Rabbit logic
One attempts to move on, but they keep pulling one back in. And honestly, how can anyone not enjoy watching their tiny little rabbit minds so furiously at work?
But to return to the rabbit logic, apparently I would get "happy pantsfeelings" from Ed's call being answered and thereby having to spend a modicum of effort to kick around McRapey in front of a few thousand blog readers, but was devastated by the brilliant way in which McRapey and Ensign Wesley banded together in order to draw attention to me in the Guardian, the BBC, and Salon, among others.
It's rather like watching them try to add 2+2+2 and coming up with the answer "purple badger".
staranise says: Asking for “debate” confuses me simply because it presupposes that it would accomplish something different from the current situation, in which any parties concerned have an unlimited personal platform to put forward their ideas and reasoning. It supposes that the parties are unfamiliar with each other’s positions and reasoning. This isn’t true, so there’s not much new to say. Nothing significant would change. Ah. Except, of course, RSHD would get happy pantsfeelings from being paid attention to. The call for debate is the same as standing outside Scalzi’s house with a boombox over one’s head. It’s not going to work! Turn off the Peter Gabriel. Go home.Yes, I've noticed many things confuse them. What is particularly funny about this little dialogue is that I never challenged McRapey to a debate. The challenge came from Ed Trimnell, who happens to be a critic of mine, and it would be Ed, not me, who is metaphorically standing outside in the rain.
John Scalzi says: Guys, I think we can give the topic of a debate a rest.
MMAH says: Oh, and look–front page at Salon this morning, too.
But to return to the rabbit logic, apparently I would get "happy pantsfeelings" from Ed's call being answered and thereby having to spend a modicum of effort to kick around McRapey in front of a few thousand blog readers, but was devastated by the brilliant way in which McRapey and Ensign Wesley banded together in order to draw attention to me in the Guardian, the BBC, and Salon, among others.
It's rather like watching them try to add 2+2+2 and coming up with the answer "purple badger".
Labels: McRapey, rabbitology
170 Comments:
I'm not sure if this has been linked before, but these were Bane's thoughts on John Scalzi five years ago.
The Grand Hutchinson of Warrenship Down*, slaying himself for all to see in several venues for the benefit of others, Pharisee of Pharisees.
But he has yet to come here as far as I can tell, ever. Nor any of his warren really. Unless Tad's a closet Whatever.
I don't think Scalzi's plan is quite working out the way he thought it would, on more than one level.
*Impressed with whichever of the Ilk came up with this name. Should be elevated alongside McRapey and rabbitology for this entire series.
Or rather, "lavender boob-grabbing bunny!"
"...Tad's a closet Whatever."
Closet?
That out, this is more evidence that hiding on echo chambers dulls the mind. What is amusing is the fear to engage outside said echo chamber.
This is priceless. I keep going back to MeSoMichelle as the most awesome Internet ass-kicking I have ever seen (well, besides the BoB thing in Eve...). This has topped that already as the commisioning of self-mocking art is the most limp-wristed retort I have seen.
I am not sure when they will retreat into oblivion but dear God I hope it takes a while.
He has spent way too much time writing about why you are stupid and wrong to now try to convince people that a debate would be wasting his time.
If there really is 'nothing more to say' then I guess he won't be doing any more posts about you. How long did he last before, 3 days?
Start the clock.
Semi-related. Vox, I was curious as to the sales rankings of your new book. I googled it and failed to find anything useful, I didn't know if those stats are public.
I cannot understand the total lack of spine over there. I get that rabbits are going to rabbit. But why are there only rabbits? Doesn't Scalzi have any non-rabbit fans?
@ Mike LaRoche
Reading Bane's insights again brought tears to my eyes; tears.
Ah, Bane. You left too soon, the Ilk need you....
The call for debate is the same as standing outside Scalzi’s house with a boombox over one’s head. It’s not going to work! Turn off the Peter Gabriel. Go home.
Clueless pop-culture reference For The Lose: in the movie being referenced, the forementioned boombox does work. This is hilarious!
Thales- Even funnier...it's a total gamma male thing to do.
"Closet?"
Tad's reflexive to anything Vox says or does, so of course the opposite. Goes without saying that he'd dote on Scalzi's "lavender rabbit emerging" approach. But beyond that, it doesn't confirm him as a Whatever regular.
...Unless your point was to equate Whatever readership with a lack of loafer weight. In which case, you're right.
Thales- Even funnier...it's a total gamma male thing to do.
Indeed, and a total projection of that behavior onto someone who would contemplate it.
*would never contemplate it.
@VD
U R an International STAR on SALON !!!
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/06/sci_fi_writer_makes_50000_for_charity_off_of_his_troll/
OMG....The Barbara Streisand effect writ large !!!!
Might I add, well done :)
When you're getting this kind of attention, holding to your convictions is very important. Any wavering and you're cooked. (Of course, it's completely asinine to imagine you losing confidence or going all soft and squeezy, but there it is anyway.)
<a href="http://www.historycarper.com/wordpress/2013/gamma-rabbit-is/>http://www.historycarper.com/wordpress/2013/gamma-rabbit-is/</a>
Of course, it's completely asinine to imagine you losing confidence or going all soft and squeezy
Be patient, my friends. The hilarity has only begun to ensue.
D'oh! I forgot the close quote. Eh. Cut and paste.
That out, this is more evidence that hiding on echo chambers dulls the mind. What is amusing is the fear to engage outside said echo chamber.
Actually, you do have to give Tad *some* credit on that front. He's somewhat braver than the other bunnies, who cannot bear the thought of looking at this blog and defiling their virgin eyes, much less getting into the thick of the comments.
http://www.historycarper.com/wordpress/2013/gamma-rabbit-is/
I can't believe how stupid Scalzi is. Blowing this dispute up into a big deal is not a good approach. When this is all said and done, all anyone will remember is you made fun of him and he got poutingly self righteous and started calling you names. He's coming off like the playground dork. This will probably be one of the big events of his life and it's just another day at the office for you.
Oh geez. He's going to get Wheaton to volunteer as spokesman for Throne of Bones cologne.
Be patient, my friends. The hilarity has only begun to ensue.
Damn it, now I'm reminded of the childhood agony of waiting for Christmas. I want to see it already!
What will you get the rabbits to do for your next trick? The suspense is killing me!
"Actually, you do have to give Tad *some* credit on that front. He's somewhat braver than the other bunnies, who cannot bear the thought of looking at this blog and defiling their virgin eyes, much less getting into the thick of the comments."
Love makes you do all sorts of crazy things.
What will you get the rabbits to do for your next trick? The suspense is killing me!
It certainly won't be pulling their own heads out of their ass.
Tad's not gamma hutch. Tad's lambda hutch. Big difference. In lambda, being bottom feeder means something altogether different.
@ Thales
I think whoever was talking about the boombox was referring to the fact that standing there with a boombox wasn't going to work to get the girl, rather than that the boombox was broken.
I apologize for the OT of this but it kinds of relates to Nate's flat earth on the last thread. They can put their heads in the sand for a long time, but some people do wake up. Some even start to do something about. First drones, now this.
" In lambda, being bottom feeder means something altogether different."
oh.. thank God for dishwasher safe keyboards...
The only downside to all of it is the frustration of trying to explain it to someone who wasn't following from the beginning.
The biggest upside is that I have been both a target and a participant of the non-sequiturial hopping in real life. As an onlooker now, wow, yes it really does work like this.
When Vox offers what will appear like contrition, the bunnies will be hopping all over each other to be the most compassionate and forgiving. Yes, they will pay tribute.
This article from HuffPo called "6 habits of remarkably likable people" could more properly called "The social norms of Rabbit People."
The things mentioned in the article have nothing at all to do with being liked. It reads like a misguided attempt at retraining Alpha's.
Yes, obviously the rabbits magically pulled you back to the comment section of someone else’s blog…
But no doubt, it really is like several sycophants have already pointed out, “Vox doesn’t care man, not at all, hey man! you don't talk to the Vox, you listen to him. The man's enlarged my mind. He's a warrior poet in the classic sense blah blah blah..."
Remember Vox, you're his nemesis now.
That's some pretty big shoes to fill.
Is this how the alpha/beta/gamma sociosexual terms are going to finally break into the mainstream?
Anon... pick a name.
"...the rabbits magically pulled you back to the comment section..."
I'd imagine it's difficult not to, given
a). a tribe of herbivores that self-micturates and autocannibalizes is a rubber-necker of Biblical proportions;
b). that a link to Scalzi's blog is in this - and every - post regarding rabbitology.
Barring the Salon article, how did you get here, Anon.
I did, its Anonymous with three dots.
If Scalzi didn't exist, Vox would have to invent him.
I did, its Anonymous with three dots.
One for each brain cell.
with three dots.
You mean pellets? Try a name a little less chickenshit.
"Yes, obviously the rabbits magically pulled you back to the comment section of someone else’s blog…"
The implication here is that VD is posting in Scalzi's comments? I haven't been to whatever today... is that the case? or am I mistaken?
I can't believe how stupid Scalzi is. Blowing this dispute up into a big deal is not a good approach. When this is all said and done, all anyone will remember is you made fun of him and he got poutingly self righteous and started calling you names.
Keep in mind, it also got his name mentioned on sites with readership numbers which dwarf Whatever, VP and Alpha Game combined. For a writer whose books are on the shelves of major bookstores, this is no small benefit.
I'd say this is a win all around. We get our entertainment, Scalzi gets his publicity, he and his followers get to feel self-righteous, and his causes get their donations.
I did, its Anonymous with three dots.
That's fine. As long as it keeps you distinct.
Barring the Salon article, how did you get here, Anon.
I'm hoping it's via that French article, and anon will proceed us Anglo Saxon types on our technological prowess.
Nate; not at all, just that Vox is being disingenuous about his desire to "move on"
Also can we all agree Giraffe is an incredibly brave and distinctive name?
More dots...
Even more dots...
Now hit it...hit it like you mean it...
Run to the center, lee, run to the center...
WELP...
"Nate; not at all, just that Vox is being disingenuous about his desire to "move on" "
Ummm... Mate... Vox has never claimed to be looking to move on. Vox is clearly enjoying himself a great deal. Scalzi is the one talking about getting past this.
Also can we all agree Giraffe is an incredibly brave and distinctive name?
He's really Merton hanks. But he doesn't want the brothers to know.
MORE DOTS!!! MORE DOTS!!!
Josh... epic.
Anon...
You will know this is nearing its end when even we here are calling it Zombie Horse Part Deux... and clamouring for VD to move on. Odds are 6 months from now... no one here will even mention the word "rabbit" for fear that Vox will somehow backslide and fall back in to his default expired-equine-bludgeoning mode.
That's how it works around here. If you want to see the scope of how this is going to go... take a good look at what Vox did to michelle malkin... and look at how long it lasted.
This could be worse.
The implication here is that VD is posting in Scalzi's comments? I haven't been to whatever today... is that the case? or am I mistaken?
No, but he's quoting from the comment section. I think. I was sure that I saw the quoted comments over there and now they have disappeared. That wascally wabbit.
deleting comments and editing comments of others... such a clever moderator!
Imagine what will happen when other moderators learn of his creativity!
I suspect at some point in the near future the publicity will rebound.
Also can we all agree Giraffe is an incredibly brave and distinctive name?
@three pellets
I don't know about brave, but definitely distinctive.
Don't listen to Anonymous with 3 dots. As you see, I have 4 dots, so I am 25% better, smarter, and more handsome than that loser.
Let's have three dots and four dots fight.
"staranise"
Hmmm...I'd like to try some butt sex with her.
I'm thinking we could change some attitudes here.
You know, Vox, you're getting entirely too much enjoyment out of this. :)
Folks, remember, what we have here is an AWCA at work. Do not attempt this at home.
I don't know.. I was surprised how fast he lost interest in PoZ Myers, and he had a far funnier nickname. Wangsty at least had the good sense to stay down and not make it so funny
He's really Merton hanks. But he doesn't want the brothers to know.
Heh.
Don't listen to Anonymous with 3 dots. As you see, I have 4 dots, so I am 25% better, smarter, and more handsome than that loser.
Baby, baby, baby, baby
I got one more baby than you do
Yes its true
Josh "He's really Merton hanks. But he doesn't want the brothers to know."
So Don Rickles is just yesterday's news, now?
"'Hmmm...I'd like to try some butt sex with her."
...
what?
But no doubt, it really is like several sycophants have already pointed out, “Vox doesn’t care man, not at all, hey man! you don't talk to the Vox, you listen to him. The man's enlarged my mind. He's a warrior poet in the classic sense blah blah blah..."
Once again they compare us to classic dominant, dangerous and predatory movie villains from the deep, dark jungle.
Last time it was Scar, now it's Colonel Kurtz from Apocolypse Now. What's next?
"I don't know about brave, but definitely distinctive."
And unlike a three dot anonymous, a Giraffe is willing to stick his neck out.
"a Giraffe is willing to stick his neck out."
I thought that was Tad's thing?
This whole thing has dredged up what was a mercifully forgotten memory.
This.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy9WJgOrUUA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
At 1:20.
Thanks, again.
I have 4 dots, so I am 25% better, smarter, and more handsome than that loser.
Don't you mean 33.3-%? Silly rabbits, math is for kids.
Nate February 06, 2013 3:16 PM
"a Giraffe is willing to stick his neck out."
I thought that was Tad's thing?
Tad is always sticking other parts out.
Three dots is an ellipsis, so he is a bit eccentric.
Last time it was Scar, now it's Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now.
I watched a rabbit hopping on the edge of a straight razor.
That's my dream; that's my nightmare.
Hopping, dancing, along the edge of a straight razor... and surviving.
I thought that was Tad's thing?
Um.... Other end, dude.
"Um.... Other end, dude."
I am loathe to draw attention to Josh's village voice quote... but apparently... its both. At the same time.
Nate; he claimed that in the first line of this post. But I suppose it could be sarcasm, since it’s effective use is not his forte.
Nate/Giraffe; those comments are still there. Not sure where you were looking.
Krul; no, I’m comparing you to the photojournalist.
DOTS!!!!!
Nate; he claimed that in the first line of this post.
That's called sarcasm. Here's a clue:
VD: Be patient, my friends. The hilarity has only begun to ensue.
Nate/Giraffe; those comments are still there.
My mistake.
It's rather like watching them try to add 2+2+2 and coming up with the answer "purple badger".
I think their answer would be potato.
Three Pellets...Is that his new Indian name?
Oh well, the rabbit who shits and runs away, lives to shit another day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4p6_G4gQpk
Jimmy Carter vs Killer Rabbit
DannyR
forsythe move to the center! Thrashim! Move to the center. DO NOT STAND NEXT TO ANYONE ELSE!!!!
More DOTS!!!
MORE DOTS!!!
OK... stop dots.
since it’s effective use is not his forte
I see grammar is not yours. Not good for establishing credibility at determining sarcasm, that.
There should be some sort of Godwin-esque law for people who take reasonable typos and go all grammar nazi, by the way.
@vox day
But to return to the rabbit logic, apparently I would get "happy pantsfeelings" from Ed's call being answered and thereby having to spend a modicum of effort to kick around McRapey in front of a few thousand blog readers,
There's no telling who would get kicked around. But given the coverage of this little dust up there's no doubt that the vast majority of observers would conclude that Scalzi's butt would be untouched if you choose to go at him with a "women-should-not-vote" argument.
If fact if it were me debating and you tried to make that case, I'd probably respond with, "Please, Vox Day, go on and tell us more of your opinion". In that way I could pretty quickly win over 99% of the few thousands watching or reading.
"
There's no telling who would get kicked around. But given the coverage of this little dust up there's no doubt that the vast majority of observers would conclude that Scalzi's butt would be untouched if you choose to go at him with a "women-should-not-vote" argument.
"
You blithering idiot... This has nothing to do with women voting. This is about Scalzi's idiotic posing in protest of book covers.
That is what the debate would be about... and Vox would crush him like a bitch... and he knows it.
Yes tad, because you've done such a fabulous job debating on this blog.
If only Scalzi wasn't just too busy. I mean, it would be so easy to make VD look like such a fool. He's folding the winning hand. No doubt about it.
You blithering idiot... This has nothing to do with women voting. This is about Scalzi's idiotic posing in protest of book covers.
That is what the debate would be about... and Vox would crush him like a bitch... and he knows it.
Oh no, Nate. Scalzi can't be bothered. Vox would just end up getting attention and publicity. And not the kind of publicity that the Salon article provided. That just inspired more people to not buy his books.
There's no telling who would get kicked around.
Which is exactly why Scalzi should agree to the debate. His continued reticence is puzzling.
"If fact if it were me debating and you tried to make that case, I'd probably respond with, "Please, Vox Day, go on and tell us more of your opinion". In that way I could pretty quickly win over 99% of the few thousands watching or reading."
Funny how that default position is always, "Everyone will like me better than you!" Again, Vox cares not for winning over anyone.
Tad, have you come up with any oven suggestions yet? I missed you on the drone post.
I like the colors and the heating elements, but I keep trying to find one with a "jew" setting on it and I only get things like "broil" instead. I tried Sears, and then the higher-end Nordstrom, but nothing is working.
Please help.
It's only sarcasm if it's between sarcasm tags or accompied by a smiley or at least a warning. The same is true for Irony and Humor. How else are we supposed to know when to laugh?
If fact if it were me debating and you tried to make that case, I'd probably respond with, "Please, Vox Day, go on and tell us more of your opinion". In that way I could pretty quickly win over 99% of the few thousands watching or reading.
Because, what? You think the rightness of women's suffrage is patently obvious and beyond question in the minds of most people? You think most people have even thought about it with anything close to depth?
I predict if you went that route, you'd sit there for all of one minute before experiencing an "oh shit, I really should start arguing now" moment, once you realized that far less than 99% were going to walk away thinking Vox was wrong if you just let him make his case.
I like the colors and the heating elements, but I keep trying to find one with a "jew" setting on it and I only get things like "broil" instead. I tried Sears, and then the higher-end Nordstrom, but nothing is working.
Please help.
Dude...you've got to buy a German brand for that setting...
@Vox
Be patient, my friends. The hilarity has only begun to ensue
Well come on man, do you have photos of him raping a cat or something?
@Giraffe
I cannot understand the total lack of spine over there. I get that rabbits are going to rabbit. But why are there only rabbits? Doesn't Scalzi have any non-rabbit fans?
Old Man’s War brought me in then Redshirts turned me sour. I frequented his blog for a few months even commenting here and there, I could forgive the stupid political stuff, but not the shitty writing. And on the political stuff, he pissed me off many times but quite frankly I wasn’t ready for a flame war with a man who can write 10,000 words before noon. The rapist post was really the last straw, what a disgusting diatribe from a disturbed little man.
@Difster
Here’s a better one “7 Types of Dudes Who Annoy Everyone Just By Their Very Existence”
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/01/30/7-types-of-dudes-who-annoy-everyone-just-by-their-very-existence/
Tad, you probably think the point of a boxing match is to be the guy more people are cheering for too
"There's no telling who..."
Introducing the Castro St Weathervane: First it points north, then it points south, and 'round and 'round it turns in fabulous 69° increments.
Again, Vox cares not for winning over anyone.
There seems to be a misunderstanding on the other side that this is not a popularity contest.
There's no telling who would get kicked around. But given the coverage of this little dust up there's no doubt that the vast majority of observers would conclude that Scalzi's butt would be untouched if you choose to go at him with a "women-should-not-vote" argument.
There's no way Tad is a legitimate poster. It's got to be someone yanking chains. Most people just aren't this naturally stupid. This level of abject stupidity almost always takes deliberate effort to achieve.
See, I liked Old Man's War and The Last Colony, I thought they were great. I never got to Redshirts or any of that, because I got to his politics first.
I find him just a shrill and annoying leftist. That alone is reason enough for me to make sure he never gets another cent of mine.
I cannot understand the total lack of spine over there. I get that rabbits are going to rabbit. But why are there only rabbits? Doesn't Scalzi have any non-rabbit fans?
I am a fan of Scalzi's best works, and he used to write some funny sarcasm. But it w
Old Man's War, and the title, if not the execution of Your Hate Mail Will Be Graded. He wrote some fine but forgettable follow-ups in the Heinlein vein, then completely lost me as soon as he tried his Heinlein "homage" schtick on H. Beam Piper. But OMW is still a nice read, and not even Scalzi can leave OMW scalzied.
The guy is caught in a recursive loop of self-mockery now, and simply can't stop hitting himself. He'd just be the retarded spazmoid in the corner at the old science fiction writer's home and quite pathetic, if it were not for the tender administration of balm by Nurse Day and his Angels of Ilk. We give his repetitive life both hope and meaning.
But, a far greater author in Martin has fallen into a senile puddle of money and purposelessness. That takes nothing away from the fact that A Game of Thrones is still a very good book. Scalzi's fall has been epic, but that should take nothing away from the fact that once, he told some jokes on the internet that were funny and once, he wrote a novel in the style of Heinlein, and it wasn't half-bad. Nothing can take that away. Not even Zoe's Tale.
If fact if it were me debating and you tried to make that case, I'd probably respond with, "Please, Vox Day, go on and tell us more of your opinion". In that way I could pretty quickly win over 99% of the few thousands watching or reading.
That's the problem with debate vs. a real fight. In a real fight if one person is beat to a pulp and the other is fine, there's no question who won. But in debate a dishonest or stupid opponent can walk away honestly believing that they won. Spectators who are dishonest or stupid can believe the same.
Just look at any comments here by Tad.
Right now I view Scalzi as head retard yelling at the other retards to behave, it's just so adorable.
I wonder if Farnham's Freehold could be Scalzied.
Of course I mean his followers who get out of line.
UI, yes, thanks. I did not like Last Colony as much as you, but Ghost Brigades was okay. You haven't missed anything in the series since then. I actually bought Zoe's Tale and, indeed, read it even after realizing it wasn't a sequel to Last Colony. If you don't know it get ready: It is Last Colony, retold, from the perspective of a teenaged girl. My hope that a formerly good author would redeem (what I thought was) a bad book with a better sequel was, to understate it, somewhat in vain.
From Scalzi: Folks here know that I’m insensibly fond of the character of Zoë Boutin-Perry, in part because I expended so much effort on trying to make her realistically both female and teenage, rather than a convenient teenage girl-shaped version of me. She’s the character I worked the hardest on so far, which makes her special to me (and also, I’m pleased with how she came out, which is not so bad either). I wanted folks to meet her and like her. Beyond this, there was the additional challenge of going back to readers and saying, “so, yeah, remember the last book in the series? Well, this one covers the exact same timeframe. Wanna read it?”
Having read it (for me it was like reading the collapse of a civilization. Not "about" the collapse, literally reading the collapse, as if every cloying turn of phrase was an incantation, rending the universe asunder, atom by atom.
I don't know why Scalzi could never break out of derivatives, but he couldn't. He collapsed, became completely self-referential, and now is stuck "Taunting the Tauntable Since 1998." Too bad for him he runs into so many who are untauntable these days.
The whole debate seems to have been framed poorly for Molester Bunny. After all, if he accepted the debate, he could then be brutally beaten and verbally raped by Vox... Then, transformed into a "True Victim of the Evil Patriarchy", surely his Magical Bunny powers would grow in Thetan level! What powers might McRapey then possess? Empathy Tears +10, Puppeteer "Self-Burrowing", Vaginal Bleeding (Yes, this would be a super power to McRapey)... How could one not hop at the chance?
Popehat has weighed in...
http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/on-feeding-trolls/
Remind me what this is all about again?
On second thought, no, don't remind me. That would involve more of the talking about it and mentioning this Scalzi guy again, and other things that don't matter all that much.
The boring! It hurts us! It burns!
GUY WITH CAMPY METAL MASK IN FLASH GORDON: Bring me... the Bore Worms.
HOT CHICK BEING CAMPILY INTERROGATED: No!! Not... the Bore Worms!
Please, guys. Not the bore worms!
Might I suggest three dots.
@FP
Got to love the "mass shooters probably one of those eeeeevil Manosphere commenters" idiocy.
Nevermind that it's completely false, or that shootings tend to come from getting fucked out of your job by the Banksta Gangsters, it comes from the flawed notion that being aware that "the feminine mistique" is a bunch of bullshit makes you prone to shooting people.
Oh, they don't like the words used to describe women? Well, tough. They are the truth.
@crude
I predict if you went that route, you'd sit there for all of one minute before experiencing an "oh shit, I really should start arguing now" moment, once you realized that far less than 99% were going to walk away thinking Vox was wrong if you just let him make his case.
You are probably right. It might be 98%.
If fact if it were me debating and you tried to make that case, I'd probably respond with, "Please, Vox Day, go on and tell us more of your opinion". In that way I could pretty quickly win over 99% of the few thousands watching or reading.
Let's do try to think this over rationally, Tad. If 99% of people already agree with women's suffrage, then what exactly would you be "winning" here? The temporary feeling that you were the one in the "cool club"?
If your stunt resulted in even 1% of those people changing their minds in response to Vox's unopposed arguments, you would have lost ground in public opinion.
What you've done here is give us a very obvious confirmation of Vox's description of what it is the rabbit people value.
@DT
That's the problem with debate vs. a real fight. In a real fight if one person is beat to a pulp and the other is fine, there's no question who won. But in debate a dishonest or stupid opponent can walk away honestly believing that they won. Spectators who are dishonest or stupid can believe the same.
The longer Vox Day would talk about how incompetent women are when it comes to wielding the vote, the more people would role their eyes and wonder, "why are we having this debate....the issue is settle...everyone knows women are equally capable of weighing in on political issues via the vote. Why are we listening to this person??"
There's no dishonesty there. There is only judgement.
@FP
Popehat has weighed in...
http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/on-feeding-trolls/
He has. And this observation is particularly astute:
"The troll is one of those types interested in dividing men into "Alpha" and "Beta" males. My views on that are paradoxical and recursive; I think that being concerned with dividing people into Alpha and Beta males, and certainly being concerned with whether one is viewed as an Alpha or Beta male, sounds like a very Beta way to think."
@Deuce
Let's do try to think this over rationally, Tad. If 99% of people already agree with women's suffrage, then what exactly would you be "winning" here? The temporary feeling that you were the one in the "cool club"?
If your stunt resulted in even 1% of those people changing their minds in response to Vox's unopposed arguments, you would have lost ground in public opinion.
What you've done here is give us a very obvious confirmation of Vox's description of what it is the rabbit people value.
Vox Day's description of what "rabbit people" value is of very little value.
And what would have been gained. Simply one more demonstration that those who live by the misogynist creed have been devalued and left alone in a very small corner with a very small cohort. It's still worth noting.
Am I the only one still wondering who Clay is contemplating buttsexing?
I mean that was the most randomly disturbing comment I've seen here in a long time.
Is this the final destination of Moral Relativism? A world when everything is decided as a popularity contest, where the truth is denounced because it doesn't fit with the dogma?
Pathetic. Also, why Tad keeps to insist on commenting on such an "insignificant" blog? I mean, I know the answer: To preach the Leftist dogma as much as possible, but keeping such cognitive dissonance is...something. Not sure what, but something.
Am I the only one still wondering who Clay is contemplating buttsexing?
I mean that was the most randomly disturbing comment I've seen here in a long time.
I think so. He said who right in the comment.
Right.. but I have no idea who that is.
"Is this the final destination of Moral Relativism?"
Welcome to Soviet Union, comrade!
Hands behind your back.
And of perfect! You have name that is number already.
Nate-
I think we're treating that one like the old uncle who cuts a whole in.in the pockets of his pants and tells the kids there's candy-its less disturbing if you pretend you didn't see it.
He has. And this observation is particularly astute:
"The troll is one of those types interested in dividing men into "Alpha" and "Beta" males. My views on that are paradoxical and recursive; I think that being concerned with dividing people into Alpha and Beta males, and certainly being concerned with whether one is viewed as an Alpha or Beta male, sounds like a very Beta way to think."
And it's quite a blatantly false conclusion. Concern with social hierarchy does not put one in the lower rung of the hierarchy anymore than concern with economic class makes one poor.
Is this the final destination of Moral Relativism? A world when everything is decided as a popularity contest, where the truth is denounced because it doesn't fit with the dogma?
Yup, that's part and parcel of the rabbit herd mentality, which Tad is demonstrating nicely.
Does anyone know if Scalzi has been vacationing in Acapulco?
Right.. but I have no idea who that is.
Read VD's original post: "staranise says: Asking for “debate” confuses me..........."
Still doesn't tell us who she is, but at least it aint out of the blue random. Or Tad.
We will all wait while you catch up, Nate.
"Everyone knows women are equal.."
Yes, tad and a few hundred years ago everyone knew those who were enslaved were not. "But but, its self evident!"
Pathetic. Also, why Tad keeps to insist on commenting on such an "insignificant" blog? I mean, I know the answer: To preach the Leftist dogma as much as possible, but keeping such cognitive dissonance is...something. Not sure what, but something.
Which shows his lack of rational thought process. To him VD and the people commenting here are insignificant but he spends an inordinate amount of time refuting those insignificant opinions. If they were truly such, they'd be worthy of nothing but being ignored. His actions and words are in contradiction.
Women might be capable of exercising their right to vote (properly), but it is like trying to do good. The proverb says that even the Righteous Man sins seven times a day. In practice, women are more shortsighted and less prudent. They refuse to restrain government. They think it a force for good instead of force that will enslave them, at least at some level. They listen to and believe snakes. If Adam had kept Eve away from the "voting machine" we wouldn't be in this mess. There are some women who can rise above this, but they are not the majority, and in a democracy the majority rules.
I've also stated my dissent here - but I'm not sure there is any real disagreement at the root. Democracy is the enemy and destructive of liberty. If the best government is the least government, voting is only about who does this minimal function so the franchise doesn't matter that much. But when government is about who is going to micromanage your life, either in the bedroom or the office, it matters a lot more, but it is really futile. Once you accept we are all slaves of the state, voting will be an even more silly pretense.
Maybe we should put it this way, women should be able to vote when men can have (conceive and birth) babies.
Checking the comments on Whatever, it's funny how many commenters are trying to distance themselves from the purplish abomination - but they really like the black and white Gamma Rabbit design! And one poster said that the purple one could be for girls and the black and white one for boys, and was promptly labeled a sexist.
I normally don't go for the cruelty schtick, but in this case it is richly deserved
Harsh February 06, 2013 6:46 PM
"Pathetic. Also, why Tad keeps to insist on commenting on such an "insignificant" blog? I mean, I know the answer: To preach the Leftist dogma as much as possible, but keeping such cognitive dissonance is...something. Not sure what, but something."
Which shows his lack of rational thought process. To him VD and the people commenting here are insignificant but he spends an inordinate amount of time refuting those insignificant opinions. If they were truly such, they'd be worthy of nothing but being ignored. His actions and words are in contradiction.
If Tad actually spent any time refuting any of those opinions he might get more respect. Tad's arguments consist of:
You're wrong because I believe you are wrong.
You're wrong because people I know think you are wrong.
You're wrong because I want you to be wrong.
Have I mentioned you are wrong?
Then he falls back to consensus of the above to tell you that you are wrong.
I have yet to see any hard facts to back up his opinions.
> The longer Vox Day would talk about how incompetent women are when it comes to wielding the vote,
Really? Where has Vox said they're incompetent in wielding the vote?
He's said they inimical to freedom, not incompetent.
VD: need a tissue for the tears of pain and sorrow running down your face?
Life is truly stranger than fiction. You cant make this shit up. Let me see if I got it right: Ohio based self proclaimed rapist/sci fi writer who enjoys placing bacon on felines, crossdressing with other sci-fi writers to express outrage over marketing aimed at female readers/pandering to women since he feels guilty for being a white american male gets self-inflicted butt hurts by simply talking about Italy based-ex pat computer programmer/professional columinst/martial artist/semi-pro soccer player/war game tactician/economics author/fantasy author/business owner/nepresso owner extraordinare. Who gets his revenge by designing a pathetic and homoerotic rabbit as his standard/banner and also giving his own money (only pledges, since we all know liberals love to pledge, but they hardly ever give) to charity for gay/non-white/incest victims, resulting in global media coverage over said blogs....with a cameo appearance from Wesley Fucking Crusher??
thats about it right?
Because you asked for it - Gamma Rabbit Photoshops:
http://dronesofdeath.blogspot.com/2013/02/gamma-rabbits.html
Sorry - I don't know the html code to make clickable links.
"Dammit, Jim - I'm a photo doctor, not an IT guy!"
Just in: http://kaufmann-mercantile.com/rabbit-hunting/
Rabbit logic is an oxymoron. CMOS or TTL. I'm used to and and or gates. Even exclusive or. Not "yes if nice, no if nasty". if-then-else, not if-then-alsoasnotoexclude.
Vidad.
Why am I not on your blogroll?
Fix that.
Dammit.
TRK
WTF is a nepresso?
Vidad,
Nice work
@Nate
Because you're a glockist, maccist, AC-DCist dipstick?
You're on there now.
SFWA.org is reporting a denial of service attack. Scalzi will attempt to pin it on his would-be successor by not mentioning him by name, nor sleeping with him.
More comedy will ensue. This is like watching a chess match between Big Blue and a vibrator.
Hmm wonder if the DDOS has anything to do with the Gamesworkshop issue that Scalzi has inserted himself and the SFWA into.
Battle over SpaceMarines
@PinaKelli
If Tad actually spent any time refuting any of those opinions he might get more respect. Tad's arguments consist of:
You're wrong because I believe you are wrong.
You're wrong because people I know think you are wrong.
You're wrong because I want you to be wrong.
Have I mentioned you are wrong?
It's simpler than that.
It's you are wrong, and everyone knows it.
Women are perfectly capable of protecting their own and their family's and their community's interests while still protecting liberty. Just because Vox Day doesn't agree with what is right and what is wrong doesn't make women incapable of protecting liberty.
It's simple. Vox Day is wrong about women and their interests and how they protect them....and he has few who agree with him.
Hmm would seem I messed up the html code.
http://io9.com/5982201/games-workshop-is-still-claiming-to-own-the-trademark-to-space-marine-time-to-get-pissed-off
So, Tad's whole argument is based on two points:
1) Vox is wrong because Tad says so,
and
2) Vox is wrong because, supposedly, many people disagree with him, classic argumentum ad populum.
Heheh.
let me edit the dialogue..
taranise says: TL-DR-DCP.........
John Scalzi says: Guys, give it a rest already. I am flattered by the fact you all believe in me. But I don't believe in myself. He's gonna crush me, humiliate me, ruin me, if I ever accepted the challenge. So cut it out already. I am hoping that the challenge fades into nothingness in time. So help me out. Buy my fagshit-pink-rabbit t-shirt. Continue pledging. But stop mentioning the debate challenge. I'm a gamma rabbit for Christ's sake! He-who-must-not-be-named is an evil evil man that scares the mcrapey out of me!
MMAH says: Oh, and look–front page at Salon this morning, too.
"It's you are wrong, and everyone knows it."
Again Tad, based on what facts? You haven't wowed us with your knowledge, and you certainly won't baffle us with your bullshit. You're debate style of "everyone knows that.." is tiresome at best. It's fine if you disagree, but back it up or begone. The people he are more apt than most to challenge the established story for most anything, sometimes wrongly even. But the fact is approaching skepticism with demanding adherence to convention is just ignorant, and shows no understanding of human behavior. You are a moronic troll, and a PC Thug.
Tad, you support a gun grabbing agenda.
Kindly shut up about liberty, you do not understand it.
"Women are perfectly capable of protecting their own and their family's and their community's interests while still protecting liberty."
See they are perfectly capable... we know they are. They have never done it of course... its failed every time its ever been tried... but we KNOW they are capable.
And what would have been gained. Simply one more demonstration that those who live by the misogynist creed have been devalued and left alone in a very small corner with a very small cohort. It's still worth noting.
Actually, I missed all the other demonstrations. Where can I find them? To hear you say it, 99% of the world has been utterly convinced that people who think the way Vox does on this subject - people who are even sympathetic to it, and are willing to hear it out - are just wrong, and can shoot down their views with ease. Yet you're awfully light on direct data. Or data at all.
See, I disagree with Vox in large part. But I also am not so naive to think that 'everyone knows he's wrong', or that he couldn't persuade people if given a stage and free reign to do so. I also don't need to create a fantasy world where 99% of the world agrees with me for fear of realizing that opinions are more diverse, people are actually more open to being swayed on such subjects, etc. People who consider themselves to be progressive like to imagine the progress is always and eternally going in the direction they hope it well. That's why they tend to be so damn disappointed.
Women are perfectly capable of protecting their own and their family's and their community's interests while still protecting liberty. Just because Vox Day doesn't agree with what is right and what is wrong doesn't make women incapable of protecting liberty.
Great. Demonstrate and argue as much. Defend your claim, since Vox has done so in the past. I have the feeling you treat your views less as something to be tested by discussion, and more as nice ideas you turn to for comfort and would prefer not to defend - lest they get harmed, harming you by extension. God forbid you go to bed tonight questioning whether the world really is the way you take it to be.
But, do what you want. I don't expect much out of you. You seem set up less to be a guy who argues, more to be a cheerleader. Rabbit cheerleader? Whatever, I don't know how that whole thing works anyway.
It's funny that Tad presumes to know more about women than many of us who actually have happy girlfriends, wives and daughters. There are also some very smart women here as well whom I suspect know a thing or two more than Tad about what women want and what makes them happy. Much like Scalzi, Tad doesn't even understand Vox's position let alone possess a substantive argument against it.
Tad simply objects to Vox's rhetorical style on emotional grounds. That's okay. So do I, sometimes, but at least admit that is your real problem with it or else argue against the substance of Vox's position with verifiable documented facts, Tad.
It's you are wrong, and everyone knows it.
I don't know it so your claim is false on its face. You continue to appeal to the masses (i.e., "everyone knows this is true") and yet you provide no evidence to back up your claims.
To paraphrase a wiser man, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
It's funny that Tad presumes to know more about women than many of us who actually have happy girlfriends, wives and daughters.
Irony, thy name is Tad.
"Women are perfectly capable of protecting their own and their family's and their community's interests while still protecting liberty."
...until they get raped.
Women are perfectly capable of protecting their own and their family's and their community's interests while still protecting liberty.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Why do you hate women, Harsh!? WHY!?
Of course they are perfectly capable of defending themselves!
Until they get raped....
TRK
WTF is a nepresso?
Its liquid gold
Scalzi employs the PZ defense:
Interested Onlooker says: Why? If it has escalated to this level, why not? Nothing would be better for the cause than to publicly shame and humiliate a RSHD.
John Scalzi says: You can run back and tell the party pals they don’t rate getting on my schedule. And that’s the end of that discussion.
Interested Onlooker says: Who are the party pals? I’m interested in the debate.
John Scalzi says: What part of “that’s the end of that discussion” are you having difficulty with?
But he's clearly enjoying all of this.
Tad February 06, 2013 10:51 PM
@PinaKelli
If Tad actually spent any time refuting any of those opinions he might get more respect. Tad's arguments consist of:
You're wrong because I believe you are wrong.
You're wrong because people I know think you are wrong.
You're wrong because I want you to be wrong.
Have I mentioned you are wrong?
It's simpler than that.
It's you are wrong, and everyone knows it.
Women are perfectly capable of protecting their own and their family's and their community's interests while still protecting liberty. Just because Vox Day doesn't agree with what is right and what is wrong doesn't make women incapable of protecting liberty.
It's simple. Vox Day is wrong about women and their interests and how they protect them....and he has few who agree with him.
I left out:
And I'm smugly ignorant of any and all evidence that contradicts my own world view because I want it that way.
Ok, now this is a funny twist
Disney White Rabbit accused of racism
http://news.yahoo.com/video/black-family-claims-disneyland-character-021900178.html
One attempts to move on, but they keep pulling one back in.
Face it - at this point, you're Scalzi's little bitch. he's pwned you in public up and down the Internet.
Face it - at this point, you're Scalzi's little bitch. he's pwned you in public up and down the Internet.
He's managed to spread the name McRapey across the media and you genuinely think he's pwned me? Do hold that thought, Phoenician. You hold that thought.
Gammas are always so quick to declare victory, thereby demonstrating that they don't even understand the game. But all these things will become clear in time.
He's managed to spread the name McRapey across the media and you genuinely think he's pwned me?
Judging by the thousands of new people laughing their asses off at you, sure. Your attempt to smear him is a joke, and you're a joke, you twerp - and what you don't get is now you're an even bigger joke known to many, many people who had no clue you existed.
Scalzi has pwned you. You might as well drop your pants, paint your ass red, and bend over.
Sorry, the below was posted on the wrong thread.
More rabbit pellets from the Manboob.
He calls Amazon:
"an aggressive multinational corporation aggressively pursuing a monopsony position in the market, with billions in yearly gross revenues."
An evil filty rich capitalist agressive multinational monopolist! Yet he allows them to sell his books!
Is this some sort of grok only rabbits can do?
I can haz victory!
"Scalzi has pwned you. You might as well drop your pants, paint your ass red, and bend over."
Then why has Scalzi gone so incredibly silent?
Face it - at this point, you're Scalzi's little bitch. he's pwned you in public up and down the Internet.
Whatever makes you sleep at night, princess.
You're hurting feelings, Phoenician; stop it.
Group hug.
@Vox Day
Gammas are always so quick to declare victory, thereby demonstrating that they don't even understand the game. But all these things will become clear in time.
Sometimes he battle is won with one blow. At least recognizes the battle was won early. Don't worry, I'm sure the war will still rage. He's still a popular novelist.
Both hands on the keyboard, Tad.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home