That Moment When

… all proceeds as I have foreseen. And yea, the butthurt of the most special of snowflakes doth rise unto the heavens, for in stating facts and analyzing the content of their bullshit, I have given great offense. And I am greatly amused.

Seriously, folks, when the best you can manage in so-called critique is to claim that something I wrote was poorly written (without evidence of my alleged poor writing – which means it’s probably a case of either “oooh, my feelz” or “I don’t get it, it must be horrible”) and then go on to repeat every single tactic I dissected with hardly any variations, you’re doing it wrong. You’re also kind of amusing, in a train-wreck kind of way.

I’m not going to bother dissecting this rather shallow bit of hurt feelings – I’d spend more time on it than it deserves and hand the so-called author more page views and it really isn’t worth that (yes, it. Since this particular author is using a handle that’s not obviously male or female, and is clearly so far in the non-binary-gender camp it’s through the other side or something, I can’t default to “he” or “she”. I’m writing in English, which leaves “it” as the sole option for the non-binary-gender sort.) Besides, when it goes out of its way to misrepresent everything I’ve written, why should I bother giving it more attention than I have to?

In other news, Strange Horizons has demonstrated its willingness to… well… something in Nino Cipri’s review of Octavia’s Brood: Science Fiction Stories from Social Justice Movements . This piece deserves a little more attention because it is truly extraordinary – and not in a good way.

The editors of Octavia’s Brood: Science Fiction Stories from Social Justice Movements have set themselves with no small task: to create a book where writers and readers are both given space to imagine futures of liberation.

I’m not going to nitpick the grammar here in the first part of the sentence – at this point that’s the least of my amusements. I do have to wonder why anyone needs a book to be able to “imagine futures of liberation”. Personally, I can do that quite well on my own, although I freely admit my notions of liberation don’t fit into any sort of “social justice” framework. I pity the unfortunates who need someone else to do this for them, no matter what they think of liberation or social justice. (Hint: if you can’t achieve it without harming someone who has not done anything to harm you, it ain’t justice. Ergo, social justice is an oxymoron wrapped in a feelgood label)

Walidah Imarisha and adrienne maree brown, both of them organizers as well as writers, use the term “visionary fiction” to describe the stories therein. Imarisha, in her introduction, uses the term to “distinguish science fiction that has relevance toward building new freer worlds from the mainstream strain of science fiction, which most often reinforces dominant narratives of power. Visionary fiction encompasses all of the fantastic, with the arc always bending toward justice” (p. 4). Co-editor adrienne maree brown adds, in her outro, that among other attributes, visionary fiction must: “center those who have been marginalized . . . show change from the bottom up rather than the top down . . . and [not be] neutral—its purpose is social change and societal transformation” (p. 279).

You know what? That’s more than enough to tell me that this thing is not going to be friendly to someone who’s been marginalized because they have different opinions. No, with that many social justice buzzwords packed into a paragraph, the only permissible marginalizations are the by-now-mainstream race and sex variety – unless you happen to be a female refugee from a radical Islamic society who isn’t trying to perpetuate the radical Islamic culture. If that’s where you’re from you can expect to be ignored at best, since it’s verboten to criticize non-consensual radical clitorectomy or any other charming cultural practices such as honor killing and throwing acid into the faces of girls silly enough to try to get an education.

It doesn’t get better: there’s some mild criticism of the US-centric nature of the book (all the authors are American – at least in name), some legitimate criticism of a number of the pieces for being nothing more than the start of something larger, then this gem:

My editor for this review, Aishwarya Subramanian, suggested that “perhaps we can only imagine the beginnings of radical change because it is so radical”

Apparently the modern SF and Fantasy authors involved in this book have much less ability to imagine radical change than the flawed white men who wrote the US constitution – which says rather more about the concept an authors involved than it does about the authors of the US constitution, none of it good.

