|John C. Wright... anti-gay thing.
||[Aug. 15th, 2009|01:40 am]
Wow.. this is.. so bad. Kelly linked this page on LJ, and I opened it up in a new tab, but TL:DRed it for a while and just left it open in my browser. Apparently, he took it down now after caving in to all the backlash he got for what he wrote. Fortunately :] I still have it if anybody wants to read what was going down.|
More Diversity and More Perversity in the Future!
The Sci-Fi Channel (I cannot bring myself to type the phonetic/stupitastic new version of their name) has recoiled in craven fear and trembling when lectured by homosex activists, who gave the SF channel an "F" rating on their political correctness. Alas, the thoughtcrime! Not enough perverts on TV! The children have to be indoctrinated!
I kid you not. Here is the article: http://www.seattlepi.com/tvguide/408807_tvgif28.html
The head of Sci-Fi channel has contritely promised to include more homosex in future shows, and to do it nonchalantly, just as if this abomination is normal and natural and worthy of no comment. The shows will not actually come out and say sexual perversion has no bad side effects. They won't actually lie and tell you homosex won't destroy your life. But they will imply the lie. They will play along. It's only polite! It's so tolerant!
I am hoping, of course, that future shows will also portray sadomasochism and bondage in a positive light -- we are all looking forward to FLASH GORDON'S TRIP TO GOR, I hope. Love affairs with corpses, small children, and farm animals will also be on display in a natural nonchalant fashion in the new raft of progressive shows, titles such as I DREAM OF STINKY, PEDERASTY JUNCTION, and OLD MACDONALD HAD A SHEEP -- but no Mormons, whose moral standing we all abhor. The only good thing about Mormons, as we all know, is their polygamy. That we can approve of. Anything that offends the Patriarchy, we like. Evil is our good.
On a less sarcastic but still supercilious note: I'd like someone, anyone, to explain to me how my culture reached a position where a public entertainment company can be criticized for failing to contribute to the moral decay of the land, and that the criticism would be taken seriously, and the company would cringe and promise to do better.
Someone explain to me by what series of events persons with serious sexual-psychological malfunctions would somehow be awarded the status of moral arbiters, something like priests and confessors and sages -- except that the passkey to being a guardian of public conscience in our age is the absence of moral value, not the presence.
Come, my liberal leftist comrades! You openly boast of your superior intellectual power and more profound moral sobriety than we mere working Joes of flyover country (including working Joes like me with a doctorate in law who works in DC). You have anointed yourselves our superiors: that means you are smart enough to explain it. By what logic is the sole and single standard of virtue in your world view an absolute devotion to vice? By what logic is the sole and single sin the sin of having standards of virtue, what you call being intolerant?
Why are you willing to tolerate sexual perversion but not racism? In a world with no standards, what makes a malfunction of love higher on your standard than a malfunction of hate? Is an irrational lust and longing to mimic the mating act with a sex with which one cannot mate, at its root, any more or less disconnected to reality than an irrational fear and hatred of a Negro? How do we know race-hate is not genetic? Look at how scorned and put-upon racists are! Can we spare them no cheap Leftist pity? Why don't we simply call racism an alternate anti-ethnic orientation, similar to hetero-toleration, but different?
I know I will hear no rational argument to defend the Leftist position. They do not deal with rational answers. They have one and only one weapon in their arsenal: ad hominem. They will not answer, but they will sneer. I suppose a person who gave a tinker's damn about peer pressure or public opinion would fear to be sneered upon by these professional sneerers. For those professional sneerers ready to ignore my words and to condemn me as a "homophobe" let me just ask, why Oh why is it that no one has ever condemned me (or anyone of mine) as a "sunderophobe" -- even though I condemn divorce more severly than I condemn sodomy, or as an "adulterophobe" -- since I don't approve of cheating on your wife either; or as a "pseudophobe" -- since I don't approve of President Clinton.
Why is this one vice singled out for awe and reverence and glorification? Why is it that the lack of self control in sexual matters, where self control is paramount, is held to be immaculate and beyond reproach, whereas the lack of self-control when it comes to something trivial smoking tobacco is scorned?
No answer? Well, then. Back to sarcasm:
In other news, Timothy Leary will be giving Sci-Fi an "F" grade for failing to portray drug abuse positively. Castro and Pol Pot will be giving Sci-Fi an "F" grade for their show BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, which portrays the mass slaughter of innocent human beings in a negative light. Dean Martin will be giving Sci-Fi an "F" for failing to portray drunkenness as life-affirming. Don Juan will be giving Sci-Fi an "F" grade for failing to have a show that portrays serial adultery in a positive light -- but Don gives BATTLESTAR GALACTICA an "A" for sleeping with robots. Uncle Screwtape reminds me the any form of sex that is sterile and selfish wins the approval of the Lowerarchy.
UPDATE! A reader reminds me that on BATTLESTAR GALACTICA sex with robots is fertile after all: indeed, the whole point of the latter story arc was to produce a human-cylon hybrid. I do not know if this portrayal of the sex act was sufficiently selfish and sterile to please Don Juan -- we will see what grade he gives the Sci-Fi channel in the future. What the Lowerarchy wants is to make fornication seem normal and marriage seem abnormal.
COMMENT ADDED LATER: Flash Crowd! Troll Avalanche! The responses to this post are 800 and climbing at the time of this writing, and because I cannot answer each letter personally, I would like to give a general response. This falls into four categories:
(1) Irrelevant. To those of you who made irrelevant comments, allow me to note that a true but irrelevant comment has nothing to do with the topic, and therefore has no probative value.
Those whose arguments were irrelevant only because you are addressing a point you thought I made but did not (such as those of you who thought I was making a religious argument, or that I argued only sex in service of procreation was licit) it is possible that I was insufficiently clear. In such cases, the fault is mine, and I can make amends by setting out my position in order when time permits.
To those who made both irrelevant and emotional comments, I point out that this is counterproductive. A display of emotion on your part will not persuade me, or any honest man, to revisit his conclusions. Myself, I do not know anyone older than a small child who changes his mind merely because some loudmouth shouts loudly at him. In this case, you are not even in a position to shout at me, merely to type in all caps. I assume you did not reach your current conclusions because you were startled into them by a loud noise. Why do you assume any different for me?
(2) Relevant, but unanswered. To the one or two who actually addressed the topic, you have my thanks and my congratulations. You rose above your shabby intellectual surroundings. Unfortunately the sheer number of other responses has drowned out your measured responses, so if I have not answered, please assume I would like to and have not the time. You may return here at some later date, after the flash crowd has lost interest, and we can have a robust exchange of views.
Now, if I were Nancy Pelosi, I would accuse you all of being 'astroturf' and say that the insurance company hired you to come interrupt my town meeting here. I make no such accusation (though perhaps I could: I do note that a similar flash crowd showed up on my wife's low-traffic live journal to browbeat her for her political incorrectness. She was accused of being a racist on the grounds that she was opposed to racism: the logic of that escaped me as well). The general tone of the argument was the same. Nonetheless, I assume most of you followed a link from SFSignal, where a busy little busybody has engaged in a holy crusade against me, because, egad, I do not bow to the idol he worships: the child-eating Moloch of political correctness. This craven has not seen fit to address me personally, for reasons not hard to guess.
(3) Notifications of Boycott. To the one or two readers who promised never to buy my books because I came to certain conclusions in logic you do not share, allow me to point out that most of my books were written before my conversion to Christianity, and at least one was written before my disillusionment with the Sexual Liberation Movement. So, for those of you who buy books for the sake of ideological purity rather than for entertainment value, I suggest you discover which is which, and plan your purchases accordingly.
Naturally, I regret the loss of business, but keep in mind that you came here to read my opinions, I did not smuggle those opinions out to you disguised as books, like, say, Philip Pullman does, nor did I intrude them in a forum where they were not asked-for. Someone in that forum tried to stir up a mob against me, put, unlike a real mob, I can simply lock out an electronic mob, so anyone coming here for anything other than a rational conversation is wasting his time, but not mine.
(4) Yammerheads using this opportunity to express hatred and contempt for the Christ and His Church. You I must thank. If I do not reply, assume it is because I am turning the other cheek. The curses of idolaters are a blessing to the faithful. I will pray for you.
Considering most people's reactions was "who the hell is this guy?", I wonder if he just committed author suicide. My only regret is that I couldn't read how stupid the comments must have been.