Friday, April 20, 2018

The John Ringo and ConCarolinas issue

I've been scratching my head for a while about whether or not I was going to do a blog post for the whole ConCarolinas debacle.

You know, how they told John Ringo that they couldn't guarantee his safety, etc. THEN the announcement they released about his not attending seemed ... poorly managed.

To be honest, I'd never heard of them until this fashla happened. So they made a great first impression on me.

So much so that they convinced to never attend their convention, as a guest or even as just an attendee.

And no, it's not necessarily "Oh, look what they did to Ringo."

I am doing something radical. I will take them ENTIRELY AT THEIR WORD that they can't guarantee the safety of one of their own guests against the angry hordes of Social Justice Zombies. 

On THEIR OWN TERMS, I should be concerned to even walk the halls as a regular attendee carrying a John Ringo book. While I have no problem defending myself, I to go conventions to have a good time. I don't want to spend the majority of the con in cuffs because some dickheads decide "You're a Ringo fan, therefore you're [insert cliche lefty insults here]" and therefore I have to beat them senseless in self defense.

In the long run, I will be interested to see how this is resolved. Because there are only two options here.

On the one hand, Ringo isn't the only Baen author they have as guests. Dave Webber, Tedd Roberts, etc. These are only a handful of the guests from previous years that I'm aware of. Are the Social Justice douchebags going to stop? No, they're not. They never do, they never will, and they never shall ... unless they meet actual, genuine push back for their stupidity.

So, the question is not "Who boycotts the convention over Ringo?" The real question becomes "Who's next?" The SJWs have tasted blood, and they're never satisfied, and thus they will become hungry for more. The NEXT question after that is "how far does the lefty horde go before the ConCom tells the horde to go screw off?"

The mob have threatened, they have harangued. And that's all well and good. Because there's only two ways for this to go.

Either ConCarolina tells the SJWs to back off, they address the "concerns" they had over Ringo's safety, so he can be invited back next year.

OR, they can continue to pander to the mob and "Go woke, go broke."

Either way, I'll be over here, using DragonCon as my honeymoon. ciao.


  1. Christopher M. ChupikApril 21, 2018 at 11:01 AM

    You'll be deeply surprised that Glyer quoted you in such a way as to make it look like you were advocating violence.

    1. Swinging at someone over a mean name is the sort of behaviour I'd expect of the straw lefties in your head, not a strong, independent, conservative man such as yourself.

    2. Ahem "I don't want to spend the majority of the con in cuffs because some dickheads decide "You're a Ringo fan, therefore you're [insert cliche lefty insults here]" therefore I beat them senseless in self defense.

      What action do you think the lefties would be doing for me to beat them in self defense? That would require some action on there part.

      There are two types of people in this world. Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.....

      Anyone who can't put those pieces together are obviously the latter

    3. You only recently added "in self defense".

    4. There's extrapolating from incomplete data and there's just plain making stuff up, Declan. "in self defense" wasn't in your piece originally - you added that in an attempt to make yourself look better, but it doesn't work.

      That you struggle with how words and sentences work doesn't inspire me with confidence in your novels, by the way.

    5. Kasa, I thought the "in self defense" was quite obvious before he added it.

      Why do you idiots always engage in such weird psychological projection?

    6. Meh. If it was self defense, why would he be in cuffs? He also explicitly said he was going to beat someone senseless for insulting him. The updated wording is clumsy and doesn't actually make sense. Declann should have done more editing... :)

    7. 1) I had to make it obvious. Because being ganged up on should result in self defense. But no. No one else seems to read it that way. Some can extrapolate. I had to fill in the blanks. Hey, Kasa figured it out! Why didn't you folks?

      2) I don't know how they do it elsewhere, but in New York, you get put in cuffs until everyone knows who did what to whom and why. You get arrested FIRST, because cops assume everyone is guilty until they have a better handle of who is. Good Lord, the UK put people on trial for self defense. I'm glad it's not a thing in NYC yet. Give it time. I figure the only place self defense is perfectly clear is within someone's own home.

    8. Keep dancing...

    9. @PavePusher: In what way is it obvious? He jumps from "[insert lefty cliche insult here]" to "beat them senseless" with nothing in between. The only logical thing to conclude from the way the sentence is structured is that Declan will beat someone senseless for insulting him - and this remains true, with or without the later addition of "in self defense."

      I'm taking him at his word, that he would try to beat someone up over an insult, because he's a professional writer and should know how sentences work.

    10. Come on a little intellectual honesty would be nice, rather than showcasing your political standpoints. There is in fact a rather important facet inbetween that you are choosing to ignore namely the "i have to" part, which implies that the fight isnt by choice.
      Also, considering the context is an entire group (rather than a single "someone" as you tried to imply :) ) aproaching in an agressive maner over a book that showcases the "wrong political standpoint", i'd normally assume selfdefense - in fact, whenever i hear of a single person vs multiple fight i normally consider it self-defense on the single persons side, since the alternative is someone being dumb enough to attack a group of unknowns on their lonesome.

  2. Actually, I think the convention staff needs your support. They seem to have been bullied into this decision by their invited guests and registered attendees. Their initial response was to stand firm and call the attack harassment. It was only after they considered the cost of security for John and the liability issues that they asked him to withdraw.

  3. "They seem to have been bullied into this decision by their invited guests and registered attendees."

    As a free market capitalist, which I'm fairly certain you are, please do me a favor and think about the stupidity of this comment.

    1. As I understood it, the "mob" consisted of about a dozen really loud people. Especially one person on Facebook.

      Which is how it usually happens. For example, witness the College Basketball team "the Redmen," whose name was changed to "Red Storm" after the college (St. John's, Queens) was deluged with a protest run by a dozen people.


Please, by all means, leave a message below. I welcome any and all comments. However, language that could not make it to network television will result in your comment being deleted. I don';t like saying it, but prior events have shown me that I need to. Thanks.