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

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Speak until they silence themselves

Please don't hit them, the Washington Post begs. After all, they are just little girls.
Jessica Valenti is one of the most successful and visible feminists of her generation. As a columnist for the Guardian, her face regularly appears on the site’s front page. She has written five books, one of which was adapted into a documentary, since founding the blog Feministing.com. She gives speeches all over the country. And she tells me that, because of the nonstop harassment that feminist writers face online, if she could start over, she might prefer to be completely anonymous. “I don’t know that I would do it under my real name,” she says she tells young women who are interested in writing about feminism. It’s “not just the physical safety concerns but the emotional ramifications” of constant, round-the-clock abuse....

Once a woman is singled out by a men’s rights group such as A Voice for Men, the misogynist Reddit forum The Red Pill or even just a right-wing Twitter account like Twitchy, she is deluged with hatred. The barrage, in addition to scaring its target, serves as a warning to onlookers. Jill Filipovic, a senior political writer covering feminist issues at Cosmopolitan, says she recently tried to persuade a friend to run for office. “There’s several reasons why I wouldn’t want to do it, but one of them is that I follow you on Twitter, and I see what people say to you. I could never deal with that,” the friend told her.

Many people can’t. Last year, abortion rights activist Lauren Rankin pulled back from writing online and, for the most part, from Twitter because the threats and insults were becoming so wearying. She continues to serve on the board of the reproductive rights nonprofit A Is For and faces off against antiabortion protesters as a volunteer clinic escort, but she no longer engages publicly. “I don’t like the idea that it seems like I was scared or intimidated away from the Internet,” she says. “But I think I’ve recentered why I do what I do, in ways that I can maintain my mental sanity. Unfortunately, that really doesn’t involve the Internet as much.”

Filipovic, the former editor of the blog Feministe, says that, although her skin has thickened over the years, the daily need to brace against the online onslaught has changed her. “I doubt myself a lot more. You read enough times that you’re a terrible person and an idiot, and it’s very hard not to start believing that maybe they see something that you don’t.” She also finds it harder to let her guard down. “I have not figured out how to spend all day steeling against criticism — not just criticism, but really awful things people say to you and about you — and then go home and 30 minutes later you’re an emotionally available, normal person.”

Meanwhile, the creator of Feministe, Lauren Bruce, no longer has an online presence at all. “I had to completely cut that part off in order to live the rest of my life,” she says. “In order to work, have a nice family and feel like I was emotionally whole, I could not have one foot planted in a toxic stew.”
#GamerGate has them on the run. They can't take the heat. What they call "harassment" and "abuse" is seldom anything more than free speech answering free speech. They have a right to speak their piece, and we have a right to speak right back. We have a right to speak back with all of the contempt, disdain, and loathing that we feel for their insane and societally suicidal ideas.

Open up your hate and let it pour over them. Don't think for even one nanosecond that they don't deserve it every bit of the criticism, of the contempt, of the disdainful dismissal that overwhelms them. They are trying to destroy Western civilization. They are trying to destroy marriage and civil society. They are advocates of child murder. They are advocates of a philosophy that makes National Socialism look merciful and Communism practical and Fascism coherent by comparison. Do not hold back. Speak back twice as hard. Speak back until they fall silent.

Women are particularly susceptible to shame. So shame them relentlessly. Shame those who agree with them. Mock their white knights who rush in to save them. Above all, dignify their views and voices with all the respect you would show to a particularly noxious fart in an elevator.

Labels: ,

130 Comments:

Anonymous male feminist February 25, 2015 8:47 AM  

No worries.

Obama is taking over the Internet now.

The FCC regulators will soon shut up you racist homophobes.

Blogger Owen February 25, 2015 8:51 AM  

“I doubt myself a lot more. You read enough times that you’re a terrible person and an idiot, and it’s very hard not to start believing that maybe they see something that you don’t.”

In other words, they expose her hypocrisy, idiocy, and generally make more sense.

This upsets her, since she's always, always, always right because her feelings are right.

The ensuing confusion causes her to doubt that feelings are the basis of external reality.

So, shut off the spigot causing the bad feelings, rather than confront third party reality.

Anonymous BadJohnBrown February 25, 2015 8:57 AM  

male feminist,
with one mean look from me I would leave you cowering and begging for me to leave you alone.

You spineless little bitch.

Anonymous tiarosa February 25, 2015 8:58 AM  

I AM WOMAN, HEAR ME ROAR!
(But don't dare roar back, because I'm a delicate flower and I'll wilt)

Is it logic or consequences that sails right over them?

Anonymous Mike M. February 25, 2015 9:00 AM  

"What they call "harassment" and "abuse" is seldom anything more than free speech answering free speech."

Exactly right. I've noticed that the feminists and SJWs throw a tantrum because someone DARED to disagree with them. They aren't capable of civil debate and discussion.

And it's our obligation to rub their noses in the fact. As a public service. For the children.

Anonymous Salt February 25, 2015 9:04 AM  

First-person essays by women are huge drivers of Internet traffic. “I have tried to mentor a couple of young female writers,” Valenti says. “They were trying so hard to get their first pieces published, and then they write something about their vagina, and all of the sudden the doors open up.”

Ah, what opened up exactly? No wonder these people are detonating. A little research will show that Love Canal was toxic.

Anonymous ZhukovG February 25, 2015 9:10 AM  

male feminist exemplifies the utter contempt for freedom and individual liberty that animates the Progressive Materialists.

Thus, we have no choice.

Carthago delenda est

Blogger Nate February 25, 2015 9:17 AM  

" Dignify their views and voices with all the respect you would show to a particularly noxious fart in an elevator."

dammit! You were doing so well... right up to this point.

You have to remember your audience mate.

Anonymous Severian February 25, 2015 9:18 AM  

To every single feminist complaining about the "toxic stew" of internet comments, I got two words for ya: Sarah Palin. Everything y'all were saying about Sarah Palin, the "misogynists" are now saying about you. Hurts, don't it? Perhaps there is a lesson here, ladies.

Anonymous Miserman February 25, 2015 9:20 AM  

I once wrote like a reactionary, writing to "Open up your hate and let it pour over them." Then, at the encouragement of Christians (the Casting Crowns, Fireproof-loving kind), I backed off to produce a more "civil" form of communication in order to reach people with kindness. They often quoted to me 2 Timothy 2:25, Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.

While the more civil and polite approach made for more willing listeners, I have come to realize that the call for civility is merely another way to keep me from hurting their feelings with direct and clear observations and questions. Civility does nothing to convince opponents of the truth to change their way of thinking. It merely makes them feel comfortable in their way of thinking because I am no longer a threat.

A civil discourse is a passive discourse.

Anonymous Mr. Rational February 25, 2015 9:21 AM  

I'm not sure what I find more amusing:  that the SJW narrative and tactics are imploding, or that posters here can't seem to grasp that anyone posting as "male feminist" in THIS lion's den is pure satire.

Blogger JartStar February 25, 2015 9:22 AM  

They don't like living in the world of political discourse of their own making. You throw a sucker punch expect to be punched back, hard.

Anonymous MrGreenMan February 25, 2015 9:23 AM  

And yet they agitated to mess up everyone else's life, and they ruined lots of people's lives, and they loved setting their Twitter mobs loose on people, and they worked so that other people would have real and tangible suffering - why did they think that nobody would push back?

I will never understand atheists and secularists in this regard: If this is all there is, won't people be that much more dug in and violent when it comes to being told to do something they don't want to do, or being put upon?

Anonymous Crude February 25, 2015 9:24 AM  

Has anyone ever asked them how they think people feel when they lambast them as women-hating misogynists who want to kill women, usually for the high crime of disagreeing with their opinions about culture, video games, abortion or otherwise?

I can't help but notice that these complaints about the insults, verbal harassment and more always and exclusively concerns themselves. The abuse people heap out in the name of their causes, or that they themselves heap out, is simply the stuff of justice. Right?

Blogger SarahsDaughter February 25, 2015 9:32 AM  

I doubt myself a lot more. You read enough times that you’re a terrible person and an idiot, and it’s very hard not to start believing that maybe they see something that you don’t.

When there is no Truth to gird an ideology, this is bound to happen.

It's awesome.

Blogger Al Cibiades February 25, 2015 9:36 AM  

While ISIS is attempting to solve political and religious "problems" with the sword, communism also advocates the violent overthrow of any system other than it's own. Aren't the left by their own definition terrorists? To my mind the left should be expunged from any public service. McCarthy was right.

Blogger Shimshon February 25, 2015 9:37 AM  

I have to admit, I have a soft spot for the late Ellen Willis (whose daughter is mentioned in the WaPo piece), who is mildly famous in English speaking Charedi (aka "ultra" Orthodox Jewish) circles for penning one of the most sympathetic, fascinating, and well-written articles imaginable on deeply traditional (and avowedly patriarchal) Judaism in the 1970s after her brother became involved with the then very young and small yeshiva, Aish HaTorah.

http://ellenwillis.tumblr.com/jerusalem

Anonymous The Obvious February 25, 2015 9:40 AM  

That's the Jessica Valenti of the "I bathe in male tears" picture who's upset?

This is like bad comedy at times.

Blogger AmyJ February 25, 2015 9:41 AM  

Valenti loves to brag about bathing in male tears, but don't you dare try to do the same to her.

The most enjoyable thing about Twitter is watching Judgy Bitch own Valenti on a regular basis.

Blogger dw February 25, 2015 9:42 AM  

The savage laughs when he hits you and cries when you hit him. These people are savages and deserve every bit of the terror and humiliation they dished out to those without an audience or megaphone.

Blogger Josh February 25, 2015 9:44 AM  

Has anyone ever asked them how they think people feel when they lambast them as women-hating misogynists who want to kill women, usually for the high crime of disagreeing with their opinions about culture, video games, abortion or otherwise?

Doesn't work like that, for the same reason asking American soldiers how they think the relatives of civilians killed by drone strikes feel doesn't work.

Anonymous Daniel February 25, 2015 9:45 AM  

Questions lead to fear. Fear leads to doubt. Doubt leads to afeminism.

Blogger dw February 25, 2015 9:50 AM  

An Anonymous Conservative-style amygdala hijack would be more effective than any logical argument you could throw at them. A calm, relentless, contemptuous barrage of insults that makes them look stupid, treacherous, cowardly, and deceitful is the way to do it. They can't handle it and will absolutely lose it, which is better than simply beating them with a rational argument.

Anonymous jack February 25, 2015 9:53 AM  

If the new internet rules become law, whatever they are, and notice the Obama crowd still refuses to release the text of those new regs, I suspect any sjw that complains will bring the sword of the fcc and government guns down on anyone not an sjw who is trying to maintain a civil and logical discourse. Because that terrible right wing terrorist hurt my feelings. Its coming folks.

Anonymous Daniel February 25, 2015 9:55 AM  

Has anyone ever asked them how they think people feel when they lambast them as women-hating misogynists who want to kill women, usually for the high crime of disagreeing with their opinions about culture, video games, abortion or otherwise

Yes, crude, they actually have. They have asked them if they care that their actions and false accusations cost people their jobs and whole industries their markets. They have asked them - directly - about the children, about the women they harm. They have asked them these things in large, internationally published articles, so there's no way you can miss their answer.

Their answer is always a variation of:

“Maybe it was [my victim] who started all of this.” - Adria Richards

Predators predate. Parasites parasitize.

Anonymous Crude February 25, 2015 9:55 AM  

Doesn't work like that, for the same reason asking American soldiers how they think the relatives of civilians killed by drone strikes feel doesn't work.

In this case, I think it may be interesting to see asked, if only because one generally doesn't get to ask a soldier that while they're standing on the ruins of their house moments after drones struck it.

Anonymous ThirdMonkey February 25, 2015 9:56 AM  

"Above all, dignify their views and voices with all the respect you would show to a particularly noxious fart in an elevator."

Normally, that would call for congratulations and a slow clap from me.

Unless it was a feminist fart, which would prompt me to go Ray Rice on these bitches.

I smell what you're steppin' in, VD.

Blogger Joshua Dyal February 25, 2015 9:58 AM  

While the more civil and polite approach made for more willing listeners, I have come to realize that the call for civility is merely another way to keep me from hurting their feelings with direct and clear observations and questions. Civility does nothing to convince opponents of the truth to change their way of thinking. It merely makes them feel comfortable in their way of thinking because I am no longer a threat.

You can be direct and clear without being hateful, though. Civil doesn't mean lacking in directness or clarity, unless it's being misapplied to try and get you to stop.

Anonymous Jill February 25, 2015 10:01 AM  

Shaming works for some female personalities, and those personalities are easy to spot and, hence, take advantage of (I'm not proud that I take advantage of this). On others, it bounces off and is a wasted effort. I would venture to say, just through observation, that the personalities driving social justice types are shame types.

Anonymous Stingray February 25, 2015 10:05 AM  

I'm heartened after reading a handful of the comments there. I'm surprised they haven't been shut down.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 25, 2015 10:09 AM  

The SJWs you write of are not even loved within their present political coalition so why should I respect them?

Anonymous Michael Maier February 25, 2015 10:23 AM  

Nate February 25, 2015 9:17 AM " Dignify their views and voices with all the respect you would show to a particularly noxious fart in an elevator."

dammit! You were doing so well... right up to this point.

You have to remember your audience mate.


No joke... what if you're the dealter and the elevator is full of feminists?

Blogger Joshua Dyal February 25, 2015 10:28 AM  

I'm in a discussion RIGHT NOW with my sister-in-law and a friend, who both take the notion of death threats and whatnot seriously (much more seriously than it deserves.) That's the rhetorical bit that gives the SJW an edge. It's one thing to claim it when it's made up whole cloth, i.e. John Flynt. But if there's anything to them, even if they're not credible, then we've given up an awful lot of legitimacy. Which is why I say, yeah--frank, direct and honest: good. Hateful? That's how you lose the moral aspect of the culture war. And that should be our best weapon; if we are demonstrably winning on the moral front, then it starts to become clear, even through the piles of BS, that we are the moral ones and the SJWs are the shrieking liars.

But we have to make sure that we're above reproach in that regard, or we've given ourselves a major handicap on winning on the moral front.

Anonymous Miserman February 25, 2015 10:29 AM  

@Joshua Dyal

You can be direct and clear without being hateful, though. Civil doesn't mean lacking in directness or clarity, unless it's being misapplied to try and get you to stop.

With modern sensitivities, directness and clarity is considered hateful. If I, as a man, were to say, for example, that the college rape culture does not exist, that is direct and clear, but it is considered hateful because it hurts the feelings of women who believe it does exist and does injustice to those who are considered victims of the rape culture and so forth and so on. So, in order to be "civil," I must make my assertions as softly worded, ambiguous, and gender-neutral as possible with a generous helping of apology for challenging those claims and for being a male with an un-feminist opinion and so forth and so on. You know, like preachers do when they preach on male headship.

Or I could be Joss Whedon. :P

Anonymous Stililcho February 25, 2015 10:31 AM  

If the new internet rules become law, whatever they are, and notice the Obama crowd still refuses to release the text of those new regs

Don't you know that they have to pass the rules to see what's in them?


No joke... what if you're the dealter and the elevator is full of feminists?


My beef...strong!

Anonymous grey enlightenment February 25, 2015 10:33 AM  

We need to spread awareness about the SJWs lies, omissions and deceptions, bring our findings to light so everyone can see. We're already having an affect on Reddit and 4chan, which since 2013 has begun to turn against the SJW brigade . Look at how check your privilege, UVA rape hoax, gamergate and shirtgate has blown up in their faces.

Blogger Marissa February 25, 2015 10:37 AM  

Does anyone doubt these women take countless hours of their lives searching themselves, articles about them and reading the comments on these articles? They are obsessed with themselves and when they see that the rest of the world doesn't give such a positive reflection they are crushed.

Anonymous Stilicho February 25, 2015 10:37 AM  

But we have to make sure that we're above reproach in that regard, or we've given ourselves a major handicap on winning on the moral front.

Context is king. If it is a conversation with someone who is seeking facts, truth, etc. You can be perfectly civil. When, as is more common, it is just another leftard who is incapable of rational thought, who is just spouting shibboleths, and/or who is simply trying to to rhetorically cow the crowd, then they should be mercilessly mocked. Like directing sunlight onto a vampire, it is the only Christian thing to do--with similar results and for similar reasons: they burst into flames and you certainly don't want them infecting others.

Anonymous Stingray February 25, 2015 10:38 AM  

With modern sensitivities, directness and clarity is considered hateful.

Only if you let them define this for you.

Blogger finndistan February 25, 2015 10:42 AM  

Always the victim...

How many feminists have been swatted, doxxed, fired, ostracized, imprisoned for hate speech?

How many who were criticizing feminists have been swatted, doxxed, ostracized, imprisoned?

What Valenti is complaining about is what she and her ilk have been doing a thousand times more, in the last ten years.

Answering a feminist can get one in jail, lose job, lose kids, lose life, yet it is the feminists who are being threatened?

Always the victim...

Anonymous Daniel February 25, 2015 10:44 AM  

Joshua Dyal define hateful.

Anonymous Bah February 25, 2015 10:48 AM  

my sister-in-law and a friend, who both take the notion of death threats and whatnot seriously (much more seriously than it deserves.)

What a load of shit. Has there ever been such a threat that has NOT been a hoax phoned in by a SJW to exaggerate her own importance and cast dirt on her opponents?

Blogger CM February 25, 2015 10:49 AM  

With modern sensitivities, directness and clarity is considered hateful.

Only if you let them define this for you.


in today's culture, civilly speaking truth offends them to no end. No need to think brash and rude is necessary to get their panties in a wad. I'll poke them with a stick and laugh as they sob that they were clobbered with a club.

Blogger Joshua Dyal February 25, 2015 10:50 AM  

Joshua Dyal define hateful.

Motivated by hate. Duh. The dictionary definition. I'm not talking about bowing under their false accusations of hateful; I'm talking about being above reproach so that anyone else looking at the exchange can see that they are the hateful ones and the liars, not you.

Once you've logged a death threat, for example, even if it's not serious, then you've lost the moral aspect of the war.

Considering the degree to which 4GW is pushed here on this blog, everyone should see the obvious implications of that.

Blogger Joshua Dyal February 25, 2015 10:53 AM  

What a load of shit. Has there ever been such a threat that has NOT been a hoax phoned in by a SJW to exaggerate her own importance and cast dirt on her opponents?

Of course there has been. Most of them also weren't serious, but they were there.

Anonymous Daniel February 25, 2015 11:04 AM  

Motivated by hate. Duh.

No need to be hateful, Joshua. It was a civil request.

Anonymous Stingray February 25, 2015 11:14 AM  

in today's culture, civilly speaking truth offends them to no end. No need to think brash and rude is necessary to get their panties in a wad.

Precisely. But there is no need to let them define hateful for you.

Anonymous Daniel February 25, 2015 11:18 AM  

Dictionary definition of hateful: arousing, deserving of, or filled with hatred.

Should I or should I not behave hatefully toward, for example, Nicolaitans, whom even Jesus Christ hates?

There is that which is hateful in that it is deserving of hate. It has earned hate and it asks for hate. Tolerance is one of those things that the good spit out of their mouths. Is it hateful to do so? Probably. Hating tolerance is good, because tolerance has earned its own wages.

This is what it means to let that hate pour out - to let the naturally occurring and justified hate that occurs within the good against the bad be directed back at hate's cause. Let go of hatred as a man lets go of a grenade that he has wrestled back from a madman - toss it back to the owner and origin of the violence.

Can one cling to bitterness and hurt and thus behave hatefully toward the innocent? Yes.

Can one be wronged by one's enemies and choose to forgive them? Yes.

Can one return hate to its rightful owner? Yes.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 25, 2015 11:29 AM  

Filipovic, the former editor of the blog Feministe, says that, although her skin has thickened over the years,

And wrinkled and sagged too, no doubt. Filipovic was a very attractive young woman, but now she looks like she's on the wrong side of 30 and, alas, probably finds she is no longer playing the game on the easiest setting, that of Hot Young Woman.

When she was younger, she could spout off most anything and find a willing, adoring audience. White Knights of the highest quality would line up to agree with a hot tamale. Now? I suspect the pickin's are thinning out. Her supporters are less - shall we say ardent? - and the criticisms are no longer buffered by crowd of orbiters. Or at least not by a crowd of desirable orbiters.

Blogger Azimus February 25, 2015 11:33 AM  

From the article:
And she tells me that, because of the nonstop harassment that feminist writers face online, if she could start over, she might prefer to be completely anonymous. “I don’t know that I would do it under my real name,”


Well, so much for standing up and being counted. Does she not understand that this weapon, now just starting to be used by conservatives, was a weapon created by her fellow adherents to shame and humiliate and intimidate people trying to make a stand for traditional values? Now she complains that it has been reverse engineered and used on her, so she suggests hiding behind the cowardly cloak of anonymity.

Anonymous Athor Pel February 25, 2015 11:39 AM  

" Joshua Dyal February 25, 2015 10:53 AM
What a load of shit. Has there ever been such a threat that has NOT been a hoax phoned in by a SJW to exaggerate her own importance and cast dirt on her opponents?

Of course there has been. Most of them also weren't serious, but they were there. "




Not serious hmm? Well, then what are moaning about? Are you or these ostensible victims not tough enough to weather the slings and arrows of rhetorical internet debate? Or are you saying that's just too hard a thing to do?

In any case an investigation seems called for.

Who received these no-hoax threats and who gave these no-hoax threats?

I truly would like some kind of list.

You see, if you're going to assert something like this then you need to substantiate it, with real IP number strings, not he said she said.

I've read about quite a few false threat and false harassment cases. It's always a SJW, never someone from the other side.

You prove to this audience that a person willingly associating themselves with known liars is telling the truth then maybe you will be believed.

Otherwise, you're a liar too.

I don't give a crap what you feel you believe or what you feel about what you believe or even what you believe. Proof or STFU.

Blogger James Dixon February 25, 2015 11:53 AM  

> Open up your hate and let it pour over them.

It's not like they're not more than willing to do so to others.

Blogger Iowahine February 25, 2015 11:59 AM  

Filipovic: ". . . it’s very hard not to start believing that maybe they see something that you don’t."

And there it is: the epiphany she needs.

Blogger Joshua Dyal February 25, 2015 12:05 PM  

Not serious hmm? Well, then what are moaning about? Are you or these ostensible victims not tough enough to weather the slings and arrows of rhetorical internet debate? Or are you saying that's just too hard a thing to do?

In any case an investigation seems called for.

Who received these no-hoax threats and who gave these no-hoax threats?

I truly would like some kind of list.

You see, if you're going to assert something like this then you need to substantiate it, with real IP number strings, not he said she said.

I've read about quite a few false threat and false harassment cases. It's always a SJW, never someone from the other side.

You prove to this audience that a person willingly associating themselves with known liars is telling the truth then maybe you will be believed.

Otherwise, you're a liar too.

I don't give a crap what you feel you believe or what you feel about what you believe or even what you believe. Proof or STFU.


Who are you talking to and what are you talking about? You addressed this to me, but it has very little bearing on anything I said.

Are you saying that there's no such thing as death threats on the internet, therefore talking about them generally makes me a liar?

Anonymous karsten February 25, 2015 12:09 PM  

"While the more civil and polite approach made for more willing listeners, I have come to realize that the call for civility is merely another way to keep me from hurting their feelings with direct and clear observations and questions. Civility does nothing to convince opponents of the truth to change their way of thinking. It merely makes them feel comfortable in their way of thinking because I am no longer a threat."

Quoted for truth. This is especially important for those who have Christian sensibilities to hear, IMO, because it was the "calls for civility" and other kinds of concern trolling (which is what we're talking about here) that had us end up in the sorry mess we're in, in the first place.

Vox's original post is correct, and any attempt to water down its exhortation merely serves the enemy.

Anonymous MendoScot February 25, 2015 12:13 PM  

Being civil means offering your enemy a hand up after you've knocked him flat on his arse.

Anonymous Stilicho February 25, 2015 12:17 PM  

Being civil means offering your enemy a hand up after you've knocked him flat on his arse.

Being prudent means following through with a boot to the head.

Anonymous Scintan February 25, 2015 12:18 PM  

Motivated by hate. Duh. The dictionary definition. I'm not talking about bowing under their false accusations of hateful; I'm talking about being above reproach so that anyone else looking at the exchange can see that they are the hateful ones and the liars, not you.


Then you're misunderstanding the effect of the charge.

Blogger Vox February 25, 2015 12:25 PM  

I'm in a discussion RIGHT NOW with my sister-in-law and a friend, who both take the notion of death threats and whatnot seriously (much more seriously than it deserves.)

Bullshit they do. Point out to them that I have received multiple death threats from multiple sources. Think they'll suddenly decide that I am right about everything and deserve cash and prizes?

Anonymous Jack Amok February 25, 2015 12:26 PM  

Being civil means offering your enemy a hand up after you've knocked him flat on his arse.

Being civil means treating barbarians like barbarians. Treating them like civilized people is even more discivic than being a barbarian yourself.

Blogger bob k. mando February 25, 2015 12:28 PM  

Azimus February 25, 2015 11:33 AM
Does she not understand



she understands very well.

that's why she's trying to remove the weapon from YOUR hands.

remember, sociopaths and gaslighters of all stripes are experts at emotional manipulation.

this includes using their own FEIGNED emotions to manipulate observers.


Athor Pel February 25, 2015 11:39 AM
Otherwise, you're a liar too.



calm down, Athor. there's no vetting process ( cannot be ) for /btards/.

have /btards/ made threats against feminists? i'd be shocked if they haven't, they threaten and troll everybody else.

the question is not whether feminists have gotten 'death threats'. it's whether feminists are some sort of special protected class which, due to their own native incompetence and inability, 'deserve' unique protections against the sling and arrows that normal reporters and columnists face every day.

Mark Steyn regularly gets death threats from Muslims.

you want to rebut Valenti? then tell her,
"Ann Coulter gets death threats all the time and hardly ever talks about it. She gets her speeches shut down by SJWhiners. You aren't half the woman than Ann is. And you aren't even qualified to lick Mark Steyn's taint."

Blogger Joshua Dyal February 25, 2015 12:30 PM  

Bullshit they do. Point out to them that I have received multiple death threats from multiple sources. Think they'll suddenly decide that I am right about everything and deserve cash and prizes?

Of course not. But the notion of death threats troubles them, and its easy to see why it would. It makes the cause more difficult if we can't win the moral war.

They don't disagree with the point of the article linked above, either. But they're easily side-tracked from the point by the claims of death threats. I've pointed out to them the obvious false nature of death threats made to Sarkeesian and Flynt, which enabled us to kind of move past the point, but it became clear to me (not that it wasn't already) that unless you can demonstrate that all such events are false flags, it becomes a major handicap. To win the moral war, we have to be the moral side of the conflict.

Anonymous Daniel February 25, 2015 12:40 PM  

It makes the cause more difficult if we can't win the moral war.

No it doesn't. The moral war is not rhetorical. The moral war is being obviously in the right. Hate towards that which is hateful is right. It wins the moral war.

In other words, the moral war is about what is, not about what seems. Whomever can hew most closely to what is right (and subsequently demonstrate that) will win the high ground. It doesn't matter if they must resort to violent tactics. Boston Tea Party and so on. It didn't lose the moral ground even though they brazenly appropriated Mohawk culture to do it.

Blogger bob k. mando February 25, 2015 12:44 PM  

Joshua Dyal February 25, 2015 12:30 PM
but it became clear to me (not that it wasn't already) that unless you can demonstrate that all such events are false flags, it becomes a major handicap.



wrong. you're making the same mistake Fox News and the Repug establishment make all the time.

you are acceding to the ShitLib narrative and terms of discussion.

when they make a display of COWARDICE and then demand that said display requires concessions from you the answer is NOT to give them their concessions.

the answer is to hold them to account for their cowardice and claimed incompetence.

tell them that only free men of strong moral fiber, capable of surviving the rough-and-tumble of robust debate deserve the franchise.

either they can grow a pair, like all the rest of the adults, or they can attach themselves as chattel to an adult.

either way, they need to shut the fuck up with the whining.

Anonymous SixtusVIth February 25, 2015 12:47 PM  

[I]No worries.

Obama is taking over the Internet now.

The FCC regulators will soon shut up you racist homophobes.[/I]

Would someone aware me about how dangerous Net Neutrality is? I would guess it is very dangerous, but you never know.

Blogger Vox February 25, 2015 12:48 PM  

Of course not. But the notion of death threats troubles them, and its easy to see why it would. It makes the cause more difficult if we can't win the moral war.

Which means they're full of shit. Which means YOU'RE full of shit. You don't seem to grasp that the "death threats" are just an excuse to hold to their position. You can only SHAME them out of it. Ridicule them. Mock them.

Your point is absolutely counterproductive. Do you still not understand that SJWs lie? Even if everyone behaves impeccably, they'll just make something up. So who cares if there are death threats, shame them like crazy for believing they're real anyhow.

Blogger Joshua Dyal February 25, 2015 12:48 PM  

wrong. you're making the same mistake Fox News and the Repug establishment make all the time.

you are acceding to the ShitLib narrative and terms of discussion.


I'm doing nothing of the kind. I'm merely saying that being "hateful" is counter-productive. That's not robust debate.

Blogger Joshua Dyal February 25, 2015 12:52 PM  

Which means they're full of shit. Which means YOU'RE full of shit. You don't seem to grasp that the "death threats" are just an excuse to hold to their position. You can only SHAME them out of it. Ridicule them. Mock them.

You don't know what you're talking about. My sister in law and friend are not SJWs, they don't hold the positions that you seem to think that they hold to. THEY don't understand or believe in the capacity of SJWs to lie about everything, though, that's true. Which is why the false flag has been effective for so long.

Blogger bob k. mando February 25, 2015 12:53 PM  

Joshua Dyal February 25, 2015 12:48 PM
That's not robust debate.



it never was debate.

they found an emotional tool which they can reliably use to manipulate you.

congratulations?

Blogger Vox February 25, 2015 12:55 PM  

You don't know what you're talking about. My sister in law and friend are not SJWs, they don't hold the positions that you seem to think that they hold to.

Yes, I do. You're completely missing the point. The women of whom you speak will believe there are death threats whether they exist or not. Because the SJWs will lie. So, encouraging #GamerGate not to make death threats is totally irrelevant.

Your point is literally pointless.

Anonymous Ain February 25, 2015 12:57 PM  

“I doubt myself a lot more. You read enough times that you’re a terrible person and an idiot, and it’s very hard not to start believing that maybe they see something that you don’t.”

Advocating for murdering babies will cause people to believe that of you. And maybe, just maybe, they do see something that you don't. For starters, they know killing babies is wrong, and you don't. Go figure.

Blogger Joshua Dyal February 25, 2015 1:01 PM  

Yes, I do. You're completely missing the point. The women of whom you speak will believe there are death threats whether they exist or not. Because the SJWs will lie. So, encouraging #GamerGate not to make death threats is totally irrelevant.

Your point is literally pointless.


That's not my point, that's the tangent that I've found myself somehow having explored. My point is that directly calling something what it is is useful. "Open up your hate and pour it over them" is counterproductive. Once you are the "hateful" one, you've lost the moral war. And I don't mean faux SJW hate, I mean actual hate. That will tend to backfire.

Eh. Whatever. I suspect we're quibbling over semantics to a certain extent.

Blogger Vox February 25, 2015 1:09 PM  

"Open up your hate and pour it over them" is counterproductive. Once you are the "hateful" one, you've lost the moral war. And I don't mean faux SJW hate, I mean actual hate. That will tend to backfire.

No, that's not how the moral level of war works. You have an incorrect understanding of what is meant by "moral" there. For example, ISIS is winning at the moral level of war. And they are plenty hateful.

Blogger Vox February 25, 2015 1:16 PM  

Here is where Lind goes into some detail on the moral level of war.

The correct tactic for you to take with your sister and her friend is not to buy into their frame and pretend to take the lies seriously, it is for you to tell the truth and attack the lies. The reason people like you are a problem is that you spend all your time focusing on your own side. Don't do that. Focus on attacking the enemy, which is actually hard, not second-guessing and policing the people on your own side.

The reason #GamerGate is so effective is that it has no internal authority and no one accepts any concern-trolling. It is outward-focused, not inward-focused, 4GW, not 2GW.

Blogger Nate February 25, 2015 1:31 PM  

"Once you are the "hateful" one, you've lost the moral war. And I don't mean faux SJW hate, I mean actual hate. That will tend to backfire."

zip it hippy

Blogger Joshua Dyal February 25, 2015 1:32 PM  

Sure, but ISIS values are not our values, so they can win the moral aspect of the war by doing things that are unacceptable to Christians, or anyone else besides them.

In any case, the discussion is over. I pointed out that after the contemptible Flynt and Sarkeesian were caught red-handed using death threats as false flags to stir up sympathy and drama, that I'm not very impressed by anyone else's claims of death threats on the internet anymore. If they really feel that there's a credible threat, call the police, don't complain about it publicly. That did the trick in terms of shutting down the side-track.

I do admit, as this discussion just right here has shown, that in these kinds of debates I have a tendency to lose sight or focus on the objective and allow myself to get side-tracked on occasion. Ah, well. I'm not afraid to keep at it and learn to sharpen my skills have having substantive debates like this by learning from what I did wrong last time.

Blogger Rick67 February 25, 2015 1:53 PM  

And how do left wing feminists treat those who disagree with them? http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/02/my-womens-studies-seminar So the very professor (a woman!) who started a Women's Studies program was forced to leave it behind because of the way she was treated by her own students in her own classroom.

Blogger Rick67 February 25, 2015 1:53 PM  

And how do left wing feminists treat those who disagree with them? http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/02/my-womens-studies-seminar So the very professor (a woman!) who started a Women's Studies program was forced to leave it behind because of the way she was treated by her own students in her own classroom.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 25, 2015 1:55 PM  

Place the notion of being held responsible on their heads the SJWs will fold they're women

Blogger bob k. mando February 25, 2015 2:15 PM  

Joshua Dyal February 25, 2015 1:32 PM
I have a tendency to lose sight or focus on the objective and allow myself to get side-tracked on occasion.



always remember, the default Feminist position is that womyn are as good OR BETTER than men at practically everything.

even most "non-SJW" women play this way. after all, they're raised that way from Kindergarten, regardless of what their parents want.

so, gender flip the scenario.

IF it were men [ /strike ] males complaining to you about how 'scared' they were about people talking mean too them
THEN what would your response be?

you'd likely tell them to come back once their balls drop.

and, since the women want to pretend to being exact equals ( or superiors ) to men, that's the way you should treat your Feminist interlocutors.

Blogger JartStar February 25, 2015 2:26 PM  

Ah, well. I'm not afraid to keep at it and learn to sharpen my skills have having substantive debates like this by learning from what I did wrong last time.

Good on you. Everyone makes mistakes and bad choices, the key is to admit it to yourself and try to improve.

Blogger Joshua Dyal February 25, 2015 2:40 PM  

Good on you. Everyone makes mistakes and bad choices, the key is to admit it to yourself and try to improve.

Yeah; not that long ago I was pretty politically naive, and didn't pay much attention. I'm still fairly new to this having frank discussions about politics with my friends and relatives business.

Anonymous Daniel February 25, 2015 2:45 PM  

Sure, but ISIS values are not our values, so they can win the moral aspect of the war.

This is where you are wrong. ISIS has the same moral high ground that we do: that left-wing interlopers have infiltrated and overpowered their formerly held institutions, and that they have the popular and moral right and duty to use the enemies own weapons and any means necessary -including hate- to throw them out.

Put another way:

Loyalty: ISIS - Loyalty to brotherhood and the precepts of the Qu'ran - SJW - Loyalty to whoever is winning at the moment - anti-SJW - Loyalty to the purge-targets and the traditions of the West.

Duty: ISIS - Duty to fulfill the mandates of the Qu'ran against the infidel's intrusion - SJW - No duties but rights - anti-SJW - Duty to civilization.

Respect: ISIS - Respect for the Qu'ran - SJW - Self-respect - anti-SJW - Respect for the law and the liberty of the individual.

Selfless Service: ISIS - Charitable heartwinning and infrastructure - SJW - Not posting nude selfies anymore, "pledging" to ineffective non-profit boondoggles - anti-SJW - Charitable situational (not political) support targets

Honor: ISIS - Embodies selfless honor in every act of terror for (their perceived) greater good - SJW - Lies about lying - anti-SJW - Honest, forthright, direct

Integrity: ISIS - Consistent beliefs, courage of convictions, brotherhood - SJW - Stands by unethical leaders until it falls from grace, at which points it just stands by - anti-SJW - Only in this begrudgingly for the sake of (some level of) righteousness

Personal Courage: ISIS - Unquestioned - SJW - Shits self when not warned that an article might contain words - anti-SJW - Risks harassment, job loss, exile, excommunication, worldwide ridicule for speaking out against tolerance.

Now. Out of those three groups, which is the only one that has irreparably lost the moral war?






Blogger bob k. mando February 25, 2015 2:51 PM  

Daniel February 25, 2015 2:45 PM
Now. Out of those three groups, which is the only one that has irreparably lost the moral war?



so long as the anti-SJWs fail to work TOWARDS something and permit themselves to be defined by the SJW terms of debate and constrained by the manacles that the SJWs have created for them, and only for the anti-SJWs

THEN

it is the anti-SJWs and only the anti-SJWs who are losing anything.

because the border only ever moves towards those who are attempting to create something.

Anonymous DavidKathome February 25, 2015 2:52 PM  

And I was just wondering this morning about flaming attacks as a website I would visit closed its comments section, complaining about flamers. There were flamers there but I set up a counter-flame policy and managed to drive one almost completely away and soundly beat the other in five lengthy exchanges that had him giving up and licking his wounds each time.

Hitting them with contempt again and again does wear them down over time.

Anonymous Stilicho February 25, 2015 2:55 PM  

the blog Feministing.com

the blog Feministe

What's the next feminist blog, femfisting?

Anonymous Daniel February 25, 2015 2:55 PM  

Sorry, that's damn hard to read. Here's the same as above with better formatting:

Loyalty:
ISIS - Loyalty to brotherhood and the precepts of the Qu'ran
SJW - Loyalty to whoever is winning at the moment -
anti-SJW - Loyalty to the purge-targets and the traditions of the West.

Duty:
ISIS - Duty to fulfill the mandates of the Qu'ran against the infidel's intrusion
SJW - No duties but rights
anti-SJW - Duty to civilization.

Respect:
ISIS - Respect for the Qu'ran
SJW - Self-respect
anti-SJW - Respect for the law and the liberty of the individual.

Selfless Service:
ISIS - Charitable heartwinning and infrastructure
SJW - Not posting nude selfies anymore, "pledging" to ineffective non-profit boondoggles
anti-SJW - Charitable situational (not political) support targets

Honor:
ISIS - Embodies selfless honor in every act of terror for (their perceived) greater good
SJW - Lies about lying
anti-SJW - Honest, forthright, direct

Integrity:
ISIS - Consistent beliefs, courage of convictions, brotherhood
SJW - Stands by unethical leader until he falls from grace, at which points SJW just stands by
anti-SJW - Only in this begrudgingly for the sake of (some level of) righteousness

Personal Courage:
ISIS - Unquestioned
SJW - Shits self when not warned that an article might contain words
anti-SJW - Risks harassment, job loss, exile, excommunication, worldwide ridicule for speaking out against tolerance.

Anonymous Chief_Tuscaloosa_welcome_white_man February 25, 2015 3:07 PM  

Joshua speak truth. Hatred mean lose moral high ground. Me and many other Indian chiefs now six feet under because of white man, but retain moral high ground. Moral high ground much more important than winning

OpenID cailcorishev February 25, 2015 3:28 PM  

To win the moral war, we have to be the moral side of the conflict.

Two problems with that:

1) There will always be some bomb-thrower on the fringe sending "death threats" or the equivalent. There's no way that we (assuming there's an organized "we" at all) can prevent that. When these SJWs draw fire for their destruction, they're going to get it in all forms including "hateful" forms, and there's nothing we can do to stop that.

2) Even if we could stop it, they'd invent incidents or move the goalposts to make more things qualify as "hate."

So one way or another, they will always have valid (in their minds, at least) examples of hate. You have to be able to shrug them off. Reasonable people will understand #1 above, so point out that there are haters in all groups, and move on. Unreasonable people will hang onto them like a dog with a bone, but you can't reason with them anyway, by definition.

We already are the moral side, but we can't prove that to people who insist black is white. Neither can we be perfect, so we shouldn't let them use imperfection among our ranks against us.

Anonymous Daniel February 25, 2015 3:42 PM  

So much for the sons of hell being consider "brothers" you mean.

Blogger slarrow February 25, 2015 3:42 PM  

Here's my difficulty puzzling this out. On one side of the coin:

Matthew 5:43-44: You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...

1 Peter 3:15: ...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect...

Romans 12:19-21: Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

On the other side of the coin:

Romans 12:9: Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.

Matthew 10:34: Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Matthew 23: 27, 33: Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean....You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

Clearly Vox's admonition to "[o]pen up your hate and let it pour over them" is part of the second camp, but I don't quite know how to handle the first set of quotes in that light. Dialectically, that is. I know how it's used rhetorically in these kinds of conflicts--"shut up and just lose already"--which is more to the point of Vox's post, and I agree that the proper tactical approach to that is scorn and derision. Heck, it's my natural inclination, and a great deal of fun--leading to the concern that I do it because it's fun, not necessarily because it's right.

Can anyone help me out with that first side of the coin? Is it a particular rather than universal rule, situational, only effective on certain people, something like that? Like I said, our enemies would throw those kinds of verses at us ultimately so that we lose. I'm confident that God put them there so that we can win--but win the right prize. I'd appreciate whatever clarity folks can bring.

Blogger bob k. mando February 25, 2015 3:42 PM  

Anonymous February 25, 2015 3:31 PM
So much for being a "Christian".



so, Jesus, who whipped and beat the moneylenders, was not Christian.

bravo, you twit.

now, pick a name. so we can defenestrate you properly.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10%3A16&version=KJV


Blogger Bodichi February 25, 2015 3:42 PM  

@Anonymous

Please define brother.

Anonymous 0007 February 25, 2015 3:43 PM  

Chief T for the win...

Blogger bob k. mando February 25, 2015 3:47 PM  

slarrow February 25, 2015 3:42 PM
Can anyone help me out with that first side of the coin?



you already quoted the answer, Romans 12:9.

those who knowingly and willfully commit the sin have already rejected the Holy Spirit.

now, of course,
IF THEY CLAIM TO REPENT
then
you are to extend forgiveness too them. as many times as they repent.

but, as you can see, most of them are willful and stubborn and refuse even to pretend to have changed.

Anonymous Daniel February 25, 2015 3:58 PM  

Can anyone help me out with that first side of the coin?

slarrow, I don't want to derail this into bible study at all, but I think it is a fair question semi-related to the "pouring of hate". Here's my take:

You can usually do both. If you are self-controlled, and concerned about your objectives, you can be a vessel for natural hate when for example the SJW causes by promoting lies and evil. You are simply returning the hate to its master (that's the 2nd part you talked about). It is ALSO the first part: gentleness and respect.

Your options aren't great with the SJW: by spreading out the hate they cause (by internalizing it or displacing it onto innocent parties) you are not being gentle. Your most gentle option is to redirect and correct the SJW by giving him back the hate he caused. Two bad options, but the most gentle option is beating the SJW to death within the rules of the game that he has implemented into the system.

The admonishments against revenge are just that: emotional violence to "pay someone back" for a perceived or real slight or attack against you.

It is kind of like the difference between murder and self-defense.

Just my thought.

Blogger SirHamster February 25, 2015 4:03 PM  

Clearly Vox's admonition to "[o]pen up your hate and let it pour over them" is part of the second camp, but I don't quite know how to handle the first set of quotes in that light.

Hating what is evil is part and parcel of loving what is good.

Matthew 5:43-44: You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...

So how does one love one's enemy, who has embraced evil? Leave their evil un-opposed, so that their evil may consume them? That is what was done for SJWs for the past decades. How has that helped their situation? It's not working, and it cannot work, per what has been discussed about the nature of SJW and warrens.

The loving thing to do for these enemies is to oppose their evil. They will end up doing less evil, and perhaps may learn to do what is good.

1 Peter 3:15: ...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect...

SJWs do not ask to learn. They accuse, or dig for information to make accusations.

If they wanted to learn, there is no shortage of dialectical types who wish to teach them.

Romans 12:19-21: Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath ... Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

The goal of this hatred is not to take revenge, but to protect society and communities from SJWs and their like - and perhaps to eventually reform them.

Granted, not all #GG types subscribe to these values, so it is the duty of the Christian to push them, that there may eventually be redemption and healing and not simply hatred and destruction.

"Hate the sin, love the sinner", and "don't hate the player, hate the system" may be useful phrases to keep in mind.

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

Anonymous Athor Pel February 25, 2015 4:11 PM  

"Matthew 5:43-44: You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..."


This verse has nothing to do with whether you should let a viper into your church or your company or your circle of friends. Our enemy is not other humans but the spirits influencing those humans. What does love mean when someone you love is doing something unrighteous, something sinful? It means telling them straight up what they are doing and that it is wrong. You do this to get them to repent so they will keep their salvation. Why do you think Jesus confronted the Jewish leaders so vehemently? He wanted them to repent. How do you get someone to repent unless they realize they are sinning?



"1 Peter 3:15: ...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..."

This verse is simply about sharing the Gospel. If someone asks you why you think you are saved then you tell them. They asked the question. Give the answer. They wouldn't have asked unless they really wanted an answer, regardless of their countenance when they asked. Remember, unbelievers are still slaves to sin, many of the things they do they cannot control. The spirits riding them insure it.



"Romans 12:19-21: Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."


Telling someone they are full of shit, a liar, a self deceiver, a sinner, whiny, selfish, or a coward is not the same thing as a taking revenge. What did Jesus say about himself? He is the source of life, of living water. The words he spoke are spiritual food. All the words of God are such. They are truth. Now read Romans 12:19 again.

Blogger Rabbi B February 25, 2015 4:22 PM  

"ISIS has the same moral high ground that we do . . ."

However, that does not mean that their (ISIS) high ground is morally equivalent to ours . . .


Anonymous DT February 25, 2015 4:33 PM  

Free speech is all fun and games until a strong, independent womyn feels shamed or threatened.

Anonymous Stilicho February 25, 2015 4:33 PM  

However, that does not mean that their (ISIS) high ground is morally equivalent to ours . . .

Yep. That's also a mistake made by many proponents of 4GW. What works to achieve a victory on the moral level on your home front often isn't the same as what's needed to achieve a victory on the moral level on the enemy's home front or on the home front of non-belligerents. If opposing sides do not share enough of a culture, an act by your forces that helps you may also help your enemy even more by convincing his supporters of the essential "morality" of his cause. The British route to success in Northern Ireland would not have been possible without sufficient cultural commonality.

Blogger bob k. mando February 25, 2015 4:37 PM  

Rabbi B February 25, 2015 4:22 PM
However, that does not mean that their (ISIS) high ground is morally equivalent to ours . . .



of course not.

their high ground is built on the skulls and burnt bodies of their victims.

however, THEY are still working towards something.

and they're making progress.

Blogger slarrow February 25, 2015 4:51 PM  

Athor Pel, SirHamster, Daniel, and bob k. mando: thanks for the replies so far. It's refreshing to see that my tentative answers to these challenges have been echoed in your replies. It makes me think I've got a rationale instead of a rationalization.

On "loving your enemies", I don't consider "love" to be the same as "nice" but something closer to "want what is best for another". Like Athor, I wouldn't think that someone committed to his sin or something darker ought to be allowed to win. It's not good for them or others. On "give an answer", I thought that allowed for a distinction between those asking in good faith v. bad faith. On "repay evil for good", I'm reminded of a Phil Robertson story where he caught people robbing his line when he was a professional fisherman. He let them know he caught them, what he could do to them...and then gave them the fish. To my mind, I see no problem in getting people to understand their sin and what they deserve, breaking them over it, and then treating them better than they deserve (phony recitations of Matthew 7:1 be hanged.)

But it's one thing to kind of noodle these on a drive home as hypotheticals. It can become much more important if/when the stakes are raised. I really don't bring these up in the context of shaming SJW types; that's basically swatting gnats. I'm more concerned about the possibility of things getting really serious, and there's not a lot of "Onward Christian Soldier" theology on the bookshelves that I know of. So seeing some echoes in your comments is heartening. I appreciate it.

Blogger CM February 25, 2015 4:57 PM  

Matthew 10:34: Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

This verse pretty much implies that even if you were nice about it, the enemy will hate you for what you believe. So why back down and water the truth? They will hate you regardless. Don't give in in the name of civility and politeness. Stand up and speak out without shame or apology.

Oddly, the word translated as sword here is actually the farming tool used to cut wheat in the fields... He came to divide the righteous from the unrighteous.

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 25, 2015 5:12 PM  

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nice

Excellent thread, ilk.

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 25, 2015 5:14 PM  

nice (adj.)

late 13c., "foolish, stupid, senseless," from Old French nice (12c.) "careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish," from Latin nescius "ignorant, unaware," literally "not-knowing," from ne- "not" (see un-) + stem of scire "to know"

(see science).

"The sense development has been extraordinary, even for an adj." [Weekley] -- from "timid" (pre-1300); to "fussy, fastidious" (late 14c.); to "dainty, delicate" (c.1400); to "precise, careful" (1500s, preserved in such terms as a nice distinction and nice and early); to "agreeable, delightful" (1769); to "kind, thoughtful" (1830).

If you're nice, you hate science.

Nice means "pretend you don't know."

Blogger bob k. mando February 25, 2015 5:18 PM  

CM February 25, 2015 4:57 PM
Oddly, the word translated as sword here is actually the farming tool used to cut wheat in the fields... He came to divide the righteous from the unrighteous.



a scythe?

still, a scythe does not separate the good ( wheat ) from the bad ( chaff ). that happens on the threshing floor.

Anonymous Culture War Draftee February 25, 2015 6:06 PM  

I expect a mix of rhetoric & dialectic, blazing scorn & polite disagreement, and an all-round toolbox of offensive tactics is the way to go. I like to undermine with relentless reasonableness, it's my schtick. I love watching a fisking, but I'm just not good at it.

The thing is, these are tactics. Strategically, the fundamental unity of the goal has to prevail. In other words, the good cop & the bad cop are working together.

One of the things I like about this blog & its commenters is that is a master class in ground-level ideological warfare.

Blogger Zimri February 25, 2015 7:20 PM  

Probably related: change.org wants us to stop cyber bullying.

Anonymous friendo February 25, 2015 8:18 PM  

"To win the moral war, we have to be the moral side of the conflict."

First post here, and I'm writing after the debate is over, but here goes nevertheless:

Joshua, just because there is a need to win the moral war, does not mean that there is a need to let the opposition choose the battlefield.

If a woman writes "ZOMG I get death threats, so disempowering, it's so hard to be in the public sphere", and you take these words seriously, then you've just let her pick the battlefield. Her concerns, no matter how kooky, are now legitimate. If you also believe that you have to be respectful of those concerns because there may be some real threats out there, then you're playing defense on your opponent's chosen battleground. Of course if you concede that internet death threats are a much bigger deal than they are, you are implicitly excluding some of your potential allies as beyond the pale. That's three victories for the opposition.

What other people here seem to be saying, and I would agree, is that there is no need to play the game that way. You can immediately go on offense, establish that internet death threats are not unique to SJW, and that SJWs demanding special treatment is basically acting like the damsel in distress instead of the roaring feminist. And they don't get to be both. This, also, can be said civilly.

Anonymous Noah B. February 25, 2015 8:56 PM  

"Probably related: change.org wants us to stop cyber bullying."

I'm guessing that cyber bulling in this context includes anything that could be considered offensive to a woman or minority but does not include drone strikes.

Blogger Danby February 25, 2015 9:51 PM  

@CM
... the enemy will hate you for WHO you believe in.

FIFY

Anonymous Noah B. February 25, 2015 10:12 PM  

"Oddly, the word translated as sword here is actually the farming tool used to cut wheat in the fields..."

Maybe this was done to indicate that this weapon completely outmatches anyone or anything that stands against it. Those who would stand against it are no greater obstacles than blades of straw are to the scythe.

Blogger dfordoom February 26, 2015 2:05 AM  

In other words, the moral war is about what is, not about what seems.

In a propaganda war what is doesn't matter. It's perceptions that matter. So you need to be forceful and you need to refuse to back down but you have to do those things in such a way that the SJWs look like the violent fanatics while your own side looks like the sensible reasonable people.

You have to remember that it's a waste of time trying to convert the SJWs. The people you have to reach are the ones who haven't really taken sides. Plus you have to reach he lukewarm conservatives, the ones who have vague conservative sympathies but often don't realise the extent to which they've bought into the PC line.

The only reason to bother debating an SJW is when there's an audience of those in-between people whom you might have a slight chance of convincing. And you will only do that if you appear to be sensible and reasonable so that the SJW comes across as the extremist nutjob. Let the SJW lose his/her/its temper but never lose your temper yourself. Once you show anger the SJW has won and those in-betweeners will join the SJW side.

Blogger Akulkis February 26, 2015 2:30 AM  

Joshua Dayal's female relatives aren't concern trolling

JOSHUA IS CONCERN TROLLING.

Joshua, cease and desist, or drop dead, you ignorant pile of pus.

Anonymous Scintan February 26, 2015 3:04 AM  

To win the moral war, we have to be the moral side of the conflict.

No.

OpenID bc64a9f8-765e-11e3-8683-000bcdcb2996 February 26, 2015 4:11 AM  

"...particularly noxious fart in an elevator."?
I guess you mean someone ELSE'S particularly noxious fart in an elevator.?

CaptDMO

Anonymous FrankNorman February 26, 2015 6:07 AM  

I get the impression some people are arguing: "The SJW's are going to accuse you of making death-threats whether you do or not, so you might as well actually make some".

Bad idea. It would give credence to all the fake claims they make.

Blogger Desiderius February 26, 2015 7:38 AM  

More than conquerors, not less.

When you return good faith for bad, what the onlooker sees is not strength and forbearance but weakness, spergy cluelessness, or sheltered ignorance (taqiyyologist's pretense of not knowing). Which it is doesn't matter, the strong horse is clear.

Anonymous Proving Joshua's point... February 26, 2015 8:19 AM  

FART RAPE

That is all.

OpenID cailcorishev February 26, 2015 9:45 AM  

I get the impression some people are arguing: "The SJW's are going to accuse you of making death-threats whether you do or not, so you might as well actually make some".

You're incorrect. We're saying there will be death threats. Everyone in the public eye gets death threats, because there are crazy and goofy people out there with time on their hands and Internet access. And if some SJW is so unknown that he hasn't gotten any yet, he will simply invent some, and there usually will be no way to tell if they're real.

So there will be death threats. How much credence anyone gives them is up to him, and it's your choice whether to allow them credence in your arguments. Whether or not you personally send death threats has no effect on anything except perhaps your target's feelings and how you feel about yourself.

I'm not saying you should send death threats. I'm saying it's irrelevant to the larger scheme of whether our arguments are given credence.

Anonymous Gracielou February 26, 2015 1:23 PM  

To get back to the, "After all, they are just little girls," Again, it's been my observation that the 'tomboy' or the girl who strives to be boyish is in fact, very often, a weak girl. She is the girl equivalent of a sissy boy and I really wish people would stop encouraging this in their daughters (fathers, if you are doing this--stop!). Some girls are naturally tough, which is not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the girl who isn't making it as a girl, who is weak, who instead of fixing those weaknesses, cloaks herself in masculinity for protection/respect/revenge and is encouraged to do so. That's one reason for this sham of simpering, passive-aggressive shemales.

My ex-husband worked in the aerospace field. One day, I think this was in the early or mid 90's he came home ranting that one of the career shams got a co-worker fired. This Female Engineer, had been working with a black male engineer who for reasons known only to gammas, decided to give her a chocolate penis for Valentine's Day. "That's hilarious!" the minute I heard it, I started to savor the comedy gold which could have been mine if only a black male co-worker had gifted me with a chocolate penis, but no, this Female Engineer had to discuss the incident with her hag 'mentor' who told her to report it and have him fired. The company was in a tizzy because at the time race trumped sex. I believe they fired him, then re-hired him in another division. Anyway I just couldn't believe it, "This was an adult woman who did this--as in full-grown?" All the gritty women I'd ever known would have bit the thing in half and laughed it off. If the man had a crush, he would have got the message, and maybe saved face. But what did I know, JUST being a housewife, free from the bitter torment of penis envy. And OH, to have that envy thrown in one's face, killing one softly with chocolate!

And for the record, the fork and dongle jokes; I thought they were funny.

Anonymous Stilicho February 26, 2015 4:02 PM  

@Gracielou, feminism is, first, last and at all points in between, a war on femininity.

Anonymous Gracielou February 26, 2015 5:07 PM  

Agreed, Stilicho. As for 'feminists', "Femininity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." (props to Chesterton).

Blogger Rick Caird February 26, 2015 9:13 PM  

This is the classic example of people who "can dish it out, but can't take it".

OpenID vanir85 February 27, 2015 10:59 AM  

Death threats, rape threats, doxxing, swatting, etc. This is the harassment you try to paint as just "free speech" - what is going on is vile, and what of it isn't a felony, should be.

Whatever "civilization" you think such behavior represents, be it actual western civ, or some of the dystopian nightmares you long for - that civilization SHOULD be brought down - because the world would be better off without it.

Blogger Deborah Kerr February 27, 2015 11:47 AM  

Wrong. It doesn't work. But instead of trying to bully, threaten and shame women into silence why don't you guys actually DO something to help men and boys? For you see you wouldnt have to resort to playground BS if you had a track record of doing positive things for the men. It's that simple.

Blogger Deborah Kerr February 27, 2015 11:48 AM  

Oh wow you got us there. NOT! Re-read your post and yiu will see how childish and non-productive you sound.

Blogger Deborah Kerr February 27, 2015 11:53 AM  

Ummm no. You're creating more feminists with your nasty approach. So if that's what you want keep it up. Continue to debase yourself and your argument is sure to fall on deaf ears.

Blogger Akulkis February 27, 2015 9:24 PM  

This isn't about feminism, Deborah, it's about SJW's. Feminism is merely a tactic used by SJWs.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts