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

Saturday, May 23, 2015

SJWs always lie

It's as if they have to constantly spin false narratives or they'll stop breathing"
Glenn Hauman on said:
At least Mr. Beale isn’t claiming I’m calling for false reviews anymore, though he still hasn’t retracted that statement.
I am absolutely claiming that Glenn Hauman has called and is still calling for false reviews of certain works to be posted on Amazon. He has publicly, and disingenuously, called for them twice now.  Ten negative reviews, at least five of them confirmed by the reviewer to be false, have now been posted, some by his known associates. Mr. Hauman is either lying or woefully mistaken when he says I am not claiming that he's calling for false reviews anymore.

This is standard SJW behavior. They say something in a passive-aggressive, plausibly deniable manner that they expect others to interpret in a certain way and act accordingly. This is why they are always talking about "dog whistles"; that is how they communicate amongst themselves.

Then, when criticized for the very consequences they intended, they deny having done what they did, reject all responsibility for the consequences of their words, and insist that everyone accept the false narrative of the disconnect between their call to action and the subsequent actions.

Hauman points out that he said people should read the various Puppy works before the reviewers "put them down", but some of the reviewers didn't, by their own admission, read them, nor did Hauman give a damn whether they did or not. His objective was for the Puppy works to receive negative reviews, which they subsequently received. Mission accomplished. The pretense the SJW attempts to maintain is usually a childishly transparent one, and it both confuses and alarms them when one simply ignores the verbal fog of nominal "plausibility" with which they try to preemptively defend themselves and focuses on the intention and the effect.

As, one notes, the justice system likewise does. No drug dealer has ever escaped conviction because he said "melons and cantaloupes" in the place of marijuana and cocaine when wire-tapped. What he said may be true, but it is irrelevant. His intentions are best judged by the response to the words, and not the words themselves.

The reason we know it is disingenuousness and dishonesty and not an inability to connect cause-and-effect is that SJWs are not similarly inclined to respect genuine deniability whenever they are accusing someone of one of the many isms they wield as weapons to DISQUALIFY. In fact, SJWs regularly claim the ability to read minds and discern intentions even when there are no actual consequences to observe.

Don't ever take an SJW's spun narrative at face value. That's exactly what they expect you to do; that's exactly what they need you to do. Punch through it and expose them. You can be sure that the narrative will be false because SJWs always lie.

Speaking of which, these two false narratives are excellent examples:
Stevie on May 22, 2015 at 7:24 pm said:
One thing you will discover is that the canine conspirators are now in total disarray, because the Sads didn’t realise that they would be Shanghaid by the Rabids. Equally, the Rabids are in total disarray because Beale really thought he was going to be treated as an entrepreneurial mastermind by the WSJ and therefore was completely blindsided when the WSJ laughed at him. In other words, all they’ve got left is to be as destructive as possible, and do their best to make everyone else miserable.

Chris Hensley on May 22, 2015 at 7:37 pm said:
“Equally, the Rabids are in total disarray because Beale really thought he was going to be treated as an entrepreneurial mastermind by the WSJ and therefore was completely blindsided when the WSJ laughed at him.”

All the while Vox Day is screaming “Why are you running? We have them right where we want them!”
Are you in total disarray, Rabid Puppies? As for the idea that I was "completely blindsided" by Michael Rappoport's article in the Wall Street Journal, this is exactly what I wrote to the Evil Legion of Evil about it two weeks before it ran: "Wall Street Journal piece coming soon, possibly tomorrow. Strangely enough, they didn't even ask me if I hate black lesbians or kick kittens. It will probably be moderately against us, in my opinion. He wasn't hostile, but he played "devil's advocate", in his own words, several times."

I was, of course, under absolutely no illusions that the piece would have anything to do with entrepreneurship or my being a mastermind of any kind for the obvious reason that I actually talked to the reporter for about ten minutes. Not only were his questions mildly accusatory in nature, but the fact that he was also talking with two people who had nothing to do with the story, George Martin and John Scalzi, was sufficient to tell me which way he was going to spin it. As in fact, turned out to be the case. But the tone of the article was considerably less poisonous than the Entertainment Weekly, Guardian, and Popular Science stories that were planted by the Torlings. Which was nice, and I also noticed that the comments on the WSJ web site ran about 10-1 in our favor.

As for the clueless wonders at File 770 who don't understand how the Torlings plant stories in the mainstream media, they should look at who publishes the authors of some of those "journo things". 

Labels:

92 Comments:

Anonymous rho May 23, 2015 4:42 AM  

Dude, bad negative reviews are poz-review gold. Stop harshing the vibe.

Blogger kh123 May 23, 2015 5:04 AM  

And the fun still continues with the slattern two-star over at Amazon.

[Kratman responding to Bill Stewart]
"Looking back, your first comment this thread was 16 hours ago. The comment that became your review was 14 hours ago. Could you have read 21k + words in two hours, then written a review? It's possible, under 200 wpm isn't very hard, but an actual review would require some thought, too. Hence it's far more likely that you just took the preceding review, skimmed a little for verisimilitude, and then cranked out a spurious hit piece. That's how I see it. So am I calling you a liar? It's not a charge I levy lightly but, sad to say, yes, I think that's the way to bet it."

Anonymous Sensei May 23, 2015 5:10 AM  

Dude, bad negative reviews are poz-review gold. Stop harshing the vibe.

I don't want to spell it out for any lurking SJWs who can't figure it out for themselves, but it seems obvious to me that 1) that's only one facet in what's going on here 2) this isn't exactly going to dissuade the kind of people who would leave fake reviews, and 3) it's necessary to both establish a public record of the truth and it's all teachable moments. This whole debacle has been like a introductory primer for low-level internet ideological conflict.

Anonymous VFM.0157 aka Forrest Bishop May 23, 2015 5:25 AM  

I am honored to be here today and pleased to present for your viewing pleasure the SWJ armory- http://www.freakingnews.com/Guns-Backwards-Pictures---1865.asp

Anonymous zen0 May 23, 2015 5:46 AM  

Studying animal behaviour can be fascinating at times. Their antics often exhibit a hint of cognitive activity, but we know of course that this is merely a form of projection by the observer.

Anonymous grey enlightenment May 23, 2015 5:48 AM  

With the possible exception of the NYT and huffingtonpost, the internet is overwhelmingly on our side.

Blogger Cataline Sergius May 23, 2015 5:49 AM  

At least Mr. Beale isn’t claiming I’m calling for false reviews anymore, though he still hasn’t retracted that statement.

Vox hadn't written about him in days. Possibly, he was feeling neglected.

Quite neglected in fact.

I think Hauman wants to replace Scalzi as our new Reek.

(*Cataline shudders in disgust*)

Blogger JACIII May 23, 2015 7:09 AM  

It's as if they have to constantly spin false narratives or they'll stop breathing

The Bill Clinton Imperative.

Blogger James Sullivan May 23, 2015 7:19 AM  

"The reason we know it is disingenuousness and dishonesty and not an inability to connect cause-and-effect is that SJWs are not similarly inclined to respect genuine deniability whenever they are accusing someone of one of the many isms they wield as weapons to DISQUALIFY. In fact, SJWs regularly claim the ability to read minds and discern intentions even when there are no actual consequences to observe."

- This is one of those things I should have pieced together long ago. So simple that I missed it.

Blogger Nate May 23, 2015 7:32 AM  

we're running? we're in disarray? ... over what? a WSJ article?

dude.

We don't care.

Blogger Salt May 23, 2015 7:40 AM  

Just goes to show, they have no clue about the puppies.

Blogger Rantor May 23, 2015 7:44 AM  

This VFM up and ready for duty. No disarray noted here. The imagination of our foe seems propelled by an inability to recognize reality. As I have not had time to post in a few days, I will add that these mutant SJW's proclaim ignorance every time they critique the works of Mr Wright. His Hugo nominated works are fantastic. His mastery of language, philosophical depth, and ability to communicate love is impressive. And these things offend the SJW liars more than anything, especially love. Their hatred of righteousness is legion.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 23, 2015 7:51 AM  

The bluster, threaten, and economic sanction arsenal they have deployed in the past is becoming noticeably bare. But it always comes down to force, and I think all across the spectrum they should be dared to exercise force.

Anonymous MrGreenMan May 23, 2015 7:56 AM  

What are they expecting to happen before voting ends? They miss the part where Sasquan has shown how incompetent they are at simple administrative tasks and the packet only just came out, with continued reports of people not getting their pins. What do they expect to happen between now and the close of voting other than Vox releases very personal recommendations how to vote that are certainly not meant for anyone else? The fact that the other novels appear to be ludicrous to atrocioius doesn't mean we are going to mirror them in the one star campaign of causing real economic damage to the authors and publishers. It gets boring quickly to tall to psychologically damaged mental deficients over at their websites. Preparing usually is not a public activity.

Blogger Cataline Sergius May 23, 2015 8:09 AM  

Projection is the hallmark of the SJW. If they are saying we are in complete disarray when we obviously aren't, that is probably what's going on with them.

Also from the looks of these posts, they haven't quite figured out how to spin this in order to claim a win.

It feels like they are throwing some goalposts at the wall to see what sticks.

Blogger Jack Ward May 23, 2015 8:20 AM  

WE are in disarray? Yeah, pot go call kettle black why don't you.

What we have here is, not a failure to communicate, but a subtle, to them at least, communication from Mr. Beale to his followers and those that have ears to listen. The subtle part is that, at its essence, this whole SWFA dust up with Beale, the subsequent segway into Sad Pups and Rabid Pups is one complex and effective, for those that can see and hear, method of education. Of course it's also a focused laser beam attack to the heart of the worse traits of liberalism and the SJW. The education part is for us to learn how effective strategy and tactics can be and how much FUN. We watch and learn and the SJW and liberals burn.
Thank You, Mr. Beale. Oh, sorry, you highness Evil Lord of Evil, and Dark Lord of Hate. Now, as learning progresses, we can try and apply the lessons to other, maybe more important?, issues. Game us will they? The game isn't even out of the first inning.
This is how I see it all. .

Blogger VD May 23, 2015 8:25 AM  

The education part is for us to learn how effective strategy and tactics can be and how much FUN. We watch and learn and the SJW and liberals burn.

That's part of the idea. Granted, mistakes will be made. Battles will be lost. But you know what? WE DON'T CARE.

My hero has always been the mouse on the post I saw at Spencer's when I was a kid. A huge hawk is swooping down on him, talons outstretched, but the mouse is standing tall and unafraid, holding up one arm as he brandishes one finger at the bird. The caption is: "The Last Great Act of Defiance".

We may or may not win, we may or may not lose, but we will never submit or surrender.

Anonymous Moldbugger May 23, 2015 9:02 AM  

Irish voters back gay marriage in 'social revolution'... drudge.tw/1Lp2EFq

Anonymous Aeoli Pera May 23, 2015 9:13 AM  

>It's as if they have to constantly spin false narratives or they'll stop breathing

That's a perfect description. It's true that "SJWs always lie" the same way it's true that "SJWs always breathe". They can stop if they think about it, but only for so long, and afterward they gasp and claim it's asthma.

Blogger Salt May 23, 2015 9:37 AM  

Here it is. This one is the better; B&W

Anonymous Aeoli Pera May 23, 2015 9:38 AM  

Oh, even better: SJWs can tell the truth, but as a rule of thumb each breath will contain at least one shameless falsehood. Combine this with...

"The Squeal Response"

Because SJWs can't control their emotions, they will consistently squeal equivocations in response to being called on their lies. (If they were proper psychopaths, they'd maintain frame and simply deny everything.) This means their lies can be detected by pressing them on a point and observing whether they squeal (which requires inhaling).

Therefore...assuming a person has already been identified as a rabbit:

1. If they pause to inhale, review their previous statement to identify the most likely location for a lie. Apply squeal test.
2a. If no, apply pressure elsewhere.
2b. If yes, that's where the lie was. Press harder.
3. Find the lie within the resulting equivocation by returning to step one.

Repeating this procedure will yield the correct, relevant image from the SJW's perspective, idealized as a branching tree of facts (indicated by their opposites).

I might get to use those technical writing courses for something useful after all!

Anonymous Aeoli Pera May 23, 2015 9:41 AM  

I'm curious to learn whether lying actually serves the same purpose as exhaling, except with cognitive dissonance instead of carbon dioxide.

Anonymous Shut up rabbit May 23, 2015 10:26 AM  

There is a skirmish in the comment section - see kh123's post above for link.

While only a couple of SJWs were pushed out of their foxholes to face the Lt, their cowardly kin are up-voting their drivel from behind the lines. Report the SJW commentators to Amazon, down vote their comments! One is clearly politically motivated the other is just spam - both legit reasons to get their comments deleted.

To Arms VFMs! (if you fancy it, of course. if you don't care then don't, what do I care...?

Anonymous Minion #0172 May 23, 2015 10:27 AM  

"It's as if they have to constantly spin false narratives or they'll stop breathing."

Also apt:

"Like sharks which must keep swimming, SJWs have to constantly spin false narratives. Else they sink."

Blogger Tom Kratman May 23, 2015 10:35 AM  

Yeah, I don't have necessary problem with a bad review, rho. Indeed, I have commended an occasional one star. I have a problem with dishonesty. My frequent comment "make it a one star" is more in the line of a sneer. That said, I _have_ at least once (ISTR 2-3 times) told a five star reviewer to make it a one star.

Anonymous Shut up rabbit May 23, 2015 10:45 AM  

I think they think that a one star review would make their shenanigans too obvious but a two star review, now that's subtle subterfuge and plausible deniability all rolled up in one little package of self deception.

"If I really hated the book/author/perceived politics like you said, surely I'd have given it a one star review?" *barely suppressed snark*

Of course it only works in the SJW-rabbit mind - normal people see straight through their nonsense

Anonymous Scintan May 23, 2015 11:00 AM  

We may or may not win, we may or may not lose, but we will never submit or surrender.

Don't forget falling into complete disarray. Apparently, the puppies will do that, and only Stevie and Chris will know it.

Blogger Danby May 23, 2015 11:08 AM  

my granddaughter is over today. For historical reasons we hav dozens of my little pony toys around the house. When i came out to the living room, she had them ranked in rows in the middle of the room.
"Good morning darling, what's with the ponies?"
"They're marching"
"Oh? Where are they marching?"
"Over there." pointing to the couch.
"What's on the couch?"
"Celestia. They're tired of her telling them what to do all the time."

*sniff* so proud....

Blogger Daniel May 23, 2015 11:23 AM  

These are the type of people who occasionally die in an avalanche of hoarded garbage in their own homes. "Disarray" to them is having your shit in order.

Blogger GK Chesterton May 23, 2015 11:32 AM  

*sniff* so proud....

You should be.

Anonymous Koba May 23, 2015 11:56 AM  

OK, so who wants to do some reviews?

I will review ten SJW books if ten others agree to do so.

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 23, 2015 12:16 PM  

we're running? we're in disarray?

Sorry that was me on the treadmill I forgot to turn the webcam off.

They miss the part where Sasquan has shown how incompetent they are at simple administrative tasks and the packet only just came out, with continued reports of people not getting their pins

Leftists had a legally blind IRS reporter look for Louis Lerner's Emails the first time. An able white man found thousands of them the first time he looked for them. Maybe we had better ask the person who counts the votes how many fingers we have up.

Irish voters back gay marriage in 'social revolution'... If the IRA didn't keep sending the moslems running people would have had bigger problems to deal with.

What will be their response when we prove they had non English speaking illegal aliens voting under their "scholarship" giveaways of Hugo votes?
.
Alexander von der Linden -"You would do well to remember that other people's viewpoints are just as valid as yours. "

Blogger Corvinus May 23, 2015 12:34 PM  

Choice gems from Pius VI's bull Auctorem Fidei about essentially SJW tactics, plausible deniability, and dogwhistling: Link

Anonymous Difster VFM #109 May 23, 2015 12:49 PM  

Let them think we're in disarray. It means they're not adjusting to the reality and they will lose the war.

