In the last week some interesting things have happened – for Chinese curse versions of interesting. Apparently whatever is causing the rancid outbreaks of frothing idiocy has not abated with the retreating plague of pollen.
Among the most special of a series of truly special cases would be the threadsplosion on Facebook in a closed group supposedly dedicated to Heinlein. Those who were involved in the way this blasted the group traffic from piddling to being unable to type a one-liner before half a dozen more messages came in know which one I mean.
Let’s just say it’s a trifle startling to have a moderator on a Heinlein group do any of these things much less all of them:
- threaten a group member with expulsion for a “patronizing tone” (after said group member had offered – politely – corrections to the moderator and moderator’s friend posting false allegations)
- claim having facts offered after said moderator posted comments that were provably false
- shift goalposts at dizzying speed
- run through the entire troll playbook, then start again
- nuke the thread and several of its children, thereby hiding all evidence of misbehavior
- admit (eventually) that the whole tirade was about wrongpeople having badthink
- refuse to acknowledge that people in possession of the facts of the matter were members of the group, much less ask them to clarify/explain.
- insist on being treated with respect because moderator
- turn around and break every single rule/convention/desired behavior cited when responding to polite dissension
- and that’s not even touching the many other things that would have Heinlein spinning so fast in his grave you could power Colorado City if you hooked up a dynamo.
Funnily enough, that group’s membership dropped sharply after Ye Greate (im)Moderator nuked the threads (as well as during the whole mess and people grew disgusted with Ye Greate (im)Moderator’s demonstration of incompetence.
I’ve come to the conclusion that this person did not read the same Heinlein I did. Possibly the books were imported from the universe where Heinlein was a passionate SJW (that universe has issues. It implodes every few seconds because the multiple logical and physical impossibilities can’t be sustained by the power of belief for any longer than that – so those Heinleins are extremely rare. They also have to be kept in a special vault lined with neuteronium because they implode and recreate themselves in sync with their universe. Makes it hard to read them.)
At any rate, what set this off was Ye Greate (im)Moderator’s Wonderful Friend posting a vicious rant that blamed Sad Puppies for almost everything except bubonic plague. Said rant was – of course – entirely devoid of fact, but contained the entertaining notion that all Sad Puppies are minions of the Evil Lord of Evil Himself.
That’s right. A supposed fan of Heinlein – one of the biggest champions of Mind Your Own (fisking) Business and judging on the color of one’s actions and character rather than one’s political affiliations – was dishing out guilt by association and using the SJW war cry “But VOX DAAAAAAAAY” when questioned.
The rot is deep. The false apostles are everywhere.
And don’t forget, review the WorldCon 2017 Site Selection bids and pay your $40 to vote for the one you prefer: you’ll get automatic supporting membership for WorldCon 2017 before the price goes up.
ok, i love the ‘fake’ bid for Ganymede in 2110.
I’m also kind of fond of the “fake” bids proposing that Worldcon take over a very small nation (San Marino, Liechtenstein)
San Marino has been the site of some European sf conventions. Apparently it’s a pretty nice convention town.
Yeah, so I’ve heard.
Why does Ganymede in 2110 count as a hoax but Minneapolis in 2073 doesn’t?
i dont know…
Really? I thought Vox was responsible for the Plagues of Justinian, and The Beautiful but Evil Space Princess accidentally unleashed the bubonic plague when one of the boys half-tame ground-squirrels from NM got into (and out of) the time machine while she was inspecting her Central Asian troops shortly before their advance on eastern Europe and Russia. *Sigh* I so need up get the cat out of my timeline basket.
You do realize the Weavers will never forgive you for what your cat has done to the timeline yarns. And that’s before they find the hairballs.
I know, I know. I’ve added it to the tab.
I think you may have passed “arm and a leg” and even “first born child” territory.
It’s a tabby cat!
Strangely when I first skimmed past this in the e-mail box I thought the title was False Apologies.
There will be no apologies, false or otherwise, just a rearrangement the facts on the run when they don’t fit today’s contortion. And an assertion that the new arrangement, obviously, was, is and will be. That is until it isn’t.
(And there will ever be) No arguing with that. 😉
Oh, I know, I know.
This is why I’ve become leery of “moderators” and “moderated forums” everywhere… too many of today’s moderators behave like little tin gods, and the basic moderation policy seems to be “Does it agree with approved groupthink?” Cuz the most egregiously insulting posts always seem to be in total agreement with that approved groupthink, meaning that nasty speech is A-OK if the right person says it.
I know one forum where discussion of politics is completely banned . . . except when it’s lefties taking potshots at conservatives and libertarians.I would complain to the moderators, but in some cases they’re the ones taking part in it.
Depending on what you think their likely response would be, you might try it anyway – it’s entirely possible that they don’t realize what they are doing.
In this day and age that’s more benefit of the doubt than I’m inclined to give. The leftards ruined the Big Purple in the RPG scene that way. It wasn’t an accident but a goal.
I’m still not convinced that they are perceptive enough to realize they are talking politics, whether they intended to screw up the group you are referring to or not.
Regardless, it’s always good and right and proper when *they* do it, and evil and malicious when *we* do the same thing. It’s very important to remember this rule and our place in society (beneath their stylish boots).
Okay. My sarcasmometer broke again. I break so many of those things…
You really need to invest in the industrial version.
How do you know that she doesn’t keep breaking the Industrial Strength ones? [Evil Grin]
I agree with the assumption of obtuseness. It hurts absolutely nothing at all to comment, “Hey, I thought politics were off limits?” Because people really DO NOT hear themselves. They don’t. I suppose that goes for everyone. It’s a very human thing.
If nothing else, they lose plausible deniability if someone actually complains, even if in a neutral almost non-complainy way.
Odds are that they’ll delete your post if they think they can get away with it, because they are so sure they are right, that your viewpoint (it’s politics) doesn’t matter.
Yes, but they’d have been told, they can’t pretend you don’t exist any longer. If nothing else they have to delete your post.
So much of the latest brouhaha seems to center on this perception that we are invisible. And mostly we are. Sit in a panel at a con and one of the panelists makes an off-hand remark (yet again) about George Bush (or Christianity or…) and no one says anything because good manners. All that happens is the offended parties adjust their panel attendance or quit going to cons. This is just an example but it works across all sorts of situations.
People believe that there ARE NO conservatives or libertarians or others who disagree with the general trend of liberalism in science fiction and fantasy (we’re just not creative or something) except for a few pain in the butt notorious loudmouths… are they really so wrong to think so? If no one ever says anything why *shouldn’t* they think that everyone agrees with them? It’s the “no one I know voted for Nixon” thing.
So it’s worth it to say something… not hostile, but enough to say “hey, I exist.” On one Facebook author group I’m on the moderator (again) quoted this thing someone said making fun of Brad’s statement about book covers but twisting it a bit, and I’ll admit it actually was sort of funny to imagine custom book covers just for me, for each book… but it also included a throw away slam at Puppies and it really was a lie about what Brad said. I and someone else objected, we were told that this wasn’t going to be an argument about *that*… I said I had no interest in arguing about the Hugoes and that the idea of personalized book covers was sort of funny but that it really wasn’t okay to lie about people. And then I dropped it. So did the other guy.
But what we accomplished was this… we weren’t invisible any longer.
No, you’re not invisible, now you’re targets.
Which is why I no longer give the benefit of the doubt…too often saying, “hey, you’re being rude” has just made me a target.
Behave like that and you lose it…tolerate your side doing it enough and everyone on your side loses the benefit of the doubt.
Meh… maybe, but not so much anymore. The horrible fear of “never having a career” is gone. What can they do other than snub you? Even if I’m not brave enough to do more than just raise my eyebrows and say “excuse me?”… because I’m not advocating getting into a fight… but the bad thing is that *we’re invisible to each other* too. It’s not all about the offenders. Sometimes it’s about the potential friends.
I know a lot of people who call themselves Libertarians. But they sure don’t meet any definition of Libertarian that I’ve ever seen.
Conservatives are another issue. Most so-called Conservatives are batshit insane, and about as conservative as cottage cheese.
As to Liberals taking over SF&F, I haven’t seen it. Of course that maybe because I’m damned selective in my reading.
Just curious – who are the Liberals who are taking over publishing? I hear about this often enough, but I can’t remember hearing any names, or for that matter seeing any decent examples.
Yes, I’m a cynical old bastard. I never trust what anyone tells me, I make my own judgements.
Also, for the record, the Hugo politics wasn’t introduced by the Puppies in the group, but by someone whipped up into a frenzy by Puppykickers elsewhere who then demanded that the group act. Funny how a section of people who would denounce me if I wrote a damsel in distress story are so quick to take that part when it suits them.
(Seriously, I’m getting tired of seeing the same R-O-T on all their arguments.)
(Puzzled look) I thought I mentioned that… Oh well.
No, it wasn’t introduced by the group’s Puppy supporters. Most of them mostly lurked up until the tirade and associated lies, and then they *started* by trying to be polite and correct the original poster’s facts.
I’ve pretty much grown to hate moderators in the internet age. Yes, they are sometimes necessary but they almost always start overstepping their bounds, acting like jerks with a teensy bit of useless power, etc…
Little tin gods exercising their near-absolute power in their little tin domains.
It’s like Lord Acton SHOULD have said. It’s not so much that power corrupts (and it does, true), it’s that power attracts the corruptible.
People who want to control others are twisted to begin with. Getting their way doesn’t so much change them as it makes them themselves at a higher volume.
Lord Acton’s famous observation that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” has long been misunderstood. Acton was not arguing that power causes powerful leaders to become corrupt (though he probably believed that, too). Rather, he was noting that historians tend to forgive the powerful for transgressions they would never condone by the weak. — P.84
I bailed from that group early. When a moderator is on the other side, and is using her “authority” to score points, there is no reason to bother engaging in the discussion. It became clear that someone really didn’t understand Heinlein.
I’m not saying he would be a Puppy supporter, but I know he wouldn’t agree with those people on a whole hell of a lot, and yet they actually had the nerve to ask how any conservative/libertarian could be a fan of Heinlein. Wha?
I can half understand the question on why any conservative, especially if you equate conservative solely with social conservatism, would be a Heinlein fan.
But any libertarian? Really? I’d say at least half the libertarians I’ve met got there via Heinlein initially.
There is taking an iconoclastic view and then there is batsh*t crazy.
There is also willful ignorance and refusing to look at the facts.
There’s also that one can be fans of writers whose political or economic or religious views (insofar as one can figure them out from their stories, which, if they’re any good, one won’t necessarily be able to do) are mistaken.
Oh, it gets better. The poster of the original tirade got given moderator privileges. I’m looking forward to the next blow-up and making them look dumb again. Only this time I’ll screencap the ENTIRE thread before the world’s most passive-aggressive resignation message.
Oh sweet baby Jesus on a rocket-powered street luge sled.
Moderator privileges? Yeah, it’s probably best that I bailed. It would have gotten ugly.
Ugly in the sense that the Pacific Ocean is a little dry? Yes.
Really? I’m gone, then.
Actually, it gets worse. There was a gentleman who tried to diffuse the madness by posting a lot of real short questions about the genre. Now that’s against the rules because one of the new mods took umbrage for it. So, yeah, I’m out.
Like I’ve been saying for a while, SJWs are Miltonian Satanists, they would rather destroy something if that’s what it takes to run it than just be a typical member.
When the Mod admitted she and the OP lived together, things cam together. This was after running through the entire troll playbook several times.
What I object to most is that there weren’t even any interesting variations on the troll playbook.
True. Variations would have made the “discussion” interesting at least.
Makes me even more appreciative of Baen’s Bar where the moderators essentially simply enforce Jim’s prime directive of “don’t be a butthead.” We did have a rousing discussion over there a week or so ago. Started by a Barfly asking for information on this Sad Puppy thing he’d just heard about. Several of us filled him in on the gist and provided links for where to find the gory details.
Then a classic Allinsky troll showed up. Accusations, wild statements, constantly moving goal posts, denials of statements he made in earlier posts, demands for detailed documentation to support any casual comment made. You know, the standard script. He finally became so abusive and offensive that he was banned by the moderators. At which point of course he claimed both victory and victimhood over on his own blog.
And what will be the only thing the Puppy-kickers read? The guy’s blogpost.
Any good recipes come from it, Uncle?
I have to admit I’ve not even been lurking over there since the holidays (the year-end ones, that is). Too many nights of “Well, just this one more thread” – and then the sun came up. Some things are *too* stimulating when I need to get “real” work done.
If you ever wanted to see a classic case of troll action pop over to Mad Mike’s section of the Bar and search out “A Source on Progressive nonsense in Sci-Fi” four pages, 130 posts, started innocently enough, but went quickly down hill from there. But for those folks not used to lib prog trolls it’s a textbook example of how they operate.
I second that recommendation.
Yep, there went an hour… OK today, it’s been a rather darkish one when I have a hard time doing anything useful (as in, keeps the spouse at least on low grumble).
Really, there was more than one Heinlein and one of them arguably was an SJW — the one that campaigned for Upton Sinclair as governor of California, and wrote Take Back Your Government.
I’d agree the Heinlein of the 1930s was not the Heinlein of the 1950s and onwards, particularly since in the later part of his career he’d discovered how thoroughly the communists had infiltrated American unions and were infiltrating other institutions.
I’d also classify Take Back Your Government as utilitarian/libertarian, not SJWian. It presumes that ordinary people are capable of making their own decisions and taking part in their local and higher level governments.
SJWs presume that ordinary people need to be forced to do what has been determined to be right by their betters.
Please splain to me why it is exactly that Heinlein is constantly castigated for views he held then rejected over the years while when der leader does effectively the same thing he is said to have “evolved.”
Oh wait, silly me. The liberal mind only cares about the narrative of the moment, and part of that is that they get a free pass while conservatives or libertarians must be held accountable for every single accumulated transgression throughout all of recorded history.
Come to think of it, does help explain how someone could dare to conflate the crusades with current attacks by radical Islam.
Heinlein clearly “evolved” in the wrong direction, according to the wannabe powers that be.
That’s the core of all “liberal” politics.
Having read a chunk of the non-fiction from that part of RAH’s time on this Earth, I partially disagree. Even the RAH of the 1930s would, IMHO, have been appalled at the notion of racial quotas, shooting cops is dandy, or destroying the livelihood of someone because they didn’t want to bake a cake.
Actually, I consider the term “social justice” to be just one more thing that has been utterly corrupted to be the exact opposite of its real meaning. I don’t think that anyone here would have a problem with a just society, and that is what RAH was also for (albeit through agencies that he did not know were already thoroughly unjust, and some youthful inexperience with the reality of human behavior – which, I postulate, is a basic property of youth.)
I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re right. Most younger people are somewhat idealistic until life knocks the corners off and makes sure that they understand that what looks and seems wonderful is often just a tarted up variety of hell.
Which is why idealists who haven’t had much to do with reality are so bloody dangerous. As are the ones who have and retreated into their ideals rather than face life.
A lot of his stories promote social justice– that is, designing a society so that it promotes (really) just outcomes– either directly or by showing you the horrible things that can happen with bad* rules.
That’s exactly why the very notion of modern “social justice” would’ve made him spin.
*bad being measured by their actual effects when humans are involved
If you have to modify a virtue, it probably isn’t one.
Or to put it another way, what has “social” justice got that “justice” hasn’t?
Properly used, it’s a specific subset. Like a golden vs black lab– individual justice (you, specifically, promoting justice) and social justice (the society you’re part of having rules that do the same) are both justice, but the areas they work in are very different.
The biggest problem with “social justice” is that it doesn’t involve justice. It’s not about setting up the social system to, as best possible, make sure people get what they are due.
They use it for some sort of mish-mash of mob action.
Here’s an example of social justice, ripped from the headlines:
That lady in New Jersey that was stabbed to death, while waiting for permission to have a gun to protect herself.
That is a social justice issue, because the “social” authorities– government– interfered with her ability to do what was justice– justly defend herself from a violent ex– without taking steps to ensure that the just outcome– her not being murdered– came about.
They gave her a piece of paper, not actual protection; that is something that actual social justice activists would have to fight, even if they did it by providing effective defense until their system verified that she was safe enough to exercise self-defense with a highly effective weapon.
More opportunity for graft.
You know how some of the folks at Sarah’s are Heinlein fans in spite of having deep philosophical objections to some of the theories of sexual interaction in the books?
Some folks, that’s all they see…..
But Heinlein was a Social Justice Warrior. He was for women’s rights, when that was considered wrong, for Transgendered rights (which a lot of people still consider wrong), and for a lot of other things that a lot of people (including many of my friends) still consider horribly wrong and disgusting.
He was a man ahead of his time, and I salute him.
There are Rights, and then there are Privileges. What the SJWs want today, are Privileges for special classes of people, not Rights, which should be shared by all.
I agree. Had a huge fight with a Christian friend. He wants the right to worship how he pleases, but also the privilege of being able to deny others the same rights. The United Church of Christ has sued North Carolina under the religious freedoms section of the American Constitution over the North Carolina ban on same-sex marriage, since that church believes that they have a God ordained mission to perform same-sex marriages.
Unfortunately Bob doesn’t see that he’s being inconsistent. He insists that it is his privilege to dictate what the Church of Christ can and cannot do, because he understands the bible better than they do.
Our church doesn’t perform same-sex marriages. Which is fine. That’s us. Other churches should have the right to make their own decisions on the subject.
Only a nit, but churches in any state, no matter the laws of that state, can marry whomever they want to marry and have done so forever. If the United Church of Christ has a wedding for a gay couple there will be no cops at the door and no arrests. That the “church wedding” doesn’t count as a “civil wedding” is a bit beside the point and the claim by a church that they’ve got a God Ordained Mission to perform a secular function as a representative of the State is a bit iffy, to say the least.
The question of if the State ought to authorize religious funcitonaries to also be State functionaries in a traditional two-for-one arrangement or not, is a slightly different issue.
My understanding is that the state is treating hetero marriages performed by the church one way, i.e. they are considered ‘legal’ but that they won’t allow same-sex marriages the same status, and this is what the church is fighting against.
There was another state (can’t remember which one now) which was talking about making only ‘religious’ marriages legal so that clerks would not be required to hand out marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Satanic Temple issued a press release saying how happy they were, and that they’d have same-sex couples lined up at the registrars as soon as the legislation passed. It didn’t.
My understanding is that the state is treating hetero marriages performed by the church one way, i.e. they are considered ‘legal’ but that they won’t allow same-sex marriages the same status, and this is what the church is fighting against.
No, a simple church marriage between a male and female is the same as one between members of the same sex– you can even have illegal heterosexual marriages that are blessed by a religious group, although if it’s a criminal one (such as marrying a 12 year old to an adult) there may be associated criminal charges. (examples of not legally recognized by the government but not criminal: incestuous, bigamous, and if I remember right those without the proper medical tests in some states)
Religious authorities are allowed to conduct the gov’t function if properly registered, like ship’s captains and The Rock.
In other words… no one is being denied the right to worship how they please (with the exception of those who wish to ingest hallucenogens or sacrifice animals or have sex with children) since they most certainly can administer the holy sacrament of marriage, or the ceremony if they don’t believe in sacraments, since that’s between them and God.
We don’t worship the State.
If the state will not issue a license, than the marriage isn’t considered valid for a variety of purposes, such as custody, visitation rights, tax returns, etc.
It may well be discrimination. What it’s not is *religious worship*. As such, your christian friend was not insisting that others not be allowed equal freedom to *worship*. As I said… this is a nit. I would like to see “church” marriage and civil marriage decoupled entirely. Several rather mainstream churches are entirely happy to marry gay couples. Getting married by a judge isn’t seen as “real” by the hard core denominations so there is little public resistance to it, in fact, supporting “civil unions” is a darn easy sell. See a judge for the civil contract, go see your priest or pastor for your “wedding” ceremony. Everyone can be treated 100% equally. Problem solved.
I really don’t want to get into the SSM arguments (pro or con) but there’s a problem with this position.
First and Foremost, I’ve heard people who only had civil marriages complain “you mean that we’re not married?”.
Second, while California had a law defining marriage “as between man and woman”, it also had “civil unions” that gays and others could use. The California gay activists decided that wasn’t good enough so they used the Courts to give them Same Sex *Marriage*.
In short, too many people (justly or not) want to have their government “marriages” legally called marriages. They will not accept the idea that their government marriages aren’t legally called marriages.
Yeah but, if all the rest of everyone said, “Fine and dandy, we’ll get the civil contract at the courthouse and have our marriage at the church,” anyone making a big fuss about how the civil contract wasn’t good enough would really look… shrill.
Good luck getting to that point.
I live in Canada. We’ve had same-sex marriage for nearly ten years now. It is treated the same as any other marriage. It seems to work as badly, i.e. there are divorces, serial monogamy, custody disputes, etc., but it also works as well (I know one couple that has been together nearly thirty years, and was among the first same-sex couples to tie the knot).
Your answer doesn’t really cover a lot of my questions. What about visitation rights? What about custody? What about inheritance?
Currently the system in North Carolina fails on that totally. Conservatives are supposed to stand up for human rights. Why aren’t they making their voices heard?
Mostly because unless we support people like you totally, they’re screaming “homophobe” at the top of their lungs.
What do you mean by ‘People like me’?
You mean, someone happily married to a person of the opposite sex for nearly thirty years?
Don’t bother, Snelson. He’s really incapable of seeing the issues.
Can we end this discussion on Same Sex Marriage? Nobody is going to convince the other and I’m afraid it’ll get too hot.
I have to admit that I have no clue what the issues are, beyond treating people with respect, and honoring their choices.
Your inability to even comprehend those who do not agree with you is exactly the problem.
You mean like respecting someone’s choice not to be employed to make a cake? Those choices? You do not know the meaning of either respect or choice.
Curious. I was going to say the same thing about you – you are missing the point.
If someone does a Same-Sex marriage article on MGC, we can continue use this.
No, we cannot. I will not waste my time being lectured about sight by a blind man who cannot even accept the possibility of sight, and then pretend it’s a conversation. That is part of why I warned him that you are not capable of having a conversation on this topic. You’re not even able to catch so-blunt-they’re-mildly-rude hints about stopping the topic.
So long as the State is involved, there will be discrimination.
My sister-in-law is what we used to call a “spinster” – not interested in marriage of any kind.
She cannot designate anyone to receive her estate tax-free; her private death benefits have to be specifically in her sister’s name (and will not be tax-free); her Social Security is just plain gone. Nobody has automatic visitation rights if she is hospitalized, or automatic agency for her if she is incompetent (well, the State does – but is that good?). If she were to adopt a child (not bloody likely, but for the purposes of argument), there is no automatic chain of custody for that child (except, again, for the State).
Why should she have to obtain a piece of paper from the State – and accept all of the accompanying restrictions – just to obtain the same rights as her sister has vis-a-vis myself and her children?
“Marriage” should be a purely religious concept, with no State involvement other than to prevent abusive relationships (basically where one or more participants are unable to competently enter). Otherwise, all other arrangements should be a civil contract defining all of the things you mention, with the State only involved in providing the mechanisms (courts) to allow the peaceful resolution of contract disputes (and, once again, able to void the contract if one or more participants were unable to competently enter into it).
Note: apropos of the discussion above, the works of RAH tend to follow this idea.
That sounds exceptionally weird, and it sucks.
I know when my spinster aunt showed signs of issues (she was still working as a pharmacist at 85 years of age and was messing up fill prescriptions) the family (me and my cousins) had a discussion about what to do.
It wasn’t safe for her to live on her own anymore (among other things she’d had several falls on the stairs). Between physical issues, and mental issues (we now know that she has Alzheimer’s).
End result was we talked her into moving into a retirement home, and one of my cousins has a power of attorney for her care. All of us have helped out as we could (I’m an 8 hour drive from the home she is in, so I’m not a lot of help other than moral support).
There’s another aunt who has no kids. Her husband died about ten-fifteen years ago. Again, the cousins are taking care of things, and keeping an eye on her (she’s young – only seventy-five).
So you are saying that you couldn’t arrange something like this?
Nope: as far as I’ve been able to tell, Heinlein wasn’t a poser. So it seems unfair to call him a “social justice warrior” as if in lieu of doing something concrete, or taking some personal risk in the name of justice (as Rosa Parks did on that bus, or Harriet Tubman did when she penned Uncle Tom’s Cabin) he’d start a #negroesarepeopletoo campaign.
To Paraphrase Milton Friedman, A SJW is Person A telling Person B how to treat Person C.
Kate, I was part of that thread almost from the start and it was a doozy. I truly think, from the conversation and other clues, that both of those women are very very neurotic if not mentally unstable in a clinical sense. I think the right points got made though, they were and still are woefully ignorant of the facts but thanks to a bunch of thick skinned folks the facts were set out. I look forward to August!
Thank you! Apart from when frustration started to overload people because of those two women, the people I know are on the Puppy side of the fence were polite but assertive.
Those two were not. Which rather illustrates the point.
This is almost normal. I saw a thread on a filker’s Facebook page where the common thought is that RAH was a passionate SJW and the only way to believe anything else was to ignore at least half, maybe 2/3 of everything he wrote. Didn’t even bother to engage. Not worth it; I’m not going to reason them out of it.