Feminism: Women Shouldn’t be Punished for Anything

Coming straight on the heels of yesterday’s post, wherein two lesbians tortured and killed a little boy (one of the lesbians was the boy’s mother) is this little gem from the Guardian telling us that all women’s prisons should be closed, and the inmates released.

Why we should close women’s prisons and treat their crimes more fairly

Yes. The author is seriously advocating eliminating prison sentences for all women. This man, with his apparently worthless Ph.D., explains for us:

Women do of course commit homicide offences, but nearly always the victim is a relative and the crime was committed against the backdrop of an abusive relationship or depressive mindset. All homicides are heinous crimes but the types of homicides committed by women rarely involve random victims and hence do not engender community fear.

This comes, quite literally, the day after the guilty verdict came out for the horrendous case above. This man is thus telling us that “nearly always” the murdered person was somehow abusing the woman.

I wonder what two-year-old Liam Fee did to abuse his mother, such that his murder was justified?

The lunacy of modern feminism has grown to staggering proportions, wherein it continually asserts that men and women ought to be given the same treatment while simultaneously arguing that no woman should be punished for crimes she is convicted of.

Murderers of innocent toddlers should go free!

Murderers of innocent toddlers should go free!

A friend of mine asserted the other day that Rachel and Nyomi, the women who murdered Liam Fee, may have received the “Rotherham treatment.” In other words, he wondered if, perhaps, the status of the two women as lesbian partners hindered any attempt to prevent the torture and murder of this little boy.

As it turns out, the father did indeed protest several times to the authorities that his son was in danger in their care. And nurses and social workers were shocked by the level of fear the child displayed of both his mother and her partner. Earlier incidents of abuse were cataloged and documented, and no action was taken. It was, in the words of the nurses, unprecedented.

So it is very likely that the Rotherham treatment was given, insofar as incidents of abuse that would have been acted upon immediately were the perpetrators straight white men, were ignored by the authorities because the women were “minority victims.”

It certainly didn’t do the real victim, a little boy, any good, mind you. But then, the girls raped by Pakistanis in Rotherham were similarly ignored. The Progressive stack, in which some victims are more equal than others, becomes apparent here.

So these women already received preferential treatment, and Mirko Bagaric wants them to receive no punishment for the horrific crime.

This, of course, is somehow “equality.”

Nearly every one of these incarcerated women is the victim of a perverse and lazy policy disfigurement that fails to acknowledge the marked differences between female and male offenders. The differences are so stark that not only should women be treated more leniently because they commit less serious crime but they should also be treated more leniently when they commit the same crime as a man.

But feminism is about equality! If men and women are 100% equal, and genders are meaningless social constructs how could there be “marked differences” between female and male offenders in the first place? Here he is outright arguing for women to be treated more leniently (read: not punished at all) for the same crime.

Third, society suffers more when we remove a female from it and place her behind a prison wall. More than 50% of incarcerated women are single parents and even in two-parent households, female prisoners typically assume the main child nurturing role. In relation to non-parental dependency, the majority of carers (60%) are females.

Like the murderous lesbians were such great parents. But one might say that I’m harping overly much on one particular incident. Okay… but if you have a woman who is convicted of, say, dealing crack cocaine out of her house, how is that good for her child? What about one who burglarizes, steals, or attempts to murder someone? No, these are precisely the women you do not want to have raising children, because they will do an exceptionally poor job of it. Locking them up is better for any children involved, not worse.

The sentencing system should be reformed radically to deal more fairly with female offending. The starting position is that no female offender should be imprisoned. In relation to most forms of crime, they should be dealt with by way of intermediate sanctions including the greater use of electronic monitoring.

In other words, no punishment at all. Here’s your ankle bracelet. It even comes in pink! Totes matches your shoes!

The approach would save the community billions of dollars annually and go a long way to correcting the unfathomable public policy misstep which has resulted in 10 American states spending more on prisons than higher education. Best of all, it would not cause the slightest reduction to community safety.

If you want to improve community safety, I suggest my Aussie friends should chuck this guy off a bridge. Okay, I’m not going to incite violence… just run him out of the country then (preferably to a hospitable place like Antarctica), and tell him to never come back.

For an exceptional level of undiluted idiocy, I award Mirko Bagaric the heretofore never-awarded perfect idiot score of four golden turds. Display your unprecedented level of ignorance proudly, sir!



SJWs Want to Train Whites Like Monkeys – Totally Not Racist

I’ve been overdue for a good fisking of SJW racism bullshit, so here we are. The usual language warnings apply. If I offend you, now’s probably a good time to leave. Yada yada, don’t sue me because I hurt your feelings, etc… Now look at the title of this one and tell me the author isn’t a lunatic racist:

The Scientific Way to Train White People to Stop Being Racist

What, are we a bunch of monkeys or something? Are you going to ring Pavlov’s Bell and cure us of all of our crimethink with some pumpkin spice lattes or some other bit of SWPL swag? The more these people try to deny being racist (they even try to alter the definition of racism so it’s permissible to hate certain ethnicities), the more they prove just how hateful and bigoted they really are. The title isn’t phrased “How to defeat white supremacists” or “How to cure white racists of their delusions,” both of which would restrict the condemnation to the guilty. No. It is how to train white people (all of them) to not be racist. It presumes that you are guilty no matter what.

Are you a Romanian guy, fresh off the boat? Too bad, racist, you need to attend your mandatory reeducation training. Of course, your parents probably went through the same under Communism, but hey, nothing like a family refresher, right racist scum?

But as laughable as the title is, the article itself is worse. Let’s fisk away, shall we?

No one wants to be called fragile. And if you’re white, what you feel reading the title of this article may be indicative of the term. “White fragility” refers to white people’s low emotional tolerance for discussing topics of race and racism.

Oh yes, this “white so fragile” nonsense again. You know what’s damned funny about all this? We aren’t the ones with low emotional tolerance for discussing topics of race. SJWs are! Everytime a white man dares to leave his ideological reservation for even a second, he is rabidly denounced, pounced upon by legions of Social Justice Warriors intent on outdoing one another in virtue signalling. I’m not fragile, you are.

The term was coined by Dr. Robin DiAngelo in a 2011 article discussing her experience with white people in anti-racism trainings. She defines it as “a state when even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves.”

The term was coined by an idiot shit-for-brains with the IQ of a bag of hammers. If you call somebody a racist, and are then surprised when that person *GASP* defends themselves from the charge, you have no business calling yourself a doctor of anything. Take your PhD and wipe your ass with it after a bout with leftover Taco Bell, because it’s clearly not worth anything.

We’ve taught similar anti-oppression trainings at tech companies, where we worked as in-house psychotherapists and emotional intelligence educators, and we’ve struggled with similar challenges.

Psychotherapists at tech companies?!? The sheer level of idiocy here is absolutely staggering to contemplate. Do you know what you should do if you work at a tech company? No, not psychotherapy. No, not emotional intelligence education. Technology! Yeah, fancy that.

In our experience, when introducing the concept of race and oppression, the first defense is usually a diversion led by the students to the topic of the oppression of red-headed people, the overweight, the disabled, or their own immigrant heritages. We aim to explain to the group how although these experiences, while indeed oppressive, are not comparable to the centuries of enslavement, race-based legislation, systematic incarceration, and unequal wealth distribution that is racism in the United States. The other class favorite is the derailment to a discussion about “reverse racism,” where we often defer to comedian Aamer Rahmen’s three minute video to resolve. What begins as a workshop often ends up feeling much more like a battle. Facilitators before us have gone so far as to outline specific participation guidelines for these workshops such as ”speak from your own experience” (i.e. no playing devil’s advocate or using hypotheticals) to nip some of the other common defense mechanisms in the bud and to promote more productive conversations.

Yeah, the author is right. There’s no “reverse racism.” It’s just regular, plain old racism. If whites are a race, and you hate them for being white, congratulations, you’re a racist!

It’s funny how the author here discusses the progressive stack here. If you’re Irish, too bad, your oppression doesn’t count. Disabled? Fat? Doesn’t matter. There are those who are more oppressed, and you have to shut your piehole and submit to them.

You attack someone. They defend themselves from your charge. And then you’re exasperated when it becomes a “battle.” I mean, when Germany invaded Poland, damn those Poles for defending themselves, right? Why would they do that, I wonder?

What makes race so hard for white people to talk about? For many, topics of race and racism trigger intense emotional reactions for a few reasons:

Don’t confuse “trigger intense emotional reactions” with “shocked at the level of stupidity you are demonstrating.” Not the same thing, trust me. Anyway, you’re the ones who need counseling after seeing a pro-Trump slogan chalked onto a park bench, so your accusations of triggering constitute textbook projection. Since you’re a psychotherapist or something, you should know that, right?

They’re not used to it: As the longtime racial majority in the US, white people experience little, if any, race-based stress. When it is experienced, it’s usually only temporary, superficial, and/or by choice. There’s a running joke that you can’t call a white man anything that particularly insults him at the identity level except for racist or sexist—that joke is about white fragility. Louis C.K. expands upon this in one of his routines, stating that the worst thing you can call a white man is “cracker,” but even that harkens back to “a time of owning land and people”—a power position and, therefore, not particularly hurtful. Because white people haven’t been fundamentally exposed to race-based stress, they have high expectations for racial comfort. It’s not only that whites aren’t accustomed to race-based discomfort—it’s a novel type of stress that they have pretty much no practice coping with. Words like “low-income,” “urban,” and “under-resourced” are comfortable because they’re terms used by the media to describe “other” people (i.e. non-whites). On the flip side, words like “white,” “advantaged,” and “privileged,” ignite in us an emotional reaction because suddenly the finger is pointed at us—we are suddenly the problem—and we are overwhelmed by feelings of guilt, shame, and blame. When that happens, all emotional hell breaks loose because we just don’t have the tolerance to deal with it, and, depending on your personality, tend to either erupt or shut-down.

Let’s see, we’re called white trash, rednecks, crackers, wonderbread, “the man”, etc… Also, specific white nationalities have others. We have polack (are these idiots forgetting the incredible variety of polack jokes available?), paddy, mick, guido, greaseball, wop, kraut… Don’t forget a personal favorite: the dutch oven (why is it dutch I wonder?). No, various white peoples have plenty of ethnic slurs aside from “cracker.” And I don’t see how paddy, polack, or greaseball refers to a position of power, numbnuts.

And it you want to talk about an equivalent for low income, don’t forget trailer trash (that’s a stand-in for whites).

Of course, we don’t lose our shit every time someone spouts off an ethnic slur, either. So there’s that.

They don’t see it: Often times, talking about race with white people is like talking about water with a fish. Dr. Derald W. Sue (2004) conducted a series of interviews in San Francisco, with some great quotes from white people answering the prompt, “What does it means to be white?” Their answers can be summed up as several variations of: “I don’t know, normal?” Whites don’t even notice their whiteness—they don’t tend to think of themselves as having race. It’s awkward, because we all have a race and white is one of them. It’s even more awkward when white people say things about envying culture and ethnicity, because they don’t see their own culture and ethnicity as anything other than the baseline.

Whites don’t notice their whiteness? What kind of dumbassery is this? I’m pretty damn sure an Irishman knows he’s white when he burns to a crisp in the Florida sun. Anyway, your whole argument is that whites need to be cured of racism, essentially claiming that they are closet supremacists convinced (albeit unconsciously) of their own racial superiority or something, and then you get angry when whites don’t show a particularly strong attachment to white identity?

As far as seeing their own culture as a baseline, you do realize that if you go to, say, a majority Arab country, the Arabs will see their culture as a baseline. And if you go to China, Chinese culture will be a baseline. And so on and so forth. What you’re seeing is that a country that is majority white, God forbid, thinks Western culture is pretty normal.

Moral dilemmas: Discussions of racism challenge whites’ conception that they’re good people, and “privilege” challenges the belief that they are hardworking and deserve everything that they have. When someone says “privilege” we hear “you’re undeserving of your blessings,” (like this guy) and when someone mentions “racism” we all think we’re being called racists! For whites, racial discussions often become (unintentionally) about whether they’re good or bad people—moral or immoral. It’s the same reason a discussion of sexism lead to the popular “not all men” meme. It’s a knee-jerk reaction to derail the conversation, other ourselves, and separate from the system of oppression. When the core of our existence is brought into question, it gets emotional pretty quickly. But these emotional reactions are track-switching—we’re no longer talking about the issue of inequality, we’re talking about ourselves. When our reality as good and moral people feels threatened, up go the defenses and we stop listening. That “track-switching” process right there is actually a continuation and reinforcement of our privilege—whites get to walk away from the implications of race when people of color don’t have that luxury, so let’s get real about that for a second.

No, I’m an asshole. I freely admit that. I’m a sinner, and there are days I wake up and think that when it comes time for Christ to sift the wheat from the chaff, he’ll see me, rub his chin for a moment, and point downward.

I’ve had a lot of blessings in life, not the least of which is being born in a first world country. Although, many “people of color” share that blessing with me. I’m really not sure what they are complaining about. If America is one tenth as shitty as these people are claiming, they should go someplace else. When my father-in-law realized that Cuba was a tyrannical shithole, he left. It’s called voting with your feet.

You wrote an article claiming that whites need to be trained out of racism, and you are shocked that they think they are being accused of racism! Defenses go up when we are accused of something bad, especially if we didn’t do it. I didn’t own any slaves, I didn’t kill anybody, I don’t hate people for their skin color, or any of that. So don’t be surprised if, when you associate me with any of those things, I get pissed off and think you’re full of shit.

But this is the problem with Social Justice. It presumes that if you are not with them, you are against them. When people asked me about gay marriage, they were often shocked with my answer: “I don’t give a shit.” That’s right, I legitimately didn’t care. Not my barrel of monkeys. Now if you ask me about people being forced to participate in gay marriages or get sued, you’ll get a very different answer from me. But the point is, I was neutral. Still, SJW-types would get angry with me for not doing enough for gays. “You’re no ally.” Well, of course not. I said I was neutral, dumbass.

So when an SJW accuses someone of racism, the response they expect is for you to stop, nod your head, agree with them, beg for forgiveness, and promise not to be a poopyhead meanie racist person anymore. Anything else is”track switching.” They say I’m not listening, and they are right. When you spout off bullshit accusations, why would I listen to you anymore?

What can a white person do?

Build tolerance by consciously moving past the good/bad reactionary thinking and learn how to manage feelings of guilt and shame without putting up defenses. Racial conversations are not about you individually, or if you are a good or bad person, racist or not racist. For white people, understanding that racial oppression is not your fault as an individual can be both revolutionary and incredibly helpful. You were born where you were born, your skin is the color that it is, and you grew up how you did, exposed to the media and a society that you had no control over, all of which led you to being exactly who you are today.

“Manage” feelings of guilt and shame, the author tells us. This means, effectively, that you cannot expunge your guilt and shame, you must feel it constantly. You must not defend yourself.

But that’s not the most egregious thing here. Dear readers, analyze this gem again:

You were born where you were born, your skin is the color that it is, and you grew up how you did, exposed to the media and a society that you had no control over, all of which led you to being exactly who you are today.

Remember when I told you that Progressives are Fatalists? Here it is in, pardon the pun, black and white. You were “exposed” to a media and society. You had no control. This is why you are the racist you are today.

Has it ever occurred to these people that free will even exists? That a person can choose to ignore or directly disagree with media and society? You are not your skin color. You are a thinking human being, with a will of your own. You have a choice. God made you in his image, that is to say he gave you the capacity for reason, and the will to choose to use it.

Unfortunately, this SJW clearly didn’t choose to exercise that God-given ability.

We all have biases, regardless of our race, gender, sexuality, class, or religion, many of which are unconscious. The human brain uses split second reactions to make sense of the world using only cues in appearance and behavior, and those reactions are highly socialized by cultural norms and media influences. If you don’t believe us, check out the Harvard implicit associations test (IAT) to measure your own.

Of course humans have biases. I like the color blue, I always have, and I couldn’t give you a reason for it. And, contrary to the assumption that some people have about race, I actually prefer Latin women (and not just because I married one). When it comes to food, I loathe Armenian food (except Khorovats), and don’t think much more highly of English cooking. I prefer Italian and Chinese food.

The question is whether or not these preferences are pathological. You see, an SJW will see that I prefer Latin women and suggest that this means I don’t like black women as much. Therefore, the SJW will say, that is an expression of casual racism.

Except that many black men prefer black women. Are they racist against Latin women, then? SJWs have also claimed that gay men are misogynist because they prefer to have sex with men and not women.

No. There’s no reason to sit here and split hairs over perfectly normal human preferences. In order to expunge them, all humans would have to be identical clones of one another, with identical life experiences. Since this is not possible, absolute equality of preference is also impossible. This is not racism, in the sense that racism requires that such preferences are somehow pathological. Making second-class citizens of somebody, or enslaving somebody, is clearly pathological. Saying “I prefer to date women who look kind of like this” is not. After all, someone else may prefer to date someone of a different ethnicity.

Society and media have contributed to inlaying some biases you didn’t choose to have. Does having biases make you a bad, immoral person? No. Is it good to acknowledge and work to challenge your own biases? Absolutely. Are you “bad” because you didn’t know that you had unconscious biases until now? Not at all.

If we follow this logic to its ultimate conclusion, I would have to challenge why I like the color blue instead of saying, quite simply “I like blue.” And, anyway, if you’re going to ask me to challenge my biases, how about you start with yours? Because if what you say is true, then you also have biases. And then my racism charge against you is equally valid.

That’s right, you evil wonderbread cracker hater. If you’re gay, you need to go date women, you sexist.

In retrospect, you might realize that some of your learned behavior or speech has been pejorative, supporting a system of oppression, or exclusionary, but that’s not a definitive character judgement and recognizing that could be a really valuable moment. We’re building awareness here. Try to let go of the good/bad binary, and open yourself up to discussion and possibility that if you’re American, you almost definitely have racial biases, and if you’re white, add unearned access to privilege to that too. Still with us?

You know, when everything is part of a “system of oppression” it starts to get ridiculous. Like that manspreading deal a few months ago. Also, exclusionary is sometimes good. We recently found out a registered sex offender took up residency in our neighborhood. I intend to exclude him from all the neighborhood get-togethers. Yes, I am exclusionary to pedophiles. Don’t like it? Fuck off.

“Try to let go of the good/bad binary” is quite possibly the dumbest thing ever written. It’s a real doozy. In life, some things are clearly good, and other things clearly bad. Some things are neither, and other things… well it’s hard to tell. But have you noticed how Progressives are looking to make everything this way? There is no male, or female. Get rid of the gender binary (because there couldn’t possibility be utility in differentiating genders when 99.99% of all people are one or the other, and clearly so).

Similarly, there is no good or bad, no racist or not-racist. There is no sexist or not-sexist. There is no choice at all. One choice is the same as another. You are not responsible for anything, because everything is the same. But, clearly those white men are bad, anyway.

What a load.

So, while it’s not your fault that you were born white, and benefit from white privilege, it is your obligation and responsibility to develop awareness of the ways in which you benefit. Whites can and should acknowledge the past and present of their own racial group—the people who look like you (whether you share a hereditary bloodline or not)—and acknowledge how racism preserves today without the need to call into question your own morality. Individualism here is not to erase history or to negate the fact that white is still part of a racially socialized group. You as an individual are not outside of socialization or messages from society about race in culture. You are not outside unequal wealth distribution by race. No one is.

I don’t have an obligation to do jack shit about any of this. In fact, if anything, I have the opposite obligation, to provide my child with all of the advantages I can in life. If I must acknowledge the past and present of people who look sort of like me, then so do you. That means the guy who looks vaguely Arabic must immediately denounce ISIS. Blacks should denounce the slave profiteers who sold them to European slave traders, not to mention that whole Rwandan affair.

The author tries to cover himself with a brief spout about individualism, but the fact remains if you didn’t do the crime, you shouldn’t serve the time. What’s worse, he even suggests that you are even responsible for people who aren’t related to you at all, but who look sort of like you. So the people who liberated Europe in World War II are to be held equally accountable to those who perpetrated the Holocaust because they looked vaguely similar? It’s utter lunacy. You are not responsible for the actions of the group unless you, yourself, willingly participated.

Resist your defenses and keep listening. There’s a role in this system of oppression that you are playing, and the sooner you can tolerate that reality, the sooner you can decrease that participation. Rather than have the fragility and inability to talk about it, why not put on a new attitude and try to accept a few things about you that might not look so hot? In life, there are certain chain reactions at play that lead some people straight to the top and leave others at the bottom. The myth of meritocracy gets in the way of seeing this—we all want to hold onto our story that we’re strong, smart, and deserve everything we have. Maybe a white person graduated from Princeton because she was a good student, but it also might be because they had sufficient funds to attend, access to resources to take all those SAT prep courses, and look like the people Princeton has traditionally accepted. Maybe that white person is really good at her job, but they may also have had some connections (from Princeton, perhaps?) that helped get her in the door, not to mention an anglicized surname that may have pushed their resume to the top of the interview pile. Yes, some people get scholarships, take out loans, have at it the hard way, and rise to the top despite many significant challenges, but these are the outliers. So let’s let go of the myth of meritocracy, and make way for a more fully encompassing (and validating) truth—that if the former sounds like you, you had the golden ticket—a lot of help (financial and otherwise) to get to where you are today.

Meritocracy is a myth, this guy says. He uses Princeton as an example. Does he realize how few white people could afford to go there? Sure, there are some children of rich folks who have the money and connections, but I sure didn’t. No Ivy League schools called me up because I was white and had an Anglo surname. The people he is describing are an exceptionally small super-wealthy elite.

They are privileged because they are super-wealthy elites, not because they are white. I mean, you don’t think the kids of a multi-millionaire basketball player are going to public school, do you? Is Obama going to send his kids to an Ivy League school, or Podunk University?

At least a regular (non-rich) member of a minority can play the Oppression Olympics and maybe sneak in that way. That route isn’t available to regular white folks.

Become an ally. The more white people can increase their tolerance for these conversations, they immediately decrease their entitlement and open themselves to the possibility of being allies. When a white person responds to a conversation about race by taking a breath and listening instead of being defensive and trying to prove how “not racist” they are, they are seen as an ally—and allies are easy to spot! There’s an understanding in the field that people of color may have a greater access to what it means to be white than white people, just as women have a greater understanding of what it means to be male than men—it’s a product of living as a minority. So calm yourself and try to listen, even if only because you look foolish grabbing at straws for an explanation of something much greater than your own small behaviors.

If an SJW wanted to have an honest and open debate, and put his weapons of tarring and feathering away, I would be more than willing to debate him on the subject. The lack of tolerance isn’t on this end. It’s the end of screeching hags screaming racism and needing group therapy because someone wrote “Trump 2016” in chalk.

I mean look at this lunacy. “Women have a greater understanding of what it means to be male than men.” How does this man’s brain manage to avoid self-destructing in a monumental explosion from the sheer level of double-think? I mean, let’s follow this logic through to its ultimate conclusion. If women know men better than men know themselves, it’s likely that the reverse is true. I.e. men know women better than they know themselves.

To say otherwise would be claiming that women understood everybody better than men, which would mean they were female supremacists.

Imagine the outrage from feminists if a man actually claimed that. “Get in the kitchen, and strip naked for me, for I know what it best for you,” says the dickhead. But since he’s a man, he’d have a better understanding of women, right? RIGHT?!


Okay then, shut the fuck up.

Work to transform the system—not perpetuate it. White people perpetuate the problem by being fragile in their inability to even discuss the issue, by the denial of white privilege and the significance of race. We perpetuate it by being angry when someone “accuses” us of benefiting from racism. Transform the system by understanding how whites have and continue to benefit from it. White people have the power to transform it by accepting the psychological burden that we live in a racialized society. It’s heavy, and no one wants to hold it, but maybe, just maybe, we can.

Transform the system into what? Nigeria? Somalia? Saudi Arabia? Look, if you don’t like majority-white countries, I understand. No bullshit, I really do. If there is someplace on this Earth you think is better for you as an individual, then vote with your feet and go there. I support you!

Gavin explains this for us in the first minute of a debate with a radical feminist:

Look, I’m not saying we have things right in this country. If you’ve read my blog, you know that I’m pretty disappointed in things. But I vote with my feet and stay here because, as bad as things are here, I know they would be worse for me someplace else.

You benefit from being here, too, regardless of your race. If for some reason you didn’t, you would vote with your feet, just as I would, to go elsewhere. You have no shackles on your feet. Slavery is gone. You don’t have to stay here if you don’t want to.

Yet you remain, because you are privileged. Of all the privileges we have in this world, living in a First World country may be the biggest. We share that.

So let the elites send their kids to overpriced colleges, and leave me alone about it, for I could never go either. Don’t bother me about things my ancestors may or may not have done, nor hang me for things I have actively opposed, even though they were perpetrated by those who share a skin tone with me. I don’t have anything to give you, anyway. A meager home, an inexpensive car, and some secondhand furniture. Will that change your life, or that of the oppressed peoples of the world?

And that’s the essence here. I want peace between the peoples of the world, I really don’t give a shit about your skin color. But this works both ways. Peace requires two parties, not just one. And if you want ethnic politics to go away, then you have to bury your hatchet, too.

So I ask Progressives this serious question: what is the price of peace in America? What payment, what coin, would be acceptable to you for this all to go away? Because you never seem to have one. It’s always “have a conversation” and “on to the next issue.” Your idea of progress has no endpoint, no destination. Once you win one thing, it is on to the next, ad nauseam. There is no place you want to be. You just keep agitating and subverting, digging deeper under the foundations while everything collapses above you, because all you know how to do is dig.

You are destroyers of culture, not protectors of it. You are wrecking balls in minority communities, not saviors of them. You ruin economies, you do not elevate them to greatness. Everything you touch turns to ash. And then, when the dust has cleared and the smoke has wafted away from the smoldering flames of the world you’ve destroyed, you point to the wreckage and say “why did you make me do this?”

We didn’t make you do any of this. You did it on your own.

Idiot of the Week: “Everything is Sexist” Anita Sarkeesian

Here’s an old classic:

Anita Sarkeesian is entirely serious about this charge, too. If everything is sexist/racist/homophobic then the gravy train of VictimBux will never end, and she will always have a job: insulting everyone else on the planet. She basically gets paid to tell us all how horrible and evil we are.

What a sweet gig that must be.

Our intrepid Idiot of the Week has spouted off some real whoppers in the past:


Is it a coincidence, then, that men are usually the ones who arrest/kill/punish the shooters, too? The masculinity sword cuts both ways, Anita.

This pervasive myth that if only men could be like women, violence, war, hatred and a number of other unpleasant things would just magically go away has become a major Feminist talking point. But it gets even more ridiculous:


If comic book stores trigger this woman, how the hell does she go outside in the morning?

She really does believe that everything is sexism, racism, and homophobia. The whole culture, all men, all white people. She, of course, calls herself a woman of Middle Eastern descent, and thus she is considered an oppressed “Person of Color.” What I find amusing in this is that she is partly of Armenian ancestry, and so am I. Yet if I attempt to play that card, SJWs cry foul. I’m not a real “Person of Color,” but somehow Anita is. SJWs love double standards.

I don’t really care, though, except to point out that Anita is a grade-A idiot, and was, for a long time, a meatpuppet for Jonathan “Full” McIntosh to spout his bullshit, and be believed by the SJW community.

CHgi2MJWgAALnbj.png_large (1)

Tweet for Tweet. Tell me Anita wasn’t a meatpuppet for McIntosh. Of course, now, it seems that McIntosh is being dispensed with. He is no longer useful, and Anita wants to go pro to gain a full share of the VictimBux.

Anyway, I award Anita Sarkeesian three Golden Turds for thinking the entirety of reality and the universe somehow has it in for her because she (theoretically) has a vagina. Congratulations Anita! Display your fecal matter proudly!


Lunatics are Running the Asylum

I’m in a foul mood, so here is an offensive rant for you. The usual language warning applies.

Scouring the news, blogs, etc… each day can produce some interesting and depressing finds. Today I give you the woman who protests the Patriarchy by wearing her tampons on her head.

You can’t make this shit up.


I used to wonder how Sodom and Gomorrah got so bad that God decided to burn the whole place down. I understand, now.

Maybe it was this way with the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs went heavy on radical feminism and communism, and God said “you know what… no. Seriously. No. Fuck this Earth” and started over. It’s enough to make me wonder if there isn’t a meteor heading for us right now.

Anyway, a white Puerto Rican wants to condemn white people for lacking “empathy” and “compassion.” One supposes he could go to a majority non-white country and find these in quantity. Go immigrate to Somalia or something, and save your spot for someone who actually appreciates freedom, please. Hell, I’ll trade him for a pro-Western Somali. My actual words were somewhat more colorful:


I love how these people think that racism is perfectly a-okay as long as it’s directed against anybody with light skin.

God, if you’ve got a meteor headed this way, please have ground zero be Berkeley.

Modern Man is Supposed to be a Pussy

I’ve seen several of these “modern men are feminine” articles going around. Larry Correia certainly deconstructed one of them rather handily. But this one caught my attention on Fecalbook the other day, and it just begged for a good fisking. The notion of old-fashioned masculinity as evil is a subject I’ve written about before. Progressives want to destroy traditional masculinity, and replace it with radical feminism. This article is perfectly in line with that thought.

The title of the article is How The Gen-Y Men Are Reinventing What Modern Masculinity Looks Like.

As far as I’m concerned, most of what “Gen-Y” has given us is best dispensed with and lobbed into the nearest dumpster. But then, my own “Gen-X” is not innocent, either, nor the Boomers before us. America has been getting progressively (pun intended) worse since at least the 1950s, and perhaps earlier than that.

But let’s see what Lewis Howes, the author of this particular drivel, has to say.

Traditional gender roles are becoming a thing of the past.

We know for certain the roles of men in families have changed in our culture.

Fathers are now seen changing diapers and staying at home with the kids, and they have babies strapped to their chests now more than ever.

There is a new type of man emerging. Move over Renaissance Man, the Millennium Man is here.

Traditional gender roles are just men being men, and women being women. But we can’t have that in the modern, Progressive society, now can we? Men acting like men is terrible. Men need to act more like women. If this is what the “Millennium Man” looks like, count me out. He’d get beat up for his lunch money by a bunch of elementary school kids.

The Millennium Man is still tough, but he now comes with a side of tender.

He isn’t afraid to show the world he cries, and he encourages other men to drop the machismo and let it out, too. He is one of the guys, but he has at least one best friend who is a girl.

Real men cry. Really? That’s the best you can do, Pajamaboy? Look, there are a few instances when it is acceptable for men to shed tears. At my grandfather’s funeral, I saw my father shed a tear or two. He was quiet about it, of course, and turned away so that others did not see him. But I knew he shed them.

It was the first time in my 35 years that I saw him cry. And it was for just a moment. Then his normal stoicism returned, and he moved on.

But the point is a man’s lot in life is to be the rock that others lean on. He couldn’t bawl like a baby in the corner, because others were depending on him to be strong for them. When your wife cries, it is not your role, as a man, to bawl with her. Rather, it is your role to be strong for her. She will lean on you.

This notion of having a female best friend is equally ludicrous. There is nothing wrong with having female friends, mind you, I have a few myself. But there is no requirement to have one, let alone for her to be your “best” friend.

He is not afraid to go deep in conversation with his male friends.

He doesn’t take himself too seriously, and he’s open to learning.

Deep conversation is fine. Indeed, Plato lecturing his students could be said to be engaging in deep conversation, much more meaningful than whatever the “Millennium Man” talks about. Unfortunately, feminine conversation is rarely about what interests men, and vice versa. Pajamaboy here, no doubt, considers Kim Kardashian and male tears as “deep” conversation. I would suggest better topics: cigars, whiskey, philosophy, politics, and history.

Men can have absurdly deep conversations about engineering and car parts too, mind you, to such extent that spectators unfamiliar with the topic just stare blankly into space.

But Pajamaboy here believes that deep = feminine. No thanks.


This non-manly, vaguely male individual wants to have “deep” conversation with you…

This man is more connected to his body than his father was because he has spent time meditating, doing yoga and practicing mindfulness.

Mindfulness is not bad advice, actually. If you’ve read Mike Cernovich’s Gorilla Mindset (a great read for all men raised in this mushy, feminine world), he extols the virtues of mindfulness and being aware of your surroundings repeatedly. But this concept has absolutely nothing to do with yoga and meditation.

Worse, meditating at an inappropriate time is the inverse of mindfulness. Mindfulness is merely being aware of who you are, where you are, what your doing, and the world around you. You can be mindful at any moment. Yoga pants not required.

Comfortable enough in his own skin, his masculinity shows through even when he’s wearing hot pink shirts or indulging in a facial.

Hot pink shorts and facials… I’m not sure if the author is discussing millennial masculinity or being gay. Or maybe there isn’t much of a difference.

He is the soccer player who comes out to the world and keeps playing, with the support of his friends and family.

What does soccer have to do with anything? Vox Day plays soccer and nobody would call him a pussy for doing so.

He may even come to your Zumba class, just because he wants to try something new.

No. Just no. Zumba is more of this new age hipster bullshit. It reminds me of those old workout videos Richard Simmons used to make. This is not masculine in any fashion whatsoever. Want to work out and be masculine? Go to the gym. Problem solved.

He willingly signs up for salsa dance classes and isn’t ashamed to tell his friends.

The only excuse to go to a salsa dance class is if your wife is Spanish, and you’re going with her because you don’t want to look like an idiot in front of your Spanish in-laws. Otherwise, no, there are better things you can do with your time.

He’s not afraid to make a fool of himself and looks amazing when he does.

No, making a fool of yourself is categorically not masculine. It is foolish. Now, don’t misunderstand me, everyone will be foolish at some point in time. It is human nature. But it is important to acknowledge this as a failure not as a success. Note that the “Millennium Man” is more or less pretending that anybody likes him, or that he does anything useful. In the world of Progressive Feminism, pretending to be something is more important than actually being something.

Millennium Man has learned to appreciate the intellect and earning power of his partners, recognizing they are with him because they want to be, not because they need to be.

Their power and beauty don’t threaten him, and he doesn’t mind if he’s not the biggest earner in the relationship.

Millennium Man doesn’t understand that women don’t want lesser husbands. They want men who earn more and are stronger than they are. For a case in point, take a look at this guy, who can pick up women without even talking to them, just by driving an expensive car:

So it doesn’t matter whether or not the man appreciates a woman’s earning power. What matters is that she appreciates his earning power. And that is not likely to happen if she is making significantly more than he does.

When he settles down with a family, he takes his share of nighttime feedings and knows his family is the most important thing there is. He cherishes the messy and mundane moments.

He is just as likely to throw a meal in the crockpot in the morning as his partner is, and together, they have a tag-team partnership that keeps the household afloat.

Is this an article about men, or about lesbian relationships? Because in my household, my wife does more of the “nighttime feedings” and I do more of the “clean shit out of the gutters” and “unclog toilets.” Being a man is about doing the shitty, dangerous, and crappy jobs. It’s not about bottles and crockpots.

Millennium Man knows his way around the bedroom. He is self-aware and listens to his partner’s needs and desires.

He recognizes there is something sacred in sexuality and isn’t afraid to explore it.

Sexuality isn’t sacred, per se. It’s natural. Otherwise a dog humping the couch is practicing some kind of sacrament. It is marriage that is sacred, at least if you are a Christian, because the union has been blessed by God. That’s what sacred means, you know.

Also, the Millennium Man doesn’t mind if he “loses to a girl” because he doesn’t see her as “less than.”

I have a great story about this very phenomenon. In the local Mustang club I am a part of, there is a guy who has an older, crappy Mustang he more or less assembled from junkyard parts. He doesn’t have a lot of money, but he loves to race at the dragstrip anyway, and he’ll pretty much race anybody, any time. He’s a great sport, even though he usually loses, and everybody loves the guy.

A woman joined the club, and she had a considerable amount of money. She bought a newer Mustang and put some money into it, then challenged him to a race. Of course she won, her car is newer, faster, and has more money in it. But then she proceeded to gloat and brag, covering the club forum’s page with “how does it feel to be beaten by a girl?” I found this to be seriously unsportsman like, and the poor guy didn’t know what to do or say about it. I haven’t seen him at the dragstrip since.

Losing didn’t bother him, since he lost all the time. Losing to a woman didn’t bother him, else he never would have raced her in the first place. But he was put in an impossible position. If he would have won, she would have made fun of him for beating a girl. When she won, she made fun of him for being beaten by a girl. And when he dared to respond to her taunts, he was accused of being disrespectful to a woman. His only solution was to leave.

That is the real reason men don’t like competing against women, even in areas like car racing where physical strength doesn’t make any real difference. Modern feminists are horrible sports about everything. The honor and camaraderie among men is shattered by women (at least modern, feminist women), more often than not.

This man is innovative in his work and is more concerned with doing what he loves than making a fortune.

He works from anywhere in the world and wears whatever he wants to work. The culture and integrity of his business is his highest priority.

This “doing what you love” crap that millennials spew really irritates me. If this were true, nobody would pick up your garbage or fix your toilets. Work is work, and a man does what he must. If he loves his job, great. But it doesn’t really matter. And you don’t wear what you want. If your job requires you to wear a suit, you wear it. If you’re a welder, you wear your damned face mask. Dress for the job, because it’s a fucking job, not a fashion show.

He understands living is giving, and he is happiest when focused on others.

Millennium Man isn’t afraid to ask for help, to say “I love you” to his buddies or admit his fears. He is an avid reader and loves a good football game.

He speaks at least one other language besides his own, and he has traveled enough to know the world is a big place and he is not the center of it.

He spends more time following his passions than his account balances.

This is all spew. Happiness is giving? What are you giving? And to whom? Progressives love open-ended statements like this, because they can then say that you are a greedy bastard when you don’t feel like having your taxes hiked to the moon to pay for drug addicts. It’s because you hate giving, dontcha know. I’ll give to those I care for, as they need my help. And I won’t give to those I don’t care for, and don’t approve of.

And sorry, no. Men don’t say “I love you” to their casual friends, except in extreme circumstances. If your friend just saved your life in a firefight or rescued you from ISIS or something, it is permissible, one time. Otherwise, fuck off with that nonsense. As for admitting fear, well that can be permissible, at times. Just don’t overdo it. Fear is natural, but men ought to discuss overcoming their fears, not submitting to them.

Football has nothing to do with anything. I loathe football, personally, and much prefer ice hockey and racing. Some people prefer boxing, or baseball. None of them make you more or less of a man.

The Millennium Man is not the stoic, inhibited type. He doesn’t subscribe to the “men don’t do that” stance. He doesn’t say, “That’s just me” and pretend he can’t transform. In fact, he is eager to grow.

I disagree. Stoicism is, in my opinion, one of the most important things for a man to understand. It took me a long time to figure it out, since I’ve had my head filled with this feminine man crap since I first entered school.  But a good analogy is this: a man is a rock. The waves are sometimes powerful, and can sweep the sand away. But the rock remains. The Bible has a parable that speaks to this.

The rock is stoic. It is not overly prone to excitement or depression, but remains firm in its foundation. Mastering your emotions is a skill men need. How else can you be there for when your wife needs you, or when your children need you? When disaster strikes, you must keep your head and guide them through it, not “get in touch with your feelings.”

A man has three hearts, an old saying goes. One for the world, one for his family and friends, and another for himself alone. When some “man” says “nobody understands me” I reply with “nobody is meant to understand you, except for God himself.” Don’t broadcast your feelings to the world.

Sometimes, your feelings will leak out, here and there, like my father shedding a tear for his father, laying still in his coffin. But then you must steel yourself and go to face the world again. The world doesn’t care about your feelings, or your wants, or your desires. It doesn’t want to understand you or get to know you. Your family and friends do, of course, but there are limits with them as well. You must be there for them, you must be strong for them.

Not some namby-pamby Pajamaboy ranting on about pink shorts, feelings, and facials.

Millennium Man doesn’t immediately raise his fists at the first sign of conflict; he’s a good communicator and wants to talk it out.

A woman’s strength doesn’t threaten him, and he cherishes the joy she experiences in her success.

He knows that when others win, he wins, too.

A man is always prepared to fight. That doesn’t mean he wants to fight, or that he will agitate for a fight, mind you. But a man understands that oftentimes, “being a good communicator” and “wanting to talk it out” wimply (I kept this typo – I liked it) won’t work.

A woman’s strength shouldn’t threaten you, because you are a man, prepared to fight and do battle if you must. If he cherishes joy, it is simply being happy for her and for his family.

A job well done is how a man wins. It doesn’t matter if others are winning or losing.

Ultimately, Millennium Man is a well-rounded composite of the best generations of men before him (just more worldly and technologically savvy, with a wealth of resources at his fingertips).

This isn’t a composite of the men gone before, else we would need to add Crusaders, Roman Legionnaires, gladiators, hunters, warriors, great philosophers, and theological scholars to our theoretical composite man. Such a man would not look anything like this wimpy, simpering fool, babbling on about emotions.

Most of us like what we see in this new kind of man, and we hope he keeps it coming.

ISIS sure likes them. The militants of the world are laughing at us. And I don’t blame them.

This picture explains all you need to know:

For his terrible proposition, feminine language, attempt to subvert masculinity, and ambiguous sexual orientation, I award Lewis Howes, the author of this steaming pile of horse manure, three golden turds:


Amazing Stories: Run by an Amazing Asshole

As my readers probably know already, I consider myself somewhere on the Puppy spectrum of the Science Fiction community. There’s quite a bit of difference between the Sad Puppies, who one might call the reformists, and the Rabid Puppies who are mostly of the opinion that Worldcon and the Hugos should be burnt to the ground and set on fire by their own Left-wing, Social Justice proponents.

Either way, though, both camps agree that the existing community is hopelessly corrupt, cliquish, and prone to a particular animus against Conservatives and Libertarians. This prejudice is such that their works are repeatedly voted down from awards, publishers like Tor Books are run by individuals openly hostile to alternate political affiliations, and backroom deals are made to secure nominations for authors based on political backgrounds and special interests.

Steve Davidson of Amazing Stories confirms this for us in a ridiculous post, so loaded up with Strawmen that he might as well be the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz. Let’s allow him to hang himself with his own rope, shall we?

“Have you stopped beating your wife?”

It’s the classic heads I win, tails you lose question.  Especially if you are forced to answer it without being allowed to respond in a meaningful way.

This is a game that I largely associate with conservative discourse.  We’ve seen it on capital hill, we’ve seen it on O’Reilly.  And it always seems to come from conservative mouths.

Oh, that’s rich, Steve. This is from a Left wing full of SJWs, demonstrably prone to calling political opponents racist, sexist, homophobic, etc… for trivial reasons. Did you eat Chinese food today? Did you wear a Kimono to an art festival? Cultural Appropriation! Racism!

It has been adopted for two reasons, I think.  One, because conservatives are often more interested in grandstanding and scoring points than they are in getting to a real answer and because, as a group, they seem largely unable, or at least uninterested, in dealing with nuance.

This is just another round of the Leftist holier than thou attitude regarding their political opponents. They like to prepare a position of authority and superiority. “Look at me,” says Steve, “I understand nuance and you don’t.” You can almost hear the tell-tale “neener-neener” at the end of that statement.

This too can be seen across the spectrum of political debate:  there must not be global warming because it was cold yesterday – nope, not interested in what scientists have to say, they’re all biased anyways.

Or, perhaps, we suggest that scientists subsisting on grant money provided by a government that benefits directly from the statements of the very same scientists is a clear conflict of interest. And, furthermore, actual scientists have also come out and suggested that the entire thing may be a fraud. Furthermore, climate scientists have been caught falsifying data in the interests of perpetuating their narrative.

Even then, the Conservative thought isn’t so much that Global Warming does not exist, but rather that the science must be falsifiable, or it is not science. In other words, we think it is possible that the climate scientists are wrong.

 The solution to gun violence is more guns – nope, not interested in your studies that suggest otherwise or your excuses that proper study has been hampered by politics.

Neither is Steve interested in the defensive uses of guns, the potential mass shootings stopped by guns, or the studies that suggest that firearms are an effective deterrent to criminal activity. He would say they are tainted by the NRA, or something, I’m sure.

Trickle-down economics works!  Anyone with facts to the contrary must be a shill for the Occupy Movement.

Or, perhaps, we simply don’t accept the Marxist narrative that all of economic history, all of economics in the present, and all of the future of economics can be explained by a 19th century crackpot on the basis of class distinctions alone. Fancy that.

Vaccines cause autism – having an answer is more comfy than not knowing.

With the prominent exception of Vox Day, I’ve seen more Leftists espousing this than Conservatives. And, though I’m sure it comes as a surprise to Leftists, Vox isn’t the entire Right wing.

The Hugo awards are fixed by a cabal.

Do you see what he did there? He just setup several strawman arguments, burnt them down with pure, undiluted snark, and then added a bit about the Hugos right at end of it, as if to say “see, the Sad Puppies are just as stupid as all the strawmen I just destroyed.”

If this man is representative of SJWs in Science Fiction, then somebody really ought to buy the Amazing Stories name back before this man buries it six feet under through terminal stupidity.

They want simple explanations – yes or no answers – for everything.  Why?  Not sure, but it may have something to do with the fact that facts frequently do not support their world views, nuance can’t be delivered in a sound bite, and, apparently, because people who actually know stuff tend to be more educated than otherwise and educated people are dangerous, largely because they tend to make up their own minds on the issues rather than parroting the sheep bleatings of pundits.

Translation from SocJus: I understand nuance, and you don’t. I am educated, and you are not educated. You are all sheep.

I’ve always found this argument hilarious because the Social Justice Warriors are obviously split as to what the Evil White Patriarchy really is. On the one hand, they claim that we are all stupid, uneducated and positively basic. At the same time, we are supposed to have oppressed women, minorities, the disabled, homosexuals, etc… for quite literally thousands of years.

If someone could manage that, it is uncharitable to call them stupid and uneducated. Evil might be applicable, but certainly not stupid.

I should hasten to point out a bit of nuance here:  the above may seem to be an indictment of all conservatives and all conservative thought.  1. I address the ideas, not individuals.  The things people say and write are different from the individual.  I’ve got plenty of friends who express idiotic ideas.  They’re still friends and that idea they expressed is still idiotic.  2. the above is directed at publicly disclosed expressions of conservative thought, which may very well be disproportionately biased towards those individuals who find some value, economic or otherwise,  in doing so.

Translation from SocJus: I have a couple Conservative friends. I think they are kind of stupid. They are idiots, actually, but I like them because it is convenient for my argument here.

This, mind you, is the full extent of Steve’s command of “nuance.”

Do I need to lay out a connection between puppy movements and conservative politics?  It’s there, it’s been expressed, if not admitted to, by puppy proponents.  The subjects addressed, the arguments advanced certainly align with conservative thought, so much so as to make little to no difference.  The fact that they’ve adopted the yes or no rhetoric is kind of the icing on the cake.

Of course there is a connection. Ever since I can remember, Conservative authors in Science Fiction, who were open about their Conservatism, were maligned. These people feel that they were wronged. I mean Steve, you just got done calling them all stupid, uneducated and unable to understand nuance. Do you really think that this sort of attitude, expressed consistently by others in various positions of power in the Science Fiction community, would not have some kind of effect?

You know, that maybe the Conservatives would feel unwelcome by a cabal of Leftists constantly calling them stupid, racist, homophobic and sexist? So of course there is a connection between the Puppies and Conservatism. These are all the people you insulted over the years. These are the people that Worldcon jeered at when they were No Awarded. These are the people the SFWA has repeatedly maligned, that Patrick Nielsen Hayden has publicly insulted.

Did you really think there would be no reaction from decades of this behavior? And, when that reaction came, are you surprised that it was comprised largely of individuals of the political philosophy you were maligning?

Come now, I thought you were educated and “nuanced?”

Kevin attempts to demonstrate that traditional fandom has spent the past 40+ years doing nothing but turning away other would-be fans because they don’t do things the right way (pun maybe not intended).

Steve, that’s exactly what it has been doing. Your side publicly admits this, in fact. They are practically squeeing that the Evil Patriarchal White Men won’t win any more awards.

Excuse me, I was there.  I was a Trekkie before I was a Fan, and I left after two years of fanfic (mostly atrocious slash), two years of fan art (Spock in the shower), mostly throngs of autograph seekers mobbing actors who would later say to them “Get a life”.

But let me back up.  Who organized the first Trek conventions?  Fans.

Who flooded Paramount with letters begging the studio not to cancel Star Trek?  Fans (Trekkies did not exist until the show went into syndication).  Who wrote the best episodes of that show?  SF authors.  And what, pray tell, were those authors before they were authors?  Fans.

In fairness to Steve, this part is mostly true. In fact, early Trek was a very far cry from the sort of politically-correct garbage (see: Voyager) that it eventually became. And, in those days, the fans were, shall we say, very enthusiastic. I know because I was one of them (yes, I was a starry-eyed child at the time, but still). Although, at least I avoided the fanfiction. From what I’m told, some of that was absolutely shudder-inducing. But, again, as Kevin originally told us, this was a case of fans doing as they willed: “In short, fans doing fanac, but not in the Approved Manner or on the Approved Topics. And so Trek fandom and its conventions, for the most part, went its separate way from traditional literary SF fandom.”

If it’s not my shtick, I’ll ignore it and do my own thing. It’s not necessary for me to declare my superiority to it. Steve’s protestations are more like the old aristocrats firmly displaying their disdain for peasantry.

Why was there a disconnect between Trekdom and Fandom?  Because shortly after it began, Trekdom was co-opted by commercial interests that had a need to pack as many paying customers into a hotel over a weekend as possible.  This is not Fannish.  Because radio, television and film are one creative step (at least) removed from the literature.  Written SF is a direct conversation between the author and the reader, mediated by the imaginative capabilities of those two same people.  Other media forms are filtered through multiple imaginations before they get to the “reader” and, therefore, are not as pure an experience.  Fans value pure artistic expression.  They thought Arena was a pretty darned good Trek interpretation of Brown’s absolutely wonderful short story of the same name.  They accept the limitations of television show budgets and the substitution of a humanoid lizard for the tentacled red roller of the original story.  But they also made note of those limitations, usually to the detriment of the Trek episode.

Seriously Steve? You’ll notice that the Sad Puppies are strong proponents of Indie publishing, or smaller publishing outfits like Baen or Castalia House. The side that is co-opted by commercial interests is your side. Marvel is making sure that there should be a Black Captain America (and is he a Socialist now?), because SJWs demanded it so. The new Ghostbusters remake is supposed to have an all-female cast, to placate the Feminists. Tor Books is the 800lb Gorilla in the room of WorldCon…

…but our side is the one loaded with commercial interests, like the Trek world you decry here? Pull the other one.

As to Steve’s second point, about “pure” fiction, just what the hell is a “pure” story supposed to be, anyway? I don’t even understand the Puppy Kickers when they say things like that. A book is a book. A Science Fiction story is a Science Fiction story. When they mention purity, all I hear is “politically screened.” It’s as if they have decided that the unwashed masses may only read works approved by their betters. It’s a remarkably arrogant and self-serving perspective.

In short, if any real rejection of Trek fandom took place back in the late 70s and early 80s, is was because Fandom is about everything SFnal, while Trek was all about one single show – a mere 75 hours of television programming, stacked up against (at that time) nearly four decades of conventions, fanzines, magazines, small presses, anthologies, ground-breaking novels and thousands of conventions.

Funny how all of this gushing about small presses suddenly stops when the gatekeepers are toppled from their Ivory Tower thrones by indie publishing. But, in any event, Steve is supposing here that Trek fans were somehow separate and distinct from SciFi fans in general. Did this “nuanced” man understand that there is huge overlap between them? Consider a Venn Diagram. All of Star Trek would exist within “Science Fiction,” so campaigning against it is kind of silly.

What really happened when Trekkies found themselves “not welcome” at traditional conventions?  They discovered that traditional conventions were not all about Star Trek.  There might be a panel or two devoted to it, there might be a dealer or two selling memorabilia, there might be a costumer or two dressed as a Klingon or a mini-Horta or in Star Fleet uniform.  But the convention was decidedly oriented towards other things:  authors and their latest books, magazines and their latest issues, fanzines that didn’t gush endlessly over shirtless Sulu.

If you walk into a KFC, you can order a Big Mac, but you won’t get one.

What a load of bullshit. They weren’t walking into a KFC, Steve. The Science Fiction fans were walking into a Science Fiction convention, and wondering why they were suddenly not welcome. After all, they were fans of a massively popular Science Fiction show.

It’s like walking into a KFC and saying “I’ll have the chicken” and getting shut down. “We don’t have any chicken for you, pleb.”

And guess what?  I’m perfectly fine with the fact that a lot of my fannish friends still enjoy going to Trek conventions.  Or Star Wars conventions.  Or Firefly conventions.  Or Doctor Who conventions.  Or gaming conventions.  My Little Pony conventions for that matter.  And I’d be happy to hear about something interesting that happened at any of them.

Here is where I come back around to the lack of handling nuance.  Mr. Trainor wants us to believe that there is something wrong with Fandom because, back in the 1970s, Worldcon wasn’t renamed World Trek Con, the Hugo Awards didn’t all go to Trek stuff and WSFS didn’t allow itself to get diluted by tens of thousands of Trek fans “who seemingly had no other interest in SF outside the series“.

Steve is really a fan of the Strawman. Kevin said nothing of the sort. He merely dared to compare the Ivory Tower, holier than thou attitude present in WorldCon today with the sort of unwelcome the plebeian Star Trek fans encountered before.

Steve is actually proving Kevin’s point admirably. He’s declaring himself more nuanced, more educated, more enlightened than the unwashed Conservative masses present in Sad Puppies. He’s looking down upon them from his Ivory Tower and declaring himself and his kind superior. This is exactly the same thing that happened to Star Trek fans once upon a time, just as Kevin Trainor tells us.

Nuance.  I know it may be difficult to keep track of the fact that different kinds of science fiction oriented conventions may focus on different things, but hey,  there it is.  Go to a Trek convention and you get Trek.  Go to a traditional con and you get traditional fandom.  The Trufan really only experiences a conflict when they are into Trek and have to choose between a traditional con and a Trek con that are both being held on the same weekend.  (Oh, the horror!)

There’s that word again, Steve. Perhaps nuance is actually understanding that Science Fiction doesn’t require (or desire) your rubber stamp of approval.

But none of that happened.  What did happen took place within the finest traditions of fandom:  some people with a special interest went off and did their own thing (relying on the tools, connections and experiences they’d gained from traditional fandom) and now we all happily co-exist in the greater world where everyone is allowed to make their own choices about what kind of conventions they’d like to attend.

Steve forgets that this originally started as a conversation about the Puppies and their place in the Science Fiction world. He clearly allows the Star Trek peasantry their little reservation, however grudgingly, but he declines to allow the Sad Puppies the same.

This is all part and parcel of the endless water torture drip of puppy fandom.  Ignore the actual history in favor of their simplified narrative.  Open up Trufandom to the thousands that have no other interest in SF because those thousands can be persuaded that their populist arguments are correct.

Has he even bothered to look at the Sad Puppies? He claims here that it is opening up Science Fiction to thousands who don’t care about Science Fiction, but I have not met even one single proponent of Sad Puppies who has not been a lifetime fan of Science Fiction. Not even one!

This is as blatant a lie as I can conceive of. The Populist arguments are coming from his side. The over-simplified “they are all racists, misogynists, etc…” narrative is a Social Justice invention. And they continue this narrative in the face of all available evidence to the contrary. When Brad Torgersen revealed that his wife was a Black woman, they still persisted with the racism narrative against him. That, they claimed, was insufficient evidence.

What is sufficient evidence, then? Why, being a Leftist. When you’re a Leftist, you can be excused of actual racism. You can be excused of pedophilia, of literal consumption of feces. None of it matters with them.

The simplified narrative is their narrative. They are the ones attempting to attract non-fans to Science Fiction, by pandering to political special interest groups and Social Justice narratives. And as much as Steve decries bad Star Trek fiction, is the sad, sorry tripe like If You Were a Dinosaur My Love, really an improvement?

I’d rather read a thousand Mary Sue stories than another line of that sort of drivel.

Somebody buy the rights to Amazing Stories so we can get back to, you know, reading stories that don’t completely suck wind. And Steve Davidson? Go shove a phaser up your ass and suck off a tribble. How’s that for nuance?

%d bloggers like this: