is a competition. I always though conservatives LIKED competition and hated the new PC culture in which everybody gets a turn to be a winner – Puppies proved me wrong on that point.

    “The Sad Puppies outrage comes because people like Nyq say NO, it is not possible for a Bad Person to write a Good Book;”
    Again, not true. A bad person can write a good book. A bad person can make a good work of art. This is a simple empirical fact. Roman Polanski has made some brilliant films for example, likewise Woddy Allen and yet the balance of evidence is that they both committed terrible acts on children. Their films don’t become worse but at the same time it is hardly wrong for people to not want to put money in their pockets.
    I don’t think it is leftwing or “CHORF” to hate rapists and those who try to defend or rationalise rape. I don’t think it is extreme to find such people disgusting. I don’t think it is hypocritical to call for tolerance of other humans in general and at the same time to not want to associate with people like that.

    “Except . . . shunning authors based on ideology instead of writing ability is the exactly the kind of thing done by ISIS, the KKK and Chairman Mao”

    Again, your rhetoric is creating a confused message. The problem with ISIS, KKK, Mao isn’t that they shun people. If the worst thing Mao ever did was to strike somebody off his reading list then the world would be a much nicer place. The problem with ISIS, KKK etc is that they follow an ideology that sees whole sections of humanity as subhuman. This is also the problem with Mr Day.

  41. At one point you almost had me when you wrote about wanting to include more enjoyable writing and less stuffy ‘literary’ writing. But I find it ironic that someone who claims that “affirmative action” is the only way minority writers had gotten on the Hugo ballot previously is trying to lecture people about tolerance. And the more you make yourself out to be the victim here, the more you look like a jackass.

  42. “No, we have this bizarre display of people responsible for obnoxious comments about conservatives, whites and men stating that Vox’s obnoxious comments are beyond the pale but their own obnoxious comments are obviously tolerable.”

    Very, very few people have made comments about “conservatives, whites and men” of the kind that Day has made about women and people of ethnicities he regards as inferior. Has somebody, somewhere said equivalent things? Probably, the Internet is big and humanity contains many awful people. The difference is that I’m happy to condemn somebody who would try and rationalise physical or sexual assault against “conservatives, whites and men”. Your turn.

  43. Brad R. Torgersen says: “Nina: if Rabid Puppies did not exist, you would find another reason to be upset. If Sad Puppies did not exist, Rabid Puppies would still exist, and you’d be upset anyway. There are no goal posts in this called “Nina doesn’t get upset” so I choose not to worry about it.”

    Except it isn’t just Nina, and it isn’t just me nor is it just people on the actual far left, nor is it just feminists, nor is it just “social justice warriors”, nor is it just some Scalzi led clique, or bearded intellectuals – the puppies have upset a lot of people and primarily because the Rabid Puppy voters seemed to have succeeded in the nominations. Consequently a whole bunch of people don’t see the books they want to see in the nominations and are surprised and confused by that.

    And so far your explanations haven’t made a lot of sense. Sure if it wasn’t for the Rabid Puppies SOME people would still have a lot to complain about – but the Rabid Puppies make the number of people who will complain substantially bigger both because of the extremity of Day’s views and also because of the specific impact of the Rabid slate and Rabid Puppy voters.

  44. “Very, very few people have made comments about ‘conservatives, whites and men’ of the kind that Day has made about women and people of ethnicities he regards as inferior.”

    What a bald-faced lie that is. The SFF community alone has a flood, all of them dedicated to the proposition white men (who default to conservative just by disagreeing with rabid feminism) are an inferior group of self-serving homophobic privileged supremacist women-hating racists who are a drag on civilization.

    What does it mean when SJWs say white men are “diabolical” and so arrogant they need to come with trigger warnings, and oh, yeah, rape culture?

    What an idiot.

  45. No one has said “only way.” Stop lying. We have said and shown the proof that affirmative action is rife in the SFF community and in the awards process. They straight out say they’re putting work on the Hugo ballot that may not think is good but is important because it’s non-white and state they want women and PoC on the ballot. They don’t even deny it. What they deny is that when those stories actually get nominated suddenly it’s a meritocracy. SJWs are flat out liars.

  46. Very, very few people have made comments about “conservatives, whites and men” of the kind that Day has made about women and people of ethnicities he regards as inferior. Has somebody, somewhere said equivalent things? Probably, the Internet is big and humanity contains many awful people. The difference is that I’m happy to condemn somebody who would try and rationalise physical or sexual assault against “conservatives, whites and men”. Your turn.

    Show me on the doll where Vox Day touched you. Or, more seriously, show me what he actually called for. Quote him. Every time people have tried, they have failed to pull up anything remotely similar to what has been described.

    And, even if you are the chosen one that can, show me how that comes close to the actual harm from libel thrown out by Entertainment Weekly and company at the beginning of this whole struggle. Show me how that approaches the actual money losses the Honey Badgers incurred getting expelled from a convention. Part of the problem is that there are always these mythical harms from someone saying something obnoxious that are used to justify actual real harms.

  47. “the puppies have upset a lot of people and primarily because the Rabid Puppy voters seemed to have succeeded in the nominations. Consequently a whole bunch of people don’t see the books they want to see in the nominations and are surprised and confused by that.”

    This is quite incredibly willfully blind. By definition, the people with the most votes got their works nominated. That’s the way voting works. If they hadn’t gotten the works they voted for nominated, then *they* would have been “surprised and confused” by that. Or maybe not. Because that’s a brain-dead stupid way of describing it. Almost all of the people who nominated works didn’t see the works they voted for win the nomination. Are you incapable of math? Most of the nominated works only got a couple of votes.

    So this is a really stupid and disingenuous way to invent “harm” that’s been done. Also it’s a monumentally silly “talking point” that idiots like you have been repeating like robots for weeks. You’d think some of you would have a bit more imagination.

    Of course, it reveals the truth that you don’t think of harm to the Puppy side as a problem, or even acknowledge that they’re fans. So you’re prejudiced and delusional too.

  48. Consequently a whole bunch of people don’t see the books they want to see in the nominations and are surprised and confused by that.

    We didn’t see the books we wanted to see in the nominations. We were told to go out and nominate books. We went out and nominated books. We now see some of the books we wanted to see in the nominations. There’s nothing surprising or confusing here, except perhaps the reactions of people that somehow didn’t think we would do what they suggested we do, and who pushed some of the books we nominated off the list through obnoxious tactics.

  49. Articles at io9 called “When will white people stop making movies like Avatar” and sick guest posts on Scalzi’s blog about “white privilege” far precede Sad Puppies. There was a flood of that shit and now SJWs are acting like “Where did SP come from?” SJWs created it, just like they created Requires Hate.

    “Where did Requires Hate come from?”

    What a pack of whiny idiots. SJWs whine coming and going. They whine Monday to Sunday and in their spare time. And it’s always the same shit.

    White men, white men, white men. And they’re still doing it. They’d be doing it if Vox Day, LC and Brad didn’t even exist. Bizarro sex feminists were doing this 45 years ago.

    Do you think you’re fooling anyone or are you that dumb? If you believe SP is a problem then you must believe you were born before your parents were.

  50. Nyq, you confuse me.

    Rabid Puppies nominated Brad, Larry and John because they wrote good books. You’re a tolerant person. You have read the books (you have read them, right?) and express no literary criticism. So you must be willing to join the Rabid Puppies in voting for Good Books, regardless who wrote them, or who endorsed them.

    Then why spend so much time complaining about who wrote them or who endorsed them?

  51. Nyq, if you’re going to come here and spout a lot of delusional garbage, the least you could do is offer to share what you’re smoking. It must be really good shit.

    Because, either you’re totally around the bend delusional, or your a pathological liar. Its obvious you’re totally ignorant of what Vox Day is about, for instance.

    Do some basic research before tying up some valuable bandwidth.

  52. What I find sad about all is is how many good people are being drawn into the hate camp by lies. I believe that deep down Nina is a good person who believes in things that matter. But others have lied and she bought into it. It has already been shown that Vox was not agreeing that throwing acid into women’s faces is a good way to achieve anything. He was saying the exact opposite of what the haters claim. But rather than really learning for herself she accepted the lies.

    What the Sad Puppies, and I believe the RPs, want is true fairness and diversity. Every work judged on its merits alone. Authors like all artists are unique people. Look back in history. Find one famous artist that was not a complete wack-job. Find one that the normal society of the time accepted. You won’t find any.

    Art must stand above personal politics. It must be judged for its merits and nothing else.

    I personally had to come to grips with this when I learned the truth about Marion Zimmer Bradley. I loved the Darkover books and many of her other works. The feminist perspective in her books helped me to become who I am today. Someone who believes in true equality for everyone.

    For a time I wanted to toss her books in the trash. I will not even try to articulate my hatred for people who harm children. I could not do so without a stream of vile words. And even those would not be strong enough. I admit I came close to destroying those books out of sheer revulsion.

    But I didn’t.

    Because those books were a positive contribution to our society. For all the evil she did in her life those books did something good. Something that matters. Do they balance the scales? No. Not even close. Nothing could. But I hope that 100 years from now people still read and learn from them.

  53. Hi Brad, I wish you would reconsider this tack regarding the Hugo awards. The Sad Puppies3 are over, they did whatever they could have done, and it is time to assess what worked and what didn’t. Did it achieve your stated goals or not? How could they be improved, or are they even necessary? I am one of the people you claim to be fighting for (fandom with small f) and I’m tired of the battle and chest-beating on both sides. This should be fun, not bravado an political posturing. You seem to have lost your sense of proportion, and I don’t mean that as an insult. I would like to see you move toward a position that is useful in solving the current rift and away from one that will broaden it. You don’t have to hate anyone. Quite the opposite. It is time to forgive already. Isn’t it?

  54. “They will not even hear the words that come out our mouths without re-interpreting them to fit into their narrative of us.”

    I think that is them projecting. We say what we mean and mean what we say. They constantly lie, so they assume everyone else does as well. So when we say ‘this is what we are doing because this is what we belive’ they can’t take it at face value because it’s anathema to their world view.

  55. ksterlingh: you’re quite right. It’s long past time that people stopped judging books based on the author’s political beliefs, and started judging them on the quality of the work. That’s why I’m confident you will join us Rabid Puppies in voting to award Hugos to John C. Wright, Brad Torgersen and Vox Day. Thank you for bravely stepping forward with your pledge.

  56. LOL – I can just hear Captain KIrk saying those words! Good job Brad. And remember: A small clique doesn’t control the Hugo Awards – and if you say that, they’ll make sure you never get a Hugo.

  57. “I’m tired of the battle and chest-beating on both sides”

    So you’ve told Brad. Who on the other side have you told forgive and move on?

  58. “Art must stand above personal politics. It must be judged for its merits and nothing else.”

    Agree that’s what SP3 is all about. Sadly, the SJW’s don’t seem to agree with that philosophy. Instead to them its all about *who *gets a Hugo and what their politics and who their associates are.

  59. @Nyq Only

    “The challenge for conservative writers is to write good books that will win awards. It is a competition. I always though conservatives LIKED competition and hated the new PC culture in which everybody gets a turn to be a winner – Puppies proved me wrong on that point.”

    Exactly. The Puppies thing was a way to raise awareness that there was in fact an observable ideological slant to the works nominated for Hugos. I don’t know that I’d agree that there was a conscious effort to accomplish that; it seems to me that it was more of a gradual process – as the Hugos (generally) became more and more left-leaning, non-left people drifted away, or were never attracted in the first place, to the Hugos. If that’s the case, then what Mr. Torgersen & Mr. Correia did was to, in simplest terms, spread some awareness to people who might not otherwise have known about the Hugos and how they’re chosen. Using myself as a single data point only, while I was aware that Hugos were voted on by/at Worldcon, I had always thought that the works were selected by some committee somewhere, and that you had to GO to Worldcon to vote on them. I don’t have the foggiest how many other people are as ignorant of or even more ignorant of the process as I was.

    Sure, Mr. Torgersen put together a slate. He asked people to suggest stuff they thought was good, and from that he built a list. AT NO TIME did he say “Vote this list only!” It was, in essence, a recommendation list. Sure, some people nominated the straight SP ticket; there’s always some people too lazy to do their own research. As I understand it, Mr. Beale produced a similar, though not identical list, and exhorted people to vote it as given – though even there, with the caveat “If you agree with me”. So again, of course there were people who simply checked off the RP ticket.

    So far as I can see, the biggest sin committed, though, is that Messrs. Torgersen, Correia et al. actually used their platforms as authors to reach out to their community of followers and motivate them to (a) pay for, at minimum, a supporting membership; and (b) actually nominate works (because a does not necessarily imply b).

    “The problem with ISIS, KKK etc is that they follow an ideology that sees whole sections of humanity as subhuman. This is also the problem with Mr Day.”

    Okay, I grant the premise of the first sentence. Howeve, the second? And he’s actually Mr. Beale – Vox Day is his internet pen name. Demonstrate for me, please, without taking things out of context, how he sees whole sections of humanity as subhuman? Hint: This will take more than one quote from one article, and I very much hope you’ll cite primary sources if you opt to take me up on this.

    “Very, very few people have made comments about ‘conservatives, whites and men’ of the kind that Day has made about women and people of ethnicities he regards as inferior.”

    Going to join in with Mr. May here and add that on the strength of ONE exchange on Facebook with a couple of people on the subject of Michael Z. Williamson, I’ve also been branded a racist, sexist homophobe. My sin? When these two people said that Mr. Williamson hated gays and wanted to ban gay marriages, I asked them to cite a source. They linked to an article wherein Mr. Williamson, in a devil’s advocate type discussion, demonstrates that using a standard advanced by some elements of the left it is possible to construct an argument demonstrating there there is no legal support for gay marriage. This is a far cry from being against it, or hating gays, or anything like that. And, in fact, he points out that there is a much more rational standard, but that if the left wants to use that more rational standard in advocating for gay marriage, then they have to concede that the non-left has an equal right to use that standard in constructing its arguments.

    But these two? All they say was this line, in the middle of the article; “Argument for gay marriage fails on logical inconsistency.” (I’m hoping I quoted that accurately; when I’ve finished typing, I’ll get the link to Mr. Williamson’s article). That line, to them, equals “Michael Z. Williamson hates gays! He hates gay marriage! He wants to ban gay marriage!” And, since I disagreed with their interpretation of not just that line (because not being for something is NOT the same as being against, or hating it, or wanting it banned), but with their interpretation of the entire argument, I’m now equally a racist, sexist homophobe.

    (Mr. Williamson’s article: http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/gay-marriage–this-discussion-is-a-waste-of-time)

    This is one example of why I’ve gotten tired of trying to engage in discourse with the extreme non-Puppy element, because it’s not about whether we can read something and disagree on interpretation – just the simple fact that I disagreed made me A Bad Person Who Must Be Driven Out. And that was just ONE writer, ONE article, and ONE theme.

  60. There are far too many people who have bought into the ideology that simply disagreeing with someone means it’s because of hate. When I was a kid I used to watch my grandfather argue with anyone/everyone. He’d argue anything. He’d argue for something in the morning, and then argue against it in the afternoon. Why? because he liked debating things with people.

    No one took the arguments personally because they were adults, it was something to do over coffee. Somewhere along the line that changed and everyone takes personal affront because someone dares hold an opinion different than their own. We’ve become a society of children.

  61. Nina Loriot —

    “You had no problem associating with a man who publically says it would be ok to shoot me or to throw acid in my face (I’m advocating girl’s education and I am a feminist).”

    When it is so often said that SJWs lie I think folks had you in mind. I read the thing you speak of and you are lying when you say the above.

    Vox Day never said it would be okay to shoot a feminist or throw acid in her face. In this way, Vox Day is far more civilized than many, many SJWs, who use profanity and fantasies of harm of their opponents like they are going out of style.

    What Vox Day did say is that the radical Islamists who do this are not irrational (contra those who would claim that their behaviors are senseless). Radical Islamists are quite rational, and indeed very effective, in using those things as weapons of intimidation in a culture war.

    There is no approval from Vox Day, but an acknowledgement of the dark rationality of these radical Islamists.

    If you were a feminist of any substance or courage, you would focus on the latter and not the former.

  62. “RE: malcolmthecynic says: “The day Vox Day actual starts his master plan to engage in mass genocide and lynchings I’m sure Brad will express his disapproval.”

    Which about sums up the Sad/Rabid unbalanced sense of outrage.
    No concern about what Vox Day does unless he demonstrably starts an actual program of violence on the one hand…
    ..on the other hand if “CHORFs” nominate a silly story about somebody pretending someone else is a dinosaur? Massive outrage.”

    Project much? Vox has made plain what he thinks is his ideal society. Switzerland comes to mind: different groups living separately in harmony. Which is actually also what New York City looks like, with the support of a lot of police. You may disagree, but erecting a ridiculous strawman is not an honest way to argue.

    The suggestion that of Vox would round up people into camps, or whatever your fevered mind is imagining, finds no support in anything he said. Again, this suggestion is SJWs lying once again.

    If you want to find excited talk of killing opponents your best bet is the left.

    What is interesting about the above commercial is the very large number of SJWs involved who saw nothing wrong with it.

  63. “Well, there are complaints that the Hugos no longer reward the best Sci-Fi, of which the silly story is a prime example. ”

    To be fair, the dumbass dinosaur story did not actually win the Hugo, the Chorfs only thought it should, and still managed to score it a Nebula as a consolation prize…

  64. “The problem with ISIS, KKK etc is that they follow an ideology that sees whole sections of humanity as subhuman. This is also the problem with Mr Day.”

    I’m pretty sure that the “problem” with ISIS is not what they believe, but that they KILL PEOPLE.

    I realize that this is maybe too fine a point, too much splitting hairs… on the one side thoughts, on the other side death, blood, throwing gay men off buildings, burning people, mass murdering Christians and other minorities.

    I can really see how it might seem like EXACTLY THE SAME THING as having a less than elevated view of some group of people or another…. for someone who gave up thinking with their brain and only thinks with their feelz. Though, really, I’m having a bit of trouble with those two things feeling the same… Oooooo… someone thinks women are a little weak in the brain…. EXACT SAME THING as raping and killing you… I sure FELT like it was the same thing.

    This, I fear, is what sometimes is referred to as “First World Problems.”

  65. @Nyq Only,

    “Again, your rhetoric is creating a confused message. The problem with ISIS, KKK, Mao isn’t that they shun people. If the worst thing Mao ever did was to strike somebody off his reading list then the world would be a much nicer place. The problem with ISIS, KKK etc is that they follow an ideology that sees whole sections of humanity as subhuman. This is also the problem with Mr Day”

    Not to nit pick, but to my knowledge Vox is quite happy for anybody to live their life as they wish provided they do him the same courtesy. He only takes exceptions to groups that don’t share this willingness.

    By comparison, the behaviour of the CHORF’s and the SJW’s is currently limited to shunning and excluding (and trying to destroy livilihoods and get people fired, did you forget that?) but that is where the evil starts.

    The only group seeking in this that is seeking to declare their opponents guilty of “ungoodthink” and run them off is the SJW’s and this is only because they are limited in this regard if history of these sorts is anything to go by.

  66. “Microagression!”

    “Depends on the size of the staple.”

    Would a large staple be a macro-aggression?

  67. Oops, I’ve managed to change identities.

    I wonder how many of the folks who think they’re Good People have ever thought about that quote attributed to Voltaire about hating what someone has to say but defending to the death their right to say it. It used to be practically a mission statement for people who thought of themselves as liberal, who understood that freedom required them to actively defend horrible people, to actually *put themselves on the line* in order to defend horrible people.

    It was understood by everyone that defending all those bad thinkers and bad speakers was an important defense of principle and not ever an agreement with what they thought or said.

    Because what we’ve got now?

    Yes, Brad was 100% right… you’re required to hate, viscerally, loudly, actively, HATE bad people. You need to do this so that you don’t become “associated” with those bad people or worse, become a target of the hate yourself. Young people, with no sense of irony, no sense of absurdity, insist that “free speech” isn’t “offensive speech”… which leaves us with approved speech, which is approved by the approvers… whoever they may happen to be. Try to get someone to even articulate the value of vigorous defense of free speech… they can’t do it.

    In fact, try to get ANYONE to actually articulate why some ideas are wrong, or unsound, or why some bad idea is bad… they can’t do it.

    We don’t TALK ABOUT BAD THINGS anymore. No one KNOWS why they are bad. No one knows how to articulate an argument, how to examine a premise. They just know what BAD is when they see or hear it and they know what they’re supposed to do when they find it.

    HATE the haters. Shut them up, if at all possible. Throw them out of public places. By no means listen to them or examine their arguments or look into the context or try to understand what they were saying or not saying… those things are only necessary if the BAD will be engaged, and engaging BAD is also BAD. Someone might think you don’t hate them enough.

  68. “By no means listen to them or examine their arguments or look into the context or try to understand what they were saying or not saying…”

    So much THIS right here /\ /\ /\

    There is way too much …peer pressure?… in the way people construct their outrage. So and So said he/she was a bad person, so they must be bad. This group did a bad thing once, so everything they do is bad. That group doesn’t agree with me, so they shouldn’t be listened to.

    Eeegads!

  69. Well, I see we not only hold some similar views, we’re from the same part of the country. I wonder if we ever ran into each other on campus?

  70. Sasha, pass the smelling salts! Nowhere does Day advocate murder and nowhere does he celebrate their deaths. He just notes that the youth who died were no friends of their country. I would tend to agree.

    Day is not being classy here, but it goes to show what happens when a conservative gets a little big for their britches and thinks that he has the free speech rights of a liberal.

    To wit, liberals all over such as Matthew Yglesias celebrated the death of Andrew Breitbart and across the pond there was open glee from the left at the passing of Margaret Thatcher. As far as I am aware, Yglesias experienced no negative social consequences for that.

  71. “LOL – I can just hear Captain KIrk saying those words!”

    That’s not Captain Kirk. That’s Norman 1 as in “Norman, coordinate!”

  72. Essentially they say they’re “intolerant towards intolerance”, “hating haters” and “bigoted towards bigots” as a way to let themselves be intolerant, hateful bigots and justify it by claiming it’s because their targets are icky awful people.

    This, in their tiny overheated little heads, means things like basic decency, manners and honesty can be discarded.

    I wonder how they’ll feel when the mob decides they are the icky awful people whom are “okay” to hate?

  73. I’ve been at NDSU, in one form or another, for most of the last 25 years. Made a few visits when my aunt was here, too, back when there were only 3 high rise dorms on campus.

  74. Yes, I’m eagerly awaiting the day when their arguments come back around to bite them in the posterior. I’ll likely pop a cork that day. It may not be Christian of me, but I’ve struggled with my faith over the years. I’m not too arrogant to admit I’m not a particularly good Christian.

  75. Coming back to bite them in the butt is already starting to happen as the more extreme lunatics eat their own.

    I think they finally went beyond parody when the Vagina Monologues (that radical feminist pile of rubbish) was canceled for being “transphobic” and “triggers to women without vaginas”.

  76. “That’s not Captain Kirk. That’s Norman 1 as in “Norman, coordinate!”

    OK – I thought it was Captain Kirk making some SJW Robot self-destruct. I always flash back to TOS.