Not only are they not going to win the war, they have ZERO idea what is on the horizon coming from the Dread Ilk. I can't give anything away right now, but we're about to start an initiative that is going to make them howl and scream and lose that much faster.

I don't even think Vox has been made aware of this initiative. And on the heels of that initiative, there are bigger plans, the seeds of which were planted long ago, and has just broken through the spring thaw to bask in sunshine.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 23, 2015 1:00 PM  

Let them think we're in disarray. It means they're not adjusting to the reality and they will lose the war.

Besides, what feels like disarray to them is one of our strengths. (Remember, they always lie, so if they say we need to be more united...) If we were all united as a pack behind Vox and waiting for his orders, they could just watch him. But as it is, while they're watching him, they never know when some lone wolf will come up from behind and hamstring them.

Blogger Danby May 23, 2015 1:03 PM  

@Corvinus
Thanks for that.

btw, I clicked on your name-link that goggle puts up, and it took me to your unused goggle+ page. which says
"There are no pictures of Corvinus."

Good work evading the all-seeing eye.

Blogger VD May 23, 2015 1:27 PM  

I don't even think Vox has been made aware of this initiative.

Surely you jest, #109... The Sleepless Eye is aware of everything. And I not only approve initiative on the part of my minions, I EXPECT it. We are the Fourth Generation.

(Literally sleepless, as I was lining up a Game Dev guest at 4 AM this morning.)

Blogger rcocean May 23, 2015 1:59 PM  

In fairness to Mr. Hauman, most people are idiots and will probably accept his absurd defense. After all, he didn't *explicitly* call for people to write negative reviews.

Blogger Philip Sandifer May 23, 2015 2:43 PM  

I'd just like to clarify something. You've in the past defended slate voting on the Hugos as a tactic whose virtue was (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here) that it discarded a socially accepted convention and stopped treating the culture war as a sort of polite game. It seems to me that review bombing could be justified in the same way.

Now, to be clear, I think review bombing is a vile practice. I don't think direct action against your (or anyone else's) ability to put food on the table is an unnecessary cruelty with no actual tangible benefit towards any material goals I care about. I think Amazon reviews are a tool for would-be purchasers, and that people who would never seriously consider spending money on a product have no business reviewing it on Amazon. Slam it on blogs or wherever, but not on Amazon.

But I don't see how someone who advocates disruptive tactics in other cases could arrive at that conclusion.

Unless you're only objecting to the hypocrisy of objecting to slate voting while encouraging review bombing?

Blogger Tom Kratman May 23, 2015 2:46 PM  

As reviews on my books would tend to show, Phillip, they were review bombing long before any puppies, sad or rabid, proposed a slate.

Blogger Philip Sandifer May 23, 2015 2:59 PM  

That's depressing, but seems neither here nor there in terms of my question.

I mean, again: I oppose review bombing. I'm acutely aware of how awful it is. Reviews matter to sales, sales matter to a roof being put over my head, and people who have never read my work trying to destroy my livelihood is a sickening and terrifying prospect that nobody should have to go through.

Nevertheless, I'm curious how the argument against review bombing works from a perspective that favors disruptive direct action as a tactic.

Blogger VD May 23, 2015 3:22 PM  

You've in the past defended slate voting on the Hugos as a tactic whose virtue was (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here) that it discarded a socially accepted convention and stopped treating the culture war as a sort of polite game. It seems to me that review bombing could be justified in the same way.

True.

I don't see how someone who advocates disruptive tactics in other cases could arrive at that conclusion.

I'm just pointing out that the guy brought a knife to a potential nuke fight. The fact that we're happy to engage in a cultural war doesn't mean we think every possible tactic is either necessary or desirable. The truth is that we'd never given any thought to the Hugo Packet before, other than the need to provide the various works if nominated. But Mr. Hauman's efforts to make use of the Packet to sink the Amazon ratings made me realize that if we want to destroy the Hugo Packet next year, it would not be difficult.

Now, I don't see any need to go to that level of disruption, but it is certainly an option of which I am now aware. It would be interesting to see if any of those individuals claiming that Amazon ratings don't matter are authors, and how they would react to seeing several hundred one-star reviews of their work magically appear in one day. I tend to doubt it would take more than three or four such examples to dissuade publishers from participating in the Packet in the future.

To be clear, I am not threatening anything. I am simply noting a new variant of an old SJW tactic that is at our disposal.

Anonymous Koba May 23, 2015 3:45 PM  

I stand ready to write reviews. They will be genuine reviews - I will have read the work in question. Just tell me who you'd like me to start with.

Blogger Philip Sandifer May 23, 2015 3:49 PM  

Fair enough.

I will say, I find the use of the Hugo packet for the purpose of review bombing bizarre. If you're going to decide to cross into actively attempting to destroy the livelihood of people who disagree with you, you don't exactly gain any moral high ground by actually reading their work before doing so. It's blatantly a rationalization as opposed to a reason.

And speaking as an unrepentant SJW whose long game amounts to "continue putting a roof over my head while producing the work I want to produce and remaining beholden to no one's vision of my integrity besides my own," I think review bombing is a vile tactic. Worse, ultimately, than slate voting, in that it is nothing short of an attempt to drive people you disagree with into poverty. But then, I don't generally try to speak for my entire side. Indeed, the prospect is mildly horrifying to me.

