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

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Mailvox: an offer to debate George Martin

n4apound quotes George Martin and proposes what Mr. Martin has said he is seeking.

"[Vox Day is] spewing forth the venom of hatred and violence, poisoning any attempt at honest dialogue."

Honest question: Can you point to a real example of this?  (Poisoning honest dialogue, as opposed to an internet pissing match.) Since you seem to be referencing direct knowledge, have you personally ever attempted an honest dialogue with Vox Day? As a reader of VD, I thoroughly doubt your claim.  I have read VD dismantle opponents' arguments logically, sometimes using rhetorical flair as well, but I have never seen him use hatred and violence to poison an attempt at honest dialogue. In fact, he seems to *relish* honest dialogue.

"When we disagree, is it really necessary to spit and snap at each other, to throw around insults and obscenities, to make death threads, rape threats? Can't we just debate the issues?"

Good questions.  I say that (since I am a fan of VD's books) as a hate-enabling toad or something like that.

"Can't we just debate the issues?"

Since you are calling for a "conservative in the house with the courage and integrity... honest and brave enough" to denounce VD, perhaps you would lead the way in displaying those attributes and make your specific case against him (or his part in the Hugo noms) in a new post and invite VD to respond.

As a voice of liberal moderation and reason, if you made a good-faith effort to reach out and VD responds with threats and hatred as you portray, then I guarantee that your effort to marginalize him will be greatly aided.  I imagine at that point you would even get conservatives to denounce him as you desire.  You would absolutely OWN the moral high ground.  Or if you were able to reason him away from his "extreme" positions, even slightly, you would win that way as well.

(Of course, it may be too late for an honest dialogue now that you have attacked not just him but his benighted fans.  He has a policy regarding that.)

The only way you lose in such an endeavor is if the hyperbole(?) in your post above is shown to be wrong.  And is that really a loss?


I am quite willing to debate Mr. Martin blog-to-blog on any subject he chooses. In fact, I will go so far as to guarantee that if I resort to threats and hatred in the course of that debate, I will ask both Brad Torgersen and Larry Correia to denounce me in the strongest possible terms.

We certainly can debate the issues. I have debated economics, evolution, the existence of gods, and even ancient philosophical skepticism without any need to resort to threats, hatred, or even rancor. But it is difficult to debate when SJWs constantly run away from debate whenever it is proposed to them.

I once offered a debate on racism to Jason Sanford. He ran away from it, declaring that some things could not be debated. I once responded to PZ Myers's call to debate the existence of God. He ran away from it, claiming that I was a crackpot. I subsequently offered to debate him in his field of expertise, but he ran away from that too. A third party proposed a debate between me and John Scalzi. I accepted, whereas John Scalzi ran away from it.

You have asked if we cannot simply debate the issues. I say we can. I am entirely willing to debate the issues with you without spitting and snapping, without throwing around insults and obscenities, and without threatening to rape or kill you, if you are willing to do the same. My readership is considerably smaller than yours, but it is not insubstantial; my blogs now see 1.6 million pageviews per month. In the interest of amity within the science fiction community, I am even willing to overlook the fact that you have repeated various falsehoods about me, concocted some fascinating new ones, and insulted my loyal readers by calling them "toads".

Nevertheless, I am willing to debate the issues, Mr. Martin. I am willing to engage in honest dialogue. Are you?

Labels: ,

82 Comments:

Anonymous Sevron April 12, 2015 3:30 PM  

Prediction: Mr. Martin must sadly decline, to to conflicts in schedule, or because he doesn't want to give a platform to hate, or because some people are simply too odious to debate, or because hating haters who hate are beneath notice, or whatever. The rabbits don't need even a good faith effort to follow through on anything the May offer, just offering it makes them feel good and that's all that counts (there was a study I saw once where people had the same mental reaction to thinking about giving charity and actually giving charity, which goes a long, long way to explaining SJWs).

Blogger Krul April 12, 2015 3:36 PM  

"When we disagree, is it really necessary to spit and snap at each other, to throw around insults and obscenities, to make death threads, rape threats? Can't we just debate the issues?"

Physician, heal thyself.

Blogger Double E April 12, 2015 3:37 PM  

when he asked can't "WE" just debate, he really meant can't (SJWs) just all agree among themselves without having to deal with these pesky outside arguments from thought criminals

Blogger Noah B April 12, 2015 3:41 PM  

That dashed line around n4apound's post means it's awaiting approval before being publicly visible. I'm guessing that post won't see the light of day on GRRM's site.

Anonymous Alexander April 12, 2015 3:44 PM  

And Vox calls out another leftist asking for 'meaningful dialogue'.

I mean, even if we were men without chests, the entertainment value alone is enough to keep from breaking ranks.

Blogger Vincent Castrillo April 12, 2015 3:44 PM  

This type of endless sniveling and female gossipy "moral high ground" stupidity is what happens when not only duals but also a well-deserved punch in the mouth are made entirely illegal.

Why oh why do you give these cretins even one second of your consideration beyond the professional ??

Blogger Mr.MantraMan April 12, 2015 3:48 PM  

As Vox has explained many times they are nothing but rhetoric and fairly shallow at that. And IMO this Martin chap doesn't seem like the sharpest knife in their block, so chance of debate south of 10%

Blogger Noah B April 12, 2015 3:50 PM  

His blog isn't even making posts visible in the order they were received. He's scared to death of that "debate on the issues" he pretended to want.

Anonymous MrGreenMan April 12, 2015 3:55 PM  

Good work, n4apound. It won't see the light of day over there. Every single one of the old man's bloviations is impotent and meaningless if he will not address Vox to his face what these charges are of venom and personal attacks.

Mr. Martin has slandered us all in his attacks on Vox Popoli readership. We're just friendly li'l old Butters. Some of us may be Scott Malkinson. We don't like to be constantly slapped in the face with floppy weiners.

Anonymous Earl April 12, 2015 3:56 PM  

A beardy old white male wants to oppress you with his Aristotellan white man's logic and his *uh* nearations of whiteness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8

Anonymous Daniel April 12, 2015 4:02 PM  

I'm sure Safe Space University would be willing to host such a debate.

Blogger Mark Citadel April 12, 2015 4:03 PM  

They don't want to debate you because you'd expose them for what they are. Politically correct nutcases with an axe to grind against Christianity and Tradition. Their lies about 'spewing venom' could only refer to themselves.

The entire response from the SJW coalition has been, in two words, confused and angry. It's like they woke up to this news scratching their heads saying "wait? aren't these the guys we fought back in the French Revoltuion? I thought we shut them up for good."

I'm afraid not. And while they may call you a dangerous man with 'spooky' links to European right wingers, just remember what the Romanian nationalist A.C. Cuza said when he was accused of being an 'instigator'.

"I am an instigator of the national energies."

Vox is only bringing to the surface a sentiment that already exists. Rabid Puppies have been around in various forms since the 1700s. We're not going away.

Anonymous MrGreenMan April 12, 2015 4:03 PM  

Also, be prepared for the old man to choose to go softly into that good night instead of debate you. Steve Gould used to have a promise that he would respond to every letter and criticism he received, but that his critics could never put it down in a letter and send it to him politely. I know people who sent letters that were ignored by the fossil polisher; he chose death rather than living up to his pledge.

Anonymous Strange Aeons April 12, 2015 4:05 PM  

As much as I'd love to see VD & GRRM go head to head, I don't see a debate happening. Even the most fanatical SocJus cultist knows to play to his strengths, which is more snarking and posturing from the safety of his warren than meeting an opponent face to face for an honest and competetive exchange of facts and logic. It's just going to be more spun narrative for the other rabbits to gleefully nibble on, with the requisite excuses that Sevron predicted in the first comment.

Anonymous karsten April 12, 2015 4:06 PM  

In which thread on GRRM's blog does n4apound's post appear? Can't seem to find it. Was it deleted?

Anonymous MrGreenMan April 12, 2015 4:16 PM  

@Strange Aeons

It will become embarrassing for Mr. Martin when he plays the PZ Meyers duck-and-run, as this, having entered the realm of a challenge of honor, will dog Mr. Martin for a long time. He is big enough that it will be brought up by neutrals and even those who are inclined to like him but want to pretend at neutrality.

I love a Whittaker Chambers strategy.

Anonymous JB April 12, 2015 4:20 PM  

Well, this would be at least an amusing reason why he isn't finishing WoW.

Vox, you unhinged savage, just looking for another scalp to take, aren't you?

Blogger James Sullivan April 12, 2015 4:23 PM  

"Prediction: Mr. Martin must sadly decline, to to conflicts in schedule, or because he doesn't want to give a platform to hate, or because some people are simply too odious to debate, or because hating haters who hate are beneath notice, or whatever. The rabbits don't need even a good faith effort to follow through on anything the May offer, just offering it makes them feel good and that's all that counts (there was a study I saw once where people had the same mental reaction to thinking about giving charity and actually giving charity, which goes a long, long way to explaining SJWs)."

A small correction: GRRM will decline to debate because he must find the time to work on all of the other projects he procrastinates with because he doesn't know where to go in ASOIAF. In various fits of rage fueled by fan speculation, which were probably on the mark, he killed off too many characters and has realized he angrily wrote himself into a corner.

No time for debate now! Gotta look busy and hope to somehow overcome the worst case of writer's block EVAH!

Blogger IM2L844 April 12, 2015 4:24 PM  

I expect George will pose, posit that any debate would be pointless and unnecessary then declare victory.

Anonymous Strange Aeons April 12, 2015 4:24 PM  

@ MrGreenMan

I would be gladly and pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong. Now, off to Google Whittaker Chambers, as the reference was lost on me...

