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

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Shades of #GamerGate

The Otherwhere Gazette releases the Sad Puppies Manifesto:
  • That for Freedom of Speech (and Written Word) to be free, that Freedom must be sacrosanct, nothing is off limits, nothing is too offensive
  • That Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom not to be Offended, nor to impose your Offense on behalf of others.
  • That Freedom of Speech comes with consequences and others may Consequence your nose if you are too offensive.
  • That Writers must be free to write what they please and that no one has the right to tell them they may not or should not.
Read the rest of it there. But for me, it is the fourth point that is the most important, and the most offensive to the SJWs. If they want to play the numbers game and see who can flex the most muscle, that's fine. Our side invented the Inquisition and the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, after all, and we can play that game better than they ever could.

But we'd rather not. Our side also invented free will and freedom of speech. That's what we'd prefer. The pinkshirts and SJWs cast those concepts aside at their own peril.

Labels:

49 Comments:

Blogger James Sullivan February 21, 2015 8:54 AM  

Regarding Free Will, I get a kick every time I read another article claiming scientists prove Free Will is a myth, since the methodology always seems wonky.

Additionally, I get the impression that governments, in general, but ours especially, seems invested in the 'disproving of Free a Will'.

I wonder why?

Anonymous p-dawg February 21, 2015 9:14 AM  

Who invented free will, again? Just want to make sure I have your position correct.

Blogger Vox February 21, 2015 9:22 AM  

The Creator God. It is our gift from Him.

Blogger Edward Isaacs February 21, 2015 9:53 AM  

>That Writers must be free to write what they please and that no one has the right to tell them they may not or should not.

I don't care for the wording of this point. Freedom of speech is a legal right, not a moral right. Sometimes certain things simply *shouldn't* be said, morally speaking.

The SJW position appears to me to be that certain kinds of "____phobic" or "privileged" or "cisheteronormative" stories are inherently immoral to write, or perhaps that to deviate from these norms is a moral duty or maybe a praiseworthy act of supererogation. I don't see that an appeal to free speech is a coherent argument against this position; the idea of legally guaranteed freedom of speech is logically consistent with the SJW position. After all, private organizations do not violate anyone's legal right to freedom of speech if they police the speech that goes on in their own organization.

Blogger Robert Coble February 21, 2015 9:58 AM  

A woman gamer supports #GamerGate:

Link: I Am Woman Hear Me Whine

I'm not a gamer, but I wholeheartedly support the war against the SJWs.

Anonymous Earl February 21, 2015 9:59 AM  

My will (determination) is free (undetermined) by anything; undetermined determinism: makes perfect sense.

Just kidding. There's no such thing as free will. I believe in a limited will.

Anonymous Salt February 21, 2015 10:02 AM  

Sometimes certain things simply *shouldn't* be said, morally speaking.

yet people say them anyway because they are free to do so. Or do you think they should not be free in such manner?

Blogger JDC February 21, 2015 10:07 AM  

But...sometimes it's just not Okay!

Blogger Edward Isaacs February 21, 2015 10:10 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Northern Observer February 21, 2015 10:18 AM  

doesn't freedom of speech normally only apply to government? Isn't Sad Puppies more of a response to the SJW's "Consequence your nose if you are too offensive"?

I imagine that there may have been lawsuits, or 'verbal assault' charges (maybe even on both sides), and they definitely use their positions with in the various publishing houses, conns and other related organizations to control what people say/write, but are they using government to restrict free speech for writers?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 21, 2015 10:23 AM  

Anyone who gives us such nonsense as "trigger warnings" is a complete and utter joke

Blogger Log February 21, 2015 10:25 AM  

Nevermind that point 4 contradicts point 1.

Blogger Bard February 21, 2015 11:25 AM  

We are free to do anything at least once.

Anonymous Sevron February 21, 2015 11:25 AM  

In what way? Because I don't see it.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni February 21, 2015 11:27 AM  

Unfree will is mythology. In reality is only weak will or strong will.

A good friend of mine said that a while ago. I think it means no one can control your will, but you.

Blogger grendel February 21, 2015 11:31 AM  

I don't get the repeated references to the inquisition. It gave a few people a trial, and killed a few of those. Team pink gave us Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Lincoln. History shows again and again that team blue doesn't have the moral flexibility to undertake true oppression.

Anonymous Noah B. February 21, 2015 11:37 AM  

At what point does offensive speech become a threat of violence?

I'm not saying it's the proper role of government to regulate speech, but if someone threatens to harm my family, is it unjust for me to take that person at their word and assume that they intend to carry out those threats?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 21, 2015 11:45 AM  

Edward Isaacs: "Freedom of speech is a legal right, not a moral right."

It's a heritable value. European man has put an unusual priority on frankness (which requires freedom of speech) since the Greeks, that is to say, since there have been records.

If that population is self-governing, it will naturally have a broader ambit of freedom to speak one's mind than is normal elsewhere. If it is dominated by a population with contrary values, that won't apply.

It is no use appealing to free speech with a population that isn't inclined to value it. You can only shape the laws in favor of free speech by appealing to a population with an appropriate inclination.

Anonymous Monic Binomial February 21, 2015 11:55 AM  

The third point sounds like it was inserted by an SJW sleeper agent. All of their public shaming, blackballing, and career assassinations could be neatly justified by "others may Consequence your nose if you are too offensive."

Besides, isn't point 3 a direct contradiction of point 2?

Anonymous map February 21, 2015 11:56 AM  

OT

http://www.today.com/news/dc-comics-responds-11-year-old-girls-demand-more-female-2D80496173

Anonymous Stingray February 21, 2015 12:17 PM  

I don't get the repeated references to the inquisition.

Disqualification.

Anonymous p-dawg February 21, 2015 12:21 PM  

@Vox: Okay, your phrasing was poor, then. You made it seem as though you were part of a group that was responsible for the invention of free will. Discovery, classification, clarification of the idea, etc, those would make sense. But invention conveys something totally different from those.

Blogger Didact February 21, 2015 12:23 PM  

Who invented free will, again? Just want to make sure I have your position correct.

The Creator God. It is our gift from Him.

Ah OK, makes sense now. When I first read that part I was a bit puzzled as well, as it seems odd to me that Man would "invent" that which can only be created and destroyed by a Divine Power in the first place.

Personally I would have said "codified" or something similar, given that the Inquisition and the Index Librorum Prohibitorum were made by human hands while free will and its direct consequences are the Lord's gift. But that's just a minor quibble.

Besides, the Big Fella Upstairs is on our side, even if He sometimes has odd ways of showing it.

Anonymous p-dawg February 21, 2015 12:26 PM  

@Noah B: You should be responsible for preparing to defend yourself and your family at all times, even in the absence of specific threats. But you must also exercise some common sense. If you're playing a video game with your brother, and you're beating him down over and over, and he says, "I'm going to kill you, you dick!" you should not kill him, as that wouldn't constitute self-defense. I don't think there's any circumstance where simple speech would give you the right to kill someone in response. Not without some sort of accompanying action (which would also allow for self-defense without any talking, most likely). That's just how I see it.

Anonymous Viidad February 21, 2015 12:49 PM  

"the Big Fella Upstairs is on our side"

Not necessarily. There is only His side in the long run. And we'd better be on it.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 21, 2015 1:36 PM  

doesn't freedom of speech normally only apply to government? Isn't Sad Puppies more of a response to the SJW's "Consequence your nose if you are too offensive"?

It's wrong to organize a private lynch mob too. Or to put it another way, if you are offended by something someone else does, it's morally wrong for you to demand the rest of society assist you in punishing the badthinker. It's wrong to demand they be fired for instance, or to organize boycotts of their employer or their friends.

You can do what you want, but if you insist on trying to socialize your dispute with someone else, you cause great harm to the rest of us.

Blogger James Dixon February 21, 2015 1:44 PM  

> You made it seem as though you were part of a group that was responsible for the invention of free will.

Why do you assume the Creator God is not of a group with is followers?

Blogger Didact February 21, 2015 1:48 PM  

Not necessarily. There is only His side in the long run. And we'd better be on it.

Good point, actually. I stand corrected.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper February 21, 2015 2:14 PM  

#3 needs to be rephrased something more like "Your disputes with someone else's ideas are private not collective and while you have a right to avoid or to confront them involving other party, state or private in a mob action especially against someones livelihood is is unethical,

Blogger Doom February 21, 2015 2:24 PM  

Learning to ride a bike without the consequences of gravity is not learning at all. As I like to say, spank you, spank you very much. I take my freedoms, and will gladly accept a punch on the nose for it. Only turning the other cheek if that is right. What was that about a well armed society? Now THAT, my friends, is how evolution actually works.

SJW is on the wrong side of... everything. They won't even be remembered in very short order. Save by the elites who track flat earth type groups of the past.

Anonymous BigGaySteve February 21, 2015 2:32 PM  

"you have a right to avoid or to confront them involving other party, state or private in a mob action especially against someones livelihood is is unethical,"

One of the reasons SJWs are so loud online is that there are gays that gays that get HIV on purpose so they can get on social security disability then spend all day being social media Justus worriers. Our taxes pay for their day job on posting online.

Anonymous karsten February 21, 2015 2:44 PM  

"Team pink gave us Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Lincoln."

Hilarious. Talk about sleeper-agent intrusion. Hitler's entire existence was devoted to fighting Team Pink. No one ever fought it more resolutely, even using tactics that make the more lily-livered traditionalists blanch. He lost in the end, but, like the South, he led his people to go down fighting, and no one ever gave Team Pink a harder time nor more to worry about than he did -- which is why they fought him with such scorched-earth fanaticism.

Anonymous maniacprovost February 21, 2015 3:08 PM  

Hitler's entire existence was devoted to fighting Team Pink.

It's true that the dictatorship of nationalist elites is opposed to the dictatorship of the international proletariat, but liberals, federalists, and libertarians are opposed to dictatorship.

Anonymous Daniel February 21, 2015 3:13 PM  

I don't understand how people can even attempt the argument that "offense" is a type of speech. It is more like a seizure. If my free speech causes you seizures, I still have every right to say it. Your medical condition may or may not be a concern of mine but it isn't a part of the free speech issue.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 21, 2015 3:16 PM  

OT a little bit. Amazon wants me to review Sword into Darkness. I was disappointed. It felt like NCIS with this kick-ass female physicist who is a goth or something. Get real, when a woman wins the Fields medal she is an Iranian woman who looks a little weird but she is not some goth ...

A Sword into Darkness seems suffused with SJW crap.

Blogger grendel February 21, 2015 3:29 PM  

"I don't get the repeated references to the inquisition."

"Disqualification."

Pardon? Are you saying I'm using disqualification, or Vox is?

As far as Hitler being some sort of poster child for the right: statism is statism in any shape and size.

Anonymous Stingray February 21, 2015 3:47 PM  

SJW's frequently use the inquisition to disqualify Christians. I thought you were asking why they frequently use it.

Blogger John Wright February 21, 2015 4:25 PM  

With all due respect, I think OG has stated the goals and the mission of Sad Puppies in an awkward way, allowing, as you can see from the comments here, for counterattacks based on obscuring an important distinction, a distinction OG simply does not make, and must.

This is not about censorship. The SJW's are not trying to censor works, but to harass, intimidate and bully writers into accepting a political correctness way of talking and thinking.

To do this, they slander like fishwives and lie like dogs.

We are not trying to bully anyone into anything except into leaving us the hell alone to read and write what we like.

This is not about a difference in taste. It is simply not the case that this argument is about Leftwingers liking leftwing message fiction and rightwinger liking rightwing message fiction.

The SJW's are not promoting works they like on their merits, but, deliberately, openly and obviously trying to promote politically correct works by politically correct authors in order to harass, intimidate and bully writers into accepting a political correctness way of talking and thinking.

To do this, they slander like fishwives and lie like dogs.

This is not about them slandering us and us slandering them back again. We are calling them foolish and loud and dishonest, but they are calling us racists and bigots and Nazis and trying to shut us up, burn our books, and drive us out of civilization altogether.

They want to shut us up, because we will not play their silly game of turning every damn thing into politics. We want them to talk more, because then the world will see them for what they are.

We want to tell stories, whether they contain messages or not, that are good stories. They want to nag, and lecture, and nag some more, and lie like dogs.

We are against innocent writers merely trying to earn our bread being slurred and slandered and scorned and screamed-at by no-talent ne’er-do-wells, shunned, shut out, dis-invited, harangued and harassed, and having our customers driven away, merely for failing to heed and obey whatever unseen and unknown doublethink pious conformity in political leftwing lunacy preoccupies the mind-holes of the literati this season.

It is not the politics of the politically correct lunatics we mind: it is the lunacy, the endless accusations, the false charges, the self-righteous killjoy prigs who never shut up.

We want to feast on the rich and varied banquet of the science fiction and fantasy field, because that is the nature of festivity. The harpies want to crap on the feast and befoul, because that is the nature of harpies.







Blogger IM2L844 February 21, 2015 5:13 PM  

We are not trying to bully anyone into anything except into leaving us the hell alone to read and write what we like.

But John Scalzi has assured everyone that what you are trying to do is take over, run the show and ruin everything because you're a hateful hatemongering hater that hates.

Anonymous kh123 February 21, 2015 7:07 PM  

And their long march against the cold, indifferent marketplace of ideas continues. Which is ironic, given that their worldview is most likely materialistic and, by extension, nihilistic.

...Which is probably why they're so desperate to keep their one and only man-made Warren by declaring war on the Other. Because once the Other accomplishes their goals via marketplace natural selection - i.e., letting the best man win - the Warren is slated for extinction. Goes without saying this holds true for the larger scope of the Left and their pet causes once the dam bursts.

Natural vs unnatural selection. I'd say this is the winnowing down of the Cambrian into the next stage of evolution, but the Left seems less a mysterious and unexpected explosion of creative forms, and more like a single, inbred line of extremely niched defectives heading towards a genetic dead end.

Blogger Vox February 21, 2015 7:14 PM  

A Sword into Darkness seems suffused with SJW crap.

It's all on a continuum. ASID is certainly pinker than anything I would write, but it also contains strong Blue SF elements. You have to keep in mind that people tend to be influenced by what they have read, and most SF writers today have been engulfed in numerous SJW tropes. I'm not immune to them myself; I sometimes have to catch myself when I start unconsciously making use of one.

That, of course, is why they are so determined to rule our traditional Blue SF tropes out of bounds and delegitimize their use. Because it's even easier to fall into having the humble male hero rescue the princess than have a hot, butt-kicking female scientist who saves the day.

Blogger maniacprovost February 21, 2015 8:50 PM  

Sad Puppies may be about promoting good stories instead of PC diatribes dressed up as queer science fantasy.

But to me, the overall struggle against Pink is not about the content of the works per se. If we had Pink Sci Fi and Blue Sci Fi, both judged by their merits as well as any political messages contained therein, for those who care about the messages, then the Blue side would be happy.

But Pink won't stop with giving bad reviews to Blue Sci Fi works. No, they give bad reviews to works they haven't even read. They say Shakespeare may not have existed, but if he did, he was definitely a closet gay. They award Hugos, not to the Pinkest Sci Fi of the year, but to whatever work happens to have been written by the Chief Rabbit. So it's not about the message, or the story, or the work at all. It's about the authors. I though Vox has been over this.

So talking about censorship and offense and free speech is irrelevant. They don't care if a particular work is offensive, or well written, or both.

Anonymous kh123 February 21, 2015 9:08 PM  

"So talking about censorship and offense and free speech is irrelevant. They don't care if a particular work is offensive, or well written, or both."

Right, but every tyranny still feels the need to cloak themselves in righteousness or justice, even if only window dressing. Deny them that and they lose the moral high ground.

Blogger Akulkis February 21, 2015 11:14 PM  

"Why do you assume the Creator God is not of a group with is followers?"

It's better to pray that you be on God's side than to pray that God will be on your side. And no, believing that you are following him is not enough -- the Bible shows how God made an example of the Jews time and again for thinking God was on their side, rather than seeking to be on God's side. That's why they are scattered around the globe right now, and animosity grows against them continually.

Blogger John Wright February 22, 2015 3:47 AM  

"But John Scalzi has assured everyone that what you are trying to do is take over, run the show and ruin everything because you're a hateful hatemongering hater that hates."

Because, of course, nothing shows the pure hatred in a man's heart more that his willingness to live and let live just so long as you stop berating him, nagging him, bothering him, spoiling his fun, and soiling his soul.

Well, we cannot dismiss so cogent a non-argument as this, can we? Because you are quite right, and it is the only argument the Left can produce.

Blogger Wayne Earl February 22, 2015 4:14 PM  

Can someone actually define "free will" please? Seriously, this term is abused by philosophers and the faithful just as much as "love" is abused by women.

Blogger Keith Glass February 22, 2015 5:44 PM  

I remain constantly amused by one thought: if those of us on the Sad Puppies side of things were even one TENTH of the monsters they make us out to be. . . .

. . . . the few surviving SJWs would be in hiding.

Blogger Akulkis February 22, 2015 6:50 PM  

One can only be falsely accused of murder so much before you might as well just murder the false-accuser.

OpenID improbableauthor.com February 27, 2015 9:26 AM  

You'll have to make your own value judgments on whether A Sword Into Darkness is suffused with SJW crap, but I can tell you that it was written without any agendas or checklists for either side of the political continuum. I have known smart men and smart women, leaders of both sexes, every race, etc. What comes first for me is character and fun. The main character gets hate for being white hetero cis male, the other gets crap for being mixed race hetero cis male. Others hate that the female president is female (even though there is a statistical likelihood we will get one within a few cycles), others hate that she is initially feckless and too reliant on her advisors. Now I get hate for a female scientist with tattoos contributing stuff, neglecting the fact that there are living examples of females with both brains and emotional issues who work through said issues by throwing themselves into their work and/or getting ink. I don't watch NCIS, so I don't know the reference. I just think smart tattooed chicks with daddy issues are hot. Oddly, no one ever references that the Secretary of Defense is written as an angry black guy whose race is never specified. I simply don't care about any of that stuff when I read or write unless it pulls me out of the story. I hope you read it and enjoy it, but whatever agenda you put on it is your bag, not mine. All the best . . . .

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts