ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, December 14, 2014

Rhetorical discourse with an SJW

A dialogue on Twitter, prompted by my tweeting a paraphrase of a quote from Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, specifically her explanation of how destroying men's values is the first step in exerting control over them:
Vox Day ‏@voxday
Build up John Scalzi and you've destroyed SF. Hail Anita S. and you've destroyed game review. Glorify Lena Dunham and you've destroyed TV.

Sam Fredericks ‏@Wyldawen
How are any of these things destroyed by differing perspectives? Are they that fragile?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Yes, that difficult and fragile. Kill Man's sense of values and you kill his capacity to recognize greatness or to achieve it.

Sam Fredericks ‏@Wyldawen
If a man's sense of values of killed by a single differing opinion, either his values or weak or the man who holds them is.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You're totally missing the point. It's about the STANDARDS. Fuzz the definition of "inch" and no one knows how tall anything is.

Sam Fredericks ‏@Wyldawen
That sounds very rigid and a self-defeating philosophy if one is interested in expanding knowledge.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You don't seek to expand knowledge. You're just a deceiver who seeks to tear down and DISQUALIFY. You're not fooling anyone.

Sam Fredericks ‏@Wyldawen
You clutch your brittle twig and I'll ride the waves lifting us higher.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Look at how many lies you've tried already. 1) false dichotomy, 2) "single opinion", 3) "self-defeating", 4) "expanding knowledge"

Vox Day ‏@voxday
And wrapping it all up with a false accusation and an appeal to progress. You are classic SJW scum.

Sam Fredericks ‏@Wyldawen
Do you love life?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Don't try to retreat to false dialectic after that racist rhetorical performance. It doesn't suit you.

Sam Fredericks ‏@Wyldawen
racist?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Yes, obviously.

Sam Fredericks ‏@Wyldawen
How?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
First you'll have to explain how completely redefining standards and awarding mediocrity is "a single differing opinion".
You probably won't be surprised to learn that Mr. Fredericks promptly disappeared after that. You can learn a lot from this dialogue, a lot that is useful for future engagements with SJWs and other rhetorically minded individuals.

First, notice how he begins with a question, and a dishonest, passive-aggressive question at that. That is how I immediately knew he was not an honest interlocutor, even though I answered his question in the same manner as if assuming he was. You always want to draw the SJW in deeper and force him to commit, even when you know, beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt, what he is.

Second, he tries another passive-aggressive dig, this time in falsely characterizing the subject and setting up a false dichotomy. Remember, SJWs always attack; they don't know how to defend their own positions due to the contradictory and oft indefensible nature of them. They HAVE to stay on the attack if they are going to come out on top and they know it.

Third, after I point out how he has failed to understand the point, he doesn't back off, but immediately switches to another attack, this time one that involves him claiming the philosophically superior position. What he wants is for me to defend myself, instead I point out, for the first time, that he is lying. Notice how he doesn't even defend himself against his lack of interest in "expanding knowledge", which is a non sequitur anyhow, but doubles-down, this time implicitly appealing to a nebulous, yet inevitable progress that is superior to the "brittle twig" of having traditional standards.

Observe that at no point has he made any attempt to actually make a coherent, rational case. It's all pure rhetoric, all meant to put him on a higher plane that permits him to pronounce judgment on me.

After I openly call him out, he suddenly retreats, realizing that I am aware of his game. He tries another approach, this one prosecutorial, despite it being a non sequitur even more egregious than the first. Then, I drop the r-bomb on him. Notice that he can't ignore this one. He doesn't mind being called a liar, he doesn't mind being called out as SJW scum, he doesn't even mind it being pointed out that his argument is incoherent rhetoric, but he can't ignore the r-word. It's magic, you see. Magic rhetoric.

Suddenly, for the first time, he needs to ask questions and have things defined. And that's when I kick him in the teeth, pointing out that he'll have to start defining all of his many rhetorical claims before I define my single rhetorical claim. There was no need for me to define any of the other assertions I made, because they are all coherent and explicable. But the racist charge makes no sense, which tells him that I not only recognize the game he is playing, but understand it and can play it better than him.

Which is why he throws in the towel and vanishes. After which, Aquila Aquilonis ‏comments in his stead: And that is how a Native American takes a scalp on Twitter. #DreadIlk

Labels: ,

74 Comments:

Blogger Crude December 14, 2014 3:50 PM  

Interesting move. So you combated his willingness to treat solid definitions as utterly unnecessary, but hitting him with 'racist' and watching him regard solid definitions as important?

Blogger Vox December 14, 2014 4:01 PM  

So you combated his willingness to treat solid definitions as utterly unnecessary, but hitting him with 'racist' and watching him regard solid definitions as important?

Yep. Remember, rhetoric is about the art of emotional manipulation. It's simply a matter of finding their triggers, and for the rabbits, they are to be found in the area of their favored attacks.

Blogger Crude December 14, 2014 4:02 PM  

Alright, just wanted to make sure I understood. Thanks for the tip - that's pretty useful.

Anonymous Bah December 14, 2014 4:03 PM  

That sounds very rigid and a self-defeating philosophy if one is interested in expanding knowledge.

Please provide an example of Scalzi or the Dunham Horror expanding human knowledge...

Anonymous Giuseppe December 14, 2014 4:14 PM  

Vox,
This is beautiful. Truly beautiful. When I read the word 'racist' I actually burst out laughing but when I read his question 'racist?' and then follow-up "How?" I was really laughing.
I can just see the panic in the rabbit's eyes as he said it..."no...surely I haven't...have I? oh my God...." hahahahah. Truly beautiful. Thank you.

Blogger Vox December 14, 2014 4:16 PM  

Please provide an example of Scalzi or the Dunham Horror expanding human knowledge...

That's illustrates the absurdity of what he was saying, but you can't respond that way. Remember, you can't defeat rhetoric with dialectic. You can use it for the benefit of the audience, of course, but a skilled rhetorician is simply going to switch gears on you at that point.

Remember, it's all about emotion. So what the rhetorician is trying to do is upset you with his non sequiturs. Most people lose it after one or two refusals to engage dialectically.

Anonymous PA December 14, 2014 4:19 PM  

Well done. I took notes.

Anonymous Sarcophilus December 14, 2014 4:20 PM  

And I'll bet he never recognizes the origin of the paraphrase - that was written by a woman (so your interlocutor is also sexist!).
Or he might realize the very next line:
"Don't set out to raze all shrines — you'll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity — and the shrines are razed."
Or to use Wright's analogy, it isn't merely a different perspective. The Jesuit in the observatory looking at the stars does have a different perspective than the inverted dwarf with his head in the chamberpot.
But even in this Wright gives too much credit. Rand was better in this - "shock art" which points downward into the deepest abyss of hell yet is an arrow whose fetching point heavenward.
The amorphous, gooey blob that seems to hold but will leak out of your hand is what is presented. Wordy nihilism. The canvas depicts nothing, even if it has some paint, it has no more content than a 50% gray calibration card.
There is the taste of gourmet food, and the taste of spoiled food, but there is still true tastelessness. The opposite of truth is a lie, but ignorance is an even more profound denial. The opposite of good is evil, but the relativism carves out the abyss. And Beauty's opposite is ugliness, so it needs its nihilist form, I guess tastelessness is a good word for that.

Pink SF and its parallels in other media aren't bad. They aren't anything. They don't even negate like a lampoon or satire might though one might mistake something like "Redshirts" that is a pastiche of recognizable fragments l- something that has been through a cross-cut shredder and mixed and thrown, but confetti is not a medium.

Blue SF can be good or bad (in terms of accomplishing a goal as well as the moral aspect) because it has a telos.

Blogger rcocean December 14, 2014 4:21 PM  

SJW's have a few "fighting words" - racist, sexist, homophobe. When they fight among themselves, the loser usually abases himself in tearful apologies that he "isn't really a racist, but might have said the wrong thing". Read the Bolshevik "confessions" during the stalin show trials, its the same thing.

Blogger rcocean December 14, 2014 4:23 PM  

BTW, just got through "No Country for Old Men" - the movie really is much better. Somehow reading about some guy lugging around a cattle gun is even more absurd in print.

Anonymous fish December 14, 2014 4:25 PM  

You clutch your brittle twig and I'll ride the waves lifting us higher.

Typed I'm sure from a room with a "Hang in there Baby" kitty poster tacked to the wall. Crap do these nitwits ever read what they've written before inflicting it on the rest of the world?

Anonymous Bah December 14, 2014 4:29 PM  

You clutch your brittle twig and I'll ride the waves lifting us higher.

Yeah that wave was caused by R'lyeh rising from the depths, causing mass insanity and destruction around the world, as people like Sam chant, "Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!"

Anonymous kh123 December 14, 2014 4:38 PM  

‏@Wyldawen...

Well, he has some hiphop up on his page. Trying to ward away the bad juju with his Union Card - "No, really, these beats are fresh."

And of course, the guy's into The Ocean. Subversive never felt so tired and prepackaged.

OpenID simplytimothy December 14, 2014 4:40 PM  

Remember, SJWs always attack; they don't know how to defend their own positions due to the contradictory and oft indefensible nature of them. They HAVE to stay on the attack if they are going to come out on top and they know it.

I will remember it now.

I notice how, in this exchange, you only fight on your rhetorical turf. This is you putting into action, never give them a damn thing.

Good stuff.

thx.

Anonymous kh123 December 14, 2014 4:42 PM  

"Mr. Fredericks promptly disappeared after that."

The best part is when the question is relatively simple.

Anonymous Sarcophilus December 14, 2014 4:46 PM  

@Bah Please provide an example of Scalzi or the Dunham Horror expanding human knowledge...

We now have much higher ceiling (or lower depth, if you prefer) for excelling in mediocrity. We never knew or thought something could be that mediocre.

The SJWs are using all their skill to replace a meritocracy with a mediocricy.

Anonymous FP December 14, 2014 4:53 PM  

"Please provide an example of Scalzi or the Dunham Horror expanding human knowledge..."

The gravitational effects on the giggle of fat? Impotence inducing hypnotherapy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtj3uCKDxuk

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 14, 2014 4:59 PM  

Well done. IMO beyond the rhetoric there is simply nothing there within the Left. I'm not the sharpest stick in the pile, but when I have asked questions of the leftards they have nothing beyond maybe a sentence and a half of cheap ass rhetoric.

Simply asking them to explain themselves is usually enough to break them.

Blogger RobertT December 14, 2014 5:13 PM  

I have been twittering with a number of big shots in the Silicon Valley and I've come to the opinion many of them are overrated. They aren't well read and they don't think well. I twittered about Buffet's predilection for not paying his tax bill and the whole place exploded like it was blasphemous. But after I tweeted three examples of a couple billion in taxes, everyone disappeared. No capitulation, just pretended it didn't happen.

Anonymous Fran December 14, 2014 5:19 PM  

Was that "Do you love life? " line actually a threat?
What a douche.

Anonymous OddRob December 14, 2014 5:22 PM  

Vox, you ought to write a book about discourse with rabbits and SJW's on both the dialectic and rhetorical levels. Though I am sure it would be less work to just tell us to go read Socrates and Plato. :P

Anonymous NorthernHamlet December 14, 2014 5:27 PM  

Sam Fredericks ‏@Wyldawen
You clutch your brittle twig and I'll ride the waves lifting us higher.


I cringed in embarrassment.

Anonymous Freddy Foreshadowing December 14, 2014 5:31 PM  

Sam is short for Salome, dumbass.

Blogger Kirk Parker December 14, 2014 5:31 PM  

"First, notice how he begins with a question, and a dishonest, passive-aggressive question at that. [namely: Are they that fragile?] "

BINGO!

Anyone who's ever worked in construction, or even tried a bit of remodeling on his own home and done some demolition first, knows how frightfully easier it is to destroy than it is to build.

Anonymous Laz December 14, 2014 5:34 PM  

kh123: "And of course, the guy's into The Ocean. Subversive never felt so tired and prepackaged."

These guys? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9SYSx6MaIg

If so, you pegged that one.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 14, 2014 5:46 PM  

Please provide an example of Scalzi or the Dunham Horror expanding human knowledge...

Well, surely he could have said that she expanded our knowledge of the category of people that includes Woody Allen and Roman Polanski.

Anonymous Anubis December 14, 2014 6:03 PM  

"Please provide an example of Scalzi or the Dunham Horror expanding human knowledge..."

I had no idea that lesbians could get something out of licking a 3yo girls vagina, much less find prizes inside. There is no practical use for this knowledge other than why pebbles would fall out when a girl stands up.

Blogger Michael Maier December 14, 2014 6:06 PM  

Kirk Parker December 14, 2014 5:31 PM

"First, notice how he begins with a question, and a dishonest, passive-aggressive question at that. [namely: Are they that fragile?] "

BINGO!

Anyone who's ever worked in construction, or even tried a bit of remodeling on his own home and done some demolition first, knows how frightfully easier it is to destroy than it is to build.


Depressingly so... though you only need to think of LEGOs or kid's jigsaw puzzle to get that idea across.

Reading this post is actually a little depressing. How easily and often folks attack with stupidity and think themselves geniuses.

I've said it about this place before: we need a better class of troll. Though our trolls seem less and less anymore.

Anonymous kh123 December 14, 2014 6:15 PM  

Laz: "These guys?"

Yup.

Anonymous zippo December 14, 2014 6:17 PM  

Speaking of trolls, was the crazy Mississippi thread deleted for excessive retardation? I don't see it on the site any more.

Man, it's a shame so much unintentional comedy gold showed up on such a tragic thread.

Anonymous Crude December 14, 2014 6:24 PM  

You clutch your brittle twig and I'll ride the waves lifting us higher.

One thing Vox did, and what I think is extremely important to do, is to appropriately shit all over these feel-goodisms that SJWs spew out.

Never let them get away with a bumpersticker. If they say 'You keep trying to bring back the misogynistic past. I'll help build the bright future where women are recognized for all the power and intelligence they have.', fire back immediately with something like, "So long as they aren't chopped into a fine slurry before they're vacuumed out of the womb. There's way too many girl-children already - the future needs less of their kind, not more, yeah?"

My own experience is that SJWs get rattled at the very suggestion that the future they idealize is either A) uncertain, or B) isn't as bright and glorious as they think it is. Remind them of what they're really after.

Anonymous kh123 December 14, 2014 6:36 PM  

"You clutch your brittle twig and I'll ride the waves lifting us higher."

"...It is so exquisite, so marvelously perfect, so regally quiet and elegant..."

I think we have a winner.

Blogger James Sullivan December 14, 2014 6:37 PM  

@Giuseppe,

"then follow-up "How?" I was really laughing.
I can just see the panic in the rabbit's eyes as he said it..."no...surely I haven't...have I? oh my God...." hahahahah. Truly beautiful. Thank you."

I know. That was my favorite part. I pictured Chateau Heartiste pontificating on the little hamster wheel spinning in his mind: "Oh no! Wait! Did I say something racist? I can't be sure... The definition changes so frequently..."

Good stuff.

Anonymous Porky December 14, 2014 6:48 PM  

I kinda wanted to see where he was going with "Do you love life?"

I sensed that some really epic stupid was about to happen.

Anonymous Laz December 14, 2014 6:54 PM  

Way OT but, purported cell video of Michael Brown and another guy robbing and beating an old man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nguoNxwycc

Sure looks like him to me.

@ 2:05 he says "He tried to stab me!" Which begs the question- Why did you rob him once the threat was subdued? I think I heard the word "knife" before that but, I'm unsure due to the accent and the hootin and hollerin.

Surprisingly it's been posted for 2 days and YouTube hasn't removed it. Not surprising that there's been nothing from major media yet.

Anonymous HalibetLector December 14, 2014 6:55 PM  

@RobertT Silicon Valley is infested with SJW rabbits. I'm not sure when it happened, but it's been that way for as long as I've been working there. It's easy to poke the ant hill and watch them freak out over a variety of topics. They know their domain, which is to deliver ads to eyeballs. That plus VC connections are the only things necessary to be successful in that field. To be fair, that does make them more productive than most.

Anonymous Ungar December 14, 2014 7:10 PM  

The thing about "rabbitology" is it allows one to see where Vox goes off the rails if one is willing to see. "Fuzz the definition of "inch" and no one knows how tall anything is" is a catagory error since we are talking about something subjective, and if we weren't there are still centimeters and pollex and cun and somehow we still know how tall things are.

Anonymous sawtooth December 14, 2014 7:21 PM  

Just ask the usual feminist, pro-choice SJW if in fact they are all about "choice" then how about having the choice to determine whether or not to abort AFTER viewing a sonogram.

Watch them contort and hiss like Linda Blair.

Anonymous kfg December 14, 2014 7:27 PM  

" . . . somehow we still know how tall things are. "

How high the moon?

Anonymous Ralph December 14, 2014 7:27 PM  

T and breaking news: Sydney experiencing joys of diversity:

Muslims have taken a cafe of hostages and there are reports of a bomb in the opera house. This sort of thing would have been considered unthinkable five years ago but I, for one, have been expecting it for a while.

Anonymous zippo December 14, 2014 7:29 PM  

"Fuzz the definition of "inch" and no one knows how tall anything is" is a catagory error since we are talking about something subjective, and if we weren't there are still centimeters and pollex and cun"

Oh Christ, Spergy the Sperg is back.

It's called "compression", he was making a compressed metaphor. On Twitter. Where your character options are limited. Normal people do this thing called extrapolation.

But don't worry, the train is fine.

Anonymous ENthePeasant December 14, 2014 7:38 PM  

Racist is good, but in the last few weeks I've been using "your support for child molestation", and found that the conversation ends at that point.

Anonymous VD December 14, 2014 7:43 PM  

The thing about "rabbitology" is it allows one to see where Vox goes off the rails if one is willing to see. "Fuzz the definition of "inch" and no one knows how tall anything is" is a catagory error since we are talking about something subjective, and if we weren't there are still centimeters and pollex and cun and somehow we still know how tall things are.

Incorrect. You're missing the point. What if all units of length are rendered meaningless and uncertain? How will you then objectively communicate how tall something is?

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni December 14, 2014 7:46 PM  

When some liberal starts rattling on about "saving the environment", I like to ask them, "Say, what is that?" and they realize with horror that they don't really know what that word means ( environment), or that it doesn't mean anything at all.

This post was truly instructive. I hope I have the wit to use it wisely.

Anonymous kfg December 14, 2014 7:47 PM  

"How will you then objectively communicate how tall something is?"

Like, oooooooooh, I don't know, a wave?

Anonymous Steve December 14, 2014 7:47 PM  

"Sam Fredericks ‏@Wyldawen
If a man's sense of values of killed by a single differing opinion, either his values or weak or the man who holds them is.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You're totally missing the point. It's about the STANDARDS. Fuzz the definition of "inch" and no one knows how tall anything is."


They don't miss the point,Vox. Notice how there cannot be even ONE National Socialist celebrity,congressman, or police officer,according to them?

If you doubt it, simply start a campaign saying "I'm a National Socialist, and I'm running for Congress" or make a hit film and then mention "By the way,everybody, I'm a National Socialist".

They will not allow a SINGLE academic,celebrity,police officer, teacher, etc to be an avowed "fascist" and that is because they realize the truth of what you have said,at least subconsciously.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 14, 2014 7:49 PM  

I've found it to be simpler than that. It mostly comes down to:
1. Profanity and personal abuse, with endless, tireless enthusiasm.
2. Outnumbering, and the perception that one guy arguing with five guys is wrong.
3. Banning or the threat of banning, or censoring your posts so in various ways you can't talk back.

Anonymous Sarcophilus December 14, 2014 7:50 PM  

Scalping in this case was a neutral act. A vacuum doesn't need an insulating cover. Do they still have Dewar's profiles?

Anonymous Giuseppe December 14, 2014 7:52 PM  

@HalibetLector and @RobertT,
yup. Silicon valley and the whole "tech-bubble" is a hive of SJW scum really.
People who associate with pedophiles in order to boost their sales type of people.
I really need the ilk to buy enough of my books that I can then wander the Earth like the kung-fu guy (except you know, with less tranny sex and self-asphyxiation at the end) and go to places like Silicon Valley stirring the pot by basically going all Tarzan on their ass in a very public way. I think it could be easily done.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 14, 2014 7:59 PM  

sawtooth: "Just ask the usual feminist, pro-choice SJW if in fact they are all about "choice" then how about having the choice to determine whether or not to abort AFTER viewing a sonogram.

Watch them contort and hiss like Linda Blair."

That's what I mean. I've seen a challenge very like that, regarding sonograms. And the response was a stream of verbal sewage and abuse, and the mods putting the challenger of the SJW, not the SJW, on notice. So the challenger (who had remained polite throughout) prudently fell silent and "lost". And everyone said to the SJW, you really kicked his ass.

That's what they've got. That's how it works.

Anonymous Ungar December 14, 2014 8:02 PM  

What if all units of length are rendered meaningless and uncertain?

Good question. Is anyone actually proposing that?

Blogger Vox December 14, 2014 8:08 PM  

So the challenger (who had remained polite throughout) prudently fell silent and "lost". And everyone said to the SJW, you really kicked his ass.

SJWs see silence as submission. Which is why you have to speak out against them.

Anonymous Steve December 14, 2014 9:14 PM  

"What if all units of length are rendered meaningless and uncertain?

Good question. Is anyone actually proposing that?"

People,if you can call SJW's that, are proposing that with regards to cultural markers. This is called "Crticial Theory",the sophist "philosophy" which underpins statements about "rape culture","systemic racism","patriarchy" and so on.

If you have listened to Anita Sarkeesian, what you have heard was an argument in favor of erasing cultural markers developed in an organic fashion over 2000 years of trial and error in favor of cultural markers based on "Critical Theory" (Marxist class dialectic) cooked up in an academic department by a rich liberal who has never worked a real job or interacted with non-academics or non-Ivy Leaguers in their entire life.

It is the equivalent of artifically erasing all standards of measurement and replacing them with a nebulous measurement system using such units as "tall",huge","small","tiny" and "big" instead of inches,feet,yards,meters,kilometers or centimeters.

This is in fact a feature of their system and not a bug, because when they argue against "sexism",they need a way to explain how #KillAllMen is "different" and that MUST be subjective and abstract, because if it is objective and concrete then their own obvious sexism will undermine their moral authority in any argument.

Same goes for issues of "racism","transphobia","homophobia",etc, since they are so objectively hypocritical and wrong, they must argue their points in the cloudy realm of subjectivity,advancing opinions as though they were facts, and simultaneously enabling them to treat facts as though they were opinions.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 14, 2014 9:45 PM  

I really need the ilk to buy enough of my books that I can then wander the Earth like the kung-fu guy

So, where can we find these books?

Anonymous Adolf, An aspiring artist in Austria December 14, 2014 11:29 PM  

What if all institutional restraints were rendered meaningless and uncertain?

Gute Frage. Ist anyone actually propozing zat?

Anonymous bob k. mando December 15, 2014 12:20 AM  

Ungar December 14, 2014 8:02 PM
Good question. Is anyone actually proposing that?



you fucking weasel.

an "inch" is 25.4 mm. if you derange the meaning of "inch", by definition, you derange the meaning OF ALL units of measure ... because the conversion factors are now all incorrect.

Rand was addressing an important point. but it's hardly as if she had discovered the principal:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+5%3A20&version=KJV
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

the serpent doesn't ever really use any new tricks.

on the other hand, it seems all the old ones work just fine for most people.


Anonymous bob k. mando December 15, 2014 12:21 AM  

Ungar December 14, 2014 8:02 PM
Good question. Is anyone actually proposing that?



you fucking weasel.

an "inch" is 25.4 mm. if you derange the meaning of "inch", by definition, you derange the meaning OF ALL units of measure ... because the conversion factors are now all incorrect.

Rand was addressing an important point. but it's hardly as if she had discovered the principal:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+5%3A20&version=KJV
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

the serpent doesn't ever really use any new tricks.

on the other hand, it seems all the old ones work just fine for most people.


Blogger Thordaddy December 15, 2014 2:14 AM  

What do we call the enemies of the anti-Supremacists?

Anonymous Discard December 15, 2014 4:24 AM  

Thordaddy: Supremacists?

Anonymous Porphyry December 15, 2014 4:33 AM  

"Always attack": I told you, just like the US army: 3G war with no concept of supplies HQ structure, or logistics, (besides unending bureacracy (r hamster) that is).

Anonymous Porphyry December 15, 2014 5:44 AM  

Im bored Let's analyze this "Build up John Scalzi and you've destroyed SF. Hail Anita S. and you've destroyed game review. Glorify Lena Dunham and you've destroyed TV." Vox goes in with a bold open sure to tempt any SJW into over-extension (he's invincible right?), but he knows he has the goods to back it up.
"How are any of these things destroyed by differing perspectives? Are they that fragile?" Seeing himself as invincible the enemy proceeds in an all out assault on what he deems to be the most critical points.
"Yes, that difficult and fragile. Kill Man's sense of values and you kill his capacity to recognize greatness or to achieve it." Vox counters with just sufficient force, but the way it is delivered, all the weight to the front, as a swordsman would say, makes it clear that he is just showing off... And the SJW falls for the trap again with another more calculated assault, good heavens he's hammering on the same point (this is his "turtle" move) he thinks he still might have a chance of winning but he needs space to regroup.
"You're totally missing the point. It's about the STANDARDS. Fuzz the definition of "inch" and no one knows how tall anything is." Vox offers the SJW a way out by summing up the discussion this far and at the same time placing a restriction on the battlefield: Somewhat like what the allies did at Versailles when Germany wasn't totally beaten: (You can come to the peace table or you can engage in total and unlimited war).
"that sounds very rigid and a self-defeating philosophy if one is interested in expanding knowledge." Unfortunately this is where all the SJW training kicks in, he smells blood in the air with the offer of a decent way out. He has no room to maneuver and no idea of the battlefield. But to hell with that, this is about self esteem damn it. And he proceeds to disqualify- disqualify disqualify in the same battle where he is quite literally at the mercy of his opponent. After that it's just a route and at times a massacre.

Anonymous Porphyry December 15, 2014 5:49 AM  

In my opinion his most pertinent error and one common to self esteem is that what you pursue determines your standing in society.- which is why he stubbornly goes after non-critical objectives and can convince himself that changing tone into that of an academic in pursuit of knowledge in general is a masterstroke.

Anonymous Eric the Red December 15, 2014 7:47 AM  

Vox, that was brilliant. I'm still trying to extract some concrete rules from your exposition, for use in dealing with real SJW's. Here's a link that appears related...

Ben Shapiro shares some tips on dealing with a liberal

In another thread, I was accused of being a troll by one of the ilk. I immediately shut up, because I realized I wasn't responding with any great acumen. I quit before I made a bigger fool of myself. Passive-aggressive, I guess.

Blogger Joshua Dyal December 15, 2014 7:52 AM  

The most brilliant part is the scalping, comment, though. Haha!

OpenID simplytimothy December 15, 2014 8:28 AM  

Well done. IMO beyond the rhetoric there is simply nothing there within the Left.

They--meaning the institutionalized Left--is very good at it. I am very impressed with their infrastructure for shaping the narrative--i.e. the (often incorrect, incomplete or an outright lie) premise upon which a rhetorical attack is launched.

The recent example is defending The Obama/Boehner/McConnell extra-constitutional amnesty as "Reagan legalized illegals too".

The (my) first instinct is to raise the facts of the case--that the Reagan trusted the democrats to uphold their enforcement end of the bargain. However, a factual attack is not where this battle is being fought. Notice, they start with a true statement and use that as a moral cudgel.

This raises several issues

1. The most important is the technique to blow up their (deceitful) narrative--not with facts and dialectic--but with bigger rhetoric that forces them into the dialectic mode. This is a skill I have not learned--I find thinking in lies incomprehensible and I am not fond of bombast.


2. The Left has full-time employees who come up with their lies--Talking Points Memo, The New York Times, etc. i.e. propaganda organs. Where they are beating us with a fire hose of information, we are pissing into the storm. Yes, the right stream of piss in the right eye is effective, but it would be nice to turn a fire-hose of piss right back at em--turned up a notch, of course.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera December 15, 2014 9:53 AM  

Hey, be nice to the aspie. When have you ever seen as SJW correctly use the term "category error"? I think his heart is in the right place.

Seems easy enough to determine. Failing to answer a simple math question is basically impossible for an aspie (causes great anxiety), whereas SJWs are allergic to direct questions.

@Ungar

Please compute the average of these numbers: 3, 7, 6, 4.

Blogger Thordaddy December 15, 2014 2:37 PM  

Discard...

That would read like the obvious answer, BUT the anti-equalists (Supremacists in aggressive-speak) are ALSO anti-Supremacists.

So we have self-identified "racists" who are most definitely NOT white Supremacists.

What do we call these "racist" anti-Supremacists/anti-equalists?

Blogger Thordaddy December 15, 2014 2:46 PM  

Like I said before, Vox may not be a WHITE Supremacist, but he is certainly a Supremacist/anti-equalist. And his enemies are anti-Supremacy, particularly, anti-white Supremacy. In fact, to the anti-Supremacist, only white Supremacy is conceptually particular enough to warrant attack and so we see the phenomena of the "other" accused of being "racist" with the implication that one is mimicking the evil of white Supremacy. The Japanese scientist is a great example BUT so is Vox with his new redskin card. His enemies label him "white supremacy" REGARDLESS of whether he is white or not.

Blogger Mindstorm December 15, 2014 6:15 PM  

I'm surprised that everybody missed an obvious retort to:
"Do you love life?"

Responding:
"Yes, I'm pro-life. And you?"
would be indefensible without another non sequitur.

Blogger Cee December 16, 2014 3:11 AM  

Seems easy enough to determine. Failing to answer a simple math question is basically impossible for an aspie (causes great anxiety), whereas SJWs are allergic to direct questions.

@Ungar

Please compute the average of these numbers: 3, 7, 6, 4.


5.

...oh damn it.

Anonymous Discard December 16, 2014 3:26 AM  

Thordaddy: Well… a lot of them are Jews, aren't they?

Anonymous Aeoli Pera December 16, 2014 2:45 PM  

>...oh damn it.

Heh.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera December 16, 2014 2:47 PM  

Looks like Ungar may have gone into lurker mode, or run off entirely. Also an aspie thing (see Koanic's material on that).

Blogger Meiqing Xu July 22, 2015 9:15 PM  

15723meiqing
michael kors outlet online
abercrombie
christian louboutin outlet
sac longchamp
jordan 11 columbia
ray ban sunglasses
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
tory burch flats
louis vuitton handbags
air max uk
christian louboutin sale
louis vuitton
gucci shoes
louis vuitton online shop
fitflops
ray ban glasses
nfl jerseys
coach outlet
louis vuitton outlet
jordan 6
fake oakleys
coach factory
hollister clothing
michael kors handbags
jordan pas cher homme
louis vuitton handbags
gucci outlet
christian louboutin
coach outlet store online
timberland pro
hermes birkin bag
louis vuitton handbags
ralph lauren uk
fitflops sale clearance
jordan 11 concord
hollister
jordan retro 8
ray ban sunglasses

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts