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

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Interview with the devil

John Brown rather commendably decided that he should learn exactly what I thought about various issues before leaping to any conclusions or judgments about me, and asked me a number of questions on some controversial subjects:
I just had a conversation with the devil.

Well, from what people have been posting, he seemed like the devil. But I know how the internet can be. Mitt Romney at one time was the devil. Now, I think he’s been degraded in those quarters to janitor of the hot place. Yeah, that one Romney who is out raising tons of money to help fix blindness among the poorest of the poor, that evil son-of-a-gun.

So when I saw there was a new head honcho in town, I decided to see what he was all about.

I did try reading various posts on the internet, but after a dozen or so of those, I realized it would just be easier to go to the source. And so I went to Vox Day’s website and clicked the contact link, which popped up an email.

I asked Day if he’d mind answering a few questions.

He agreed.

What you will read below is our conversation, arranged for easy reading.

Why am I doing this?

Well, who doesn’t want to scoop the devil? But beyond that, I agree with George R. R. Martin: internet conversations that are not moderated to maintain a tone of respectful disagreement are a bane upon us all. Actually, Martin said they were part of the devil’s alimentary canal, but I didn’t want to confuse the topic.

So I’d read a number of posts that Day had made and others folks had made about Day and saw all the bad juju going back and forth. And I wanted to know what this guy actually believed. Once I understood that, if I disagreed, then I could disagree in a way that I think is actually productive.

We talked about some of his views on two subjects—race and women. Are his ideas provocative? Well, you need to know what they are before you decide.
I thought he was mostly fair, if lamentably inclined to harbor some strong opinions about things he admitted to knowing nothing about. I did find it mildly amusing that my position of support for women voting in universal direct democracy is somehow taken to be more limiting of the electorate than a mere disagreement over where the precise line of the restrictions inherent in so-called representative democracy are best drawn.

As for his points about the rhetoric of offense, this bit actually made me laugh:

Offense closes both parties off to challenges, biases, and ideas. It closes them off to new information. And new information is such an integral part of learning.

That sounds nice and all, but I have a one-word rebuttal: Aristotle. As the readers here know, Mr. Brown's point concerning how my rhetoric "dramatically undermines his ability to get others to consider his ideas, let alone believe them" does little more than inform us of his level of communication. And as you can see, while I provided him with the requested information, it did not change his mind. This is no surprise.

Labels: ,

238 Comments:

1 – 200 of 238 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Lulabelle April 15, 2015 8:17 AM  

John Brown - "You feel it’s important to examine and conduct science without regard to political correctness. "

Here in the country, we have a saying for obvious conclusions: No Shit, Sherlock.

Is it even science if it's tempered with political correctness?
*shakes head*

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo April 15, 2015 8:25 AM  

The interview was interesting, but I would note that democracy means little more than rule by the majority, which necessarily means that minorities can and will be sacrificed at will.

Hence my distaste for democracy when compared to a republic.

With regards to women, what it suggests to me isn't so much that women are incapable of being rational when they vote, but rather the fact that women didn't have to pay any price for the privilege of voting, and thus came to take it less seriously than they should. The female anti-suffragettes of the early 1900s would tend to agree with that, I think.

Of course they also knew that women in power tend to become moody bitches. Which is why so many women prefer male bosses, even with the potential threat of sexual harassment from said male boss.

None of this detracts from your point exactly, admittedly. The effect is the same.

I can't comment about Africa, except to note that there are in fact white populations that do exactly what you are describing; that is, they have a short time-horizon and a low level of self-control. They tend fill our trailer parks here in the states.

Given that Southeast Asian nations have tended to be poorer in the 20th century compared to East Asians, do you think the malnutrition that tends to follow from poverty might have anything to do with the observed IQ differences?

I would definitely agree with the cultural change bit, though. Building a civilization involves a huge amount of cultural destruction. That which must be destroyed are the harmful aspects of the old culture, of course, but without mass rejection of the tribal culture, Africa is unlikely to develop much as a continent. And the nations that ARE doing relatively well are exclusively former colonies. Which suggests they have a head-start on the rejection of tribalism.

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 8:30 AM  

What do y'all think about tying direct democracy to appropriations?

For example, the motion is to spend x dollars on project y. However, if the motion passes, the money for the project is taken only from those who voted for it. Do you want it, you pay for it.

Anonymous daddynichol April 15, 2015 8:32 AM  

Immediately Brown aligns Vox (and Romney) with the devil, but Martin as the voice of reason in all the internet brouhaha. Not by accident, either. Will he do the same with the other prominent players in this throw-down? I think not.

Brown comes off as a concerned journalist while clinging to his previous position regardless of the clear evidence to the contrary.

Anonymous daddynichol April 15, 2015 8:33 AM  

Should have written, " ...the same with the other prominent opposition players..."

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 8:34 AM  

Immediately Brown aligns Vox (and Romney) with the devil

Pretty sure that was tongue in cheek.

Brown comes off as a concerned journalist while clinging to his previous position regardless of the clear evidence to the contrary.

So what? That was an excellent interview. He asked questions, asked appropriate follow up questions, and let vox answer.

An interview is not a debate.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 8:36 AM  

"Immediately Brown aligns Vox (and Romney) with the devil, but Martin as the voice of reason in all the internet brouhaha"

ummm... you miss read the first paragraph. He's calling romney the devil sarcastically... noting that Romney wasn't anything close to the devil the left made him out to be.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 8:39 AM  

" And as you can see, while I provided him with the requested information, it did not change his mind. This is no surprise."

But it did change his mind. It seems to me he went expecting to find one thing... found something quite different... and to some large extent accepted it.





Anonymous Daniel April 15, 2015 8:40 AM  

John did a nice job, but he also demonstrated why it is important - for the sake of the interviewer - to leave editorializing the interview out of it. The subject is unaffected by the footnotes, but the interviewer runs the risk of trading his appearance of objectivity and reason for coming in second intellectually. If the objective is to listen, anything more is god-watching.

tl;dr Interview quite good. Footnotes unnecessary.

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 15, 2015 8:41 AM  

To address one of Brown's conclusions--the correlation between education for women and lack of fertility is interesting, but does not imply causality.

A healthy society should culturally encourage everyone--women and men--to value intellectual accomplishment, knowledge and curiosity for its own sake. Our society usually says education when what we really mean is "career path." Education isn't pursued for its own sake, it's perceived as a means to an end, and women who pursue education have been indoctrinated with the notion that its so that they can have a career and not be a mother.

However, take away this key feminist element, pair education with "motherhood path" rather than "career path" and the correlation between education and low fertility would dry up. As Brown suggest, certain subcultures within Western civilization, Mormons in general being one, have done so successfully.

Blogger benedictsanctus April 15, 2015 8:43 AM  

Read the whole interview. In regards to selecting who should be able to vote in a representative democracy, I was wondering what you thought of men who are married with children? And that is only in regards to an intact family; you get divorced, you lose the privilege to vote. I initially thought, along that vein, that no-fault divorce would need to be done away with, but then I think it could be a useful mechanism to weed out men who make poor decisions.

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 8:45 AM  

Even though Mormon women are both educated and fertile, don't most of them marry while they're in college?

Blogger Salt April 15, 2015 8:48 AM  

Mormon women have, as a group, much more education than the average female in the United States AND they have more babies. Lots more. I don’t think it’s education per se. I think it’s the values and beliefs some education fosters.

That's not unreasonable. Feminism has had a harder time working its way into the Mormon community. One thing about Mormons, how do women fit into the hierarchy as to voting?

Anonymous Steve April 15, 2015 8:52 AM  

Modern democracy is bollocks.

We venerate it to an absurd degree, but it's just a method for choosing a government. And one that is declining in its effectiveness, since in most Western democracies elections are a Hobson's choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledumber.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and 20th century style representative democracy has given us, in no particular order:

* Bankrupt welfare states that no politician dares try to fix, or even honestly discuss
* Demographic disaster
* Hitler
* Feminist foreign policies
* A crushing burden of taxation that any healthy society before about 1914 would have revolted against
* Millions of useless public sector jobs, paid for by taxing productive people
* Wars

How is that better than, say, monarchy? No king in history would have dared to confiscate half of his subjects' incomes. He'd have faced a peasant's revolt - if his own nobles didn't stick him somewhere painful with a red hot poker first.

I liked Robert Heinlein's idea for franchise reform in 'Starship Troopers'.

Anonymous daddynichol April 15, 2015 8:54 AM  

I did read the interview to completion including the part that he admitted Vox is not the devil, but my point is why was it necessary to do so? I'll grant you that he wants to hook the reader right off the bat, but I just disagree with how it was accomplished. Otherwise, I agree that his interview was pretty good.

I also posted on John's blog that he missed the opportunity to ask why Vox feels the need to use the rhetorical approach so often.

I admit that John's observations of Vox's positions were done well, but still misses the point for the most part.

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 15, 2015 8:57 AM  

Even though Mormon women are both educated and fertile, don't most of them marry while they're in college?

As near as I can tell, the main purpose of college to most Mormons is to get married. This is especially true for Mormon women, who don't mind joking about going to BYU to get their MRS degree in the least.

One thing about Mormons, how do women fit into the hierarchy as to voting?

Voting on what? Nothing in Mormon hierarchy is decided democratically. It's ratified by the body of the church, but that ratification is a formality, not a decision point of anything.

Blogger Student in Blue April 15, 2015 8:58 AM  

I did read the interview to completion including the part that he admitted Vox is not the devil, but my point is why was it necessary to do so?

Because pretty much everywhere else, that is what they believe Vox to be. By aligning his assumptions with the audience he's writing for, he writes his interview in a way they will find more believable.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2015 April 15, 2015 9:00 AM  

Truth is not a consensus decision. It's impervious to opinions benign or antagonistic to it. All science is epistemology.
Stupefied by relativism is a deep wound, and most people are bleeding badly. Theology wins.

Anonymous Old Man in a Villa April 15, 2015 9:00 AM  

There's no such thing as bad press.

Nice job.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 9:01 AM  

"I did read the interview to completion including the part that he admitted Vox is not the devil, but my point is why was it necessary to do so?"

He didn't call Vox the Devil. He acknowledge that Vox is the current version of the Devil on the left Internet's perception.

He used Romney to skewer that strawman... then concluded that Vox was not in fact the Devil.

Blogger Maryland Bear April 15, 2015 9:01 AM  

Ten minutes of reading the comments here, and I want to vomit.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 9:04 AM  

"Ten minutes of reading the comments here, and I want to vomit. "

We keep a fainting couch in the back... and there is a cry room down the hall for people who can't keep their emotions in check like adults.

Feel free.

Blogger Vox April 15, 2015 9:07 AM  

This is not a post about Mormon theology. Don't derail like that.

Blogger Maryland Bear April 15, 2015 9:07 AM  

"We keep a fainting couch in the back... and there is a cry room down the hall for people who can't keep their emotions in check like adults."

I'm not the one who wants to ruin the Hugo awards because I couldn't handle coming in sixth out of a field of five.

Nor am I the one who hates women because of severe mommy/daddy issues.

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 9:09 AM  

Sorry, that was in jest.

Anonymous JI April 15, 2015 9:12 AM  

You don't look happy in the photo in that article, Vox. The devil should be smiling as he wants people to think he's their friend.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 9:12 AM  

"I'm not the one who wants to ruin the Hugo awards because I couldn't handle coming in sixth out of a field of five."

***chuckle***

he didn't start rabid puppies because he came in 6th of 5. He did it because he was falsely accused of gaming the 2014 Hugos to get nominated. He didn't. And to prove he didn't... he gamed the 2015 hugos... just so you'd know what it looks like when he does game something.

"Nor am I the one who hates women because of severe mommy/daddy issues. "

You're right of course... you're just someone who can't read.

Blogger Guitar Man April 15, 2015 9:12 AM  

Maryland Bear, give it a rest. And most of us grew up with good mommies and daddies, unlike your typical fat gamma male author.

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 9:13 AM  

Hey BigGaySteve, I think Maryland Bear had a crush on you...

Blogger Student in Blue April 15, 2015 9:13 AM  

@Maryland Bear

And just what do you think you'll accomplish here, little one? What defamations will you cry that haven't been wrung out already?

All you're here for is to make yourself feel better. You know it, we know it. You want your fix of drama, of outrage. You have no desire to actually fix things, you just want to wallow in the filth like the sow you are, inside and out.

Keep quiet. Grownups are talking.

Anonymous Cash April 15, 2015 9:16 AM  

@Josh

Other than all the MLM scams and other marketing scams? Yes.

OpenID cailcorishev April 15, 2015 9:17 AM  

I did read the interview to completion including the part that he admitted Vox is not the devil, but my point is why was it necessary to do so?

To soften the blow. He knows he's going to get hammered for saying anything positive at all about Vox, and even for "giving him a platform," so he needs to lighten the mood ahead of time with some humor.

Blogger Felix Bellator April 15, 2015 9:17 AM  

Maryland Bear, "Nor am I the one who hates women because of severe mommy/daddy issues."

Then why do you hate women?

Blogger The Original Hermit April 15, 2015 9:18 AM  

"The Rhetoric of Offense

Well, they’re bound to rile feathers. And Day sometimes seems to go out of his way to state them in a way he knows is offensive."

There are some people that can't be swayed by information. Some people will never dialogue in good faith. There is little point to making a pretense of civility when you know the other person is speaking with a forked tongue.
I'm not referring to Mr. Brown, he appears to be operating in good faith, I'm talking about GRRM, and Scalzi and Puppinette.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 9:19 AM  

"You don't look happy in the photo in that article, Vox. The devil should be smiling as he wants people to think he's their friend."

Also... that shirt doesn't really look very Armani to me. Vox... you need to up your 80s villian game.

Blogger Vox April 15, 2015 9:20 AM  

I'm not the one who wants to ruin the Hugo awards because I couldn't handle coming in sixth out of a field of five.

The Hugo Awards were already ruined when they started giving out Best Novel to mediocre crap like BLACKOUT and REDSHIRTS. We're not ruining them. We're fixing them.

Nor am I the one who hates women because of severe mommy/daddy issues.

I don't hate women at all. Why do you hate them?

Blogger Jourdan April 15, 2015 9:20 AM  

"Day
There are many articles on the Internet about DNA and IQ, I suggest you simply search them out and read a few. The data is conclusive, the rationale explaining the data is not.

Brown
I’m not sure I understand what you mean when you said the rationale explaining the data is not conclusive. What do you mean by that?"

I appreciate Brown's willingness to talk and engage in what is called a frank exchange of views where I work. Even so, this response to VD's clear as day answer doesn't speak well. Either he really didn't understand the quite easy to understand answer or he was pretending not to understand it so as to elicit something besides the answer. Neither speaks well of Brown.

That being said, if one closed off discussions or debate with the unintelligent or the un- or half-educated, one would lead a lonely existence in modern America.

Blogger Salt April 15, 2015 9:21 AM  

John, this took real courage on your part. You went to the lion’s den. You have touched the untouchable. - BT

Vox is feather, not dot.

And risked the wrath of many in the process.

Because, Aristotle?

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 9:22 AM  

Nor am I the one who hates women because of severe mommy/daddy issues.

So why do you hate women?

The humor in an old fat hairy gay guy accusing us normal folks of having mommy and daddy issues...

Blogger James Higham April 15, 2015 9:23 AM  

No need to even say - hang in there, do not budge, Vox.

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 9:24 AM  

Even so, this response to VD's clear as day answer doesn't speak well. Either he really didn't understand the quite easy to understand answer or he was pretending not to understand it so as to elicit something besides the answer. Neither speaks well of Brown.

That's reading into it too much.

Most likely, he never really thought much about it, which means he's like most people.

Blogger Jourdan April 15, 2015 9:26 AM  

Josh, your point is well-taken. I had not considered that, and it seems to me that your take is much more likely. (In short, I may need to get out more)

Blogger Shimshon April 15, 2015 9:26 AM  

My comment there is still waiting to be moderated (yet another reason why VP towers over other blogs - a very light touch on the comment rules).

No offense [Brad], but while commendable to seek actual dialog, John, by doing so, didn’t risk any sort of wrath by Vox or the Dread Ilk at all. However, the jury is still out on whether he will face the wrath of those who do believe Vox is the devil. Be prepared, John.

“What about corresponding bias within men?”

Please. While men do have their own biases, voting on the basis of perceived hotness is not one of them. And, if you were reading, you’d note that Vox even advocated that suffrage be restricted to a limited subset of men. Does that not sufficiently address your question?

Blogger Student in Blue April 15, 2015 9:30 AM  

However, the jury is still out on whether he will face the wrath of those who do believe Vox is the devil.

I'm fairly certain that's who Brad was referring to in the first place.

Blogger Guitar Man April 15, 2015 9:30 AM  

The first comment on John Brown's page is full of "disqualify, disqualify, DISQUALIFY!" Unless Vox's beliefs become mainstream enough, then that'll lead to tyranny according to Jake Kerr.

Anonymous Steve April 15, 2015 9:30 AM  

I'm not the one who wants to ruin the Hugo awards

ruin the Hugo awards

ruin the Hugo awards

Lol.

I don't want to ruin the Hugos either. They belong to me, and all the other members of Worldcon 2015.

Sing with me now as I strum on my guitar marked "this machine kills rabbits":

This con is your con
This con is my con
From the Best New Writer
To To-om Kratman
Worldcon was made for you and me

Blogger Student in Blue April 15, 2015 9:35 AM  

The first comment on John Brown's page is full of "disqualify, disqualify, DISQUALIFY!"

Eh. Usually "Disqualify!" means an ad hominem fallacy. What Jake Kerr did was assume that there wasn't more to the data points than what was brought up. It's short-sighted and assumes the other party is incompetent, sure, but that's not what I commonly see as the "Disqualify!" tactic.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 9:37 AM  

"What Jake Kerr did was assume that there wasn't more to the data points than what was brought up."

and he totally ignored Vox twice stating that he favored universal direct democracy.

Blogger The Original Hermit April 15, 2015 9:39 AM  

"I don't want to ruin the Hugos either. They belong to me, and all the other members of Worldcon 2015."

I am the leader of Worldcon, and so can you.

Think it will catch on?

Anonymous Athor Pel April 15, 2015 9:40 AM  

" benedictsanctus April 15, 2015 8:43 AM
...
And that is only in regards to an intact family; you get divorced, you lose the privilege to vote. I initially thought, along that vein, that no-fault divorce would need to be done away with, but then I think it could be a useful mechanism to weed out men who make poor decisions."



Did you think that up in between grunts while you were pinching out some turds this morning?

Because if you're going to base the franchise on whether or not a man believed a lie a woman told him then there won't be anyone voting, ever.

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 9:40 AM  

and he totally ignored Vox twice stating that he favored universal direct democracy.

Vox, could you expand on this, maybe in a separate post?

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 9:41 AM  

"What do you even do with that? You can't argue, you can't get mad, you can only laugh."

but Vox... we're reliably informed that you're a rage filled hate machine that is supper double plus mad all the time at everything.

Blogger Vox April 15, 2015 9:41 AM  

No need to even say - hang in there, do not budge, Vox.

I can honestly say the thought never even occurred to me. I will alter my position on a subject for one, and only one, reason: if someone provides new information that is more accurate and/or more reliable. A lot of people have said a lot of things, but precisely NO ONE has presented me with so much as a single new data point in all that time. To what would I change my mind even if I was so inclined? In what direction could I budge?

Thinking that I could be influenced by the rhetorical storm is like being concerned that I will change my mind because some dogs are barking outside or someone is making their case in Chinese. I can speak rhetorical, but I ascribe no informational value to incoming rhetoric except in how it informs me about the speaker.

My favorite was without question the response to the MAO-A promoters. But Napoleon! That still makes me laugh. If there is one thing the rhetorical don't understand about me, it is that I find them very, very funny. That's not some sort of superior pose, I mean it literally cracks me up when they come up with these bizarre connections that I never see coming. It's like someone saying "the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second" and someone else blurts out "well, what about Washington crossing the Delaware?"

What do you even do with that? You can't argue, you can't get mad, you can only laugh.

Anonymous Alexander April 15, 2015 9:49 AM  

I once did a graph of female political leader hotness. Suffice to say, Northern Europeans did not do particularly well. Cristina Fernandez versus Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton. No fucking contest, even more laughably lopsided a decade ago.

Merkel or Sigurðardóttir versus Tymoshenko.

In short, anglo beta and delta males will vote the hot cheerleader for prom queen, but that's more or less where it ends.

OpenID cailcorishev April 15, 2015 9:51 AM  

Most likely, he never really thought much about it, which means he's like most people.

Exactly. He's been told and believed his whole life that there IS no real data on IQ, that the whole thing is a racist sham being used to keep blacks out of NFL QB jobs or something. Now this guy confidently says the data is there and conclusive, and adds something about a rationale. What rationale? Ten seconds ago, he didn't know there was data, let alone any need for anyone to rationalize it. No surprise that he'd be confused.

Blogger S1AL April 15, 2015 9:51 AM  

Vox, when you talk about universal direct democracy, at what levels of government? All?

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 9:55 AM  

Also... that shirt doesn't really look very Armani to me. Vox... you need to up your 80s villian game.

Vox is the Christian Laetner of SFF

Blogger Vox April 15, 2015 9:56 AM  

Vox, when you talk about universal direct democracy, at what levels of government? All?

Yes. All.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian April 15, 2015 9:57 AM  

Perhaps this is the post that should be perma-linked on the sidebar for retards to quickly catch up on your views, as some have been asking in recent threads.

Blogger S1AL April 15, 2015 9:58 AM  

Interesting. Would you be willing to expand on your reasoning behind that in a future post? Otherwise, could you link me to a good explanation of the reasoning behind it?

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 9:58 AM  

"Yes. All."

chaos is a ladder...

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 9:59 AM  

Given that tax increases, bond issuances, and gay marriage generally fail on the ballot, how can anyone argue that the wisdom of the crowds might be preferable to the wisdom of judicial priests in black robes and the wisdom of teat sucking politicians?

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian April 15, 2015 9:59 AM  

Vox, when you talk about universal direct democracy, at what levels of government? All?

Why the h3ll not? It can't get anymore f'ed up than our betters, ie the politicians, have done so far.

I also like Josh's suggestion of if you vote for it, you pay for it. But I don't think that is as likely to pass.

Anonymous MrGreenMan April 15, 2015 9:59 AM  

"I can honestly say the thought never even occurred to me. I will alter my position on a subject for one, and only one, reason: if someone provides new information that is more accurate and/or more reliable. A lot of people have said a lot of things, but precisely NO ONE has presented me with so much as a single new data point in all that time. To what would I change my mind even if I was so inclined? In what direction could I budge?"

Vox is Luther!

Blogger Vox April 15, 2015 10:00 AM  

Would you be willing to expand on your reasoning behind that in a future post?

Certainly. But not today.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 10:01 AM  

" To what would I change my mind even if I was so inclined? In what direction could I budge?"

bringing up mormon girls fertility rate vs education was at least dialect.

Blogger S1AL April 15, 2015 10:01 AM  

Sweet. Thanks.

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 10:01 AM  

I also like Josh's suggestion of if you vote for it, you pay for it. But I don't think that is as likely to pass.

An addendum to that would also be that anyone who votes to go to war is immediately conscripted.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus April 15, 2015 10:03 AM  

Men do vote on the basis of perceived hotness, otherwise how did Cicciolina / The Honourable Ilona Staller get elected? The difference is, the kind of career that can be obtained this way is very modest. The appeal of the hotter man to women gives a political advantage that is not limited in this way. That is something one might want to think seriously about keeping in check.

Of course it's not worth addressing details like that in a quick and broad tour of one's views, even assuming Vox would agree with the paragraph above.

Blogger SarahsDaughter April 15, 2015 10:05 AM  

Why would someone who disagrees with you find it so important to tell you how you could be more influential (ie. not using rhetorical offence)? I don't agree that heeding the plea for you to change your tone would make your message more influential and am almost convinced those who oppose you know that. They beg for you to be nicer so people will stop paying attention to you.

Anonymous Viidad April 15, 2015 10:07 AM  

Nice work, Vox.

Blogger Jassi April 15, 2015 10:12 AM  

"Sure, the attacks might bring like-minded folks to his side. But, for the most part, it does not provide the ground in which insight grows."

You hear that Vox? You're not providing the ground in which insight grows. That is just EVIL.

"I think the most productive thing to do in reaction to his claim is to gauge whether you think it merits serious consideration. If it does, or if you’re curious, examine the evidence and report your results. If it doesn’t, just say you haven’t seen anything to suggest its worth looking into further."

So basically, you can, and people do, apply this same tactic with all subjects. 10's of thousands of black on white rapes going unreported? Well, I've simply never seen anything that suggests this is worth looking into. I mean, my FRIEND is black, and I've met good black people,too. Case dismissed. No further inquiry needed, bigot.

Blogger Jourdan April 15, 2015 10:12 AM  

On the "women vote for the men they want to f@$!" issue:

Yesterday evening I was working with a fellow USG official, early 30-something woman. We had a video of the President's remarks at the Summit of the Americas going on one computer as it is relevant to our jobs.

She looks at me and says, dreamily, "I have such a crush on the President."

Anonymous DissidentRight April 15, 2015 10:16 AM  

And as you can see, while I provided him with the requested information, it did not change his mind. This is no surprise.

Come on Vox, we are not all as intelligent as you. It took me months to change my mind on racial IQ and women. That I am intrigued by hatefacts doesn't mean my brain is capable of resolving the data and dissonance within minutes--especially for these major issues where the opposing arguments aren't just tripe some SJW thought up on the spot.

There's a debate between Murray and Flynn on youtube that I must have listened to at least three times. Flynn is not an SJW.

Blogger Markku April 15, 2015 10:17 AM  

Why would someone who disagrees with you find it so important to tell you how you could be more influential

It's doubly funny because not only does the advice not make sense from its own standpoint, but Vox also doesn't want to be influential. He just wants entertainment after working hours.

Anonymous karsten April 15, 2015 10:22 AM  

"Why would someone who disagrees with you find it so important to tell you how you could be more influential (ie. not using rhetorical offence)? I don't agree that heeding the plea for you to change your tone would make your message more influential and am almost convinced those who oppose you know that. They beg for you to be nicer so people will stop paying attention to you. "

Yes, exactly. More concern trolling.

It reminds me of a funny bit from the film LIAR, LIAR. Jim Carrey plays a lawyer who is magically forced to tell the truth. After his courtroom opponent introduces an effective argument against him, Carrey says:

JIM CARREY: I object!

JUDGE: On what grounds?

JIM CARREY: Because it's devastating to my case.

Funny stuff, but it neatly exposes what's really in the mind of concern trolls who tell their opponents to moderate their ideas, or their delivery, "for their own good," as they claim. "Stop winning," or "Stop fighting so effectively," is what they really mean.

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 15, 2015 10:22 AM  

I appreciate Brown's willingness to talk and engage in what is called a frank exchange of views where I work. Even so, this response to VD's clear as day answer doesn't speak well. Either he really didn't understand the quite easy to understand answer or he was pretending not to understand it so as to elicit something besides the answer. Neither speaks well of Brown.

It's also a common journalistic tactic--and in this I don't mean to be sounding a dog-whistle about the failings of journalism; I'm actually talking about actual, good, journalism--to ask follow-up question about responses with which the journalist feels that his audience will struggle to understand. This doesn't imply anything at all about the interviewer except that he's professional and possibly even insightful.

Not that I know jack squat about Brown. I think I have one of his books on my Kindle because it was free that day or something, but I haven't read it yet. I do object to the notion that this speaks poorly of him, though.

Blogger SarahsDaughter April 15, 2015 10:23 AM  

Markku, that must be very frustrating for them. They spend so much time and effort on their rightthink campaigns and here this punk draws the attention of thousands with his hobby.

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 15, 2015 10:26 AM  

Funny stuff, but it neatly exposes what's really in the mind of concern trolls who tell their opponents to moderate their ideas, or their delivery, "for their own good," as they claim. "Stop winning," or "Stop fighting so effectively," is what they really mean.

Sometimes concern trolls aren't really trolling. They've been so indoctrinated that they accept as a truism that being nice and accommodating is actually useful. It's hard to wrap your brain around the depth of the deceit of SJWs at first, if you haven't already been exposed to it for some time. They also don't accept the premise of an existential no-holds barred struggle between men and rabbits, because they've been indoctrinated into the premises of honorable, worthy debate and the triumph of the best ideas, etc.

Anonymous Ajax April 15, 2015 10:27 AM  

How do you envision legislation being intoduced in a direct democracy?

Anonymous Ashterah April 15, 2015 10:27 AM  

I enjoyed your answering these questions. As a female, I suppose I am supposed to shriek and beat you about the head and shoulders because you don't want me to vote. However, your reasoning for not wanting it is exactly my own f*cking frustration with the vast majority of my sex. So, I cannot tar and feather you as I am supposed to. I suppose the SJWs will come and take away my female card now....

As it stands, I understand that you are Spock, and you are trying to make people understand that you are Spock and look at things in a Spock-like logical manner no matter your emotions about it and they are Bones who has no concept how you can be Spock-like because feelings. Correct?

Blogger Markku April 15, 2015 10:27 AM  

Now this is just silly: The only way that Beale’s opinions are not anti-Libertarian is if you believe that those you are forcing by violence to not vote or have fewer rights (ostensibly women and Blacks) do not deserve individual liberty.

We don't have to force them to anything by violence. If they want to scribble numbers on papers, have at it. We simply don't count the votes. No violence necessary.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 10:28 AM  

' They spend so much time and effort on their rightthink campaigns and here this punk draws the attention of thousands with his hobby."

I dare say its much more frustrating for the Right. The right looks at him and knows what he could be if he only bothered to even try.

But the right no more understands him than the left.

He can't try. Its beyond his capacity to try. its like lamenting that Usain Bolt wont go win gold medals in the special olympics.

Blogger Matt April 15, 2015 10:29 AM  

Hath the Devil a lithp?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus April 15, 2015 10:30 AM  

Alexander: "In short, anglo beta and delta males will vote the hot cheerleader for prom queen, but that's more or less where it ends."

The Australian Democrats did reasonably well for a long time as a female dominated minor party. It had decent-looking leaders such as Janine Haines, Cheryl Kernot and Natasha Stott Despoja.

However, Cheryl Kernot (the one that chose to dress up as a prostitute) provided the party with a serious downward inflection. While the leader of the party, she had a five-year secret affair with Gareth Evans, a senior minister in the more left wing of the two major parties, the Labor Party. While this was going on, members of the Australian Democrats were puzzled why the party (which had started as a moderate split-off from the more conservative major party) was shifting left, and left, and left, but with no clear direction or rationale. Eventually she ditched her own party joined his, precipitating a series of crises for the party, which greatly damaged it.

Ever since then I have doubted that female political leadership is an unalloyed good.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 10:35 AM  

"Alexander: "In short, anglo beta and delta males will vote the hot cheerleader for prom queen, but that's more or less where it ends."

One must wonder if y'all realize that you just described the vast majority of the male population.

Blogger Bogey April 15, 2015 10:36 AM  

Still not sure why women voted for Obama over Romney if attractiveness was paramount to them.

Blogger Matt April 15, 2015 10:36 AM  

That was probably the best offsite exchange youve had.

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 10:37 AM  

Still not sure why women voted for Obama over Romney if attractiveness was paramount to them.

I'm not sure many non Mormon women want to bang Romney.

Lots of women wanted to bang Obama.

Anonymous reader April 15, 2015 10:38 AM  

From comments at the link:

"Well, I can’t speculate why all of Beale’s interpretations of incomplete data on complex subjects tends to lean toward a male-dominant, Western-centric bias, but as the bias I presume mirrors Beale’s own background, my best guess is that it is based on a cultural preference for his own “kind,” as it were. "

"The impact is ultimately seen in the adoption of such thought. As it is now, Beale is considered a fringe crank. His only real exposure is via the relatively irrelevant politics of SF fandom. I mean, seriously, the Hugo debacle didn’t even make it to the front page of Reddit. So Beale’s kind of harmless. Like a minor league David Duke.

But, for the sake of a thought experiment, let’s assume that Beale becomes a thought leader or he rallies others to be his vanguard using less “give offense” language (to use your phrase).

Then we have a situation where his flawed logic leads to true horror. Women lose the right to vote, which would elevate communal good (as seen by his peers) over individual liberty. I could do a similar rundown of his other biased interpretations of incomplete data, but the common thread here is that Beale is a Libertarian’s nightmare. Individual liberty subsumed for a nationalist agenda."

Blogger Matt April 15, 2015 10:38 AM  

Romney was portrayed as an uptight geek in strange underwear and Obama was their smooth jazz just black enough leftist dreamboat. Rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric

Rhetoric rhetoric developer developers developers developers

Anonymous Randy M April 15, 2015 10:39 AM  

"One must wonder if y'all realize that you just described the vast majority of the male population."

His point was they will vote attractiveness for the (irrelevant) position of prom queen, but not for mayor, or senator, or president.

Frankly, the age requirement for president pretty much rules that one out in any event.

Anonymous Ashterah April 15, 2015 10:40 AM  

Lots of women wanted to bang Obama.

Lots of women are delusional in the head.

Anonymous Alexander April 15, 2015 10:41 AM  

Nate,

Yes, I realize that. I believe that the vast majority of men won't be swayed to vote a hot woman into a high position of power based on that fact, and so the arguments claiming that men and women are the same in this regard is false.

Blogger Nikis-Knight April 15, 2015 10:43 AM  

Why are my comments as "Randy M" being deleted?

Blogger Markku April 15, 2015 10:47 AM  

Randy, there was a very large number of comments in the spam folder. I un-spammed them all. Probably it just happened that none of us whose responsibility it is, were watching it.

As for how they ended up there, well, you'll have to ask Google.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan April 15, 2015 10:47 AM  

Good job you didn't tailgate or become defensive and any neutral was directed towards more in depth sources

Anonymous Stilicho April 15, 2015 10:48 AM  

Vox, could you expand on this, maybe in a separate post?

Yes. That would be an interesting discussion. On the con side we have MPAI along with the fetishization of democracy and universal suffrage. On the pro side we have evidence of the referenda Josh mentioned showing better decision making/policy making than that produced by representative democracy and judicial fiat and the ability of small groups/special interests to unduly influence representatives to act against the interests of the majority of the citizens.

Josh's idea of vote for it/pay for it is intriguing as well. I suspect people would vote for all sorts of nonsense at first blush, then become far, far more conservative in their spending desires after they received the bill for their initial enthusiasms. Against this is balanced the tragedy of the commons, but I also suspect that the practical result is that the "commons" would be restricted to things that a majority believe to be essential. It would be interesting to try it on a local level and see what happens.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian April 15, 2015 10:53 AM  

How do you envision legislation being intoduced in a direct democracy?

This could be the only purpose for the elected congress/senate(appointed preferably).

Their job would be to listen to there constituents as to what should be introduced/done.

Just a thought.

Anonymous Alexander April 15, 2015 10:53 AM  

Vox has always come down on approving of the way the Swiss people have avoided the EU by the nature of their government (ie, the government not being allowed to simply do what it wants to do, due to forced referendums). So I am curious if Vox has the Swiss model in mind, or whether it goes beyond that.

Blogger The Deuce April 15, 2015 10:53 AM  

One thought: Neanderthals were less intelligent than modern humans, and we have no certain evidence they were capable of symbolism and abstraction. They did have larger total cranial capacities though (likely dedicated to sense of smell), and hybridization not being predictable, I guess it's possible that hybridization between them and homo sapiens sapiens resulted in slightly higher intelligence than either.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus April 15, 2015 10:54 AM  

Robert Stacy McCain used to argue that Mitt Romney was a greatly superior Republican candidate to John McCain, based purely on Mitt's full head of hair and the female vote. I think that's right, even though it wasn't good enough against Barack Obama's racial head-count politics.

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 10:56 AM  

Robert Stacy McCain used to argue that Mitt Romney was a greatly superior Republican candidate to John McCain, based purely on Mitt's full head of hair and the female vote.

While mitt did have marvelous executive hair, Mormons aren't sexy.

Blogger Student in Blue April 15, 2015 10:57 AM  

Come on Vox, we are not all as intelligent as you. It took me months to change my mind on racial IQ and women. That I am intrigued by hatefacts doesn't mean my brain is capable of resolving the data and dissonance within minutes--especially for these major issues where the opposing arguments aren't just tripe some SJW thought up on the spot.

Agreed. It took me a long time to weigh the evidence and let go of old assumptions.

I also think our understanding of our sex and the opposite sex is fundamental to and intertwined in almost everything, so change in that understanding can be a monumental task. I mean, think about the psychosomatic symptoms a number of people get who find themselves getting red-pilled. It's like the entire world changed, from just a simple change in understanding of men and women.

Blogger Student in Blue April 15, 2015 11:00 AM  

@Stilicho
Yes. That would be an interesting discussion.

It would indeed. I would encourage you to contain your enthusiasm and have that discussion when the post comes out instead of right now however. :)

Blogger Marissa April 15, 2015 11:01 AM  

While mitt did have marvelous executive hair, Mormons aren't sexy.

It's true, Mormons are the Asians of white people, except nicer.

Blogger Matt April 15, 2015 11:01 AM  

I remember a few years ago Vox saying something aimilar to what he said in this interview about how corrupt representative government is and polls and election results show that most people dont actually agree with what our elected officials are doing.

If you shorten the number of connections, youll have less potential for failure. With direct democracy, we'll literally have no one to blame but ourselves.

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 11:02 AM  

It's true, Mormons are the Asians of white people, except nicer.

The uncanny valley.

Anonymous MrGreenMan April 15, 2015 11:07 AM  

@reader

I thought about answering that guy who has decided that thoughts he disagree with cannot be allowed to stand because he could imagine other made-up people doing bad things, and his idea that Vox has no audience he will not let go of - but, pearls before swine, pearls before swine. Mr. Brown over there was reasonable enough; his audience may not be fully capable of thought.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 11:09 AM  

". I believe that the vast majority of men won't be swayed to vote a hot woman into a high position of power based on that fact, and so the arguments claiming that men and women are the same in this regard is false."

Hillary's not hot so we aren't able to test this. Yet.

We need to run a smoking hot chick to see.

My guess is... she would do better than average in male voting patterns compared to the average candidate regardless of politics.

Meaning... democrats are shit with the male vote... but a hot chick democrat would do better with men than the average democrat.

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 11:11 AM  

Sarah Palin was very popular with republican voters.

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo April 15, 2015 11:11 AM  

How do you protect the rights (rights in the classical sense of life, liberty and property) of unpopular minorities in a direct democracy?

How do you stop the rise of the lynch mob?

I'm not claiming that our current system does perfectly in doing either of these, mind you. I'm asking what barriers, exactly, would stop a direct democracy - in the current culture - from being worse on those issues.

If the assumption is that we only have a culture of rational people - well, in that case ANY form of government would work okay.

If the assumption is that we have the culture of today, but have somehow limited the voting franchise only to rational people, how would you delimit the voting franchise so that only rational people could vote?

Anonymous Cheddarman April 15, 2015 11:13 AM  

"Neanderthals were less intelligent than modern humans, and we have no certain evidence they were capable of symbolism and abstraction."

Deuce, this is wrong and off topic.

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 11:14 AM  

How do you protect the rights (rights in the classical sense of life, liberty and property) of unpopular minorities in a direct democracy?

How do you stop the rise of the lynch mob?


Yeah, we're doing so well protecting the rights of Christians today...

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 11:15 AM  

"Sarah Palin was very popular with republican voters."

A hot chick republican would do murder in the male demographic.

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo April 15, 2015 11:15 AM  

@Josh "I'm not claiming that our current system does perfectly in doing either of these, mind you. I'm asking what barriers, exactly, would stop a direct democracy - in the current culture - from being worse on those issues."

I'm aware that our system is not doing a good job on that issue right now. But it USED to. And it was *less* of a direct democracy when it did, especially at the federal level.

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 11:18 AM  

I'm aware that our system is not doing a good job on that issue right now. But it USED to. And it was *less* of a direct democracy when it did, especially at the federal level.

Dude no one is saying that you wouldn't have inalienable rights in a direct democracy.

You could have still have limited government.

All you would be doing is changing who votes for bills.

Blogger The Deuce April 15, 2015 11:19 AM  

As for voting systems, I think representative democracy is best, but I would go in the opposite direction of trying to restrict the vote. History has shown that such restrictions tend to be whittled away over time by the voters themselves voting to expand the franchise. And each time it expands, the voters (who become less competent and informed with each expansion) become more amenable to expanding it further.

Instead, I would expand the franchise so that the head of household in each intact family could get an extra vote on behalf of each dependent under the voting age.

The result would be to swamp out all competing demographics with the demographic of stable family units that are actually reproducing the society and invested in its future.

It wouldn't have to exclude women or anyone else. Each family could choose which parent to designate as the head of household for voting purposes. Of course, large families will heavily lean conservative and will designate the father anyhow, but even where they don't, married women lean heavily conservative.

I expect a society with these voting rules would be far less prone to heaping debts onto its children, and hesitant to throw its resources at promoting single motherhood and so forth.

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo April 15, 2015 11:21 AM  

Okay then, how do you stop a mob from overturning those inalienable rights? In our system, getting a majority vote to overturn Constitutional provisions is actually pretty tough. Expanding the electorate without changing the culture first would make it easier to do so, not harder.

And if you change the culture first, expanding the electorate becomes unnecessary.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 11:21 AM  

y'all are thinking to hard about Vox's direct democracy point. It sounds to me like its just a matter of him thinking "well screw it we may as well try this and see how it fails. At least it will fail differently for a change... and that won't be as boring as the same old system failing the same old way all the time."

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 11:22 AM  

"But it USED to."

I'm not at all sure it did.

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo April 15, 2015 11:22 AM  

@The Deuce

So, weighted voting rights? That's not a bad idea, given that it would invest more political clout in those who have a vested interest in the survival of the system.

Anonymous Stilicho April 15, 2015 11:24 AM  

It would indeed. I would encourage you to contain your enthusiasm and have that discussion when the post comes out instead of right now however. :)

Meh. I'm merely laying out some points that should be considered and it's far more interesting than the discussion of executive hair, plus there really isn't anything left to discuss re: the Brown interview qua interview.

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo April 15, 2015 11:25 AM  

@Nate A fair number of Republicans - led by Goldwater - opposed the 1964 CRA on the grounds that it infringed private property rights. Those rights are the ones you need if you want to protect unpopular minorities, especially political minorities.

They failed, but the fact that federal-level politicians actually voted along those lines tells me that people used to care.

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 11:25 AM  

Expanding the electorate without changing the culture first would make it easier to do so, not harder.

Explain why taxes, gay marriage, etc fail on the ballot then.

Anonymous bw April 15, 2015 11:26 AM  

moderated to maintain a tone of respectful disagreement are a bane upon us all

No, it is a bane upon those that have always gone unchallenged and could never have had their way with others of their own accord and ability.
This is bullsh*t and Game to the max. It's only a bane to those who wish to maintain their bubble of Utopian fantasy, which of course, is always a future happening.
Translation: don't challenge us loudly or in a harsh manner and upset us or make us look bad and bring doubt upon our religious fundamentalism.
As if there is never anything to mock loudly and to get loud about. Hell, that is all they've done for 50 years, backed by TPTB for obvious reasons.
These liars want to make sure you don't believe you are in an actual cultural war for your soul and that of your children. They want you to lay down.

Anonymous Imnobody April 15, 2015 11:27 AM  

I have read the interview and well, I expected some other thing. It's well to shake up these PC tools but, in addition, I think it would have been useful to plant some doubts in them.

For example, about women's suffrage. You can say that female suffrage has produced an expansion of the State, as Freedomnomics proves beyond doubt. This is something undisputable. If you say that women vote who they would rather f***, you are easy to dismiss ("He is a mysoginist! Of course, women are not like that"). The PC person can go back to their equality dogma with no effort.

The same way with genetic crosses. The problem is not the explanation. The problem is that some populations have higher IQ than others. This is a fact, jack. No need to give them the safe excuse "Yes, but the fact that the intelligence is because of archaic humans is not proved science".

I enjoyed the panda reference, though. Clear, effective and undeniable.

Look, this comment is not meant to attack anybody. We are in the same ship and I admire you because of your fight with SJW. I'm only sad that a chance to plaint some doubt in the mind of the most lukewarm supporters of SJW has been wasted.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 11:29 AM  

"They failed, but the fact that federal-level politicians actually voted along those lines tells me that people used to care."

Since when does caring matter? I thought we were talking about results?

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 15, 2015 11:29 AM  

We need to run a smoking hot chick to see.

My guess is... she would do better than average in male voting patterns compared to the average candidate regardless of politics.

Meaning... democrats are shit with the male vote... but a hot chick democrat would do better with men than the average democrat.


Some limited data is available. Ashley Judd ain't bad looking, and her flirt with political candidacy was met with... not mush enthusiasm.

Anonymous Stilicho April 15, 2015 11:30 AM  

Those rights are the ones you need if you want to protect unpopular minorities, especially political minorities.

The CRA?

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 15, 2015 11:32 AM  

Civil Rights Act.

Blogger The Deuce April 15, 2015 11:32 AM  

Some limited data is available. Ashley Judd ain't bad looking, and her flirt with political candidacy was met with... not mush enthusiasm.

Wendy "Abortion Barbie" Davis was fairly attractive (as politicians go) and also went down in flames.

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo April 15, 2015 11:32 AM  

Private property rights. I thought that was obvious.

Anonymous Alexander April 15, 2015 11:34 AM  

The very fact that we haven't yet had the hot chick run so we can test the theory is a good chunk of the theory tested.

Sarah Palin is as close as we've gotten, and yes, I have no doubt that among her group, if she was a chubster she would lose support, all else being equal.

Doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of males aren't lining up to vote for her, nor are they going around trying to find the youngest, hottest girl who meets electoral office criteria and trying to throw her into the office, Warren G. Harding style.

Men feel no need to have someone they want to bang as their leader. Women do. And for European populations (ie. the part of the world where democratic rule has managed a few short gasps in its time), the Anglos appear to be the least likely to go for it.

Anonymous Stilicho April 15, 2015 11:34 AM  

Since when does caring matter?

Since "message: I care"?

Nah, it goes back to the Garden. Eve meant well, you see, and felt that eating the fruit was in her and Adam's best interest...

So, caring matters, but not in the way Leo meant it.

Blogger badwhite April 15, 2015 11:36 AM  

"A hot chick republican would do murder in the male demographic."

And would cause a mass exodus of women from the Republican side. Nobody hates a hot chick like other women after all.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 11:36 AM  

"Wendy "Abortion Barbie" Davis was fairly attractive (as politicians go) and also went down in flames."

Sometimes I forget that you people can be slow.

"Doing better with men than other democrats" does not mean "won." It doesn't even mean "did well".

break down the specific demographic numbers and see how these women did with men in general verses the average liberal democrat.

Anonymous Stilicho April 15, 2015 11:37 AM  

Private property rights. I thought that was obvious.

It was ambiguous as worded. "Those..rights" could have referred to either property rights or the "rights" protected by the CRA.

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo April 15, 2015 11:37 AM  

When I say "care", I meant "held to Constitutional principles". Happy now?

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 11:37 AM  

"And would cause a mass exodus of women from the Republican side. Nobody hates a hot chick like other women after all. "

which is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 11:38 AM  

"Happy now?"

No. Because what you try to do or what to do don't fucking matter. My point is what you DO... and what has been DONE.

And historically speaking... I see no evidence that these rights have ever been particularly well defended.

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 11:39 AM  

And historically speaking... I see no evidence that these rights have ever been particularly well defended.

Well damn it our brethren gave it a good shot in 1861.

Blogger Student in Blue April 15, 2015 11:40 AM  

@Nate
A hot chick republican would do murder in the male demographic.

If she had nothing further than being hot, I don't think so.

If she had the brains too? I think that's a fair shake.

I'm betting a lot of the hype for Palin was also out of the desire to just have a woman so that Repubs wouldn't be thought of as "sexist" and an "old boy's club" anymore... so I think if there was ever a race between a young, hot, but naïve thing vs an old, not hideous but sharp lady, not only would it be a lot more revealing towards whether it's voting for "who they'd like to fuck" or if it's just trying to avoid the nasty things being said about them.

I'd also bet the older lady would win that hypothetical race.

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 11:42 AM  

And would cause a mass exodus of women from the Republican side. Nobody hates a hot chick like other women after all.


Well there's a group of women that will hate that hot chick...and another group of women that wants to make out with her and play with her boobies.

Anonymous Alice Underground April 15, 2015 11:44 AM  

I heard a new one the other day, after the Hugo nominations came out and my social media exploded with anti-VD sentiment. Somebody whose research skills and intelligence I respect quoted you (VD) as saying that fat women shouldn't be allowed to breed (e.g. eugenics should be used on fat women). As this didn't sound right, I asked for a citation. This person could not find it and backed out of the discussion. But it added to the noise, didn't it? And I don't think she was lying--meaning, she really believes you to have said something similar.

Sometimes, I think I'm crazy that I believe I can sit and be an unbiased observer of the world and spot all the lies and see how people act like uncivilized idiots....and over a literary award, too. I know SJWs lie; I learned this as a child (by the same supposedly unbiased observations of the world). But SJWs are not simply to be found in the progressive camps. They are a type. Caused by genetics, maybe. Personalities, certainly. I get tired of all the noise. The interview was commendable, but it won't silence the noise.

Anonymous Giuseppe April 15, 2015 11:47 AM  

Titus,
Men do vote on the basis of perceived hotness, otherwise how did Cicciolina / The Honourable Ilona Staller get elected?

Sorry but on this you are 100% wrong. Like Vox I have lived most of my life in places where I could not vote. To vote for Cicciolina they had it so you had to be in Rome at the time if memory serves. Failing that she would have become President. And it would have been rhe ONLY time in my life I would have voted.

It had nothing to do with hwr "hotness" it had to do with the fact that an openly self admitted whore who has sucked horse cocks was and is perceived as being several magnitudes of degrees more honest, clean, and caring about the real issues than any Italian politician since Mussolini.

Anonymous Stilicho April 15, 2015 11:47 AM  


I'm betting a lot of the hype for Palin was also out of the desire to just have a woman so that Repubs wouldn't be thought of as "sexist" and an "old boy's club" anymore


I think more of it was due to the fact that McCain was so uninspiringly liberal that she looked like Pat Buchanan by comparison. That and the fact that she drove the left beyond batshit crazy.

Anonymous Huckleberry -- est. 1977 April 15, 2015 11:48 AM  

I think it would have been worth bringing up in the Women and Education response that the 10 years or so after college where women spend their remaining prime years of fertility shuffling papers from the IN box to the OUT box, animating Power Point presentations that no one needs to attend, and getting everyone else to do their difficult and thankless work for them has a major impact on the health and sustained viability of a society. Also, that the glut of new paper shufflers has severely distorted several aspects of the economy over the past few decades.
Not that it would have stymied his "But women have ideas!" retort, but it's a vital aspect to concern over the issue.

Blogger JDC April 15, 2015 11:51 AM  

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game

Vox's game is still puzzling them. What to do? Re Vox = Luther. I have (in my own mind) made this comparison before. At his funeral service, Melancthnon stated this about Luther, "The sickness of the age needed a harsh physician."

Blogger Maryland Bear April 15, 2015 11:52 AM  

Okay, Vox, you don't hate women. You just think they're completely inferior to you, because your mommy got your daddy sent to prison for tax fraud.

Anonymous joe doakes April 15, 2015 11:53 AM  

I was disappointed with the interviewer: he missed the point entirely.

Why is this guy hearing about Vox all over the internet right now? Because of Sad Puppies. And what is that all about? Prying open the Hugo door to other authors, not just the In Crowd who believe Vox is a hater therefore Vox mustn't win, regardless how well he writes.

I wish the interviewer had asked more questions: Why shouldn't the award-worthiness of an author's writing be judged on the political correctness of the author's beliefs? Why shouldn't the Hugo be restricted to Liberals and Lesbians?
.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet April 15, 2015 11:59 AM  

VD,

Do they not understand that it is not me with whom they are disagreeing, but reality?

So if you're capable of being wrong sometimes, as you've admitted, does that mean that Reality is capable of being wrong?

When do we know when we're disagreeing with Vox who can be wrong and Vox the representative of Reality?

These aren't a rhetorical questions.

Blogger Markku April 15, 2015 11:59 AM  

You just think they're completely inferior to you, because your mommy got your daddy sent to prison for tax fraud.

Vox is 46 years old according to a quick Googling, and the trial was about ten years ago.

This theory is so silly that you are clearly just talking out of your ass, hoping that his feelings are hurt by you mentioning Robert's imprisonment.

Anonymous DissidentRight April 15, 2015 12:00 PM  

Agreed. It took me a long time to weigh the evidence and let go of old assumptions.

I also think our understanding of our sex and the opposite sex is fundamental to and intertwined in almost everything, so change in that understanding can be a monumental task. I mean, think about the psychosomatic symptoms a number of people get who find themselves getting red-pilled. It's like the entire world changed, from just a simple change in understanding of men and women.


Yes, becoming a "racist" was much easier than becoming a "misogynist". Actually the latter really took me years. Accepting that women aren't as good at math, or have a tighter IQ distribution, was easy. Accepting that women don't value kindness and submission the way men do was hard. Very hard.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 12:02 PM  

"It had nothing to do with hwr "hotness" it had to do with the fact that an openly self admitted whore who has sucked horse cocks was and is perceived as being several magnitudes of degrees more honest, clean, and caring about the real issues than any Italian politician since Mussolini."

LOLZ.

giant LOLZ

Blogger Student in Blue April 15, 2015 12:02 PM  

I was disappointed with the interviewer: he missed the point entirely.

Considering the interviewer never brought it up in the first place, why should we put words in his mouth?

Maybe he agrees with Sad Puppies and wasn't personally interested in rehashing yet again why the Hugos are broken?

tl;dr, exegesis, not eisegesis.

Blogger Copperheaded April 15, 2015 12:03 PM  

Maryland Bear April 15, 2015 11:52 AM
Okay, Vox, you don't hate women. You just think they're completely inferior to you, because your mommy got your daddy sent to prison for tax fraud.


This guy is hilarious.

Blogger Nate April 15, 2015 12:04 PM  

"Okay, Vox, you don't hate women. You just think they're completely inferior to you, because your mommy got your daddy sent to prison for tax fraud. "

remember...

these are the people complaining about Vox's tone.

Blogger Maryland Bear April 15, 2015 12:13 PM  

"these are the people complaining about Vox's tone."

I've not said a word about the little shit's tone.

Blogger bob k. mando April 15, 2015 12:14 PM  

WhiteKnightLeo April 15, 2015 8:25 AM
except to note that there are in fact white populations that do exactly what you are describing; that is, they have a short time-horizon and a low level of self-control. They tend fill our trailer parks here in the states.



1 - regression to the mean
2 - and the percentage of whites who live in trailer parks compared to the general white population is?

it's almost like you don't grasp bell curves.


Josh April 15, 2015 8:30 AM
What do y'all think about tying direct democracy to appropriations?


oh come now, let's not be ridiculous.

without the ability to pay for pet projects with OTHER people's money ( Christians forced to pay for abortion, for one ), there's hardly any point in government.

:-3



The Deuce April 15, 2015 10:53 AM
Neanderthals were less intelligent than modern humans,



false to facts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/01/neanderthal-intelligence-modern-humans_n_5242765.html
""We found no data in support of the supposed technological, social and cognitive inferiority of Neanderthals compared to their modern human contemporaries," said Wil Roebroeks, an archaeologist at the Leiden University in the Netherlands.
...
The vision of primitive club-wielding brutes who in the end vanished when superior modern humans entered their world has been obsolete for a long time already,"




Salt April 15, 2015 8:48 AM
how do women fit into the hierarchy as to voting?


suffrage in Utah actually turns out to have a hilarious history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage
"The push to grant Utah women's suffrage was at least partially fueled by the belief that, given the right to vote, Utah women would dispose of polygamy. It was only after Utah women exercised their suffrage rights in favor of polygamy that the U.S. Congress disenfranchised Utah women."



Maryland Bear April 15, 2015 9:01 AM
Ten minutes of reading the comments here, and I want to vomit.
...
Nor am I the one who hates women because of severe mommy/daddy issues.


glad we could be of help with your diet plan.

so, when did YOU stop beating your mother?


Jourdan April 15, 2015 10:12 AM
On the "women vote for the men they want to f@$!" issue:


same with 'the beefcake ticket', ie - Clinton / Gore ( so named by Eleanor Clift ).

notoriously the same for JFK.



WhiteKnightLeo April 15, 2015 11:21 AM
Okay then, how do you stop a mob from overturning those inalienable rights?


uhhhhh, the same way we do now?

Anonymous Athor Pel April 15, 2015 12:14 PM  

" Josh April 15, 2015 8:30 AM
What do y'all think about tying direct democracy to appropriations?

For example, the motion is to spend x dollars on project y. However, if the motion passes, the money for the project is taken only from those who voted for it. Do you want it, you pay for it.
"



Naw, make all government funding purely voluntary. No money, no project.

Think Kickstarter for community projects.

No vote needed.

I can see the arguments against this now. "But what if one very rich guy wants to do something that many others do not want to happen?"
Well, what makes that different than what is happening right now?

Blogger Chiva April 15, 2015 12:18 PM  

"Okay, Vox, you don't hate women. You just think they're completely inferior to you, because your mommy got your daddy sent to prison for tax fraud. "

Can't you do better? You sound like a spoiled child who's spouting insults at a well dressed gentleman who is walking by.

Anonymous daddynichol April 15, 2015 12:23 PM  

How do you stop the rise of the lynch mob?

to

How do you stop the rise of the vibrant mob?

Fixed it to match reality. Even with our current system, mobs will mob. Lynch, gun, stick, rock or fire, the tool doesn't matter when the mob (or collection of SJWs) is permitted and even encouraged to gather and share their displeasure.

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 12:25 PM  

Can't you do better?

He really can't.

Anonymous James April 15, 2015 12:28 PM  

"Okay, Vox, you don't hate women. You just think they're completely inferior to you..."

MB - Could you please provide a link to substantiate this?
I don't personally recall Vox ever saying that...

Anonymous daddynichol April 15, 2015 12:36 PM  

You just think they're completely inferior to you, because your mommy got your daddy sent to prison for tax fraud.

Dead horse, meet stick. Stick, meet dead horse. Maryland Bear, commence whacking.

Blogger bob k. mando April 15, 2015 12:36 PM  

Josh April 15, 2015 11:11 AM
Sarah Palin was very popular with republican voters.



Palin was popular with Repubs because her running mate was McCain. and McCain had spent decades shitting on the Republican base.

all you have to do is listen to a couple her speeches from when she first announced for VP and you can see why the base went nuts. they actually had someone, SOMEWHERE on the ticket who wasn't telling them that they were 'bitter clingers' and to sit down and shut up.

i mean, hell, she was the first candidate on the national ticket since 88 who hadn't tried to run away from Reagan.

Palin's looks didn't hurt, but it was what she was saying that made her popular.

Blogger Felix Bellator April 15, 2015 12:37 PM  

Wait! Maryland Bear is a guy?

WhiteKnightLeo April 15, 2015 11:21 AM
Okay then, how do you stop a mob from overturning those inalienable rights?

bob k. mando April 15, 2015 12:14 PM
uhhhhh, the same way we do now?


Firearms?

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 12:38 PM  

Wait! Maryland Bear is a guy?

If you consider a gay to be a guy, yes.

Blogger Vox April 15, 2015 12:39 PM  

So if you're capable of being wrong sometimes, as you've admitted, does that mean that Reality is capable of being wrong?

No.

When do we know when we're disagreeing with Vox who can be wrong and Vox the representative of Reality?

When I am stating a subjective opinion versus merely citing an objective fact. The genetic distinction between human population groups is not my opinion. The idea that societies in which women do not breed will not survive is not my opinion.

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 15, 2015 12:40 PM  

Men feel no need to have someone they want to bang as their leader. Women do. And for European populations (ie. the part of the world where democratic rule has managed a few short gasps in its time), the Anglos appear to be the least likely to go for it.

Again; I think "want to bang" is poorly assigned causality. Women tend, moreso than men, to value safety and security. To the degree that a politician can convince them that it's an ersatz daddy/husband figure to them, they are in favor of that politician. As the feminist movement has destroyed generations of men over time in Western civilization, making them harder and harder to find, women are even more inclined to feel that sense of safety and security by treating politicians or even the abstract idea of the government itself as their ersatz husband figure.

Anonymous daddynichol April 15, 2015 12:41 PM  

Is Andrew Marston back as Maryland Bear?

Blogger Vox April 15, 2015 12:43 PM  

No, that's not his style.

Anonymous Kel-Tec PF9 April 15, 2015 12:46 PM  

Maryland Bear isn't abiding by the Rules of the Blog-- still no answer to VD and others question. MB, why do YOU hate women?

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 12:47 PM  

MB, why do YOU hate women?

Because they don't understand how important it is for him to have a dick in his mouth and another in his ass at the same time.

Anonymous Hosswire April 15, 2015 12:48 PM  

His most telling quote: "I may investigate some of his claims. I may not."

Either way, you may be certain he will consider them hateful & misguided.

Blogger benedictsanctus April 15, 2015 12:49 PM  

" Athor Pel April 15, 2015 9:40 AM

Did you think that up in between grunts while you were pinching out some turds this morning? "

Naw, actually it was when I got out of bed with your wife.

But seriously, reading the American constitution, voting was originally restricted to male land owners; my understanding is that the reasoning behind this is that they would have a vested interest in the future of the country. I am of the mind that expanding the right to vote is a bad thing. Restricting the right to vote to the heads of intact families with children would restrict the vote to a bloc of people who do have a vested interest in the future of the country.

It also serves a couple of other purposes. The family is the basic building block of a society, not the individual, so you're building upon a good foundation, and it would hopefully serve as a reminder of that truth.

The final cause of marriage is conceiving and raising children; everything else (concerning marriage) is secondary. I would like to think that this would be an additional protection to the institution of marriage.

Vox, if you do a post on who should vote in a representative democracy, I would like to read what you think on the matter.

Blogger John Wright April 15, 2015 1:09 PM  

@"I once did a graph of female political leader hotness. "

Was Queen Rania of Jordan on the list? She looks like a supermodel.

Anonymous Alexander April 15, 2015 1:12 PM  

O Happy Day, Scalzi has decided the sidelines are not for him, and has joined the fray once more.

Anonymous Alexander April 15, 2015 1:19 PM  

Mr Wright,

She was included on a second, 'unofficial' graph, but I deemed it unfair since monarchs do not represent the direct will of the people. Furthermore, Rania is a queen consort. Finally, does one judge Elizabeth II or (at the time) Queen Beatrice on how sexually appealing they are today, or at coronation time? Decisions, decisions.

But I did walk away with the conclusion (this one's a shocker, hold on to your seats), that a country that wants good looking women in high-prestige positions ought to give massive amount of power to a small group of men, and remove restrictions on which women those men can marry. That is the best way to ensure that when one's country is in the news, you get a Rania or a Maxima or a Letizia or a Kate, and not a Nancy or an Angela.

Blogger bob k. mando April 15, 2015 1:28 PM  

Vox April 15, 2015 12:39 PM
The idea that societies in which women do not breed will not survive is not my opinion.



parthenogenesis, baby. it's the wave of the future.

wait, that's still 'women reproducing'.

GODDAMNIT!



benedictsanctus April 15, 2015 12:49 PM
But seriously, reading the American constitution, voting was originally restricted to male land owners;
...
Restricting the right to vote to the heads of intact families with children would restrict the vote to a bloc of people who do have a vested interest in the future of the country.



and i have the same question for you that i have for Fred Reed when he wants an IQ test:
why are you trying to reinvent the wheel?

IF you think constraining the franchise is that important
THEN why don't you simply go back to ( a version of ) the original constitution? why not go back to 'male landowners' ... or even just 'landowners'?

i mean, you would at least have precedent and history ( two obvious hooks to attract conservatives ) on your side that way.


John Wright April 15, 2015 1:09 PM
Was Queen Rania of Jordan on the list?


errr, Jordanian Queen Consorts have no political authority.

that's kind of like appealing to Kim Kardashian as a political leader. sure, lots of people pay attention to her. but she can't, of herself, make anything happen.

also, i'm sure Rania is WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY more classy than Kardashian.

Blogger James Dixon April 15, 2015 1:30 PM  

> You just think they're completely inferior to you, because your mommy got your daddy sent to prison for tax fraud.

Just because you think of the government as your parent doesn't mean everyone does.

> "But what if one very rich guy wants to do something that many others do not want to happen?"

It still has to pass a general vote by the public. Budgets still have to be approved. If he wants to fund it pending approval, that's no problem.

Anonymous Alexander April 15, 2015 1:33 PM  

Frankly, I'd much rather have a loony billionaire blow his cash on one pet project, that be able to wet the wheels just enough to force the rest of us to pay for it time and time again.

Blogger the bandit April 15, 2015 1:41 PM  

"I think the most productive thing to do in reaction to his claim is to gauge whether you think it merits serious consideration. If it does, or if you’re curious, examine the evidence and report your results. If it doesn’t, just say you haven’t seen anything to suggest its worth looking into further."

Narcissistic ignorance explained.

I liked the interview, but I do tire of that schema of epistemology. I see it far too often.

Blogger Maryland Bear April 15, 2015 1:52 PM  

"
If you consider a gay to be a guy, yes."

Fuck you.

Blogger guest April 15, 2015 2:01 PM  

I agree with Ken Ham, because Ken Ham agrees with the bible. There is only one race. Everyone on earth came from one couple. They came from Eve. She was called Eve because she was the mother of all living.

Anonymous Fainting Couch April 15, 2015 2:05 PM  

""
If you consider a gay to be a guy, yes."

Fuck you."

Maryland Bear is a homophobe???

Blogger bob k. mando April 15, 2015 2:08 PM  

Maryland Bear April 15, 2015 1:52 PM
Fuck you.



muwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

sweetcheeks, you're not going to last very long around here with an ass that tender.

just the other day i asked, "who bitch this is" about Porky. and he responded with, "Touche".

now, granted, it's taken us over a year to butch him up to this point. but at least he's coming along.

i'm not sure there's any hope for you.

OpenID cailcorishev April 15, 2015 2:14 PM  

Still not sure why women voted for Obama over Romney if attractiveness was paramount to them.

Their herd leaders told them that's how they felt.

Anonymous patrick kelly April 15, 2015 2:16 PM  

"Palin was popular with Repubs because her running mate was McCain."

Just for fun I told everyone at the office I was voting republowcrat just because Palin was so hot (yes, to these much older eyes she is...or at least was then...haven't seen any recent photos or video).

But I didn't actually vote for her, and I'm not republican.....

Blogger bob k. mando April 15, 2015 2:19 PM  

guest April 15, 2015 2:01 PM
I agree with Ken Ham, because Ken Ham agrees with the bible. There is only one race. Everyone on earth came from one couple. They came from Eve. She was called Eve because she was the mother of all living.


define 'race'.

Anonymous Jabari April 15, 2015 2:23 PM  

O Happy Day, Scalzi has decided the sidelines are not for him, and has joined the fray once more.

Not much of a "fray" when comments are turned off. *laugh*

Anonymous Alexander April 15, 2015 2:31 PM  

Man, I wish Big Gay Steve were here right now.

Anonymous Heh April 15, 2015 2:32 PM  

I agree with Ken Ham, because Ken Ham agrees with the bible. There is only one race.

Ken Ham has never heard of Ham the son of Noah...

Anonymous Alexander April 15, 2015 2:34 PM  

Hey, if a gay guy comes in here, clearly hostile, and remarks, "Fuck you"...

... are we allowed to take that as a credible rape threat. What's the SJW ruling on that?

Anonymous Heh April 15, 2015 2:34 PM  

Still not sure why women voted for Obama over Romney if attractiveness was paramount to them.

Whiskey... paging Whiskey...

"Women hate, hate, hate white beta males!"

Anonymous Geoff April 15, 2015 2:35 PM  

Hillary's alright but Angela Merkel is more bangable.

Anonymous Big Buggery Begat Bathhouse Barry April 15, 2015 2:37 PM  

Bangs high-heeled shoe on podium

We will Barry you!

Blogger bob k. mando April 15, 2015 2:40 PM  

so, on this whole 'men getting their vote swayed by the hotness of the female candidate' thing?

Madonna ( 56 ) just sexually assaulted Drake ( 28 ) at a concert.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE56PD0dIvE

and, for her age, Madonna is smoking hot. i never really cared for her, but she's thin, in shape, got long hair and a rack.

somebody want to explain to me again why 'hot chicks' are going to be a serious elective threat?

Blogger Josh April 15, 2015 2:41 PM  

... are we allowed to take that as a credible rape threat. What's the SJW ruling on that?

I feel very threatened.

1 – 200 of 238 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts