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

Saturday, January 03, 2015

Is John Scalzi a malignant narcissist?

As if being a self-confessed rapist who associates with men accused of sexually battering women wasn't enough of an indication, reading Michael Trust's fascinating work on malignant narcissists tends to indicate that there is something seriously off about John Scalzi. Consider these various points from the book:

Competitive/Relative Inferiority

Narcissists are weirdly competitive and strangely envious over seemingly insignificant details, from how the salary they earn compares to other's, to the respectability of the shampoo they use, compared to the shampoos that others use. It is a shielding mechanism, designed to protect their ego, and their amygdala, from confronting their own insecurity.

You can sometimes spot this trait in a narcissist, by how they will try to verbally downplay their competitiveness in realms where they can't compete, as a way of creating a false reality where they don't care about their competitive inferiority. If your narcissist, out of the blue says, “Other people are obsessed with how much money they earn, but I really don't care about things like that,” then you know they were just obsessing over exactly that subject. They are trying to establish a verbalized reality where their not caring, will allow their brain to relax over their abject failure in that regard.

McRapey on weightlifting (or practically any other subject, for that matter. To take all his various protestations about not caring at face value, you'd have to assume he was a Stoic of an emotional flatness to put the Romans to shame.)

Last week, as part of my general “try to lose weight and get a little healthier because you’re middle-aged now and you don’t want to die” thing, I started going to the local YMCA to use its weight room and indoor track, with my daughter as my workout partner. She’s been on the powerlifting team at her school for the last three years, so she’s knowledgeable about the weights in a way I am not, and is thus a good person with whom to work out. At the end of our first session, I tweeted the following:

    Let it be known that my daughter can lift more than I do. Because she's on her school's weightlifting team, and also because she's awesome.

    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) June 30, 2014

This naturally aroused the derision of the hooting pack of status-anxious dudebros who let me live rent-free in their brains, prompting a predictable slew of tweets and blog posts about how this is further proof of my girly-man status, hardly a man at all, dude do you even lift, and so on.  I am delighted in all the ways that they are the best, and also, better than me.


Diminution of Stature/Humiliation

The narcissist needs to feel as if they have power, so as to pacify their insecure amygdala. It is only when everyone around them reflexively supplicates, that the narcissist can let their amygdala relax. For this reason, narcissists often build a perception of themselves as superiors, and they demand that others treat them this way. 

McRapey on running for SFWA President for the fourth time 

I have decided to step forward once more (last, last very last time I swear) as a candidate for President, a position to which I was first elected in 2010. I had originally intended to step down at the end of this term, but on reflection decided there were still some things I wanted to accomplish in the role, and it made sense to try them over the course of an additional year. Whether I get that year will be up to SFWA members, of course; they may be tired of me and my management style. In which case I hope they elect someone else, rather than, say, stabbing me Caesar-style at the Nebula Awards. Please, SFWA members: No stabbing. That’s pointy and hurts.

Insist on Arguable Untruths

Narcissists who do this will insist on an untruth, especially one which would impede the attainment of a goal important to the group, and then they will refuse to acknowledge the falsity of the untruth. I fully believe narcissists who practice this technique do it knowingly. They know that what they are asserting is false, they enjoy seeing you upset over the fact that they are so unable to accept logic, and they refuse to give in purposely, to watch you grow increasingly agitated and frustrated. To these narcissists, truth is immaterial, the group's goals are meaningless, and your upset emotional state is blissfully amusing. As a result they have one goal - to see your frustrated.

McRapey on the lack of women writing hard science fiction

I have a degree in philosophy from the University of Chicago (specializing in the philosophy of language), and therefore have ample training in rhetoric, so I doubt that rhetorical deficiencies on this end are the issue. I read your column Vox, and I grasped your obvious rhetorical device. It doesn't impress me. As continually stated, your rhetorical device is obviously bad: Poorly stated, poorly supported, and rheorically incoherent. To restate: Your thesis is wrong and you lack the rhetorical skills to present your thesis in a coherent fashion. Your latter-day attempt to brush off your sexist and ignorant statement as sarcasm is baldly transparent as backtracking; even if it were true, it shows that your use of such devices is appallingly clumsy. Again one wonders how you got your columnist gig, or, alternately, if anyone bothers to edit you, as you so clearly need.

Being a Central Information Hub

Two things narcissists try to do to irritate is to invade privacy, and control and guide the flow of all information. This is probably due to some deep perception that their entire self-worth is defined by the group's beliefs and perceptions (ie, it's acceptance of their false reality), combined with an assumption (erroneously assuming that everyone else thinks like them), that everyone else's self-worth is as well. Thus, to a narcissist, control the information flow, and you control everyone's self-assessments of their own self-worth. To the narcissist, that information is pure power over not just everyone, but in the narcissist's mind, the very (false) reality that everyone inhabits.

1. McRapey on all controversial subjects of the last 10 years

Comments off on this

2. McRapey on all people who might disagree with him

You are blocked from following @scalzi and viewing @scalzi's Tweets.
  
Out-grouping

When interacting socially, narcissists are snakes in the grass. One of their major objectives when dealing with those they dislike is to alienate their targets from any social group to which they belong. They do this because they themselves require social validation to support the false reality that they construct to shield their amygdala from stimulation. As long as the group accepts the narcissist and their false reality, the narcissist can cling to the belief that they are somehow normal, or even superior. It is this social validation which serves as a crucial psychological crutch, shielding them from the pain that would result from an honest self-assessment of what they are. Projecting this psychology on others, the narcissist will assume that group-affiliation is just as vitally important to you. As a result, they will seek to disrupt your group affiliations as a way to both, try to disrupt the group-validation of the false reality they assume you have, and preserve this vital psychological crutch for themselves.

McRapey on August 14, 2013, after I announced my expulsion from SFWA

For No Particular Reason At All, This Song Seems Strangely Appropriate Today.... On an entirely unrelated note, today I renewed my SFWA membership. Seems I forgot to do it earlier. Oh, well, an easily corrected oversight, and it was. 

Privacy Invasion

The narcissist will intrude into their private spaces, and then feign ignorance of why they should care that he is there.

McRapey

Ask McRapey about this one. He knows what he did. This was the bizarre behavior that made it evident Scalzi's behavior isn't merely that of a normal self-centered individual, but more akin to that of the malignant narcissists described in the book. One would do well to keep these things in mind before one too quickly accept McRapey's retroactive claims concerning his "satirical" practices at face value.

I'd add one more red flag in addition to those mentioned in the book. It's what I would call a "probing" style of communication. Everything is two steps forward and one step back; if resistance is met, then it's all only a joke, ha ha ha, and the individual retreats. If not, the breakthrough is quickly reinforced and a new narrative is established. It's basically a deceptive tactic used to control the narrative while concealing the narcissist's objectives. The joke about not wanting to be stabbed at the Nebula Awards is a good example of that; what is the point of the joke in the first place given that it's not even remotely funny. It is to keep things lighthearted and distract from the fact that the narcissist is dead serious about seeking what he perceives to be power again.

How to Deal with Narcissists is a remarkable book. And it's astonishing how well it describes the behavior of certain trolls known to infest these parts, as well as explain the reasons for that behavior. My completely unprofessional opinion is that John Scalzi is not a full-blown malignant narcissist, but merely has some observable tendencies in that regard and is rather less psychologically normal than most of his fans and his critics would tend to believe. These tendencies are most clearly seen in his habitual dishonesty and complete inability to admit the truth even when caught out publicly in a lie.

Labels: ,

142 Comments:

Anonymous Daniel January 03, 2015 11:21 AM  

Ask Scalzi about this one. He knows what he did.

Ha! As if he'd answer.

If he did, his responses would range from:

"It's unclear whether you are referring to me graciously accepting a homemade "Best Awethor Ever" trophy from a teen with special needs or to my winning the best fanfic for my satire of Watchmen, but I suppose either would satisfy your query."

to

"Your invasion of my private life is curious: I certainly wish you well in your quest to find more satisfaction in your own pursuits instead of living vicariously through prominent people."

Nevertheless, his response whatever it might be would likely support your suspicion...

Anonymous Stingray January 03, 2015 11:36 AM  

I see Scalzi turning around and doing this same article to Vox . . . as a mechanism of protection. He is unable to see that the difference is, there truly are people out there who simply do not care what others think of them. It's inconceivable.

Anonymous Susan January 03, 2015 11:42 AM  

Doesn't this guy have ANY friends? Every announcement of "trying something new" is usually followed by a variation of "My daughter is my partner..." kind of statement. From some of the stuff he has said about his daughter, she strikes me as being more of a man than he is.

Hubby and I love both our kids dearly but as adults, they have their own lives to lead. We also have friends our own age to hang out with.

The fact that he doesn't go to the gym or anywhere else without his daughter is just plain creepy. Creepy parent, creepy daughter.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus January 03, 2015 11:54 AM  

Let it be known that my daughter can lift more than I do. Because she's on her school's weightlifting team, and also because she's awesome.

Or it's just because John Scalzi is a sissy.

Seriously, even if the girl is on her school's weightlifting team, any reasonably in-shape adult male under 60 ought to be able to outlift her.

Anonymous VD January 03, 2015 11:54 AM  

I see Scalzi turning around and doing this same article to Vox . . . as a mechanism of protection.

That's described in the book as well. Most attacks made by solipsistic narcissists are psychological projection, so they inform you what is important to the narcissist. Conversely, the narcissist simply can't conceive that you are not narcissistic (at least to their extreme), and so assumes that any attack you make must be your own projection.

So, we know from Yama that his fiction is very important to him; note that the one thing that he is very defensive about is the quality of his writing. He even claims, ludicrously, that criticizing my writing is the one thing that upsets me. Textbook projection.

In Scalzi's case, his repetitive attacks mostly concern deprecation of my importance and ideological incorrectness. Thus we know that he is afraid of being deemed irrelevant and of being seen as incorrect ideologically.

They constantly attack me in the wrong ways because they can't understand that my vulnerabilities are different than theirs. I have them, of course, we all do, but normal people understand that your vulnerability is not necessarily the same as their own.

However, he won't. He's got to feign at being above the fray, because he knows that he can't match up with me in any head-to-head contest, be it rhetoric, dialectic, or physical.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus January 03, 2015 11:55 AM  

Every announcement of "trying something new" is usually followed by a variation of "My daughter is my partner..." kind of statement.

Let's hope he never decides to try out that whole "sex" thing...

Anonymous Unreal Estate Agent January 03, 2015 12:04 PM  

Scalzi is certainly right about living rent-free in his detractors' heads. He pretty much has a three-bedroom, split-level condo in Vox's cranium.

Anonymous Steve January 03, 2015 12:09 PM  

Susan - yes. It's creepy for two reasons:

1) what normal teenage girl does powerlifting? And what sort of parent would encourage their daughter to masculinise herself? Maybe the sort of narcissistic SJW parent who would be delighted to proudly announce their girl has come out as a butch lesbian...

2) working out with your daughter is just... weird. I've never seen anybody else do this at the gym. Can't imagine why you'd want to.

If my wife and I have a girl next I'll be happy to take her ice skating or drop her off at dance class or other normal girl activities. (The Girl Guides are out though, they got taken over by lesbian feminists. I wish I was joking or exaggerating, but they now describe themselves as "the ultimate feminist organisation" and are run by an abortion fanatic.)

I think my wife has her heart set on raising a pack of unruly boys like Malcolm in the Middle though. It's why we can't have nice things.

I'm pretty sure my toddler could outlift John Scalzi. He's surprisingly strong for a baby.

Anonymous Scalzi's dog January 03, 2015 12:09 PM  

I will say, he does have a nice looking lawn. Good for croquet, lawn darts, badmitten, and the needs of a family member.

Anonymous VD January 03, 2015 12:13 PM  

Scalzi is certainly right about living rent-free in his detractors' heads. He pretty much has a three-bedroom, split-level condo in Vox's cranium.

Very well, what exactly is that supposed to mean? What exactly do you, and Scalzi, hope to accomplish by pointing out that I have thought about him when the post makes that obvious? Does being thought about somehow make someone superior? Does whoever think less win or something?

What about when SFWA spent all that time thinking about me and writing reports about me? Precisely how does this metric to which you are appealing function? Do tell.

Blogger automatthew January 03, 2015 12:16 PM  

"Scalzi is certainly right about living rent-free in his detractors' heads. He pretty much has a three-bedroom, split-level condo in Vox's cranium."

This is yet another example of projection. Broken men like you and Scalzi obsess over the actions of others, thus Vox's behavior can have no other explanation.

Don't stop doing this, though; you're basically providing free intelligence.

Anonymous Salt January 03, 2015 12:21 PM  

I think it's the rent-free part, Vox. Costs nothing for you to think about Scalzi though I'd bet it costs him quite a bit thinking of you.

Anonymous Unreal Estate Agent January 03, 2015 12:22 PM  

It means, on a scale of 1 to 10, your obsession with Scalzi seems to be about 6 on average, with flareups as high as 8. Sometimes reading your McRapey posts, I get genuinely concerned for your mental health, or as concerned as a mostly lurker is going to be.

Anonymous kfg January 03, 2015 12:24 PM  

Yes.

Usually your questions are much harder with deeper shades of grey.

Anonymous anonomouse January 03, 2015 12:25 PM  

Ask McRapey about this one. He knows what he did.

Ah, trademark Vox Day. An evidence free implication.

How about you spell it out like a man? What does John C. Wright say about speaking plainely and manliness?

Anonymous Scintan January 03, 2015 12:25 PM  

Scalzi is certainly right about living rent-free in his detractors' heads. He pretty much has a three-bedroom, split-level condo in Vox's cranium.

If he is to be a blogger, Vox has to be writing posts, which should certainly not be of any surprise to you. When Vox finds something that interests him enough to write about it, he tends to worry it like a dog worries a bone. This leads to multiple posts on the same, or similar, subjects. That doesn't make Scalzi some special mental tenant. It just makes him one of the many repeat targets of discussion. Vox can defend himself on the idea of focusing too much on any one particular topic as he feels appropriate, but his posting history shows that such a proclivity is neither new nor reserved for the likes of Mr. Scalzi.

Anonymous Daniel January 03, 2015 12:34 PM  

They constantly attack me in the wrong ways because they can't understand that my vulnerabilities are different than theirs. I have them, of course, we all do...

You have even acknowledged a number of them publicly. It is almost as if they want to avoid even a puncher's chance of knocking you out.

Weird thing is that if McRapey actually formulated an offensive strategy at all instead of obsessing over burying his terrible opening move against you, he'd be in better shape. He actually attempted (late) to move on but it cost him. Too much.

The dummy's move was an immature and early Queen's gambit: in order to gain "importance points" with the perceived in-group, he short-sightedly sacrificed professionalism in attacking with lies against a player/dabbler in the industry.

Then his would-be victim forced him to stand by the act, and then implemented a steady plan of exposure.

Scalzi's webfall has been absolutely fascinating: his empire was never as large as he portrayed it, and now it decays from the inside and collapses against the pressure of the outside world.

I keep picturing Napoleon in The Great Divorce, with rain pouring through the walls and ceilings of his imaginary palace.

Anonymous Sam the Man January 03, 2015 12:37 PM  

Unreal Estate Agent.

On what basis do you assess Vox's obsession on with Scalizi as a 6 surging to an 8? I ask not as a hostile question, but for a real answer. I ask as you have seemingly been able to make a precise numerical measure of Vox’s mental state. As you are able to quantify it, you must have an understanding and also a scale, which I would be interested in hearing you state. Such precise determinations should be shared.

I ask in the spirit of understanding, though if you are not able to explain yourself, will you not be guilty of a invective based rhetorical attack? That is, your post will have been all puff and no content, but of course I do not think that is the case, I just want to be sure you see why it is necessary to respond.

I also invoke the rules of the blog; please address this before you comment further on other issues.

Anonymous Daniel January 03, 2015 12:39 PM  

Looks like you've got an extra header in the post. "McRapey" is bold.

Heh, may be the first time that last sentence has ever been written and been true.

Blogger Bard January 03, 2015 12:40 PM  

"I see Scalzi turning around and doing this same article to Vox . . . as a mechanism of protection."

Except he will not because he cannot. It would be more of the same whining dribble on each point with no accurate descriptions, only inappropriate quotes taken out of context. If he could tear VD down with such precision, he would have already done so. He would not pass on the opportunity. Instead, you will get more of the same. "Some unnamed person of whom we do not speak accurately portrayed me as a Telly Tubby with a Mangina symbol over my head but I don't care because.....fill in the blank."

Anonymous Unreal Estate Agent January 03, 2015 12:41 PM  

Sam: It was the off-the-cuff estimate of a longtime lurker. Would you like it to be a 5, with flareups to 7? I'm amenable.

Anonymous Daniel January 03, 2015 12:44 PM  

Sometimes reading your McRapey posts, I get genuinely concerned for your mental health, or as concerned as a mostly lurker is going to be.

Oh No! Not the genuine concern! Anything but the genuine concern!

Blogger Bard January 03, 2015 12:46 PM  

I rate the concern as 6/10. Possibly as high as 8.

Anonymous Troll Hunter: Nemesis January 03, 2015 12:47 PM  

So what you're telling us is that you're making a rating based on your guesses of someone else's mental state? Or that you're a mind-reading Slan?

How about an actual metric? Say, the proportion of Vox's posts that contain references to McRapey or Scalzi? What's your educated guess? What change in proportion would raise the obsession level from 6 to 8?

Anonymous Sam the Man January 03, 2015 12:47 PM  

Anonamouse:

If you have not been about, back a few years ago Scalizi waged a campaign against Vox to get his expelled for the Science fiction writer’s guild or whatever the organizations name was. It was an attempt, which continues, to adversely affect Vox’s writing career. That was a campaign of some invective on Scalizi’s part, in as much while he worked long and hard to expel Vox, Scalizi subsequently could not be bothered to do the same with known child molesters. As such it was personal on Scalizi’s part, and not based on a sense of justice.

It would seem in terms of invective and actual actions Scalizi has done far more anti-Vox actions, then the other way around. Vox is merely responding to Scalizi’ s attacks, or so it appears to a neutral party who has nothing to do with science fiction.

Anonymous Salt January 03, 2015 12:48 PM  

"May I have Concern for 100, Alex."

"It's the Daily Double!"

Anonymous Unreal Estate Agent January 03, 2015 12:49 PM  

"So what you're telling us is that you're making a rating based on your guesses of someone else's mental state?"

Right! I was concerned for a moment I wasn't being clear.

Anonymous Harsh January 03, 2015 12:50 PM  

It means, on a scale of 1 to 10, your obsession with Scalzi seems to be about 6 on average, with flareups as high as 8. Sometimes reading your McRapey posts, I get genuinely concerned for your mental health, or as concerned as a mostly lurker is going to be.

By that logic all liberals are in mentally ill because they constantly obsess over people like George Bush and Sarah Palin.

All feminists are mentally ill because they obsess over people like Roosh and Roissy.

All pinkshirts are mentally ill because they obsess over Vox and Larry Correia and Tom Kratman.

All gammas are mentally ill because they obsess over both alphas and HMV women.

Is that your position?

Anonymous maniacprovost January 03, 2015 12:59 PM  

I may be wrong, but it seems like the definition of narcissist has drifted over the last couple of decades. Of course there's the layman's definition, which is "arrogant jerk" and completely different from the clinical definition. However I seem to remember Narcissism being a genuinely inflated sense of self worth, delusions of grandeur, lack of concern for others, and rage at any perceived slight. It was linked with sociopathy.

The current descriptions of narcissism seem to cover many more people, and basically describe frightened, insecure people putting up a false front.

Anonymous VD January 03, 2015 1:00 PM  

It means, on a scale of 1 to 10, your obsession with Scalzi seems to be about 6 on average, with flareups as high as 8.

That didn't answer the question. You still haven't explained how thinking about someone, even on a regular basis, is significant in any way. As for this supposed obsession, I haven't even run a simple background check on him. Well, we did run him through the federal sex offender database, which was clean, but then, we ran the entire SFWA membership through that so it hardly counts.

But you need not fear. I am in very good mental health, as it happens. No depression, no indications of dementia, no mania, and so forth. My psychological profile does skew towards a high level of Machiavellianism and moderate narcissism, but I am otherwise normal, except for being more empathetic than the norm.

And all of this is beside the point. Considering your interest in mental health, are you truly not concerned that Mr. Scalzi is exhibiting clear signs of malignant narcissism?

Ah, trademark Vox Day. An evidence free implication.

Go deeper. As it happens, trademark Vox Day is to actually possess the evidence and refuse to share it until fools like you commit to asserting that it doesn't exist. McRapey knows what I'm talking about, even if you don't.

Blogger IM2L844 January 03, 2015 1:00 PM  

Scalzi is certainly right about living rent-free in his detractors' heads. He pretty much has a three-bedroom, split-level condo in Vox's cranium.

Totally unexpected response. Totally.

Anonymous kfg January 03, 2015 1:01 PM  

maniacprovost - Narcissus did not fall in love with himself. He fell in love with his reflection.

Blogger Bard January 03, 2015 1:03 PM  

The DSM definitions are routinely updated. How else can you label everyone as mental and smugly dismiss them while wallowing in your own traits?

Anonymous maniacprovost January 03, 2015 1:05 PM  

anonomouse,
How about you spell it out like a man? What does John C. Wright say about speaking plainely and manliness?

I don't know what he did, and Vox probably doesn't either... but by Scalzi's own definitions, we can virtually guarantee that he has sexually assaulted women, and he knows it. Of course if we're using the Scalzipedia to define terms, then blowjobs are handshakes and Bill Cosby is a white supremacist. But it's only fair to judge him by his own metrics.

Anonymous Sam thr Man January 03, 2015 1:06 PM  

Unreal Estate Agent.

O.K., it was an off the cuff comment. I get it, no need to explain further.

I would mention though, in the spirit of understanding why your comment might be viewed adversely on this blog. In essence what you said in your post was that you had sufficient understanding of Vox’s mental state that you could assign a numerical value to his degree of obsession with Scalizi. That implies a great deal of knowledge, as in Lord Kelvin’s declaration that we do not really understand a phenomena unless we can assign a numerical quantity to it and once we can we truly understand the topic. Now if you make such a statement, you must be prepared to back it up, those are the rule of the blog.

I am sure you did not mean it, but as your statement was made without any real quantization, it is what is seen as a rhetorical device/attack (on this blog), that is a snarky comment made to make the writer seem wise and knowing, but without any content. While permissible on many other blogs, on this one such a device is likely to fail and actually make the writer of such a post seem small, petty and ignorant. This is because most of the folks that use that method of attack have turned out to be just that, empty of thought, merely parrots of liberal and inane leftist thought. Not saying this about you, just suggesting in the future that you be more precise in the use of your language and mental abstractions, if you are even a foe of Vox and all he represents can do quite well on this blog.

Anonymous Daniel January 03, 2015 1:07 PM  

Some scalzi tweets this hour:

Speaking of CNN, @tonibrust swore she heard someone talking about the "Scalzi controversy." Bwuh?

I assume it's about some problem with the bridge in Venice.

I've apparently sold a lot of @markokloos books, simply by retweeting. The POWER THE SHEER BLOOD MADDENING POWER.

(He retweeted @markokloos bragging about being poorly reviewed at amazon as "Pink SF" an hour before. I highly doubt that "a lot" of books were sold.)




NOTE: He wasn't actually speaking of CNN. He tweeted a general comment about CNN's website design a few seconds before that post...to provide context for his self-reflection.

Blogger JLanceCombs January 03, 2015 1:07 PM  

@maniacprovost

"basically describe frightened, insecure people putting up a false front"

That's how I learned it back in my Psych class. They do rage at any perceived slight, based on fragile self-image that can be easily damaged.

"genuinely inflated sense of self worth, delusions of grandeur, lack of concern for other"

I think monomania is the word they use for that one.

Anonymous Gapeseed January 03, 2015 1:10 PM  

If the bell could be unrung and Scalzi could go back in time and stop himself from his Land War in Asia against Vox, would he do so? And even if he could, was the SFWA inevitably going to pick this fight, under Scalzi or a successor? And could Scalzi or the SFWA ever see clear to approach Vox publicly or privately with an offer of truce if not apology? Does his being or not being a narcissist bear on the answer? And would Vox even accept?

These skirmishes have performed a very clarifying and useful function of exposing mainstream science fiction for its leftward tilt, but would it be better now to recapture a share of the virtual infrastructure loss with the goal of ensuring a level playing field within institutions for which that should be the sole purpose? I only ask; I do not know.

Anonymous VD January 03, 2015 1:14 PM  

The DSM definitions are routinely updated. How else can you label everyone as mental and smugly dismiss them while wallowing in your own traits?

I don't label everyone else as mental. In fact, I'd never considered Scalzi anything other than insecure and willing to lie in the interest of self-promotion until I read the book and came across the section on Privacy Invasion. The incident had struck me as strange, but I didn't know why until I read the book.

Also, another individual who knows him had previously shared with me what he called Scalzi's "shallow effect", especially the way he pretended in public to be very good friends with people who made it clear they barely knew him. That was when it struck me as strange that the "friends" to whom Scalzi always refers are professional colleagues. He's a very weird little guy.

The fact that you can't see that, and somehow conclude that I've got mental health issues, is more testimony to your ideological blinders than anything else. Especially considering that if I am simply cynically making use of him to drive up my traffic, it is obviously working very well.

Anonymous VD January 03, 2015 1:20 PM  

f the bell could be unrung and Scalzi could go back in time and stop himself from his Land War in Asia against Vox, would he do so? And even if he could, was the SFWA inevitably going to pick this fight, under Scalzi or a successor? And could Scalzi or the SFWA ever see clear to approach Vox publicly or privately with an offer of truce if not apology? Does his being or not being a narcissist bear on the answer? And would Vox even accept?

Yes. Yes, Scalzi didn't start it, he only took advantage of it. No. No. Depends upon the precise nature of the apology.

would it be better now to recapture a share of the virtual infrastructure loss with the goal of ensuring a level playing field within institutions for which that should be the sole purpose?

No. Per the narcissism book, once captured, it's better to move on and build a new institution that is uninfested. The thing is, there is no need for SFWA anymore. It was fully captured by the very publishing interests it was founded to oppose even before the Pink SFFers took over.

If there was a need for it, I'd talk to folk about founding one. But it is useless.

Anonymous Daniel January 03, 2015 1:23 PM  

Scalzi would most definitely go back in time and unring the bell, as long as it didn't involve him apologizing or admitting wrongdoing. He has been trying to bury his initial unprovoked attacks ever since he had to start paying for his actions.

But since this is reality: No - he won't apologize: not even as his blog is decimated (or worse) year after year. Not even after his twitter feed of "up to" 76,000 human followers tops out at 80 automatic retweets and 200 favorites per tweet. Not after Tor books collapses and he has to face his real book sales over the forced purchases at book stores. Not after his video game comes and goes, or his television options fail on cable.

Obviously, that's the worst case scenario: the guy has figured out how to make a modest livelihood with mediocre content. But what he won't ever see again is the heights of modest relevance that he stumbled upon in 2005, when he fooled so many into thinking he might be able to develop something original to read.

And that's what's killing the poor guy. That, in essence, is why, even though he is living life on the lowest difficulty setting there is, John Scalzi is a rapist.

Anonymous Stingray January 03, 2015 1:27 PM  

Thus we know that he is afraid of being deemed irrelevant and of being seen as incorrect ideologically.

I have no doubt that, at some point, this is going to happen with him. He's a white male. It's inevitable that at some point he will screw up in the eyes of the feminists. I do wonder what his meltdown will look like when this happens.

Anonymous Unreal Estate Agent January 03, 2015 1:28 PM  

Maybe I should see how many long paragraphs I can get out of Sam before relurking.

Nah. Anyway: Thinking about someone, even on a regular basis, is indeed generally of no consequence. But when I read your Scalzi posts here, I see a man not just thinking but scratching at an itch that is unlikely to ever go away. Better to maybe buy some soothing lotion of some sort, although what that's a metaphor for in this case I am not precisely sure.

My lurkdom here postdates the whole thing with the SFWA, but I know you feel horribly wronged by all of that. Every time I read another Scalzi post here, it reminds me of an old Gypsy curse: "May you be involved in a lawsuit when you are in the right." (I know, I know, there was no lawsuit in this particular case, but perhaps you grasp the gist of the curse nonetheless.)

Nice chatting with you all.

Anonymous Count Bullets-ula January 03, 2015 1:33 PM  

Vox's bark is stronger than his nonexistent bite. It's been weeks, but no calls from lawyers, police or media. You have nothing on me. I have tons on you.

Blogger Josh January 03, 2015 1:33 PM  

Also, another individual who knows him had previously shared with me what he called Scalzi's "shallow effect", especially the way he pretended in public to be very good friends with people who made it clear they barely knew him. That was when it struck me as strange that the "friends" to whom Scalzi always refers are professional colleagues. He's a very weird little guy.

Narcissists are weirdly competitive and strangely envious over seemingly insignificant details, from how the salary they earn compares to other's, to the respectability of the shampoo they use, compared to the shampoos that others use. It is a shielding mechanism, designed to protect their ego, and their amygdala, from confronting their own insecurity.

His friends are so much cooler than your friends!

Scalzi's online persona weirdly resembles the online personas of people who constantly update their facebook/twitter/instagram/pinterest with carefully crafted pictures to show how #perfect and #awesome their lives are and how #blessed they are.

Blogger bob k. mando January 03, 2015 1:35 PM  

Bard January 03, 2015 1:03 PM
The DSM definitions are routinely updated.



yes, Therapeutic Psychiatry has been working to destroy Descriptive Psychiatry for +100 years now.



"So what you're telling us is that you're making a rating based on your guesses of someone else's mental state?"

Unreal Estate Agent January 03, 2015 12:49 PM
Right! I was concerned for a moment I wasn't being clear.


and i would guess that UEA really means the best for Vox ....


VD
Thus, to a narcissist, control the information flow, and you control everyone's self-assessments of their own self-worth.
...
It's what I would call a "probing" style of communication. Everything is two steps forward and one step back; if resistance is met, then it's all only a joke, ha ha ha, and the individual retreats. If not, the breakthrough is quickly reinforced and a new narrative is established. It's basically a deceptive tactic used to control the narrative while concealing the narcissist's objectives.



compare and contrast with the modus of fortune tellers, gypsies and scam artists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick#Stages_of_the_con


it's clear that these manipulation techniques
a - have been known for centuries, for at least a thousand years in the case of the Romani
b - are applicable against a wide array of cultures and peoples
c - are accessible to anyone unprincipled enough to use them


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsy


it's my opinion that this is primarily what Freud was doing.

Anonymous Stingray January 03, 2015 1:35 PM  

Weird thing is that if McRapey actually formulated an offensive strategy at all instead of obsessing over burying his terrible opening move against you, he'd be in better shape.

I submit that, subconsciously, this is due to fear.

I'm not sure if it's the gamma or the possible malignant narcissism but all of this is very female like.

Anonymous VD January 03, 2015 1:35 PM  

But when I read your Scalzi posts here, I see a man not just thinking but scratching at an itch that is unlikely to ever go away.

You don't understand what Scalzi is to me at all. He's actually more important than you think.

My lurkdom here postdates the whole thing with the SFWA, but I know you feel horribly wronged by all of that.

Feel wronged? I was absolutely wronged. But I'm not upset about it. I never was. Surprised, yes. But never upset. You don't seem to understand the basic concept that something can be useful without one needing to be emotionally attached to it.

I was more upset about retiring my WND column. And that was my decision.

Blogger IM2L844 January 03, 2015 1:36 PM  

"I know you feel horribly wronged by all of that."

Telling.

Anonymous Salt January 03, 2015 1:40 PM  

You don't understand what Scalzi is to me at all. He's actually more important than you think.

The face of Wabbotdom, poster-child of the Warren?

Blogger bob k. mando January 03, 2015 1:42 PM  

Count Bullets-ula January 03, 2015 1:33 PM
You have nothing on me. I have tons on you.



you're claiming Vox has posted child porn? do tell.

Blogger Josh January 03, 2015 1:43 PM  

I get genuinely concerned for your mental health, or as concerned as a mostly lurker is going to be.

Wasn't it just this week where Vox pointed out that an easy way to identify a concern troll was their "long time reader first time poster etc" bit?

Blogger Josh January 03, 2015 1:45 PM  

I do wonder what his meltdown will look like when this happens.

I think the spectrum runs from Hugo Schwyzer to Kelly O'Connor...

Anonymous VD January 03, 2015 1:49 PM  

Vox's bark is stronger than his nonexistent bite. It's been weeks, but no calls from lawyers, police or media. You have nothing on me. I have tons on you.

(laughs) Of course not. I haven't sent them the summaries and affidavits yet, Andrew. But they're definitely on the case. As for the media, did you somehow forget that I used to write for the Boston Globe? You've left a trail of evidence 11 years long across three continents. It takes a while to prepare everything properly, especially with so many screencaps to organize.

Cookie monster, Yama? Seriously? What is wrong with you? But it was amusing to read the way you begged Jan to lie for you.

Anonymous Sam the Man January 03, 2015 1:55 PM  

Unreal Estate Agent.

Again in your post you are using rhetorical quips, such as” let’s see how long a post we can get” or I know how wronged you feel”. There is no substance in either of those statements. Such statements may give the writer a feeling of superiority, but they mean nothing, they are empty of precise meaning. After all, other than one’s spouse (in some cases), I very much doubt anyone knows the real inner thoughts of anyone all that well.

I am not writing this to attack you, but to explain that opposition on this site is not squelched, but you do have to be intellectually honest and prepared to defend your assertions with either fact or logic; simply posting snarky one-liner put-downs will not work here.

In a similar tone, if you make snarky comments and then comment no more, it will not be seen as a triumphal exit, but as you skulking off as you are unable to meet folks with any sort of intellectual rigor. Reconsider you leaving, folks are quite willing to match wits here, you just have to bring a good game.

Blogger Josh January 03, 2015 1:57 PM  

You don't understand what Scalzi is to me at all. He's actually more important than you think.

The face of Wabbotdom, poster-child of the Warren?


From http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-statue-for-scalzi.html

You see, Scalzi performs a very useful purpose for me, one for which I am actually quite grateful. He gives me the precious gift of motivation. I don't get motivated by money or by fame or by awards. I need an opponent to vanquish. And, bless his shriveled soul, he gives me that.

Anonymous Severian January 03, 2015 1:59 PM  

It's what I would call a "probing" style of communication.

I call a version of this "beachhead facts." You see it a lot arguing with eco-cultists (which is where I developed it). They'll start with "CO2 is an insulator" or "this NOAA chart shows an uptick in surface temperatures" -- both of which are true -- and then try to argue all kinds of stuff as science. If you challenge them -- e.g. on all the "normalizations" of those temperature charts -- they retreat to "CO2 is a greenhouse gas! How can you be so willfully ignorant of science as to deny that!" And then they go right back to arguing for the scientific necessity of worldwide socialism.

Anonymous NateM January 03, 2015 2:00 PM  

Scalzi is certainly right about living rent-free in his detractors' heads. He pretty much has a three-bedroom, split-level condo in Vox's cranium.

Shows more how your ilk view someone merely paying attention to you as a victory. Regardless of the nature of the attention. Sorta proves Vox thesis on narcissism

Anonymous ? January 03, 2015 2:00 PM  

Does the book describe how narcissists are made, or created?

Children of single moms more likely to be narcissists?

Blogger Jack Hanson January 03, 2015 2:01 PM  

Good grief estate agent, you're giving us lurkers a bad name with your shitty twee "I am so smart and above it all" kid who referees MTG style posting.

At least try to be amusing/interesting in a new and exciting way if you're going to disagree vs. rote bullshit pop psychology.

Anonymous Amok Time January 03, 2015 2:04 PM  

" He's got to feign at being above the fray, because he knows that he can't match up with me in any head-to-head contest, be it rhetoric, dialectic, or physical. "

Twould be fun to watch a caged match between Vox and Scalzi. I would pay-for-view that one.
Or Scalzi and a teen girl.
Although, with second thoughts, Scalzi has been mistaken for a buff ex-Navy Seal or was it a tough-jawed Marine? Anyway, he may be more formidable than we can ever know!

Anonymous VD January 03, 2015 2:07 PM  

Does the book describe how narcissists are made, or created?

Yes. It's primarily a response to great emotional pain in childhood. However, he theorizes that in the malignant cases, the childhood bullying may be a response to something off and evil in the eventual narcissist.

They're basically like rabid animals. It's not all their fault, but they have no hope of controlling it and the chief objective is to prevent yourself from being drawn into their net. Unless Scalzi has serially destroyed those around him, he's not malignant in that sense. The main point is that all the "oh, gee, they have such bad luck" is not bad luck at all. It's them being very willing to go down so long as they can take others with them.

I don't get that vibe from Scalzi. I think he genuinely thought taking me on was safe for him, if not beneficial. It's clear that if he could do it all again, he'd just ignore me.

Anonymous Harsh January 03, 2015 2:08 PM  

I have tons on you.

Now that, folks, is an empty threat.

Anonymous VD January 03, 2015 2:10 PM  

Twould be fun to watch a caged match between Vox and Scalzi.

That wouldn't even be funny. I go 190 now and I'm in better cardio shape than I've been in 10 years.

Blogger Cataline Sergius January 03, 2015 2:10 PM  

Narcism fits quite a few aspects of the man. Scalzi lies constantly in support of an identity he has created for himself. His claiming to have published Old Man's War on his "Online Column".

His status as a "Best Selling Author" appears to be critical to him...despite the fact that I've never seen him playing poker with Castle. When Vox pointed out how NYT best seller list is gamed it provoked an immediate response from Scalzi in defense of his identity.

Narcism also explains his, Vox as Lord Voldemort He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named thing. Even taking it to the ridiculous extreme of pretending @SpaceBunny is nothing but a sock puppet and in fact does not really exist.

What I find really, really strange is his fan's massive protection of Scalzi's identity as well. Any time he gets mentioned here, the half-wit fools come trolling and they do so at no other time.

They seem genuinely offended by any holes, no matter how small that might deflate that balloon.

Anonymous Daniel January 03, 2015 2:15 PM  

I think he genuinely thought taking me on was safe for him, if not beneficial. It's clear that if he could do it all again, he'd just ignore me.

I can't recall if he has said as much as that, but it seems like it. His behavior has been that of a land-mine victim, not of a kamikaze. Which is why he's so amusing. He's Sideshow Bob, and every tweet is a rake lying in wait.

Anonymous Harsh January 03, 2015 2:17 PM  

What I find really, really strange is his fan's massive protection of Scalzi's identity as well. Any time he gets mentioned here, the half-wit fools come trolling and they do so at no other time.

Because his fans have a lot of their identity invested in who Scalzi is. They can't be him but they get some emotional validation by being his supporters.

Anonymous Heh January 03, 2015 2:20 PM  

By that logic all liberals are in mentally ill because they constantly obsess over people like George Bush and Sarah Palin.

All feminists are mentally ill because they obsess over people like Roosh and Roissy.

All pinkshirts are mentally ill because they obsess over Vox and Larry Correia and Tom Kratman.

All gammas are mentally ill because they obsess over both alphas and HMV women.

Is that your position?


It's definitely mine! They are all mental.

Blogger rcocean January 03, 2015 2:23 PM  

" He's a white male. It's inevitable that at some point he will screw up in the eyes of the feminists. I do wonder what his meltdown will look like when this happens."

This is JS's real fear. He's like an old Czarist Officer in Stalin's Red Army, no matter how loudly he praises Comrade Stalin, he knows they're looking for the one mistake to send him to the Gulag.

Blogger Tiny Tim January 03, 2015 2:26 PM  

The ilk sound like a bunch of frat boys who out number the stranger at the frat party 100 to 1 so they drag the interloper out into the yard and beat him in front of the tri-delts to assert their manliness.

How about this. Get personal with Mcrapey and force him to pop you in the mouth, then pound him into the ground.

I would assume having spent years in the dojo, the octagon, playing video games, the gym and the soccer field would make this quite an easy task. I would think.

Funny how all of you love kicking a guy who is weaker than his daughter.

In person I bet most of you wouldn't have much to say or do.

As John Wayne said, "let's see how you do when they come a little bigger"... or you are by yourself?

At some point ladies you will actually need to man up. Talking big in front of your buds won't cut it forever.

Blogger rycamor January 03, 2015 2:31 PM  

Oh noes. genuine concern troll is genuinely concerned...

And Tiny Tim is talking trash again.

They are tag-teaming to hit the two weak spots in the Ilk. This is our kryptonite, brothers. Consequences will never be the same.

Blogger Josh January 03, 2015 2:32 PM  

At some point ladies you will actually need to man up. Talking big in front of your buds won't cut it forever.

Tim, no one here talks a bigger game than you do. No one.

Anonymous Daniel January 03, 2015 2:32 PM  

The ilk sound like a bunch of frat boys who out number the stranger at the frat party 100 to 1 so they drag the interloper out into the yard and beat him in front of the tri-delts to assert their manliness.

You mean "Oo-ah eEEE ooh-ug!"

That's me. You're next, Tiny. Maybe you should have rushed Omega Mu.

Blogger Josh January 03, 2015 2:32 PM  

The ilk sound like a bunch of frat boys who out number the stranger at the frat party 100 to 1 so they drag the interloper out into the yard and beat him in front of the tri-delts to assert their manliness.

In your scenario, are the tri-delts the ones doing the beating?

Blogger Tiny Tim January 03, 2015 2:34 PM  

Because Josh, I am the real deal.

Anonymous Scintan January 03, 2015 2:34 PM  

Because his fans have a lot of their identity invested in who Scalzi is. They can't be him but they get some emotional validation by being his supporters.

It's a normal part of group dynamics. The same thing happens on this site.

Blogger Josh January 03, 2015 2:36 PM  

It's a normal part of group dynamics. The same thing happens on this site.

One difference: do ilk wander over to Whatever to defend Vox's honour?

Anonymous Other Josh January 03, 2015 2:37 PM  

Great minds discuss ideas
Ordinary minds discuss events
Small minds discuss people

Anonymous NateM January 03, 2015 2:37 PM  

Our resident Pantsless Marksmanship Expert shows up again. No doubt he has a valuable addition to the conversation

Anonymous Scintan January 03, 2015 2:37 PM  

At some point ladies you will actually need to man up. Talking big in front of your buds won't cut it forever.

You do see the irony in you posting that, right?

Blogger Tiny Tim January 03, 2015 2:39 PM  

Josh, you are King Sycophant. It is unbecoming of even you.

Blogger bob k. mando January 03, 2015 2:39 PM  

Cataline Sergius January 03, 2015 2:10 PM
What I find really, really strange is his fan's massive protection of Scalzi's identity as well. Any time he gets mentioned here, the half-wit fools come trolling and they do so at no other time.



once again, porous boundaries to their personal identity.

BECAUSE they use the same emotional/rhetorical toolbox that Squalzi does
THEN they identify with him to an unhealthy extent.

attacks on Squalzi are viewed as attacks on themselves, EVEN IF Squalzi is being attacked particularly and uniquely.

compare and contrast with what goes on here:
Vox, Nate and i can have a three way argument.

no one feels compelled ( well, very few anyways ) to reflexively jump to any of our defenses or feels personally belittled when i say something about Vox or Nate says something about me.




Cataline Sergius January 03, 2015 2:10 PM
When Vox pointed out how NYT best seller list is gamed it provoked an immediate response from Scalzi



yes. you must not attack the obvious lie.

for the 'social contract' of the rabbits is this:
I will agree to stipulate to stupid shit A & B
IF
you will agree to stipulate to stupid shit X & Y
SO
that both of us may benefit inappropriately from the respective deceptions.

each party intending, of course, that they are actually getting the better part of the deal.

Anonymous Scintan January 03, 2015 2:40 PM  

One difference: do ilk wander over to Whatever to defend Vox's honour?

There's no difference. The ilk have wandered to other sites to defend Vox in the past. The ilk will do it in the future.

The "ilk" are a lot like "rabbits". The differences matter, but the similarities are there for all to see.

Blogger Josh January 03, 2015 2:40 PM  

Josh, you are King Sycophant. It is unbecoming of even you.

Would that make Comments Champion Nate the Emperor Sycophant?

Blogger Josh January 03, 2015 2:42 PM  

Vox, Nate and i can have a three way

Gay

Anonymous VD January 03, 2015 2:44 PM  

The "ilk" are a lot like "rabbits". The differences matter, but the similarities are there for all to see.

No, they're not. The primary indications of being a rabbit are habitual dishonesty and fear of being out of harmony with the warren. Specifically which Ilk do you accuse of these two primary factors?

Blogger Tiny Tim January 03, 2015 2:45 PM  

Scintan, of course I do. But my conscience is clear as I have never thrown the first punch but I have thrown a whole lot after and have never been hit that I am aware of except the time I was gang tackled by three college baseball players and my left eye socket hit the concrete and sliced it open.

Anonymous NateM January 03, 2015 2:46 PM  

Emperor Sycophant

Don't give Nate another title to wave over our heads

Anonymous Porky January 03, 2015 2:46 PM  

Please, SFWA members: No stabbing.

My oh my, what would Freud say about this?

Blogger bob k. mando January 03, 2015 2:48 PM  

Tiny Tim January 03, 2015 2:26 PM
At some point ladies you will actually need to man up.



has anyone here EVER threatened to beat up Squalzi?

no?

then what words are we failing to 'back up'?

as for Tiny, i wouldn't want to get into a fight with you. you're liable to pull your pants down and start shooting ....




Tiny Tim January 03, 2015 2:34 PM
Because Josh, I am the real deal.



so, by your own metric, you're claiming to have already beaten up one of the Ilk? do tell.

name, date and place, please. an inventory of the injuries you caused would also be useful.

otherwise, shut the fuck up, you stupid pussy.

Anonymous Scintan January 03, 2015 2:48 PM  

No, they're not. The primary indications of being a rabbit are habitual dishonesty and fear of being out of harmony with the warren. Specifically which Ilk do you accuse of these two primary factors?

Of course they are. No need to get your dander up. I was referring to the group dynamics, and said as much.

Anonymous Harsh January 03, 2015 2:50 PM  

Tiny Tim is obsessed with the Ilk. He must be mentally ill.

Anonymous Scintan January 03, 2015 2:51 PM  

Scintan, of course I do. But my conscience is clear as I have never thrown the first punch but I have thrown a whole lot after and have never been hit that I am aware of except the time I was gang tackled by three college baseball players and my left eye socket hit the concrete and sliced it open.

Talking tough on the internet with nothing demonstrable to back it up makes you nothing more than a hypocrite, given your charges against the ilk.

Anonymous Daniel January 03, 2015 2:51 PM  

There's no difference. The ilk have wandered to other sites to defend Vox in the past. The ilk will do it in the future.

There is a difference. The Ilk tend to go to toss grenades to see them scramble, not to curry favor with their own kind. The only times I think I've gone to McRapey or McCreepy is to get them to provide a self-damning quote. Of course, groups are not individuals. Maybe there is an lone DI out their hoping to curry approval from Vox.

If he is, good luck pal.

But in general group tendencies, the Ilk go say things because they have things to say.

The rabbits come here to make misstatements and to later represent their foolishness as victory.

Anonymous VD January 03, 2015 2:51 PM  

Tiny Tim, despite the humor inherent in you talking about yourself again on a post concerning narcissism, this post isn't about you. If you don't have anything to say about Mr. Scalzi or malignant narcissism, do give it a rest.

Anonymous NateM January 03, 2015 2:52 PM  

I was gang tackled by three college baseball players

But he only fell because his pants were around his ankles

Blogger Bard January 03, 2015 2:54 PM  

VD,
Sorry man. You read it backwards and it was not clear. You are not mental, they are. But if they label us as such, they can stay that way blindly. Been reading here since 05. Nothing but respect.

Anonymous Iron Brother January 03, 2015 2:55 PM  

the proportion of Vox's posts that contain references to McRapey or Scalzi? What's your educated guess?

If you are going to do that, I suggest looking at the original content word count for McRapey/Scalzi posts vs. the original content word count for other posts. A while back when Vox was deriding Twitter, I looked at original content per post for one page worth of posts and he was averaging about 2.5 full length tweets per post of original content.

Where's dh when you need him?

Anonymous Scintan January 03, 2015 3:01 PM  

There is a difference. The Ilk tend to go to toss grenades to see them scramble, not to curry favor with their own kind. The only times I think I've gone to McRapey or McCreepy is to get them to provide a self-damning quote. Of course, groups are not individuals. Maybe there is an lone DI out their hoping to curry approval from Vox.

If he is, good luck pal.

But in general group tendencies, the Ilk go say things because they have things to say.

The rabbits come here to make misstatements and to later represent their foolishness as victory.


And this is a textbook example of othering while claiming the high ground for one's own group.

Blogger bob k. mando January 03, 2015 3:02 PM  

I was gang tackled by three college baseball players

NateM January 03, 2015 2:52 PM
But he only fell because his pants were around his ankles



Tiny was upset that they weren't playing with his bat. that's what caused the fight.

Blogger Tiny Tim January 03, 2015 3:06 PM  

OK Vox, will do. Just irked by the yapping chihuaha's and I lost control.

I have never liked gangs of yapping chihuaha's.

Anonymous Iron Brother January 03, 2015 3:13 PM  

For example, the most recent post on guns is 40 words of OC, while this "McRapey" post is 1091 of OC.

Blogger bob k. mando January 03, 2015 3:17 PM  

Tiny Tim January 03, 2015 3:06 PM
OK Vox, will do. Just irked by the yapping chihuaha's and I lost control.
I have never liked gangs of yapping chihuaha's.



yeah, let me know when you graduate out of the class, Yipping Timmy.

i'ma need external validation in the form of a hospital admittance or police complaint ( prosecution not necessary ) detailing either your injuries or those of one of the innumerable people you claim to have thrashed.

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 03, 2015 3:18 PM  

@bob k mando

This:

"for the 'social contract' of the rabbits is this:
I will agree to stipulate to stupid shit A & B
IF
you will agree to stipulate to stupid shit X & Y
SO
that both of us may benefit inappropriately from the respective deceptions."

... is so true.
Here's something related I wrote a while back:

"This is the fatal attraction of that primitive superstition of the power of naming; it allows us to pretend we understand what we do not. It introduces us into the game of silent agreements that nearly all people enter into within milliseconds of first meeting, which is the game I call ‘You pretend not to notice my bullshit and I’ll pretend not to notice yours.’ And oh! How people get upset when you refuse to play this game with them. How they are offended that you openly observed and commented on their bullshit. Transgress this unwritten law and your sweet neighbourhood Sunday school teacher will happily nail your head to the coffee table."

Blogger wrf3 January 03, 2015 3:18 PM  

Tiny Tim wrote: "I have never liked gangs of yapping chihuaha's."

Or screaming rabbits?

Vox's post was interesting as it provided a psychological explanation for certain behaviors exhibited by the left.

This is a time honored technique used by the left against the right. After all, Christians aren't rational. The right aren't rational. And since they aren't rational, there has to be an explanation for their behavior. And, once we have an explanation, that's all we need. The story is primary - regardless of whether or not it can be falsified.

Anonymous Daniel January 03, 2015 3:23 PM  

And this is a textbook example of othering while claiming the high ground for one's own group.

Can't be. a) I never read that textbook and b) the Ilk is not my own group. I claimed no high ground. I made a distinction. You said "no difference" and that didn't sound accurate.

Because it isn't. Clarifying the truth is much different than claiming "high ground." Lone wolfing and chaos-making is not moral high ground. It is tactical.

And it is an observable difference that even a social scientist could measure.

Anonymous Shut up rabbit January 03, 2015 3:25 PM  

I cured cancer and was the first man to walk on mars on the Internet!

Blogger bob k. mando January 03, 2015 3:31 PM  

Iron Brother January 03, 2015 3:13 PM
For example, the most recent post on guns is 40 words of OC, while this "McRapey" post is 1091 of OC.



because detailing a widely used emotional tactic, which comprehension of is fairly new to Vox, is in any way comparable to real world data on the gun grabber shibboleth of "more guns == more crime" which he's been talking about for years and which was already dismantled in the quote.



wrf3 January 03, 2015 3:18 PM
Vox's post was interesting as it provided a psychological explanation for certain behaviors exhibited by the left.



i keep telling you all, you need to read the DSM. older versions ( before the Freudians / Therapeutics started destroying the definitions ) preferable, if you can find them.

all the work has been done. all the traits have been analyzed and described.

the work of Descriptive Psychology should have a required part of the curriculum of every high schooler.

instead, it is concealed.



Josh January 03, 2015 2:42 PM
Gay



what can i say?

*spreads hands*

i'm a sucker for Italian loafers and umbrella drinks.

Anonymous Scintan January 03, 2015 3:33 PM  

Clarifying the truth is much different than claiming "high ground."

What you claim as truth is largely nothing but opinion. That's the same approach taken by groups on all sides of political (and social) divides, which is the point I was making in the first place.

Blogger Tiny Tim January 03, 2015 3:37 PM  

Bob K. Mando, out of respect for Vox I won't banter.

Have a good one.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 03, 2015 3:57 PM  

Also, another individual who knows him had previously shared with me what he called Scalzi's "shallow effect", especially the way he pretended in public to be very good friends with people who made it clear they barely knew him.

I know someone like this. She worked in PR and was mainly responsible for setting up public events, which had her in contact with B and C list celebrities ("professional colleagues"). It was hilarious to see the reactions of local women she had conviced of her friendships with these celebs when the women inevitably introduced themselves to the celebs by saying "I'm a friend of Annette's too" and the celebs replied "Who? Oh, you mean the PR girl..."

Yes, she is definitely a narcissist. She's gone solo and is burning through real, as opposed to imaginary, friends at a terrible rate.

Anonymous kh123 January 03, 2015 3:59 PM  

@Count Shooting Blanks: "It's been weeks, but no calls from lawyers, police or media."

Wrong on that last bit.

Coming soon, to a theater near you.

Anonymous AXCrom January 03, 2015 4:06 PM  

Over the past few years the Ilk have made a couple of enthusiastic comments about a pay-per-view Octagon-style fight to settle the VD/Scalzi feud once and for all. I wonder if any of the Scalzians have ever made similar suggestions that McRapey himself should get in the ring to challenge the evil "RSHD Who Must Not Be Named"?

I would be surprised if so. Maybe if the PPV proceeds went to RAINN...?

Blogger bob k. mando January 03, 2015 4:07 PM  

more on topic:
https://www.billwhittle.com/trifecta/myth-individualism-does-it-violate-both-science-and-scripture

John Terrell tries to play Squalzi's game, is taken apart by the Trifecta guys.

Anonymous kh123 January 03, 2015 4:42 PM  

...Remember folks, never find yourself in a group. And feel very uneasy if you ever do, based on some shared interest or point of agreement - the more points, the more uneasy, because Nazi. And because Rod Serling may show up at some point and make you the centerpiece of a cartoonish portrayal of group dynamics.

Anonymous Anon January 03, 2015 4:52 PM  

Scalzi is the typical narcissistic sociopathic wigger. His IQ is so low not sure why Vox's bothers with someone so pathetic.

Anonymous bob k. mando January 03, 2015 5:07 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

OpenID thetroll January 03, 2015 5:18 PM  

> OK Vox, will do. Just irked by the yapping chihuaha's and I lost control.

*snort* I thought it was a little too obviously ironic to take seriously, but you did snag a few regulars, I'll give you that. Nicely played.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SboyoievYU

Blogger bob k. mando January 03, 2015 5:36 PM  

thetroll January 03, 2015 5:18 PM
*snort* I thought it was a little too obviously ironic



he a little to obviously called himself out as a coward, perhaps.



bob k. mando January 03, 2015 5:07 PM
I lack the intelligence for bantering anyway.



*snort*

so ... now that i'm logging in ... you're going to try to fake my handle with an open Name/URL?

what happened to being such a badass who always backs up his words?

i am curious as to why your use of the handle is NOT being summarily deleted.

Blogger Josh January 03, 2015 6:42 PM  

Chill, man.

Blogger Giraffe January 03, 2015 6:45 PM  

So why did Scalzi post about the weightlifting? Did he not see the derision coming? Just a mistake? Thought he was safe amongst his sycophants? Actually thought his daughter was awesome rather than himself being weak?

It sounds like a dumb move for a narcissist to put out something to paint himself so negatively.

Blogger bob k. mando January 03, 2015 7:01 PM  

Giraffe January 03, 2015 6:45 PM
So why did Scalzi post about the weightlifting?



i explained this when it came up.

for Scalzi, narrative and self esteem are everything. so, when his daughter doesn't do that well on the high school lifting team, he goes lifting with her ... and allows(?) her to lift more than he does.

so, she gets to be "better than" at least one person ...

yeah, it's sad and miserable. but it's the best parenting Squalzi is capable of.

Blogger Randy January 03, 2015 7:06 PM  

What is the poster's problem?

Blogger rcocean January 03, 2015 7:34 PM  

I hope VD keeps on pounding Scalzi, he's an interesting case study. Also, interesting how people who never seem to post on any other thread, always pop up on these Scalzi threads to say how "Bored" they are, and how VD show stop "obsessing".

Anonymous Longo January 03, 2015 8:11 PM  

So why did Scalzi post about the weightlifting? Did he not see the derision coming? Just a mistake?

I think he actually doesn't care what Vox thinks of him. Vox didn't fit into the calculus of posting that. Hard for all you sycophants to believe, I know...

Anonymous kh123 January 03, 2015 8:25 PM  

STOP SAYING THINGS THAT BRING US BACK TO TELL YOU THAT YOU'RE OBSESSING OVER REAL SUCCESS AND GENIUZ.

That is to say, leave Krugman, Myers, and MZ Bradley alone. And that kid from Marshfield.

Anonymous Harsh January 03, 2015 9:08 PM  

I think he actually doesn't care what Vox thinks of him.

As he vociferously and repeatedly claims.

Anonymous Harsh January 03, 2015 9:11 PM  

Also, interesting how people who never seem to post on any other thread, always pop up on these Scalzi threads to say how "Bored" they are, and how VD show stop "obsessing".

To wit, the post that showed up right after yours.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza January 03, 2015 9:13 PM  

I don't know, the whole situation is weird and Vox is the only adult in the room.

While the label of rabbits/SJW's is sufficient, they let loose reptilian responses. Their sense of agency, even moral agency is questionable and the strange things they say are just odd. Narcissist probably fits the bill.

Nah, Vox isn't obsessing over ScaMcRaRa, coverage is required b/c the person in question started the initial problems. Why block dissent on twitter?

It is awesome that teens are lifting but dads are needed to be stronger, then again perhaps its all a act for his check in the mail and his family is laughing all the way to the bank. Something is wrong with what he announces. My dad even said, 'father is a pest b/c he wears a dress, ' upon seeing the picture. My dad doesn't react to anything b/c he doesn't care and regards mostly everything as for idiots or the henhouse. When my dad starts laughing and says stuff like that, something is wrong.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza January 03, 2015 9:14 PM  

Is there any content where Mr. Wright commented on McScaRaRa? Post that.

Anonymous Zippy January 03, 2015 9:24 PM  

I don't know if Scalzi is a rapist, or attempted rapist, or not. I tend to think he isn't. But we've already discussed that.

My theory, drawn from what he's said, is even more repulsive and disgusting. After the weightlifting tweet, Scalzi posted about how his wife and daughter are superior to him in many respects. In the case of his wife, he's apparently both physically and intellectually inferior to her. Or so he says.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/07/06/the-ways-the-scalzi-women-are-better-than-me-an-incomplete-list/

I think that Scalzi is a masochist. Or maybe not a masochist -- I have no idea if he enjoys pain or not. But this posts suggests he's a "bottom" -- a man who sexually enjoys being underneath a superior woman (though it's possible that he wouldn't limit this to "women.")

If he wants to wallow in his inferiority to his wife, and she is OK with that, well, fine. Not my thing, but they are consenting adults.

But publicly reveling in his daughter's superiority as a way to indulge his apparent fetish is just sick.

Or at least if my theory based on his posts is accurate.

Anonymous Harsh January 03, 2015 10:29 PM  

I don't know if Scalzi is a rapist, or attempted rapist, or not. I tend to think he isn't. But we've already discussed that.

He quite clearly stated that he was a rapist.

Anonymous Shut up rabbit January 04, 2015 3:54 AM  

I don't know if Scalzi is a rapist,
My take is that he was feigning support for the ubiquitous, feminists All men are Rapists narrative. Basically, the definition of "rape" becomes so watered down that all men are indeed "rapists".

However, he didn't realize that what he wrote would be judged in the context of how normal people interpret the word. But, narcissism oblige, he can't be wrong or apologize so it is interpreted as "irony" which allows what he meant (he's a rapist) coexist with how it was interpreted (he cant be a rapist, it must be a sick joke).

Jeopardy Chou, (a prominent anti-GamerGater) said something similar, basically "Rape is so prominent that all my friends are always off raping people."

He has never replied to the numberless demands for an explanations of why he didn't report his "friends".

Both are examples of how words have no meaning to these people and they show the impact when they apply their (ill)logic to serious issues like rape.

Blogger Markku January 04, 2015 5:12 AM  

Bob, I think that was Andrew. You are the one of the two commenters who he seems to obsess about, and whose name he'll just bring up out of the blue. And the other one doesn't even write here anymore.

Anonymous Barg Uist January 04, 2015 8:16 AM  

""Scalzi is certainly right about living rent-free in his detractors' heads. He pretty much has a three-bedroom, split-level condo in Vox's cranium."

This is yet another example of projection. Broken men like you and Scalzi obsess over the actions of others, thus Vox's behavior can have no other explanation.

Don't stop doing this, though; you're basically providing free intelligence."

And so little in the first place, to be giving it away for free like that seems unwise.

Anonymous dh January 04, 2015 9:36 AM  

I actually gave up caring about Scalzi this year. When I found out he has a very old very sick pet, and he was planning on basically letting him wander off and suffer and/or die instead of doing the thing that men do, I figured he was basically not worth the interest. He's a small man, he'll always be a small man most likely, and that's that.

Blogger bob k. mando January 04, 2015 11:27 AM  

Markku January 04, 2015 5:12 AM
Bob, I think that was Andrew.



don't really care. Marston's another one who claims far too much.


Markku January 04, 2015 5:12 AM
You are the one of the two commenters who he seems to obsess about



as IRL, so it is online. nutbars seem to fixate on me. Taylor likes me as well.

who is zooming whom?



am more interested that 'Not Me' fails to get deleted for using the handle, where it was getting to the point that i was getting deleted every time.

Anonymous Daniel January 04, 2015 12:48 PM  

I actually gave up caring about Scalzi this year.

...because he let his beloved internet cat wander off to die alone?

Come now. That sounds like it was just getting interesting.

I'm surprised he didn't just shoot it, to confuse himself for a tall ex-marine.

Anonymous Zippy January 04, 2015 1:06 PM  

Wait, what is this about the beloved pet? Huh? WTF?

Most people, today, take a sick pet to the vet to be put to sleep. You can shoot it yourself, I suppose, and people from a more rural background might do that.

But just let it suffer? Huh?

Do you have links?

Blogger Markku January 04, 2015 2:34 PM  

am more interested that 'Not Me' fails to get deleted for using the handle, where it was getting to the point that i was getting deleted every time.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't us who deleted the you-you all those times. When we do, we practically always say why, unless the person has already been informed several times.

Perhaps you have been on too many SJW forums, being your own charming self, and gotten spammed in revenge so often that Blogger has assigned you a very high initial spam score, so that the slightest anomaly is enough to go over the threshold.

Whereas Andrew usually does his dirty work through anonymizer proxies, and not signed in to Google+. So, he always starts from the default score.

Anonymous n.o.o.c. January 04, 2015 3:29 PM  

I'm pretty sure it wasn't us who deleted the you-you all those times. When we do, we practically always say why, unless the person has already been informed several times.

His comments weren't getting deleted; they were getting spammed. I used to see them in the spam bin all the time. I'd release them whenever I saw them. But the very fact, Bob, that you have ever been spammed seems to matter to Blogger's system. But you're not a special snowflake. Several other regular commenters show up in the spam bin all the time, too.

Blogger Markku January 04, 2015 5:57 PM  

It is my understanding that Vox has said many times that it IS an absolute fact that if you get spammed on one Blogger blog, it increases your "spamminess" on all Blogger blogs.

I would recommend Bob wiping his history clean by registering another Gmail address, say "Bob K Mando" without the period, and using that. Suboptimal, I know. But we have zero control of Blogger's system. That's the best we can do.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts