Category Archives: Stray Thoughts

Classless Neanderthal Goons Show the World their Bald, Red Asses

(Note: Not every Trump supporter, and not every individual who has decided to vote for him can be described as a Trumpanzee. Some of my closest friends have decided to vote for him, based on a close examination of the evidence before them and a risk assessment of what is best for this country. When I say “Trumpanzee,” I refer to people who threaten and intimidate those with whom they disagree. They call even their close friends “idiots” and “morons” for not supporting Trump, even as they present some of the dumbest reasons, clickbait, and false reporting as “evidence” to support their case. They accuse people whom they ostensibly love of being tacit Hillary supporters, instead of realizing that these loved ones used their best judgment and made the best choice they could under the circumstances. These are Trumpanzees. All the others… vote your conscience.)baboon

You ever see a baboon ass? A baboon is a fluffy kind of monkey with huge maws and red, bald asses which they regularly show to the world. It apparently makes it more comfortable for the baboon to sit, but it’s wholly unattractive and somewhat disturbing to look at.

Welcome to the Trump Goon Squad at the Republican National Convention. That’s exactly what the Trumpanzees showed themselves to be last night after they tried to drown out a speech by Ted Cruz and descended upon Heidi Cruz like a band of knuckle dragging Neanderthals after her husband was done speaking. They showed the world their red asses. They showed the world what they were really about.

Let’s get a couple of things straight.

1) Trump’s campaign not only approved, but maintained the right to rewrite Ted Cruz’s speech. It did not.

I thought that was quite authoritarian, but declined to write about it at the time, because I had better things to do than repeat over and over again what kind of statist schmuck the Hairy Hemorrhoisd really is. I’ve explored that more than once, so I’m not doing it here. However, the salient point is that the campaign did, in fact, see the speech and approved it.

And then, he showed up at the end, watched the chaos his cro-Magnon supporters wreaked, and pretended to be outraged. At Cruz. Interesting.

2) Cruz graciously congratulated Trump on his primary victory. Why wouldn’t he? Trump won. There was nothing to be done about that, and Ted Cruz has generally focused on substance. What’s done is done.  Hell, he even gave a shout-out to Trump’s building a wall idea as something that’s needed!

3) The rest of the speech didn’t mention Trump at all. Cruz talked about freedom, the Constitution, American values, and abusive government power. He talked about the pure evil that is terrorism. He spoke of issues greater than one candidate, but that impact the very future of our country. He spoke of the differences he saw in the current administration and the Democrats’ platform and what he thought the Republican Party should stand for. Do Trump supporters see a problem with those values? Then what in evergliding fuck are they doing there?

4) And finally, Ted Cruz encouraged Republicans not to stay home this November and vote their conscience.

If you love our country, and love our children as much as you do, stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom, and to be faithful to the constitution.

If you see something wrong with this speech, perhaps you need to take a closer look at your own values.

Read it. Read it several times. I challenge anyone to find anything in this speech that’s objectionable to the values we purport to respect and strive to protect! Do it!

Did they believe that when voting their conscience disqualifies Trump as a viable candidate dedicated to Republican values?

For encouraging people to vote their conscience, the shit-flinging Trumpanzees from New York began booing Ted Cruz. They began trying to drown him out and screeching for Trump.

Why?

Cruz spoke passionately about the Republican Party’s ideals and historic dedication to freedom. Shouldn’t these traits be part of the GOP candidate’s portfolio? If Trumpanzees are offended by these values and see Cruz’s impassioned reference to them as an “insult” to the GOP candidate, wouldn’t it be wise to actually examine why? Could it be that the candidate doesn’t exhibit these traits that are so critical to what the Republican Party purportedly stands for?

Oh, they’re angry that Cruz didn’t endorse Trump?

By laying out the values on which the Republican Party was built – freedom, smaller government, self-determination, and justice – Ted Cruz endorsed the GOP candidate, didn’t he? Oh no? And whose fault is that?

Oh, they wanted Cruz to mention Trump by name? Why?

They already knew Cruz wasn’t going to directly endorse Trump. He has said so numerous times publicly, and the Trump campaign agreed that a public, specific endorsement wasn’t necessary.

And why would he? Trump attacked his wife with ridiculous ad hominems. He accused his father of being part of a JFK assassination plot. He spread rumors that Cruz was a philanderer and ineligible for the Presidency by virtue of being born in Canada. Why in the world would Cruz ever endorse that?

Oh, he signed a pledge? Fatass Christie from New Jersey, who seemed to have forgotten what exactly an elected official’s “job” he whined“And quite frankly, I think it was something selfish. And he signed a pledge. And it’s his job to keep his word.”

No, you porcine jackass. His job is to “support and defend the Constitution” of the United States, not to publicly support a Cheeto-colored fuckbag who attacked his family, and whose familiarity and respect for the Constitution is maybe a smidgen greater than my dog’s. No go stick that donut back in your maw and handwash Trump’s underwear. Isn’t that your job?

And let’s not forget, boys and girls, who backed out of that pledge first, and who ultimately released Cruz from having to abide by it in the first place.

Now, with only three candidates remaining in the race, the loyalty pledge appears to be all but dead.

Tuesday night during a CNN town hall in Milwaukee, Wis., moderator Anderson Cooper asked Trump whether he is sticking with his pledge to support the nominee.

“No, I don’t anymore,” Trump said. “No, we’ll see who it is.”

And with respect to his contentious relationship with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Trump appeared to release Cruz from the pledge as well.

“Honestly, he doesn’t have to support me,” Trump said. “I’m not asking for his support.”

This face is filled with nothing but hatred and unmitigated frothing zeal for der Fuhrer!

This face is filled with nothing but hatred and unmitigated frothing zeal for der Fuhrer!

And yet, the cretins in that convention hall not only refused to allow Cruz to finish his speech, but also advanced on his wife so aggressively, she had to be escorted out by security!

Is this civilized? No. It’s unsportsmanlike, puerile, and ignorant.

This shouldn’t be part of American politics, but it’s something to which we’ve become accustomed and inured.

I’m not even surprised that these froth-flecked fuckwits didn’t listen or comprehend the words Ted Cruz eloquently strung together about American values, American security, freedom, and real diversity.

I am shocked at how vicious these putrid malcontents are, and how quickly they’ve traded in common sense for pure, unmitigated rage.

Rage feels good. It’s cathartic, and I’ll be the first one to admit it.

But last night showed me just how embarrassing the Republican Party has become. Its nominee embraced the very political machine he condemned as “rigged” throughout the primary cycle, and now is using it to threaten and intimidate those who haven’t fallen in line with his particular brand of populist statism.

By threatening Heidi Cruz, the Trumpanzees showed just how depraved and savage they are.

By trying to drown out a speech that ostensibly speaks to values with which they agree, merely because it comes out of the mouth of a man who has challenged their hairy, small-handed tyrant, they showed a distinct lack of class and a disrespect for the very principles they supposedly espouse.

By rejecting a call to “vote your conscience,” they embarrassingly acknowledge that their candidate doesn’t deserve said vote.

They’re an awkward reminder to the rest of the world just how far the United States has fallen.

In case y’all wondered what I look like…

It’s summer in DC. 

Note to Commenters

It appears, due to certain ignorant fucktards failing to read the rules, I need to post a reminder.

There will be no racist commentary tolerated on this site. None. Zip.

I am not in the habit of censoring my site. I like healthy and unhealthy debate. I love cursing. It’s fun. However, racism isn’t funny, nor is it acceptable here. That is non-negotiable.

If your ignorant ass wants to post racist invective it will either be deleted or edited, depending on my mood. If you continue to be a dick, you’ll be relegated to the spam pile.

No, you have no right to demand I allow you to post your shit. I pay for this site. It’s mine. You will follow the rules, or you will leave.

Also, a reminder about moderation. First-time commenters will automatically be tossed into moderation, as will any comment with more than one link. This is to protect the site from spam, not because I want to censor you in some way. I’m usually pretty good about checking the spam trap and releasing comments from moderation quickly, but if I don’t, it’s because I’m busy, and I’ll get to your comment shortly. So, if you’re planning on sending me nasty notes about censoring you, don’t bother.

I hope that’s clear.

Trumpanzees showing themselves to be as classless as their Cheeto-colored deity

I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am. A good portion of Trump supporters are merely angry, disgruntled voters who are on the warpath to burn the establishment to the ground. Many are just outright racist scum. Yet more are uninformed ignorami who somehow think that a guy who has spent his life paying off politicians to further his business interests, and spent the election season showing his ignorant ass at every turn, will somehow hire enough wise advisers and grow enough commitment to his nebulous set of values to be their savior from the dickless, feckless GOP establishment to which they’ve become accustomed.

But there are some… the Trumpanzees – conscienceless, indecent, turd-flinging primates, who go into automatic attack mode anytime their Orange-tinted deity is criticized. Witness the savage horde of vicious Trumpanzees attacking Mary Katharine Ham after she wrote a complimentary article about Ivanka Trump, who exhibits class and grace, especially when compared to her screeching, shrieking, classless trash daddy.

MK is a Fox News contributor whose husband was killed in a biking accident here in Virginia a few months ago. She was left a widow, pregnant with the couple’s second child.

Well, you can guess what happened after the tweet was posted.

trumpdumbFirst up, a creepy shrew from Florida whose Twitter profile looks like the receiving room of a cheap bordello and whose profile photo shrieks “TRAILER TRASH FAN GIRL!”

 

Then there’s this coward, who describes himself as a “Trump devotee,” “anti anti-white” and wants to “eradicate Islam.”

Keep it classy, trash mouth.

And then there’s this bit of fuckery.

And when someone pointed out that MK was actually complimenting Ivanka Trump, this shit goblin’s response was the ever original “Fuck you.”

Welcome to the Trump election season, where threatening delegates if they don’t support the Orange One seems to be OK

Where manhandling a reporter and then engaging in a campaign of character assassination is preferable to issuing a simple apology…

And where pitching a puerile hissy fit after losing a primary battle is considered acceptable behavior.

Is this what we’ve come to?

I guess so.

Why the Puppies Are Sad

You want to know why the Sad Puppies campaign still exists? Do you want to know why fans continue to nominate authors they consider to be worthy of a Hugo Award even though the elitist Puppy Kickers made damn sure everyone knew that no award would be given to any worthy author or editor if they were nominated by the “wrong” people?

Here’s one reason.

“Speak Easy” by Catherynne M. Valente was submitted for a Sad Puppies 4 nomination in September 2015. Several fans thought it was worthy of the award. Comments included:

“… I liked it a lot and will be nominating it for a Hugo.”

“…There is so much to discover in this little book and it absolutely blew me away”

I would think that any author would be grateful that readers not only bought her work, but read it and enjoyed it enough to recommend it for a prestigious award. I would think the author would be gracious and thank the readers for the honor. One would think that being included in a list of recommendations that this year includes such great and diverse writers as Lois McMaster Bujold, Ann Leckie, Stephen King, Eric Flint, and John Scalzi would be met with gratitude and some dignity.

But apparently, if you’re the wrong kind of thinker, the wrong kind of reader, who has the wrong kind of social justice and political views, Ms. Valente doesn’t want your business. She doesn’t want your praise or recommendation. She doesn’t want your recognition.

As a matter of fact, if you’re the wrong type of science fiction fan, she will meowl and howl and demand that her name be removed from consideration. Then, she will vent her spleen on the Internet (then think better of it and admit it was not her “best reaction), and then she will post a much more temperate contemplation, trying to explain why she was so damn angry that a bunch of fans liked her writing enough to read it and to think it was worthy of an award.

I was upset because I wasn’t asked whether I was okay with being put on this list. I had thought I remembered SP saying they would ask authors for permission in the future, but it’s since been pointed out to me that my memory, as with all human cognition, is faulty, and the truth is the opposite–they, in fact, pledged not to ask permission or remove names on request.

Ms. Valente apparently thinks she should be consulted about whether or not it would be OK for a group of fans to like and appreciate her writing enough to think she merits an award. Apparently, she’s so important, that fans need her permission to publicly like her work! I will freely admit I’ve never heard of her until this year, so I wasn’t sure how successful or popular she was.

She’s apparently fairly prolific, if you believe Wikipedia, but I cannot imagine an author can get so prominent that she would actively reject readers who like her writing. But that’s exactly what she did.

Because she doesn’t want to be “associated” with the wrong type of fans.

Because she and other spitting whiners are suspicious that somehow this is somehow an effort to “legitimize” Sad Puppies, rather than a simple submission by people who happened to like her work.

Because somehow pointing out her lack of graciousness on social media equates to attacking her.

And it occurs to me that I would feel far less anger and confusion if one single person had calmly and without rancor said to me: “Hey, last year was a clusterfuck all around. This year we’re trying to put all that behind us and do a straight recommendation list. That’s all that’s going on.” But instead, it was the same instant name-calling and attacks that went down last time.

Of course, several people pointed out that the Sad Puppies list this year is a diverse recommendation list by fans who liked her work, but Ms. Valente appears to be so filled with rancor and hatred, that she just ignored them and continued on.

One reply pointed out that fans liked her work, and thought it was worthy.

Another one also acknowledged the effort to keep politics and acrimony out of it.

A third one noted that this the Sad Puppies list is a pretty simple recommendation from multiple fans.

But apparently, that’s not good enough.

So I spent the night trying to get my thoughts in order on this. Because, yes, if you strip away all the context of the Sad Puppies campaigns, it’s just a recommendation list, and I was happy enough to be on the Locus List (which doesn’t ask permission), so I should simply be joyful that people liked Speak Easyenough to recommend others take a look at it. A recommendation list, as we have been saying all along, is not a slate.

But you can’t strip away the context. Context is content. Context is everything.

Here’s your context, Ms. Valente.

So, SP4 is all about MOAR! More voters. More votes. More people. We want to make the Hugos bigger and more representative of fandom as a whole, to bring people in rather than give them an asterisk that looks kind of wrong (especially beside the rocket) to try to drive the “interlopers” out. SF is a big tent: we don’t want to kick out anyone, even writers of bad message fiction that makes puppies sad.

That is all. It is simple and publicly stated. There’s no hidden context or agenda. There never has been, despite some people’s best efforts to conflate the Sad Puppies movement with something onerous and clandestine.

I promised last year not to allow my name on any slate, for any reason, in perpetuity. Which means that if SP4 is, somehow, a slate, it would be hypocritical of me to shrug and say I’m cool with it just because my name happens to be on it. This is where I get stuck, because I feel there is a moral morass here. Call me old-fashioned: when I give my word, it still means something to me. This puts me in an incredibly difficult position, from which there is no easy extrication.

This is not about you allowing anything, Ms. Valente, unless you really expect fans you don’t like for nebulous reasons such as their “association” with other fans, to refuse to like or read your literature, in which case I would question your sanity and your intellect.

Bottom line: some people read your novella, and they liked it enough to submit it for an award. That’s it. Nothing else. But your lack of congeniality is noted.

The problem is, I spent a year listening to how the Puppies are Master Strategists. You can’t blame me for doing a Perception Roll and looking for traps. And that is my fear. That, with apologies to Admiral Akbar, it’s a trap.

Maybe you should take a year actually examining evidence with an objective eye, reading what has been written on the subject without judging, and stop being so paranoid.

I don’t want to be anyone’s shield. I want any nomination to be about my work and my work alone. I don’t want to be used to add legitimacy to a slate, I don’t want to be used to whitewash the history of a movement that, at the very minimum, has behaved poorly and rudely toward a large number of people, including me, my loved ones, and my colleagues. I don’t want to be fodder for a “we all know the first five are the real slate” strategy. I don’t want to be used as agotcha!, forced to withdraw in order to keep my moral house in order and make room for more works along the lines of “Safe Space as Rape Room” and “Sad Puppies Bite Back” or remain on the list and force a conversation about No Awarding so that the Puppies can watch the people they targeted last year get No Awarded or call us all hypocrites at large for not doing it–victory declared at any result.

Couple of things are notable here. chu

First, Ms. Valente appears to be hanging out with the likes of Arthur Chu, who last year viciously attacked Brad Torgersen as a racist and even posted a photo of his African American wife and biracial daughter, claiming they were shields for Brad’s alleged racism.

Are these the kinds of people with whom you want to be associated, Ms. Valente? Because you certainly sound like one of them.

A shield? It must be difficult to think so little of your own work that you believe the only reason people with opposing views to yours would like your writing is as a shield!

Second, Ms. Valente ignores the very real, vile, repugnant, and false accusations of racism, misogyny, bigotry, and other filth hurled at the Sad Puppies last year. It must be so comfy living in that soft, opaque world, so devoid of diverse points of view!

Third, she admits outright that the “No Awarding” of numerous categories at the Hugo Awards last year was an effort to keep the “undesirables” out, and worse, she’s afraid inclusion by the “wrong” kinds of fans will deprive her of her rightful chance for an award.

I will give Ms. Valente credit for admitting that the Sad Puppies this year did exactly what they said they would – create an open, transparent, diverse list recommended by numerous readers.

They seem to have done everything people said they should do to make it a recommendation list and not a slate. It’s democratic, it’s open, there are either more or less than five recs for every slot. The Rabid Puppy list has almost nothing in common with the Sad Puppy list.

At least she’s intellectually honorable enough to admit this much, but then she slides back into paranoia, and proceeds to blame the fans – the same fans who recommended works they enjoyed last year for a prestigious award and included her on this list – for her own paranoia, and continues to perpetuate the lies that angered kind, generous, gentle authors and fans last year, accusing us of racism, homophobia, and sexism and conflate Sad Puppies with the snarling, frothing Rabids, whose stated goal was to submarine the Hugos.

But it’s absurd to get angry at someone for thinking there might be something more to it. After all the talk about manipulation and strategy, all the insults flung and accusations levied, this is the result. It is hard to trust. And it is impossible to just pull the tablecloth out from under the Sad Puppies and leave the flowers and the silver still standing. The Puppies are a political group. They specifically did what they did last year to make “SJW heads explode.” Members have engaged in racists, homophobic, and sexist rhetoric. They have stated that the last several years of Hugos, during which I won and was nominated, were a lie and a farce, only existing due to affirmative action.

The rest of her post is self-inflicted angst and agony. Her stomach hurts. She’s honestly torn. She doesn’t know what to do.

And then, she “magnanimously” proclaimed that she will give us all a chance. She will give us her oh-so-generous benefit of the doubt. She’s choosing to believe that the Sad Puppies are sincere, despite the skewed history that she’s been led to believe, and dog forbid we let her down!

Please, lady!

Give it a rest! People read your work. They enjoyed it. They liked it enough to recommend it for a prestigious award. Be gracious. Say “thank you.” Enjoy the fact that a bigger fan base read your novella and enjoyed it, despite their perceived disagreements with you on politics or whatever else.

Stop worrying about some biased version of “history” and realize you’re not ENTITLED to demand that fans ask your permission to like and recommend your work.

You promised to believe in our good faith? So stop with the caveats and the angst, so we can believe in yours!

 

%d bloggers like this: