Home

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 16 May 2018

Here's the scenario.  You're running an event, and on TWITter or Fecesbook, someone calls out a guest and states, "I wouldn't feel safe with this person at the con!"

You must immediately ban this person from the convention.

No, not the guest. The person making the public scene.

Here's why:

This person is arrogating a lot of significance to themselves. The statement assumes that the guest in question either knows this person or will seek them out, and has time allotted for the purpose of interacting with them, any desire to do so, and such interaction must be negative. All of which are almost certainly utterly false assumptions.

For myself, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other how the complainant feels. Their statement alone makes it clear that interacting with such a person is of utterly no interest or consequence to me. I can find much better people to interact with. Actually, let me rephrase that: I can find PEOPLE to interact with.

In fact, they're almost certainly well aware they're perfectly safe, and attempting to drive political opposition into the shadows.

Well, no one ever accused Nazis of honesty.

Furthermore, they've passively-aggressively created an interaction where none existed.

They have, in fact, created an interaction with the guest, and an interaction with you, in a public scene.  Imagine if they walked up to you (or the guest) at the con, and shouted, "STOP HARASSING ME!"

You must assume their intent is to lay groundwork to CREATE a scene they can attempt to blame the guest, or you, for.

In reality, no professional should feel safe with such a person at a convention, and since the professional is the draw, not the nobody, the nobody should be immediately banned for the safety of the guest, the staff, and the other attendees.

Because, if you actually have a legitimate issue with someone, here's how it is handled, speaking from experience.

Most conventions ask their guests in surveys, privately, "Is there anyone you don't want to be on a panel with?"

I have a very short list of people who I simply can't get along with. If the convention wants to put them on a panel, I can do a different one. No harm, no foul.

There was one time when I did have a legitimate legal issue with another person (long resolved, it was merely administrative).  What I did was contact the event PRIVATELY, inform them of the issue, and tell them, "This person is not to approach my booth, and I will not approach theirs.  I do not anticipate trouble, but if they enter my booth I will shout for security at once as a safety measure for us both."

In one case, I actually was harassed by an individual whose stated purpose in showing up at the con was to harass certain "conservatives," me among them, even though I am not conservative. I went quietly to Con Ops, explained the issue, and the individual was informed not to approach me or my family again.

In no case did I whine like a worthless fucking attention whore to the world, pointing a finger like a body snatcher and shrieking like an angry toddler.

As we've seen at least three times now, knuckling under to this type of crybully is like trying to appease a toddler or terrorist.  Once you give in once, you have delegated veto power to them and the TWITter dogpile.

At which point, the reasonable (non-public) response may become public itself, thus giving you...instant controversy.

Your only rational, immediate response to avoid "controversy" is just to ban the person making the public scene. They've already told you by this action that they intend to cause trouble for at least one of your guests and that guest's followers.

"I wouldn't feel safe with this person at the con!"
"We're sorry you feel that way.  Here's a full refund.* We hope to see you at a future event."

Then stop responding. You'll only give attention to an attention whore.

Having seen this happen to guests at least three times, any future guest invitations I accept will involve a signed cancellation clause and a cash penalty for doing so, because once a guest has made arrangements for your event, they can't schedule something else, and you're eating up their writing/art/production time. They are there for YOUR benefit, not you for theirs. In my case, I currently have three novels, a collection, an anthology, all contracted, another novel offer, three on spec, an article request, three short stories and a lengthy stack of products to test and review, and an entire summer of professional bookings. I have a not-quite four year old and a teenager. Don't waste my time then roll over for some worthless whiner.

 I encourage all other pros to implement the same policy. My attorney has a sample you can use.

*Assuming they've even reserved space or intended to, rather than just harassing your convention for "justice," as happened at least twice.

The guests are professionals. It's time the conventions started acting the same way.

ADDENDUM: I was contacted this morning (May 16, 2018 ) by a convention who is proactively taking this step. Of course, they're the type of convention for whom this would never be an issue. Which is why they're confident taking it.

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 09 May 2018

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/if-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-what-happens-to-pot-sniffing-dogs/article_6d67b6d3-cc27-5053-ba8c-eb641611c28b.html?utm_content=bufferfc6d6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC#tracking-source=home-top-story 

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 02 May 2018

A large problem facing the SF community, and many others today, is the mere existence of Twitter and Fecesbook.  The problem specifically is that people believe these are real, and matter.

I have noticed since my first SF publication Freehold https://amzn.to/2Fz5XNi that conservatives who don't like something tend to just ignore it and go away, though they may argue at length on some matters.

