I have read a little on this GamerGate thing and the science fiction Hugo Awards controversy regarding nominations. Particularly in the case of the Hugos, leftist "social justice warriors" -- commonly referred to as SJWs -- have controlled the nomination process for years. I don't really know or care much about that. I do know that science fiction as a genre has been in decline and unappealing to me for a long time. When I read science fiction or fantasy these days, it is probably going to be some classic Heinlein, Niven, Pournelle, Lewis, Charles Williams, T.H. White, etc.
As I think I've mentioned, I tried a couple of Sarah A. Hoyt's books and was less than overwhelmed. I am struggling to finish a John C. Wright novel and a Tom Kratman novel -- and these are the good guys. I get bogged down, and I just don't care what happens.
On the other hand, to use a non-scifi example, when I read Raymond Chandler, I do care about Marlowe and the people he encounters. It could just be my age. I have trouble connecting to the concerns and attitudes of the characters in a lot of these works.
Anyway, literature is not my primary subject today. These are cases, though, where the so-called elites are being beaten at their own game with their own flexible rule book.
About three weeks ago, Kurt Schlichter wrote a commentary for Townhall in which he says that "Liberals May Regret Their New Rules". He talks about being in Kosovo and the ethnic conflicts there then draws a parallel to the current situation in the U.S. If you haven't read it, follow the link. It's worth your time to read. Here's a key quote:
Let's say you and I are playing a friendly game of chess. Now we both know that the knight has a certain 'L' pattern in which he can move. He has to do that. He can only do that. You build your strategy based on your knowledge of the way the pieces are allowed to move. We admit that, physically, there's no reason one player can't just grab one of his knights from any place on the board and grab his opponent's queen, wherever it is, and claim that he has taken it. But if one player starts doing that and claiming he has won by ignoring the rules, that pretty much ends the game. It certainly eliminates the friendly aspect. It would tend to make one wonder what kind of an idiot he is playing against.
That is the way -- and we can't limit this to the leftists -- that's the way the "big government" elite has been playing the political game in this country for decades. The government, more and more, can do whatever it wants. After all, it writes the rules. Except there is a law by which the government is supposed to abide. It's called the Constitution. We've talked about that before, too, with regard to law enforcement and bureaucrats who are, essentially, "above" the law.
As with our hypothetical chess game, our opponent says, "The rules are whatever I say they are because I am bigger and more powerful than you, because I have a weapon, and you don't." OK, so the only rule is, might makes right. When he turns his back, and we bust his head with fireplace poker then the rules are what WE say.
The productive class in this country has been restrained by the belief that there are rules and that we know what those rules are. Now, however, it is more and more openly stated and understood that the rules change to the benefit of the "elites" and the SJWs.
I don't want there to be no rule of law. I can see, at least in part, the disaster which will result from a widespread rejection of restraint. As horrific as such a scenario could become for people like me, it would be much worse for those who have been abusing and ignoring the rule of law up to now.
As I think I've mentioned, I tried a couple of Sarah A. Hoyt's books and was less than overwhelmed. I am struggling to finish a John C. Wright novel and a Tom Kratman novel -- and these are the good guys. I get bogged down, and I just don't care what happens.
On the other hand, to use a non-scifi example, when I read Raymond Chandler, I do care about Marlowe and the people he encounters. It could just be my age. I have trouble connecting to the concerns and attitudes of the characters in a lot of these works.
Anyway, literature is not my primary subject today. These are cases, though, where the so-called elites are being beaten at their own game with their own flexible rule book.
About three weeks ago, Kurt Schlichter wrote a commentary for Townhall in which he says that "Liberals May Regret Their New Rules". He talks about being in Kosovo and the ethnic conflicts there then draws a parallel to the current situation in the U.S. If you haven't read it, follow the link. It's worth your time to read. Here's a key quote:
You cannot expect to change the status quo for yourself and then expect those you victimize not to play by the new rules you have created. You cannot expect to be able to discard the rule of law in favor of the rule of force and have those you target not respond in kind.
Let's say you and I are playing a friendly game of chess. Now we both know that the knight has a certain 'L' pattern in which he can move. He has to do that. He can only do that. You build your strategy based on your knowledge of the way the pieces are allowed to move. We admit that, physically, there's no reason one player can't just grab one of his knights from any place on the board and grab his opponent's queen, wherever it is, and claim that he has taken it. But if one player starts doing that and claiming he has won by ignoring the rules, that pretty much ends the game. It certainly eliminates the friendly aspect. It would tend to make one wonder what kind of an idiot he is playing against.
That is the way -- and we can't limit this to the leftists -- that's the way the "big government" elite has been playing the political game in this country for decades. The government, more and more, can do whatever it wants. After all, it writes the rules. Except there is a law by which the government is supposed to abide. It's called the Constitution. We've talked about that before, too, with regard to law enforcement and bureaucrats who are, essentially, "above" the law.
As with our hypothetical chess game, our opponent says, "The rules are whatever I say they are because I am bigger and more powerful than you, because I have a weapon, and you don't." OK, so the only rule is, might makes right. When he turns his back, and we bust his head with fireplace poker then the rules are what WE say.
The productive class in this country has been restrained by the belief that there are rules and that we know what those rules are. Now, however, it is more and more openly stated and understood that the rules change to the benefit of the "elites" and the SJWs.
I don't want there to be no rule of law. I can see, at least in part, the disaster which will result from a widespread rejection of restraint. As horrific as such a scenario could become for people like me, it would be much worse for those who have been abusing and ignoring the rule of law up to now.
No comments:
Post a Comment