You Might Be A Social Justice Bizarro If…

There seems to be some confusion among my fellow genre fiction writers about what exactly constitutes insane social justice behavior, so I’ve created this handy guide to show you just what kind of batshit crazy, group-think type behavior falls into the category of cunty individual that I’ll forever be calling The Social Justice Bizarro.

Please keep in mind, this is not an exhaustive list. There are MANY more examples of thought policing, cyber bullying, and generally oppressive behavior that will get you lumped into the SJB category. This is just a “greatest hits” list, if you will.

1. If you clicked on this link out of a knee jerk reaction of anger and denial, you might be a Social Justice Bizarro.

2. If you’re a white person who has ever called another white person a “white person” as a pejorative, you might be a Social Justice Bizarro.

3. If you believe a fellow writer guilty of a crime like STALKING or HARASSMENT without said writer ever being charged with or convicted of said crime, you might be a Social Justice Bizarro.

4. If you hate men, constantly criticize men on the internet, write feminist literature, exclude men from your publishing house, then hide behind “Feminism is about equality,” you might be a Social Justice Bizarro.

5. If you’ve ever participated in, gawked at for your own entertainment, shared the links for the purpose of, or otherwise enabled a social media witch hunt of any kind, you might be a Social Justice Bizarro.

6. If you’ve ever publicly called for, celebrated, or otherwise encouraged the removal of art from the marketplace that you personally deem objectionable, E.G. a flag, a book, a movie, or a music recording, you might be a Social Justice Bizarro.

7. If you attack one religion through fictional parody, criticism, blatant and thorough blasphemy or other means of discounting and discrediting it but find this exact same behavior objectionable when attributed to another religion, you might be a Social Justice Bizarro.

8. If you’ve ever used the terms racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and transphobia together like some kind of identity politics button mashing video game attack combo, you might be a Social Justice Bizarro.

9. If you celebrate the act of turning your social and political enemies gay in fiction just for the purpose of seeing them humiliated, then you might be (actually homophobic) a Social Justice Bizarro.

10. If you take even the slightest criticism of the genre, the leadership of the genre, the online behavior of the genre community or any other type of constructive debate as hostile and immediately move to discredit and excommunicate the individual expressing the criticism, you might belong to a cult. And you might be a Social Justice Bizarro.

Don’t be a Social Justice Bizarro.

5 thoughts on “You Might Be A Social Justice Bizarro If…

  1. Given that less than comprehensive list, I’m wondering if there is anyone who is not an SJB; present company excepted of course.

    FREE SPEECH; unless you disagree.

  2. Nine seems a deference to homos. Just like the rest of the population, some of them are scumbags. They talk and act like saints, but they can shove that b******* right up their a**. So, big shit about portraying one as something other than a sweet person cuddling a kitten.

    • There’s a recent trend in bizarro to turn things and people gay as a means to shock and offend conservatives. But since the cultural norm is to celebrate all things gay, and fiercely attack anything that deviates from their Marxist agenda as HOMOPHOBIC!!! it’s no more subversive than writing about pre-marital sex.

      I personally love gay culture and have often frequented gay clubs in my life. It’s not the gay people who annoy me, it’s the straight liberals who believe it’s their sworn duty to protect a culture which never asked them for help in the first place.

  3. I got no real problem with gay, unless they want to impose themself on me physically. When they thought they had to justify their existence they said; “I have no choice.” Well, neither do I.

    The “straight liberals” are not a problem in the sexual sense. They’re mostly tolerant of whatever. I mean like really; “Who gives a wet fart about what somebody is inclined to suck?” I think it’s more an issue with the right; moreso the “religious” right.

    But, you know the fact that we are even talking about them pisses me off in a way. it’s like their bogus complaints have succeeded in making them the center of the universe. They are not. They are no more important than any other group.

    From what I’ve seen of Bizarro literature, I’ve not noticed any of the mainstream penchant to have someone black or gay as a significant character. Great, it should not be a requirement.

    If a writer wants to pick up some extra sales by putting one in where it’s not called for fine too. They can make their book as stupid as they’d like. My wife and I have all of Armistead Maupin’s books. We also have movies by Cocteau and Fassbinder. No problem, and much better than most.

    I do have petty annoyances. Like the guy who disliked a Heinlein book solely because “it didn’t encourage him to be gay.” It didn’t discourage him either. That’s just stupid. I also told one gay person when asked if I had a problem with gay people; “Yes.” I went on to say that every gay person I ever met told me first thing that they were gay; not that they were a lawyer, a salesperson, a collector of old cars. So, am I then obliged to respond with the details of my sexual orientation? I don’t feel like it. Beyond that triviality, they’re defining themselves by their participation in some act they engage in for all of an hour a week if that. That’s just plain stupid.

    So to vociferous gay people, I say; “Shut the fuck up and do it. Nobody gives a shit.”

  4. Different take. It seems to me that .The culture which supposedly never asked for protection, revel in that provided by the neo-liberals of which they are a part. I suppose the “social” need to be on one side or the other precludes the other side in this case.

    So, to make this somewhat interesting to me, I’ll deal with the generality rather than the aspect of that currently being the loudest.

    In all areas if you do not brandish the party line of either side it’s a prescription for being maligned by both. Sure, they spout rhetoric which on the surface is meant to sound like magnaminity. They have no other choice than to publicly comport themselves in that fashion. But, the old boy’s club is alive and well.

    Looked at more of Suglia. He can be brilliant at times. He also can talk when he’s not got all the facts down right; like in the case of the Bizarro putdown. “Table 41” is intriguing if one forgets that Franzen got to the conceptual aspect quite some time ago. Otherwise, it is a self-conciously, artful, erudite, and interesting read. He does backtrack in time; I think accidentally; and he spends more time with animal behavior than is necessary, to the detriment of sun, clouds and wind. But again; I found it more interesting than any Bizarro thing I’ve yet seen; and it may well be a good description of early stage insanity.

    So, the party platform delegate makes some sort of justification for stalking? That’s actually funny to me; in that he represents a group which can’t buy catfood with their writing incomes.

    For me it’s an easy FUCKEM; but I recognize that you may be much more social and/or have some use for the platform. Whatever, cheers.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.