-I know a lot of you avoid Facebook so I thought I’d bring these here for you (plus, being here means it can’t be pulled or buried by the Xuckbots)
On the recent MarsCon kerfulffle, David Weber had some thoughts to share. Enjoy
– Jack.
So someone is screaming about what a horrible person Larry Correia is.
Sigh.
It would appear not much has changed — for some people at least — over the last five years. Including their bigotry, their stupidity, and their hatred. In fact, I see that — golly gee, who would’ve thunk it? — it’s one of the SAME people! Why am I not surprised? Teeny tiny minds find it difficult to cling to more than a handful of thoughts at a time, and their storage capacity is so limited that they dare not waste any of it on something like, oh, I don’t know — a NEW thought or concept. And God forbid that they waste any of their limited neurons on something resembling open-mindedness, fairness, courtesy, or moral scruple. Hypocrisy, veiled character assassination, and vituperation are so much easier, you see.
To save some time, I am reposting below something of mine from May of 2018. Some of you may well remember it from then; those of you who don’t will still find what it says familiar. Sharon Rice-Weber and I stand by what I said then.
I will add this, however.
We have come to know Larry even better in the intervening years, and we are PROUD to call him and Bridget Litchford Correia friends. They are among the most decent people we know. They are compassionate, generous-hearted, and — allegations of their enemies notwithstanding — extremely open-minded. I cannot begin to count the number of times that I have seen someone call Larry “misogynist” or a “white supremacist.” Leaving aside his Portuguese ancestry (which, I think, qualifies him as a “person of color” when someone is interested in validating him, as opposed to assassinating his character), I’ve MET Bridget and his daughters. As the father of two somewhat . . . strong-willed daughters of his own, I will tell you flat out that a misogynist doesn’t marry that woman, doesn’t CONVINCE that woman to marry HIM, and doesn’t RAISE those daughters. It just flat doesn’t happen.
Of course, it’s much easier to ignore that and just slap on a handy derogatory label.
It is completely fair to point out that Larry pulls no punches in debate, in person or online. In a PERSONAL discussion, I have never known him to reach for the nuclear option until missiles are already incoming from the other side. Powerfully assertive? Yes. Provide backup facts/arguments and demand the same in response? Oh, yeah! Dismissive of false arguments or unsupported allegations? Yep. Not worry about stepping on someone’s ideological toes? Damn betcha, Skippy! But the gleeful, sometimes brutal, devastating, and ALWAYS colorful responses to specious arguments and character assassination? That doesn’t usually turn up in PERSONAL debate until the aforesaid specious arguments and character assassination reach critical mass from the other side.
It’s also fair to point out that his threshold for DEFCON 1 is quite a bit lower than it used to be. That, however, has something to do with the number of times he has been viciously and dishonestly attacked. When you get sucker punched often enough, you start swinging back more quickly. And when people go after your family — as people have gone after Bridget and even Larry’s kids — you not only start swinging quickly, you use a baseball bat when you do.
Now, none of the above is to suggest that Larry isn’t perfectly capable of being as deliberately provocative, aggressive, and incendiary as anyone could possibly want in blog posts or polemical books, like his new volume on the Second Amendment. In those cases, however, he is attacking not any individual, but propositions he finds ludicrous, asinine, false, or destructive of values and beliefs he holds dear . . . and the GROUPS which support those propositions. If you decide to go read an avowedly political article or book, you really shouldn’t complain if the author is just a TAD emphatic and assertive.
But to suggest for one moment that Larry would BEGIN a personal confrontation, or that anyone would be personally unsafe in his presence, or that he would subject anyone to harassment — or tolerate anyone else’s doing that in an effort to support him — without first BEING harassed, is disingenuous, dishonest, and — frankly — a damned lie.
I am proud to call this man a friend. I don’t agree with all of his viewpoints, but what’s far more important to me is that he is unswervingly and fiercely honest in the views he holds, the vigor with which he defends them, and his willingness to grant other views space so long as those who hold them are prepared to do the same for him.
Sharon and I were not planning to attend the con, given our schedule and the travel constraints.
If at all possible, we will be there after all, however. We will be there to show our support for the convention, for Joel Lyons, and for Larry Correia
If you can tell more about a person’s character by the company he keeps, Sharon and I know whose company we’d like to be in next January.
Jack here again. So someone decided to weigh in on the comments section of Mr Weber’s post. To their surprise, Larry decided to reply to them directly. As always, Larry’s responses are in bold…
You know this dumb shit right here, says a lot more about the accuser, than the accused, right? I’m going to demonstrate to the audience exactly what kind of person you are, then afterwards you’ll cry more about my cruel bullying nature against super honest and unbiased good people. 😃
{His choice to belittle investigations into the 1/6 insurrection,}
– Yeah, that was a fucking clown show. 😃 To see how Americans where I live feel about that Stalinistic show trial, check out Liz Cheney’s record shattering primary loss in my next door neighbor state.
{harp on conspiracy stories like the Hunter Biden notebook,}
– Hold on now. Every single thing I said about that “conspiracy” turned out to be perfectly accurate. Verified. Documented. Now confirmed. No longer in question.
Sorry. Just because it makes democrats look bad that doesn’t make a news story a conspiracy theory.
{and generally be an alt-right tool doesn’t make him appealing either.}
I’m not “alt” anything. My politics haven’t changed. Your loaded description is stupidly inaccurate.
{Likewise I regularly see him call people idiots, losers and worse}
And every one of you probably deserved it, Mr. Wade Into A Political Fray Being An Asshole Then Cry About Tone.
{he has no problems being misogynistic if one is a woman who supports abortion or a Democrat.}
Is it “misogynistic” when you abort the girl babies? Just checking.
Disagreeing with angry liberals women? Misogyny.
Killing female babies? No biggie.
{The writer here claims he only hits hard if hit first, but that’s definitely not true. Correia is constantly attacking.}
Declares the random asshole who shows up to write paragraphs about how horrible I am because a good friend of mine who I’ve known for many years said something positive about me on the internet. 😃
{I liked his Hard Magic series. His Monster Hunter book (read 1st one) struck me as a Mary Sue story.}
My very first book struck you (obviously an honest literary genius) as a Mary Sue story, which then turned into an 8 book series with 3 spin offs (and more coming), which has sold millions of copies around the world… So apparently Mary Sue stories pay fucking awesome.
{I won’t be supporting him in any way by buying his books.}
Declared the guy who later claims to be reading my gun book which came out last week. He must have got a library copy.
{I guess if you don’t count him calling women whores, pussies, idiots, crack heads and other insults misogynistic ok.}
I think this dude has mistaken me for MadMike Williamson. 😃 The only person I’ve called one of those things in the last decade is Pearl the Vampire from File 770.
{I’m not giving him a dime otherwise, any more than I do Rowlings, Card, or the Goodkind or Bradley estates.}
And once again, that says a lot more about you than it does me.
Especially on the first two. I don’t know what Goodkind did to piss off liberals. And Bradley was one of you, and when people on my side first started talking about what a monster she was, your side complained that we were rude and insulting misogynists, at least until she became indefensible and then you suddenly flipped to condemnation. Moral consistency is not your side’s strong suit.
{His excuse that he has a long history of training women to shoot doesn’t make up for his antagonistic attitude he expresses daily.}
That only comes up because when the shit heads on your side decided to try and destroy my career, they needed to come up with some real life example of my dangerous misogyny that you dorks keep whinging on about. So the Guardian, a British newspaper, crowd sourced a witch hunt to go through everything I’d ever written or done to try and find examples of my alleged women hating. The ONLY thing they could find was that me teaching free self defense shooting classes for women was “victim blaming”.
And you fuckers pretend to be confused why I insult you. 😃
{He was banned from Facebook for a time because of his insults and his cheering section is usually far worse.}
13 thirty days now, and still going strong! 😃
{Perhaps you’re not personally that way, but you can’t attack women defending reproductive rights or gay or trans men using insults and not be tarnished with the brush of misogyny if you resort to childish taunts.}
Lol. When somebody comes in swinging, I don’t check their profile. I don’t ask them what their background is. I don’t know who is gay or trans or whatever. I honestly don’t give a shit. You could be every protected class in the history of the universe, but the only thing I care about is that everything you said is dumb and mockable. 😃
But how is it, again, from you morally consistent types, that whenever I disagree with an angry liberal, that’s attacking (whatever group that person belongs to) but when my fans who are gay, trans, some minority group, whatever, respond to you guys, they’re just part of a [vicious] attack mob?
Hmmmmm… it is almost like there’s a pattern used by profoundly dishonest people like you.
Yep. I can’t possibly imagine why after a decade of this I just jump straight to the place where I know we’re gonna wind up anyway.
A British reviewer of weird old audio formats summed up my thoughts on Facebook perfectly this week “they’re on Facebook and as I’m likely to visit a Facebook page as I am to visit North Korea”
And for Larry’s recent tweet about dogs, Coolidge said it best “Any man who does not like dogs and want them about does not deserve to be in the White House.”
I just finished watching that video as I was reading your comment. LOL
Hehheh, as soon as I heard the description of the British reviewer I knew exactly who you were talking about, Techmoan!
I want to say thank you for posting this stuff here for those of us who try to avoid feeding the beast and don’t have facebook accounts.
We’d otherwise miss out on all the entertainment.
That would be bad.
I am here to help!
Yes, Jack, I’ll add my thanks here. As a matter of fact, I decided to reinstate/re-sign up to Farcebook today, just so I could , again, follow my church, Larry, and a home butchery group I love.
Farcebook wouldn’t even let me open the account – somehow, after ~3 years away, I already violate community standards. SMH
I pushed back; we’ll see what the minion idiots decide.
But I WOULD love to see Larry stomp the CISG live instead of snippets of Memorex, yanno? 😉
“Farcebook wouldn’t even let me open the account – somehow, after ~3 years away, I already violate community standards. SMH”
Fun, isn’t it? I once got a three day ban for something I had posted years ago in a conversation amongst friends after I’d been gone for several months.
“I don’t know what Goodkind did to piss off liberals.”
He’s a rather notorious objectivist and Randian. That’s probably enough for some people.
Honestly, I’m surprised David and Leigh Eddings aren’t on that list for similar reasons to Bradley. They probably should be.
He probably existed at some point.
Wait. What?
Would you care to elaborate?
Yeah, when I heard about that it blew me away. I had no idea.
Luke, super crazy serious child abuse charges. Like weird sick shit. And I don’t mean the usual fandom slander, but he actually served like a year in prison for it.
But this was before he became a famous writer, and the internet didn’t make it public knowledge until after he died.
Beat me to it. Goodkind was pretty famously small-l libertarian, and whenever he was asked for recommendations on authors people should be reading, he only ever had one answer: Ayn Rand.
I like his books just fine, but his tone (there’s that word again!) when answering interview questions — and his lack of ANY OTHER ANSWER to authors he liked — always put me off a bit.
But being a libertarian Ayn Rand fan is enough for some vocal liberals to hate you forever.
The fact she also shit on communism until her dying day and insisted there is such thing as, I believe shown by her philosophy’s name objectivism, objective morality, and that people did not believe there was were either foolish or wicked probably made all these various nasty flavors of socialism red in the face livid at the mere mention of her name.
I am not a big fan of her seeming assumption that all religions are inherently going to abuse people and lead to collectivism(some of them probably do but I don’t reckon all are) and honestly I find most collectivists despise any religion besides their authority and state worship(see socialism). So I am far more likely to reflexively distrust atheists, granted a big part of that is due to the fact very few anymore seem to be merely a-theists but are rather far more often full on anti-theists.
Yea, these days anyone who says anything bad about socialism or communism is automatically on the Left’s s#!t list, no matter how true. (We’ve seen how they respond to objective truth, haven’t we?)
To be fair, most if not all organized religions are inherently collectivist to some extent. In the mildest form, you have doctrines (if not commandments) that say to look after your neighbor and give of yourself to those in need. Many/most also strongly encourage (if not require) giving tithes and offerings to the church/temple to keep the place running and help the community.
If a government required such things on penalty of fines/jail/death, they’d be (rightly) branded as collectivist. The biggest difference is that association with an organized religion is voluntary.
I totally understand and agree with the atheist/antitheist distinction. I’ve met and interacted with both, and my experience is that real atheists (and agnostics) want to be left alone, but antitheists want to force you to believe/convert to their (secular, godless) religion. The former can be cool, but the latter are almost universally d!cks about it.
Wow. Thanks for posting about that. Eddings was the first fantasy author I ever read, but re-reading him later, it always gave me weird Nationalist vibes that I wrote off as, “well, if there’s multiple gods, we’ll just say Nationalism works there,” but I re-read him for nostalgic reasons. This is good to know about.
MZB allowed and aided the sexual abuse of her daughter.
Why is she “on the Left’s list”?
Because they had no problem at all with the molestation
And they attacked her daughter mercilessly for reporting the abuse. Even though some of them, at least, knew she was telling the truth.
Those that repeat the Correct Slogans and support the Proper Causes are excused for anything. Look at Roman Polanski. Who believes nobody knew what was going on?
———————————
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!
Sadly, many authors I used to love seem to have undergone a weird alchemy in current year. It’s disheartening.
What’s truly sad about that silly comment was that I didn’t know until now that Terry Goodkind had passed. Now I’m sad.
Goodkind passed away?!?!?
Damn. I had no idea. I lost track of the Sword of Truth series after a while, but the Faith of the Fallen book was a fantastic rebuke of of collectivist ideologies in an enjoyable book.
May he rest in peace, and I hope all the best for his family.
Thanks for the update Jack. Much appreciated. The Webers are awesome.
“he has no problems being misogynistic if one is a woman who supports abortion or a Democrat.”
Pretty clear that the OP doesn’t actually know the definition of the word “misogynist”. If you have a problem with a woman because she has a view you find unconscionable, that is not, by definition, misogynous.
Hard to address every single stupid comment though when someone makes that many of them.
Liberals can’t discern the difference between attacking bad ideas and attacking the people spouting them.
Thus, it doesn’t matter how bad an idea a person puts forward, if that person is a woman, responding in any negative way is “misogynistic”, even if you never address the person directly and ONLY go after the idea, and even if you use the exact same counter-arguments you’d use against a man.
It’s also why they believe that speech is violence. When they cannot discern that difference, then attacking their ideas is the same as physically attacking them, so why wouldn’t speech be the same as actual violence?
Or attacking someone spouting extremely stupid ideas and attacking their sex or race.
“Oh, you insulted a woman!”
“Um, yeah. I insult a lot of people.”
Either we treat people equally or we don’t. Treating people equally is not any sort of misogyny or anything else.
“Oh, you insulted a woman!”
“Uh, yeah, I’m an equal opportunity @$$hole. I treat ALL stupid people with the respect they deserve.”
🙂
Civil people discuss ideas, of course, and attack poor arguments rather than attacking the people making poor arguments. (And so we have the specter of deplatforming and censorship because actually addressing arguments is hard while dismissing and disallowing speech is easy. Make it wrong to listen and problem solved!)
But insults. There’s this extremely strange thing that has happened with insults. Sometimes the proper response IS name calling. But we’re supposed to understand that any insult is always completely unjustified. Civilly expressed SLANDER on the other hand, is hunky dorey. Such as all the “and his horrible fans,” and if someone says, “excuse me, what?” then the answer is “I didn’t insult you personally”. Uh huh. Sure.
Insult is honest, I think. It’s not civil, but one can be perfectly civil and utterly evil at the same time.
@Synova: Tim Larkin (of Target Focus Training) did a TED Talk, wherein his opening line was mic-drop memorable: “Violence is rarely the answer, but when it is, it’s the only answer.”
I’d say that applies to insults, too. Some people just won’t respond to anything else. They’re rare, but they’re out there and they’re vocal.
And sometimes what’s classified as “name-calling” is simply a statement of opinion, if not fact. If I call someone “childish”, or say “stop acting like a child”, they’ll perceive it as name-calling. However, I wouldn’t say it if they weren’t, in fact, speaking or behaving in a manner more befitting a small child than an adult.
And yeah, the group/identity based attacks get old. “All white people are racist.”
Uh, excuse me, I’m white, so tell me what I did that’s so racist.
“I didn’t mean you personally.”
No, you just meant everyone that looks like me, including me because you didn’t qualify it with a “some” or “most” or “in general”; you specifically used the word “all”. But yeah, sure, your “all white people” somehow doesn’t include the white guy standing right in front of you. Riiight.
Very quotable words.
“Liberals can’t discern the difference between attacking bad ideas and attacking the people spouting them.”
That’s giving them too much credit. I’m sure there are a couple emotional midwits who can’t discern these things, but for the most part, they can. They just don’t want to. It serves their purpose to take every statement personally, so they can label themselves victims. That’s their currency.
Hard to address every single stupid comment though when someone makes that many of them.
Ain’t that the truth?
Increasingly clear that DemocRat supporters will make up -any- smear and apply it to anybody who dares speak up.
Which is fine with me, it means I can skip the whole gathering evidence and rational argument parts and get right to telling them to shove it.
The usual suspects have been “reviewing” Larry’s new gun book, their complaints boil down to “tone” and “guns are icky and you shouldn’t have them.” The same complaints being applied to his MarsCon appearance, really. No effort made to address the evidence at hand, zero counter evidence offered.
I conclude at this point that there is no reason to even offer evidence or concern ourselves with their perceptions. Mob rule is the rule of the day. Biggest mob wins.
What the complaintants are doing is a moral dominance game, nothing more. This is all the left knows how to do any more. If they don’t like you they immediately hurl moral approbation at you to destroy your moral agency. There is no factual basis in anything they accuse you of being.
This is why Larry throws them for a loop so hard, he responds with mockery. This response is not in their script, so the NPC sputters and wanders about, confused, then goes right back to the moral dominance game even harder.
They really are one track minds. The annoying part, to me, is just why in the HELL did the right ever decide that they HAD to join in with this moral dominance game every time they left starts it? Going all the way back to Reagan, I can remember Democrats doing this. Heck, even the infamous Daisy add against Goldwater is a form of this, and that is 1964.
If they don’t like you they immediately hurl moral approbation at you to destroy your moral agency.
The Left begins any debate by giving you an opportunity — one chance — to acquiesce completely to their moral dominance.
If you question it or in any way hesitate to prostrate yourself before their superiority — let alone if you try and assert your own moral baseline (God help you if you do) — the chance is gone, it’s game on, they will do everything in their power to destroy you.
The weirdest part is they truly believe they are being gracious and taking the moral high road in giving you that one, single chance before unleashing Hell.
Remember that Progressivism is a religion. And an absolutist one, at that (at least, the fundamentalists are).
They are casting you out and giving you a verbal stoning because you are apostate or heathen.
Religion, yes. You need a strong faith to believe some of their ideological pillars in spite of all historical evidence against them.
In fact, I’d even go so far as to classify “Progressivism” as a cult, given the way hardcore “Progressives” turn on other liberals — sometimes violently — for not being “Progressive” enough.
The Best part is he then goes on to claim to be a “libertarian”
I’ve run into a number of “libertarians” over the years who mean “I want to be able to smoke pot, solicit prostitutes, and enjoy bizarro sexual fetishes openly” but then every other position they take is highly authoritarian. My fav was a guy who thought he was liberatarian, but to protect prostitutes, or sex worker as the new speak dictionary calls it, the state should run the brothels.