Modern American liberals (As opposed to real liberals), however, don't stop there. It's not enough to argue.  Anyone who disagrees with their rightthink must be destroyed. It shows in the book reviews.  CONSERVATIVE: "This had a bit too much sex for my taste and I don't think it's a workable society long term."  LIBERAL: "This guy is a monster who wants to exterminate the homeless for his utopia!"

I'm argumentative online.  I have argued vociferously FOR same sex marriage, FOR gays being able to serve in the military, FOR legalization of pot, AGAINST pot as "medicine," AGAINST male genital butchery, FOR free speech and expression of faith, AGAINST any form of gun control, FOR reproductive choice.  I've explained, at length, how reproduction works, how sex and gender disorders work, how firearms work, in attempts to educate people.

I'll freely argue with anyone, though on occasion someone is either so stupid or obnoxious I unfriend or block them. This happens to conservatives as well as liberals, atheists as well as Christians.  I don't dislike people for their demographics. I dislike them for their stupidity.

Some conservatives will note that, "He's an asshole and I had to unfollow him."  Fair enough. Some liberals have said the same.

But, we come to the Modern American Liberals.  Those are a special case.

This first came to a head two years ago at a convention I regularly attended for about 20 years. Said convention shrunk year by year and completely failed last year, in a surprise to no one rational.

I received an IM on Fecesbook from one of the people peripherally involved in it and her on-and-off-husband who I was barely aware existed.  They "Had some concerns" and "wanted to reach out to me" to clarify things.

I hate "reaching out."  Say what you need to say.

Shortly it became clear it was concern trolling that I'd be offended by the "liberal" nature of the convention.

After all, I was "pretty conservative" (I am not in the slightest, and I'm constantly amazed at the binary POV of "liberals." Either you're liberal or you're conservative, and you have to be liberal ENOUGH in the right ways.)

The concerns were:

They were going to have a gender neutral bathroom, and that might offend me.

They were going to have a "safe space."

They didn't want me getting "political" at my table.

Some people might be wearing their "Solidarity pins."

In order:  I spent 25 years in the military, much of it in the field or on convoys. Bathrooms don't bother me.  At that moment, I'd just come back from Europe. Belgium public restrooms typically have male stalls on one side, across from urinals, sinks as a divider, and female stalls. So a man can be standing there taking a leak while a woman is washing her hands next to him.  In parts of the Netherlands, they have public urinals with a partial screen about 2' wide, in the middle of the plaza.

Bathrooms don't bother me.

As far as a safe space, if someone has a safe space, that's up to them.  I generally find the notion silly when there are cars, hotel rooms, bathrooms, bars, etc, but if the convention has designated such a space there's likely no reason for me to bother with it.

This person was obviously aware, or should have been, that I don't get political at my table, except in regarding specifics of my books, or if I'm asked a specific question. In which case, I remember I'm in public and exercise appropriate manners, as my "conservative" parents taught me growing up in the UK.

It doesn't matter to me if someone wears a diaper pin on their clothes, through their septum, or their ear. Through their eyeball would probably make me twitch, but if it's consensual, it's not my problem.

I made all the above as succinctly clear as that, and noted, "I do expect the same courtesy. I don't wish people to harass me at my table over some false perception of where I stand."

Well, I was told, "But you do have to allow that. These people are hurting. They've been hurt so badly. They're afraid."

Were I to reasonably point out that I've disliked pretty much every president and every politician of my lifetime, and that there's been contentious elections before, so anyone bleating like this is a worthless fucking pussy, I'd have no doubt been banned at once.

But notice the double standard. YOU can't bring politics into it (even though I never have), but THEY have every right to and I must sit there and take it.

This bizarre fear of Trump bothers me.  There have yet to be any death camps, and won't be, because he's not a Nazi or a Democrat, who ran the only concentration camps in US history.

SCOTUS has supported most of Trump's actions, though I hope to god they strike down a couple of his well-intentioned but insanely dangerous gaffes.  Especially as the next president will probably be a "liberal" Nazi and will be all in on exploiting them.

Now, I don't actually talk about politics on convention panels, unless they are relevant to a specific universe or presentation. And then, I'm smart enough to realize CONTEXT matters.  Monarchy can be desirable vs anarchy.  Slavery can be preferable to starvation. (I don't endorse slavery or monarchy. I'm referencing them IN CONTEXT to certain stories.  I shouldn't have to repeat myself, but then, modern American liberals aren't really capable of grasping "what if?" Everything can only be taken as a statement of belief in reference to RIGHT NOW.)

In fact, I've had some very enjoyable panels about SF world building and political structure with my friend Eric Flint, an actual Communist. I find actual Communists to be far more rational, reasonable, and NICE than modern American liberals.

The person seemed reassured over their bizarre concern that I would for some reason do something I've never done before.

NOW FOR THE PUNCHLINE:

A: They had one restroom marked "Gender neutral," and pretty much no one I saw fit any criteria that would necessitate them needing it.  I used it when I was in that area of the hotel because, you know, it's a bathroom, and biological entities need one now and then.

2) The so-claimed "Safe space" was actually designated a QUIET ROOM with couches, and requests to not talk to anyone present. Now, since I have a wife and a good friend who suffer crippling migraines several times a week, a QUIET ROOM actually seems like a really good idea to me. I'd encourage conventions to have one if they have space. And nix the fluorescent lights.

c} No one wore any diaper pins.

IV. No one brought up the election for any reason.  It wasn't relevant, and like me, most people wanted to avoid the issue.

So, these two "Social Justice" wankers attempted to create an issue where none existed, failed miserably, and have apparently held a grudge about it since (based on their sidewise glances and comments at other conventions).  They WANTED a political convention, and DIDN'T GET IT.

In a surprise to no one with a brain, this convention started sliding when that crowd took over, and disbanded this year. I expect another event they run will end this year, too.

"Get woke," go broke.  No one attends for your politics, not even the people who agree with you.  They show up to have fun and get away from busybody assholes.

~~
I and several other writers have recently been harassed by professional victims and virtue signalers.

It starts with some concern troll post to some forum or convention or otherwise by someone who very frequently fits the demographic of socially awkward, marginally employed, perpetually aspiring as an artist with no success and borderline homeless. 

You know exactly what they're going to say:

"I wouldn't feel safe at a convention with this person as a guest."

Now, at the risk of offending this person's feelings, they're arrogating a lot of significance to themselves. The statement assumes that I either know this person or will seek them out, and have time allotted for the purpose of interacting with them, any desire to do so, and such interaction must be negative.  All of which are utterly false assumptions. Which is why I take the risk of offending their feelings here, because it doesn't matter to me one way or the other how they feel.  Their statement alone makes it clear to me that interacting with such a person is of utterly no interest or consequence to me.  I can find much better people to interact with.

Or...are they well aware they're perfectly safe, and attempting to drive opposition into the shadows?

Well, no one ever accused Nazis of honesty.

They're failures at life, and are jealous because some of us are not.  They could forgive that if we were the type of fellow traveler who'd vote to give them a chunk of someone else's pie, but since our attitude is, "Get your own damned pie," we must be scourged.

Now, the recent fallout.

I'm not posting a link to the OP because I'm not in the business of giving free publicity to Nazis. And the person IS a Nazi.

Let's define how this person is a Nazi, because the Nazis are going to scream, and continue to insist they're not actually Nazis, anyone they disagree with is the Nazi!

I have to do this because most of them actually don't know who the Nazis are. I had a recent conversation with a "liberal" friend and referenced the National Socialists and was asked, "What do National Socialists have to do with it?"

With Nazis?  Oh, sweetie, they have EVERYTHING to do with it.

Nazis support NATIONAL SOCIALIST policies including health care, increased governmental support for perceived victim classes, from the pockets of the perceived privileged classes ("Bankers." "Jews." "White Males." "The Rich." "Big Pharma.")  As an aside--when a "liberal" talks about "Bankers" and "The 1%" and "Zionists," he means "all Jews." Five minutes of conversation will prove it.

Nazis support this being implemented with a strong central authority, using violence "liberally."

Nazis support a scapegoat class. Everyone remembers the original Nazis hated Jews...but they also hated Gypsies, "antisocial women," trade unionists, Communists...

So, here is the relevant statement from the Nazi, who does endorse all kinds of social and economic central planning, and here's the scapegoat:

"If we make gun ownership illegal for PEOPLE LIKE YOU, and the government comes to take your guns, what will you do?"

If, hypothetically, we make a SUBCLASS OF PEOPLE WITH LESSER RIGHTS THAN THE REST, and COME TO STEAL THEIR PROPERTY WITH NO COMPENSATION, AT GUNPOINT, what will you do?

"You people."

What are you going to do when we pass a law to come after you people.

We people who are law abiding, but have a different philosophy.

Now, it doesn't matter if he meant gun owners, union members, Jews, Muslims, gays, bankers, anarchists, Jay Leno fans or Communists.

What are you going to do when we pass a law to come after you people with armed force?

He specifically wants laws against one group of people. No equal protection under law.  This "tolerant" "liberal" wants to create a new underclass, like the slaves, or "Indians not counted," or the Jews, or "dissidents against the state."

I told him exactly what that hypothetical would lead to.

Now, he stated a hypothetical.  I stated a hypothetical with the word "If."

"if."That's a very important. word. 

"IF you come on my property, I will have you removed you by force."

"IF you harass my children, I will seek legal protection."

"IF you come after THOSE PEOPLE, you will be met with violent resistance."

None of those are threats.

But, because I dared say that I would confront the Nazi the same way we confronted the previous Nazis--with violence, the Nazis insist I made a "Threat."  I dared offer hypothetical resistance to the utopia they crave, that will not tolerate my independent existence.

That, as any thinking person has deduced, makes them terrifyingly dangerous. That's the cop pounding you in the face shouting, "Stop assaulting me!"  That's the crazy ex calling at 3 AM and screaming, "Stop harassing me!" That's the stormtroopers knocking on your door and breaking your knees while screaming, "Stop wasting national resources with your dissident actions!"

And, as with the previous Nazis, they not only believe they're in the right, they believe any action they take is without criticism, and only "dissidents" and the like would dare speak against it.

Ask yourself: After they've come after people like you using armed force, what's to stop them coming after people like them once the precedent is established? Then people like those others.

He probably also believes the cops are violent, racist thugs who unfairly target black people. So he wants to give them more power to go after another group as well.  With sanction.

I was very clear, on purpose. IF that were to happen, the response should be the same as it should have been as soon as the Nazis arose in Germany. Scorched earth. Kill every fucking one of them, and yes, their families, because that is what they plan to do to you.

In the meantime, before they achieve their masturbation fantasy of having legal sanction to kill you, they're willing to doxx, swat and otherwise harm or kill "people like me." But they can't understand why I'd be "violent"? (HINT: I haven't actually been violent.)

Hmm.  I can't imagine why anyone would want a gun, can you?

Fortunately, at present it's still low key. How low key? How many of this Nazi's followers actually did anything I could see?

6.  Out of 50,000. (CORRECTION: It turns out the Nazi has a quarter million followers, most of whom identify as "liberal" and are totally tolerant as long as you agree with them. They're all in on using violence to control groups they don't like.  IOW: Nazis. That's a lot of organized hate in one forum.)

(This assumes most of them aren't trolling for laughs or aren't Chinese bots looking for clients, as is true with several other famous liberal fora.)

None of the six were capable of communicating a coherent thought.

Three of them made homophobic statements to me.

Seriously, if you want me to believe you actually support equality, attacking someone by accusing them of being gay--drawing a direct parallel between dislike and homosexuality--pretty much proves you're the fucking homophobe. Yet, "Tolerant" "liberals" do this all the time.  By which I conclude that most liberals are homophobes (like the Nazis).

One of them hilariously claimed that "Gun control has been so watered down it's not effective," as if it was ever effective, and as if it's watered down. He was unable to provide a cite to support this claim, and when I countered with the list of major national gun control laws that have been in existence longer than he's been alive, he claimed I was "cherry picking." I may post that conversation later. It was facepalmingly stupid.

One of them announced, "One star reviews are in order!" and went to Amazon to give 1 star reviews to four of my books.  She's never read the books. In fact, according to her Amazon reviews, she's never READ a book. She gave two word reviews such as "Author sucks," which aren't actually reviews, and of course, were done in bad faith (typical of liberals and Nazis, but I repeat myself). To be fair, her positive reviews were comments such as "so cute," so clearly, intellect is not her strong suit.

At least one of those reviews has already been removed under Amazon's TOS for being abusive.  The rest will follow.

One of them went to a forum for convention runners to try to get me banned from this "threat" that I made nowhere near a convention. Big surprise--the two concern trolls from the local convention were on there concern trolling.

Which is about what I expected from Nazis. Competence, reading comprehension, context. These are not things Nazis understand.

I am not afraid to call a Nazi a Nazi.  They're welcome to prove they're not. So far, they're right on 110% goosestepping.

Yes, I really did copy my lawyer and local police chief--who's been forewarned that some liberal Nazi piece of shit may try to doxx or SWAT me, as they have done to other law abiding people they disagree with.

Had I an in-person contact at FBI, I'd have contacted them, too. However, it's been several days and they've said nothing.  So, if they were called, they either ignored the issue (as they did the shooter in Florida, but liberals would rather blame the uninvolved NRA than the involved government, because Daddy is never wrong! But I digress), or, having people able to read for content, looked at it and said, "So, some internet asshole called out an internet Nazi. Fine."  Or, it was never reported because the Nazi just wanted attention he could wave like a red flag to his Nazi followers to froth them up.

And that's the fascinating part--not a single one of them I've seen said, "Specifying one group to single out legally is wrong."  But they all said, "Challenging such Nazism is VIOLENCE!" even though I've done nothing but type words.

These ARE the same people who riot, burn things, beat people with blunt instruments and murder them passive-aggressively via SWATting for holding different opinions.  But they claim WE're violent.

Once again, you will see that exact behavior by the Nazis in Germany.

This isn't the first "liberal" Nazi I've had a run in with.

They have stalked and harassed me. I have allowed them to post on my wall within certain limits, and anyone crossing that line--regardless of political leanings--is blocked. I couldn't even tell you their names. I have far better things to do than harass people I disagree with that vehemently.  If there's no reasonable discussion possible, go elsewhere. That is what mature adults do.

But, they've http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/index.php?itemid=369 stalked and gotten me banned for years old comments, harassed my child, in another case stalked my teen daughter, and are actively attempting to get me banned from conventions and other work because they don't like what I have to say.

But they feel perfectly justified in their low-level violence against me and others.

By the way, it's an ongoing amusement to hear someone insist, "I've never heard of you." Again, this arrogates to them a lot of relevance they don't have.  Them not having heard of me has zero impact.

This is often followed with, "But I've never read anything of yours and never will."

I'm perfectly cool with this. This type of person is incapable of comprehending my writing. I know this because if they attempt to, they leave reviews claiming I'm trying to write a "utopia," which I have never claimed and never attempted. Because they don't like it, it must be my utopia. This is 163% wrong.

Further, they are incapable of reading for content. They won't and don't read what I wrote. They read what they want me to have written so they can be offended by it and shriek in their echo chambers.

I do not write for modern American liberals because they're too shallow, bigoted and stupid to comprehend or appreciate the work, and authors who attempt to write for that crowd tend to be broke. I enjoy my expensive steak dinners, exotic gun collection, fine Scotches and spoiling my youngest daughter with toys. Therefore, I write for people who wish to be entertained and can comprehend a message without being beaten over the head with it. http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/index.php?itemid=422 Modern American liberals can't grasp a message even then.

But let me be perfectly clear:

IF the Nazis pass a law that enables them to come after PEOPLE LIKE ME, or THOSE PEOPLE, or PEOPLE LIKE YOU, with not even pretense that everyone is equal under the law, I will kill as many of them as I can.

Now we wait for the Nazis to show up in comments so we can recognize them.

ADDENDUM: A couple of the threads insist "Williamson says he wants to murder all liberals."

No. I have never said anything like that in seriousness.  I do jest about being elected World Dictator, which is obviously a joke. I suspect these idiots would take "A Modest Proposal" seriously, if they knew what it was or who Jonathan Swift was.

I said I would kill certain individuals if they acted in a certain way that violates the Constitution, in a violent fashion.  In other words, reactively and in self defense.

However, if these "liberals" believe ALL liberals would endorse laws treating one group as a lower class, and sanctioned violence against that group as a collective assumption...once again, we've found the fucking Nazis.

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 10 April 2018

"If you want to play with guns, join the military or police."

First, this statement is ableist in the extreme.  Not everyone can meet the standards the police or military require. So if you're saying it, you are not the slightest bit "liberal." You are a bigot.

Second, you're also ignorant.  Police typically qualify with a sidearm once or twice a year.  The goal is for them NOT to be shooting people. Police are supposed to be filing incident reports, investigating crime, resolving conflicts.  The goal isn't to have them show up and shoot people. Since that's obviously where your brain went, once again, you are not "liberal." You are a fascist who wants a police state.

Third, most of the military similarly qualifies with weapons once a year, and sometimes less in the Navy and Air Force.  There just isn't that much close combat aboard ship or aircraft. Security and military police personnel, engineers and some support elements train more often, but certainly not with any even monthly schedule. Nor, for that matter, do Combat Arms branches fire more than a few times a year. With the exception of a handful of very elite units that you cannot possibly qualify for, "playing with guns" is not a thing in the military. Also, the purpose of the armed elements is to kill people in combat. If you are endorsing this you're not "liberal." You're imperialistic.

So that's three reasons we should maintain private weapons.  Because if you bigoted fascist imperialists get your way, we're going to need to stop you.