Anonymous karsten April 12, 2015 4:27 PM  

GRRM's post wasn't (obviously) about trying to actually debate the issues. It was textbook concern trolling -- trying to dupe Larry Correia and Brag Torgersen into denouncing Vox Day.

It's the same tactic that the Left constantly uses to neuter conservatism by making less-committed conservatives feel good about themselves if they become more liberal and denounce the so-called racists/sexists/homophobes. In other words, the Leftists hold out the almighty bait of approval from goodthinkers if the less-committed conservatives just move in their direction politically, then just a little more, then a little more... and on it goes. And many less-committed conservatives are forever so very, very desirous to be seen, by as many people as possible, as being "good people," that they fall for it. I can only hope that Correia and Torgensen aren't so easily duped.

Anonymous Giuseppe April 12, 2015 4:28 PM  

There is zero chance of that old fraud engaging you in honest debate, and precious little of it in him engaging you directly even in dishonest debate.

Still. This post makes for a nice scalp on your wall.

Blogger Zimri April 12, 2015 4:28 PM  

Martin proved himself a poltroon in the thread where he slandered #gamergate. In that thread, he then refused to allow comments which noted, hey, you slandered #gamergate.

Anonymous MrGreenMan April 12, 2015 4:30 PM  

@Strange Aeons

If I have not made a mistaken in remembering:

Alger Hiss and Whittaker Chambers had some history as former communists. Whittaker woke up one day. He made some remarks about Alger Hiss. Alger Hiss's friends said he should sue Whittaker Chambers. Whittaker Chambers took it the whole distance and went on the radio and denounced Alger Hiss as a former communist. Some time passed and it became embarrassing, as Alger Hiss's friends all said - sue him, make it a slam dunk, he's a horrible person, he has no leg to stand on. Alger Hiss was eventually convicted of perjury and Whittaker Chambers vindicated.

Blogger Moor April 12, 2015 4:30 PM  

This reminds me a little of when Bill Nye debated Ken Ham (of the Creation Museum) about the origins of humanity and the age of the universe. Bill Nye took quite a bit of flack for even agreeing to debate Ham, who many on the more "liberal" side of that debate consider a nut.

The truth is, GRRM is throwing red meat to a rabid constituency, and despite the OPs lucid arguments about what he stands to gain, he stands to lose much more in terms of vocal public sentiment and feelgood. It is unlikely, in fact, that he is going to lose a single minute of sleep over what should be a matter of conscience, because his intent all along has likely been rhetorical showmanship and the kindly-old-uncle routine.

I won't hold my breath...

Anonymous Warboss April 12, 2015 4:32 PM  

I once offered a debate on racism to Jason Sanford. He ran away from it, declaring that some things could not be debated. I once responded to PZ Myers's call to debate the existence of God. He ran away from it, claiming that I was a crackpot. I subsequently offered to debate him in his field of expertise, but he ran away from that too. A third party proposed a debate between me and John Scalzi. I accepted, whereas John Scalzi ran away from it.

And yet debates between reasonable people on opposing sides occur all the time. Perhaps the problem is you?

Blogger Lovekraft April 12, 2015 4:32 PM  

Olden times, authors didn't have to worry too much about their personal views shaping how they are perceived. Today, identity politics means one's body of works will be judged via PC prism. If Martin is genuinely wishing to have reasoned debate, then his legacy will be intact.

But if he is white knighting for the likes of Sarkeesian, Wu and others, then analysis of his works in the future will be done in light of this. Because what is socially acceptable today could become toxic in the future.

Blogger Noah B April 12, 2015 4:33 PM  

It looks like their censors aren't working perfectly -- one of mine managed to slip through.

Blogger Vox April 12, 2015 4:39 PM  

And yet debates between reasonable people on opposing sides occur all the time. Perhaps the problem is you?

Perhaps it is. They are frightened of me, whereas the various other atheists, inflationistas, skeptics, and evolutionists I have debated are not.

OpenID cailcorishev April 12, 2015 4:44 PM  

Thing is, Martin is a best-selling author with a TV deal. Ordinarily, he'd have nothing to gain by debating someone like Vox, and it'd be fine for him to decline on that basis.

However, by repeating the SJW claim that Vox is a massive existential threat to the entire industry, he's implied that Vox does need to be dealt with, and it only makes sense that "His Side" should send its biggest guns. He's elevated Vox to a high enough level of importance that refusing to take him on now will be obvious cowardice. And he set himself up for that.

He'd better be careful: his books, and the fact that he's a straight white male, make him a good candidate for a purge. If he can't win this battle after jumping into it, the SJWs may wonder why they're letting him be on Their Side. What good is he? Not that he needs them professionally, but he seems to emotionally. I don't think he wants to be the subject of his own SJW Two-Minutes Hate, but that's where he's heading.

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 12, 2015 4:49 PM  

@Vox

"You made the peace gesture," Piter said. "The forms have been obeyed.".

The reality is of course that George is a Gamma who has graduated out of the sexual heirarchy due to both age and material success. He now holds the post of...I was thinking Elder of the Tribe but perhaps shaman would be more apt.

In any case, now that he is facing conflict first from Larry, now from you, he will fall back on Gamma behavior patterns.

But you already knew that.

Blogger Expendable Faceless Minion April 12, 2015 4:51 PM  

@Noah B:
Pretty sure your post slipped in because at the ends it looked like longwinded SJW bloviating, and it was just skimmed and approved.

Blogger Expendable Faceless Minion April 12, 2015 4:56 PM  

Vox,
He'd be an idiot to debate you. Comparatively, he has nothing to gain, and everything (his income) to lose. If he loses the debate, the mouth foamers will accuse him of switching sides and boycott him.

If he wins, he really gains nothing. His fan base already 'knows' you're all the ugly-hatey things they call you. A win would just say 'yup, SJW frothers, you're still right'.

The fact that he can't win has surely also penetrated his conscious. It's obvious from his postings.

But I'm sure you not only know this, you've wargamed out his responses, and a devastating response to each.

Anonymous Strange Aeons April 12, 2015 5:03 PM  

MrGreenMan
Thank you for the illuminating and explanatory context.
It's interesting how often there's a historical incident to be found for comparison.

~~~*
The More You Know

Blogger Kull April 12, 2015 5:13 PM  

Could someone explain why or how Vox got to be such a thing for them? I don't think I have ever seen anything quite like it. Disagree with him, dislike him, hate him even, whatever. But the place he occupies in their minds, ye gods. He is not real. He is some sort of avatar or fetish. Our betters say they don't believe in evil but they clearly believe in Vox. I have a personal acquaintance who happens to be a full blown sjw who follows the sff scene. Whenever she speaks of him there is this insane gleam in her eyes and she becomes nearly unintelligible.
Spend 15 minutes outside your house and you soon realize not everyone is like you. Some might believe things you find hard to swallow. But that's life. This is something else. Something outside my experience. People got less worked up over Osama bin Laden.

Blogger Noah B April 12, 2015 5:15 PM  

Their accumulated cognitive dissonance must find an outlet. For many of them, rage directed toward Vox serves that purpose..

Anonymous Mr.A is Mr.A April 12, 2015 5:25 PM  

If you don't have an outlet, then bad feels might result, leading to Impotent Rage

Anonymous Strange Aeons April 12, 2015 5:25 PM  

Kull -
I think those on the extremist Left really can't function without a Big Bad Boogeyman to blame everything on and rally against. Vox Day makes such a grand archboogeyman, one can't help but picture the SJWs salivating in their hatred.
Yesterday I was invited to party by my gf, where I knew nobody. When I walked in late, she giggled and whispered "Why did you wear THAT shirt???". Plain black tee with a large inequality symbol. I said, "Just grabbed it, why?". She said "Because there's gay people here, they were giving you death stares when you walked in!". Me: lol idgaf.
Sure enough, there was a small herd of frog-bodied dykes murmuring among themselves and pointedly avoiding eye contact.
They hate us...but they need us. If it weren't for us, they'd have to turn their blame inwards. It goes there eventually anyways, but for the time being, Boogeymen serve a purpose.

Anonymous hideous April 12, 2015 5:28 PM  

karsten,
>>In which thread on GRRM's blog does n4apound's post appear? Can't seem to find it. Was it deleted?<<

It's in moderation (indicated by the dashed box), so it can't be seen except by me and the moderator(s). But here is where it was invisibly located in page 4 of the comments:
<A href="http://n4apound.livejournal.com/732.html" target="_blank>Puppies Just Getting Sadder</A>

(Registered today as "n4apound" in LiveJournal in order to post at grrm. "hideous" nic was taken already.)

Noah B: Great, succinct response you got through over there.


Many out-of-time-order posts in the thread are starting to show up, maybe mine will be released as well...

A few posts down, I literally guffawed out loud to read "clonedllama" state in all seriousness, "intolerance should not be tolerated" (direct quote). That comment has since been edited.

Blogger Doctor Awesome April 12, 2015 5:29 PM  

I wonder if putting info like this in a slide is helpful:
http://imgur.com/Naf2Ceu

Anonymous kh123 April 12, 2015 5:32 PM  

"This reminds me a little of when Bill Nye debated Ken Ham (of the Creation Museum) about the origins of humanity and the age of the universe. Bill Nye took quite a bit of flack for even agreeing to debate Ham, who many on the more "liberal" side of that debate consider a nut."

Saw that in real time once with a coworker. "Waste of time!" as he turned to whatever was next on Reddit.

He's freelancing now.

Blogger OldFan April 12, 2015 5:36 PM  

Conservatives believe in debate because they believe in Objective Truth and hold Reason in high regard. The Socialists believe in neither of these things, only in Power. They believe that power is the sole determinant of who is right, so actual debate with them is impossible. They have the raw cunning to understand that others yet uncommitted might be swayed by debate, so they seek to win the debate by not having one.

They instinctively know they would lose on several levels, so they flee from any debate. They blithely announce that the subject is not debatable, that their opponent is not qualified on intellectual or moral grounds, or that such a debate would give Wrong Ideas an "unearned" platform.

Debate between Socialists and their Enemies is utterly pointless, so we are reduced to playing their game of Raw Naked Power. Luckily we are not so poor at that one either - as they are finding out. Alinsky's Rules are currently tools of evil, but they do work very well (sort of like Blitzkrieg) for anybody who applies them ruthlessly.

We can save Civil Discourse for minor disagreements among ourselves (sort of like Chivalry) while recognizing that we are in an existential struggle with Socialism - which means Law of the Jungle rules apply.

Blogger Vox April 12, 2015 5:42 PM  

He'd be an idiot to debate you. Comparatively, he has nothing to gain, and everything (his income) to lose. If he loses the debate, the mouth foamers will accuse him of switching sides and boycott him.

He made the mistake when he expressed that sentiment. Now he'd be an idiot to decline the debate he claimed to be seeking.

Could someone explain why or how Vox got to be such a thing for them? I don't think I have ever seen anything quite like it.

Brad Torgersen explains it.

Sarah Hoyt — born in Portugal, naturalized to the U.S. — has seen this kind of thing before. It’s the old Stalinist-Marxist mentality which Sarah got to see up close and personal. It’s the mentality my former boss (who was a refugee from Soviet-era Poland) knew all too well, too. Frankly, any time I talk about the 21st century American fascination with political correctness, refugees from the Marxist countries recognize it instantly: the collective effort to control and dictate what is and is not permissible to say, or to think, or to feel, including who you can and cannot associate with; lest you be hauled before the commissars to be tried for guilt-by-association.

Fear is their weapon.


I don't fear them. I don't fear their disapproval. I don't fear their dislike. And worse, from their perspective, I am a symbol that you don't need to fear them either. For some who are not afraid, seeing the positive results encourages them to stand up and show their lack of fear too. For some, my lack of fear either shames or inspires them into standing up even though they are afraid. They are the truly brave, because bravery is acting in the face of your fear.

I'm not particularly brave or courageous. I'm just not wired for that kind of fear. It's rather like being someone who can't feel pain who is being poked and prodded with needles. You just sort of watch them with an idle curiousity... oh, okay, I wonder what that is supposed to accomplish?

It's not me that they're afraid of, it's all of you. And they're desperate to tear me down so that you don't teach others to do the same.

Blogger Mark Citadel April 12, 2015 5:42 PM  

They hate Vox because he wears his loyalty to God on his sleeve. The Left have ALWAYS hated that, since their stupid little Enlightenment. You only have to hear the acid-spewing half-crazed rantings of Stephen Fry to know that. This is the primary driver, and why they hate Vox more than other people who don't tow their line.

As for why Scalzi has such a weird obsession, what do you expect from someone who wears dresses?

@ Strange Aeons - kudos for challenging their bullsh*t equality mantra, but perhaps if your girlfriend goes to parties where there a bull dykes, you might wonder who the heck she's hanging out with. haha.

Blogger Noah B April 12, 2015 5:44 PM  

They are now deleting critical posts that contain no obscenities, merely statements that they have overtly misrepresented what Vox has said and that it is GRRM's burden to support his claims with evidence if he wants to be taken seriously.

So much for debating the issues.

Blogger Mark Citadel April 12, 2015 5:49 PM  

Oh, and with regard to PZ Meyers, this New Atheist clown is a total laughing stock. He's pro-bestiality, fantasized about murdering a priest and wrote a blog post about it, and then humiliated himself at the Creation Museum of all places where he was too fat and out of shape to mount a toy dinosaur.

I think you dodged a bullet there Vox. It would have been beyond beneath you to debate this nutcase who unsurprisingly teaches at a university. You vs. Martin would be something I would pay to see though.

Anonymous VoK April 12, 2015 5:53 PM  

I recall George Martin from ConCarolinas. He made a few awkward comments at the opening ceremony about maybe letting some spoilers slip... as long as it was to hot cosplaying females.

Such a sexist. Such a cissexist.

Anonymous VoK April 12, 2015 5:55 PM  

Martin breathes his own farts these days. Sucks them out of his own ass. "So good they smell," he chortles.

Blogger Markku April 12, 2015 6:02 PM  

They should borrow a trick from Marvel.

Ultimate Song if Ice and Fire by Joe Abercrombie

Blogger Yohami April 12, 2015 6:25 PM  

My guess is that this post will be called a "death threat" and everyone will be encouraged not to read it.

Anonymous Leonidas April 12, 2015 6:25 PM  

Nevertheless, I am willing to debate the issues, Mr. Martin. I am willing to engage in honest dialogue. Are you?

Of course. Just remember that by "honest dialogue" what he really means is "sit down and shut up while I tell you what a horrible person you are and what you should really believe."

What, somebody thought he actually wanted a two way conversation?

He'd be an idiot to debate you. Comparatively, he has nothing to gain, and everything (his income) to lose. If he loses the debate, the mouth foamers will accuse him of switching sides and boycott him.

Martin never should've waded into this. The only way this ends for him is with the mouth foamers turning on him. He's lost already. Now it's only a matter of how long he can stave it off.

Anonymous Philalethes April 12, 2015 6:27 PM  

@hideous

Your comment, alas, did not survive moderation. All the comments are time stamped (UTC); there's a whole page now later than yours, but yours (4:00pm) doesn't appear where it should (between randwolf 03:52pm and jamisonpridgen 04:02pm).

*Sigh* Why do these people have to be so predictable? I was hoping for... something. Even as Big a Name as Martin is chicken to enter the arena of fair discourse. I hope this incident goes viral; he deserves to be shown up.

Blogger bob k. mando April 12, 2015 6:27 PM  

Warboss April 12, 2015 4:32 PM
And yet debates between reasonable people on opposing sides occur all the time. Perhaps the problem is you?



you say this as though Vox can't provide documentation of numerous debates / interviews that he has had with numerous reasonable people.

perhaps the problem is that SJWs are unreasonable?



Expendable Faceless Minion April 12, 2015 4:56 PM
If he loses the debate,



have you never observed these clowns before? here is the order of events:
1 - debate is demanded
2 - Vox accepts, with the caveat that he gets to post the entirety of the exchange on this blog to prevent his opponent from redacting later. the other party is expected to also post both sides under his control, so that comparisons can be made
3 - several passes in the lists are exchanged, other side typically encounters severe problems in the dialectic
4 - other party declares victory, refuses to continue the exchange
5 - other party points at Vox and shrieks about what a RSHD he is, therefore Vox 'loses'
6 - Gamma rabbits perform victory dance, wonder why the warren is on fire and there are weasels everywhere, decide that 'food solves all problems' and eat all the kits out of one of the recent litters

Anonymous VoK April 12, 2015 6:30 PM  

Martin writes:

"So... I post here about how pleased I was to enjoy one good night, away from all this Puppygate shit, and you feel the need to drag Vox Day into it?

What would be the subject of this "debate?" Whether women should have the vote? Whether black people are savages or only half-savages?

Perhaps after that debate, I could debate Requires Hate on whether writers should have acid thrown in their faces, or just be raped by dogs."

Blogger HalibetLector April 12, 2015 6:31 PM  

Beat me to it, VoK ;) It looks like brave sir martin will bravely run away away.

Blogger Markku April 12, 2015 6:32 PM  

It was him who asked, and I quote, "Can't we just debate the issues?"

Now, suddenly, he seems to have run fresh out of issues to debate.

Blogger Unknown April 12, 2015 6:38 PM  

I'd like to see links to your points Vox. So much better when you do.

Blogger Unknown April 12, 2015 6:46 PM  

For Martin, this issue is important, but so important that he should be involved in this.

Brave Sir George!

Blogger Noah B April 12, 2015 6:49 PM  

How, precisely, does one link to something that one did not say?

Blogger Noah B April 12, 2015 6:50 PM  

For those who might be taking it easy on GRRM because of respect for his work, note that the left is not extending the same courtesy to John Wright.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet April 12, 2015 6:57 PM  

Every time I think, this can't get any better, it does... And so so much better.

Blogger automatthew April 12, 2015 6:59 PM  

"note that the left is not extending the same courtesy to John Wright."

The left was pitching fits at John C. Wright for writing works sympathetic to Christianity when Wright was still an ardent (but honest) atheist. His first eight (if I have the chronology right) novels were written before his startling conversion.

Admittedly it takes a special kind of atheist to borrow, respectfully, the crucifix-trampling scene from That Hideous Strength.

Blogger Mark Citadel April 12, 2015 7:02 PM  

Well well. Martin has pussied out because he cannot actually debate any of those topics. He's a 5th grader intellectually. All point and laugh, because this is yet another Vox victory. All Martin has are sneering jibes

Anonymous Lana April 12, 2015 7:17 PM  

I wonder if putting info like this in a slide is helpful: http://imgur.com/Naf2Ceu

Probably, now that there has been a debate challenge. I bookmarked it and now can deploy it on twitter if the topic comes up. Thanks.

Anonymous Big Bill April 12, 2015 7:19 PM  

Look, Martin is willing to debate you a long as he does not have to venture out of the Overton Window. If he goes back to Platonic and Aristotelian first principles he will be roundly damned for even addressing those principles. By that I mean slavery, females, natural superiority (and inferiority) aristocracy versus democracy versus tyranny, etc.

Lefties cannot address those ideas anymore since they are too dangerous and too fundamental. It just might shift the Overton Window in the badthink direction.

And that would leave him twisting in the wind in his old age at a time he is winding up his life and reflecting upon the adulation of the crowd and his eternal legacy.

Blogger ray April 12, 2015 7:21 PM  

Cannot understand why a fat white male has-been would attack one of our struggling Native Americans citizens. Mebbe the SPLC could look into it.



Puzzling and saddening . . . but it also heartens me by illustrating just how much more Needs To Be Done to establish an inclusive America.



I'm also impressed that, against vast and heroic odds, George R.R. and Friends captured the moral high ground.



Well done! Have a carrot.

Blogger Corvinus April 12, 2015 7:45 PM  

For those who might be taking it easy on GRRM because of respect for his work, note that the left is not extending the same courtesy to John Wright.

From reading their freakouts on the online nooz, the SJWs appear to be saying that JCW isn't a real writer because he Hates Fags like the Westboro Baptist Church, or something.

Blogger Corvinus April 12, 2015 7:48 PM  

Look, Martin is willing to debate you a long as he does not have to venture out of the Overton Window.

Actually, it seems that Martin is unwilling to debate Vox even within the SJW Overton Window simply because he has views outside of it. As VoK quoted Martin:

"So... I post here about how pleased I was to enjoy one good night, away from all this Puppygate shit, and you feel the need to drag Vox Day into it?

What would be the subject of this "debate?" Whether women should have the vote? Whether black people are savages or only half-savages?


IOW, Martin sez, can't debate because Vox DISQUALIFIED.

Anonymous EH April 12, 2015 8:25 PM  

G.R.R. Martin said "... it does seem to me that many of your followers, if not you yourself, are approving of Vox..."

Brad Torgersen replied saying essentially that he could see good and bad on both sides.
Martin then replied with a revolting attack on Torgersen.
Here is my response to Martin's attack, which I rather doubt will appear on Martin's blog:

"Look, there's an elephant in the room here..."
It was funny, but you might want to avoid putting this line right next to your picture.

"Vox Day has written a lot of vile and outrageous and unkind stuff, beyond a doubt. But the single piece that made him truly infamous, the 'masterpiece' that made him a poster child for bigotry, was his attack on N.K. Jemisin wherein he says that black people are half-savages, uncivilized, not actually homo sapiens, that Africans are incapable of building a civilization without white males, etc."

Vox did not actually say that Blacks are not /Homo Sapiens Sapiens/, rather that they /are/, and that the other races are /less/ H. Sap. due to Neanderthal and Denisovian admixture. OTOH he views the admixture as a good thing. The other points you make seem like a fair characterization of his views (which he can and does defend himself, with more rhetorical skill and alleged evidence than I have so far seen from his opponents), but his statements have more nuance to them than is admitted by his opponents, and certainly more nuance than N.K.J.'s hateful statements to which Vox was responding, statements that have gotten an unwarranted pass for racist and political reasons.

The allegation that Vox posted this on an SFWA-sponsored forum seems to be incorrect - rather, he posted a link to his own blog. He also seems to have been singled out since many authors have slagged each other on the official SFWA forums rather than merely linking on the semi-sponsored Twitter feed. It would be a good idea to read his posts from that period so that you can refute what he actually said rather than what his enemies have falsely claimed that he said.
(continued)

Anonymous EH April 12, 2015 8:26 PM  

(continued)

"... it seems plain to me that Vox Day was not just talking about Nora Jemisin in his hate piece. He was talking about all black people... including the two you love."

I say, dirty pool, old man. Many people are incapable of distinguishing between statistical observations, for instance: "group x scores over one standard deviation lower than group y on tests of mental ability", and categorical generalizations such as "everybody in group x is stupid". I don't believe you are one of those people; making such arguments not only takes advantage of such mental disability, it exacerbates it, creates unwarranted emotional distress, and derails any further dispassionate consideration of evidence.

Such emotional reactions have no bearing on the right (or non-right) of Vox Day to say what he has said without being expelled from the SFWA, let alone on the factual accuracy of his statements. Perhaps this is the crux of the matter. Are you really baffled that some people can set aside irrelevant emotional concerns to try to plumb the merits and shortcomings of an argument, even an argument that is widely despised and personally unwelcome? If so, it would make you no worse than most, but certainly no wiser.

"Given who you are, and who you love, how can you stand on "hazy neutral ground" on a man like that?"
The ability to distinguish, dare I say discriminate, between the validity of assertions, the arguments advanced for those assertions, and the character of the person who makes those assertions is essential to rational thought. Distinguishing between assertions and arguments actually advanced and how they are characterized by others is also essential.

Attacking a man's love of his family by implying he should abandon the prerequisites of rational thought is a thoroughly nasty argument but I can distinguish between it and your character.

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 12, 2015 8:45 PM  

Now Martin needs to be relentlessly hounded to live up to his own proposal. Tweet the link to this post tagging him. Retweet over and over again. Shame him into either debating or surrendering the field. Don't let him get away with calling his lack of appearance a victory and don't let it be just the relatively small group of readers here who know about it.

OpenID cailcorishev April 12, 2015 9:01 PM  

"Given who you are, and who you love, how can you stand on "hazy neutral ground" on a man like that?"

This is a nasty piece of work, folks.

Blogger SarahsDaughter April 12, 2015 9:19 PM  

Women have been silenced?
"The fact that I am very tentative about commenting here speaks volumes about what people like Vox Day, henceforth VD, and Gamergate have accomplished in silencing women."

Blogger bob k. mando April 12, 2015 9:26 PM  

SarahsDaughter April 12, 2015 9:19 PM
Women have been silenced?



well, sure.

Ann Morgan, Taylor and yttik have all been silenced.

now skedaddle on back to the kitchen and make me a sammich.

[ wink ]

Anonymous hideous April 12, 2015 9:37 PM  

@Philalethes, yes GM has posted many times since my comment and it seems clear he will not be unspamming it.

Sheesh. After his lament that the issues can't just be civilly debated, the man literally called out for a "conservative in the house with the courage and integrity... honest and brave enough" to denounce Vox.

How does the hypocrisy not kill him? Can any commenter on this blog conceive of writing those words and then start deleting perfectly civil responses and ducking the very discussion you called for? I personally would much rather man up and take a public beating as a worst-case outcome because it would allow me to still look at myself in the mirror afterward. It would shred my soul to hide a comment *just because it challenged or embarassed me*, the shame of it would be intolerable.

I would post on his site and ask him if there was ANYONE on the conservative side he REALLY did want to debate, but it's clear now that my comment will not be allowed. Would he debate Larry? That could be almost as good as Vox, or better. John C.? Sweet skippy, that would be a literary bloodbath I would pay money to see. Anybody at all on the Right?

Never mind. If he did debate one of these guys, I'm sure GM would immediately start asking him to explain and defend Vox's views on some subject, just like he did with Brad. And never perceive (or just not care about) the irony and dishonesty of it.

Anonymous Stickwick April 12, 2015 10:11 PM  

In fact, I will go so far as to guarantee that if I resort to threats and hatred in the course of that debate, I will ask both Brad Torgersen and Larry Correia to denounce me in the strongest possible terms.

What's this SJW obsession with hatred? It's an emotion, right? How is it even possible to dictate to someone how they are allowed feel?

...and insulted my loyal readers by calling them "toads".

Nice. I was planning to buy some GRRM books and the first season of AGOT for my husband's birthday, but I shan't now.

Anonymous Stickwick April 12, 2015 10:14 PM  

SarahsDaughter: "The fact that I am very tentative about commenting here speaks volumes about what people like Vox Day, henceforth VD, and Gamergate have accomplished in silencing women."

For being so silenced, they sure do yammer a lot.

Blogger Corvinus April 12, 2015 10:24 PM  

Many people are incapable of distinguishing between statistical observations, for instance: "group x scores over one standard deviation lower than group y on tests of mental ability", and categorical generalizations such as "everybody in group x is stupid".

True. SJWs seem to almost universally have a stupid spot in their minds when it comes to statistics.

Anonymous Anubis April 12, 2015 11:08 PM  

"Prediction: Mr. Martin must sadly decline, to to conflicts in schedule"

GRRM so sorry I have a bunch of whores coming over so I can get into the character that has to buy whores.

"Could someone explain why or how Vox got to be such a thing for them?"

He is an uncle Tomahawk that left the reservation. By having minority heritage even if it is K selected unlike black/brown and excelling he breaks the narrative.

Some commenter named Written path is just now figuring out that rabid puppies and sad puppies are connected.

grrm Apr. 11th, 2015 10:21 pm (UTC)GRRM-I get death threats too, yes. Not many, but a few. One guy just send me a battered paperback copy of Stephen King's MISERY.No rape threats, however. That seems solely for women and gays.

Doesn't the douche know that at least one of the death threats was sent to herself because she logged out of the other account less than a min before she screenshoted it with no searching?

"Now, suddenly, he seems to have run fresh out of issues to debate." He seems to think women's right to vote and if blacks are savages are good debate topics. Just remember no clapping just do jazz hands so you don't "trigger" rabbits.

SarahsDaughter's link to Lee Tost is proof that Vox is not capable of silencing women. I guess you need to put more doughnuts in their mouths. Hold up isn't Lee a boys name?

Blogger The Original Hermit April 13, 2015 12:34 AM  

Considering GRRM's attitude towards censoring those he disagrees with on his blog, I thought this was awfully appropriate.

Blogger Ben April 13, 2015 8:32 AM  

Doesn't matter if you debate him Vox, you're still on the wrong side of history and also guilty of feelbad wrongfun.

These crimes are unforgivable. I will now go wear a pink t-shirt and start a hashtag campaign to teach you a lesson.

Anonymous Heh April 13, 2015 8:58 AM  

What's this SJW obsession with hatred? It's an emotion, right? How is it even possible to dictate to someone how they are allowed feel?

Teaching people how to have the correct emotional responses is the entire purpose of the multi-billion dollar education system these days -- from kindergarten through PhD. They may not be able to "dictate" how anyone feels but it ain't for lack of trying.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts