Yesterday on the net there was a kerfuffle with one of the snowflakes trying to ban Baen authors from conventions.

In it, one of them insisted that Larry is an evil man (and Ringo too) and when confronted by real life people saying that “No, I met them, they’re nice people”she said that’s how you know they are bad men.  She then unrolled a litany of “life experiences” that proves that anyone acting nice is a monster.


I fully believe some of her friends were monsters.  There is a type of “feminist” male who uses ideology to mask their evil.  It’s the same type who would have been overly pious when the marker for “good” was being religious. (And which led to the stereotype of good, religious people being evil.)  I found this stereotype in the sixties as “pacifist” and “anti-war” males, and it finally came into focus with me with Heinlein saying that any man with enough testosterone to sire a child would down the white flag and hoist the jolly roger at the first opportunity, because these guys were often public “good” (for values of what was considered “good”) and private evil.  A good example of this is Clinton in his treatment of women.

So, some of her friends are monsters.  Are all of them?  Well, when you assume if men act nice they’re monsters and if they act like monsters they’re monsters… where’s the falsification of your hypothesis?  And do you want to live in the world you created?

It goes with other things too: if all white people have “white privilege” to the point that you call concentration camp survivors privileged, but at the same time you point to people of color who succeed and say “but they’d books at home, so they had white privilege”… how do you falsify the idea of white privilege?

If people disagreeing with your taste in books makes them Nazis and white supremacists, even if they’re libertarian and not white… where’s your falsification?

If everyone on your side are “good people” even though you’ve uncovered a few of them as monsters, where’s the falsification?

It applies to our own side too, alas.

If you know everyone is out to get conservatives, and you wave away the fact tons of conservatives are still up on Amazon, even as others get taken down as Amazon being careful not to hit everyone… where’s the falsification?

If you think all gays are child molesters and when someone points out gay people who’d rather self-castrate than molest a child and you say “they must just be hiding it?” where’s the falsification?

When you, right or left, think anyone who deviates from your points and — for good and sufficient reason — disagrees with say 20% of your beliefs is an enemy and functionally on the other side… where’s the falsification?

Look, guys, for years, I’ve had reason to suspect things like shenanigans with my books, but I say nothing, because, you know, can’t prove it one way or another.  I’ll say most of my books get dropped on the floor, but so do most books ever, so I can’t SAY it’s political.  I can suspect it’s political, but I can’t SAY anything. Because I can neither prove nor falsify.

It’s like the “big conspiracy” theory of history.  How do you falsify it?  It might be true (though aspects of it are highly unlikely) but if you can’t falsify it how can you believe it?

On mom’s side we have an invidious legacy of incipient paranoia. I’ve seen relatives go down it.  If you think everyone hates you and you can’t do anything, it eats you up inside, isolates you, seals you inside your crazy believes and will make you a bonafide loony, instead of a charming eccentric.

The other side is fully there, drinking their own ink.  After the Soviet union fell, their big theoretical effort was designed to creating unfalsifiable beliefs like that we live in a patriarchy, or that women are always oppressed, or that there’s “invisible” racism, or that … well, whatever the cause du jour is.  They’re all unfalsifiable, because they have handwavium to explain away contrary evidence.

Which means their side is becoming more and more insulated from reality, and therefore dangerous and destructive when they get their hands on… anything.

We’re not there yet.  Most means of communication are on the other side’s hands, and we’re exposed more to their point of view than ours.

But ours is starting to be AVAILABLE and that’s already winding up the more… ah… fragile members of our side.

Mind how you go.  This is a very premature warning.  Except for a few … fragile people, we’re nowhere there yet.
BUT the worm is turning.  The times are changing.  Let’s not look into the abyss and become what we beheld.

If a belief is unfalsifiable, try not to hug it to your bosom and pet it and call it George.  Chances are it’s not real. (Unless it’s a religion, and then carry on.) Chances are there are contrary examples.  And at any rate, you’ll be saner by remaining open to the opportunity of falsification.

Reality is that which bites you in the *ss while you’re sealed in your bubble.  Don’t seal the bubble.


173 thoughts on “Unfalsifiable

  1. Occam’s Razor comes in useful here: If there are two explanations for something, the simpler one is more likely. So if two explanations are “All men are evil molester rapey monsters” and “Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein are two men who are evil molester rapey monsters”, the latter is mre likely than the former, especially as it requires no hand-wavy hidden-truth explanations for why people you know directly are not thus.

    1. It’s a much less comfortable idea, though, if you then have to explain ‘men who are not rapey monsters still don’t treat me as I desire.’

      It’s more comfortable to just slap a monster sticker on it.

      1. Yes, indeed. LOTS more comfortable than having to think “Maybe the reason all the men in my life are bastards is that no good man with half his marbles wants anything to do with me.”

        1. Or “I keep ruling out anybody who doesn’t have Serious Issues as dating material.”

          That seems to be the more common in those cases I have any inside knowledge– the guy is going after girls who will jump right into his bed, the gal is going for guys that push some sort of emotional buttons, and they can’t figure out why they are not getting different results.

          1. Tut, tut, tut. Talks-With-Plants could explain it all to you. ALL men are evil. We can tell this because they never stop doing evil things like hollowing out women and taking them over. And we can tell they do that because these women don’t agree with Talks-With-Plants!

    2. Yeah. I’m a man, and I can be fairly confident that I’m not an evil molester rapey monster, even if I am an evil monster. But what if I did not have that information?

      I can look between patterns of other information, reading between the entrails. This is still vulnerable to carefully arranged false information, but perfect coordination apparently does not exist, and I’m mostly too boring to specifically target.

      Hollywood seems to be quite heinously evil, but I do not see the results I would expect if every man, or every woman, were like WJC, H. Weinstein, HRC, and so forth.

    3. The devil comes in when people ask “what are the predictors for evil rapey monsters?”

      Especially when vast swaths of potential answers are ++verboten and (just to make the whole thing more fun) the consensus regarding same is either [1] Potential Answer must be true or PTB wouldn’t forbid it! Or [2] It must be a hallmark of extreme moral review: Burn the witch!

      And that’s just for straightforward sex differences.

    4. > “All men are
      > “Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein are

      The second is twice as complex (two subjects vs. one) as the first, therefore the first postulate satisfies Occam’s Razor.

      Yes, a lot of people *do* think like that…

  2. So a partial truth. Some men and women who act nice are actually “evil.” But many men and women who act nice are “good.”

    I really like the “jolly rogers” quote as well.

  3. When I was growing up, I suspected that everybody was against me.

    Then when I became an adult, I knew that everybody was against me.

    Only the first line above is true. 😈

    Seriously, if somebody wants to be paranoid, they’ll always find reasons to be paranoid. 😦

    As for the “conspiracy theory of history”, I’ve heard too much bunk associated with that idea and I’ve come to hate the expression “the victors always write the history books” because that expression “enables” too much garbage.

    IE If you don’t have facts supporting your garbage idea, then you just claim that the “bad guys” erased the evidence. 😦

    1. “The victors write the history books” isn’t even necessarily true. Ida Tarbell, whose muckraking work shaped how John D. Rockefeller is perceived was the daughter of one of the men who sold out to Rockefeller for cash. The ones who fought and lost mostly accepted it as the price of the game. The ones who took stocks grew rich. The ones who wouldn’t bet either on themselves OR on Standard Oil hated Rockefeller like poison…and that’s (one generation removed) who ‘wrote the book’.

      Rockefeller took an industry in which NOBODY was making any money, and created a fortune…before gasoline was a big seller.

      But we are asked to accept the views of a woman who hated him, because he proved her Father was a coward.

      I’m sure there are other examples.

      1. Good example.

        My position on “the winners write the history” is “the winners can’t prevent other info from being written down”.

        IE So far no winners have been powerful enough to be the only “writers of history”. 😀

        1. My position viz “winners right history” Is that it tells you everything you need to know about the kind of reporting you’ll get from the person who says it.

    2. yes, some of these types can’t understand that someone not being ‘for’ them, doesn’t mean they are necessarily ‘against’ them.

    3. Although I have no facts to back me up I suspect the winner writes the history is more accurate the farther you go back in history. When the cost in man hours to hand copy a book vs minutes to burn it it was a lot easier to erase the narrative of your victims. The proliferation of the printing press changed things. When an inconvenient publication existed as a few dozen copies vs thousands that a printing press could easily do. I do worry about history in a digital age. It is even easier to wipe out a digital file than burn a book. Digital revisionism is going to be too tempting to some people. We are already seeing it when a tweet or post is suddenly deleted.

      1. There was one ancient Egyptian battle that was thought to be a great victory for the Pharaoh… until the records of the Hittites were found/translated concerning that battle.

        It appears that the battle was more “the Pharaoh screwed up and barely got out alive” than a great victory.

        So the “victor” couldn’t prevent the other side from “writing the history”. 😈

        Thus IMO History often depends which side’s story survived though the ages. 😀

      2. You have a point about digital revisionism, but keep in mind that most of these twerps are no more tech savy than I am. The odds that they could actually rewrite the record without leaving a trail Inspectr Clouseau could follow are negligible.

    4. But that is true to a certain extent. After WWII Karl Doenitz, the German admiral in charge of her U-Boat force, was tried and convicted for the very thing that US subs were doing to Japan.

      There are other example, but that’s the primary one that springs to mind.

      1. He was tried on crimes against peace (setting up a war of aggression), war crimes and crimes against humanity (the obvious Nazi stuff).

        He was found guilty of the last two; even though he was the president of Germany after Hitler ate a bullet, he got only ten years precisely because Admiral Nimitz and many others testified by letter that his sub tactics were inside of the norms.

        He was not found guilty of doing what the Allies were doing:
        In the actual circumstances of this case, the Tribunal is not prepared to hold Doenitz guilty for his conduct of submarine warfare against British armed merchant ships.

        (ctrl-F the phrase to get the context; took annoyingly long to find the actual document, ended up paging through military wikia.)

        1. I’m well aware of what the charges were, as well as the disposition of the case. However, if that was really a standard, then why were no Allied personnel charged with similar crimes, especially Count 3, post-war? Curtis LeMay orchestrated a bombing campaign in the Pacific with the sole goal of killing enough Japanese in order to break their will to resist.

          Allied air officers did much the same with the strategic bombing campaign, with the cities of Cologne and Dresden as particularly relevant examples.

          “Waging Aggressive War” and “Crimes Against Peace”? Those are both interesting charges as well, especially when one considers the actions of the main Allied powers during the colonial period of the late 1800’s-early 1900’s. The Boer War, Belgian actions in the Congo, even the actions of the United States in places like the Philippines. You can Google all of those too if you’re unfamiliar with any/all of them.

          And the case of Doenitz is interesting for another reason. It’s extremely likely that had Nimitz and other naval officers NOT testified to their actions re: Japan that Doenitz WOULD have been convicted of the charge stemming from unrestricted submarine warfare. In fact, the news stories from the time period make it clear that many people among the Allied nations believed that he should have been. The fact that he wasn’t convicted of that particular charge doesn’t invalidate the premise that the victors write the history.

          Note that I’m NOT criticizing the actions of the Allies during the war. Far from it. I’m merely using those as counter examples to prove that everyone does pretty reprehensible things during wartime. Some are strategic decisions, such as bombing or sub warfare. Others are more personal in nature, such as individual soldiers who choose to shoot rather than capture surrendering soldiers. Nor am I assigning moral equivalence to the actions of those under the Nazi regime and their motivations as compared to the actions of the Allies. But none of that invalidates the fact that to a certain extent, the winners *do* determine whether the actions following the war were legitimate or not, and the extent to which their own actions are judged at the time.

        2. You were correct in pointing out what I said initially. That’s what I get for posting quickly from my phone. What I should have said that he was tried and nearly convicted for doing the same thing that Allied sub commanders did.

          1. Cool beans, although I probably still would’ve pointed out there were other things to hit him on. 🙂

            There’s a reason I love Chesterton’s line about thinking in shorthand and then smudging it…..

  4. It’s the other side of the joke. Just because they’re out to get you, doesn’t mean that you’re not paranoid. 🙂

  5. There’s also the result of holding such unfalsifiable beliefs. If everything your target says is automatically wrong, your target has no incentive at all to try to compromise with you and meet you in the middle of the discussion. As I’ve said in the past, if everything I say is wrong, I get to say anything I like!

    1. Oh yeah. There’s been so much blanket, willy-nilly, accusations of every sort that anyone with any self-respect at all has announced, “Fine. Whatever you say. Bla bla bla.” and gone on with their lives. But what is gone, and possibly gone forever, is the attempt to appear “innocent” of those charges.

      If you’re going to be accused anyway, why make the effort to appear as what you know you are (or are not) in your heart? The extra effort gets you *nothing*.

  6. A personal observation: some of the most truly good people I have ever known, had very rough, crusty exteriors, because they did not invest energy in playing the Like Me game. They were who they were, and their deeds spoke more about their souls, than their (occasionally blunt or coarse) words.

    On the flip side, some of the most truly despicable people I have ever known, went to great (sometimes excruciating) lengths to play the Like Me game, because it was important to them — as Sarah noted so well — to reflect back to society what society had deemed “good” in that particular moment.

    Harvey Weinstein and Bill Clinton are probably two of the most notorious high-profile examples of the former. Men who have documented histories of being monsters, but because they’ve patronized the “good” and devoted time and energy to reflecting the “good” back to the world, as they thought the world wanted it reflected, their monstrous nature was overlooked.

    At least until enough victims screamed bloody murder, and it became impossible for these men to hide behind their decades if expensive image-crafting.

    Of course, some hurt and damaged women will point to a Clinton or a Weinstein and hiss, “They’re all like that! Just you wait! The better they are, the more they’re pulling the wool over your eyes! And these cavemen over here who don’t even try to hide their terribleness, are double-dog evil. So it’s monsters all the way down!”

    And I have met some men who say the same of women, after getting burned one too many times.

    Me? I’m lucky. I got a good lady right at the start, and we’ve somehow figured out the trick of staying in love for almost 25 years. She’s a cavewoman, in that she never gives a damn about the Like Me game, and is more focused on deeds, than words. So much so, I occasionally suspect I married a Klingon woman! (she has the hair to prove it, too.)

    Sarah’s right. There is a subtle class of human being who is adept at being a moral chameleon. Changing its colors to fit whatever moral fashions are chic for the time — but still being a depraved, abusive, altogether despicable creature at heart. These chameleons come in male and female forms, and are often classified as sociopaths to one degree or another.

    It’s a real drag that the chameleons hurt people. Especially in the “woke” era when they actively slither up to every staunch, fist-in-the-air feminist they can find. Sucking up, and sucking up, and sucking up. And yet they are still creeps, cads, lechers, pervs, pedos, and assorted scum. Thus leaving the trail of woke women to wonder, “If the woke men are this bad, the guys who don’t give a shit about being woke must be so much worse!”

    Thus, the unfalsifiable paradigm emerges: trust none of them! Least of all, the genuine good dudes. Especially if they’re not dainties, nor dandies, nor wokies. Because if even the dainties, dandies, and wokies are creeps . . . how can it be possible that the roughnecks (political, or otherwise) are decent?

    1. I suspect that a lot of women on the Left have been burned by men who are vocally feminist and “nice” on the outside, and then show the evil beneath when they have the chance. Which leads to the conclusion that if the woke guys are that bad, then the non-progressive neanderthals in the red areas must be far worse!

      1. And there are also some who went looking for the strong man but mistook “bully” for strong, and that made them decide that all men are bad. Either bullies or pretend nice but actually sleazy, with perhaps some weak wannabe sleazy ones who can’t quite manage to do what they would want to do mixed in.

      2. If your system gives you bennies for what you say, and generally tends to avoid looking too closely at what you do , it might very well attract the kind of people who would take advantage of this system.

      3. In fact, evil men have an incentive to be feminist: it lets them do their daily quota of Good Deeds at minimum expenditure of money and time — frequently with the added bonus of bullying — and so go on with their lives in the way they like.

    2. “Thus leaving the trail of woke women to wonder, “If the woke men are this bad, the guys who don’t give a shit about being woke must be so much worse!” ”


      But frankly, I really do think that there is a sorting mechanism. I think Sarah touched on that, too. But I think there is a sorting mechanism where anyone with a modicum of self-respect is so put off by an ideology that makes them into a monster, that the only ones who remain are the ones who either have no self-respect, or are working an angle. Or, okay, probably a whole lot of people, of men, who are mentally patting the girls on the head and ignoring the implications of what is being said.

      Which, you know, if you think about it, how is that possible if a guy actually takes women *seriously*?

      1. Consider also. You sleep with a hard core feminist, and impregnate her. She aborts it. What does it make you for committing a sex act that could have such consequences for your own flesh and blood?

        Now there are a lot of horny young men who have been fed a pack of lies, and aren’t smart enough to work things out before doing something irrevocable. But the man who is aware of such costs and chooses them anyway is probably a nasty piece of work. Their reasons for not being a serial killer are likely taste and practicality.

    3. I love the Crusty Goodhearts of the world…for one thing, you can skip right over the polite social nonsense and speak your mind. They usually respect the fact you are talking with them despite the protective crusty armor, and if you show you can give as good as you get, a fine time is had by all 😀

      1. I endorse this comment. The guys and gals who don’t care much for the minutiae of social niceties, who care more about actions than about words, are the ones you want on your side in a tight spot. Or even when you’re NOT in a tight spot, and just want a genuine friend.

      2. I’m probably one of those; I cultivated what I called in my youth an ‘idiot barrier.’ I may have mellowed a little in my (ha) ‘old age’; but the friends I made in my college years are STILL my friends, and meeting up was as if the years in between had never happened.

    4. I’ve always said that if broke down on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere, you’re probably better off going with the big, tattooed, bearded biker guy than the preppy BMW driver to get you to a safe place for the night.

      1. That’s primarly because because “Tattooed Bearded Bikers” ride Harleys and they’re used to being the one stranded on the side of the highway.

        BMW owners just call AAA, and when they see you on the side of the highway they just assume you’re waiting for AAA to show up.

    5. Some of the kindest, chivalrous, and most supportive-of-women-guys that I ever knew were in the military: they were upfront about what they expected of other people, men and women both, yet they were cognizant of the fact that yes, women were different (and the very best of them valued those differences) – but in no way were they anything like the conception of the hyper-macho, overcompensating creep that the usual Establishment Feminists imagined military guys to be.

      Sometimes, looking at the current Establishment Feminist frothings, I wonder if these hysterical twunts (not a typo, my contemptuous term for them) have ever met any real men at all.

        1. And they avoid real men, because they’re ‘certain’ that real macho men are all rapists. Which is funny when the men they would’ve considered ‘acceptable’ run away and leave them to be attacked by Men Of Certain Cultures exercising their Cultural Rights – and then the feminists are shocked when they do.

          1. I’d guess that the feminists do go in search of more manly men when they get tired of the soyboys, except since they really have no idea what a real men are like or where to find them they then often enough end up going to thugs, gangsters and those Men of Certain Cultures (because hey, getting two birds, more assertive man and ain’t I tolerant at the same time).

            Some are shocked and appalled with what they get. But some seem to like it, and willingly don the burka or do whatever else their thug wants of them. At least for a few years before the regret begins.

            Those women can be pretty messed up.

            1. And worse, they really go full Stockholm Syndrome brainwashing, because they cannot, absolutely cannot admit to themselves that they made a massive mistake, and enable their abusers even more… because how could they the Enlightened Feminist Woman, have fallen so?!

    6. Another reason that really nice people have a rough exterior– it’s a good way to avoid being noticed as an easy mark.

    7. What amuses me is that Ringo’s pointing this out is being used as evidence of his Wrongthink evilness. They don’t try to show that he’s wrong (mostly because they can’t), they just say that his statements are Proof of Evil Intent. Just like the RavenCon AAR. Whereas the rest of us just go “Yeah, that makes sense. Fits what I’ve observed.”

      But the Progressive worldview is so self-evident, to them, at least, that they cannot conceive of someone thinking differently. That’s why they talk about how they want to ban people for “shitty behavior”, not politics. Of course, that “shitty behavior” IS having different politics.

    8. My father, who worked with Israeli and Saudi militaries,would agree with you on now smooth and pleasant does not correlate to virtue.

      You seem to be one of the happy men who found a Proverbs 31 wife. That makes me smile

      Which leads to the usual MGC tangent: How are we going to find a way for our kids to find each other? The old Mrs. degree is right out.

  7. An awful lot of people should read Sir Karl Popper…but the ones who need it most are precisely the ones who never would — or would reject his logic as “white privilege.”

      1. Sir Karl Popper is famed as “the philosopher of science.” It was he who first argued that no proposition can be verified unless it can be falsified as well.

        Popper’s insistence on the testability of hypothesis purported to relate to the real world got him into some serious conflicts, most famously with Martin Heidegger, who made a second career out of reviling him. (There’s a story that Heidegger once threatened Popper with a poker, but it’s been called apocryphal.)

        1. Threatened with an Apocryphal Poker sounds like the name of a rollicking good urban fantasy novel.

        2. That wasn’t Heidegger, it was Wittgenstein.

          There’s a book about it:

  8. Dammit, she found me out. Oh, well, at least I haven’t been polishing those jackboots for nothing.

    Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out the level of bad behavior is higher among “progressive” men than us throwbacks. There has to be a LOT of suppressed rage over there at all the perfectly normal needs, emotions and ambitions being pushed down in the attempt to be successful in a “culture” with constantly changing goalposts.

    1. Plus the odd, warped naivety by some of the woke and progressive, that if you say the right things you Must be a Good Person. There is no possible way a woke individual could by a manipulative, abusive cad or cadess.

      And so the predators move in and surprise!

      1. You are missing the biggest reason: the leftist support for abortion. It is an essential part of life for someone like William Clinton or Edward Kennedy. When you get a woman pregnant, you send Sid Blumenthal or whomever it is you have for your own personal goon, and tell her to abort or else.

      2. That and those who *don’t* mouth the correct phrases must be evil icky haters who don’t believe in equality and whatnot.

        Or someone I tangled with on Twitter seemed to believe that, at least. My references to Harrison Bergeron seemed to fly over his head.

      3. (Nods) You see that bizarre notion in a lot of religious groups. I would include “as well,” but I think that wokeness is almost a religion.

      4. > if you say the right things you Must be a Good Person.

        Because it’s easy to listen to what people say, but takes actual work to observe and interpret what people do.

        Plus a creepily large percentage of the “work and progressive” act like they don’t see people as individuals; they try to manipulate others by stereotypes and tags, then get upset when their victims don’t fit into their preselected pigeonholes.

        1. Yep. It’s been a long time but we used to get them here. Calling us names and trying to push our buttons in the belief we were uneducated rednecks who’d never been out of the Southern US and were all fundamentalist baptists and all white.
          I miss getting one of them. Was fun.

    2. Cuz the soyboys are suppressing their proper instincts, so who knows what warped-into-evil will manifest. Meanwhile the throwbacks proudly express their instincts, one of which is to protect the wimmins and chilluns.

  9. “She then unrolled a litany of “life experiences” that proves that anyone acting nice is a monster.”

    The common denominator rule likely applies. Either her social circles suck, or her friend selection process sucks. Then again, she might be lying her ass off.

    I suspect the last one. These people habitualize dishonesty.

    1. Or she’s met a lot of evil people masking their evil under a show of overt progressiveness.

      1. Both true. Could also be a combination of them all. I usually find through personal experience, or in observing others do it, that when these little victims are confronted with questions regarding their victimization/oppression, that they’re actually either full of shit, or completely mischaracterizing it for sympathy.

        Here’s Dave Rubin calling a little victim’s bluff at 4:30 to describe how she’s been oppressed and it rapidly becoming apparent that she’s full of hist and spouting this leftist boilerplate line about oppression/victimhood.

        Starts at about 4:30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXTjL-f-msU

          1. I saw that interview. Rubin was in his process of escaping the Left, and Larry sealed the deal. Rubin just needs to learn how to handle himself better in situations like that video I linked.

      2. Yeah, if every nice guy you meet turns out to be a monster, that’s either unbelievably bad luck, or there’s something seriously wrong with you.

  10. I generally look at the proposition and ask how many impossible things do I have to believe for this to be true. With socialism the answer is more than two. With SJWs it varies widely depending on the time of day. But usually not less than 12.

    Which pack of idiots this time? The usual ones or a new bunch?

      1. If I may ask, are there any links? I’ve heard it talked about that some people tried to get DragonCon to ban certain authors, and that DC pushed back hard. But everything I’m seeing is second hand.

        Would like to have the information on hand, as it may be of use to me soon.

        1. I was going to give you enough lines to be able to find it by a search…but it appears that it has been removed.

          I didn’t comment on it, so she couldn’t have blocked me, but I can’t reach it anymore.

        2. Would David Weber be an acceptable neutral source? His facebook page has even handed details– and comments from both camps.

              1. Thanks for the links, everyone. I was already aware of Larry’s post and the petition, but most of them were trying to talk around the details I most wanted to know. Not their fault, I understand why its better to be circumspect in these situations. But a little frustrating when you’re looking for specific details.

                Let’s hope sanity will eventually prevail.

                :::engaging Romulan Lurking Device, returning to Lurk Mode:::

                1. Yeah, nobody decent wants to pick a fight by going “hey, I’m a fairly famous person, I am going to pick this person out and link their facebook post and whip folks up to go get ’em!”

          1. This is exactly what I was looking for, something that names names and more or less explains exactly what happened.

            I try to stay away from FB, mostly because its a temporal singularity and I have much better (and all too often, more urgent) uses for my time. But this summarizes most of what I needed to know.

  11. I do agree with the butt-hurt lefty on one thing. There are an awful lot of people out there who are acting nice. Key word “acting “. Few are worth the bother of getting to know, most can’t be trusted out of your sight.

    I may also be a little bit cranky about it. 😡

  12. if i tell lies about him, and he acts nice around you, doesn’t that support the hypothesis that the the monster is i, not he.

  13. I swear, a lot of people put more weight on words than on events. “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” Apparently not the lying eyes…

  14. Back during the George Zimmerman case, I ran across a blogger who said that the fact that all the eyewitnesses supported Zimmerman’s story had him absolutely convinced that Zimmerman must be lying; after all, everyone knew that eyewitness testimony was unreliable. I remember reading that post, then thinking, “Really? So if all the eyewitnesses said that Zimmerman just jumped the guy and shot him without provocation, you’d be MORE inclined to think Zimmerman was innocent? Or is this a case of you’ve already made up your mind and are just looking for an excuse to dismiss anything that doesn’t agree with you?”

    1. I would just ask people if hammering a guy’s head on the pavement was sufficient to justify an attempt at self-defense, and if not what would be?

      Zimmerman waited until the cute harmless eight year old kid Traaaaayvon, (with the bag of skittles, don’t forget the skittles) was actively trying as hard as he could to -kill- him, which is appropriate when deadly force is being used.

      I don’t know that I’d have waited until the other guy was two tries into crushing my skull on the sidewalk, but then I wouldn’t have been playing sentry by myself either. There should always be three sentries. Two you see, and one you don’t see. The one you don’t see gets the C2, or a belt-fed.

    2. The amount of idiocy associated with that incident convinced me, sadly, that Trayvon was probably just an idiot kid who had never run into somebody who he couldn’t intimidate. Probably a low level thug, just because nobody stopped him. I remembered my own night-prowlings, when i could easily have been arrested or shot, with justification if not strict justice. And I was a sheltered middle-class White boy, under no illusions that I was a badass. I feel sorry for Zimmerman, sorry (just a little) for the kid, weary of the ‘gangsta’ mindset (and hiw is it different from the mindset of white immigrants from the Prohibition era?) and acid contempt for the Black Quislings like Sharpton who feed on this crap.

      1. The amount of idiocy associated with that incident convinced me, sadly, that Trayvon was probably just an idiot kid who had never run into somebody who he couldn’t intimidate.

        Turns out that’s close, except that it wasn’t just him– he knew that he wouldn’t be punished for it.

        Early participant of the same program that Parkland, Florida had their shooter in, where laws aren’t enforced on those enrolled in school.

        Which means he’d normally been around only victims who knew that authority would punish them for any resistance, and taking an “ass-whuppin” would be the easiest route.

        1. I can’t decide if I believe that the Left deliberately warps Black culture to perpetuate a class of losers they can patronise, or that their narcicistic philosophy simply has that effect. In short, I can’t tell if they are revoltingly evil or revoltingly stupid.

          1. Attempting to be charitable– I know I say that a lot, it’s because id-me wants to rip the threat to shreds and devil take them all– it’s a logical progression from the “don’t punish your child, he’ll turn out bad,” then “don’t punish the bully, he’ll turn out bad” steps.

            Problem being, there doesn’t seem to be a point where they’d say the system DOES need to punish the violent.

  15. “There is none so blind as he who will not see”. Sometimes, you can even detect a motive for the unwillingness to see.
    As Benjamin Franklin observed, “So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.”

  16. Let me see, I have sired four children.

    Bring me my cutlass, faithful minions!

    Unfurl the Jolly Roger!

    Oh, and bring me a comb and the Just For Men; “Graybeard” just doesn’t have the right marketing appeal…

    Fantasy aside, I skimmed past a note that the “ultimate male feminist” Justin Trudeau has been accused of groping. One twit, count them, one (as of now) – so I would visit the local salt lick. But he is one of those who opened the gates, so I have scant sympathy.

  17. Please, please tell me that someone asked her:
    “Ah, so they would’ve looked fairer, and felt fouler, is that it?”

    To be read in the voice of John Hurt as Aragorn, of course.

    1. Now that brings back childhood memories. UNWANTED childhood memories, thank you very much. 😛

      I just rewatched that scene on Youtube. I wouldn’t call any of the animated LOTR stuff great, but what the H-E-double-hockeysticks did the Bakshi version mutilate Sam like that for?

      1. Hey, I love that version!

        OK, I loved all the animated versions. And my kids know all the words to the disco-orc songs.

            1. Fair enough. I like him but I can see how he’d be abrasive to some.

              While we’re on the subject of LOTR humor I’ll plug DM of the Rings as well. It’s LOTR as a D&D campaign with players who’ve never heard the story before (and are desperate to avoid hearing it now): https://shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612

              1. Not so much him as the style of the videos; I’ve seen him talking elsewhere, and read his writing, and it’s fine (‘s how I know he’s got decent humor)– I think the videos trigger my “they’re trying to talk fast and be confident so you don’t think too closely and catch them putting one over on you” response.

                Probably part of it is that he is working from a script and speaking clearly, too, so there’s not the same geeking out factor that can save that presentation…

                Not really sure, though.

                1. Shamus puts out a lot of good content. I’m just said he’s not with Spoiler Warning any more.

      2. It has some cool scenes (pretty much anything with the Ringwraiths) but it also has a butterfly Balrog, Viking Boromir and an ending where they run out of time and money and giving a damn.

  18. What really makes me mad? I’m a decent, nice guy. I’ve seen too many jerks, too many assholes, too many people that aren’t worth the powder to blow to hell. I won’t be one of them. I treat people with respect, think well of others, and help where I can. I’ve had more girls that I care to think about ask me, seriously, why I’m single. In a lot of ways, I’m a catch.

    But, I’m not “correct”-I’m a curmudgeonly throwback, not woke, not politically correct, not the right forms of “cute” or “safe”. Since my appearance is of those “Nice Guys” that claim to be nice, yet hoist the Jolly Rogers and rape and pillage when they get away with it, they think I’m the same.

    It pisses me off. Do you have to be a sociopath to get any play?

    1. Nope, you’ve got to do something much scarier– find a woman that’s your friend, your real friend, the “this person is FAMILY to me–I might put her ahead of siblings” type friend…and then ask her out.

      After you’ve been you around her. And she’s been around you. Just because it’s fun to be around you. I was trying to find my future husband a girlfriend when he finally got me to realize he was interested in me, as I’ve told here before.

      Assuming you don’t have any friends that will try to hook you up, of course.

      Of course, looking for real friends makes you vulnerable, too. :/ Lots of using bastards out there.

      About the best advice I can give for finding your other half? If you’d want to protect her from a guy doing it if that guy wasn’t you– don’t do it. And return calls/texts/emails even if it’s just a quickie. 🙂

      1. Ask her if she’s a layer cake.

        Asking her if she’s like an onion only works with ogresses.

      2. That doesn’t always work. Sometimes, you help her ‘realize something about herself’.

        I wish i was kidding.

    2. Don’t ask me. I used to claim I was antisocial, until Wendy Davis ran for governor of Texas and I decided that she was genuinely antisocial and I wasn’t. Although I do retain some small claim to being a hermit…

    3. “It pisses me off. Do you have to be a sociopath to get any play?”

      No. But you do have to stop associating with idiots. Generally asking nicely will get you laid more than half the time, except with -idiots- who are playing games. Those ones, you’re lucky when they turn you down. Walk away proud, and offer prayers of thanks that you dodged a bullet.

      1. And, now looking at the San Francisco Bay Area fandom, I have to say that I’ve dodged a whole bloody barrage…

        Still lonely. But, having seen some of the people there, the momentary fun would have been a long-term disaster.

        1. Bay Area fandom? Dude. What have I said about associating with idiots?

          Join a Tai Chi club or something.

            1. Important life tip young Jedi, exercise makes people more attractive, and more attracted. Win-win.

              You gotta work for your play.

        2. Being so lonely that you sell yourself short is a major risk. My sister did pretty much nothing but. 😦

          I wonder how much of the horrible dating scene is boils down to that….

        3. > And, now looking at the —>San Francisco Bay Area<—- fandom,


          1. There was a point, mid-to-late ’90s, that the fandom here was awesome. It’s been going bad over the years, infected by the SJZs. I haven’t been anywhere near BayCon since 2015, and don’t plan on being anywhere near them soon.

    1. That said, if you meet an asshole, you meet an asshole. If everyone you meet is an asshole, the problem probably with them but with the common factor in everyone you meet.

      1. Everyone IS part asshole. Just the laws of nature. It’s the ones that are nothing butt that are the problem.

        1. “It’s the ones that are nothing butt that are the problem.”

          Intentional pun or freudian typo? : – )

      2. One of the more amusing discussions I’ve had with the Housemate is that he seems to become the romantic focus of a number of women in a very short time, no matter how much of an asshole he behaves. (He does this so they don’t fall for him, because that’s a dead end no matter what.)

        I point out that his assholery isn’t – he’s abrasive, blunt, but honest and ultimately not evil. The girls fall for him because he’s much nicer and more trustworthy than the guys they’ve previously dated. He’s helped a number of women out of near-fatal abusive relationships, and for some of these women, he’s the kind of man they should be looking for, and they consider safe.

        I watched the pin drop and his face as he took in that there was a point where he wouldn’t behave in a certain abusive manner, and compared to the men those women had fallen in love, dated, married, and have had children with, he was indeed a much better man.

        1. Well, that and the “hard to get/impossible dream” factor. Some people are hugely attracted to the exact person who wants no part of them or ignores their existence.

          Much like cats.

          1. Considering the rage he’s had to deal with when Certain Unhappy Noisy Types of females get upset that he’s categorically off the market, and then say it’s rape that he chooses this… I wonder how much of it has to do with the realization that ‘he doesn’t want anything to do with me that I WANT’ and is rage-filled revenge. Those sorts also fly the hell off the handle when discovering he has female friends. Indeed, lots of them.

      3. If everyone you meet is an asshole, it might be you. Or, you might be in New York City.

  19. This, with bells on. And that dance on the edge is so hard, when you’ve been bullied, and lied to… how to see the world “with eyes of love” when all you want to do is pull up the drawbridge and arm cannons.

    1. Gee, another anti-GamerGate fake-faced Lefty “feminist male” gets #MeTooed? I am so shocked, y’know? How can this be?!

      1. In truth I don’t even care if the guy is actually a creeper or if some SJW beeotch is getting her Twitter freak on. Either way, I’m munching the popcorn and watching the fireworks. ~:D

      1. Defining co-worker:
        You can’t avoid them and still do your job; they could be moved over to being a boss/subordinate/person you can’t avoid and still do your job.

          1. Seen too many people argue against the “Don’t date co-workers” thing with examples that boiled down to “co worker” as “works for the same company.” Seen lots of bad results from folks who listened… so poked around until I THINK I figured out why it’s such a bad idea.

  20. Occam’s Razor it is. And I don’t think the warning is premature at all. As an old white guy, military vet, and shooter, I’m everything the left hates. Not that a damn one of them actually knows me, or is willing to sit down and talk. They do not want to take responsibility for their actions, but want ‘us’ all to be punished for the actions of the few. Yes, there ARE bad people out there, and they are not all white males. MBZ anyone???

  21. Not quite OT, but for those who didn’t think modern feminists were rabid man-haters, we have such scholars at Northeastern U. Professor Suzanna Danuta Walters, asking in an op-ed in the Washington Post what’s wrong with hating men, and then addressing men who support feminism with terms equivalent to “butt out, we hate you, too”.

    My. Now, *that’s* how you recruit for the opposition. She has a grossly inflated view of Women’s Power if she doesn’t realize that those who pay her salary and print her words for public consumption are just playing along. Or, for that matter, even if she does realize it.

    1. Modern Feminism is facing the same problem that confronted the March of Dimes when the polio vaccine was developed. Their major problems are, if not solved, no longer really urgent. The March jumped diseases, to Muscular Distrophy (and my Mother gave them bupkiss from then on). The Feminists could take up crusading for women in the Third World, but that would involve real hardship and serious risk.

      1. I read the other day that the University of Michigan has ~100 people working in their Diversity Department. These are management, not instructors.
        The problem Feminists have is that they think they’re winning. They see these universities hiring more and more of their fruitbat friends, and it looks like Progress! to them.

        What they don’t get is that American Higher Education is in a bubble right now, floating on borrowed money. There’s nearly a $Trillion and a half dollars of student loans out there right now. Not hyperbole, that’s the government Dept. of Education number. $1,480,000,000,000.

        Sooner or later, that bubble is going to do what bubbles always do. Pop. The the University of Michigan will have -zero- people working in their Diversity department, and there will be a bunch of suddenly unemployed and unemployable FemiNazis out there wondering what happened.

        Good luck with the Mrs. degree as a fallback, ya buncha boy haterz. ~:D

    2. I saw that Washington Post essay. What a piece of work! Never mind that all of the essential premises are wrong but suppose if she was right… she’s still asking that men provide. Men have to provide.

      They have to step back, bow out, and just agree to be hated… stop *competing* with women… stop *winning*…

      Ignore that true history has always been a collaboration.

      I commented something about how it was all about wanting to be “kept” without actually having to be a pleasant person in return.

  22. First off gonna have to get a useful definition of “monster”.

    Because if you’re a *man* you ARE a monster. Hopefully a polite, civilized monster on a chain.

    Because sometimes you need monsters. And when you need monsters you need them now and you need them bad and there’s no time to pop down to the lab.

    1. But we need usable, controllable, tameable monsters. Not rabid monsters. I am a monster for saying this, but some monsters need to be put down.

      1. We used to have societal mechanisms for creating the monster in boys who didn’t have it, taming it in the boys who did, and in teaching them to control it.

        And mechanisms for dealing with the monsters who couldn’t be controlled.

        We blew those up.

  23. We need to teach boys how to be dangerous. This is the danger of fatherless children.

    One problem is that women want to marry the dangerous man and make him safe. This will not end well.

    China has created a surplus of young men without enough women. Islam promises multiple wives to the powerful.
    This will not end well.

    Those teaching the next generation are teaching lies.
    This will not end well.

    Just remember: It could be worse. So do not give up. Evil only wins when good men do nothing. Both sheepdogs and wolves are dangerous, which are you?

Comments are closed.