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

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Everyone is an inequalitarian

Even the self-declared equalitarians.  How can we know?  Because, as I show at Alpha Game, even the most ardent nominal equalitarians often are, by their own inadvertent admission, observably inferior beings.
The hallmark of the inferior being is not hypocrisy, or the mere appearance of hypocrisy.  Everyone with ideals fails to live up to them at some point or another.  One's failure to live up to a standard is not at all the same thing as denying the standard applies to oneself.  The hallmark of the inferior, the sure sign of the self-admitted inferior, is the individual who demands others live up to standards that he refuses to accept for himself.
 Read the rest at Alpha Game.

Labels:

37 Comments:

Blogger jamsco March 23, 2013 4:04 PM  

Isn't demanding "others live up to standards that she refuses to accept for herself", the definition of hypocrisy? If not, what's the difference?

Anonymous James May March 23, 2013 4:06 PM  

I don't know if M. Resnick is a slut or a whore but she is certainly an idiot and etc. The fact she apparently believes in the inherently superior morality of women not only makes her a hypocritical supremacist, but from my point of view, very much a bitch. The idea she is a published author suggests the picture of a monkey that has learned to dress itself.

She has no business discussing such matters about a culture that produced the Magna Carta and Constitution. I would say there is an argument to be made that women have both no interest or capability of producing such documents due to the singular lack of them. As is usual in such people, she demonstrates that anyone who is capable of distributing right and wrong according to identity is not only incapable of producing a Bill of Rights but of making even simple comparisons. Her qualifying term "wishspeak" moves me not at all since she apparently only fantasizes harm to males and never women as a group.

The very fact Resnick is on a site that openly supports racial bigots like N.K. Jemisin and Ahmed Saladin who believe in the inherent immorality of whites compared to themselves and so measure right and wrong in racial terms but like hep Nazis bearing wheel chair access is proof Resnick is compromised intellectually. She seems to have similar feelings about men who she seems to trust only if they have adopted the view, as has McRapeKit, that men are inherently compromised morally.

As proof, FemNazis points to all the atrocities men are responsible for in history without pointing out the obvious fact that men, in historic civilizational terms, are pretty much responsible for everything and so can hardly avoid being a fire that burns as well as cooks food and makes pottery.

Blogger jamsco March 23, 2013 4:11 PM  

I will also state that I would be nervous about approaching life in this way: "I'll continue to behave poorly as long as I can find someone who (1) dislikes my poor behavior and who (2) I can make it look like they behave poorly in the same or some other manner."

Anonymous VD March 23, 2013 4:23 PM  

Isn't demanding "others live up to standards that she refuses to accept for herself", the definition of hypocrisy? If not, what's the difference?

Not at all. Hypocrisy is defined so: "a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess."

There is no pretense to having a virtuous character. It is almost the opposite, a declaration that virtue is required for thee, but not for me.

Blogger bethyada March 23, 2013 4:27 PM  

Jamsco, you are correct. Traditionally hypocrisy was the thing (or similar) Vox is calling "inferior" here.

Having standards that everyone else except you have to keep is hypocrisy. This is usually hidden behind why your own behaviour is an exception to your rule and hence why your standard does not apply to yourself in this particular situation. While exceptions may exist (parents/ children; age qualifications), much is just self-justification. It is this definition of hypocrisy that Jesus condemned.

That being said, modern usage of the word is just used to condemn people for failing to do what they claim they should, which is the old definition of "sin." Wrong of course but not hypocrisy in the classical meaning.

As I have previously said, I don’t think hypocrisy is well defined as failing to live up to your standards, everyone does that except the man with no standards.

Anonymous James May March 23, 2013 4:38 PM  

Well there is hypocrisy and there is Orwellian and delusional doublethink, which is systemic and perhaps even a little mad.

This is a community that literally indulges in racial bigotry while fervently believing they are the defenders against racial bigotry.

That's just a little more than hypocrisy.

Turn only a few crucial words by Saladin Ahmed or N.K. Jemisin around and they would be considered firmly in David Duke territory.

But to this group - wisdom. That wisdom is fueled by the same mitigation of their bigotry that fueled hatred of Jews and black folks. Clever mitigating explanations and theories about history and post-traumatic slavery syndrome and on and on. Scalzi's white privilege theory is a capsule synopsis of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Are lightbulbs going off over there? Nope. No principles to provide the power. That's why a person like Adria Richards is simply right. It's what she looks like, not what she does. The question is a settled point ahead of the event. Disdain precedes facts.

Anonymous Anonymous March 23, 2013 5:41 PM  

Isn't the belief that everyone can and should live by the same ethical standards the very definition of equalitarianism?

Anonymous Strigoi Ex March 23, 2013 5:45 PM  

Yes Anony, Vox confuses everyone is physically/mentally equal with everyone is equal under the law. He's been doing it for years, where have you been?

Anonymous realmatt March 23, 2013 5:48 PM  


There is no pretense to having a virtuous character. It is almost the opposite, a declaration that virtue is required for thee, but not for me.


Which would explain why these inferior people are desperate for a leader and will give up any and all freedom in exchange for safety.

Always be wary of someone desperately looking for someone of fine character. They're jealous incapable losers and will turn on you at the drop of a hat, like a wife realizing her husband isn't Superman. Suddenly her entire life up until that point is something her husband made and she played no part.

These people are passive and will go along with your plans only to blame you and take no responsibility for their decisions, active or passive.

Anonymous Anonymous March 23, 2013 5:51 PM  

"Yes Anony, Vox confuses everyone is physically/mentally equal with everyone is equal under the law. He's been doing it for years, where have you been?"

Moral standards /= legal standards

Anonymous realmatt March 23, 2013 5:59 PM  

No one is equal. Not even under the law. And no one will ever be.

Even the Founders made it so no one was equal under the law despite their claims that everyone is equal under the law.

Anonymous Strigoi Ex March 23, 2013 6:05 PM  

Moral standards /= legal standards

legal standards are the practical application of moral standards.

Anonymous realmatt March 23, 2013 6:10 PM  

legal standards are the practical application of moral standards.

No. They can be and sometimes are, but they aren't as a rule.

Anonymous James May March 23, 2013 6:11 PM  

Which site most resembles America, a place with diverse and even conflicting and questionable views with no censorship, or a conformist site where comments are hammered by a pedant and people banned for even polite disagreement?

Which site does McRapeKit and his posse of udder-pullers consider the most progressive and American? 'Nuff said. That's the America these liberal tuft-yankers would make for us. The vision of an America like "Whatever" is a nightmare.

Anonymous Anonymous March 23, 2013 6:13 PM  

So there is nothing more to being a moral person than following the law?

Anonymous James May March 23, 2013 6:15 PM  

Legal standards are in fact the practical and academic expressions of morality and are in fact rules themselves. To say not as a rule is Orwellian.

Anonymous Anonymous March 23, 2013 6:16 PM  

Damn near everything human beings do is an expression of morality on some level. That hardly means that politics is the same thing as ethics, for example.

Anonymous James May March 23, 2013 6:16 PM  

Anonymous put the "P" in "pedant."

Anonymous Strigoi Ex March 23, 2013 6:18 PM  

No. They can be and sometimes are, but they aren't as a rule.

Matt, good point. Let me rephrase, legal standards are an attempt at the practical application of moral standards.

Anonymous James May March 23, 2013 6:34 PM  

Resnick's presence on a site run by an assclown who as much as says he is the sole arbiter of what "assbaggery" is but without indulging in principles is dippy territory. Guiding thought by censorship shows why McGrape's solutions, and hers, to a "nice" political space being to simply censor the other side because they are always wrong is hopelessly moronic. It is moronic because "nice" is parsed as female, gay, and non-white.

Once again one has to be amused by a community that needs to have the fact that rape and death threats are wrong pointed up and have a discussion about it. Why not a discussion about putting your head in the mouth of a massive Nile crocodile?

At no time is it mentioned that the woman in question on the receiving end of the threats is a racial bigot who has a demonstrable political antipathy towards men and did more measurable harm, getting one fired and slandering two publicly, than anything that has happened to her by her trolling tormenters. As usual with nuts, the academic is compared to an actual reality and reality loses.

Richards got herself fired by asserting her own customers suffered from white privilege and had cornered the marked on racism just because of their skin, not because of DoSS.

What is most telling is that McRapeKit's followers assume, without the slightest proof, that all of Richards anonymous tormenters are men. That's because they believe, like Richards herself believes, only whites are capable of racism, that only men are capable of cruelty. That shines a great light on why a woman like McRapeKit has no business dicussing "assbaggery" since it is distributed the same way a Nazi distributes such things about Jews.

Anonymous Anonagain March 23, 2013 6:36 PM  

Matt, good point. Let me rephrase, legal standards are an attempt at the practical application of moral standards.

And the practical application of legal standards is an attempt at justice. That is to say, there is a correlation between legality and justice. But, there is no justice in an immoral society, yet there can be much legality, or at least, the pretense of legality. In other words, legality can also be used to inflict injustices in the name of the law. Tyranny is a form of legality - a strict legality completely disconnected from justice. Tyranny is not anarchy, there is law and order, but the laws and order are void of morality and justice.

Leftists use the cover of law to affect tyranny.

Blogger Bruce Lewis March 23, 2013 6:42 PM  

Isn't it "egalitarian"? I've never heard the word "equalitarian" before.

Anonymous Gen. Kong March 23, 2013 7:08 PM  

Slightly OT, but it appears Uncle Volodya has helped usher another fine upstanding world-citizen into the equalitarian utopia. Can't you see that little tear rolling down my cheek? Such a nice man! What a terrible loss to whirled peas!

Anonymous The other skeptic March 23, 2013 7:15 PM  

Vox confuses everyone is physically/mentally equal with everyone is equal under the law.

If I am correct, what you meant was:

Vox confuses the idea/principle that everyone is physically/mentally equal with the idea/principle that everyone is equal under the law.

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted you, however, only a moron would think that of Vox, so I must have misinterpreted you.

Can you clarify what you meant.

Anonymous The other skeptic March 23, 2013 7:28 PM  

That bitch Tina Fey does not seem to be having much success

Oh, Tina, Tina, Tina. You’re the funniest woman on the small screen in my opinion. Surely you can do better on the big screen than pairing with Paul since he’s box office poison.

I have news for you clown. Tina Fey is not funny, and is more likely the Box Office poison of the pair.

Anonymous The other skeptic March 23, 2013 7:55 PM  

Oh no, you can't escape McRapey wherever you go

(I assume that the ad for McRapey's book appears for everyone.)

Anonymous The other skeptic March 23, 2013 8:12 PM  

One of those progressive bloggers joins the 0.1%

Anonymous Stilicho March 23, 2013 8:33 PM  

Captain Slow is on a roll today

Anonymous FP March 24, 2013 12:01 AM  

Re progressive blogger and his $1 million condo. Duh, thats personal property, not private property.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-16-2011/occupy-wall-street-divided

Starting at 4:20m in, a hipster defines sharing and property rights for all.

"I'm more against private property not personal property".

Anonymous dh March 24, 2013 2:44 AM  

I have news for you clown. Tina Fey is not funny, and is more likely the Box Office poison of the pair.

She is not funny, but that does not mean she doesn't make funny movies. Women are not, strictly speaking funny. But they can participate in humorous entertainment.

Anonymous O)utlaw X March 24, 2013 3:38 AM  

The hallmark of the inferior being is not hypocrisy, or the mere appearance of hypocrisy. Everyone with ideals fails to live up to them at some point or another. One's failure to live up to a standard is not at all the same thing as denying the standard applies to oneself. The hallmark of the inferior, the sure sign of the self-admitted inferior, is the individual who demands others live up to standards that he refuses to accept for himself.

This is the first time I actually read the Game blog. I think you areright. For it is the totalitarian that is the hypocrite. Those that just want to be left alone have to put up with these kind of assholes or bitches. I don't give a damn what you think, nor should I be brequired which you wish. We have McRapey and Karl Denniger who will not tolerate decent. Both sides. I however stand firm and will not bow to either side of any argument. I got banned from Dennigers place becuse I questioned his bnninng. That got me banned. \\

Fish headed fools will fall off the cliff and probably never know why. They never wanted to or listend to someone honest that had a different opinion. Let them sulk. If they can't stand critisim then get out of our friching way. You are Obama and that fag senator Linsey Gramn. Sold out and bought, black mailed and taught how to sweat and be a psycopath for the bankers.

Denniger is no fool but he is his own, the politicians are mostly fags and peophiles black mailed. The others are given insider trading information. The honey wagon marches on whether you like little boys/girls or the money. Have you know Principles? Hve you no shame?

I am yet a shadow of yesterday.

Anonymous Outlaw X March 24, 2013 4:36 AM  

Vox I re read that that was not pointed at you. I got to learn to stop using "you" that confuses people. It wasn't about Vox , it was about Denniger and the ret of the hypocrites.

Anonymous Regently March 24, 2013 8:33 AM  

Hey Outlaw, how's your papal prophecy doing?

Anonymous Anonymous March 24, 2013 11:59 AM  

"...is the individual who demands others live up to standards that he refuses to accept for himself."

To which I generally say "NO, anything else?"

CaptDMO

Anonymous realmatt the undead March 24, 2013 1:04 PM  


Matt, good point. Let me rephrase, legal standards are an attempt at the practical application of moral standards.


They can be. They aren't as a rule. Laws are just a tool. Set in place by those with power to manipulate or aid those without it.

Anonymous Judge Holden March 24, 2013 1:05 PM  

Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the powerful
in favor of the weak.

Anonymous Loki's Ass Guard March 25, 2013 12:18 PM  

Incorrect. Morality exists in Nature, reflecting the Creator, Who actively demands you answer to His revelation.
You either find it and recognize it, or you do not. It exists none the less, regardless of your capacity.
All else is TheExcuse - also known as TheLie.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts