“Your criticism of drew in his posts above is disingenuous in the extreme. You chose to write a post which ridicules a subject by exclusion, a fair and time-honored tradition of satire. But when drew called you on it, you fell back to “read what I wrote.””

Yes, indeed, he should have read what I wrote, to him, directly, in a comment following up his initial comment (which among other things attributed to me an argument I did not make, satirically or otherwise), because it would have clarified my position immensely. Likewise, Gerrymander, you should have read what I wrote to him, directly, in the comment following up his initial comment, before trying to accuse me of being disingenuous. Because it makes you look a little silly to have missed that.

Likewise, I’m not responsible for what people infer, because I’m not in their heads and I have no interest in going there. Lots of people infer lots of things about what I write which aren’t the slightest bit correct, as, for example, many folks who infer I am a right-wing paleogogue because they think they have a bead on my real world politics because of Old Man’s War. I’m not responsible for the fake version of me people have in my head, or what he does when people want to play fast and sloppy with my words or arguments.

Moreover, there is a difference between “I infer” and “you imply,” and it makes a difference in how I respond. I jumped on Drew’s head because he was telling me what I was doing, as opposed to what he assumed I was doing. If you want to say that you think I was trying to do or say something with my words, I’ll say “yes, correct” or “no, not really.” If you tell me that you know what I was doing or thinking, I’m likely to tell you, in so many words, to fuck right off.

Your criticism of drew in his posts above is disingenuous in the extreme. You chose to write a post which ridicules a subject by exclusion, a fair and time-honored tradition of satire. But when drew called you on it, you fell back to “read what I wrote.”

Well, what you wrote was 290 words of not saying “WV white voters are racists.” In contrast you wrote exactly zero words which either stated or, as satire, deliberately did not state “NC black voters are racists.” Regardless of what you choose to imply, a reader can certainly (and not without reason) infer, “Based on the amount of work put into these respective opinions, Scalzi thinks whites voting for whites based on skin preference is worse than blacks voting for blacks based on skin preference.” That “John Scalzi, Proprietor” byline up top doesn’t exactly leave a lot of room for editorial cover.

BTW, the state is not as white as folks think. Just about all folks who have family there over 200 years are part Indian. WV marked the northern edge of the Cherokee lands and was hunting ground for other tribes, notably the Shawnee. Early European settlers found the Indians friendly. And fertile.

See also, hot wings.

True. I did make a blankey exaggeration. But those millionaires in WV are the exception rather than the norm. And even Clay’s media group spread into other states.

It is possible to make that kind of money in WV, but for the most part people leave the state, make their money, and then come back to WV.

FREX, in Morgantown, where I live, aside from WVU, the biggest employer is Mylan–a Pittsburgh based company.

You look at the biggest employers in WV, and if they’re not health care, they tend to be based out of state. Exceptions are Snowshoe and Mountaineer Racetrack, but those aren’t employers that are going to provide advancement for their employees.

There are exceptions to every rule, but in general, if you want to make money, you have to leave the state to do it.

“I think the calls of sexism stem from the second to last paragraph, where you seem to suggest feminism is emasculating.”

Because I tell them to have the menfolk bake a pie? Yes, possibly. On the other hand, I baked cookies with my daughter yesterday and don’t feel less of a man for it.

The main reason has nothing to do with what Scalzi wrote, which is a sarcastic look at the inherent racism in NOT voting for a non-white because he is non-white. The people there could not possibly have voted for Hillary because they are racists, so the reason must be that they are feminists, since anyone voting for Hillary is ostensibly a feminist according to FOX news.

The main reason people are upset is because they would prefer to be knee-jerk reactionary than to actually understand what has been written. Which is indeed their prerogative, but has nothing to do with what Scalzi actually wrote.

On the other hand, no one bothered to actually say that, so maybe it is just me.

And to whoever invoked the almighty 1776, I applaud you. But of course I must ask that someone open up a window, and that it’s ninety degrees, have mercy, please.