Category: Uncategorized

David Pakman: Interview shenanigans I

Last week, I was invited to be interviewed about GamerGate and game development by a YouTube show with which I was unfamiliar, the David Pakman Show. The invitation was as follows:

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:30 PM
From: VD
Subject: show appearance

Message Body:
You tweeted at me and asked me if I would appear on the show. That’s fine, you can contact me via this email.

Regards,
Vox

Terrific, would love to set something up. We do our interviews via skype
video. If that works in principle it would be great to set something up
for sooner than later. Would you be available this Friday at 11am
eastern time? I’d love to discuss your views on gamergate and just more
broadly how you general views inform your views on gamergate and the
gaming industry. It will be a casual discussion, likely 25 or so
minutes, just between you and I.


best,


David Pakman
Host / The David Pakman Show / www.davidpakman.com

David has been insisting that the subsequent interview, which lightly touched on GamerGate and barely addressed the game industry at all, much less 23 years of experience in it or my current game development work, was not an ambush, even though he spent about 40 of the 49 minutes (24 more than requested), asking me to justify past blog posts, past WND columns, and in one case, the headline that the editors wrote for the column.


When called on this by Mike Cernovich and others on Twitter today, David claimed that I eagerly encouraged asking about his “controversial” statements.

Mike Cernovich@PlayDangerously
So @dpakman claims my assertion is laughable…yet he keeps dodging this question: Why not ask Kluwe about underage girls and rape jokes?

David Pakman ‏@dpakman
Interview with Chris came up quickly to specifically discuss why he was angry with our show, that was focus. Who are you?

Mr. Bones ‏@wellplayd_ggate
“to specifically discuss” “that was focus” You couldn’t focus on #GamerGate with Vox for 5 minutes, despite title

Bill Wilson ‏@piefke4
not only “despite title” but also despite the email he has sent to vox.

David Pakman ‏@dpakman
.@piefke4 @PlayDangerously thing is that before interview started @voxday eagerly encouraged asking about his “controversial” statements

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You asked me to talk about #GG and game dev. I’m lead on 6 games in development and you asked about ZERO!

David Pakman ‏@dpakman
right before we started you eagerly said you like focusing on the controversial stuff and to ask you q’s

Vox Day ‏@voxday
I will publish the transcript. The fact I don’t run from controversy doesn’t excuse gotcha journalism.

David Pakman ‏@dpakman
no idea what you’re talking about. that conversation took place before interview. there’s no transcript.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
There most certainly is. Like I said, you’re an amateur, David. I’ll publish it later today.

K Gallagher ‏@miles670
Well holy shit, INTERESTING.

David Pakman ‏@dpakman
How could there be transcript of something that happened before interview? Did @voxday secretly write it down by hand?

From the pre-interview transcript:

David Pakman: So what I’m thinking is that I’ve just been reading a ton of your stuff and doing research and all that. The kind of, like, entry door to our conversation will be #GamerGate, since that’s kind of like where your name surfaced to us. But then I plan on talking to you more generally about your work and other stuff you’ve done too.

Vox Day: That’s fine, and if you want to broach any controversial topic, I’m not afraid to address it.

David Pakman: Okay, sounds good.

Now, not being afraid to address a controversial subject, such as the one that has been almost constantly in the news for the last month, and about which I was contacted by the Wall Street Journal, and which has been covered in a fair amount of detail (if not much accuracy) everywhere from the UK Guardian to the New Zealand Herald, is not reasonably described as being eager to discuss the headlines of old columns I didn’t write or a single blog post cherry-picked from the 15,080+ posts available here.

When he said he wanted to talk more generally about my work, since I provided him with a description that said I am Lead Designer of Alpenwolf and Lead Editor of Castalia House, I assumed it would be about either the games I am developing or the books I am publishing.

On 4/22/2015 11:03 PM, David Pakman wrote:

Perfect. What I need from you to lock this
in:



-a one line introduction for introducing you on the
show

One line intro: Vox Day is the Lead Editor of Castalia House, a
professional game designer who supports GamerGate, and a 2015 Hugo
Award finalist in the Best Editor category.

I certainly did not expect that “my work” encompassed a syndicated op/ed column that has been defunct for several years just as I didn’t expect to
be asked about my job shingling rooftops in an American Air
Force base in Japan either. It is deceitful, and demonstrates a complete lack of journalistic integrity, for a would-be journalist to ambush his interview subjects this way. It’s not hard to see, from the sly way David expands the possible range of the interview in the pre-interview from what he wrote in the email, that the ambush was not only intended, but premeditated.

And David’s attempt to falsely characterize my “eagerness” to discuss controversial subjects in an ex post facto defense of his ambush underlines his fundamental unreliability and lack of integrity in this regard.

I wouldn’t have had any problem with David Pakman bringing up any of the controversial subjects that have repeatedly appeared in places like the Weekly Standard or Entertainment Weekly. They were at least tangentially relevant given the Hugo coverage. But to bring up non-controversies that literally no major media source anywhere has discussed anywhere in relation to me cannot possibly be justified. This was a shameless attempt to make a story, not discuss or analyze an existing one.

A legacy of excuses

What is the point of permitting blacks to govern themselves if whites are going to be held responsible for them anyhow?

IN the wake of the Michael Brown shooting and subsequent unrest in Ferguson, Mo., commentators noted the absence of black representatives among Ferguson’s elected officials and its police leadership. A Department of Justice report highlighted how Ferguson’s mostly white City Council and its courts spurred on explicitly racist policing, in part to harvest fines from black residents.

Then came Baltimore. The death of Freddie Gray, like those of Eric Garner, John Crawford III, Rekia Boyd and so many other unarmed African-Americans, at first seemed to fit the all-too-familiar template — white cops, black suspect, black corpse.

But unlike New York, Chicago and other cities with white leaders, Baltimore has a black mayor, a black police commissioner and a majority-black City Council. Yet the city still has one of the most stained records of police brutality in recent years…. The problem is not black culture. It is policy and politics, the very things that bind together the history of Ferguson and Baltimore and, for that matter, the rest of America.

Specifically, the problem rests on the continued profitability of racism. Freddie Gray’s exposure to lead paint as a child, his suspected participation in the drug trade, and the relative confinement of black unrest to black communities during this week’s riot are all features of a city and a country that still segregate people along racial lines, to the financial enrichment of landlords, corner store merchants and other vendors selling second-rate goods. The problem originates in a political culture that has long bound black bodies to questions of property. Yes, I’m referring to slavery.

So exposure to lead paint is why Baltimore’s residents burned down their own neighborhoods? That’s dancing dangerously near reality for the New York Times. But there is a kernel of truth to the claim that black culture is not to blame, in that black culture is a consequence, not a cause. Baltimore is merely the most recent result of decades of US policy flying in the face of reality. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that a population that is disproportionately aggressive and possesses shorter time preferences on average will tend to behave in a manner that is different than, for example, a predominantly Chinese population.

The more stubbornly Western public policy refuses to accept the historically observed and scientifically established fact that not all human population sub-groups are entirely equal in every way, the more those policies are guaranteed to catastrophically fail. And the longer people insist on pretending that red herrings like “the legacy of racism” or “the daily violence of poverty” are to blame, the longer those problems will persist and the more serious they will become.

The game of let’s pretend doesn’t help anyone, least of all those whose tender feelings it is designed to spare. Look at the sheer absurdity of the columnist’s recommendations:

By avoiding the language of individual failings and degenerate culture, political leaders, black and otherwise, can help us all see the daily violence of poverty. More, they can better use the power they have to do something about it. By calling a nationwide “state of emergency” on the problem of residential segregation, by devising a fairer tax structure, by investing in public space, community policing, tenants’ rights and a government jobs program, our leaders can find a way forward.

More racial Kabuki and government spending is not going to solve anything. After 50 years of “civil rights” and “war on poverty”, that should be abundantly clear by now.

Puppy Precedent

WorldCon historian Mike Glyer digs out some longtime precedent for not only campaigning, but bloc votes. And it’s actually from the Philcon II committee itself!

There is still time to (a) do a little campaigning to line up a solid bloc of votes for your favorites, (b) get some members—every membership is a potential vote for your favorites, and (c) get your own votes in before our August 25th postmark deadline. In the categories of outstanding FAN MAGAZINE, COVER PAINTING, INTERIOR ILLUSTRATION and SHORT STORY OR NOVELETTE the field is wide open, with no front-runners yet. So far, Bestor’s Demolished Man is leading in the NOVEL class, with Bob Tucker’s Long Loud Silence in second place. Most votes for favorite FAN are divided between old-timer Forrest J. Ackerman and new-timer Harlon Ellison. Galaxy is just edging Astounding as favorite PRO MAGAZINE.

He’s got the scan of the page from the August 1953 Progress Report at File 770. No doubt Larry, Brad, and I can all expect fulsome apologies from our various accusers for all of the false charges of violating the spirit of the law and gamesmanship that have been levied at us.

The decline and fall of Richard Carrier

From New Atheist-in-waiting to cautionary tale in a few short years. I remember when people used to tell me that perhaps Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens were pushovers, but this Carrier guy… or not so much.

Nothing says “Alpha Male” like begging for polyamorous-friendly dates over the Internet:

So, this is experimental. I’d like to go on a date in May. And for the first time, I’m going to try a bat signal: putting a call out on my blog. I don’t know anyone else who has tried doing that, so I have no precedent to work from as to etiquette or even arguments for or against doing it. So I’m just going to do it and see what happens and document and assess. If you know anyone who might have an interest in dating me, let them know. If you might have an interest, read on.

I’ll start by making sure anyone considering this is up to speed. I am polyamorous. I currently have many girlfriends. All I consider my friends. Some are just occasional lovers. Some I am more involved with. They are also polyamorous, or near enough (not all of them identify that way, but all of them enjoy open relationships). And I will always have relationships with them, as long as they’ll have me in their life.

Read the rest of Richard Carrier’s exciting experiment in post-marital dating at Alpha Game.

Defensive much?

Johnny Con is feeling a little caught out. And defensive:

    1. It’s been recently suggested that I should be ashamed for getting the Hugo for Redshirts (by an author who hasn’t himself read the book).

    2. To be clear: I am not. I am deeply pleased it won, and I think it was entirely deserving of the award, and the other awards it won.

    3. It’s funny and an easy read, and if you think that’s easy to accomplish as a writer — and still pack an emotional punch — well, try it.

    4. The same author suggested (again without reading it), that it was a “social justice” sort of book, which lent itself to winning.

    5. It is, in fact probably the least racially/sexually diverse book I’ve written BECAUSE the characters were supposed to reflect a BAD show.

    6. Indeed, when the TV script for it was written, they CHANGED the sex of a couple of characters to make it more diverse! This is true.

    7. So it really is a bad example of a Social Justice-y sort of book. Much worse, in fact, than my OMW series in general.

    8. Also, if the “SJWs” vote en bloc, why would they award me, SWM, when Saladin Ahmed and Mira Grant were on the ballot?

    9. The only answer here would be because the SJWs secretly crave straight white male leadership, which would be kinda not SJW-y at all.

    10. I’m happy with the politics I have and I try to be a good human, which is apparently what makes me an SJW. But Redshirts is, in fact…

    11. … a genuinely TERRIBLE example of a book to show influence of the SJW cabal, both in content, and in its year. It’s a bad argument.

    12. The book won for a number of reasons, including people just liked it. But because of an SJW cabal? Really, no. That’s dumb.

    13. I’m done.

My rebuttal:
 

“Man, I owe you a blowjob,” Duvall said.

“What?” Dahl said.

“What?” Hester said.

“Sorry,” Duvall said. “In ground forces, when someone does you a
favor you tell them you owe them a sex act. If it’s a little thing, it’s
a handjob. Medium, blowjob. Big favor, you owe them a fuck. Force of
habit. It’s just an expression.”


“Got it,” Dahl said.


“No actual blowjob forthcoming,” Duvall said. “To be clear”

“It’s the thought that counts,” Dahl said, and turned to Hester. “What about you? You want to owe me a blowjob, too?”

“I’m thinking about it ,” Hester said.  

Best Novel-worthy prose or Participation Hugo? You decide. This is nearly as amusing:

I do find the fixation on me weird, and I really do think it comes down to the fact that I would be the perfect flag-bearer for the sort of person who identifies as a Puppy, if for the inconvenient fact of my personal politics. And also because Beale really has a thing for me, which is straight-up pure envy, as far as I can tell.

Yes, because contempt is so easily confused for straight-up pure envy. What It was a little more than two years ago that I was informed I was desperately jealous of Mr. Scalzi because his blog readership was “ten times the size of mine.” Now that my blog readership is three times the size of his, I’m envious of what, his failed career as a game writer? I’m the lead designer on six different games. His career as a writer? If I find an hour to write every other day, I’m fortunate.

John Scalzi has been attacking me and calling me names for just over ten years now. He’s been attacking my readers and calling them names for nearly as long. It’s absolutely stupid for the pathetic fraud to pretend he doesn’t know why we continue to go after him. He’s squirmed, he’s dissembled, and he’s spun, but he’s never simply admitted that he lied. He’s never apologized. He’s never simply admitted that he was wrong.

It’s kind of a pity the traffic didn’t quite hit 2 million this month, but fell 90k short. Because this would have been the perfect time to juxstapose that graphic with Scalzi’s 2010 interview with Lightspeed, in which he exaggerated his traffic by a mere 1.7 million.

there’s more to John Scalzi and his writing than meets the eye. For one
thing, his blog gets an extraordinary amount of traffic for a writer’s
website–Scalzi himself quotes it at over 45,000 unique visitors daily and
more than two million page views monthly. And it’s well-deserved
traffic, too, in light of the man’s reputation for posting unique
content.

I find it amusing that so many SJWs still try to pretend that 300k pageviews per month was “extraordinary traffic” while simultaneously insisting that more than 6x that much is nothing. The lesson, as always: SJWS always lie. Case in point:

Re: “Feud” with VD:

I kind of get exasperated with it being regarded as a feud. What it
is, is Beale obsessing about me and maneuvering that obsession into my
path so I have to deal with it. Which I would submit is less a feud, and
more dealing with something akin to a persistent stalker.

Right, which is why he put together his mock charity drive and put pressure on the SFWA Board so they would pretend to expel me just to keep him and PNH in SFWA. The Scalzi cries “stalker” as he attacks you.

Moderates gonna moderate

You can always trust a right-wing moderate to shoot at a potential ally:

Starting three years ago, Larry Correia, successful science fiction
writer, decided to test his suspicion that the Hugo Awards of the World
Science Fiction Society were increasingly being awarded through the
action of a small group, and increasingly reflect the tastes of that
small group rather than a more general population of science fiction
readers.

There were many ideas what the reason could be: a desire by the
active voters to reward more “literary” work. An ideological bias toward
“liberal” writers and themes — which seemed to be more plausible after
attacks on more “conservative” writers like Correia, attacks on the
movie Ender’s Game because the author of the original novel,
Orson Scott Card, is opposed to same-sex marriage, and the expulsion of
Vox Day from the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America,
arguably in violation of their own bylaws, for having offensive views on
race and sexual roles.

(Just for full disclosure: Scott Card has been a personal friend for
something like 30 years, and along with Ray Bradbury was the first to
suggest maybe I actually could do this writing thing. Sarah Hoyt, who is
also involved in Sad Puppies, is a close friend and as most PJ Media
readers know, my partner in the Book Plug Friday column. Larry Correia
is a Facebook friend who I’ve never met personally. And I think Vox Day
is an obnoxious and unlikeable dolt, as I’ve said in these pages in the past.)

Over the years, I’ve observed two things about people. First, people always
do what they find most rewarding; and second, every human institution
optimizes its behavior to maximize rewards — and while money isn’t
everything, when you’re looking for what’s rewarding it’s the way to
bet. Who stands to get a monetary benefit from the direction the Hugo awards have taken?

Now, at that point, we have to go back and reference something Vox
Day — who, let me remind you, I think is an obnoxious and unlikable dolt
— published.
If we look back at the last several years, there is a surprising
regularity to be seen: the same people are nominated over and over again
for several of the down-list awards, like Best Editor; those people are
all associated more or less closely with one publisher, Tor Books; and
much of the most vehement objection has been from authors and others
directly connected to Tor Books. The number of votes that decide the
election is very small — tens of votes.

Wait, Charlie, I’m not entirely sure on your position on Vox Day. Could you repeat it?

Translation: I DISAVOW VOX DAY, I DISAVOW AND DENOUNCE VOX DAY, I DISAVOWANDDENOUNCEANDDONOTLIKEVOXDAY! (please, for the love of all that is good and holy, don’t hit me!)

They do not like me, wet or dry
They do not like me, low or high
They do not like me, dry or wet
Because they are so moderate

They do not like me here or there
They do not like me anywhere
They do not like me on the Net
Because they are so moderate

If only I would be more nice
And pour out sugar in place of spice
Then it would all be duly meet
We’d march off to our brave defeat

They do not like me when we win
They do not like me for my sin
They do not like me as a threat
Because they are so moderate

Say this for Charlie, at least he’s not afraid to go show:

William Strunk, Jr. ‏@cdrusnret
you say you referred to @voxday as a dolt in the past, but your link doesn’t appear germane?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
That’s just his way of putting up his hands and saying “please don’t hit me!”

Charlie Martin ‏@chasrmarti
Vox, let’s just cut to the chase. You wave your hands and scream, I say “fuck off”, we go on with our day.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Maybe if you just denounce me once more, the SJWs will finally love you for who you are, White Buddha.

Compare and contrast

The SJWs in science fiction believe that if they can control the narrative, if they can convince the media to tell the story their way, they are going to retain their control of the science fiction establishment. They are given every opportunity to spin the narrative and make their case; Brad, Larry, and I were contacted by a Wall Street Journal reporter yesterday, which was a welcome change from most of the coverage that we’ve been seeing of late, but so too were John Scalzi and George Martin.

It’s just like one sees on the cable news. If a talking head has on a liberal guest, the liberal appears alone to sell the narrative. If a talking head has on a conservative guest, a liberal guest usually appears to dispute the narrative. And although it is only a guess, I suspect that the way that the story is likely to go will be moderately anti-Puppy, in light of the reporter actually “playing devil’s advocate” in conversation with me.

When I pointed out how the Puppy case is bolstered by comparing the number of Hugo nominations belonging to those in the Making Light clique, (15 for Charles Stross, 15/14 for Patrick Nielsen Hayden, and 9 for John Scalzi compared to 12 for Isaac Asimov, 12 for Robert Heinlein, and 7 for Arthur C. Clarke), the reporter shot back, and I quote, “yeah, but they’re editors!”

Although I pointed out to him that a) Charles Stross and John Scalzi are not, in fact, editors, and b) Isaac Asimov was an editor as well as a writer, I got the feeling that he was not likely to quote me concerning those readily observable and very telling facts. We’ll see, perhaps I’m wrong.

But the anti-Puppy influence over the mainstream media is largely irrelevant. Because, when people look more closely at the situation, here is the sort of thing they are seeing the Anti-Puppies say:

Anna Feruglio Dal Dan: “It’s not the Hugo ballot – that is a problem, but I am solving it by gleefully voting No Award to lots of categories, and I think I will make a point not to read any of it just to annoy you – it’s the strutting and posturing and pronouncing of you guys that I find hilarious. OK, I tell a lie, some of you are just boring and lame, Kratman for example can’t even insult people creatively, but you have moments of pure comedy genius.”

Hampus Eckerman: “Honestly, when you are saying that there are no unwritten rules, the
only thing you’re really saying is that you haven’t got the social
competence to notice them. Even when people write them on your nose.

Mickey Finn: “I’ve been making my way through the short stories, novellas and
novelettes, and so far haven’t even encountered a competently polished
turd.

NelC: “I’m not absolutely convinced that you’re not the type of loony who
thinks he can gain advantage by pretending to be a (different kind of)
loony, but either way, you’re seriously fucked in the head.”

Alexvdl: “I think you have articulated better than anyone else why Beale’s (and
other puppies) reliance on rating systems shows how far outside fandom
they are.”

Whatever reader: “I had a great time voting “No Award” today… I’d rather give the award to a trash can than to the crap they spent years working on.”

By contrast, here is how the non-Puppies in the field see the situation.

Rick Moen: “I think it’s abundantly clear what about the Beale and Torgersen
campaigning and (apparent) acquisition of nomination votes has made
habitual Hugo voters and Worldcon co-goers very annoyed and (in my
estimation) in a mood to terminate what they see as behaviour hostile to
the Worldcon.”

Whereas here is how at least some of those outside science fiction are seeing it:

Greg Ellis: “When all of this blew up I was not even a non-attending supporting
member of WorldCon. I’ve known about the Hugos for years, but never knew
I had, as a fan, a chance to vote for nominees or on the final ballot.
That all changed this year. What also changed was that I came down on
the Sad Puppies side of the debate. For awhile I was trying to look at both sides and judge equitably. I
was trying to be fair and open-minded and non-biased. Then I asked the
wrong question of the wrong people at the wrong time. Even Brianna Wu
chimed in on that one. I was a “white supremacist” by mere association
with Brad Torgerson and Larry Correia because they knew Vox Day and I
was friends with Brad and Larry on FaceBook. Guilt-by-association. I do
not tolerate being accused of something that anyone who knows me
understands that I am not. You want to push me into somebody else’s
camp, make an accusation like that.”

RI: I’ve been a spectator to this conflict for several months now. To be
honest, I didn’t even know who any of the participants were when I first
started following. Now, because of the outcry against you, Mr. Correia,
and Mr. Torgersen I have become a daily reader of your blog and am
rapidly burning through Mr. Corriea’s books.

Bojoti, a Worldcon Supporting member appears to share similar sentiments:

I knew absolutely nothing about the Sad Puppies until this year. I knew of the Hugos but little about them, either. I’d followed George R.R. Martin’s Not a Blog for years, and I remember him encouraging people to vote because the Hugos were their award (except now, they aren’t). But, back then, I had a house full of kids which meant less time for reading and fewer dollars for sure! Now, the kids are gone, and I have more of both of the aforementioned. When I discovered that WorldCon would be held in the Midwest in 2016, I was excited and decided to get a supporting membership for this year and attend the next.

I didn’t realize all the turmoil about Sad Puppies until after the nominations were announced. I came to the situation too late to nominate and unaware that my membership would be an affront to the TrueFans. I just wanted to participate in and give back to a genre that has been integral to my life. Instead, I find that I’m not welcome at the cool kids’ table, which is ironically hilarious, because my science fiction ways were unpopular to the non-science fiction crowd of my youth.

As is my researching way, I took to the Internet to look at all sides. I went all the way back to the inception of Sad Puppies. I read “Making Light.” I Googled, read, and digested from a wide spectrum from news sources (most very biased and inaccurate), authors’ websites, Twitter, and Facebook.

I think what the TrueFans and Sad Puppies don’t realize is that they are being watched by the great unwashed masses, hoi polloi, the little people of science fiction. Some of the behavior and rhetoric is so hateful and venomous that I regret my membership. Authors were saying that the new members didn’t love science fiction; they were claiming that they didn’t even read! Some were even saying stupid things like the Koch brothers bought my membership. TrueFans were disgusted by the thought of new members. They like the WorldCon being small and are actively against new members.

I’m rethinking attending WorldCon 2016. I’ll wait to see what happens at Sasquan before I decide. If people are going to act crazy like a frenetic bag of cut snakes, I want no part of that fandom (or Fandom). I don’t need to spend money to be ostracized, belittled, and hated. I’m sure I can get that for free, elsewhere!

The TrueFans are pushing the new members right into the Sad Puppies’ doghouse. I wasn’t a Sad Puppy, but if the TrueFans don’t want me, they have proven the Sad Puppies’ charge of insular exclusivity. When the TrueFans band together and decide as a bloc NOT to read the works and agree to vote No Award to Sad Puppy nominations, they’ve lost any respect or sympathy I had for them. When people advocate putting the Puppies “down,” I’m horrified. When people write “basically if the “hero” isn’t white and male, the Puppies will get all Sad at you and threaten to rape you to death. Like the good, tolerant humans they are, natch,” I’m sickened. When an author opines the correct way to treat the Sad Puppies is “Well, we make fun of them. We refuse to play with them. We refuse to share our resources with them,” I flash back to the petty games of the middle school mean girls’ cliques.

Baen Books author John Ringo has an idea where things are headed and why:

The SJBs, CHORFs, what have you are facing an uphill climb. Their ‘award winning authors’ are hardly popular in the mainstream (also frequently boring as shit on a panel) and every convention which has tried to stay entirely ‘SJW’ has found it has little or no market.

The CHORFs accuse the SPs of ‘fighting to retain white-male privilege.’ The reality is that the CHORFs are desperate to retain any sort of relevance at all. ‘Their’ conventions are failing. ‘Their’ books don’t sell as well as ‘pulp crap’. ‘Their’ magazines are losing circulation and closing. Lose control of the Hugos and they become irrelevant. And desperate regimes get crazier and crazier the more desperate they become.

They are not completely irrelevant yet. But they will be. And they fear it. Their over-the-top reactions make that very clear indeed.

Hug rape!

Someone alert David Pakman! There are SERIAL HUG RAPISTS on the loose in Virginia:

A Hug Now Requires “Affirmative Consent” At UVA — Or You’re Guilty Of Sexual Assault

If you don’t explicitly ask for and get permission for your clothed body to touch another person’s clothed body in a hug, you could now be accused of “sexual assault” through “sexual contact” at UVA.

It’s part of UVA’s broad new “sexual assault” policy, explains Hans Bader at Liberty Unyielding:

Because U.Va. lumps together touching, “however slight,” and intercourse when it comes to sexual assault, requiring “affirmative” consent for both. (“Affirmative consent” is a misleading term, and does not include many forms of consent that occur in the real world, and are recognized by the courts, as I explain at this link. The new policy further warns that “Relying solely on non-verbal communication before or during sexual activity can lead to misunderstanding and may result in a violation of this Policy.”

Here is the essential bit from the new UVA “sexual assault” policy:

    A. SEXUAL ASSAULT Sexual Assault consists of (1) Sexual Contact and/or (2) Sexual Intercourse that occurs without (3) Affirmative Consent.

    (1) Sexual Contact is:

    •     Any intentional sexual touching
    •     However slight
    •     With any object or body part (as described below)
    •     Performed by a person upon another person

    Sexual Contact includes (a) intentional touching of the breasts, buttocks, groin or genitals, whether clothed or unclothed, or intentionally touching another with any of these body parts; and (b) making another touch you or themselves with or on any of these body parts.

Better not hug your wife tonight. Not without Affirmative Consent. You might think “hug rape” sounds ridiculous now, but it wasn’t all that long ago that “marital rape” sounded totally nonsensical too.