ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, February 06, 2013

Salon on troll-beating

Apparently McRapey is stabbing me in the eye.  Or something:
 Here’s how you beat the trolls: Turn their hatred into cash for charities they despise.

That’s what science-fiction writer John Scalzi has done — and in the process, he’s raised more than $50,000 in pledges for Emily’s List and the Human Rights Campaign, specially chosen to earn the ire of a blogger Scalzi calls “my racist sexist homophobic dipshit.”

Every time Scalzi’s online nemesis — a former WorldNetDaily columnist who writes under the name Vox Day – used his name or called someone by a derogatory nickname, Scalzi set aside $5 for charity — and his readers pitched in, too, raising tens of thousands for charities designed to uplift women, minorities and gays. Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network and the NAACP also benefit; Scalzi capped his own donation at $1,000 and his readers took over from there.

“The whole point of this is not to intimidate him to stop speaking. You will not get this guy to stop speaking. He sees this as a contest, as a battle of wills,” said Scalzi, in an interview with Salon. Giving money to charities like RAINN and the NAACP is, he says, “an extra stab in the eye.”
I am, of course, frothing with rage at the unspeakable generosity being shown by the dastardly Rabbit People.  Oh, how the anger courses through my body, from clenched fist to clenched fist!  First Emily's List, then RAINN?  It's like a one-two punch!

Whatever shall I do?

Labels: ,

308 Comments:

1 – 200 of 308 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 10:04 AM  

I am entertained. so... so entertained. Out of curiosity... did the Salon writer interview you himself? Was there a language barrier or something?

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick February 06, 2013 10:05 AM  

You left out the best part of the article:

“Clearly they have confounded me,” said Beale, of Scalzi and his readers. “They have clearly shown themselves to be the more civilized and decent and intelligent people. I would think that that’s obvious.” He denied that he was being sarcastic.

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 10:06 AM  

Begun, the Rabbit Wars have.

< insert.imperial.march.theme >

Anonymous Krul February 06, 2013 10:06 AM  

Sci-fi writer makes $50,000 for charity off of his “troll”

Here’s how you beat the trolls: Turn their hatred into cash for charities they despise.



One bald-faced lie in the title, another in the first sentence. Typical.

1) Donating your own money when someone mentions your name isn't making money "off of" him.

2) Niether VD nor any of the Ilk "despises" those charities.

Clearly the most important take-away from this is that VD's cover artist is vastly superior to Scalzi's.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 10:09 AM  

I confess... the fiendishly clever tactic of threatening to donate money to charities you were already donating money to is fiendishly clever.

Blogger Positive Dennis February 06, 2013 10:10 AM  

How about a post where you repeat his name 200 times?

Anonymous Vidad February 06, 2013 10:12 AM  

@Nate

Oh yeah. For sure!

Every time Vox says something bad about Calvinism, I continue donating 10% of my income to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church I attend.

It stings! It stings!

Anonymous RHSD February 06, 2013 10:13 AM  

You did that for the free publicity!

I'm still trying to figure out how to establish a Scalzi-approved charity. "It's immoral to let a sucker keep his money."

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 10:14 AM  

News from the Warren:

MRAL says:
February 6, 2013 at 9:16 am

After seeing this comment thread pre-cleanup and watching Lion King last night, I can’t stop picturing Vox Popoli as Scar’s lair. Especially given a certain upcoming election.


Now, I thought Scar's lair was actually pretty cool...

Blogger Robert Wilson February 06, 2013 10:14 AM  

Has anyone actually donated anything yet?

Good intentions from leftists are pretty cheap.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 10:15 AM  

I am thoroughly amused that the rabbit response is to equate us with lions. Mean lions.

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 10:18 AM  

Lions with battle scars voiced by Jeremy Irons, moreover.

Anonymous rycamor February 06, 2013 10:18 AM  

Nate February 06, 2013 10:09 AM

I confess... the fiendishly clever tactic of threatening to donate money to charities you were already donating money to is fiendishly clever.


They simply do not understand that other people are not driven by the same motives as theirs. Actually, beyond that: they refuse to even admit that this is a possibility.

Consider: people like this wake up every day with the need for affirmation. And this is not just individual affirmation, but affirmation of and for the group they inhabit. Anything, and I mean anything that denies them this affirmation is a cause for dismay. This is so all-consuming that they can't imagine someone living without such a need.

Anonymous VD February 06, 2013 10:19 AM  

Mean lions.

Mean hungry lions....

Anonymous Krul February 06, 2013 10:19 AM  

Re: Josh

News from the Warren:

MRAL says:
February 6, 2013 at 9:16 am

After seeing this comment thread pre-cleanup and watching Lion King last night, I can’t stop picturing Vox Popoli as Scar’s lair. Especially given a certain upcoming election.

Now, I thought Scar's lair was actually pretty cool...


I'd be totally cool with being lions instead of wolves.

If I remember that scene correctly, there was an little annoying gay bird with an oversized beak in a cage being forced to sing for King Scar's amusement.

Tad anyone?

Anonymous Oliver Read February 06, 2013 10:19 AM  

Considering that many readers here, including myself, don't believe there is much of anything left to conserve anymore in the decaying West, and that worse is better til the house of cards blows over, getting the victim cult to donate more of their earnings to perpetuating the victim cult is not such a bad outcome.

I applaud all efforts of the Equalitarians to unknowingly undermine their empire of lies by making that most serious mistake of believing their own bullshit.

Anonymous Mike February 06, 2013 10:21 AM  

Mean hungry lions with a taste for rabbit.

come to think of it, just how many rabbits would you need to eat as a lion to feel anywhere near sated...I mean, 5 minutes after eating one you could do with another one...or 10...

Anonymous Amir Larijani February 06, 2013 10:21 AM  

To call Scalzi's ilk "rabbit people" is to insult rabbits. But, then again, they're too stupid to be in the same league with snakes...

Anonymous Daniel February 06, 2013 10:23 AM  

How about a post where you repeat his name 200 times?

You've got it backwards, Positive Dennis. Tribute flows to the Cruelty Artist.

Anonymous Alexander February 06, 2013 10:24 AM  

I applaud Scalzi but must question his selection of RAINN. While rape and abuse are by definition non-consensual, this is not necessarily true for incest. Why is this group trying to monitor people's private parts?! Why are they being so judgmental about other people's life choices?!

Any Whatever readers, I encourage you to bring up this disturbing lack of tolerance.

Anonymous Signe (soon to be Sigyn) February 06, 2013 10:24 AM  

(I didn't say goodbye yesterday, so I popped in to do it now.

(By the way, LoA explained this whole thing to me. He says Vox is stampeding all the rabbits in the world, and that the rabbits have to hop, even if they know he's doing it to them, because that's just the way they are. I thought LoA was just being a conspiracy nut until I saw this post and how this thing is going primetime!

(Gosh, this blog has been so educational. We'll be back!)

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 10:25 AM  

10 Bucks says they start using "Team Scalzi" by the end of the day.

Anonymous Stilicho February 06, 2013 10:28 AM  

Apparently McRapey is stabbing me in the eye.

Clearly your only reasonable option is to get tattoos of Hugin and Mugin on your shoulders.

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 10:28 AM  

Vidad, get we get a picture of a mean, hungry lion devouring the gamma rabbit?

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 10:31 AM  

@Vox Day

Whatever shall I do?

You probably don't need to do anything, but rather let it play itself out. These sorts of things tend to die out pretty quickly.

That said, there are consequences here, most if not all of which you likely care little about:

-You come off as a bigot to way more people than you already do

-You come off as misogynist to way more people than you already do.

-Lots of people look and see that Mr. Scalzi appeared to have gotten the best of you in public

-You will come off to many more people than yo already do as obsessed with Mr. Scalzi

-Many who don't already will conclude you are jealous of Mr. Scalzi's success and position.

Anonymous Godfrey February 06, 2013 10:31 AM  

$5.00?... five measly dollars?

These guys sure are "conservative" with their own money.

Anonymous Alexander February 06, 2013 10:31 AM  

Josh,

gamma rabbit is absolutely perfect the way he is. There is no reason to create new pictures that risk taking some of the spotlight. gamma rabbit is quite literally his own worst enemy.

Anonymous Vidad February 06, 2013 10:32 AM  

@Josh

That could be arranged. Until then, enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS0T57GOwPo

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 10:32 AM  

We have international hopping.



I confess... the best part of this is when the frogs actually praise John for being anglo saxon... and note that his anglo-saxonness grants him special technological powers.

Anonymous Stilicho February 06, 2013 10:32 AM  

Just read the linked article. Comedy. Gold.

Anonymous Daniel February 06, 2013 10:33 AM  

Oh fie it all. I just realized what Scalzi's next homage novel is going to be:

The Skeletal Chair

I am so slow on the uptake. Unbelievable.

Anonymous Vidad February 06, 2013 10:33 AM  

@Tad

You still don't get it, man. Vox simply doesn't care what people think.

That's why he's able to go completely epic with his AWCA powers.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 10:34 AM  

dammit

http://www.actualitte.com/societe/john-scalzi-en-lutte-contre-les-trolls-40115.htm

there.

***eye roll***

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 10:35 AM  

The frogs are supporting straight white male over privilege!

Anonymous Stilicho February 06, 2013 10:37 AM  

And Tad shows up on cue to hop on one hind foot and squee without even realizing what he's doing.

Moar.

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 10:38 AM  

Any increase in Amazon activity for ATOB yet?

Anonymous Thales February 06, 2013 10:39 AM  

If I remember that scene correctly, there was an little annoying gay bird with an oversized beak in a cage being forced to sing for King Scar's amusement.

Tad anyone?


Oh, snap! (No, I don't care that people don't say that anymore.)


No, they probably haven't donated jack squat. There was one guy there who pledge a million dollars, that' probably not real, either, nor does JS have the stramp stamp yet. JS's victory is not complete until he gets inked.

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 10:39 AM  

@Vidad

@Tad

You still don't get it, man. Vox simply doesn't care what people think.


I acknowledged that in my comment. So, I get it. I just though some note of some of the obvious consequences might be worthwhile.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick February 06, 2013 10:41 AM  

Vox is truly the Sensei of the Cruelty Dojo. I mean, I have not laughed this hard in a long time at the mockery of another person.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 10:42 AM  

" I just though some note of some of the obvious consequences might be worthwhile."

These are consequences that to you... would be terrible. Vox doesn't give an airborne rodent's posterior.

That's the difference between Vox and you.

Anonymous Daniel February 06, 2013 10:44 AM  

Hinterlands is going to cash in big on this one. You could neither work for nor buy marketing like this. It has to be a free gift. I never looked at gammas as a natural resource, while Vox has them self-fracking on his behalf.

Next trick: do a perpetual motion machine.

Anonymous rycamor February 06, 2013 10:44 AM  

Nate February 06, 2013 10:32 AM

We have international hopping.

I confess... the best part of this is when the frogs actually praise John for being anglo saxon... and note that his anglo-saxonness grants him special technological powers.


Do I rightly take from this that Nate reads French? AHAHAHA...

Sorry, that's better than you on a Harley with a Glock in your holster and an iPhone in your pocket.

Anonymous JB February 06, 2013 10:44 AM  

What I find most disheartening about the Pie Bellied one in this Hatfield and McCoy feud is the fact that every article I've read about it states that Scalzi (Fuckface) is the SFWA President. Like that's a feather in his pink cap.

My point:

By mentioning the SFWA in these articles, they are associating Scalzi's views with the SFWA and I can assure you that some SFWA members don't want to be associated with Pie Belly's beliefs.

Anonymous Harsh February 06, 2013 10:45 AM  

“The whole point of this is not to intimidate him to stop speaking."

More lies from Scalzi. Of course the whole point of this pitiful charade is to get VD to stop speaking. He and his ilk wake up every day hoping that very thing. The dishonesty of that "man" is astounding.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 10:46 AM  

"Sorry, that's better than you on a Harley with a Glock in your holster and an iPhone in your pocket."

Google translate. philistine.

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 10:46 AM  

@Nate

These are consequences that to you... would be terrible. Vox doesn't give an airborne rodent's posterior.

I'm well aware that Vox Day's blog is here only for his own amusement and not to advance any social or political theories or analysis he may have, knowing as he does that any theories or analyses he may have on various issues are generally laughed at and derided. In that respect, it's merely a case of literary masturbation within a circle of friends. Still, the whole kerfuffle is public as is this blog. So, I was merely noting the consequences.

Anonymous RM February 06, 2013 10:46 AM  

http://www.caharin.com/blogs/2009/03/infamous-suicide-bunnies-comic-strip
I'm thinking if the one with Darth Vader, about half way down.

Anonymous Josh (Mean, Hungry, Lion) February 06, 2013 10:48 AM  

My fiancee, on the news:

Whatever. That guy (Scalzi) looks like Scar. And how dare those retards use the Lion King for their moronic purposes.

She also said that Scalzi looked distrustful.

Anonymous Randy M February 06, 2013 10:50 AM  

"used his name or called someone by a derogatory nickname"

Wait, anyone? Oh dear.

Blogger Giraffe February 06, 2013 10:51 AM  

“Clearly they have confounded me,” said Beale, of Scalzi and his readers. “They have clearly shown themselves to be the more civilized and decent and intelligent people. I would think that that’s obvious.” He denied that he was being sarcastic.

I am so sorry for how this blew up in your face, Vox.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 10:53 AM  

"I'm well aware that Vox Day's blog is here only for his own amusement and not to advance any social or political theories or analysis he may have, knowing as he does that any theories or analyses he may have on various issues are generally laughed at and derided. "

laughed at and derided by some.

The problem you have tad... ok... well... one of them... is that you clearly have an echo chamber thing going on your life. And you have this false conception that positions you hold are more popular than they are.

Anonymous Josh MHL February 06, 2013 10:54 AM  

How long before this gets picked up by gawker/jezebel/buzzfeed?

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 10:55 AM  

And you have this false conception that positions you hold are more popular than they are.

Please don't get tad going on about his favorite positions.

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 10:56 AM  

@nate


The problem you have tad... ok... well... one of them... is that you clearly have an echo chamber thing going on your life. And you have this false conception that positions you hold are more popular than they are.


Really? You don't think that far, far more people support women's suffrage than don't? That would be just one example of the views that Vox Day holds that would be derided were the issue ever to actually be talked about seriously in a...well...a more well attended forum.

Blogger Markku February 06, 2013 10:56 AM  

I am so sorry for how this blew up in your face, Vox.

Don't be tone-deaf.

Anonymous Randy M February 06, 2013 10:57 AM  

"That said, there are consequences here, most if not all of which you likely care little about:"

Also perhaps further draining "racist, sexist" etc. words of their talismanic meaning.


I was amused by the Salon comment that said something like your fanstasy book didn't display any historical knowledge or worldbuilding. I would have posted a rebuttal, but it was far too involved to get a log-on to that site.

Anonymous Gx1080 February 06, 2013 10:57 AM  

Note that Tad's arguments aren't based on facts, they are based on people's perceptions of the facts.

"But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success."

"War Propaganda", volume 1, chapter 6 of Mein Kampf (1925), by Adolf Hitler

Yeah, I Godwin'ed the thread. It sadly applies.

Blogger Markku February 06, 2013 11:00 AM  

By the way, isn't it funny how they all talk as if rabbit is established MRA/Game terminology. The funniest thing is if Roissy starts using it now.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 11:01 AM  

"Really? You don't think that far, far more people support women's suffrage than don't?"

Actually I hear conservative women claim frequently that they would give up the right to vote. The corpse lady said that very thing in a column.

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 11:01 AM  

@GX

Note that Tad's arguments aren't based on facts, they are based on people's perceptions of the facts.

The facts are in, GX. From a public relations perspective, Vox Day loses this one by coming off as an obsessed, mean spirited bigot, no matter what he is.

Some people decided that perception isn't important if that perception doesn't jive with their own, then discount the prevailing perception. That kind of perspective rarely proves profitable in any way.

Anonymous Gx1080 February 06, 2013 11:02 AM  

@Markku

Simple Betahood doesn't even begin to cover McRapey and his ilk. Omega is more apt, but isn't catchy enough. Rabbit is both catchy and descriptive, so it will likely be used.

Blogger Markku February 06, 2013 11:02 AM  

Although partial credit for establishing rabbit will have to go to Koanic.

Anonymous VryeDenker February 06, 2013 11:03 AM  

"Actually I hear conservative women claim frequently that they would give up the right to vote. The corpse lady said that very thing in a column."

Ilana Mercer also said as much on a few occasions.

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 11:04 AM  

@Nate

Actually I hear conservative women claim frequently that they would give up the right to vote. The corpse lady said that very thing in a column.

This not more than an indication of the rather small (and strange) circles in which you run. Do you really think this experience of yours indicates that something more than a tiny, miniscule number of people hold this view?

If we were to do a poll among AMerican women over 18 and ask, "Would You be willing to support a law that prohibited women from voting", what do you think would be the percentage of "yes" responses? And remember, we'll ask this question outside your small circle of acquaintances.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 11:05 AM  

"This not more than an indication of the rather small (and strange) circles in which you run."

sure... because no one reads ann coulter right?

Anonymous Shut Up Tad February 06, 2013 11:05 AM  

From a public relations perspective, Vox Day loses this one by coming off as an obsessed, mean spirited bigot, no matter what he is.

LOL, rabbits agree that exclusion from the warren is the most severe penalty possible.

Blogger The Requital February 06, 2013 11:06 AM  

VD: What shall I ever do?

simple: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULiG_LRRHzE

Anonymous Gx1080 February 06, 2013 11:07 AM  

If Tad's idea are indeed the majority ones, I don't see why he spends so much effort on preaching the sacred dogma here.

In fact, Tad's "almost everybody thinks like I do" is the biggest lie that is told by the preachers of Political Correctness.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 11:08 AM  

"If we were to do a poll among AMerican women over 18 and ask, "Would You be willing to support a law that prohibited women from voting", what do you think would be the percentage of "yes" responses? And remember, we'll ask this question outside your small circle of acquaintances."

oh it would fail completely.

I am simply pointing out that the idea you have brought up as being laughed at and derided universally... is already discussed publicly in various columns and editorials. Again... conservative women often say, "I would give up my right to vote if it meant the idiot liberal women couldn't vote too." Do they really mean it? Not the point. The point is... this isn't some lunatic fringe. Its a comment that gets brought up on the right... more and more so since its becoming more and more clear that women pull the D lever almost entirely without thought.

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 11:08 AM  

Numerous conservative women have told me privately that they would give up their privilege of voting if it meant none of the liberal women could vote.

Anonymous Anchorman February 06, 2013 11:09 AM  

If we were to do a poll among AMerican women over 18 and ask, "Would You be willing to support a law that prohibited women from voting", what do you think would be the percentage of "yes" responses? And remember, we'll ask this question outside your small circle of acquaintances.

I asked my sons if they wanted ice cream and candy anytime they want. I was shocked SHOCKED to learn that they felt entitled to things against their best interest and despite the observation that they can't resist immediate gratification in exchange for long term heatlh.

Anonymous patrick kelly February 06, 2013 11:10 AM  

I've likely been amused and entertained by the whole rabbit people of the scalzi warren schtick as anyone, but it's getting old. Deteriorating into two school-yard groups trying to convince everyone that they are cool and the other guys drool.

Where's the whiskey vs. umbrella drinks after a good day at the range shooting evil black guns discussions? Football ummmm....keynsian denni-comics, apocazombylpse prepared-ness...

*anything but gay assed pink/purple/(wtf color is that anyway) rabbits hopping around on one foot.

/rant

Anonymous Thales February 06, 2013 11:11 AM  

From a public relations perspective, Vox Day loses this one by coming off as an obsessed, mean spirited bigot, no matter what he is.

From the one-sided Cathedral press? There's a shocker. You're right, though, that Cathedral media certainly does not care about facts.

Anonymous Harsh February 06, 2013 11:12 AM  

I am so sorry for how this blew up in your face, Vox.

This incident has blown up in VD's face the same way the Third Punic War blew up in Rome's face.

Anonymous alexamenos February 06, 2013 11:12 AM  

...his readers pitched in, too, raising tens of thousands for charities designed to uplift women, minorities and gays.

Women, minorities and gays...that's just about everbody, isn't it?

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 11:12 AM  

"Where's the whiskey vs. umbrella drinks after a good day at the range shooting evil black guns discussions? Football ummmm....keynsian denni-comics, apocazombylpse prepared-ness..."

duh...

That's at my place.

Anonymous Peter Garstig February 06, 2013 11:13 AM  

Nate: 10 Bucks says they start using "Team Scalzi" by the end of the day.

I take it.

Anyone for 20 Bucks that they hold a public '5 second pack fuck'.
Another 10 they invite Zackh de la Rocha to shout: 'Jump' to which they'll respond: 'How high?'.

Anonymous GreyS February 06, 2013 11:13 AM  

"No Mr. Vox, I expect you to die!!!!"

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 11:14 AM  

@Nate

The point is... this isn't some lunatic fringe. Its a comment that gets brought up on the right... more and more so since its becoming more and more clear that women pull the D lever almost entirely without thought.

Of course it's the lunatic fringe who support disenfranchising women. In fact, it's the outer fringe of the lunatic fringe. Furthermore, the examples you can cite of people advocating the disenfranchisement of women are so rare and so inconsequential and result in little or no talk beyond deriding the original suggestion as to make them nearly invisible.

Anonymous Peter Garstig February 06, 2013 11:14 AM  

By the end of the month, I should add.

Anonymous Harsh February 06, 2013 11:16 AM  

From a public relations perspective, Vox Day loses this one by coming off as an obsessed, mean spirited bigot, no matter what he is.

VD has come off a being sane and articulate and has kept his calm through this whole thing while Scalzi has come off as being... well, none of those things.

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 11:16 AM  

@Anchorman

I asked my sons if they wanted ice cream and candy anytime they want. I was shocked SHOCKED to learn that they felt entitled to things against their best interest and despite the observation that they can't resist immediate gratification in exchange for long term heatlh.

Except we aren't talking about children and candy. Get back on point.

Anonymous Thales February 06, 2013 11:17 AM  

I don't see why he spends so much effort on preaching the sacred dogma here.

Because rabbits are followers. It is because be believes his position to be dominant that he feels safe enough to enter the lions' den.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 11:18 AM  

"Furthermore, the examples you can cite of people advocating the disenfranchisement of women are so rare and so inconsequential and result in little or no talk beyond deriding the original suggestion as to make them nearly invisible."

sure.

because no one has ever heard of Ann Coulter.

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 11:18 AM  

It seems like Scalzi is trying to keep his readers from talking about it further so that the moment can go away

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 11:18 AM  

"It seems like Scalzi is trying to keep his readers from talking about it further so that the moment can go away"

which is a clear indication of victory... right?

Anonymous rycamor February 06, 2013 11:18 AM  

From a public relations perspective, Vox has achieved the kind of notoriety that publishers would give their left eye for.

And his politically-incorrect views are being aired at a time when a huge portion of the West (mainly men) has become disaffected with feminism, multiculturalism, and secular humanism in general. It's purely a win for Vox, and a purely ephemeral bit of rabbit-affirmation for Scalzi.

Anonymous VD February 06, 2013 11:20 AM  

I am so sorry for how this blew up in your face, Vox.

(sniff) Hold me, Ralph.

Get back on point.

Yes, do. Once again, Tad, you're talking about me rather than the topic at hand, which is the Salon story. I understand you are a homosexual and obsessed with me, but why don't you consult with VQPF and learn how a gay fan is expected to comport himself here.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 11:20 AM  

"Except we aren't talking about children and candy. Get back on point."

actually that is precisely what we're talking about.

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 11:20 AM  

Except we aren't talking about children and candy. Get back on point.

Actually, the way society treats women is closer to the way it treats children than the way it treats men.

And voting gives one a temporary high, like candy, but ultimately is toxic.

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 11:21 AM  

@Harsh

VD has come off a being sane and articulate and has kept his calm through this whole thing while Scalzi has come off as being... well, none of those things.

I haven't seen anyone come off as anything but calm, be it Vox Day or Mr. Scalzi. That said, I haven't seen any media reports that defend Vox Day's views or do anything other than deride what appears to be his obsession with Mr. Scalzi. Additionally, the reading of Vox Day as a racist, sexist, homophobe seems to have gone unchallenged.

Anonymous VD February 06, 2013 11:21 AM  

Deteriorating into two school-yard groups trying to convince everyone that they are cool and the other guys drool.

Be patient, Patrick. Have ye so little faith?

Anonymous Krul February 06, 2013 11:22 AM  

Really? You don't think that far, far more people support women's suffrage than don't?

Wait a minute. Are you talking about the world, or just the US?

I'm sure you're correct that far more people in the developed western world support women's suffrage, but considering the patriarchal character of many second and third world countries I wouldn't be surprised if the total number of people on Earth who oppose women's suffrage actually exceeds the number who agree with it. And those countries tend to have rather higher birthrates than developed countries...

Anonymous Daniel February 06, 2013 11:22 AM  

"That's it!" Cries rabbit nation. "He's out of the hutch altogether!"

Then uhm...NEVER AGAIN.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 11:26 AM  

"Additionally, the reading of Vox Day as a racist, sexist, homophobe seems to have gone unchallenged."

Have you ever seen anyone win by challenging it?

Anonymous Tallen February 06, 2013 11:27 AM  

One (of many videotaped) petition to end women's suffrage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uPcthZL2RE

Blogger Markku February 06, 2013 11:27 AM  

"my racist sexist homophobic dipshit" - "They have clearly shown themselves to be the more civilized and decent and intelligent people. I would think that that’s obvious.” He denied that he was being sarcastic."

"Who is this guy? This sounds totally incongruous, I'm going to check this out myself." goes everybody. Rabbits will come, wolves will come.

Wolves will stay.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 11:28 AM  

OMG!!!

We called him a racist sexist homophobe and he didn't shit his pants!!!


OMG!!!

Anonymous Vidad February 06, 2013 11:28 AM  

I would happily give up my "right" to vote... it means nothing to me. The franchise is so big my voice as a debt-free, business-owning, libertarian property owner will always be overwhelmed by the votes of the leeches and the bankster-owned marching morons in the major parties.

I despise democracy and will spit on its grave.


Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 11:29 AM  

Have you ever seen anyone win by challenging it?

Nevada brothels?

Anonymous African Lion aka VryeDenker February 06, 2013 11:30 AM  

The winner in these things is the one who doesn't come across as a hysterical little bitch.

Anonymous VD February 06, 2013 11:33 AM  

It's always interesting seeing how one's words are reported. For example, it said I "denied being sarcastic". That wasn't quite true. I was told that I was suspected of being sarcastic to which I responded that I said what I said and the writer was certainly welcome to draw his own conclusions.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 11:33 AM  

"The winner in these things is the one who doesn't come across as a hysterical little bitch."

no no no... don't you see? if you are hysterical is just because you CARE so darned much. And the person who CARES the most is ALWAYS the winners. Don't you see that???? DON'T YOU CARE???

Anonymous patrick kelly February 06, 2013 11:35 AM  

First they laugh at you...

Hmm... wtf do you win, or what is winning in this case?

Blogger Markku February 06, 2013 11:36 AM  

But why do you care about this little thing, shouldn't you instead be caring about children in Giveashitistan?

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 11:36 AM  

@Africa

The winner in these things is the one who doesn't come across as a hysterical little bitch.

The only real winner here are the organizations that will benefit by an infusion of funds from Mr. Scalzi's efforts. Which sort of makes Mr. Scalzi the arbiter of who wins.

Anonymous physics geek February 06, 2013 11:37 AM  

Apparently you're supposed to curl up into a fetal ball, weeping at the thrashing you've been given. At least, I think that's the "logic" on display here. He gives money to organizations the he supports. Ergo, you've lost the argument.

::pause::

No, I don't get it either.

Anonymous Harsh February 06, 2013 11:37 AM  

That said, I haven't seen any media reports that defend Vox Day's views or do anything other than deride what appears to be his obsession with Mr. Scalzi.

Why should VD, or anyone else for that matter, care what media reports say?

Anonymous Peter Garstig February 06, 2013 11:37 AM  

They actually linked to Vox's site and even named the EVIL? You have to adore the courage.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 11:38 AM  

Why do you hate the children of Giveashitistan Markku? Why?

Anonymous patrick kelly February 06, 2013 11:38 AM  

"Be patient, Patrick. Have ye so little faith?"

Fine, but can you throw me a few bones to balance out all the colorful bunny hopping, and omg, Nate talking about dick sucking !?!?!?!?

ththhththththtptphtphtphtphtphtp.....yuck, where's that whiskey'n'gunpowder brainwash.....???

Anonymous p-dawg February 06, 2013 11:41 AM  

@Tad I'm assuming that by "a more well-attended forum" you mean one you don't attend?

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 11:41 AM  

now now... lets not cross post... and as a point of fact.. I was talking about NOT sucking a dick. The NOT is kind of the point.

Anonymous Thales February 06, 2013 11:44 AM  

The only real winner here are the organizations that will benefit by an infusion of funds from Mr. Scalzi's efforts.

Oh, well, iff "real" = cash, then that makes JS's donors (if they even donate) into the real losers.


I can live with that.

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 11:45 AM  

@Harsh

Why should VD, or anyone else for that matter, care what media reports say?

As I noted above, I'm positive that Vox Day does not care what the media says (although a few comments up he sort of complains that he was misquoted). It's pretty clear that Vox Day uses his blog for the purpose of entertaining himself with no thought of actually influencing anyone or any issue. That's fine.

However, others do observe what is happening in the world. Others do observe what others are saying about the world and people in it and they look for sources to get that information. People care about the world they live in. In this case a few more people have observed that their are people that feel a need to deride other successful people.

Blogger Giraffe February 06, 2013 11:45 AM  

@Markku
Don't be tone-deaf.

Don't you care how Vox must be feeling?

Anonymous the bandit February 06, 2013 11:46 AM  

I noticed the article's author has some real trouble with grammatical tenses.

Blogger vandelay February 06, 2013 11:47 AM  

I hope you saw this sort of treatment coming the second you saw an interview request from freaking SALON in your inbox Vox. The article was probably half written before they even spoken to you.

Anonymous VD February 06, 2013 11:48 AM  

As I noted above, I'm positive that Vox Day does not care what the media says (although a few comments up he sort of complains that he was misquoted).

I'm not complaining at all. I'm simply observing that every single time I have been interviewed by the mainstream media, they have gotten at least one fact completely wrong and spun something I've said into something that isn't quite what I said. The streak continues.

What interests me is to think about what this means if the same is true of every single other story they run every day.

Blogger Sinka Delic February 06, 2013 11:49 AM  

What you should do and what you shall do are sadly two entirely different things

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 February 06, 2013 11:52 AM  

All this coming from the same man who intentionally commissions photography of himself wearing his wife's underwear, then commissions artwork of himseltoss a possibly copyright-infringing FrankenFruity rabbit to inexplicably strike a blow against his enemies.
Stockholm Syndrome can be tactical, but not often strategic...
In more important news, it's National Signing Day and Clemson is getting embarrassed.
A good day.

Anonymous Curlytop February 06, 2013 11:52 AM  

Josh February 06, 2013 11:08 AM
Numerous conservative women have told me privately that they would give up their privilege of voting if it meant none of the liberal women could vote.

I profess this publicly and I am not exactly sure who froths at the mouth more regarding it: mealy-mouthed women, or gamma males? Only one has ever attempted to ask WHY I think this way. The rest throw emotional incoherent tantrums.

Anonymous LL February 06, 2013 11:52 AM  

I have not followed this kerfluffle in a big way other than to note these posts and throw in a Bane related comment occasionally. Vox, I have a serious question for you....I've read your posts about women suffrage, violent assault statistics by race and whatnot. Has any of these rabbits actually countered with a factual and statistically based argument or has it really just been a lot of name-calling and misdirection from the substance of what you have said? Do they really believe throwing pledged money at charities through the hysterical name-calling of Scalzi will negate the facts you have presented?

Anonymous rho February 06, 2013 11:52 AM  

Tad, why are you so obsessed with what you perceive to be the consequences of this trainwreck?

You seem to acknowledge that VD doesn't care, and then you talk about it some more.

One begins to think you're projecting your own fears.

Anonymous bub February 06, 2013 11:53 AM  

If Chief Rabbit agrees with his warren that he has utterly defeated the lion, and stuck (something) in his eye, perhaps it is time for him to kick the dying corpse of the lion, and begin to remove the head to the applause and adoration of the rabbit nation. Move closer, CR.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 11:53 AM  

"What interests me is to think about what this means if the same is true of every single other story they run every day."

Poor sample. Look you have a built in communication issue. Any time someone with an IQ in the 160s talks to someone with a more average IQ... there is going to be significant problems.

You may as well have a language barrier.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 February 06, 2013 11:54 AM  

*himself.
I hate Android with a white hot fire...

Blogger The Deuce February 06, 2013 11:57 AM  

I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of a typical Salon reader, who's never heard of Vox Day or John Scalzi, running across that article in Salon. I imagine it would just seem bizarre. My thought would be "Who the hell are Vox Day and John Scalzi, and why is it news that this Scalzi character is pledging money to political charities when people making fun of him? And if he likes those charities, why does he need to to be ridiculed in order to donate to them? WTF is this?" If I didn't just shrug at the weirdness and move on (most likely), I'd probably visit Vox's blog to see what the hubbub was all about, especially given his enigmatic comments at the end of the article.

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 11:59 AM  

What interests me is to think about what this means if the same is true of every single other story they run every day.

More interesting: what this means if the same is true of every single other story newspapers have run throughout history.

Newspapers are considered to be reliable primary sources for historical research. However, have they always lacked rigor, or is that a recent development?

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 12:00 PM  

"*himself.
I hate Android with a white hot fire..."

fear not.. the new blackberrys will be here soon.

Anonymous Shutup, Tad February 06, 2013 12:01 PM  

Mr. Petticoat natters.

I can recognize the pattern I had a mother in law that nattered. Natter, natter, natter. All it ever consisted of was repetitive, superficial, well, nattering.

Then she got Alzheimer's, forgot how to make words, and finally Shut Up.

Anonymous CJ February 06, 2013 12:01 PM  

I thought this whole Scalzi feud was a pointless AWCA excercise until he commissioned that pathetic rabbit. Now, I want Vox to slap him in the face Brando style and shout "you can act like a man!"

Anonymous bob k. mando February 06, 2013 12:03 PM  

“Clearly they have confounded me,” said Beale, of Scalzi and his readers. “They have clearly shown themselves to be the more civilized and decent and intelligent people. I would think that that’s obvious.” He denied that he was being sarcastic.



i can't wait for Todd and Tad and everyone else to show up and deny that the above is sarcasm.

even if the reporter didn't actually direct quote that last sentence.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia February 06, 2013 12:03 PM  

Wow.

How much money did Vox pay for all of this publicity and advertising?

To get this sort of pub has got to cost something.

This is a wonderful advertising blitz that you are putting on VD.

Anonymous harry12 February 06, 2013 12:04 PM  

Nate's poking the wesident wabbit. Must be a slow Wednesday, eh Nate?

Anonymous Thales February 06, 2013 12:04 PM  

More interesting: what this means if the same is true of every single other story newspapers have run throughout history.

Indeed, I even know someone, an older gentleman, who named this phenomenon after a friend of his who would recount all the errors of a newspaper story when it was an issue he knew very well, but did a 180° and credulously believed any story about a subject with which he was unfamiliar – the man just never drew the logical conclusion.

Anonymous VryeDenker February 06, 2013 12:04 PM  

Newspapers are considered to be reliable primary sources for historical research. However, have they always lacked rigor, or is that a recent development?

Try this: if you had the power to manipulate the opinion of a significant number of citizens, how many minutes would you be able to resist the temptation?

Blogger The Deuce February 06, 2013 12:05 PM  

Vox:

What interests me is to think about what this means if the same is true of every single other story they run every day.

That is in fact the case, or at least it's been my experience every time I've seen a newspaper report on anything I'm familiar with, or quote anyone I know. And this is true even when there's no political angle to it, so there shouldn't be any ideological incentive to distort the quote.

Blogger Desert Cat February 06, 2013 12:06 PM  

rho February 06, 2013 11:52 AM
Tad, why are you so obsessed with what you perceive to be the consequences of this trainwreck?

You seem to acknowledge that VD doesn't care, and then you talk about it some more.

One begins to think you're projecting your own fears.


Tad is in the uncomfortable position of being a rabbit adopted as a mascot (of sorts) by the predator pack, watching the pack leader eviscerate another rabbit.

"Oh noes!!! They will think I *agree*!(**horrors**)"

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 12:10 PM  

Try this: if you had the power to manipulate the opinion of a significant number of citizens, how many minutes would you be able to resist the temptation?

Obviously.

But insert malice/incompetence quote here as well.

Look at how many news reports are initially bungled today because of lazy reporters. The "Putin boyz 2 men fertility and demographic concert" story being a recent and humorous example.

Anonymous bub February 06, 2013 12:10 PM  

Some Wikifacts:

They survive predation by burrowing, hopping away in a zig-zag motion, and, if captured, delivering powerful kicks with their hind legs.

Rabbits have a very rapid reproductive rate.

Rabbits are herbivores that feed by grazing on grass, forbs, and leafy weeds. In consequence, their diet contains large amounts of cellulose, which is hard to digest. Rabbits solve this problem by passing two distinct types of feces: hard droppings and soft black viscous pellets, the latter of which are known as caecotrophs and are immediately eaten. Rabbits reingest their own droppings

If the environment is relatively non-threatening, the rabbit will remain outdoors for many hours, grazing at intervals.

Rabbits are incapable of vomiting.

Domestic rabbits can be kept as pets in a back yard hutch or indoors in a cage or house trained to have free roam.

Rabbits can be trained to use a litter box and some can learn to come when called.

Rabbits as pets can find their companionship with a variety of creatures, including humans, other rabbits, birds, chinchillas, guinea pigs, and sometimes even cats and dogs (however they require supervision when with dogs and cats, as they might be preyed upon or attacked by these animals).

As prey animals, rabbits are alert, timid creatures that startle fairly easily. They have fragile bones, especially in their backs, that require support on the belly and bottom when picked up.

Rabbits may grunt, lunge and even bite. Usually they do not bite hard enough to break skin. Rabbits become aggressive when they feel threatened.

Rabbits can then be killed by hitting the back of their heads, a practice from which the term rabbit punch is derived.

There are several health issues associated with the use of rabbits for meat, one of which is tularemia or rabbit fever.[

Rabbits are very good producers of manure; additionally, their urine, being high in nitrogen, makes lemon trees very productive.

It is interesting to note that the Vietnamese lunar new year replaced the rabbit with a cat in their calendar, as rabbits did not inhabit Vietnam.

In Japanese tradition, rabbits live on the Moon where they make mochi, the popular snack of mashed sticky rice.

In Jewish folklore, rabbits (shfanim ?????) are associated with cowardice, a usage still current in contemporary Israeli spoken Hebrew (similar to English colloquial use of "chicken" to denote cowardice).

On the Isle of Portland in Dorset, UK, the rabbit is said to be unlucky and speaking its name can cause upset with older residents. This is thought to date back to early times in the quarrying industry, where piles of extracted stone (not fit for sale) were built into tall rough walls (to save space) directly behind the working quarry face; the rabbit's natural tendency to burrow would weaken these "walls" and cause collapse, often resulting in injuries or even death. The name rabbit is often substituted with words such as “long ears” or “underground mutton”, so as not to have to say the actual word and bring bad luck to oneself. It is said that a public house (on the island) can be cleared of people by calling out the word rabbit and while this was very true in the past, it has gradually become more fable than fact over the past 50 years.

Anonymous bob k. mando February 06, 2013 12:15 PM  

VD February 06, 2013 11:48 AM
What interests me is to think about what this means if the same is true of every single other story they run every day.



*shrugs*

every single news story that i have observed, about which i have personal knowledge of the situation OR professional knowledge of the technical aspects has had serious misreporting. whether in statements of fact, improper quoting or event order.

this has been, perhaps, a half dozen stories over my life.

gross incompetence by the news media is a lesson i learned a long, LONG time ago. you can't 'trust' them for anything beyond the broad outlines of whatever they're reporting.

for instance, if you read a written story about this incident
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8297841
i'm sure they'll just report it as an innocent reporter getting assaulted.

when, actually, the video provides irrefutable proof that the camera crew was trespassing on the grounds of a private business that microphone guy attempted unlawful entry into a building.

you've made the point often enough that education majors rank amongst the lowest college attendees in intelligence and ability, j-school grads have to be right there with them.

Blogger Shimshon February 06, 2013 12:15 PM  

Pure gold. You can't buy this kind of publicity. And they even pictured your latest book on the page! They like you. They really like you! I'm jealous. Sniff.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 12:16 PM  

"Nate's poking the wesident wabbit. Must be a slow Wednesday, eh Nate?"

ahh... crap.. I KNEW I was forgetting something....

fair enough

Anonymous Josh MHL February 06, 2013 12:16 PM  

The irony of an anonymous poster invoking the rules of the blog

Anonymous alexamenos February 06, 2013 12:17 PM  

You seem to acknowledge that VD doesn't care, and then you talk about it some more.

One begins to think you're projecting your own fears.


Did someone say something about people projecting their values through their criticisms?

10:31 am Lots of people look and see that Mr. Scalzi appeared to have gotten the best of you in public...

10:46 am ...knowing as he does that any theories or analyses he may have on various issues are generally laughed at and derided...

10:56 am You don't think that far, far more people support women's suffrage than don't? That would be just one example of the views that Vox Day holds that would be derided were the issue ever to actually be talked about seriously in a...well...a more well attended forum.

11:01 am From a public relations perspective, Vox Day loses this one...

11:04 am This not more than an indication of the rather small (and strange) circles in which you run.

etc...

Anonymous GreyS February 06, 2013 12:17 PM  

Vox doesn't seem to realize just how bad this can get. If pushed, Scalzi can easily go "Racist Sexist Homophobic Double Dipshit" at any time. Or make even more imaginary contributions to organizations VD has never heard of. (It's the ones he hasn't heard of which burn him the most. Why? Because ignorance of them PROVES his racismsexismhomophobicness.)

Please stop this nightmare before somebody there burns us all with a rabbittoo (for the uninitiated-- that's *rabbit tattoo*)!

Anonymous VD February 06, 2013 12:18 PM  

Has any of these rabbits actually countered with a factual and statistically based argument or has it really just been a lot of name-calling and misdirection from the substance of what you have said? Do they really believe throwing pledged money at charities through the hysterical name-calling of Scalzi will negate the facts you have presented?

No, none have even tried. No, the facts are irrelevant. It is the perception of being the better rabbit that matters. It never seems to occur to them that they will always be the better rabbit no matter what they do, for the obvious reason that I am not a rabbit at all.

What can you say? Rabbits gonna rabbit.

I INVOKE RULE #2

Deleted. What part of NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS do you not understand.

Anonymous Stilicho February 06, 2013 12:18 PM  

Some people decided that perception isn't important if that perception doesn't jive with their own, then discount the prevailing perception. That kind of perspective rarely proves profitable in any way.

What you smell here folks is the reek of a crowded warren. The foul miasma created by squishy emotional droppings of frightened little rodents. Comforting to coneys, disgusting to the rest of us. "Rabbit = good. Not-rabbit = bad." Put another way: conformity trumps truth in the warren.

Blogger Desert Cat February 06, 2013 12:18 PM  

@Anon 12:11 PM-

"You're a bad BAD rabbit, Mister Vox!!"

Anonymous Anonymous February 06, 2013 12:20 PM  

Is anyone actually auditing the spending of these "domnations"? Or is it like most other publicly announces fictional donations from famous liberals: Fictional. Other than Scalzi, himself, who has a financial interest to keep the amounts low, is anyone even keeping track of the infractions and monitoring to see if a check gets cut?

If I call Scalzi (whome I know nothing about) "pillow-soft", does that trigger him to send money?

Do these have to be a thousand unique insults or can I just cut and paste the same one over and over? What are the rules?

I would like nothing more than to make my internet typing have some real world consequence for once, even if that real woeld consequence is to make a bunch of liberals lighter in the pocket.

--Hale

Anonymous Edjamacator February 06, 2013 12:20 PM  

You don't think that far, far more people support women's suffrage than don't? That would be just one example of the views that Vox Day holds that would be derided were the issue ever to actually be talked about seriously in a...well...a more well attended forum.

So you think a person can't be right about something if enough people wrong about it exist.

You are such a sheep.

Anonymous Stilicho February 06, 2013 12:21 PM  

In fact, Tad's "almost everybody thinks like I do" is the biggest lie that is told by the preachers of Political Correctness.

Sure, but it is exactly how rabbits convince other rabbits to conform.

Blogger stareatgoatsies February 06, 2013 12:21 PM  

Numerous conservative women have told me privately that they would give up their privilege of voting if it meant none of the liberal women could vote.

So numerous women have said that they would do something (give up their vote) if it resulted in more people of the sort they are inclined to vote for getting elected.

If they are not willing to do the same thing (give up their vote) if it resulted in more people of the sort they are inclined to vote against getting elected, all they are saying is that they would like to have an even bigger say in who gets elected than the current one-woman-one-vote limit allows for.

Objectively speaking, they're Super-Suffragettes.

Anonymous Roundtine February 06, 2013 12:21 PM  

It just keeps getting better. The interview in Salon might as well be straight out of The Onion. Grazie!

Anonymous LL February 06, 2013 12:22 PM  

@The Deuce

I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of a typical Salon reader, who's never heard of Vox Day or John Scalzi, running across that article in Salon. I imagine it would just seem bizarre. My thought would be "Who the hell are Vox Day and John Scalzi, and why is it news that this Scalzi character is pledging money to political charities when people making fun of him? And if he likes those charities, why does he need to to be ridiculed in order to donate to them? WTF is this?"

The bolded part is your first mistake. Salon appeals to those who need to be led in the direction of where they need to be offended. They would not find this bizarre, they would be properly offended, as directed. See how that works?

Anonymous bob k. mando February 06, 2013 12:22 PM  

Josh February 06, 2013 11:59 AM
Newspapers are considered to be reliable primary sources for historical research. However, have they always lacked rigor, or is that a recent development?



consider this;
the HIGHEST award in journalism is named for the 2nd most notorious, open practitioner of Yellow Journalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#Origins:_Pulitzer_vs._Hearst



as well, the only 'criteria' that used to be necessary to be a reporter or issue a news paper was that you had to have access to a printing press.

Anonymous Kriston February 06, 2013 12:23 PM  

Saw this bunny last night. Seems appropriate.

Anonymous Kriston February 06, 2013 12:24 PM  

The moment I saw the news reports I thought of a child screaming "Mommy! He's looking at me!"

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 12:24 PM  

Man: The world is round.

Flat-earther: The world is flat. If you say the world is round everyone will point and laugh at you.

Man: never the less... the world is round.

Flat-earther: and we'll all be pointing and laughing.

Man: does the pointing and laughing effect the roundness?

Flat-earther: No. but it should bother you that everyone thinks you're stupid and crazy.

Man: And yet the world remains round.

Anonymous Anonymous February 06, 2013 12:25 PM  


I like how Tad regards argumentum ad populum as some sort of a "proof".


Nobody

Anonymous Kriston February 06, 2013 12:25 PM  

OK, I'll try again. Stupid cut and paste!

This Bunny!

Anonymous zen0 February 06, 2013 12:25 PM  

Rabbits have a very rapid reproductive rate.

Not this brood.

Anonymous LL February 06, 2013 12:26 PM  

Nate nails it.

Anonymous rho February 06, 2013 12:26 PM  

If pushed, Scalzi can easily go "Racist Sexist Homophobic Double Dipshit" at any time.

I admit that made me laugh.

(I'm not a fan of pet insult names in general because they always seem so ridiculous, but "RSHD" is megalimp.)

Anonymous Rabbitology February 06, 2013 12:28 PM  

Question
Hello,
I have a rabbit mommy with 7wk old kits in the same cage. She seems to be sniffing all around the kits then nibbling their fur (not hard) and then mounting them and what seems to look a lot like humping. The babies don't look in pain or injured but they do run from her when she starts to do this. It started about a week ago and she's done it about 6 times. Before and after her pregnancy she was aggressive natured so I'm wondering if she just needs to be separated from them but they just love her so much. She is a little mean to them too (pushes them off the water bottle when she has access to the other one). Also the father stays in a different cage but when I put the babies with him he gets "excited" and tries to get them too (but i actually stop him). Does that mean the babies are all girls because he does that with all of them? Thank You in advance! And sorry if I rambled!

Blogger El Borak February 06, 2013 12:32 PM  

VD: What interests me is to think about what this means if the same is true of every single other story they run every day.

It pretty much is. When I was the Voice of Sauron*, I was quoted in the paper every day and was constantly amazed at how consistently reporters got simple facts wrong, like the name of someone indicted, even when those facts were provided in written form. Most stories had at least one error, many had several significant facts wrong.

A current example: I gave a little talk on Sunday here, which made the front page of the local paper. I only noted one correction on the site (that's where the reporter said that the very letters he has linked to had been removed from the site he was linking to). Because that's the important one.

But of the four quotes, one is 180 degrees incorrect (I specifically said the letters were not "dirty"). A second is mostly incorrect (I said that Brown probably created his cipher in Ohio before the war, not "on a return trip to Ohio" as he never made one.) There are also three other errors of fact not worth bothering about.

This from a reporter who specifically approached me after the talk and said that I was so clear, he didn't have a single followup question. Go figure.

* aka the PIO for this state's Attorney General
** don't laugh, I'm serious.

Anonymous Harsh February 06, 2013 12:35 PM  

However, others do observe what is happening in the world. Others do observe what others are saying about the world and people in it and they look for sources to get that information. People care about the world they live in. In this case a few more people have observed that their are people that feel a need to deride other successful people.

There are two major lapses of logic here. First being the idea that to care about the world I have to care about the opinions of others. That is absurd. One can care about the world and not care one bit about other people's opinions. Second is the idea that I need to confirm through media reports my opinions about a conflict I can read about firsthand through VD's and Scalzi's blogs. There's absolutely no reason for me to get the information secondhand.

Anonymous Roundtine February 06, 2013 12:35 PM  

Nate nails it.

They're laughing at him too, because the world is flat. You're just too stupid to see it. Or maybe a racist homophobic skygod worshiping troglodyte.

Anonymous Roundtine February 06, 2013 12:37 PM  

If pushed, Scalzi can easily go "Racist Sexist Homophobic Double Dipshit" at any time.

He won't. He'll break protocol and skip right to Racist Sexist Homophobic Triple Dogshit Dipshit.

Anonymous GreyS February 06, 2013 12:39 PM  

The Salon author has other fun stuff to read:

http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2012/10/22/boyfriend-looks-like-me-gay

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 12:39 PM  

@Vox Day

What interests me is to think about what this means if the same is true of every single other story they run every day.

It's not unusual. This is why most companies who deal with the media in one way or another often choose to issue press releases when they have comments to make. It is also why whenever possible you should ask that questions be submitted in writing so that you can respond to them in writing.

Blogger Beefy Levinson February 06, 2013 12:41 PM  

I will donate $100 to the Scalzi Gamma Rabbit tattoo fund if this story eventually makes it to a cable news program.

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 12:42 PM  

@Rho

Tad, why are you so obsessed with what you perceive to be the consequences of this trainwreck?

It's interesting and amusing.

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 12:49 PM  

@Beefy

I will donate $100 to the Scalzi Gamma Rabbit tattoo fund if this story eventually makes it to a cable news program.

For that to happen it needs to be placed in a larger and more relevant social or political context.

Anonymous Roundtine February 06, 2013 12:51 PM  

One consequence is that Vox will win the Lifetime Achievement Award for Cruelty Artistry in a MSM publication.

Anonymous Clay February 06, 2013 12:52 PM  

Sweet God of Mercy. I have to work a damn job. Every time I flick over to this blog, it's about Tad's shit. He/She is becoming VD's "sumthin" rabbit.

Anonymous Roundtine February 06, 2013 12:53 PM  

For that to happen it needs to be placed in a larger and more relevant social or political context.

There's enough here for MSNBC primetime.

Anonymous the bandit February 06, 2013 12:55 PM  

For that to happen it needs to be placed in a larger and more relevant social or political context.

You crack me up.

Blogger The Deuce February 06, 2013 12:56 PM  

Tad:

I hereby pledge $10 - that's right, $10 - to the Marriage & Family Foundation every time you post. That's right. Every time you say anything, gay people get $10 less marriage rights in theory. So tell me, how does defeat feel?

Blogger stareatgoatsies February 06, 2013 12:57 PM  

Nate, you're substituting an 'is' argument for a 'should argument' in that fabricated discourse with a flat-earther.

Anonymous bw February 06, 2013 1:01 PM  

zen0 February 06, 2013 12:25 PM

Rabbits have a very rapid reproductive rate.

Not this brood.


Indeed. Quite the opposite.
How very unnatural for the species.

Anonymous bw February 06, 2013 1:05 PM  

So tell me, how does defeat feel? The Deuce

+1

Anonymous Vince McMahon February 06, 2013 1:08 PM  

All of this attention is starting to have the distinct smell of Hell in a Cell. Or at least like Lawler and Kauffman on Letterman.

Did Scalzi and Vox cook up this feud so they could get free publicity? Sell more books? Frankly w/ this coverage I fully expect VD to post unreal site visit data for Feb. Maybe even change over to a subscription site.

I'll become a true believer if scalzi gets that rabbit tattoo though. If VD can get him to that end game, then he gets another CA Award.

Anonymous MPC February 06, 2013 1:18 PM  

Hay thar Rabbits and other folks stopping by to laugh at the big mean bigots, ever wonder just why somebody wouldn't support gay behavior or be outright disgusted by it? What big awful bigots! Not like you! But still, a part of you wonders... why? Well folks, it's your lucky day. Over at MyPostingCareer there's a new thread up:

The Institute for Advanced Homophobia! http://mypostingcareer.com/forums/topic/6651-the-institute-for-advanced-homophobia

"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. That same year, young MSM accounted for 69% of new HIV infections among persons aged 13–29 and 44% of infections among all MSM. At the end of 2009, an estimated 441,669 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the US were MSM or MSM-IDU." - Center for Disease Control Report

Now keep repeating to yourself, "it's totally normal, it's totally" normal as you read. Have a "pozitively" fabulous day!

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 1:26 PM  

"Nate, you're substituting an 'is' argument for a 'should argument' in that fabricated discourse with a flat-earther."

I am.

The point is the reaction... not the argument.

Anonymous Asher February 06, 2013 1:32 PM  

@ Tad

Candy is to children as voting is to women

@ Harsh

First being the idea that to care about the world I have to care about the opinions of others. That is absurd. One can care about the world and not care one bit about other people's opinions.

The problem is that other people's opinions are objective facts and they are part of that world of which you claim to care. Yes, I understand that the brain has a natural tendency toward stark mind/object dualism but that is something that can be relegated in an intellectual debate.

Anonymous John-GT February 06, 2013 1:46 PM  

Vox,

All those people who would never have read your books or come to your blog are stating to the world in the comments that they will now not read your books or ever come to your blog.

They are so bold. So forward thinking.

Rabbits gonna rabit.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 1:51 PM  

"All those people who would never have read your books or come to your blog are stating to the world in the comments that they will now not read your books or ever come to your blog."

Don't forget "Threatening to give money to causes they already give money too".

Anonymous Daniel February 06, 2013 1:53 PM  

You mean, threatening to give money to causes they already threaten to give money to.

Anonymous Clay February 06, 2013 1:55 PM  

That's all well & fine, Asher.

The problem is, you want to take my money to reach your Nirvana?

You wanna relegate my brain?

I don't think so.

Anonymous Supernaut February 06, 2013 1:56 PM  

Methinks if VD never threw his hat into the ring for President of SFWA, none of this would have happened. The Presidency thing appears to be Scalzi's greatest status he's achieved, and VD is threatening to take away the one thing he values most.

What he's doing right now is marshalling all of the rabbits in the warren and mobilizing them so that come election time, they'll all get out the vote so that their precious organization doesn't get taken over by a misogynistbigothomophobe.

No way VD wins the SFWA Presidency...but imagine the possibilities! VD could do to the SFWA what Dubya & Bama has done to 'murica!

Anonymous Asher February 06, 2013 1:57 PM  

@ Tad

I don't run in conservative circles, at all, and I get fair traction from my position that women's suffrage is a mistake. While I don't get much agreement I do receive dispassionate consideration. That said, I don't think that even one in a thousand individuals on the right would be able to command such consideration so I don't think my personal experience translates into a broader strategy.

One thing I point out is that if only men had the franchise it wouldn't so much have the effect of "shifting" the body politic rightward as it would completely reconfigure what "left" and "right" meant.

An excellent example of such a reconfiguration is the abortion issue. The "pro life" and "pro choice" camps have similar make-up by sex: men and women are as about a likely, in probability terms, to be in one or the other camp. However, if you look at how passionate individuals are about the issue the overwhelming proportion of single-issue abortion voters on both sides are women - an excellent example of why female suffrage is a bad idea.

The reality is that a significant majority of the population is not comfortable with abortion, in concrete terms, but is very comfortable with the abstract political equilibria of Roe v Wade. However, there is a fanatical cadre of pro life, and mostly, women who force the GOP into fantastic contortions to stay electorally viable. These contortions completely distort the entire spectrum of political debate on every single issue.

Probably the major reason for the seeming "insanity" and "extremism" of the GOP is that they have to cater to a fanatical cadre of weepy women (some of them men) on the issue of abortion. If women didn't have the franchise then the GOP wouldn't have to perform such contortions and you'd see broad, no pun intended, acceptance of the Roe equilibria.

When I approach the issue of female suffrage this way I see a glimmer in people's eyes that tells me they understand my logic. See, what I have done is shut down any recourse to the innate metaphycial instinct in people's brains. I seem to have a very rare ability to shut down any metaphysics in a conversation - I have never seen it in anyone else so it's probably not translatable, though.

Anonymous Oliver Read February 06, 2013 1:58 PM  

These liberals are like the Federal Reserve, they keep debasing their currency with 24/7 screeching of racist sexist homophobe. Those words have lost half of their power in just the last few years.

In 5 more years, hipsters will be bragging about how racist sexist and homophobic they are.

Anonymous GreyS February 06, 2013 2:00 PM  

"You mean, threatening to give money to causes they already threaten to give money to."

What I would donate for: A webcast of Scalzi late-night watching imaginary donations pop up in his combox, glaring wildly at the camera and saying "Winning!".

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 2:03 PM  

@Deuce


I hereby pledge $10 - that's right, $10 - to the Marriage & Family Foundation every time you post. That's right. Every time you say anything, gay people get $10 less marriage rights in theory. So tell me, how does defeat feel?


Knock yourself out. It wont' matter. The gay marriage battle has already been fought and won by my side.

Blogger stareatgoatsies February 06, 2013 2:06 PM  

"The point is the reaction... not the argument."

The little rabbit could be right that you should be bothered if you are on the super-minority side of an argument over things that should be because such arguments call your values into question.

On the other hand, if you are on the super-minority side of an argument over things that are, there is no reason for you to be bothered because there is no possible corollary that denigrates your values.

You cannot be held responsible, except in an extremely limited way, for things that are or things that are not.

So your is-for-should substitution invalidates the point you are trying to make about the reaction as well as the argument itself.

Anonymous Roundtine February 06, 2013 2:08 PM  

These liberals are like the Federal Reserve, they keep debasing their currency with 24/7 screeching of racist sexist homophobe.

You know the Fed desouls women through butthexing, right?

Anonymous Faust February 06, 2013 2:09 PM  

Whatever shall I do?

Agree and amplify, evidently.

... wait, does this mean you're GAMING John Scalzi?

Anonymous GreyS February 06, 2013 2:10 PM  

"Probably the major reason for the seeming "insanity" and "extremism" of the GOP is that they have to cater to a fanatical cadre of weepy women (some of them men) on the issue of abortion. If women didn't have the franchise then the GOP wouldn't have to perform such contortions and you'd see broad, no pun intended, acceptance of the Roe equilibria."

Seems to me you've got it exactly backwards. The only reason the Democrat party is so pro-abortion is in order to play to the large % of female voters who are vulnerable to the "Repubs goin' come get u!" play acting. If they didn't have to pander to that segment of society, the issue could be seen in a true context and would eventually go the way of slavery.

1 – 200 of 308 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts