SF-SJWs always double down

A PedoFiler defends last year's lies about the Sad Puppies at the Mad Genius Club while telling new ones about the Rabid Puppies:

As far as people wanting off the list goes, it’s strictly a problem of branding. In branding, perception matters. Perception is everything, and the “Puppy” brand has come to be associated with “cheaters who flooded the ballot with very poor stories” at best and “white supremacists who want to kill gays with tire irons” at worst. You can debate whether you think this is fair, but that’s why very few people want to be associated with “those bad people who want to destroy the Hugo Awards out of pure meanness.”

I agree that Kate did a lot this year to improve things. I read and reviewed all of the puppy-nominated works, and the Sad-Puppy ones are mostly pretty good this year.

But she didn’t do anything to fix the branding problem. The Sad Puppies kept up the same, tired campaign of name calling–the same name-calling that the Rabid Puppies use. They kept repeating the same conspiracy theories. And–unfathomably–they refused to repudiate Vox Day. Given the history, it would take a stupendous effort to disassociate themselves from him–an occasional mild “we’re not Vox Day” is nowhere near what it would take–but making a statement to the effect of “we will not endorse or condemn anyone” was broadly heard as “we really are Vox Day.”

You can argue all day that that’s not fair, but that’s the perception, and in branding, perception is everything.

You might think his omission of the rather important fact that the so-called "branding problem" was entirely based on blatant lies about the Puppies, and me, by people at Tor Books running to the media, was an innocent oversight. But Greg Hullender's response to Joel Salomen makes it clear that the dishonesty, as well as the sexual deviance, runs deep in the little freakshow.

Joel Salomon   
You’re completely right. Of course, this implies that all those upset at being included in SP4 should direct their ire at the liars who created this false perception of the Sad Puppies brand.

greghullender
It’s a fairly accurate description of the Rabid Puppies, though, and you guys should take some responsibility for allowing the confusion. 

As the Overgrown Hobbit pointed out, it is not "a fairly accurate description". It is "a damned lie".

It is considerably more fair and accurate to say "homosexual pedophile and predatory chickenhawk" is a "fairly accurate description" of Greg Hullender than it is to say "white supremacists who want to kill gays with tire irons" is a "fairly accurate description of the Rabid Puppies". I have absolutely no problem asserting that I have never been a white supremacist and I have never wanted to kill gays with tire irons, or anything else, for that matter. Now let us see Mr. Hullender publicly attest that he has never been attracted to anyone under the age of 18. And let us see the rest of the Puppy-kicking Pedo-Filers do the same.

If they don't, they will stand condemned by their own silence, just as they stand condemned for the decades of silence in which they have been harboring multiple predators in their community.

Notice how the SF-SJWs shriek that it is unfair to label them as sexual deviants and defenders of pedophilia and child molestation even as they continue to defend the celebration of individuals such as Marion Zimmer Bradley, Samuel Delaney, and Arthur C. Clarke, and try to justify their lies about the Sad and Rabid Puppies. The fact is that none of the SJWs who spent last year lying about the Puppies, and calling us racists and Nazis, has any right to complain about being correctly found guilty of their well-known associations with multiple alleged and confirmed child molesters.

Meanwhile, Sarah Hoyt explains the reason for the SF-SJW need to constantly decry, denounce, and disqualify:

I’ve said before that years ago, being mentioned at Instapundit would have meant the end of my career.

It wasn’t a stupid fear.  It was real.  Even though writers can’t control who reads them and likes them, if you’re liked by the “far right” you must be using “dog whistles” — and thus the blacklisting starts.

So those people asking to be removed from the Hugo recommendations which were made by fan vote?  Perfectly logical.  Getting tainted by association is a thing in their circles.

The people proclaiming that we: Larry, Brad, myself, John C. Wright, I don’t know if they were stupid enough to include Kevin J. Anderson and Butcher in that, but definitely everyone else in the list, had “ruined their careers” are right.  For their world and their definition of career.  None of the big four will ever publish us again, except Baen.

They are stuck in the old push-model days in their head.  They think that everyone down the chain will now boycott us.  And they want to make d*mn sure it doesn’t splash on them.

They don't have the power to intimidate the right into silence anymore, so they are frantically casting about to find other ways to shut us down. But what they simply don't realize is that they're not dealing with the frightened, cowering conservatives of the past. They're dealing with the criticism-hardened, ruthless Alt-Right of the present and we don't run from conflict with them. We run towards it.