The circular logic you'll find on this dildo-holster's page is bizarre.  Disagree with her, you're a Nazi.  Argue that you're only disagreeing with a point, that proves you're a Nazi.

Actual fact:  She's the Nazi.

This circulated a while back.

 /></p><p> </p><p>I ignored it at the time. That's because, for years I made a point of not criticizing other authors.  However, few of them returned the favor, so fuck it.</p><p>Dear Catherrynne or Catheryyyne or Caaatheryin, or whatever cutesy spelling it is:</p><p>First, you're wrong. The earliest modern SF was largely written by techno-savvy men, who either had little time for women, or didn't really deal with many women in their technical jobs at the time (1920s-1930s). See The Lensman series. Almost all the stories from this era are tech-driven, capitalist-endorsing, adventure stories of manly men doing manly things.</p><p>Then we get into the 1940s and 1950s, where there's some social construct in some of the stories, by technocrats, who, as a very liberal friend describes them, were Foundation series, which made the case that people as a group can be analyzed as a group and certain trends predicted and accounted for, despite individual variances. The Technocrats took this to an idiotic extreme where individuals could be made mathematical parts of the socialist ideal with no dissent or repercussion. Look up the Technocratic Party platform. It's hilarious. It's also complete incel garbage.

So that brings us to the late 1950s, and 1960s, where some of the then-liberals did in fact join in SF, and did in fact produce a great many worthy works.  But they weren't "progressive."  First because there's nothing actually "progressive" about your self-styled movement. The base economic model is simply neofeudalism with everyone assigned productivity by the Planning Committee instead of the Lord of the Manor. But semantics aside, even using the "progressive" moniker, they weren't.  They were actual liberals. You know, the ones who tolerated differences of opinion, supported the rights of dissenters, and generally got along well with people.

So that's not "always has been" progressive.  In fact, the "progressive" cockholsters came along in the 1990s, made the liberals uncomfortable,  scared the conservatives, and made the libertarians eyeroll. Even the actual socialists recognized them for what they are politically: The actual fucking Nazis in the equation.

Case in point:

There's your burned book Catheryyyin.  You didn't even wait to fucking pretend to read it.  It's gone. It didn't even fit your strawman definition of conservative. It was liberal. But, it wasn't "progressive." After all, you can't have children imagining a world without hatred. There goes your entire racist business model. It wasn't stopped by the conservatives, who just don't read what they don't like. Nor the libertarians. Nor the actual socialists.  It was your kind.  The book burning Nazis. Just like the Parents' Music Resource Center started by Tipper Gore. It's ALWAYS Nazis claiming to be liberals who want to restrict speech and publication.

As to "always will be" [progressive], that depends on how long the readers are willing to put up with it.  I'm sure the Nazis are enjoying it. You're preaching to them.  Real people though, tend not to read those books.  It's not that they're not reading. They're just not reading those books. You sit there with your mutual masturbation society of awards, while hundreds of authors don't even waste time with SFWA or conventions, and you like to pretend they don't exist, while they rake in money. Nor are they all conservative. Quite a few are on the very (actual) liberal end of things. 

And it's easy to spot the rest of the Nazis, because they're throwing out their catchphrase of "I wouldn't feel safe with this person at a convention!" which correctly translates as either, "I'm a pathetic little bitch and want to preserve my echo chamber!" or "I'd start a fight with this person for the satisfaction of blaming them, but I'm afraid they might actually kick my scrawny, virtue-signaling ass if I did."

Then on more than one occasion, your group has publicly stated that a Latino author (different Latino authors) make you feel uncomfortable, and denied them access to your events.  So as far as the racism goes, it's a documented fact.  But, hey, at Worldcon a couple of years back, you DID let a gay man and a black woman hand out the awards to the white people--after you harassed, harangued, terrified, threatened, strawmanned and voted against Hispanics, Jews and even an actual socialist or two.  I guess that's your definition of "progressive"?

Oh, as to your Point #2, that's called "DragonCon," it's 15 times the size of the jokingly self-styled "WorldCon," makes no distinction between politics and beliefs of authors and their relevance to attend, and boots out Nazi assholes who masturbate about "Well, not everyone gets a voice in a fair society."  Because in a fair society everyone DOES get a voice.  I actually like it when Nazi bigots self-identify, so they can be called out and I can not waste time reading their literary dribble.

Great going with the virtue signal though, babe. You definitely told US. 

Then you burned the fucking books.

Including actual science  thus disproving the loudly proclaimed myth of liberal scienceness and rationality.

YOU and your kind are the fucking Nazis. Always have been, always will be.

UPDATE:  Zhao has decided to publish anyway. You can buy her book here.


 "After Zhao decided she wanted to release the book, she and her publisher sought feedback from scholars and sensitivity readers in an effort to resolve any ambiguity around the type of indentured labor depicted. They had academics from different multicultural backgrounds, as well as one who studies human trafficking in Asia, evaluate the text, and Zhao added new material and made changes based on their comments. They had additional sensitivity readers vet the book for racial and other stereotypes." 


The liberal Nazi shitsuckers raped the corpse to make it fit their racist agenda.