The Dogs You Lie Down With

So, I posted on facebook about people jumping to conclusions about a friend’s beliefs over his support of SP3 and defriending him, not even based on what SP3 supporters believe, but based on what they’re said to believe by the side in opposition to them.

It didn’t take long before one of my FB “friends” piped up to mention since I worked so hard to get homophobes like John C. Wright and Vox a Hugo, people should think I was an homophobe too.

I pointed out Vox is not on the Hugo ballot and that yes, his house is, but writers have limited choice of where they sell to if they want to make a living. The smart boy TM then moved goal posts (note he’d accused me of having Vox on the ballot) and brought up, out of context (in fact a partial sentence) from John Wright’s post explaining that homophobia as such didn’t exist, that normal people didn’t feel compelled to kill and hurt gay people just because they’re gay. Unfortunately John is a very good writer and the scene was a graphic description of a world in which this happened and in which women randomly beat a lesbian couple to death with ax handles. Note the post was not only to say this doesn’t happen, but also that the quote was lifted wholly out of context.

I pointing this out and I got what I keep getting in this “If you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.”

Um…

That is… interesting.

It occurred to me that no one, that I know (and he’d probably tell me, at least for the novelty) has gone to John C. Wright and said “You’re supported by Sarah A. Hoyt, a public and avowed supporter of same sex marriage, who has many gay characters in her books. Therefore, you too must be a public and avowed supporter of same sex marriage, you horrible man.”

Mind you, there are people who consider this position of mine more than they can swallow and who have told me so and told me they’d never read me again. That’s fine by me. I arrived at that decision on my own and by thought. (And I’m not in favor of activist stunts like taking down pizza parlors or forcing religions you don’t even belong to to marry you or to perform ceremonies forbidden by their beliefs. No, supporting SSM doesn’t mean supporting that. I reject guilt by association in all forms.) I’m a big girl and I can wear big girl pants. (As for the gay characters they just happen. It’s like I have a ton of stories by the sea, and no, that’s not where I grew up. Or why I’m infected with dragons. Not everything in art is under your strict control.)

The point is none of my socon readers who found this was a reason to break with me then ran around to all my known associates demanding they eschew their association with me on the basis of this opinion of mine.

However, people are demanding I eschew any association with Vox (which would be easier if I had any. I find his blog abrasive, so I don’t go there. I’ll note, though that even in my brief visits I saw tons of things (economics, opinions about the third world) in which he agrees with the SJWs, but that’s not the opinions they demand I give up. No, it’s always the out of context quotes on something they KNOW I don’t agree with.

As for John C. Wright, his wife and I have been friends forever and I’ve gotten to know John through his writing. John is simply one of the one person in a million who can make “a gift with words” work as a writer. I should know. I also have a gift with words but not to that level. John is our Bradbury or maybe even in time our Borges. Someone whose genius can create a whole new subgenre of literature filled with the career-corpses of would-be imitators.

John is a devout Catholic convert, and his religion has certain beliefs. It also has a demand that you love the sinner – i.e. not harm those of whose behavior you disapprove.

On this, the other side is building a whole charge of “homophobia.”

Again, no one has come to him – to my knowledge – and demand he disavow me for my beliefs. And it’s not that the social conservatives aren’t vehement. It’s just that they – at least the ones involved in this – aren’t evil.

Isn’t evil a strong word to use for this?

No. You see, the whole “lie down with dogs wake up with fleas” is a tactic of evil. It is what permitted the Stalinist purges and the Chinese Cultural Revolution. It is the component of communism that has filled mass graves all over the globe.

Because at the back of progressivism – communism, Leninism, Stalinism, even the varieties of self-declared socialism that infect my field as they once infected the various “Socialist” republics of the twentieth century – lies not a wish to fight for the people or the oppressed or what have you, but the desire to impose your will on others.

Every self-declared socialist who is informed and aware enough to know what they’re talking about (fortunately a minority) is also a self-proclaimed intellectual who thinks that if only he/she had her/his way, then by the benefit of his/her wisdom they could build the world “as it should be.”

You can see this in declarations that “if only the right people were in power” everything would be fine. You can see it in the way they idolize monsters and tyrants, from Lenin to Castro, to Mao to that absolute horror, Che.

Most of all, though, you can see it in the way they demand your allegiance to the tenet of the week.

Those of you who think that this doesn’t happen, that the tenets don’t change, should look at the seventies beliefs on homosexuality which were that it was a choice and should be a choice and came down hard on anyone that said it was inate. Now the required belief is the other way around. (I happened to believe this even when it was unfashionable, because I grew up in a village and saw it run in families in a way it couldn’t be learned. [Two generations apart and sideways. Or gay great uncle having lesbian grand niece, for instance, born after he died.])

With women too, in the seventies it was I am woman, hear me roar. Now women must be protected from a statue of a sleep-walking male and male privilege gives men superpowers that turn the right-thinking women into shrinking violets at a three remove contact.

The only thing that remains the same is that whatever the party line, absolute loyalty is demanded. And you’ll be condemned by third degree hearsay association with someone who believes otherwise.

And this is the problem with the Hugos.

No one who isn’t a progressive SJW has run around screaming that you must disavow third-level links with the racist (and race fabulist) and unhinged K. Tempest Bradford. When we make fun, we make of her (often) but we don’t hunt down through lists of people who might like her stories and run to demand they disavow her.

No one who isn’t a loathsome power freak like the SJWs runs around telling people to disavow the hanger on Cora Buhlert, better known for her screeds calling people Nazis than for her writing. We make fun of the fact that a person who is almost surely the daughter of a DDR apparatchik dares open her mouth to call someone a fascist, but mostly we point and laugh at her. We don’t run around saying everyone who enjoys her writing is complicit in the horrors of life under communism and that her writing should be banned.

These however are all antics of the other side applied to what we’ll call for lack of a better term the SP3 side.

And again, that is what is wrong with the Hugos. And this is why you fight.

When one side demands loyalty oaths to their ever-changing and ever-more-detailed beliefs, and when they consider it a thought-crime to read and enjoy the work of someone you don’t agree with personally, then the Hugos become exactly what we’ve said they’ve become: not a judgement of the best stories, most likely to be enjoyed by fans, but a crowning of the perfect minion willing to follow the “thought leaders” down every twist and turn of their will to power, and say “yes ma’m” or sir, or whatever.

It is a crowning of genetic characteristics, or melanin count or whatever vehicle the SJWs are currently using to get a vice-like grip on the opinions and thought of others.

And that’s what is wrong with it. It no longer has anything to do with great stories.

And that’s why we fight. Disavow Vox and John C. Wright? (Even if I have no association with Vox.) Screw that. I’d ally myself with the devil himself to defend the awards that once meant “Excellence in science fiction” and to disallow the “guilt at a remove” tactics that led to gulags and mass graves.

I don’t want a society in which people can be accused of thought crime. I don’t want to be accused of a society in which I have to police everything my associates, my friends, my children say and do, or suffer for their unguarded words and actions.

And if you don’t like my position, that’s too bad. Put your Che shirt in your pipe and smoke it.

I stand the only place I can stand as a free woman and a free writer.

For the rest of you, I advise watching the dogs you lie down with. Apparently, some of them are ravening power-hungry wolves. And those always eat you in the end.

 

105 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

105 responses to “The Dogs You Lie Down With

  1. I told Larry to get the Sad Puppies a flea collar, but did he listen? No, and now look what we have. Sad Puppies with Fleas. I am voting No Award for everyone.

    • John C Wright

      So in response to a protest that the Hugo Awards are being voted on not by the merit of the stories but by the politics of the activists, you will prove them wrong by voting not on the merit of the stories but by your politics.
      This would seem to be directly counterproductive of your goals.

      • No, I am voting No Awards for everyone because I have fleas and am itching like crazy.

        (There was a joke in that first post somewhere, at least there was supposed to be, but apparently it was too deeply buried for anyone to get it. I wasn’t speaking of metaphorical fleas, but actual jumping bugs that bite people, and I was supposed to be mad because…oh hell. It wasn’t that good a joke to begin with. Never mind.)

