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

Friday, April 24, 2015

Pakman Show interview



Not the greatest performance by me. I was taken more than a little by surprise, as I thought we were going to be discussing GamerGate and the Hugo Awards, not op/ed columns I wrote 10 or 12 years ago and didn't even recall immediately.

But that's how they play the game. I'm not the least bit upset or annoyed about it. I could have shut it down once it became clear that David Pakman had set up a bait-and-switch, but I was interested to see just how far he would take us off subject. I find it amusing that the headlines are focused on my supposedly "controversial statements" when saying that some races are smarter than others is no more debatable than saying that some races are taller than others.

And I am not stating unequivocally that homosexuality is a birth defect for the obvious reason that we don't know with any degree of certainty that it is an immutable condition determined at birth. But if it is, then what else would you realistically call a condition that significantly reduces the odds that a creature will be able to propagate its genes?

Anyhow, the interview turned out to be an obvious hit piece, as Roosh demonstrates with this screencap of the original video title.


And just to be clear, I was told this would be an interview about #GamerGate and the gaming industry.

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:30 PM
From: VD
Subject: show appearance

Message Body:
You tweeted at me and asked me if I would appear on the show. That's fine, you can contact me via this email.

Regards,
Vox

Terrific, would love to set something up. We do our interviews via skype video. If that works in principle it would be great to set something up for sooner than later. Would you be available this Friday at 11am eastern time? I'd love to discuss your views on gamergate and just more broadly how you general views inform your views on gamergate and the gaming industry. It will be a casual discussion, likely 25 or so minutes, just between you and I.

best,

David Pakman
Host / The David Pakman Show / www.davidpakman.com

And then there is this:

6h6 hours ago
Today's interview with is up. He admits to sex without consent, says gay is a birth defect, more

From the interview (17:30)
Vox Day: Have you always obtained absolute formal written consent every time you've had sex?
David Pakman: No.

Labels: ,

280 Comments:

1 – 200 of 280 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Poor Guy April 24, 2015 6:35 PM  

Please tell me you did not really expect them to stick to the topic?

Blogger Noah B April 24, 2015 6:43 PM  

Looks fine to me so far.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera April 24, 2015 6:43 PM  

Your throne needs more bones in it.

Anonymous The Gray Man April 24, 2015 6:44 PM  

I was expecting you to have more impressive traps, Vox!

Blogger njartist April 24, 2015 6:46 PM  

In American society, with the American female, being over intelligent can, at times, be considered a birth defect leading to non-propagation of superior genes: either the woman feels intimidated even if you're allegedly educated peers; or you just know you had better not touch the crazy chicks.

Blogger Rantor April 24, 2015 6:46 PM  

Interesting interview. The interviewer was obviously liberal, but let you answer more fully than many would. Was hoping for more on sad/rabid puppies but he obviously wanted to paint a picture of you as a right winger.

On the vaccine issue, I always make the person understand the scientific approach doesn't have to include an U immunized group, you can have a six month delay group and a one year delay group and compare children thereafter. There are sufficient immunized in most communities that the delayed immunization group is not at significantly increased risk, unless the government was importing sick third world people to the U.S.

They wouldn't do that, would they

Anonymous The Obvious April 24, 2015 6:57 PM  

Halfway through it, looks like you can feed the cattle on all of the interviewers strawmen.

Anonymous testy April 24, 2015 6:58 PM  

Should've asked this guy what he thought the definition or normal was. He was clearly willing to stick it to you for saying it wasn't "normal," and by the basic common sense definition of normal, it's not. But it'd be curious to flip the script on him and ask him what he'd like to define normal as, if not the (necessarily) predominant sexual orientation of most humans.

Anonymous Vidfamne April 24, 2015 6:58 PM  

I'm sorry but VD really needs some media training. I enjoy the blog but even though I agree with most of your points I still feel this was a poor showing.

Blogger Douglas Wardell April 24, 2015 6:59 PM  

It was a decent interview. You were obviously taken aback but recovered well. He should work on structuring his questions to allow the interviewee to answer more fully before interrupting though.

On the content side, he seemed to have difficulty grasping the point you were making about how any potential downsides to vaccines are ignored by advocates, and though they may be outweighed in the case of serious disease, that does not implicitly mean they are outweighed by trivial disease.

Also, he seemed to repeatedly take repeated exception to your use of terms which have negative connotations in his mind. "Abnormal" and "birth defect" are perfectly reasonable ways to define homosexuality. They are not value statements, just observations of reality.

Blogger Mark April 24, 2015 7:02 PM  

Interesting how he mischaracterized your Aurora article. The title is "The Lone Gunmen" -- it's the subtitle (typically put there by the editor?) that talks about a false flag. Your text doesn't say "false flag" or "signs" or anything. Plus it was written during the fog surrounding the event, when journalists didn't know the difference between a kevlar vest and a tactical vest.

If this is the article he's referring to: http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/the-lone-gunmen/

Blogger Markku April 24, 2015 7:10 PM  

That's not a good screenshot. fixed!

Blogger Russell April 24, 2015 7:16 PM  

Some people are really looking to be lead, aren't they?

I can see why Vox doesn't want to be seen as an Alpha leader, being held to something said 10+ years ago must be exhausting.

Because everyone started out with fully formed opinions on everything and never modifies or changes those opinions at any point.

I find it fascinating how many people change "This is X" into a value statement of "This is X, and X is superior/inferior to everything at all times everywhere."

At first I thought Pakman was fairly bright, but it quickly became obvious he was a midwit. A more balanced one than most, but a midwit nonetheless, especially when he boldly stated he had no idea on how to judge the context and intention of Vox's musings.

The vaccine issue was comical. Nothing beats scientific consensus, eh? Science produces contingent factoids. At any point, those factoids can be modified or even overturned. Saying the science is settled is shortsighted, at best.

And ethics in the modern medical field? Since when were ethics of any real concern?

Blogger Myles April 24, 2015 7:17 PM  

Anyone else notice that Pakman admits to rape at the 17:30 mark?

Blogger Mark April 24, 2015 7:17 PM  

Dangit, posted before reading the full article. Did he miss the big *IF* in the article? As in, "If the shootings were a false-flag operation, the Obama administration appears to have badly misread the American people again."

Blogger Sean April 24, 2015 7:23 PM  

"Because most people are idiots." Quote of the year.

Anonymous Scintan April 24, 2015 7:24 PM  

And just to be clear, I was told this would be an interview about #GamerGate and the gaming industry. David Pakman himself sent me this email.

I haven't listened yet, but I do have a question based upon your report. Did you give any thought to pulling a Robert Downey, Jr.?

Blogger D. Lane April 24, 2015 7:31 PM  

It seems to me that they are trying to regain control over the narrative. The misogyny/sexism/racism/x-phobia angle was utterly ineffective. It failed under even the most superficial scrutiny. Now, their approach is to attempt to paint GG as being populated by crazies. That's what I gathered from Pakman's responses to Vox's answers.

Also, where the hell were your horns, Vox? I was expecting something more... theatric.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera April 24, 2015 7:32 PM  

Interviewer's eyes are uncomfortably close together. Koanic says this indicates a more solipsistic personality (autistic in economic terms), as opposed to a group-focused personality. Explains why he was willing to video chat with Lord Voxemort.

Pretty good interview overall.

OpenID jeffro April 24, 2015 7:35 PM  

I will never understand people like David Pakman.

I mean... he didn't once pause and say, "excuse me, Vox... could you please take down some of those wargames off the shelve there and tell me a little bit about them?"

Good grief!

Blogger Poor Guy April 24, 2015 7:35 PM  

"Just between you and I"... That sounds familiar somehow.

Blogger Poor Guy April 24, 2015 7:36 PM  

D. Lane full viking regalia, possibly?

Anonymous hausfrau April 24, 2015 7:36 PM  

Let's call it an attempted hatchet job. I didn't a part where the interviewer managed to pigeon hole you. Nice library.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera April 24, 2015 7:38 PM  

>Anyone else notice that Pakman admits to rape at the 17:30 mark?

New blog post title? :-P

Anonymous Long Time Lurker April 24, 2015 7:39 PM  

You handled this interview decently well considering the obvious setup.

Anonymous RSL April 24, 2015 7:39 PM  

Never expect the opposition to be fair or just in covering the issue.

This is a lesson the Intelligent Design theorists (in particular Behe, Meyers, and company) had to learn the hard way. Interviews would be conducted with them that would last two and three and four hours, and then the editors would edit it down to the 3 to 6 minutes of material that could be used against them is some misleading way -- and they would use it to run an anti-ID hit piece. One does not need to be an intelligent design proponent or sympathizer to see the wickedness of this behavior. Do not give interviews to the opposition -- ever. Debates, yes (preferably in written form). Interviews? Never.

Anonymous Mr. A is Mr. A April 24, 2015 7:39 PM  

Very much off topic, but check the Sasquan membership page <a href="http://sasquan.org/member-numbers/> here.</a>

While the membership growth rate for attending memberships appears to be in a steady linear growth, the supporting memberships currently appear to be in a geometric or exponential growth phase. Attending memberships (3517) are less than Supporting memberships (4183) at this point with a total attendee list of 8016 as of 23 April 2015.

Very interesting. While that growth rate can't last, it will be interesting to see how long it outpaces the on-site attendee list.

Blogger Amadeus343 April 24, 2015 7:41 PM  

"So what you're saying is..." [Gross mischaracterization follows]

It's bad enough to read those words devoid of inflection and body language. Coupling them with a tonal sneer and smarmy body language makes it infuriating. This guy doesn't even have a live audience to pander to, why is he employing the Jon Stewart theory of interviewing?

Is it gauche to calmly say mid-interview, "You might want to pump your brakes on the smarm, Pakman, you're starting to sound like an asshole." ?

I know people want to appear reasonable or dispassionate in interviews, and when something is going to be on the internet forever you don't want to risk losing your cool, but surely there are alternatives to letting these insults go entirely unchallenged. His non-apology at the end is unflattering as well.

I doff my hat to you for entertaining these interviews Vox. Hopefully you will have fairer hosts in the future.

Anonymous MK April 24, 2015 7:41 PM  

^^^This is what Rape Culture looks like...

Blogger Crude April 24, 2015 7:43 PM  

Vox,

I have to ask one thing. Why in the world did you think Pak would give you a fair interview? Did you do no reading up on him before agreeing?

Blogger Michael Maier April 24, 2015 7:45 PM  

That was damn annoying. And to see the original title of the video was changed is amusing to say the least.

Blogger Poor Guy April 24, 2015 7:46 PM  

BTW, does anyone know of a good non-SJW writers forum? Helpful stuff for starting out and things like that? I have written stories my whole life, but I have never really tried to get anything published.

Anonymous ennui April 24, 2015 7:46 PM  

I haven't listened to the interview so I don't know how bad it is. If you think it's not your finest hour, it's probably not good. It really doesn't matter. This is a case where, in order to win, there is really only one thing necessary. Continue to exist. That's not a pat on the head. That's a fact. Tet Offensive.

Anonymous NateM April 24, 2015 7:52 PM  

In the Vein of multi ethnic societies inevitably breaking up: Persian society consisted of a number of tribes who were subjugated by the Persians. Was that the primary reason for the empire breaking up, or did that stem from independent causes like the empire becoming unwieldy?

Blogger Poor Guy April 24, 2015 7:54 PM  

The original title is just a bridge too far.

Blogger Vox April 24, 2015 7:58 PM  

I haven't listened yet, but I do have a question based upon your report. Did you give any thought to pulling a Robert Downey, Jr.?

No, I was mostly curious to see how far he was going to take it. Keep in mind that I had NO idea he was going to bring up columns I could hardly remember and did not have time to look up, so I had to assume he was at least quoting them accurately, even if the quotes were out of context.

When he started in with Denver, I thought he was going onto Sandy Hook. But I was also pretty sure it would end up boomeranging on him, especially since I got him to admit to "rape" himself.

Remember, I'm a counterpuncher and video is not my favored medium. I figured I'd let him take his best shot. I can handle it. Now I can fisk his interview and address his questions in detail on the blog.

Why in the world did you think Pak would give you a fair interview? Did you do no reading up on him before agreeing?

I didn't. And I didn't. But I did think he would do an unfair interview about GamerGate and Rabid Puppies because they are actually relevant topics. I didn't think he'd start asking questions about WND columns from 10 years ago. Or about my high school track team, my 5th grade class schedule, or my sexual habits.

Blogger Daniel April 24, 2015 8:02 PM  

He is being modest. Vox killed it. The host looked like a smarmier stupider Tosh.0 in his contortions. This one had more kill shots in it than apparently anyone realizes.

Point out a single quote that gives the sjws traction. There isn't one. Improvements he could make next time are several (preplanned redirects to agreed upon subjects, responses designed to illicit bad quotes from the media whore,etc.) But getting him to admit the stupidity of the white supremacy slur by his personal story of being accused as antisemitic was really elegant. He lost the thread, sacrificing several false claims against you.

No blowout, but a big win. No doubt. Most don't see it yet, but who cares?

Anonymous HalibetLector April 24, 2015 8:05 PM  

No blowout, but a big win. No doubt. Most don't see it yet, but who cares?

I'll be honest, I didn't see it before Vox edited the original post. Now, I see it as a huge win. There are still people in #GamerGate who see Pak as a fair, neutral third party. I don't think anybody could watch this interview and still believe that. Another undercover rabbit gets outed.

Blogger RC April 24, 2015 8:05 PM  

If you inspect a man's library you can know the man. The Cambridge Medieval Series in the background of the interview says much and going by the binders, it looks like the first edition. Nice. The maps on that set are excellent.

Blogger guest April 24, 2015 8:09 PM  

There is no gene that provides for intelligence. It's part of the conscious, and we have theories about what makes one person smarter than another, but it most certainly has never been identified as a gene. There is no gene that provides for homosexuality--or heterosexuality. This is also a function of consciousness.. There is not gene for atheism, or Theism, or Deism. This is also a part of the conscious mind. It has also never been identified on the human genome. All three of these, however, are demanded by God as His right to control. They belong to Him, and He has the full rights of Divine Ownership. He demands that we love Him, with all of our hearts all of our mind, and all of our soul.

As far as marital rape is concerned, that is a little crazy. If verbal consent is required for marital relations to not be considered rape, then I am a serial rapist. I've removed my husband's shirt countless times. I curled my body into his anytime I wanted, without asking his permission. Dang, I miss raping my husband!

Blogger john black April 24, 2015 8:12 PM  

Vox looks like Frank Underwood on House of Cards.

"You may be thinking I've walked in on a trap. You would be wrong. The trap is set for them, they just don't know it yet. Now watch as I goad them into springing it."

Blogger Matt April 24, 2015 8:13 PM  

That chair is flippin awesome! How much was it? Is it an antique you found, or a recent handmade?

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey April 24, 2015 8:15 PM  

He seems awfully concerned with your views. It really seems to bother him.

The problem with this sort of interview is that they try to portray you as a right-wing animal at the zoo or a circus freak, and they often succeed in doing so.

Not the greatest performance, true, but well done, considering.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey April 24, 2015 8:17 PM  

Vox looks like Frank Underwood on House of Cards.

I like his haircut. Perhaps he needs a beard and 'stache combo.

Vox looks very much Italian, imo.

Anonymous zen0 April 24, 2015 8:19 PM  

Vox

I didn't think he'd start asking questions about WND columns from 10 years ago. Or about my high school track team, my 5th grade class schedule, or my sexual habits.

I think he started by saying he read up on you or did some research, Implying he did it on his own.

This is a lie. He is just a mouthpiece for Mr. X.

Maybe wrong, first impression and all, but I don't think so.

Anonymous HalibetLector April 24, 2015 8:20 PM  

Wow, some of the youtube comments are priceless. One in particular, 8-Bit Victim, is amusingly trying to tone police the comments section. Here's a particularly funny gem:

"Actually I was ALWAYS pro Gamergate, but I have enough capacity for critical thought to see how insecure this mob really is. So what if I am being an apologist for DP, whats the problem with that? It is obvious I am defending him in this matter. He was one of the ONLY journalists who gave GG the time of day, and you unsub because you disagree with one of his interviews. I say it is pathetic, infantile and immature. It shows how weak your position really is."

Anonymous NateM April 24, 2015 8:23 PM  

Once he got to the false flag comments, I was amused that he pretended not to understand something written to intrigue and grab attention, then titles his video "#GamerGate: Vox Day Says Some Races Smarter Than Others, Gay is a Birth Defect"

Anonymous Randall April 24, 2015 8:24 PM  

The only other thing I would have mentioned regarding the vaccine questions is the coercive nature of forcing them on people.

Anonymous Sean 2 April 24, 2015 8:26 PM  

Looks like David is playing some fast and loose with interviews today: https://twitter.com/CHSommers/status/591705881793982465

Anonymous VD April 24, 2015 8:26 PM  

That chair is flippin awesome! How much was it? Is it an antique you found, or a recent handmade?

It was my grandfather's, for whom I am named.

Anonymous Grue and Bleen April 24, 2015 8:28 PM  

Yikes. That guy Pakman is witty but a real ass. I've never before heard such rudeness in an interviewer. He played dirty, too. But shame on you for being blindsided by his real intent behind the request to discuss your "general views".

Anonymous Gx1080 April 24, 2015 8:29 PM  

I'm on about half of the interview, but:

"Let's talk about something related to the whole feminism, anti-feminism, etc on #Gamergate: Vox's personal views on marital rape!".

Wait, what? That's completely off-topic and doesn't make any sense. However, I saw the Milo interview and the last question was a travel to the off-topic world of Milo's opinion on transexuals. Didn't thought that the derail to "general Vox interview" was going to happen on the second question.

BTW, I laughed at "Well, have YOU given full written or verbal consent before having sex?". Pakman looked completely unprepared for that curve ball.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey April 24, 2015 8:33 PM  

Pakman (a Jew), a two-bit interviewer to be sure, comes across as if he's auditioning for a spot as a new Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert.

Anonymous indpndnt April 24, 2015 8:34 PM  

Remember: we don't care.

First, we know SJWs lie. Second, the ilk's minds aren't going to be changed, and the SJWs probably won't either.

What we get are great quotes that can be lorded over sjws (like the host admitting to non consenual sex) that will cause them no end of consternation and force them to lie even more. It's basic strategy to use what your opponent gives you when you can.

Finally, who cares if vox didn't knock it out of the park? He would stand by us if the same happened, because he knows you dont leave allies behind!


Blogger wrf3 April 24, 2015 8:36 PM  

Vox wrote: It was my grandfather's, for whom I am named.

You're named after God?

Sorry. Cheap shot. But it was an easy cheap shot.

Biggest takeaway: "I am not you. If you aren't sure about what I said, just ask. Don't project. You'll get it wrong 999 times out of a 1,000."

Anonymous MendoScot April 24, 2015 8:41 PM  

There was no pre-live chat? He likely didn't do his own background, and those who did were the same rabbits that infest all parts of any public discourse. They knew exactly where they wanted the interview to go.

You can often tell where they are going to go with that. And Pakman is about Pakman, same as any other media presence. Your part is to show to the audience just how insightful they are. Break that frame, and you have an enemy.

I've been hit the same way in radio interviews, and my old man was an experienced multimedia journalist.

Never mind. Next.

Blogger JAY WILL April 24, 2015 8:42 PM  

He's clever. He was very reasonable. He made some attempt to engage with your views. His aims were the same, to associate you with racism hatred etc etc. There was little expansion on what you were saying. He didn't dig deeper into what you said most of the time, when he did it was to try and get you further into a protected group hate box. He was sophisticated in his attempts. His bottom line aim was that you are a the ultimate ism maker. You tick all the hate boxes. Nothing he said or asked can be taken in good faith.




Anonymous zen0 April 24, 2015 8:44 PM  

> The problem with this sort of interview is that they try to portray you as a right-wing animal at the zoo or a circus freak, and they often succeed in doing so.


Arthur Chu thinks Pakman gives too much of a platform for right wing crazies.
He may be correct, from his perspective.

We will see, anon.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey April 24, 2015 8:47 PM  

What a mess.

Blogger JAY WILL April 24, 2015 8:49 PM  

There is a truth connection between the gamma and the alpha they both are after power of some kind. The delta and maybe beta believes in rules. The crucial difference is the gamma I am desires and dreams of power. But it can't happen, I'm way off. I can't have the glory, as I read you before, genuine alphas smell the gamma in me. They see that you want it, they see you know you cant get it, they might sadistically rub you face in it.

How do I get what I want?

Anonymous Fp April 24, 2015 8:50 PM  

"Vox Day Admits to Sex with Women Without Consent."

LOL. Vox Day the ravisher needs no consent.

Blogger beerme April 24, 2015 8:52 PM  

Arthur Chu thinks Pakman gives too much of a platform for right wing crazies.
He may be correct, from his perspective.

The only time we would be accepted on a platform by Chu is if we were being publicly executed.

Blogger Jay Lucas April 24, 2015 8:53 PM  

At least it serves well as an internal litmus test:

GGer01: Look, look, VD is a racist homophobe, we need to implement tone policing naow!

GGer02: Who's VD?

GGer03: Didn't we have this conversation last year and decide individuals are responsible for what they say?

GGer04: I'm not seeing racist or homophobic statements. I'm gonna go read this blog of his.

GGer01: No, no, don't you dare do that! He's the devil! He made sad puppies rabid and spoils milk and bread wherever her walks!

Lovely...

Anonymous aeou April 24, 2015 8:57 PM  

Very clever mr Day. Outstanding. That trap is devious. It costs you a little bit in the short term but costs them much more.

I need to scrape together forty bucks. The nominations alone have been so much fun I can't wait for the awards.

Blogger Matt April 24, 2015 9:02 PM  

What a snarky desperate ass. And a total Gamma. "So what yoooure saaaying is"

Blogger Clint April 24, 2015 9:03 PM  

Aeoli Pera, his eyes stuck out to me too. They just made me think he looks dead inside...

Blogger Krul April 24, 2015 9:04 PM  

VD - I didn't think he'd start asking questions about WND columns from 10 years ago. Or about my high school track team, my 5th grade class schedule, or my sexual habits.

Your column and blog archives are full of statements that can be easily misconstrued if read superficially. A result of your strategy for weeding out the didactic impaired, I think.

I suggest that if you intend to keep doing interviews, you prepare a set of canned responses to the statements that are likely to be brought up to discredit you. That way at least you're not caught off guard and you at least have a place to start when they try to change the subject on you. It's better than being caught flat footed and having to recall exactly what they're asking about, exactly what you really said at the time, and how best to explain it in the present.

Anonymous Autocollants April 24, 2015 9:04 PM  

You're getting fat

Anonymous Colombo April 24, 2015 9:07 PM  

I'd never realized how much Vox Day looks like Scalzi....

Blogger rcocean April 24, 2015 9:13 PM  

I found Paxman incredibly annoying. Not as bad as Charlie Rose but I could have done without the interruptions and his absurd arguing. What was the point about disputing abnormal vs. normal ? Or at the end where he couldn't admit that "signs of a false flag" doesn't equal asserting "It was a false flag".

And then checking off the PC topics! Lets see, First I try to get Vox on Race, then Rape, then Homosexuality, then...

Anonymous Eric the Red April 24, 2015 9:15 PM  

You took too long to come around to the crux of your points, i.e., too much verbiage and intellectual walking-on-eggs. For any interview with the rabid press, an interviewee must state their position quickly and incisively at the outset, preferably employing some kind of meme-ready slogan. Also, put the interviewer at a disadvantage by always questioning their assumptions and definitions. Never let them get the upper hand.

In general, Vox ended up meandering around, taking too long to come to his essential points, and generally losing the initiative. This is war, and interviews are simply another battlefield.

Blogger rcocean April 24, 2015 9:15 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger rcocean April 24, 2015 9:16 PM  

I'm sure Paxman is hoping some MSNBC producer is watching his stuff and will give him a show. I wouldn't be surprised if they do. He's liberal enough and dumb enough.

Anonymous Godfrey April 24, 2015 9:20 PM  

Maybe the SJWs will nominate Pakman Hugo Award next year. It's merely a political award anyhow. Why not?

Anonymous Godfrey April 24, 2015 9:24 PM  

rcocean April 24, 2015 9:16 PM

"I'm sure Paxman is hoping some MSNBC producer is watching his stuff and will give him a show. I wouldn't be surprised if they do. He's liberal enough and dumb enough."


You're exactly right. That's how it works. Suck establishment c*#k and get paid. What I don't understand is why so many of them do it so cheap.

Anonymous Anonymous April 24, 2015 9:24 PM  

and just more broadly how you general views inform your views on gamergate and the gaming industry. - this is clear in the mail right........

Anonymous Viidad April 24, 2015 9:25 PM  

@ Autocollants

Does your mom know you're gay?

Anonymous Eric the Red April 24, 2015 9:25 PM  

Vox took too long to come around to the crux of his points, i.e., too much verbiage and intellectual walking-on-eggs. For any interview with the rabid press, an interviewee must state their position quickly and incisively at the outset, preferably employing some kind of meme-ready slogan. You also didn't attack him on the so-called "nature of subjective law". There needs to be intellectual consistency for this or most any issue, and unfortunately it appeared that Vox was backed into some vague position about anarcho-libertarianism, which gave the impression that he had not thought carefully enough about it to have an overarching position. In light of this, the interviewer should always be put at a disadvantage by questioning his assumptions and definitions. Never let them get the upper hand.

In general, Vox ended up meandering around, taking too long to come to his essential points, and generally losing the initiative. This is war, and interviews are simply another battlefield.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera April 24, 2015 9:25 PM  

>I'd never realized how much Vox Day looks like Scalzi....

True, the difference is mainly in the body language and the relaxed vocal chords.

Blogger IM2L844 April 24, 2015 9:25 PM  

Well, that wasn't horrible.

I thought his whole trying to paint creating headlines for dramatic effect as somehow controversial and not a common practice among all bloggers and journalists of every ideological stripe was disingenuous and lame though. Yes, you sometimes intentionally say things in such a way as to be provocative. I've said that for years. So what?

Anonymous Nathan April 24, 2015 9:25 PM  

Sounds like he used the same play on Vox that he pulled on Milo, where a Gamergate interview turned into a conversation on why Milo, a gay man, was critical of trans people. To be fair, though, Wu had a meltdown on his show when Pakman went off-script on her.

Anonymous magusj April 24, 2015 9:26 PM  

Vox,

You should read up on Gregory Cochran's pathogen theory of obligate male homosexuality:

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/greg-cochrans-gay-germ-hypothesis-an-exercise-in-the-power-of-germs/

It seems like the best bet. Not genes or upbringing.

Anonymous Anubis April 24, 2015 9:28 PM  

"I didn't think he'd start asking questions about WND columns from 10 years ago."

I was half expecting pajamaboy to quote out of a high school yearbook of a girl that went to school with Vox. Vox did you fulfill your promise to be best friends forever?

GGer04: I'm not seeing racist or homophobic statements. I'm gonna go read this blog of his.

GGer01: No, no, don't you dare do that! Once you see the magic words "White privilege is evolution that's why Asians have it also" & "evolution didn't stop at the neck" it will turn you into a racist. Its like being bit by a wereseal, a racist wereseal

Blogger Bard April 24, 2015 9:33 PM  

I think you did a good job of not losing your temper. Effeminate men like that need real combat.

Blogger Bard April 24, 2015 9:35 PM  

When he said there are literally thousands of gay species, you should have told him on the spot to name 5. No, wait, 6 is the number.

Blogger So Meh April 24, 2015 9:35 PM  

Not much about #GamerGate. i'm glad i was at college decades ago. it seems now to be a PC Mad House. we use to talk about striving for the best of things, beer, girls, sports, grades, careers, etc. now so much time and effort on what does "consent" mean? snowflakes and madness. Vox thanks for going into the Lion's den. my only suggestion is as a condition for future interviews that they have to display (in a corner) the running "Debt Clock" for prospective purposes.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Anonymous anon123 April 24, 2015 9:37 PM  

Entertaining half hour watching a sophomoric Phil 101 grad try to score "gotcha" points.

Blogger Remo April 24, 2015 9:37 PM  

You write much better than you interview unfortunately. I think one of the big problems with highly intelligent people is that certain things, certain logical connections are so fundamentally obvious and true for them that they do not spell out each and every logical step from point A to point B for the viewing masses. This tends to make the less gifted (99.9% of the population) think you aren't proving your points and/or haven't thought things through. You are quite intelligent but did not appear to be in this interview - at least not as much as my impression of you after having read your writings since 2008. Obviously your writings are the truer metric here but a casual person just looking at this interview wouldn't have a correct view of your eloquence, logical stance, and thought processes. That is a shame as I believe those have significant value but were not properly displayed.

There were several places in this interview where I wanted to interject because Pakman wasn't getting it but you were moving on. It allowed him to drag you back a step which IMHOP put you off your game. It seemed to annoy you the way having a less intelligent person sitting next to you on a group school project would.

One the hallmarks of great charismatic leaders is that they can dominate and navigate both of these areas and people "love" them for it. Once the emotion is activated people are much more willing to follow them down the garden path anywhere they go and missing a logical connection doesn't matter as much. In this interview this did not happen which is a pity as you had some good points. Pakman came off as the sympathetic character while you seemed cold. This doesn't mean you were wrong of course but in a world where an ounce of appearance is worth 2 pounds of performance perception is everything until it becomes history and then everyone "sees" what should have been obvious at the time.

Anonymous zen0 April 24, 2015 9:37 PM  

Chill, perfection dudes. The vapours are unbecoming for the self-possessed. Any publicity is good publicity, especially if it is free. Did they spell his name right?

Allrighty, then.

How many people get to say homosexuality is a birth defect and support the idea?
Brilliant.

Asking about express written or verbal permission sex? Brilliant.

Oh ye of little faith.

those ideas are now public domain, part of approved public discourse.

Arthur Chu was right. The truth must never be given the possibility of seeing the light of day.

It does not matter that Vox is presented as an extremist, the important part is to have the ideas see the light of day.





Blogger Remo April 24, 2015 9:37 PM  

Gamergate was of course given only a short piece but I do understand why Pakman moved on - he felt the issue was settled without the fundamental problem being answered. To his mind the issue was closed because he didn't ask the right questions but got answers without connecting to the big picture. In the gamergate section the fundamental problem of SJW's downvoting games not because of the games quality but because of reasons of perceived lack of political correctness wasn't given nearly enough air time. This got lost in the weeds. I was waiting for an example like "Mass Effect 3 would have been panned harshly but wasn't solely because a decision was made to include homosexual themes. Now those weren't necessary and the games goodness or badness shouldn't hinge on something like this but for the SJW's this is the fundamental element NOT whether a game is playable, enjoyable, etc.

This interview was like a parent watching a math teacher explain a concept to a student, the parent knowing the student has a fundamental flaw in his understanding of the material, and then watching in frustration as the student leaves. The math teacher believes the process is so damn obvious and easy that further instruction checking questions are unnecessary. The student believes he has "got it" but doesn't and he'll find this out when the test is delivered. And the parent is just frustrated because what could have been a good opportunity to increase understanding of concepts has been lost.

People like Vox are almost never given any airtime and this was a blown opportunity. Pakman should have been filleted and served hot but walked away looking sympathetic. Perhaps its a curse of being a slightly above average intellect but not so far up the intelligence scale that I can see a piece of both worlds. I could see the disconnects here. I could see Pakman not getting it, I could see Vox moving on because the concepts were obvious to him, and I could see Pakman thinking he had understanding of the subject material without having any understanding at all.

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 24, 2015 9:40 PM  

Effective hit piece.

Annoyingly, he managed to come across as being even handed unless you are sympathetic to Vox begin with. You have to admire chomp-chomp's frame control.

He definitely prepared for this. He was delighted when Vox brought up his being a Native American, he'd clearly been waiting for that one and snatched at it greedily.

He also appeared to know about the 3 month old infant inoculation anecdote and had prepared an in-depth trap there as well.

In any case, no serious damage has been done but no one could call it a win either.

Call it a learning experience.

Perhaps Milo would be willing do second interview.

Blogger Bard April 24, 2015 9:43 PM  

He showed little interest in what Vox really had to say. He only wanted "on the record" one liners to use as hit piece quotes. Let us see what he does with the interview. His tell was the over and over repeating of "if I am hearing you correctly".

Anonymous clk April 24, 2015 9:44 PM  

It looked much like a Nixon - Kennedy debate .. VD .. you got to get out in the sun more .. you are the palest mexican redskin I have ever seen.

I would recommend in the future when asked about extreme things you have written in the past you point out that you are a satirical writer at heart and often use extreme and obtuse statements to make your points... its often in the extreme extents that the truth of some things becomes evident... its a classic tool used by gadflies over the ages...

If you are going to survive this you better re-read every thing you wrote in the last 15 years and make sure you have good answers for each .. because here you did not come off very well at all ... I would grant you that video is perhaps not your best medium but its very unlikely that this will be the last time you are asked for a interview and you wont be always able to control the situation...

Anonymous It April 24, 2015 9:44 PM  

My favorite part was hearing Vox say MPAI. Second favorite was the consistent looking right unconscious tick as he thought about the questions.

My advice for you Vox, next time have a drink first and relax. If your having fun with the interview, the audience is having fun with you. After all MPAI.

Blogger Bard April 24, 2015 9:45 PM  

If one "glad Vox cleared that up" is used in a positive way, I will recant.

Anonymous RSL April 24, 2015 9:47 PM  

I just finished watching the interview. Paxman tried to pin on Vox all the standard hate-points: racist, white-supremacist, rapist, and so on... None of it stuck. Vox did a decent job rebutting each of these lies. Any neutral observer who listens carefully will realize that none of these things are true about Vox -- despite Paxman's obnoxious interruptions and willful misrepresentations of Vox's positions. Any of the recalcitrant Vox-haters (or anyone unwilling to listen carefully) is not interested the truth anyway -- and nothing in heaven or on earth could convince them otherwise. Neutral observers will be another story. Well done, Vox.

Anonymous Geoff April 24, 2015 9:50 PM  

If gay is a birth defect, then Bruce Jenner is a very interesting case study. He's apparently a woman but is still sexually attracted to women. That would make him a lesbian, I guess??

Anonymous jm April 24, 2015 9:53 PM  

A real life Mr. Garrison.

Anonymous Mr. A is Mr. A April 24, 2015 9:56 PM  

zen0 is correct. This was an overall "win" for Vox. Pakman has now taken a credibility hit with Gamergate -- they thought he was at least neutral to the conflict and provided fair coverage. That is now in question as this interview was a visible hit-piece, and under the Gamergate banner -- by Pakman's choice. Pakman loses credibility in Gamergate's realm. (Question: a possible ploy to fracture a perceived connection between Gamergate and the Hugos by Pakman and Unknown Associates?)

Vox did a credible job explaining his views under fire from an unexpected direction. No small number of people are going to hit his blog looking for additional information, as this is the first they've heard of him. That means more people getting the straight scoop rather than media-filtered pablum.

Score at the half: Vox 23, SJWs 6

Anonymous Anubis April 24, 2015 9:56 PM  

"When he said there are literally thousands of gay species, you should have told him on the spot to name 5. No, wait, 6 is the number."

Vox should have asked how many he had personal knowledge of and did they give consent. Neigh Neigh, what does the Fox say?

Anonymous Autocollants April 24, 2015 9:57 PM  

Viidad, when did you stop beating your wife?

Anonymous Geoff April 24, 2015 9:59 PM  

jm

Nice one. We can always count on South Park to set us "straight".

Blogger JAY WILL April 24, 2015 10:00 PM  

Remo

So your thinking that Pakman was interested in a greater understanding in the evil ones position? He was interested in discovering the fascinating and unusual beliefs of a man out of time? The suggestion that he was hoping to make him look like a cunt is not to be considered? Perhaps this is an occasion where my own skills come though. Its hard to lie to a liar. Maybe my lies are not in the form of statements, but I'm usually up to no good in any interaction. Looking to score points usually. How can I may this guy look bad, or at least make me look good.

Anonymous zen0 April 24, 2015 10:01 PM  

Geoff April 24, 2015 9:50 PM

If gay is a birth defect, then Bruce Jenner is a very interesting case study. He's apparently a woman but is still sexually attracted to women. That would make him a lesbian, I guess??


I think the late Rick James has a response Super Freak

Blogger Matt April 24, 2015 10:02 PM  

There are videos of animals engaging in sex with members of the same wex. Lions, uffalos, apes, etc. But they dont do this exclusively and this is when there are no females around either because they cant get them or they just arent nearby due to another male being with them, etc.

Blogger Daniel April 24, 2015 10:09 PM  

Seriously. Tosh.0 should have worn a helmet. LOOK at the host's quotes. A Kardashian would have looked more intellectually matched.

Paxman rhetorically shat on nearly every sjw sacred cow and ended up scoffing at trauma to an infant. Women are going to hate pax after this one.

The words do not matter (and pax lost on that front too. Seriously, his first mistake was trying to outintellectual an intellectual.)

Anonymous Elijah Rhodes April 24, 2015 10:09 PM  

Vox, I would expect someone who preaches game theory to bring more than a stretchy gym shirt. Like it or not, you’ve become the face of the anti-culture warrior movement, and while your video persona will likely never match the brutal force of your prose, you can certainly rise to your potential. You’ve become infamous enough that every interview you do will be watched and scrutinized by thousands. Bring your A game. Always. And don’t forget the most important element of all: The smile.

Anonymous zen0 April 24, 2015 10:10 PM  

@ Matt

> There are videos of animals engaging in sex with members of the same wex.

Take your hand off your dick and step away....you will be ok in the morning.
No one need speak of it again.

Blogger aaron April 24, 2015 10:10 PM  

As General Giap said, there is no such thing as success or failure, only results

Anonymous Axe Head April 24, 2015 10:13 PM  

Another good one is where Vox got him to admit that if everyone were homosexual the population would die out.

Anonymous Quotable Quotes April 24, 2015 10:14 PM  

"I used to be on a gay record label." Vox Day

Anonymous Geoff April 24, 2015 10:15 PM  

zenO, you might want to step away from those Rick James videos as well.

Blogger Markku April 24, 2015 10:16 PM  

"I used to be on a gay record label." Vox Day

VQPF approve

OpenID malcolmthecynic April 24, 2015 10:19 PM  

There are videos of animals engaging in sex with members of the same sex.

I never found the "Let's all act like animals" argument the least bit convincing.

Anonymous zen0 April 24, 2015 10:20 PM  

> zenO, you might want to step away from those Rick James videos as well.

I saw my opportunity, and I took the shot.
I think it was a bullseye.

Anonymous Culture War Draftee April 24, 2015 10:21 PM  

This got me thinking of Alex Jones, who is nowhere in Vox's league as a critical thinker, but is very good at swiftly lashing back at the first perceived criticism. He's a shoot-from-the-hip kind of guy, but blowing his top in interviews is his specialty. That's not really compatible with cool, logical dialectic.

I think some more passion would have served you here. I like your fired-up blog posts, so I'd be stoked to see you give 'em both barrels. In any case, armchair quarterbacks are a dime-a-dozen and two cents ain't worth what it used to be, so I'll leave it at that.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera April 24, 2015 10:21 PM  

Elijah,

This isn't his first interview, and "smile" is bad advice.

Anonymous zen0 April 24, 2015 10:27 PM  

Dudes. Vox does not need coaching about how to be Vox. This is not a Republican Campaign strategy session. There is not going to be a compromise position.

The rest of you take notes. Refer to them when confused.

Blogger john black April 24, 2015 10:30 PM  

@Laguna

"Pakman (a Jew),"

I really wish they could help themselves without needing Europeans to show them tough hate. It gets old after a while.

Anonymous Anon April 24, 2015 10:33 PM  

"Call it a learning experience."

They all are. It's not reasonable to expect Vox to sound like a veteran TV host. At least he's out there engaging the enemy.

Anonymous The Bruce Dickenson April 24, 2015 10:37 PM  

More cowbell.

Blogger Daniel April 24, 2015 10:42 PM  

Stop thinking like men for one second and remember that the sjw inherently operates off the female brain...either feminists or gamma males. Realize that vox's performance turned those minds on and pax's repulsed them. Better yet, a human, normal, but highly competent delivery was effective rhetoric to sway the neutral.

"Huh. That guy isn't the devil" may be the only message delivered in that interview to the neutrals. It is also the only message necessary.

Vox didn't do it for us. He did it for them.

Blogger Zimri April 24, 2015 10:42 PM  

Here's the thing. I don't need Vox to tell me what to think about stuff. Suppose the worst about him. Okay, fine: Vox is bad news.

It doesn't invalidate what's been *linked* here.

Seriously. Does anything here really make Teresa Hayden any better? Does it make Scalzi less creepy? .... Marion Zimmer Bradley... well. It's not like the little kids that MZB raped magically got un-raped because VD has sometimes said stuff.

Blogger Zimri April 24, 2015 10:46 PM  

to clarify - I *don't* think VD is bad news.

I do think he's *delivered* bad news, like about Delany and MZB. I suspect that's really what's at stake here, for a lot of the SFWA crew.

Blogger Daniel April 24, 2015 10:46 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Vic April 24, 2015 10:51 PM  

"There are videos of animals engaging in sex with members of the same sex."

I have seen animals eat their own excrement, but that doesn't mean people should mimic the behavior, or if some people did that it should be considered normal.

Left handed people can and do help propagate the species though.

Anonymous Quotable Quotes April 24, 2015 11:00 PM  

God awful interview.

As far as who won or not ; Vox got Jewed either way.

Anonymous Viidad April 24, 2015 11:05 PM  

@ Autocollants

I laughed.

Blogger kh123 April 24, 2015 11:09 PM  

At the 24:30 mark, he missed a chance to use "Tanks in the streets! Dogs and cats living together! Cracking one another's heads open and feasting on the goo inside!"

Nevermind that his snowballing extrapolation towards "Societal breakdown IF!"... fits that left lavender hand all the more. That glove done fit, and I'd have to take a wild guess and say that he'd still acquit.

The guy even looks like Jon Stewart. Truly like moths to a flame, angling for that Hearst limelight.

Anyhow, good showing.

Anonymous Ajax April 24, 2015 11:10 PM  

That's not a good screenshot. fixed!

haha

Interesting interview. The interviewer was obviously liberal, but let you answer more fully than many would.

Yes, it was interesting and good to see two people discussing something without constantly cutting each other off.

Vox did a credible job explaining his views under fire from an unexpected direction. No small number of people are going to hit his blog looking for additional information, as this is the first they've heard of him. That means more people getting the straight scoop rather than media-filtered pablum.


Agreed.

Anonymous Varenius April 24, 2015 11:14 PM  

TL;DW version: DISQUALIFY!!!

Anonymous Soga April 24, 2015 11:17 PM  

Did you see how many times, while he was speaking, Pakman did that thing with his hands where he looks like Gamma Rabbit holding up his hands and going "Don't hurt me!"?

Vox looked a bit tired, though. I would be too, after more than 10 years of writing and dealing with people at least 2 SDs below me on an almost daily basis.

Anonymous MrGreenMan April 24, 2015 11:21 PM  

That came across as pretty good given hostile but polite media. You only lost the round on the vaccination schedule because you did not force him to the point of realizing it is the SCHEDULE that is your primary complaint. He never saw that. It was like I was watching Limbaugh on Donahue in the early 90s, and he was so flabbergasted by the lunatic girl asking about mental poverty that he had no idea what she was talking about, and they cut it there. On all the others, you sure appeared to force some change in his position, so all others were draws or wins. For example, marital rape - yes, it's bad, not all bad things can be litigated or outlawed nor should you try to accomplish that because, like the Attorney General of Illinois and her war on the American tradition of the assumption of innocence, it just doesn't always work.

Anonymous Profit April 24, 2015 11:28 PM  

He was really stretching for that "birth defect" attack. IMO a better reply to His asking for examples would be an African albino... A clear defect with clear disadvantages. Color-Blindness I think also would have worked in places. Anyhow, fun to hear Vox debate and discuss.

Blogger Matt April 24, 2015 11:28 PM  

I didnt think it was necessary to point out that observing an animal do something is a recommendation.

Going to animals for proof of a behavior being natural or unnatural, whatever that means, is just as ridiculous. Animals behave in all sorts of ways that harm them and their species.

Pakmans use of handedness was absurd. If sex is how we reproduce and homosexuality prevents reproduction then I see no problem labeling it a defect, just as being born blind is a defect.

And its worth noting that left handed people do have trouble. They write differently and are more likely to be injured using certain power tools. Its hardly a harmless thing to be left handed, in every instance. To make an all encompassing statement is incorrect. If I had a child who was left handed I would absolutely encourage he or she to use the right hand if only so abidexterity is developed.

Blogger Matt April 24, 2015 11:30 PM  

@Profit, how is African Albinism advantageous?

Anonymous RSL April 24, 2015 11:38 PM  

MrGreenMan... That analysis is spot on.

Anonymous puffthemagicdragon April 25, 2015 12:05 AM  

Lol, how long did it take Vox to mention that, by the way, he's a supergenius, speaks 5 languages (depending on how you count, ha!) and that he's a Mexican. Oh, yeah, and that "most people are idiots". I've only seen 15 minutes so far, but I'm waiting to see how long it's going to take him to bring up his elite socio-sexual status and his deep knowledge of economics (Ron Paul level nonsense).

This guy smacks of someone who grew up believing he had great potential, was going to achieve great things, didn't, out of laziness, and retreated into the wacko world of theauto didact who thinks he knows everything because he read a few books. Just another guy with an over inflated ego.

Blogger Daniel April 25, 2015 12:13 AM  

It seems like you are saying that you molest children, puffthemagicdragon.

Anonymous puffthemagicdragon April 25, 2015 12:26 AM  

Damn, this skinny Jew got some pretty good points in on the marriage rape question too. I thought supergenius sigmas were above it all. Maybe holing yourself up in your library and preaching to the choir in an internet echo chamber doesn't do much for one's debating skills.

Anonymous puffthemagicdragon April 25, 2015 12:35 AM  

Lol, "subjective law is bad law". I guess all these lawyers and judges arguing over "reasonable" doubt and malicious "intentions" just haven't heard the Gospel of Vox, wherein all the answers are clear and simple and the rest of us are just idiots.

Blogger Josh April 25, 2015 12:41 AM  

Awesome chair.

Anonymous hausfrau April 25, 2015 12:43 AM  

There are videos of animals engaging in sex with members of the same sex


Animals also engage in cannibalism and rape. It's natural doncha' know?

Anonymous puffthemagicdragon April 25, 2015 12:46 AM  

Vox: Considering your poor performance vs an amateur debater on Youtube who probably doesn't have too deep a knowledge of any subject, you'll probably be cowering under your desk for a while whenever the topic of debating comes up. Nonetheless, I for one would like to see your crank ideas on economics come under scrutiny as well, and I'm sure others would too. There are economics professors and phds on reddit that would love a chance to spank ignorant blowhards around a bit, why not debate them? reddit.com/r/badeconomics.

Anonymous Sevron April 25, 2015 12:52 AM  

It wasn't a great interview on the face of it, but it has cost Packman his undeserved status with GamerGate. It was especially horseshit that he left the GamerGate logo up the entire time, but NEVER spent one damn minute actually talking about GG. Fuck this idiot.

Blogger Moor April 25, 2015 12:57 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Moor April 25, 2015 12:58 AM  

I've only been friends with one person that I absolutely knew was in the 99.9% of I.Q. The interview reminded me of him. He had a dispassionate way of talking about subjects that most people view either through a lens of accrued emotional experiences or through a social matrix tuned to likeability. He would speak with an air of commitment to distinguishing between things that are true and verifiable versus things that are speculative, while willing to posit certain possible deductions without committing himself one way or another. I saw this same thing in VD, and my takeaway is this:

Most people are not sophisticated enough to distinguish between the genius who is able to parse fact and emotion, and the ideologies they hold dear.

My friend would actually read books about joke-telling and social interaction precisely to aid in his social interactions because he came to understand that people so often mistook his process for arrogance, when it was simply the result of processing so much more quickly, dispassionately, and globally.

That said, I would echo some of the suggestions about how you present on camera Vox. You may not care, but your argumentation will be more effective if it is winsome. This by no means requires sell-out or inauthentic expression. Rather, it would represent the humble acceptance that most others will need assistance in understanding your approach.

Blogger SirThermite April 25, 2015 1:03 AM  

Watched the whole thing and I think the weakest position Vox presented was actually his GamerGate statements at the beginning. It's not about honesty in journalism except when it is, and game developers don't care except when they do? What the.... Now given, I'm either a high midwit or a low highwit, so I may have missed some traps and Vox may have been zig-zagging to avoid getting pinned-down, but regardless it seemed like a lot of meandering and also unfortunately lends credence to the common misconception that GamerGate is just a tempest in a teacup with nerds overreacting.

Getting back to the point about how I'm not as smart as Vox, it's infuriating enough for me to see how much of a (wilful?) dumbass Pakman is being (left-handers still have a drive to impregnate fertile women, you blithering idiot....also, please tell us if you think pedophiles/statutory rapists are "normal."after all, we observe animals having sex with other animals under 13 or 17 years of age). Mad props for a super-intelligence like Vox for not losing his temper altogether. Pakman might think he's the AMOG of his media turf, and it's obvious that Vox isn't operating in his own element, but the Sigma game designing sitting like Dr. Evil in his library didn't get pwned, not by a long shot.

Blogger Daniel April 25, 2015 1:36 AM  

No, you missed the careful distinctions on GamerGate, SirThermite. It isn't "about" ethics in journalism, poor ethics in journalism have always been with us - a journalism scandal sparked it. It is about others with no vested interest in the outcome of a particular game having a say in the outcome of a particular game. John Flynt and Zoe Quinn are free to make their games - but they insist on making it harder for others to make theirs.

Vox laid that one out quite well, especially since he assumed that he'd have another 20 minutes to build off that platform.

At the rhetorical level, it is important that "Actually, it's about ethics in games journalism" is in the deck, but when it comes to laying out the facts, it is patently obvious that games journalism was simply a convenient point of attack. The journo sites must burn because they have cancer, but that doesn't mean their burning will cure the cancer.

This is about turning SJW weapons on themselves, and forcing them to live the hell of their dreams that they've been wishing on the rest of us...but only because that is the most efficient way to get these social minders out of the way so the rest of us can get back to work.

Blogger Jassi April 25, 2015 1:41 AM  

I'm only 15 minutes into the interview, but you've handled yourself very well thus far. Mr Pakman tries to hard to slyly lay out traps that most people would very easily fall into, but which you maneuvered with ease.

Anonymous puffthemagicdragon April 25, 2015 2:23 AM  

On the Aurora false flag "signs" issue, Pakman questions Vox on it and when he reveals that he doesn't actually believe it was a false flag, Pakman exclaims, "But isn't that baiting?!"

Bingo. Dude just condensed Vox's entire M.O. Bait and withdraw, like a bullfighter. It's just for show. The rest of the show is Vox engaged in a fighting withdrawal where essentially he says that nothing he says should be taken seriously unless he says it, but only if he doesn't say it shouldn't not be taken seriously. Or something like that, because logically it was nonsense. When all else fails, keep talking until the clock runs out (and mention that you called the crash).

Anonymous HalibetLector April 25, 2015 2:27 AM  

Watched the whole thing and I think the weakest position Vox presented was actually his GamerGate statements at the beginning.

That's because Pak was asking especially poor questions. I don't know if that was intentional or not. On the one hand, it's possible he was trying to make it seem like Vox couldn't come up with a valid argument for why negative press could restrict what games get developed without revealing his own bias. It certainly seemed to me, from his manner of questioning, that he doesn't think SJWs have any affect on what gets developed and wanted to discredit that argument entirely. Either that or he couldn't follow the simple logic that game companies don't like making games that draw angry SJW mobs and bad press.

Blogger Daniel April 25, 2015 2:33 AM  

No. He is not "on camera" he's on web-cam. He provided a better backdrop than pretty much anyone I've seen, and there's not a lot you can do about doucheing up on a webcam. The helmet haired Tosh.0 with his little webshow is always going to look better. That's half the reason why these media whores go for the videocast: so they can always look better than their guests.

For God's sake, take a look at the always fashionable Milo Yiannopolis. On regular TV, he looks like effing Zoolander, but when he does his own videos, he looks mildly addicted to absinthe.

But guess who normal people relate to? That's right: absinthe boy.

You all are overlooking that overpolishing your presentation in an internet age of authenticity is a bad move.

So, when Tosh.0 flashes those smarmy whites, plays the Jew card (after saying Vox can't play the Indian card) and impresses himself about dismissing the seizure of an infant, he looks like - to normal people, esp. to normal women - like a convention floor creep.

While Vox looks like a regular guy with a lot of books, a cool chair, and an understandable weariness.

Anyone who thinks that Kennedy-Nixon sort of stuff is still relevant in an age of Leave Brittney Alone and Bruce Fucking Jenner has been checked out for too long.

The media has changed, and Vox just won it.

You do not get this: "media training" is Reagan's war. Hell, Bill Clinton, with his uncomfortable pauses and his nervous laugh is considered a great orator.

If you can be polite and calm and normal on a webcam in front of thousands of people, you are winning the media war.

Polish is for shoes, and Pakman spent the entire time shining while Vox - voice of the people, average joe and benevolent superintelligence just won over 10,000 people (based on a multiplier of likes and dislikes by 10.)

I'm not blowing smoke: I've been through media training. I've been on camera, and I've been hardballed and loose cannoned. It is a joke. Normal people see through it and they hate it, even if they are still dumb enough to swallow it at the mental level.

Vox doesn't need to ruin what he's got with a second of media training, unless he's interested in utilizing spin for something. I'm not sure why, though. It would be like trading Tigers for V-2s.

Do not fight the last media war. Fight the next one.

Anonymous takin' a look April 25, 2015 2:34 AM  

Speaking of journalism.........you've GOT to see this link at Wired. reporters replaced by algorithms shove THIS into the fat tranny neckbeards faces! 15 years and they are kaput! YKW will just web crawl regurgitated tripe on every subject. Sorry non-Chosenite useful idiot SJWs, sucks to be u!

Anonymous puffthemagicdragon April 25, 2015 2:43 AM  

All in all, if this plodding, stumbling, deflated wit is an example of a super sigma super genius, the rest of us plebs can at least take heart that maybe we're not that far from the ubermensch anyway.

Anonymous rho April 25, 2015 2:44 AM  

A few questions.

1) Place your performance on your socio-sexual scale.

2) Place your explanation of your performance on your socio-sexual scale.

Blogger JDC April 25, 2015 2:46 AM  

For those people commenting that Vox came off badly in the interview. I'd like to see you agree to a lengthy interview, on skype, without agreed upon questions beforehand. It's called courage - you should try it some time. It also helps that you don't give a s**t what people don't think about you - another concept you should consider. Although my imagination suffers sometimes, I can imagine most SJW's leaving the interview in a huff when it became apparent he wasn't sticking to the agree upon parameters. You showed more restraint that I would have.

We have chairs in our sanctuary that look like your grandfather's...is yours as uncomfortable as ours?

Anonymous rho April 25, 2015 2:55 AM  

For those people commenting that Vox came off badly in the interview. I'd like to see you agree to a lengthy interview, on skype, without agreed upon questions beforehand.

The answer is, clearly, no.

Anonymous Quotable Quotes April 25, 2015 2:56 AM  

Yeah, that was a particularly disastrous moment in the interview for Vox. The Jew was trying to demonstrate that Vox lacked integrity and, unfortunately, Vox effectively backed him up.

Pakman says at 43:09: "...Every indication was that you were serious."

Vox answers: "No it wasn't David..."

Let's go to the article referenced and see if we can find indications that Vox had his tongue firmly in his cheek.

The 'Lone Gunmen'

Exclusive: Vox Day reveals Denver theater shooting's signs of false-flag operation

I can see no indication that Vox was merely joking about in that article. Matter of fact I think it's a good article and I agree with it. However, Vox ran from it and undermined himself.

Sure, Vox may not remember the article word for word but that still doesn't explain why he ran from a consistent point of his over the years, that being in his own words:

But 10 years ago, in a column titled The secret lust for power, I showed how the conspiracy theory of history is the only one that holds up in light of centuries of documentary evidence.

Pakman got Vox all tripped up over how anyone would know when to take Vox seriously or not seriously, since Vox here admits he wasn't serious with that article. Vox needs to clarify this point if he wants to regain some credibility.

As puffthemagicdragon points out, "Dude just condensed Vox's entire M.O. Bait and withdraw, like a bullfighter. As Vox says in this very thread: Remember, I'm a counterpuncher...

Vox got punched to the ground in that round.

Anonymous Mr. B.A.D. April 25, 2015 3:06 AM  

He annoyed the shit out of me. He kept trying to pin you down and reframe your answers to his liking.

It was cool seeing you though. Does being Native American keep your from growing a beard?

Anonymous puffthemagicdragon April 25, 2015 3:10 AM  

"The media has changed, and Vox just won it."

You know your argument might actually make some sense, if Vox had actually argued for something. What actually happened in the interview was Vox parrying and withdrawing from claims he's otherwise been content to have ascribed to him, on the internet. When they're challenged face to face, by a reasonable and intelligent person, suddenly his claims are very technical logical constructions that people are misinterpreting, and which are not definitive or authoritative. He's even very willing to let things lie and admit to a simple difference of opinion (like when Pakman says he finds it reasonable to accept the weight of evidence in favor of vaccines, Vox meekly admits to a difference of perspective). On the internet, he's a fire breathing dragon burning down rabbit warrens, in real life he's a soft jowled, middle aged guy somewhat wary of appearing too crazy.

Blogger Daniel April 25, 2015 3:20 AM  

You understand nothing. Winning the media has nothing to do with arguments. Nothing. Argument is irrelevant. Winning favor is the only currency of the media.

Even if it was the fantasy 60 minutes circa 1975 scenario you describe, that has nothing to do with Vox's response. He was polite, never meek, and the questions were unreasonable: any sane uninformed viewer is going to think GamerGate started in 2004 and has something to do with birth defects.

The journo fucked up. He trusted Vox. But don't take my word for it: just watch what happens next.

Anonymous bill April 25, 2015 3:25 AM  

Vox: " Now I can fisk his interview and address his questions in detail on the blog."


You might be wise to do this on camera and putting it on You Tube as a rebuttal.

Blogger SirThermite April 25, 2015 3:31 AM  

@Daniel
"It is about others with no vested interest in the outcome of a particular game having a say in the outcome of a particular game....This is about turning SJW weapons on themselves, and forcing them to live the hell of their dreams that they've been wishing on the rest of us...but only because that is the most efficient way to get these social minders out of the way so the rest of us can get back to work."

Thanks for taking the time to address me and spell that out. I agree with you 100%. However you more clearly defined and defended GamerGate in a single sentence than Vox did in the first 8 minutes of the video, which is an eternity in YouTube video time...the only way I watched even that much is because I'm clearly a supporter. I just re-watched the beginning of the video to see if I missed something, but I really didn't- Vox mentions Zoe Quinn and John Flynt but he fails to really draw blood by mentioning the activism of non-gamers like Anita Sarkeesian. The interview makes it sound like GamerGate and anti-Gamergate are grillmasters arguing over which is the healthiest cut of meat, when in reality GamerGate is about red-blooded carnivores fighting a petticoat-dictatorship comprised of mostly vegans. It may be true that Vox expected more time to present his arguments about GamerGate, but an Internet Superintelligence and martial arts veteran should know that sometime you have to get your licks in quick and hard while you can. The most brilliant strategy I see is playing the SJW "sticks and stones" card by claiming they don't have any right to criticize, but it just doesn't carry that much weight coming from those of us who have no problem criticizing and shaming for actual weight and N-count.

Blogger Daniel April 25, 2015 3:52 AM  

SirThermite, a lot of that has to do with the interviewer being boring as hell, Vox being undertandably confused along with the viewers by the poorly worded questions (How many times did Pakman say some version of "let me reframe" when he realized his question sucked/wasn't going to inspire the incendiaries he smugly assumed?)

Pakman has said that GamerGate has deflated - i.e. he's bored with it and really doesn't have any interest in learning anything more.

To his credit, he does attempt a conversational style of interview for legitimate reasons: people are interested in longer, deeper conversations.

Problem: Pakman is not deep. He's a nervous, seemingly closeted guy who has polished himself up to fulfill his aspirations for NPR or HLN or whatever. He's also pretty young, by the looks of it. 35 tops. Probably unmarried. He feigns openness well, but he doesn't have the genuine curiosity in people that allows them to open up.

His show should be fun and lively.

But his questions suck and he's constantly reframing them in order to needle a new response. Vox just kept calmly rolling with it, and so Pak played out the string. I'm not being bombastic when I say that it seemed to me that he was hoping to have sexual chemistry with Vox, and when Vox wasn't interested, Pak's questions when flaccid. That is exactly what I thought about 15 minutes in - or whenever it was clear that Pak didn't have the stones to get a "half-savage" or "marital rape" quote out of him.

That's why it took 8 minutes for Vox to summarize: the Host kept getting in the way of the Guest, and when he did set back to let him talk, he checked out. I have no idea what Vox was thinking, but I would have been bored as hell, and despite media training, would have shown it, knowing that the GamerGate followers would have checked out, and the only thing left to do was see if I could politely get this amateur to confess to rape (check), ignorance (check), race-baiting (check), hating science (check) and then see if he would compare gay men to wild animals (check).

He should have more seriously considered being a weatherman. I think he would have been happier.

He's not a closer.

Blogger Matt April 25, 2015 3:57 AM  

You trolls are so incredibly lazy.

Blogger Matt April 25, 2015 4:00 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Daniel April 25, 2015 4:00 AM  

Oh, and again, SirThermite, this interview was not red meat for the believers: it was a display of calm and rational moral high ground for the neutrals.

Carefully going through mundane details is exactly what speaks to neutrals.

Brianna Wu took 30 seconds today to appear on video throwing out the one guy who showed up for her speech because he took a snapshot at a public event.

So...succinct responses are not necessarily more winsome ones.

The contrast between Wu's video today and Vox's could not be more stark. Vox spent 45 minutes with a belligerent toad looking for his Maury Povich moment and hardly batted an eye. Wu spent 30 seconds in front of a guest and had him thrown out.

That's the big picture.

Blogger Matt April 25, 2015 4:02 AM  

Puff, youre an absolute retard. All you trolls are pathetic nothings who look for bloggers to trip up. In real life youre worthless. And he didnt even trip up Vox. Hes a low-T Gamma with zero integrity.

Blogger kh123 April 25, 2015 4:03 AM  

"Seriously. Does anything here really make Teresa Hayden any better? Does it make Scalzi less creepy? .... Marion Zimmer Bradley... well. It's not like the little kids that MZB raped magically got un-raped because VD has sometimes said stuff."

According to Puff The Magic Annhole and the rest of the usual suspects, it would seem that it does. One massive feelbad, compounded by sustained thought crime, is like an atomic bomb going off in their heads, laying flat any hope of dialectic or even basic recall; the fallout seeping into anything outside of their own personal ground zero.

May have to rephrase it to "Nuclear Autumn" from here on out.

Anonymous Quotable Quotes April 25, 2015 4:12 AM  

When they're challenged face to face, by a reasonable and intelligent person, suddenly his claims are very technical logical constructions that people are misinterpreting, and which are not definitive or authoritative.

While I agree with you 100% about Vox's tactics overall it's wrong to characterize this Pakman as "a reasonable and intelligent person".

The interview was a setup to bait and hook Vox. Pakman was being disingenuous and unreasonable. The Jew also wasn't clever or witty; the questions lacked intelligence. And yet, that's what was so remarkable about Vox's inept performance. There were a few times besides the glaring one cited where Vox looked dazed and confused and agreed with Pakman's misconstructions of Vox's own arguments.

For a fella who has read Sun Tzu one would have thought Vox would have at least checked out Wikipedia on this Pakman before blindly walking into the trap of this supposed interview about GamerGate.

As I said, it was a God awful interview from both sides.

One thing Vox should do is check his vanity. Exclaiming "I am the smartest man in the world!" or "You're all just stupid!" is not an effective rebuttal and makes him look like a tool.

No matter how many of his groupies in the Cult of Personality called Vox Popoli come to his aid the fact remains it was a terrible outing by Vox.

Anonymous VD April 25, 2015 4:16 AM  

In general, Vox ended up meandering around, taking too long to come to his essential points, and generally losing the initiative. This is war, and interviews are simply another battlefield.

Losing the initiative? I was the guest on a show that was going to be edited. There was never any possibility of me claiming the initiative.

I find all the second-guessers to be amusing. Unless you've been filmed being prosecuted, you probably have no idea how difficult it is to even come off with a draw. Especially when you have no idea what the charges are going to be.

Do you seriously think I recall the details of every column and blog post I ever wrote?

That's not to say I didn't make some mistakes. I didn't even write the HEADLINE about which he was complaining with regards to "false flags". I should have pointed that out, but I was too busy trying to figure out what the hell he was referring to.

Anonymous VD April 25, 2015 4:21 AM  

Vox: Considering your poor performance vs an amateur debater on Youtube who probably doesn't have too deep a knowledge of any subject, you'll probably be cowering under your desk for a while whenever the topic of debating comes up

You're an idiot, Puff. I'll happily debate you or anyone else any time. Being prosecuted when the other guy has the mike and the ability to edit after the fact is not a debate.

I was allowed ONE question in 45 minutes. With that one question I got him to confess to having sex without consent. In a debate where I get to ask as many questions as the other guy, I would have chopped him up and grilled him without any trouble at all.

Anonymous Quotable Quotes April 25, 2015 4:33 AM  

In a debate where I get to ask as many questions as the other guy, I would have chopped him up and grilled him without any trouble at all.

Unfortunately that was not the format offered.

Did you check this Pakman's bona fides before going on his show? What were your expectations? You seemed discombobulated after the initial gamergate questions were over and he went for your other famous blog topics.

Are you going to clarify your answers re. "The 'Lone Gunmen'" article? Personally I think that was the biggest hit he made, the bulk of the rest could be put down to the confused manner of the questions and the constant re-phrasing.

Anonymous Contaminated NEET April 25, 2015 4:34 AM  

"Fighting 100 battles does not mean winning 100 victories."

Never give up, regroup, and get 'em next time.

Anonymous VD April 25, 2015 4:46 AM  

Did you check this Pakman's bona fides before going on his show? What were your expectations? You seemed discombobulated after the initial gamergate questions were over and he went for your other famous blog topics.

No, what do I care about some little Internet video show? I'm not a media whore and I chose not to go that path a long time ago. My expectations were that we were going to talk about GamerGate and the game industry, as he specifically said, as well as the Hugo Awards because they have been in the news.

He didn't go for my "famous blog topics". I would have been prepared for "acid in women's faces" and the various quotes that have been in the news of late. Given that I have written over 550 syndicated op/ed columns and who knows how many blog posts, there is no way I could possibly prepare for anyone deciding to cherry-pick something out of several million words written up to 14 years ago.

Are you going to clarify your answers re. "The 'Lone Gunmen'" article? Personally I think that was the biggest hit he made, the bulk of the rest could be put down to the confused manner of the questions and the constant re-phrasing.

Then he made no hits. What we've learned is that he lied. I NEVER WROTE anything about "signs". That's from the headline that the editor wrote. Here is what I actually wrote: "you cannot rule out the possibility that this incident is more than a lucky break for the government."

Now that I see what I actually wrote and compare it to what he kept going on about, his hit job was even more shameless than I realized. He knew perfectly well what I meant, which means he was lying. He was trying to prosecute on the basis of something he knew I did not do.

Blogger SirThermite April 25, 2015 4:51 AM  

@Daniel

Vox, FTW. My born-again Christian, Vietnam-vet father discouraged me and my four younger brothers from identifying with sports teams, so I don't criticize coaches or QB's but I do like to see my political and ideological champions win. That said, I'm also nearing my late 30's so I'm no one's cheerleader. Those who speak the truth are worthy of respect, doubly so those who post a video of themselves speaking the truth knowing full-well they man receive criticism from their own supporters. The fact that we both felt compelled to mention that freakshow who goes by the initial B.W.just shows how dire the times and truth have become, but so be it.

Anonymous WowJustWow April 25, 2015 5:44 AM  

I love this bit at 16:51: "No but let's forget-- let's-- let's not-- let's for-- I don't want to-- let's not dis-- go to a different issue."

You really made him want to go to a different issue!

Anonymous Wyrd April 25, 2015 6:07 AM  

What was NICE worth? Doodley-squat! Well done, VD.

Blogger SirThermite April 25, 2015 6:11 AM  

Slightly OT: Can we at least agree that American women, who 1) regularly demand pre-planned ceremonies and pre-pre-planned diamond rings, totaling tens of thousands of dollars, so that they can publicly commit to having sex with a one man for the rest of their lives (when they've already given away lots of sex to other men for practically free)...but still believe they should be able to later charge their husbands for so-called "maritial rape" based on he-said/she-said and B) can get pregnant and boast about their 'unborn baby" and "creating life" while reserving 9 months to change their minds and re-define their bundle-of-joy as a malignant tumor they're free to exterminate via scalpel or chemo....are shit-for-brains insane and not worthy of a quantum of the pedestals that most brainwashed, pussy-whipped, mother-loving, soy-and-obesity-addled American men have put them on?

Blogger Salt April 25, 2015 6:58 AM  

I thought it was a good interview, no matter being blindsided. I only raised an eyebrow once at something you said, thinking, show, don't tell.

There was a human aspect usually not seen as you do written interviews. What was interesting was the twitter discussions. I sensed a few people warmed up to you a little.

Well done.

Blogger Jay Lucas April 25, 2015 7:11 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger CSAFarmer April 25, 2015 7:11 AM  

I didn't know of David Pakman before this video, but I have to agree with Amadeus343 he's trying to be Jon Stewart Lite (less facts, less filling).

To my mind Mr. Beale came across as a thoughtful guy with some contrarian views, unwilling to accept things 'everyone knows' simply because 'consensus'. You may recall the saying, 'all progress depends on the unreasonable man'.

Somertimes you have to be provocative to get people to actually think; unfortunately most won't rise to the challenge, and will simply retreat to their comfort zone.

Others will pigeonhole you into one of their conveniently-labelled 'mind boxes' - racist, white supremacist, kryptonian overlord (OK, the last one is MY secret goal). These are just coping mechanisms to avoid upsetting their world-view.

The one specific topic I will mention is Mr. Beale's saying he's smarter than most people; few commenters seem to grasp this was part of a larger discusson about race, intelligence, and worth, or that Mr. Beale stated that smarter does not mean better, or more valuable as a human being.

You see, everyone secretly BELIEVES they are smarter than most, but it's deemed a faux pas to actually say it, even if you have empirical evidence. Takes guts to fly in the face of convention.

tl:dr best job possible under less than ideal circumstances.

Blogger Jay Lucas April 25, 2015 7:24 AM  

Pakman's credibility on GamerGate (if not in general) for the puppies/gg crowd was toast when he made his "what do I think about gamergate" video. I imagine the change from the (heavily) edited CHSommers interview to the less edited one (old video still exists, it's just private) was about trying to preserve his credibility. That or CHS and The American Enterprise Institute have bored lawyers sitting around ironing their socks.

Just no one start a drinking game based around Pakman saying "my feeling is." Ambulance rides are expensive these days.

Blogger CSAFarmer April 25, 2015 7:37 AM  

Jay Lucas - Just no one start a drinking game based around Pakman saying "my feeling is." Ambulance rides are expensive these days.

Sorry, I would take that challenge. I'm from Newfoundland originally, my people have had an ON-GOING drinkng game since 1949. And living in the Great White North, the ambulance costs less than the cab ride home ;-)

Anonymous Stingray April 25, 2015 8:04 AM  

he looks like - to normal people, esp. to normal women - like a convention floor creep.

While Vox looks like a regular guy with a lot of books, a cool chair, and an understandable weariness.


Yes, absolutely. The interviewer looked like a twink and had this air about him of, "I'm going to "Gotcha!" the big bad Voximort!"

I could have watched this video with the sound off, not knowing who either person was, and I would have come away with the same impression. And other women would do the exact same.

Here's the thing, what Vox was saying probably offended people, but women especially would come away ticked off with him and not being able to stop thinking about the interview. They won't be thinking about this other guy (who I can't bother to go back up and look at his name, because I couldn't care less about him). They will be thinking about Vox and how much they hate him and just how mad he makes them. They will think and think and think and think.

It is the person who is immediately forgotten who loses, especially in media.

Blogger Henry Smith April 25, 2015 8:10 AM  

A typical ambush by a smirking prick determined to interrupt, prevent explanations, and mischaracterize positions. Repeatedly. It would be an interesting exercise to edit the video to put in the responses Vox would have and should have given if not for the intentional lies of the interviewer. A good example of honest disagreement in an honest interview is at John Brown's Blog, the recent "What Vox Day Believes."

Anonymous Atown April 25, 2015 8:31 AM  

Ignore the trolls. Answering questions on the spot like that across such a number of topics is very difficult. Very few people would be able to give a cogent definition of religion off the top of their head.

On the marital rape topic, it felt like you missed saying that there is already an established mechanism for revoking consent in a marriage (divorce).

Anonymous Randall April 25, 2015 8:47 AM  

I am more inclined to view homosexuality as a developmental disorder rather than a birth defect. This leaves open the possibility that it could result from post-natal exposure to pathogens or chemicals, such as pthalates, or even to traumatic events.

Anonymous BGS April 25, 2015 9:26 AM  

Actually the best answer to the vaccine question is its a risk vs. benefit. There is a TB vaccine out there but most first world countries don't give it because it is only ~ 30% effective so the benefit is limited. Also you don't need yellow fever vaccine in the US unless you are going to travel to central/south America, but illegal aliens from there coming to the US is not enough risk vs. benefit to give them routinely. For a while anyone who received the anthrax vaccine was not allowed to donate blood, only healthy military got the anthrax vaccine but the vaccine killed more people than had gotten anthrax in the past century. Garnisil is worth the risk for girls but not boys however there is profit as a motive that is pushed. Hospitals receive more money from selling a foreskin than they get for the procedure.

"I am more inclined to view homosexuality as a developmental disorder rather than a birth defect. This leaves open the possibility that it could result from post-natal exposure to pathogens or chemicals, such as pthalates, or even to traumatic events."

I know a gay Hispanic RN whose specialty is pediatrics who has a ,dare I say disproportionate, number of former patients end up gay that he still talks to in the bars. I had to bite my tongue to avoid quipping about his proficiency at changing diapers.

Anonymous Big Bill April 25, 2015 9:30 AM  

I am partway through the marital rape portion of the interview.

Whenever I am faced with people who believe in marital rape, I always ask them whether they have gone out for dinner with their wife, gotten intoxicated and had sex. The answer is universally "yes". At which point I cite the statute in my state (and most states) that says an intoxicated person cannot consent to sex.

I then explain to the that they are,by their own admission, marital rapists. Sex without consent is rape. The only way it is NOT rape is if there is some other, enduring form of consent that would make it otherwise. And that is the marriage contract.

The sillier ones will say, "Oh, so what you are saying is you can grab your wife, beat her up, slam her to the ground and penetrate her whenever you feel like, then?"

To which my answer is, "No. That would be assault and battery, which is always a crime." The smarter ones start to understand why there cannot be such a thing as "marital rape".

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler April 25, 2015 9:31 AM  

I have the same problem as Vox does on forums. We see stuff, understand stuff, and it goes right over their heads. You can't speak to these people. Heraclitus had the same problem.

I did not listen past the "white separateness" answer. It is a "gotcha game" where Vox is on a heresy trial where the Left puts on. Vox is on trial for Leftist heresy. So what. You can't talk to these people. They have a standard. Whether false or true, they don't care and never investigated it but they will use that standard to crucify you.

Vox's only crime was to participate and not forcibly shut down the interrogation. This was only a Leftist hit piece. They have NO understanding and they don't wish it either.

Anonymous BGS April 25, 2015 9:50 AM  

"Pakman is not deep. He's a nervous, seemingly closeted guy who has polished himself up to fulfill ...35 tops"

One of us needs our gaydar checked if top is used in a description of Pakman.

"I used to be on a gay record label." Vox Day I would have loved to see his reaction if Vox said "a gay that posts on my blog said "being gay is a choice because you can chose to love women or understand them""

We see stuff, understand stuff, and it goes right over their heads. You can't speak to these people. Heraclitus had the same problem.
When we say something is so easy an 8yo can understand it we mean an Asian or white 8yo based off our knowledge of 8yo relatives.

Anonymous AlteredFate April 25, 2015 10:34 AM  

I have come around to the idea some of you have been espousing that Vox getting the message out, no matter how it is framed by the SJWs, is the only thing of importance. Hopefully Vox's blog will get a nice bump in traffic over the next couple weeks.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler April 25, 2015 10:36 AM  

The married life and/or Italian food seems to have worked on you.

Anonymous A Brazilian April 25, 2015 11:37 AM  

Heh, as a Brazilian reader I found the part of homosexuality being a birth defect the most interesting, because one of our politicians made he same argument before with hilarious results, back when there was more dissent in the country.
Dr. Enéas was a very intelligent physician and successful politician although he died soon after his election.

I find it interesting to contrast his body language with yours, I perceive him as a gamma male, nervous, with a tense posture and a loud voice trying to project authority, still when you are right and your enemies are dishonest it's hard not to win. Which is why anyone making this argument today would be jailed for racism.


The conversation went something like this:

Dr. Enéas: If homosexual behavior was universal that would lead to the extinction of the human race.

Liberal Idiot: But do you say that based on studies!?

Dr. Enéas: Dear God! Let's go back to high school, *starts explaining about birds and bees*

*even other liberals laugh at the poor idiot*

Liberal Idiot: I'm sorry! I'm sorry! I made the wrong question!


If anyone wants to see (in Portuguese):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTgAg8hPgzY

Anonymous puffthemagicdragon April 25, 2015 11:50 AM  

I was allowed ONE question in 45 minutes. With that one question I got him to confess to having sex without consent. In a debate where I get to ask as many questions as the other guy, I would have chopped him up and grilled him without any trouble at all.

Come on pal, you got raped on that issue. First he caught you trying to change the goal posts from written consent to consent in general. Then when he presses you on what the wife consents to when she marries, you admit that there are plenty of behaviors that wouldn't be permissible in a marriage (like, basically, marriage rape) but (reading between the lines here) that you wouldn't want those actions to be prosecutable. You say just that they would be foolish for the husband to attempt, a pretty weak position. When he presses you on the nature of the dividing line between what the wife tacitly consents to in a marriage and what would be considered to be outside that line, you admit that it's subjective, again implicitly admitting that there are things outside that line, which is really the issue. Pakman probably thinks that it's appropriate to separate the line in court, you probably don't. Arguments for or against weren't made, but what makes your reputation on this issue is that most people are getting a whiff of the hard core there-can-be-no-rape-in-a-marriage-no-matter-what-the-husband-does position and reacting violently for or against it. Again, Pakman basically burned down your paper tiger persona. He really managed to present you with a important question: do you want to perpetuate the extremist caricature that's being built for you, both in your supporters minds and in your detractor's minds, or do you what to throw that away and get down to the boring substance of the issues where you have to get into the weeds of the relevant evidence, for and against?

Blogger Noah B April 25, 2015 12:01 PM  

Pakman never actually admitted that he'd had sex, though.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 April 25, 2015 12:02 PM  

I am surprised that David Pakman knows the rape laws of all 50 states through and through.

Anonymous Sevron April 25, 2015 12:13 PM  

That IS mighty suspicious. Somebody should ask him why he's so up to date on the rape laws in all 50 states.

1 – 200 of 280 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