Monster Hunter Nation

Sad Puppies Guest Post by Chuck Gannon

I don’t normally do guest posts, but I saw Chuck Gannon at a con last month and he asked if I would be willing to post this essay. There are parts I agree with, parts I disagree with, and there are a few bits where I think Chuck’s take is completely wrong, but the reason I’m posting this is because somebody dared him to post it on a Puppy blog to see our reaction. 

Well, okay then. 

I didn’t bother to read the comments Chuck linked to, but I hear they are a hoot. 

-Larry

###

It will help to have some context on the origin of this essay—which I never anticipated writing beforehand.

On August 31 of this year, I posted the following on Facebook:

My thought for the day:

Choose your battles carefully.

If you find yourself constantly in combat, you’re not being choosy enough.

Or you’ve decided that you are actually at war. Which means that you are now committed to destruction, not discourse.

 

No value judgments implied, but it was a call for courteous self-awareness when in discourse, and, more directly, a kind of diagram of what our discursive behavior tells us about our deepest motivations: are we talking to communicate or do battle? At no point do I imply that battle is always avoidable, or even wrong; just that it’s important to know when you’ve crossed the line, and what that really means.

 

On the same day, I learned that John Scalzi (who has always been friendly and polite to me) had mentioned my novel Trial By Fire (favorably) on his blog. He wrote that, “Also, I think it’s possible that some Puppy nominees could have gotten onto the ballot on their own steam — in the novel category Chuck Gannon has been nominated for a Nebula two times running, so I think he could have had a decent chance at the Hugo.”

I contacted John to say thanks, but to also offer a differing opinion.  My own take was that despite being a Nebula finalist, I wasn’t well enough known, and the novel hadn’t had enough fan buzz, to get a Hugo nomination without the Puppy exposure.

In the course of talking about the Hugos, I mentioned the post I referred to above and the wide and multipartisan affinities it had elicited. Our exchanges inspired me to explicate the reasoning behind that post, and before I knew it, an essay had been created. I let John read it, giving him the yea or nay to post it on his blog. He elected to do so, warning me that he could foresee it not getting a particularly warm reception, and did I really want to go ahead with it?

 

Principle means we do things not in the anticipation of any particular perception, but because they are right. I thought that this essay—which does not engage the rights or wrongs of the current genre divide but merely assesses the long-term costs of how the debate is being conducted—might do some good.

 

Its reception is a matter of record which you can consult if you wish: just read the comments and my responses that follow the essay itself. Some of the comments can only be characterized as irate dares that I post this on a “Puppy” site and see what sort of reaction it would get there. So, since Larry graciously offered to host the essay also, that is precisely what I am doing here.

 

I have included the link to the essay and the reader responses so that everything may be seen in its complete and original context: no alterations of any kind can be asserted, since you are viewing the original itself.

I do not anticipate responding to any comments here, not because I am uninterested in them, but because I am currently working on another novel in the same series as Trial By Fire (and the recently released Raising Caine), as well as a novel in the naval space opera series that launched David Weber’s and Steve White’s careers, the Starfire universe. I need every minute I’ve got for those projects–and we all know how addictive exchanges on the interwebz can become.

 

I wish you all well, and I thank my friend Larry Correia for agreeing to host this introductory statement along with the link to the closed-comment essay (entitled “Ends, Means, and Arsonists—Or—The Importance of Saying ‘Yes’ to Civility While Saying ‘No’ to Passivity”) on John Scalzi’s Whatever blog.

Top of Form

 

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/09/02/wrapping-up-2015-a-hugo-awards-open-thread/

Ends, Means, and Arsonists
Or
The Importance of Saying “Yes” to Civility While Saying “No” to Passivity

Dr. Charles E. Gannon

I contacted my host, John Scalzi, a few days ago, just after he mentioned one of my books here in the following manner: “Also, I think it’s possible that some Puppy nominees could have gotten onto the ballot on their own steam — in the novel category Chuck Gannon has been nominated for a Nebula two times running, so I think he could have had a decent chance at the Hugo.”

This was indeed a kind mention because (and here’s the part where I slit my own throat) I can’t fully agree with John’s generous assessment. Don’t get me wrong: I wish I could agree—but I suspect that it was the Sad Puppy listing which put me on enough folks’ radars so that my novel Trial By Fire wound up just 11 votes behind Liu Cixin’s The Three Body Problem in the total number of Hugo nominations. This is not a comment on the relative merits of my (or any other) Hugo-eligible novel. I simply observe that the odds are good that Trial By Fire did not have enough widespread buzz to climb that high all by itself. On the other hand, Trial by Fire was the only SP-recommended novel that did not make the Hugo ballot. It was also the only SP-recommended novel not included on Vox Day’s authoritarian slate. I will let you decide if there might be some relationship between those two data points…

As many know, my presence on the SP recommendation list came as a surprise; I did not learn about it until a few days (a week?) later, when someone commented on it on my FB account. Perceiving it as a list akin to dozens I’d seen floated during Hugo and Nebula seasons since I first became an SFWA member in 1990 (I think), the one concern I voiced to Brad (Torgerson) was that I was only comfortable being included if Vox Day (whose proclivities were known to me only via general third-hand report) was not on the list. Which he wasn’t. So then I went back to work (I’m fortunate to have a number of novels under contract) and pretty much stopped following the Hugo process. (I’m the parent-on-call for four kids, so I don’t browse FB feed much and sometimes wonder why I even have a Twitter account…)

When I learned about the Rabid Puppies and Vox Day’s activities (which prompted my research into the details of his prior commentaries upon race, women, and more), I contacted Brad and we agreed that everyone must follow their own conscience if push came to shove. I should add, for the record, that I not only respect fellow-novelist Marko Kloos immensely for the choice he made, but I also understand what may have been his instinct not to add to the unfortunate spectacle until and unless circumstances made it incumbent upon him to do so.

However, although my inclusion on the original Sad Puppy list probably brought votes my way, a countervailing trend among another discernible (if non-collectivized) group of readers probably took as many (or more) away. Specifically, during both the Hugo and Nebula process, many blog posts, or comments thereupon, explicitly proclaimed their decision to ignore my novel for a reason expressed with admirable economy by one of their number: “Because: Baen.”

In response to all of this, I can only repeat what I have said about awards from the very start, thus echoing what my host John Scalzi penned here not so long ago: “Vote for what you like.” And, I might add: “Don’t judge books by their covers or publishers.” Most of the major spokespersons in this debate have said just this or something quite similar.

Happily, most people consider these admirable sentiments, but almost as many will wonder, “Yeah, sure, but how the hell do we get to that reality from where we are now?” Or, to use Chernechevsky’s SFnal title (which Lenin appropriated for his famous essay), “What is to be done?” The context of that query invokes, of course, a challenge to discover, articulate, and strategize the attainment of the ends one seeks. I, on the other hand, have come to suspect that in our present quandary, our first agenda item must be to explore the means whereby we may communicate effectively about those challenges. In short, my concern is best titled “How is it to be done?”

Methods and Means

If you can’t communicate effectively, you can’t solve problems—not unless your “problem” is waging a war to utterly exterminate your opponent. So, if you do want to communicate, then as long as words are being wielded as weapons, the downward spiral—of this conflict and of our genre—will continue.

So my focus has been, and remains, on behavior not politics. That may sound like arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but I see it as making sure the rudder works. By which I mean: at some point, people have to talk if they wish to end, limit, or deal with the aftermath of a conflict. Right now, the capacity for genuine communication is crashing in a dizzying tailspin, while attitude polarization is on an inversely proportional rise.

Let me be perfectly clear, I’m neither “puppy” nor “anti-puppy.” My own beliefs are so darn eclectic that I doubt any group would have me. But beyond that, there is this purely functional consideration: any resolution to a conflict (short of unilateral annihilation) cannot be achieved through strident advocacy for or by any one side.

Why? The answer is one of the most consistent and simple phenomena of social dynamics, one as old as history itself. You cannot be primarily committed to facilitating equable and balanced communication and be a partisan leader.

I am a communication specialist, have worked in that role in various capacities for over 30 years, and have seen (and been asked to help manage) this phenomena in many different scenarios. And here’s the relevant challenge that arises: partisans have the luxury to remain absorbed by (and locked into) their conflicts of the moment. So, they cannot become change-agents for better bilateral discourse; their prior role precludes opponents from believing that they are doing anything but surreptitiously supporting their own agenda. So it is necessary to preserve and/or create a communications channel for moving beyond the conflicts in which those partisans are still engaged. A truly multilateral discursive arena—for which civility is both the bedrock and cornerstone—is the foundation and lynchpin of that eventual need.

I do care about hurt feelings, but that’s simply not my reason for emphasizing the issue of civility and respect in discourse. Indeed, feelings are not merely important but operationally relevant because, when people’s feelings are hurt, they are primed to strike back–and so, the possibility of increasing civility remains near or at zero. But this is not a hand-wringing, mewling appeal for “oh, can’t we all just be nice to each other?” This is more of a “Look: when everyone is done thumping their chests and mixing up their genuine beliefs, their admitted and unadmitted ego involvement, and all the rest of the emotional and rhetorical baggage, we’re all still going to be here. If this was a literal war, you might decide to exterminate each other. But since it’s not, you’re going to have to coexist, because you can’t steer around each other far enough to create total mutual avoidance. So some people have to keep saying: ‘when all of you are ready to clean up the mess, remember how to talk to each other. Because that is the only way the mess is going to be cleaned up. No matter who declares victory and goes home.’”

To reprise a theme that I’ve seen on posts from commentators as diverse as David Gerrold, Brad Torgerson, and Eric Flint, the descent into personal invective always portends a downward spiral that carries us away from ideas and understanding and straight into a cesspool of inane and profitless rock throwing. And “but they started it first” is no excuse for any side to maintain their vituperation level at Defcon 2. Indeed, there is every reason not to.

Firstly, it’s rarely a good idea to let the actions of another dictate the manner in which we respond. To do otherwise is to essentially say, “I accept that I do not define the means by which I engage in conflicts; I cede that initiative and authority to my opponent.” As we all know, it’s not a good idea to let anyone else drive your life-bus or set the pace—least of all someone you perceive as an opponent.

Secondly, when it comes to the notion of matching your opponent’s dirty tactics or railery with your own, … Well, departing from your own game plan or ethical rules of engagement is only worth considering when the stakes are so high that the benefits strongly outweigh the deficits. I can think of real wars (Cold and otherwise) where matching escalation was essential to maintain whatever balance remained in the conflict. But are the desperate, end-of-the-world cost-to-benefit ratios which informed those scenarios really present here?

Lastly, since mutual name-calling only achieves mutual mud-wallowing, there is no argumentative advantage to be gained by it. At most, invective and mockery might incense your adversary (i.e.; if they’re stupid and easily distracted). But unless you firmly believe that their rage will cause them to a ) act rashly, and that b) you will be able to decisively exploit that intemperance, it’s not a worthwhile tactic.

But let’s be honest. None of these “reasons” explain the verbal vitriol that has been fuming like Old Faithful (Old Fateful?), lo these many months. Name calling is usually just a way of venting one’s overloaded spleen. It’s a verbal smack in a childish slapping war, like the ones waged between testy siblings in the back seat during a roadtrip to some hated destination (an analogy employed to great effect by Eric Flint during one if his epic excurses on this very topic).

So that’s why my concern is with how the discourse is conducted. Yes, there are always going to be arguments and debates, some more ferocious than others. And some burn themselves out. But some go on for longer, and do far more damage, than they must. And that typically happens when a debate starts falling under the real (or perceived) rhetorical influence of radical extremists like Vox Day or Requires Hate. Because although they might sound like they are deeply invested in the debate, their involvement is motivated by other objectives.

Specifically, lots of people have been shouting loudly on either side of this issue, most of them very impassioned about protecting the enjoyment they derive from our genre. But the radical extremist has a different objective, which often betrays itself in their subtly different modus operandi. Whereas the impassioned partisans want their side to win, the extremist wants to effect change by burning the extant structures to the ground.

I worry that the state of discourse in our genre could easily play into that long term result. Not because of the differing opinions among our genre’s various partisans but because of the lack of civility, which undermines fair and clear communication. Invective and insult has greased the slide down into today’s growing midden heap of rhetorical excesses, sloppy evidence gathering, and hasty presumptions of guilt-by-association. And these cascading failures in reasonable discourse are the tinder with which radical extremists may easily fuel the conflagrations whereby our genre’s structures might consume themselves.

Arsonists Among Us

I offer you this conceptual equation as the formulae whereby cultural pyromaniacs have historically created group- (or nation-) consuming infernos:

+ incivility ->
+ dehumanization ->
+permission for violent response ->
+radicalization and extremism

This is a proven recipe for quickening passionate partisans into aggressive zealots. When advocates forsake their initial behavioral limits, they have started down a path in which their ends have begun to justify means they would not have countenanced earlier. And so they are on their way to becoming radicalized extremists.

We are familiar enough with the early warning signs of this dynamic at work, and which, cast in the taxonomies of our genre, equate to:

1) increasing numbers of SF & F readers becoming infected with the same virus of polarization now endemic in so many other parts of our culturescape;

2) name-calling, mockery, and personal invective that becomes so ubiquitous that it no longer stands out as arresting or unusual;

3) increasingly strident and absolutist rhetoric, often accompanied by a reflex to screen for “correct think vs. wrong think” semantics.

I don’t propose to have any sweeping answer for how to reverse this trend. (That would make me yet another strident advocate, wouldn’t it?). Rather, I perceive the answer to be ultimately personal: a conscience-informed attempt to balance what one intended to convey with how it was received. In short, to temper oneself without muzzling oneself.

My own answer is to keep talking amiably with people from all over the spectrum, regardless of however different (or not) our opinions may be. Consequently, lots of the folks I’ve spoken with over the last six months will not find the content of this post surprising and have expressed sympathy for larger or smaller parts of it. The list includes people such as Larry Correia, David Gerrold, Brad Torgerson, John Scalzi, Rachel Swirsky, and Eric Flint, just to name a few. And if anything strikes me as even more prevalent than the differences of opinion and perception among the dozens of people with whom I’ve chatted, it is the degree to which the “sides” do not understand each other. Which, given America’s contemporary culturescape, is not really surprising.

Specifically, there is an increasing paucity of shared experience in America. The present cultural volatility and churn, which goes well beyond the demographic reshuffling of relative measures of social power, produces a situation in which persons from different outlooks and experiences are likely to attach subtly or even significantly different meanings to many of the same words and labels.

What place does this thumbnail comparative cultural analysis have in this post about civility in rhetoric? It may not be as tangential as it seems, because these underlying cultural divides aid and abet the reflex toward Othering. When it comes to forming opinions about persons from an opposing set of experiences and values, it requires much less of a push to tip us over into negativity and dehumanization. So when “the American experience” is as howlingly different for two groups as it is for what media pundits now often refer to as the urbanite vs. fly-over dyad, frictions are primed.

So, if there are indeed significant cultural differences that are informing the underlying topography of the friction in our genre, that also explains why neither side needs to employ conspiracies or complicated plotting to achieve what might seem like a monolithic consensus. After all, each group already speaks its own language, has its own behavioral codes and cues, and its own sense what constitutes praiseworthy cultural products. It’s hardly surprising that their aesthetic preferences and values are. in so many ways. almost wholly misunderstood by each other.

Yet here’s the challenge this puts before us: when you meet a person from a different culture, you have to be more civil and you have to listen harder and more carefully, if (a big if) you want to understand and be understood. And you must also be prepared to step back enough from your own cultural values to see that many of them are not objectively correct, but conditional to the experience that gave rise to them. Then, when you turn that same dispassionate lens upon the Other, you may begin to see the world as they do through their eyes. (I think I’m starting to channel Margaret Mead.)

Unfortunately, no single act is so likely to result in one’s being ejected from one’s own group as the process I outlined above, because few things threaten group cohesion as much as questioning its self-defining narratives. Which of course include the narrative of the Evil Other. Yet somewhere between excessive and insufficient empathy, somewhere between unacceptable gradualism and insupportably rapid transformation, there is a happy medium…which will paradoxically not make anyone truly happy.

But that is in the nature of compromise and coexistence. And as long as we’re arguing over transformation, we’re still engaging worthwhile issues. Every genuine conflict that ends in something other than absolute expulsion or extermination of one side means that we have affirmed our ability to move back from the pendulum swings of vituperation, anger and rage into a modus vivendiwhere two parties can speak to each other and resolve (or at least reduce) the aggression and animus dominating the situation. If this were not possible, discussion and negotiation would be delusionally pointless activities. And if you already hold that grim belief, then I am sorry for having wasted your time with these words.

Some Closing Words About Words

Many people have uttered or asserted many questionable things throughout the entirety of the 2015 Hugo process. Some people have uttered or asserted some arresting ideas and personal attacks. Only a very few have routinely employed the radicalized extremist’s cant to frequently advance propositions or characterizations that are outrageous or horrific. But to the extent that our genre’s discourse tolerates the articulation of atrocity, or continues to wallow in the vitriol that greases the slide toward greater dehumanization and Othering, the social arsonists can hope for new recruits, new zealots. That’s what makes voices like those of Vox Day and Requires Hate so dangerous: their objective is to use our own worst impulses as the means to bring about the destruction of the SF&F community and many of its institutions.

I appreciate being given this space, and you having taken the time to navigate this conceptual slalom. By way of offering a quick, value-neutral take-away, the spirit of these comments were synopsized in a recent, much-shared post of mine on Facebook. It is simply a conceptual barometer whereby we may assess our discursive behaviors:

A thought for the day:

Choose your battles carefully.

If you find yourself constantly in combat, you’re not being choosy enough.

Or you’ve decided that you are actually at war. Which means that you are now committed to destruction, not discourse.

I believe that if we insist on civility (as distinct from passivity), we will hasten our climb out of this discursive tailspin and enhance our collective ability to celebrate SF & F, regardless of its source or style.

 

Ask Correia #17: Velocity, Releases, Rankings, and Remainders
BOOK BOMB! Pack Dynamics by Julie Frost
Henry Smith
Guest

No discourtesy intended, but the writer needs to read Vox Day’s new book, “SJWs Always Lie” to see more clearly what the problem is.

BassmanCO
Guest

I like Chuck and enjoyed the first in his Caine Riordan series. But I have to agree with Henry Smith. Compromise only works with a sincere group, and the SJWs are not sincere about anything other than subjugating everyone to their worldview.

richard mcenroe
Guest

In point of fact, barefaced lying has been a principal tactic of EVERY proglodyte movement, from Sanger and Lenin to Alinsky and Obama, with side trips through fascism, the Democratic Party and Mitch McConnell’s office.

cremes
Guest

I would recommend that Mr. Gannon actually speak to Vox Day. However, he has apparently “Othered” him and screened him out for “bad think” which he exhorts the rest of us to avoid doing.

Jericho941
Guest

No, it’s perfectly possible to understand Vox Day and form a negative opinion about him and his 3edgy5me rhetoric.

Nathan
Guest

Odd, in general, that it’s only Vox Day’s edginess that gets singled out, and not Scalzi’s consistent condescension toward those who disagree with him, or Wendig’s chronic assholia online, or Sandifer’s defense of pedophilia…

James Schardt
Guest

No, those get pointed out too. It’s just that it gets pointed out by those who are more likely to agree with Vox than by those on the Left. Heck, Larry, if taken only in the context of one of his fiskings, probably looks like an asshole too someone that leans left and has never read him before.

Doctor Locketopus
Guest

Or the Nielsen Hayden’s thirty year record of character assassination and attempted suppression of crimethink books.

VD
Guest
I happen to know that Charles Gannon is both a coward and a liar. But more importantly, he’s just wrong. He demands unilateral disarmament when it comes to rhetoric and completely fails to observe that you cannot “choose your battles” when you are attacked by SJWs. No doubt he’ll eventually learn this when they turn on him for one reason or another; they always do, sooner or later. As for the idiocy of trusting “general third-hand reports” in a poisonous environment like SFWA, well, that alone should qualify him for the short bus. As for discourse, I am always willing… Read more »
Were-Puppy
Guest

I got that same impression. Which is a shame. This almost seems like an article from several months ago.

Carbonel
Guest
Ditto. It took me a while to read through nearly decade of World Net Daily posts (I admit, I skimmed a lot of the football, econ posts, & now-ancient computer tech commentary). This is a guy who held a reasonable mix of main-stream libertarianism and for his thoughtcrimes was targeted for personal attacks by the Tor crowd. Nasty, crowd-baiting stuff: lets all ostracize and Other, Mr. Beale: Pile on guys! This is super LOLz.. Based on everything I’ve read (and with the obvious exception that the comments section at Vox Day is like Jackson’s Whole) the accurate model isn’t isn’t… Read more »
xServer
Guest

I end any conversation when the other person starts saying “You always” or “You never” because absolutes rarely exist in human behavior. It’s a sign the discussion has gone off the rails.

Arksine
Guest

The title is rhetoric. I suggest actually reading the book, where Vox explains the title and why he chose it.

xServer
Guest

I’m sorry, whatever his explanation the choice was a poor one. But he wasn’t speaking to me anyway. I’ve read some of his work and I feel no need to go back for more. Ditto Requires Hate.

Were-Puppy
Guest

Give it a chance. It’s the only thing of his that I have read, but it’s a good book.

Carbonel
Guest
xServer, which of his works have you read? I’ve read many of his essays, some of his editorial products (many of which are superb), one debate with Philip Sandifer (fascinating) and part of one novel which didn’t interest me (topic, not writing style or craftsmanship) Which of Requires Hate’s work have you read? I have only read a handful of excerpted tweets as presented in Laura Mixon’s Hugo-winning report, so it’s possible, that somewhere s/he exhibits the grammer, rhetorical skills and reasoned arguments, or for that matter, storytelling ability of Vox Day. Please clarify. Otherwise this is merely a random… Read more »
VD
Guest

Then you are socially and intellectually retarded. Most conversations are rhetorical in nature. You are quite literally refusing to communicate with most of the human race.

The fact that the discussion is insufficiently dialectical for you does not mean it has gone off the rails.

Keith Glass
Guest

I, on the other hand, HAVE read both Vox’s fiction and non-fiction over the years. You may not always agree with his conclusions, but I’ve found that they generally proceed in a relentlessly logical fashion from his premises.

People’s problem with Vox’s premises, is that he tends to openly state what a lot of people think, but won’t openly say. Hell, **I** don’t always agree with his premises, but he argues them well.

And for that, he is anathema to the crowd that values Feelz over Realz. . . .

Shadowdancer
Guest

Like you I did that and I’ve come to much the same conclusion as you have. I’ll occasionally pop over to his blog to read some of the posts there, because such relentless, and unrepentant logical proceeding from a premise is a breath of fresh air to read.

Realz over feelz indeed. I’ll have to remember that.

Were-Puppy
Guest

100% agree.

James Bryant
Guest

I agree with a lot of his points and I’d love to see a reconciliation of Sci Fi fans. I am afraid however that if one side is in a battle and one in a war the side that believes it’s in a war will win. Maybe I’m wrong, but it feels to me that the other side believes it’s in a war.

Greg
Guest

And I fear that is an accurate perception. Not just in SF/F fandom either. The US has become all but ungovernable thanks to unreasoning, extremist ass-hats on BOTH political extremes and their unrelenting push to “victory or death (for the nation)”.

xServer
Guest

Agreed. Just look at the mess in the House to see what extremism gets you.

Zsuzsa
Guest

Extremism gets you people having a disagreement about what to do and using the democratic process to select a new leader?

xServer
Guest

It gets you unable to elect a leader because no one wants the job.

Greg
Guest

No, extremism gets you “repeal the ACA or we’ll collapse the economy by not raising the debt ceiling”. Or the current “defund Planned Parenthood and slash Social Security and Medicare or we’ll collapse the economy by not raising the debt ceiling.”

Extremism gets you the ABUSE of the democratic process to overturn the legitimate democratic process.

The TEAOP and the Anti-Puppy SJW Hugoistas are spiritual and tactical twins: their way or no way.

J. C. Salomon
Guest

The TEAOP and the Anti-Puppy SJW Hugoistas are spiritual and tactical twins: their way or no way.

Remind me, Greg: which side actually proposed “their way or no way” (aka No Award) as a voting strategy?

Greg
Guest

That is my point. No Award is the same tactic as “repeal this/that or we’ll collapse the economy”. Either you do what the bully wants (be they TEAOP or SJW Hugoista) or they’ll burn everything down.

J. C. Salomon
Guest

I misread whom you were referring to; never mind.

Brad Andrews
Guest

“Mommy, mommy, Bobby hit me back!”

We are bad for hitting back.

Instead we should be “Thank you sir, may I have another”?

MikeLorrey
Guest

Yes, if you properly submit to be bottom to their top, you can claim a non cis-normal gender role and be assimilated into the SJW Borg Collective.

Tomy
Guest
Hah, which side refused to pass any budget that would defund Planned Parenthood or Obamacare and set the tone to “their way or no way?” There’s a lot to agree with in this gentleman’s guest post, but he forgets, there’s only so many years you can tell someone they’re a racist, sexist, homophobic, racist, stupid, ignorant, inbred, uncultured, worthless, hatemongering, pig-faced, incompetent, drooling, mouth-breathing, racist yokel… before said person starts waking up to the crap-sandwich that these enlightened betters are trying to ram down his or her throat. Let’s try to remember who started the poo-slinging and how long it… Read more »
David
Guest

The day is coming, Greg, when no more debt will be taken, and it will have NOTHING to do with a ‘debt ceiling’. It will be when nobody lends us any more money. And there will be no way the Dems can vote around that.

Doug Loss
Guest

Of course, “their way” is “everyone should have a voice in making decisions that affect us all.” And “no way” is refusing to be ignored anymore.

Doug Loss
Guest

Meaning the “TEAOP” of course. The SJWs appear to reverse the meanings.

Alpheus
Guest

And then there are those of us who think “we need to repeal the ACA and defund Planned Parenthood because otherwise we’ll have to raise the debt ceiling; if we keep raising that, we’ll collapse the economy!”

Let’s face it: whether our republic is functioning democratically or not, our government is currently severely disconnected from reality. It can only remain disconnected for so long before horrible things happen…

Alex Jeffries
Guest

By “extremism,” you men politicians more interested in enriching themselves and their cronies than doing the work they were sent to do? Because that’s the problem in the House today.

Greg
Guest

The problem with that claim is that, simply put, the TEAOP is doing *exactly* what it was elected to do: gum up the governing process so that no governance is had on the important issues, and to re-arrange the rules so that truly democratic forces cannot regain control of the political process.

BassmanCO
Guest

You could fertilize a multi-acre farm with all that bullshit.

BobtheRegisterredFool
Guest
BobtheRegisterredFool
America is a Republic and not a Democracy. In a Republic, the system sticks to a deal that had been agreed upon at some point. If enough cheat, the deal is null and void, and there is no reason to grant anyone any of the protections it carried. A Democracy is a popularity contest all the time, every time. If it is popular to slaughter a minority, than that minority is slaughtered. Everyone who complains of the constitution being written by dead men, or who considers it a living document, is a supporter of Democracy. Both sentiments have long been… Read more »
Greg
Guest

The people that are cheating are the voter suppressing, registry purging, gerrymandering TEAOPers.

The rest of your screed I refuse to answer on account of your obvious derangement in promoting the idea of putting people in ovens.

BobtheRegisterredFool
Guest
BobtheRegisterredFool

Putting people in ovens is no more deranged a ‘medical procedure’ than what you were just promoting up-thread.

Doctor Locketopus
Guest

Oh, yes. Greg’s a “moderate”, all right. The mask always slips, doesn’t it? Now go away, Greg, and think up a new fake name. Try harder next time.

You do know that the people who put other people in ovens were socialists, right? It’s right there in the name of their party, dude.

Libertarians aren’t, in general, in favor of putting anybody in ovens, or a government that has enough power to do that.

detroyes
Guest

My father-in-law was involved in the redistricting of the State Illinois and the City of Chicago, based on the 1970, 1980, & 1990 censuses. I can say quite categorically that gerrymandering to redraw districts “to screw the Republicans” was a standard tactic of the Democrats in Illinois. And prior to about 1995, Democratic politicians in Illinois openly boasted about doing so.

The Democrats are just pissed that they’re getting a taste of what they themselves used to do unchallenged for decades.

Dan Kauffman
Guest

My favorite example of gerrymandering is in Cook County there is/was a l district two sections joined by a long thin piece of land that is a median in a 4 lane highway LOL

detroyes
Guest
When my father-in-law was working on the redistricting for Illinois in 1990, I looked at some of the maps he had in his office. One of them was for a proposed revision to a Judicial district. This map had a weird offshoot in one area that went down a street then opened up to one side to take in a few addresses. I asked about it, and he said a district judge lived at that address and they were trying to keep him in the district he’d been elected to and not moved into the next district over. The next… Read more »
Alex Jeffries
Guest

“Moderate”. *snort*

Dan Kauffman
Guest

Voting registries are sorely in need of purging there are too many Dead people voting

Doug Loss
Guest

Now you’re just full of it.

SirBrass
Guest

Greg, that’s called “projection.” Here’s a fact for you: there’s certainly been voter suppression, registry purging, and gerrymandering up the whazoo, but it hasn’t been by the Tea Party supporters or the candidates the helped to get elected.

Reziac
Guest

I’m reminded that the Founders *designed* our system of government to *encourage* legislative gridlock, because they felt that stalling the process was preferable to rushing into potential doom.

Brad Andrews
Guest

Government is best which governs least….

Someone said that and it makes far more sense.

Doug Loss
Guest

If the “TEAOP” is winning elections, how are they not a “truly democratic force?” In fact, they are regaining control of the political process. You just don’t like it very much.

BobtheRegisterredFool
Guest
BobtheRegisterredFool

If the TEAOP were democratic, they would be lynching people. They are republican, because they think the deal still holds, and that only the means inside of the deal are appropriate.

snelson134
Guest

However, the democrats are working hard to demonstrate why you can’t deal with people you can’t trust.

Carbonel
Guest
Both sides feel embattled. One because it had comfortably ostracized the Jews and the Blacks and their clubhouse was cozy just the way they liked it, and now it’s under threat from all those nasty conservatives, libertarians, and religious folks who they thought they’d managed to drive off and keep out. And now THOSE PEOPLE ARE BACK AGAIN. And they are making a MESS all over our nice clean clubhouse, playing that Jew-music and reading those darky magazines. Ick. One side feels like it’s gone to war because somehow, enough pebbles started moving that an avalanche of oldfans woke up… Read more »
PeterK
Guest

This is exactly the kind of thing I’d expect from someone with a Dr in front of their name.

Sometimes war is already upon you.Is it not appropriate to defend yourself in that situation? Does that count as commitment to destruction?

xServer
Guest

Why is it that someone with “Dr” in front of their name isn’t worthy of respect? Is it a bad hospital experience or anti-intellectualism raising it’s head?

James May
Guest

Anti-intellectualism like “compulsory heterosexuality,” which, by the way is the core argument behind Ann Leckie’s genderblind SF. Ironically and stupidly, that argument is for a “return to nature.” Hahahahah. That’s right. Mating pairs of tigers are morons. There’d be far more gay tigers if the male one’s hadn’t constructed heterosexuality. That shows you how far gone these creepy people are. They are a cult of fringe lunatics.

Andrew
Guest
People with “Dr” in front of their name, intellectuals if you will, have a pretty bad track record when it comes to producing accurate and useful information. One reason for this is the strong incentive to produce positive experimental results, particularly in social sciences. The prestige and attention of a paper with a new finding is far greater than that of a paper that disproves or finds no correlation. Since these positive findings are usually flimsy, they’re often, embarrassingly often, reversed. To put it another way, the intellectuals can’t make up their mind if I should eat eggs or not,… Read more »
Carbonel
Guest
Hah! I can explain that: Once upon a time a fellow came out to a Texas farm from the city. After looking around a bit, he went up to the farmer and asked him why that cow–the one in that field over there–had no horns. “Some cows, sir,” replied the farmer, “some cows don’t have horns because they’re special-bred not to have any. And there are some cows where only the bull has horns, so that cow could just be female. And there are times when we have to remove the horns from a cow for some reason. “But this… Read more »
Were-Puppy
Guest

See Kervorkian and Gosnell for starters.

perlhaqr
Guest

Kevorkian only killed people who wanted it.

Robin Munn
Guest
Kevorkian only killed people who wanted it. Or, more likely, whom he persuaded to want it. See the comment thread at http://accordingtohoyt.com/2015/10/01/the-weapon/ for many examples of such a thing happening with other doctors in places where murder-by-physician (which they call “assisted suicide”) is legal. To pick one example, here is a cite from one of Paul Howard’s comments in that thread: I remember reading a News Article about something that happened either in Holland or in Belgium. It seems a son was told by her elderly mother that she was thinking about “assisted” suicide. He immediately got her another doctor… Read more »
Robin Munn
Guest

And see also Belgium, where a 2003 article in “De Standaard” article quoted the high number of “euthanasia without request” cases (translation: murder by physician without even the figleaf of the patient asking for it). In 2001, 1.5% of all deaths in Belgium were “euthanasia without request”. In 1998, that number was as high as 3.2% of ALL deaths in Belgium!

Euthanasia is not just a slippery slope, it’s a slippery cliff, and should be opposed by anyone who cares about human life. It can sound good in principle, but in practice it delivers horrors.

Robin Munn
Guest

Whoops, forgot the link and the Edit function isn’t coming up for me. That 2003 article in “De Standaard” can be read (in an English translation) here:

http://entre_nous.blogspot.com/2003_06_01_archive.html#95787657

Nohbody
Guest
I don’t have the consciousness remaining to really discuss Mr. Gannon’s post, but I do find it interesting that Mr. Scalzi would imply that there would be a negative reaction to the post if made in a Puppy-friendly (so to speak) forum, given the vitriol and butchery of posts found directed at anyone on prominent anti-Puppy forums who doesn’t agree with the anti-Puppy side (see “disemvoweling”, quotes taken out of context or outright fabricated from bits and pieces of unrelated work, and Scalzi’s own editing of posts holding opposing viewpoints in fora where he has administrative control). It would be… Read more »
Nohbody
Guest

That is, being wrong about the projection thing. It doesn’t take a whole lot of searching to see elsewhere that I have been in the wrong. 😛

Luke
Guest

SJWs always project.

BobtheRegisterredFool
Guest
BobtheRegisterredFool
There’s grounds to be terribly concerned for Chuck’s safety when he posts here. I think I called him a racist to his face here, or somewhere in the Puppysphere, because his writing promotes negative stereotypes of corporations. Of course, then he tells his story about the time in the eighties he spent observing a financial company during a Mexican earthquake. He also points out how careful he is to present a range of corporate behaviors. It looked liked we laughed and moved on, but I hear hundreds of people had a fit of vapors over that discussion and had to… Read more »
NFG
Guest

Requires Hate is still accepted within the mainstream of SF publishing. One cannot say the same for Vox Day. More to the point, Vox Day for all his numerous “interesting” views, has not run around making violent physical threats to minority women (which Requires Hate did). He’s been civil, while Requires Hate wasn’t (creating a separate persona unconnected to your uncivil screeching isn’t being civil). These false comparisons don’t help Gannon’s case.

James May
Guest
Only days ago RH Tweeted about “pigfucking white women.” An entire cast of SFF editors, bloggers, and writers still Tweet with her. And how is RH different from Alyssa Wong, Elizabeth Bear, Amal El-Mohtar, Steven Gould, Laura Mixon, Saladin Ahmed, Aliette de Bodard and 100 others I could mention. It’s the same thing every day: men, men, men, whites, heterosexuals, men, men, men, whites, heterosexuals. I’m not interested in “getting along” with David Duke but instead dropping rhetorical bombs on his stupid head whenever possible. Gannon needs to read 1984 about a million times. Do you really think people admit… Read more »
Brad R. Torgersen
Guest
By taking his essay to Whatever, I am afraid Chuck threw good money after bad. The “other side” in this is happily engaged in a zero-sum culture war. Most of us had no interest in that culture war, but as any good Marxist knows, just because you’re not interested in the culture war, doesn’t mean the culture war isn’t interested in you. The reason SP exists is because there are people in our entertainment arts who have taken it upon themselves to tell us what kinds of fun are right, and what kinds of fun are wrong. Fans, authors, artists,… Read more »
T.L. Knighton
Guest
That’s why I no longer really care what they think. I write what I want to write, read what I want to read, and watch what I want to watch. Their opinions no longer matter. And no, to the trolls watching, it’s not because you’re somehow not human. It’s because you and I clearly approach science fiction and fantasy from different places and your opinions don’t matter because they’re useless to me. Just as I’m sure mine is useless to you. Now, if they want to chat about fandom stuff, I’m willing. Just don’t expect me to change who I… Read more »
Book
Guest
Brad, you make exactly the point that I wanted to. For some reason, the literati in the publishing world decided that certain fans were not welcome. They made a lot of excuses why we weren’t welcome to sit at their mean girls’ table- topped off with a heaping helping of intimation and innuendo. The truth of the matter is, nothing we do will satisfy them. We have tried bending over backwards to be nice, we’ve tried explaining ourselves and having a reasonable dialogue. Where did that get us? The books we love were one starred on GoodReads and Amazon without… Read more »
James May
Guest
And to this day they are defending the bald-faced lie they don’t commit to affirmative action initiatives, though there are literally thousands of quotes by them showing them doing just that. Meanwhile they claim we read books solely because people are white, straight and male. Show me any quotes recommending books on that basis. There’s the basis of the “diversity” movement. It is based on a lie. In fact it is their own racial and sexual narcissism they are promoting. Someone just posted stats from a large dating website. White men were among the lowest in same-race preference. That is… Read more »
Were-Puppy
Guest

The only thing left to do then, is to flip that mean girls table over while they are sitting at it. And take their meals and feed them to hungry puppies.

Brad R. Torgersen
Guest
The more moderate voices in the opposition didn’t dare voice their concerns, because they knew they’d get mulched by the strident activists for whom all of this is merely a single battle in the larger culture war. I’ve linked to this essay before. It’s an instructive insider’s look at the cult-like mentality of the social justice bullies who are trying to set themselves up as the commissars of our popular culture. They claim to be loving and tolerant, but are filled with anger, resentment, and hatred for people who don’t have the same anger, resentment, and hatred. And yes, the… Read more »
Carbonel
Guest

On the drive back from Sasquan I sketched a comic about it and posted it the following Wednesday. You can find it if you google tempest in a teardrop sunday t-shirt shopping.

That’s exactly the impresson I got at the ceremonies and the comic sums up exactly how I feel about the whole sorry mess.

Zachary Ricks
Guest
I think Chuck accounts for that scorched-earth, no discourse, only full unconditional surrender attitude and discourse when he said “But beyond that, there is this purely functional consideration: any resolution to a conflict (short of unilateral annihilation) cannot be achieved through strident advocacy for or by any one side.” (Emphasis mine). I get what he’s saying about civility. It’s sort of the same question of “how do you respond to Alinsky-style tactics without using Alinsky-style tactics?” I don’t know that I have a good answer, but I trust that there is one. After SP3, I’ve had this weird feeling that… Read more »
leahnnovash
Guest
You just lost the war. If you are worried about framing your argument in their language, you just lost the war. This is like trying to negotiate with the bully where he will hit you by screaming louder or softer according to where he just hit you. He is still pummeling you, and he is not even paying attention. Look, words have no meaning to these people. They find whatever meaning they want on your words, doesn’t matter what you say. Those are the people that claimed that Tetris was Nazi propaganda and that Pong is a symbol of the… Read more »
Shadowdancer
Guest

Those are the people that claimed that Tetris was Nazi propaganda and that Pong is a symbol of the oppression of women.

…What.

I mean, I read recently that these rapists of the dictionary called slow motion sequences misogynistc because Baywatch used it, thus proof that slow motion = misogyny, but what you cited blew that BSOD out of the water, neighbor.

anonme
Guest

I’m just familiar with Ben Kuchera saying that Tetris was communist propaganda. https://twitter.com/benkuchera/status/549035363935997952

Not sure about the Pong thing, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

Vlad
Guest
“how do you respond to Alinsky-style tactics without using Alinsky-style tactics?” You don’t. If one man is trying to have a civil debate and the other is trying to knock his fucking head off with his fists, guess who wins? Even if Mr. Gannon was genuine (and there is strong indication that he is a treacherous liar; http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/10/mailvox-irrelevant.html) his strategy is a surefire way for conservatives to continue to get their asses kicked by SJW like they have for the past 40 years. The first thing that needs to change is the attitude of those fighting the SJW. It’s a… Read more »
jic
Guest

“and there is strong indication that he is a treacherous liar”

Can’t he just be misguided?

dgarsys
Guest
I’m going to define terms. If you mean “really on the other side, and trying to make us take our medicine without resisting by pretending to be our friend” – no, not treachery. If you mean “undermining our will to fight” – which is a bit of a stretch but valid, then yes. In this context, useful idiot may be a more appropriate term. I think he honestly believes he’s a moderate, and doesn’t realize that just because both sides are fighting that both sides are not necessarily wrong. Only takes one side to start a war…. That said –… Read more »
Carbonel
Guest

Yep. Sometimes people are just wrong. Wrong premises, faulty logic: weird-ass conclusions.

Or, as I like to say, never attribute to an “ism” what can more easily be explained with “raised by wolves.”

Zachary Ricks
Guest
In the last day, I’ve had some time to think about it, AND I just finished reading SJWs Always Lie, which addresses quite a bit of what I was concerned about. I’m not willing to say that Chuck is a SJW. And I wholeheartedly agree that there are those on the other side with whom we cannot reason. It’s (culture) war with those people. War to the knife. AND I understand now that any attempt to “frame that argument in their language” is doomed to failure with the activists, because of the difference between a dialectic approach and a rhetorical… Read more »
Synova
Guest
“A) we disagree that what they are trying to force us to is in fact a greater good either social or otherwise, ” This… really this. What I see when I look at what social justice bullies are trying to do is destruction. They’ll respond with some thing about how it’s just fear or anger over the destruction of the *status quo*… of loosing my white privilege racist power. No… I see DESTRUCTION. The “rules” are arranged so that the “goodness” of what they are doing can not be questioned or falsified. And while it’s the bullies and power crusaders… Read more »
James May
Guest
The sweet and lovely Requires Hate: the idea Laura Mixon and others have turned against her because of statements like these below is completely false. They didn’t give a fig about this shit until she started going after Mixon’s precious “PoC.” And that doesn’t include the people who openly support her and Tweet with her to this very day. Bee (ghost) Senpai ‏@benjanun_s Here’s the thing: I’m 10000% serious about wanting white writers to stay in their own culture. Bee (ghost) Senpai ‏@benjanun_s 3h3 hours ago As @tehawesomersace said, ‘diversity’ doesn’t need white saviors. Bee (ghost) Senpai ‏@benjanun_s 3h3 hours… Read more »
Brad Andrews
Guest

They fail to realize that they are the ones radicalizing many of us. We would be happy to ignore them, but their tactics show that peaceful coexistence is not possible.

They are shaking the beehive and then complaining that the bees won’t settle down again.

BTW: I wish I could figure out how to get this to just link to my Google account. It fails every time I try that.

dgarsys
Guest

Me – I get my email followups, but they don’t tend to include the identity of the poster like they do over at Hoyt’s, or some context of what is being replied to. Annoying.

Carbonel
Guest

This, by the way, is one reason I was so pleased that of the final choices that made the Hugo ballot, if Jim Butcher couldn’t win, The Three Body Problem did.

It opens with “here’s how the Cultural Revolution went” which for any thinking person means taking a second look at the culture warriors of the social justice left.

Radioactive
Guest

small batch, vegan, gluten free and fair trade in the bargain

Radioactive
Guest

oh yeah and non-GMO as well

Zsuzsa
Guest
I think I’ll probably have more thoughts later, but there is one point that immediately comes to mind: “I was only comfortable being included if Vox Day (whose proclivities were known to me only via general third-hand report) was not on the list.” Isn’t shunning a man based on “general third-hand report” precisely the sort of “Othering” this post is supposed to be warning against? I’m rather lukewarm on Mr. Day (who has said some interesting things, some things that were taken out of context, and some things I find genuinely batty), but if you’re going to say, “I won’t… Read more »
TRX
Guest

And for someone who claims to have been a member of SWFA since 1990, he could hardly have failed to have been familiar with Vox Day and his opinions on things.

The whole article can be summed up as “Let’s all be reasonable and agree with me.”

Dan Kauffman
Guest

““I was only comfortable being included if Vox Day (whose proclivities were known to me only via general third-hand report) was not on the list.”” Sounds a lot like the Soviet Era Criminal charge ” Suspicion of contact with persons suspected of Anti-Soviet Propaganda”

jic
Guest

“who has said some interesting things, some things that were taken out of context, and some things I find genuinely batty”

Often in the same sentence.

Taysha
Guest

I would feel more charitable in my analysis if I hadn’t seen many, many SPs ask for reconciliation and for allowing works to stand by their own rights.
You don’t need to see an arsonist in Vox. They’re already torpedoing themselves without him. So, which civility and discussion should always be cherished, at what point does one stop getting kicked and stands? And when enough people stand and the kickers break the stage down to make them fall, what is the answer there?

Wiliam McCarty
Guest

A bit wordy (with “big” words), so I’m not sure I grasped Dr. Gannon’s goal. I think he was aiming to say “Civility, empathy, and understanding will help us back from the brink of extremism”. If so, I agree wholeheartedly.

leahnnovash
Guest
What he is trying to say is “if we stopped being mean to them, I am sure they would stop being mean to us, as well. Maybe. I know it never worked in the past, but I am really really REALLY sure it would work now. Because. But even if they don’t, we should still do it because we don’t want to cause badfeelz on them. Causing badfeelz on other people is bad, so nobody should do it, except when they do because it is also our fault, since we did it to them, even when they did it first… Read more »
Vlad
Guest

It was more like “I’m totally cool with the insane, suicidal extremism of my pals like John Scalzi but the far less extremist views of Vox Day are totally evil!”.

Also, conservatives trying to be “understanding” and civil to SJWs while SJWs proceed to destroy them at every fucking opportunity is why they have been defeating conservatives in every arena for the past 40 years.

Adjust or die.

Shadowdancer
Guest

I’m watching Europe begin to burn because of the ‘understanding and civility’ towards a culture that tries to destroy the West at every opportunity. There simply was a point where I felt giving out warnings wasn’t working, shrugged, and set about simply trying to protect my own. Dr. Gannon’s request for civility is several years too late as I’ve said, but I’m willing to grant him some benefit of the doubt that he simply hasn’t paid attention.

SirBrass
Guest

Didn’t he admit as much (that he hadn’t been paying attention) early on? Being the stay-at-home writer and primary caretaker of 4 kids really doesn’t leave you with much time for paying attention to the Left’s doings. I believe him that this is all new to him.

With that said, yes his request is several years too late, but it’s not because he’s a closet leftist or whatnot. I simply think he’s well-meaning and misguided.

Ray
Guest

Hooooly Crap. I read the comments. Thoughtful responses quickly gave way to drooling slather of hatey hate hate hate. The uncontested winner was this little nugget of SJW “logic”
“…The problem with that sentence is, of course, that civility with or without passivity has zero costs only for white straight male authors and fans — whichever the issue, the people on the up axis don’t have costs to being civil and very seldom for being uncivil. For anybody else, civility with or without passivity has oodles of cost…”
In other words, “the rules don’t apply to us.”
It’s war folks.

Taysha
Guest

Never read the comments.
I tried.
And I stopped a handful of them in.

James May
Guest

Men, men, men, whites, heterosexuals. That’s all these freaks got and all they talk about. It is their precioussssss. Without it, they’d have nothing to do or say.

Were-Puppy
Guest

Some day they may regain their presciousssss, and as the prance and mince about the stage, fall of Bob Dole style, with no one to catch them.

Patrick Chester
Guest

Fall? Into a volcano?

Gary V
Guest
The Progressives only goal is to destroy anyone not Progressive. I give as an example the people calling for those who disagree with man-made global warming to be killed, jailed, or investigated for RICO. As another example are those who want Christians who oppose gay marriage to be jailed. And the shameful way Gerrold and the others at the Hugo Awards ceremony acted, causing even someone like Toni Weisskopf to walk out, shows they have no interested in civil discourse. Chuck needs to understand that you can’t negotiate with an enemy who is out to destroy you. But in any… Read more »
Greg
Guest

And the TEAOP threatens government shutdowns every few months if we don’t end social programs, reduce the tax rate to zero on businesses and rich “investors” (who produce virtually nothing of value), and generally open up all of our society and lands to unbridled, unfettered exploitation by rich elites in general.

Goes both ways.

BassmanCO
Guest
Who produce virtually nothing of value? Where do most jobs come from? Are you really that delusional? Also, do you understand our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world? Let me guess, you just want the rich to pay their fair share, even though the top 10% already pay more than 50% of the taxes collected. And as far as social programs, pray tell how we are going to pay for them when we are $17 trillion in debt? Continue to borrow from the Chinese? I would prefer not to hand that debt over to my… Read more »
Kristophr
Guest

The Chinese are no longer buying our IOUs. In fact, they are selling the paper they have as fast as they can get away with.

No one want our paper. The Federal Reserve now electronically creates Dollars out of thin air, and buys the US Treasury’s bad paper with it.

Look up the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe, if you want to learn where this leads.

BassmanCO
Guest

I know. That is part of what pisses me off about people wanting “Social Programs”. How do you pay for it? And while I don’t advocate punishing anyone down on their luck, it should be a hand up, not a handout.

Greg
Guest

The average taxpayer making $50 thousand a year pays only $36 towards the support of poor people. The same taxpayer pays over *6 THOUSAND* dollars in corporate welfare. per year.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19844-food-stamps-are-affordable-corporate-welfare-is-not

The two biggest “welfare queens” in the US are Wal Mart and McDonalds, both of whom refuse to pay living wages, forcing their workers onto public assistance rolls.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-11-13/how-mcdonald-s-and-wal-mart-became-welfare-queens

The average WM supercenter costs taxpayers between 1 and 2 MILLION dollars a year in welfare benefits as a result of underpaying workers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/

Note that is FORBES saying that…hardly a “socialist” news source

rocinante
Guest

John Kerry’s chief economic adviser disagrees:
http://www.mackinac.org/archives/2006/walmart.pdf

Dan Kauffman
Guest

Hint letting anyone a citizen or a corporation keep some of their own money? Is not welfare or a subsidy

Reziac
Guest
I’ve actually discussed this with Walmart employees. And several things came to light: Many, perhaps most of the people working there would not have jobs at all without Walmart, because they are marginally-disabled or retirement-age folks, many of whom are physically unable to hold a full-time position — show me the big job market for them elsewhere? Without these jobs, they’d be wholly on the dole, rather than merely receiving some assistance. One pointed out to me that Walmart’s lower prices amount to a 25% boost in her wages — without Walmart, her life would be that much more expensive.… Read more »
Were-Puppy
Guest

So are you advocating flipping burgers as a career? These are starter jobs, not freaking livings.

Doug Loss
Guest

It’s crap all the way down, evidently…

aAlabamaDill
Guest

Hillary n Bill have both been on the board of Wal-Mart fir decades. Pull my other finger

BobtheRegisterredFool
Guest
BobtheRegisterredFool
Investors produce jobs. Actual new job growth comes from start-ups, which have a high failure rate. These take capital and expertise. If job growth doesn’t match or exceed population growth, you get an increase in the unemployed population. One answer to that is social programs. In my experience, long term unemployment is boring and maybe even soul destroying. I suspect that government support of the unemployed is less a recipe for political stability and more a recipe for pogroms. Especially social programs which come at the cost of start ups. Social programs are often justified as an investment. I have… Read more »
Greg
Guest

Investors in todays markets produce nothing but “churn”. That’s how they make their money. They jump in, manipulate the price of the stock how they want it, and sell off and move on to the next stock. That’s just how modern “investing” works. Has ZERO to do with producing needful goods and services.

And as for social programs, fortunately for the US, most people (if only by a tiny margin) still refuse to measure the value of a human life by its Profit and Loss balance.

BobtheRegisterredFool
Guest
BobtheRegisterredFool

You give the impression that you know even less about small start ups and the whole spectrum of investing in America than I do.

Social programs are a matter of spending money, and are not a choice between murder and no murder.

Killing a kid because you somehow think you know how their costs are going to balance is an insane parody of measuring the value of a human life by its Profit and Loss balance.

Shadowdancer
Guest

fortunately for the US, most people (if only by a tiny margin) still refuse to measure the value of a human life by its Profit and Loss balance.

And yet you argue for continued taxpayer support of Planned Parenthood and it’s continued contribution towards population decline while increasing it’s profits with the organs of those human enough to exploit, but decided not human enough to protect.

Yes please, continue to display your thoughts so that we may know them, and by knowing them, know the measure of yourself by your own words.

Brad Andrews
Guest

Or would that be that a demonic accountant gets its horns?

Doug Loss
Guest

Crappity crap, wonderful crap…

Wendy S. Delmater
Guest

I had to look up TEAOP. The request for a definition led me to the use of the term in the Daily Kos. Not a term we’d use here. So, Greg, if you’re just here to stir up trouble…that’s sad.

Greg
Guest

And at Kos I typically get dismissed as a raging conservative (at least on cultural/international affairs issues). Which tells me that I’m right where I need to be politically: neither TEAOP right-wing-nut-job, nor Kook Fringe left. On those “what are you” political questionnaire tests I score out as a Social Democrat, which is just slightly left of center on the Left vs Right axis and mildly on the authoritarian side of the individual vs state axis.

It isn’t in my nature to say things I don’t honestly believe just to “stir up trouble”.

Patrick Chester
Guest

And at Kos I typically get dismissed as a raging conservative (at least on cultural/international affairs issues).

Why do I not believe you?

Ah yes: The progressive jargon and presumptions.

Do continue, Mr. “Moderate” One.

TheWriterInBlack
Guest

Well, it’s possible. You can be slightly left of Lenin and still be a “raging conservative” on Kos.

Patrick Chester
Guest

Hmm… true. I’m sure “Greg” would consider that “proof” of his moderateness, even as he repeats the progressive line and proclaims the “TEAOP” as the major villain.

dgarsys
Guest

Ah. The position of “Both sides are pissed at me so I must be right”

Uh, no.

Or are we going to argue that choosing to only murder three people is a good “middle way” compromise between “Murder Six” and “Murder none?”

dgarsys
Guest

c4c

Were-Puppy
Guest

Well, you’re writings come across as a beard stroking Marxist.

Doug Loss
Guest

Nope. You’re a far-left extremist, who’s trying to adopt “moderate” camouflage as a form of protective coloration. And like all your ilk, you seem to believe that no one can see through your rather transparent disguise.

Patrick Chester
Guest

…but he said he’s moderate! Isn’t that enough?! 😉

Were-Puppy
Guest

Well, he’s in between say Boris Yeltsin and Gorbs. I guess that’s a moderate.

Kerani
Guest

He self-identifies as moderate. Quit being such a bigot and let him live his life as he likes.

/snark

dgarsys
Guest

I self-identify as an M-1 Abrams MBT. Vroom!

Patrick Chester
Guest

Well, if you and Tom get together with even more self-identified tanks we’ll end up with our own armored division pretty soon. 😉

SirBrass
Guest
Carbonel
Guest

It’s the Terrifically Energized Americans Opposing Potus, right? Because those guys are cool. Now the Totalitarian Emergent Anti-Opportunity Party (Democrats) kind of suck.

Maybe those are the guys he’s pissed of at? They really have screwed over most of the U.S., so he’s got a point.

Doctor Locketopus
Guest
“who produce virtually nothing of value” You can’t possibly be this stupid. Dude, you’re using a computer containing billions of transistors, hooked to a global network of billions of similar machines, running from a continent-spanning power grid, in a house with running water that won’t kill you if you drink it, eating fresh vegetables in the winter time that were grown hundreds, maybe thousands of miles away, not seeing half your children (if any) die before the age of five, and not being being forced to choose between “spear-carrying foot soldier” or “stoop-labor agricultural serf” as career. You know how… Read more »
Vlad
Guest
Well said. And speaking of moderates, “There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the… Read more »
JP
Guest

Always happy to see someone quote her correctly.

Shadowdancer
Guest

Yeah, lots of folks in the West take for granted things like clean running hot water that doesn’t have cholera or other microorganisms in it, regular access to flushing toilets and septic tanks, transport, books, TV, computers, cement/asphalt roads, washing machines, dishwashers and a house that’s more than just hollow brick walls with corrugated sheet metal roofing.

Those of us of have a passing familiarity with how hard it is to hand-scrub laundry aren’t keen to return to that.

Synova
Guest

That metal roofing is… loud. Our off-base house had one and during the rain (tropical rainy season… rain for months) it was so loud you had to yell to talk to each other. The rain stopped suddenly once and you could hear everyone’s TVs and radios down the whole block.

Joe in PNG
Guest

Re: Dr. Loc- The leftist mockery of “trickle down” economics is especially hilarious in regards to your post. Many of the things that today’s Leftist takes for granted were expensive luxuries for the very, very rich just a few decades ago: cell phones, personal computers, indoor plumbing, electricity, air conditioning… yadda yadda. Anyone else here remember when a CD player cost over $1000 in 1980’s dollars?
But that’s what base, profit driven capitalism does- makes stuff available to the rest of us.

TheWriterInBlack
Guest

Many of the things that today’s Leftist takes for granted were expensive luxuries for the very, very rich just a few decades ago

One of my favorite examples is the term “jet setter”–a term for the very rich back in my younger days from when only the very rich could afford to travel on jet aircraft. The rest of even the pretty rich, had to make do with propeller aircraft (and the well to do were stuck with trains).

BenD
Guest

“You can’t possibly be this stupid.”

Watch that! There you go making unfounded assumptions…

dgarsys
Guest

Watch that! There you go making unfounded assumptions…

And you know what happens when you make assumptions… you…

Uh, never mind.

Were-Puppy
Guest

Greg, did someone yank on your Marxist Beard or something? Calm down, this is about SF, not your boy Bernie Sanders.

Randy P.
Guest

Gerrold: “VOX DAAAAAAAY!”

Greg: “TEA PARTYYYYYYY!”

All you SJWs have is thoughtless emotion.

Doug Loss
Guest

This is, of course, a load of crap.

Were-Puppy
Guest

Can you recommend one of Chucks books? I haven’t read any of his.

Peter O
Guest

Were, he has some books in the Starfire and the 1632 series, but his stand-alone series begins with Fire With Fire. (which is now in the baen free library)
http://www.baen.com/author_catalog.asp?author=cgannon
http://www.baenebooks.com/p-1805-fire-with-fire.aspx
He also has a short out this month on Baen
http://www.baen.com/OurselvesAlone.asp

BobtheRegisterredFool
Guest
BobtheRegisterredFool

I’d second Fire With Fire. Then Trial By Fire, and and Raising Caine.

Skip
Guest
Oh, he’s right in that you shouldn’t judge a book by its publisher, but its publisher damn sure can affect my purchase decisions. I try to avoid giving the bigots at Tor any money – unfortunately several of the authors I like are still stuck there for at least some of their books. So for things like the latest Safehold book from David Weber, I bought the audiobook, which at least only sends money to the parent company, and I’ll buy a used hardback later for the shelf. New authors from Tor? Not a chance in hell I’ll buy them… Read more »
DreadIlk Zee
Guest
I admire him for his measured response and ideals of courteousness but at what point do does Chuck think people should strike back at their would be oppressors? From what I just read he has highlighted why it has gotten to this point. They lied, they ignored, they name called. Even if Vox Day were a raving raciest Native-American/Italian/Mexican (Which I do not believe he is, he is a cultural isolationist) is that a reason to close dialog? That would be like me say hey China, I don’t like you so don’t ever talk to us. Chuch needs to look… Read more »
Nathan
Guest
“The sum of virtue is to be sociable with them that will be sociable, and formidable to them that will not” – Hobbes Unfortunately, Dr. Gannon, the people who most need to listen to this are the ones salivating over the imagined butthurt that will happen when we read your words. There have been calls to sociability by non-Puppies, including Toni Weisskopf’s call for Big Tent Fandom last year and the We Are All Fans of this year. They were shouted down and ridiculed, not by Puppies, but by the anti-Puppies. Sociability is a two-way street, and there’s no sociability… Read more »
Greg
Guest

If the ranting children (on BOTH sides) are left dominant in ANY situation, social, political, or economic, then inevitably destruction follows.

Sooner or later, the adults have to step in and stop the fight. The OP is being one of those adults, or at least he’s trying to be.

Nathan
Guest

I think the real question needs to be, what coercive power is needed to bring both sides to the table. Moral authority, when neither side has a common view of morality, isn’t enough. And when a number of those ranting children run major publishing houses, how can the adults step in except through destruction? Because with the way Tor employees and Worldcon members have acted over the past four years, I’m thinking its time for the adults to break the toy the children are squabbling over.

Greg
Guest

That is a fair question. And that question presumes that an adult can be found to begin with. We are rapidly becoming a society without “adults”, with ALL groups increasingly becoming self-centered children interested only in advancing their own interests at the expense of all other groups.

James May
Guest

Did you know Catholic and Jewish quotas at colleges were just a he-said, she-said? Yeah… just a failure to communicate. There were no bad guys.

Brad R. Torgersen
Guest
I think the takeover of fandom conventions — and the same activist names one sees involved over and over — are a good example of how cultural Marxists view the world. The subjugation of organizations is a primary goal in their larger culture war. When you control an organization, even something as benign as a con, you can use that organization to enforce your ideology. People who may or may not agree with you, can be forced to “agree” with you, lest they face punishment, ostracism, and expulsion. In fandom especially, that sense of belonging — the love and loyalty… Read more »
Bugmaster
Guest
I think you are giving them too much credit. Oh, sure, some of them probably are masters of patient long-term planning, like you say. However, from what I’ve seen, most proponents of social justice just aren’t that conniving. It’s not that they have a diabolical master plan; rather, they simply lack the capacity to experience the world, other than through the lens of their ideology. So, from their point of view, the only value of a book is measured by the number of passages within it that advocate for feminism/diversity/privilege checking/whatever; minus the number of passages that advocate for traditional… Read more »
Angor Mike
Guest
After seeing the articles about the No Borders activist that was raped, and her fellow activists encouraged her not to report it so that it wouldn’t hurt their cause, I’d tend to agree with Brad that they enforce the group’s behavior. It doesn’t really have anything to do with long term planning either. If the no borders people were long term planners they’d realize that the story of how they tried to silence a rape victim so she didn’t hurt their narrative/goals would be more damaging to their cause than if they just went to the police in the first… Read more »
Vlad
Guest

Never, ever underestimate one’s enemies. Their leaders are not idiots (some of them are even very intelligent) and certainly capable of long-term planning.

One can pity SJWs as much as one wants, but that makes them no less treacherous.

Reziac
Guest

I am reminded that a significant chunk (sometimes a majority) of the “demonstrators” at any activist event are paid agitators; they are not locals spontanenously reacting to whatever.

James May
Guest

Unsophisticated, childish and ignorant nonsense from the beginning to the end. All I have to do to buy into it is throw out the meaning of words, law, equal protection, facts and principle.

Greg
Guest

With apologies to the original: “In a time of universal polarization, a call to moderation is a revolutionary act…”

leahnnovash
Guest

Apologies not accepted. The original is superior and stands.

Shadowdancer
Guest
Fascinating. Based on purely third hand opinions heard, not ones formed himself, Dr. Gannon already refused to give Vox Day a chance, yet calls for both sides to try not go for the nuclear option. This is illogical and undermines the rest of his essay. If Dr. Gannon himself has already given a negative opinion about a person from third hand opinions, how then are any supposed to credit him with impartiality? I am no doctor, but I went and read the man’s words for myself, and I have to say he lays traps for the unwary to fall into… Read more »
Taysha
Guest

May I crush on you hardcore?

Shadowdancer
Guest

*grin* You may and I have no problems with that.

leahnnovash
Guest

I didn’t understand the reference… care to explain?

Shadowdancer
Guest

Reference to which?

leahnnovash
Guest

The “crush you on hardcore”

Taysha
Guest

To have a crush on someone is to be enamored.
I was merely declaring my undying, platonic love of Shadowdancer =)

Cara H
Guest

It’s really damn near impossible not to crush on her at least a little bit 😀

Jared Anjewierden
Guest

Interesting that he objects to Marxist.

There are several prominent (and not so prominent) ASPs (because yes, anti-sad puppy is a descriptor, not an insult) I have had lengthy discussions and arguments with, mostly on Facebook, who I call Marxist.

Why do I call them that?

Because they proudly call _themselves_ that. They can hardly object to being referred to by their own self-applied label.

Why they cling to an ideology responsible for the deaths of more than 100 million people is beyond me, but that is a different topic.

James May
Guest

How many social justice crusaders in SFF self-identify as “Marxists”? 2 as opposed to 200 or more who call themselves “feminists”?

Shadowdancer
Guest
Exactly – and not only do they self-describe as such, they actively write/speak/behave as such. Notable too that GRRM seems to pretend that these labels are considered ‘by all’ bad. Yet if one proudly proclaims onself as a “Marxist” it is no insult to describe that person as such, it becomes easier to identify him or her, like pointing out ‘that cute guy with the big blue eyes and dark wavy hair in the black denim jacket,’* to note someone particular out of a crowd. Certainly – one who professes to love freedom, equality and the ability to choose one’s… Read more »
James May
Guest
I have told you 100 times you are not up against Marxists. The reason Milo and Gamergate are cutting up their opponents is they have correctly identified who they’re up against: racialized political lesbianism based on texts which began in 1970. Their most cherished goal is the elimination of heterosexuality. With the “Third Wave” or “intersectional” element emphasized 25 years ago, they are also ferociously anti-white. The reason Leckie’s novel was promoted the way Coke is in ads is because genderblindness is the cure for heterosexuality. Ancillary Justice was their Holy Grail. No surprise it experienced an historic awards sweep… Read more »
Rob H
Guest

Saying so does not make it so, James,
The underlying ideology of Third-Wave Feminism is indeed Marxist. Feminism was created by the Left as part of their general assault on Western Civilization, and is driven by the same emotional and political impulses that drive all other aspects of the Left’s relentless, unending crusade against reality.
Hiding from this does not help. In fact I would argue that it does the opposite, because it then becomes impossible to understand why all of the enemy forces work together and coordinate.

James May
Guest
That is false. Read your Mary Daly, Charlotte Bunch, Robin Morgan, Andrea Dworkin, Kate Millet and even the Shulamith Firestone who prodded at and then rejected Marxism for feminism in her 1970 book The Dialectics of Sex. Even more to the point, show me the quotes from feminists in SFF who invoke Marx or Marxism. They don’t exist. This is not me “saying so,” this is thousands of hours of research. Third wave feminism is a racialized version of a Patriarchy which stole sexuality from women in pre-history. It is as fabulist as Robert E. Howard’s Hyborian Age or Tolkien’s… Read more »
James May
Guest

“… radical lesbian feminists focus on the problem of heterosexuality as the pivotal core of women’s oppression… By the late 1970s black and Third World feminisms emerged as a critique of the white privilege inherent in feminist theory itself.” – The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World

gmmay
Guest
James, I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. The underlying assault on “power structures” (deconstructionism), the “critical theory”, the tribalism – all of this is most firmly rooted in Leftist thought going back to Marx (who was just mooching off of Engels). The problem here is that these people simply don’t know that they’re ultimately Marxists because of just how deeply infused their entire culture is with all that Frankfurt School nonsense. Just look at the insane assumptions about “equality” that many of these people start from. Each and every one of those you mentioned has a Leftist… Read more »
James May
Guest
Wrong. Gay feminism has routinely pointed out that sexism and racism pre-date capitalism. As I’ve said elsewhere, they’ve cherry-picked the anthropological dabblings of Jacques Lacan, Claude Levi-Strauss and Michel Foucault about the formation of gender and sex just prior to the rise of great urban centers. Look, there are for a fact gay feminists who are Marxists. A book I just read by Alison Jaggar states that such feminism is in fact a perfect expression of Marxism. This is not a monolith. The point is that in SFF you never hear these people talk about Marxism. It’s men, heterosexuality and… Read more »
gmmay
Guest
I don’t dispute anything you say here. What I’m saying is that just because they don’t say “I’m a Marxist” doesn’t mean that they aren’t. Their methods are just extensions of tired old Marxist tropes on “equality” and endless struggle. The vast majority of these ignoramuses don’t even recognize real world incarnations of socialism or Marxism and instead only understand it in terms a textbook might describe. They think they’re onto something new, when it’s just a rehash of the old and musty. The recent rehabilitation and promulgation of Howard Zinn on social media is just the latest I’ve noticed.… Read more »
James May
Guest

This conversation reminds me of the time a buddy and I went trekking in the Malaysian jungle. We had a Chinese guy for a guide and everything was “jungle” this and “jungle” that; jungle firewood, jungle rats, jungle bed, jungle cave, jungle squirrel, jungle candle. If everything’s Marxism then nothing is. According to you, I live in a Marxist society, a thing which is plainly false.

gmmay
Guest

Yes, because labeling people who hold Marxist views as Marxists is saying that everything’s Marxist.

Slow down next time.

Were-Puppy
Guest

I think the SJWs use Marxists as useful idiots.

Alex Jeffries
Guest

If we started calling them “ASPholes,” GRRM might get a case of the vapors.

Shadowdancer
Guest

Considering their pride in their assterisk insult and their screaming MEANIE at ASP (it’s not my fault ‘anti-sad puppy’ has the same spelling as the name of a snake) it’s probably a valid descriptor, especially for David Gerrold.

Patrick Chester
Guest

Except the comparison is horribly unfair to venomous reptiles all over the world.

Were-Puppy
Guest

My Dungeon and Dragons Lizard Man PC is very offended by this insensitive Humanocentric characterization.

Were-Puppy
Guest

Are these the vapors you are referring to?

“I awakened, and broke wind without further delay”
— George R.R. Moretons
SJWs never Lie

BobtheRegisterredFool
Guest
BobtheRegisterredFool

So I can’t convince you to ignore what Gannon says, based on his problematic views about persons of incorporation.? 🙂 Or convince you not to read his new book, Raising Caine, out very recently?

I haven’t read it yet, but I intend to. I do put a higher priority on the Onward Drake anthology, but I hope he will forgive me for that.

dgarsys
Guest

Treat civilized people in a civilized manner, and barbarians as barbarians. And by their acts you shell tell them apart

Zelkie
Guest

“…already there have been attempts to try discredit Sarah Hoyt and the other lovely ladies of SP4 as ‘racist’ or other such nonsense.”

I read a post at File77 in which Sarah Hoyt was referred to as Requires_Hoyt. The post was quoted and replied to. Not one person posted that it was uncalled for.

It ticked me off.

BobtheRegisterredFool
Guest
BobtheRegisterredFool

When Mixon’s stuff first came out, the SJW didn’t like that a Thai name was associated with her, so they decided that it was another of Sarah’s pen names.

If this were so, I would expect Requires Hate to have published one or two books a year about Billy and Kit being shapeshifters on the Moon.

In reality, Requires Hoyt is the fourth child of Dan and Sarah in a Gundam 00 fanfic.

J. C. Salomon
Guest
Reading the comments at the Whatever, item 6 on the Checklist, “Resort to Moral Equivalency”, comes to mind. Chuck was carefully avoiding making any moral comparison between the sides, merely pointing out a small set of tactical similarities he thinks are damaging, and even was explicit in not claiming both sides engaged in these tactics equally. But the Whatever crowd seems so attached to arguing by the Checklist that any mention of any slight similarity is taken as arguing moral equivalency, and they spent lots of bits & electrons pointing out that they’re not the same as us, they’re not… Read more »
Shadowdancer
Guest

Chuck was carefully avoiding making any moral comparison between the sides, merely pointing out a small set of tactical similarities he thinks are damaging, and even was explicit in not claiming both sides engaged in these tactics equally.

I did notice that he was being very academic in tone and phrasing, very neutral. Thus the tone of my own response.

James May
Guest
Here is the Orwellian winner from Scalzi’s comments section: “Trey Goesn says: SEPTEMBER 2, 2015 AT 2:37 PM My thoughts on the nature of aggression and civility in this debate are well expressed by Laura Mixon: ‘Bullies and abusers rely on the larger community’s desire for comity—our willingness to live and let live—to impose their will and silence dissent. In such a case, it’s incumbent on people with standing in the community to speak up against them, providing a counterweight to their destructive ideas. By speaking when she did, in my view, Irene was doing what other thought leaders in… Read more »
windsong
Guest
I will say this: prior to the last Sad Puppies campaign, I was a moderate. I really don’t care about awards or shiny stickers on covers. (Actually, given the recent quality of both, they’re likely to count as a strike against, rather than for, when I’m deciding which books to buy.) I sympathized with the earlier Sad Puppies, mostly because I love SFF and was fairly annoyed at the outspoken left leaning ideologues in publishing that makes it feel as though you’ve fallen down a wormhole and landed in 1984. But I stayed out of it because I’m tired and… Read more »
James May
Guest

These people who all too generously call themselves “feminists” lie about global slavery, colonialism, murder and crime statistics, rape statistics, immigration and men. If it’s under the sun they lie about it.

Were-Puppy
Guest

SJWs always lie.

Brad R. Torgersen
Guest

Thank you for trying to inject some facts into their hot-house conversation!

Synova
Guest

I tried as well during the time when people were passing around a complete fabrication of what Brad said about marketing books with space ships on the cover. Saying “that’s a lie, he never said that” one to many times got me rage blocked on Facebook.

dgarsys
Guest

We live in a day and age where disagreeing with someone is actually considered harassment by twitter’s policy. Report harassment, and under the options they had “someone disagreed with you”

Carbonel
Guest

There’s a gent in Canada who might go to prison for disagreeing with a woman on twitter. Strange days indeed.

Were-Puppy
Guest

How is that even possible?

Doug Loss
Guest

In Canada? There is no longer free speech in Canada–look for Mark Steyn and his tangles with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Patrick Chester
Guest

Bizarro Human Rights Commission sounds more accurate.

Zsuzsa
Guest

Though as I understand it, the law has changed considerably since Mark Steyn went through his ordeal–largely because Mark and his co-defendants used the ordeal to put the system itself on trial. The statute under which the alleged “Human Rights Commissions” went after them no longer exists.

If people are being prosecuted for tweets, though, it suggests Mark and co. still have work to do up North (he should get on that as soon as he finishes dealing with the corruption of climate science).

John Van Stry
Guest
It’s an interesting article, but at times it seems to me to stray into ‘cultural relevance’ i.e. ‘all cultures are equal’. Which has never been true. What I am not so sure he understands is that we -are- in a culture war, and it’s been brewing for a long time now. One side, has been pushing their agenda rather ruthlessly for many years now, and the other has finally gotten tired of it and started to push back. If you look at the number of ‘extremists’ out there, I think you will find that there are far more on the… Read more »
Alex Jeffries
Guest

It wasn’t a valid argument before August. It hasn’t been for a very long time, sad to say.

Were-Puppy
Guest

Yeah but the last Hugos is what turned people like me from a Sad Puppy into a Were-Puppy.

Wendy S. Delmater
Guest
Chuck and I had discussions about this, and I am both a former New Yorker and someone with the “flyover country” values of my rural-rasied parents so I can see both “sides” with clarity. Understand that my career was in construction safety management, and a big part of that is human factors engineering where I had to “get” what makes people tick to do my job. I have to agree that there was very little desire for dialog in the whole movement against SP3…well, I hesitate to call it a debate except for folks like Eric Flint. I watched the… Read more »
Brad R. Torgersen
Guest

Very well said, Wendy. And I am so sorry you and the other nominees got put through the vulgar carnival that was the 2015 Hugos ceremony.

dgarsys
Guest

Ditto

Cara H
Guest

Yep. That was the worst part of the whole thing and I think the PKs really just relished in it without shame. Pride even.

crazdmadman
Guest

Calls for civility …

Good luck with that.

John Van Stry
Guest

Just had to mention this. Over on the other site there is a post by someone most of us have had the ‘joy’ of interacting with before. He claims that he has always engaged in polite and reasonable discourse with us, and that we have always attacked him without provocation.

So now I wonder, is this person (no, not clamps) a liar? Or are they really that crazy that they think their constant attacks and insults are ‘reasoned and polite’ comments?

Insane.

windsong
Guest
I have watched people who, with straight faces, make public declarations against name calling, sexism, racism, and bigotry only to follow up with Socially Approved™ all of the above. There are a number of people who have built walls of belief around themselves that only those who hold power can do any of those things mentioned above. And they, not being white, male, and/or heterosexual, cannot be in a position of power. This, despite protesting, that they are strong and empowered. When it suits them. All I know is that whatever dictionary they’re using, well, it’s not the same one… Read more »
Synova
Guest

“Oh, but that’s not name calling when I call you a nazi, it’s just descriptive.”

Or there’s the sorts that will get self-righteous about you called them a nincompoop or idiot, which is disrespectful, while they didn’t use any silly names they just said you were a vile human who should apologize for your existence… but they didn’t say *poop* so they were *respectful*.

One Brian to many
Guest

One of the funniest things I’ve read in years was on Sarah’s blog were she quoted Bernie Sanders as saying he’s a socialist but not a communist, because he’s a nationalist. I immediately sent if to the people I know who support him. When none of them got it I had a near permanent face palm having to explain the humor in his saying it. In case there any liberals left, look up Nationalist socialist democrat party.

gmmay
Guest

They’ll never grasp the reference. I’ve wasted far too much effort with academic sources, citations, and direct quotes detailing just how leftwing that fascism is, far beyond pointing out the obvious problems with the name NDSP.

It usually shuts them up, but I’m confident that it never changes their mind.

SirBrass
Guest

I suppose they didn’t get it because NSDP was lacking the word “workers” ;). Not that that missing word constitutes much difference in Ideology between the two.

Doug Loss
Guest

Actually, the full name was NSDAP, with the “A” standing for “Arbeiteren,” which is the German word for “workers.” FYI.

James May
Guest

And how many racist sexist comments against all men and all whites in Scalzi’s comment section; I stopped counting. How many comments here lighting up all women or non-whites? None. “Nuff said.

BobtheRegisterredFool
Guest
BobtheRegisterredFool

You recently asked, in the ‘Modern Man’ fisking, if the madness of the feminist makes satire impossible. Just this week I answered by claiming that women are extraterrestrials, who stole the ability to bear live human young.

Perhaps I misunderstand ‘light up’.

Anthony Pacheco
Guest
My takeaway from this essay is Dr. Gannon falls to understand the toxic and terrible nature of mascot/victim politics as it is applied to the production science fiction books. A compromised position in mascot politics buys into position of elitism and that its okay some animals are more equal than others in order to maintain civility. This goes beyond “you’re either with us, or against us.” Mascot politics is “we’re using this group to advance ourselves. ” Call it Marxism or whatever-ism (heh see what I did there? Try the veal folks, I will be here all week.), anybody who… Read more »
Chris Nelson
Guest
It’s obvious that the ASP/SJW crew got called on their shenanigans. ASP/SJW had become so inbred with perversity and diversity in a their bubble from the mainstream they welcomed pedophiles instead of shunning them. They had become an exclusive club with an non-exclusive rule set that the SPs recognized, so they were the first to go “nuclear” and burn the Hugos rather than allow mere “normals” in the clubhouse. It’s also obvious to the rational person that we are in a wide spread cultural war and epoch of corruption that benefits mostly the few at the top of the global… Read more »
xServer
Guest
I’ve seen people be discourteous and hard-headed on both sides of this argument. I was and remain a “read the book and judge it on its merits” woman and voted accordingly for this year’s Hugos. If more people did that and if organized slates like the one used by the Rabid Puppies this year didn’t exist then the whole business wouldn’t have exploded. But of course that’s not how it went. As an aside: I find it interesting that people defend Vox Day; he seems like a gleeful anarchist to me. He’s already stated that he enjoys pushing buttons which… Read more »
Nathan
Guest

The only way this year would not have exploded was if SP3 hadn’t won the embarrassment of riches at the nominations. Everything else, from the vote buying to the chorus of “racists, sexist, homophobic” to the slandering in print, was a rehash of last year.

xServer
Guest

“embarrassment of riches” brought about by slate voting which rather proves the point that there isn’t some leftist cabal running the show. If there was, the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies would never have gotten through the door.

Funny that the “No Awards” win was brought about in reaction to the slate success. Until the slates, people weren’t apparently voting in lock-step on the “other side”. Now many of them are. Not really a step forward.

But I’ll continue to read what I like and vote for my favorites, regardless of affiliation.

Nathan
Guest

Please virtue signal elsewhere. You are showing your ignorance.

xServer
Guest

“Virtue signal” – is that like a bat-signal for the sexually uninitiated?

Randy P.
Guest

“sexually uninitiated”

You SJWs really can’t think of anything outside of sex, can you? Go back to defending pedophiles like the rest of your ilk.

Cara H
Guest

I’ve noticed that, too. Everything — EVERYTHING — in their world boils down to sex.

Synova
Guest
Eh. We all “virtue signal” we just do it for different things. It’s like gang hand signs flashed at a group to say “I’m one of yours”. As for the rest… the suggestions of shenanigans, if one has been paying attention, was more in the nominations being controlled by an extremely small number of votes by people who by all accounts rub elbows regularly and have similar tastes and who did and do publish “lists”. The “upset” over the “slate” was opportunistic in that it gave people an excuse to defend their turf with fire, all while saying silly things… Read more »
Arksine
Guest

It proves no such thing. It only proves that RP/SP had more people voting for their recommendations than any other potential group. You ever wonder why sasquan decided NOT to release voting data? You don’t really buy that its because they can’t anonymize it do you?

Carbonel
Guest

They don’t need to anonymize it because they’re friggin’ NOMINATIONS. I’m closely involved with state level awards, as well as some national ones and nobody…. NOBODY tries to keep what books get nominated and by whom a secret.

Probably because in a sane world, outside of this particular spot of CHORF-ly nastiness, nobody needs to be AFRAID of what would happen if someone found out they nominated The Wrong Book for an award.

Luke
Guest

I believe Vox has done some in depth analysis of voting results for previous years.
I’m afraid you’re very much mistaken. Cliques voting in lockstep is not a new thing.

Carbonel
Guest

It was brought about by people voting for what they liked and what they wanted to win.

What they liked, and what they wanted to win was BadThink and WrongFun, so of course it had to be crushed. With jeers and insults. Explain again why Toni Weisskopf deserved to be No Awarded?

But people need a good excuse for that kind of hatred, and if you can slap a label on something you don’t have to think about it or see it for what it is.

BassmanCO
Guest

Discourse requires both sides to listen to the other. Sad/Rabid Puppies are tired of trying to have a discussion with children flinging poo. Our side doesn’t disemvowel. Our side doesn’t ban someone at the drop of a hat. Name calling is the worst we do and if you can’t handle that, I’m not sure you should be out in society.

If the other side will only understand fighting (figurative, because literal fighting would trigger them I’m sure), then we will punch back, twice as hard. You can’t talk with a bully. All you can do is bloody his nose.

xServer
Guest

Name calling doesn’t further discourse. If you feel that this is beyond you then that says more about you than it does me.

I like Eric Flint’s take on the discussion: http://www.ericflint.net/index.php/2015/08/26/do-we-really-have-to-keep-feeding-stupid-and-his-cousin-ignoramus/ In short, both sides should grow up and stop mischaracterizing, name-calling, and low-blowing each other. Oh and Rabid Puppies have never tried to have a discussion that I have seen. They just want to burn it all down.

Nathan
Guest

What does it say about a side that opens with “Racist, Sexist, Homophobic” in news articles that had to be retracted?

Discourse is a two way street, as is civility. Stop trying to spank Puppies for the bridge the other side burned down immediately.

xServer
Guest

I have already admitted to bad behavior on both sides. If that isn’t even-handed enough, if only “oh, yes, you’re right!” will work for you then that just shows that you don’t want discourse you want capitulation.

James May
Guest

White privilege and patriarchy is not only name-calling it’s hate speech. You don’t get that. I don’t care.

xServer
Guest

Hate speech? That seems a bit strong. But as you say, I don’t get it and you don’t care. Discourse ended.

James May
Guest

Lighting up all whites and all men isn’t hate speech? LOL.

BassmanCO
Guest

Of course you’ve never seen it. It gets Ban-hammered, disemvoweled or flat out deleted. Try again.

Your group started the name calling, we are going to finish it. If you can’t comprehend that, I can’t help you.

xServer
Guest

“My group” is moderate fence-sitters who read posts and articles from both sides and vote according to what books and stories (and editors and artists) whose work they most enjoy. I am probably more culturally aligned with “their” side but I don’t really feel like jumping on any bandwagons.

Alex Jeffries
Guest

If you’re a moderate fence-sitter, why not go over to Scalzi’s blog or File 770 and instruct them on the errors of their way? Good luck with that.

James May
Guest

Our “bandwagon” is the U.S. Constitution, dictionaries, equal protection, rules and laws.

leahnnovash
Guest
There is no fence, my dear. You are either with them, or you are their target. Heck, you can be with them, and STILL be their target. We’ve seen it happen plenty of times. The only reason they didn’t go after you yet is because you are not relevant enough. But relevance is relative. You may not be relevant enough for the likes of SFF Fandom, but you may still be relevant enough for people at your work, at your community, etc. When they come for you, and they will, and you feel the full force of their attack for… Read more »
Were-Puppy
Guest

You don’t feel like jumping on their bandwagon because you’re already on it. Nobody cares to be lectured by you clowns any further.

Doug Loss
Guest

When simple description is considered name-calling and pejorative, how can you even talk about those who you disagree with? No, this is just more attempts to silence any opposition.

J. C. Salomon
Guest

Defending Vox Day? One person posting in this thread has real-life (i.e. not genre- or fandom-related) reasons for personal gratitude towards the man, and even that person is not defending him. I personally can think ill of someone while still having my sense of fair play offended if he’s mistreated or lied about—and in this thread all you’re seeing is “maybe third-hand reports aren’t quite sufficient to disassociate yourself from someone so completely you won’t be put on the same recommendation list.”

TheWriterInBlack
Guest
One person posting in this thread has real-life (i.e. not genre- or fandom-related) reasons for personal gratitude towards the man Much like I have talked about about the very odd place in my head I find myself wrt the late Marion Zimmer Bradley. The stuff she was involved with her late husband was heinous, no question about it. But she was one of my writing mentors and the first person to publish one of my stories. (I sold first to Analog, but the sale to her beat that one into print.) People are complicated and someone can appreciate one aspect… Read more »
Carbonel
Guest
Ayup. Though in fairness, I am also defending Vox Day. The man published John Wright after the CHORFS blacklisted his short fiction. He brought Jerry Pournelle back into publication. I am grateful to his work as an editor. He has been both rational and fair to his enemies (and if he seems horrible, by offering tit-for-tat, I submit it says more about them than him) Keep in mind, however, these are progressives and cultural Marxists we’re talking about. If you recall from the opening chapters of The Three Body Problem, if you defend a person from attack, you’re also defending… Read more »
Alex Jeffries
Guest

Could you point out the pro-Sad Puppy equivalent of the Entertainment Weekly slander?

And, of course, organized campaigns have been a part of the Hugos since the beginning. It’s just that it only took a handful of the like-minded in past years, whereas SPs brought hundreds.

James May
Guest

There is no such thing. We use this thing called quote marks. The reason our feminist ideology doesn’t use them is they are as scarce as hen’s teeth. Easier to make shit up. Everything in their sick ideology has been made up for 50 years anyway; why stop now?

Randy P.
Guest

Sorry, all the “moderates” have skimmed over your post.

The best way to avoid reality is to look away from it.

Carbonel
Guest

Not just Entertainment Weekly. Popular Science. Library Journal. The Guardian. Io9. Give me a few more minutes to pull up my research from the various journal databases and I can give you more.

National and international mass-media defamation campaigns.]

The Puppy Kickers are the Man: the 1-percenters of SF&F.

Were-Puppy
Guest

They would be shrieking and pointing if they saw you call them “the man”.

Luke
Guest

You obviously missed the screams of outrage last year, when we managed to get a mere handful of works nominated.

Were-Puppy
Guest

Sorry, you are several months late on the “condemn Vox Day or you’re unreasonable” bandwagon.

Synova
Guest
It would have exploded anyway. It exploded just because a couple of people got on the ballot for SP2. Most of us remember that. I don’t defend VD. I don’t hate him. I don’t fear him. Sometimes he’s interesting. Sometimes he’s wrong even if I’m not quite up to persuasively arguing why he’s wrong. Him being wrong doesn’t harm me… or anyone else. His response to the publishing industry was to become a publisher and compete for the market. Requires Hate who is defended by many, still, was denounced by Mixon for actively working to acquire power to punish and… Read more »
Carbonel
Guest

He also suggested stupid men shouldn’t vote. But there were more needy pro-gumming stupid women than needy pro-gummint stupid men so they were worse for the body politic. He could be right.

His solution: Ban women voting, right? WRONG: Universal sufferage.

Most people would rather believe second- or third-hand gossip than run-and-find-out for themselves. No worries – until you’re using those rumors to make serious decisions that impact innocents: like no-awarding Toni Weisskopf. Then you should be ashamed of yourself.

Were-Puppy
Guest

I look at it this way, if they are lying about all of the Sad Puppies, doesn’t it follow that they are lying about VD? So the guy should really not go by 3rd hand reports for anybody involved in SP or RP.

Carbonel
Guest

Context matters: Vox Day claims to enjoy pushing the buttons of the people who think they can attack him with impunity.”

He’s the guy who, when you punch him, not only punches you back twice as hard but enjoys it.

And I defend him because I hate liars and bullies with the flaming passion of a thousand burning suns.

Ron Winkleheimer
Guest

How, exactly, are Vox’s Hugo recommendations “authoritarian?”

TRX
Guest
Vox has 430-odd (so far) Vile Faceless Minions who have pledged to vote as he instructs them. This gives some people heartburn. On the other hand, the VFM support Vox voluntarily, so it’s not really anyone else’s business. By the next Worldcon, he’ll have even more Minions; a nontrivial voting bloc he can use as he sees fit. The current “Vox Day” is a creation of the SJWs. They vilified him so thoroughly nothing he can do can alter public opinion one way or the other, so he’s free to say and do anything he wants without concern for repercussion.… Read more »
60guilders
Guest
“The current “Vox Day” is a creation of the SJWs. They vilified him so thoroughly nothing he can do can alter public opinion one way or the other, so he’s free to say and do anything he wants without concern for repercussion.” I’ll take it a step further than that. The reason they hate him so much is not that he is racist, sexist, or whatever else he is (although he does, based on what I have read of his work, at best tap dance on the line and at worst actually is all those things), but because, whether intentionally… Read more »
Brad Andrews
Guest

The problem is that we have let evil people define those terms. Those based on truth will always be called lies. The modern situation is far from perfect in those areas and many “accepted truths” of today are complete and utter crud.

Were-Puppy
Guest

From what i’ve seen, Vox is more of an observer who puts down in writing what he is observing. If you want to attribute all of these things to him, you should consider that first.

60guilders
Guest

The problem is not that Vox makes observations. If he confined himself to simply commenting on statistical evidence and anecdotes, I wouldn’t have (much) of a problem with him, and would consider him to be a useful corrective to the current zeitgeist, although not someone to get all your news from.
The problem is that his proposed solutions to genuinely concerning problems tend to be along the lines of race and sex, which is why I consider him the mirror image of the SJWs.

Carbonel
Guest

Which are those solutions? I’m trying to pin down “Wrong Stuff from Vox Day.” I have a few of my own (because I’m opinionated. I probably disagree with everyone about something), but every time someone on the interwebs comes up with something I end up down the rabbit-hole of he-said, that she-said that…. and I find out it’s not true.

It’s worse than Sarah Palin.

So any specifics would be helpful.

Were-Puppy
Guest

Straw Vox, Straw Larry and Straw Brad walk into a bar…

Patrick Chester
Guest

…and the bartender asks: “What is this, a joke?”

Carbonel
Guest

Now get out of the d–n bar before the SJWs burn me down.

Were-Puppy
Guest

Bartender: Lets conduct a straw poll. Who want’s an El Presidente margarita?

Carbonel
Guest

The only reason he has them was because the misbehavior at WorldCon Hugo Ceremonies: The unecessary rudeness and petty nastiness and sheer ugliness of that evening really torqued everyones’ shorts. I think it was herding cats before.

James May
Guest

Hey everybody, did you know there’s no scoring in baseball? I bet you didn’t know that. Everything’s a tie. Just ask the doctor.

xServer
Guest

I’ve watched baseball. It definitely FEELS like there’s no scoring. (yes, that was meant as a playful joke. But also why is baseball so boring? Seriously? Only English cricket is worse as far as I can tell)

JackCrow
Guest

Chivalry is owed only to the Chivalrous.

Greg
Guest

Wrong. Part of classic chivalry is the idea of courtesy to ALL, regardless of identity or station.

BassmanCO
Guest

I will give someone respect right up until they show me they don’t deserve it. Then they can fuck off.

Mirrorfield
Guest

“Courtesy is owed. Respect is earned.”

Courtesy and respect are separate and different things…

BassmanCO
Guest

Courtesy and Respect go hand in hand (at least in broad social terms). Without Courtesy, Respect is never earned. You admittedly can respect someone who is not courteous, but that is the begrudging respect of an adversary, not the warm respect of a friend.

Alex Jeffries
Guest

“Chivalry was a system, which imposed behavioral obligations on women as well as on men.” – Glenn Reynolds

Luke
Guest

You could stand to read a bit more history.

Patrick Chester
Guest

Including the backstabber, the slanderer and other vile creatures?

Let me think about this carefully…

No.

JackCrow
Guest

You are incorrect.

Carbonel
Guest

No… pretty sure it was courtesy to the weak (women and children), politesse to one’s equals, obedience to one’s Lord and the sword to varlets, churls, and cowards.

What you’re thinking of is Christian charity. Overlapping sets, but not contiguous.

Joe Vasicek
Guest

Saladin was one of the most chivalrous belligerents in the crusades, and he personally beheaded Renauld de Chatillon after the Battle of Ein Jalut because the man was a lying sadistic son of a bitch. Even in chivalry, respect has to be earned.

Brett Cashman
Guest
I met Chuck last month at the Wordfire Press booth, and had a really delightful half-hour-long conversation with him that I imagine could have easily metastasized into an all-night BS session with beer involved. He’s a great and really sharp guy, and I was inspired to add his books to my growing reading list That said, I’m afraid I agree with Brad Torgersen downthread. I do not believe that the current contretemps results from two sides advancing good-faith arguments but nonetheless failing to understand one another. Would that were so: I would much prefer a world in which I could… Read more »
Alex Jeffries
Guest
I appreciate Chuck’s post. However, it’s obvious his logic is shown to be completely flawed when he compares Vox Day to Requires Hate. I’m no fan of Day. Some of his ideas are repugnant. His manner of expression is heated. In real world political terms, he’s Ann Coulter. I usually tune out because of ideas and tone. However, he’s never done worse than causing a few hurt feelings. RH, on the other hand, is truly despicable. Not just in ideology and tone (though she’s worse in both than Day). She hides behind multiple identities and other sleazy tactics. She’s caused… Read more »
Shadowdancer
Guest

Yes to this. All of it. And thank you for phrasing the difference between Day and Hate.

It speaks much that Scalzi, and the rest still accept RH but shun Day; but then again SJWs defend pedophiles and totalitarianism so it does not surprise me. We are not the ones pretending to be good guys while covering up for the evils in our ranks.

If indeed Day were as evil as they believed him, he would have long ago refused to abide by the law and simply and permanently ended certain problems when he felt moved to act.

dgarsys
Guest

In the end, I believe Day truly believes in civilization, and that people should be free to make their own choices. Yes, all people.

Aside: Re “I don’t agree with everything he says” – I don’t agree with everything you, Sarah, Larry, or others here write either, so I’m not terribly inclined to slip into the defensive frame with Vox either.

Carbonel
Guest

Add to that the access these people – including most of the Days on the left and some of the RHS – have to mass media and you have a critical power imbalance as well.

When you consider the narratives of power that the SJWs like to use, and the disparate authority and access wielded by the SP vs, ASPS it’s friggin’ hilarious.

Cadeyrn
Guest
The problem with modern discourse or the lack thereof is the sheer lack of consequences for boorish, intellectually dishonest or flat-out deceitful behavior and words. Perhaps this has always been a problem, but it is extremely notable in this circumstance and when combined with distance and internet anonymity, perhaps insurmountable. At the end of it all, however, if the principle of inclusiveness is to be exercised as to fringe philosophies and lifestyles, then it must also be exercised as to conventional and mainstream philosophies and lifestyles. It really is that simple. Do unto ALL others as you would have ALL… Read more »
Luke
Guest

To note the obvious, Maggie Mead was one of God’s great fools. There are few academics who have been more thouroghly debunked.

Brad R. Torgersen
Guest
Civility . . . You know, my personal experience with the SP opposition in 2015, was that the more civil I tried to be, the lower their blows got. To include actionable defamation and slander, which (when they were called on it) frightened a major media outlet like Entertainment Weekly into retracting its own grossly-in-error tabloid article. Heck, the founder of TOR itself also took to the internet airwaves to mitigate the slander and defamation an employee of his own company chose to use in the midst of promoting a TOR product. If the opponents of SP had somehow managed… Read more »
Brett Cashman
Guest

Here’s where I disagree with Brad. I think the Sad Puppies did demand something: we demanded that the other side live by its own standards.

They refused.

Brad R. Torgersen
Guest

Good point. I stand corrected, Brett. =^)

Wolfmanjim
Guest

Oh, and one more.

http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/crucial_quotes.htm

So, where’s your mea culpa?

Robin Munn
Guest

Wolfmanjim –

You hit the wrong Reply link on this one. Might want to repost it further down so it’s obvious who you’re replying to, because this comment thread is going to grow really huge eventually, and it’ll be hard to tell at that point who you were talking to.

SirBrass
Guest
It’s like saying Israel simply won’t give peace a chance when it’s the Arabs who are continually trying to commit genoice and rid the land of Jews. When your opposition isn’t open at all to the possibility of peace except the peace of the dead (and they clearly mean for you to occupy that category), then there is no moral reason to offer an olive branch ever to them until they are forced to negotiate. I keep thinking of Kratman’s Transis in the Carerra series. They do the exact same things the SJBs and puppy-kickers are doing here in real… Read more »
Disciple of Tyr
Guest

Do you have any source for your assertion that Arabs wanted to kill off Israeli Jews? There’s zero evidence of it and if we look at how things have actually gone it’s the Palestinians who have gotten the shortest end of the stick in that conflict–by far.

James May
Guest

That’s because Israel won a civil war, an international war in ’48, another in ’67 and another in ’73.

Wolfmanjim
Guest
” But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind… Read more »
Doug Loss
Guest

Oh, nothing more than their own statements. But I guess we can’t accept those if they don’t follow the leftist “narrative,” can we?

Peter O
Guest

Uh, the Palestinian version of the Muppets had a character leave the show by suicide-bombing Jews.

Also see Hamas’s constitution.

TheWriterInBlack
Guest

Heck, the founder of TOR itself also took to the internet airwaves to mitigate the slander and defamation an employee of his own company chose to use in the midst of promoting a TOR product.

And then the ASPs complained that he “threw her under the bus.”

Brad Andrews
Guest
Brad, That is the core problem. So many are willing to fire on their own side, but not truly hold the other side accountable. Where is the long rant against the SJWs? It won’t fly on their sites and would not be posted here. Yet those like the author here feel free to take pot shots against those on their side. That is reprehensible and would have gotten them shot in past earthly wars. Can you imagine a commander on the Allied side in WW 1 shooting at those in his trenches? That is what we have here.
Chuck
Guest
Hello. Before heading home and doing Dad stuff, I just wanted to say that I appreciate all the comments (even those that Mr. Mays has made at my expense; I cannot fault him his ability to turn a sharp quip). Whether or not I agree with all the statements and comments is beside the point. Rather, for me, the point is this: there has been no profanity, vitriol, or attacks made on the basis of personal traits or presumed characteristics (ad hominem). The challenges been have been courteous, serious, and remain affixed to issues and actual statements. For which I… Read more »
James May
Guest

That was not a “sharp quip.” It was the distillation of two years research reading thousands of Tweets and blog posts which resulted in a 200-300,000 word book documenting the 2009-2015 rise of this sick gender feminist cult in the core SFF community. I have never bothered to edit the wordy and repetitious raw first draft but it is meticulously researched and fact-checked, including several hundred linked quotes by our social justice hate movement.