  77. “I think they finally went beyond parody when the Vagina Monologues (that radical feminist pile of rubbish) was canceled for being “transphobic” and “triggers to women without vaginas”.”

    Honest, I think it was probably a welcome excuse. I mean, a lot of us grew up or are in a church, right? So we know how it works. If you do something twice you can never quit, it’s now something that has to be done forever. The yearly Vagina Monologues… and no one quite knows how to stop because who wants to be the person who kills a tradition, right? It’s like having a choir for Easter and everyone is all excited about it so every year afterward there’s a choir for Easter and even though the church is small it’s a *thing* and your best soprano moves away and the guy who could really sing bass dies of old age but you’ve got to have a *choir* because that’s what you do. Sing. At Easter. And it starts to be a chore, and sort of painful (on account of the missing soprano) but no one knows how to STOP.

    So… that’s what I think… someone said… the Vagina Monologues are sort of transphobic… and the poor soul stuck with not being the one who finally refuses to do the same dumb play AGAIN, looks over at her, shouts “Sister!” and cancels the play.

  78. “Very, very few people have made comments about “conservatives, whites and men” of the kind that Day has made about women and people of ethnicities he regards as inferior.”

    Interestingly, there are also very, very few Vox Days. I usually run out of Vox Days much more quickly than I run out of fingers when I’m counting them.

  79. The built-in satire about The Vagina Monologues is that it’s actually (transgender) men who shut that play down at an all-women’s college called Mount Holyoke.

    The same issue – transgender men – just closed down a lesbian music festival that’s 40 years old. There’s kind of a sick revenge factor going on there that’s totally unintentional but built into this ideology’s gender fluid madness. Anything’s anything? Great. They thought they were going to lay that on us with no bounceback.

    The truth is had they not politicized the hell out of all this by asserting Orwellian holes of thought where “Women are oppressed because they are heterosexual, and women are heterosexual because they oppressed” (R. S. McCain), none of that would’ve happened. They forgot where they put their own claymore mines. Men are calling the shots and that must drive some of these women nuts.

    ”There is so much pressure on women to be heterosexual, and this pressure is both so pervasive and so completely denied, that I think heterosexuality cannot come naturally to many women: I think that widespread heterosexuality among women is a highly artificial product of the patriarchy. . . . I think that most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.’ – Marilyn Frye, ‘A Lesbian’s Perspective on Women’s Studies’ speech to the National Women’s Studies Association conference, 1980″

    Translation: ???????????????????????

    A transgender man is also one of the faces of the gender feminist anti-Gamergate initiative and the other face also believes gender is a fake construct. So half of the pro-feminist anti-Gamergate is already a guy calling the anti-male shots. Too weird.

    These Frankensteins keep making monsters, including the gender-fluid Requires Hate, and still haven’t figured all that out. SJW ideology is essentially insane, and the do-gooders haven’t figured that out about their leaders either and let them lead them around by the nose. The concept of #JustListen is destroying this movement from within because their most credible voices almost certainly suffer from borderline personality disorders. The gap between the amount of hostility they throw off and what’s actually being thrown their way – which ranges from nothing to a TV comedian – is paranoiac.

  80. “I anticipate that this groundswell of efforts to boost the voices of the marginalized will continue and I have every intent to help promote those efforts wherever I can.” – Laura Mixon

  81. Which about sums up the Sad/Rabid unbalanced sense of outrage.

    Yes. We’re all about judging the fiction as a work of fiction.

    No concern about what Vox Day does unless he demonstrably starts an actual program of violence on the one hand…

    Yes. He’s not a threat, he’s a guy with an opinion.

    ..on the other hand if “CHORFs” nominate a silly story about somebody pretending someone else is a dinosaur? Massive outrage.

    Yes, because that is a story, and we are talking about stories.

    What is WRONG with you people?

    I’ll spell it out for you: Ursula K. LeGuin is as much of an SJW as anybody on the other side of this monstrosity. I have no problem reading Ursula K. LeGuin, despite disagreeing with her on basically everything.

    Why? Because she is an excellent writer.

    Same with G.R.R. Martin. Martin displayed, in his comments about Vox Day, a stunning lack of honesty and cowardice. Which does nothing to make “Game of Thrones” any worse.

    Same with Joss Whedon. I find his beliefs positively disgusting on most issues. I am also a huge fan of his work.

    You see the difference?

  82. This talk of the evilness of Day massively misses the point. The fact is, it doesn’t matter in the slightest to either of the Puppies movements if Vox is Satan and Hitler combined. All attempts to frame the discussion that way are massive red herrings.

  83. “Okay, I grant the premise of the first sentence. Howeve, the second? And he’s actually Mr. Beale – Vox Day is his internet pen name. Demonstrate for me, please, without taking things out of context, how he sees whole sections of humanity as subhuman? Hint: This will take more than one quote from one article, and I very much hope you’ll cite primary sources if you opt to take me up on this.”

    Funny, I tried that just a couple days ago in the “Unpersoning” topic, and you ignored it. Shall I try again?
    Dan:
    “What Vox Day did say is that the radical Islamists who do this are not irrational (contra those who would claim that their behaviors are senseless). Radical Islamists are quite rational, and indeed very effective, in using those things as weapons of intimidation in a culture war.”
    You’re leaving out the REST of his quote (just as Vox Day did in his letter to John Brown, in a transparent weaselly attempt to make his original quote look less approving of the shooting of Malala Yousefzai than it actually was). He called the shooting “perfectly rational AND scientifically justifiable.” (my emphasis).

    Complete VD quote: “I]n light of the strong correlation between female education and demographic decline, a purely empirical perspective on Malala Yousafzai, the poster girl for global female education, may indicate that the Taliban’s attempt to silence her was perfectly rational and scientifically justifiable.

    I agree that if you accept the hateful premise that women’s ONLY acceptable place is married and pumping out babies and that education of women interferes with this all-important principle, then it is perfectly rational to shoot a few young girls bent on an education in order to encourage the others. But the Taliban don’t give a shit about being “scientifically justified,” they’re acting according to what they believe is Allah’s will. It’s VD who’s approving and applauding the actions of the Taliban shooting a schoolgirl in the head because it discourages female education beyond puberty, which he considers an evil to society based on what he considers “scientific” genetic and sociological principles (as he explains in his letter to John Brown.)

    So yeah, VD doesn’t directly advocate shooting schoolgirls in the head – he only applauds and expresses approval when others do so for reasons he respects. And no doubt a Klansman who only marches now and then in his robes and applauds the lynchings of others while writing treatises explaining why such violence is “scientifically justifiable” while disavowing violence himself is preferable to one who actively lynches. I still say it’s not an act of “hatred” to say that even such an avowed non-violent Klansman’s ideas should not be considered as harmless as a penchant for rudely belching at the dinner table (the way, IMO, Brad’s been treating it thus far).

    I am an American, and I don’t believe in government laws censoring VD. But I do believe it’s a social obligation to point out that such ideas are not harmless. As the history of the Klan shows, the Klan met with the success it had not merely because of the men who willingly did the violence, but also because of all the people around them who did not, but agreed with the ideas behind the violence, or did not agree but simply felt such ideas were NBD and no reason not to treat people with such ideas as just as worthy of respect as anyone else. And so doing business with a Klansman (or the equivalent), and thus benefitting yourself and benefitting him by enabling his ideas to reach more people is morally dubious and will earn you the hairy eyeball from a lot of people – and rightly so, IMO.

  84. jayn: VD didn’t say the Islamists’ actions were right (in fact he made a disapproving remark, which I can’t recall offhand and don’t feel arsed to go look up). He said they were rational *within the expectations of their own culture*; that is, they were acting as their culture expects them to act. The fact that *we* look at their culture and think it’s crazy has no bearing on whether it’s rational from *their* point of view.

    I’ve found one has to read VD absolutely accurately and literally, because if you don’t, you *will* misinterpret what he says.

    It also helps to grok of the logic of programmerspeak, which isn’t like normal humanspeak. I like to use this real example from a game configuration screen:

    Monsters do not walk over cliffs. Yes/No

    Quick, which answer is the one you want??

    To a programmer it’s obvious: everything starts with a value of zero. “Do Not” is the initial state, therefore “Yes” means stay the same (don’t walk over cliffs), while “No” means change the value (do walk over cliffs). It’s very confusing to normal mortals. 🙂

  85. As someone stated, talking about Vox Day is just typical SJW mis-direction. SP3 and the Hugo awards aren’t about Vox Day’s views on politics. SP3 is about giving awards to quality fiction without regard to the authors politics or personal life or connections. Yet for some reason, not only the SJW’s but others wish to rattle on about Vox Day and his views on life, the universe and everything. Who cares?

  86. I’m amazed at how a dispassionate evaluation becomes approval or applause. That something is scientifically justifiable only becomes approval or applause if you are the sort of person who has a personal emotional investment in being positioned as pro – science. “Science” isn’t a value. “Science” does not equal virtue.

    But I wonder… If someone refuses to consider the ways something is rational or justifiable, how can they expect to combat it? Emote uselessly, sure. Fix a problem? Not so much.

  87. SP3 is about giving awards to quality fiction without regard to the authors politics or personal life or connections.

    Right, and the response for this has been almost word for word “But Voxemort Satanhitlerday’s politics and personal views are REALLY bad! Do you STILL only care about quality???”

    The answer, of course, is yes, that really, truly is all we care about.

  88. Julie: This may be the impulse behind slacktivist “petitions” and such… “They must not know that what they are doing is Bad, and will change if we only tell Them it is.”

  89. @jayn —

    VD talks about difficult civilizational problems. It is a difficult, grown up conversation. That problem is that fertility apparently collapses to well below replacement specifically for the educated and gifted, and this threatens the future of modern society. The unfortunate truth is that those women who are most educated and talented, who could gift civilization with the best future, are having the fewest children, in the west anyway. This is one of the central problems, if not the central problem, of modernity.

    If you really wanted to be helpful, you could join this conversation and perhaps offer better solutions instead of going on about how upsetting this grown-up talk is. (If supposedly enlighted folks such as yourself are out to lunch on the most important issues, the stage is left to those who show up.) It is a problem that is not going to go away because some SJW gets mad at the messenger. If VD disappeared tomorrow, the issues he brings up would be no less real and the problems themselves would not be mitigated.

    This conversation is all very upsetting. I have three daughters who are very bright. But this is one of the most important conversations to have and my wife and I will have to really guide our daughters in awareness of these pitfalls.

    By the way, your ‘Klan’ talk is way over the top. Nobody is a Klansman that I am aware of. In fact, if you are calling VD that, you are breaking the law because that would constitute libel.

  90. I love all these people who insist that saying “x” really means implying “y.” It’s insanity. Vox has literally gone on record stating that an “unborn, black, female child with a missing chromosome and a propensity toward homosexuality” is equal in worth and human dignity to an “[exceptionally intelligent] white, adult male in the people of his life.”

    You know who doesn’t believe that? Famous *ethicist* Peter Singer. Most of the world, in fact, is not willing to agree with that.

    These people do not understand when they’re being mocked.

    So yeah, I’ll take Hitler-Satan’s moral views over most people’s any day.

    (Apologies for the quote parsing, it messed with the sentence structure)

  91. What’s really telling about this is too obvious for SJWs to grasp. They are going after one guy.

    We are going after an actual ideology SJWs themselves call “intersectional feminism.” They are in general agreement about its goals, rules and who the enemy is. They use the same peculiar language not found outside their ideology and they act in concert according to these rules and goals. This ideology is almost hysterical in its routine denunciations of whites and men as an entire group though there is no proof whatsoever whites and men act in concert against the interests of women and non-whites either in America or SFF. This SJW ideology is entrenched in institutions throughout SFF. 100% of last year’s most important Hugo winners and all the Nebula winners were a direct reflection of this cult-like ideology’s aims. The fact SJWs themselves don’t see their ideology as racist means nothing. We are using well-established benchmarks for what hate speech and racial bigotry is that precede the existence of the Hugos themselves, if not the existence of America. One does not get a pass for racial bigotry and hate speech merely because of naivete or by waving a magic wand about the “marginalized,” “privilege” and historic “systems” of “power.”

    If people want to whine about “racist, misogynist, queerphobic systems in our culture” they’d better come up with some documentation other than us becoming those things because of pushing back against this oddball version of feminism.

    “Christina H. Sommers retweeted Claire Lehmann @clairlemon · Oct 21 Critiquing the methodologies of contemporary feminism is not the same thing as being misogynist or even sexist. Far from it. #GamerGate”

  92. Finally Brad, you’re cluing in! I would’ve thought a freedom fighter like you — selflessly eviscerating the grand unjustice of the Hugo Awards (in a way that just-so-happens to benefit you and your friends’ style of writing) — would’ve clued in even sooner.

    “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” – Desmond Tutu

    Mr. Tutu is black, though. Are we allowed to quote black people on this blog? Do black people have any wisdom in your world? I don’t know.

  93. @Joe Doakes, I agree that people should judge books based on quality, rather than the politics of the author. Since Brad has distanced himself from RP I’m not sure why you would suggest I should join them, or that voting what was placed on their slate (rather than just making up my mind) would prove I am apolitical. In any case, as a relative outsider just joining the SF community I have not been part of voting at all. I am more concerned about what comes next year, and so healing the rift that occurred this year.

    @rcocean, you ask who I told to forgive and move on? Everyone I can. I have a post on the superversiveSF site addressing the Hugo affair. In it I am pretty clear in supporting Brad Torgerson and George RR Martin’s positions against the heated reactionary stances being taken by some (like No Award voting and rules changes). I am explicit that a sense of proportion has been lost by people on both sides.

    Just to be clear I didn’t post in order to bash Brad. It is just that his posts are taking on an unnecessarily defensive air, moving away from the civil, productive conversation which he seemed interested in having. This hateful hater post is unusually distracting. Even if clever and funny, how does it advance the conversations needed at this time? I want to encourage him to find to a stronger course and voice.

  94. I don’t understand the respect for Martin, by the way.

    Martin did not handle himself with class. He challenged somebody to a debate, then when it was accepted he quickly backed out while muttering excuses, all the while not even attempting to level off his insults.

    I don’t care that the object of his ire was Voxemort Satanhitlerday. That shows a lack of good faith and dishonesty that should be harshly condemned. Martin is far from the gold standard for “the other side” here, and I wish we’d stop acting like he is.

  95. “Beetori Sritruslow retweeted The Ethical Sloth @sashapixlee · Apr 21 No matter what RH did she didn’t have the support of racist, misogynist, queerphobic systems in our culture.”

    There’s Requires Hate and her friends giving their usual built-in disclaimer about how they’re never guilty of anything no matter what. That privilege theory is at the bottom of every single word SJWs write about all this. It’s a stacked deck where they’re never wrong and we’re never right. We are wrong merely be existing. Our only hope of escaping SJW scrutiny is to declare ourselves privileged racists and sexists and work to help undo our own immorality.

    It is senseless to debate these people. At no point does the language we speak touch on the language they speak. SJWs have given themselves a philosophical free-fire zone to do anything and one where we can do nothing. Let’s be honest: this is a weird cult no different in its bizarreness than Scientology. SJWs act like Scientologists too. At RavenCon Brianna Wu was paranoid about controlling debate. The Gamergate panel was a monologue. Honey Badgers in Canada suffered the same fate.

    This cult deserves nothing more than to be mocked for the sad and often heavily medicated insane asylum it is.

  96. It’s a decidedly first world problem the SJW are agitating against. Outside of their little cloistered enclave of Western Europe (and it’s former colonies in which they still dominate demographically) their incoherent shrieks of injustice would likely get them killed. The real injustice that they should be worried about is taking place in third world countries where women really are thought of as inferior and do get raped at a high rate, albinos are killed to be harvested for medicine/magic and gays are lynched.

    Do the SJWs care about that? I don’t know. Mostly what I hear about is how they are being oppressed by not getting paid the same because they didn’t bother showing up for the same hours of work in the year, or that someone looked at them funny, or didn’t look at them when they wanted them to, or that they felt unsafe because someone had a different idea.

  97. @ Kamas716 SJWs in addition to being liars are also extreme cowards. They carry all the hallmarks of a classic bully in that way. The reason they don’t dream of criticizing real oppressors is because they are afraid of how those real oppressors will react. It is much safer to shout at someone who might be cowed by accusations of “racism” or “misogynist” . Actual misogynists and racists are not scared of these accusations. They also tend to be rather nasty people that are more likely to use violence against those that annoy them. For all of the bluster, SJWs are scared of actual oppressors. They have such a propensity for singling out Mr. Day because:
    1.) He hasn’t been cowed
    2.) He has made statements that he personally doesn’t condone violence in most instances.

    If he actually said what people claim he did and endorsed violence against women and minorities SJWs would be afraid to say anything about him. Especially if his fan base was as rabid and radical as they are painted to be by SJWs

  98. “Are we allowed to quote black people on this blog?”

    Ask Brad’s wife. 😉

  99. “Why did Philbert just self-define as an oppressor?”

    Probably for the same reason that he just self-defined as a racist.

  100. Philbert may be racist, or he may just be totally clueless how that looked. Or maybe he smoked some rad shit and he couldn’t stay away from the computer. I got a feeling it didn’t come out like he intended.

  101. After more than 20 years working in the public school system, I have concluded that the decade and a half of Marxist programming that most people receive there rewrites something in their brains, which then begin to perceive rational disagreement and discourse – and objective reality, for that matter – as damage, and route around it. Many of them at this point are actually incapable of following a rational argument objectively, if it bumps up against anything that causes the FeelBads. It’s the only way I can explain how the “differently rational” among us are utterly unselfconscious about the contradictions and invalid preconceptions in nearly every single paragraph they write or say.

    It’s as though a generation and a half have been subsumed by John Wright’s Nothing Sophotech. Any time taboo subjects are approached, the little {Marx/Gramsci/Derrida} subroutine in their heads rewrites their thought processes. Did Wright see this coming, 15 years ago when he was writing those books? That there would be an entire cohort of the population no longer capable of matching thoughts to reality? People who no longer even believe that words mean things?

    Quick quiz to determine whether you fall into this category – one question only:

    Without entering into a discussion of what you think Mr. Beale actually believes, what is the bottom-line key difference between anyone on Team ISIS/KKK/Khmer Rouge/Mao/Stalin and Vox Day?

    If you didn’t answer in less than 5 seconds some variant of the concept “words are not the same as actions,” or more specifically “words are not the same as killing people,” then your moral compass has been demagnetized by the Marx daemon running in your brain. The good news: You get to believe a lot of things that sound nice on paper and make you feel good about yourself. The bad news: You live in the Cuddly Matrix. Very few, if any, of those feelgood things are real, and the way you have been taught to “think” is, in the long term, actively harmful to the maintenance of the civilization which allows you to keep pretending that your map is actually the territory.

  102. “Without entering into a discussion of what you think Mr. Beale actually believes, what is the bottom-line key difference between anyone on Team ISIS/KKK/Khmer Rouge/Mao/Stalin and Vox Day?”

    My initial thought was, “Vox believes in the fall, the sociopaths on the other side deny it”.

    But I agree with your assessment as well, and my answer was coloured by daring to chat to Vox and have his publishing house as a channel for Sci Phi Journal.

  103. An important point, by the way:

    jayn writes a really long post about how Vox Day is evil and dangerous. Maybe he/she is right.

    There’s only one problem: This has nothing to so with Sad Puppies. Or Rabid Puppies, for that matter.

  104. K. Tempest says: “POC Dinner at WisCon 39 This is just a note to let everyone know that there WILL be a POC Dinner at WisCon this year. It will be on Friday, May 22nd at 5:30pm going until 7pm. It’s in the Concourse Hotel, room 629. So mark that on your calendars!

    “Kids are welcome at this event.”

    As long as they’re not white.

    Hahahahahahaha.

  105. @Jason: I was… incensed… by an earlier comment which drew that specific line, from ISIS-KKK-etc. straight to VD, so the “words vs. actions” equivalence was looming large in my mind and I didn’t stop to consider other possible non-pathological answers to the question.

    I would imagine there were lots of folks in the KKK who believed in the Fall, and acted as they did regardless, but as far as the rest of that deranged collection, you’re spot on there as well.

    Great work with the Journal, I’m really enjoying it. Have to get caught up though. My grad classes ate my life the last three months.

  106. @malcolmthecynic: But the OP was a riff on SJW cognitive dissonance and poor critical thinking skills. One could hardly hope for a better example than jayn’s comment.

  107. @MattK,

    You may be right about the Klan. And thanks, i’m glad you like SPJ.

    Now if you have 800 friends who would like a copy 😉

  108. @James May
    “As long as they’re not white.”

    So it’s really a “People of *Certain* Colors” dinner. And it’s so hard to tell which colors are acceptable in any given week. Especially when the origin of your color enters the equation. I’m guessing any color from Portugal is right out, these days. Native American-derived colors probably viewed with alarm as well.

    Or maybe that stands for “People of Conformity” these days.

    God bless you for reading all that stuff so the rest of us don’t have to, to paraphrase Dr. Pournelle.

  109. @Jason: I wish your target demographic was larger. Sadly, that goes back to what I was saying about the state of public education these days. “Philosophy” is a scary word to people that are never explicitly exposed to any in an organized way in school. I’ll see what I can do, though!

  110. I love SJWs – I really do. I find them endlessly fascinating people. They are without a doubt the dumbest people I have ever encountered.

    I just read Jim Hines’ recent post called “Choosing ‘Sides.'”

    http://www.jimchines.com/2015/04/choosing-sides/

    It’s pretty obvious that when you include the comments these are people who are completely unaware they even promote an extremely specific ideology. To them it’s as natural as rain.

    But Hines is a guy who’s had posts and comments in the past with language like “cis,” “cissexist,” “transphobic,” “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” “cis gender,” “able-bodied neurotypical,” “privilege,” “colorblindness,” “genderblindness,” and where people are told to “examine” their “privilege” and a word like “diversity” is used in a sense it is interchangeable with “white racism,” and all on ONE SINGLE FRICKIN’ PAGE! How does one not know that? Have you ever met people who use language like that? It’s not only frickin’ scary it’s QUEER THEORY 101! I have never in my life met anyone who talks like that. How do you not know that? Does this guy live in a diving bell? How does one not know you light up a kabillion people because of their race and sex? I suppose if you really believe straight white men are kinda like mule-people then it all seems perfectly normal, kinda like the KKK goes “Wha… who… me?”

    There is no communicating with these people. They are as dense as granite. Hines has done as much to foster this “us vs. them” as anyone and he claims neutral ground?

    When you have Laura Resnick on there writing “I am opposed to publicly insulting, belittling, denigrating, and/or verbally attacking past Hugo nominees, winners, and voters. I am opposed to unprofessional behavior,” you’ve stepped into the usual SJW Nth dimension of idiocy, given her history. How unaware is unaware? Where are SJWs from? That Bizarro planet in the old Superman comics doesn’t look quite so bizarro anymore.

    Pass the lava cubes, I want to cool my neurotypical forehead.

  111. @MattK: “differently rational” …I cannot stop laughing!! Oooh, irony. — And my first thought about that “bottom-line difference” was “Far as I know, VD hasn’t killed anyone.” And then my brain went on along the lines of, “And VD would logically dissect them, but they’d probably shoot him.”

    James May: “privileged supremacist” — I think you’ve nailed it. That’s really the viewpoint of the SJW — being superior, they are privileged to tell everyone else how to think.

  112. Brad, I’m so upset by all this hate-speech that I need to buy a book. When’s your next one coming out?

  113. If you didn’t answer in less than 5 seconds some variant of the concept “words are not the same as actions,” or more specifically “words are not the same as killing people,” then your moral compass has been demagnetized by the Marx daemon running in your brain.

    I think reducing it to a simple cause is understating the size of the problem. A lot of this can be psychologically traced to Marxism (or Marxists, or useful idiots), but there are multiple, indirect links and removing one won’t solve the problem.

    There is the fact that the world has been largely safe and peaceful for decades, and is getting more safe and peaceful all the time. We no longer have to fear starvation, most of the childhood diseases have been eradicated, and we no longer have the fear of being conscripted into industrial total war. Most people don’t know what real threats are like, so when real threats appear over there, we have nothing to compare them to, so it’s impossible to take them seriously. Everyone just assumes that life will be safe even if they seriously screw up or have bad luck, because in most cases things that would be a slow death sentence in years past are now merely minor, so they assume this is the natural order of the world. (For me, ‘risk averseness’ or failure to understand risk is approaching the status James May assigns ‘intersectional feminism’ as a root cause for the current situation).

    I think there is also the fact that we no longer have very much of a cultural baseline to work off of, though our brains are wired to believe we do. It’s one of the reasons we see so much projection from the other side. To a Progressive, ‘love the sin, hate the sinner’ is meaningless because they have no idea of what sin means to a committed Christian. They may believe they understand Christianity because they know the superficial story, and perhaps go to church occasionally, but without understanding the values below that superficial understanding they can’t actually understand the other side.

  114. @ksterlingh.

    “I agree that people should judge books based on quality, rather than the politics of the author. Since Brad has distanced himself from RP I’m not sure why you would suggest I should join them . . . .”

    Because it’s a binary problem, K. There are only two solutions: you vote for the works that have been nominated, or you don’t. There is no space for a write-in candidate.

    Rabid Puppies dominated the slate of nominations, fair and square. Whether or not Brad distanced himself from them, they’re the ones who set the slate. If you vote for the nominated works, you’ve effectively joined Rabid Puppies in voting for quality over politics. The act is proof enough and God help you if you ever admit it to the blacklisters.

    If you don’t vote for the nominated works because the authors are hateful people – or worse, because people who recommended the works are hateful people – then you’re rejecting quality for politics. That directly contradicts what you wrote above.

    I suppose a third option could be possible: you might actually read the works, honestly believe they’re so crappy they don’t deserve to be called Best, and therefore vote against them. Only you can know if that’s what you truly believe. And if it is, then do it. That’s all Sad Puppies ever asked: read the work; be honest; vote on quality, not politics.

    It’s because so many on the other side of the table explicitly refused to read the books, refused to vote on quality over politics, that Sad Puppies was necessary.

  115. That Vox Day guy is pretty funny. That’s some high-level trolling he has going on right there.

  116. Joe, every entry which was on the Rabid Puppies list but not on Sad Puppies lost. That must be some strange sense of the word “dominate” I was not previously familiar with.

    And that is one more reason why the argumentum ad voxdei is absurd.

    It increasingly reminds me of people who “argue” against libertarians by shrieking “Ayn Rand!” and expecting us to go “EEK! The bogeywoman!” Never mind that Rand hated libertarians (and vice versa in my experience.)

  117. Most people don’t know what real threats are like, so when real threats appear over there, we have nothing to compare them to, so it’s impossible to take them seriously.

    I think there is also the fact that we no longer have very much of a cultural baseline to work off of

    I think both of those issues are solved, or at least greatly ameliorated, by an educational system that hasn’t lost its way. Most especially the second point. My parents’ generation decided in the late 60s that there was nothing worth saving in the shared American culture that existed up to that point. The progressive takeover of the school system, already well accomplished, extended itself to removing any sort of character education from the schools under the justification “Who is to say what good character is?” The two obvious answers (“Well, there’s this big book called the Bible” and “Let’s look at what the classical Greeks, and the Romans, and our various historical European forebears thought about that”) were already well back in the rear-view mirror in urban areas and other liberal enclaves. This also necessitated a real step back and new gloss on the teaching of history, since we wouldn’t want to imply via conveying historical information that our Judeo-Christian, Western European-derived culture was somehow better than anyone else’s.

    That was also the real beginning of multiculturalism in the school system as well, and the death of the “melting pot” assimilation idea for immigrants to this country. We could have a shared cultural baseline. We should have a shared cultural baseline. Most of a generation decided not to, and the rest were so busy working for a living that they didn’t notice. Now, two generations later (3.5 generations in the inner cities), we wonder why our political opponents don’t seem to even get what we’re saying half the time. The teachers don’t even know that they’re programming the students via subtle cultural propaganda: they’re just teaching the way they’ve been taught to teach, and the way their teachers taught. The {Marx/Gramsci/Derrida} virus has become self-perpetuating.

    To paraphrase Dr. Pournelle on this topic – Not only has education as an institution forgotten how to teach some things, but we’ve forgotten that we even once knew how to teach them successfully. We seem to have forgotten that there is even a need to teach certain things, like history and philosophy and good character. The schools are passing on a more-or-less common culture today: it’s just that it’s the liberal Hollywood mass-media TV sitcom common culture… the Cuddly Matrix, where everyone is equal, and no one deserves to lose (or, therefore, win), and it’s never ok to judge people, and we should all just go along to get along so that no one ever has to be uncomfortable. Oh, and guns are bad, violence never solves anything, and if you’re just nice to the people being mean to you, we can all be friends forever. “Don’t stand up for yourself and confront the bully after school; let the adults deal with that for you” is great childhood programming for “Don’t try to surmount life’s challenges by yourself; let the government take care of you” as an adult.

    If instead the school system was passing on the lessons and values that my grandparents learned growing up in the 1930s, which enabled them to fight and win a world war on two fronts in two hemispheres across two oceans, while barely out of their teens… well, this would be a much different discussion we would be having right now, wouldn’t it?

    Glenn Reynolds is only just barely exaggerating when he states that sending your kids to public school in most places should be considered parental malpractice.

    I agree with your point about Christianity. In a culture not fallen so far, the Church would definitely be the second leg of the tripod (family, church, school) as far as passing along common cultural bonds. In some places in this country, it still is. Unfortunately the Cuddly Matrix has eaten most mainline branches of Christianity as well as the schools, and we’re on at least the second generation of people growing up Godless and thus not able to connect with our point of view from that direction, either. Someone posted in a comment I-don’t-remember-where yesterday that when you have subsumed your whole individual identity into a group defined by a particular sin, it’s impossible for you to even process “Hate the sin, love the sinner.”

  118. @Rez:
    And VD would logically dissect them…”

    He’s been dissecting them, logically and psychologically, on his blogs for several years now.

  119. “My parents’ generation decided in the late 60s that there was nothing worth saving in the shared American culture that existed up to that point.”

    I think pretending that this occurred in a vacuum, that there was no cause for this breaking away form the old cultural models, that it was solely the province of those ‘progressives’ who wanted to ruin the world for all people everywhere; is missing the obvious.

    The “shared American culture” that existed included the Jim Crow laws, McCarthyism, the idea that destroying a village in order to save it is an acceptable foreign policy etc etc.

    Are those things worth saving? If not … then what exactly?

    I’m not a Christian … so your appeal to Christian values and the church as a leg of the tripod rings hollow for me. Does my opinion/voice not matter?

  120. @Luke Jackson
    That Vox Day guy is pretty funny. That’s some high-level trolling he has going on right there.

    That’s not so hard to understand, if you actually read what he writes instead of “skimming until offended” as so many do. Or relying second- or third-hand on the word of other people who skimmed until offended. I’ll take “Bad Habits of the Reading Comprehension-Impaired” for 1000, Alex.

    Unfortunately something about progressivism seems to suck the sense of humor out of people. Maybe it’s because there are so many things you’re not allowed to make jokes about, because OMG, you’re having fun wrong! Someone might get FeelBads!

  121. @clifhiker
    You know what? You’re right. Now if you’ll excuse me, there are some things about my kitchen that I don’t like, so I’m going to go burn my house down.

  122. @MattK ah so I get it … the ‘bad’ things are just a small part of the culture we ‘threw away’. Albeit some pretty important ‘small’ things, but none-the-less … things that we still seem to be fighting over today. So I ask again … what values from that “greatest generation” should we save?

    Sacrifice? Courage? Fidelity? Stay at home moms? What?

    because none of those were any more or less real than they are today.

  123. I think both of those issues are solved, or at least greatly ameliorated, by an educational system that hasn’t lost its way. Most especially the second point.

    The progressive takeover of the school system, already well accomplished, extended itself to removing any sort of character education from the schools under the justification “Who is to say what good character is?”

    We seem to have forgotten that there is even a need to teach certain things, like history and philosophy and good character.

    The issue is that we’ve abdicated the need to teach values because there is no longer any substantial risk involved in not doing so. The most important teachers of values are and will always be the family, followed by private religious and local civic institutions, with the government as last resort. The problem is getting families and small-scale religious/civic institutions to step up. Complaining that the educational system and the media don’t teach values isn’t going to work if the government and the media have lost the ability to evaluate value systems to teach. I could go into the issues with 1930s values that have been glossed over, but the reason we muddled through was the more important values legs, namely family and religion / civics, provided a counterbalance.

    The reason risk management is so important in the big picture is that this loss of risk allows families to step back from having to promote values. The reason those values were promoted was that the risks of not abiding by those values were real misery or death. These days, most single cases of bad luck can be overcome, especially if you are relatively prosperous. The problem is that someone willing to take one risk are likely to take several, and if multiple risks happen at once, you’re in real trouble. As an example, take a risk of a guy that decides the old value against having sex outside of marriage is no longer applicable. It’s not likely to seriously fail; he may very well spend his youth without having something bad happen. If something bad happens once (that one woman actually wasn’t on the pill), it’s an expensive lesson, but won’t ruin his life if he’s got an otherwise decent life. But if he’s got multiple women looking for Child Support, and one of them gave him a nasty rash, and he ignored that risk about drinking and driving and got arrested and now no longer has a job… you get the idea. The individual risks are manageable, so we’ve stopped warning about them as values, although in aggregate they can still ruin your life, and the meta-risk (or value) about teaching people to avoid long-term risk for short term gain or pleasure needs to be taught for the other risks to be meaningful.

  124. Here’s more goofballery at friend to all cis white men Strange Horizons. It’s called “Representing Marginalized Voices in Historical Fiction and Fantasy” The undercurrent of resentments aside, you quickly come to realize that by “marginalized voices” they mean their own exposure to media and global culture is severely limited, which is not the fault of the “cis white male.” They ignore the fact countries all over the world cast their own films and TV shows of all kinds using their own local pool of talent as stand-ins for all sorts of ethnic groups. There’s just no excuse for this constant rabble-rousing against Western straight white men as bogey-man Number One. It’s a sick obsession with no context or real world comparisons.

    http://www.strangehorizons.com/2015/20150427/2chngdurhamsperring-a.shtml

    “The protagonist is not only queer, but she is Asian and disabled.” Is it just me or is this weird obsession creepy?

    Every time I read this stuff John Belushi smashing a guitar in Animal House comes to mind.

  125. because none of those were any more or less real than they are today.

    The idea that people should sacrifice short term pleasure and save for the future is certainly less real now than it was then. Look at the mortgage defaults, the bankruptcy rates, the savings rates…

    The idea that people should remain faithful to each other has certainly gone by the wayside. In order to address issues with a small number of marriages where there was a real need to facilitate a separation, we’ve made it so easy that it’s much easier to just end it with all the trouble that entails rather than try to work something out.

    McCarthyism is, alas, still alive and well, only it’s the left, the Communists and their useful idiots, that keep it alive. “Have you now or ever donated money to Proposition 8?”

  126. James Nicoll’s latest pronouncement:

    ““Given the absence of the second Heinlein bio from either of the Puppy slates james_nicoll April 27th, 11:45

    Doesn’t this mean the Puppies effectively declared a War on Heinlein by denying that volume a spot on the ballot? I think instead of Puppygate, The War on Heinlein would be a better name for the whole Puppy thing.”

    I won’t link, because I posted the whole of his statement. And he doesn’t need more hits.

  127. I’m not a Christian … so your appeal to Christian values and the church as a leg of the tripod rings hollow for me. Does my opinion/voice not matter?

    I phrased it as church and local civic institution, but it could be best phrased as community. American life once incorporated a hodgepodge of local civic organizations that served to anchor things outside the family. Most religious institutions (usually churches due to the number of Christians, but certainly including temples and synagogues) would qualify, as well as religious organizations like the Knights of Columbus, fraternal organizations like the Elks and Rotary, lodges like the Shriners, historical groups like the DAR and the VFW, and even local quasi-governmental groups like volunteer fire departments. Back before they got consumed by politics, one could have also included the local Union Hall.

    These existed outside governmental control and served to create groups bigger than extended families. Most religious organizations crossed ethnic lines, and many ethnic organizations crossed religious lines. What they served to do is bring a community of different families together without being dependent on the government or subject to larger politics.

  128. From http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/the-blue-city-model-the-wall-street-journal-has-an-excellent-editorial-today-explaining-how-the/ explaining how American values have changed:

    The rioting in Ferguson and Baltimore isn’t driven by poverty, race, or even police brutality. It’s driven by progressive culture, which teaches that successful business people “didn’t build that,” accepts abortion/divorce/children out of wedlock as normal behavior, proclaims that poor children (particularly minorities) cannot succeed, that police and authority in general are the “enemy,” and that law is rigged against minorities. Urban music, “leaders” like Al Sharpton, and a Democrat strategy of balkanizing Americans through identity politics–echoed daily by mainstream media–has created a culture that has no respect for the rule of law..

    One can certainly quibble on the details: the lack of respect for the rule of law certainly hasn’t been helped by political leaders on either side, and that on some level a healthy skepticism of police power and authority is a good thing, for instance. However, if your actions on seeing firefighters fighting a fire on private property is to attack the fire hose, I think it’s hard for anyone to consider that as stemming from good values.

  129. @clifhiker
    Your objection requires more time than I have to answer with fidelity rather than the flippancy I started with – I will return to it after class tonight or tomorrow. I will start by noting that 1) I made no claim about how large or small I considered those problems you mentioned to be, while you in your response rhetorically ascribed a particular position, with definite negative connotation, to me. Cleverly and smoothly done, but transparent, and leads me to believe that your agenda is not necessarily constructive engagement and discussion. And 2) you’ll need to do better than “because none of those were any more or less real than they are today” – which doesn’t actually mean anything. Of course, all of those things and anything else that you may care to list are exactly as “real” now today as they were pre-1970. How prevalent they are today compared to then, reflecting the relative importance that the Cuddly Matrix culture of today places on them, is entirely a different story. One that we can often times measure and discuss intelligently – provided you believe that words mean things and that facts are real.

    @wlinden
    Thanks for sharing. While on the one hand my intention is not to offend, on the other hand, I’m not responsible for your emotions, and contrary to the apparent belief of many today, there does not exist any natural right not to be offended. If there is something in particular about one of my comments which you think is debatable, quote it and make your point, and I will respond, amplify, discuss as needed in order to try to make my point clearer.

  130. @wlinden
    On the other hand, if you were trolling in the general direction of other people’s responses, ignore the previous and go on about your business. Far be it from me to tell you that you’re having fun wrong. 🙂

  131. @Joe Doakes,
    Voting for those that were nominated because one likes them does not entail “joining” RP by any stretch of the imagination, just as voting down nominees one truly feels do not deserve the award is not “fighting” RP. The former is especially true since there was overlap between SP and RP, and–would it boggle the imagination–someone outside those campaigns might have nominated them on their own without being told?

    I agree that no rules were broken and so nominees should be voted on–up or down–based on their merits and not how one feels personally about the nominees or who nominated them or even how they were nominated (within the rules does not mean odor free).

    If you truly believe what you have written here, I’d recommend dropping language suggesting people would be “joining” RP– much less that people should do so–just by voting as they are expected. It is not only inaccurate, it is counterproductive.

    At this point shouldn’t the idea be to make people want to read these works, enjoy what they are reading, and come away feeling positive, or at least less angry than they are? Constantly reminding others of the politics and people involved in the nomination process is unlikely to achieve that goal.

  132. I had a great time voting “No Award” today. The look of humiliation on the faces of Sad Puppy nominees will be priceless. To think I’d rather give the award to a trash can than to the crap they spent years working on. Priceless.

    I hope they attend the award ceremony all dressed up and everything, We make a tremendous team here — I couldn’t have achieved this alone. You throw em up, I spike em down. LOL. Thx. I’ll send you pics.

  133. Those dirty no-good Puppies complained that the Hugos no longer have anything to do with merit… so let’s prove them right by casting votes that have nothing to do with merit! That makes PERFECT SENSE!

  134. Thank you for reminding me that it’s time to vote.

    Note, I didn’t cast any “No Awards”.

    I voted for the ones I had an opinion on and bypassed those where I didn’t care who won.

  135. SJWs can block and delete all they want. They’ve forgotten how the internet works. Every time they tell their weird lies we tell a simple truth.

  136. @Philbert Watson. It really is interesting to watch someone be so proud of their ignorance and pettiness.

  137. It doesn’t matter how anyone votes. All those comments about “cis males” and “privilege” have been shoved right down their throats. It’s obvious from the response they haven’t learned a thing. How do people violently opposed to hate speech indulge in it daily and not know it? Sheer stupidity.

  138. @ksterlingh. I agree with your 11:27 post. I withdraw my “joining” comment. I’m thrilled you’ll be reading the stories and voting based on quality, not on politics. Thank you.

  139. @Philbert Watson: you might glance at ksterlingh’s 11:27 comment immediately above yours. That’s what integrity looks like.

  140. The first thing I’d like to say is that N. K. Jemisin using the word “bigots” is rather similar to bumming out on LSD. In civilizational terms it’s a comet striking the Earth. That remark alone sticks a fork in SJWs since she is their high priestess.

    The second thing is this: the SP campaign reminds me of historic battles where the army holding the high ground and all the advantages suddenly panics and retreats for reasons no one can determine.

    In reading all the posts on this subject it’s evident pretty much everyone is arguing over complete bullshit. The SJWs were already there since they are the boutique KKK that has somehow never figured out the common denominator in all their confusing stupidity is always the straight white man. Even the frickin’ actual KKK knows they don’t like black people. SJWs haven’t advanced that far yet, which says a lot about the brain trust we call SJWs; they write words and don’t understand them.

    How in the world does an adult human being write “‘authentic’ seems often to mean ‘what white people would approve,'” think of it as social justice and then call a response to their remark “negativity,” as in the response itself being racist? Give ’em another Nebula – that’ll certainly discourage them and cause them to rethink a remark dumber than anyone in the year 20,000 B. C.

    How you become an accidental KKK while fighting against the principles of a thing like the KKK brings us back to the similarity to bumming out on LSD. When SJWs will come down – if ever – is unknown.

    There’s really no excuse for this to happen to the SP side. If you forgot why you went to war you may as well go home. The entire thing has gotten so far off track it reminds me of Racefail, where tens of thousands of words were written that said pretty much nothing. Gamergate never took their eyes off the prize.

    We’re not exactly what you’d call a culture of Sherlock Holmes. SJWs couldn’t possibly be more up front about what it is they object to in SFF and the world and SPs couldn’t possibly be more adept at conspicuously ignoring that in favor of some bullshit about “cultural Marxism” or “leftism” or mindless pedantic arguments about “message fiction.” If you can’t figure out the difference between Capt. Future and Fahrenheit 451 and feel you need to argue that you probably need a long nap.

    SJWs held no moral ground whatsoever, and SP couldn’t have more brilliantly ceded the field to them by allowing them to not address their remarkable bigotry, which at this point isn’t even on the table any longer. It’s as if Eisenhower had gone nuts and decided to launch D-Day in Spain at the last minute. I think “drift” is the word I’m looking for here.

  141. @Joe Doakes, thanks for the compliment! To be clear, I won’t be voting this year. Nothing to do with politics. I’m a newcomer to the field, missed the entire nominations process and would not have time to build an adequate knowledge-base to make a worthy call. I’m sort of strict with myself that way. Certainly if I was going to vote I’d read them all and give it an honest vote based on story. My main interest at this point is how the rift can be healed so that next year can go a bit smoother with everyone feeling like they are coming out satisfied.

    I think I may take up the offer by Orson Scott Card’s editor for free content from his magazine. Not sure if you read his statement turning down his nomination (sadly yet another), but he has an interesting concept of how to get people interested in lesser known, or politically less popular, authors/magazines… free content!

    @Philbert Watson, I hope that was a joke. And either way, it wasn’t very useful. Why not read/watch everything there? Clear your mind and give it a shot. If you end up not liking it you could at least reject it knowing it was for something other than spite. I mean look at the dramatic presentation nominees… Interstellar, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Game of Thrones (to name three examples). You think those ought to be “spiked” as you put it? That seems a shame.

  142. @Philbert Watson: Yeah, that’ll show those authors for letting wrongfans nominate them! Stick it to those hard-working, talented people!

  143. The expectation of Bad Behavior by anti-Puppies says a whole heck of a lot about who the adults are in this equation and who the petulant children are.

  144. @Synova,

    It shouldn’t really be a surprise. It was Ann Coulters observation (I think she is Voxemort SatanHilters aunt) that you can tell what the left is happy to plot and do in secret based on what they accuse their opponents of secretly doing.

    Accuse you of being a racist? Person probably has very ambivalent attitudes to black people. Accuse you of ballot stuffing? Guess what they are doing? etc.

  145. @kstirlingh, I’m sorry you’re sitting this one out. Just a reminder, it’s not too late. The actual voting for HUGO doesn’t close until July 31st and they won’t even send out the packet of nominated works until late May. If you wanted to buy a $40 membership, read the nominated works and vote this year, you still can. It’d be nice to have a sensible person cast an intelligent vote, whether or not you like Sad Puppies stories. Best wishes . . . Joe.

  146. Wanna bet that “Philbert Watson” isn’t even an actual Hugo voter?

  147. @Joe Doakes, Thanks again for the kind words. I wish I could read enough to vote, but honestly my time is extremely limited… especially over the next 4 months. This last year it was mainly movies or shows for me. That’s why dramatic presentation is all I could honestly vote on. I have to say they were great line ups to my eye (though still curious why the puppies overlooked Edge of Tomorrow). If these represent the same quality of work in the rest of the categories then I’m sure I’d find something I liked a lot.

    Next year I hope to have more time for reading.

    By the way, never confuse intelligence and sensibility in a person with their having good taste. Maybe after all you’d want me sitting out every year 🙂

    Cheers!

  148. Taste? Considering that I want to nominate Saint’s Row IV: Gat Outta Hell for Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form) since it’s the only place video games fit, I’ll kindly and wisely refrain on all matters of taste.

  149. @Rez
    “VD didn’t say the Islamists’ actions were right (in fact he made a disapproving remark, which I can’t recall offhand and don’t feel arsed to go look up). He said they were rational *within the expectations of their own culture*; that is, they were acting as their culture expects them to act.”

    You’re still ignoring the part where he says the Taliban’s argument is “scientifically justifiable.” I agree that if you accept the premise that Allah wants man to mandate women to purdah at puberty then it’s a rational action (however hateful) to shoot the ones who want schooling to discourage others. But the Taliban doesn’t care about their actions being “scientifically justifiable.” It’s VD who cares about calling the Taliban’s actions “SCIENTIFICALLY justifiable” and spends the rest of the blog post bloviating about the “science” he thinks justifies the Taliban’s actions. And since you couldn’t be arsed to look it up (hope these links will work):

    http://www.donotlink.com/framed?6695
    http://www.donotlink.com/framed?6696
    …here are complete blog entries where the quote appeared. Please point out to me where you saw the disapproving remark about the Taliban’s actions, because I sure can’t find it. And Julie, dear:

    “I’m amazed at how a dispassionate evaluation becomes approval or applause. That something is scientifically justifiable only becomes approval or applause if you are the sort of person who has a personal emotional investment in being positioned as pro – science. “Science” isn’t a value. “Science” does not equal virtue….But I wonder… If someone refuses to consider the ways something is rational or justifiable, how can they expect to combat it? Emote uselessly, sure. Fix a problem? Not so much.”

    If you can show me anywhere in those blog posts VD demonstrated the least interest in either combatting Taliban-like aims of stamping out female education with murder or presenting any reason why such aims are unjustified, please point it out. Otherwise, it just ain’t so to say that VD made a non-partisan “dispassionate evaluation” of the virtues and drawbacks of committing murder to end the scourge of female education.

  150. “VD talks about difficult civilizational problems. It is a difficult, grown up conversation….”

    Because it’s a notoriously grown-up action for VD to toss the attempted murder of Malala Yousefzai into his bloviating as a possible solution to the dropping birth rate just to get attention? That’s if you think that he doesn’t REALLY believe it’s justified to shoot Malala but just said it for the shock value. OTOH, if he DOES believe it, then he’s a grown-up applauder of murder. Either way, he doesn’t offer any solutions beyond the shooting.

    “If you really wanted to be helpful, you could join this conversation and perhaps offer better solutions instead of going on about how upsetting this grown-up talk is. (If supposedly enlighted folks such as yourself are out to lunch on the most important issues, the stage is left to those who show up.)”

    *whispers* My dear, I hate to disappoint you, but this particular stage is not well-suited to working on solutions to the falling birth rate. If it were, I’d bloviate on this grown-up link: http://www.cas.uio.no/Publications/Seminar/Complexity_Kravdal.pdf

    …that explains how Norway (not too far from VD; he could check on it if he bothered to drag his head out of his ass) manages to maintain a healthy birthrate by generous parental leave, day care facilities, and such-like, WITHOUT depriving 50% of the population of education, the vote, and other trifles.

  151. So, jayn, why all of this stupid noise over Vox? Vox has his own website, take it over there. We’ve hashed this stuff up and down and left and right, and most of us are done talking about Vox. You got an issue with Vox, please take it up with him.

    This is Sad Puppy land, and I’m pretty sure you’ll find most of us are ready to talk about something else but SJB obsessions with Vox.

    Maybe you think you scored a couple of points, but I’m willing to bet you’re the only one that thinks that.

    Time to get back on Sad Puppy topics.

    In other words, get a life.

  152. Seriously, Jayn? You *want* to be offended and angry so you WILL be offended and angry. I suspect it makes you feel alive… or something. So, why don’t you go do that then. Am I somehow vital for you? Nice to see you go from “approval and applause” to “well, he’s not angry like I am.” It’s probably closer to the truth.

    Bottom line is probably this… he’s a “safe” opponent for you because he’s not actually ever going to do anything bad to you or to any other women. Particularly when you don’t have to complain about him to his face. And other people here are also “safe” opponents for you to carry on against them not being angry enough at Vox. What does any part of it do to promote education for women in parts of the world where they are denied education? Absolutely nothing. As “proxies” for the good fight? We really suck.

    And my point remains. If you CAN NOT, because you are so busy being properly emotional and angry, discuss the ways that the Taliban suppression of women is rational from their point of view, there is nothing whatsoever that you can actually do to make any sort of changes or even promote effective ideas that might percolate upward to someone who can do anything about it.

    But boy golly you can tell some woman on the internet that she’s not emotional enough about some guy with no power over her who never actually said what she’s supposed to be mad about.

  153. I hereby declare myself to be against and disavow all bad things from the dawn of time til the sun coughs and dies inclusive. That includes biting the heads off of bluejays and throwing myself headfirst into manholes or pools of burning lava. Staring into the sun or armed robberies of lemonade stands would of course be covered under the terms of this notice.

    Pulling my own head off is OUT! I do not support the purdah-loving inclinations of bats who hang upside-down in belfries.

    I will never eat Strontium-90.

  154. Before there was ever a Sad Puppies we continually saw rhetoric about “white… male”(s) who hate women/gays/anyone who isn’t them.” We’re still seeing it today.

    The first problem with that stuff is it was assumed to be the community-wide, institutional default not only in SFF today but for the entire last century and no one was showing quotes to back up that position and justify all the activism.

    The second problem is that type of rhetoric not only sets a standard for acceptable and likely human behavior but then proceeds to ignore that standard. In other words there were actual quotes reflecting a community-wide and institutional presence of people who actually did hate men, heterosexuals and anyone who isn’t them compared to virtually nothing on the other side of that. One cannot hide one’s own quotes or fisk them or make up quotes that aren’t there.

    It’s that disconnect and refusal to acknowledge either the likelihood or acceptability of such behavior on the social justice warrior side that has created the rift in SFF; no one is going to accept such double standards. When SJWs conspicuously point to the phenomenon of hate speech in a community as being a problem and then stipulates it is only prevalent among one single race or sex despite proof to the contrary, that itself is an Orwellian admission of hate speech – SJW hate speech. Either it’s a human problem or it’s not; you don’t get to have it two ways.

    No one is going to take people engaged in such an obviously one-sided con game seriously. Either racial and sexual incitement is wrong or it is not. One does not get to light up Vox Day for advancing racially unflattering theories while letting John Scalzi advance racially unflattering theories as if it’s justice. Complaining about one or the other in a vacuum of standards and principles is a child’s game and a form of lying.

    One does not get to light up John Wright as a “homophobe” while at the same time ignoring heterophobic comments by people who have themselves established what the benchmarks of such phobic behaviors are and then violated them. Either humans are liable to such phobias and are acting on them or they are not. One cannot segregate human failure when there is plain evidence to the contrary right in front of your face.

    One does not get to light up all men on Earth as representing “sexism” or “misogyny” as a thing so obvious it needs no argument while acting as if women are so incapable of such a thing it is as laughable as UFOs and as rare as a dodo bird.

    SJWs hide their stupid double standards behind words like “systemic,” “structural” and “privilege” with the precise intent of giving themselves a free fire zone to indulge in the most obnoxious and in your face racism and man-hatred while maintaining an accidental gathering of whites or men is proof of racism and women-hatred. It is not whites and men in the SFF community who popularized terms like “whitesplaining” and “mansplaining.” It is SJWs who popularized talk of “white tears.”

    As long as this con game of words is in play social justice warriors are going to continue to be lit up as the liars they are. They have been getting away with this shit for too long. That’s all over now and SJWs are predictably angry at having their favorite lie taken from them, though they continue to lie the same way every single day. The punching up privilege bullshit isn’t working anymore so just give it up. David Gerrold can preen all he wants about the idea someone will object to either a gay man or a black woman handing out Hugos this year but that gay man and black woman and SJWs are the only one’s going on about such stupid nonsense. It was SJWs crying about the race and sex of who was handing out last year’s awards and not anyone else.

    SJWs are the only organized culture of race and sex-hatred in SFF and they have their own organized ideology together with a fake academic vocabulary full of words like “neurotypical,” “male gaze” and “cisnormative” they use to express those hatreds. If SJWs want to give something up for a year, shut the fuck up for a year and watch how fast racism, phobia and sexism disappear from SFF.

  155. It strikes me that “intersectional theory” is the modern version of rationalizing hate speech.

    If you despise someone who fits a race/class/gender/etc which the Intersectional Matrix approves of your despising, then you are just “punching up” against “oppression”. Because the assumption of oppression is also assumed to be omnipresent, anyone NOT “punching up” is not “doing their part” to combat the presumed oppression.

    This is, incidentally, the same argument which was used in Germany to justify attacking Jews… the argument being that Jews were an omnipresent and oppressive threat to German culture. Prove it? Nonsense, have some wild allegations, some vague historical revisionism, and a whole lot of stereotyping. Same for the origins of the Ku Klux Klan: they considered themselves defenders of “Southern culture” against presumed and omnipresent oppression from nebulous (and again, heavily stereotyped) Northern conspiracies. Nor is this phenomenon in any way limited to the extreme right wing: one can point to nigh-identical origins in the movements of Bolshevism and Maoism, just for starters.

    Each and every one of these movements felt (or claimed to feel) that they were defending victims of oppression. Each one came up with rationales that didn’t hold water under scrutiny, but which also strongly discouraged scrutiny through collective shaming and fear of ostracism. This is why standing up against Hitler or Stalin was such a courageous thing to do: you knew that in doing so you would have few or no friends to support you, while the “political police” (in their various forms) would inevitably mobilize to destroy you as a person.

  156. That’s exactly it. Hateful ideologies are a human failure, and they can and will pop up anywhere and around any racial or sexual identity. The idea they are frozen in one race or sex is ridiculous. What intersectionalists are selling is precisely that; that’s why they purposefully confuse an innocent demography as being a hateful ideology. That’s what all bigoted supremacist movements do anyway but intersectionalists in particular try and cash in on old stuff like women’s rights or Jim Crow though there is evidence of no white or male supremacy in SFF as a trend nor has there ever been.

  157. I don’t want to hijack Ms. English’s comment section, so I’m going to post this here:

    #GamerGate was just hit with a bomb threat at a casual social event which ended up drawing over 300 attendees. The bar has been evacuated by police and no one was hurt, it is not believed at this time that a real bomb was involved. People have been allowed back in to get their things, and the event has moved down the street for an after-party at a different venue.

    Games journalist and former Jeopardy star Arthur Chu, just hours previous, had tweeted “this ends tonight”.

    The police, according to people on-site, said that bomb threats had been getting called in on the bar (Local Sixteen) “all day”. It is known that opponents of #GamerGate had been tweeting and calling the bar all day as well, including Chu, most of whom insisted that it is a “hate group” and “violent”. The bar’s number was in fact distributed by tweets for expressly that purpose. At least one tweet, from a brand-new account sporting Russian typeface for the name, demanded the bar cancel the event or bombs would be set off.

    #GGinDC is the hashtag most of this is being reported through at this time.

  158. To prove my contention that this moronic social justice movement routinely doesn’t understand the meaning of its own words, John Scalzi has just written in a post about the 2015 Hugo Awards “… what a ‘Social Justice Warrior’ is at this point is something of a moving target, the most consistent definition of which appears to be ‘Anyone left of Ted Cruz’.” I’d like to remind everyone that John Scalzi didn’t at one time ask us to “bone up” on “anyone left of Ted Cruz” but on “intersectionality.” “Intersectionality” is an extremely specific ideology which touts two basic concepts: that all male-female relationships in human history are social fictions and that the straight white man is king of privilege hill. “Intersectionality” is the be-all and end-all of the SJW movement and pretending otherwise in the face of their own non-stop race-sex-privilege rhetoric shows how false and stupid these people are.

    At least some social justice mavens don’t lie about the Hugo Awards: “… you’ll notice one thing about the roster of past winners: A majority of them are white men… For close to a decade, the Hugos have made strides toward increased diversity, with deserving women and members of minority groups added to the nomination list. (See: Octavia Butler, Ann Leckie, Saladin Ahmed, Nalo Hopkinson, N.K. Jemisin, and Ted Chiang…” Unsurprisingly, there is nothing there about art, just race and sex, the good and the bad, which sums up SJW ideology, and it is not using Ted Cruz as a benchmark. It is using white men as the benchmark and never tires of saying so.

    Unsurprisingly, Charlie Jane Anders of io9 is quoted: “… the best stories aren’t only the ones told by straight white men.” No one has ever once asserted that was the case and there are no quotes which reflect that. That idea is scraped off the inside of Anders’ head. That’s why Anders can write “Last August, the Hugo Awards for science fiction and fantasy were swept by a younger group of women and people of color” without a hint of awareness of what an actual quote means or who it is causing these problems. Aside from intersectionalists like Anders themselves, no anti-SJW cares about the race and sex of who’s winning awards – they care why they are. Anders’ words are just another in a massive line-up which characterizes the identity-addiction and intellectual and artistic failures of intersectional gender feminism, written by a man posing as a woman as an exclamation point as to the confused divide between the artistically worthy and unworthy – genitals.

    Even the self-proclaimed divide isn’t real, and so you descend into yet another level of idiocy in a movement where anything is anything. Anders writes. “When the nominees are mostly white men, as they have been during most eras except for the mid-1990s and the past five years, it does send a message about whose work is going to be considered valuable.” Too bad that message is never in quotation marks.

    Yet another SJW negatively “critiques” Hugo literature with “This story is essentially a monologue of woe is my manpain!” SJWs are the gift that never stops: writers who don’t understand their own words and who make up words for others.

  159. If Chu did that to stop GamerGaters from meeting, imagine what he might do if he knew there was a gathering of Puppies?

  160. Anytime you read stuff like the usual punching up nonsense by Laura Mixon about “… added weight that lies on the shoulders of people in a power-down social position calls all of us in any power-up community” you know you’re being sold an Orwellian sack of shit.

    People like Chu hide behind that to justify their own racial animus. Everything the race-gender cult of SJWs say is false because it is all based on lies in turn powered by group defamation. SJWs literally have no principles. You cannot argue with people so lacking in any human empathy. The claim SJWs make that political correctness is just another term for “empathy” only makes them look stupider and even frightening to any civilization.

    This stuff is as changing as a dial tone.

  161. If Chu did that to stop a Gamer Gate meeting I really really really hope that the Police track down the bomb threat call. Police don’t actually take those things lightly after all. The business might be able to make at least a small claims suit for damages, too, if they can name a culprit.

  162. It was probably of his Twitter followers, who did it after he gave them the location of the meeting. He bears at least a little responsibility for what happened.

  163. Thing is… his twitter followers are people. They’re not some amorphous mass without individual agency.

    I also realize that the next time someone says, boo hoo GGers can’t control their crazies and so-and-so gets threats and that means anyone who associates with them is guilty, and I say… but bomb threat… the reply will be, when did that happen I don’t believe you.

  164. @ksterlingh:

    “I wish I could read enough to vote, but honestly my time is extremely limited… especially over the next 4 months.”

    I wasn’t going to vote for the same reasons, but I’ve changed my mind. I’ve already seen four out of the five Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form nominees, and I should be able to fit in the Short Story and Novelette nominees without significantly disrupting my life. The Novella, Novel, and Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form categories are more of a problem for me timewise, and I’m not interested in voting in the categories I haven’t mentioned yet; but even if I only vote in the three categories I think I have time to cover properly, that still seems worthwhile. And anyway, the voting packet alone must be worth the $40. It’s win-win.

  165. @Philbert Watson
    “Mr. Tutu is black, though. Are we allowed to quote black people on this blog? Do black people have any wisdom in your world? I don’t know.”

    You still don’t get it? Nobody here CARES if Mr. Tutu is black, white, burnt orange, suprised lemon or any other colour of the spectrum, from gamma rays down to ELF radio waves. IT DOESN’T MATTER. By all means, quote Mr. Tutu. Now, does Mr. Beale speaking his mind constitute a “situation of injustice”? It most certainly does not, anymore than you speaking your mind does. So much for implying Mr. Torgersen has chosen the Dark Side.

  166. Chu’s harmless enough. Like all SJWs he uses Twitter for public mental breakdowns and to openly weep about whites and men.

  167. I may have failed to mention that this bar is in Washington, D.C…. Home of the War on Terror.

  168. And while Chu is doing this stuff, File 770 is emblematic of people getting drawn into senseless and pedantic discussions that point in precisely the opposite direction of Chu and the ideology which created Sad Puppies in the first place.

    It’s no coincidence Chu, Chris Kluwe, John Scalzi and Anita Sarkeesian all speak the exact same language. Milo disagrees with transgender surgery and Kluwe goes straight for Milo’s “transphobia,” as if no one can have an opinion without having an unreasoning hatred. Meanwhile an actual transgender like Brianna Wu and her feminist compadre Anita Sarkeesian try to assert all men on Earth either have a phobia of women or benefit from such a phobia. The same ideology asserts all whites benefit from the privilege of their majority racism whether they are racists or not and that all men benefit from rape – thus “rape culture.”

    If you don’t keep your eye on the prize you lose the game. A simple way to promote Sad Puppies 4 would be to call it an anti-hate speech initiative. SJWs would find themselves finally drawn into and having to discuss this topic of non-fiction racial incitement by SJW authors whether SJWs liked it or not. What smarter way to promote SP4 than to create an anti-harassment Code of Conduct 99% of all Americans could easily pass and say that is the sole criteria by which an author would be ineligible for SP4 nominations. Then, observing the fact almost no SJW authors could pass such a test would place these bald-faced morons right out in the open and having to explain exactly what principles they use in their own “social justice” campaigning. That’s how you beat up an enemy – by the simple expedient of using a language that benefits all, just like law does.

  169. I think that’s an excellent idea, James. Sad Puppies IS about equality, inclusivity, and tolerance. Its core opposition is stridently NOT.

  170. I love all the people who enter this war, want to really, really talk about it, but have no idea what it’s about or how it started. I just don’t get that. Was the Resnick/Malzberg disgrace over property taxes? Was Bradford suggesting people de-ciswhitemale their library about congressional districts? Is N.K. Jemisin all about the feasibility of reaching Earth’s Lagrangian Trojan Points in a time frame which would suit a novel’s drama? Has Ann Leckie ever written about an imaginary restaurant with a Constitution?

    I don’t understand letting these bastards off the hook. You nail such people to the wall by staying on point. Why write posts about how the KKK are not fully on board with septic systems or how to change the oil in your car?

    Our awards don’t go to humanists or literature, they go to a stinking fuck of an ideology that does anything but act in a secret manner. What cabal – these people never shut up about their collusions and agendas. So what do we let these morons argue about? Cabals and conspiracies. SJWs are the masters of straw men arguments.

    How much more obvious does a culture-wide support for not reviewing or reading white men have to be? How many Pearl Harbors did it take to start the war in the Pacific: 38?

    And these people say we are avoiding the issues with Vox Day? How many people is that guy – 400? I don’t write about prejudice. I write about institutional prejudice. I have no interest in the anti-purple racism of my goofy loner neighbor when I have the anti-green racism of city hall. For a cult which constantly talks about racism in terms of power and privilege, they suddenly don’t understand their own stance on the subject. That’s no surprise; that stance is a cover, a shill and a lie to mask their own bigotry.

  171. Kameron Hurley is weepin’ and wailin’ about GG, the Hugos, (“The Hugos have honored some of the great progressive voices of the 20th and 21st centuries…”, BTW; kick all those Dead White Writers in the gutter!), etc.in a ‘Satire’ screed:

    https://archive.is/CwNUN

  172. I know, she enjoys the fact her satire made people angry. She doesn’t understand it reads like a 10 yr. old son of a member of the KKK wrote it. So as far as I’m concerned, in principle she’s happy black folks who enjoy literature didn’t like a really poorly written racist story.

    One doesn’t “satirize” all men any more than one “satirizes” all Arabs. There’s a word for that sort of thing and it’s a concept which routinely escapes this “edgy” and “progressive” new movement of some truly brutal people.

    I’m trying to imagine Ray Bradbury writing such a piece and I think first he’d have to be given a lobotomy and then have his soul sucked dry of humanity. A Kameron Hurley version of Bradbury’s anti-Jim Crow stories would be pro-Jim Crow stories. That’s how clueless this feminist movement is about what it is it actually does. They are racists and they are supremacists. Bradbury didn’t write like them, he wrote about them, and in satire. SFF’s feminists are the book-burners. Frank Frazetta and Robert Heinlein have been purged and burnt.

  173. Sorry I’ve been tardy in answering the people who’ve responded to me…I’ve been busy attempting to get a life, as kindly advised above, and also I have a superstitious feeling that NO ONE (including me) is going to come off well in this shitstorm no matter which “side” you’re on, so it’s probably better to avoid. But, whatever.

    So, @Angus Trim, and others who have asked why I don’t go bother VD – I don’t see the point. As far as I can tell, the man seems to get off on negative attention and is dead to any sense of shame, and so any confrontation of him will simply ease his wank sessions and be otherwise futile. Not to mention I think it’s ethically wrong to finance his crap with clicks. Whereas I think Brad and many on this thread seem to have fundamental decency, which makes discussion seem possible.

    @Synova, dear: “Seriously, Jayn? You *want* to be offended and angry so you WILL be offended and angry. I suspect it makes you feel alive… or something. So, why don’t you go do that then. Am I somehow vital for you?”

    Er, no…as far as I know, I’ve never spoken to you in my life. Unless you’re Julie, in which case I’ve addressed you ONCE in my life. So don’t worry, I won’t pine away without you, though it’s sweet of you to ask.

    “Nice to see you go from “approval and applause” to “well, he’s not angry like I am.”

    Oh, but I haven’t. If you’d actually READ the links I supplied, you’d see that VD uses words like “crazy” to describe a paper written by an actual female Japanese sociologist who speculated that Japanese men’s reluctance to help around the house might actually contribute to Japanese women’s reluctance to marry. (What could an actual Japanese woman sociologist know about why Japanese women don’t want to marry? Crazy, right?) He uses words like “stupid” to describe Western societies BECAUSE they specifically avoid Taliban policies of confining and shooting girls. These are terms of condemnation. He praises the Taliban’s schoolgirl shooting with “rational and scientifically justifiable.” And calling something “scientifically justifiable” IS praise to VD, who happily uses pseudo-scientific arguments about the superiority of Neanderthal genes to justify his stated beliefs about white supremacy and the evils of women’s rights. (described here, thanks to civil keranih for the link):

    http://www.johndbrown.com/what-vox-day-believes/

    So yeah, I totally stand by what I said. Vox Day approves and applauds the Taliban shooting of Malala Yousefzai, because it goes well with his own “scientific” belief in the sociological evil of women getting educated instead of married at puberty. He gives only praise and no condemnation to the Taliban, but calls people who oppose his beliefs “crazy” and people who specifically believe that Taliban behavior is wrong “stupid.” You described VD’s posts as “dispassionate evaluation.” I’m at a loss to understand how “crazy” and “stupid” are terms of dispassionate evaluation. Explain or not, as you please, and thank you.

  174. Jayn, take your opinion up with Vox at his site. He recently addressed this, expressly saying he did not endorse the Taliban’s actions, merely understood them and recognized how the Taliban would consider them rational. Anything further you have to say is either deliberately obscuring facts or willful ignorance.

  175. Pingback: Blank Slate - Invizable Ink

Comments are closed.