Why You Just Can’t Win By Tom Knighton

Why You Just Can’t Win

By Tom Knighton


Everywhere you go on the internet, it seems, you’ll come across an article decrying something for some kind of -ism.  Ghost in the Shell is problematic because Scarlett Johansson is playing a supposedly Asian character…despite the fact that the character looks white as hell in the original anime, for example, but it’s racist to take issue with Idris Elba playing a Norse god.

A better example, however, is the outrage over Netflix’s Iron Fist.  The character, Danny Rand, has always been a white dude.  He’s been portrayed on comic page and cartoon as a white dude.  So why is the live action character being a white dude a problem?  Oh, because it was a golden opportunity to make the character Asian, the social justice crusaders argue.

Now, keep in mind that Iron Fist is a martial artist and that’s essentially the key component of his power.  Why should you keep it in mind?  Because if they had made him Asian, there would be articles all around about how they were feeding a stereotype.  “Why must all Asians be martial artists?  Why did Marvel decide to perpetuate this stereotype when the original character was white?”

This is simple.  Social justice warriors will do everything they can to set the conditions so you can’t win.

The social justice bullies only have power if people feel guilty.  They don’t really have anything that we, the masses, don’t give them.  People have to feel guilty, because guilty feelings lead to people doing what the social justice crowd wants them to do to alleviate their guilt.

The man or woman who feels no guilt, however, simply points and laughs at their outrage.

It’s not that we necessarily think gay rights are unworthy, or that transgendered people are abominations, or that women should be in the kitchens all barefoot and pregnant.  Sure, there are some that do, but most of us aren’t like that at all.

The problem is that we refuse to see everything as outrage worthy.

Unfortunately, SJWs are trying to create a world where that is simply unacceptable.  Failing to see everything as dire, failing to see Western civilization as all that is wrong with the world despite its many victories and the higher standard of living not only in the western world, but that it has exported to the rest of the world, is proof that we are evil.

Again, this is nothing more than an attempt to make people feel guilty.

Ayn Rand once said:

“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for me to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed or enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt”

Rand has a point, but she failed to understand that it wasn’t just governments that could do this.  Society as a whole can and will do this, as we currently see.

We know that diversity isn’t the real goal, because if it were, Sarah’s A Few Good Men and pretty much any of Larry Correia’s stuff would be touted as great examples of diversity in science fiction.

After all, look at Owen’s team in the Monster Hunter Series.  Two women, two white males, a half-Samoan guy, and a black dude (who was NOT the first to die!).  One of their key support guys is the librarian who is also an Asian explosives expert.

Yet both Sarah and Larry are touted as bigots by the social justice crowd in science fiction.  Why is that?

Well, neither did so with the intention of being “diverse.”  They just wanted to tell a good story.

Larry once told me that he wasn’t trying to create diverse stories, he just wanted to create cool, interesting characters, and the diversity of his world happened naturally.  It makes sense.  Trip, from MHI, is a great example.  A black man who played football sounds stereotypical, but that’s also only mentioned rarely in the series.  Instead, Trip is portrayed as loving fantasy fiction and playing Dungeons and Dragons while also having been a science teacher before his coming to work at MHI.

Yet where is the love for Trip?  Why isn’t any of the social justice crowd in science fiction celebrating that diversity?

Because they can’t actually use it.  Larry doesn’t care what they think, so they can’t celebrate anything he does.  That won’t make him feel guilty.

Instead, they attack him as hateful, misogynistic (the guy who created Faye, Holly, and Julie is misogynistic?) and try to use that to make him feel guilty.  Failing that, they want to make enough people around him—not just fans, but family and friends if possible—to feel guilty too.  They want to create a sea of guilt around him so they can try and force his hand.

To do what, I have no idea.  After all, he’s already creating diverse characters.

Our lovely hostess is in the same boat.  She creates a gay protagonist, and when the whole Sad Puppies thing got ugly, she was part of the same crowd labeled homophobic.  They completely ignored her work, work that portrays people of different types in a positive light—and has plenty of white folks in a negative light—because she as a person refused to feel guilt.

Both Sarah and Larry have, in a way, given the SJWs exactly what they said they wanted.  The wrote books with diverse characters and yet they’re still reviled as evil “ists.”

You can’t win with a social justice warrior unless you prostrate yourself before the altar of social justice, confess all your sin then ask for any you missed and confess those when pointed out, and beg for forgiveness.  You can only win with them by becoming one yourself.

The only way to win with a social justice bully is to lose.

220 thoughts on “Why You Just Can’t Win By Tom Knighton

  1. IMO the way to win is to “not play their games”.

    IE Don’t care what they think or say.

      1. That’s why they love the crow’s anthem so much …

        It is everything they want to do to the world – convince them they can’t get down from whatever post they’ve been put up on.

    1. I’m with Paul on this.
      The Mind Your Own Business folks vs SJW is nothing more than the War Games movie in real life.

      1. There’s just one problem with that: unlike the computer in War Games, these people have actual real world weapons that do actual real world damage to us. And they’re going to “play” whether we do or not.

    2. Yup, just smile at them and say, “Oh, just go away.” Then turn your back on them and walk away. They’d hate that much more than if you actually tried to argue with them.

      1. Except that what seems to be happening is as they are increasingly being ignored they resort to escalating violence in order to refocus attention on themselves. Somehow being ignored is apparently justification for displays of property damage and personal attacks on anyone who fails to pay proper homage to their vastly superior opinion on the cause du jour.

        1. Eventually you reach a point where using violence to get attention works very well…once.

          You won’t be able to get attention period afterwards.

        2. And that will eventually result in their either being arrested in fairly good numbers or being opposed physically by those who are tired of being beaten (and those folks are likely better armed and more proficient at violence than the left imagines).

          1. Except, of course, that they won’t be arrested. See Milo at Berkeley. Until we can separate ourselves from their legal system, society, etc., they won’t stop unless they are stopped.

            1. This. I can very well tell you that going quiet and simply minding your own business doesn’t make them go away. Personal experience.

              They’ll keep coming after you, even if it doesn’t earn them any kudos, simply because you still exist somewhere, out there, quietly living, simply there and the knowledge of the mere fact that you exist, is a unforgivable sin to the Socjus Zealot.

              This isn’t mere ‘sharing of opinions’; what they want is nothing less than a jihad, and it’s frankly, stupid of us to pretend that it’s otherwise.

            2. If they misjudge their locations, they may be arrested.

              Let us, for their stakes, they mistake their location.

    3. They practice a fundamental logical fallacy of assuming facts which have not been supported, e.g., their occupying a moral high ground from which to criticize. Victim status does not confer any particular virtue, it merely confers victimhood.

    4. IMO the way to win is to “not play their games”

      That’s a WOPR of a lesson.

      1. Of course, WOPR apparently never learned that sometimes you play that game because your opponent chooses to, not you, and if you don’t play, you lose. As much as i loved that move 30 years ago, now i either see it for what it is supposed to be or read into it too much.

  2. so far as I can tell the. whole point of SJW actions is to give them power over everyone.

      1. But the state is the means to power. Plus the appeal to monopolies and businesses as well. Just like Cronkite bent news, media can lie, business can destroy badthinkers by taking away livelihoods, etc.

    1. or, said differently: SJW’s are very small people – who know no way to build themselves up but by standing on the corpses of their victims.

      1. The most recent fiction book I read (as in, finished it just last night) had an interesting lesson being imparted. That even a small, disruptive petty, entitled personality could wreak a lot of damage on a community, simply because of what they do.

        Heck, the whole damn series seemed to be an aside commentary on the shit that’s been going on., without being obvious about it.

  3. Sadly, Iron Fist in Netflix had more problems than SJWs. The writing was not great. Danny Rand was depicted as something of a douchebag, but sloppily. I watched the whole thing, toward the later episodes I was fast-forwarding through a lot of angsty filler.

    As far as the SJWs themselves, for the most part they seem mentally ill. BiPolar disorder with a side order of psychosis.

    Example, milk is racist these days. I’d make a Holstein cow joke, but you know damn well some fool is working on the intersectional analysis of milk racism, cow spots and the problem of the Aberdeen Angus. I’m informed by cheeky twelve year olds that black cows can’t be racist, the reason they give racist white milk is internalized oppression.

    What can you do with that? Nothing. Ignore and bash on, I say. They’re going nuts because they’re LOSING.

      1. Although, one does wonder if the brown cows give chocolate milk.

        Is chocolate milk racist too?

        1. Sadly, that question has been asked and answered by these clowns, and their answer is yes, because it starts out white and disguises itself.

          1. Thus Rachel Dolezal is not racist. QED
            If trying to join that national discussion about race means taking that kind of hit to the IQ, I’ll pass.

      2. “a good cow is always medium rare” perhaps? I can’t speak for anyone else, but I certainly don’t care what color the cow was on the outside as long as the steak has a nice pinkish-red center and is properly seasoned.

    1. Paraphrasing Ogden Nash might be apropos to such people. “I’ve never seen a chocolate cow, I never hope to see one, but from all the chocolate milk I’ve seen I’m sure that there must be one.”

  4. You know, I went back and read Tom’s post from October 30, 2015, “The Perpetually Outraged will be Perpetually Outraged”, and the first thing that popped into my head was the hoorah over Mike Pence’s personal policy of not spending late nights at work alone with, or going out to dine with, a woman not his wife. The man uses avoidance tactics to prevent himself from erring, or the appearance of erring (even more deadly to political people); and the Left and Media (is there any difference?) have been trying to crucify him for it ever since.

    You are soooo right. You just can’t win that game.

      1. Yeah, they call it rape when a beautiful, young, naked, woman climbs up into a man’s lap and proceeds to seduce and then abandon him.

        By the way, if Rape Culture is so prevalent, where did all those cougars come from? Or are we supposed to not see them because they’re not really supposed to exist?

        1. Internalized oppression, Mike. Same thing as the Angus cows.

          Cougars, rawr! They are striking back against the Patriarchy by… um…

          … Never mind, what’s important is milk is RAAAAAACIST!!!1!

          1. But, But, But, I LIKE milk! Chocolate, Strawberry, Plain, Whole, 2%, Skim. Just what am I supposed to pour on my cereal each morning? Maple syrup? OMG. Maple syrup is racist because it comes from predominantly white New Englanders. And other forms of syrup must be racist also; because it’s produced by poor downtrodden brown people working in horrible cane fields, or by mostly white people running tractors on factory-style corn farms in the mid-west. And tractors are racist!

            1. Maple Syrup is not racist if it comes from Quebec, because Noble Pur Laine Canadian Frenchies make it. And because Quebec City is all picturesque and stuff.

              Maple Syrup is racist if it comes from Ontario, because it is made by no-class redneck farmer guys who drive crappy pickup trucks and hate gays, persons of colour and like that.

              And yes, tractors are racist. Especially those White Farm Equipment ones. Totally racist.

            2. Actually most US-produced maple syrup comes from Wisconsin, but I suspect few maple trees in Milwaukee or Madcity are tapped, so you can still make white-folks claim if you must.

          2. I wish that wasn’t true but…

            well, this isn’t discussed in polite company but in the 70s in NYC and SF (not sure about Chicago, the other major city that was a hub) the gay male community often treated STDs as a badge of pride…a way to stick it to the man.

            There are some good arguments that attitude made AIDS worse in the early days.

            1. “I’m going to deliberately give myself a horrible disease that if it doesn’t kill me will literally drive me insane, and then kill me.”

              Yes. Yes, that will show “The Man”… something.

              1. *TMI (but not about me) warning*

                The mark of pride was, I as understand it (was way too young and in Wyoming/East Texas at the time), getting anal gonorrhea. At the time gonorrhea had no common drug resistant strains in the West.

                You heard the same part of the community in the gay marriage debate (although they were silenced/hidden by the press) who claimed gay marriage was ruining homosexuality by domesticating it.

                1. Seeing as there is a small subculture that wants disease for disability and enough of another that CA considered/did (don’t recall if was proposed or passed) removing criminal penalties for failure to disclose HIV status to partner. Seems more harmful than just not baking a cake.

            2. It showed you were heroically fighting eratophobia.

              That it was a phobia was the unquestioned assumption

              1. And then you die and become a martyr to the cause…

                Because obviously, if those mean conservatives weren’t afraid of your intimate activities, you wouldn’t have gotten a disease from engaging in them?

                …It’s not even wrong, it’s turnip.

      2. Actually he is.

        In this “modern age” a man can easily be accused of rape and/or sexual harassment if he’s alone with a woman, so it is darn safer to avoid being alone with a woman.

        Even without that, a man in his position can reasonable not want to have the appearance of having an affair.

        1. What none of them seem to realize is that it also protects the woman’s reputation. Way back in the 1980’s I took over as treasurer of a group from the previous treasurer who had been letting things slide for a long time. Turns out I had to go to three different banks to pick up the pieces. A (male) member of the board of director’s came with me in case we needed a second signature. By the next morning it was all around that we were having an affair because I had been seen having lunch with him–in between bank #2 and bank #3. I think Pence’s practice is a fine thing, and why aren’t the women who are saying the same thing being heard?

          1. Good point.

            The original practice of the chaperone was to protect the reputation of a woman, married or unmarried.

            1. Oh, the way things are going it will be the man who’ll need the chaperone to protect his reputation. 😦

              1. I suggest you correct your tenses there…

                A chaperone – or a video camera – is required now, in many places. (I am reminded of the drunk who tried to accuse the cop that arrested her of sexual assault – without realizing that his camera was on from before he approached her right up through booking.)

              2. Chaperones are rape culture! And men meeting alone with women is rape culture! And men not meeting alone with women is rape culture! And all-male groups are rape culture!

                Still waiting for the ruling on chocolate milk. Racist, or no?

                1. Anything that means one cannot just claim and be believed in Goddess says/demon says court system.

                  Amazing way to destroy trust in society.

                  1. That is the point. They want to destroy our society because it isn’t perfect. Also they have issues with their parents.

                    1. Not even that. It just doesn’t fulfill their fantasies. Cover your neighbor’s goods while calling him greedy for not wanting to send 36% of income to government to be given out as rewards and bribes.

                    2. Funny; I, too, have issues with their parents.

                      I am pro-Life, but for some folk it is never too late to abort. Failure to mature ought carry a death sentence.

                    3. aacid, not 36%, try more like 95%. Thats seriously how much OWS was saying the top income tiers needed to be taxed.

                2. Still waiting for the ruling on chocolate milk. Racist, or no?

                  Not only racist, but guilty of cultural appropriation.

                  1. The method of processing the cacao seeds into cocoa or chocolate was developed by the ancient Mesoamericans: Aztecs, Olmecs, & Inca. So all consumption of chocolate is cultural appropriation unless you sacrifice a human heart to Quetzalcoatl.

                    The history of chocolate begins in Mesoamerica. Fermented beverages made from chocolate date back to 1900 BC.[1] The Aztecs believed that cacao seeds were the gift of Quetzalcoatl, the god of wisdom, and the seeds once had so much value that they were used as a form of currency. Originally prepared only as a drink, chocolate was served as a bitter, frothy liquid, mixed with spices, wine, or corn puree. It was believed to have aphrodisiac powers and to give the drinker strength. Today, such drinks are also known as “Chilate” and are made by locals in the South of Mexico.
                    After its arrival to Europe in the sixteenth century, sugar was added to it and it became popular throughout society, first among the ruling classes and then among the common people.The history of chocolate begins in Mesoamerica. Fermented beverages made from chocolate date back to 1900 BC.[1] The Aztecs believed that cacao seeds were the gift of Quetzalcoatl, the god of wisdom, and the seeds once had so much value that they were used as a form of currency. Originally prepared only as a drink, chocolate was served as a bitter, frothy liquid, mixed with spices, wine, or corn puree. It was believed to have aphrodisiac powers and to give the drinker strength. Today, such drinks are also known as “Chilate” and are made by locals in the South of Mexico.

                    After its arrival to Europe in the sixteenth century, sugar was added to it and it became popular throughout society, first among the ruling classes and then among the common people.

                    Addition of sugar to the chocolate is clearly an act of cultural oppression and must be banned.

          2. C’mon — you bleedin’ well know that “protecting” a woman’s “reputation” is totally sexist, chauvinistic and white knightism of the worst sort. Modern enlightened women are perfectly capable of protecting their reputations and anybody who says otherwise is a would-be slut shamer.

            A little perspective:

            Why Mike Pence’s Boundaries for Marriage Should Be Imitated, Not Mocked
            By Ashley E. McGuire
            [I]t’s sexist to think that Pence’s personal rule is unusual, because the implication is that only men can have this policy and that only men are in positions of authority over women. There are a lot of female bosses in this country, and a lot more women who are professional peers with men, who have the same policy. I am one such woman. While I will meet in a busy spot during the day with a man if it’s truly necessary (I have no office) and give my husband the heads up, I will not on principle have drinks or dinner alone with a man who is not my husband, mainly because the mere appearance of impropriety feels disrespectful to my husband.

            But above all, the hysterical reaction to Pence’s policy shows how myopic a view our culture, especially those on the left, have of women. Their reaction makes sense only if women are nothing more than vehicles for professional success and not also wives—wives who, deep down, would prefer their husband not be out having drinks with another woman. Wives that would secretly admire their husbands for so gallantly putting them above all other women, even if it costs them professional opportunities. Wives who want to be happily married. We are just supposed to deny that part of ourselves, because it’s weak. Or something.

            The reality is that affairs are straight up impossible if a man and a woman are never left alone with someone of the opposite sex who is not their spouse. People are free to conduct their professional matters how they choose. But marriages everywhere are constantly crashing and burning into the ground, with infidelity as a frequent cause, and yet one of the most watched men in the world just wants to protect his, and somehow he’s an aggressor towards women?

            It’s insanity, and goes to show that it’s often the cultural “progressives” that obsess over how other people live their personal lives, not the rest of us, especially those of us who just want to take commonsense measures to respect our spouses and preserve our marital happiness. “Laissez fare!” they scream about all things personal, unless you are Mike Pence trying to respect your wife.

          3. Ah, but it limits her options. She can’t sleep her way to the top and cry Harassment if it backfires.

      3. Eric S. Raymond, whom I count as a reliable source, issues the following warning:
        The short version is: if you are any kind of open-source leader or senior figure who is male, do not be alone with any female, ever, at a technical conference. Try to avoid even being alone, ever, because there is a chance that a “women in tech” advocacy group is going to try to collect your scalp.
        Details follow, and the first comment:
        “I understand that was Billy Graham’s professional policy all his life. And for exactly the same reason.”

    1. Yeah, I don’t get the Pence hate on this one. Frankly, I see it as a smart way to avoid the appearance of impropriety and it provides a level of protection for everyone involved.

      After all, a woman is generally far less likely to be sexually assaulted if there are witnesses, so it’s a two-way street. But no, it’s more hate because he doesn’t live his life exactly the way they want him to.

      1. Remember, these are the people who publish studies proving the Israeli army is racist, since they don’t rape Palestinians. Saying someone is a rapist because they don’t put themselves or anyone else in a situation where it might be possible is logical, if you believe the first.

        1. At some colleges, guys can be accused of sexual discrimination if they turn down a woman’s advances. *facepalm*

          1. So, if a guy demands a certain woman provide sexual favors it is rape but if a woman demands a certain man provide sexual favors it is not just reasonable but mandatory?

            That is matriarchy pure and simple.

            1. And how can that be sexual discrimination if refuses men as well. If he choose men but not women that would be discrimination based on sex and basically make being gay illegal (which I heard a Leatherman claiming we were going to having to hide because being gay was going to be illegal but he thought Trump was doing it).

                1. and, I suppose, the real reason we don’t get a sex-discrimination-inversion (i.e. with hundreds of young college men officially complaining that the pretty girls are withholding sex and affection) is that male subculture is less inclined to accept being portrayed as a victim?

                  1. The patriarchy and male privilege makes any sexual demand or request made by a male rape. Unless he’s making it toward another male.

                    Heads, Feminists win; tails, men lose

              1. No, they want what their fevered heads imagine a matriarchy would have to be. You know the wonderful nirvana that once was, but long since stolen by males and scrubbed from any mention in history books written by the patriarchy.

                1. Not even that. They want whatever they want. Which changes from moment to moment.

                  Except that they *always* want you to tell them how wanting it makes them better than you.

              2. No, they don’t. A matriarchy would be run by someone like Mrs. Fredrick from Warehouse 13.

                I’m not sure what they want. A shrill-iarchy?

            2. Worse. It’s abuse to “withhold sex and affection.”

              I read it on a college website. It was up there for months but apparently someone got clocked with a clue-by-four sufficient times.

              1. Curious (but unsurprising) that the political side which started with “Free Love” has advanced to Compulsory Love.

                If only there were a political pattern which explained such a tendency!

      2. More than just not living his life the way they want him to, he’s not offering them a stick with which to beat him and anyone associated with him.

        They really do hate not having a handle on anyone.

        1. Yes – he is guilty of the crime of being Mike Pence rather than who they want him to be.

          Mean Girls Syndrome: any not paying fealty to the In-Crowd are enemies of the In-Crowd.

      3. Pence is hated because he’s with Trump. They can’t find anything on the guy, so they’re going after his religion.

        This Billy Graham Rule thing is old fashioned Christian piety and old fashioned good manners, two things the SJW Left can’t allow.

        But mostly what this is, is another masterful bit of SJW trolling by Trump. They jumped all over the bait.

      4. Retired Congressman & senator Jim Talent makes the most salient point:

        The Pence Rule and Reality
        I’ve been amazed that in the discussion no one has pointed out an important contextual fact: Members of Congress rarely have dinner, in a restaurant, alone, with anyone.

        The one thing always in short supply for sitting members of Congress is time. There are always things to do and always people to see, if not to do the job itself than to do the politics that are necessary to stay in office so that you can keep doing the job.

        Of course, members have to eat. That includes dinner. Dinner is a very valuable time as far as office priorities are concerned, and is quite often scheduled; and when it is scheduled, it is almost always with a group of people. The point is to spread the member’s time as thin as possible to see as many people as possible.

        A member might have dinner with a delegation from the Corn Growers Association when they visit Washington. He might be hosting his own fundraiser, or he might attend a colleague’s fundraising dinner as a favor; having other members come to one’s funders enhances their value. He might attend a small think-tank dinner, typically to speak or hear from a discrete gathering of experts who were interested in one of the member’s priority issues. He might go out with other members, though usually this happened on the spur of moment or late in the evening after voting concluded.

        But if dinner could be scheduled — that is to say a) if you were in town, and b) the House was not voting through dinner (because if the House is voting, you can’t go far from the Capitol for dinner anywhere, lest you miss a vote) — then the staff would almost always schedule the time for some useful purpose. And again, the most purposeful use of the time involved a small group of people — usually six to 20, though sometimes a few more. And unless one single person was so important, politically or otherwise, as to justify a minimum of 90 minutes, and probably two hours, of exclusive member time, you always had dinner with a group of people.

        Now, staff might well come along for these dinners. In fact, staff usually did come along, if the dinner group represented an issue area for which the staff was responsible. When I had dinner with the Corn Growers, my legislative assistant for agriculture would always attend; he or she needed the contacts, and the information, as much or more than I did. But it was always with a group.

        If Mike Pence had forbidden his female staffers to attend one of these dinners, that would have interfered with her professional development. But of course that is not what he did.

        By the way, one advantage of having dinner with a group of people is that, typically, that means someone else can ethically pay for it; if a member has dinner with one person, the rules generally require that he buy his own meal, though if it’s a political rather than business dinner members can, within limits, charge it to their campaign fund.


        When I entered the House in 1993, I was 36 years old. My family, which included two small children, stayed in my district in St. Louis. I had an informal personal guideline; when I worked late, I tried to make sure that I was not alone in the office with one female staffer. So my chief of staff and I would simply arrange to make sure that either no female staff, or more than one staff member, stayed late with me. We didn’t make a big deal about it, and certainly no one lost a professional opportunity because of it.

        My reasons were similar to Pence’s; I didn’t want to compromise either myself or the staffer. My staff was located, as is typical, in an annex across the hall from my office, but still I thought it wise to prevent, insofar as reasonably possible, suspicion from being raised because of activity after normal working hours.

        Washington is for certain purposes like a small town. Members are celebrities. When they go somewhere, they are noticed; at least they should assume they are noticed. Rumors spread quickly, and — even before the days of social media, much less now — they spread back to the member’s district more quickly than one might think.

        If a new member asked me how to prioritize his schedule, or how to balance family responsibilities against the job, I would counsel him, for both purposes, not to have dinner alone with anyone other than family unless it was necessary, not to have dinner alone with a young person of the opposite sex unless it was unavoidable, and not to have dinner alone with staff at all. There are safer things to do for your marriage, and better things to do with your time.

      5. The one thing I will give is the decreased ability to network in theory. But looking at his coterie it doesn’t seem he has shied away from women working for high positions in his org. But prevents the sliming method of advance.

      6. The argument is that women thus lost out on opportunities for networking and promotions because Pence wouldn’t have dinner alone with them. To which I have two answers:

        (1) This is entirely hypothetical. The SJWs have yet to find one actual woman who feels that Mike Pence denied her opportunities she ought to have had (and plenty have come forward saying that working for Pence was good for their careers).

        (2) Seriously, when was the last time you had a 1-on-1 dinner with your boss? Maybe my field is weird, but I never have had one, and I’ve worked for both men and women.

        1. I worked in a distributed team with a dozen people working from six offices in four countries. In those rare cases where we met face to face, the boss would usually take people out for a meal or two, whether there was one other team member present or everybody.

        2. When we were shutting down the location, my plant manager took me to lunch not long before I was going to move up here.
          But there is no way in hell he’d have done it with any of the females at work. Those kinda “Thanks for being a good worker/Have a good life” deals were group lunches.

      7. I’m cynical enough to think they’re really mad because that action by Pence means he’ll never be alone with a woman and therefore the media et al won’t be able to smear him with claims that he’s having an affair.

        So they run with this bizarre accusation because it’s all they can think up.

        1. My thought, too. There’s no chance of them being able to smear him with rumors of past affairs, if he is known to have been this careful for years.
          It’s sheer pique on their part.

        2. This is all very heteronormative. Can’t they just accuse him of a homosexual affair?

          1. Give them time. For a bunch who claims they support gay rights they seem to enjoy claiming people they hate are homosexual… as if it were a bad thing.

            Oh sure, it’s possible they do it because they presume someone is homophobic and conclude calling that person gay will be a mortal wound, but I find it unlikely. Mostly because of how progs react when a member of an “oppressed” group they claim to support holds views they disagree with: Tons and tons of rather vicious epithets.

            1. They are totally against outing gays, unless they are politically opposite of them, or not 100%+ agreeing with them.
              Sorta like they are not in any way racist because they think blacks are too stupid to learn like everyone else.

              1. Gays who don’t subscribe to the assigned party line are not true gays and are undeserving of respect — just as any black man such as Clarence Thomas is to be denounced as an ingrate (no matter how little actual “help” they provided him.)

                One reason why conservative gays are so Milo toward the Left.

      8. They HAVE to hate him for something, and this is the best they can do. Which is why they hate him even more.

  5. Minor quibble: the reason they don’t count Correia or Hoyt characters as “diverse” isn’t just because of the politics of the authors in question. It’s because the “diversity” is not the entire point of the characters they write.
    Take Trip, for example. He’s black, but his primary characterization points are that he’s A. a massive geek and B. Baptist, and very serious about it while C. not being an obnoxious twerp.
    This makes him an actually enjoyable character, unless for some reason you hate geeks, Baptists, or people who don’t hector others. However, in SJW land, the point of having a black character is for him to be the author’s mouthpiece on racist and oppressive America or the West in general are, based on “lived experience.” That this sort of character is not enjoyable except to a very specific subset of the population is either irrelevant, or exactly the point–witness the hyperventilation over Ted Cruz and Neil Gorsuch being fans of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

    1. Pegged it. Sarah’s homosexuals refuse to be the victims of those terrible “cis-people” – so she must be homophobic.

      Same reason that Robert Heinlein was obviously a misogynist – not a single female character he created was ever a victim.

        1. RAH tried at least three times in the book and she demurred each time.

          Easily his best post my birth book (or maybe second best…I need to check TMiaHM’s pub date).

        2. Homosexual? Victim?? Both???

          (My impression was bi, trending hetero. And a lot of his female characters were intended to be victims – but they had a nasty habit of ruining the plans of the would-be victimizer…)

    2. This reminds me about a story I heard concerning a diner in Alabama — one that illustrates that racism is still alive and well. Two groups of Secret Service agents arrive in a diner at around the same time; the white group got served quickly, while the black group had to wait an hour or so before being served. Yes, apparently racism is still alive in America.

      It took me two or three years, though, to realize something else: why were the two groups segregated? What would have happened at the diner, had the two groups been mixed? While I’m 100% sure they weren’t segregated by official policy, I can’t help but wonder why they self-segregated — and often we’re assured that such self-segregation is racist in and of itself.

      Thus, racism isn’t only alive in America, it’s far more pervasive than we originally realized!

      (Incidentally, Larry explained that he made Alabama the headquarters of MHI because he served a Latter-day Saint mission there, and despised how the South is stereotyped as a bunch of uneducated racist redneck hicks (a stereotype particularly favored by SJW types). This is a particularly interesting bit of inclusiveness, considering how the South generally isn’t thrilled by Mormons…)

      1. Even if this story is true and if it is of general behavior (and I’m skeptical of both… especially in the South). I’m not sure it is technically racism for waitstaff to expend less effort to please a group they can reasonably expect not to tip well.

        1. “around the same time”… one need arrive only a few seconds ahead of the other to get the only then-open group seating. Absent more info, why assume evil?

        2. I read about it in the news at a time I considered — and pretty much everyone considered — the news to be trustworthy.

          Over the years, I have come to doubt the trustworthiness concerning the news.

          And there are certainly the question of other issues at play as well. What kinds of food did the two groups order? Did the time the two groups come in matter? Is it possible that the waiters were busy enough that they merely dropped the ball on a group?

          I’m not sure how tips would have played a role — I think this was just a town the Secret Service was just passing through, so they likely didn’t have a reputation…

          Overall, to the extent that this story was true, it’s an anecdote and not a statistic…so it makes it a little difficult to say for certain that “racism is alive and well” (beyond the “Well, yeah! We’re all human, after all…)

          1. Black customers have a reputation, which the American Restaurant Association validated with actual research in the early aughts, of little or no tipping.

            Black servers, in fact, are often the most adamant about not serving black customers for this reason.

            1. People can argue about if any difference in IQ or impulse control or other factor varies significantly by ‘race’ is real or an artifact of measurement method or if it even matters… but it is very hard to argue that there isn’t a hard, quantitative way to measure the amount someone tips or to try and argue with restaurant staff that the quantity of that tip doesn’t matter.

            2. Ah, I was unaware of that.

              And that’s certainly yet another issue I can’t help but notice would have been ameliorated had the two Secret Service groups been integrated, rather than separate as “black” and “white”.

              (And while in theory individuals can overcome this reputation, it requires frequent visits to a place to establish your own reputation. I had the impression that the Secret Service agents in the article were just passing through, so they had no means to establish that reputation….)

              1. Yes, and I’ve already started to teach my son that sometimes he gets treated well because people were treated fairly or nicely in the past by people who look or sound or act like him, so 1. Don’t present yourself they same way as jerks. And 2. He has an obligation to the next generation to behave well. For example when picking up trash around the neighborhood he conspicuously wears his Cub Scout hat, so that later some future scout may get a popcorn sale or pack donation because someone saw him doing his good turn and has a good feeling towards scouts as a result. John T. Malloy should be required reading for geeky kids.

  6. I confess, this sort of fuss is part of why I made the government a matriarchy in _Language of the Land_. I’m tired of the “if women are in charge, everything is wonderful!” tripe. And I wanted to see if I could write it without getting preachy the other way. I’m not certain I succeeded.

  7. BTW, apropos of nothing, “pronunciate” is now totally a word. You’re welcom. ~:)

        1. Hmm. I hear this in a deep basso voice. “Pro-noon-si-ate.”

          Then again, my colleagues giggled at me when I tried many of the new words in the former profession. I read a lot more than I ever go to listen to speakers.

    1. Is that what a radio pronouncer does?

      (Pa would on occasion joke about about someone being a [potential] “radio pronouncer” knowing full well the real term, but for many it does fit. BBC “Received Pronunciation” etc.)

  8. There is no point arguing with SJWs because they do not debate to determine Truth, they debate to find mote in your eye, not the beam in their own.

    “J’accuse …!” is the sum total of their argument and they will accept no plea but guilty. They claim for themselves the mantle of The Questioner and woe betide any who enter their courtroom. Theirs is The Excellent Game Without Any Rules and only way to win is to refuse to accept their edicts.

      1. Since you mentioned duck noises:

        The demon stood with his arms crossed before them, chest out, wings slightly spread in his proudest pose. “Who dares summon an afrit of the desert sands?” he demanded in a loud voice. “I am here! Look upon me and despair, mortals, for I am your doom!” His announcement concluded, he thrust out his chin belligerently and stood displaying his muscles, fangs, and claws.
        Apart from the humming of the railgun drones and early morning bird chatter, his declamation was met with silence. The four meditating figures did not stir.
        “That went well,” remarked one of the robotic spiders after a long, awkward pause. “Perhaps you should try flexing your chest a bit more. That’s sure to catch their interest.”
        The large attack vehicle circling lazily overhead quacked like a duck. The smaller, hovering ones snickered among themselves.
        The afrit ground his teeth but did not move. The longer the silence lasted, the more ridiculous he looked, but to admit it was to lose face. He held the pose.

    1. Exactly. Don’t engage them at all, just treat them like the surly children they are. Smile at them and say, “Oh, just go away,” and then turn and walk away and do whatever you like whether it bothers them or not. Admitting you’re concerned at all about their opinion empowers them. Don’t even treat them with disdain; just refuse to acknowledge their position as valid at all.

      1. Unfortunately, all that is required for evil to flourish is for good folks to do nothing. Better to set them up with a glorious case of cognitive dissonance and leave them sputtering incomprehensively, THEN walk away.

        1. Trust me, showing that you don’t consider their ravings to be even worth noticing will definitely leave them sputtering incomprehensibly.

          1. Yes – nothing so aptly puts them in their unwonted places as responding, “It’s so cute when you attempt thinking!”

    2. From Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, the conclusion of the mouse’s long tail (without the diminishing size of font and a bit of fudging to get the shape):

      …………’I’ll be
      …….I’ll be
      ……..old Fury:
      ……………..’I’ll try
      ……………….the whole

    3. About the only reason I can think up to bother responding is not actually arguing with the SJW… it’s, as Larry has pointed out, so the audience can see it.

      So don’t bother with a private e-mail debate or similar. In a place where other people may read it, it might be worth responding to point out the flaws in their shrill accusations. Not because the prog will ever debate honestly, but so people can see your arguments and notice the contrast.

        1. Though if its on some medium like Twitter you’re more likely to get a snide insult and then a block. I suspect somewhere in their tiny overheated heads they realize a response pointing out flaws actually does hurt them, so they keep the badthink out with a block.

          Or try to get you banned, though that hasn’t happened to me. Yet.

    1. The true believer hates the heretic and the apostate even more than he does the infidel.

    2. I think that hate is only emotion they can feel. They hate everyone including themselves.

      They remind me of the idiots who were trying to cause a plague in Clancy’s Rainbow Six.

    3. I’m not sure you can even win by becoming one of them

      Only if you’re successful in tearing everyone else down by making sure your combination of Victim Group memberships has precedence over theirs. And even then it will only be temporary as others work to tear you down.

      1. IIRC male Gays now are “ranked below” Lesbians, Trans and whatever sexuality.

        Don’t know how they compare to Blacks, Hispanics, Females.

        IE even within the “victim groups” some are more equal than others. 😦

        1. WHITE gay males are now just white males so they better be transmen to be anything. Even that isn’t enough:

          One speaker (pronouns ze, zirs, zirself) described the conflict inside zir between zir repugnance toward women (zir birth gender), and a disgust of being lumped into the alternative category of white male. Ze described that ze got a hysterectomy because ze “rejected the female societal obligation to repopulate the planet,” then added in the same breath, “but what’s worse than being identified as a straight, white male, right?”


          But I thought cis white males had all the privilege and got what ever they wanted? Why would you not want that identity?

          1. Clearly, the unifying thread is that ze found zirself repugnant and disgusting in any form, a view with which I expect many of us agree.

    4. Pretty much a boot stamping on humanity’s face. Forever.

      (Though IngSoc never pretended they were being good while doing that, IIRC.)

  9. The only win is to ignore it when they move the goalposts…
    There are enough decent people appreciating Good Craftsmanship to keep the royalty checks flowing

  10. I can understand the kerfuffle over Ghost in the Shell because they seemed to have overcomplicated the character by ignoring the Major’s Japanese roots. There’s actual reasons there for the character to be Japanese.

    The Iron Fist controversy is dumb as hell though, since the fact that Danny Rand is an outsider both in K’un-Lun and with his family’s business in New York City, is a really integral part of the character themes.

    Sometimes there ARE problems with how a character is written if their background and/or culture play an important role in that characterization and their role within a story. But yes, as you say, the issue is here is that there is no consistency, honesty, or rationale behind liberal outrage in many of these cases. It’s hard to have any sort of meaningful discussion about real issues in that case, if you’re going to be called a racist bigot regardless of what you say.

    1. There is not actually any proof that she is Japanese. I mean, it’s not like Steve Austin or Robocop, where we know the pre-cyborg identity. I think that it is important that her controllers are Japanese and the story is Japanese, but the rest? Eh.

      Btw, Alice and Zoroku is a great new anime. Experimental subject girl on the run with powers meets grumpy Japanese grandpa, determined to socialize a kid who desperately needs a good raising. Good manners as a matter of life or death.

      The other good bit is when he tells the little kid that she shouldn’t feel pressured to save the world and bring down the corrupt lab. That is stuff for grownups; her business is to learn and recover. That really hit me, because today’s kids do feel so much pressure from SJW grownups, who won’t do the job of properly protecting kids while pretending they do; and of course, the trope of kid superheroes and magical girls shades into child soldier stuff fairly often, in anime. Kids should aspire to control their destinies, but they should not have life or death stuff forced upon them as an ideal.

      1. We need more old people superheroes. After all, we’re generally living fitter longer than before; and even middle-aged and old people need dreams and something to aspire to besides taking a permanent dirt nap in the near future. But I have to admit being stuck in a paradigms of the aging hero dying early, mentor-in-the-background, or sacrificing themselves for the young heroic protagonist.

        Now the best aging hero-ish movies I’ve seen semi-lately was the tongue-in-cheek Red and Red 2. The Expendables movies might qualify as aging heroes, but I was less than impressed with the acting and the story for those. The Incredibles doesn’t count because the superhero and heroine in that are both middle-aged, not old.

        1. Huh. The thing I’ve noticed about Astro City is that he’s really fond of the theme of retiring.

          Not always because of aging, one hero retires because it’s too dangerous when he’s a new father, but often because of it.

      2. In the 2nd season of GitS: Standalone Complex I think it was implied the Major was a girl who had to get a cyborg body at an early age, including regular swaps as she aged. She may be of Japanese descent, but the face she uses could be of a variety of nationalities depending on the mission.

        1. This was pretty much confirmed in the second manga, Man-Machine Interface, in the epilogue. A flashback from Tamaki (the girl at the Channeling Agency shows a young girl coming out of a preparation pod, and she strongly resembles adult Motoko.

          Shirow’s note at the bottom (I have the manga in front of me) goes:

          When a cyborg’s entire body is a prosthesis, its exterior doesn’t have to look the same age as that of the living brain portion inside. But there are sometimes problems when a child’s brain is implanted in an adult prosthetic body, and these problems can affect personality development. As a result, most brains are given prosthetic bodies that match them well. In this story we are assuming people either want prosthetic bodies that look the way they did when they were younger, or that they want natural-looking bodies appropriate to their true age.

          A couple of pages later, Motoko flat out says that she lost her ‘real’ body as a girl.

    2. The thing I found interesting is that based on a couple of youtube videos I’ve seen, the Japanese man-on-the-street thinks Scarlett Johansson is an awesome casting choice for the role.

      One sample included here. What I find most telling of all about this video is this bit in the description: “Since Japanese people are not familiar with the concept of ‘whitewashing,’ I need to explain it to them.”

      1. Frankly, I like how they went with her – Physically, she resembled the anime movie Motoko (though, she isn’t as tall) so on recognition I think she was a very good pick. She’s a good actress and she had the chops to carry out a very solid interpretation of Oshii’s Motoko, which the live action was the base of.

        Shirow’s Motoko drank, laughed, would have humorous instances of losing her temper, and was a lot more human than the Motoko in the movies (or Arise) was.

        The only thing I was ;_; about was the fact that they didn’t have San Miguel beer.

    3. There was actually a VERY good in-story reason for why they made The Major white…. AND kept the Japanese background of Motoko. The fact that there is mass bitching shows that the people bitching didn’t even watch the movie, and if they did, they didn’t watch it to the conclusion.

      Heck, as a fan of the series, I liked how they made a completely original story and kept the film true to the story, especially the fact that a number of the original manga was somewhat Shirow’s own social commentary. Subtle, and well done.

      1. Not more than once, unless you’re locked in the arena,,,,, which is more or less where we are now.

  11. To do what, I have no idea.

    To kiss their rings, their feet, and their asses.

    The more I watch I see the desires of the worst Tops in the S&M community turned up to 23 and turned not on consenting partners but the general public. In the S&M world that is considered abusive even when done to a consenting partner.

    SJWs are simply people who get off on abusing people into Stockholm Syndrome.

    1. You will agree to our dictate or we will destroy you. But these are our ruling class. More and more I see no good outcome.

  12. Much of political correctness in all its forms is about making people NOT see what is there and NOT see the power it allows others to wield over them. Ignore diversity where it exists. See it where it does not. They call it “freedom.” But it’s not. Freedom isn’t about being to say that 2+2=5. It’s about being able to say that 2+2=4.

    1. There’s a great interview with Emmi Bonhoeffer in one of the World at War extras. In it she describes her experience in covering up for a neighbor who the Gestapo was investigating. She points out that freedom is not being forced to lie.

      1. Unfortunately, as portrayed by a “captain” who surrendered his ship to some jellyfish ASAP and who captains a ship for a “peace-keeping armada” (an oxymoron only leftist Hollywood would find un-ironic). What Hollywood did to the original concept of a heroic submarine captain away from central authority, representing the ideals of his country, is nothing short of criminal. And Picard is the embodiment of that criminality–a sheeple in wolf’s clothing. Hollywood didn’t even have the guts to show us the “bravery” of his choice to say four until after the guards arrive and the game is up.

  13. “Yet where is the love for Trip?”

    Right here! *whips out pom-poms and cheerleading sweater with the big red “T” on the front* Trip is awesome with a side of awesome sauce. He’s easily my favorite character in the MHI universe. I’d date him if he were real, and I weren’t married. I could read an entire book about Trip doing his grocery shopping. *goes into full fangirl mode*

    Oh…you meant where’s the love for him among the SJWs? Well, I don’t care about them, and I doubt Trip does either.

    1. There is no love for Trip because the SJWs do not read MHI. It is laden with bad thoughts and full of bad characters having bad fun setting bad examples. Nobody takes cries of oppression seriously, nobody complains about unfairness of world.

      Also, those books have cooties.

      1. In MY universe, if someone whined about being oppressed, the nearest adult would probably kick them in the head.

      2. Well, yeah. The ILOH and old guys like Heinlein are all about white manly het men and distressed damsels that need to be rescued by same.
        No, they haven’t read the books. They just KNOW.

    2. Trip isn’t my favorite character in MHI. Mine’s probably Milo. Or maybe Earl. But I’m biased: I like to tinker with things.

      As for the Grimnoire books, my favorite character hands-down is Faye, and Okie raised by a Portuguese dairy farmer. I have a hard time thinking of a second-favorite character (I like a whole lot of them, including some of the evil characters, in part because I appreciate their motivations, even if I want them to be thwarted) but I really like the fact that John Moses Browning is included in the books (again, he likes to tinker; I can’t argue about that!).

  14. You can’t win with a social justice warrior unless you prostrate yourself before the altar of social justice,

    And even then you can’t win. You can gain a brief cessation of hostilities, which can be reopened at the discretion of the enemy, and you will never be more than a second-class citizen. Seen it happen way too much.

    1. Prostration can be a very good thing. Lie down, snuggle into the weapon, get a solid cheek weld on the stock, practice breath control, and send the round to service the target almost as an afterthought.
      Watching their pointy heads explode in a fine red mist is just icing on the cake.

    2. If they run out of apparent enemies they’ll turn on their own.

      They’ve done it before, they’ll do it again.

    3. Probably part of why you see converts being the most zealous of believers. Gotta prove self.

  15. It all comes down to one thing: Der Wille zur Macht / the Will To Power. Everything else is pretext or handmaiden to this goal, and can be modified as required in the single-minded pursuit of power and control.

    “The question is”, said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all”.

    1. They are cancerous growths upon the body politic. They are doing their best to kill this country.

      1. Which is why I’ve been corrupting the youth again, lately. Today’s lesson at work (along with the work) was economics 101 (or, “what is the real cost of a $15/hr minimum wage, and who pays for it?”), as well as Kipling. Kid has some promise, I’ll give him that.

        The youth of today are not totally lost. They *are* starved for… facts? Truth? Say plain spoken honesty, call it that. So much of their lives has been naught but cult programming, but it doesn’t always take. Or even often. Kids tend to rebel at some point.

        What I do wonder about, though, is the long term. There is no one so righteously angry as one who has had the truths that were ingrained in him lifelong so betrayed that he takes up a new path in opposition to the old. One day, the Progressive may find that he has created the very thing that he fears, and it is his own children who wear its face.

        1. We’re seeing that in the Alt-White. Some kids figure if they’re going to be excoriated as hateful, racist blablablah, then they may as well go ahead and BE actual hateful racist.

        2. What Dan said. Someone is going to look at the herd of black-masked “antifa” idiots and say, “No, THIS is what a Fascist does,” and it’s going to be an ugly, painful (and probably terminal) awakening.

  16. SJW Crybulling can only work with nice, kind, polite, civilized people in the exact same way that Nonviolence only works with nice, kind, polite, civilized people. You need a common belief in higher justice and the rule of Law. They started well, but have moved on to the utter ridiculous.

    Thus, I believe that the “I’m a victim, give me preferences and money” thing is just about run its course. The National F^*%$ Reserve is reaching depletion, and a lot of people are just out of S*&^%s to give.

    1. There was a story about that. If the Germans had defeated the British, taken over India and Gandhi attempted those non-violent protests… It didn’t work out well for him.

      Liberals never note that protesters in most countries don’t protest police violence by laying down in front of police cars.

      1. “The Last Article,” by Harry Turtledove

        Given, however, that Gandhi advised that the Jews in Germany commit mass suicide in order to prove their moral superiority, I found it difficult to have much sympathy for the man.

      2. “The Last Article” by Harry Turtledove.

        The “fun part” was the final discussion between the German Field Marshal and Gandhi (before Gandhi was taken out and shot).

        The Field Marshal defeated Gandhi in a “battle of words” and Gandhi knew it. 👿

Comments are closed.