I Will Be Going to WisCon!
Nov 20, 201411:50PM
And I'd like you to join me.
I plan to make up some shirts with this:
And with statements like "SHITLORD" and "Cisgender heteronormative male oppressor."
Over those, we'll wear beach babe tropical shirts.
I recommend a beard, and an (unlit) cigar.
I expect to be attacked by femorrhoids. We shall laugh at their hatred and ignore their whines. If attacked physically, we shall have them arrested for battery. Remind them that cosplay is not consent, and no matter how we're dressed, we're not asking for it.
My room will be a safe haven for the privileged, and you must prove privilege to enter. We will drink Scotch and discuss how a belief in privilege equates to a belief in white/male/cishet genetic superiority.
I expect the lamentations to be epic.
Dear femorrhoid cunts:
The women on Dr Matt Taylor's shirt can dress as they wish. You have no right to dictate their clothing choices.
Dr Matt Taylor can dress as he wishes. Just because you don't like the shirt doesn't mean he's "asking for it."
Likewise, cosplay is not consent.
Attacking him is slut shaming, and also attacks the artisanal abilities of the female friend who made the shirt for him.
If you think I'm mansplaining to you, you're wrong. I'm smartsplaining. Also, if you thought that, you're a sexist cunt as well as a retarded one. My sex is not relevant to the validity of my statement.
Instead of being bossy cunts and attacking your intellectual betters out of jealousy, why don't you go learn something useful, like how to make a sandwich?
Can't figure out why this is entitled "Equality"? Because a retarded dick male would get the exact same treatment. So suck it, bitches.
Everyone else, donate here: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/matt-taylor-rosetta-project-scientist
Al Gore, Lardass And Eco-Expert, Is At It Again
Nov 12, 201411:28AM
Oscar-winning scientist Al Gore now wants "A national food policy." He refers to this "brilliant article" (Actually, it's an op-ed):
First of all, nothing in a newspaper is ever "brilliant." They're aimed at someone with a 4th grade education.
Here are the pallid suggestions:
All Americans have access to healthful food;
Well, gee, who doesn't want that? But you know, I've been helping a couple of recently homeless friends, and the food banks give away food. Now, a lot of it is starch, because we produce so much of it. But, it's food. Almost no other nation on the planet can do that. This is the typical statist bullshit of creating a panic over something that doesn't exist, making it mandatory, making you pay for it, then providing less than you had before, but at least it's "Fair."
● Farm policies are designed to support our public health and environmental objectives;
Translation: "Let a bureaucrat decide what you can eat." Because that's worked so well with health care, education and drilling for oil. Oh, and the US Postal Service.
● Our food supply is free of toxic bacteria, chemicals and drugs;
It pretty much is. And if it's not, you can sue or file criminal charges. Why, I remember just last week that 47,000 school children got gastroenteritis from bad school food and sued…oh, wait, no, they all ate perfectly safe stuff (other than being loaded with government mandated starch).
This is probably more anti-GMOtardery. Fun fact: Without GMO food, we can't feed 7 billion people. I propose everyone opposed to GMO stop eating. That will eliminate GMO, and provide enough food for everyone else, mostly poor people in Africa and Asia. Unless, of course, the anti-GMO crowd are mostly privileged "liberal" racists who hate brown people. Which they are.
● Production and marketing of our food are done transparently;
Because the government excels at transparency. Seriously, did these idiots actually say that? Why don't they ask for rainbow-colored unicorn jizz while they're at it?
● The food industry pays a fair wage to those it employs;
Ah, the "living wage" that destroyed Detroit. "Liberals" will never learn, because they are not capable of learning. What we really need is a national policy to declare "liberalism" (as opposed to actual Liberalism) a psychiatric disorder and put them in facilities where they can mumble to the walls and other inmates and not hurt anyone who matters.
● Food marketing sets children up for healthful lives by instilling in them a habit of eating real food;
Ah, "Real food." Which the USDA, which is run by...let me check my notes…ah, here: The US Government. It endorses eating gobs of starch that cause metabolic disorders, including obesity and diabetes. I even saw one recent report from this "US Government" that diabetics should get 70% of their calories from starch. The article concurs with this problem, but suggests MOAR GOVERNMENT will make it better.
Hint for the scientifically illiterate: Starch metabolizes as sugar. That's what it is.
What some of these tofu-munching pussies are hoping for is a law against meat, to stop those ebil, gun-toting, god-worshipping teahadis and make them comply.
Except California famously outlawed Caesar Salad a few years back, leading to literal bootlegging of salad. Once you put a bureautard in charge, it's hard to get anything rational to happen.
● Animals are treated with compassion and attention to their well-being;
Most farmers do this, because maltreated animals don't taste good. What this will turn into is more "animals are people too!" bullshit from the bunnyfuckers, and retards who try to feed their carnivorous pets weeds.
● The food system’s carbon footprint is reduced, and the amount of carbon sequestered on farmland is increased;
Wait, didn't you say you wanted the food to be cheap and plentiful? So: We will regulate the food and the farmers, require them to spend more money on wages, demand they comply with "Carbon sequestration," and it will magically be cheaper, just like health care.
Actually, though, this is potentially achievable—we just reduce the carbon footprint of everyone in favor of this to zero, process them through a logchipper, then through a lime pit. We'll sequester their carbon and they won't produce any more. And, we won't have to listen to them. Win-win-win.
● The food system is sufficiently resilient to withstand the effects of climate change.
According to my research, the food system has withstood climate change for a half billion years. What we need to be concerned about is if it can withstand Al Gore, his private jets, his mansions all over the coasts (wait, isn't he afraid of sea level rise? Why would he have mansions on the coasts?) and his considerable bulk that is probably fed by cheeseburgers, not salad. The carbon footprint of his houses exceeds my entire block. The calorie footprint of his girth exceeds the local football team, and his bullshit quotient exceeds that of every cow in Kansas.
Even on an ephemeral basis, first we have to actually conclude what specific effects of climate change we are concerned about. If we lose a week of frost-free days in Canada, their wheat crop fails. If we lose rainfall, much of the corn belt suffers. If we lose a couple of degrees in another Little Ice Age or Younger Dryas, there goes the citrus crop. Then there's hurricanes, El Nińo, etc. "Make it more resilient" sounds cute, but doesn't actually say much. And of course, doing so will cost money, which will magically make food more affordable.
We have a system in the US that feeds not only us, but most of the world, and so well we actually pay farmers not to grow food. But what this proposes is to raise the prices, reduce the output, and somehow, magically, cheaper! And as for all those poor people in Asia and Africa, who cares? Because at heart, "liberals" are racist, narcissistic, greedy fucks who only care about themselves.
And Al Gore is their spokesJabba.
So, we have an op-ed that's shallow, panders to the wrong market, does so poorly, and is endorsed by a fat albatross. Ultimately, though, the proposal comes down to, "Government stupidity got us into this mess. We need more government stupidity to get us out."
Or, you could stop "helping" and figure that since people have been eating food for 3 million years, they'll figure it out.
Coming next: A national policy on masturbation and heavy breathing.
The Internet Is For Trolls...
Nov 08, 201407:51PM
So, I'm reading this about someone being an utter shitbag of a troll.
I'm glad they're being outed, and I'm glad people are responding.
I know how attention like that can be painful, or at least aggravating.
I wonder how many of these people realize how common this type of behavior is.
In fact, just recently, I've been called:
a "child abusing fucktard" because I taught my kids to shoot, even though I'm a qualified instructor with decades of military experience.
"Ultraconservative," by someone who's certainly never read a word I've put in print, who then publicly demanded a publisher stop carrying my books based on that.
During the Iraq War, while deployed, and while endorsing some of our strategy, the "support the troops" meme suddenly turned to "Well, fuck you, you Koch-whore. I hope you get your balls blown off." The pun is at least amusing, but really, what they meant was they supported the troops who agreed with their political position. They wished me a violent death.
I get actual death threats every month or so. They're usually not credible.
I finally had to block fantasy author Tad Williams from my Facebook wall after two years of driveby comments where he'd call everyone racists and accuse others and myself of privilege because he thinks I'm as straight white male as he is, with no evidence to support his belief. It even came down to, "I'm not even sure what this post was about, but you're all a bunch of racists" (paraphrased). I try not to block people, but if they add literally nothing to the discussion, and merely troll, I do.
Racist, racist, racist, white middle class fuck, white male (and my opinion is invalid based on my gender and apparent race). I get this all the time.
So I'm glad to see this is an issue that these people want to address.
As a lesbian Thai woman, she identifies as a member of a highly marginalized community, and there has been quite a bit of excitement in progressive circles around her rise in popularity as a short story writer. She has been publishing SFF since 2012 and is a John W. Campbell nominee for 2014.
There's excitement about her being a writer. But there's MORE excitement about her race and orientation.
Perhaps someday "liberals" will judge a writer on the content of the work, not on the color of their skin.
- She and her supporters argue that she punches up, but the truth is that she punches in all directions. The bulk of her targets—despite her progressively-slanted rhetoric—have been women, people of color, and other marginalized or vulnerable people.
So, "punching up." That's "liberal" code for "attacks white males." Well, that's okay. It's only when she attacks certain minorities or "marginalized or vulnerable people" that it's a problem.
So, either they're claiming that my alleged "privilege" (Assuming I'm as SWM as they think I am based on my appearance) makes me immune or less vulnerable to such attacks. In other words, they believe in white supremacy. (Or any other writer who's allegedly white, whether they are or not.)
Or, they're perfectly okay with attacks on certain demographic groups. That makes them bigots.
- She has single-handedly destroyed several online SFF, fanfic, and videogaming communities with her negative, hostile comments and attacks.
Again, this happens all the time to conservatives and libertarians.
Most of these people supported the vitriolic attack on Uncle Timmy (Tim Bolgeo), based on something he copied and pasted, to the point where the ignorati wondered "what a racist blog has to do with SF," when he publishes neither a blog nor a racist one. He got uninvited from a convention.
Then the privileged white male who started that twitstorm publicly and repeatedly called me a "racist piece of shit" at a convention (which did step in and stop him).
Remember mega-nerd Jonathan Ross got uninvited from LonCon because someone was sure he would definitely make personal comments about her, with no evidence that he'd ever done so or intended to.
- “If I see *** being beaten in the street I’ll stop to cheer on the attackers and pour some gasoline on him” – “*** is an ignorant, appropriative bag of feces.”
- “Spread the word that *** is a raging racist fuck. Let him be hurt, let him bleed, pound him into the fucking ground. No mercy.”
- “Stupid fuck” – “homophobe” – “without any talent whatsoever”. To a reader defending her: “Your liking for this pile of verbal diarrhea proves what morons fantasy fans are.”
- “rape apologist!” – “her hands should be cut off so she can never write another Asian character.”
- “ah, if only I could actually do it in person. with scalpels, not words.”
Stupid fuck” “homophobe” “without any talent whatsoever”. ”MAYDAY, MAYDAY. BIOCHEMICAL WEAPON TO CINDY PON’S COORDINATES AND MAKE THAT DOUBLE TIME” To reader defending her: insults along the lines of “Your liking for this pile of verbal diarrhea proves what morons fantasy fans are.”
"Biochemical weapon"—does that sound like a real threat? That sounds herpaderp. But if you think it might be legit, call the FBI. They do investigate threats of terrorism.
And a reader has the right to publicly say your book is "complete racist shit." It's an opinion. It needs no proof. It needs no license. You cannot stop it and have no recourse. Again, downvote it and move on.
So, now that she, from her alleged (since we don't actually know her race, gender or status) position of more victimhood, is attacking people of less victimhood (which actually IS "punching up"), now it's a problem.
Pardon me for having little sympathy for the culture as a whole. They endorsed this, and still do. But they can't handle it when they get it.
I guess the lesson here is that publishers, hosters, bloggers and authors shouldn't be apologizing to anonymous internet cowards over allegations of anything. Block them, move on, and ignore them. Giving them bandwidth only encourages them.
And hopefully, the "liberal" SF community will learn from this and try to be less racist and judgmental.
Had they started fighting this when she was "only" "punching up" white males of privilege, they might have contained the matter. Now it's turned into a virus.
"Then they came for me…"
In response to a comment of support:
Honestly, I realize most of them are only internet brave, and I'm pretty sure face to face I can take most of them.
Now, I know female authors who've gotten legitimate threats and had to get bodyguards.
Privilege does exist. But that doesn't make it okay to exploit it, or bandy it about as an epithet.
THIS Is What A Slippery Slope Looks Like
Nov 08, 201412:32AM
When some limpwristed little pussy says they want to take your gun away, "For safety," shove it up their ass sideways.
Katie Eastham Can u hand in old kitchen knifes to as i dont no what to do with them x
Like · Reply · 2 · September 15 at 12:16pm
Lancashire Police Hi Katie, yes you can hand any knife in, including any kitchen knives you no longer want.
Like · 3 · September 15 at 12:20pm
Trevor Patrick Jones Use it for cooking. You know, what you're supposed to do.
Unlike · 3 · November 5 at 3:17pm
Jerry Bradley She don't cook she obeys McDonald's.
Like · November 6 at 1:47pm
Michael Z. Williamson Sell them at a used goods store, you stupid bint.
Like · Just now
ZOMFG! LOOK AT ALL THOSE VIOLENT KNIVES!
Europe Again, November
Nov 06, 201401:43PM
If you are in Western Europe, I'll be at Spangdahlem Air Base's SciFi Con again this year, on 15 November.
On the 16th, I'll be signing books at the American Book Center in Amsterdam.
In between, I'll be in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
Email me and we might be able to meet up.
A Post Election AAR
Nov 05, 201412:04AM
It seems the GOP can learn eventually, after enough idiots legitimately rape their own party's chances. Very few of them mentioned abortion, rape or god crap this time around, and they won. Hopefully the lesson sticks. People don't want to hear about abortion, rape or god crap, and no one really cares if teh gheys marry.
And there's a point here. With those issues gone, the DNC had very little to offer, and got beaten like a cheap rubber doll at a sadists' convention.
A "Friend" of mine who identifies as "liberal" was bleating all week about the need to beat the "teahadis" and "libertoonians" who wanted to "Destroy America."
Point A: I doubt she actually knows any Tea Partiers, only what MSDNC has told her about Tea Partiers. Quite a few of them are pro-choice, support marriage equality (or don’t care either way) and are females who adamantly oppose sexual assault and discrimination. Attempting to compare them to Muslim terrorists is ridiculous, inaccurate, and racist (using the left's own logic of "racializing" cultures that are different from our own)(while in a weird bipolar disconnect, insisting such cultures are every bit as good as our own)(oh, right, I get it—they're just as good from THEIR POV, but not from OUR POV. This Is Not Racist(when a "liberal" does it)).
Point 2) I'm not a "libertoonian," but since I doubt she actually knows the difference between an anarcho-capitalist and a libertarian, I'll speak for our collective selves. It turns out most of us agree with her on pretty much every social issue, if not the approach to said issues. This Is Not Good Enough. How dare we not march in the same formation in the parade?
And this is one reason why the left must be exterminated, by actual violence if necessary. They don't actually tolerate anything. You are free to agree, or be an enemy of the state. In this regard, they are more dangerous to American than idiot Christofascists, almost as dangerous as actual Jihadis. Projection projects from their every statement.
Point c] A complete lack of tolerance for dissenting POVs is not in any fashion "liberal." Liberals are supposed to endorse social support, the exploration of new ideas, and freedom for individuals. Conversely, conservatives conserve, and hold to existing systems that work. A balance between the two is necessary.
Point IV. If we assume for sake of argument that America works, has worked for a couple of centuries, and does so better than most nations on the planet or in history—readily provable with an examination of GDP, lifespan, and the Bill of Rights—then the people who want to stick with that system are not "destroying" it. Now, had she specifically referred to Christofascists, I'd agree with her. But, "not instantly adopting the curious combination of Fascism and Stalinism endorsed by the DNC" is not "destroying America." The Curious Combination of Fascism and Stalinism endorsed by the DNC is what's destroying America. And we've held the line against it…for now.
And this is why one should not confuse actual liberals, who are a useful, necessary and productive part of any healthy society, with fascists.
So what should we of the evil right wing do tomorrow and moving forward?
Well, first, I'm going to have my driver deliberately detune the engine of the limo to produce as much CO2 as possible. Then, he's going to drive me to McDonald's, where I hope the cow was waterboarded before being slowly raped to death, to be mixed with worm and soy by someone earning $2/hr and chained to the machine. On the way there, I may shoot at homeless people with readily available ghost guns from the NRA Store's ice cream trucks.—This seems to be what she expects proper "teahadis" to do.
Sadly for the DNC, with the GOP in control of both houses, they will not be able to repeat their famous acts of putting an entire race of people into concentration camps, sterilizing the "unfit" or keeping black people as slaves.—This is some of what the Democrats actually did when they were in charge.
GOP: Learn from 2014 for 2016. Tell the idiot god-nuts to STFU, and deal with the problems people actually care about.
DNC: Try actually being liberal. America needs that.
Old Racial Article--Full Retard
Oct 31, 201408:49PM
From the drivel:
Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren isn't backing down from her claim of Native American ancestry, despite the apparent lack of primary documents proving that she's 1/32nd Cherokee.
The controversy surrounding Warren's heritage led us to wonder — how much of a racial or ethnic heritage constitutes minority status? Should percentages of a bloodline matter at all?
But many people's self-identification remains limited by their skin color, which influences the perceptions of others.
If only there were some way to compare people against a background to determine if they're dark enough to be "ethnic." Maybe a brown paper bag?
From the comments:
"Gage Hutchens • 2 years ago
As a statement of opinion, I believe the cultural bias to favor certain people for admissions to undergrad and graduate school should be based on parental income, not on ethnicity or "race."
And as a Cherokee, I hope that I am able to add a unique perspective to this conversation. What appears most challenging for White America to grasp, is that concepts of one's relationship to the dominate anglo-germanic-celtic culture are not uniform even within ethnicities. Opinions are shaped both by a complex interaction of how one is perceived, and also how one's family, clan and tribe perceives AND the culture stories within the "minority" or subordinate culture as to their role enveloped by the dominate society."
Wow. As an immigrant from the "dominate Anglo-Germanic-Celtic culture" (Please show me the respect of capitalizing my ethnicity), let me inform you that it works both ways. My English ancestors spent centuries trying to exterminate my Celtic ancestors, and both of them created the nation of Belgium just so they'd have a place to settle their differences with the Germans. But I guess all us white people look the same to you.
Once again, "liberals" prove they are the most racist fucks on the planet.
The anti-gun freaks who promote "SWATting" are stating they intend for people carrying guns to die from their lies and hysteria. To me, this constitutes a legitimate threat. If someone were to pre-emptively kill one of them, I'd regard it as self defense.
Also, it fits the legal definition of conspiracy--discussion of intent to commit an illegal act, followed by at least one overt act (that need not be criminal itself, merely supportive) (BUT, has been felonious, removing all doubt).
So every member of their group who has made a post or statement to that effect is a felon, conspiring to commit murder.
And until they are arrested for such, it would be completely reasonable to kill them on contact.
This is called "escalation." It's also called "Responding to a credible threat."
Dignity: You're Doing It Wrong
Oct 13, 201409:02PM
A white guy pretending to be an Iroquoisan dressed as a Siouxan doing a Kansa dance? How does anyone think this can possibly have any dignity whatsoever?
Though apparently some chick at U of I who's likely Shoshoni, Comanche or Aztec in background (Uto-Aztecan name) found it so offensive 7 years later she says she feels suicidal:
In April 2014, an indigenous student, Xochitl Sandoval, sent a letter to the university administration (which she also posted on her Facebook page) describing her thoughts of suicide resulting from the daily insults she felt due to the continued presence of "The Chief" on campus, including other students wearing the old image and name on sweatshirts and the continued "unofficial" performances the current "Chief", Ivan A. Dozier at some events.
Man, that's a negative dignity rating there.
That would be like having a Chinese guy put on a kilt and horned helmet, dance a polka, and someone in Spain getting offended.
But hell, we're talking about a school that thinks orange and blue are complementary colors.