Before I go into real news, legal update/rumor control: In 2021 a judge tried to dismiss my defamation case against Gen Con—this was much celebrated by right wing douchenozzles on twitter. I appealed to a higher court, won, & the case was back on. Oddly, the douchenozzles didn’t spread the word about that. Well the same judge just tried it again. The right wing douchenozzles are celebrating again, like they forgot this already happened. Obviously I’ll just appeal again to the same higher court.
So, anyway something else that happened last week was interesting.
- A couple of Gen Con's fellow right-wing hatemob members named (on Twitter anyway) panny_lines and aledlawlor have a little company called Leyline Press.
- They hired someone to edit one of their RPGs.
- They then fired them when they found out that they'd once worked for Lamentations of the Flame Princess, the company that published most of my game stuff. They also erased his name from the credits.
- They then made a very vague announcement about their very vague right-wing problems they had with LotFP. They made the word "problematic" do a lot of work.
- Now here's the strange thing, something that hasn't happened during the last 4 years of hatemobbing: people noticed--and did something about it.
- Lamentations then announced a big sale.
- Lamentations then sold a phenomenal amount of product:
And keeps selling a phenomenal amount:
Now this was just a pdf sale, that ends tomorrow.
A sale on printed stuff starts today.
Action is good.
Fix things.
In case someone's interested, here's last year's article about Zak's successful appeal.
ReplyDeletehttps://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/11/dungeons-defamation-role-playing-game-convention-libel-case-can-go-forward/
@mutanto
ReplyDeleteNo problem:
-They don't believe in innocent-until-proven guilty.
-They don't believe in due process.
-They don't believe in the giving workers credit for their labor.
-They don't believe in settling conflicts using science, facts, and proof.
Those are right-wing positions.
@anonymous
ReplyDeleteSorry-- No anonymous comments allowed
@mutanto
ReplyDelete"relevant" or not the principles I outlined are well-established liberal principles, more valued by the left than the right.
If you disagree you need to leave a comment proving otherwise, not simply announcing you don't find them "relevant".
@mutanto
ReplyDeleteYes, you do have to answer because the rule to comment on this blog is -you have to engage and answer questions-.
Many of them -claim- to be politically left, but they objectively aren't since they have abandoned the basic 101 left principles I named.
So: answer the question--
Why do you think these people who espouse these obviously right-wing positions are not right-wing?
@mutanto
ReplyDeleteMisinformation is not allowed on this page (or in a trial, or in a newspaper, or in a scientific paper or in any other context where the truth is supposed to matter).
You just spread the following piece of misinformation:
"I *HAVE* to say what you want me to say?"
No:
You *HAVE* to answer questions honestly. As do I. You don't have to give an answerI agree with or one I've thought up. At no point have I claimed you have to say what I want you to say.
Please apologize for that false claim and we can continue--otherwise you will not be allowed to comment.
@mutanto
ReplyDelete"You do realize that you have to prove that misinformation is misinformation, right? "
Ah so you're contesting the claim.
Ok, let's do that now, here's the proof:
Here's my exact quote--
"Yes, you do have to answer because the rule to comment on this blog is -you have to engage and answer questions-."
Here is the lie you told:
"I *HAVE* to say what you want me to say? "
There-- proved. Those sentences are different.
So:
Which part of that proof are you disputing?
@mutanto
ReplyDeleteQuote that "part" in my proof:
Here's my exact quote--
"Yes, you do have to answer because the rule to comment on this blog is -you have to engage and answer questions-."
Here is the lie you told:
"I *HAVE* to say what you want me to say? "
Where is the problem in that proof?
"In the 1990s and early 2000s, a few conservative parties started to embrace the gay rights cause, joining earlier adopters among left-wing and liberal Western European parties. Conservative parties in Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and Britain trumpeted their newly found enthusiasm for gay rights as a badge of modernity and political maturity. The embrace was driven by changing social values, the idiosyncratic agency of leadership, and declining religiosity. Today the right-wing lesbian, gay or bisexual parliamentarian is far from an exception. Since 1976, nearly 150 self-identifying LGB parliamentarians from right of center parties have taken office."
ReplyDeleteFrom "LGBTQ rights and representation among right-wing parties", https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/events/lgbtq-rights-and-representation-among-right-wing-parties
So, yes. Right-wingers can support LGBT. And stay right-wingers.
@mtuanto
ReplyDeleteYou were asked a question and didn't answer. Your comments will be erased.
@panny_lines is the first right winger I've seen who uses pronouns he/they, refers to themself as Pansexual. and writes games where the players portray communists. Europe really is different.
ReplyDelete@ruprecht
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the internet. It gets worse.
@Ben E King
ReplyDeleteYou were banned commenting after you attempted to post misinformation in a response to this post:
https://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2021/11/another-cube-world-available.html
...until you address that, you will remain banned.
If you cannot remember the comment or contest that it contains misinformation, I can email it to you and we can discuss it that way-- contact me at zakzsmith AT hawtmayle dawt calm