Weaponized Empathy

I’m really bad at fighting.  Oh, not physical fighting, though I suppose I’m bad at that too at this point, since I haven’t been exercising like I used to and I’m not twenty anymore.

And I don’t mean I’m not good at landing metaphorical blows.  No.  The part I’m bad at is staying angry.

It’s funny, as much as we get accused of “hating” the only things and people I’ve hated are historical people and regimes that have killed millions of their citizens.  Yeah, yeah, I hate red and black fascism, aka Nazism and Communism like I hate hell, all Capulets and … well. Not thee.  The other things I hate are more things I strongly dislike: Licorice, bad, preachy books, teachers who don’t do their job, cold days.  I don’t spend my time sitting around and going “I hate you snow, I do.”  I just mumble disconsolately about not being able to walk and my fingers hurting with cold even while inside.

There is on the left this certainty that women are more peaceful than men that I think comes from two things: first the empathy which women have, or at least display more, which is part of raising infants; two women’s inability to stay burning at peak flame and the ability to find excuses for even the worst misdeeds, in order to keep their “tribe” together.  What my mom called “Mothers always love the worst child the best.” (I never asked whether this was an admission I’m her favorite.)

This doesn’t mean, mind you, that women are not capable of aggression and war.  I’ve said before that having attended an all-girl high school I could tell these people something about women and fighting.

It’s just that when women are bad, they’re very, very bad.  They tend to fight in an underhanded way that leaves plausible deniability and the ability to pose as an angel before the world.

Of course, in an all-girl high school, like in prison, some women would adopt masculine personas.  So we had a lot of ninth graders when I entered (first year of school was seventh) who were all but gangs and would run around beating up the younger and smaller kids and making them fall into line.  Since these gangs were, not  coincidentally (the revolution had happened the year they entered high school and were starting to have illusions of adulthood, so they were fertile ground for proselytizing by the worst kind of person) extreme left, the things they wanted us to fall into line with were things like demonstrating to support the communist regimes in Africa, the same ones that were laying waste to the countryside and were propped up by Russian and Cuban mercenaries who thought the cultural revolution had maybe been a little soft.

Which brings me to “Not only no, but hell no.”

One day, herded into the gym with the rest of my class for one of these “demonstrations” which were then televised in the nightly news as “the students of blah blah support” I had had enough.  You see, I’d built a radio that got the BBC.  I knew some of the atrocities going on over there.  (Not all, of course, the BBC too had long since taken a sharp turn left. Talking to Peter Grant is an education.) So I stood up and said “Enough of this bullsh*t.  I’m not supporting murderers anymore.” And walked out.  Now I was one of the largest kids there, having stopped growing at 12, and I was known to be a fighter.  They couldn’t in front of everyone try to stop me, because that meant that there would be a free for all, and there were only 50 or so of them and a couple of hundred of us in that gym.  My class felt emboldened and walked out after me.  And then everyone trickled out, leaving the raging, powerless storm troopers of communism fuming.

There was an after-episode to this, of course, where half a dozen of them ambushed me on the way out.  I wasn’t alone, and I could fight.

This is not told to show my courage.  Before I did that there had been five or six such demonstrations I’d sat through, because — honestly — I didn’t want to get beaten to death.  It’s just to show I’d had enough.  It takes a while, but at some point I’ve had enough.

The funny thing, you know, is that I don’t remember the names nor the faces of some of those girls, and simply by age/timing, it’s quite possible some of them were in my circle of friendly acquaintances in college.

But the REALLY funny thing, and the part the soft-headed left in science fiction generally confuses with women being “peaceful” is that this type of behavior — being physically threatened — is much easier for me to be brave about than a typical female way of fighting.

You see, women fight by stealth and in the dark.  The blows they deal you are by whisper campaigns, and by “the big lie” and they rarely leave any dealings in the open that let you say “Ah, that, this far and no further.”

On top of that, there is the Weaponization of Empathy. There is a wonderful article about it here, much better than I could write.  (The author is young and falls under the heading of “so sharp he cuts himself.”  But when he pokes under his own self-assumed despair about the times (we who lived through the seventies rolls our eyes) he’s truly brilliant to the point of “that’s so true it hurts” and if Reason doesn’t snap him up soon, they’re fools.)

I think this is evolutionary.  Women are smaller, more fragile, and if they weren’t able to turn on the tears and the poor me and stop what is coming to them when machinations in the dark are discovered, the species would have died out long ago.  (And my entire plan for getting into heaven at four, when it seemed quite likely I’d die any night, was to turn on the tears and claim I didn’t mean any of the bad things I’d done, so I should know.)

So, what is weaponized empathy?  It is the use of your own best qualities against you.

No matter how much they’ve done to you, and you can prove — say, for instance, orchestrated an international media campaign to call you racist, sexist and homophobic, or perhaps threatened your careers, your invites to cons, etc — they always come back to “you were wrong about this minor point and you wronged us, and how can you be such a bad person?”  And because you are a nice person, and PARTICULARLY if you are a woman, you will buckle.  You will wonder if you’re being too harsh, if you’re being mean.

Recently I was talking to a friend about such feelings about an editor.  It is not too much to say this editor made my life living hell for almost ten years.  The problems ranged from simple miscommunication to outright lies such as telling me that I’d have to reclaim my rights through the same agent who sold them, something she could not avoid knowing it’s a lie unless she is completely senile.  They ranged from what could be simple incompetence to what most certainly was malice, unless again she is completely senile.

Notice that last caveat.  When this editor then tried to scold me for saying something very like this in a post (without naming her) I thought “what if she is senile” and felt bad, until my friend pointed out she’s way too cogent in public to be THAT senile and that at the same time appalling stuff was being said/done to me, other authors were getting the velvet glove treatment.

But I still feel bad about cutting her off, even if I did it for my sanity, because the feelings are stupid-female, and my instinctive feeling is to heal the tribe.

This is how women are more prone to end up in abusive relationships forever, how women end up taking back accusations of spousal abuse even before the bruises heal, and how women often get the short end of a divorce EVEN WITH ALL THE LAWS WEIGHED IN THEIR FAVOR.

Because once we come down from being angry, our instinct tells us we need the tribe intact and we should heal it.

In my case because I think a lot and self analyze continuously (a necessity if you want to write, or at least to write believable characters, or “simply” to live) I know this fatal tendency and I watch for it.  My most common defense against it is to “wall people off.”  In my life, since about twelve, I’ve done this exactly three times.  I stop talking to the person, having any interaction.  I pretend they don’t exist.  (Yes, above mentioned editor is one of them.)  In most cases, when I get really mad, even for cause, I find a way to forgive my friends. And though we might not be friends again, not as we were, we remain friendly or sometimes not-as-close friends.  But in the case of a truly toxic relationship, in which the person is trying to push me into feeling guilty, I de-exist them. It requires that I have liked the person a lot at some time, but that I know they’re bad for my emotional (and sometimes physical) survival.  Nothing they do or say can reach me, because I’ve cut them off. That is the only thing that stops them using my empathy against me.  And every time I’ve done that, after I’ve done it, I found out what they’d been doing behind the scenes against me was much worse than what they were doing openly that caused me to cut them off.

Weaponized empathy is being used right now by Islam against the west.  And by the left against the right in every arena in this country.

The funny thing about weaponized empathy used by a group is that those fighting in the front lines are very often not the ones who are toxic or conniving. Those fighting on the front lines are often also victims, sent against you.  In the case of Islam, who the hell can avoid feeling for the refugees trying to get into Europe?  They are like most refugees pathetic and poor and fleeing for their lives and the lives of their children.

They are also instruments of Islam’s diaspora.  The bad unreformed, serious as a heart attack Islam that has kept vast regions of the world in a darkness far worse than the middle ages.

Because you see, if people simply flee by one or two, they often leave behind all those rules they were taught.  The women uncover.  The men start wondering if they really have the right to kill their daughters for dating a foreigner.  They become the assimilated Muslims that Islam’s sh*tlords hate.

But if they flee by the community-full?  You will never escape those rules, and you’ll be bringing the power of the crazy imams to entire regions of Europe.

We’ll leave aside the part Europe and Lead From His Behind Obama had to do with creating the crisis.  The crisis can now be used for the Diaspora of Militant Islam on a grand scale, putting Europe in an existential cultural crisis, where they either abjure the humanistic values of their past, or they will be destroyed in all but name.

Or take the cases of the left.  Most of the people screaming that de-funding planned parenthood will leave women without access to health care, know bloody nothing about it.  But they have been convinced of this, till they feel guilty for pulling tax payer money from an organization that actually and quite literally sells pieces of murdered babies for profit.  (Put that in a fantasy setting for the full recoil.)

The Hugo fight, btw, a very minor battle in the cultural war is using this too.  Right after the beginning of Sad Puppies III they orchestrated a vast international mass media campaign to reverse the sides in this equation.  The pasty-white entrenched power side portrayed itself as trying to bring more women and people of color into SF and being opposed by this, shall we say “neo-nazi, reprehensible” slate of racists, sexists, homophobes.  In fact the battle had bloody nothing to do with gender or color — except perhaps that we have a few more women and people of color — but with the old, stale, Marxist ideology (not even Marx, Marx, you know, but College-Marx) that the entrenched establishment of SF endorses and considers the mark of “good literature.”  (And btw, not even with that but with the fact that these books are by and large either barely competent or snooze fests.)

BUT we were tarred with the brush of reactionaries and imaginary-vast-right-wing-conspiracy. Horrible things were said of us, including that Brad had married his wife SIMPLY AS A SHIELD.  Yep, his marriage of 20 years is a shield.

But because these people fight like girls, and because their tactics and methods are of a few behind the scenes weaponizing the empathy of the others, the screams go up whenever you point this out.  “I didn’t do it.  I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.  I–”  Only of course, some of them show quite a different face on twitter, but that’s another story.  Some of them really might not have done it.  But a lot of them have used that as cover to then accuse us of monstrous crimes like saying we called them Nazis and Marxists (I thought they liked that one?) and CHORFS (which in most cases is no more than a description.)  Note that up to that last one, which was coined by Brad to refer to the side we were fighting and is about as effective as islamo-fascists, even if it’s descriptive.  The other two?  Not even close.  Kate merely pointed out their early tactics resembled early fascist.  And I called SOME of them Marxists, because hell, most of them self-identify as Marxists, in tweet and blog post and bio.  (Yeah, I’ve said a lot of the non-Marxists are still tainted by Marxist thought.  So am I.  So are you.  It’s been taught as “knowledge” in our colleges, from literature to sociology.  It requires conscious effort to extirpate.)

So over on the post when Kate announced Sad Puppies IV there are people casting aspersions over how we’re going to count mentions of a work that should be nominated and whining I cast aspersions over the vote counting at Sasquan.  I honestly didn’t remember what I’d said about it, but when they reminded me I said the low votes for Kevin and Butcher were obvious evidence of funny business, I remember saying that.  And you know what?  It still strikes me as funny.  Though Australian rules play havoc with REAL vote-by-preference and I haven’t had time to analyze the vote counts. If these votes are above reproach, they are at the very least poof of how “Fans” have got divorced from the real fans in the genre and how badly new blood is needed.

Now it’s being demanded I apologize for saying that a thousand ballots were spoiled.  Again, that is what the numbers seemed to indicate at the first glance at the time.  I haven’t had time — I work for a living — to go over the numbers and crunch them and make sure that’s true.  Perhaps what they’re saying is true and that was a false claim.  Perhaps not.

And if it was a false claim, it makes me feel bad I repeated it.  But then I think about it.

At the same time, when Kate announced the beginning of Sad Puppies IV, the cries went up from the other side that it was a Slate, even though Kate was careful to point out you shouldn’t even nominate anything you haven’t read it.  But, ah, she didn’t repeat that in a paragraph referring to the mathematical possibility of getting your favorites in.  And so they bay “slate” and “funny business”.

They can’t be that stupid.  No, seriously.  NO ONE CAN BE THAT STUPID who reads books, much less writes them.

What they’re doing is deliberately distorting Kate’s words to create a big lie.  Compared to that, I should feel guilty for saying I am iffy about their probity?  Oh, please!  No, I don’t feel guilty at all.

I particularly don’t feel guilty when the concom tries to cover its ass by saying it returned the ribbons they confiscated to Captain Comic.  Sure they did.  AFTER the con.  And they gleefully tweeted thanking the twat who removed them from the freebie table before that.  (And by the way, there was nothing even vaguely inflammatory about these ribbons. All they did was let puppy supporters know they weren’t alone.  Which I think was what bothered these people with whom the concom GLEEFULLY aligned.)  And also that the Assterisks were Gerrold’s attempt to “honor” the nominees.  (Sure they were.  Because he never read Vonegut.  Please, do pull the other one.  It plays jingle bells.)

What these things consist of are weaponizing our empathy, so they can then demand we apologize, while they continue to revile us and malign us.

And of course, the instinct is to go “what if?” particularly since the people making these claims are, they, themselves, exceedingly credulous and possibly dumb.  Your empathy goes “but I’m being mean to these poor little–”

It is important to remember that weaponized empathy IS weaponized.  At the same time they demand apologies and act aggrieved, they’re still hitting you behind the scenes,and are often the same people saying something quite different in their own forums.

It’s important not to let your best qualities be used against you.

It’s important to know that you’re still a decent person, even if you don’t let yourself be bullied.

The appropriate answer is “Go fish.  There is no empathy at home for you anymore.”

No retreat, no surrender until they stop distorting and hitting and trying to destroy people over a plastic rocket.  No retreat, no surrender until the Lords of the Establishment stop trying to reverse our situations and appeal to the empathy reserved for those who ware genuinely disadvantaged.

I am not Lutheran, but I will say it: Here I stand.  I can do no other.

401 thoughts on “Weaponized Empathy

  1. Yes. Very true. The point we have come to is – we will fight, but only enough to demonstrate how very bad it would be if you make us keep fighting.
    That’s fine with people who THINK like you. For some reason all the ‘intellectuals’ can’t imagine people of a different culture who actually think differently that they do. I thought that was part of a liberal arts education… but apparently not, anymore.
    I had a conversation with a fellow about Iran and their nuclear program.
    His take was they are buried too deep and you’ll never blow them all up with any reliability.
    My take on it was you don’t even have to try to dig them out.
    They can seal up and stay down there only so long. They eventually run out of rice and canned meat and fresh socks.
    You simply remove the surface society that supports them.
    Eighty to a hundred nuclear weapons would remove almost all the Iranian society. Surface burst them to maximize fall out. They are concentrated in cities that are convenient targets. One wave of missiles would leave less than ten percent of the population and industry.
    The resulting economic breakdown – disease and lack of transport will do most of the rest in. In three or four months you’ll have a few thousand goat herders in remote areas left. Hunt them down my air patrols if you insist on a clean sweep.
    He couldn’t imagine that.
    But, but, we’d be monsters, was the basic reply.
    Yep. And they’d be dead.
    The way things look now – Western civilization will chose to die rather than be the bad guys. Of course when the monsters write the history books they’ll be tagged as the bad guys anyway.

    1. Funny coincidence, but eighty to a hundred tactical nukes is commonly believed to be precisely what the Israelis have in their arsenal. They would never fire first, but one proven WMD strike against Israel tracked back to Iran and all bets are off.
      The fact that such retaliation is a given leads me to believe that the first nuclear strike in the coming conflict will be against the US, likely a port city with a device brought in via shipping container.

      1. I’m thinking it will be a city where the social structure has broken down, so that the Authorities aren’t doing their job at all and aren’t going to be getting any word from the street. Detroit springs to mind. I’m not sure of it being a nuke, though I suppose it isn’t impssible.

        Y’see, I fully expect the Islamotwits to commit suicide. They can’t destroy us, but they can make us seriously angry. Amd when they do, life in the Islamic parts of the world is going to get REALLY unpleasant.

        During the Bush years I actually had people telling me that in invading Iraq and Afghanistan America was “Lashing out in unreasoning rage”. And my answer to that charge was “Don’t be ridiculous; Mecca doesn’t glow in the dark.”

        But it will.

        1. As far as unreasoning rage goes, kinda-sorta. A bunch of Saudis attacked us, so we attached Afganistan because certain people did not want to attack or even speak harshly to the Saudi’s.

          1. The nationality of the attackers is a distraction from the real problem, just as it is too easy to mistake what is overt as all that is being done.

            For an example (HT, Instapundit) of the hidden portion of a geopolitical iceberg:

            Revealed: How George W. Bush Saved Georgia From Russia

            by Spyridon Mitsotakis4 Sep 20150

            Earlier this month, coinciding with the seventh anniversary of Russia’s war on Georgia, Dmitri Shashkin, former Georgian defense minister, revealed the role of the Bush administration in stopping the Russian invaders from conquering the whole of the former Soviet Captive Nation.

            Shashkin’s comments were published in Russian by Radio Liberty.


            According to Shashkin, the reasons “Tbilisi was not taken by storm” were thanks to the “Georgian army, international support and specific steps by the US” which “stopped Russia.”

            Shashkin reveals:

            Many do not know that our peacekeeping brigade returned from Iraq to Tbilisi on American military planes which under the circumstances of war was direct military support by the US.

            “Many do not know that Russia could not bomb the Tbilisi airport because American Hercules planes were on the tarmac,” Shishkin continues.”Many do not know that the flagship of the US Fifth Fleet which entered the Black Sea monitored on its radars the airspace in the Tbilisi-Moscow-Volgograd triangle.”

            And “many do not know that the August 14 Hercules flights from Jordan were accompanied by (American) fighters. Many do not know that the statement of the commander of these fights that ‘any activity of Russian planes in the Georgian sky will be considered an attack on the United States of America,’ thus effectively closing the Georgian sky to Russian planes.”

            — — —

            Note that nothing about this was reported in American news media.

          2. The Daily Show pick you up to summarize things in a way that’s clever but completely inaccurate, yet?

            If Dearborn rolls out a batch of born-here radicalized nuts who join a terrorist group in another country and are part of a mixed attack, someone trying to declare war on the US is clearly In The Wrong.

            You’d have a stronger case to declare war on Mexico because of their gangs hitting the US. (Well known government involvement, for example.)

          3. Okay, sure. Then let us complete your theory by having you tell us what Saudi gov’t agency they were part of, and who in the house of Saud was telling us “We will not give the planners over to you, and will support them in any way we can to plan and carry out further attacks.” Hmm?
            And would this be the self same Saudi Arabia that warned us about possible attacks? (That is a favorite of mine because the President likely gets several such warnings a week, well other presidents did, 0bama seems to skip his bothersome security meetings)
            Congratulations on not having a grasp of reality

      2. IMO it will be new York city. the leader of isis was quoted as saying, when he was released was “see you in new York”. 911 two of the four targets were in nyc. prior to 911, if memory serves, there were several attacks (failed) in/at the city.
        outside of the usa it is held up as a symbol of what we (Americans) stand for. (for good or ill). it is THE CITY that isis (and others) hate most of all.
        isis will continue to attack this symbol, with what ever weapons they have. and should they ever get their hands on a nuke (any nuke, however, where ever) they will use it, not only to kill the most amount of people (which includes their own) BUT, they will use it, at it’s most symbolick . [ I suck at spelling, bite me puppy]
        while I do NOT wish for this to happen in my country, to my people. there is a silver lining to this event. along with all the dead will be most of the MSM, print as well as media …………………… the people who are defending them the most, allowing the to prosper, preventing us from rooting them out, WILL BE AMONG THE DEAD.
        I shall laugh and cry at the same time


        1. Any chance we could convince them to take out Hollywood, too?

          Maybe San Francisco?

          I’ve got a little list … they’ll none of them be missed.

        2. Of course it’ll be New York. Detonated right in the harbor, I imagine. Figuring a Fat Man type ~25kt device, it’d wipe out downtown and quickly kill a whole bunch of people in Brooklyn and NJ, but most of Manhattan (including Midtown) would survive the blast, particularly given it would be a surface explosion rather than an airburst. Fallout would be severe, however, with a LOT of radioactive water and debris sent into the air.

      3. Yep. And you know the Dhimmicraps will tell everyone we deserved it and it will be the mark of a truly civilized nation not to retaliate, but to give them more money…..

    2. “Defensive genocide*” – like many another horrific thing – is not an idea reasonable people invent because they want to.

      *Replace with more appropriate term, should there be one.

      1. Scorched earth?

        I think the only person in my library science class in 1990-91 who understood why I was so livid when our troops stopped at the Iraqi border was the other medieval historian in my class. They couldn’t understand beating the crap out of the other side until the other side could no longer pose a threat as a sensible military/political strategy.

        Of course I had a fellow student at the beginning-of-year meet and greet who told us quite seriously that we should never have gone over there. I pointed out a) we had treaties and b) Hitler and Czechoslovakia – give someone like that an inch and they’ll keep going. She then announced that the US should never have been involved in WWII at all. Not even thinking about the Pacific Theater, all I could do is gape at her and wonder when she thought that Hitler would have stopped after taking over Poland, and France, and Britain, and Russia, and ….

        Unsurprisingly, the idiot was in the section of the program for school librarians. 😦

        1. should have pointed out to the idiot that Hitler declared war on us, not the other way around. note: we declared war on japan, whom had a treaty with Germany

          1. Yep. I was just too stunned to respond. I’m not good at thinking up responses on the fly anyway.

            But that was also back when I was still young and naive and assumed that anyone who was in grad school actually knew something about modern history. I hadn’t fully discovered the leftist ability to create their own facts. 😦

            1. The postmodern cultural marxist left are basically neo-gnosticists for whom only correct doctrine counts, and there is no such thing as objective reality, just ‘competing narratives’. The same disease as the Greek sophists of old, or today’s Arab media, which will peddle the most bizarre conspiracy theories with a straight face as if they were gospel truth/Torah from Sinai. (English translations at memri.org can be a surreal reading experience.)

              1. Yes, and talking to an Arab from there is even more surreal. After he finished his rant on Israel, he was dumfounded when I asked him a question. If Israel was such a genocidal nation, then why are there any Palestinian Arabs left alive? Why is Lebanon not a scorched wasteland?

              2. Heh. A couple months after 9/11 I was in a Smithsonian gift shop, browsing remaindered books on sale and happened across several various “Bible Stories For Muslim Children” in the bin. Of course I read them; who among us wouldn’t?

                “Torah from Sinai” has nothing on their gospel’s truths. Their stories were largely cut from the same cloth as the source material but the tailoring was … interesting and some of the patching was eye-opening.

            2. …anyone who was in grad school actually knew something about modern history.

              “It isn’t what they don’t know that causes trouble; it is what they do know that just ain’t so.”

      2. There’s an article in Sci Phi Journal Issue 6 by Patrick S. Baker entitled: “General Directive 18: Self-Defensive Genocide in the Starfire Universe” and looks at the very question of whether genocide is ever justifiable.

        1. Starfire? The old Amarillo Design Bureau board game that David Weber wrote novels for? It’s probably about the way the Terran Federation handled the Rigellians.

    3. The problem is that the fallout plume would extend quite far over the Russian Federation, which despite the best efforts of the Current Incumbent, isn’t an overt enemy. Yet.

        1. And the worst part of all? If Iran uses nukes and a larger war with Russia ensues, our brainless media will declare: “Nobody could have possibly foreseen this!”

            1. Absolutely off topic, but that sounds like a fun tag for a sci-fi anthology. Have every story incorporate that line, and see what results. 🙂

              1. I would totally read that anthology. And its sequel “What’s the worst that could happen?”

            2. Hey, they’re the smart,/I> ones: if they couldn’t foresee it, how could anyone else?

              Just as they couldn’t foresee taking out the government of Libya might cause chaos, chaos which might spread, destabilizing surrounding states such as Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq …

              I mean, it is inconceivable.

                1. That word doesn’t mean what THEY think it means–which is that they are stupid/have a blind spot about the size of New York State.

      1. People tend to have a way overestimate of fallout from modern nuclear weapons. Mind you I’m not saying its good , its a horrific result that thank the lord has only happened to two cities. However Airbursts of
        fusion weapons produce VERY limited downrange fallout
        (cf nukemap http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ ,based
        in great detail on known effects). The massive fallout associated from fusion weapons is based on groundbursts (e.g. The Castle Bravo or Ivy Mike tests). of multi megaton weapons. Truthfully I don’t think we’ll be the next to use nukes in anger. I suspect the Crazy (make that MORE crazy) arm of either the Shiah or Sunni sects will attack Israel or back it into a corner. Israel is believe to have somewhere between 70 and 200 weapons. Rumor is their weapons program was named Project Samson If that gives you an idea of what its for.

        As for targets for Tehrans weapon. Tel Aviv, London, Paris, Brussels. Perhaps Rome (viewed as center of christianity) Maybe NYC LA or DC. They’d like the latter three but their missiles lack range even to hit much outside of the Mediterranean basin. Why concoct some complex plan with at shipping container when you can just throw the evil thing in a Ryder truck and drive it into the EU or into Riyadh which would make the Shia almost as happy as it would kill the apostates controlling Mecca.

        1. My understanding is that the main thing Iran gets out of the current deal, is time to finish developing the ICBMs they need to hit the US. They also get to improve their centrifuge technology so that when they are ready to put the pieces of their nuke program together in about a decade, they will have a formidable arsenal in fairly short order. One nuclear weapon is of little use. A few dozen with delivery capability can be devastating.

          1. They also get a buncha ton-a money to spend on weapons development and the freedom to import technical advice from Russia and China.

            See — nothing to worry ’bout!

            Besides, as Obama has pointed out, he’s still a relatively young man and will be around for years, and the Ayatollahs won’t want to embarrass him.

        2. As I understand it, most of the disaster planning assumes that even if the nuke attacks get incredibly lucky, the real damage will be from the panic caused. Most of the deaths, definitely.

          1. Foxfier, in Clancy’s Red Storm Rising, the East Germans are worried about what the Russians plan in the way of WMD; Clancy quotes a Rand study that said it would actually be better for the Germans to get hit by a couple hundred nukes than saturation level chemical attack with persistent agents: the effects would pass quicker, the chemical agents would do more damage to water and soil, to the extent that crops would no linger grow because the soil bacteria, etc. would have a higher mortality with chemicals. I went looking for anything published on that (it’s amazing what you can find when you’re living in Montgomery with the Air War College) and found several indicators he was right.

            PS: Em, this was in the 90s when I didn’t have a wife or a puppy to keep me unbored… 😎

            1. That makes me very happy that there are now several companies looking into “bio-fertilizers”— they’re trying to organize the soil bacteria for desired effects.

              1. … trying to organize the soil bacteria for desired effects

                Sounds like the AFL-CIO speakers I saw on this evening’s news, spreading [fertilizer] and trying to organize the germs.

        3. “Truthfully I don’t think we’ll be the next to use nukes in anger.” The next to use nuclear weapons in “anger” will be Israel or the United States. Communist first use doctrine was pretty clear. If at any point they thought they could win a nuclear war, they would start one. They never thought they could win. That use wouldn’t be in anger. When the islamocrazies obtain the bomb- they WILL use it. And it won’t be in anger. It will be because that’s what they do. Pakistan hasn’t used the bomb because their bombs since developed have been under command and control of people who by Western standards are more or less sane. If they have a Khomeni style revolution there, all bets are off as to what happens to their arsenal.

    4. At this point, you wouldn’t need to make glass parking lots to destroy Iran. First, guided iron bombs on every building that looks like a mosque. On Friday. At evening service. Then, a big bomb or more then one if needed, at the base of every dam. And a few on every known electrical generating station. Then, destroy every bridge. After that, send routine patrols out to bomb/strafe everything moving with wheels and a motor, or anything that looks like a generating station. Forever. That would send them back to the stone age. Actually taking over territory would require boots on the ground, and we don’t need any more non-contiguous territory.

      So announce to all neighboring nations: “Iran no longer exists. Take over the parts you want, and please, don’t fight about it. Let us know which parts you take over.” Let them do the work of cleaning up.

      1. You are forgetting the most important part of any modern sized large (100k-1m+) metropolitan area. Especially ones in a desert. The water and sewer treatment plants. Take out the water plants and in a couple days there will be no clean water and everyone will be up to their ankles in crap. Pestilence will take them out faster then anything else at that point.

        1. Knocking out electricity would make them non-functional, but might as well take them out also. Would keep portable generators from bringing them back on line.

    5. I have to wonder if it would take nukes? Considering the friction between an awful lot of the Iranian people and the government, conventional strikes in the right places(take out command points, transportation points, military and police organizing points, say) might well do the job.

      Of course, either course would require a President who
      Actually cares about this country,
      Actually cares about the west in general,
      Actually wants to win.

      1. The IRGC is pretty dispersed, and the Mullahs had European tunnel borer firms do a bunch of really really deep tunnels after Gulf War I, when Saddam’s “deep” bunkers got so easily zapped.

        While the US is working on rocket boosted deep penetrators that could in theory go that deep when dropped from a B-2, only warheads delivered at suborbital velocities have the kinetic punch for certain to take out really very deep bunker targets, and the last time the weapons development folks tried to propose putting conventional warheads on ICBMs the left had a cow. And they actually had a point: Phoning up the Russians and Chinese and convincing them that “Those ICBMs they currently see popping up over the horizon and pssing overhead are conventionally armed and headed for Tehran, don’t worry, be happy” could be a problematic conversation.

        Unless there are black programs that are currently putting conventionaly penetrators on US SLBMs, a decapitation strike on the Mullahs means nukes.

        1. What I was told, the deep bunker busters are Trident missiles with the third stage removed. Launch from a couple hundred miles off the coast. First stage takes it up to ~50 miles up, then noses over and second stage fires, building a tremendous velocity. By the time the warhead reaches the deep bunkers, it is mostly plasma.

          1. I know they used old, worn, tank and heavy artillery barrels for some of the deep pen stuff. When it gets that deep it doesn’t really need a charge to do a lot of damage. just getting there does a lot in itself.
            Then there is a double hit, MOAB the spot to loosen it up, Then start with the deep pen stuff

        2. That it basically the same reason the Soviet Union didn’t spend too much effort on strictly EMP weapons. Initial effects are the same as a nuke so we would respond the same, therefore, might as well just use a nuke.

        3. The thing is that you don’t actually need to penetrate their tunnels if you’re in control of the surface.

          A few C-130s full of quick-setting concrete poured into the tunnel entrances and

          Problem. Solved. Enjoy the rest of your exciting life, dudes. Say hello to the 12th Imam if he happens to be down there with you.

      2. Yes – the one revolution that we should have gotten involved in is the one that our beloved leader *sarcasm* refused to help.

      3. There are a lot og good people out there too. Instead of killing the good with the bad, just take out their ‘government’. Timing the strike for their next general assembly meeting would allow others to form a new government, Maybe one not so awful. If not, just repeat till they do.

        1. When they start taking out US cities, the proper response is, “better safe than sorry.” The only way we are ever going to create peace in Iran is the same way the Mongols did. There is a reason it isn’t called Persia any more. The peace the Mongols created in the region outlasted the Mongol empire, I for one would be satisfied with that. When they pledge to destroy your homeland and your people, you don’t worry about taking out a few good with the bad, you just make sure you get all the bad.
          This is the way they think, and it is the only thing they will understand.

          1. I’ll cry no tears if Iran becomes a glass crater. If one of our cities gets nuked I think that all bets will be off and we will kick the shit out of everyone involved.

    6. Of course when the monsters write the history books they’ll be tagged as the bad guys anyway.

      When? WHEN?? It Is Already HAPPENING.

      Colleges brainwash students into believing 9/11 was our fault
      By Paul Sperry
      Not all of us will be mourning 9/11 victims and their families this Friday on the 14th anniversary of the attacks. Hundreds of college kids across the country will instead be taught to sympathize with the terrorists.

      That’s because their America-hating leftist professors are systematically indoctrinating them into believing it’s all our fault, that the US deserved punishment for “imperialism” — and the kids are too young to remember or understand what really happened that horrific day.

      Case in point is a freshman-level English class taught at several major universities across the country called “The Literature of 9/11” — which focuses almost entirely on writings from the perspective of the Islamic terrorists, rather than the nearly 3,000 Americans who were slaughtered by them.

      The syllabus, which includes books like “The Reluctant Fundamentalist” and “Poems from Guantanamo: Detainees Speak,” portray terrorists as “freedom fighters” driven by oppressive US foreign policies.

      Even highly ranked University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has adopted the curriculum. The 9/11 seminar is taught by UNC associate English professor Neel Ahuja, who specializes in “post-colonial studies.”

      In Ahuja’s twisted worldview, al Qaeda terrorists are the real victims. “Abu Zubaydah’s torture may be interpreted as simply one more example of the necropower of US imperialism, the power to coerce and kill targeted populations,” Ahuja recently wrote in an academic paper criticizing the war on terror.

      He says America’s depiction of the 9/11 terrorists as “monsters” is merely an attempt to “animalize” them as insects and justify “squashing” them in “a fantasy of justice.”

      This colonialist “construct” of an “animalized enemy,” he added, “dovetails with the work of mourning the nation after 9/11 (which in the logic of security must be made perpetual, melancholic).” To him, it’s all cynically designed to justify more “imperial violence” against “Muslim, Arab and South Asian men.”

      Ahuja goes on to decry the US “colonization” of Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan, along with “aerial bombing (and) indefinite detention” of al Qaeda terrorists at Gitmo. In other writings, the professor bashes Israel and sides with Palestinian terrorists, further revealing his agenda.

      He clearly has an ax to grind, which critics say the university gives him license to exercise through “The Literature of 9/11” curriculum.

      A group of concerned UNC students has complained to administrators that the 9/11 course, also taught at the University of Maryland and other campuses, is being used to brainwash impressionable underclassmen.

      “These readings offer points of view that justify terrorism, paint the United States and its government as wholly evil and immoral and desecrate the memory of the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks,” the UNC College Republicans said in a recent letter to Chancellor Carol Folt.

      “There is not a single reading required that focuses on the lives of the victims, the victim’s [sic] families, American soldiers (or) families of American soldiers,” they added. “Nor is there a perspective that portrays the United States as acting in good faith before, during and after the Sept. 11 attacks.”

      The course, moreover, “does not teach students how to think, it teaches them what to think,” the letter continued. “And the material it presents is an apologetic for the violence and murder against the United States.”

      The university replied that freshmen should be exposed to differing points of view, even radical ones.


      1. The university replied that freshmen should be exposed to differing points of view, even radical ones.

        My first thought: answer back, “Would you please put that in writing so I can quote you on that?” Then when they show obvious discomfort at the idea, press them on why they don’t actually believe what they just said: did they just lie to you?

        Or, if they double down and put it down in writing (or if the exchange was in writing in the first place), then you quote them. Loudly, and often. Every time a conservative speaker gets accused of being a “radical anti-feminist”, you tell them that the university administration believes “that freshmen should be exposed to differing points of view, even radical ones.” Repeat that quote over, and over, and over. Shove it down their lying throats in a way they never intended, but that they can’t get away from.

        1. “Explain, in 300 words or less, how this ‘exposure to differing points of view’ and the concept of ‘safe spaces’ where some concepts are not allowed to be spoken are possible in the same universe.”

        1. Aren’t you the guy with the necromancers? You should know! *fangirl grin* Now when exactly the USA got necromancers is a really good question . . .

    7. An ex-Iranian colleague of mine (family fled w/ the Shah) suggested you’d just need one blockbuster bomb. He explained that the Iranian ruling class is really very much like us (not, our ruling class, but maybe a largish town in flyover country) in that there is one particularly old, venerated mosque where every Friday the movers and shakers almost all go for prayers to be seen being super-faithful and to look at who else is there and gossip about who did what and did you see so-and-so’s third wife… If you want to be someone, you make sure you are seen at that mosque on Friday. So we sail a stealth bomber over and right in the middle of their see and be seen ‘prayer meeting’ and blow the whole thing to gravel. Maybe drop a follow on just to make the point. This would, he pointed out, eliminate 90+% of the ruling class in one instant and make the point to everyone who just got promoted that we aren’t playing by the rules printed on the inside of the box-top anymore… anything goes if you get on our $#!? list. It would probably save millions of lives… all we have to do is be willing to blow up one building that we aren’t supposed to be willing to blow up.

  2. Rather than “go fish” my preference would be for FOAD!
    These smarmy bastards have proven for historical record that they are perfectly willing to destroy a fine honorable award rather than share with the common folk. They took the awards over when no one was paying attention, used them as their own personal chew toy, then got all defensive and butt hurt when their perfidy was called to account.
    For me the Hugos died the night of that horrible ceremony. But then they had been on life support for years, losing what prestige they had from the back room manipulations of those every so literary leftist mutual admiration society clowns.
    I will be delighted to serve as minion to the unholy triumvirate of bitchy broads who have most generously offered to head up Sad Puppies 4, but I cannot see it as a salvation of the Hugo awards, but rather as a chance to let the other side go even further batshit crazy with their efforts. For that is the real goal in my book, to expose that sorry bunch to the bright light of day for all the rest of the world to see. Such exposure will utterly destroy them in the view of public opinion, which after all is what they most desperately strive for, accolades from the public whom they otherwise hold in such low regard.
    I would council that fighting them over nits is an effort in futility. For every one we counter they will come up with ten more, and it does not matter to them in the slightest whether those small insignificant errors come from actual statements by us or from straw men they create.
    Final thought, screen caps are our friend. Document everything. Video and audio records of any real world encounters at cons or other public venue. Do know the local laws on recordings and obey them.
    And most important, do not let this consume you. Play whack a troll as your hobby for a break from real friends, family, and work. Live your lives for all you’re worth and let hate consume the other side while we have fun with it all.

      1. Somebody should create a game like that, featuring trolls with the likeness of John Scalzi*, GRRM*, etc., and release it at a con they’re guests at.

        1. Troll is too easy a term for the enemy to use against us. Let’s have a game where we beat up CHORFs or SJWs instead.

    1. “let the other side go even further batshit crazy with their efforts.”

      Yeah, pretty much this. And it is a worthy goal – exposing them.

      It does break my heart about losing the Hugo, though. Maybe WorldCon needs a special low “get involved with the Hugos” membership rate, like maybe $25 per person – with a caveat that no more than a limited number of memberships can be sold to any one person, to prevent mass block votes being purchased *cough* Chicom Mary *cough*

      1. To be fair, the “scholarships” were done on a lottery of everyone who put their name in the ring and would seem to have been fairly drawn thoughh in all likelihood, most of those who put their names in were anti-puppy. However, I got one.

          1. Nothing really. But the fact was that at least one of the “purchased” votes wasn’t a supporter of the anti-puppies. For all I know many of that block of 100 votes wasn’t.

            So just a fact to throw into the mix, not that it really changes things overall, but still.

      2. Any other Rodgers & Hammerstein fans out there?

        I can fit “Chicom Mary” to this lyric but … I think I’ve used too heavy a pry-bar.

        Chicom Mary is the girl Hugo loves.
        Chicom Mary is the girl Hugo loves.
        Chicom Mary is the girl Hugo loves.
        Now ain’t that too damn bad!

        Her stories are tender as Dimaggio’s glove.
        Her stories are tender as Dimaggio’s glove.
        Her stories are tender as Dimaggio’s glove.
        Now ain’t that too damn bad!

        Chicom Mary’s chewin’ Scalzi’s nuts.
        She is always chewin’ Scalzi’s nuts.
        Chicom Mary’s chewin’ Scalzi’s nuts.
        And she don’t use Pepsodent!

        Chicom Mary is the girl Hugo loves.
        Chicom Mary is the girl Hugo loves.
        Chicom Mary is the girl Hugo loves.
        Now ain’t that too damn bad!
        Now ain’t that too damn bad!

    1. Not if I get it first. It is sad to know that not everyone likes springerli or licorice tea or roasted fennel, but I am too busy eating to cry.

      Of course, the real depths of licorice liking is when you discover that although the taste of “salty licorice” is appalling and belongs in a chem lab, you still like and crave it.

      1. Ah, the peculiar experience of the salt that is not sodium chloride (table salt), nor potassium chloride (“light” salt), nor calcium chloride (road salt, or pickling salt at times), but – ready folks? – ammonium chloride. And if you make the mistake of chewing it, it sticks to the teeth as the fumes exude and you get the experience of exhaling ammonia fumes. It is rather much.

        However, I do try to have some “double salt licorice” around. Let it dissolve slowly and it’s alright – and clears the sinuses as well as anything that isn’t kept behind the counter.

    2. Nothing personal but y’all are nutz. Licorice is how the Most High keeps me from eating jelly beans – the fear of finding one that’s been re-colored. I’m expecting lemon and ARRRGH!

        1. I am amused by the implicit admission that Dumbledore knows what ear wax tastes like, else how did he recognize it?

            1. It isn’t that he did it, it is that he admitted doing it (if only by indirection.)

              That is why it is a great line.

        2. My favorite Dumbledore line ever.

          And our spellchecker recognizes “Dumbledore”. 😀

          1. It’s a real, though somewhat obscure English word meaning bumblebee.

            He battled with the Dumbledores,
            The Hummerhorns, and Honeybees,
            And won the Golden Honeycomb,
            And running home on sunny seas,
            In ship of leaves and gossamer,
            With blossom for a canopy,
            He sat and sang, and furbished up,
            And burnished up his panoply.

        1. I personally find the “pina colada” flavor more than a little dismaying.

          Bourbon, Rum, Scotch, Margarita, Daiquiri — sure; even single malt would be okay, but “pina colada” is wrong in so many ways …

  3. Who knew that so many people would be trapped in junior high school for the rest of their lives? Yet it is a consistent historical pattern, as you point out Sarah, not just over the Hugos.

    I grew up in a household that moved every couple of years. One of the adaptive strategies I saw were kids quickly identifying a group and joining. As the kids got older, their groups became constrained by previous choices. I, however, was odd even then. I had no group. I was just me, take it or leave it, so the “Here I stand . . .” is pretty ingrained at this point. So is my “don’t give a dang what you think” muscle which makes it harder to bully me.

    The next tactic that the overgrown adolescents will try is to attack those close to you. That apparently happened at Worldcon this year with John C Wright’s wife, the talented L Jagi Lamplighter. All targets are fair game, from their perspective, because they represent the righteous (I deliberately use the religious connotation) forces of true believers.

    Expect the worst. Multiple it. That might get you to the right order of magnitude for the nastiness to come. Be resolute.

    And yes, I understand it’s easy for me to say. I don’t write in the genres.So, to those with skin in the game, you have my respect.

    1. If Patrick Nielsen Hayden wants to be a classless fool, let him. The shame is his, not those he attacks. In time, people will see him for what he is.

    2. In HS, I was not part of any group. I was, intellectually, top 10% of a class of 52. *Now,* I’m considered “respectable.” 🙂 I had morals and standards of behavior I was expected to meet, by my parents, which was why.

  4. It’s been said before but deserved repeating.

    “If we were as bad as they claim, they’d be dead.”

    There are times when “being bad” looks very good. They deserve to receive a heck of lot more than they are really getting. [Frown]

    1. Later Miles Vorkosigan:

      “Do you really believe I would do such a thing?

      “Yes, I do!”

      “Then why are you still standing in my way?”

  5. And that is why Trump drives the left crazy. Also why so many on the right root for him. His policies matter less to the majority of his supporters than that he refuses to let them get away with their weaponized empathy.
    “You called women dogs!”
    “Only Rosie O’Donnell!”
    “But you’re rich!”
    “I sure am, ain’t I?”

    1. Exactly – Trump hands it back with interest, while the organized left (especially in the Establishment Media) have become accustomed to conservative candidates essentially caving in and sniveling apologies. Trump does not give a flying …. whatever.

      1. Trump is on the left, and is using their style of tactics while pretending to be a centrist. It is fooling a lot of people who should effing know better (I’m looking at you Gateway!) and are ignoring the lack of real right leaning stances he has, and where those stances he does hold are located (gun control, Eminent Domain, Single payer health care).

        1. All very likely to be true – but he is performing a useful service in demonstrating that actually speaking plainly and about the issues that ordinary people are concerned about, and in not mincing his words or backing down — has an up-side for those potential non establishment GOP nominees.
          I hope that they are taking the lesson to heart. As Lincoln is said about Grant, when someone complained to him that he was a drunkard — Then send a barrel of whatever he drinks to my other generals.

            1. My personal comfort is — in that case, how could he possibly worse that what we have already.
              Thin comfort I know — but how could The Donald possibly worse that what we have already.

                1. Think appointments. While I am sure whoever the Donald appoints to the SCOTUS will be FABULOUS I have my doubts he or shee will have read the Constitution. Given his family’s track record Jeb! will probably be under a greater level of scrutiny there.

                  I am not sure I want to find out who the Donald wants to appoint as Secretary of the Interior.

                  1. since when has knowledge of the COTUS been a requirement to be seated on the SCOTUS? Seems lately it has been a requirement to not know a damned thing about it, or a willingness to ignore it outright (I’m looking at you, Roberts, you fool). After all 0bama is a “Constitutional Scholar” but really he hates everything about it.

                    1. For all that Roberts deserves the scorn, he at least tries to look like he is following the Constitution unlike at least four of the other black robes. They don’t even try to look as if their opinions are controlled by the Constitution.

                    2. Roberts has now voted that even though he thinks the law(the last 0care ruling) is against the COTUS, he will let it stand because … I don’t know, something effing stupid. You could about see the flecks of spittle from Tomas and Scalia in their statements. Made me want to punch him in the face

                    3. Every rumor I’ve heard is that it involves his two children who were adopted overseas. There was something irregular / apparently irregular about the process, or it involves a foreign government that will claim those irregularities as a quid pro quo for Obama or his backers. They are of a nature that the adoption could be revoked and the kids returned.

                  1. Has anybody taken a look at Jeb’s court appointments in Florida? Since he has a track record it might be worth investigation. According to Ballotpedia he had no state Supreme Court appointees but there are plenty of lower courts, where each appointed judge “must run for retention at the appellate level or election at the trial court level in the next general election after one year in office.”

                    There is a screening process by a judicial nominating commission to determine the recommendations list, so the governor’s whims might effectively be limited, reducing the utility of this track record.

                    1. Ballotpedia offers a position map …

                      … placing Jeb solidly in the “Right Conservative” quadrant. As always with such things, readers should perform their own examination of determining criteria, which can be found at ballotpedia[DOT]org/Jeb_Bush

                    2. CONTRADICTING Ballotpedia is this link procaliming Governor Bush’s appointment of the first (Florida?) Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, Raoul G. Cantero, III who retired six years later, citing his family’s preference to live in Miami.

                      The wiki list of Florida Supreme Court Justices list two others appointed by Bush, one retired and one apparently a joint appointment of a justice with his predecessor, Lawton Chiles:

                      [Peggy] Quince is the only Supreme Court Justice in Florida history to be appointed simultaneously by more than one Governor. Because her term began the exact moment that Governor-elect Jeb Bush assumed his office, in order to avoid potential future controversy over her appointment, Bush worked out a joint agreement with lame duck Governor Lawton Chiles whereby they both agreed upon and jointly announced Quince’s appointment in December 1998. When Chiles died of a heart attack a few days later, the task of signing Quince’s commission to office fell to Chiles’ temporary successor, Governor Buddy MacKay. Thus, three Governors were involved in Quince’s appointment.

                2. one reason to support Jeb, when the words are spoken “President-elect Bush” Jon Stewards head will explode!!!!

              1. Since Jeb has already started telling lies in English and his real no border plans in Spanish, I don’t trust him any more than various Islamic terrorist leaders like Abbas who do the same thing, but in Arabic instead of Spanish.

          1. My problem with Trump isn’t what he is saying now, while he is campaigning, I have a few problems with some of what he is saying, but most of it isn’t bad. My problem with him is, I don’t BELIEVE anything he says.

              1. Politicians campaign positions aren’t worth a tinker’s cuss. Remember, “Read my lips, no new taxes!”, or how about the famous I don’t believe in gay marriage stuff from both Hill & Barry. Those of us who listened to what Barry said when not speechifying took notes. The war against coal was not unannounced, just not announced too loudly, etc. The advantage of Trump is that he’s a stink bomb to p******** c*********, or communist propaganda to use the proper term–things should be called what they are. The problem with Trump is he intends to act just as lawlessly as our current president with just as much utter disregard for constitutional niceties.

            1. And this would make him different from anyone except possibly Cruz, Walker, Perry, Jindal, how? At least this will be the FIRST time he’s lied to us; the rest of the RINOs have a 20 year head start.

      2. In many ways it does not matter whether Trump wins the Republican nomination, and then the presidency. As is often observed, culture drives politics and not the reverse. And Trump is doing massive damage to the cultural pretensions of the left.

        Trump’s shown that a candidate can ignore the now cliched trajectory of “say something someone finds offensive”, “issue non-apology apology”, “issue more sincere sounding apology”, “go on Oprah/Stewart/Leno/etc. and grovel”, “fade into relative obscurity with a comfortably lobbying job”. Everyday he’s demonstrating that if you don’t grovel to every offended special interest group—nothing happens. He’s showing that the media’s power to make and break political candidates is hollow.

        The man has all the right enemies and is running on the platform of “Make American Great Again”. While I’d rather have Rand Paul or Ted Cruz as a Republican nominee, I’m not going to stress if Trump wins. He will be a lot better than who we have in the White House now. Most of the Republicans running would be—except for Huckabee and Santorum (right wing SJWs) and Graham and Christie (barely even RINOs).

    2. I wish that were so. Actually the Left (in the person of Bill Clinton) ASKED Trump to run, because he will “spoil” the GOP candidate just like Perot did. At least if he goes on as an independent.

      The other reason the Left loves Trump is that he is not only corrupt, he brags about having purchased influence on the Hill. So you can be sure he won’t do a thing to stop the practice, and so will play right into the hands of Democrats like Warren and Sanders who have always railed about the corruption on the Right (and ignored that on the Left).

      There are 4 or 5 worthwhile GOP candidates this year, and absolutely no excuse for giving the nomination to the biggest stuffed shirt known to man.

      1. You are certaily correct that this obviously was the Clinton’s Clever Plan, but look at what has happened: Instead of peeling off a fraction of the electorate as Ross did, Trump is gaining significant traction and support across the fed-up right while also drawing solid numbers from the D side, and he consistently reads out as being easily able to beat The Dowager Empress of Chappaqua in the final matchup.

        The possibility of Trump actually double-crossing Bill&Hill on the set-piece political puppet show they were planning and grabbing the Ring of Power for himself would feed The Donald’s gigantonourmous ego even more than being Bill’s Secret Stalking Horse.

        Bill’s forgotten one of the primary rules of skullduggery: Never discount the self interest of your assets.

        Unless Bill has a secret bit of damaging info as a failsafe that he can make public to stop The Donald, Bill may have lost the reigns on this stalking horse.

        1. if Hillary implodes enough to drop out, don’t be shocked to see Trump drop out if it gets close with any other R and he won’t go third ticket. If she manages to get the Nom, He stays to the end, and goes third if not nominated. Thing is, I think 0bama would love to add her scalp to his legacy.

        2. IIRC the GOP have gotten the Trump to publicly promise to support the GOP candidate and *not* go Third Party.

          While the Trump’s ego might be pushing him to become President, being the Kingmaker might satisfy his ego.

          Of course, by supporting the GOP candidate, he might “get” the new GOP President’s private phone number. He could see that as something to shoot for.

          1. And this promise by Trump not to run Third Party is worth what exactly? What does he lose by breaking it? Most of his support appears to be precisely from people happy that he is sticking it to the Political Class. If the GOP nominates some establishment greysuit, Trump has every reason to start pissing on the greysuit and run anyway.

            1. It’s worth as much as the typical GOP candidate’s promise to reduce the size and scope of government. I called into Erik Erikson’s (of Red State fame) show the day Trump signed the pledge. He was discussing the other GOP candidates complaining how much press trump got for it.

              I suggested if I GOP candidate wanted to get press how about signing a pledge not to create a new entitlement like Medicare Part D (unlike the last GOP president), further federalize a state or local function the way No Child Left Behind did (unlike the last GOP president), or sign budgets and appropriations for then record levels of federal spending and debt (unlike the last GOP president), and to see an annual reduction, not increase in the size of the federal register (unlike the last GOP president).

              Note, my pledge didn’t include pledging to eliminate a single federal program, or to cut the budget in nominal dollars (a spending freeze would be nominal nominal dollar cuts). I just wanted nothing to increase.

              That is, a GOP candidate could make a splash just pledging to govern as a moderate at best GOP candidate and not too far from a moderate Democrat candidate. If it included language about vetoing any of the above even from a GOP Congress it would probably be enough to end Trump’s rise.

              This is too much to ask and that tells you all you need to know about why Trump, despite all the issue Richard McEnroe brings up, continues to rise.

        3. We already know that Trump villifies his ex-wives, screws his contractors, tries to use the state to throw old women into the street so he can build his FAILED casino and boasts about buying political influence. What else can Clinton have on him?

            1. Live boys no problemo in Oregon (a very blue state down the Willamette Valley, outnumbering the rest of the state)–see Terry Bean.

          1. And destroys small business. He’s the one turning the Old Post Office Pavilion in DC into a high-class hotel. Naturally the food court and the souvenir shops are gone.

            1. It’s called capitalism and free enterprise. That whole “creative destruction” thing, which is sometimes messy.

                1. true, there also organizations who fight torture in any form, and I would hope having to vote that way is up there with electro shock, and mutilation on their lists of heinous crimes

            1. Quite possibly to the right of Jeb and Kasich as well. Not to mention Lindsey Graham.

              Hey, I’m enjoying the heck out of it.
              The powerbase of the GOP deliberately set up the primaries to deliver the nomination to a squishy charlatan with the highest name recognition and the most media exposure.
              I’ve been fighting it for decades, and watching them hoist on their own petard has epic levels of scheffenfreude.
              Even better, the distraction has kept them from consolidating fire on the conservative candidates. (Although they managed to sideline Jindal and Perry, and I think they’ve done fatal damage to Walker’s campaign. Which mainly leaves… Cruz. Who gains every time Jeb attacks Trump for not being “a real conservative”. More scheffenfreude to wallow in!)

              Best case, we get Cruz.
              Worst case, Trump is a more entertaining charlatan the Jeb, and is only likely (rather than certain) to stab us in the back. While necessarily destroying the core of the GOP that’s fought against conservatives much harder and more consistently that the Democrats ever have.
              That’s win-win.

                1. Quite probably, on the plus side, he is rather young (47). Currently the Republicans seem to have fair number of viable candidates that should be around for the next decade or two while the Democrats don’t seem to have anyone who isn’t a long term AARP member.

                  1. I would have put Cruz and Paul above Walker, but part of that is because other than the fact he has a backbone, and is smart enough to balance a checkbook (both of which put him ahead of 95% of politicians) I’ve never heard much of anything about his positions on different subjects.

                    1. Prefer Governors over Senators for experience reasons, and Rand is too much his Dad to be high up the list when we get to dealing with the rest of the planet, but he is still way up compared to others.

  6. One of my ex’s had weaponized empathy, she could turn the tears on or off at a moment’s notice, and I leaned from her, that a lot of women can (and do) do it.
    In her favor, she wasn’t the type to use it to hurt people, she usually just used it in situations where someone was trying to take advantage of her. (or at least that’s all I ever saw or head of).
    But I have learned that so many people, when they cry, are just crying to get sympathy, or their way. So I’m no longer moved by it as I was when I was a younger man.

    1. To be honest, sometimes it’s communication. The words “I’m upset” don’t always work because if you’re calm, how can you claim to be upset?

      1. While my husband and child both know that a dead-flat “I am upset” is a signal to drop everything you’re doing and run like all hell and part of Berkeley. 🙂

  7. We are WrongFans having WrongFun
    And that’s all they need to know
    To No Award our nominations
    on the ballot of the Hugo.

    Don’t believe a word they say.
    The Puppy Kickers are full of lies.
    We all know the real truth,
    They’re Marxists in disguise.

    They claim we are a band of racists,
    And that we dislike strong chicks,
    And that we hate all gays,
    And that we’re redneck hicks.

    It’s all a distraction you see.
    Puppy Kickers tell vicious lies.
    To keep you from seeing,
    They’re commies in disguise.

    As for the topic of diversity,
    The Sad Puppies are quite diverse,
    With women and minorities.
    Puppy Kickers are the reverse.

    It’s all a spectacle you see.
    Puppy Kickers tell their lies.
    To keep you from seeing,
    They’re red fascists in disguise.

    The Hugo winners they usually select
    They’re as pasty white as me.
    But they claim they are diverse,
    Because they have a leftist pedigree.

    (I elect not to keep rhyming right now. Maybe more later.)

    1. They claim we are a band of racists,
      And that we dislike strong chicks,

      That is why John Ringo’s Black Tide Rising series has done so poorly — too many strong chicks. Also, minorities.

      (Well, and the SJWs identify with the Zombies, but they won’t acknowledge that.)

      Is it Hugo qualified for next awards? Maybe we could get somebody cosplaying Faith in full battle-rattle to accept the award on Ringo’s behalf?

      1. I Like It!

        However, I believe John Ringo isn’t interested in getting a Hugo. He’s annoyed that Jim Baen never got one.

  8. When encountering such people, I find it helpful to recall their resemblance to others who, not knowing my affiliations, cheerfully and nicely laid out how they wanted to kill me and mine. The vast majority of such people imagined themselves having the moral high ground and were widely viewed as compassionate of one type or another.

    Those who want to be treated as potentially decent human beings have to meaningfully separate themselves from those who want to kill me.

  9. I like to respond to these sorts of provocations with something like “There is no Ruth at this address. We’re all out of Ruth. You should keep that in mind next time.”

    It has the added advantage of confusing their addled little minds, while being a valid warning for the future.

  10. On a related note, I was reading an article to my husband about this week’s NASCAR race at Darlington. It’s the Southern 500, and they are using retro logos and paint schemes to recreate the old days of racing at Darlington. Unfortunately for NASCAR, part of the “old days” is rebel flags every-damn-where.

    I read the article to Hubby and told him that I have never in my life wanted a Confederate flag. I live in the South, and I would never buy anything with that flag, regardless of how nice it was otherwise. But you see, I am not just a Usaian. I am also a Contrarian. Tell me I can’t have something, and I just want it more.

    They told me I can’t have a voice in the Hugo. Well they can kiss my asterisk – I will be a voting member of the con until Larry, Brad, Sarah, Toni, Tom, and everyone else has a Hugo, or has lost one fairly. I will be a Sad Puppy until the only thing threatening Puppy Related Sadness is a shortage of kibble.

    In the words of my Grandma Witch – so there!

    1. I never had any desire to flaunt a lot of things, but the more Certain People say “yew can’t do that, it will hurt someone’s feeEEEEElllz!!!” The more I want to put, oh, the Stars-n-Bars, Gadsden Flag, a COEXIST sticker made from firearms logos, and a “Stop the ERA” sticker on my vehicle. Preferable beside a “Free Tibet!* *With any small-arms purchase. Some restrictions may apply” sticker.

      I may have to settle on “Save the Whales! Collect the whole set!”

      1. I likee the one I had a few cars ago with the Preamble to the Constitution in the background, and the text read “All Rights Reserved”. It was on on side of the rear bumper and on the other was this one: “An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject.”

        I’m sure I worried a lot of folks behind me, given that I’m in Connecticut. 😀

          1. I like to point out that when the Bill of Rights was written, most artillery was privately owned. How do the leftoids figure it meant only militias could own arms? Willful ignorance and rewrites of history

            1. Not just individual artillery pieces, but fully-armed and crewed ships of war capable of bombarding, looting, and burning an entire town.

              Privateer was a recognized (if not especially respectable) profession.

              Interestingly, the United States is one of the few countries that never signed the international treaty forbidding privateering, and the Constitution still grants Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal.

              1. “Interestingly, the United States is one of the few countries that never signed the international treaty forbidding privateering, and the Constitution still grants Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal.”

                Maybe we need to concentrate on electing Congresscritters who will issue them. I’m not sure exactly what a full oil tanker is worth, but I’m sure it would pay.

                1. Well, IIRC when “privateers” were commonly used, it was an act of war for a privateer to capture a merchant ship of a nation which you weren’t already at war with.

                  That it is, if France and England were officially at peace, a French privateer better not attack/capture an English merchant ship.

                  If France was “lucky”, the English Royal Navy would just treat the privateer as a pirate.

                  If France was serious about keeping the peace, France would treat the privateer as a pirate.

                  In some ways, having Congress issue “letters of marque and reprisal” is a cool idea, but it would be better if Congress (and the President) declared that a “state of war” exists first. [Smile]

                2. From some quick googling, the ship would be worth $50-$100 million (surprisingly cheap for a vessel of that size, but then again, it’s basically just a big empty tank), and would carry somewhere around $50-150 million worth of oil.

                3. I’ve heard several proposals to issue those for the Rio Grande and other bodies of water along the Texas border; the business model is to sell “cartel safaris”.

              2. there was a movement to allow Letters to deal with the piracy problem, especially off east Africa, but they included Caribbean and Indonesian waters in the request.
                State of course was against it. Said it made the govt.s of those areas look like they were unable to handle the problem … yeah, I though all the effin piracy was already proving that they couldn’t.

              3. “Not just individual artillery pieces, but fully-armed and crewed ships of war…Privateer was a recognized…profession.”
                I believe you had to get a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, formal authorization from the government. Otherwise you were just a pirate.

                1. That was only required if you wanted to *practice* the profession. There were a lot of heavily armed civilian ships. Most of them were just carrying them for self defense. Until you actually *used* them on somebody, no one cared.

                  Bannerman’s catalog at the turn of the (Twentieth) century offered 1-inch Gatling guns, and suggested it as a deck gun for “adventurous yachtsmen”…

      2. For the longest time, I have wanted to create a “Free Tibet! With purchase of Mainland China” to hint that, while the Chinese may be oppressing Tibet, they are also oppressing China; and if we could free China, then Tibet ought to follow…

      3. A friend made up a bunch of “Flee Tibet the Chicom’s suck” bumper stickers and pasted them over the top of “Free Tibet” bumper stickers. I might still have one around to go with your collection of kind bumper stickers.

  11. My views on the current clusterfuck that is Europe are here: http://phantomsoapbox.blogspot.ca/2015/09/we-wont-be-taken-to-camps-uh-yeah-you.html
    and here:

    In the first one I predict there will be death marches, in the second one the next day there’s an actual death march.

    For those not in the know, there’s a death march every stinking day that goes from Mexico across the southern border with New Mexico, Texas, Arizona and California. Those ‘migrants’ dumb enough to try the path from Nogales to Phoenix in summer often don’t make it. Minutemen and Border Patrol are finding a body or two every week, last I heard. Notice you are not seeing anything about this in the news, right? Doesn’t fit the narrative.

    This is all down to socialism. Barry is wearing every dead kid and old lady in the South West desert, because he could stop it with a phone call. Its a big necklace.

  12. I am surprised nobody has apparently mentioned this (I did a CTRL-F after reading the post; comments will come this evening) but Dr. Helen recently addressed this at her PJM blog in a post titled The Female Psychopath
    Verona (2006) found that young women who later develop the disorder show a more relational form of aggression characterized by jealousy, self-harm, manipulation, and verbal aggression.

    Other research has examined the importance of relational aggression among females, suggesting that women may display aggression differently than their male counterparts. Crick and Grotpeter (1996) studied relational aggression, also known as covert aggression, which is a type of aggression in which harm is caused by damaging someone’s relationships or social status—and it’s different from the type of aggression (typically, physical) that males show each other. Relational aggression tends to be more subtle and manipulative.
    RTWT – it’s short.

    1. And borderlines…

      Some of the stories I’ve heard are not too far from “Gone Girl” territory

    2. I think there’s a lot of mental illness among the whole SJW crew – I would be willing to bet that a huge proportion of them are on psyc meds of some kind, and I’ve seen the kind of damage long term exposure to those kinds of meds can do.

      1. Fail Burton/James May, who has done extensive analysis of SJW social media, attests to a certain amount of that.

        I’m not sure I trust his conclusions, as we disagree on a matter that is potentially related.

        It seems possible that many are young adults who develop a mood disorder, do not know how to manage it, and fall in with a crowd that is enabling rather than healthy.

        I’m also wondering if modern feminism is a toxic life philosophy for women. If it cultivates fear, and stifles confidence and risk management, one could end up dysfunctional, and want to look inside a bottle of pills for a cure.

        1. I’m inclined to agree with the “toxic” analysis. If I’d been allowed to wallow, rather than forced to cope and grow stronger, I’d probably have quit this vale of tears a decade or so ago. Now I can look back at my younger self and say, ‘They were right. It will pass. You will outlast the b*stards.”

        2. I think it’s more… man was not meant to be alone not being just about marriage. (Yeah, “love” isn’t just romantic. Lookit me, I can catch up with Disney’s animated movies with only a year or so lead.)

          Or, to rephrase: there are a lot of very lonely people, and if you’ve been lonely, and now aren’t, you’ll do a lot to be not-alone. Even if it’s pretty bad, at least it’s not alone.

          Use to be, people had a lot of family. My dad just came back from visiting a cousin, for example— while most folks my age hardly even know their cousins, and they for heaven’s sake don’t have them in the dozens, and didn’t grow up with tens of them in fairly easy distance!

          It doesn’t have to be a lot, but people need some sort of meaningful contact with others. We hunger for it.

          The most obvious example is girls in college doing Really Stupid Relationship Things. (Fill in examples for yourself, it’s hardly rare.)

          That’s one of the steps in the nasties’ plan– destroy the family. Do that, and you only have the state, goes the theory. Doesn’t work, because people organize sub-areas on their own…but that doesn’t mean that destroying the family doesn’t make people very vulnerable, so you’ve got an entire generation or three that’s as vulnerable as what use to only show up when someone had a bad family.

          1. This is one of the reasons I consider myself so blessed. Not only do I have a large and close-knit blood family, and them finally close by again, I also have kith among the Huns and a few others that I can rely on. I consider them all a divine gift. These are my tribe, these are my pack; they watch out for me, and I for them.

            As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk the Law runneth forward and back –
            For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.

          2. “The most obvious example is girls in college doing Really Stupid Relationship Things. (Fill in examples for yourself, it’s hardly rare.)”

            Girls don’t have a monopoly, or even a majority on that.

    3. Completely off topic, but the female form of psychopath is why I think women make the most eeeevil villains in stories. 🙂

      1. Was visiting my Mum this afternoon and while there an Elvis Presley movie came on; Elvis was trying to make time with this sweet young thing in her family living room; it was clear what he had in mind but the audience was left to surmise what led the lassie to invite Lothario in with her parents not home. Beloved Spouse and I discussed this after departing, concluding the movie was about “the male gaze” and her actions didn’t require explanation. This evening we watched Adult Swim’s Michiko & Hatchin — an anime series directed by a woman and largely from a female perspective.

        The thing is, many men are blind to female evil (comes, in part, of thinking with the wrong organ) while few women are blind to male evil. So a female villain is able to achieve a different sort of eeeevilness, in part by playing against (or subverting) the stereotype in a way no man can.

        It is also why historically we find many male villains played with a slight effeminacy.

  13. Sarah – I knew there was a reason I was drawn to your blog!! You said everything Ive tried to say myself to people in my own lame way. About the best I could describe is “a lot of the knives sticking out of my back were put there by my so-called ‘sisters’. Don’t call me a SISTER!”

    I heart this post.

  14. When I was in grade school, I got a lot of FlAK for my psychological problem (because children are evil little scum who think panic attacks are *hysterically* funny). I had three options open to me for dealing with this: Ignore it; snipe back at the same level; or be ten times worse in my response.

    When one of the more-persistent nuisances showed up, I tried ignoring him; he perceived this as weakness, and kept coming back.

    I then tried “equal and opposite force”; he would up the ante, so to speak, and be even more annoying.

    Finally, one day, he caught up with me in an isolated location.. and I Beat The Ever-Lovin’ Blue-Eyed Hell out of him. Knocked him unconscious; broke bones; and left enough bruises and open wounds, he left a puddle in the planter when someone finally located him. Not only did he never bother me again, a whole bunch of his butt-buddies also left me alone from then on. Hell, *teachers* would shy away from me — I had a note in my file saying “do not put this kid in class taught by [A; B; C…]”.

    I believe the lesson should be painfully obvious to even the thickest reader.

    This will not end until we stand on their ground, our flag raised above theirs, and their works despoiled and brought low, that we may rebuild upon them. The Romans may well have “made a desert, and called it peace”; but they then rebuilt those lands, and made them greater than ever their opponents did….

      1. Maxim 37. There is no ‘overkill.’ There is only ‘open fire’ and ‘I need to reload.’

    1. Beheading ISIS is not an appropriate response to their actions.

      Going Full Roman is: crucify one every five yards from Damascus to Jerusalem.

      Or you could go Full Vlad and save on nails.

      1. My Italian side tells me you are correct. Because selling a vanquished ISIS force into slavery would just raise too many hackles.

        1. Y’know, I was considering that, given their trafficking in sex slavery; “no lube an’ bugger ’em all” but then I considered the market for such goods and decided pest removal was the route.

          1. *Wry* You heard about why the Christian slaves are in such high demand, too, eh?

            I admit some pity for people so screwed up that they can trust a slave they horribly abuse more than they can trust their own family, just because the slave is Christian.

            I know Christianity is a pretty big deal that I’m mostly blind to because of the whole fish-describing-water thing, but… I really hope that’s converting some folks.

        1. Or use a noose. More environmentally friendly that way, you can reuse, don’t need to cut down lots of trees or manufacture bullets. See, we can tell the Left that hanging ISIS is a better option for the environment. Especially if we recycle the remains. Possibly to feed pigs or as fertilizer.

          (No, I don’t like ISIS. What makes you ask?)

      2. If we’re going to the effort of crucify then 1 in 5 just needs to be fought “to the pain” and sent back as a warning.

        1. The “hang them all” for Daesh provides the message, providing there are enough lamp posts left in Syria and Iraq.

          We would need a civil engineer to do an anlysis of how many we can reliably hang from one lamp post, so that info can be passed along with the rope to the local implementation teams, for which I think we’d have plenty of volunteers.

          We might need US foreign aid to install more lamp posts if not enough can be found undamaged in the area.

          Deatils, details…

          1. I guess I’m just at the point where crucifixion isn’t cruel enough. Sending the inhumanely maimed back to them start to get close.

    2. Interesting. I never did this because I figured I would spend life in prison (because I would get sent to prison for this, and once in prison I would do this to anyone else that messed with me and thus would be repeatedly charged until I ended up spending life in solitary confinement). Therefore I adopted extreme avoidance tactics. How did you avoid prison? (And yes I saw you said this was elementary school but still….)

  15. FWIW –

    Your closing can be expressed as “Don’t apologize”

    With NORMAL people, that you genuinely hurt, it’s a sign of willingness to mend things.

    With the SJW’s, they take it as a sign of weakness, that you can be further browbeaten, and that you have admitted GUILT.

    1. I also seem to remember the very first sad puppies receiving flack for not nominating a full slate? Might be my imagination but it floated up to the surface in the last week or so.

  16. Also – as you mentioned Sarah, they’re already complaining about it still being a “slate”

    No matter what we do, they’ll find something wrong.


    Because as Phil Sandifer put quite bluntly – “Politics is a form of quality you effin morons”

    1. Given Sandifer’s recent tweets… “Thank you, oh Lord, for making my enemies utterly ridiculous.”

    1. G. Gordon Liddy used to tell about a french roommate (IIRC) of his. Liddy asked why the French, with materially and numerically superior forces, collapsed in the face of the German attack.

      His roommate explained that growing up after the Great War French mothers instructed their sons that if somebody strikes you, just walk away; that is how you demonstrate your superiority. German mothers instructed their sons that if somebody insults you, kick his butt, that Germans are the toughest, strongest, boldest of people.

      So when the Bosch attacked each side’s troops did as their mothers had taught them.

      I trust nobody here needs the relevance explained?

      Strike that: Anybody who needs the relevance of that explained probably ought not be here.

      1. Crystal clear.
        I recall some contradictory accounts of the French collapse: The ordinary soldiers retained their fighting spirit. It was the generals and the politicians who lacked the will to fight.

  17. I do not know who said this first:
    women forgive, but never forget
    men forget, but never forgive

    1. Sounds about right to me, though of us don’t forgive easily either. I may (eventually) forgive my sister, but I’m never, ever going to forget. After six years I still don’t think she understands what she did and why I find it essentially unforgivable. And until she does there is no point in even talking to her, never mid anything else.

      My father asked me some years ago if I’d wished her a happy birthday. On being reminded that we weren’t talking, he suggested email. (snort). I pointed out that was talking. He wanted to know what my problem was and I gave him the full details (which I’ve found out since, surprise (not) weren’t even all of it). I then asked him if he’d expect me to kiss and make up, pretend it never happened, and go on being friends if she wasn’t a relative. he didn’t answer, but he’s never suggested I should start talking to her again either. So I guess all those years of therapy to learn how not to be a doormat have worked, at least to an extent. It’s rather amazing how much less I have had to deal with depression as I have learned to be more assertive.

  18. I don’t mind going on record saying that I strongly suspect several hundred, perhaps even a thousand, votes were purchased and given as “scholarships” or “gifts.”

    Can I prove it? No. But we know 100 were awarded publicly. We also know that another far-left whackadoodle with more money than sense has threatened publicly to do exactly this in the past. We have heard the story how publishers have bought dozens, even a hundred, memberships for their employees as “rewards.” If we know about these over the Internet, how much took place quietly behind the scenes?

    Not some great conspiracy, and not enough to change the outcome (except possibly short form dramatic; weird how with only one Who in the race, Orphan Black suddenly jumped up so far above it). Just people doing what they’ve always done, albeit on a wider scale than before.

    I might have trusted the WSFS to be vigilant about this before the awards presentation. Maybe. Would require a lot of diligence, which is in my experience unheard-of among volunteer organizations. But after the awards ceremony, no, I’d be more likely to think they colluded if this occurred on the scale I suspect (if only in a nod-and-wink way) than to think they actually tried to prevent such.

    1. The point is, they forfeited any benefit of the doubt long ago. They are whores complaining their virtue has been besmirched, Bill Clinton demanding his word should suffice. (But I repeat myself.)

  19. OK, Last Call for additions to the FAQ. I’ve got the HTML codes, the permanent drink warning, SP links and acronyms, and the additional warning about “cute” screen names. Anything else?

    Oh, yeah, and whoever ordered a pallet of Hyy-Pro Dragon Chow – Indoor Blend? Thank you for your generosity, but we have to stick with Precious Dragon – High Protein. Hyy-Pro causes Fluffy to have, ah, um, how to phrase it . . . internal distress.

  20. All this. Not just for the Hugos and all, but for everything. Never thought of it this way, but it explains a lot.

    I hate being mad, I don’t carry grudges – it’s no fun and doesn’t make me happy. If I got something I wanted, but had to get ugly to do it, the thing is ruined, it’s forever associated with something unpleasant and I’d rather not have it. And there are those out there who know this about people and use it against them. (I’ve always wondered if that kind of person knows this as a deliberate strategy, or it’s just instinct. Probably both types are out there, I guess.)

    1. It’s easier if you keep the grudges on a belt, handy to grab and throw as needed, or desired, or just BECAUSE.

  21. Ah, yes. I know this well.

    I had to grow a set of flameproof armor and asbestos underwear long before the internet was a thing. I don’t go out of my way to irritate people, but nobody is going to badger, blackmail, or bullyrag me into changing a position I have take out of conviction. It’s been tried. My ideals are mine: they cannot be taken and used against me. I do not owe my enemies explanations or excuses.

    “Slate voting” is no excuse for what the Hugo voters did to the nominees this year. It is no excuse for giving them asterisks. It is no excuse for turning an occasion to celebrate good literature into an insult, claiming that their work was not even worthy to be considered for an award. Their hypocrisy and meanness of spirit has been laid bare for the whole world to see. I would not want to be honored by such as they.

  22. Sarah et al, The “No Awards were within *5%* of 2500, in all the categories that they “won.” (I have a PDF copy of the _official_ stats.) The _highest_ any SP/RP candidate was _500_, and less(?) than 20% of all nominations, most, IRRC, were ~12-13%. If anyone need/wants a copy, e-mail me at fbngroup at earthlink dot net, subject Hugo stats. Let’s use the *Facts* to fight the lies.

    1. What I want to see are the Sasquan server logs to find out how many times the books and stories were downloaded. I have a feeling it’s going to be FAR less than 6000 times. More like half that, or less.

      1. I’m not sure that is an all that useful piece of data though. This was the first time I voted (just the awards, procrastinated too long to get in for nominations) even though I’ve been following this since the first Sad Puppies. So even though I knew I could download all the nominated works I did the same thing I’ve always done with the recommended Sad Puppies list, I bought them.

  23. The more I’ve been thinking about it, the more I’m convinced that pretty much all of Marxist thought is just Weaponized Empathy. It seems the entire point of Marxism is to delude otherwise decent people into doing unspeakable things, while somehow claiming moral superiority for having done so.

  24. Oh-oh. The last sentence of the Evil but Beautiful Space Princess’ post looks vaguely familiar. I guess I’m in the Army now. (Begins singing “You’re in the Army Now!”)

    (Contemplates “Onward Puppy Soldiers” as an encore.)

    Onward Puppy Soldiers
    Marching Human Wave!
    Silly Plastic rockets?
    No, we won’t behave!

    Started by our Larry
    Hate-Lord, he loves puppies
    And the manatee!

    He said plastic rocket
    Went to Marxist tripe.
    He set out to prove it,
    And boy, he was right!

    Then came gentle Bradley
    Fighting real wars,
    Asked for people’s favorites
    CHORFs proved they were boors.

    Onward Puppy Soldiers
    Marching Human Wave!
    Silly plastic rockets?

    (Wonders about “A Mighty Fortress,” but I gotta go . . .)

      1. My last line probably should be:


        “A year from now, ten? They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin’. I aim to misbehave.”

    1. Which type?

      I’ve heard the term all my life, and there’s three rough definition…clouds, I guess… and all three of them could be reminiscent.

      Most commonly, folks who were raised Catholic and aren’t, now, feeling bad when they violate the faith they don’t follow.
      Second most common, the general feeling that you’re doing something wrong, no matter what; I find it mostly in 60s-ish stuff.
      More among current Catholics, for that strange urge to apologize for everything anybody ever finds problematic or less than absolutely perfect, even if it didn’t happen and especially if it’s a historic exaggeration-at-best. (Can turn into a HumbleBrag.)

      I think the similarity is because it preys on the Christian idea that might doesn’t make right, and that ‘don’t break a bruised reed’ and such stuff.

  25. ” (And by the way, there was nothing even vaguely inflammatory about these ribbons. All they did was let puppy supporters know they weren’t alone. Which I think was what bothered these people with whom the concom GLEEFULLY aligned.) ”

    I can’t say how many times over the last months I’ve described the con experience as isolation and how many times and how many people responded that they had thought it was just *them* and how grateful they were to find out that they weren’t alone.

    1. I do not apparently understand the term “irony” because it seems to me ironic that a con — a convention established in large part to alleviate the isolation of fans ostracized by larger society for their “peculiar” enthusiasms — would aid, abet and encourage such isolation of attendees.

      I tried looking the word up online but all I found was a web site with a picture of my buttocks. (At least, I think they were my buttocks; I’m not actually accustomed to seeing them from that angle.)

      1. Going to any new place is a bit frightening to most people. I don’t know if what is going on *now* is new because it seems to be sort of standard in my lifetime. But worse now? Maybe. I just got off Facebook where I realized that I was right to be leery of adding a girl I met at the con who asked to be “friended” except that now I’ve doubled the “Occupy Democrats” spam on my feed. I’m one of those XKCD “Someone is wrong on the internet” sorts and it just makes my fingers itch not to point out how various things are “wrong”. But this… oh… political diarrhea seems to have “occupied” every corner of our lives in greater and greater amounts… and then people wail… why can’t you Puppies just let me have FUN with my science fiction? But people have no concept of public “mixed company” manners. None at all.

        Science fiction conventions aren’t isolating because someone in the Manticore Navy is worried that a Storm Trooper is going to look down their nose at them or insult them (with anything other than good humor)… they’re isolating because of the matter-of-fact insults that make clear that people around you can’t even *imagine* that you exist.

  26. You might find it interesting that someone from Germany went and post to my blog that they wouldn’t be buying the second book in my April series “Down to Earth” because of the madness of my comment above. I see they didn’t post HERE – since I wasn’t denounced as evil and insane. I didn’t delete the post. I just pointed out that if we had had the some sort of hand wringing old women running things in the 1940s we’d be divided down the Mississippi – speak Japanese to the west and German to the east. And that I buy book for entertainment. Not the authors politics or religion or sex or race. I also broke it to him that characters in a movie are not real, and the directors and actors may be people he wouldn’t like.

    1. To be fair, unlike many authors, your politics actually are relevant to your April series. Since the books are fairly explicitly political “thought experiments”. On the other hand, you don’t have to agree with all your beliefs to like the books, I have problems with some of the anti-Christian bias in them, but still enjoy the books. Communists and Socialists (which describes the majority of Europeans) seem to have no capability to enjoy anything they don’t agree 100% with, however.

        1. It is rather like a group of men declaring that, out of solidarity with women exploited by the hygiene-industrial complex, they will boycott tampons.

  27. Yeah, they love to weaponize empathy. And if you won’t turn on the tears on demand and bow down to whatever group you’re supposed to empathize with, they claim you have none. In fact, they love to claim they have some sort of monopoly on empathy and that those who disagree lack it. In doing so they reveal exactly how much empathy they actually have. Hint: The way they do so is along the lines of “We have empathy, unlike you horrible Aspie shits”. (not an exact quote, but not far off)

  28. Every time I read about your childhood in Portugal, I find myself wondering, how on earth could people decide to organize their society that way, so limiting and self-destructive. Then I realize almost all societies on Earth do that, to some extent or another. We here in America are the exception.

    Except, there must be something inherent in the human psyche that leads us down that self-destructive road again and again, and people are trying to reorganize American society along those same lines as well.

    “Go Fish” is FAR too polite a response to that inclination.

  29. “So, what is weaponized empathy? It is the use of your own best qualities against you.”

    The alliance of Ayn Randians and conservative Christians have perfected this art . . . demanding moral behavior from natural persons, while celebrating the amorality and sociopathy of corporations as a virtue.

      1. Nothing. I didn’t approve him so he’s commented here before and not as anonymous. (I almost posted “and not as an asshole,” and I swear it was just my fingers typing. But accurate.) It’s the IP that’s approved. So he knows he’s being an asshole. Hence anonymous.

        1. The fact that the time stamp and quoted portion of the piece correlate with the Blogfather’s linking to this article suggest the Nonny didn’t even bother reading the post but was just going off Instapundit’s excerpt to make an incoherent assertion trolling the Huns.

    1. I’m almost interested enough to ask what your definition of ‘natural persons’ is…but I doubt it would be anything I hadn’t heard in the 90’s.
      Or the 80’s.
      Or the 70’s.
      Or the 60’s.
      Or that they were saying in the 50’s before that.
      Or the 40’s.
      Or the 30’s.
      Or the 20’s.
      Or the ‘teens.
      Or the oughts.
      Or the 19th century…
      Or the 18th…

    2. The fact that the Left caused that particular political alliance to happen by basically saying “Hang self-control and decency” during the ’70s is, of course, entirely irrelevant.
      Have you ever seen libertarians and social conservatives go at it?

    3. er… you are aware corporations are run by people, right? Not just these alien entities in your mind? Because one could be excused for thinking you’re economically illiterate, politically illiterate and an asshole. Oh, yeah, we also don’t allow “anonymous” as an handle, so the next one will be deleted.

          1. You said that you approve IP addresses, not commentators. Most peoples IP addresses change every month or so (most people use dynamic IP addresses) and many (such as myself) post from public WiFi locations and thus share an IP address. Perhaps you approved someone else and this person is using the same IP address for one reason or another.

    4. Some examples, please?

      I’d really like to see what on earth an “Ayn Randian” that would ally with a “conservative Christian” would look like, since I know exactly one full-bore Catholic Libertarian, and he can’t even get along with himself…..

      1. I suspect by “soulless corporations” A. Mouse is referring to such as Chik-Fil-A which closes on Sunday and treats all customers (and even all protesters) with courtesy and respect, or Indiana pizza parlors which would rather not cater a reception honouring a same sex marriage (or bakeries which consider their creations a matter of personal investment and creation and thus cannot in good conscience sell their products for celebration of that which they would not personally celebrate.)

        1. The few “Ayn Randians” I’ve met wouldn’t demand moral behavior because they don’t recognize it as a real thing. They (imperfectly, but let’s not digress) would demand that people own up to their own choices…which, actually, would be a point of intersection with “conservative Christians.”
          The idea that you really do have some responsibility for your own actions.

          That can hardly be associated with the claimed thing, though, so I’m waiting to find out what on earth they meant.

    5. That is an example of superficial inconsistency, what some might term hypocrisy. It is not an example of using “your own best qualities against you.”

      The reason the inconsistency is only superficial is that the commenter fails to recognise the fundamental distinction between “natural persons” and corporate organizations: the first has a unity of will, a soul while the second lacks such attributes, being comprised of multiple individuals, each with their own agenda.

      Expecting a soulless organization to behave as if it has a soul is asinine, expecting that which never was and never will be. Corporate “morality” is imposed externally, by the marketplace; only “natural persons” possessing a soul are capable of moral action.

      By the same reasoning, corporations cannot be sociopathic and it requires an idiot to imagine so.

      It is interesting the number of people on the Left who demand corporations act as if they had souls but excuse human beings from responsibility to act morally [too great a wealth of examples.]

      1. Only sometimes. After all, people with souls sometimes want to close their stores on Sunday and not subsidize contraception.

    6. So what color is the sky on your planet.

      Only natural people can have ethics or morality. Unfortunately for you, there’s this thing called “fiduciary duty” that makes it a moral and ethical requirement for the natural people who are corporate officers to look out for the shareholders interests instead of whatever hobbyhorse you’re riding.

        1. Of course; those are more like a partnership, but even there, the first duty is to the other partners / shareholders. Doesn’t really affect whether or not a contractual relationship has a soul, or independent moral responsibility.

  30. I am not a science fiction SF fan but I enjoy your articles I pick up on Instapundit. I am becoming a Sarah Hoyt and Sad Puppies fan and supporter against the left-wing and Marxist purveyors of distortion and lies in your SF “community”. I would like to suggest another metaphorical weapon in your arsenal, “NO QUARTER”. Slay them and drive the “stake of TRUTH” into their lying black hearts.

    Leave their putrid rotting flesh and bones on the battlefield. Those who have no honor deserve nothing but desolation. All of my comments are of course metaphorical. After all you are dealing with “weenies”.

    Keep up the excellent work and writing. No doubt in my mind that The Force is With You.

  31. You know, if they really don’t want our type in the USA, they should’ve pushed space exploration a whole lot more. We’re all descended from folks who left (or are the folks who left). Offer us Mars, or where ever, and we’d probably be willing to leave again. Then they could have their socialist one-world-government-with-revised-history in peace . . . or, at least, untroubled by them as don’t want it.
    But it makes no sense to tell us if we don’t like it, leave, without offering somewhere else to go to. Them, they could go anywhere on Earth, but they want this spot.

    1. Well, that they want this spot is entirely reasonable on their part, actually.
      Here’s what I mean.
      I worked in a warehouse for a small retail chain that sold outdoor equipment, but I got to talk with the store employees during inventories and delivery and whatnot.
      Anyway, I was talking with this one girl–blond, slender, attractive–and she said she was conflicted because she hated snow, but wanted to live in a socialist country.
      To which I replied “I don’t see why that’s a problem. There’s Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam…”
      “No, no,” she said, “I meant one of the fun ones–i.e., where I can walk down the street in relative safety”–which, as she acknowledged, meant the Nordic nation-states.
      Do I need to explain the relevance?

      1. The relative safety bit comes from the dominant culture, the same culture that is too conservative for the socialists. The socialists need to extinguish that culture to secure their rule. It is not clear that they could secure a replacement culture that would have relative safety. A lot of the obvious alternatives do not.

        1. Look into it and you will find those Nordic nation-states are abandoning socialism as unsustainable. Free Market: The only sustainable economy!

    2. Oh, they want our type alright, the same way riders want horses. They just don’t want us having any say in how things are run. They’re the pigs, our role is to be Boxer.

    3. It goes back to something as old as the Reagan administration to my knowledge (and I’m sure much older but I don’t have an example) and as recent as The New Republic last month.

      The old example is a thesis by a future Clinton era Council of Economic Advisers member arguing that Ceausescu’s Romania would have succeeded if it just had access to modern western tech…arguably the most brutal Warsaw Pact country was a model if only they had tech.

      The New Republic argued last month modern computers could make Communism work. The fact that people who were so fearful of knowledge sharing that they banned copies could do it right with computer networks.

      They can’t let us go because they need us to keep figuring out how to make it work without them. That’s a fundamental observation Rand made in Atlas Shrugged and for all the issues I have with that book she was spot on there.

      They can’t let us go. They need us. What they also know and are afraid we’ll find out is we don’t need them.

      1. Every now and then someone will say something that pretty much amounts to… but this would work if Republicans would just cooperate. And I’m… it was YOUR plan. Right? Why do you need Republicans to work it for you?

        But that’s what “collectivism” is and why it leads to tyranny. It MUST have universal participation and cooperation or it just won’t work. And since there are always people who won’t fall in line their non-cooperation becomes functionally, and then legally, criminal.

        1. They argue that the Republicans scuttled Obamacare in spite of being a minority in both houses and not having the White House.

        2. You know that old math gag, the one that “lets” you prove 1 = 2 only because you did a divide by zero?

          That’s what the collectivists do. “It would all work perfectly if only everybody worked it perfectly.” They dress it up with a lot of hand-waving legerdemain and smoking mirrors, but strip away the distractions and you’re left with a tautological statement.

          Of course, when it fails it is never on account a they were dividing by zero, it is allus ’cause folks didn’t dance to the steps they called, no matter it would’ve taken a three-legged Astaire to have danced it.

        3. There’s the other aspect to ‘if the Republicans would cooperate’. Republicans are Americans.

          Compare with a plan that needs cats to cooperate well enough to operate the USS Wyoming.

          Thanks, that seems to be what I needed to knock loose the most creativity I’ve managed in weeks.

            1. It was at least partly Juliea. That’s not the whole of it, because I read it more than once over the course of the day, then had things come together when I write the response.

              It still isn’t worth anything until I figure out plot and character, and move into execution.

    4. The problem with “go somewhere else” is that they, in general, won’t be satisfied with leaving that “somewhere else” alone. This goes doubly so when the people in that other place are shown to be doing better than under their own system.

      As I’ve said elsewhere, in regards to “make a new award and abandon the Hugos”, what makes you (generic “you”) think the SJWs and their fellow travelers will go “you know what? That’s fine, you can have that”? They will always keep pushing, because their entire worldview depends on there being no opposing positions or questioning of Progressive Dogma (non-religious but just as rigid).

      1. Communist nations built walls to keep their people in not to keep outsiders out.

          1. Recruit yes, but they also wanted to force other nations to be Communist.

      2. At the very least, GRRM has already framed it as the “conservative” award while suggesting we go off and do it — without the additional offer of renaming the Hugo the “leftist” aware.

  32. We should respond by weaponizing something completely unexpected ending in ‘y’ also.

    I suggest weaponized meteorology or weaponized confectionary.

      1. I once succeeded in weaponizing apathy, but nobody cared.

        I was working on weaponizing irony until those !@#&% hipsters destroyed its effectiveness by immunizing whole populations.

          1. Isn’t Anti-Money what the Fed has been weaponizing under the current regime?

            Oh … you said antimony? That’s far less dangerous. Never mind.

          2. Doesn’t Antimony have enough on her plate, what with her father and the court and Coyote hanging around?

      1. They’ve sorta weaponized the weather. They developed Anthropogenic Global Cooling Global Warming Global Cooling Global … Climate Change and are deploying to destroy Western Civilization economies.

  33. I had a grandmother who would do this to us. It’s part of why I’m so strongly pro-Puppy. And it makes me side with underdogs even when they aren’t the approved “Underdogs” and it alienates people. It doesn’t matter who is for what: the Bad Guy is the one who lied. Not the nice one, not the one I agree with, nothing else. I mean you seem nice, but the one who lied is always the Bad Guy.

    1. Family joke:

      “You didn’t like the red one?”
      From an ancestress who would always give at least two of something like a shirt, in different colors– we’ll say red and blue– and invariably conclude you didn’t like the one you didn’t use first.
      And she was serious.

    1. Which explains why they so badly wanted me to apologize for “casting aspersions.” To give the devil its due, just from the user end, it’s easy to see their software sucked with more opportunities for malfunctioning not to mention tampering than… well… than any software except perhaps Obama’s donation tracking. And it probably wasn’t deliberately that bad. It’s volunteer work.

Comments are closed.