Most people have their heads stuffed with straw.  Particularly people in power in any field.  They don’t have to listen to anyone else, so they don’t.  And because most people want to be heroes — and because unfortunately for the last fifty years at least people have been raised to want to “change the world” — they make themselves important villains to fight.

It’s particularly convenient when you can convince yourself you’re doing good in the world by doing well.  I.e. it’s convenient to convince yourself that your pursuit for money and fame will make the world a better place.

And meh, if you’re a writer and you convince yourself your thriller is giving a message that it’s bad to abuse women, who are you hurting?  Pat yourself in the back all you want to.  It’s fine.

The problem comes in when you need to see yourself as heroic and you are really not doing anything that is particularly brave or groundbreaking.  I mean, sure, you can write a book saying “don’t beat women.”  But you know, that’s not a temptation of most males, outside certain ethnic and religious groups.

Then you convince yourself everyone is secretly beating women, and your book, YOUR BOOK, is the one that will change it.

This is also relatively harmless.  In my first writers’ group we had a lady who had been raised in an ultra fundamentalist, bible-literalist environment.  She was dissecting the Bible to find contradictions because she was going to write a book with them, and this would convince people the Bible was NOT literal and change the world.

I didn’t have the heart to tell her that, seriously, most of the world didn’t think every word in the Bible was the absolute, fricking immutable truth, particularly not in the translation of a translation of a translation.  Heck many Christian groups discard vast portions of it.

And besides, she was happy and it gave her life purpose.  At least she didn’t spend her time accusing us of having her for wanting to upend the inerrant nature of the Bible, or accusing vast groups of controlling the world and keeping the truth of contradictions in the bible from coming out.

The problem I have with the publishing establishment right now (and the political establishment) is that they feel a need to fight these invisible enemies, but also to make other people into their invisible enemies.

There is a guy, very publishing establishment, although they’ve tried to shed him a couple of times, but he crawled back and licked their feet and begged to be let in, who comments regularly at MGC.  He’s a good example of what is going on in publishing (and politics) even though he’s low level and probably believes every word.

I didn’t even know — or care — that he was gay and apparently in a relationship with a non-white gentleman.  And if I’d known, I’d care about the same as any other commenter’s orientation or sexuality.  Except that one of the other commenters found out he’s been going — note — TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POLITICAL FENCE to ask if he should go to Liberty con with his partner.

The answer of course was that they’d get abused, possibly attacked.

Bows head and pinches nose.  Guys. There are several gay couples at Liberty con every year.  Some are part of our (yeah the evil “Puppies”) inner circle.  As for race, the first year I attended LC I ended up leaving the GOH talk to rock a baby outside the room.  Mostly, because my kids had just outgrown my arms, and I really missed babies.  I’m still amazed the family trusted me, because total stranger, but I was one of the guests, so…  And mom really wanted to hear the GOH.  That baby was bi-racial.  He’s now a teen.  I catch glimpses of him, though teens and later run in a pack at LC, and adults don’t have much to do with him.

Now I don’t care, except it would be good for this man to see no one cares, and that people are decent to him despite political differences (which are more likely to come up than orientation, because no one cares about that) and to have a conversation with people who are completely different from what he expects.

But for him, this is very real.  There is a vast right wing conspiracy who hates him for something he can’t help, and who would attack him and his partner for no reason.

I don’t know if the people at the top of the hierarchies on the left believe this.  They might.  It’s after all much better to say you’re corrupting an award and holding on to power and threatening to destroy careers because the other side is racisss sexissss homophobic, than to say you’re trying to save you little piece of the pie till retirement and after that you don’t give a damn.  So you might convince yourself that this straw is real, and everyone on the powerless, quixotic side is a black hearted villain.

But the problem is that a lot of the low levels believe that as received wisdom.  People they admire propagate this bullshit.  And so they grow up convinced the world is against them: that everyone hates them for being women, or gay, or whatever, and that they will never be allowed to succeed.

That’s a horrible idea.

The truth is, the right hasn’t been the establishment since WWII.  We have no power.  We didn’t use to have a voice.  And so the left built themselves a pretty little enemy, one that was easily defeatable once educated.

We were ignorant troglodytes, with little education, who were, ah, how did President Obama so eloquently put it?

We clung to guns and Bibles and were afraid of people not like us.

He might have considered he was afraid of people not like him.  If he took a minute to think.

Does the stereotype exist?  Well, there are 300 million of us.  Just about everything exists, including a one-eyed-one-legged purple haired women who is afraid of eggs because she thinks they’re space aliens.

In significant numbers?  Bah.  I know some people who fit one stereotype or two, but none that fit all three.

I’m tired o the straw-spinners making everyone who opposes them afraid of “women and minorities.”  Really?  That’s what they’re going to go with?  Like anyone can work without coming across women and minorities, in any field for the last fifty years.

Perhaps the straw is spun because they’re afraid of people who are not like them.

Or perhaps it’s done calculatedly to make themselves feel brave and special.

I don’t care.  I care that it stops.

There have always been women in fantasy and science fiction, and the only people trying to stop them were New York publishers who though that “the public” was made of woman-hating straw.  There have always been people of different levels of tan.  There have always been gay people.

We don’t care, so long as you can write.

And as for politics, no, the right is not “Nazis.” You can tell by how you’re not in a camp.  The more you build up the straw and scream this bullshit simply because we disagree with you on how to build the best society FOR ALL, the more you get ignored.

We’re well past the time now — in publishing or in politics — where we could avert  backlash pendulum swing.

We’re now in the place that I and people like me are trying to prevent it from swinging too far and bringing about that horrible straw world you fear.

I beg you, with tears in my eyes, stop stuffing everything with straw and start thinking.


358 thoughts on “Straw

  1. File 770:

    Sarah Hoyt is back to her old trick of denouncing anyone who doesn’t think exactly the way she wants them to.

    “I particularly found her attacks against LGBTQ and POC disturbing.”
    — Mary Robinette Kowal

    There is talk of a petition/drive to have her barred from LibertyCon lest she make marginalized peoples feel threatened/unwelcome.

    1. Contemptuous Flagellation: “Failed Sad Puppies 4 leader Sarah Hoyt doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Let me mansplain what she really means.”

    2. That can’t be in response to this, not this quickly.

      But really, it’s Abusive Spouse 101… Those people (or Sarah) are awful, you have to stay with us. You have no where to go. No one who understands. No one to defend you.

      But really, it’s nothing more than people who pretend to use words for a living objecting to the fact that someone doesn’t use today’s preferred and approved phrases and homilies. What you’ve said is normally understandable by normal people but the fact that YOU DIDN’T CARE ENOUGH to find out what today’s special way of speaking is, simply means that YOU DON’T CARE.

      Proof, I say! It’s proof!

    3. Betting that when presented with this petition Liberty Con revokes Sara’s registration and issues her a new one as a guest of honor, all expenses paid?

    4. This is just further proof that none of this is really real and it’s 1972 and one HECKUVAN acid trip… right?

      Hell, Sarah hasn’t discriminated by *species* (never mind that real v. myth thing)…. and some expect any to believe the quoted garp? The ‘against PoC’ is especially amusing as, has been noted, depending upon UV exposure, Sarah could qualify as a PoC.

      As a non-real person (mythical, remember) and therefore perhaps or dangerously close to a non-person (but not an unperson.. that’s a LEFT thingie), I have never felt threatened by Sarah.. alright, with the exception of possible carp bombardment – but that’s rather generic, yes?

      1. >> “I have never felt threatened by Sarah.. alright, with the exception of possible carp bombardment”

        You fear being carpet-bombed?

      2. I have never felt threatened by Sarah.. alright, with the exception of possible carp bombardment – but that’s rather generic, yes?

        It’s a compliment! You have no idea how happy I was when I first got threatened with a carping. You have this lovely feeling of success. You’ve earned it! Yay!

    5. Poe’s Law, sorry.
      Just a bit of my imagining what might come out of Bile 770…

        1. Aren’t all fonts appropriate for sarcasm?

          Although I will admit to finding Comic Sans especially appropriate.

      1. There’s your problem…you tried to parody the unparodiable. There’s no craziness you can attribute to them that would make people say, “Oh come on, they’re not that crazy!”

    6. So lets unpack this…

      Supposing someone is, for reals, going to petition Liberty Con to disinvite Sarah for making marginalized people feel unwelcome… (by apparently treating them like grown-ups and not fragile children.)

      How does that work with the assholes who were assuring that commentor on MGC that everyone at Liberty Con are racists and homophobes and will treat him and his spouse horribly?

      Because that seems pretty d*mn clearly to be *on purpose* trying to make marginalized people feel unwelcome!

    7. Seriously? Do they not know just how hard they’ll be laughed out of the place if they try that? If LC even considered that seriously the entire con would self-destruct. I guarantee Rich will never do anything like that.

        1. Normally I wouldn’t approve this, but seriously. Rich and poor WHAT?
          You do realize we’re talking of a con that we all know, and it has bog nothing to do with wealth, right?

          1. I think he missed the fact that “Rich” is the guy’s name, not a statement about wealth.

        2. In this case I think it’s “Rich” short for Richard, a person. Rather than “rich” a person or persons with lots and lots of money.

    8. I’m assuming this is purest snark? Even the Vilers aren’t *quite* that dumb.

      1. Every time I read something like that, I can’t help but hearing in my head that someone, somewhere is going “oh yeah? Well watch this!”.

      2. Secret video surveillance of 770’s upper echelon (also fits well with Sarah’s “straw” theme):

    9. Geez. I remember thinking of MRK as a sweet voice in any discussion. Then she came down on the puppy-kickers side of the fence (or felt she had to, perhaps), and has been virtue-signalling ever since. The worst wasn’t this, tho. It was when she announced that she’d trunked a finished novel because it was insufficiently PC (I’ve forgotten the exact reason, but some sort of ‘misrepresentation’ of the alphabet-soup brigade). And that’s when I knew her brain had been parasitized beyond redemption. 😦

    10. Whenever someone wails about how “their kind” are going to be put in camps, I like to ask… who’s going to pay for these camps? what possible use could you be, stashed in a camp? how is that not just a needless expense? wouldn’t it be more cost-effective to just kill you?? Bring out your dead!

      Never had a response. 🙂

    11. Snicker.

      The LC- LibertyCon, not Larry Correia this time- crew aren’t like to bend to the wind from such. It wasn’t so long ago that Uncle Timmy was the one under fire for being a bunch of things he never was. He’s a nice guy, and his kids are great. Hard workers, honest.

      But that’s the sort of thing one might expect from the fever dreams and vapors that disquiet such folks. For such “brave” SJ “warriors” there seems to be quite a lot of fear taking hold constantly over there.

  2. As for race, the first year I attended LC I ended up leaving the GOH talk to rock a baby outside the room. Mostly, because my kids had just outgrown my arms, and I really missed babies. I’m still amazed the family trusted me, because total stranger, but I was one of the guests, so… And mom really wanted to hear the GOH.

    *chuckles* Sounds like my mom– she ends up offering total strangers a break from a kid that’s having fits, holds the baby, turns to her nearest child and says “you were little and cute, once!”

      1. When my son hit the “can not believe growing up so fast” stage. We were with my folks. I said “I’d ask you how to stop it or slow it down. But, you failed 3 times.” They thought that was hilarious. Mom still chuckles about it. Now she’s failed 8 times (grand kids) & is working on next generation – 2 & 3rd arriving in October; likely a 4th by spring/summer next year. No not one of my grand kids (& my sister is lousy at sharing); darn kid anyway. Oh well. Another kitten in the future 🙂

        1. Tangenting off of that; I’ve given the littles nicknames based off their personalities when they were small.Eldest daughter was a kitten, eldest son was a puppy. Brandon was eventually nicknamed ‘Velociraptor’ or ‘baby dinosaur’, because of the sounds he made while nursing (reminded his father of the baby velociraptor in the original Jurassic Park movie), and when he wasn’t making the usual baby sounds, the sound he made the most when seeing his father was this disappointed, dissatisfied grunt that really, really communicated “Oh. It’s you. The prickly Not-Mummy.” Complete with scowl.

  3. The sad thing is “by creating the strawmen to attack, they are creating enemies that weren’t there before”.

    As an example, the “gay & pro-gay community” (yes Sarah, Not All Gays) by acting as assholes toward anybody who “doesn’t fulling support them are giving non-gays reasons to hate/dislike gays.

    Yes, “homosexual sex is sinful” but I’ll let that pass if the gay isn’t an asshole.

    1. Because no one ever disapproves of this or that thing without refusing to be friends and refusing to care about that someone as a fellow human being.

      All these centuries that people have been friends with people without endorsing every single last choice they ever make never happened. Really.

    2. “As an example, the “gay & pro-gay community” (yes Sarah, Not All Gays) by acting as assholes toward anybody who “doesn’t fulling support them are giving non-gays reasons to hate/dislike gays.”
      Worse yet, they are giving those people, including me, a reason to consider them immediate and continuing threats to our freedom. The first at worst just gets them spit on. The second will drive them back to the closet because they won’t be safe anywhere once identified.
      I know that already I don’t regard any gay that I don’t know well as any safer or more honorable than a Muslim.

    3. About as likely to “confront” a gay couple as I am to “confront” a common law couple, or divorced and remarried, or…

      It’s simply not a very effective way to get anyone to change their mind. Although I can see why the other side seems to assume we’d do it, since I know first hand that they’ll confront those who “sin” against their tin idiols. (I almost wonder what they “you need birth control” twits think they’re going to get as a result. Yes, I always change actions on par with HAVING KIDS based on foam-flecked rants by strangers in the grocery store.)

      1. Foxfier, I saw the funniest darned thing the other day. It was a far lefty person (Ph.D or some such elevated fellow) lamenting, “Why don’t more liberal authors write about the fertility crisis and population implosion?”

        1. That reminds me of a poster I saw once when my younger cousins were going to college. Night full of stars, with a guy sitting down wondering, “Lord, where did I go wrong?”

          And a voice from the heavens coming back with “This is going to take more than one night…”

        2. A recent poll indicates much of the US populace is concerned with overpopulation, not underpopulation. Probably a result of years of indoctrination, IMHO.

      2. I personally don’t hold with remarriage. If I were to marry, if divorce were to result, I am pretty set on not remarrying.

        Guess how thoroughly I police my acquaintances over adherence to the code I have found for myself.

        I’m plenty isolated as it is without being viciously doctrinaire on top of that. Riding people over behavior simply because of my own calculations does not seem likely to improve to world.

        1. Let me guess… not at all?

          You probably don’t even mention it unless, like here, it seems like a relevant topic.

          1. I gotta admit to disagreements with close family over how they spend their time and money. Voicing them is a separate matter of policy.

            I have made plenty of mistakes with my own time and money.

      3. My sympathies. My sister has six kids and sometimes people are complete jerks about it.

        1. Really? That happens? I can’t imagine what my response would be but “polite” would certainly not describe it. (I’m one of six.)

          1. Usual format is polite cooing at baby…then they figure out there are MORE, and stop to lecture you. I usually am too gobsmacked because I’m fully in “make polite noises while someone gets babytime” mode when they flip, and it’s not going from conversation to attack so my reactions are pretty much the sounds of gears grinding, and then polite pointing out that the population growth is due to people not dying off (got me accused of wanting them to die), the birth stats are known to be inaccurate (ignored) and even the UN has recognized that the population isn’t growing like their estimates said. (ignored)

            The “you need birth control” thing can hit from having a toddler and being visibly pregnant at the same time, or admitting that no, none of the kids are twins (seriously, our girls do NOT look like they’re the same age, but that’s how people “made sense” of it) or having “too many.” The most polite version is the “you know, they figured out what causes that” sort….
            I cut that one off at the knees in our family when my crazy uncle did it, because I was pregnant a full year after our first born, and not only did I not get embarrassed I responded just as loudly as he’d asked that yes, and we enjoyed it, thank you so much for asking.
            First time anybody had embarrassed him in YEARS.

            1. The “you need birth control” thing can hit from having a toddler and being visibly pregnant at the same time …

              My wife and I are planning to space our kids about 2 years apart, minimum of 1.75 years apart. (E.g., start trying for the next kid once the current baby has had his first birthday. One year plus nine months = 1.75 years). Such plans are, of course, up to whatever God chooses to do (“man proposes and God disposes” and all that), but if it was up to us, that’s what we’d do. My wife is the oldest of four, and her younger sister was born 21 months after her — and they were inseparable growing up. My sister and I were 25 months apart, and we were also inseparable growing up, despite having extremely different personalities. We both want to give that to our kid(s) if we can.

              Those people who object to a mom with a toddler being visibly pregnant have no idea what a good thing they’re objecting to. Shakes head.

              1. Those people who object to a mom with a toddler being visibly pregnant have no idea what a good thing they’re objecting to.

                Or it’s a threat– having two littles at the same time is a lot of work, and there’s a theory/claim that having more than one under five means you’re neglecting one of them. So you’ve got to wait until they go to school.

                So someone visibly choosing differently is a threat to their choice, or the choice they promoted…and especially if they’re not really sure they did it for a good reason, they’re going to be defensive.

                I try to keep that in mind for all the “how dare you have kids” attacks. They’re usually hurting and lashing out.

                1. Or it’s a threat– having two littles at the same time is a lot of work, and there’s a theory/claim that having more than one under five means you’re neglecting one of them. So you’ve got to wait until they go to school.

                  As someone with 14 years between me and nearest sibling, I’ve got two middle fingers to fly in their general direction. It’s better to have a sibling less than three years apart in age than it is to have them more than five years apart. Watching two very young children is Not. That. Damn. Difficult. compared to watching one.

              2. Um, I hope it works out.

                One of my sisters and I were inseparable – just one month shy of nine years between us.

                The other sister and I were inseparable, too – unless we were chained at least ten yards apart. Think Australian football, with Rule One suspended. Just about 25 months between us…

            2. You don’t have to get to the sixth child before the nasty comments start. In my case, they started when I was pregnant with my third.
              I think I heard every possible variant of nasty comment:
              – “We know what causes that now.” (So do I – in my case, sharing a toothbrush.)
              – “You must be Catholic.” (Actually, I’m Jewish.)
              – “Having too many kids is a form of child neglect.”
              – “Don’t you care about the environment and the future of our planet?”
              – “How can you be happy about this?” (Actually, I was beyond happy. I love kids, and wish I had more.)
              The best response I could come up with was to take a deep breath, look as stricken as possible, and say in a choked-off voice, “My doctor told me I shouldn’t get upset or agitated,” and then run off quickly.
              I couldn’t always pull it off, but when I could, it was BEAUTIFUL!

              1. When asked “How could you get pregnant NOW?” (Senior year of college), my answer was “OOPS?”

                When my sister was towing: 9 year-old, 6 year-old, 3 year-old, & very close to having their 4th. Her cry was “But, the doctors said we couldn’t have kids!”. Had the advantage of being true.

              2. I managed to crack up a neighbor by responding to “You do know what causes that,” with “You don’t? Do I need to explain it?”

        2. Yet… some of those are the very same people cheering “Octomom” and her 14 children.

          I guess it’s different when Welfare is paying for your fertility treatments and you’re putting something over on The Man…

      4. Simple rules in life. If you don’t want people to think you are a moron, don’t act like a fricken moron. If you want people to like and support your ways, or at least not care one way or another, don’t be such an horrible asshole that people would rather roll in broken glass than be with 20 miles of you

    4. Of course, at this point saying you consider something sinful is hate speech to these people.

    5. Yes, if you are an even slightly orthodox Christian, gay sex is sinful. So is,most straight sex. In fact, if you follow theology at all, all we,mortals are sinners. Nobody, not even saints, will get into Heaven without God’s mercy.

      I think this is one of the major reasons the Progressives loath Cristianity; it denies that they will, by good works and Right Thinking, earn heaven without letting go of their Pride and asking for mercy.

      Of,course a lot of fairly loathsome self-styled Christians have had problems with that, too.

      As for ‘the Gay Community’; they want to have it both ways. They want to play ‘Shock the Squares’ – going to Pride events dressed up in bondage gear and gods alone know what all else – AND be accepted as ‘ordinary’.

      Not gonna work.

      I hereby pronounce Schofield’s Law of sexuality; an adult over the age of, say, 25 who makes a public fuss about hir sexuality is a jerk.

      People, as a rule, do not like jerks.

      A person, of whatever gender and proclivity, who wears a dog collar and leash in public is preceived as an arrested adolescent with poor impulse control.

      The ‘Gay Community’ really needs to absorb that if who and how they engage in bedsport is none of my business, they owe me the courtesy of not making it next to impossible to ignore it.

      I’m fat, past fifty, have bad teeth, and always did look fairly unattractive. Few people really want to plumb the depths of my sexual fantasies. Neither do I want to be exposed to the fantasies of others….save in private, among volunteers.

      1. I think we can all agree that “shock the squares” and “holding hands” are different sorts of things.

        1. Heh. Shock the squares – kind of hard to find anybody so square they could be shocked by now, as most of the shocking stuff has been brought right into the open decades ago (not to mention that hell of a lot even in the previous generations were at least somewhat popular with those practices at least in theory, they just didn’t discuss them in public. Yes, even the real Victorians back in the day).

          However shocking the stylishly not-squares can be amusing sometimes because you can often enough do it by simply telling them that you know exactly what they are referring to (and are not impressed), or acting nonplussed (slightly disgusted will fit there – they are going for shocking so a mild condescending distaste is usually not what they want) when they try to shock you.

          1. Right. I changed a sentence, but seems I left one word unchanged from the previous version: instead of popular there should be familiar. Damn the things which can slip past you when you edit your own stuff…

        2. Oh, hell, yes. I don’t mind holding hands or kissing in public. But in almost every Gay Pride event I’ve ever seen (there are honorable exceptions) some fool just HAS to parade around in his favorite leather gear, or showing his nipple rings, or something of the sort.

          Now, none of this really SHOCKS me. But it does make it hard to NOT picture said fool playing adult games with his sweeties.

          He really doesn’t want to imagine ME in similar circumstances (or maybe he does, but he should keep that to himself), and I wish he would make it easier to do the same.

          In a club? Fine. At a more or less closed in event, where I have no un-purient business being? No problem. In public?

          He’s a jerk.

          1. some fool just HAS to parade around in his favorite leather gear, or showing his nipple rings, or something of the sort.

            Dude. You’ll be lucky these days that they’re wearing anything over the privates. I’ve seen photos of Pride parades where they’ve bait and tackle fully out in the open, with children around.

            I’ve been seeing discussions about how some people in BDSM also are Not Happy with how some of the ‘younger’ folks are taking their play outside of the bedroom and outside of clubs. As in, in the grocery, walking around with their sub on a chain. Or in one story I ran across, a mum who was into (some) bondage in a grocery with her kid, and turning an aisle to find a male dom choking his sub. A good chunk of the discussion was about how this was NOT ‘sane, safe and consensual’ as viewers have the right to consent to view as well – and they can’t do that if there are sudden out of the blue sex play encounters in places where they reasonably DO NOT EXPECT IT.

            1. *Sad expression* That’s the whole fun of “shock the squares.”

              You’ve got to make them do something against their will, and if there’s nothing they can do about it– all the better.

              1. I have no problem with people who insist on playing ‘shock the squares’, I simply have scant patience with those who do who then complain about how they are treated.

                Take your sub to the supermarket on a leash? Ok, but don’t f*cking whine when people point and stare. Hold a Pride event and welcome every self-centered nut in their special ehibitionism suits? Fine, if that’s the kind of even you want to have, and the kind of image you want to project. But you don’t subsequently get to snivel about how people won’t ccept that your little group is just as normal as they are.

                You can make a vulgar spectacle of yourselves, OR you can claim to be as normal and harmless as Fred Rogers. Try to do both and people will conclude that in addition to being a vulgar twit, you are a liar and think that THEY are stupid.

                Not a way to win friends and influence people.

                1. My objection to “shock the squares” is that they tend to get addicted to the outrage– and need a bigger hit. Which leads to doing things that are not just outrageous like edgy, but outrageous like get-the-tar-and-feathers.

        3. I didn’t understand what the big deal was with two girls holding hands. I *still* don’t. We did it all the time, we friends – *regardless* of gender or sexual preference (and yes, there were a few gays in the group, both lesbians and male-male homosexuals). Hugs, etc, kisses on cheek. Nothing sexual about it, it was how we showed we were close friends. I had a friend who was so exuberant, she spotted me at the far end of a loooooong hallway, started shouting her nickname for me while rushing towards me and two other friends. Those two friends took prudent steps to the side, and watched me get physically picked up by sheer momentum, and huggled and swung like a rag doll. Yes, that was in public, and in full view of the other students (who, by now, had relegated us to ‘those weirdoes’ and oh it was freeing…) We were all girls that time.

          One of those two friends who stepped aside later drew a comic about it. I wonder where that is…

      2. “I hereby pronounce Schofield’s Law of sexuality; an adult over the age of, say, 25 who makes a public fuss about hir sexuality is a jerk.”

        Or more generally, a law of arrested development. That “Look at me! I’m independent!!” stage is something most people get over by the time they’re 25 or so. See also the nuttery among today’s college students, many of whom are going to have permanent reminders of temporary feelings.

        1. I think one of the problems that the Goy Community suffers from is that they never got over the Sexual Revolution (the only winners of that Revolution were the STDs). As the ’70’s drew to a close straight people started to make fun of the stereotypical aging male with her plugs, a silk shirt ope to the navel, and gold medallions. The straights mocked the lounge lizards.

          The Gays, I think, felt too embattled to do likewise. And so their low level predators are with them still. The jerks who sleep around. The vermin (my wife’s brother was one) who mainly love themselves, and leave a wake of dazed discards behind them.

          1. And so their low level predators are with them still. The jerks who sleep around. The vermin (my wife’s brother was one) who mainly love themselves, and leave a wake of dazed discards behind them.

            I would include the rapists and pedophiles in the ranks of the predators who hide amongst the community of both gays and BDSM.

            And because I know there are fuckwits out there who WILL take that and twist it, no, I am not saying ‘gays and BDSM-ers = rapists and pedophiles’; I am saying there are predators who hide among the perfectly law-abiding in those communities.

            1. Yeah, there are. The decision of a few (abysmally stupid) Gay activists to spread the ‘Community Tent’ over NAMBLA is the (rancid) gift that will keep on ‘giving’ for quite some time yet.

              But I’m not even talking about those predators.Society needs to recognize that there are lesser predators; men and women whose behavior never quite breaks the Law (or, at any rate, any enforceable Law. Laws against fornication are pretty much dead letters), but who clearly fit the old fashioned term ‘Cad’.

              1. And not just predators either, but there are also the inexcusably careless. They may actually “mean well,” but they end up messing up people. Regularly.

                1. ….ever notice that the “ideal” that a “liberated woman” is supposed to embody is a female cad?

                  They’ve screwed up the idea of what good behavior is so much that something like “that gal will not sleep with her boyfriends” is a sign there’s something wrong with her, and she is using him. Never mind the few “freaks” of guys who date one of the cad-women– and DON’T jump in bed.

                  1. Yes. In spades. Not only that when under reasonable situations it comes up under conversation that someone has a child out of wedlock & gave it up/or not, you judge not; none of my business. However, learning someone else waited until marriage (or official engagement/betrothal in the old tradition), is looked at as screwy/weird.

                  2. The older I get, the more the ‘playboy philosophy’ (which is, I think, the origin of the idea that a ‘liberated ‘ woman would sleep around) strikes me as creepy. Hey, I like pictures of nude young ladies as much as the next heterosexual guy. I don’t claim that makes me a sophisticate.

            2. Which is the main point about the “transgender bathroom” thing: it gives het predators and horny teenage males camouflage.

              1. Means only using Family bathrooms with doors that lock when available, or kids continue to go in with parents appropriate bathroom well past when they should be. I remember when my son was “old enough” to go into boys bathroom without mom (or rather he didn’t want to go into the girls bathroom because mom could stand & wait). He went in. I stood out side the door. Every. Time. The. Door. Opened. Me: “Counting. Are you done yet? Do I need to come in?” Guys coming out: “He’s fine. Honest.” Trust me they got it. My BIL used to do the same with his daughters when mom wasn’t along. At least with my son, women’s bathrooms have all stalls. There was nothing to have to shield him from. My understanding, not true with men’s bathrooms. BIL used to cover the girls eyes when he walked in with them after diaper age. Difficult to do when you’ve got two or three post diaper age in tow with an infant.

    6. What makes my head hurt is seeing conversations like this:

      “Stop being an asshole.”
      “Stop being a homophobe!”
      “A what? Wait… you’re gay?”

      1. exact quote during an argument with a co-worker who worked harder being an ass that at his job: “You don’t like me because I’m Black!”
        “I don’t like you because you’re an asshole.” and pointed to another co-worker named Wayne who was also black and said I liked him fine, because he wasn’t and ass, and then to another kid and I didn’t care much for him and he was white, but he was less of an ass than Harold, and often just stupid.
        I then refused to work in the same room as him until he stopped acting like an asshole. He actually apologized about a week later.
        Later I helped him after he was hit by a drunk while riding a bicycle in a group (driver got 3 of them) tally up the totals for replacing his bicycle.

        1. I could have done the same thing at the aluminum foundry I worked at, with a couple of guys in the same group. Melvin was a black guy who busted his ass, but Vernon was a black guy who constantly complained about how hard it was being black, and doing as little as he could get away with. Those two stuck out as being on opposite ends of the spectrum. We had guys of both colors (we didn’t really have any hispanics or other ethnicities there) who covered the rest of the spectrum.

  4. “Guys. There are several gay couples at Liberty con every year. Some are part of our (yeah the evil “Puppies”) inner circle. ”

    Yeah, but those are just . . . let’s see . . . (flips through CHORF playbook) tokens.

    1. And uncle Toms.

      That is, btw, an interesting straw man example. The character seems to have been created in order to raise sympathy for the blacks in an era when they were seen as incompetent children in need of constant supervision, the author did tell that he was a competent overseer of the plantation where he was a slave. But what she showed was the character’s kindness, to the point where he could be seen as a doormat, the idea of competency was most often forgotten and of course today when remembered only used to reinforce the doormat impression – a slave serving his white masters in every way and supporting them against his fellow slaves.

      But you could claim that Stowe was doing exactly the same today’s SJWs are doing – she was trying to help the blacks by creating something she thought would raise sympathy in her white readers. Like SJWs are doing now, by harping on how hard all POCs, and all other minorities have it, and how everything is always against them, how they need constant help from the whites, how whites always really should walk on tiptoes around POCs so they don’t accidentally error by saying or doing something racist or otherwise (subtly – bad whites do it openly, all the other whites can however be unwittingly guilty of all kinds of microaggressions at any moment unless we keep on constant watch for them) insulting or demeaning or otherwise bad…

      Which may or may not work towards its claimed purpose, but certainly also gives the impression that most minority people seem to be kind of fragile and can’t really do it on their own, without white help.

      So one wonders if today’s SJWs are creating/have created something which will get the same treatment as uncle Tom now gets from tomorrow’s versions of SJW’s (no, I don’t think we will ever get rid of them. There will always be something similar – some of them well meaning, others using those well meaning ones and the ideology to improve their own lots, and most likely always twisting something started with good intentions into something which can be used for bad ones).

      And an interesting article, I remember reading that “uncle Tom” was supposedly based on some sort of real life example but hadn’t stumbled on who before:

      The conclusions of that article – no bloody idea whether good or bad, but different viewpoints are always interesting to look at.

      1. But what she showed was the character’s kindness, to the point where he could be seen as a doormat

        (Spoilers, I guess, of a book more than 150 years old)

        Once I finally got around to reading the book, I was confused by the use of the name as meaning “race traitor”. I thought he was a decent, honorable man making the best of a bad situation. As he went further and further down the river, his situation became more and more intolerable, to the point where he died rather than compromise his honor and decency.

        All to get white northerners to support abolition, effectively saying that even if they wouldn’t abuse slaves (by the standards of the time), enough others would that it needed to be stopped.

        1. Yes, I have read bits of the translation back in my youth, although I have no idea how accurate a translation, especially as it was rather old (30’s, maybe) and the translators sometimes modified what they translated more than a bit in the earlier times in order to make the stories more understandable to readers more or less unfamiliar with whatever culture the original novel was set in.

          My guess is the kindness. He never uses violence himself, not even to defend himself, and forgives even those who kill him, doesn’t he? Very Christian, but not exactly what was popular in the times when Black Panthers were created.

          Not that I have any idea from which era the “race traitor” idea comes from, I’m just assuming as that seems logical.

      2. On the “Uncle Tom” character.

        In the first “The Dead Start Walking” movie, one of the characters running from the Zombies was a Black Man. He was shown as a friendly sort of man very willing to help out the female character. In a shocking scene at the end of the movie after they were safe from the Zombies, he was shot by some White “Good Old Boys”.

        Apparently in a remark of that movie, the Black Man was the “Angry Black Man” type and sure enough he got shot by some White “Good Old Boys”. I doubt that it was as “shocking” as what happened in the original movie.

        While we have been told that Blacks prefer the “Angry Black Man/Woman” type characters, it seems to me that plenty of people might prefer that a jerk gets killed rather than a nice guy. 😦

        1. Night of the Living Dead

          Poor guy is the only survivor, gets out of the house, and is shot because the people killing the zombies only see him from a distance.

  5. I know I’ve pointed out more than once, the various behaviors going on that are straight out of the Abusive Spouse Handbook. An abuser gets their victim to stay by convincing him or her than they’ve no other options, that they’ve no where to go to find acceptance.

    It’s all an endless litany of “those people hate you” and “not celebrating you is the same as wanting you dead” and “we’re the only friends you have” and “why do you always make me hit you?”

    Come to the Darkside. We have cookies.

  6. If you cry ‘wolf’ for every lazy old Bassett Hound, by the time the real wolves show up, nobody will listen.

    The damage done by the outrageous anti-Hun propaganda of the First World War was that it took far too long for the world to realize that the despicable paperhanger had every intention of living down to it.

    The damage done by the SJW litany of ‘Racist, homophobic!’ Etc, is thatit desensitizes people to actual racism and gay bashing.

    *pinches nose bridge*

    1. This. (Saw it in my college newspaper-reading project, when I read every daily issue of a national newspaper between 1935-1945. Every single there was a printed report about a Nazi atrocity – there would be letters to the editor two or three days later, pointing out how we had been fooled before …)
      When I read a report about some supposedly horrific hate crime somewhere, I mentally make a bet on how soon it will be revealed as fake, and committed by the person who was allegedly the target of it.

      1. I believe that there are true Hate Crimes committed. I also believe that the vast majority of them are prosecuted under the laws against doing bodily harm to persons or damage to property. What we hear about as ‘Hate Crimes’ are incidents that could not be prosecuted under color of law….

        Somebody said N*gg*r. Or somebody said something that some hypersensitive twit took to be N*gg*r. Or some snowflake was frightened by shadows.

        And then there are the fakes.

        So, we hear about the fakes and the absurd, and it becomes tempting to believe that there are no wolves.

  7. BTW, I realize it’s probably uncomfortable to be the focus of a post, but I saw that “I’m curious, should we go and check it out” and the subsequent assurances that “the people there will treat you badly because they are homophobes and racist” thing… It was infuriating.

    It’s one of those things that make you wish for a true judgement day when people’s acts are laid bare and examined and revealed for the harm that they’ve done while preening over their righteousness.

    Lets face it. That Straw Man has power and those who construct one benefit directly when they foment hatred and strife. Every gay fellow they convince to view more people as hostile than really are, every person of color that Mary Three Names convinces to stay in her safe circle because of the dragons and monsters she is protecting them from. It’s all converted to social capital for those involved. They GAIN by doing it.


    It’s disgusting. And no, I will not cooperate with something which only has utility as a way of making the world scarier and more hostile in order to lift up the “saviors”.

    1. If I actually carried a ‘monster’ card I think I would need to give it up. I just can’t complete with such monsters as those. (The PUFF exemption I keep. I might be slow, but I ain’t stupid.)

    2. The sad part is the people helping those ones who are using the straw men to gain power for themselves who really truly mean well, and think they are helping the helpless and protecting victims. Often enough also the original creators of a meme meant to help, but then it gets used against the straw and twisted from something maybe potentially good into something creating bad things (not always, though, world is also full of bad ideas cooked up by well meaning but not knowledgeable enough individuals who are trying to find ways to fix something but instead find a way to make it worse).


      Rozanna and Kate Lilley, the daughters of playwright and poet Dorothy Hewett, say they were forced into sex aged 15 by men including the late Bob Ellis and Martin Sharp, The Australian reports.

      Sharp, Australia’s foremost pop artist, designed record covers and posters for Bob Dylan, Donovan and Eric Clapton and wrote songs for Clapton’s band, Cream.

      Ellis was a political commentator, writer and film maker who penned 22 television and screenplays.

      The Lilley sisters, who each have written new books, say their mother encouraged underage sex between her daughters and famous men she entertained at her Sydney home, which Rozanna characterised as a “party house”.

      The sisters say the men enjoyed having young girls around and their mother – considered a left wing radical and admired feminist – encouraged their joining in the libertine sex scene of the times.

      “We were these nubile girls … jailbait,” Kate Lilley said, describing her mother’s house as “a brothel without payment”.

      Honestly, one has to wonder if they really are ‘safer’ on that side.

      1. Of course they are. If those are the good people, just think how depraved the ungood are.

  8. They overlook a frightening problem with straw: it’s flammable. And being incendiary about things filled with straw is… unwise. Even ox know that!

  9. Quite agree but I’d extent the discussion beyond just publishers to all (OPEN LARGE AIR QUOTES) awoke (CLOSE LARGE AIR QUOTES) merchants.

    Somehow we’ve got to remind them they’re just shopkeepers, not arbitrators of social justice, morals, ethics or right-think.

    Their job, their justification, is to provide a product, be they publishers or green grocers, period.

    Hey guys, offer me a book or a head of lettuce, if I like it I’ll buy it but don’t tell me whom I can or can’t read or eat it with (or, more likely tell other customers they can’t read or eat it with me!).

    1. There was that twit yesterday(?) from Carl’s Junior about Net Neutrality. For God’s sake, just sell me a hamburger, no bun, hold the politics!

      *The only local Carl’s left the area some years ago, so I’m not in a position to a) tell them off or b) boycott them, but that’s commercial grade stupidity.

    2. I stopped dealing with Penzey’s Spices after they sent me a few (not just one) progressive propaganda e-mails. A little research turned up Spice House, which has an equally large selection and doesn’t tell me about its owners’ political views. I think I sent Penzey’s an e-mail explaining why they were losing my business, but if so, I never heard back. . . .

  10. “We’re now in the place that I and people like me are trying to prevent it from swinging too far and bringing about that horrible straw world you fear.”

    But think of the spiffy uniforms we would get to wear! 🙂

    1. And is it really a worse world? Remember the old saw about how the hardcore extreme feminists make the strongest arguments for taking voting and other rights away from women? If certain of their statements were true, it would be foolish to trust women.

      Understanding American history and culture from a perspective of uniform, tyrannical whiteness more strongly justifies violent white supremacism than understanding it from a perspective of strongly incompatible cultures being forced to form a new shared culture by close proximity. But that new shared culture isn’t what the left admires, so they tell bizarre stories about ‘novelty’ and ‘diversity’.

      Our friend the gay identity troll recently advanced the theory that nineties era changes in Hollywood messaging about gays represented the proper approach to take in all fiction. He isn’t entirely wrong, perhaps is even mostly correct, but messaging about gay topics has a strategic problem right now. That being that much of the ‘success’ is owed to Hollywood.

      Hollywood has a serious rape problem, both in conspiring to cover up and in systemically messaging to normalize rape adjacent behaviors. Everything Hollywood has touched needs to be re-examined in light of what we now know.

      Hollywood was big on the messaging that American Jews were fairly similar to American Protestants. Does that mean that the perspective that they were trying to discredit was legitimate? I still say that the logistics for the blood libel simply do not work out in any plausible way. But a Supreme Court that is heavily Jewish and Catholic may have a problematic failure to grok what makes American Protestant cultures tick.

      1. Assimilated Jews are more like Protestants. Orthodox Jews are more like Catholics. Actually Catholics have more in common with Orthodox Jews. Jews are different from Christians of any stripe.

        1. There was an Orthodox Jew whose opinion of the Ann Coulter brouhaha was that Coulter was acting better by Jewish standards than those Jews attacking her: she wanted Jews to become Christians because she thought it true, whereas the Jews just wanted to hang on to their tribe members, and the first principle of studying the Torah is that Torah is truth.

    2. Eskew the uniforms! I gave up shining shoes to a glossy finish the last day in the military.

      1. with i could say the same but the boots i wear to the goth/industrial clubs get shined 😀

      2. Polo shirt, those nice halfway-to-canvas khaki colored pants, and steel toed hiking shoes with raw leather finish. Wind breaker or heavy jacket as needed.

        Boom, uniform but practical!

        1. Jeans (blue or black), polo shirt, walking shoes and white socks. Top with baseball cap when it’s either inclement weather, or heavy sun; usually with a NASA logo, or if I’m feeling in a combative mood, the red MAGA one.

          1. Not necessary. It’s a common enough combination. I go with a standard black leather rather than raw finish on the boots, but otherwise, that’s my everyday step-out-of-the-house wear.

    3. I’m not that fond of black or brown though, and by all accounts those uniforms were pretty uncomfortable.
      Now, a nice gray on the other hand…

    4. Sorry, Sarah. But this brings me to mind one of Chris Nuttall’s books
      United States Starship….

      Alt-history 😁

  11. It’s the big lie. Everyone who isn’t for feminism hates women. Everyone who isn’t in favor of affirmative action is racist. Everyone who isn’t enthusiastically for LBQT is a homophobe. Everyone who voted for DJT instead of HRC is a violent bigot. And so on. It doesn’t take a great deal of investigation to disprove these lies, but they persist.

    Some people actively propagate these lies because they have a Cause (or two or three or four) to promote. Some people repeat them because people they like and respect have expressed them. It’s not always possible to determine who is the bellwether in the flock, so I don’t care to denounce people who hold these opinions, but that doesn’t make the lies true.

    1. I got very confused listening to the radio at one point, because a relatively even-handed commentator was going on about how Trump had a “questionable record” on “human rights abuses” but that he’d really shone for calling it out in North Korea.

      ….eventually, I figured out they were using the form of “human rights” where actually DEPORTING CRIMINALS and NOT PAYING OTHER FOLKS’ BILLS was a violation of “human rights,” not to mention a failure to “fight weapons trafficking,” like the issue is guns and not people who want to kill someone else…..

      1. That’s another one. Apparently enforcing immigration law as written is violent and inhumane.
        So why do a few Congress critters bleat about it instead of rewriting the law? Because it’s easier to use the press to promote ignoring the law and accuse those who support the law as written until it gets changed as heartless anti-immigrant neo-Nazis than it is to persuade their colleagues across the aisle that their proposals are good public policy?

        1. Fixing immigration law to match what people are willing to enforce would eliminate the ability to conspire to avoid employment law by hiring illegals.

          The Democrats don’t like that because it hurts their ability to avoid the financial impact of jacking up minimum wage to raise union rents.

          The Republicans don’t like that because business is paying them to keep things quasi-functioning.

          1. People are already to enforce the existing immigration law…except for those sympathetic cases that are made possible by those who don’t want to enforce any law at all.

            Which, incidentally, is the same situation that Seattle is finding itself in for “youth incarceration.” People get absolutely no enforcement until they really screw up enough to get in front of someone who will actually enforce the law, generally in a predictable escalation of psychopathic abuse of others, and then they get the book thrown at them.
            Gosh, that’s not fair, let’s…not punish them for the really outrageous stuff, too? 0.o

        2. I should point out that the USA has amazingly bad immigration laws, that really do great arm to the USA and to people who want to legally immigrate. I have mild PTSD from my time trying to immigrate to the USA in the 1990s. Every time I have to cross the US border I freak out.

          Also, the US immigration bureaucracy is essentially non-functional. If you’re trying to get a green card as a law-abiding citizen following all the rules, its a crap-shoot. You send something in and it takes a year or more to get an answer back. Annual renewals of H1B visas can take a year and six months or more.

          Its hard to sit unemployed for 6 months and wait for a renewal that might not come at all.

          1. Also, the US immigration bureaucracy is essentially non-functional.

            Going totally VA on removing the “guidelines” and such, and simply enforcing the laws they’re required to follow, would be a huge improvement.
            (Military wives had a LOT to say– and they actually had someone fighting for them.)

            1. I am fairly sure our own Drow has mentioned being told repeatedly that it would take a year or something like that to even look at her application because they were expecting a massive amnesty Any Day Now, or something like that….

        3. “So why do a few Congress critters bleat about it instead of rewriting the law?”

          Because somewhere, somehow, they are personally benefiting from it. And the only way to slap them hard in the face publicly is to be able to draw the direct line from their support to their ‘payoff’ in a way that even an eight-day, road-killed skunk could follow.

      2. I must shake my head in wonder at all the new “rights.” Birth control? Pronouns? Why not free internet and beer? That would make as much sense, and give more folks what they say they want, actually.

        Any time I hear the word “rights” or a “right to ‘x’ ” I get twitchy. The ones we actually have are quite important, and the infringments on such more real and dangerous than any and all of the imaginary ones made up on the spot.

          1. Sometimes, only sometimes you know… I really appreciate being an introvert and oblivious to common fads. On average, all the brain cells I killed in my youth and the ones I have saved from certain death in adulthood probably balance out.

    2. After the last election someone I know accused Trump of “fear mongering” and how horrible that was. Meanwhile people were in full blown psychological crisis because in order to get votes they’d been convinced that they were headed to the camps.

      I swear I about busted a gut trying not to laugh out loud. Either that or become violent myself since I ended up having to talk my kids down. (They’re sensible and calmed down relatively quickly.)

      Yes, creating monsters is a very powerful way to get votes.

      Complaining about border security or immigration while going on about death camps is just retarded.

      1. Just wanted to point out that I’m using that word in a literal sense… retarded development of one’s personal moral system.

      2. Oh, it wasn’t just border security and immigration, some of my lefty friends were convinced Trump was about to round up gays and anyone of middle eastern decent. The Pavlovitz article that made the rounds right after the election was laughable in it’s cluelessness, but it was what they believed with their whole hearts.

        1. It was from the other direction… claiming that he was trying to make everyone afraid of immigrants. Maybe that was true just a little bit, “they’ll steal your jobs!”

          But it hardly compared to the fear mongering of “they’ll throw you in a camp and then kill you!” coming from that direction, so hearing someone complain about the first while being utterly blind to the other was sort of funny.

          1. Trump was also running on crime by illegals. That there was reasonable grounds, especially in hindsight, to be concerned that the media and Obama’s DoJ might be covering a number of things up does not change that to a leftist it might honestly seem baseless fearmongering.

            1. Oh, no doubt. And people have been on about the “mustn’t mention the ethnicity of the crazy guy with the butcher knife” for a great number of years. (Really, if you view all people as a representative of their “group” you probably can’t comprehend that not everyone does that.)

              It wasn’t that I couldn’t see where the argument might be made, it was that I was too fricking distracted by the amazement of the fact that the person doing so was fully bought into the opposing “if you don’t vote for Hillary you’ll be herded into camps and killed.”

              I mean really… campaign bull shit is a thing every single year but “it’s not fear mongering if people’s lives are really at risk and the other side wants to put us in camps and kill us or make women pump out babies against their will, rape culture, REEEEEEEEE!” Sort of reaches a whole new level.

            2. I mean… the answer to “Who is running primarily on FEAR?” Is answered by looking at *who is afraid*.

            3. Please look at what Sweden and Germany have been doing for YEARS. Lying and protecting Muslims. Rotherham and countless other cities. Sweden stopped reporting crime stats. Just the stuff we hear about makes you wonder why revolts haven’t started. Covering up the truth about illegals would be very believable after seeing what ha happened in Europe.

          2. It’s not popular to point out, but immigrants do take American jobs.
            I sadly can’t find it anymore, but several years ago I took an add used for an example in an “Americans just won’t do the job” article from a paper in SoCal and did basic research; they advertised in San Diego exclusively, at the minimum legal wage, for a job up in Northern California, seasonal, picking strawberries, no housing, no relocation help. That let them “prove” that no Americans would take the job, and hire permit pickers– who can’t quit and generally don’t report labor violations, and IIRC they provided housing, too.

            Under the table hiring of illegals, on the other hand, is pretty obviously an advantage without having to even do that research. One of our ranch hands actually quit because the money he could make posing as an illegal and picking was way better than the ranch could offer him. I believe he ended up hiring on legally to one of the few orchards that actually only hired legal workers. (Same guy that’s why I loath “ESL” tracks in schools. He was very poorly served.)

            1. That trick happens in other industries too. In the software industry, the standard funny-because-it’s-true joke is the job posting that lists “five years of experience with XYZ” as a requirement, at a time when XYZ first came out just two or three years ago.

              I used to think that this was just HR teams being clueless about tech. But now that I’ve learned more about how things like H1B visas really work, I’ve come around to the opinion that it’s deliberate. That job posting where nobody can actually meet the terms of the job? Do a bit of digging and you’ll find that they eventually hired an H1B guy from India* to do that job. Who acutally had ZERO years of experience with XYZ, but whose recruitment agency claimed he had five years so that everything looks good on paper if/when the hiring decision is ever questioned.

              * Or somewhere else, but India seems to be the go-to place to hire coders for bargain-basement prices these days…

                1. I’m noticing that phone support is steadily getting people who don’t speak with an Indian accent; seems to be a tossup between south of the Mason-Dixon line and good ol’ Oregonian. (One of the contract support centers is located in Klamath Falls, though it keeps changing hands.) A new neighbor is doing outsourced reception duty from home for some kind of service company with thousands of clients.

                  OTOH, the almost successful phishing attack seems to have originated in India. On the gripping hand, the English was substandard.

                  1. Several states have “privatized” prisons now. They’re able to rent out prisoners to do tech support. Dell was one of the most famous users of prison-based tech support. Most of the companies bragging about how they brought support back to the US, same thing.

                    I have some substantial problems with the whole idea…

                    1. Don’t know why you’d have any problems with Dell Tech support (locked up criminals) having access to your computer … nope don’t understand at all. Because anymore it’s not like they are walking you through what needs to be done & checked. They ask if they can take over your computer, to see themselves … without mentioning their legal status. Well *darn* no calling Dell Tech support … not that I would anyway, but *darn* it. (where *darn* is being polite!)

                      Does put the tech support access problems the company I worked for. Last 1/2 dozen years or so we had the ability to have accounting clerks set their workstations up so we could see what they were doing, or use the mouse to show them something (lot easier know they found the icon that looks like a yellow sun, when you can see what they are doing). Some IT were not particularly cool with that option (as in down right hostile), someone from IT had to be sitting there with the user while we were on the phone. Ironic part was we constantly were getting or being sent live data; yea no way that could be abused.

                  2. I love the phishing calls from India insisting on fixing my “Windows” computer. I let them waste about 10 minutes before they realize that Linux isn’t Windows…

              1. Padding your resume for non-H1B, is grounds for immediate firing with prejudice!!!

                First one I remember was C#, probably because I was off so long, & I got certified training on the thing as it was being released. Listed C# on my resume but didn’t list time. In HR interviews when they pointed out the requirement was for 5 years experience, did I have it? My response was not very well received. As in C# had been out only 6 months, so no one can have that kind of experience without lying. And no, I never got those jobs, some I really really didn’t want to get so silver lining.

                I have worked with someone that we were absolutely in a panic when he didn’t have his green card & passport on him & he got on the wrong ferry from San Juan County, ferry that started in Canada. He was going to be held & deported. When they called the office, we made them hold on the line while we got his wife so she could figure it out. We wanted the boss back, he was the company owner!!! Small business. He did recently get his citizenship because the estate lawyers pointed out that it would cost his family a fortune if he didn’t; he’d been here renewing his visa for 30 years. American wife, Kids, & Grand kids.

      3. Shortly after the inauguration, I took my family to our favorite Mexican food place for Taco Tuesday (yes, we are horrible cultural appropriating bastards… damn those delicious tacos for making us so) and half the restaurant was taken over by an event. Much of it was in Spanish, so I couldn’t really figure out what was going on, then a local politician (D) was introduced and the host started talking about the horrible thing that happened to the Hispanic community and how wonderful -politician(D)- was and how he is standing beside the Puerto Rican community through such terrifying times of uncertainty… Then it hit me. He was talking about Trump getting elected! AS IF TRUMP WAS GOING TO COME DOWN TO FLORIDA AND DEPORT THEM ALL!!! Never mind, of course, that because Puerto Rico is a US Territory they are all American citizens, no more subject to being deported than I am.

        Well, they say that if you are going to tell a lie, people are more likely to believe a big one.

      4. I hate to use my wife’s post for this, since she recently passed, but it’s SO apropos to the issue of exactly who is fearmongering, that I’m going to. The day after the 2016 election, she posted on FB:

        Dear, God, help us all! Beware false prophets! I’m so scared for my son rt now

        I’m going to jam two of his responses together, rather than the whole conversation, but they go naturally from one to the other:

        Why me, I’m fine with the president.

        … being a fabulous homosexal who knows trump really doesnt give care about taking away my rights. It would 1. Nearly impossible to change supreme court decisions without going through the full process of going up the judicial ladder. 2. He said a lot of outrages and lewd things to get votes it was a political tactic that isn’t used by many.

    3. And supporting the 60’s and 70’s version of feminism (but not the free sex for anybody who asks part of it, thanks) also means that you hate women now. Even if you are a woman yourself.

      1. That Portland feminist bookstore announced that it was closing, that they would not change their decision for any amount of offered help, and that the bookstore had to go because it has been founded by cis-feminists, which means white supremacists.

        In Oregon they said this. Where they once had actual terrorist groups that were white supremacists.

        1. Heh. The funny part (sort of) is that they seem to be creating so many enemies – as defined by them, those people they refuse to deal with because bad in their opinion – that there is no longer any real hope they could create the world they say they want to create. Because they are an increasingly smaller minority, due to their own decisions.

          The not funny part: they can still create a lot of trouble before they shrink themselves out of existence (apart from some old crones pining for the good old days in their dotage).

          1. They’re not trying to create, not really. They’re more about reveling in the modern emotional & financial rewards for victim status, and the sick joy of being more “virtuous and moral” than everyone else.

          2. Except the bureaucracy and cultural levers they control are very powerful force multipliers. And that’s how dictatorships gain and maintain control.

  12. “…if he should go to Liberty con with his partner. The answer of course was that they’d get abused, possibly attacked.”

    I remember that. Of course he shouldn’t go with his non-White partner to Liberty Con, those people are [shudder] Christians! He would be thrown off a roof and then dragged through the streets of Mogadishu behind a pickup tr…

    Oh, sorry. Wrong movie.

      1. Well, Toyota pickups do seem to be the middle eastern equivalent of our Humvees after all.

      2. Yeah, they’re thinking “Blackhawk Down” and we’re thinking “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”.

  13. Immediately after the 2016 election a niece posted her fear for the life of her gay son. I responded that what she was afraid of was strawman Trump. The real Trump is the one who stood on the stage at the Republican convention and waved a rainbow flag for the first time ever at that event.
    Saw recently that the head of twitter was excoriated for mentioning that he’d bought a bag of Chick-fil-A sandwiches, how dare he patronize a business that hates homosexuals. I was reminded that the Sunday after the Saturday night mass shooting in Orlando at the Pulse gay nightclub two Chick-fil-A stores opened their kitchens in order to provide free drinks and sandwiches for all the folks waiting in line to donate blood for the victims. All Chick-fil-A stores are normally closed on Sunday due to the owner’s Christian beliefs. What a horrible hateful company!
    What the left simply cannot wrap their pointy heads around is the simple truth that if we were like their straw image of us they would already be in the camps or long since dead.

    1. Meanwhile, in -actual- fascism:

      This is where if your website runs in Vietnam, you have to keep the hardware for it-in- Vietnam. And you have to have a permit.

      Indonesia just announced a similar Internet control law, and Tanzania decided their new blog permits would cost a year’s pay for the average Tanzanian.

      Meanwhile, the Pink Pistols are out there arming up in case Trump might break out the cattle cars. Because everyone in America would totally go along with that, right? I’m super-cool with the Pink Pistols wanting to arm up and learn to shoot, but I am a little concerned about their target identification skillz. Just sayin’, might want to work on that.

      1. Well, if someone comes along with cattle cars I darned well hope they shoot them!

          1. I’m always up for steak. Proof that God loves us. Or maybe bacon. Both. Why be stingy.

            1. Don’t worry Orvan, in addition to the PUFF exemption, I hereby bestow upon thee a Favored Pet Exemption. We won’t eat you until after you die of old age. Have to have you as soup or stew, you’re far too tough for steak.

              1. “Pet”? Not Friend or at least Acquaintance? *ponders* Then maybe “pet” is the higher ranking.

                And I’ve no issue with such post-mortem dining (as long as the event isn’t brought forward…) as, really, everyone gets eaten eventually – and why have a(n unoccupied) body linger around for fungus or such?

                1. Well, my cat is considered a pet. But she considers me her servant. Which I guess makes her my manager. Didn’t you want to hold a management position?

                    1. Wise bull.
                      Every time I’ve held a management position higher than team lead I’ve run screaming within weeks. One of my most serious objections is that as a manager you can often be required to look your people in the eye and lie to them, by omission if not outright falsehoods.

                    2. And I’ve run into that even at the team lead level. And what’s worst? Everyone on your team with a brain cell functional KNOWS you’re lying.

                    3. Heh heh heh.
                      I understand. I attribute half of my high blood pressure to working as a manager in the AF for too many years. The other half to diet and genetics.

        1. Where are they even going to find cattle cars these days, outside of a few in museums or being used on farms as sheds and chicken coops? The meat and transportation industries have both changed so much that most cattle is moved by truck over short to medium distances to regional meat packing plants, rather than being moved halfway across the country by rail to massive centralized meat packing plants.

          1. And why else do you think the left is so determined to consign possession of firearms to the government alone?
            “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” Mao Zedung.

          2. One of the things that always bugged me about X-Men comics…even among the folks who thought they were wrong, where the heck were the normal people who’d go “but those guys are more wrong” and throw a shoulder in?

            REAL LIFE goes like that, FFS!

            1. Of course, in the Marvel-universe there are valid reasons to “Fear The Mutant”. 😦

              1. Goodness, yes, but on an individual basis– it’s like saying that folks are terrified of high school students because of football player sized jocks….

                Somebody like Toad? “Oh, the terror! He can JUMP! And has a funky tongue!”

                And don’t get me started on someone like Nightcrawler. He’d have as many people following him around going OOOOH, SHINY as he would folks screaming ‘back, demon!’

  14. It’s weird how I’ve gone from condemning sodomy laws and arguing that freedom of contract allowed any people to live in virtually any circumstance they wish, to a raging homophobe.
    While hardly changing a single position.

    Of course, I didn’t know I was supposed to hate people for suffering different temptations than I.
    But I have met a couple of people happy to tell me how wrong I was. Both of which decided their sexual proclivities were as important as their names upon introduction.

    1. Just because I don’t think X should be illegal doesn’t mean I support participating in X. Likewise, just because I don’t support participating in X doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal.

      1. It’s a very Calvinist way of looking at things. (Not intending to offend Calvinists.)

        On the one hand there’s folks that just say that unless something is prohibited, it is permitted (if not necessarily profitable).

        But then there’s folks that insist that unless it’s specifically permitted, it’s prohibited, and if it’s permitted then it’s required.

        And we’re deep into the secular version of “if Jesus never mentioned a ceramic indoor toilet, we must assume that having one in the house is a sinful decadence and you’re going to hell.”

    2. I usually find “I’m flattered, but no thanks” to be the best answer when someone introduces themselves like that. After all, if a dude walks up to a dude and introduces himself like that… just what IS he expecting you need that information for?

      In a similar vein, I once had a… well… I’m not sure what they were (no seriously, I couldn’t tell) walk up and introduce themselves and helpfully tell me what… um… the person’s pronouns were. I replied “Hello, and thanks!” to which I added as an aside to the friend beside me “now I know who not to take seriously”. I thought the person was going to break down and cry. Thing is, I don’t actually TRY to be mean to people, but I’m not going to play “remember my pronouns (or else)” and if someone were to try to MAKE me, I have a set of very special pronouns (mostly cuss words… OK, ALL cuss words) for that occasion. If someone is going to give me S#!t for not being able to remember their special pronouns, when I have enough trouble remembering peoples NAMES (I’ve always sucked horribly at remembering names), I’m going to fight back.

      1. Oh, hell, Stuart. The thing is is that these poor kids are vulnerable and they’re surrounded by people who multiply that vulnerability and *tell* them to do this and tell them that everyone ought to be really excited about it.

        I think it’s sort of terrible. If you care about someone, wouldn’t you try to make them stronger? Help them grow some inner confidence and security in their identity that doesn’t require everyone else to participate and fall in line?

        1. THIS. They compiled a profile of “trans kids”. Socially awkward. Smarter than average. Feel like odd man out.
          This bullshit of encouraging Odd kids to think they’re transsexual and messing them about with hormones is a genocide of OUR kind by normals, and any future historian will recognize it as such.

          1. I think I’ve been raving about ‘neurodiversity’ for a few years now.

          2. By that ridiculous daffynition (NOT a typo[1]) I was “trans”.

            I will admit that I was a bit disappointed when $UNCLE did some genealogy stuff that he utter failed to find any (reasonably direct anyway) ancestors who had spent time in Transylvania. But that’s the only ‘Trans’ I’d even remotely care about.

            And… do they really want to truly PO the smarter ones? What if those (and most are not nearly so slow as I) get Truly P-Oed and decided It’s Time To Fix The Problem – Forever. I know I’ve scared some with off-hoof comments. That’s from a few seconds of slow ox thought. Several years of real, malicious intent – with sense to prepare slowly, long term, and WELL under the radar(s) and…

            [1] Interesting. The spell-checking highlight did NOT show up for that.

          3. And it provides support for some pretty bad social tendencies, namely that truth is malleable and simply proclaiming something means you can force others to follow it. Smacks of heavy authoritarianism.

            Never mind that for now even the most advanced tech is not complete. So a not insignificant population gets false hopes that can not happen. The idea that suicide because of gender dysphoria is more important than societal dysphoria (basically outcome of our society gaslighting us) irks me.

      2. …to which I added as an aside to the friend beside me “now I know who not to take seriously”.


        Ain’t it strange how some have issues with high truth coefficient comments?

      3. There’s a phenomenon in fan fiction, where one of the best ways to tell a Mary Sue is “how many nicknames are bestowed upon her, and how cool are they?” (If any of the nicknames are at all feline, there is no hope whatsoever.) I have to wonder if “these are my pronouns” is the real-world (?) look-how-special-and-wondrous-I-am equivalent.

        1. * muses *

          I think have only one nickname (the oh-so-creative “Moo”) but there a fair number of aliases – and none for illegal purposes.

          1. After 12 years playing a minotaur in World of Warcraft, my husband is stuck with “Panzercow”. Which would be fine, except that our Very Large Dog got saddled with “Panzerdog” after he broke 40 pounds. (at four months of age.)

        2. If you can’t stand out and be special because of your accomplishments, there’s always the sheer novelty of your classification.

      4. The correct response would be, “Well son (or dear), my pronouns for everyone are he/she and his/her. Those are your choices for me to refer to you; pick the ones you want.”

        1. He. She. I can even deal with It.
          For a select few, I would be willing to combine some, as there are those people who really do earn the appellation she-it.

      5. If I get startled enough, I can say some odd stuff– usually get away with it because I’m so obviously NOT malicious.

        In that case, if I was startled enough, I’d probably say “the point of pronouns is to make things simpler– I can’t keep track of proper nouns for most people!”

      6. Ditto. I can’t remember names. Neighbors & new co-workers, anyone I associate with, I must write down their names, or I will never, ever, ever, remember them. In a casual introduction … yea good luck with that, I’m lucky to remember their name the minute I turn around. Name tags were made with me in mind. Like to say “age catching up with me”, nope, been that way since, well forever.

        1. Likewise. Different learning style, maybe. If I see something written down, or better, write it myself, I have a reasonably good chance of remembering it. If I just hear it, nope. No chance in hell, except after lots of repeats. But you are not supposed to talk to a person you just got introduced to like “so, Bob, so your name was Bob, right? Anyway, Bob, the weather has been pretty nice lately, hasn’t it, Bob? Now, what was your name again, Bob, right?” 😀

        2. Same here with names. The military was PERFECT for a person with an erratic memory like mine. Oh, Sergeant So-und-so, good morning! Hiya, Airman This-and-that. Can I help you, Captain Whoozis?
          Everyone had their name, right on the front of their shirt!
          Pure bliss!

      7. > pronouns

        I’d just stay with George Carlin’s proper mode of address for New Yorkers. “Hey you! A******e!”

    3. School or church function? “Hi, I’m so-and-son and this is my spouse such-and-such.” No need to tell anyone what we do or do not do in the privacy of our home. Sure, some intimate fun is implied in the relationship. That’s where it needs to stay, only implied.
      Going to a swingers or spouse swapping party? Okay, that’s different. At least I SUPPOSE it’s different. Never been to one personally.

  15. they literally assume at this point that anyone to the right of Lenin is racist/sexist/homophobic and can’t put it together in their heads that it might not be the case

  16. The Right isn’t putting the Left in camps. In fact most of the Right isn’t even thinking about putting the Left in camps; it’s just not in our world view. And if anyone suggested we do so, we’d probably attack their entire argument for doing so.

    Now the Left, I’m not so sure they’d say much of anything to defend the freedom of the Right from being encamped and re-educated.

    1. Worse, I actually HAVE heard Leftists talk about putting people who don’t tow their line into re-education camps. What do you think “sensitivity training” is the base-line for?

      1. I attended a panel at ArmadilloCon where the panelists were saying the world would be better without Type A personalities. The consensus was these people were sociopaths. They suggested KILLING THEM, and didn’t blink once at the irony! One semi-famous author stated, that once those nasty Type A’s were gone, the world would be peaceful and we could get to work on the really hard problems like space travel. The full room burst into applause. I had to bite my shirt, because I was so outraged, horrified, and thoroughly repulsed.

          1. That was my exact thought!!!!! They made it sound like science is just FUN! No hard work at all, just FUN! Yet not a one of them actually did math for FUN! In a way, the vehemence towards people, who get things done, scared me.

            1. They hate us, they really hate us. (Yes, us. In 2003 when most of my colleagues (and I) got dumped I found out how unusual I am. I belonged to all these email groups and everyone was whining and crying about having to develop another world, write a proposal. I wrote seventeen proposals that summer, in three genres. Over the next few years they all sold. Then they told me I was a hack for producing so much. BAH. Kept us in roof.)

              1. If you don’t write you’re a loser. If you do write you’re a hack.

                I’m sure that makes perfect sense when viewed through the right blinders…

                1. That’s basically how I evaluate myself. I’m not happy when I’m not productive. I have no artistic or literary ambition whatsoever.

                2. Proper writing is done on free time while you are employed as an adjunct professor of creative sociopathy at the local college, of course

                1. I learned about fractional calculus this spring. Apparently has some interesting applications in control theory. Looking into it is on my recreational to do list, even if low priority.

                  1. Heck, I just found out this month what the @#$@# prime factors are good for– you can make a number by multiplying only them. Which isn’t incredibly useful that I can see, but it’s less “uh…OK, great, it can’t be divided except by one?” for primes, and I hated figuring out primes.

                    1. It’s quite handy when doing fractions, specifically addition or subtraction of fractions when you need to find the lowest common multiple of the two denominators. You reduce each denominator down to its prime factors, then you make sure each prime is represented at least as many times as it appears in the largest factor.

                      For example, if you need to add 1/9 to 1/6, you could convert them both into fractions with denominator 9*6 = 54… but then you’d have to reduce the result afterwards (you’d get 6/54 + 9/54 = 15/54 = 5/18).

                      If instead you break 9 down into 3*3, and 6 down into 2*3, then the smallest number that can be evenly divided by both of those is two 3’s and a single 2 = 2*3*3 = 18. So 1/9 becomes 2/18, 1/6 becomes 3/18, 2/18 + 3/18 = 5/18, and doing it this way, you’re guaranteed not to have to reduce the result after you do the addition.

                    2. Ah, but they never bothered to TELL US any of that! (and it wasn’t just me, Elf and I had a conversation about this because he loaths busy work and saw no point to one of the papers Princess was refusing to do)

                      I could usually “see” numbers that would go into it, but if I’d known that I could memorize prime numbers and do it faster….

                    3. I think I wasn’t taught that one either, I just worked it out for myself. But then, my brain is VERY math- and logic-oriented, which is why I’m good at programming and bad at social skills… 🙂

                    4. I can do math, but don’t remember it unless doing it regularly. So math oriented, not so much. Logic, pattern, & intuition, oriented, yes, in spades, which is why I’m a good programmer, & less so at social skills.

                      Drove the guys at work nuts. I’d point out that it “looked like” the error had to be occurring during X because of Y. When they didn’t listen to me (or I didn’t take the problem over), it took them hours to days to find it. By then I’d been working doing design/programming/debugging long enough to recognize those patterns (as in kicked enough by them) & remembered the traits. Surprised me to no end that some of the others who were math-oriented & had “more” experience couldn’t either; got tired of being treated as the “inexperienced one”, even after 10+ years with the company. Turns out that, yes, they had more (5 years) experience with that company, but less (10 years) experience over all, and no variety to the experience; found out this after I quit/retired.

                      Another item that drove a couple of the guys I worked with nuts when they were strict math/logic-oriented, was the client interfacing part. I may lack social graces or insight. One thing was darn good at was intuiting or sussing out what the client really meant/needed VS what the client “said” they needed or what was wrong. Saved a lot of time.

                    5. (Grumpy old codger voice) Why, when I was in school, young missy, we couldn’t afford all them big numbers you youngsters throw around nowadays. We were taught that’s how to do them there fractions! We’d save the extry’s for a rainy day, when we was running short!

                      (Grumbles) Dang new-fangled math. Pft.

                    6. New math methods didn’t bother me. It was: 1) Process of “guess & check”, instead of teaching How; and 2) if correct answer without showing how achieved & process used, no credit. Huh??? No. Absolutely Not. Correct Answer = Correct. Partial credit possible IF wrong answer & you showed your work, so grader could point out where you went wrong. I’d even go as far as slight deduction for correct answer without showing work for not following instructions, but not 100% deduction. Grumble, grouch, grumble, … & yes that conversation came up in more than one teacher/child/parent conference. Result. Glared at teacher. Looked at kid & husband. Kids response was “did math in my head”. We just chuckled. Our response (in front of the teacher) “so? write that down. That is officially called ‘guess & check’.” That’s what the kid started doing, the answer to “process” was “math done in my head – Guess & check”, show work was “here is the math: ….”. Teachers HAD to accept it. Couple chuckled about it. More that a few torqued but their problem. AND we shared this with other parents. Didn’t help that kid had a former MATH major parent, & other one while higher level math has to be relearned (every time) at least understands it, & basic math is easy, so where school didn’t teach HOW, parental home units did. In HS we actually got told that tutoring kid was not doing him any favors (what? Huh?). No, it taught him if he needed help, get it.

                    7. I would agree that getting the answer right even without showing process should get at least some credit, but for those who say, “If it’s right, then it’s right”, when you get to higher maths, it’s entirely possible to get right answers for some time before finding out that you were using an incorrect method, because you never ran into the situation that would make your method show a wrong answer. I ran into that myself in one Calculus class, where I was using what I thought was a valid shortcut, but wasn’t.

                    8. Me too. Plus discrete math, etc. Plus I had to take some graduate level math classes where the correct answer was not the point; how you got the correct answer was.

                      But, teaching basic math, to K-8, before geometry, algebra, or calculus? No. Teaching basic math AND following instructions – well okay. But, expect to be worked around within those instructions, at that level. 🙂

                      Reality check. On some of his homework they were doing algebra, so we taught him algebra & the correct method to properly work it showing your work & why that was important (because at that point it WAS the process). FYI. Teaching him algebra, even though that was what they were doing without teaching it, was not appreciated (tough!!!).

                2. Still fun. It’s just those “Ah Ha!” moments are fewer and farther between; with a whole lot of skull work to get there

        1. Umm…so, A. who is going to set up the planning to kill the Type A personalities, and B. who is going to do all the work the Type A personalities did?

          1. What usually happens is that the Type B’s would wind up in the camps because the Type A’s hijacked the movement.

          2. Oh, they had that planned out. The government could create a virus which would kill the Type As, or there would be a vaccine, which would make the Type As ‘normal’. After they were gone or thought ‘correctly’, then a post-need society would miraculously occur. No one would have to do work, because all work was pointless paperwork at the stupid beck-and-call of the Type A CEO.

            As, I said, it was chilling!

            I do feel sorry for people, who feel they are in a dead end job, and feel worthless. But, I don’t think killing or lobotomizing other people is the solution!!

        2. LOL! I’m infamous for my dislike of over-done Type-A personalities. I’ve had too many times having to work AROUND Type-As who were “in charge” and wouldn’t listen, but had no idea what they were doing. In spite of what the world thinks, confidence does not equal competence any more than correlation equals causation. Given that, even *I* don’t think getting rid of Type-A’s is a good idea.

      2. “You’re gonna have to go a Sensitivity Training Session.”


        “You’re.. okay with that?”

        “I love a target-rich environment!”


    2. What’s that thing in war, something like the law of retribution– basically, if you’d go nuclear over someone doing it to your guys, don’t do it to their guys?

      Yeah, the Right tends to pay attention to that one. Sometimes with individual exceptions for people who DID already do unto us.

      1. War is stress and temptation.

        Laws of war are customs of particular cultures.

        How can they be maintained across cultural boundaries? If the other guy breaks a rule, you have a moral right to break a rule in a way targeted to negate the advantage the other guy gain by breaking the rule. Thus are the laws of war enforced by reprisal.

        If you are talking NBCs, funny story there. After the Great War, everyone imagined the next world war as being the same plus. Quite a lot of chemical warfare was expected. Didn’t happen, despite vast stockpiles, and Hitler being evil and fairly crazy. Why? He knew Churchill had not a shred of hesitation about retaliating.

        1. Came very very close one night. Bad intel on one side or the other, thought that they were loading chemical bombs on the bombers. Other side unloaded the HE and loaded chemical, then found out the intel was bad, unfortunately the fact that they WERE loading chemical got out, so the side that they had thought was loading chemical unloaded their HE and loaded chemical, but by that time the other side had unloaded their chemical and reloaded HE. Both sides spent the entire night swapping loads back and forth. Ended up with no bombs of either sort being dropped that night.
          My dad was one of the pilots and passed this on in the late 60’s after it no longer mattered.
          Still, a few hours slower on either side with the updated intel and a lot of people on both sides would have been poisoned.

        2. I’ve also seen claims that Hitler hated gas because he’d actually experienced it.

          I still can’t remember the dang thing…it’s one of the old classic philosophy stuff things.

          Argh, not so much as a sip of coffee, yet. o.0

        3. While Churchill retaliating likely was a factor, Hitler had been in a position to see what war-gases could do so didn’t want to use them himself.

          Even evil people “have standards”. 😉

          1. Sure. You only use gas for pest control (like against disabled, gays, Roma, and Jews.) You don’t use it against honorable enemies you want to incorporate into your empire.

            1. That, however, brings up the question of why the Nazis never used chemical weapons on the Eastern Front. Hitler’s plans for the Slavs boiled down to “slaves or fertilizer.”

              1. Sub zero temperatures aren’t good for dispersal of poison gas. Neither are heavy wind conditions.

    1. Was catching up on my web comics after being without internet and when I saw that strip, I immediately deleted the bookmark. Don’t need my eyeballs it seems, or want them really.

    2. So I followed the link, looked at some strips, and noticed that the humor content was really low. Not offensive, just, you know, not funny.

      1. Once upon a time, I followed that comic. Some years ago it just kinda faded from my reading. Evidently I’m not suffering any great loss.

      1. Seems that white men are accused that there aren’t enough women and minorities interested to write the stuff. Which, in some way, I guess I can get, their reasoning probably goes “white guys created the genre, it was mostly written by white guys for a long time, they didn’t write stories which would have interested women and minorities so not that many women and minorities got involved, so white guys’ fault there aren’t that many women and minorities writing stories which would appeal to women and minorities”. Bit convoluted, but vaguely logical.

        Could always ask why you’d need to turn the genre into something appealing to women and minorities if they like something different than white guys like. Can’t they create their own stuff, which would appeal to them more?

        Especially considering that what now gets offered as “minority and women” specific stories don’t actually seem to appeal to a lot of women and minority people either, and is driving away not just white guys but those women and minority individuals who happen to like the same stuff as most white guys like.

        Life is so complicated…

        1. We really need to encourage more diversity in garbage collection and forestry, too much T in those environments!

  17. This would have fit in at several points, so I’ll let it stand alone…

    From both Drudge and Insty: Gay Americans are arming themselves to stay alive

    The story is idiotic. Not least because it’s an interview of an Australian interviewing Americans – no chance for crossed wires,there. I would say “New York bubble” but several of my (Denver) friends were all “OMG! Trump!” and went to a CCW class. Since it was on my to-do list, anyway, I went too (group discount pricing).

    I don’t understand how people can think these things. Even if Trump (who brings a gay speaker to the RNC) wanted to round up gay people in camps, how would he possibly go about doing so?

    Looking forward to Saturday; we’re out of coffee so it’s range day (the range sells Black Rifle coffee and it’s a good excuse to make the time).

    1. I don’t suppose the Australian bothered to interview anyone involved with Blazing Sword. :/

      1. Of course not. The narrative would be crushed.

        Incidentally, the end goal is not just to portray the US as this lawless insane place where guns are EVERYWHERE, ready to kill, but to ensure that the Aussie populace doesn’t ever try to bring back general ownership of guns, firearms and the whole concept of self-defense. The current litany is ‘women should be safe to go anywhere they want, whenever they want, and men should be taught not to rape and murder.’

        Anyone even bringing up the notion of self defense (even non-lethal methods) get shouted down that ‘your weapon could be turned against you.’

        1. They should also be taught not to steal cars, rob liquor stores, and burglarize houses.

          How is that working out for these idiots?

    2. The best and easiest way to use Federal power to actually persecute gays would probably be to weaponize the Federal medical establishment. Take a bureaucracy that can dictate medical treatments. The removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders was basically a political act, and can be reversed the same way. Especially if you can use transgender as the test example for the entire category, it wouldn’t be too hard to argue ‘costs too much to treat, euthanize instead’.

      The other Federal bureaucracies would be harder to use because they have more safeguards. Federal single payer couldn’t have much safeguards and still function.

      Actual rounding up?

      1. I suspect attempts at actually rounding up would result in a shock at who their real allies were — those “gun crazy rednecks” who don’t really give a $#!& about sexuality but have issues with grabby gov’t types.

        1. Some places might be doable. But the straight white protestant males who are armed because they personally don’t want to be murdered give an awful lot of herd immunity simply by making the cost so high. To change that, gays would need to work hard to alienate and enrage everyone around them.

            1. And would probably complain about the straights who were risking their lives to defend them even as said straights were doing the defending.

              1. Yeah, but the ones that are very much not pulling that crap are enough that we aren’t going to be getting consensus for anti-gay pogroms as far as I can forecast.

          1. Makes you wonder how many of the gun control nuts are also against childhood vaccination? Seems like they’d hate both kinds of herd immunity.

            1. Ashland, Oregon seems to be a hotbed of both, and they’ve had the pertussis outbreak as a gift from the Gods of the Copybook Headings. If they’re getting much trouble for their anti-gun crap, local media is carefully not reporting it.

              1. “Ashland, Oregon seems to be a hotbed of both, and they’ve had the pertussis outbreak as a gift from the Gods of the Copybook Headings. If they’re getting much trouble for their anti-gun crap, local media is carefully not reporting it.”

                Eugene/Springfield & Covallis too. Seems to be the smaller cities & university effect. To be fair I didn’t know the pertussis vaccine wore off, or you could get it even when being current. Mine wore off. Kid’s (got it from me, who got it from work) should have still been current. He was 12. I was 44. The only vaccine the kid didn’t get was Chicken Pox; he’d already had them. Me I didn’t get a lot of the vaccines, old enough that the vaccine didn’t exist & got immunity the old fashion way, got extremely sick with them, had at least one critical emergency visit with scarlet fever.

                But yea. Stupidity on vaccines is rampant in Oregon by percentages.

                1. The pertussis vaccine is in a combo with tetanus and diphtheria, all of which are bacterial and all of which fade over time. If you’re up for a tetanus shot, it’s a good idea just to get the combo shot (which is usually more available anyway.)

                  1. I’ve still got chills from the description of a child dying of diphtheria on the Tofspot blog.

                    I think my OBGYN defaults to assuming you should have a new one if you’re pregnant. Just to be sure.

                    1. Grants whooping cough protection until they’re old enough to get a shot– and early weeks is the very dangerous period.

                    2. *rubs shoulder*

                      My OB’s office has a very shiny intern/student doctor right now, so in addition to my arm still being a bit sore, my tongue is sore from biting my tongue to keep from interrupting her explanation of why it’s a great thing. I waited until she was done to add that my high school has had epidemic level breakouts of whooping cough roughly every other year since 2005 or so, and that anything that stops lockjaw is good in my book.

                      I just have trouble keeping the TDAP vs DTAP thing straight when I’m talking to the doctor/nurse, so I sometimes confuse/scare them. And don’t get me started on when I slip up and call things “five way” or similar cattle terminology…..

                    3. Thank you.

                      I have to admit relating to the grandmother who somehow managed to restrain herself from strangling someone who asked for their baby. When I gave birth to Vincent, someone remarked at how cute he was, being mestizo; could I give him to them, I could always have more. I made some kind of excuse; I don’t remember what. I think I said my father hadn’t seen him yet.
                      I translated this to Rhys, who became very alarmed, and thereafter refused to leave us alone, and stared very suspiciously at everyone who came near our curtained off ward bed.
                      Later someone explained to me that the phrasing is one of those ‘hide the well-wishing behind an expression of envy, so the devil doesn’t curse you’ things; it’s meant to express that the person saying it hopes you have lots more cute children in the future. I don’t think it mollified Rhys that much, since he had to take it at face value at first.

                    4. It’s the new policy. Came out sometime in between 2010 and 2014—they give you the pertussis vaccine in your third trimester, so that a bit of immune boost passes on to the newborn.

                  2. Yes. Know that. Kid was not due for his update when he caught it. I may/or may not have been. Know I’m currently current, but after a few years when asked exactly when I last got one, it’s uhhhhh, hmmmmm. I got it from work. You could “hear” the “cold” going around the office cubicles. I coughed hard for at least 3 weeks, & off & on to various stimuli for a couple of more months. Kid wasn’t much better. He was allowed back in school after a week, not that the damage hadn’t already been done before. One of the insidious things about a lot of these deceases, you are contagious days before you have symptoms.

            2. Can’t really find out the numbers, but I wouldn’t be surprised. The worst outbreaks happened in clusters in the most affluent New South Wales suburbs, mostly in ‘highly educated’ populations. NSW has one of the strictest laws and requirements on gun ownership as well, I’m told.

              I see that kind of mentality as ‘push the other guy forward so the croc/terrorist/crazy person kills them first and me last!’

  18. Lately it’s, “It’s inhumane to separate families by deporting parents,” because we all know it’s impossible to take your kids with you.

    1. Right. They’re glued to the soil.
      You know, it’s like the sturm und drang about separating families at the border. Do you even know those are families? No? Then why are you enabling child trafficking?
      Fricking unthinking progressives.

      1. Again something that probably never even enters the mind of most people.

        We’d need a popular movie telling the heartbreaking story of a stolen toddler and a parent or older sibling who goes in search of him, and finds out he was taken to America, then follows, and after lots of hardships and excitement finally finds him and takes him back home. Before – or after, but before would probably work better – you’d get a voice telling how this is a real phenomena even if the story is fictional. Or maybe find a real story, and then you could have the “based on a real story” in the beginning.

        But even if that movie got made, and was really, really good as a story and well filmed and had very good actors and excellent director unless those people were well inside and established in the Hollywood system it probably could not get particularly wide distribution, and I suppose it’s not exactly likely Hollywood would make it. It’s already possible to make movies, even pretty good ones (at least when they aren’t stories which require big CGI), outside that system, but looks like the distribution is the biggest current bottleneck to indie movies.

  19. I forget where I heard it, or if I thought it up myself, but at some point, the phrase hit me-“Some people are paranoid because they’re lonely. Having someone that is against them means that somebody cares enough to pay attention to them.”

    And, I keep feeling that every time I see a lot of the people you talk about. They are so far outside the norms of even the Odds that they’re lonely. The only way for them to stop being lonely is to come back to a world that doesn’t revolve around them. But, if they do that…they have to actually act as if other people matter.

    So, they create an invisible Sky Daddy villain (it’s always a guy) that is making their lives miserable. The Patriarchy. Donald Trump. Tyler Durden. Kevin Bacon. It’s not their fault, it’s the Sky Daddy villain that is ruining their lives, so it’s clearly not their fault!

    They now have someone to be up against-and since they aren’t real, they have a foe that they can never beat. So, the war goes on and their lives have meaning.

    1. Not only does their imaginary villain care enough to hate them, but will put serious time and money into the process of hating them. Like making laws and regulations that are against them personally and specifically.
      As someone pointed out, the opposite of love isn’t hate, it’s indifference. And they just can’t handle that.

      1. Oh yes. Once I figured out the SJZs needed a Big Sky Daddy to scream and have their hates and two minute tempter tantrums, it made things a lot easier.

        (And, too many of them to paddle, tell to take a nap, and come back once they figured out what they did wrong. Worse-some of them would get the wrong message.)

        1. …Some of them might like the paddling, and up the ante to get more of the same.

          Actually, given how these people actively go to spaces they know ‘the enemy’ are, masochismic pleasure-seeking is just as much a valid reason for their insanity, as the ‘I need a foe to become a hero!’ delusion.

          1. Yea…they wouldn’t understand that it’s a punishment paddling, not a fun-time paddling. And some of the people you’d have to paddle…eeew.

            (I like women whom have curves. Spherical is technically a curve, but not one I enjoy.)

            The idea that they’re in a masochistic martyrdom complex seems to make way, way too much sense. And, they aren’t self aware enough to know that they have the issues they need to deal with, and the culture is enabling them so that they can’t find enlightenment. Instead, they are given a Cracker-Jack toy “woke” that is easy and solves everything and they don’t have to do anything but continue to indulge their issues. They don’t have to examine their point of view and maybe be…gasp! wrong.

            1. Well, it does. We’ve seen it repeatedly on ATH, or Mad Genius Club, or at Larry Correia’s blog – trolls, vileprogs (to distinguish from the leftists who are actually capable of arguing and discussing), etc – constantly going to places where they are banned, evading the ban, finding stuff to take out of context and scream about at their own blogs, etc…

              Without us as their enemy, they literally have nothing. We’ve finished Sad Puppies, and Sad Puppies, (conflated with) GamerGate still live as the boogeyman that somehow has the power of influencing the gaming industry/writing industry/politics/get Trump elected … but are somehow, simultaneously ‘powerless’ and ‘irrelevant.’

              SJZs don’t realize that people are noticing that they’re the crazy wild-haired wild-eyed unbathed hippie screaming incoherent monologues about incoming doom from a soapbox – and they feed from any reaction they get.

              If they were ignored? They’ll just up the ante to get attention.

              1. They’re like massive, overgrown children like that. They want what they want now, and if they get their current shiny, they will want the next shiny, then the next shiny, then the next shiny…and they are willing to make trouble until bribed to stop.

                Way, way too many of them need post-parental parenting, and that is going to be unpleasant.

  20. The thing about politics is that it is rallying the tribe against the dangerous tribe on the other side of the hill. Trump rallies the American nation against the world, and our liberal friends rally their identity groups against the nation.

    There must be a dangerous enemy; otherwise there is no need for politics.

    1. Disagree.

      If everybody thought the same, there would be no politics.

      Politics at its best is the process where people with different views get together to work out “how do we get along”.

  21. I had an interesting encounter with an SJW couple. (Circumstances redacted a bit to protect the guilty…)

    I was doing some work in the area and stopped in to the management office. Mr and Mrs SJW were lamenting that their used car had a boatload of coolant in the cylinders, and All Is Lost Forever. I said Hmm, and went to research the issue. Turns out the car in question has a plastic intake manifold and is prone to these problems. It’s annoying to fix, but very fixable. A good shade tree mechanic (of which there are several in the area) could do it for parts plus beer money. (good beer, preferably).

    I relayed the info to the SJWs and went onward. Later that week Mrs SJW asked my wife how could she stand being married to an engineer. After a “huh?”, $SPOUSE replied that her sister and brother in law were engineers, her niece was in an ME program, and her dad did some engineering-related work. That got a Hmmph and a walkaway.

    Condemned for being insufficiently teary? Give me a break.

    Haven’t seen them lately. Don’t plan to.

      1. Sometimes emotional people get upset when you hand them a solution instead of commiserating or patiently letting them vent.

        Sometimes grifters get upset when given advice instead of a handout.

        Dunno which, but they were apparently expecting a different reaction.

        1. They might have also been looking for an excuse to get a new car, or being able to poor-mouth bout the one one they have.

          1. If it is the model I can think of (I had it twice in my first car, plus engine seizure possiblyfrom it as well), there is plenty to badmouth about and the mechanic will have some choice terminology but you can solve the problem.

        2. Yeah, I remember how, once, I offered a package of cookies (from my lunchbox) to a beggar, instead of money. They didn’t want the food, wanted money. I said if I had money to spare, I wouldn’t be bringing a packed lunch, and backed away.

          Drug-seeking behavior. And yes, this was in the Philippines.

      2. I’m pretty sure Mrs SJW wanted me to a) suggest a fundraiser to get them money for a new car, and b) donate substantially to that fundraiser. (She thought we were rich, though in our town, being able to pay your own bills == rich.) Actually recommending something affordable and practical Just Wasn’t Acceptable. Hmm, how do you find your eyes when they roll so hard?

        OTOH, these were people who managed to present themselves as earning/having very little money, while enjoying a rather luxurious lifestyle. That had a fair amount to do with them leaving that particular position, at least when aspects of that came out…

        1. A common misconception people have about my family (both my parents when I was a kid, and the one I have now) is that we’re ‘rich.’ It has to do with the shelves of books they see, and how neat the house is kept, and that the fridge and pantry is full.

          They do not see that the food on the shelves are mostly ingredients that are either home-brand or bought on sale, and that the food in the fridge, if not themselves ingredients, leftovers in plastic containers because when I cook, I cook extra for Rhys’ lunches and such. The books are, for the most part, hand me downs or second hand, same as most of the furniture. Ditto the cars.

          Oh and the computers are all old, just really well maintained, and the cases are kept clean.

          “Clean and neat” seems to translate to ‘You’re rich’ in people’s heads.

    1. Oh. You’re a GUY. And like typical GUYS, you want to fix things; when all SHE wants to do is TALK about it. Women are from Venus, Men are not from Mars; we’re from down in the cellar or out in the workshop. Never met a male SJW that was a typical guy.

Comments are closed.