It should be pretty amusing for future historians that the Obama administration had a brief fling with a “reset button.” Which of course actually meant something else, as per usual, but never mind that.

It should be pretty amusing because more and more I find myself wondering about progressive reset buttons.

The proximate cause of this is my finding myself, yesterday, in a Facebook argument on Brad’s page (well, okay, it was Brad’s argument, I just stuck my nose in. Look, guys, if my destiny hadn’t been wrenched out of its track by science fiction/Heinlein/student thing in the US/falling in love with my husband, by now I’d be bossing the entire village around, and making people tremble at the thought of getting my attention. All I have is Facebook…)

The critter, unless I misunderstood him, and I don’t think I did, was maintaining the old chestnut that sad puppies is all because we not of the SJW persuasion are afraid of “other” in science fiction.

Not only is this argument a puzzler on the face of it: if we were afraid of “other” (i.e. not like us) in science fiction, we probably wouldn’t read science fiction at all. (Not to mention that the least “other” possible characters in science fiction to me are the ones in books by SJWs. I have a post graduate degree. I lived around people like their book characters – neurotic, overeducated, self-absorbed or alternately absorbed by their “different” (it’s not) identity – and them for most of my life, both studying and teaching.) I mean, let’s posit a person who either never existed or who is at this point an insignificant minority in the US: white male, has no contact with people of other races, no female co-workers or friends. He doesn’t want his perfect little world to be disturbed.

The last thing this man is going to want to do is read about starships, aliens, differently organized societies, or even disruptive magic, monsters, and possible supernatural underlying reality.

To the extent such a person exists (and I don’t think he does) and reads, he’d probably read contemporary novels about people like himself.

But this argument is patently and obviously wrong if you look at the people representing both sides.

Yeah, sure the other side has some allegedly (rolls eyes) African-Americans and other people of color, but if you scratch even slightly at their background, you find most of them have a first rate education and come from a relatively – or outright – affluent background. Their claiming victimhood and exclusion is sort of like Lena Dunham claiming victimhood and exclusion as though her dad weren’t (for reasons that will make future historians p*ss themselves laughing) paid an unreasonable amount for painting cartoon females with exaggerated sex organs, and as though she hadn’t grown up in the upper crust of NYC.

Our side, OTOH has genetic and background diversity and I think you’d be hard pressed to name a person associated with Sad Puppies who comes from the upper class. Most of us are strivers, who have made/grown/created everything we own.

Of course that makes sense on why they hate us. The people who elected a man president for his incredible pant crease and “upper crust” credentials really despise anyone who doesn’t have old money credentials. All the old money in the world is now fashionably leftist, and they find our refusal to fall in line incredibly gauche and disgusting, kind of like wiping your nose to the tablecloth in a five star restaurant.

But of course they can’t admit that. They must have the politics as positional good: “See, I stand with the good people. I’m a leftist like smart and sensitive people are supposed to be.” And they must pretend not to be biased at all. Or to be biased in favor of the downtrodden.

Therefore they must pretend the people who oppose them are not male, female, white and brown, and various flavors of tan, of poor and middle class background (though generally, I admit, my friends are overeducated, even if not in academic positions. But then again, they paid for their education themselves, by and large. And a lot of it was for sheer interest in learning.) They must pretend all of us – even me – are white males born in the deep South right after the Civil War and we’re terrified – TERRIFIED, I tell you – of women and gay people and people of different backgrounds writing science fiction.

This is why, of course – that terror – I have to make sure I don’t catch my own reflection in the monitor while writing, because I am, after all, female, Latin and foreign born. Terrifying, I tell you.

And as for gay, I have never – Nevah – tried to talk my gay friends into writing sf/f. (Okay, three of you can stop laughing like hyenas. And you, you know who you are, I’m still waiting for you to finish that novel. I know, I know, you think you’ll never do it. Ah! I can wait. I’m patient.)

So – why do the progressives keep rewriting reality, every time it’s brought to their attention? An how can they?

Well, because if they don’t rewrite it, they’ll have to admit their desire to control SF/F is part the will to power inherent in their statist philosophy, and part a disdain for the great unwashed. They’d have to look at themselves in the mirror and see themselves for the rotten aristos they are.

They can’t do that. They must continue to keep all the power they can – and use the wins of increasingly irrelevant awards to pad their pathetic academic resumes – while screaming they’re for the downtrodden.

This is how they could take a comment about how SJWs are destroying science fiction and turn it into how the other side thinks women (or gays) are destroying science fiction. Not only have they spun two sets of anthologies out of this, but they continuously pat themselves on the back all over the comment sections of anyone who opposes them. “I believe women should have equal rights, that means I guess I want women to destroy science fiction,” was the claim of an idiot in Breitbart’s comments the other day.

When you have to put words in your opponent mouths, you might not in fact be answering them.

You might be trying to hide the ugly truth – that you’re an elitist, ignorant, self-praising egotist – from yourself.

This also explains their insistence that there were almost no women winning any awards before the famous all-female nebula, that women have been discriminated against in SF/F, and that all of the golden age SF (or Baen) is about straight white males.

When shown evidence they’re wrong about that, they go back to repeating their claims. Just like they go back to repeating their claim we’re afraid of women/gay/ethnically varied writers or characters.

They do it because they have nothing else to protect themselves with. If they remove the thin veil of denial and illusion, they’ll see the writhing mass of corruption and evil they’ve become.

They’ll have to admit their Marxist religion has not only destroyed SF/F but has killed more than a hundred million innocents around the globe.

So they reset, reset, reset. And try to convince themselves they’re the good guys.

234 thoughts on “Reset!

  1. They have to reduce their reality to the point of absurdity.
    Or else expand their worldview AND their thinking….and there’s no big red Easy Button for that.

  2. Aside; the comment about the Dunham girl (no, she isn’t a “woman”, that’s a term denoting an adult) got me curious, so I looked up her dad. Migod! If her father was GETTING PAID for that adolescent crap porography, no wonder she’s a wet mess.

        1. We can’t stop it but we certainly can apply the pointy stick of logic to the more irritating problems that come in our range. If that doesn’t work the nailbat of mockery might be a better tool.

          1. For this level of idiocy, the only weapon capable of defeating it is the nuclear weapon of reality, in large doses. We’ve not reached the point yet — as a nation — where we’ve truly decided to apply that level of response. I pray for the day.

      1. Just for the record; I have nothing against pornography. I rather like it. And I am against censorship, even if I find that which is being censored revolting. But thus idiot’s paintings are pornographic, ugly, incompetent, and dull. Yet they evidently sell.

        1. I cannot, for the life of me, draw the human form. I can do landscapes, objects, and animals all day long, but the human form just escapes me. Always has, elementary school all the way through high school, to today. That said, I could draw the human form better at 6 than he can today.

          1. I cannot, for the life of me, draw the human form.

            From the looks of it, neither can Carroll Dunham.

          1. Actually Dorothy Parker said back in the 50s that the problem with pornography in general wasn’t that it was wrong, it was simply bad.

            1. Yup. I (a straight heterosexual male) used to pick up Playboy for the articles – *and* the pictures. Well, not really the articles – they occasionally published an SF/F story that Analog (at the time) would not touch with a ten foot pole (like the *original* un-Bowldlerized Catteni story by Anne McCaffrey).

              Then they began competing with Penthouse, Hustler, et. al. and I stopped picking it up for the pictures (except the Vargas Girls, when that was still fairly good).

              In the last twenty years, I have purchased a Playboy perhaps three times – on the very rare occasion when I see an article in it that will interest the *wife* (who is into professional “wrestling,” and keeps current with the Beatles people).

              1. When I worked there, and afterwards I would say that Playboy isn’t porn, porn’s exciting…

      2. *sigh*

        Somebody could’ve used that paint for something worthwhile. Finger painting for kindergarteners, maybe. And he went and wasted it.

      3. When the Christianists finally take over the United States–because we love our neighbors, want to see them happy, and realize they will not be happy until they can be the scrappy underdogs fighting the Evil Theocracy–the first thing we will do afterwards is take France.
        And kill that painting with fire.

          1. No Bourbons left alive, so far as I know.
            We’ll probably just split the place up the way it was before the Valois centralized it. Brittany, Aquitaine, Normandie, the Ile-de-France–but the Ile-de-France will be stuck administering Quebec. They want to keep their language pure? Fine. We’ll stick them with the people who speak 1700s French.

                1. Just so long as you don’t try to install a Tsar. The succession laws require that the heir be not only of the royal family, but born of an “equal” marriage– that is, the other spouse also has to come from a royal family. It’s really cut down on the candidate. Indeed, there are those who say that a woman is the rightful heir, even though the law is that a woman can succeed only on the extinction of all male dynasts.

              1. If I’ve understood the role of the Dauphin correctly (that’s a big caveat, and I’d appreciate correction), it’s a hack to get around the lack of entailed estates in French law. Lacking a Dauphin, shouldn’t the French monarchy have to be divided among all heirs, not just a single line?

            1. if the genealogy on paternal grandma’s side is true, we have a big of bourbon, wrong side o’blanket. For fun, if you’ve met younger son, look up a drawing of Louis XIII.

  3. . . . which is why I’m slightly disappointed in Dave Freer deciding to settle in Tasmania, rather than in the States.

    . . . .because, if he had, he would be. . . an African-American. Imagine the SJWs tying themselves in knots over THAT. . . . (evil grin)

          1. Don’t click on it; it wants to force you to subscribe to their newsletter before you can read it.

          2. Need to keep up with the language (which is difficult, I don’t think that Finnish changes on a daily basis…)

            A white descendant of Boers, with ancestors on the “dark continent” for multiple generations, who immigrates to the United States – is, of course, NOT an African-American.

            A black descendant of a tribe in Cameroon, whose only connection to the “dark continent” is three generations back, who is a citizen of France – is, of course, an African-American.

            Or so the SJW Dictionary of the English Language (and that of the AP) dictates.

            1. Indeed. This is a particularly toxic example of “only America is real” concept. … Cameroon and France are erased in the SJW’s mind as real places. There’s America, and there’s (a fantasy-version of) Africa. And that’s it.

          3. The really horrifying thing is that Visconti apparently believes that vandalizing others’ property is a not-unobjectionable response to “feeling disrespected” by someone else’s self-description. What if we feel “disrespected” by something Visconti posts? Can we go over and trash his car? Or does Visconti get some sort of Extra Special Snowflake exception to his implicitly-proposed rule?

    1. Kim du Toit, who’s from South Africa, has been doing that to SJWs and GFWs (Gun Fearing Wussies) for years. Heads exploding like popcorn….

    2. I went to college with a Caucasian who grew up in west Africa (his father was an ex-diplomat and consultant to Western countries that had to deal with the local tribes) and identified as “African-American”, mostly I think to irritate the race hustlers in the Black Student Union. One day he was wearing an obviously African kufi cap around. At lunch in the main cafeteria a gaggle of Black Student Union tough guys strutted over and demanded he stop disrespecting their heritage by wearing one of ‘their’ hats. He stood up and explained very loudly that he was wearing HIS TRIBE’s traditional cap that had been a personal gift from Chieftain (something I couldn’t pronounce let alone spell) and he’d wear it if he damn well wanted to. Then asked pointedly to the ‘leader’ of the makeshift gang “What tribe are YOU from?” They all studied their feet and mumbled something about slavery before wandering off. For all I know he might have bought the hat at an airport gift shop… but he certainly took great pleasure in putting the mob in their place.

  4. I thought it was the other way around, the SJWs are obsessed with straight, white males. They spend so much time talking about how there’s too many of us, literally complaining about our mere participation in SF, and of course there’s “punching up.” So they think we’re the ones afraid of the other? That’s some projection.

    1. To quote myself from Instapundit’s comment section: straight white males are the only group the left considers fully human. By the left’s behavior, that’s the only group they expect to make rational and moral choices — everyone else they expect nothing but emotional, reflex actions.

      Thus everything happens AS THE RESULT OF the actions of straight white males.

      From this, you can understand their obsession.

  5. “as though her dad weren’t (for reasons that will make future historians p*ss themselves laughing) paid an unreasonable amount for painting cartoon females with exaggerated sex organs”

    How *does* he get paid to do that?

    1. The derangement of the “Art World” is subject that could fill a book. That book is THE PAINTED WORD, by Tom Wolfe, and I highly recommend it. Basically, the drive to be “avant guard” overwhelmed anything remotely resembling taste in the early 20th Century, and the Art World has yet to recover.

      1. I’m convinced that the modern art world is one of the greatest, most elaborate, longest running, deliberate trolls in the history of mankind.

        1. Actually, the idiocy can largely be traced to the period 1815-1830. Paul Johnson wrote a fascinating book – THE BIRTH OF THE MODERN – that deals with that among other themes originating in that era.

          1. There’s a lot of modern follies that can be tracked back to that charming era. And thence to Napoleon and the French Revolution. *sigh*

          2. I do recall one speculation that the reason the art and philosophy world went nuts, was the scientific world was developing all of these highly complex and esoteric theories, that required vast amounts of specialist knowledge to understand, so they felt the need to do the same just to keep up.

            The problem was, the science side of the house was doing that to keep up with all the ramifications of the experiment results they were generating, and were actively trying to limit the complexity and resolve contradictions. The art side was just trying to make things more complex for the sake of being more complex.

      1. Man, I wish my privilege included the right sort of people so that I could get paid for making crap. It would take a lot of the pressure off of me trying to make something normal people might like.

          1. Which pretty much describes the pre-Sad Puppies state of the awards, doesn’t it? Too bad they didn’t do If You Were a Competent Writer, My Love

            Hmm . . .

      2. Yes, I think one needs to be born with the right connections. Or figure out something outrageous (in a way pleasing to the sought after audience) first to get the attention of the people who already have those right connections (or to sleep with one who has, if going the really traditional route… okay, sometimes, and rarely, a person may get there solely by actually being only both truly skilled and truly talented, but those seem to be very much the minority). After that, and for the ones who stay as the darlings, it seems to be pretty much anything goes. No matter how crappy their ideas they tend to keep on getting the chance to live off those crappy ideas, and sometimes even be called a genius.

        And also, once something has been elevated into the sphere where it gets sold for outrageous sums it will stay there. Too many people have put their money or reputations on something no way they will allow their investment to lose its worth.

  6. It’s what happens when circular reasoning is engaged in too often. You stay dizzy & incoherent. Heck! Sometimes their revolving reasoning almost make me nauseous.

  7. I get so very tired of the SJW crowd and their constant whining about the nerve of some of us thinking non-SJW books should be getting awards.

    I’m a white male from the Deep South. All they’re trying to do is tell people like me that we aren’t free to have an opinion – or at least to share the opinion – on certain topics because I’m a white male from the Deep South. They simply try to reframe it so that I appear to be in favor of keeping women at home, barefoot and pregnant, or I want to drag gay men with my pickup truck, or that I long for the days of Jim Crow. None of which are remotely accurate. I want liberty and freedom for all. EQUALLY.

    No matter how much I try, I’ll never be able to convince some of these people that my arguments simply boil down to “two wrongs don’t make a right”. You don’t correct past mistakes – assuming such mistakes actually happened, obviously – by flipping the script and making them all over again.

    Tried to make that argument to Damien Walter on Twitter after all the congratulations for all women winning Nebulas, rather than good works winning. Unsurprisingly, he blocked me almost immediately, and I was actually being polite. I knew who he was, so I wasn’t going to give him any ammo.

    The problem is, I am honestly thinking that they’re willfully ignoring such things in order to make their “point”, and I no longer give a damn about their precious feelings.

    1. There are past wrongs… the thing is when you start going with an honest tit for tat and insisting that all past wrongs must be repaid it starts getting uncomfortably clear that everyone owes everyone else some level of reparations. (And it gets even messier when you start calculating the folk who wind up owing themselves reparations for how their, sometimes not so distant ancestors, treated their own people.) They want the easy version and not to have to go after the ones that are still racking up more tit for tat debt. After all they’re scary.

      1. There are some past wrongs, but the idea that women were shut out of the awards isn’t one of them. However, that’s the one that’s bandied about an awful lot lately.

        Frankly, it’s kind of pissing me off. Factual inaccuracy being repeated over and over and over tends to do that though.

            1. True, though sometimes I find myself not caring if the one spreading the lie is doing so deliberately or squawking like a good little parrot.

      2. What do I get for my Acadian ancestors being kicked out of their homeland?

        How about for the way the Irish were treated? After all, they have been refused naturalization on the grounds they aren’t white.

          1. Point out to a SJW that blacks were eligible for naturalization before the Chinese were, and they get very loosey-goosey with the formula.

            1. Tisk tisky. If they’re going to have a formula they should have a formula…

              Now I have a weird idea to try and render these ‘privilege’ relationships mathematically. I suspect it will involve imaginary numbers and dividing by zero.

                1. I tried to figure out what one set of my ancestors got for oppressing the other set, then what was owed for all the return oppression, and came out with a zero balance owed. Drat.

        1. What do **I** get from ALL you Palefaces for kicking all of us Native Americans off our land.

          The fact that I’m Iroquois, and we assimilated, is irrelevant, and you’re a racist. . . .

            1. There are five a’s in raaaaacist.

              Pointing and screeching like a pod person is not mandatory. Yet.

                1. I don’t believe “mandatory” really describes it very well. It implies a command from on high, when it’s more of a spinal reflex for them.

          1. Please file your complaint with the Privilege and Oppression Exchange commission and we shall see what your share value of the Oppression Fund is worth. You may choose to withdraw your amount or bank it with us. 0}:)

            1. I wonder how far one could get setting that up as a spoof of a real government agency.

                1. As a Republican I am super oppressed by the Democratic Party because of some freeman, former slaves, scalawags and carpet baggers killed during and after Reconstruction.

                  Gun Control, international arms treaties, and the use of the term ‘Tea Bagger’ to describe someone in the Tea Party are symbols of the continuing oppression I face.

                  1. Your complaint has been noted and preliminary memo issued. We need you to fill out these forms in triplicate (stack of 20). Since this will also involve the creation of an entirely new classification of oppressed persons you must also fill out these forms in triplicate (stack of 80).

                    Your case will then be reviewed by the Advisory Board who will determine your status as oppressed or oppressor. Should you be deemed oppressed the file will be passed to the Classification Committee where it will be once more reviewed and determined if a new class of oppression is merited, the claim is spurious, or further investigation is required.

                    If, at any point in this process, you are determined to be an oppressor rather than oppressed, appropriate fines will be leveed. Thank you for your time and have a nice day.

          1. And as I have complained before: when being white was The Best Finns were not quite white enough, and then we were declared quite white just in time for white guilt to be discovered. So now there have been Finns who have tried to make the rest of us think we are guilty for the American slavery because the slave ships of the period usually used Finnish made tar (this area having been one of the major tar exporters of that time. And never mind that Finland then was not a country but only a part of Sweden, and then later a part of Russia, and the Finns who made the tar most of the time probably had no damn idea where the tar would end up, and would not have been able to influence the distribution much if at all anyway). 😀

            1. The general impression I have been getting is that some of these people really, really WANT to be guilty of something, or actually have ancestors who were, because that would be cool. And then they could now make reparations. As would be proper for the successors of the rulers of the world, who are the current rulers and cool people. It’s so uncool when your ancestors where actually the poor white (sorta) folks who kept getting downtrodden by all the cool white people without even the benefit of being actually something excitingly exotic, only being mistaken for that.

            2. I demand reparations from the Finnish oppressor! They must kill the communist wherever they find it.

            3. Perhaps the people making that claim should be introduced to a common method of humiliation back in the times the US was founded.

              Just need some feathers to go with the tar…

              1. And Apocalyptica. Metal ‘cello quartet.
                I assume it’s trying to live up to or surpass Sibelius or something, but Finns really do make good music.

        2. Homeland? You mean those silly white French CATHOLIC (gasp) invaders?

          In all seriousness, it seems like the whole “getting punted to bayou” is about a wash. Sure, you had to put up with bugs year round, and alligators trying to chomp on ya, but the culinary opportunities and resources were much, much better, plus the whole “no snow” thing.

        1. No, the “single drop” metric applies to you. A single drop of confederate blood means you must abase yourself at the feet of blacks for ever and ever.

            1. And… well, okay, I can get the idea that the descendants a white slave owner had with their black slaves would not inherit his guilt but the woman’s victim status because the kids born of those unions would, more likely, have become slaves. But what about those born more recently of a descendant of slave owners and a descendant of slaves? Shouldn’t they inherit some of the guilt too? If we assume that the guilt is transferred like that… maybe even more guilt because one of their parent obviously did fraternize with the enemy. 🙂

              And then there are of course the descendants of those free blacks who owned slaves… tut-tut.

      3. Well, if you are as fixated on race and politics in 19th century America as I am, there are some simplifying assumptions.

        The only entity that really retained any of the profit from those wrongdoings is the American Democratic Party. The only reparation that would have any meaning would come from the Democratic Party and be in political capital.

          1. To quote Moe Lane: “~/The money is all gone./~”

            If not for Segregation, the Democratic Party would likely have died in the late nineteenth century. They probably would have been replaced by mugwumps or one of the populist movements.

            The political capital they had from Segregation let them buy big city machines up north, union support, and with Wet politics the support of Catholics.

            Favors bought sides in a fight, and the loyalty from fighting on the same side outlasted the favors.

            1. Segregation was slapped down in the 19th century, every time. It was when the great Progressive Woodrow Wilson became president that they were free to chuck that oldfashioned and conservative notion of the equality of man.

                1. He also introduced one of the most intrusive kinds of wartime censorship we’ve ever had, and managed it very poorly so that it was often enforced by vigilante action. The “Red Scare” happened under his Administration, and utterly-dwarfed the much smaller one that happened in the late 1940’s. This was also the time that produced absurdities like “victory cabbage” for sauerkraut, as if German saboteurs would flee in terror from our renaming of what we ate with hamburgers and frankfurters … oops, I mean “beef patty sandwiches” and “sausages on buns.”

                    1. I don’t know, that one was more of an insult to the French for not supporting us, than some notion that calling something by its German name was somehow wrong or evil.

              1. Should I have used Jim Crow instead?

                You seem to be speaking of what was actually considered lawful in federal courts.

                What I had in mind might be described as a large number of small criminal conspiracies only wholly united in a certain political consensus. This includes certain bank, train and stagecoach robberies, classes of domestic terrorist acts, and fiddling around with polls. I think elections in the south sending Democrats to the house of representatives following the end of reconstruction to, say, the 1960s should be suspected of being fraudulent to some degree.

        1. Wasn’t the argument that sometime during the 60’s or so the former Republican party somehow flipped places with the former Democratic party, so now the Democrats are the true heirs of the 19th century Republicans and the Republicans are the former Democrats. Or something. No explanations as how exactly this happened, at least I have seen none. Magic, maybe.

          1. Yeah. Hence my digressions last time I was ranting about it here.

            Take a look:

            The left likes to tell itself that it took over the Democratic Party in the sixties, and fundamentally transformed everything.

            The truth is that there would have been at least fifty Democratic Parties in America. Showing that the left’s argument is true requires showing either a record clean of at least murder and terror, or a discontinuity in power for each of these. Showing that it is false only requires one.