And crap like that is why I don’t debate on the internet anymore. We have to start way back at basic definitions during ever single debate.
“I’ve run into a number of “libertarians” over the years who mean “I want to be able to smoke pot, solicit prostitutes, and enjoy bizarro sexual fetishes openly” but then every other position they take is highly authoritarian. ”
Sadly, it has been the same for me. I’ve drifted away from libertarianism over the years. However, if I had a nickel for every self-styled libertarian who only cared about getting high or sexual deviancy, but for all intents and purposes espoused socialist ideals, well, I’d be a pretty wealthy dude.
Sadly, libertarianism shares hedonism with progressivism. So, it’s easy to label yourself a “libertarian” while espousing otherwise progressive ideas.
The real test is whether they think one should suffer the consequences of their dumb choices. If not, they’re a full progressive. If they do – SURPRISE! – you might have found a real libertarian.
Statism defines right and wrong by what is legal and illegal. Everything bad should be prohibited and everything good should be compelled.
Different Statists have different ideas which thing should be on which side of those lists.
A libertarian is supposed to understand that legal should never be the definition of “good” and that many destructive and unhealthy things ought to be left up to personal responsibility rather than the law. Don’t do drugs. Legal pot doesn’t mean you should smoke it. Be responsible for yourself and advocate for what is good and healthy so other people can be supported in their personal responsibility.
Wanting lots of things legal probably just means you’re a statist who thinks those things aren’t bad things.
A quick test that outs some “left libertarians” is to ask them if they believe in private property.
If you don’t own what you buy with the money you earned with your labor, somebody else owns you.
I liked the new book. And in my review of it, I mentioned that it is NOT a dry facts sort of presentation, but very much Larry arguing his case. I enjoyed it because of that.
So, yes, I am, in fact, just another white man. But the funny thing about this story is, Larry didn’t *know* that when he invited me to come randomly crash one of his Machine Gun Sleepovers. In fact, he told me when I showed up that he’d thought I was east Indian, due to the length and complexity of my name.
And Larry proceeded to make me feel *really* welcome, which is a trick with someone who has mostly felt like an outsider for most of his life. And then he gave me my prized FBMG “Minion” shirt and made a friend for life, basically, since not many people so directly signal that they actually want me to be a part of their tribe.
It’s incredibly disingenuous of these folks to whine about how Larry makes them feel “unsafe” when its their own appalling behavior that’s placed them in any sort of danger whatsoever, even at the level of hurt feelings. I’d probably feel pretty unsafe if I started most conversations with the verbal equivalent of walking up and pissing on people’s shoes, too. Don’t act in a manner that causes people to desire to give you a thrashing, and then complain about how unsafe you feel with all these people who want to thrash you around.
FAFO == F*ck Around and Find Out
DFADFO == Don’t F*ck Around, Don’t Find Out
One side prefers the former, the other side prefers the latter.
The funny part happens when the side that prefers to F*ck Around accuses the other side of the same and then tries to claim victim status when they Find Out.
Funny, I’ve made mention of that in the last couple of days, after we (finally) shot down China’s balloon. They turned around and threatened us (non-specifically) over our “over-reaction”, and my first thought was, “That’s exactly what folks like Anti-Fa do!” They lash out in a way that will provoke a reaction they can exploit, regardless of how reasonable or righteous said act is. Then they play the victim card. I guess it’s worked for communists for years, so why change?
I see that the Con has stood firm and announced that Larry will indeed be GOH for 2024.
By the way, “In Defense of the Second Amendment” was worth every penny.
My takeaway here is that Weber is hella based on the Portuguese question, P.O.Cs are they;)
That made me laugh out loud and spray my screen with coffee.
I didn´t really take my grandfather seriously when he said it but…
Sorry, just too funny.