Anyway, I shan't take more of your time; I'd hate to distract you from The Wasp Factory. :)

Blogger Danby May 23, 2015 4:01 PM  

@Phillip
And speaking as an unrepentant SJW whose long game amounts to "continue putting a roof over my head while producing the work I want to produce and remaining beholden to no one's vision of my integrity besides my own," I think review bombing is a vile tactic. Worse, ultimately, than slate voting, in that it is nothing short of an attempt to drive people you disagree with into poverty.

That is the core tactic of the SJW faction, to threaten the livelihood of any who oppose them, It amuses me that you identify as as and SJW, but revile the tactic that SJWs depend on. Perhaps you're not really who we're talking about when we say SJW, after all.

We've watched it happen over and over again, many on this blog have been targets of the witch hunt. it is indeed "nothing short of an attempt to drive people you disagree with into poverty."

Have you called out Hauman on File770? I haven't seen it, but I don't really follow the site since it's become an echo chamber for the same two dozen people to ritually denounce their enemies and congratulate each other for same.

The things for these corrupt punks to remember are that goose sauce and gander sauce are the same sauce, we're disciplined, we're ruthless, and we outnumber you.

And we don't care.

Blogger Philip Sandifer May 23, 2015 4:19 PM  

I also don't really follow File770, and have never heard of Hauman outside of the context of this site. I care about as much about his rhetorical fate as you do about that of some random Puppies supporter ranting in all caps on Twitter. Although I am more than slightly invested in not getting caught in the crossfire of review bombing. Though it would hardly be the end of the world if I did find myself the target of a negative reviews campaign.

As for whether I'm who you're talking about when you talk about SJWs, well, certainly Vox's descriptions tend to elicit eyerolls from me. Perhaps there's some portion of what is apparently "my side" that fits the profile generally sketched here. But I suspect it's mainly just low-hanging fruit, when it comes to making attacks on people who view social justice as a positive thing. Which I get. It's a sound rhetorical tactic. Of course you target the weak spots.

But it's a mistake to try to understand your enemy entirely, or even primarily in terms of their most easily attacked faction. Although not, ultimately, a mistake I mind you making.

Blogger Danby May 23, 2015 4:33 PM  

But it's a mistake to try to understand your enemy entirely, or even primarily in terms of their most easily attacked faction. Although not, ultimately, a mistake I mind you making.

Depending on your definition of "entirely" that is either sound advice or breathtakingly stupid advice.

From my perspective, personal destruction is the sine qua non of an SJW. It is certainly the most effective weapon in the arsenal, and the one they consistently try to employ. It's what moved many on our side, including me, from of "live and let live" to "burn them in their homes and salt the earth."

So regardless of your position on the cultural issues, if you do not believe if have no right to disagree with you, that there is "no space in society" for Christians and White men who refuse to apologize for being White men, then I would not classify you as such.

Blogger Philip Sandifer May 23, 2015 4:53 PM  

Certainly I would never use the phrase "apologize for being a white man" to describe something I wanted from someone, and I make no apology for my own cultural influences, skin color, or gender identity. I also find large swaths of white Christian culture profoundly noxious. Though generally I'm more interested in exploring alternatives than in repeating critiques.

That said, I do consider a society in which people like Vox exist only at the powerless margins to be a goal worth striving towards. Although what I mean by that is less "burn Vox in his home and salt the earth" and more "attempt to engineer circumstances in which Vox and people like him have no ability to influence or impact my life, and where it is as easy as possible for others to do the same."

Certainly I consider myself a combatant in this culture war. And inasmuch as I identify with a side, it's the side that you refer to as SJWs.

But then, when it comes to how I'm classified by the opposing side, as you put it, I don't care. Classify me as you wish; I shall remain myself.

Blogger Danby May 23, 2015 5:02 PM  

So you are in favor of a kinder, gentler marginalization iw White Christians. I'll keep it in mind.

There was a time when I paid no attention to a person's opinions in these matters, outside of fora where they were pertinent. Thanks to the Left's determination to "engineer circumstances" in which people like me "have no ability to influence" anyone or anything, I can no longer afford to do so. When I was a hiring manager, I went out of my way to recruit the best people for the job, including gay men and leftists, without consideration of these things.

Thanks to the sort of nonsense that SJWs have been up to, I can no longer afford not to take these things into account. I would not hire the same team again.

Blogger Philip Sandifer May 23, 2015 5:08 PM  

I don't want you to have no ability to influence anyone or anything.

I want you to have no ability to influence me, and for it to be easy for others to escape your influence.

I recognize that you may see this as a distinction without difference. Nevertheless, it's one I make, and make emphatically.

Blogger Danby May 23, 2015 5:38 PM  

And I want you to have no ability to influence me, and easy for anyone who disagrees with you to escape your influence. Including your attempts to marginalize me and people like me.

Which seems to have become a fight to the death.

Do you really not see that your gentler sounding statement of objectives is really a call for marginalization of anyone who disagrees with you? Or is marginalization okay with you as long as it's White Christian men who are marginalized?

But a fight to the death is okay too, I'm armed.

Blogger Philip Sandifer May 23, 2015 5:45 PM  

I absolutely see that my call for "people like Vox exist only at the powerless margins" is a call for marginalization, yes. I'm not sure why you find it surprising that I would want viewpoints I consider destructive and evil marginalized. Indeed, so far as I can tell, the view that "evil stuff should be marginalized" is one that we both agree on - it's the definition of evil we're diametrically opposed on.

Oh. Wait. You're making the mistake of thinking that SJWs are all about some vision of absolute tolerance and equality, aren't you?

Blogger Danby May 23, 2015 5:51 PM  

Oh hell no. I, unlike many of my confreres, understand that the call to end the marginalization of one group is indeed a call for the marginalization of another.

Very well, coexistence was an option, once. We tried it, us White Christian men. Your type has demonstrated why it's a very very foolish idea.

I do find extraordinary what you define as "evil". And I do find it extraordinary that you think you're going to win this, given the history of White Christian men, that very history that you think exemplifies evil. Your type has survived this long only because you were not classified as a threat.

Don't be surprised at the blowback.

Blogger VD May 23, 2015 5:56 PM  

I do consider a society in which people like Vox exist only at the powerless margins to be a goal worth striving towards.

I imagine there are more than a few people on our side who feel likewise. We'll see who has more numbers.

Blogger Philip Sandifer May 23, 2015 5:57 PM  

Don't worry, I'm not surprised. Everything is going exactly to plan. Or at least, to my plan. As I said; can't speak for anyone else. But it's going swimmingly for me.

Blogger Philip Sandifer May 23, 2015 5:58 PM  

Numbers, Vox? I thought this was asymmetrical warfare. :)

Blogger Tom Kratman May 23, 2015 6:23 PM  

It is actually relevant, Phillip, but perhaps not in the way you're thinking. People tend to judge morality by whose ox was gored, _when_. Thucydides taught us that, "First of all words had to lose their ordinary meaning." But what Thucydides missed is that people also have to lose their sense of time. Example; we nuked two Japanese cities. They whine about it. We answer, "Pearl Harbor, motherfuckers." They reply, "You were trying to knock us back to the industrial and economic stone age." We answer, "Rape of Nanking. Seizure of Hainan." They reply, "Screw Nanking; you round eyed devils overran almost all of Asia; we HAD to defend ourselves. Do you criticize Leonidas for knocking a few heads to try to get the Greeks to stand united against Persia?" Us: "That wasn't US!" And so on. The rights and wrongs of the thing, or the perceived rights and wrong of the thing, are lost in forgetfulness, most of it willful.

Thus, too, you will find the SJWs denying there even is a culture war. Why? Because they've willfully put away their sense of time, to support the sense of right and wrong they need. I _think_. Similar case, I've gone on record as saying I want the Hugos utterly destroyed. I didn't start that way, even this go round. Ask Vox, who was privy to all the underlying events; I started with vast ambivalence or even total indifference. It was the SJWs' behavior over the last couple of months that's changed me from indifference to active hatred of the award. But they cannot, of course, see or admit to that.

Blogger Philip Sandifer May 23, 2015 6:45 PM  

"Who fired first" seems to me the very definition of history that gets written by the winners, and so I am indeed largely uninterested in it.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 23, 2015 6:59 PM  

Who fired first is an objective matter, generally available for discovery by someone who wants to know. The prospect of the truth coming out, of who is actually to blame, may have some value in deterring someone from starting that chain of events.

That said, to some extent you're right; very few people know that the "Yellow Book," purporting to blame the central powers for starting the chain of mobilization leading to the Great War, is a fraud and that it was actually the Entente that began it. (I invite the reader's attention to Goodspeed's The German Wars.)

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the prostitution of the terms "Fascism" and "Racism" to serve short term goals at the cost of the terms becoming meaningless and useless?

"Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries."

Now add in timing so that people forget who is really to blame and you can have a nice total collapse of civilization going.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 23, 2015 7:08 PM  

I am indeed largely uninterested in it.

Those who fired first rarely are.

Blogger kh123 May 23, 2015 7:41 PM  

How was it Solzhenitsyn put it when the bureaucrats and their abettors had to start dealing with the aftermath of several decades of socialism, Lenin, Stalin, the NKVD and Gulag?

"'No, don't dig up the past! Dig up the past and you'll put an eye out!'"

Which he follows up with "Don't dig up the past and you'll likely lose both eyes."

Anonymous Sigh May 23, 2015 7:51 PM  

Not much sign of the "moderate masses", eh Tom?

Their idea of a "compromise" is our total marginalization and powerlessness. Such a deal!

Blogger kh123 May 23, 2015 7:51 PM  

"...Finally, we have the broad philosophical view:

'History has never had a need of the past [!!], and the history of socialist culture needs it least of all.' (A. Kuzmin)

"History has no need of the past! That's the conclusion our loyalists are left with! What, then, does it need? The future, perhaps? And these are the people who write our history!...

"What retort can we make to them all, faced with their massive ignorance? How can we now make them understand?...

"Truth, it seems, is always bashful, easily reduced to silence by the too blatant encroachment of falsehood.

"The prolonged absence of any free exchange of information within a country opens up a gulf of incomprehension between whole groups of the population, between millions and millions.

"We simply cease to be a single people, for we speak, indeed, different languages."


~Part III, Looking Back On It All, p.475

Blogger Philip Sandifer May 23, 2015 8:28 PM  

Even the most cursory study of history suggests that one of its most fundamental truths is that civilizations collapse. That civilization as we know it will eventually do so thus seems both inevitable and well beyond the realm of what individual action can meaningfully be said to cause, both in terms of when it happens and in terms of how. Accordingly, I don't think that there is much to be done with it as a moral concept. My view on it tends to be "eh, if it happens it happens." Although I'll grant that it makes a terribly good thought experiment.

As for firing first, discussions of it seem ultimately to collapse to either a definitional argument over the word "fired" or an argument over exactly when the conflict started. Neither argument tends to yield interesting results.

Anonymous Scintan May 23, 2015 8:59 PM  

To review: Slate recommendations and voting: Not against the rules

Fake reviews on Amazon: Against the rules.


So, no, you can't really justify the latter in the same way as the former.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 23, 2015 9:33 PM  

Of course civilizations collapse, Phil. But good and evil can't be measured only by breadth, and depth, and scope, and intensity; they must also be measured by duration. "Even the most cursory study of history" also suggests that, to the people living in civilization at the time, they have an interest in and generally approve of it not collapsing in their lifetimes or those of their children.

Blogger Philip Sandifer May 23, 2015 10:08 PM  

As I said, not only inevitable, but beyond the scope of what can be considered to have a meaningful causal relationship with my actions. I'd certainly like to miss the collapse of civilization, but I don't imagine I'm going to have a choice one way or another.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 23, 2015 11:37 PM  

You've in the past defended slate voting on the Hugos as a tactic whose virtue was (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here) that it discarded a socially accepted convention and stopped treating the culture war as a sort of polite game. It seems to me that review bombing could be justified in the same way.

Certainly, but one tenet of civilization is to, ahem, discriminate in our practices. Meaning, treat different situations differently The Hugos have been captured by the SJWs as a strong point (for certain definitions of strong anyway) in the culture war. Amazon reviews on the other hand have been largely neutral. Disrupting an institution the enemy has converted into a tool serving their agenda is far more morally defensible than disrupting something that is mostly just serving the public interest.

It's also indicative of the weakness of SJWs. We've attacked them directly. They fight back by attacking a neutral party. Though I supposed from the perspective of Torlings, Amazon is probably a tool of incredible evil for enabling authors to route around the gatekeepers.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 23, 2015 11:38 PM  

Even the most cursory study of history suggests that one of its most fundamental truths is that civilizations collapse.

And people die too, but murder is still a crime.

Blogger Philip Sandifer May 23, 2015 11:48 PM  

Jack - like Tom, you are ignoring one of the two things that contributes to my relative disinterest in the collapse of civilization as a moral concept. It is not merely that it is inevitable, but that its causes and nature are so complex that it is impossible to make rational decisions based on their likely consequences in terms of it.

This latter aspect is not the case for murder, which is an action of sufficient simplicity that one can be held morally responsible for it. Whereas holding an individual morally responsible for the collapse of civilization is like holding a butterfly morally responsible for a hurricane.

Blogger Floyd Looney May 23, 2015 11:57 PM  

The Wall Street Journal news pages are more left-leaning than the New York Times,

Blogger kh123 May 24, 2015 12:13 AM  

"This latter aspect is not the case for murder, which is an action of sufficient simplicity that one can be held morally responsible for it. Whereas holding an individual morally responsible for the collapse of civilization is like holding a butterfly morally responsible for a hurricane."

An interesting nickname I never knew Stalin had. He and his blue-pipped angels helping the people to whip up hostile whirlwinds against one another, against the world. And in red, to boot.

Historic agnosticism: A novel spin on the Nuremberg Defense.

Blogger kh123 May 24, 2015 12:23 AM  

...Would it make you feel better if we said that there's no clear or easy answer to history, and that like much in life most - if not all - players in the game, including the chroniclers, are chequered in some way or another.

Yes Virginia, even the best fall from grace, and even the worst have their merits.

Now, barring a pure Plutarchian invention of every and all events throughout time - for even he proves to be an historic source to academics - how then would the above conclusion be known, or that nothing could be known, if in fact nothing is to be known from history.

Blogger kh123 May 24, 2015 12:25 AM  

Or is it just a matter of guilt, that scales cannot exist where the past is involved.

Blogger Philip Sandifer May 24, 2015 12:28 AM  

Agnosticism? Far from it: I absolutely believe in the existence of history. Indeed, I think of it as something not unlike a god - a vast and powerful force that I am a mere ant in the path of.

Blogger Akulkis May 24, 2015 2:28 AM  

Phillip Sandifer...

Remember this.. if we are as evil as you say we are.... you're last breath will be as you bleed out due to gunshot wounds... that is, if you don't drown due to your lungs being full of your own blood.

Better think about that some, before you continue to aid and abet those who seek to destroy our civilization, which will sweep in anarchy.... and anarchy ALWAYS leads to the death of weaklings such as yourself.

Blogger Akulkis May 24, 2015 2:30 AM  

Therefore, choose your future actions wisely.

Not to mention WHO you align yourself with. You're not merely playing with fire, you're juggling beakers of pure nitroglycerin.

Blogger kh123 May 24, 2015 3:03 AM  

Forensically, epideictically, and deliberatively agnostic.

Until it comes to present-day marginalization, based on perceived historical wrongs. For a freer, more comfortable future. Whatever that may be.

Why do I have a feeling this ant thinks it can change the weather by regulating butterfly traffic.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 24, 2015 4:07 AM  

Jack - like Tom, you are ignoring one of the two things that contributes to my relative disinterest in the collapse of civilization as a moral concept. It is not merely that it is inevitable, but that its causes and nature are so complex that it is impossible to make rational decisions based on their likely consequences in terms of it.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying you are wrong. And immoral. You are using complexity as a mask for evil. Gee, I could never really be sure that the arsenic I put in the old lady's tea is what killed her, so I might as well poison her.

Things that hasten civilizational collapse are easy enough to see. Harder to do of course, since they usually involve sacrificing some short-term gain.

Blogger Philip Sandifer May 24, 2015 4:22 AM  

You are, I think, describing a much bolder position than mine. I am not suggesting that there is no knowledge that can be derived from history. That would be an absurd position.

