Monthly Archives: April 2026

The apocalyptic mindset   Recently updated !

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged liberty psychology religion on by

It’s hard for me to understand the popularity of authoritarian movements. Why would people willingly cede power to someone whose overriding goal is power? Yet it’s happened over and over. Lately I’ve been looking at comments on the Internet and seeing a strong pattern. They see the world as facing an apocalyptic battle between two utterly opposed forces. Their side is good, and anyone who opposes it must be evil. Not only that, their opponents are all on the same side. It’s hard to think of immigrants, Constitutional lawyers, liberals (in all the senses of the word), Muslims, socialists, and the Pope all as a unified front, but to orthodox MAGAs they are.

Evangelical Christianity, which is the heart of Trump’s support, loves the idea that history is a struggle between Satanic and divine forces, and they expect it to culminate in a world war which God, of course, will win. It colors people’s worldview even when they aren’t thinking of supernatural forces. It’s their habit to think of political conflicts as fights between two fully consistent and completely opposed forces. It’s a view that doesn’t leave much room for good people who disagree, honestly mistaken ideas, and people who aren’t wholly on one side or the other.

When you accept this view, it’s reasonable to think anyone on your side is completely trustworthy, anyone opposed is a thorough liar, and anything which supports your side must be right. Anything your side does is good, including threatening to destroy a civilization. It helps if the civilization to be destroyed is aligned with a non-Christian religion.

In praying to God from the Pentagon, “Secretary of War” Hegseth raged: “Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation. Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.”

Jackson Lahmeyer, a Trump-aligned candidate from Oklahoma who is also an Evangelical pastor, proclaimed, “Good and evil, that’s the story of the Bible. The good news is that at the end good always wins.” Look at chapter 16 of Revelation, if you have the stomach for it. Angels spread skin disease, pollute the seas and fresh water, cause deadly heat waves, and dry up a major river. They’re allegedly working for God, so this makes them “good.”

The Crusades were run on the same mindset. Armies set out to take Jerusalem and the surrounding area because “God wills it!” When the Crusaders took the city in 1099, they massacred thousands of people, mostly Muslims and Jews. They considered their own side “good” not because of their character or deeds, but because they claimed to be on God’s side. They could cite Biblical precedents, such as the genocide of the Canaanites.

Communicating with people who look at the world that way is hard. By the very fact of disagreeing with them, you’re on the side of “evil.” The important thing is to reject their worldview vocally and persistently.

The LACon code of conduct   Recently updated !

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged conventions fandom worldcon on by

One more in my sporadic series of posts on the codes of conduct of various conventions. This time it’s LACon V, the 2026 Worldcon in Los Angeles. Its code isn’t so bad that it would have kept me from attending if I’d really wanted to, but it has enough problems that I changed my mind about getting a “virtual membership.” Here’s a look at some of its good and bad points.

First concern: “Discrimination (based on but not limited to, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, or physical/mental disability) will not be tolerated.” Discrimination on these grounds by businesses, support organizations, and other public-facing groups is a bad thing, except when it’s necessary to their function (for example, Catholic churches can discriminate in favor of Catholics when hiring priests). Individuals can’t be held to the same standard. People often prefer the company of their own kind, and there’s nothing wrong with that as long as they aren’t obnoxious. Heterosexuals mostly would rather date heterosexuals, and homosexuals usually prefer other homosexuals. Affinity groups often meet at cons. This kind of rule can only be applied sporadically. Hopefully it will be invoked only when people get nasty about their preferences, but it could be used on anyone.

“Harassment of any kind will not be tolerated. If someone tells you no or asks you to leave them alone, you are expected to cease your interaction with them immediately. Because people may feel uncomfortable saying no or asking you to leave them alone, the absence of no is not sufficient to assume consent. Only yes means yes.” This mixes two different points. First we’re told that we should leave people alone if they say no. That’s reasonable, but then it immediately says that the absence of “no” isn’t sufficient. Does that mean explicit consent is required for every interaction? It creates pressure to formalize everything. Do people have to keep to themselves completely to be safe? Again, there won’t and can’t be complete enforcement, but the rule could be used on anyone.

It gets worse with the specific items that are called harassment. “Deliberate misgendering / deadnaming of people or continued misgendering / deadnaming after being corrected.” This applies a one-size-fits-all rule to trans people. Some people consider their previously manifested sex to be “dead” and want no reference made to it. Their choice should be respected. Others treat their transition differently. I know a fannish musician who treats his previous female identity as another person and has made an album combining her recordings with his new ones; he’s “deadnamed” himself. Some others wrote songs which they like to have credited under their previous names. Their choices should be respected.

“Comments that belittle or demean others” are deemed harassment. This is the same rule Balticon used in a nasty way. It will be quite an interesting convention if you can’t say anything bad about Donald Trump.

“Attempts to weaponize this Code of Conduct” violate the code of conduct. What counts as “weaponizing”? Does it mean anything more than using it in a way someone doesn’t like?

“Advocating for or encouraging any of the above behaviors.” I guess I’ve engaged in “harassment” by writing this.

The “anti-racism statement” is a mixed bag, but it doesn’t have specific prohibitions on members, so it’s out of scope for this discussion.

Will the bad parts of this code cause trouble for innocent people at LACon? No one knows. Sometimes senseless provisions get thrown in as boilerplate and never get fixed. It’s possible that if I registered for online participation and a WSFS membership, someone might point to this article and claim it’s “demeaning,” “harassment,” or “advocating for [prohibited] behaviors.” It’s more common, though, for cons to have badly written codes of conduct than to use them to punish people arbitrarily. Even so, their presence can be intimidating. A few bigoted organizations have taken action against Israelis and their supporters, so the risk is there.

Bottom line: If I were going, I wouldn’t skip the con because of this code of conduct, but I consider it enough of a negative that I’m foregoing the virtual membership.