        • I got it. 🙂

          Or at least understood it to be a joke, since I recognized you, and that was contrary to what you usually say. 🙂

          • I figured he was joking too, but wasn’t fast to anser because I’ve

          • Trying again. I got it but couldn’t answer fast enough because I’m on pain pills again today due to er… getting one of my incisions to bleed, on account of being a dumb &ss. There’s other reasons, but — in the end? — dumb &ssery on my part.

            • BobtheRegisterredFool

              Take care. I have enough of that to worry about in my own life, and you know we all care.

              Speaking of which, I best be leaving for a bit now.

            • Reality Observer

              I’d send the hubby a straightjacket – but I have no idea where to find one that is dragon-fire proof.

              Will you PLEASE take care of yourself?

              • :: face palm :: Right. The woman with the track record of getting back to (over)work before she ought to after every single illness . . . I’m not going to say I’m surprised. WILL YOU PLEASE BEHAVE!!!!

                • If you can get her to behave, I’ll buy you a round at LibertyCon ’16. And I want you to pick some lottery numbers for me, because you obviously have a secret superpower.

            • SARAH!!!!
              I know that it never SEEMS foolish when you’re actually doing it, but—!!!

            • NOOOO! Sarah!!! Please take care of yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!

            • otpu

              Sarah: I have a good friend who believes that the doctor saying ‘get some rest’ means, “Don’t do the work that people pay you to do. Instead you should stay home and clean up the house and do all the chores that you had to put off while you were in the hospital.” Does this sound familiar?

              • No. I still am trying to do the work I’m paid to do. The problem is before we found out I had to have surgery, we had rented a house and started prepping the other one for sale. And I’m the fixer-upper around here. So… Some of it must happen, because sales season in CO is SHORT.

                • Scot

                  Get people to help. I’m sure there are enough of us close to CO (sadly I’m not) who’d be glad to help so that you can recover.

  2. Mark Alger

    I’ve resisted saying this out loud, because who wants to pour gasoline on a burning house. (Who’s with me?) J/K. But: the “other side” (even here and now, I hate using that term) not only is acting in bad faith here, but makes it an article of their faith that acting in bad faith is a valid, even praiseworthy tactic. So why in hell should I lend anything any of them say an iota of credence?

    This is a thing the ecumenists resolutely miss (and a reason I loathe political ecumenism): Not only have your enemies (and, yes, they are enemies, make no mistake) sucker punched you and kicked you when you’re down for DECADES, they’re proud of themselves for doing it. Why do you want to get along with them?

    M

  3. Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!

  4. If you must police every word of your own, and those words of your kin and friends, than it really isn’t free speech, is it? And being constantly demanded of one that one join in the internet mob for a virtual stoning of the chosen target of the day is really getting tiresome. I followed Vox Day for a while – but like you, found him too strident for my own tastes. I’d say if you want to have it out with Vox Day, then do it yourself, (I’ll make some popcorn and watch.) I also used to follow John Scalzi, but now I don’t for pretty much the same reason.
    I would say to the SJW whiners that have hardly stopped shrieking all tghis week – You want to have it out with someone – fine, put on the big boy/big girl pants and do it yourself, don’t resort to this nasty, passive-aggressive sneaking around, dragging third parties into it.

    • But is it really even about “the cause” or is it merely about being tops in a moral preening competition? Their endgame will be ten people and a dog buying the only “true, Party-approved, SJ-affirming’ scifi du jour — and worshipping the SJW queen bees and their dwindling number of hierophants.
      Ideological absolutists or cynical status seekers — at times I cannot decide which they are more.

  5. As always, the left is defined by ‘The Big Lie’. They really do excel at it. They claim to be for diversity, but heaven help you if you really are, as we all know.
    Bomb Throwing, the politics of destruction, assassination, lying at the top of their lungs, the ends justify the means. We see the same tactics being employed by the Hugo ‘in’ crowd as we see employed by all leftists everywhere.
    That alone condemns these people and shows what they are truly made of.

    Personally I hope they do rename the hugo awards to show that they are no longer THE award for science fiction, but they won’t do that, because that will stop their attempt at taking over our medium with their crap.

  6. I’m beginning to think we should give the Hugo Awards an honorable burial and let them belong to the past of SF/F. To replace them, let’s develop a new award for every week of the year, with terms and conditions infinitely malleable in terms of the “flavor du jour”. Even-numbered weeks get puppy eyes; odd-numbered weeks (how fitting) get SJW tags. With so many awards, most moderately successful authors can expect to win one at least once during their careers.

    Who’s with me?

  7. amiegibbons15

    If people want to judge you based on your associations, well, they’ve been doing it for millennium because humans are social beings. That’s not going to change. Eh, not right, but there you have it.

    What pisses me off about this whole thing is the anti-puppies, or whatever they’re called, keep lying. The SP3 have said time and again that they just want people to vote for the best writings in each category, by whatever that person judges best writing by.

    The “other side” that’s going against SP3, is just making shit up about what SP3 is about. I haven’t read anything from SP3 writers on how white men should get the award because they’re the best writers and they have god on their side. They say, best writing gets the votes, period, regardless of race/gender/politics. It’s always the other side saying SP3 is being racist, sexists, whatever-else-is-socially-unacceptable-ist.

    If people want to debate because they believe the other side is wrong, then have at it. I’ll bring the popcorn. But throwing out lies to your readers, knowing half of them won’t double check with difference sources, and saying those beliefs (that they’re lying about) are why SP3 are evil, that’s where I think the true evil comes in.

  8. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

    Sadly, there’s an element of truth about “Lie down with dogs and get fleas”.

    IE if you associate with assholes, you’ll pick up their bad habits.

    Of course, the assholes that I don’t want to be associated with are the SJWs. [Evil Grin]

    • dgarsys

      Worse, the people they keep expecting us to disavow are – in practice -far more tolerant of opposing viewpoints to either side of them.

      Why are we expected to keep saying things like “I don’t agree with everything blah blah blah…” – of COURSE we don’t , it’s not an echo chamber here, at MHI, and VP.

      Frankly, you guys, John, Larry, and even VD, are people I would not mind getting together with over a beer. Even in Vox’s case I know where he stands, and can expect honest argument and debate, and everyone around these parts seems to have a greater or lesser degree of loathing for bulls*t.

      Well – except Wright – but I’ll split a soda or something since he doesn’t drink.

  9. Uncle Lar

    Not sure what the official Muslim position is on lesbians. I have a hunch that it’s “what happens in the harem stays in the harem” at least in practice. But I do know what their stated attitude to gay males is under Sharia, publicly put to death in some gruesome fashion. A bit of fact that the lib/prog/sjw crowd remain strangely silent on. So until they man up (forgive the pun) and demonstrate some level of concern over real abuse I for one will continue to consider anything they say about anyone as the blather of idiot children.

    • BobtheRegisterredFool

      Well, you see, when Muslims do it, having any problems with gays being murdered is racist.

    • Yep. I mean, there is one of the SJWs who is an avowed Muslim gay man. My mind broke on that one.

    • McChuck

      Oh no, they stone lesbians, too. Especially them, really.
      The weird thing is that the vast majority of Arab Muslims have sex with other men and boys on a routine basis, but they don’t consider a man to be “gay” unless he refuses to have sex with women. (Arab Muslims are the world leaders of watching gay (male) sex videos. No, I did not make that up.) Women, however, must only have sex with their husbands. Anything else is an affront to their family’s honor, and she must be killed.
      *** unnecessary, tedious diversion alert ***
      It’s why all the men there have facial hair – a moustache makes you a man (giver), not a boy (receiver). Beards are a reliable indicator of piety. (It’s really hot there, and beards are uncomfortable things to have). Which generally translates to fanatacism over there, unfortunately, because the words of the Koran give them rather specific rules on how to deal with non-believers (kill, convert, enslave, or build power and lie until you can do one of the first three). And any fellow Muslim not actively aiding you counts as a non-believer.

  10. The attempts of SJWs to force political correctness upon all of us are attempts to do no less than control thought. You can’t read those evil people who say evil things because they’re evil and you might think an evil thought while doing so. This has gone well beyond whining.

    I don’t support racist/sexist/homophobic/religiously disciminatory practices. That doesn’t mean I have to toe the line and only think acceptable thoughts. It also doesn’t mean that I have to agree with everything a dark-skinned/vagina having/same sex loving/other god worshipping individual says or does. But then, I repeat myself. Sorry, but I’ll think for myself, thanks.

    I also have the right to look at the world around myself and decide what I think for myself and even change my mind sometimes. Way back when Myspace was still popular I did a blog there and mentioned my support of gay marriage and how it related to religious freedom under the First Amendment (specifically that it didn’t matter what I believed if a LBGTQ couple wanted to ignore/interpret things differently). That, however, was before bakeries were effectively put out of business for refusing to bake a cake. I’m sorry, but if the choice is to protect my rights or their rights, then I’ll protect my own. You can’t cry tolerance and put people out of business because they disagree with you. Tolerance for one requires tolerance for all and that specifically includes minorities AND MAJORITIES. That’s right, majorities like Christians still do have rights even if there are a bunch of us. Sorry, CNN, but my rights still count when there are a lot of people who think like I do.

    Put another way: Until you acknowledge my rights I have no reason to acknowledge yours. That’s all there is to it. It’s a mantra those of us on the right need to live by. Things are not going to get better if we don’t.

    • Eamon J. Cole

      I have to disagree, Jim.

      For myself, I will continue to acknowledge (and defend) the rights of everyone, even those who attack me for it.

      I think I have to. I believe rights are inherent and declining to acknowledge them for some is dehumanizing.

      I’m all for calling them on their repugnant behavior, their hypocrisy and their attacks. But as need be I’ll stand in line with them to defend their rights. Even when I know they’ll stab me in the back at first opportunity.

  11. Eamon J. Cole

    The guilt by association paradigm has become so central to their debating process they do it reflexively. They’re unable to address actual arguments, no coherent response is available, but there’s no need!

    Didn’t you come over here from {disapproved site}; aren’t you one of those {disavowed community}; don’t you know/talk to/read/have been reported to be in the same crowd of thousands as {condemned personage}. Well that explains everything — hater.

    It’s weak sauce from weakened minds.

    It’s also why they come publicly unglued over people going to cons: Jonathan Ross, Adam Baldwin, Larry Correia…

    Allowing such a condemned individual into the presence of you and thousands (or tens of thousands) of people sets you up for this associative guilt. Better get on the record screaming shrilly about your opposition. Might want to declare a boycott of the event, just to be extra special safe.

    I find them contemptible. I find the social shame game they’re playing repugnant.

    I tend to call them on their tactic, and restate the argument they’re trying to dismiss through the association. Let the jury read the whole and decide.

  12. Stephen

    Well I guess I am bi-polar since I read Scalzi, Hoyt, and Wright. Make it tri-polar. Despite Scalzi’s scathing remarks I will not boycott him or declare him a bad author. Despite my disagreement with Hoyt on homosexuality, I do not boycott her blog and I thoroughly enjoyed some of her other works such as “Darkship Thieves” I wish Wright had not made such strong sexual themes in his “Orphans of Chaos” series, but they still were one of the most creative scifi series I have read. I am grateful for the calm voices of reason of the Sad Puppy Movement against the sea of insanity. Keep writing and I will keep reading

  13. Wasn’t really sure who John C Wright was outside of being familiar with the name. Figured I would use this chance to order one of his books via Amazon (One in a Trillion)

  14. McChuck

    I’ve given this some thought. (How unlike me, I know, right?) I’ve come to the belief that the appropriate response to this sort of thing is simply “McCarthy blacklist much?”
    It’s something they get, and would at least incense them, if not making them rethink their assumptions and tactics. This is a spectator sport, after all.

    And yes, I know McCarthy was right, and has been much maligned by the leftists in the news and academia. One of my pet peeves (I keep them corralled and feed them corn, oats, and the tears of hippies) is about how SENATOR McCarthy used the HOUSE Un-American Activities Committee to ruin reputations and careers. Some people just can’t seem to comprehend the bicameral legislature concept.

  15. Sarah, you sound like an absolutely awful person. No one could be as tolerant and open minded as you without some sort of evil hidden agenda! 😛

    • BobtheRegisterredFool

      I have the names of dozens of individuals associated with Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies who do not uniformly and strictly endorse my peculiar notions of history, which are informed by my background. I have reason to believe that they do not share my expansive views of what constitutes a white supremacist or a white supremacist organization.

    • Well… my secret agenda is to make lots of money and open a no-kill shelter for abandoned cats. As you know, cats are evil, so I must be evil too. (Half in jest, though if I made more money than I need to keep us and the kids above water, I WOULD. As is, I volunteer in cat rescue a lot.)

  16. BobtheRegisterredFool

    Wait, haven’t I been ceaselessly pestering pestering every member of the Evil League of Evil for their failures to denounce associates for disagreeing with me?

    I have information that BobtheRegisterredFool moderates his speech here to avoid driving off moderates. I must insist you all denounce him while he doesn’t have time to respond, which will be very shortly.

  17. EXACTLY.

    Applause, and applause again.

    I hate when people do this, but I will anyway. My concurrence, entitled “Ostracizing the Kooks”, posted to Twitter:

    https://archive.today/cJjRW

    Simply marvelous.

    (Your post, I mean, not my multi-part Twitter rant.)

    (I mean, maybe my rant IS marvelous, but I lack the required distance to… never mind. Just, you dun gud, madame. I applaud.)

  18. Okay, I reviewed Sarah’s “Witchfinder” on my blog and on Amazon. It made me think about something I hadn’t thought of before. I don’t know how I feel about that. But I wrote it, anyway.
    http://habakkuk21.blogspot.com/2015/04/witchfinder-by-sarah-hoyt.html

  19. It occurred to me that no one, that I know (and he’d probably tell me, at least for the novelty) has gone to John C. Wright and said “You’re supported by Sarah A. Hoyt, a public and avowed supporter of same sex marriage, who has many gay characters in her books. Therefore, you too must be a public and avowed supporter of same sex marriage, you horrible man.”

    Well, that’s because we’re Self-Conscious Evil. It’s also why the correct tactic is shrieking and name calling– it’s not like we actually believe any of the arguments we can, will and do make, it’s all a mask.

    (Man, it’s hard to eat with your tongue in your cheek that hard.)

    • Holly

      Foxfier, don’t you know by now that eating and drinking are contraindicated while on this blog?

      • I’ve managed to organize it so I don’t hurt myself…but I gotta eat some time, and we don’t use enough clothes for me to read everything while folding them!

  20. “Those of you who think that this doesn’t happen, that the tenets don’t change, should look at the seventies beliefs on homosexuality”

    Heck, you don’t have to go back that far. Barack Obama has changed his position on gay marriage at least 3 times, possibly more, and that’s within the last 10-15 years.

    • Changed his position? You mean “missionary” is politically incorrect?

    • Where have we seen this before?

      pre-1936: “social democrats are social fascists”
      1936: “Popular Front of the party with the social democrats against the fascists”
      1939: Nonaggression Pact with Nazi Germany. The Party Faithful writers agitate against US entry into the war. (E.g. Dalton Trumbo.)
      after June 22, 1941: you get the idea.

      That was historical tragedy. Now it is repeating itself as farce.

  21. bushka5

    Madam If I may ask can the sad puppies view be summed up by this.
    By what right do you have In denying an writer whose Ideology you hate. the recognition of the achievements that he/she has earned.
    I am probably wrong on that and have to rethink it. but a lot of sad puppies complaints remind me of my problems I have with my county’s (UK) sci fi . the politics feels very one sided and there seems to be little joy in it . to be honest I’ve sort of stopped reading it. I go for manly american sci fi where patriotism and optimism aren’t swear words. I often find if you are a military sci fi fan it’s go american or go home.

    • Uncle Lar

      Come to the Baen side if you’re not already there.
      Home of some of the finest mil SF in existence, and the first taste is free.
      http://www.baenebooks.com/c-1-free-library.aspx
      As I’ve posted elsewhere, the Hugo award had become something a small elitist clique got to play with by controlling nominations which for the most part only went to themselves or a favored few who parroted their opinions and beliefs. Sad Puppies was an effort by elements in the greater fan and author community to take exception to their hijacking of what they claimed was an all inclusive SF&F fan award.

    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

      IMO the Sad Puppies position is “Support Writers Of Fun-To-Read Books”.

      We don’t “worry if it contains the correct message”. We want “Fun To Read Books”.

    • You’ve got it. SF is about fun, enjoyable writing – not a dreary endless slog through an eternally gray landscape, feeling the joy sucked away in a vague drizzle…

      • bushka5

        Thanks for the reply. But from a distance the two things you get from this fight is the sheer rage from one side (SJW) and the pure bloody mindedness from the other (SP/RP). right or wrong.

  22. Griz

    On the whole homosexuality is a choice! No you are born that way! This is such stupid argument. It’s a black or white worldview that refuses to recognize shades of gray in a rainbow world. I figure one innate sexual orientation fall on a ‘bell curve’. How one follows ones inclinations is, of course, influenced by the local cultural ethics. I new people in grade school who anyone could tell were born full on dykes or sissy. But many others are just somewhere in the middle.
    I don’t expect to get jumped here. But I just can’t express this opinion where I might be lectured by the establishment SJWs.

    • Beyond that, there might be genes that get flipped on in adulthood. And over all — who cares? BUT on the other side there’s only ONE answer.

      • Because they’ve gotten obsessed with being “the reality based community” and so invested in the is/ought fallacy that now they must war against reality itself when what is leads them to an ought they’d rather not.

        (aside: I think it’s a bit like alcoholism. I mean, nobody’s born drunk [unless your mom was that bad with the whiskey] but is it innate? There seems to be tendencies to it, but a person can also make the choice on indulging or not.)

        • Some people can’t. As the original said, it’s a continuum. For some people it would mean eternal celibacy, and how many of us are that GOOD? Trust me, I know at least three people like that. For others…
          Humans!

          • BobtheRegisterredFool

            I come at it from a perspective that doesn’t see celibacy as being all that difficult. That said, I’ve long been very aware of my abnormalities, and that my thinking can be a very imperfect model for others. I maybe don’t trust much, do not enjoy being touched, and perhaps don’t actually like people enough anyway.

          • overgrownhobbit

            Ayup. One of the (many things) that pisses me off about the prog viewpoint is that they fondly imagine one can get from an “is” to an “ought”

            So whole swathes of neurobiology are off limits because researchers might find something that interferes with the Currently Approved Narrative About Sex.

            Frankly who you choose to love is nobodies business but yours–and if the affection is returned, your beloved’s. How that love is expressed, the social boundaries–That’s where it gets interesting. Science, philosophy and history ought to be able to give us enough groundwork to come up with workable social mores. But not if the goal is utopia or bust. TANSTAAFL.

  23. Pingback: Missing Puppy Formation 4/15 | File 770

  24. I’d ally myself with the devil himself to defend the awards that once meant “Excellence in science fiction” and to disallow the “guilt at a remove” tactics that led to gulags and mass graves.

    Sarah, I believe you’re looking for this quote from “A Man for all Seasons.”

    William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

    Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

    William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

    Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

  25. Vox is on the ballot twice, for editor.

    • So reading impaired, are you? He’s on the RABID Puppies slate (his own.) He’s not on the Sad Puppies slate. yes, John Wright is, with work for Castallia but writers have no control over who buys their work, not if they want to make a living.
      Now go along. Go sound out your hooked on phonics. Or pound the idiots who sent you here with insufficient information, your being too dumb to ascertain facts.

      • I think I should be cut some slack for misunderstanding when you wrote “the Hugo ballot” when you meant “The Sad Puppy Slate”. Because for me and I think for most people, the Hugo ballot is the short list of nominees that we vote on to pick the winner.

  26. snelson134

    Can’t wait to hear the SJWs defend these dogs….

    Heck, this is an actual public conference, not a blog.

  27. AG

    Thank you for being a voice of sanity and coherence, Ms. Hoyt.

  28. The other thing is this:
    Let’s pretend, just for a minute, that Vox Day actually is Racist McRacist of Racistton. Trust me, there’s a point to this.
    By now, racism has become the new witchcraft–it’s a charge that gets thrown around like candy, requires no proof beyond someone’s say-so to get a mob going, and a lot of people, especially after six years of implications and statements that opposing the president’s policies meant you were racist, are inclined to view the charge purely as a way to shut down debate, rather than a legitimate opinion.
    In other words, given the current climate, it’s no wonder that most people on our side only see Vox as a loose cannon at worst. And the SJWs have nobody to blame for this but themselves.