Saturday, April 25, 2015

The virus spreads

Now #GamerGate is spreading into fitness and media. It's a pity David Pakman didn't stick to the topic at hand, as I made a prediction about #GamerGate that is already beginning to come true. The anti-SJW offensive is spreading out from games into books and other industries.

The SJWs took the cultural high ground. But due to their being centralized, they have a very limited ability to respond to the 4GW tactics being utilized by the various #XGates.

Labels: ,

Why Sun Tzu remains relevant today

Oh, dear. They just don't know us at all.
The long-term question about which way the Hugos will be going a few years down the road I think is easy to predict: Worldcon con-goers are patient. As I said over on, Worldcon fandom is already comfortable with building a new house every year, so Mr. Beale twirling his moustache and threatening to burn down the house is a small gain for megalomania but nothing that fandom cannot outlast, because we have the patience and endurance, and I doubt that a bunch of flighty MRAs (for example) have much at all, nor do the various Puppies have anything like the unity of purpose that is often asserted.
Perhaps someone needs to point these poor deluded creatures to The Debate That Shall Not Be Named. Or even the relatively innocuous Dissecting the Skeptics. It's rather sweet, really, that they think that we're simply going to go away after the exceedingly disrespectful way they have treated us.


A special kind of cowardice

Vox Maximus observes that people are much more interested in talking ABOUT me than TO me:
I recently listened to the Nerdvana Podcast on the 2015 Hugo Awards (a two-part series with Part 2 being located here). Minute after minute, I listened to these individuals converse about Vox Day. They mused about his motives. They psycho-analyzed him. They called his family members “stooges”. And they just talked, and talked, and talked about Vox in quite a bit of detail (they also cried–seriously–when they thought about what Vox was “doing” to the Hugo Awards).

But do you know the one thing that they did not do? TALK TO VOX DAY HIMSELF. That’s right, these individuals used up precious time speculating about everything from Vox Day’s goals to his potential financial fixing of the Hugo Awards themselves. And yet, they did not talk to him. They did not send him an e-mail with questions. They did not try to contact him on his blog. In fact, they did not even quote anything from his blog or his writings (or a bad paraphrase or two was included).
I don't think that this is so much a special kind of lying as it is a special kind of cowardice. The reason so few people are willing to take me on directly can be seen in my interview with David Pakman. Sure, I didn't cover myself with glory there, but the fact is that even with all the advantages on his side, even when taking me completely by surprise by misleading me about the topics the interview would address and demanding that I explain why I had written words that I never wrote and defend a case I never made - see if you can find where I said anything about "signs" or declared that the Denver shootings were definitely a false flag operation in The Lone Gunmen - I still managed to get him on record confessing himself to be in the habit of having sex without obtaining consent first.

Can you blame them for not wanting to take such risks?

Sure, they claim that I am stupid, that I am an idiot, that I am crazy, that I am a badthinker, that my views are beyond the pale and unacceptable to all goodthinking people. But if they are correct, why are they so afraid of me? Why are they so afraid to simply meet me on equal terms and prove that my ideas are indefensible and wrong?

Because they can't. And more importantly, they know they can't.

This sort of thing doesn't upset me. I just sent an email to David Pakman offering to do a second interview with him, one that would actually address #GamerGate, the game industry, and the Hugo Awards. I'm entirely willing to talk to the people on the Nerdvana Podcast too. If you'd like to see me do either, go ahead and contact Pakman or Nerdvana and let them know.

But (and I cannot stress this strongly enough), I don't care. I don't have a media career. I'm not concerned about looking like a politician on camera. I'm not concerned about talking points or winning people over, and I neither need nor want any more platforms than the one I've got.

And if people want to attack me for being a criminal badthinker, well, that's something for which they will have to answer one day. Not to me, but to themselves. For all my terrible thoughts and deeds and words, the one thing I have never been guilty of is telling anyone "you are not permitted to think that and you are a bad person if you do."

The world is what it is. You can be as upset about calling homosexuality a "birth defect" as you like, but being upset is not going to save the life of a single homosexual fetus if - note the word IF - it turns out that there is a detectable genetic component that reliably predicts homosexuality in the unborn child. The "born that way" concept doesn't go very far in a society that permits the murder of the unborn.

If you could boil my perspective down to its essence, it would be this: "The world is what it is and there is no point in pretending otherwise." I may be wrong about some things. I may be wrong about many things. But I do not pretend.

UPDATE: David Pakman emailed me back and expressed his opinion that there was no ambush and no hit piece. He also declined to have me back on next week to discuss GamerGate, the game industry, or the Hugo Awards.

Labels: ,

Friday, April 24, 2015

Pakman Show interview

Not the greatest performance by me. I was taken more than a little by surprise, as I thought we were going to be discussing GamerGate and the Hugo Awards, not op/ed columns I wrote 10 or 12 years ago and didn't even recall immediately.

But that's how they play the game. I'm not the least bit upset or annoyed about it. I could have shut it down once it became clear that David Pakman had set up a bait-and-switch, but I was interested to see just how far he would take us off subject. I find it amusing that the headlines are focused on my supposedly "controversial statements" when saying that some races are smarter than others is no more debatable than saying that some races are taller than others.

And I am not stating unequivocally that homosexuality is a birth defect for the obvious reason that we don't know with any degree of certainty that it is an immutable condition determined at birth. But if it is, then what else would you realistically call a condition that significantly reduces the odds that a creature will be able to propagate its genes?

Anyhow, the interview turned out to be an obvious hit piece, as Roosh demonstrates with this screencap of the original video title.

And just to be clear, I was told this would be an interview about #GamerGate and the gaming industry.

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:30 PM
From: VD
Subject: show appearance

Message Body:
You tweeted at me and asked me if I would appear on the show. That's fine, you can contact me via this email.


Terrific, would love to set something up. We do our interviews via skype video. If that works in principle it would be great to set something up for sooner than later. Would you be available this Friday at 11am eastern time? I'd love to discuss your views on gamergate and just more broadly how you general views inform your views on gamergate and the gaming industry. It will be a casual discussion, likely 25 or so minutes, just between you and I.


David Pakman
Host / The David Pakman Show /

And then there is this:

6h6 hours ago
Today's interview with is up. He admits to sex without consent, says gay is a birth defect, more

From the interview (17:30)
Vox Day: Have you always obtained absolute formal written consent every time you've had sex?
David Pakman: No.

Labels: ,

Literary journalism

I think this must represent a new low where the coverage of books is involved. Lana Jordan busts Jane Carnall of the Guardian, who openly admits that she hasn't read the very books that she "reviewed" and gave one-star ratings on Amazon.

Tom Knighton goes into more detail on this: "When we talk about why we despise CHORFs so much, it’s because of crap like this.  Carnall isn’t trying to just keep Sad Puppies nominees from getting awards — which has its own brand of pathetic — instead, she’s actively working to destroy people’s livelihoods.  Keeping a Hugo out of their hands isn’t enough for her.  No, she wants to destroy their careers.  Why?  *GASP* Because they disagree with her!!! We now see the face of evil, and believe it or not, it’s not Vox Day.  Shocking, I know."

This is what we are dealing with. No compromise, no retreat, no apologies, no mercy. They started this cultural war. We will finish it.

Labels: , ,

A statement by the Literally Wus

Try to read this statement about RavenCon with a straight face. I dare you:
A statement from Frank Wu and Brianna Wu about RavenCon

This weekend, we are both invited to be guests of honor at RavenCon. Every time we’re asked to be GoHs at a convention, we consider it a huge responsibility. We take our work as guests seriously - both in representing the convention, and participating in programming in a way that is entertaining to attendees. Our long track record of professionalism speaks for itself.

The toll that the hate group Gamergate has taken on our family has been well documented in press, interviews and documentaries. Brianna has received 83 death threats in the last 8 months, and Gamergate regularly disrupts her speaking invitations at colleges. We’ve tried to stand firm to our beliefs and march forward.

Sadly, the same reactionary anger has spread into the science fiction community with the hijacking of year’s Hugo awards, deliberately sabotaging them for bitter, regressive political purposes. Many of the forums that orchestrate harassment against Brianna and other women in the game industry have avowed supporters of the Hugo hijacking, many of whom participated in the voting and strongly support Vox Day.

What makes RavenCon particularly uncomfortable for us is that a number of those attending directly orchestrated or benefited from the hijacking. We’ve heard numbers as high as six.

Frank Wu has won four Hugo awards. They are near and dear to our family. And we agree with John Scalzi, Connie Willis, George R. R. Martin and others about the travesty this has been. The hijackers have contempt for the awards while also desperately wanting the legitimacy they feel it would grant them.

To put it bluntly, attending this con makes us tremendously uncomfortable. But we agreed to attend, long before Gamergate, and we will follow through with that professional commitment.

Neither of us wish to discuss the Hugo hijacking with any person responsible for this atrocious action. Both of us would consider it a professional courtesy if you didn’t attend Brianna’s Gamergate panel tomorrow.

Let’s all enjoy what brings us together, rather than focus on what brings us apart. There’s plenty that science fiction fans can agree on. We hope we can all enjoy RavenCon.

Frank and Brianna Wu
I know when I hear about John Flynt, the first thing I think about is his "long track record of professionalism". Not about his pretending to be a woman, his pretending to flee his house, his being caught autoharassing, his failure as a game developer, or his ludicrous, but modestly successful attempts to promote himself as a victim of misogyny. As for the 83 claimed death threats, I would assume Mr. Flynt himself likely accounted for at least 80 of them. But it would be interesting to hear someone count how many lies Mr. Flynt tells in his #GamerGate panel; I'd put the over/under north of 30.

And I'm guessing every single one of these six logical fallacies so often relied upon by SJWs will be on display.


Diversity is Equality

Anyone who has been paying attention has been aware of this for a while, but now it's being openly admitted by the SJWs:
A students’ union has been accused of racism and sexism after banning white people and men from an event to promote equality. Those studying at Goldsmiths, University of London, were invited to the students’ union meeting to discuss ‘diversifying the curriculum’.

But they were shocked when an organiser told white people and men ‘not to come’ as it was only open to BME [black and minority ethnic] women.

Bahar Mustafa, Welfare and Diversity Officer, at Goldsmiths University in London sparked anger when she banned men and white people from a 'diversity' meeting. Students have reacted with anger after men and white people were banned from a 'diversity' meeting at Goldsmiths University in London.
In the same way that feminist "EQUALITY" doesn't actually mean equal treatment for everyone, the SJW "DIVERSITY" doesn't actually mean that the advocate seeks diverse perspectives or participation.

What EQUALITY really means is female supremacy. What DIVERSITY really means is non-white, non-Christian, non-male supremacy.

It is very important to never take words at face value when they are coming out of the mouth of an SJW. Always take the time to determine what they actually mean. Why? Because SJWs always lie.

Labels: ,

Thursday, April 23, 2015

When I said "always, I meant "always".

In re SJWs. This chubbo just can't stop digging deeper:
Alexandra Erin ‏@alexandraerin
Anyone else notice that the thing the Sad Puppies take exception with David Gerrold for saying is "nobody wants to hang out with assholes"?

Alexandra Erin ‏@alexandraerin
They read into that the threat of a blacklist, which is a stretch, but it's more than that.

Alexandra Erin ‏@alexandraerin
As much as the SPs/RPs keep singing the refrain of "WE DON'T CARE", it hurts them that people don't have to like them.

Alexandra Erin ‏@alexandraerin
It hurts them that people don't have to like the books they write, or the books they like.

Alexandra Erin ‏@alexandraerin
It hurts them so much that they have to invent an entire alternate reality where no one REALLY dislikes them except a small clique.

Alexandra Erin ‏@alexandraerin
"The problem isn't that I'm an asshole no one wants to associate with outside my own small clique!" they say. "People are just scared."

Alexandra Erin ‏@alexandraerin
"I'm actually super popular and everyone loves me. They're just too afraid to say so."

Alexandra Erin ‏@alexandraerin
No one as immune to the "feelbads" as the puppies claim to be could be threatened by the statement "no one wants to hang out with assholes."

Alexandra Erin ‏@alexandraerin
You know what it means when they clamor for David Gerrold to be sanctioned for stating the simple truth that people don't like assholes?

Alexandra Erin ‏@alexandraerin
It means they're asking for censorship. Of course, they've been demanding censorship all along. They just dress it up as different things.

Alexandra Erin ‏@alexandraerin
The only difference between "I don't think stories I don't like should be praised or nominated" and what the puppies are doing is HONESTY.

Alexandra Erin ‏@alexandraerin
It's the same dodge GG uses with its shielding battlecry of "ETHICS!"

Alexandra Erin ‏@alexandraerin
Saying, "I don't think people should be allowed to praise this story/game" = obvious game over. So they say "Anyone doing so must be LYING."

Alexandra Erin ‏@alexandraerin
And then, oh, then... then they're not arguing for censorship, but arguing against deception! Who could oppose that?

Alexandra Erin ‏@alexandraerin
David Gerrold said, very simply and very clearly, that people don't like to hang out with assholes. Is that not manifestly true?

Alexandra Erin ‏@alexandraerin
Not one Sad Puppy will address this because it doesn't fit their narrative. Facts? Who needs them! They FEEL attacked by it. That's enough.

Alexandra Erin @alexandraerin
Heck, Gerrold even explicitly said he's not talking about a blacklist. But liar-in-chief Vox Day said Gerrold "literally" called for one.
 Vox Day ‏@voxday
.@alexandraerin Exactly when and where did I say "Gerrold 'literally' called for" a blacklist? What is the exact quote you are quoting?

In the meantime, while he/she/it is busy searching for that nonexistent lie, let's not forget the following statement by Mr. Gerrold. Presumably he is only telling Brad this in order to ensure no one has to hang out with bodily orifices.

“I will make sure you NEVER win a Hugo!” - David Gerrold to Brad Torgersen on Facebook.

The "no blacklist" argument is about as convincing as David Gerrold coming out on stage at WorldCon in a leopard print g-string, dancing to Erasure under a disco ball with a dog leash around his neck held by a bald man wearing nothing but a mustache and leather chaps, then holding up his hands and insisting, "no homo".

Let's face it, if the Nielsen Haydens were caught red-handed making a list of writers who would never be permitted to publish at, the SJWs would claim it wasn't a blacklist so long as the names were written in blue ink.


SJWs always lie

Case in point: Mary Robinette Kowal:
Mary Robinette Kowal says:   
April 13, 2015 at 6:25 pm   

Speaking as someone who has been the repeated target of Vox Day, this strategy does not work. Until April 11, 2015, I have NEVER mentioned him on my blog. EVER. I have him blocked on all social media.

“He doesn’t attack anyone that hasn’t opened the ball up.”
HA! His first mention of me is mid-2013.

He has threatened to post where I live. And yes, he could, because he has the SFWA directory.

This idea that you can ignore him and he’ll go away is demonstrably not how it works.
What a poisonously stupid little bitch. Keep in mind this is Johnny Con's former VP in SFWA. She is a shameless liar. I absolutely did NOT threaten to post where she lived. She publicly called me out on TWITTER about my claim that accused child molester Ed Kramer was a member of SFWA and was listed as such in the SFWA directory on June 23, 2014. The problem, of course, was that in order to provide evidence of my 100-percent correct claim by posting the relevant page from the 2010 SFWA directory, I would have to expose the names and addresses of everyone on that page, including the lying bitch herself. As it happens, Kowal, Mary Robinette (A) is directly above Kramer, Edward E. (A) on page 26 of the SFWA Directory.

This is the "proof" she cites that I "threatened to post" where she lived. Notice that they started claiming that Kramer was not a member after scrubbing his name from the online membership directory that morning. What a pity that I'd already grabbed a screenshot, knowing how these liars always lie.

Now, note that the convicted child molester Ed Kramer is not a current Active member of SFWA because he has not paid his dues... from prison. He is still eligible and can restore his Active status in the organization any time he simply pays his dues. He was absolutely a member of SFWA in 2010, as the SFWA directory showed, and he was STILL listed as a member of SFWA in their online directory as of June 24, 2014, although SFWA removed the listing only hours after I posted the screencap on my blog.

Note that SFWA member Ed Kramer "was arrested on August 25, 2000 following an anonymous tip, and charged with molesting three teenage boys. The ensuing investigation revealed that Kramer had previously been accused of molestation in 1997 before the alleged victim recanted. Kramer's first attempt to serve his pre-trial detention in house arrest lasted only a week due to a reported visit by a teenage boy. After Kramer suffered a spinal injury in jail, Judge Debra Turner allowed him to go back to house arrest in January 2001.This lasted until 2008."

In any event, Mary Robinette Kowal is not only a liar, but a shameless deceiver as well. Not only did she lie about me threatening to post her address, but she lied about me not leaving her alone AFTER SHE CALLED ME OUT ON TWITTER. Sure, it's true that she hadn't mentioned me on her blog... because she was attacking me on Twitter.

The lesson, as always, is that SJWs always lie.

I don't lie on the Internet, Mary. I told you it will never end. And it hasn't, has it?

Labels: ,

If you want paper

We'll give you paper. We are but the humble servants of the marketplace.

Victoria: A Novel of 4th Generation War is now available in trade paperback. 592 pages.

Awake in the Night Land is available in hardcover. 342 pages.

The next books to appear in print format will all be in hardcover, and in the following order:

The History of Strategy by Martin van Creveld.

Equality: The Impossible Quest by Martin van Creveld

There Will Be War Volumes I and II by Jerry Pournelle. This will be a single omnibus edition.


A Thing to Remember

John Scalzi tried to call back one of his posts yesterday:
A Thing to Remember When Dealing With Sad Puppies
April 22, 2015 Uncategorized John Scalzi
[On second thought, this was not well-argued and I’m withdrawing it until I can more fairly and accurately make the point I want to make. Will update when I do. In the meantime, note to self: Don’t write screeds when operating under lack of sleep — JS]
Unfortunately for him, the Internet always remembers....
A Thing to Remember When Dealing With Sad Puppies
April 22, 2015 Uncategorized John Scalzi

I notice that some of those identifying with the Sad Puppies, and particularly Messrs. Torgersen and Correia, are out there puffing about, as if they are leading the charge against the horrible SJWs who control the Hugos, thinking of themselves out loud in a haigographically overblown manner as if they are already blocking out in their heads the inevitable Ken Burns 10-hour documentary of their heroic exploits. But in fact:

1. Nearly everything that was on the Sad Puppy slate that made it onto the Hugo ballot was also on the Rabid Puppy slate, promulgated by Vox Day.

2. Conversely, very little that was on the Sad Puppy slate that was not also on the Rabid Puppy slate made it onto the Hugo ballot.

3. Several things that were on the Rabid Puppy slate but not on the Sad Puppy slate made it onto the Hugo ballot.

Therefore, it’s Vox Day and not either Mr. Torgersen or Mr. Correia who was the true slatemaker here. Their roles are, at best, as supporting footmen in Mr. Day’s self-interested crusade (and at worst, as noted before, his useful idiots).

So when any of the Sad Puppies start barking about how they’re leading some sort of romantic charge against whomever, for whatever reason, or start blathering as if they are somehow responsible for anything with the Hugos this year, it’s entirely fair to point out that in fact, their slate largely failed, when the elements of their slate were not also supported by a self-interested bigot, an association with whom they are now desperately trying to flee.

They aren’t in control of any of this; they never were. They aren’t in a position to issue manifestos or self-congratulatory paeans to their moral rectitude because (among many other things) they didn’t get the job done; that was done by the aforementioned self-interested bigot. This isn’t their parade. The Sad Puppies can run in front of the parade with pom-poms and sparkly batons and made a lot of showy hand movements, but doesn’t mean that they’re leading it. The parade has already turned in a different direction, and they’re out there by themselves.

Which may be the saddest thing about the Sad Puppies: Apparently they don’t know that they are also-rans, the supporting act, and reduced to taking credit for someone else’s achievement, if “achievement” is the word to use here. The only way they can legitimately claim credit for (or have credibility discussing) any of this is to admit they’ve been working hand in glove with Mr. Day all along, which is something they are now loath to do. Otherwise, it’s all empty, pointless grandstanding, and ignorable as such.

Just a thing to remember when a Sad Puppy puffs himself up in a blog post or comment thread near you. You’re looking at a failure, trying very hard to convince himself — and you — otherwise.
I don't know why Scalzi felt the need to backtrack, it's no sillier than his usual blathering. I suppose his portrayal of me as an evil, self-interested mastermind manipulating the poor little innocent Baen authors tends to fly in the face of me being a ignorant jackass dipshit assbag shitbug or a chaos-loving madman who seeks only to destroy the One True Fandom. But regardless, if anyone wishes to flee an association with me, let him do so without criticism.

(It is interesting to observe the repeated accusations of self-interest in light of how he has been successfully engaging in this sort of "personal award pimpage" for nearly a decade now.)

In any event, I stand with the Dread Ilk. I stand with the Rabid Puppies. I stand with the Evil Legion of Evil. And I stand with #GamerGate. We don't reject anyone out of hand for simply existing or disagreeing with us. We don't demand that people think exactly the way we do, we don't expect them to march in lockstep with us, nor do we police their thoughts, speech, beliefs, or works. And we don't need anyone. If you don't like where things are going or how they are being done, you're free to leave at anytime.

I supported the Sad Puppies goals, even though I believed that their failure to grasp the true nature of science fiction's SJWs meant their well-intentioned attempts to reach out to the science fiction left and find common ground were likely to meet with eventual failure. But I have been wrong before, and so I saw no harm in the attempt. I did not use them. I did not need them.

I won't abandon the Sad Puppies. I will support Sad Puppies 4 and Kate the Impaler. I won't disavow them when I disagree with them in the future, just as I did not when I disagreed with them in the past. I will not criticize Brad Torgersen or Larry Correia even if they repent of their sins against the One True Fandom and are baptized in the urine of Teresa Nielsen Hayden before duly reciting the Litany of Hate against Vox Day. I do not, however, consider it likely that either of them will ever cower in the face of the SJWs rage, let alone submit and kneel before them.

Brad and Larry are not "desperately trying to flee" anything. They are not cowards. They have done nothing more than point out the entirely obvious. They are not me. I am not them. They are no more responsible for my words and beliefs and actions than I am responsible for theirs. They are good and decent men. I am not. But Sad or Rabid, none of us are fools who are so stupid as to fall for the transparent blandishments of a petty SJW like Johnny Con. There is no guilt by association.

Divide et impera is neither a new concept nor an unfamiliar one to any of us. And as for the constant barrage of emotional manipulations and posteriorpains and feelbads and feelsads to which we have been subjected, I am certain that our vile faceless minions speak for all of us in this regard.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

The Red-heeled Guards

There always comes a time when a state military jumps the shark. The U.S. military appears to be rapidly reaching that point:
“The purpose of the event is to create a basis of understanding about sexual violence, stigmas and rape culture in the military as well as in our community and to reinforce standards of behavior, active bystander mentality and to be peer advisers to one’s unit and community,” Johnson said. “By walking in heels, the hope is to instill standards of behavior that will resonate.”

Johnson said they chose this event because the powerful message of the heels would be best at capturing the community’s attention.

“The heels represent the rise of sexual assault within our community,” she said. “Though the heels may feel one-sided, only acknowledging that females suffer the horrors of rape and sexual assault, that is not the case. The event is a synopses of the problem that both men and women suffer in our community and society through the stigmas, rape culture and lack of respect and education.”
Of course, they could always try the absolutely foolproof plan of ending rape and sexual assault within the military by banning women and homosexuals. On the other hand, considering that the American people increasingly appear to be one of the more likely opponents of this New Fabulous Army, seeing the US Army putting on red heels probably isn't the worst thing in the world.

At this point, I would fully expect the U.S. military to not only lose a war with Russia or China, but lose it badly. It may have better toys as a legacy of its historical greatness, but even Rome's legions eventually became toothless parodies of their former selves.

I'm not sure they were ever quite this ridiculous, though. The fact that even a single ROTC candidate member was willing to go along with the program demonstrates how hapless the future officer corps is going to be.

Labels: ,

Kicking Puppies makes Vivian sad

I wonder how many SJWs have the wits to grasp what that picture indicates? In any event, there are two more SJW responses worth noting this week, including another heartfelt soliloquy from David Gerrold as well as an absolutely revelatory response by John Scalzi.

David Gerrold first writes an open letter to Brad Torgersen:
You have hurt the Sasquan committee. These are people who have spent years planning, campaigning, bidding, working, preparing, and anticipating the best convention they can imagine. You don't know what goes on behind the scenes of a convention, how many moving parts there are, how many people have to rise to the occasion. There's programming, guest relations, membership registration, con suite, green room, sound and video, tech of all kinds, finances, insurance, security, special needs, cat-herding, and more. Everyone who takes on one of those jobs does so out of a love of the field -- and everyone who was looking forward to a party is now hurting because there's a turd in the punch bowl -- and you are perceived as the guy who dropped it there. You and Larry Correia.

And you have hurt all the fans who will be attending, all the fans who wil be following events online. Instead of the convention being about a celebration of our common interests in SF, it is now about you and Larry Correia and a few others associated with you. You have pulled the convention off purpose and you have hurt the fans who wanted to have a good old-fashioned happy Worldcon. There have been many of those.

You have hurt your colleagues in the field. There are people who have declined to be award presenters. Others have asked to have their works removed from the ballot. You have hurt the integrity of the awards.
And then promptly deletes Brad's response to his open letter:
And once again, Brad Togersen misses the point. I've deleted his msgs. I'm done with you, Brad. At long last, have you no decency? Have you no shame?
Do they still wonder why we laugh at their disingenuous calls for "honest dialogue" and "debate"? I thought Brad's response was considerably longer than it needed to be. "We don't care" would have sufficed. Although I suppose it is amusing to see that Gerrold still doesn't realize that what he thought was a punch bowl has been a toilet for a decade.

Speaking of deletions, Johnny Con first made fun of sexually abused children in the process of attacking Larry Correia, then belatedly deleted his post.
[On second thought, this was not well-argued and I’m withdrawing it until I can more fairly and accurately make the point I want to make. Will update when I do. In the meantime, note to self: Don’t write screeds when operating under lack of sleep — JS]
But not before I happened to notice this interesting big of psychological projection: "Day is a perfectly lucid person. He’s a fine con man, in other words, and Correia and Torgersen fell for his con."

The choice of words is revealing. It was nearly a year ago when I wrote about SF's biggest con artist: "Sure you're smiling, Johnny. That's why you stopped reporting your annual numbers in 2013. That's why you shut down your Quantcast reports. That's why you don't post a traffic meter anywhere on your site. That's why you threatened to quit SFWA.... I can't speak for anyone else, but I find your constant snake oil salesmanship genuinely amusing. You're the Bernie Madoff of science fiction and you've got the Participation Hugo to prove it."

To say nothing of two more Hugo nominations than Arthur C. Clarke, and seven more than Iain Banks and Terry Pratchett combined. As it happens, thanks to the Dread Ilk and the Puppies, I am rapidly approaching the 2 million monthly pageviews that Johnny Con falsely told Lightspeed Magazine he had back in 2010, when he actually had 305,000. The difference is that if I say I have two million monthly pageviews, you can be 100 percent certain that I do. I do not lie on the Internet. It is very, very stupid to lie on the Internet. Johnny also let Larry Correia have it for Larry's refusal to let little Johnny be friends with him despite Johnny's repeated overtures.
Also, can we please now stop pretending that this whole Puppy nonsense began for any other reason than that once upon a time, Larry Correia thought he was going to win an award and was super pissed he didn’t, and decided that the reason he didn’t had to be a terrible, awful conspiracy against people just like him (a conservative! Writing “fun” fiction!), as opposed to, oh, the voters deciding they just plain liked something and someone else better? Can we stop pretending that a fellow who practically begs people to nominate his work three years running, hiding the begging behind an oh-so-thin veil of “let’s stick it to the SJWs!” doesn’t desperately crave the external validation that he thinks the award will bring? Can we stop pretending that this is anything other than a grown up child stomping his feet, screaming look at me, look at me, loooook at meeeeee? Because, come on, folks. We’re well past the point of genteel here. Let’s call it for what it is.

(And yes, I know, Correia declined his nomination for the Hugo this year. Let’s talk about that for a minute, shall we. It takes a very special sort of fellow to allow himself to be on a slate to get nominated, marshal people to nominate him for the award as part of a slate, and then decline — and write a big ol’ puffed-up piece about why he was declining, social justice warriors, blows against the empire, blah blah blah, yadda yadda. Yes, nice he declined the nomination and let someone else on the ballot. But it’s a little like wanting credit for rescuing a baby squirrel when you knocked the baby squirrel out of the tree to begin with.)

To be clear, the Puppy nonsense now isn’t just about Correia really really really wanting validation in the form of a rocketship; Day’s stealing the Puppy movement right out from under Correia and Torgerson has changed things up quite a bit, and it’s certainly true at this point that this little campaign is about a bunch of people trying to shit in the punchbowl so no one else can have any punch. But at the beginning, it was Correia hurt and angry that someone else got an award he thought was his, and deciding that it was stolen from him, rather than being something that was never his to begin with. And I’m sorry for him that it didn’t go his way. But actual grown human beings deal with disappointment in ways other than Correia has.

Correia can bluster about this all he likes; he’s a lovely online bully, and certainly he wishes to project that he’s a Tough Guy Saying Tough Things, Toughly™. But, eh. If he was actually who he wishes he could project himself as, the Sad Puppy thing would have never happened. And, ironically, he would be better positioned to win the awards he craved, because he wouldn’t be seen as a petulant whiner about such things. As it is, all we can do for him now is let him show us on the cartoon face pain chart how much Worldcon hurt him, and offer him soothing hugs until all his pain goes away.
See, if only Larry had only treated Johnny Con more nicely, then he would have won the award that he so badly craves. Why won't he be friends, why?

Labels: , ,

Breed to win

The Palestinians understand this. The Israelis understand this. The future belongs to those who show up for it.:
Conservatives, it is not enough to merely produce children or, as so many do, adopt those already here. We must nurture them and teach them properly because liberal society is determined to corrupt them and convert them into eager drones for the Borg Collective that is progressivism. Fight back. If you are religious, teach your children about God. If not, teach them to respect and understand those who are. Teach them about our country and our history – there’s no better way to demonstrate to them, as opposed to indoctrinate them, why America deserves their patriotism....

And teach your kids skills that will help them survive. Teach them to fight, and to shoot. Teach them to be steadfast in the defense of their rights, and to stand up for those being oppressed. My kids have a standing offer – if their school suspends them for justifiably punching a bully they get taken out for ice cream. And demand that your school teaches your kids properly – as Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds often says, sending your kids to public schools is almost parental malpractice.
It's not "almost parental malpractice" it is parental malpractice. Have at least three children, four is better. Homeschool them. Teach them to anticipate being attacked for who and what they are. Teach them to have pride in who and what they are. Teach them to serve God first and fear God only. Teach them to love the truth and hate the lie.

And don't live in fear yourself. Don't fear divorce and the stacked deck. Giving up what you fear potentially losing means you have already lost. Your odds are not the general odds.

War doesn't care whether you are fighting it or not. You are caught up in the cultural war whether you want to be or not. The only question is if you are an armed soldier or a helpless civilian.


When rabbits rabbit

I'm not sure which is more amusing, this guy's complete failure to even begin to grasp what neo-fascism is, the fact that the SJWs are pretending to take his ranting babble seriously, his claim that "If You Gave a Dinosaur a Cookie, My Love" is better than anything on the 2015 shortlist, or the severeness of the butthurt radiating from his crimson posterior:
Fuck you, Theodore Beale.

Fuck you for trying to break a thing I loved. Fuck you for doing it to serve your stupid, lame fascist ideology. More to the point, fuck you for your stupid, lame fascist ideology. Your beliefs are horrible. You’re horrible. You’re a nasty, cruel little bully, and I do not like you.

Fuck you for making me feel that way. Fuck you for the way you’ve brought this thing that I love, this celebration of great science fiction, to a point where it is full of the sort of mean and hateful desires that seem to animate you. Fuck you for dragging us all down to your sorry level. Fuck you for being so odious that we have to go there.

And fuck you for making me want you to hate me. Fuck you for all of your beliefs that amount to nothing short of hatred for the things I love. For the people I love. For the art and beautiful things that are why I get out of bed in the morning. Fuck you for living your life for the sole purpose of destroying things that I love, and for making me wish that I could destroy something of yours in retaliation. Fuck you for making me write this, in the sincere and passionate hope that it will make you feel even a moment’s unpleasantness.

And fuck you for the very real possibility that a work nominated purely because you used your noxious little voice to rally your loathsome, asshole supporters to support it might win a Hugo Award. Fuck you because it’s actually possible that you will break the Hugos successfully and demonstrate that you’re oh so much stronger than a bunch of fans who were previously just happily attending a convention and voting for stuff they loved in awards. In short, fuck you.
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln? I am afraid that the only thing this extended rabbiting managed to elicit from me was a wry smile. As for my "loathsome asshole supporters", every article like this creates more of them because the true face of the SJW cannot be forgotten once it is revealed. And the lesson, as always, is this: SJWs always lie.

I particularly enjoyed the punchline: "I will not attempt to construct some absolute explanation of Theodore Beale’s beliefs. Instead, I will construct a caricature of them."

You don't say....

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Mailvox: the racism lens

It's always fascinating how some people have an amazing ability to detect racism no matter how clearly the absence of racism by literally every definition is explained to them. From a discussion on Eric Flint's blog:
I may as well go all-in here: In comments above Vox Day has repeatedly been called a “racist,” perhaps dozens of times. Have any of you ASKED him what his position is on racial differences? Have any of you READ what he has to say about racial differences? No? Then those of you who call him “racist” are simply a mob. In an attempt to educate, here is what Mr. Day wrote recently in a comment on Brad Torgersen’s blog; it was in response to the following statement by someone else (not Brad): “Vox Day believes that white people and Asians (and clearly Hispanics, since Beale is one, at least in part) are superior to black people, and he believes this inferiority of blacks is innate, genetic.”

Here is what Mr. Day wrote in response:

“Correction: I don’t have any reason to believe any one human population sub-group is intrinsically superior to any other population sub-group. That being said, both science and logic quite clearly indicate that no two population sub-groups are identical, and therefore every population sub-group is either superior or inferior to another sub-group on the basis of any chosen metric.
“It makes no more difference that you like or dislike this fact than if you disapprove of the speed of light or the rate of Earth gravity.
“I assert that an unborn female black child with a missing chromosome and an inclination to homosexuality is equal in human value and human dignity and unalienable, God-given rights to a straight white male in the prime of his life and a +4 SD IQ. How many of my dishonest critics will do the same?
“That doesn’t mean that I think it is wise to ask that particular child, when she is grown, to design the next plane on which I intend to fly. Or even to work in the air traffic control tower.
“I deal in reality as determined by history, science, and logic. And I care no more about what an equalitarian fantasist thinks about me or anything else than I do about the mentally deranged babbling in the psych ward. The world is as it is, not as we might wish it to be. If you can’t understand that, then I am among the least of your problems.”

So query: Do the above statements validate the multiple assertions above that Mr. Day is a “racist”? (Disclaimer: I’ve never met the man, nor talked to him; I have exchanged perhaps a couple of emails when I challenged a statement he made. But I do despise mindless online mobs screaming “racist!”)

    Gav says:
    April 21, 2015 at 10:39 AM

    A moment’s thought shows that his premise is completely ridiculous. Choose people A, B, C such that A & C are from one group and B from another, but A is taller than B is taller than C. So now I’ve got a metric (height) where group 1 is both superior and inferior to group 2 on the height metric. (For a real-life example, choose Robert Wadlow and his father for A & C, and Michael Jordan for B).

    You have to be not only racist but also stupid to believe that “every population sub-group is either superior or inferior to another sub-group on the basis of any chosen metric.”
        Mike says:
        April 21, 2015 at 12:21 PM

        This is a result of false equivocation between individuals and categories. Yes, the mean of the heights of all adult men if taller than the mean of the heights of all adult women, but that doesn’t mean all men are taller than all women.

        It ends up being a big problem in the scientific study of people. Some people have political/personal reasons to try to see one group as better than another, while other people have similar reasons to try to see no groups as being any different from each other. Both camps accuse the other side of being unscientific and ignoring the data.

        Really there is no conflict between the idea that one group may, on average, have a measurable difference than another group, and also the idea that the variance of individuals withing the groups may be much larger than the difference between the groups. But due to confirmation bias, people tend to ignore whatever part of that equation it is convenient for them to ignore.
            Eric Flint says:
            April 21, 2015 at 12:33 PM

            The problem goes deeper than that, because there’s an intrinsic bias in the categories someone chooses in the first place. For instance, if you choose to compare “the race of whites” to “the race of blacks” you are assuming not only that such races exist but that they are the proper basis for comparison. But why should that be true? Due to the way the human race evolved, there is more genetic variation among Africans than there is between any given group of Africans and any non-African segment of humanity. The reason people think all Africans belong to the same “race” is because they share certain literally superficial features: skin color, hair and some facial features. But why should those criteria be used as the basis to define a “race” in the first place? Why not, for instance, choose the average distribution of blood types? In which case you wind up with a “racial map” of humanity that is completely different from a “racial map” drawn according to skin color, hair and facial features.

            My point is that there is an inherent bias in the way the question is posed in the first place, which makes any answer to the question automatically questionable. What defines a “racist” in the first place, intellectually speaking, is the firm conviction that “races” as defined sociologically have an actual biological reality which is more basic than any other possible differentiation. For which there is not a shred of actual evidence. It is a faith-based conviction. That’s a polite say of saying it’s just bigotry.
                Mike says:
                April 21, 2015 at 1:59 PM

                Yes, I agree. There very definitely are biological races, if you define that as subsets of the overall human gene pool where certain collections of genes are much more prevalent than they are in the general population. But there is so much nonsense and xenophobia and misunderstanding involved that it’s a real nightmare to try to approach these questions without stepping on any land mines.

                I recommend a really interesting book called “The Sports Gene” that gives some great examples of how this can be done properly (IMO), and also some examples of where it has been done very much improperly.
                    335522 says:
                    April 21, 2015 at 2:13 PM

                    With all due respect to all of you, I believe you’re missing the point. Please read the third paragraph by Vox Day that begins “I assert that an unborn female black child….” And then answer the question that I posed at the end, please (it being notable that not one of the responses addresses it).
The following quote from that exchange is an astonishing assertion that clearly demonstrates both the intellectual inferiority as well as the logical incapacity of the SJWs:

"You have to be not only racist but also stupid to believe that “every population sub-group is either superior or inferior to another sub-group on the basis of any chosen metric."

Quite to the contrary, you have to be utterly stupid and wholly irrational to deny that assertion, or else possess hitherto-unknown evidence demonstrating that every human population sub-group is absolutely and entirely equal across the board. Every single group has an average, a mean, and a median, regardless of the metric chosen. None of those three statistics are likely to be precisely equal to the average, the mean, and the media of any other group.

At no point have I EVER claimed, suggested, implied, hinted, or intimated that EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of one human population group is superior to EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of another one. And anyone who claims that I ever have is either lying or simply too dim to bother even attempting to talk down to.

The idea that "races" don't exist is simply antiscientific dogma. They might as well deny that "species" and "groups" exist while they're at it.

Labels: , ,


Patterico has the details:
This is one of the creepiest articles I have ever read. It reminds me of my experience being SWATted — having armed police rush into my home in what looked like retaliation for my speech. Yet in the case described in the article, the SWATting is actually being carried out . . . by the government. In Wisconsin, citizens had cops bust into their homes with battering rams. Property was taken from their homes, in full view of the neighbors — and in some cases officers mocked them. Then the citizens were told that they could tell nobody about what had happened. If they did, they could go to jail. All for exercising their First Amendment rights. Essentially, for being conservatives.
This should be kept in mind by anyone who still thinks going along to get along is still an option. The Statists are as insistent in their demand for submission as those who named their religion after the concept.

Labels: ,

There is a theme

A Rabid Puppy responds to David Gerrold
This is an open response to Mr Gerrold's heart felt facebook post. This post represents the Rabid Puppies official position on the matter. Word for Word. Mr Gerrold's words will be in italics. The Rabid Puppies response will be in bold. It is my sincerest hope that this dialog will provide some insight to those who seem so confused by the Rabbid Puppies actions.

I'm going to get very personal and candid here.

We don't care.

In 1995, I won a Hugo award for "The Martian Child." The story was about how much I loved my son. Because so much of the story came from him, the award was his to share, so he came up on stage with me to hold it proudly. That award meant a lot to me. It still does. It was a validation of that thing we say -- writing is easy, sit down at the keyboard and open a vein. That's where that story came from. And that's one of the reasons why I hold the Hugos in such high regard -- it was a joyous validation of what for me was not only an ambitious experiment, but also a personal breakthrough in my own storytelling. It went someplace I didn't know I could go. It went someplace I didn't know a science fiction story could go.

We don't care.

To me, the Hugo has always meant excellence, but since then I think it also had to represent the most ambitious efforts to stretch the genre in whatever direction an author wants to soar. This is a unique genre. It's the only genre that asks, "What does it mean to be a human being?" It's the only genre that reaches for the stars and asks, "What's next? What are the possibilities in front of us?" It's the only literary form that functions as the Research and Development Division of the human species. So the Hugo is special.

We don't care.
Yes, I would say that pretty well sums it all up.

This is an interesting exercise in rhetoric. Mr. Gerrold clearly wants us to be very impressed by his feelbads, and thereby convinced of the pure and utter evil of those who would cause such feelbads.

With all due respect, Mr. Gerrold, you're not exactly convincing anyone. We've read STARTREKSHIRTS. We've read "If a Dinosaur Had a Cookie, My Love". We've read "I am Chinese and I am Gay". We've read LOOK MA, I CAN DO WHAT DAVID SILVERBERG DID NEARLY 30 YEARS AGO. The only soaring that is taking place here is the Muse of Science Fiction leaping out the window in protest.

More interesting is Mr. Gerrold's threats of unpersoning and banishment from that fine community of SF fandom, which of course proves exactly what we've been saying from the start.

But the one thing that is growing more and more likely ... the architects of this squabble will have indelibly damaged themselves in the eyes of the SF community. There are invitations and acknowledgments that will never be offered -- not because it's a blacklist, but because nobody wants to hang out with assholes.

And if that's "unpersoning," then it's self-inflicted.

Whine all you want, Brad. It won't work. I learned it by the time I was five. I never got anything I wanted by whining -- so I stopped wasting energy and learned how to work for results the old-fashioned way.

This can't be repeated enough: we don't care.

We know the SJWs in science fiction are influential and have been actively acting as ideological gatekeepers for the last two decades. We know that there are invitations and acknowledgements that will never be offered - and we know it is a blacklist because people who are most certainly not assholes are treated as badly, if not worse, than those who are.

We know we will never belong to David Gerrold's little club. We know we never have.

We don't care.

We're not wasting energy. We're not whining. We are working for results in ways that Mr. Gerrold and his little tribe do not, and perhaps cannot, imagine. And I tend to expect they are going to like those results even less than they are enjoying the 2015 Hugo Awards.

Monday, April 20, 2015

Black Gate withdraws

Or rather, they have asked to not be considered for the Hugo award for which they will be on the ballot. While I disagree with John's decision, I respect his right to make it.  I find it ironic, however, that people are responding to a large group of people dictating the ballot by unilaterally dictating to people for whom they will not vote.

 I also find it telling that a threat to support No Award next year is supposedly worse than a vow to do it this year. I am curious. Would they consider it better if I accepted what passes for their reasoning and announced that Rabid Puppies will join the No Award movement this year? Because that is certainly an option. (Settle down, you bloodthirsty bastards, I said no more than the obvious. It is an option.)

 The goal is to improve the Awards, not destroy them. But if the SJWs would rather destroy them than relinquish their control, well, that will tell the world exactly what sort of totalitarians they are. That's two birds for the price of one. We've already got them on the record stating that our views are invalid and should be suppressed by force; seeing them demolish the awards without our assistance will communicate that more effectively than we can do ourselves.


Puppies on NPR

KW listened in and heard NPR doing their usual bang-up job on Sad Puppies. For me, the most intriguing aspect of the media coverage has been the near-complete lack of interest in actually talking to anyone involved in the actual news-making activity. I mean, I am about as cynical a media skeptic as it is possible to be, and yet somehow, these journalistic incompetents haven't even managed to rise to my very, very low level of expectations.
Weekend NPR show "On the Media" spent 15 minutes on the Hugo awards controversy, starting at about the half-way mark (30 minutes)

Arthur Wu was the expert interviewed.  He did some amateur psychoanalysis of the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies groups.

This was tied to GamerGate, and shortly after mentioning death threats and harrassment, Vox Day was re-mentioned as active in both controversies.  One might conclude, if one was a sloppy thinker, that Vox Day has made death threats.  They non-judgmentally mentioned your blog is among the most often blocked by workplace filters for hate.

Larry Correia was interviewed, or a clip reused, and John C Wright was brought up and invalidated as a right wing has-been whose prose now includes Randian divergences into poltical polemics.

They must have read PopSci, because they almost quoted their line:

"...Vox Day is ... on the record as supporting the Taliban’s attempt to assassinate Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousifazi, finding it “scientifically justifiable.”"

"Disco Demolition Night" was also brought up.  Apparantly, Disco hate, Sad Puppies, and GamerGate are about fear of castration.

NPR "All Things Considered" teased that they were going to cover Sad/Rapid Puppies as well, but the website does not help out yet.
I don't really object to their futile attempt to pile on. What this tells us is that the SJWs are uncommonly concerned about losing control of the narrative. And in their point-and-shriek frenzy - and that is all this is - they are bound to overreach themselves and their exaggerations will reach ludicrous proportions as they essentially play a high-tech version of the telephone game.

I won't be surprised if I'm accused of being a self-admitted member of the Taliban by the time this feeding frenzy reaches its peak. The other thing this tells us is that they are afraid of me. It was remarkable how Damien Walters, who normally likes to work VOX DAY and LARRY CORREIA into everything, didn't even mention either of us in his initial Hugo column. The media only likes to expose unsophisticated and unsympathetic enemies to the masses, but I am entirely comfortable with the media and not inclined to fall into their patently obvious traps.

That means they are left talking about me, without going to the source, and relying upon dishonest people to give them the straight story. And while they'll convince the SJW choir, as well as mostly indifferent people who can't bother to pay attention, at least 9 out of 10 people who discover me as a result are going to immediately notice that I am not even close to what they say I am.

So, I expect this to be not only a net positive, but a significant net positive. I grew up watching Ronald Reagan, after all, and the man not only survived, but thrived on absorbing everything the media could possibly throw at him.

One thing that will be useful, though, is to dig into the identity of each hit piece author. We've already tied several of them to Tor Books; the original Guardian hit piece author is published by Tor Books and was in contact with John Scalzi. And we know about both Heer and the PopSci guy as well.

Once we have the complete dossier, we'll be able to draw a clear picture of how their media operation works and then go about exposing it. Remember, wu wei is all about the art of bending with the wind. Right now it is time to let the wind blow. But that's all it is, is wind.

Labels: ,

The end of Holocaustianity

I'm more than a little astonished that Israel's government is so willing to throw away the moral high ground here:
Israel does not plan to recognize the Armenian genocide perpetrated by Turkey, Rafael Harpaz, Israel's ambassador to Azerbaijan, told Azeri website Trend.

“Israel is a democratic country, everybody has two opinions, not one opinion,” Harpaz said. “The government has a very clear opinion.”

He said Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman had made Israel's policy clear. Harpaz told Trend he hoped Israel's troubled relations with Turkey would improve.
I suppose this decision makes sense from a geopolitical grand strategic point of view, kjkbut when seen through the Lind lense, it looks a lot more like a potentially disastrous move that could perhaps even be prosecuted in some European countries.

It seems to me that this will make Holocaust denial much easier to justify.

Labels: ,

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Science is human

One of the things that scientists, but even more so, science fetishists, tend to resolutely forget is that science is not magic. It doesn't exist in a vacuum.
The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.

Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.
No matter how flawless the scientody may be, it always has to pass through several layers of scientistry, each of which is entirely capable of transforming both the data as well as the reported conclusions. This is the primary reason that appeals to science are every bit as flawed as appeals to eyewitnesses, because it is assuming that no scientist will ever fail to be less than entirely truthful and unbiased.

Which, being human, is the one thing that we know for certain that they are not.

Critique by identity

I find it amusing how invariably McCarthyite the SJWs playing critic reveal themselves to be:
Over and over again, we see the mechanism by which power re-asserts itself when challenged. With a gymnastic leap, those on the defensive become the underdogs, cruelly repressed by the BBC, feminists, people from Islington, some nebulous “elite” or the suggestion that sometimes a female character in a videogame might wear a decently supportive bra.

The debate demands onlookers accept one of two contradictory premises, so there is little room for nuance and the argument never runs out of fuel. Is Farage a truth-teller or a race-baiter? Was Thornberry a metropolitan snob, or was the England flag itself a type of dogwhistle? Are the Hugo awards in thrall to a politically correct cabal, or simply making an effort to remedy an ingrained injustice? Whether it’s videogames, science fiction or Westminster politics, the underlying struggle for victim status is the same. And once you notice, it’s downright eerie to hear the same arguments – about “out-of-touch elites” who don’t connect with the tastes of “real people” – coming from the leader of Ukip and a guy who wrote a book called Summa Elvetica: A Casuistry of the Elvish Controversy.

There is no single answer and, at least in the case of the Hugo awards, it is not in the extremists’ interests to find one. Vox Day has built a small internet army on his manufactured grievance, and he won’t let it go lightly. If SFF fans vote to give “no award” in the categories where Rabid Puppies candidates dominate, he has threatened to ensure that the awards are never given again. It is a supremely self-interested move. Politicising the Hugos to such a degree certainly doesn’t help the nominees themselves, because authors on his slate risk being informally blacklisted by the rest of the community. Who wants to read a fantasy story endorsed by a bigot?
This is mildly amusing, considering how it is usually asserted that I am stupid. Now I am suddenly an overly erudite elitist? Okay, actually, that's considerably closer to the truth, but then, as an avowed anti-equalitarian, I don't pretend to be anything but an elitist.

The important difference: unlike most elitists, I have no desire to dictate or control the behavior of the non-elite. I simply refuse to let either the elite or the non-elite claim the right to dictate or control my behavior or my beliefs.

The last question is the most interesting. We might, of course, turn it around, as it rather usefully clarifies what James May keeps pointing out to everyone. Who wants to read a fantasy story endorsed by a Communist? Who wants to read a story endorsed by a feminist? Who wants to read a fantasy story endorsed by a Negro? Who wants to read a fantasy story endorsed by a woman?

Once the idea of judging a work on its own merits, rather than on the basis of who creates or endorses it, is rejected, then there is no reason to not judge works on the very racist, sexist, and ideological grounds that the SJWs claim to bitterly oppose. They are openly demolishing the very foundations upon which their incoherent ideology rests.

The Hugo situation doesn't "prove progressives right". Quite to the contrary, it has clearly shown their ideology to be not only hopelessly hypocritical, but intrinsically self-contradictory too. And if the article didn't prove it, the comments certainly do.

"They stand for intolerance, prejudice, fear & loathing and must be rejected with scorn, derision and at times, force. Their opinion and views are not equal nor are they valid so therefore they do not deserve to be given any air time or publicity."

Very well. We can certainly treat them likewise.

Labels: ,

Population replacement

It's interesting to see how alarm bells are ringing in liberal Minnesotan circles even though Somali immigration has helped the numbers to remain stable:
Casey Sperzel is Minnesotan through and through. She grew up in Maple Grove, went to college at the University of Minnesota, and lived in both St. Paul and Minneapolis. But when the 27-year-old met with a job recruiter last year, she was set on the Pacific Northwest.

“I don’t think I’ll be back,” said Sperzel, now with a Seattle ad agency.

States are scrambling for young professionals like Sperzel to help offset the wave of baby boomer retirements. Minnesota is falling behind in that competition. The state has lost residents every year since 2002, with young adults most eager to leave. About 9,300 18- to 24-year-olds move out annually, according to the Minnesota State Demographic Center.

That — combined with a declining birthrate and an aging population — has demographers and civic leaders sounding alarms.

“It’s a lapel-grabbing moment,” said Peter Frosch, a vice president at Greater MSP, a St. Paul nonprofit focused on economic development in the Twin Cities metro.

Over the next 15 years, more Minnesotans will retire than in the past six decades combined, resulting in a labor shortage that is unprecedented since the end of World War II. By 2020, the state is forecast to have a shortage of more than 100,000 workers.... Each year, 113,000 people leave Minnesota and go to another state, while about 101,000 move here from another state. Were it not for strong international migration, Minnesota’s overall population would be falling.
I left Minnesota in my twenties after founding a Billboard-charting band, a music company, and my first computer game company.  But don't worry, thanks to "strong international migration", I'm sure there is an Somali gentleman with an 85 IQ who is doing an admirable job of taking my place there. I have no doubt that he will continue to do so as long as he doesn't wind up joining Al Shabaab and blowing himself up at the Megamall or somewhere in Africa.

After all, everyone is equal, and if they're not, they are inevitably transformed by the magic of geographical translocation. That's why the 20th century America was exactly like 15th century America that was inhabited only by my Native American ancestors.

I'm glad I grew up in then-Minnesota. It was a wonderful place for a child despite the cold winters. But despite the certain improvements that have taken place by virtue of the many blessings of Diversity and Vibrancy, I have no desire to live in now-Minnesota.

Labels: ,

A letter to Popular Science

Dear Editor,

I am writing to demand a retraction and apology for the libelous article posted Apr 17th, 2015 at 3:00pm by Mike VanHelder. Mr. VanHelder wrote:

"Big winner Vox Day is an outspoken white supremacist and campaigner against women’s education and suffrage, who is on the record as supporting the Taliban’s attempt to assassinate Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousifazi, finding it “scientifically justifiable.”"

  1. I am not a white supremacist. This is flat-out false. Also, I am a Native American with Mexican heritage.
  2. I am not a campaigner against women's education. I am not an activist. I have never campaigned against it.
  3. I am not a campaigner against suffrage. I am not an activist. I have never campaigned against it.
  4. I am not against women's suffrage. I support direct democracy for all, including women.
  5. I am not on the record supporting the Taliban's attempt to assassinate Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousifazi. This is an absolutely outrageous accusation and utterly false.
All of these statements are false, provably and demonstrably false, and appear to be malicious. Therefore, I am requesting an immediate retraction of this error-ridden article as well as a published apology to me. Some of these additional errors include:

  1. Gamergate is not anti-feminist.
  2. Neither Sad Puppies nor Rabid Puppies courted any assistance from GamerGate.
  3. The extent of the collaboration between the THREE groups, (not two, as in the article) is not difficult to quantify. There are precisely two GamerGaters who are also Rabid Puppies, myself and Daddy Warpig.
  4. It is false to claim "No nominated author has ever before withdrawn their work after making it onto the Hugo ballot." It is actually not uncommon for an author to withdraw one of his works after getting more than one nominated in a category. To give a few examples, Harlan Ellison withdrew his Hugo nomination in 1968. Jack Gaughan withdrew his nomination in 1968. Fritz Leiber withdrew his nomination in 1971, as did Robert Silverberg in 1972.
  5. Therefore, the action of withdrawing a nomination is not "unprecedented".
I will appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.

NB: If you would like to add your voice to this call for a retraction and apology, this is the editor's email:

Labels: ,

Older Posts