I have a post up at the PJM Tatler on Uncle Tims and why they put down other men. You can read it and respond there (or here if you want);
I think Mr. Scalzi is a really good writer and a political ninny. No news there, except that he is a really good writer!
What do you do about these men who parrot feminist, multicult rhetoric?
-You can try to change (or at least open) their minds with facts.
-You can challenge their logical failures.
-You can accuse them of being ignorant, of being brainwashed, or of being sycophantic sheep bowing to the Zeitgeist for the sake of popularity.
-You can, as one lady suggested on the Tatler thread, smile sweetly and offer to help them pay for Viagra and testosterone supplements.
What I wish NO ONE would do is call them “Uncle Tims.” To do so concedes to the Left a key point, namely, that beliefs and opinions are or OUGHT TO BE determined by race, ethnicity, and gender. Just call them idiots, a**h****s, wimps, or whores.
I like thinking of it as an analogy to a Heinleinesque time paradox where the more correct Scalzi is, the stupider it means he is.
Call them “Uncle Tims.” To do so concedes a key point, namely, that beliefs and opinions are or OUGHT TO BE determined by race, ethnicity, and gender.
This is an argument in favor of calling them ‘Uncle Tims’!
Race, ethnicity, and gender do exist, progressives deny this.
So a bow-tie wearing white guy with MS has it harder than a healthy Asain guy? Basically, race and gender trumps everything? So a black guy with AIDS is worse off than an asian guy with AIDS? Or are they equal since neither is white? Is it easier for white people to do everything? Dunk a basketball?
Silly people are overapplying a heuristic.
I just found out this guy’s the head of the Science Fiction Writer’s of America. I’ve got some info for the morons at SFWA. One of SF’s greatest callings has been to serve as a unique genre where it has used stories that divorce us from the emotional attachment we have with contemporary life so that we can look back at it with clearer eyes.
Apparently the SFWA has disavowed this and decided, not to show us how to avoid perceptual traps, but how to fall headlong into them. That’s the equivalent of thinking “1984″ was a how-to manual. There is little doubt that Scalzi himself resides so deep in a perceptual trap there is virtually no chance he is capable of creating real art, merely glib cleverness. Artist’s are experts in perception, not blindness.
Comments are closed.