Arthur Chu sucks at everything but Jeopardy

Many regulars may remember Social Justice Warrior and Salon author Arthur Chu as the dipshit who declared Brad Torgersen’s 20 year interracial marriage and his biracial children as “shields” to hide Brad’s racism. He is one of the morons who blamed the Sad Puppies’ success on GamerGate.

Well, after a day of futile harassment, his team of idiots couldn’t even call in a bomb threat correctly.

Here is a detailed report:

And here is Nero’s version, which is hilarious, because when SJWs try to destroy something it turns into a giant party.


Charity to check out, EOD Warrior Foundation
More reading stuff, eARC give aways

266 thoughts on “Arthur Chu sucks at everything but Jeopardy”

  1. I’m not sure these idiots know any better than to keep pushing. And sooner or later, someone is going to get injured or even killed, just so some people can remain Big Frogs in a continually-shrinking pond.. .

  2. Arthur Chu is proof that even an idiot can with Jeopardy.

    Let him push on with his pathetic little attempts at disrupting those who dare to oppose him. Meanwhile, I’ll keep putting out books (new one out today after all), reading books written by people I like reading, and seeing movies I like.

    We win because we simply refuse to lose, and that drives people like Chu nuts. It’s kind of awesome.

    1. Merely existing seems to make them lose their minds and do incredibly stupid shit like this.

      The best part about this is it takes so little effort on our part!

      1. This is exactly right.

        The mere fact that we’re not willing to sit back and take crap any more is, in my opinion, our biggest asset.

        1. Oh yeah. The real reason they hate Larry, Sarah and Brad so much is that they don’t sit back and take it: they fight back. Hard.

        2. It’s that we are not willing to accept that the enlightened elite such as Arthur know better than us. It drives them crazy that we will not “listen and believe” and follow their obviously benevolent guidance, no matter how much they attempt to force us to do so. After all Arthur is clearly so much smarter than us. He won on jeopardy.

      2. Demography=ideology to supremacist bigots and the bigots always claim they are benign and for social justice.

        In that world what Chu called a hate group is in reality men, whites and heterosexuals tired of racial incitement and attacks about imaginary patriarchies.

        1. It gets better: What Chu called a hate group is actually (as best I can tell) quite diverse in race, sex, sexual orientation, even politics—all of them “tired of racial incitement and attacks about imaginary patriarchies.”

          1. To the Left, the definition of a “hate group” is “Non-Leftist” . Diversity, color, nothing really matters if a group’s views don’t pass the ideological smell test. Look at the things the SPLC has been labeling ‘Hate Groups’ tor the past ten years: everything from Pam Gellar to the Tea Party to the Juggalos.

          2. I don’t agree Dave. It shouldn’t be lost on anyone that Chu refers to himself as a “feminist anti-racist,” or how anti-white racists have recently used that to mask their own hateful rhetoric about whites and how misandrist weirdo women have done the same for men.

            This SJW movement defines right and wrong as race and sex. Being a woman, gay or non-white in and of themselves constitute an anti-oppression movement. Being a straight white male is the equivalent of an oppressive ideology. Events and actions, actual laws, systems and institutions have nothing to do with this. That’s all fabricated to bring about the pre-determined result.

            I’ve said this many times: it is a mistake to think of this as liberalism. Liberalism has nothing to do with the idea men launched a coup d’etat against women and gender beginning at the dawn of civilization or that Jim Crow stretches back into ancient Greece. This is a cult.

          3. James, I think I’ll respectfully disagree with you there. From all I’ve seen, to the Left minority status is a political construct and not an objective one. If you’re Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas or Mia Love you’re not “really” black; you may be dark of hue, but you don’t count because it’s your politics that make the difference. Similarly, Bruce Carroll over at GayPatriot regularly gets accusations that he’s not the ‘right’ kind of gay (and occasionally that he is in fact not really gay) because he votes Republican. Tammy Bruce can tell similar stories. All of the above have been described as “hateful” for having different opinions than the SJW crowd.

            The point I’m (longwindedly) aiming towards is that to the SJW’s the same rule applies to organizations as to individuals. ‘Non-Minority’ and pro-abortion? Welcome into the tent, brother. We’ll find a pigeonhole for you to fit in… at least until you offend someone higher on the pecking order (ask Miss Bruce, who, while a NOW organizer, was told to her face that she couldn’t run a demonstration against spousal abuse during the OJ Simpson trial… because it would offend the NAACP).
            “Minority” and not in line with the SJW Gospel? Beat it, Oreo.

          4. Well, if Sowell, Love and Thomas aren’t really black then what does that tell you? That is not liberalism but a specifically racialist doctrine devoid of such things as Right or Left. Skin and sex speaks. Did anyone care Whedon was liberal when he strayed off the identity plantation? Was the Sunil Patel who won’t review white men at Lightspeed attacked for illiberalism when he Storified Sarah Pinsker’s words without femme permission and slapped about on Twitter by Pinsker and Fran Wilde? How is Storifying a woman’s words illiberal? Is Lightspeed up for a Locus Award because of liberalism or racialist/sexualist SFF?

            Everything else you (and them) say confirms this. There is nothing classically liberal about imbuing a race and sex with magic powers or a default political stance one way or the other.

            Go look at Milo’s Twitter feed. He has his pulse on this and the right of it. He isn’t talking about Right vs. Left but a racial and sexual supremacist ideology passing itself off as “progressive” and “liberal” in order to gain traction. Exactly how many more references to “white nerdbro-ville” and “#WhiteFoolishness” do you need to hear passed off as a critique of “conservatism?” How many more times do you need to hear Anita Sarkeesian critique video games as “toxic masculinity” to realize this woman is no liberal or critiquing video games? Sowell, Love and Thomas aren’t being critiqued for their politics but first and foremost for a discrepancy assumed to accompany their race as surely as misogyny accompanies men and misandry never accompanies women.

            Take your eyes off the prize and you’ll never defeat these people. Just look at Glyer’s comments section to see what derailing does. Milo and Sargon of Akkad would never be so stupid as to allow themselves to be drawn into such pedantic debates over nothing. The Gamergate meet-up wasn’t anti-liberal but anti-feminist and pranked by Chu, a self-described “feminist and anti-racist.”

            “Milo Yiannopoulos @Nero · 10h 10 hours ago
            Buzzword count—Raze (video gaming) magazine, December 1990
            Misogyny: 0
            Patriarchy: 0
            Oppression: 0
            Toxic masculinity: 0
            Patreon: 0”

            Liberalism certainly existed in 1990. What’s new?

            Chu calls Gamergate a “nationwide campaign to ruin women’s lives,” not conservatism run amok. Who believes videogamers default to Fox News?

          5. James,
            Are you saying that these SJW are sort of incubating within broader liberalism? I’m just trying to understand.

            I listen to Herman Cain a lot on the radio, and there is a definite amount of callers who jump him for getting off the “plantation”. He has even been pointing out recent events I believe we would refer to as SJW.

            Still trying to understand, are you saying that these are actually two seperate battles, one being strictly SJW and another being identity politics?

          6. Yes, I am saying they are incubating. Intersectionalism ironically intersects at many places with liberalism, but at the end of the day many liberals are white, straight, and male and will be treated as such, but even the women. Lesbian-centric racialized feminism really has nothing to do with liberalism per se, no more than the KKK has anything to do with conservatism. Both may be anti-immigration but for different reasons. Intersectionalism and liberalism may both be pro-immigration for different reasons.

            There’s a reason WisCon has a racial safe space and it’s not cuz there’s conservatives around but because of their own white feminists.

            “Beetori Sritruslow @talkinghive · Apr 30 ‘Progressive’ white men will never understand that racist white women are a greater menace to women of color than any MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists).”

            That’s Requires Hate and it’s pretty clear she is ultra-liberal but using race as the highest priority. I’ve read many comments from them saying they don’t trust white liberals. All these SJWs are liberals but the most die-hard intersectionalists are really angry the liberal Laura Mixon is nominated for a Hugo for her attack on RH and that the liberal GRRM promoted it. It’s a race feud within liberalism because one side is faking their liberalism. The bottom line is that die-hard intersectionalists don’t like white people and it’s as simple as that. More irony is that Mixon isn’t angry RH attacked white men, just other women of color. It is a completely crazy movement.

        2. Which one of these below is not an ideology? See what I mean about simple comparisons, the SJW addiction to identity, confusing identity and principle, and turning demographies into ideologies? It’s all wrapped up in a ball right there.

          “Arthur Chu retweeted Ijeoma Oluo @IjeomaOluo · May 3
          It’s amazing how the first people to shout ‘NOT ALL WHITE PEOPLE’ & ‘NOT ALL MEN’ are also first to shout YES ALL MUSLIMS!'”


          Here’s Arthur retweeting Anita Sarkeesian’s guru. It’s the same old shit: throw rocks at squirrels, squirrels get angry, angry squirrels confirmed. Gee, group defamation creates anti-defamation? Who could figure out that mystery?

          “Arthur Chu retweeted Jonathan McIntosh @radicalbytes · 16h 16 hours ago
          Each time I criticize toxic masculinity in media my mentions are flooded with angry men performing toxic masculinity.”

          These are completely brainless people.

      3. “Darth Chu”….

        If only I knew an artist type who could run with THAT image. (swings way back with a Tetsubo sized hint stick)

          1. Maybe if he wore a biiiiiig helmet?

            “I can’t breathe in this thing!!!”

        1. Well, if we have Wendell the Manatee I can’t see why THEY can’t have Arthur the Walrus…Koo Koo ka-Chu!

  3. I fail to see any difference between the current attempt to police gamers and the gaming industry and the attempt to police rock music lyrics in the 80s.

    Both efforts were led by moral busybodies who had no doubt about their moral superiority and were eager to use the power of the state to impose their views on others.

    On the other hand, without the Parents Music Resource Center we would never have had “Joe’s Garage.”

    1. Not to mention ‘Jazz From Hell’, an albumn without vocals reportedly having the RIAA Parental Advisory sticker

  4.         Shall we call this the Chu variant of Godwin’s Law?  “Whoever tries to win an argument by calling in phony bomb threats loses everything forever.”

    1. Chu is the John Scalzi of gaming. Like Scalzi Chu has decided to adopt by proxy the insane theories of radical gender feminism that began in America around 1970. Hearing them both spout radical feminist slogans is like the “E Plebneesta” episode of Star Trek where the Yangs had forgotten the meaning of the words to America’s founding documents. They’re just parrots talking about “cracka ass cracka.”

  5. It’s the horseshoe theory of politics – go enough to the right or left and you start becoming authoritarian and it bends back around till the authoritarian left and the authoritarian right start getting quite hard to distinguish from one another.

    (And even better, the authoritarian left hates it when you compare their moral panics to the moral panics of the right)

    1. Someone should tell Chu that Orwell’s 1984 ( and it’s description of an Anti-Sex League ) is not a government operations manual.

    2. By US definitions of “left” and “right,” there is no authoritarian right. The US extreme right is radical libertarianism shading into true anarchy; only the European definition of “right,” which I understand includes fascism, could include authoritarianism as an extreme form. By US definitions, pretty much all of European political philosophies are on the left.

      1. As someone who grew up there, yep. All European theories of government are statist to a larger or smaller degree. They don’t understand us, and we don’t understand them. The right/left divide is along the lines of patriotism/internationalism and along the lines of religion/denial thereof. (Though there are right wing atheists in Europe, but they view religion as part of the culture they subscribe to, if that makes sense.)
        Yep, the two philosophies can go hardcore totalitarian IN EUROPE.
        I’m getting tired of the left here, largely europhiles, calling me a fascist. I’ll take that from my colleagues on the far right. Anarcho capitalists on my blog all too often call me authoritarian because I’m pegged about where the founding fathers are. But fascist when I want to minimize the state and laws is so wrong it’s not even in the same world.
        So I’ve acquired a new motto: Sarah A. Hoyt, taking over the world and leaving it ruthlessly alone!

        1. Bingo! The funny thing is that most of the big name tyrannical systems of the 20th century was pretty much that country’s previous political culture turned up to 11.

        2. I think it is largely correct the left looks at it from a Euro-centric point of view. However I think that it doesn’t help that there are Christian progressives in the Republican party. To a leftist the GOP is automatically considered “right of center”. Therefore in a leftists mind state imposed religion is a “right of center” idea. I am saying this as a Christian who doesn’t believe in abortion or gay “marriage” but I support the government getting out of marriage and I don’t support the “war on drugs” or similar social issues laws.

          1. There are Christian Progressives on the Left. They routinely get called out by BOTH sides only on different issues. The more extreme Left hates them for their social conservatism (traditional family, no drugs, etc) and the TEAOP hates them because they maintain the defense of worker dignity and rights for the underclass.

          2. I like how you describe that “maintain the defense of worker dignity and rights for the underclass”. That’s not a policy. That is a marketing slogan.

          3. @correia45: no more or less so than “the government is too big, too expensive, and too intrusive into peoples’ lives”

            that’s not a policy either. And the policies it has led to (unending tax cuts for the elites that have racked up HUGE debts for the nation while assistance to society’s least fortunate has been repeatedly meat-axed) have been ruinous. Not to mention the massive incentives to cut hours, downsize/offshore, cut employee benefits, etc.

          4. Actually, shrinking the size and scope of the federal government is a policy. Much more so that “Do happy good stuff! Yay!”

            Are you seriously trying and debate a retired accountant about economics? 😀

            Sadly, my rule of internet arguing is to only do it when there is sufficient audience. Down in the comments about an idiot’s bomb threat isn’t the best place to teach you econ 101. So in brief as somebody who got paid six figures to help companies jump through government hoops:
            Cutting hours: Biggest culprit there in recent decades is Obamacare’s eligibility cutoff.
            Debt: Not how it works.
            Tax Cuts: They are awesome.
            Society’s Least Fortune: Should get jobs, oh, but wait, democrat polices kill those.
            Offshoring: Biggest cause, over regulation.
            Downsizing: What you do when you’re over regulated and can’t pay your taxes.

            And done. Save your talking points for my next blog post about economics. That way I can take the time to argue with you for a proper audience.

          5. Greg, there has been NO reduction in the size, expense, or intrusiveness of government. These things have not been tried. Pretending otherwise just makes you look silly.

          6. As others have said. “Tax cuts for the wealthy” is always the refrain against cutting government. How about we give everyone tax cuts and also take a meat ax to the whole budget. We could cut the ATF, DEA, Department of Education, and the Department of Energy and no one would really notice. If we really tried there are quite a number of other bureaus that could be eliminated as well. Also, as others have said, reduction in the size and scope of government has never really been tried but everyone wants to say it won’t work because poor people will surly die in the streets.

        3. I strongly agree with Sarah. The whole Left/Right divide in Europe (and Canada!) is bollocks.

          In Europe you have two flavors of Big Government, the “communist” and the “fascist”, which are identical in function. Whenever one of these governments gets into power, a million people die. Started with Turkey and the Armenian genocide, proceeded through WWI and WWII, took a side trip to China and SE Asia, now we’ve got it here.

          There is no difference between fascism and communism in operation, they are identical. The true political divide is between LESS government and MORE government.

          Little Arthur is on the MORE side, as is little Johnny Scalzi. Neither of them has ever seen a tax or a regulation they didn’t like. Because the central organizing principle of their lives is this: People are stupid, they must be controlled. More control is better than less, always.

          1. The Armenian genocide was what happened when Turkey tried to modernize by imitating Europe.

            What do you need to do to go from a multi-ethnic empire to an ethnically homogeneous nation state, on the European model? You have to kill fuck loads of people, and the genocide was far from all Armenians.

            Many of the world’s worth pathologies are a result of non-Europeans imitating Europe, and not in a good way.

    3.         “Left” and “Right” are European terms.  The “Right” consists of those entitled to rule by traditional criteria, mainly aristocratic birth, and who wish to use the power of the government to freeze things as they are.  The “Left” consists of those banned from ruling by traditional criteria, who long to overthrow the existing social order and seize power.

              The questions of how much power the government should have, and what things it should have power over, are just not addressed by the “Left/Right” divide.

      1. I had heard the left and right terms came from in the Bible somewhere about seperating sheeps and goats on the right and left.

        1. No, the terms came from the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.

    1. Dr. Frederic Wertham (’50s Comics Code), Tipper Gore and insane gender feminist Andrea Dworkin have all testified in front of congressional committees about sexual vulgarity in media with the same idea in mind that it negatively impacts American culture. Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu and the SFWA Red Sonja non grata are right behind them.

      Feminists, Gore and Wertham. What more proof do you need about what you’re dealing with when it comes to SJWs?

      1. Wertham actually did some good in his life, especially with his work in the Brown v. Board related doll tests. And he was a real head shrinker who did work with troubled youths. The only think Dworkin, Tipper and Chu run are their damned mouths.

      2. Please don’t drag Red Sonja into this! I don’t think most S&S fans would fall into the SJW category.

        My most remembered moment from the 1980’s in regards to this topic: Judas Priest in court

          1. I’m afraid to ask what happened there. I can’t imagine an SJW reading through one page of a sword and sorcery without their heads exploding 🙂

      3. Peggy Noonan was the one responsible for destroying Saturday Morning cartoons, too. Can’t have the kids having fun, after all.

        Oh yeah, she was a progressive, too. Surprise, surprise.

    2. I prefer “Destructionists” for such as what’s falsely called “Social Justice Warriors” these days.

      They are all and only about social/cultural destructionism. Nothing more. Nothing less.

      The slogans they use as fig leaves are only meant to keep the stupid on their side. There’s nothing true in any of their claims or stated aims.

      They’re all about destroying everything around them.

  6. It takes a sick, disturbed person to think it’s alright to call in a bomb threat. I hope they catch him or her before someone is hurt.

    1. Washington D.C.
      Think Homeland Security. Chu is having a bad day. The twittard who sent the threat is going to have a REALLY bad day.

      1. While I would like to think Mr. Chu has been/will be hoist by his own petard, some remnant of integrity requires me to ask if there’s evidence – as in court-admissible evidence – that would implicate him as the bomb threat caller?

    2. I’m still trying to unravel what #gamergate is. But didn’t Chu or one of his close people act as if they were receiving threats like this and had to run away, or something along those lines?

      And yet, here they are perpetrating the same thing they claim to have suffered. Maybe this is a large scale projection?

  7. I will actually defend Chu’s “Jeopardy” behavior, which actually got him hated by a lot of fans of the show… because he “gamed the system”.

    Chu is capable of extremely focused examination. He was able, in effect, to crack how Jeopardy worked, then get on the show and exploit how it functioned to get a major leg up on his opponents.

    He played the game well. But he was also an asshole in how he played it. And he has never had a shred of remorse about that.

    This is the core of Chu’s character. If he believes he is right about something, he becomes sociopathic about it. You become a mere obstacle in his way. Whatever the objective is, he will search for a way to accomplish it “within the rules”.

    So no, he’s not an idiot. He’s a deliberate liar, a propagandist, perhaps even a terrorist, and in his mind he is utterly justified because to admit error would break his sense of self.

    1. “So no, he’s not an idiot. He’s a deliberate liar, a propagandist, perhaps even a terrorist, and in his mind he is utterly justified because to admit error would break his sense of self.”

      Yes. Spot on. I don’t think it was he that made the threats, he DID deliberately try to ruin the fun of a group of people for no other reason than he didn’t like them. Sounds awfully familiar… and probably why he hates the Sad Puppies campaign so much. Too many people having the sort of fun that he doesn’t approve of.

      1. He’s a smart social retard.

        When one of them gloms onto an ideology, they treat it like an operator’s manual, and the notion of using social skills to actually deal with people is never given a single thought.

        And yea, we have some of those on the right, but we do try to keep them away from the controls.

          1. People who think the government is too big, expensive, and intrusive?

          2. @ Correia45: and who reflexively apply that axiom to any and ALL questions of governance, just like what was being said by Kristophr above.

          3. Greg, Greg, Greg… You really know nothing about the Tea Party movement beyond the leftist talking points, do you?

          4. Hi Greggy! Having fun in Scalzi’s echo chamber?

            So the Tea Party. You mean the hundreds of thousands of Americans who show up at events all over the USA, and after they leave there’s not a scrap of litter in the entire venue? Those social retards?

          5. @Doug: I’ve watched their videos, read their books, listened to their radio programs and investigated their websites AND those opposed to them. I am well versed in their views and 95% of them are antithetical to managing a modern society and can be summed up in the following: if it’s government, shrink it. If it’s a tax, cut it. Rinse. Repeat. Then blame Democrats and the underclass when the economy almost collapses, the rivers get polluted, and the poor go hungry and homeless.

            @Phantom: Hardly. I wouldn’t be posting here if I did, now would I?

            And cleaning up after themselves (and I don’t for one minute believe those stories about how thorough they are), has nothing to do with their robotic regurgitation of the “cut taxes, cut government” mantra as the answer for any and all social questions. Or their tendency to wave guns around when they shouldn’t be. Or not paying their grazing fees. Or almost making the US default on its debts to try to kill insurance for the poor. And on and on and on.

            THOSE retards, yes.

          6. Greg, I have been to Tea Party rallies, and I consider myself part of the movement. I have to tell you, you really don’t know anything about the Tea Party movement. First, it isn’t anything you can learn about by trying to follow the many various organizations that grew up to try to influence the movement. It’s too inchoate for that . I very strongly suspect that your view of the Tea Party movement is an example of confirmation bias, that you see it as what you suspected it to be rather than what it is.

          7. Greg, on May 5, 2015 at 1:44 pm said:
            You’ve failed then. Witness the TEA Party.

            So the Tea Party controls the GOP? Well I’m sure that’s news to both.

          8. Greg, on May 5, 2015 at 9:39 pm said:
            “I am well versed in their views and 95% of them are antithetical to managing a modern society”

            Only if you believe that the only model of modern society that can only function is one of the enlightened few running things because the masses are to foolish to be trusted with the independence to decide who they wish to associate with, spend their own money etc.

            Greg, on May 5, 2015 at 9:39 pm said:
            “And cleaning up after themselves (and I don’t for one minute believe those stories about how thorough they are)”

            Fine go dig up some police reports of post Tea Party rally vandalism or some arrest records for disorderly conduct or assault on a peace officer.

    2. Chu is like all SJWs in that they resemble low-level idiot savants. They can write computer code but ask them anything the least abstract in a philosophical sense and they fall apart. They are incapable of accurately constructing a metaphor or analogy or understanding principle. Talk to them about equal protection and they come back with blank stares and talk about “privilege” and fee-fees.

      1. James, you’re describing Asperger’s Syndrome here.

        Chu can’t have Asperger’s, he’s Chinese. Unless one of his recent ancestors was Northern European, he hasn’t got the genetics for it.

        He’s some other form of social cripple, possibly a self inflicted wound from too much Marxism at university. If he’s lucky he’ll grow out of it before somebody takes exception to his behavior, and by “someone” I’m thinking some random middle management clone in the DHS looking for a career boost.

        1. I’m not talking about genetics. If I didn’t use principles I’d be an SJW. It’s a human failing and the whole reason philosophy is taught. You have to have something you use to reach outside of yourself so you look at the world more fairly. A lot of it is built into people’s personalities but I think we all need help at times.

        2. [OK, side rant but still …]

          TP, if you know the cause of Asperger’s please report at once to Johns Hopkins, they’ll help you collect that Nobel Prize in medicine. Because decades of researchers have failed to narrow it down to a single cause or even a clear common pathology, nor been able to find any clear differnetiation between Asperger’s and higher-functioning autism.

          [End of side rant.]

          1. The cause of most cases of aspergers I’ve seen are self justification of poor parenting practices and an absolute unwillingness to respect others enough to learn and maintain a social skill. Most cases I’ve seen are cured by violence or the threat thereof.

            Not to be confused by Aspergers Syndrome, a crippling condition existing along a continuum of behavior that is largely overshadowed by those smelling of cheese in paragraph one. These men and women are indeed rare, because actually having a disorder often means that one does not wish to use it as an excuse for poor behavior, sympathy, or more of my money.

          2. From my extensive but not exhaustive reading about Asperger’s Syndrome, its “on the autism spectrum” which means some guys kinda think its like autism but nobody knows for sure.

            However one thing is very clear, its a Northern European thing. Autism/Aspergers is fairly common in European/Caucasian bloodlines, and -virtually never happens- to anyone else.

            Furthermore there are no common head/brain injuries that cause Asperger’s/autism-like symptoms, so the brain structure that creates it is (I speculate) more diffuse and distributed, and doesn’t happen because of one pathway or one spot in the brain. Making it pretty hard to figure out.

            Therefore, it is very clearly genetic in nature, but beyond that nobody knows much. I’ve seen a bunch of speculation lately that there’s Neanderthal inheritance involved, that was from mitochondrial DNA studies I think. But don’t quote me, I can’t remember where I read that.

            Now, Wayne Earl said below: “The cause of most cases of aspergers I’ve seen are self justification of poor parenting practices and an absolute unwillingness to respect others enough to learn and maintain a social skill. Most cases I’ve seen are cured by violence or the threat thereof.”

            There’s always somebody who thinks the weirdo just needs a clout on the ear to straighten him out. Weirdos learn this early in life and use their often absurdly high intelligence to find or invent novel and interesting ways of dealing with it.

  8. It’s fair to criticize Arthur Chu for running a public campaign to persuade the bar not to host that event. He doesn’t live in D.C. and has no reason to care about that bar’s customers.

    But you’re going a lot further than that by accusing him of being involved in making a bomb threat — a serious crime. Unless you have proof, your comment about how his “team of idiots” made the threat is libelous.

      1. I don’t see any incitement, but if you have a link where Chu encourages people to commit a crime, by all means provide it.

        1. Actually, what he said was that Chu’s team of idiots could not make a proper bomb threat.

          I don’t think anyone’s going to court over Larry’s opinion of their bomb threat making skills. “Your honor, he said we couldn’t make a proper bomb threat! We can TO make proper bomb threats! Tell him to take it back!”

          FWIW, I don’t think Chu made the threat himself. His threats were along similar lines to “that’s a nice bar you have there. Be a shame if someone were to call it sexist.”

          There were people on twitter who are normally his sympathizers, who were telling him that he should knock it off with the emails and tweets at the bar. I think their words were something to the effect of “this will end badly.”

          Chu didn’t listen.

          And he had a lot of people who were marching right in lockstep along with him. Even now, afterwards, there are people who are claiming the bomb threat was justified. Apparently they think people need to be taught a lesson. It’s not just about who is having wrong-fun, but their friends, associates, even the restaurants where they go to eat have to be warned off associating with them.

          They’re demanding society cast people aside, or else.

        2. It’s non-stop hate speech and for years now. That is incitement. Chu talked about that Gamergate meet-up as if it were the KKK. In fact SJWs commonly talk about all straight white men as if they were the KKK just for existing on this Earth.

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

          “Arthur Chu @arthur_affect · 10h 10 hours ago ‘This is a truly diverse community! We have white ‘left-libertarian’ dudebros, white regular libertarian dudebros, even white Nazi dudebros'”

          “Feminist Frequency ‏@femfreq Oct 21 ‘Gamergate is loud, dangerous and a last grasp at cultural dominance by angry white men’ by @JessicaValenti”

          “Steven Gould @StevenGould · Oct 29 Do we really need more men explaining feminism to women? Do we need ANY? Go explain it to other men if you’re so inclined. #OrJustListen”

          “All men benefit from structural sexism. Men bragging about moderate views doesn’t make them intelligent, it makes them unaware of privilege.” – feminist video game developer Brianna Wu

          I’m increasingly less likely to pick up a book if it is another straight white dude story.” – Nebula-nominated SFF author feminist Kate Elliot, SFWA member

          “sounds like something a straight white cis dude does, secure that his position and privilege will always be there.” – Nebula nominated SFF author feminist Veronica Schanoes, SFWA member

          “The law is made by rich, selfish, shitty people – mostly white, mostly men – with cockroaches for hearts. Fuck their ‘rule of law.'” – Hugo and Nebula Award nominated SFF author Saladin Ahmed, SFWA member

          “I’d say most white men should come with TWs (trigger warnings) for unthinking privileged arrogance, but that’s like saying books need TWs for ‘contains words’.” – SFF editor, SFWA member and Publisher’s Weekly review editor Rose Fox

        3. This from the people who said that Sarah Palin’s use of crosshairs on a map led to the shooting of Gabby Giffords.

          1. Didn’t some lefty blog (Daily Kos?) use bullseyes on a map around that time too?

            (Presumably to show where to focus on election efforts. I hope.)

          2. And what’s more the “crosshairs” on the map by Sarah Palin were actually surveyor’s symbols, which had exactly nothing to do with weaponry.

          3. I remember that! Had to be one of the dumbest complaints against Palin.

    1. If you reread what he said, you’ll notice he said Chu probably incited the bomb threat not that he was involved in it. The screen shots in the two articles provides plenty of proof of this.

    2. Compared to the shit that moron has said about my people, that isn’t even in the same zip code as libelous.

      I didn’t say he did it. He just looks like a doofus after one of his idiot followers took his Storm Trooper bullshit to the next level.

    3. Senator Robert Byrd never lynched anyone, he was just a Grand Kleagle in the Klu Klux Klan.

  9. Wait, you guys have jumped from “Arthur Chu sent an e-mail to a place hosting a gamergate meetup pointing out what gamergate is” to “Arthur Chu called in a bomb threat”?

    That’s a hell of a jump to reach that conclusion.

    Is there any actual evidence that Chu is behind this bomb threat? Is he, like, the only person to oppose gamergate or something?

    Leaps of assumption like this are why people don’t take you seriously when you talk about “secret cabals” controlling the Hugos.

    1. No, there is no actual evidence that Arthur Chu called in the bomb threat. He did, however, send out an email to his supporters asking them to come up with other ways to keep the meeting from happening when the manager of Local 16 refused to listen to him.

      Did he make the call? We don’t have any evidence that he did. Did he encourage this type of behavior? Yes.

    2. When a public figure runs a public smear campaign targeting a disfavored group, complete with regular two minute hates, and then a bomb threat is called in targeting the disfavored group, a normal human being could reasonably draw the inference that the threat probably came from somebody inspired by the public figure. Even an abnormal human being following Less Wrong’s pet Bayesian decisionmaking process would come to the same conclusion.

      A concern troll probably wouldn’t.

    3. Don’t recall anyone stated that “secret cabals” controlling the Hugos.

      I do recall Harlan Ellison and GRR Martin stating that insiders wielded undue influence.

      And switching positions from “Hugos are the fans award” to “Hugos are the truefans of Worldcon award.”

      1. One of the Hugo-nominated team of Skiffy and Fanty thinks this is important for the world to know:

        “Cecily Kane retweeted La Di Da @lalo__stl · 20h 20 hours ago Also, men, white men, just grow the fuck up. Contrary to what everything in your life has told you so far, you’re not smarter than everyone”

        Thanks. It’s all about neutron stars and far off worlds.

    4. It is the duty of the courts to assume innocence until guilt is proven. And truly, no court could convict Chu on the basis of the facts currently in evidence.

      But i’m not a court, i’m a private citizen. I have no duty to assume innocence; i’m free to assume the jackass that sent the tweet saying “it’s ending tonight” is the same jackass that called in the bomb threat that was supposed to “end it”.

    5. Well, the link between GamerGate and SP3/RP3 is about as tenuous, but it seems OK for your side of the street to run with that narrative.

      Beale supports Gamer Gate.
      Beale slate gets nominees on board.
      No right thinking person would vote for Beale, ergo he had GG help.

      Chu posts email.
      Chu makes tweets asking people for help in stopping meeting.
      Meeting place gets bomb threats.

      One narrative is utterly believable by the AP side.

      The other demands concrete proof, depositions, and eye witnesses before acknowledging, that yes, it may be a possibility.

      Honestly Cat, the mental loops and leaps of logic the AP side puts itself through to connect A to 2 to III is OK, and the resulting narrative accepted without any sort of debate.

      The SP crowd does it, and they’re wrong?


      1. I’d like to drop in to remind people that there is usually a large group of people somewhere in the middle that think its ridiculous to say SP is an arm of GG AND that Chu incited a bomb threat.

        So the people you are arguing with here about whether Chu is responsible for the bomb threat may be the same people that attempted to argue that SP!=RP!=GG. It is not necessarily paradoxical to believe both things.

        *This post does little to reflect my personal beliefs or positions on either issue*

        1. SP and GG mostly exist for the same reasons: daffy feminist attacks. There is no contradiction with being aligned with one or the other. What’s your point?

          Anyone against the insane people who went nuts over the bikini protein ad is in the same club as GG or SP, hardly an indictment.

      2. Correia reached out to GamerGate on Twitter to publicize Sad Puppies 3. He doesn’t make any attempt to deny that his campaign is associated with GamerGate, and said recently on Twitter, “I think GamerGate is awesome.”

        1. Gamergate is an anti-third wave gender feminist movement at this point. The ethics battle has been addressed and won. However the ditzy feminists are still there and they still never shut up from dawn til dusk about men and whites. Since this feminist ideology is an anti-Constitutional racist sexual supremacist cult, GG IS awesome.

          If you want to defend the abolition of gender on the idea men stole androgyny from noble gender equity cultures in pre-history then knock yourself out. If you don’t believe that’s the exact issue in play then you haven’t been listening to Wu, Sarkeesian and their feminist icons like Artemis March and Charlotte Bunch.


          1. “Gamergate is an anti-third wave gender feminist movement at this point.”

            Um, no, we’re not. We have had some victories in the ethics war, but it’s far from over (and now we have the Society for Professional Journalists taking an interest). There’s been no Liberation of Paris yet, let alone a landing at Normandy. It’s more accurate to say that we have survived the blitzkrieg and have mounted several successful counterattacks.

            While it’s true that third-wave gender feminists have made #GamerGate about them and their issues in the eyes of the press, that has never been our focus except in terms of defending ourselves from their incessant, insensible insinuations.

            Nor did Correia successfully connect with the core of #GamerGate until AFTER the Hugo nominations — it simply was not on our radar and not being discussed in any of our forums. A few people were indeed pitching a case for it, but it had nothing to do with ethics in games journalism or even a tangent on that, so we took no notice.

            Until, of course, we started hearing from the press that somehow WE had “rigged” the nominations. Which pissed a lot of us off and succeeded in mobilizing what Correia could not.

            It is assertions like rcade’s, making mountains from molehills, which has dragged us into this fight — but being as that it’s now been made clear to us how similar it is to our own (complete with lying liars smearing innocents in the press with made-up crapola), oh yes, the sleeves are now rolled firmly upward.

          2. Without this weird brand of feminism showing up out of nowhere 3 or 4 years ago there is no Gamergate and no Sad Puppies and it’s as simple as that. The only way to take them out is to specifically attack and delegitimize their silly assertions about men and whites.

            “Jonathan McIntosh ‏@radicalbytes May 3 The levels of toxic hegemonic masculinity on display in Age of Ultron was off the charts. That fact passes without comment in most reviews.”

            That’s Sarkeesian’s buddy. It’s the same weird obsession in SFF, comics, video and film, and they never shut up – not for one day. It’s a cult of race and lady-worship and that’s all it is. In principle, this is no different than any supremacist movement. Read Leigh Alexander’s Gamer’s are Over piece again. Take out the stuff about men and there’s nothing there. Feminists like her call that critiquing “culture,” just like McIntosh is supposedly looking at a film. No matter what part of American life these people look at, they see men as the problem and that’s it. That’s their “critique.” By an amazing coincidence it’s also the single-minded way the KKK “critique” everything they look at.

        2. Who cares? Gamergate pretty much went “What’s a Hugo?” until TNH went harping on Daddy Warpig. That got some attention, but even then, not much.

          I swear, some days I really think people want the Dark Eye of Suaron to gaze upon them. If rallied, Gamergate involvement would exceed the total electorate of the Hugos, likely by an order of magnitude, yet people still insist on poking the boogeyman.

          1. Exactly. *I* took Sad Puppies to #GamerGate, during the last week before nominations closes. And I failed to stir notable interest.

            I *wanted* to, but I didn’t. My efforts were a failure.

            Until the N-H’s hysterical claims made some of #GamerGate go “We did what, now?”

            THEY did it for me.

            So thank those CHORF’s / SJW’s who went out of their way to annoy #GamerGate for me. They pushed my small efforts along.

            Thanks, guys! : )

          2. I think that part of that was that Gamergate won most of its victories. The goofy feminist drivel was being pushed through more profit-oriented venues where cause and effect was very obvious. Those media outlets were more vulnerable to pressure. You can’t really do that to Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu because they operate independently of that, but they themselves don’t have that big an impact. You have this Randi dork trying the same thing but she’s been reduced to begging for money.

            That cause and effect is far less obvious in SFF. Most of the worst bigots in SFF have no financial stake because they’re nobodies to start out with. Some of the worst only exist on Twitter and don’t even write fiction or blog. Nevertheless they have been crucial in whipping up witchhunts. Even some of the SFF authors beg for money on the internet. Others have jobs and don’t care. They’re at a stage in their life where they realize they wouldn’t even stand a chance of making a living from being an author until their ’60s, if ever. It’s just not as easy to pressure these folks, although there is no doubt they are losing book sales. I take people at their word when they say they’re never reading SJWs and a lot have said that.

        3. I personally like GamerGate. Doesn’t mean Sad Puppies is GamerGate. I’m also a registered Republican, but Sad Puppies isn’t associated with the GOP.

          Yes, I reached out to them. Since it was a publicity get out the vote campaign, I reached out to anybody I could think of. But GamerGate didn’t really notice. The first bit of GG related media attention SP got (the Breitbart article) came after the deadline to register in time to nominate.

          However, then the Neilsen-Haydens, Brianna Wu, and Arthur Chu flipped out and blamed Sad Puppies on GamerGate, which caused GamerGate to go “We did what now, huh?” But they saw it was pissing off people they despise, so now they’re involved.

          1. However, then the Neilsen-Haydens, Brianna Wu, and Arthur Chu flipped out and blamed Sad Puppies on GamerGate, which caused GamerGate to go “We did what now, huh?” But they saw it was pissing off people they despise, so now they’re involved.

            Should they be sent a thank you note for their efforts?

          2. Enjoy the hurricane of abuse coming your way from people who believe EVERYONE on the other side is a baby-eating monster but couldn’t give a fuck about people on their own side mailing syringes and calling in bomb threats.

          3. Believe me, several GGs on Twitter have already thanked the Nielsen Haydens. 🙂

          4. You mean the ancient man and his wife in their repellent yard? Aren’t they about due to be eaten by Lovecraft’s cats?

        4. So, if I like Sad Puppies, that automatically makes me a GG? Need some more tar for your giant brush?

    6. Oh, poor Cat, still trying so hard to set straw on fire.

      I didn’t say Chu called in a bomb threat. I said his team of idiots did. That’s pretty obvious. So to clarify he’s the idiot mouthpiece for an idiot movement of his idiot followers, and after he ineptly failed to shame a bar into prosecuting wrongfan having wrongfun, and live tweeted his suckitude all day, one of his idiots took it to the next level and committed a felony.

      Next, I’ve never said a secret cabal controlled the Hugos, so you don’t need to put it in quotes. It is probably hard for people to take serious the imaginary things I’ve never said. To save you the effort, I plugged the term into the search engine, and here is the only time those words were used in relation to the Hugos two years ago:

      “Even as you read this, a secret cabal of Literati Cultists gather in their Dark Ivory Tower. (so I guess it is kind of a mocha color) They have read these blog posts, and they are afraid, afraid of the Monster Hunter Nation. They tremble in fear that something which isn’t heavy handed message fic may tread their sacred halls. A Manhattan publisher rejects a brilliant manuscript because he saw that the author once wrote on Facebook that maybe, just maybe, Barack Obama might not literally be Jesus. Stephen King goes on a giant rant about Sarah Palin then snorts a line of coke while Michael Vick puts an adorable puppy into a food processor. Yes… It is like totally that evil.”

      So yeah, going out on a limb that may have been a little tongue in cheek. 🙂

      Oh, and to save you time, a few days ago I searched for usage of the word “conspiracy” and the only time it ever showed up in relation to me writing about the Hugos was me responding to GRRM using it and very specifically saying there was no conspiracy. When you’ve got a bunch of entrenched cliques, and a handful of votes can sway the awards, you don’t exactly need to be the Illuminati to get shit done.

      So catch up, Cat. That tactic is so last week. Now it looks like your side’s latest thing is to smear Brad Torgersen as a homophobe because he questioned Scalzi’s sexuality. That seems to be the narrative you guys are running with this week.

      1. A month of scrutinizing everything Brad says and the best they’ve got is one lousy joke Brad has already apologized for.

        Yeah, he’s evil incarnate alright.

        1. I’m starting to be of the opinion that one should never apologize for an ‘offensive’ or ‘tasteless’ joke, because in a way that’s letting the bully force you to disown your words. Pretty soon you can’t say anything that might offend at all.

          Oh, wait…

        2. What I love about Brad’s joke about Scalzi is it was a pitch perfect impression of people like Shaun Duke and Arthur Chu doing the same thing to Brad: Brad married to non-white women=racist-misogynist.

          Scalzi married to women=equal gay.

          “If Brad Torgersen wants to insult me, insinuating I’m gay won’t work. It’s not an insult to be gay. Be an insult to be a Sad Puppy, however.

          — John Scalzi (@scalzi) May 4, 2015”

          Let’s change Scalzi’s quote and see how it sounds:

          “If SJWs want to insult me, insinuating I’m a racist woman-hater won’t work. It’s not an insult to be married to a non-white woman. Be an insult to be an SJW, however.”

          And mind you, those bootless insults have been going on for years now. For Scalzi to write dehumanizing articles about “white privilege” might lead one to say it is no insult to be white but it is one to be a lying SJW. As usual, none of this remotely dawns on the analogy-challenged identity-addiction of an SJW. What is right on Tues. is wrong on Wed.

          In effect, Scalzi’s post about Brad’s remark is Scalzi not only indicting himself but his entire social clown movement. Scalzi remarks in his post “the insinuation that I’m gay was intended to be an insult.” Exactly what were the insinuations about Brad and where are the apologies? Don’t hold your breathe waiting for a principled comparison from Scalzi on this one. You’d have to actually know what a principle is in the first place. Scalzi will stay on the race-color end of this “moral ethos.”

      2. “I… say … a secret cabal controlled the Hugos… put it in quotes”

        Hah! We got you now Larry!

      3. It’s funny how Scalzi and his ilk have only character assassination to dispute the Puppies.

        But given Myke Cole’s brazen bullshit, it’s painfully clear that they want people to abuse and harass Torgersen for absolute bullshit reasons. These people won’t be happy until people who disagree with them either kill themselves or are stabbed in the street for things they never said.

      4. Has Straw Larry been at it again? Man, what a jerk!
        Shouldn’t your Stranger & Stranger multidimensional policy cover that sort of thing?
        Hands up on who wants to see a Tom Stranger vs Straw Larry story.

    7. You continually ignoring quotes amounting to public collusion to use diversity hires and the fiction that goes along with it is why we don’t take you seriously.

      I have yet to see one of you address those quotes or even acknowledge they exist. There’s a reason for that: you can’t fisk your own quotes. I have never mentioned anything remotely like a “secret cabal.” They operate as openly as a three-ring circus. See: last year’s Hugos and Nebulas and the rhetorical filth that went along with them.

      If you want to talk about secret cabals, what about the 100 yr. old anti-diversity movement in SFF. That is a thing taken for granted but I have yet to see anyone make a case for it. Considering the non-stop yowling about the “marginalized,” that shows an ideology rooted in paranoia, not facts.

    8. Oh, give me a damn break. Arthur Chu did a lot more than “pointing out what GamerGate is”, even in his warped, insane mind.

      He led a campaign to get the meet-up in Local 16 shut down. He repeatedly Tweeted it to all his followers and asked me them to do their part in shutting it down, too.

      He is very much complicit in this. I can’t take you seriously as anything other than a silly concern troll when you pretend otherwise.

      1. It’s Cat. Her repeated attempts to shame us into going away from the beginning of Sad Puppies 3 have failed, yet she’s back to give it another go, with the same odds of failure.

    9. Cat, we’re talking about a man who tried to buy votes last year to influence the outcome of the Hugos. Defending him doesn’t help people take you seriously whenever you try to shame us.

      And, no, no one credible is saying Chu called in the threats. Although his petulant “I don’t go to bars who host GG” to a bar in a city he doesn’t even live in was outright childish and silly at best.

    10. Actually, most people DO take the SP claims of the Hugos being controlled by an SJW mafia seriously. All they have to do is look at what’s happened and is happening to see the truth of that without a doubt.

    11. Cat said: “Wait, you guys have jumped from “Arthur Chu sent an e-mail to a place hosting a gamergate meetup pointing out what gamergate is” to “Arthur Chu called in a bomb threat”?”

      See, this is why I can’t be assed to talk to people at Scalzi’s bog anymore, they say shit like this all the time. In fact this type of thing is pretty much all they ever say.

      I’ve read the whole thread, and as of just now no one has even remotely said “Arthur Chu called in a bomb threat”. The most anyone has said is that one of Arthur Chu’s mindless fans -probably- but not provably called it in. Incited by, but not instructed by, Arthur Chu. Or maybe just “inspired by”, that works too.

      As well, Arthur Chu’s email was not “pointing out what gamergate is”. It was rather a smear against Gamer Gate. Also a lie, given who showed up.

      My problem with it is that your fellow Social Justice Beeotches are pulling this SWATing shit in the same social mindspace that guys are showing up to a “Draw Mohamed” contest and shooting people. From what I’ve read of your comments elsewhere, you seem fine with that.

      And before you start whinging that the Jihadis are “different”, I’ll agree with you. They are different. They put THEMSELVES in the line of fire for what they believe, cowardly scum SJB cretins put -other people- in the line of fire. People who haven’t done anything to anybody. SJBs just phone it in.

      Hugo awards are going to be a f-ing freak show of bomb threats and SWAT teams if SJBs play true to form. I’ll be staying -far- away from it. My total contribution will be to VOTE for the best STORIES on the ballot.

      From my reading so far the SJB picks are unreadable crap for the most part, so not looking good for Team SJB.

    12. How far do dingy feminists who never had to sign up for the draft have to jump to abuse words like “entitlement”?

      Oh, look! The kazillionth year in a row with the pie-charting addicted feminist movement not having pie-charts of Vet’s Hospitals. I’m sure that’s just an accident and has nothing at all to do with radical feminists being bald-faced liars.

  10. Huh. I knew pretty much nothing about Arthur Chu before reading those articles, but having seen the screen caps of his facebook page, I’ve got to say that “Orwellian” is the perfect description for what he wrote there about himself: “manage my own thinking and purge myself of dangerous ‘unthinkable’ thoughts”; “the only way to be rational is to be irrational.” If I were to were to write those in jest about SJW thinking, I’d delete them, figuring I’d gone to far.

    Someone needs to explain to Mr. Chu that Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning, not an instruction manual.

          1. That needs t be an internet meme:

            He doesn’t need Room 101.

            He’ll put the rat cage on his own head without any help.

      1. Yes, precisely: Chu’s “Dark Arts” are just Maoist self-criticism, for which he’s appropriated vocabulary from the LessWrong rationalist movement.

        1. Just want to note that for LW uses that vocabulary in a negative way–as an example of what not to do.

    1. I think part of the problem is this weird ideology of sex-hatred is unique in history. People don’t really know where to place it in a political spectrum. To me the simple answer to that is hatred doesn’t exist on a political plane. Organizing it into a sort of club politicizes it but doesn’t truly make it political. Pretending it does is exactly why it is so successful in hiding its intentions. That has always been true of hate speech, though even that is a relatively new phenomenon, since it requires mass media. Oddly enough, that is one of the warnings of Orwell’s 1984 – politicized hatred as a noble societal crusade. That should sound familiar.

      The odd irony about this sex-cult is that it should arise so conspicuously in SF, where Orwell’s 1984 had a similar type of sexual suspicion in the plot. A year after 1984 came Simone de Beauvoir’s book which started the whole thing – The Second Sex – which critiques gender through a lens of historic suspicion. In the actual year 1984 you had Daphne Patai’s book The Orwell Mystique: A Study in Male Ideology, which echoes the 1963 Betty Friedan book The Feminine Mystique credited with launching Second Wave feminism. In her book Patai wrote about “the inextricable link between misogyny, patriarchy and fascism” in Orwell’s 1984.

      Freidan and de Beauvoir had a sit-down conversation published in Time Magazine in 1975 in which de Beauvoir called for the state to take away the right for women to raise their own children so women would be made to pursue careers. Can you get any more Orwellian than that? These are really creepy people.

      1.         The place to locate this stuff is on the Left.  The Left has always been one message: ‘The people in power are evilnastywickednaughtybadbadbad, and they need to be replaced by us!’  They want power.  Getting it is the entirety of Leftism’s goals.

        1. One could make that case for anyone who feels underserved by society. While it’s true you can locate these people on the Left, they are not the Left. Leftism does not default to bizarre ideological lesbian fantasies about the moral supremacy of female androgyny. Leftism does not default to unflattering comparisons to psychosexually tricky straight white men. That is an obsessive cult full of mental health issues.

      2. Never forget that de Beauvoir was rather cosy with the Vichy government back during WW2.

  11. The article could be taken as saying that Arthur Chu personally phoned in the bomb threat, and there AFAIK no concrete evidence to identify who exactly made the threat.

    So keep an open mind at this point.

    And FWIW I prefer the term SJW to mean Social Justice Wonk, to distinguish between those who genuinely fight against injustice, and those who feel that their “enlightened” position entitles them to ride roughshod over any POV which isn’t exactly like theirs.

    1. The people who genuinely fight against injustice are widely reviled as horrific enemies by Social Justice Warriors.

      1. Remember, The Right Honorable Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a life long member of the Republican Party, which makes him a house slave and Uncle Tom to the SJWs.

        They would through Oreo cookies at him if he tried to speak today.

        1. Indeed. And Dr. King’s rejection and condemnation of Malcolm X’s racist movement would doubly make him an enemy of contemporary liberals. And his fervent, strongly expressed Christian beliefs triply an enemy.

          1. He strongly opposed the Vietnam War. He wanted contraception to be funded by government, and supported Planned Parenthood. He wanted an economic bill of rights under which citizens would have a guaranteed job and guaranteed income. He thought it a moral abomination that the defense budget was larger than the budget for social services. He was, by all accounts, moving closer to Malcom’s position in the last three years of his life.

            He was, in short, to the left of today’s Democratic Party.

            And while it’s cute to see conservatives pretend that King was one of theirs (and to pretend that the Party of Lincoln was the party of anti-racism forever and ever amen, nevermind the Civil Rights Act and subsequent political realignments in which the GOP openly courted racist whites), it is not true.

            “I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”

            -Dr. Martin Luther King, way too conservative for today’s leftists.

          2. The Democratic Party is still the party of the Klu Klux Klan, Max.

            That stain will never wash off, no matter how many blacks you can sucker into your zero-opportunity welfare voter plantation.

            MLKJr was a life long Republican and that grates on you.

            I enjoy your tears.

    2. You should understand that “social justice” is pretty much a synonym for “injustice.” Those who genuinely fight against injustice are on the opposite side of the “social justice” movement.

      1. Very well said. Continuing on with the 1984 motif, it’s similar to the “Ministry of Love” being the exact opposite of its name.

      2. The only time the term ‘social justice’ doesn’t make me roll my eyes is when the Church uses it, as She means something rather different from the SJWs and spends quite a bit of ink properly defining exactly what She means by the term.

  12. Has anyone considered that Chu comes off as a classic “cult victim” with his “mindkill”stuff?

  13. In Chu’s own words, he “rigorously mind-kills” himself. Is that a fancy way of admitting he’s brain-dead?

    1. Not yet, but it sounds like he’s doing his best to execute whatever poor neurons have managed to escape the purges thus far.

    2. Yes, it’s Chu admitting that he has to consciously purge the rational side of his brain from thinking “scary thoughts” antithetical to the SJW/liberal suicide cult.

      1. I really do wish that people would stop lumping SJWs together with “liberals” as if we were all of one monolithic mindset. There ARE people who are Center Left/Left politically that are not rabid haters of straight white men.

        1. We understand that, Greg. But it’s similar to “moderate” muslims who refuse to disown Islamist violent jihadists; if you want to be seen as separate from the loonies, you have to publicly dissociate yourselves from them.

          1. I try to all the time, even on the loonies’ own pages/blogs/websites, where I am routinely accused of being a Right-wing extremist Republican despite my equally vocal support of progressive economic issues.

            I get the same treatment on Right-leaning fora as well, just reversed. I’m a “taker/leech/Communist” for advocating for appropriate regulation of business, progressive taxation, and aid to the less fortunate despite also being four-square in favor of traditional family values, respect for law, etc.

          2. So you are a bold and unique special snowflake, different from all other snowflakes. 😀

          3. Saying those things to the loonies on their own website isn’t “publicly dissociating” yourself from them. To do that you have to disavow them when talking to the public, to neutral observers. Do you do that too?

          4. A correia45: No, I’m a Christian Progressive who is true to ALL of Christ’s teachings, not just the social ones or the economic ones.

            @Doug: yes I do.

          5. appropriate regulation of business, progressive taxation, and aid to the less fortunate

            Ah yes. ‘Appropriate.’ Another of the adjectives from the assuming-facts-not-in-evidence lexicon of the left. ‘Common sense’ and ‘reasonable’ are another couple of favorites, and almost invariably applied to propositions which are exactly the opposite. Likewise ‘progressive,’ intended to make whatever pig it’s slapped on appear positive and forward-looking. And as far as ‘aid to the less fortunate’ goes, you are aware that those on the right give far more to charity than those on the left, yes?

            So far, you’re 0 for 3 in the Moral Equivalence Olympics.

          6. Greg: I recall a Commandment that forbids coveting your neighbor’s possessions, and a certain person named Jesus who advocated giving away your possessions.

            I didn’t see anything about taking other people’s possessions at using government violence or the threat of government violence.

            That’s a pretty violent version of “Christianity” you practice there … give us your shit for redistribution, or we’ll have government thugs shoot you and take it for us.

            If this is what Christianity has descended into, unapologetic thievery, then I will remain a conservative atheist.

        2. I think most of us get that and understand it’s a radical feminist thing. The problem is they’re hijacking words from you and the vast majority of liberals continue to let them operate using liberalism as a base. Chuck ’em out. It’s a fringe cult, like the KKK. Just call ’em that.

        3. Greg, I use “liberal” in a very specific sense. Namely, a series of beliefs (on the sociopolitical front, identical to those of SJW, but on an economic/foreign affairs, also encapsulating a hatred of capitalism, free markets, and Western society while loving Islam) paired with a totalitarian “you’re either with us or against us” mindset.

          I realize it can be used in other senses, just like with any other broad term.

          If you disagree with SJWs and their ilk, you’re not the “liberals” I’m talking about.

          1. I understand that Vlad, but others might not. It’s important (at least IMO) to be specific. I’ve seen too much blanket demonizing of “teh EhVUL lib’ral” on the one hand from the Right as well as the use of obfuscatory terms like “classical liberal” (meaning modern conservative).

          2. Greg, “classical liberal” isn’t an obfuscatory term, it’s an accurate one. “Liberal” only came to mean a left-leaning statist ideology in the 1930’s, when the heretofore “progressives” had so poisoned that sobriquet in the minds of the American people that they needed some new term to hid behind. They chose “liberal” because it was associated with the beliefs of the Founding Fathers and they hoped some of that aura would transfer to them. They have (predictably) tarnished the term in the minds of the public and are now trying to resurrect “progressive” as a non-derided term, but with very little success.

          3. Greg, it’s perfectly clear what type of liberal I’m referring to when I write “SJW/liberal”.

            If you understood all that, why did you feel the need to correct me?

  14. Present was Christina Hoff Sommers…!! Okay, that’s serious legitimacy in my book (I greatly respect her work).

    When I saw the threat screencap (which by chance I happened to see in isolation first), my first thought was — that sounds like Chu’s syntax (and it is American English, *not* a Russian fluent in English). My next was to look up the Russian name, which turns out to be both common and that of a public figure… so, borrowed. My third thought was that if one needs to confuse a tweet’s traceroute, one can readily hire a cash-strapped Russian teen… so it’s a false trail, meaning we should look closer to home for the source.

    Hmmm. Yep, I too concluded that it was more than Chu innocently flapping his tweet, and I didn’t just leap to that conclusion.

    As to whether it could have been real, what’s the worst publicity the anti-GGs could get? “Blew up bar full of innocent gamers and well-known professor.”

    1. “Present was Christina Hoff Sommers…!! Okay, that’s serious legitimacy in my book (I greatly respect her work).”

      I like what I’ve seen of it. To the current feminist “mainstream” she’s not even a woman to hear them whine about it.

  15. I was there. No one I saw was scared. Annoyed, yes, but not terrified.

    We hung out, did our thing, and partied for FOUR MORE HOURS.

    He messed with the wrong gamers.

    1. It really says something that reasonable people are so used to typical SJW/liberal tactics that they weren’t remotely concerned by a bomb threat, huh?

      1. Leit, that is a very well wrought phrase. I shall remember that. Nicely phrased!

        …I have little else to add to the discussion, though. I’ve been following GamerGate for months, and this doesn’t surprise me. Chu is a deranged nutter, as are many of his ilk. It’s telling that with all the “threats” out there related to the GG discussion, only this one was taken seriously by the FBI and police.

  16. Now, for all you “libelslander” concern trolls, ponder this. Had Vox Day tried to harass & shut down an event, and had someone called in a bomb threat, would you not be blaming Vox right now?

    1. Joe,
      You’re trying to use facts & logic again! Haven’t you been warned about that?!

      Such microagressions of the gendernormative cis-male patriarchal structure are just more proof of the violence inherent in the system, and oh so 2010ish!

      (/sarcasm detected in post)

  17. Boy, Arthur Chu is really cranking out the kilostreisands!

    “Adverse attention is a rise in the attention profile of a previously obscure phenomenon caused by the actions of an entity that opposes that phenomenon. …the triggering force is outrage, though it sometimes appears through the action of envy, pride, lust, asshattedness, butthurt, or other largely emotional psychopathologies.”

    “The fundamental unit of adverse attention is the streisand, defined as one previously uninterested person achieving a degree of interest in a phenomenon sufficient to compel them to email, share, or retweet information about that phenomenon to one other person in a social network.”

    1. Saw that over on FB, this was the comment I made there, and all I’ll bother with.

      That letter is bullshit. I believe Brad is currently on deployment. I don’t know if he’s left the country yet or not.

      Brad insulted Scalzi. So that is the new outrage of the week. Apparently nobody in the military has ever said something insulting about someone’s sexuality before? Shocking.

      Brad insulted one person (and apologized for it before this letter came out, because Brad was grumpy, and afterwards thought what he’d said had been unnecessary) but somehow questioning one person’s sexuality magically transforms into Brad hating millions of other people, and men under Brad’s command being in fear of him.


      Remember a year ago when I called Scalzi a pussy? Somehow that transformed into me hating half the human population. Funny how that works. Brad insulted one man, that turns into clear proof of him hating millions, just like I insulted the same man, and it turned into me hating billions. That is the magical power of outrage.

      Brad didn’t question a fellow soldier. He questioned the sexuality of a man who has talked a lot of personal shit against Brad over the years with impunity, whose most famous author photo is him wearing a dress.

      Meanwhile, Brad has never had a problem with anybody in the military, has served for over a decade, and is leaving for the middle east right now, where he will be away from his family for 9 months.

      But hey, they tried to pin the racist label on Brad and failed miserably, so now they’ll shoot for homophobe.

      1. My admiration to you and Brad. It takes a lot of conviction to be willing to take all this crap when you could shut up, look down and not be as target.

      2. And somehow straight up racial and sexual insults, racial and sexual review censoring, calls to racially and sexually censor your reading and “de-white” your library, segregated spaces and anthologies never quite adds up to group hatreds. The gulf in thinking there is an ocean wide and as large as the word “hypocrisy” can embrace. No surprise it has to bleed over into straight up lying.

      3. That’s pretty much what happened to Vox: He said something nasty back to a jackass who’d been backstabbing and anklebiting him for months, and suddenly *he* was the bad guy.

        And honestly: Accusing Scalzi of being womanish is more of an insult to women than gays, anyway.


      4. But hey, they tried to pin the racist label on Brad and failed miserably, so now they’ll shoot for homophobe.

        While he’s away and might not be able to defend himself from being shot in the back from the US.

        1. Well, “open letter” sounds so much better than “chickenshit backshot,” does it not?

          I’ve never read anything of Myke Cole’s, and my first reaction to his calling out (*gigglesnort!*) of Brad Torgersen was “Who? Oh yeah, the Shadow Operator or whatever guy.”

          And beyond the first couple paragraphs of Cole’s “open letter,” I still haven’t read anything else by him. Nor will I. That letter says everything I need to know about Cole, right there.

      5. Cole’s the guy that said that Baen authors “weren’t his tribe” in a podcast about a year ago. I can tell. Cole didn’t have jacksquat to say when EW, Gawker, Chu, Scalzi and a host of others libeled Brad.


        Cole and “his tribe” can suck it.

        1. I remember that podcast. Before I listened to it Myke Cole was in my mind as an intriguing new author, with a very good elevator pitch for his first books, that I was probably going to buy fairly soon. Then I listened to the podcast, heard that line & his context around it, and I thought “Oh, not my tribe; thank you for telling me, what I’d heard before now had made think you were. Now I won’t waste my time or money on your books.”

          Which is really too bad – the elevator pitch for his Shadow Ops books did sound quite good. If I had the trust in him that I have in the “Baen tribe” I would have been very excited for them. Before I heard that interview I was reasonably optimistic. But that interview raised warning flags for me, which where further corroberated by more detailed synopsis of his books. And now this. I still might someday buy & read his books, if they’re on sale & I’m caught up w/ my higher priority authors, but Myke: this is not how you sell to me.

          1. Cole’s in a tribe – it’s just not the one he imagines. He’ll learn soon enough he can do no right.

            I just saw the Jurassic Park clip feminists are whining about. There is literally nothing going on there. These are morons who don’t understand what a movie is any more than SJWs understand what a novel is. They’ve apparently never seen His Girl Friday from 75 years ago, or a million other things I could mention.

            The truth is no heterosexual white man can pass muster with this goofball feminist gender cult. What really happened in that Jurassic Park clip was there was a man and a woman and the man is bad no matter what and the woman is good no matter what. That’s Cole’s tribe and he doesn’t and will never be able to measure up to it without some serious surgery.

          2. Re: Richard McEnroe
            Hearing things you’ve heard before isn’t necessarily a bad thing. PDQ Bach’s “Unbegun Symphony” is a great piece of comic music.

            Pure originality (or mostly pure) is nearly impossible, and so incredibly rare. What’s much more common is original combinations of old ideas. But even if a book doesn’t have many new combination of ideas, it might still be worthwhile. It’s all about the execution. I know lots of people who enjoyed Disney’s recent Cinderella movie, but none who say it’s original.

            So for this specific case, even when I was optimistic about Shadow Ops, I wasn’t expecting much originalty; I was just hoping for a good, enjoyable execution. But after hearing his interview, and other things, I lost hope that Cole would be very entertaining for me.

          3. Re: James May
            > He’ll learn soon enough he can do no right.

            I expect you’re already aware, but Joss Whedon was just bullied off of twitter by “feminists” angry about Age of Ultron..

          4. That line was stolen from Schickele’s intro to the work on the concert LP. Schickele was magnificently funny; I can still sing his oratorio “The Seasonings” (Schickele No. 1/2 tsp) from memory..

      6. Jews responding to targeted anti-Semitic attacks are engaging in gentiled hate speech. Men responding to weirdo feminists where said men use American slang are using gendered hate speech. Whites responding to terms like “cracka ass cracka” are using racially privileged aggression-speech of hate.

        The marginalized can say anything they want cuz Crusades.

        1. Which only shows their ignorance of (or deliberate refusal to admit to) historical facts. The Crusades were a DEFENSIVE response to the fact that militant Islam had taken over most of the Mediterranean and was headed north in Europe.

          But those mean ol’ nasty Christians had the nerve to tell the Medieval version of ISIS “over our dead bodies” and fight back, something our modern-day Christians seem to lack the nerve to do.

          1. Well, kinda. By 1100 Arab colonialism had gone into eclipse forever. The new kids on the block were the Turks and they were only just starting to push at the edges of the Byzantines in Anatolia. By the 15th century different Turkish factions had taken over Egypt, and invaded India and the Balkans. The Crusades attacked the lull in between after the Normans pushed the Arab/Berbers out of Sicily. The Crusaders actually eventually fell to a short-lived Kurdish empire which itself was booted out of Egypt by Turks.

    2. Hm. I can’t claim to know CWO Torgersen, since I have done no more than chat with him a bit via Facebook. However, I’ve read his blog, and his comments in reply to people there, and frankly, I’d rather him than this character Cole. At the very least, CWO Torgersen serves his country. Does anyone know if this Cole item has spent any time in uniform, let alone enough to critique someone else’s military conduct?

  18. Remember when winning on Jeopardy meant a brief period of “water cooler talk” fame, then an obscure existence as a low rent non-celebrity who might one day turn up as a “returning champion”? Maybe? If they’re lucky?

    Time to bring those days back.

  19. “So no, he’s not an idiot. He’s a deliberate liar, a propagandist, perhaps even a terrorist, and in his mind he is utterly justified because to admit error would break his sense of self.”

    Exactly. Chu needs to be held accountable for this. If he didn’t do himself, he incited others to do it. And no it wasn’t a harmless little prank. It cost the Bar owner a lot of money and also the city police department. Further, if enough of these things happen, GG won’t be able to meet anywhere because businesses won’t want the hassle.

      1. Of course. They are foul heretics (who dare not believe in the religion of liberalism/Social Justice) to be hunted down and destroyed.

  20. And here we just had a full article about how you didn’t control Vox Day, he just happened to be inspired by what you were doing.

    We need to find some way to clean up the idiot fringe of the culture war. Doubt it’ll ever happen, though.

    OTOH, Vox isn’t calling it **** bomb threats!

    1. It took her almost a full year to figure out that maybe that wasn’t the smartest thing for her to say? GENIUS, I TELL YOU, GENIUS!

      1. Her very name is a testament to the anger she probably still feels for Christian men burning 9 million women in medieval Europe. The one that also erased all its people of color from history books.

    2. She seems to have just wiped all her Tweets going back to last Oct. for some reason and is no longer Tweeting. But she went further back and wiped just that one about burning.

    3. Like the sign at the entrance says, ‘There’s no delete button on the internet.’ 🙂

  21. Chu’s whining reaction makes me think of the quip, “Self pity is not good box office.”

  22. My wife worked at a place that was subjected to a bomb threat. The circumstances made the threat credible, the place was evacuated, cops called in etc.

    Let me tell you, if I ever found out that some dipshit had done that to me or mine, there would be nothing left of him but the stain.

  23. Beolach, on May 5, 2015 at 7:58 am said:
    “I expect you’re already aware, but Joss Whedon was just bullied off of twitter by “feminists” angry about Age of Ultron..”

    WHAT! That is like the Pope being kicked out of church for not being a good Catholic. Joss Whedon has been a staunch advocate of female empowerment his entire career! Any Feminist who doesn’t see that Joss Whedon has put strong women in the forefront of the entertainment industry for the last two DECADES is blatantly ignoring reality.
    AND he knows how to tell a damned good story.

    1. Call me a cynic but all of that is probably why he was targeted.

      Not only would they feel more betrayed due to his past actions, but given his past stances and he migth be more open to making amends for this “hersey “.

      Or one could take the idea of “Hey! Let’s pan something popular among the proles! Wrongfun bad!”

      I suppose there also could be a sense of “See! This proves no man could be a feminist.”

    2. I’ve read several of the articles at this point. He didn’t leave because of the tweets. He never really wanted to be on Twitter to begin with, and with him basically taking a break from Marvel of indeterminate length he’s just cutting back on his media interactions.

      1. No matter his reasons for leaving, I hope Whedon learned something from the vitriol.

        Another one who may have learned something from the Jonathan Ross lynching last year is Neil Gaiman. I remember this article of him kind of implying that denouncing the excesses of “political correctness” was bigoted, to the delight of SJBs:
        With this way of thinking, he should have been all over the place attacking the puppies, but he seems to have said very little. I like to think that seeing the SJBs in action against his friend may have opened his eyes a little.

        1. Whatever his private reaction, in public at least Whedon is using the incident to….promote Anita Sarkeesian.

          Because of course he is.

          Because whenever anything online involving women in any way, shape, or form happens, Anita Sarkeesian -must- be invoked.

          Even when it has nothing at all to do with her. Especially when it has nothing at all to do with her.

          It’s like she’s become some sort saintly paragon of strength…when all she’s ever really done is ask for money and glory in victimhood.

        1. You know, if you keep getting attacked by your own side, maybe they aren’t really your side.

          1. I think it’s starting to dawn on him that when his buddies say ALL men benefit from sexism and rape they actually do mean ALL men, even his buddies who have an extremely close shave in the morning because #NotAll? or something.

        2. What I love about Whedon’s denial feminists chased him off of Twitter is him saying they’ve been attacking him for so long he doesn’t really notice it. Who attacks people over frickin’ movies in the first place?

  24. SJWs are just freaks. They’re still going on with the stupid Gamergate jokes about “It’s all about ethics in…” when it clearly was exactly that for some people and ethics policies were enacted at gaming magazines and SJW gaming writers humiliated out of their gigs. Those are actual facts which SJWs simply ignore, which is what makes them people to quote and mock, not talk to; they are liars and fluent ones at that.

    Chu, like a lot of feminist morons, is saying Gamergate is a “nationwide” attempt to “destroy women’s lives.” I just don’t see how one can be that blatantly stupid, but it’s clear the SFWA and WorldCon is good place to look for that lack of brains. They have not backed off their daffy dipshittery about men and whites even one iota.

    If any of you are reading Requires Hate’s Twitter feed right now it is over-the-top obsessively psychotic and racist, or in other words, business as usual in SJW-land:

    RH’s core views about privileged straight white men are the exact same views the social justice movement in SFF shares utterly, not just part of. I have mentioned before that the feud SJWs are having with RH is a matter of her straying off target and going after women of color. SJWs are just fine with her ceaseless attacks on whites and men otherwise. That’s the funny thing about every SJW in SFF: they have no problem with RH’s obsessive hatred of whites because RH has the magic protective word – “marginalized.” I have yet to see one SJW who disagrees with RH’s core arguments. Why would they; they are the core arguments of Jemisin, Hurley, Kate Elliott, de Bodard, Hines, Scalzi and every last one of that sad cult.

    Even the mentally challenged Kameron Hurley just wrote an SF short titled “It’s About Ethics in Revolution” in what is an apparent example of what passes for humor in the cutting edge intellectual and evolutionary cul-de-sac which hopes to inherit SFF from white dinosaurs. The problem is they can’t produce anything remotely like the fiction those white dinosaurs did. If one of them wrote even a single story as bright as Robert Silverberg’s “Nightwings” I’d be stunned. Plus even dinosaurs know where kids come from, and it’s not from a spectrum revolving around “the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix.” Hurley is as far below Jack Vance as a writer as it is possible to sink to.

    I don’t know what is wrong with these people; why they argue so dishonestly, why they are so shifty in changing rules, why they complain about racism so much while being by far the worst bloc of racists in SFF. They are amoral and intellectually and spiritually broken people. They openly celebrate the most awful fiction in SFF history.

  25. “Undead for 2015

    @nerds_feather 1. They are mad he pointed out BT using his wife and child as shields, and 2. They falsely allege he was behind a bomb threat”

    So, is Aaron Pound alleging that Brad really WAS using his family as human shields, and that we’re mad it was pointed out? I mean, I knew Pound was a first-class jerk, but that takes the cake.

    Also, from reading Pound’s Twitter stream, I see that Myke Cole is deleting comments from his open letter to Brad.

    The future is certain. It’s the past that keeps changing.

    1. Clarification: it’s Pound who is offering to delete some of his own comments, which even he admits were vitriolic. Irony, considering the reason.

      Some other gems:

      “Elizabeth Bear ‏@matociquala May 4

      @MykeCole You did good, and you were right, and the terrible commenters have likely not accomplished one third what you have in life @ramez”

      “Paul Weimer Republic ‏@PrinceJvstin May 4

      @MykeCole yeah, I was unfortunately disheartened but not surprised. Maybe opening comments on it was a bad idea? I dunno.”

      They really, really hate hearing what we have to say.

      1. You’re goddam right we hate what they have to say. Weimer’s comments in SFF are routinely racially outrageous as are those of his Skiffy Fanty colleagues Cecily Kane and Shaun Duke. The stuff Duke wrote about Brad’s family is a disgrace. The fact Skiffy and Fanty got a Hugo nod last year is a disgrace to them and to the Hugos. Elizabeth Bear’s comments are routinely outrageous, inappropriate, and hysterically inaccurate.

        Let’s be starkly simple and honest about what’s happening here. A cultish ideology of radical feminism claiming to speak for everyone not white, straight and male has entered SF, declared straight white men an ideology rather than the accidental demography they so clearly are (See: middle-weight boxing) and that ideology to be a spiritual, intellectual and moral failure. Can you say “ideological supremacy”? Is middle-weight boxing an ideological and racial supremacy? Well, if radical feminists were ever attracted to it, it certainly would become one by fiat.

        When you see stories critiqued as “misogynist” lightbulbs should be going off, and not aimed at straight white men as if they are a de facto KKK but straight back at radical feminism.

        Is is a coincidence Arthur Chu talks about gaming and mysteriously confuses “gaming” with “white” and “feminist”? Why was last year’s John W. Campbell set of nominees celebrated as not straight white men if “writing” is the end game? Why does the winner think she lives in a “white supremacy” rather than a literary culture? When is obvious obvious? This is a con game.

  26. Meanwhile, as a side note, anyone know why John C. Wright’s blog is “temporarily unavailable”?
    Ordinarily I wouldn’t think anything of it, but another blog I frequent was rendered in the same state by a DDoS attack, and the author has very similar views to Wright on the current whatever-the-acronym-is-today movement.

    1. Hes’ up, and hosting a rather fascinating metaphysical discussion regarding Nihilism & Atheism.

  27. “Kameron Hurley @KameronHurley · 22h 22 hours ago So many priceless reactions to ‘Ethics in Revolution.’ I love it when I piss those guys off. ::mutes:::”

    Somehow Hurley’s defamation of men is not so precious if you’re drawing cartoons of Mohammed; then it’s racism and needless provocation. Hurley will never say she loves it when a truly misogynistic cult like Islam gets angry nor will she ever write a satire about them. Defaming white men is a safe space. Defaming Islam is actively dangerous.

    Hurley can whine about white conservatives dragging her behind a truck. Ann Leckie can whine about a restaurant where straight white men punch out women, gays and non-whites. That doesn’t in fact happen. That restaurant is in the Middle East. They don’t just punch out gays, they thrown them off of buildings. They enslave women, or don’t let them drive. Why satirize that? It’s easier to make up bullshit about oppressive movies and books written by safe white men.

    If you draw a comic cover of a woman with big breasts it’s misogyny, even though you never meant to make anyone angry.

    Or you could have an ad with a woman in a bikini or have the Black Widow rescued too much in a movie. That makes feminists angry and is considered provocative.

    A photo of Christ in urine is just fine. Don’t get angry. Don’t get angry if Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu defame all men as “toxic” and “sexist.”

    SJWs define the concept of stupid, lying and double standards. They have rules only you must obey. They exempt themselves. They ignore real oppression and make up fake oppression. They goad white Western men cuz they know we won’t do anything. They talk about the superior non-West but don’t dare goad them let alone live there. It could be as much as worth their lives to do so. If a feminist isn’t lying then she isn’t awake.

    For SJWs words change meaning in a heartbeat. “Provocative” and “anger” can change places in a blink to “defamation,” “racism” and “sexism” and then go back again at will. SJWs in SFF are writers who don’t know the meaning of words. Words don’t have any meaning when you institutionalize lying as an actual ideology. Neither does law or rules.

    1. To rephrase what’s been pointed out about gun owners… if straight white males actually did all the terrrible things they’re accused of doing, there’d be no $victims or $minorities left.

      As you say, it’s going after the safe target that they know won’t retaliate in any truly harmful way.

      1. Our censoring flak catching radical chic SJWs love playing pretend when it comes to diversity, but always watch feet, not lips. The last places SJWs choose to live are the first places they advocate for while where they live they most violently critique as immoral. That’s why SJWs lie simply by being awake. Intersectionalism and all its tenets is false.

        Hurley’s version of C. M. Kornbluth’s “The Marching Morons” is breathtaking when you consider she writes “As long as we present SFF as stuff by/for folks like Asimov, Heinlein, Bester and Ellison… Will be fewer readers.”

        In reality you have an analogy to an SF story where one goes back in time and murders mid-century SF in the cradle by replacing Heinlein, Bester, Asimov and Ellison with Swirsky, Hurley, Scalzi and Leckie. The four step on a Ray Bradbury butterfly and come back to a future where crude pamphlets printed on parchment are sold from haywains with stories written in Japanese or German with titles like “Jomy Rocket Buys That for a Quarter.”

        The “feminist” dialogues surrounding the new Avengers movie are also breathtaking in their sheer stupidity. That’s the hilarity; the satire of “The Marching Morons” is built into this cult. Imagine what the civilization of “The Marching Morons” would’ve themselves written as satire and literature and then imagine “If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love” and last year’s Hugo and Nebula winners. Those were cars that top out at 40 mph but which had big fins and speedometers that said they’d go over 100 mph.

        The truth is those 4 “truth-tellers” together couldn’t write something as intriguing as Peter Hamilton’s Fallen Dragon. It’s a weird coincidence how the “marginalized” who’ve had their careers “strangled” by male whiteness somehow always write really shitty SF. When they in turn recommend art by diversity hires something’s gonna fall. An entire genre most likely. I feel sorry for Josh Whedon. Radical chic like him created mentally ill monsters like Requires Hate and now he’s wondering where they all came from and why they write naughty things about his “feminism.”

        “Brianna Wu retweeted James S.A. Corey @JamesSACorey · Feb 21 Interesting thing I realized today. I have never seen someone use the word ‘misandry’ and then not go on to demonstrate they are a moron”

        Keep on your toes, boys. Brianna’s watching you and your SF may not pass feminist muster tomorrow. I have never seen a male “feminist” write something like that and not go on to be lit up by the very “vomit zombie” feminists they created.

        1. Well, at least they (plural, since James S.A. Corey is the pen name used by Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck) are coherent with their own statement. They use the word ‘misandry’ and then go on to demonstrate they are morons.

        2. “N. K. Jemisin retweeted Anil Dash @anildash · Apr 29 Thing is, I have very sincere empathy for white people reckoning with no longer being the cultural default. You were raised on a myth.”

          I really appreciate people who display a sincere racial empathy for my racial blindness and general inferiority. It’s nice to be cared for, especially when they assure me they are “very sincere.”

          1. I’d like to say that’s mighty white of them, but that would probably make me a bad person. Or at least a very snarky one.

  28. As someone who is both a GamerGate (GG) supporter and a lifelong sci-fi fan, I find all these dismissals of GG’s impact on this year’s Hugo Awards nominating process pretty unconvincing.

    I’ve been a Supporting Member for years, but until this year had never made any nominations. When GG broke out last year, that really opened my eyes tp the danger posed by the Social Justice Warriors (SJW’s). That’s why I participated in the Hugo Awards nominating process this year. I have a friend who was also a longtime Supporting Member who like myself had never made any nominations prior to GG.

    If just 5% of all the Supporting Members who had not been making nominations, got involved because of the need to smack down the SJW’s and at least impede their drive to take over sci-fi. Given just how many sci-fi fans are gamers, I’d say that’s a pretty convincing scenario.

    1. That works for me. I have zero idea how much crossover there is between GG and existing WorldCon members.

    2. Oh, there’s overlap, no doubt. For instance, I regret that I missed the GGinDC meet up because of work, and I’ve been a Sad Puppy since #1. But there wasn’t an organized Operation like what we (GG) are accused of.

      Now, as for after the nominations, I find it interesting that the Supporting Membership at Sasquan doubled in a month…

    1. Heh. Leave it to Matt Fornay’s crowd to dig till blood flows.

      The MRAs, MIGTOWs, and Pick Up Artists now have a new “Chu”-toy.

  29. Anti-white racist feminist shit Arthur Chu has quit Twitter. Even in quitting it hasn’t once dawned on him the reason people hated him is because he became the face of this weirdo fuck of a movement whose main business is to defame millions of men and whites as a group and call it social justice. What else can you expect of idiots who have all-women anthologies and companies and racially segregated spaces and call it “inclusive” and “diversity”? Everyone knows banning, blocking, deleting and intolerance increases diversity, just like review-banning men and whites does, or calling for not reading heterosexual ethnic European men.

    Our feminist SJWs aren’t interested in diversity but in deleting entire schools of literature, film, video games and comics that don’t suit their view of a world oppressed by a white patriarchy. SJWs are Bradbury’s firemen; they burn books. They are also naive dumbfucks with sociopathic mental health issues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *