Usually, on a federal holiday, I don't bother posting anything. I just post a music blog. Mostly because no one swings by. But that was before Sad Puppies brought a slough of people for the blog. for today, I'll just make it short.
So, last week when I explained why, now that Sad Puppies III was over, I was not going to be playing with #GamerGate, and the band of nuts who have declared themselves the enemies og GamerGate. While there is substantial overlap between the Anti-GG crowd and the Puppy Kickers, the former seem to be even freakier and more deranged than the latter. And, while I'm all for beating up on pederasts, I'm not interested in playing with folks who think defending such a creature.
Then I got a comment telling me that they'd by Honor At Stake because I'm on the right side.
And it has occurred to me that I should have dived into politics years ago. Why? Simple enough, I suppose. I generally read people who share at least some core beliefs with me. Father Andrew Greeley was an old school Chicago Democrat, but still a Catholic priest, and that gave us enough commonalities to get me interested in his works ... that and because I grew up with his entire body of work around the house. John Ringo and Larry Correia are as conservative as any prepper, and they're both just plain fun.
So of course people are going to shop based upon personal politics. It just makes sense. Perfectly reasonable. Why didn't I think of that years ago?
Because I just hate it so much.
Every time I've spoken of politics, well, you can find the posts easy enough. I generally don't fit easily into any box. I'd be a big-L libertarian, but I'm not an authoritarian (if you ever meet a big-L libertarian, you'll find that it's their way or none at all). I'd be a regular, plain old libertarian, but abortion disturbs me in ways I have trouble describing. I'd be Republican but lately, Republicans and Democrats both seem more interested in political power than doing, you know, what's right for the country.
I guess I'm a libertarian with conservative leanings? The CATO institute once described themselves as being for machineguns and marijuana. I can almost get behind that, I just hope they aren't for both at the same time. Right now, I am so, so tempted to legalize every drug imaginable, tax the crap out of it, and let the drug users OD -- but every country to have done that thus far has had their economies tank.
Anyway, expect a slight uptick in political speech on this blog. I might even go after some of the stupid statements of Anita Sarkeesian. Why? Because I can tie them into writing. How? Heh heh heh. Just wait and see. You'll find out.
But, until then, enjoy your copies of Honor at Stake.
So, last week when I explained why, now that Sad Puppies III was over, I was not going to be playing with #GamerGate, and the band of nuts who have declared themselves the enemies og GamerGate. While there is substantial overlap between the Anti-GG crowd and the Puppy Kickers, the former seem to be even freakier and more deranged than the latter. And, while I'm all for beating up on pederasts, I'm not interested in playing with folks who think defending such a creature.
Then I got a comment telling me that they'd by Honor At Stake because I'm on the right side.
And it has occurred to me that I should have dived into politics years ago. Why? Simple enough, I suppose. I generally read people who share at least some core beliefs with me. Father Andrew Greeley was an old school Chicago Democrat, but still a Catholic priest, and that gave us enough commonalities to get me interested in his works ... that and because I grew up with his entire body of work around the house. John Ringo and Larry Correia are as conservative as any prepper, and they're both just plain fun.
So of course people are going to shop based upon personal politics. It just makes sense. Perfectly reasonable. Why didn't I think of that years ago?
Because I just hate it so much.
Every time I've spoken of politics, well, you can find the posts easy enough. I generally don't fit easily into any box. I'd be a big-L libertarian, but I'm not an authoritarian (if you ever meet a big-L libertarian, you'll find that it's their way or none at all). I'd be a regular, plain old libertarian, but abortion disturbs me in ways I have trouble describing. I'd be Republican but lately, Republicans and Democrats both seem more interested in political power than doing, you know, what's right for the country.
I guess I'm a libertarian with conservative leanings? The CATO institute once described themselves as being for machineguns and marijuana. I can almost get behind that, I just hope they aren't for both at the same time. Right now, I am so, so tempted to legalize every drug imaginable, tax the crap out of it, and let the drug users OD -- but every country to have done that thus far has had their economies tank.
Anyway, expect a slight uptick in political speech on this blog. I might even go after some of the stupid statements of Anita Sarkeesian. Why? Because I can tie them into writing. How? Heh heh heh. Just wait and see. You'll find out.
But, until then, enjoy your copies of Honor at Stake.
"I am so, so tempted to legalize every drug imaginable, tax the crap out of it, and let the drug users OD -- but every country to have done that thus far has had their economies tank."
ReplyDeleteCould you name one country to have tried that so far?
You've not heard of the Netherlands?
DeletePartly decriminalized, also Portugal. Full legalization has not yet been tried anywhere.
DeleteBut while we're talking Portugal and the Netherlands, I haven't seen any evidence of harm to their economies, no more than legalizing weed has crashed Colorado's. The reality is that people inclined to irresponsibly abuse chemicals are going to have access to them anyway - they're freely available on the black market.