The lesson to be taken from this exchange is this:
- As I asserted yesterday, Damien Walter is a liar.
- When the liar was dumb enough to place himself in a position to be called on his lies, he resorted to obfuscation and deconstructionist nonsense to divert the issue away from his lies.
- When a liar does that, don’t let them change the channel. Don’t play their semantic games. Hit them in the head with a brick. Backed into a corner, Damien fucked up and committed the ultimate pseudo-intellectual sin of telling the truth.
When his professional abilities and fundamental integrity were called into question, Damien tried to turn weasel by repeating inane diversionary questions instead. A decent human being would defend their honor. A worm tongue would try to play games. Spending much time on his stupid diversions during the exchange would have played into his hands. I prefer the brick to the face method.
But now that ship done sailed, let’s go through why Damien is extra stupid.
Science fiction is a genre. As can be seen by the above definitions pretty much everybody agrees that it is. Dictionaries, professors, publishers, book sellers, and authors consider science fiction a genre. While searching I found it harder to find a definition of science fiction anywhere that didn’t use the word genre. I started out by posting the definition of genre, because it answered his question.
I’ve got some English professors who are fans. Since they work in academia in left wing dominated universities I can’t imagine why they don’t want to come out of the closet as Larry Correia fans! They were PMing me definitions the whole time (yes, shockingly enough I actually don’t have a copy of Darko Suvin’s seminal treatise on literature on hand).They were laughing at Damien during this too because they were used to his form of pathetic word games, as that tactic was common in academia. Here are some quotes from the PMs to shed some light on Damien’s sad little brain.
What D is trying trying to do is too pull you into the swamp that the deconstructionists love. They try to get their opponents to concede to their claim that all language is inherently indefinite. Once they get that, they can disrupt any definition or absolute meaning. The effective riposte is the one based on common sense, not theory. In short, if there was no limit to the indefinitude human communication would not be possible. So the inability to come up with exacting definitions is only a limiting theory, not a destruction of definitions, sub definitions and nuances. That language is flexible does not mean that it lacks sufficient precision for us to be able to distinguish between closely related types of similar things. It’s a despicable academic parlor trick.
The sad additional truth: that too many critics become slavish devotees of some perspectives to the point where they retain less common sense than a dim-witted cow. Damien and a lot of acadwmics fit that bill.
Read the whole thing.