            I have some oral history for a state. In my eyes, the atrocity in the twenties, combines with the wheeler dealer who joined the state Party in the thirties, and had pull into last decade, shows that the Democratic narrative is wrong for that state. I imagine that Democrats there who come from the Party of another state may honestly think the history is otherwise.

            Of course, the people who say that also seem to think that the ‘Civil Rights Era’ was the most decisive period for the end of Segregation. I think earlier periods were significantly more decisive, and more historically relevant. I think the big drivers of the end of Segregation were technology and the experience in WWII.

          2. There actually is an explanation, and it actually does make a certain amount of sense, but SJWs don’t know history.
            So, explanation time.
            The civil rights legislation of the 1960s was a bipartisan effort. However, the ideological splitting of the parties (as opposed to regional) had already begun, and Barry Goldwater’s run had indicated to Republicans that campaigning against government overreach was a winner. Meanwhile, the New Deal coalition of segregationist Southern Democrats, urban machine politicians, and progressives was starting to fracture. And completely split with the signing of civil rights legislation.
            So, the Republicans threw states’ rights into their platform and the Democrats went full-bore “centralization is awesome!.”
            However, the segregationists went away as a significant political force looooong time ago, and it’s only within the past two decades that the Democratic party stranglehold on state politics was broken by Republicans.
            The main reason the South votes Republican now isn’t racism or some stupid nonsense. The reason is that the Democratic Party thinks a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man.

            1. Whenever some SJW brings up the stupid idea that the parties “Switched Sides” on race in the ’60’s, they inevitably brink up the “Dixiecrats”. At which point I turn around and say “Name them” because there were only a handful, and I think only one of them got re-elected once after he changed parties. In other words, it’s a real nothingburger, not some telling remark.

              Then, if he hasn’t run away with a parting insult, I point out that until that time, those “arch racists” were perfectly at home in the Democrat party.

      4. *waves hand* Grandmother married a (mostly) Englishman. (She was also very bigoted about them… and pretty much any other group that had behaved poorly.)

        Nobody ever *said* anything because he and his brother were awesome, but… I rather suspect that their early years were somewhat opposed by the father and uncles who’d left Scotland. 😀

      5. Yea, tit for tat just ends in the Oresteia, which is a trilogy that I’m coming to think should be more widely read, lest we try it again, and discover it again, the hard way…

    2. when I lived in N.O. I had one fool blame me for slavery. that is pretty funny as both sides of my family migrated here after the civil war and the Czech, French Canadian, and French, a well as the English portions were rather poor to be committing acts of slavery. Too busy just trying to live. That apparently is no excuse.

      1. Some of my ancestors fought for the south during the Civil War…

        …some of my ancestors ran safe houses on the Underground Railroad.

        But yeah, I’m totes responsible for something that was long dead by the time I was born.

            1. If you were a dinosaur, my love . . . And now we know the truth: the bemmies were trying to wipe out an infestation of SJW types.

              Considering all the things the SJWs accuse us of – violence, hatred of others, being “fascists” akin to (or worse!) than the Nazis – I do wonder sometimes how they *dare* expose themselves to fling their dung. Since, obviously, we’ll just shoot them or drag them behind our pickup trucks as soon as we have the chance.

              They have the courage – and the realism – of a chihuahua straining at the leash to attack a husky. And like that chihuahua, they survive because their target has the self-restraint and decency whose possibility they deny.

        1. of course you are, and no credit to the URR side either, you raaaacist! (that same person informed me all whites are racist and only whites can be racist. yes, the stupid was strong in that one)

          1. Yeah, I’ve had that conversation as well.

            Them: “Only whites can be racist!”

            Me: Is racism a character flaw?

            Them: Uh….yeah.

            Me: OK, I agree. But you say only white people can have it?

            Them: Yes.

            Me: So what character flaw do non-whites have that whites are incapable of?

            Them: Huh? There isn’t one.

            Me: So you’re a black supremacist?

            Them: WHAT?

            Me: Well, if white are capable of possessing a character flaw that black folks can’t, well….

            Them: See! That’s just the kind of thing a racist white guy would say!

            I just shake my head and walk off.

              1. I prefer “Oh, believe me, there is absolutely nothing IMPERSONAL about my feeling for you. I don’t hate your race, your religions, or your ethnicity. I hate YOU.”

                1. This right here. Be darn specific in what and who you despise. It tends to catch them off balance, because they see category = goodthink, therefore must always be good unless demonstrated badthink, then “traitor!”

        2. That’s almost as much fun as walking the Gettysburg battlefield with my wife and my MiL. MiL would look at a plaque and say something like “my great-grand-uncle* so-and-so died near here fighting for the South.” At some other marker, she’d say to my wife “Your Dad’s great-grand-uncle* so-and-so died near here fighting for the North.”

          *Replace “great-grand-uncle” with some generic appropriate relationship. I’m really not sure of the exact relation or count of generations.

          My wife’s Mom’s family were poor farmers from the poorest county in Alabama; lived there approximately since forever (family records peter out sometime before the Civil war). My wife’s Dad’s family was Connecticut-old-money came-over-on-the-Mayflower Yankees.

          Meanwhile, my ancestors arrived in the U.S. after 1900.

          So yeah, we’re like totally responsible for everything anyone ever did wrong back to australopithecus. Or something.

          1. Where in Alabama were your father in law’s family from? My hubby grew up in Montgomery. My MIL’s family were from S. Arkansas, not far from Eldorado.

          2. Hm. The Neanderthals probably had quite white skins. Possibly lots of redheads among them too, at least that seems to be what the last studies claim. So, they were… tadaa… White. The Homo Sapiens group who took over their lands and may have downtrodden them were (probably…) recent African immigrants. Sooo…. 😀

          3. I suppose then that since my however-many-times-great uncle was General Braxton Bragg I am forever beyond redemption. Not that that bothers me at all.

            1. No, Braxton Bragg being your ancestor does not put you beyond redemption.
              Acting like Braxton Bragg, on the other hand…I’m pretty sure that will get you sent to bureaucrat hell.
              (Skirts edge of “no discussion on ACW.” Looks above warily for flying carp)

              1. OTOH, Lewis Grizzard probably got it right: “Naming people for Confederate Generals makes for slow, steady drinkers.”

          4. Meanwhile, my ancestors arrived in the U.S. after 1900.

            So yeah, we’re like totally responsible for everything anyone ever did wrong back to australopithecus. Or something.

            That’s nothing. My father’s ancestors arrived in Canada at various times during the 19th century (except for smidgens of French and Indian blood), and my mother immigrated to Canada from Costa Rica in 1964. I am not American, and none of my known ancestors have ever lived in the United States.

            But because I have a pale face, I am supposedly guilty of slavery in the U.S. Never mind that it ended over a century before I was born. It isn’t even my damned country. But try telling that to a Canadian SJW.

        3. Some of my ancestors were Democratic Party activists.

          I saw the choice of having anything to do with the Democratic Party as one of continuing or opposing their policies. And those of their cohort and political forefathers, because maybe I don’t have much mud to sling at them in particular.

          Of course, I’m so obsessed on it that prior to the War on Terror brewing up, I was pretty much a single issue voter on that matter.

          Guilt is not heritable, but my choices are my own.

        4. If they are going to blame this Confederate descendent for slavery, I’m going to blame them for Sherman.

            1. SJW’s just want to be bullies on the cheap. They don’t have the muscles pr the brains to really bully anyone so they make up stuff. Or use stuff that’s centuries out of date, and ignore their own skeletons.

              1. As has been pointed out here by others, most Americans whose families have been here more than a few generations had ancestors on *both* sides of most of the major issues.

                I do have direct ancestors who were slave owners. Several of their immediate family fought in the Confederate army. But their daughter married a man whose own father left Missouri during the war the fight on the Union side.

                So am I guilty because of one set of G4 grandparents or excused because another set opposed them? I think we all know the SJW answer – any excesses in their own family tree, or their own actions, are forgivable because GoodThink. Not so the rest of us.

          1. When the police have a shoot out with bank robbers, the robbers, having started things in commission of a crime, are at least partly responsible for any deaths that occur.

            There is a school of thought that what Sherman did was both permitted and required by the constitution. To this way of thinking, the Democratic Party leadership of the south was engaged in criminal conspiracy, and bears some of the blame for the ACW.

            Abusing this trick is the rationale for my ‘But what have the Muslims really done to Americans that compares in body count?’

            If guilt were heritable by blood to any extent, every single living human being could be fairly put to death or labor for life. Ethnic slavery being wrong requires that guilt not be heritable.

            1. Sherman during his March to the Sea and to an even greater extent on his march through South Carolina to link up with Grant, deliberately worked to destroy the economic – and thus political – power of secessionists. While everyone along his line of march suffered from his foragers and there was a lot of the general looting and meyham inextricably linked to armies of the time marching through enemy territory, his “gorillas” were reserved to the property of those who he felt were responsible for encouraging and enabling the insurrection.

                1. If the Confederates had won battles enough, what would they have needed to do to force concession?

                  I’ve in the past argued that the key strategic mistake of those that backed the CSA was the assumption that the northerners were fundamentally different from them.

                  1. Setting all the jokes aside, my position is that expecting everyone to hold a grudge or care is unreasonable, but it’d wrong if no one held a grudge, so I will. It matters to me, but assuming it means the same thing to everyone clearly gives buggy results.

                    I’ve just figured out that I more or less identify as scalawag. This despite that the side of the family that is unarguably Southern did not have any actual scalawags during the time when they would’ve had much chance of being killed. At least not that survived as family lore.

              1. The southerners called his foragers “bummers”, and he hung several that violated orders.

            2. If guilt were heritable by blood to any extent, every single living human being could be fairly put to death or labor for life.

              Just as an FYI: The heritability of guilt is EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN in the Constitution of These United States.

                  1. Eh, I think it would be simpler to point out that if we pay reparations, we have made reparation. So — they have to stop whining.

                    NAACP has to dissolve.

                    Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have to get real jobs.

                    All programs aimed at blacks, from AA onward, must be dissolved.

                    1. I tend to be more confrontational about something like that. I would instead point out some of the implications on people from their side of the aisle in guilt is inheritable.

                    2. I grew up with SJWism heavily a part of the culture.

                      I also became extremely irritated by the Democratic Party controlled teaching of history that did everything short of outright saying it was the Republicans who did all these things.

                      So my taste is sometimes more towards acting a more extreme SJW(race) than real SJW(race).

                      Hence trying to present arguments that standard SJW(race) positions are white supremacist and oppressive because they are insufficiently extreme.

                      So folks who talk about the civil rights era are wrong and evil because the decisive period was earlier, and they aren’t using my talking points.

      2. claim Eastern European ancestry and declare that since the very word “slave” comes from “Slav”, they are appropriating your oppression.

        1. that would earn a claim of trying to ‘steal’ the victimhood. Also, pointing out that African slaves were bought either from other Africans or Arabs was racist, as was pointing out that most slavery still going on is by African and Arabic peoples. Remember, if the answer is not global warming, it is racism.

    3. I just tell them that I’ll pay them off at the same time as I pay off people like you – one of my ancestors would undoubtedly been with Sherman all the way to sea if he hadn’t taken a wound early in the campaign.

      Seems that you are able to refrain from demanding compensation from the likes of me – just as I am able to refrain from demanding compensation from the likes of you for my ancestors leaving the Kansas farm in the not so capable hands of their early teen sons and wives.

      For those who are obviously better off than I – I ask them where MY compensation is. After all, my lesser material comfort is *obviously* due to the fact that their ancestors drove mine into the harsh northern wastes of Europe…

      1. Urk. No, I am not Russian. I have no idea whatsoever where those articles went off to…

        1. Don’t forget the Neanderthal. Happily dwelling in harmony with nature until the invaders came from the South, destroying a culture and a race until all that remains are ghosts in the genome. And since Europeans have some Neanderthal genes, when are they going to get around to apologizing to us for wiping out our people? If they’re going to call us Neanderthals, we might as well be compensated.

  8. I live in a town full of the type from Brad’s page yesterday…boors elbowing in at the cocktail party, pontificating about how they’re so much smarter than everyone else. I called him out on his rude behavior… I am SO looking forward to LibertyCon….!

  9. “…and making people tremble at the thought of getting my attention.”
    This is exactly why I keep coming back here and read every Hoyt book I can lay my hands on. I tremble in fear that failing to do so will result in a raging Portuguese lady visiting me in the dark depths of the night to run me through with her rapier for abandoning her.

    Keeps me awake at night, I tell ya.

      1. Nah, she uses the weapon most appropriate for the occasion. [Wink]

        Note, you don’t want her to get out the “big guns”. [Evil Grin]

        1. ‘Allo. My name is Generic Social Justice Warrior. Your ancestors may or may not have somehow abused my ancestors. Prepare to be annoyed by my incoherent screeching!

          1. ‘I give you my word as a Social Justice Warrior.’ ‘No good, I’ve known too many Social Justice Warriors.’ ‘I swear it on my father, who you murdered three hundred years before you were born through your evil microagressions.’ ‘…Nope.’

          1. War hammer or single-bladed battle ax. Used by Scythian women against the Greeks, with rather terminal effects for the Greeks. See: vase paintings.

  10. Well, it’s impossible for Golden Age female writers to exist. C.L. Moore published her first Jirel of Joiry story three years before ‘Early Feminist Writer’ Margaret Atwood was born. Since only the Advent of Atwood let women write, she can’t have existed. And she was SUPPOSEDLY married to Henry Kuttner, who had a Navajo hero in one story, so he can’t exist either. Leigh Brackett first published a few years after Atwood was born, but before she did her first writing at age 5 (I had a first grade writing assignment, too. It was a six-page flipbook. Don’t consider it the beginning of my writing career, somehow). Since Atwood hadn’t started writing, there can’t be any other female writer, either. And Mary Shelley is so far in the past she’s obviously mythical, and anyway totally overshadowed by her almost unknown husband who’s had tons of movies made out of his poems. Oh, wait.
    And Nadreck, Ts’ss, Phssthpok, Adzel, Worsel, Aycharaych, Lummox, and L’payer are all obviously too human to be ‘other. Two blobs, three dragons, a psychotic ubermonkey, a half-immortal and a spider are all too white-conservative to be other. Er, apparently.

    1. No kidding. One of the buzz-words the SJWs like to use these days is “erasure”. The fact that they’re trying t0 erase most of the history of the genre is one of the myriad ironies forever lost on them.

      1. Yup. And it’s even more “turning on their own,” because the SJWs of the Seventies and Eighties were mostly interested in showing how many there had already been of women sf/f writers, sf/f writers of different races and backgrounds, sf/f writers with weird politics, etc. Jessica Amanda Salmonson (who is not conservative in any fashion) is still running an entire rare books business based on that stuff, and yet these arrogant mean-girl SJWs deliberately ignore their elders and betters.

        1. It occurs to me that the SJW hazard used to be handing down decrees declaring writers of the past “gay” or what have you, because they wanted to coopt writers that the SJWs liked or that most people respected.

          Nowadays, since nobody from the past could possibly keep up with the SJW requirements of the current nanosecond, it is logical that SJWs declare no writer of the past to be sufficiently worthy to be considered gay, female, black, etc. But it would be embarrassing to confront this, so they erase it from their minds and just work with the assumption.

          1. They still do that; there was an attempt to claim the entire Royal Society was formed as a gay organization last year. Despite the fact that there was no evidence any of the members-except maybe Newton-were other than straight. Was debunked on the Renaissance Mathematicus blog, and Thony’s definitely not a ‘right-winger’ of any kind, just someone who wants history to be accurate, not politicized. They just ignore what people were really like when necessary, like they do with FDR and Woodrow Wilson. With the Golden Age writers, the SJWs have the same real problem that the New Wave writers did. The Golden Age writers did everything they want to do first, and people actually wanted to read them. Or the way Robert Bloch described them ‘They wrote what had been written thirty years below, and called it new’ (I think in the intro to ‘The Best of Frederic Brown’). They can’t just appropriate what they want, they have to kill what came before so they can be ‘original’. And in a few decades, they’ll decide to come back and write about the ‘surprising tolerance’ of those earlier writers, from their position of stolen eminence in the field. Unless Sad Puppies eats them first, which I hope it does. Er, they do. Whichever. Need coffee, going to work.

            1. Was debunked on the Renaissance Mathematicus blog, and Thony’s definitely not a ‘right-winger’ of any kind, just someone who wants history to be accurate, not politicized.

              Few things get you labeled as one of the worst of whatever was the targets quite as quickly as going “that isn’t actually true.”

              1. . . . which is why I decided not to leave a note for a teacher listing the factual errors in a history text recently. That and I don’t have my sources at hand (are in storage) to be able to cite book and page number.

          2. Nobody from the present can, either. That’s why they keep eating their own. You would hope a few lefties might get a clue one day.

                1. I am sitting at the evil black desk of power (I recently acquired for $25 a desk with a cut glass black top and that’s its name. It gives us more time to clear the bills/tax office at the other house because I don’t need the desk RIGHT AWAY.) flanked by the cornish rex and the turkish van. I get it.

                  1. The Worlds Fluffiest Starving To Death Housecat briefly interrupted her breakfast to leave a large calico specimen right in the middle of the doorway at 0615-ish this AM.

                    And I have desk envy, although I fear, given my horizontal-vertical filing system, a larger desk would simply attract more books/papers/office litter.

                  2. *installs an old CRT monitor under the glass of your desk and sends you random messages under the guise of the ‘Master Control Program’

  11. Really? Science fiction fans are afraid of the “other”? Is that like anteaters that are afraid of ants? Or lumberjacks who are afraid of trees? I know! It’s a like a cat who doesn’t like balls of string. Idiot.

    We regularly read about/watch movies about people that are nothing like any human being that has ever existed. Has this moron ever heard of elves, dwarves, orcs, Klingons, Romulans, Wookies or Ewoks? Bah.

    The problem here, as with everything regarding the left, is that they are the people that fear the other. In this case it’s not the other that doesn’t look like them, it’s ideas that vary from theirs. This is nothing new.

    We’re not supposed to support our favorite authors because they’re not “socially relevant.” Social relevance being defined as supporting the ideas of the left. How dare you Sad Puppies support authors that don’t write about the suffering of minorities and proletariat? How dare you spend your own money in support of the form of entertainment that you love? And HOW DARE YOU IGNORANT REDNECKS DISAGREE WITH “OUR” GROUPTHINK!!!!

    The advice that I have offered to many people with this type of an attitude is simple and definitely applies here: Get over yourselves. We have a right to our opinion. Those who have purchased a membership to the con (I have not) have the right to nominate whoever they want based on whatever criteria they want. Does that mean that these SJWs can nominate who they want? Abso-freaking-lutely. But our side has the same right. And if the criteria we’re using is different from theirs that’s ok too. Really. And if you disagree with that? Well then, bless your heart you precious little snowflake.

    1. I actually had one cat that was afraid of balls of string – probably PTSD from having gotten into my mother’s BIG knitting basket as a kitten. Poor thing lived with that trigger her entire life…

    2. “OMG you are getting your friends to nominate horrible things!”
      “Well, you have the option of getting all of YOUR friends to nominate things you find good.”

      And Sasquan laughs all the way to the bank…

    3. We regularly read about/watch movies about people that are nothing like any human being that has ever existed.

      Right on the head– and I know so, because my first reaction was to be confused, and go “but the best stories have a whole bunch of people, just some of them look different.”

      Which is exactly the point– we try to figure out the essence, or maybe strands, of the tapestry of a person– and they’re looking at the gift-box.

  12. Hope y’all don’t mind a little bit of a ramble, because I’ve been thinking about this “you don’t want to read about the Other!” canard lately. And while I can’t yet entirely articulate why this makes me irate, I know it has something to do with the fact that a favorite author is Lois McMaster Bujold. (Who ticks lots and LOTS of SJW boxes if you *must* look. Miles. Cordelia. Mark (Mark’s a two-fer or even a three-fer: fat, mentally ill, plus the requisite hellacious childhood). Kareen Senior OR Junior, Koudelka, Lady frickin’ Alys, and that’s just off the top of my head.) I like Terry Pratchett (Angua. Nobby. Lady Sibyl. DEATH. OMG Granny. And OMG Nanny. 72-Hour Achmed) and S.M. Stirling (more badass lesbians than you could shake a stick at, except they would take the stick away and beat you with it) and even Mercedes Lackey as long as I don’t read her book dedications.

    WHY I like them is because they tell good stories and let me see the world (or A world which I would like to visit) through someone else’s eyes. Lackey’s got checklists, Stirling’s got the obligatory badass lesbian in every story, Bujold’s got…well, my undying loyalty but ANYWAY. And all of them reliably deliver a “oh my gosh, that is SO AWESOME!” moment at least once per book, without trying to beat me over the head with Message.

    On the other end of the spectrum is this book called “Nadya”, which I read years ago and which ticked all my happy book buttons when I saw it in the store. Old West immigrant werewolf? FEMALE werewolf? Werewolf girl trekking across the USA in disguise? I was delighted for the first 40 pages or so. Then the poorly-foreshadowed lesbian affair with an unlikely affair-ee showed up. Then a bunch of other poorly-foreshadowed, unlikely things happened. Then, after 250 pages of No Lupine Awesomeness Whatsoever, the heroine FINALLY got all furry to defend the anachronistic (AND poorly foreshadowed and unlikely) multi-tribe Indian commune from the ravages of those evil evil missionaries who never actually talked about God but had been telling the heroine how Bad she was for the previous three chapters.

    Other books have annoyed me. That’s the first one I ever recally feeling utterly disappointed about. When I picked it up, I was *gleeful* about getting to read a story about someone who was just the teensiest bit not-like-me. What I got was a clumsy bait-and-switch in which people who think one thing are Good and people who think the other are Bad; it’s an awfully damn nursery-school approach to things. When I read fiction I want more fist-pumping and less arms-folded-in-indignation.

    1. It always struck me as odd that the SJW’s insist that WE have to have diversity in our authors AND characters, but Minorities need authors and characters that are the same race as them.

        1. Speaking of writing the white mans – I am finally getting around to reading A Few Good Men, and I’m trying to convince older son to work out a lot and try to model for Luce.

  13. *Side thread notice* Some of the comments reminded me of the debate a few days ago about what to call a new SF/F award. How about the Shelley? That would take some of the wind out of their sails. After all, it’s named for a woman who’s major work is still in print nearly 200 years later. And think of the fun we could have with the statuette – how about a clam shell with little bolts coming out of its base?

    1. May not shut them up, but I like it – honors the past while keeping tongue firmly in cheek. And gives Free Range Oyster and Oyster Wife some credit, too. 😉

  14. “This is why, of course – that terror – I have to make sure I don’t catch my own reflection in the monitor while writing, because I am, after all, female, Latin and foreign born. Terrifying, I tell you.” I see the fangs, writhing snakes, and glowing red eyes with yellow whirlpool effects just don’t seem to get caught by you camera. I am soooooooo disappointed!

    ” They’d have to look at themselves in the mirror and see themselves for the rotten aristos they are.” That’s “think” they are. Delusional, they are.

  15. When you have to put words in your opponent mouths, you might not in fact be answering them.

    *passes a Golden Understatement Award*

    I get really, really tired of listening to other people do an entire side of an argument that nobody else is having, and they expect others to act like the vaguely-maybe-associated statements are an answer to what we were talking about.

Comments are closed.