I could waste the rest of a perfectly decent evening analyzing the flawed assumptions behind this nonsense, but I really couldn’t be bothered with it. Suffice to say, if someone is claiming that Sad Puppy supporters are anti-diversity, anti-women, anti-anything-other-than-white-males, they’re either lying, ignorant, or both. If someone says that diversity needs to be promoted and social justice is important, ditto. They’re probably also projecting because they’re incapable of thinking and use spewing great gobs of verbiage about feelings as a substitute – which means they have no idea what’s going on below the surface of their minds, and they almost certainly don’t want to know.

Or, in shorter terms, SJWs always lie, SJWs always project, and SJWs always double down. It will be fun to see what the next cycle of lying, projection, and doubling down looks like.


  1. I would add that SJWs always ignore history — sometimes selectively, sometimes out of sheer ignorance, sometimes from willful ignorance. Because otherwise they’d have to acknowledge that everything they crow about today has long since been done to death, and was old and tired long before they were born, and was probably better-addressed by that much-decried “dead white male” (often neither dead nor white nor male).

    This reinventing the wheel, badly, is what I most dislike about the younger crop of SF/F.

    1. If they paid attention to history their entire worldview would be invalidated. Ditto if they paid attention to fact.

      So they deny both, and claim anything that reminds them of either is evil.

        1. Well, one bit of fact and history that needs to be discussed, based on my quick reading of the article before I left for work today is that you were mixing up Sad Puppies campaigns, citing SP2, to refute the claim about SP3 being apolitical. The thing is, yes, SP2, run by Larry, WAS political. THAT campaign was to prove a point that Conservatives were deliberately campaigned against (Larry said there was bias, they said “That’s just because conservatives don’t get on the ballot. Get some there, and we’ll see how they do.” Larry: “Challenge Accepted” Faans: “Die die die! No award!”. Larry: “I win.”) SP3 was run by Brad, and he wanted to run works that should have been nominated, but wouldn’t have been by the CHORFs, and it was politically, culturally, and otherwise diverse, and would have been great if Vox hadn’t come along and muddied the waters.

          The two campaigns really were apples and oranges, but the results were the same, Kate’s version promises to be a Pomegranate, and I imagine they will still try to kill it with fire. (Although actually, I haven’t heard a lot of noise about it this year compared to the previous two).

          1. So in this case I should have ignored the history of Sad Puppies? Hmm. Ok but then SP3 was hardly apolitical in the rhetoric used by Brad or Sarah Hoyt. Now I dont have an issue with them expressing their politics but claiming the whole campaign was apolitical jusr because some entries on the slate where apolitical is disingenuous. Even ignoring SP2 it isn’t hard to show the political dimension of SP3. Quotes available on request.

            1. Accusations of something being political when the other side takes the position that “The personal is political” basically become meaningless.

              And there are spheres of politics. Are we talking fandom politics? Or governmental politics?

              Nevertheless, at its basest level, Brad did not choose his suggestions because they were all, say, Conservatives. Or White Christian/Mormon Men, as some seemed to think.

              1. I agree with you there – Brad’s picks were not primarily done on the basis of ideology. Nor do I think SP3 was *primarily* ideological. More to it than politics (as I’ve discussed elsewhere) but that doesn’t make it somehow politically neutral in intemt.

  2. a) You are somehow wrong because I’m not happy with the results of the Pennsylvania elections. (I don’t even know what the results were, so let’s pretend that I had entirely unreasonable expectations.)
    b) Support for Islamic mistreatment of women is reasonable, because such treatment in fact serves a collectivist feminist agenda. If it discourages women from pursuing individual rights and choices, it protects the collectivist feminist right to be protected by one’s family from outsiders.


  3. Thinking ahead, you should be coding up a nice automated evaluation script right about now. Then every time one of these Professor Doctor Anne Elk types pops up, you can just plug in the URL and it will scan, collate, notate, and analyze and then pop up with the SP4 standard outrage score. ( 5 points for missing the veritable plethora of non-male, non-white Sad Puppies, 10 points for Assuming Mormon, 5 points for accusations of wanting to oppress the writer, etc.) You can post weekly or monthly top ten lists, and offer the winners cute little .jpg badges to pin proudly to their websites! Think of the fun you could have…

    But if you insist on hand-crafting responses to this stuff you won’t get anything else done as SP4 ramps up — and that includes sleeping, eating, and your true life’s work, cat petting. Think well and choose wisely, O Human.

  4. This post goves me hope for sp4. Some of the nominations I was seeing proposed were a source of concern, especially in the novel list.

    1. That’s what happens with open nominations. Feel free to get all your friends to nominate the works they’ve read and think deserve it. (and vote up the ones they agree with)

  5. I would be inclined to just let the little precious flowers huddle in the far corner playing with their own poop if they weren’t so bloody determined to also smear all of us with said feces.
    But that’s the progressive way. File the serial numbers off old tired failed concepts and present them as bold new thought. And when we politely point out the error of their logic we become the bad guys. Thing is, if it’s bad they want, we can be really good at that.
    Have to confess, I simply could not get more that a few lines into that pathetic attempt to fisk Kate’s original post. Poorly written? That from someone who apparently cannot string words together to form a complete sentence? I really cannot decide whether to feel amused or sad for such a feeble hissy fit.

    1. That’s why I used the archived link and not a live one. It really is sad when that’s the best they can do.

  6. Oh, that piece was fantastic! Step by step, stripping another of the warped, deceitful writings produced by the pitiable morons on the side of (potentially even more pathetic) imbeciles like Camrestos Felpanot of its veneer of reasonableness and lucidity…oh yes. *happy sigh* The “chocolate mousse frosting” atop this delightful confection of an article is the way it is making said imbeciles and lackwits foam quite beautifully at the mouth…

    1. I meant to add, it’s almost as if they’re endeavoring to prove that He Who Must Not Be Named is *right* in his rules for how SJW’s behave! I mean a couple years ago I would have been repulsed, or at least discomfited, by many of the opinions he expresses on his blog. Now…I find him less unlikable and repulsive than *any* SJW! IOW they have made me reconsider my knee-jerk impulse to avoid folks like HWMNBNamed and caused me to find common cause with him/them! Astounding.

        1. Wash your mouth out, sir. The programs I test are infinitely better behaved than the SJWs.

      1. Yeah, that’s what the SJW/CHORFs/excessivly-activist authors just don’t get. They are driving more and more readers farther and farther from the “that’s nice just leave me alone; oh, and he’s a nutcase” world into the “He’s a little off on some things but if they hate him so much, there must be something to his arguments” phase into the “buy ALL his books!!!” category. Or buy all her books, depending on which author/publisher is the Avatar of Unspeakable Evil this week.

        1. ‘zactly. It’s simultaneously amazing, infuriating, and horrifying watching these fools dutifully sowing the wind, and diligently tending the growing whirlwind that they will inevitably reap. Like watching a condemned man splice and knot the rope for his own hanging. Except in this scenario, it’s not just themselves they’re hurting; their noose is wrapped around the neck of all western civilization. Oy.

            1. Oh, assuredly, the indignation and shock will be tremendous to behold. Just reading Camrestos Felpanot’s comments on this post…I’m still laughing.”…always happy to discuss facts and history” indeed! Perhaps you are, Mr. Felpanot, perhaps you are. You do seem like just the sort to speak at length whilst saying not a thing. I thank you for adding a bit of mirth to my day. The “…’she’ would be an unearned compliment.” bit was just too much! You slay me, Camrestos.

              PS: yes, the misspellings are deliberate. Blame google’s keyword search function. 😉

        2. Exactly. I’ve found quite a few good authors and some friends because of the abuse being heaped on them from the CHORF/puppy-kicker front.

        3. Indeed, years ago I found myself willing to grudgingly say to myself, well that Rush Limbaugh is pretty bad and doesn’t represent MY thinking. Of course one will always find oneself with allies who one finds unsavory, and the SJW and news media (but I repeat myself) excel at making the naive believe that the most effective proponents of truth are those unsavory allies. Of course then I found myself listening to Rush while driving, and realized that the demonization was just a false meme. I admit I briefly had the same experience with Newt Gingrich until I saw him on C-SPAN after the ’94 Republican takeover of the House. Where was this snarling Snidely Whiplash? I just found a reasonable rather well-read man trying to make common sense changes.

          Alas I still have to catch myself sometimes to prevent them from suckering me. Evil people count on the basic goodness of others. We all know that directly calling someone a liar, even after they have just provably lied, puts the brander rather than the liar on trial–see Cruz, Ted.

          To inoculate myself, I remind myself that anyone who uses the term Social Justice in an approving sense is a liar, by definition because the term is a lie. There is no Social in Justice and no Justice in Social. Justice can only be done to an individual. The fact that Rosa Parks was denied appropriate seating on a bus because of a skin hue she shared with millions of others matters not a whit. The fact that she was deprived of appropriate seating would have been equally unjust if it were because she were wearing purple. Justice can only be done to an individual. The Social Justice conceit is that Justice can be done by treating a whole group differently from another whole group regardless of their merits. That is by definition injustice. Therefore I repeat myself, anyone who uses the term Social Justice in an approving sense is by definition a LIAR, unless their excuse is that they’re a moron.

          1. Yes, indeed. Social justice can only advance by causing harm (financial or otherwise) to innocent people and usually also advances people who have done nothing to earn said advance.

            That eliminates the justice side of things immediately. Anyone who is prepared to say that it’s a good thing to promote a less-qualified person over a more-qualified one because the former’s ancestors suffered from prejudiced laws is not talking about justice. They’re talking about generational revenge.

        4. Vox’s Throne of Bones is rather good; the editing’s not as good as his is now, but the story is solid. Hoping book 2 will be anywhere near that standard of storytelling, he could rival Larry on that front if he wanted. Reading Larry’s new amazing book now, so yeah, I think I’ve a fair grasp on the level of talent.

          Yes, I’m more Rabid than Sad these days. If I’m going to be characterized as unspeakable evil, I may as well fit the part.

      2. It does have that effect, doesn’t it? The sad thing is, should the revolution they so devoutly hope for ever come, they’ll be among the first up against the wall because no half-way sane dictator wants *that* on his side.

    2. For those who follow the link – click the “next” at the bottom. That goes to another excellent essay by Jeb Kinnison.

    3. It’s past time someone started taking apart the propaganda techniques that are being used. I might not be the best at it, but I’ll do what I can.

  7. I’m LOLing at Natalie Luhrs’s misguided belief that “yodeling whelkfins” is somehow the greatest insult ever slung the way of the Sad Puppies.

    Oh no, Ms. Luhrs, please don’t call us whelkfins! We can only roll on the floor laughing so long! 😀

    1. I didn’t look, but someone should register (or .net, or .org) just to see what might be done with it in the future. (I failed to find any indication on Google that it isn’t a new coinage.)

  8. Oh, No! She left out the Rabid Puppies! Censorship! Disingenuous! LIE!
    Really. If someone you disagree with has a different interpretation of the facts than you do, she is a liar. I detest that sort of argument, both on moral and logical grounds.
    So, since the authors of the piece first mentioned, have apparently have little interest in either logic or diplomacy, there is little point in trying to dissect their arguments.

    As for the second, anyone who imagines that she can ignore the facts of human reproductive biology or disregard its influence on culture, and attribute everything to “dominant narratives of power” is (consciously or not) writing a political screed disguised as fiction and has a negligible chance of ever writing anything I think worth reading.

    1. This is why I’m not dissecting the arguments on a factual basis. I’m dissecting the propaganda techniques which is much more interesting and fun. (Yes, I do have an odd definition of fun.)

  9. Took a look at the entire review just because, and found this:

    “Two essays round out the collection. Mumia Abu-Jamal, who has been writing on culture, politics, and the American carceral system for decades while sitting on death row, contributed a short essay.”

    Soo, off I went to Wikipedia to look up this vaunted writer who’s on death row, and here’s the scoop:
    “Mumia Abu-Jamal (born Wesley Cook April 24, 1954) is an American activist and journalist who was convicted and sentenced to death in 1982 for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.”

    Evidently, progressives feel that cop killers are true visionaries; who knew?

    1. The Left *loves* cop-killers. They say they’re anti-violence, but when they do crap like that it’s hard to believe.

      1. They’re only anti-violence to their sacred persons. To the rest of us – who I suspect they don’t consider truly human – violence is a regrettable necessity to stop us fouling their pristine imaginations.

    2. It’s been 20 years since Free Mumia was trendy when I went to college. He’s still around?

    3. Honestly, I didn’t consider Mr cop-killer to be worthy of separate mention. When one’s entire status as a celebrity of sorts is based on being a convicted murderer (and cold-blooded murder at that – the Wiki piece, being rather… er… left itself, fails to mention that multiple witness accounts described said cop-killer picking up the wounded cop’s weapon and shooting him in the head with it.)

  10. Do these people even read any Science Fiction -or- Fantasy? Or do they only form their opinions after an Authority has filtered it and formed it into pre-digested pap?

    It’s easy to throw rocks at artists for not fulfilling -every- checkbox with every individual character on the SJW Bingo Checklist. Any artist: some of the ‘checks’ are mutually exclusive, and others defy sensibility in combinations with others.

    But. “Free the slaves” is a -staple- plot. As is fighting the oppression, picking the ‘better side’, fighting tyrants, robbing government to feed poor, etc.

    I’ve been reading Poul Anderson. Flandry’s a womanizer, duh. And there are greedy peeps. But there’s a whole lot of ‘helping the oppressed’ going on. (Never mind the introduction of “yx” as the gender-indeterminate-but-sentient complement of he-and-she.)

  11. Please don’t be concerned about my feelings. I am quite content thank you. The examples of what I considered poor writing are in my post – maybe 9 or so examples of points that appear somewhat confused in terms of the point you are trying to make.
    As for pronouns ‘it’ matches my costume, ‘they’ works well and ‘he’ matches the meat robot that does the typing. ‘She’ would be an unearned compliment 🙂
    Glad you enjoyed my little letter.

    1. “Please don’t be concerned about my feelings.”

      No one here cares about your feelings, so we’re all good, then.

      How you made the leap from Kate Paulk saying that your rant wasn’t worth her time to her somehow being “concerned about your feelings” is quite a mystery.

      1. As mysteries go it usn’t much of one. She ascribed my motives as being possibly “‘oooh, my feelz'” and also refered to ‘bit of hurt feelings’. I do hope that helps clarify the mystery for you. My “feelz” are fine (as far as they go) 🙂

        1. Her mentioning your little foot-stoping butthurt tantrum is a different thing from her being concerned about your little foot-stomping butthurt tantrom. Entirely. “Amused” is nearer the mark.

          Sorry to break it to you.

          1. Confusing an amused commentary with a “butthurt tantrum” implies a focus on imagined feelings – hence my comment. My feelings are fine and my meat robot’s butt is clad in cottony softness. But he appreciates your concern fir his butt status. The left ankle is a bit twingy though so maybe “anklehurt waffle” might be a better description.

              1. Typically I spend the night fast asleep dreaming about platonic solids but thanks for thinking about whether I am sleeping soundly. Sadly I do tend to shout “Bolshevik” for no good reason in my sleep – so while I am sleeping soundly the cat gets agitated.

          2. I also doubt Paulk is leaving somewhat insistent comments over at “camestrofelapton”‘s site.

            1. Why would I bother? The level of misreading I saw means I’d just be wasting time, energy, and pixels.

            1. Sorry about that. I’ve found that a lot of the time it’s easier to put a PDF on DA than their clumsy text editor or their frankly Weird Stash Writer program.

                1. Thank you.

                  I blame my employer for the delay.
                  (On the plus side, with all the overtime I’ve worked, I have now built up 190 hours of vacation time.)

Comments are closed.