I am saying that claims of the form "doing x will cause the collapse of civilization" are not really claims that can be evaluated as "true" or "false," not only in terms of being knowable right now, but in terms of ever being knowable. That's a very narrow claim. It does not even come close to ruling out the possibility of making decisions that are informed by history, nor of moral judgment.

So no, I do not believe that I can change the weather by regulating butterfly traffic, as you put it. Or, to be less poetic about it, I do not believe that there is any action that I can take that has a clear-cut consequence in terms of how the end of civilization plays out, or, more broadly, how history in a macro sense plays out.

That does not mean that there are not ways I do and do not want history to play out. Nor does it mean that there are not decisions that have significant and broad consequences.

To frame it in terms Vox has used in the past, I think statements that use "the collapse of civilization" for their moral force belong entirely to the realm of rhetoric, as opposed to dialectic. They are nice flourishes, and potentially effective for certain aesthetic purposes, but do not actually say anything.

Blogger epobirs May 24, 2015 6:36 AM  

I find nothing inevitable about civilizational collapse. Barring some remarkable archaeological discovery, the civilization we now enjoy is unprecedented in myriad ways. For it to pass with no continuity to following civilizations so complex as to make it hard to discern would require a strict definition that allows for structure and artifacts to exist that are unknown in all of history. By the definition of some observers the civilization may collapse but scarcely anyone living through it will notice. This may have already occurred. Repeatedly.

Anonymous Br'er Rabbit May 24, 2015 6:37 AM  

He's not a SJW, he just agrees with their aims, wants you dead or effectively neutralzed, and doesn't believe there is such a thing as truth. Oh, and did he mention that he writes about writing/SF and desperately needs the attention that reviews, even negative reviews would generate? I mean he's TOTES blase about it all, but...

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2015 8:52 AM  

Not at all, Philip. If you support radical egalitarian feminism, if you support a women's right to put to death without trial the cannon fodder we'll need, one or two wars down the road, if you support pacifism, if you support the fraudulent forms of taxation that is our tax regime, then you are materially contributing to the collapse of civilization. If you support politically correct speak, which is to say "linguistic matricide," you are materially contributing to the collapse of our civilization.

Anonymous The other robot May 24, 2015 9:51 AM  

Recommend readers seek out the Bolo or Berserker or Hammer's Slammers series instead for much better writing on similar themes.

Well, I have read those, and I still liked BBDC.

Anonymous Bah May 24, 2015 10:05 AM  

The tragedy of the commons -- Philip and the other SJW benefit from civilization, but do not accept any responsibility to uphold it.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 24, 2015 1:08 PM  

Sandifer, around here plausible deniability needs to be a hell of a lot more plausible than what you appear to be used to.

Blogger Philip Sandifer May 24, 2015 3:28 PM  

A couple responses

Br'er - My sales are fine, thanks, and I doubt that the controversy of negative reviews would help me. Given that I write about pop culture, I get a lot of sales from random Amazon browsers. My strong reviews help with that - being review bombed would definitely be a problem. But it's a risk I accept that I've taken by getting involved in this debate. Also, I'm happy to identify as a SJW - I just don't think that most of the descriptions of SJWs given by people here are very good descriptions of me. As I said, I can't speak for other people on my side.

Tom - I am unpersuaded by the arguments I have seen that, to pick one, politically correct speak will materially contribute to the collapse of our civilization. That said, I don't much imagine the argument is worth having - it'll almost certainly come down to fundamental epistemological differences.

Bah - It's more that I don't accept the possibility of being individually responsible for the fate of civilization. Your statement is to me akin to saying that I benefit from the sun but don't accept any responsibility to prevent it from becoming a red giant. But notably, that's not a rejection of moral responsibility in a general case. I just reject "how does this action affect the collapse of civilization" as a useful way of judging morality. I don't actually think taking that off the table affects what moral arguments you can and can't make. I can, for instance, readily come up with moral arguments for all of the points Tom makes above that do not rely on the collapse of civilization for their force.

Jack - I suspect we do not agree on what my needs are with regards to commenting here. I would suggest, however, that your view of what my needs are is almost entirely irrelevant, they being mine and not yours. Put another way, you are not really in a position to dictate what my goals are.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2015 4:21 PM  

The Corcyreans would have been most surprised that manipulation of the language for political purposes, which is what PC-speak is, didn't contribute tho their ruination.

Blogger Philip Sandifer May 24, 2015 4:52 PM  

It will probably not surprise you to discover that I do not think that a single millennia-old example understood through a fundamentally incomplete and insufficient set of historical sources is sufficient to establish a general case rule about the relationship between manipulation of language and societal collapse.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2015 5:17 PM  

Or when Jews become "untermensch" and the gassed or shot corpses? Or when hardworking farmers become Kulaks and "enemies of the people"? It's not an isolated example, Philip; it's part ot the human condition. Everywhere and everywhen that we allow manipulation of the language for political gain, the price is heavy and all too often completely ruinous for civilization.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2015 7:15 PM  

Which makes me wonder, is being historically illiterate as much of a defense mechanism for the modern SJW as is the spewing of painful levels of stupidity, much the way a skunk sprays?

Blogger overcaffeinated May 24, 2015 7:19 PM  

"eh, if it happens it happens." --- I suppose that's what they thought in Rotherham. Philip, I think the end of the "noxious" white Christians on your island might happen sooner than you think.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts