David Gerrold says I am a screechweasel :)

He also lies. Says I blocked him, when, in fact, I only unfriended him. HE is the one who did the blocking.

Would somebody who hasn't left his feed point him to my last two blog posts? 

Looks like I totes got into his skull. 🙂

I did not call him a transphobe. I called him a transphobe LOVER, because he believes its okay to hand your money and time to that transphobic cunt, Rowling.

And we proceed:

"Oh, this is funny. I was finally catching up on yesterday's comments. 

I was called an asshole. Well, yes. I knew that. No surprise there. I am an asshole. I just try not to behave like one.

I was also called a transphobe. (And then she blocked me.)

Um, okay. I admit, I did spend some time considering that -- had I missed something? I did some internal spelunking looking for evidence, had I said or done something that indicated a prejudice against a whole class of people? (I'm pretty sure the only class of people I truly despise are those who continue to enable a tangerine turnip. They've sold their souls for something, I can't tell what.)

But over here the best I could come up with was that I had failed to accept the self-appointed authority of someone who was behaving like a screechweasel -- someone who had misinterpreted my point so they could tell me I'm an asshole. (And we've already agreed on that.)

Yeah, I could have been wrong -- and maybe I wasn't clear enough making my point. I do have trouble writing precisely. That's why I spend so much time rewriting. 

But the history of applied activism is about choosing the right targets. Where you apply the lever is the most important part of the task. 

And there's another part -- if there's no candidate who comes out in favor of your specific issue, vote for the candidate who isn't your expressed enemy. Vote for the larger possibility. (Not voting is a vote for the enemy.)

I want to share something from thirty years ago. There was a candidate for public office who was significantly better than his opponent -- but because he had not addressed any LGBTQ+ issues there were many in the community who refused to support him. 

The answer to that was, "He's educable. The other guy is not. Will you vote for someone who can be educated?" That proved to be the right question. In this case, the candidate won the election and he did prove to be educable. He listened and he came around and it made a huge difference. 

Over here, I'm just another old geezer with a keyboard. But even so, my intention remains that that we design and build a future that works for all of us, with no one and nothing left out. I intend to be a partner, not an opponent. 

Which is why sometimes I disagree with the politics of impatience. I've been impatient. I've been angry. I've even been despairing. But I've also been determined not to quit. 

But I am old enough and maybe experienced enough to understand that most of politics is a long hard slog. It is rarely, very rarely, an immediate victory -- and even where those victories are won, they still have to be solidified and hardened into the culture, or they are temporary. Roe v. Wade is the most horrific example. 

Oh, and here's one of the most important things I learned -- don't attack your allies. You won't win anything that way. that's the real lesson of Hormuz. But it applies everywhere. 

Yesterday, uncountable millions put aside their differences to demonstrate for a common goal. They hit the streets in 3200 locations. They united in a common goal. They united. That's important. 

It's how we demonstrate unity of purpose, unity of direction. It's a good sign"

And yep, later I called him an asshole.