Cancel Culture

Transgender Writer Forced to Retract Trans-Themed Science Fiction Story

Isabel Fall is canceled. It's the science fiction world's loss.

|

Clarkesworld, a well-regarded science fiction and fantasy web magazine, recently published first-time author Isabel Fall. The title of her story, "I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter," alludes to a meme typically used to delegitimize transgender people. But the tale is anything but anti-trans: It's a surreal, mind-bending war story that turns the meme on its head. It was read and approved by sensitivity reviewers—some of them trans. Its author, Fall, is herself trans.

As far as I can tell, most of the social-media reaction to the story was positive. But a small number of militantly unhappy people attacked the story for offending them. Their harassment of Fall was so unpleasant that she asked Clarkesworld to un-publish the story, and the editor complied. "I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter" is canceled.

Clarkesworld editor Neil Clarke published a lengthy note about the removal that politely objected to the critics' most unreasonable claims. Some had apparently claimed that Fall's stated birth year—1988—was an alt-right dog whistle, since the double eights could be seen as referencing H.H. (H being the eighth letter of the alphabet), or "heil Hitler." This, of course, is conspiratorial nonsense (though I was also born in 1988, so some people will probably think the conspiracy just runs a little deeper).

But for the most part, Clarke accepted the criticism and apologized for publishing a piece that had offended a group of pathologically unreasonable people:

Even with ownvoices authorship [authors writing about their own race, class, sex, etc.] and ownvoices sensitivity reading, it is still possible to miss something. In this case we can see two groups of trans readers with directly opposing views that are deeply rooted in their own experience and perspectives. In some cases, what made the story speak to some is also what alienated others. Neither perspective is wrong, but they appear to be incompatible with one another on some level. Knowing that this was a potentially controversial story, we should have employed a broader range of sensitivity readers. This is not to say those we worked with failed, but rather that they only represented a slice of the community and additional perspectives could have helped inform us of a potential conflict. It may not have "fixed" things but it would have provided opportunities to better prepare ourselves and our readers for what lay ahead. This was an oversight….

That we didn't understand enough about trans politics to properly advise a new author who was wading into the deep end. I'm not suggesting that we tell an author what they can and can't say, but had the previous two items be done correctly, we would have been in a better place to prepare her. Because of those failures, our knowledge gap contributed to the problem….

In the meantime I offer my sincere apologies to those who were hurt by the story or the ensuing storms.

Clarke began his note with this statement: "This is not censorship. She needed this to be done for her own personal safety and health." An author self-canceling due to venomous harassment from a tiny cabal of ideological activists may not meet the strict definition of censorship, but it's certainly a blow to the spirit of artistic freedom. A stronger defense of Fall and her work was merited. This is capitulation.

Writing in his newsletter, Jesse Singal astutely summarizes the problem with Clarke's statement:

Clarke could have easily published a short statement with the general shape of, "Unfortunately, the author of this story, Isabel Fall, received a wave of harassment after it was published. She requested it be unpublished and I have regretfully agreed." Instead, he chose to stoke the idea that because people were offended by this story, there is something wrong with it. How else can one interpret his claim that someting was 'missed' and could have been 'fixed'? This is what I mean when I say he's pretending to support Fall but throwing her under the bus: He's absolutely accepting the framing of the hysterical online critics when he didn't have to at all.

But nowhere in this almost 1,400-word-long statement will you find a clear explanation of exactly what is wrong with the story. That's because the only accurate answer to that question is something like "Some people have very superficial but dearly held ideas about what gender is, and because this story took a more complicated and fraught and creative approach to its theories of gender—one which challenged those ideas—those people became deeply offended." That's why a story in a major sci-fi outlet had to be unpublished.

This episode demonstrates one of the most salient and oft-overlooked facts of cancel culture: The people most vulnerable to canceling belong to the very marginalized communities that the cancel-culture enforcers are purportedly protecting. These attacks on wrongthink do not help the oppressed. Indeed, it's often weaponized against them, attack-helicopter style.

NEXT: Ninth Circuit Dismisses Kids Climate Case for Lack of Standing (Updated)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It is confirmed. Robby’s very existence is a dog whistle. A whistle to his two yorkies, Milton and Friedrich, to come lick his coiff into shape, when he wakes up each morning.

    1. That’s a surreal, mind-bending story worthy of awards right there.

      1. “… a surreal, mind-bending story worthy of awards …”

        Otherwise known as ‘Tuesday.’

  2. “It was read and approved by sensitivity reviewers”

    The fact that ‘sensitivity reviewers’ exist is a far more troubling indictment of society than anything regarding he/she/xe/xer-isms.

    1. “This is not censorship.”

      1. Having to be approved by “sensitivity reviewers” most certainly is censorship.

        1. Rule 1: This is not censorship.

          Rule 2: If this looks like censorship, please refer to Rule 1.

          1. Knowing that this was a potentially controversial story, we should have employed a broader range of sensitivity readers.

            Time was, the left adored controversial things that upset the apple cart. This was the argument it was ok for the government to fund art like a cross upside down urine.

      2. It’s not the government so it’s not censorship!

        1. Correct. No one is using coercion to prevent her from speaking or writing.

          1. If physical threats were made, that would be coercion.

            1. Coercion does not require physical threats, any sort of adverse act – e.g. doxxing, or outing, could be sufficient.

          2. I don’t know what article you’ve read, but the person was definitely successfully coerced to prevent (continuing) speech.

            Arguably by both the first and second meaning of the word: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coercing

            What would you require to happen more for something to be “coercion”? Physical force only as in the 3rd meaning?

        2. Censorship can be done by private organizations. Most private organizations censor the words and images of products they offer.

          It may not be a 1st amendment violation (as there is no government suppression of speech), but it is definitely a legal form of censorship.

      3. It’s not even just the censorship aspect of it that’s so ridiculous. Theoretically, there could be sensitivity reviewers that serve as niche book reviewers to inform people if they might find literary works offensive without actually calling for removal or censoring of what they review.

        The fact that there’s demand for that type of thing at all, censorship or not, is telling of the fragility of a decent number of individuals. Not that I think anyone should be berated for being weak, but it’s crazy that it’s even socially acceptable for folks to be so afraid of being offended by printed words that they need designated “sensitivity experts” to serve as mental vanguards.

    2. Bingo. How many authors have these assholes canceled before this guy? The entire purpose of such people is to censor. It has only become a problem because they censored a sacred transvestite.

      1. I’m not even clear on who ‘they’ are or if ‘they’ even exist.

        In a world where victimhood is the surest path to attention this sort of thing would seem a touch too tailor made.

        In the future everyone will be persecuted for fifteen minutes.

    3. In the future, the unemployed who can’t learn to code, can still work as “sensitivity reviewers”.

      1. Artificial intelligence will put all the coders out of work before all the manual laborers.

    4. A hecklers’ veto is bad enough, but giving the hecklers official standing is cowardly pre-emptive surrender.

      1. now you’ve triggered the French.

    5. People like that should be bullwhipped until all the ‘sensitivity’ is gone.

      1. The BDSM sensitivity reviewers might like that.

    6. Sci-Fi as a whole has plunged down the rabbit hole. What used to be a genre for inclusivity and thought provoking idea has become a dying corpse thrashing with every new demand from every ad hoc offended group.

      1. Publishing houses were naturally one of the first targets of The Long March Through the Institutions.

        Easy pickings.

  3. This, of course, is conspiratorial nonsense (though I was also born in 1988, so some people will probably think the conspiracy just runs a little deeper).

    Good thing you picked an Mi-24 for the photo, since that’s a different kind of socialism.

    But you do have blonde hair…What color are your eyes, Robby?

    1. Robby’s eyes are the color of spring gentian, reflecting in a vernal pool on a crisp, cloudless April morning.

      1. That is not an Mi-24. That is a Rooivalk, the rarest of all attack helicopters with a production run of 12.

        1. South African. They tried to sell them but the market wasn’t there, so they only made 12.

        2. Congratulations, you failed to protect the troops your were assigned to defend from air attack because you misidentied a hostile helicopter as friendly.

          You now have 6 unused STINGERS, and the unenviable task of calling graves registration to come get a platoon of dead troops.

          That is in no way a Rooivalk.

          Rooivalks have a 4-blade rotor.
          The aircraft in the lead photograph has a 6-blade rotor.

          Fundamentals of Aircraft Identification
          W – Wings, (straight/angled/delta. Positive/negative/neutral dihedral, Traditional wings or rotor blades)
          E – Engines (number, type, position, orientation, etc)
          F – Fuselage (shape, single or twin-boom, etc)
          T – Tail ( High T, Low T, V, shape, relative size, etc)

          1. Six blades? I only count four. I’ll grant that one could be invisible from that angle, but that’s still only five. I don’t see how two could be blocked. I knew it wasn’t an Mi-24 as soon as I saw it, but a little image searching suggested my first guess (AH-64) wasn’t correct either. I’d never even heard of a Rooivalk until today, but a little further searching suggested this was a correct ID. I’ll admit my knowledge of attack helicopters isn’t exhaustive, so I could be mistaken. But if it isn’t a Rooivalk, what on earth is it?

          2. akulkis, the helicopter in the picture has a 4-blade rotor. There are no hidden blades.

            It’s a Rooivalk. Look at the intakes and the cockpit shape.

    2. That is not an Mi-24. That is a Rooivalk, the rarest of all attack helicopters with a production run of 12.

      1. I had no idea such a creature existed.

  4. This ought to teach people that it’s utterly impossible to create art that doesn’t offend someone and that the best response is to just tell someone to get over it.

    1. I thought art was only considered good if it offended someone.

      1. As an experiment, let’s think of a piece of art which offends nobody.

        1. Art Garfunkel’s leftovers from the barber?

          1. An insult to bald people.

        2. there was an early-mid 19th century German artist who made some pretty innocuous paintings of florals and landscapes. I don’t see how that could possibly be offensive to anyone https://news.artnet.com/market/hitler-auction-450000-310065

          1. I’m offended by innocuous florals and landscapes. Don’t care if they were done by a mass genocidal maniac or not.

          2. While Hitler was born in the late 19th century ( April 20, 1889), he was most certainly a figure of the 20th.

            But I see from whence your confusion may have arisen. The 1800s were the 19th C while the 1900s were the 20th.

            1. I know the difference.. And I don’t normally make that mistake, whoops

              1. I kind of thought as much. 🙂

          3. Also , just to pile on, he was Austrian.

          4. all paintings are offensive to the colorblind

            1. Should their display be forbidden unless there’s a little bluetooth box with audio to describe it to the blind?

      2. Art is only good if it offends the *right* someones.

    2. Yep.

      Apologize to no one. Tell them all to eat a dick.

      1. That would definitely be marginalizing. Don’t you understand how marginalizing the human penis is ? Unless it’s a lady penis of course, then it becomes a symbol of beauty and strength.

      2. Ironically, a lot of the complainers probably have experience in that department.

  5. I doubt I would have read the story. What really amazing here is their have been a lot of stories already of people downloading their mind to computers from war bots to alien bodies plus of different sexes. And these people are acting like its something new to sci-fi and fantasy. More to the one point I like to make, On any book about writing they say not every one is going to like your book so get use to the idea that someone out their is going to hate it and do not let that stop you from writing it.

    1. It’s new because it’s trans owned (or something like that). Like Little Women was crap until it was remade by an all women staff.

      1. Wasn’t Little Women already written entirely by a woman?

        But I suppose Little Men is problematic since it was also written by that same woman.

        1. The problem is it wasn’t written by a Little Woman, formerly known as a midget.

          1. I thought the title of Little Women was meant to be ironic.

    2. God help these people if they ever find out about Piers Anthony.

    3. Absolutely correct. Gender bending was normal in scifi as far back as the fifties. All the ideas have been explored. For a quickie, go read Heinlein’s “All You Zombies”. Free online, very short, and still the best time travel story ever written.

      Full novels have explored the idea of transsexuality as their main theme dozens of times. It’s not at all new.

      What is new is this identitarian shit. That a person’s worth consists solely of the labels attached to them. Fuck that shit.

  6. “Their harassment of Fall was so unpleasant that she asked Clarkesworld to un-publish the story, and the editor complied. “I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter” is canceled”

    Is choosing to un-publish voluntarily the same as being canceled? Now don’t get me wrong, the decision may have been totally valid, but it isn’t the same as the publisher pulling the piece due to public pressure.

    1. Self-cancellation is still cancellation.

      1. Nah.

      2. I’ll stick with “An author self-canceling due to venomous harassment from a tiny cabal of ideological activists may not meet the strict definition of censorship, but it’s certainly a blow to the spirit of artistic freedom.

        1. Any chance this person did self-cancelling because nobody else was going to?

    2. When you are coerced into it through threats of violence, I don’t think you get to call that “voluntarily” anymore.

      1. Right. We’re also voluntarily paying taxes.

        1. I think lc1789 has made that very argument.

        2. And breathing is also entirely voluntary. Asphyxiation is always an option.

      2. Cool story, and yet, it’s still voluntary.

        These are all fun asides, but the reality still stands, he quit, he wasn’t canceled.

        “Being afraid” doesn’t make it cancelation, no matter how you try to prop up that argument. He quot. He bowed. He RAN.

        No version of that is being canceled. It’s just fucking cowardice.

        1. “When you are coerced into it through threats of violence, I don’t think you get to call that “voluntarily” anymore.”

          And just to be ABSOLUTELY clear, it’s still voluntary. Your fear doesn’t make it not voluntary.

          1. So it doesn’t matter how you get consent – as long as you get consent?

            Extortion law would beg to differ.

            1. Is extortion law applicable here?

          2. Now apply that logic to a sexual encounter

            1. Somebody on the internet calls you mean names so you go have sex with them?

            2. Just remember that on college campuses, women can retroactively cancel that sexual encounter!

          3. It’s still being cancelled. This author just tried to get out ahead of the game and dodge the complete career destruction by commencing grovelling early.

    3. I think this is an important point. She should have known that the title meme was really going to piss off some people. It was designed to do so. She should have ignored them.

    4. Can she ask major league baseball to unpublish the Astros?

  7. Good, good. Keep building up the crazy so everyone has a chance to see it.

    1. I read this in Emeror Palatine’s voice. Was that the correct voice?

      1. Ian MacDiarmid has such a wonderful voice.

  8. And at no point in writing his apology did it occur to this guy “gee, this was written by a trans person, and was reviewed in advance by trans people, but now other trans people are offended. Maybe no one person speaks for the ‘Trans Community?'”

    Instead, it’s a mealy-mouthed “we’ve decided to shelve this until we figure out which trans people speak for All Trans People and which should be silenced.”

    1. The fact that it is important enough that the author is a scared transvestite is important enough to mention at all is appalling enough in itself. I guess if a non transvestite had written the story, censoring it would have been okay.

      1. I guess if a non transvestite had written the story, censoring it would have been okay.

        Well, that just goes without saying.

      2. I wonder if the description of the story would have been as glowing if the author was not in the alphabet identities.

      3. To be sure.

    2. The point is the exercise of power, not whether or not the results were legitimate or even desirable.

    3. There has to be somebody speaking for the trans community, otherwise they wouldn’t be a community but a collection of individuals and then where would the hivemind be? You’re allowed to be different in the identity politics world, but only if you’re different in the prescribed and conformist sort of way.

      1. See treatment of conservative women, blacks and Hispanics for reference.

      2. The trans community needs it’s Locutus

  9. Even with ownvoices authorship [authors writing about their own race, class, sex, etc.] and ownvoices sensitivity reading, it is still possible to miss something.

    Fuck these people and fuck the new language they’re trying to start.

    1. Doubleplusgood this comment!

    2. Is there no romance in ownvoices literature? I mean, as a straight male, I certainly couldn’t have any female characters in a book if I wrote one, but I couldn’t have gay characters either. Are all books with cis-gendered romantic elements collaborative efforts by multiple authors?

      1. And all historical fiction is now forbidden as well. It would be totally wrong and hurtful to appropriate the voices of others to write about the Wild West, Colonial America, the Roman Empire, etc.

        1. Louis L’Amour (if he were still alive) hardest hit. He wrote several westerns featuring female was characters.

    3. I mean, can I identify with all races, classes, sexes? Like a human being who can empathize with other human beings?

      1. Nope. For it is not the progtard way.

  10. Some had apparently claimed that Fall’s stated birth year—1988—was an alt-right dog whistle, since the double eights could be seen as referencing H.H.

    America doesn’t deserve to continue.

    1. I have stopped recycling due to the nature of the next generation, and started learning to fiddle.

    2. Some people are literally just born to be problematic racists and nothing they can do will ever change it. It’s as inherent as, to pick a random example, skin color.

  11. alludes to a meme typically used to delegitimize transgender people.

    Pro-tip, transgender activists have done more to delegitimize transgender people than any 4chan memes ever could.

    1. In my experience, actual trans people are not nearly so obnoxious as their “allies,” who have almost certainly done more harm than good at this point.

      1. Get any one person in a 1-1 seeing and they’re usually great.

        It’s when the Borg assembles as a group that they become devilspawn.

      2. I actually tend to agree, although I’ve met a few that were obnoxious in their insistence to reveal every detail of their Grindr account to anyone who will listen. For some reason, women that think they’re men don’t seem to be as generally annoying as their counterparts.

        1. Are you implying men are more aggressive than men, even when said women put on flannels and trucker caps?

          1. …more aggressive than women…

    2. Is “delegitimizing transgendered people” the same thing as making fun of drama queens and attention whores who are sick fucks only pretending to be transgendered because that’s the top of the latest victim stack despite the fact that they’re thereby minimizing the real problems of real transgendered people? Those people should be mocked at the very least – if you smear shoe polish on your face and claim you now know what being black is all about, I’m going to mock you as well. You’re just an asshole play-acting about how tough your life is and you don’t know shit about what a tough life really is.

      1. But Jerry, you know as well as I do the oppression our people have suffered for a very long time.

      2. Rachel Dolezal?

      3. Governed Northam?
        Prime Minister Justin Trodeau?

  12. The sensitivity reviewers had one job.

    1. To bring the lube?

    2. Boob job?

  13. >>stated birth year—1988—was an alt-right dog whistle

    people are fucking stupid. someone should tell them. I’d have left the article posted and defended Fall.

    1. You know who else had a dog whistle?

      1. The Dog Whistler??

        The Whistleblower?

      2. Timmy?

      3. The “attack helicopter” thing is all about highlighting how out of control the “i identify as” meme has run. When the activists keep asserting gender is more than male, female, or androgynous they overplayed their hand. Giving the leftist activists any credit is counterproductive to freedom.
        I’ll give Robby credit only for this line, “a group of pathologically unreasonable people”. If only he would realize that this describes pretty much all of the left right now

        1. Yup. You can wish you were something, because you feel like you should have been whatever… But it don’t make it so… It also doesn’t make you not nuts for thinking that. The people that identify as cats and shit are legit crazy.

        2. I identify as a a billionaire who has group sex with Emily Ratakowski, Gal Gadot, and Amber Heard. Anyone who won’t work round the clock and give up every last cent they have to accommodate me is literally Hitler.

          1. I identify the same, but with different ladies.

            1. That’s your right. And they must accommodate us both.

              1. FACTS! I want to bang Miley Cyrus BEFORE she was a slut, so they’ll have to invent a time machine to help me out with that. At government expense of course!

  14. Authors, learn and use this phrase: “Fuck off.”

    If anyone snivels about what you write, just tell them to fuck off. You don’t need their approval.

    -jcr

    1. Or need to explain anything.

  15. It does not matter if the author is transgender if they do not wholeheartedly parrot the Woke Party line on what transgenderism is. Then it is off to Miniluv Room 101.

    1. It matters a great deal whether the author is transgender.

      Progressives are vicious towards people whose interests they claim to represent but who disagree with them.

      You see, wealthy, privileged, entitled white American women like Pelosi, Warren, and Hillary know what’s best for the oppressed of America and the world. They will impose their will at gunpoint and with missiles and drones if necessary. And if the oppressed disagree, they are self-loathing misogynistic fascists and deserve to be bombed into submission, domestically or abroad, according to our benefactors!

  16. A stronger defense of Fall and her work was merited. This is capitulation.

    Oh look, Robby found his morals again. Strange how selective he is in his outrage.

    This episode demonstrates one of the most salient and oft-overlooked facts of cancel culture: The people most vulnerable to canceling belong to the very marginalized communities that the cancel-culture enforcers are purportedly protecting.

    So it would be OK if it didn’t? Just more “don’t punch down” rationalization.

  17. “…I’m not suggesting that we tell an author what they can and can’t say,”

    Yes you are Mr Publisher. That’s the entire point of this. If it weren’t, you would have defended the author instead of caving. Now future authors know that they better toe the line…the line that seems to be constantly in motion.

  18. “ownvoices authorship [authors writing about their own race, class, sex, etc.]”

    That’s right, stick with your own kind, that’s what progress requires. /sarc

  19. I have trouble giving a shit when whackos form a firing squad in a circle.

    1. Ex-lax….

    2. Yeah. Once again Robby insists on dragging his readers into the absurd intramural fracas of an irrelevant subset of yet another irrelevant subset of neurotic losers. I struggle to see the point.

      1. yea, this.
        Would be okay without reading the word ‘marginalized’ in a serious context ever again, or ‘ownvoice’ which I hope never to see outside of this article. I suspect that those who are seriously ‘marginalized’ don’t have the time or energy or reason to see themselves as such, they’re more concerned with whatever actual fucking problems they have in life.

        1. No one who is or has been a student at a major university or private college is “marginalized”.

    3. And we have the landfills to deal with the aftermath.

  20. If the final result is that it is impossible to write stories about transgender people because every possible way of writing the story is offensive to someone, I’ll call that a big win.

  21. If she’s not willing to defend her work, fuck her.

      1. Fuck her with his own dick.

        1. Isn’t it fuck him with her own dick?

          1. I find that I am incapable of caring even a little. I just remember this…….

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sVpnV5ao7h4

            Truer words have never been spoken.

          2. I think either way seems to get the point across!

  22. … And now I want to read this, solely because it was cancelled. Time to check the wayback machine, i guess.

    Also, author needs a thicker skin. The correct response to such people is to ignore them.

  23. Private people elicited personal opinions about a privately published story which caused the author to voluntarily rescind their publication and Reason is shaming people for “forcing” the perv to unpublish.

    #peaklibertarian

    Once again, libertarianism is the handmaid of the left.

  24. Live by social justice, die by social justice.

    1. Kill all social justice.

  25. though I was also born in 1988, so some people will probably think the conspiracy just runs a little deeper

    That doesn’t make you a neo-Nazi; together with your upbringing, it just has turned you an immature, entitled prick, as you keep demonstrating in your writing.

    1. As an older millennial, I came to the conclusion that I am right before the cutoff for when everything went completely wrong. People born right around 1988 and later all seem to be the useless millennial stereotype, whereas people from even 1984 or 1985 tend to be not quite as stupid.

      People my age still had to WIN their trophies in sports, got to ride their bikes around, etc. I think that was the stuff that made those just a few years younger such poofs.

  26. How many people born in the USA in 1988? 3,913,000
    The birthdates of almost four million Americans are alt-right dog whistles¿¡!?
    Wait til AntiFa strikes back. (I think AntiFa would be outnumbered.)
    This is beyond ridiculous.
    I think somebody oughta compile an anthology of politically incorrect stories like Poppy Z. Brite’s “Swamp Foetus” and Harlon Ellison’s “Croatoan” about negative aspects of abortion, or Ellison’s “Shattered Like a Glass Goblin” about negative aspects of drug culture and other things. Dangerously Insensitive Visions. And submit it to “sensitivity readers” and explode their heads.

    1. OK.
      Part of the problem here was that Clarkes World Magazine tries to play by YA Young Adult rules and submits stories to “sensitivity readers” (who look for dog whistles – Born 1988? Literally Hitler!!!!!111!!) to avoid challenging delicate little minds. Minds must be challenged and toughened to be able to survive reality.

      1. Why not write under a pen name? With no back story? The work should stand on its own, not depend on the author’s identity. (Laughing as I write that….)

        1. Sci-Fi needs another editor like Harlan Ellison.

          1. Ellison could be a derriere beret at times, but that beats being a Caspar Milqtoast.

            If they give you ruled paper, write the other way.

            1. I’m still waiting for “The Last Dangerous Visions.”

              Thirty-two stories purchased for Last Dangerous Visions were eventually published elsewhere.,/blockquote>

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Dangerous_Visions

  27. The writer ought to read Fall–the Neil Stephenson novel–and learn about setting up APES, Autonomous Proxies for Execration to outdo character assassination campaigns by algos, sockpuppets and mental derelicts. Then again, the libertarian party itself has so given in to climate warmunism, uninspected entry anarchism, idiotic planksters and caricature infiltrators that the religious fanatic villain in the novel is described as “libertarian.” For a while there we were on a roll with 80% per annum increases in vote share…

    1. I haven’t seen many libertarians who worry about climate change. And if by “uninspected entry anarchism” you mean “freedom of movement”, of course libertarians should defend that.

    1. WTF is wrong with the world… We really do need some massive catastrophe to shake the world to its core so the normal people can restore some semblance of sanity to the world.

      1. Faked alien invasion, mebbe?

        1. That’s actually been an idea proposed by think tanks for how to control people if they ever want to pull any global shenanigans!

  28. I make a big amount online work . How ??? Just u can done also with this site and u can do it Easily 2 step one is open link next is Click on Tech so u can done Easily now u can do it also here Click it here <<<<<<

  29. Censorship at it’s finest.

    Cancel culture bigots who not only won’t consider counter arguments but fear them so much that they must censor them.

    Woke my ass.

    1. It’s all the Jooooooossssss fault, isn’t it Rob?

      1. Don’t get him started.

      2. Even a dipshit recognizes a troll.

  30. Editor’s Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses…. Click it here  

  31. Sensitivity reviewers? “Ownvoices” authorship? Good literature should offend someone. Authors need to be able to write about other kinds of people, or their work would be boring and unrealistic. Now you can’t even be born in certain years?

  32. The offended parties were all while millennial males that wear tight pants and have Bernie bumper stickers on their Prius’. Guaranteed.

    1. The producers would like you to know that those responsible for the offending have been sacked.

      1. And those responsible for sacking
        the people who have just been sacked,
        have been sacked.

        They seem to have been replaced by llamas.

  33. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 8000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ,,.. Read more

  34. GamersQQ penyedia games terbaik seperti BandarQQ, PokerQQ, DominoQQ, Togel Online, Live Casino, Bandar Bola, Slot Online dan masih banyak game menarik lainnya.

  35. Coming to Ivy League Universities: 4 year degrees in Trans Studies

    1. That’s transphobic! They need a PHD program!

  36. Two this can be true:

    Activists are pushing into the absurd with their demands on rapid cultural acceptance of changing norms that they can’t even funny explain.

    Anti-activists who get the vapors over pronouns are using it as a proxy for their bigotry.

    1. So, rather than “get(ing) the vapors”, we should simply acquiesce to the absurdity, as if we give a shit that morons like you think we’re bigots?

      1. I think you should consider who is being harmed more. Grammar Nazis with a pet peeve or trans people who don’t have rights?

        1. I think you should consider who is being harmed more: children who are being poisoned with puberty blocking drugs and hormones in preparation for having their genitals mutilated; or PC Nazis with a pet peeve?

          1. How about you try to wish away trans people and I’ll try to wish away libertarians who can’t handle other people being different and having rights, and we’ll see who wins?

            1. “Trans people” are a passing fad who will return to being regarded with sympathy for their affliction. After the current prohibition on seeking effective treatment for them has gone out of fashion, I’m confident physicians will get better at relieving their suffering. Meanwhile, I will continue to be a proponent of both equal rights and reality. The only losers from this fad will be those who were poisoned and mutilated by today’s “treatment” options. People like you who supported this holocaust will not be treated kindly by historians.

    2. Look, I’ve been friends with gay people since middle school, and known trans people for probably 12+ years now. I don’t mind them doing their thing. I actually really like a lot of them, they’re fun to hang with while you’re putting back a few drinks.

      BUT it is utter bullshit to demand that I believe they are ACTUALLY women. They’re not. They’re born with weird brain wiring that makes them think they are, which must be tough for them. But they’re not actual women.

      Also, Drag Queen Story Hour, locker room usage, and shit like that is just weird and not really cool. I like late 70s/early 80s punk. The REAL SHIT. Should I demand that Safeway and Target blast offensive punk in store because it’s my preference?

      No. Most people have shit taste in music, and the lyrics offend many people. I’m okay with accepting that I’m a weirdo in that regard, and fly my freak flag high. I think people who don’t like early punk are a bunch of fucktard pansies, and say as much to them much of the time! But I don’t try to force my preference on them. Except in my car sometimes, cuz that’s my domain 🙂

      Trans people need to accept they’re freaks, and not try to force acceptance of their every whim on everybody else. It’s what normal, decent people do when they have weird preferences that most people don’t agree with.

      1. “Actual woman” or as I prefer, “natural woman,” as Ms. Aretha Franklin put it so well, is not, you may be surprised to discover, a concept found in science.

        You neither get to affix your own small-mindedness onto the science of mind and sexuality nor do you get to rewrite the rules of etiquette. You refer to people how they want to be referred to. It’s not a goddamn option.

        1. nor do you get to rewrite the rules of etiquette. You refer to people how they want to be referred to. It’s not a goddamn option.

          Etiquette just means customary politeness, and politeness is indeed entirely optional.

          You can expect that people are impolite to you if you are impolite to them; you can also expect a lack of politeness if you suffer from a mental disorder and others refuse to join in it.

          science of mind and sexuality

          Science is quite clear: people who suffer form gender dysphoria are not actually helped by other people pretending that they are the biological sex they wish to be.

          1. Why would you be rude to a person with a mental disorder?

            1. Why would you poison and mutilate children with a mental disorder?

              1. Because it’s fashionable of course! Lefties are all about being trendy!

        2. LOL

          The concept of sex doesn’t exist in science! LOL

          Except it does. It’s insane leftists trying to rewrite science because of their twisted agenda that say biological sex doesn’t exist. All real, sane scientists knew full well it exists in the past, and only in the last few decades has the science been tainted by ideology.

          In the strictest sense I’m actually open to the fact that there is a spectrum. I think gay guys like you and trans people are born with abnormalities that make you the way you are. Mostly brain wiring, maybe some hormones tweaking out.

          But when 99.7% or so identify as the sex they are, and a couple percent are gay… That leaves 96-97% being exactly NORMAL. And a 6’3″ dude who can grow a better beard than I can, has a perfectly functioning set of cock and balls thinks he’s a women… He’s not. He’s a man who has brain wiring issues. And I feel for him. That has got to really suck. But it doesn’t change the fact that he’s a man in the strictest sense. He may be a gay man who wishes he was a woman, but he’s still just a dude. True hermaphrodites have it even worse, but usually tend to have a dominant sex genetically.

          I DO call a burly dude in a dress she out of politeness. It’s the idea that I need to in my heart and mind TRULY believe he’s a she that pisses me off. It’s straight George Orwell. You must TRULY love Big Brother. Fuck that shit.

          1. Nobody ever asked you not to be a terrible person in private. We’re all terrible in private. Why you feel the need to explain just specifically why you are terrible in private on the internet is a mystery.

            1. Bullshit Tony.

              People are being FIRED from their jobs for views they have expressed in private conversations outside of work. People are being harassed for not accepting left wing orthodoxy on this issue, and many others. I could go on for eons about the real world negative repercussions of not adhering to factually incorrect left wing dogma.

              What you are saying is what the left CLAIMED 20-30 years ago. “Hey guys, you don’t have to believe or support this stuff, just be polite in public!” Then they decided to force guys with dicks in girls locker rooms, fire people if they don’t believe men are LITERALLY women because they say they are, etc.

              So don’t give me that bullshit Tony. You know full and well how this shit is really going down. If you guys go back to ACTUALLY just wanting people to be polite to your face, and not trying to burn people at the stake, I may start more actively supporting gay issues like I used to. But since you homos went all nuclear war on everybody else I’ve pretty much decided to just say fuck you on everything.

  37. “The people most vulnerable to canceling belong to the very marginalized communities that the cancel-culture enforcers are purportedly protecting.”

    Shorter: The Revolutionary Vanguard inevitably eat themselves.

    Boo di hoo hoo.

  38. Isabel Falls needs to try harder at identifying as a Sci-Fi writer. The story is heavy on the stunted navel gazing that SJWs confuse for character development, light on the actual story, and the science/fiction narrative icing has been applied hastily applied in a sparse but heavy-handed manner.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.