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

Thursday, May 07, 2015

Violence, women, and war

One Owlmirror attempts to claim it is reasonable to conclude that I approve of violence towards feminist women:
I have something of a rant simmering on how it’s still reasonable to conclude that Vox Day approves of violence towards women (or more specifically, feminist women), despite the point (which you emphasized) that that’s not exactly what he wrote, but it’s long and kinda off-topic."
It is also false. I do not approve of initiating violence period. Not towards women, not towards feminist women, not towards anyone.

Is that insufficiently clear? Do I need to type more slowly for the message to sink in?

The idea that I approve of violence against women is entirely based on false accusations. Just to give one example, despite the fact that I have never addressed the shooting of Malala Yousafzai in any detail, much less supported it, a number of people have repeated the totally false claims by Popular Science and NPR that I am "on the record as supporting the Taliban’s attempt to assassinate Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousifazi". In fact, there is not a single post about Miss Yousafzai on this blog and my only reference to her was in a passing reference on Alpha Game in a post dealing with the demographic implosion of Japan.

"In light of the strong correlation between female education and demographic decline, a purely empirical perspective on Malala Yousafzai, the poster girl for global female education, may indicate that the Taliban's attempt to silence her was perfectly rational and scientifically justifiable."

So, in the interest of setting the record straight, let's go ahead and look at the Taliban's attack on the young Pakistani woman to see whether the attack can reasonably be considered rational or not. (I will address the scientific element below.) And once you take the time to actually read about the historical context of the shooting, it rapidly becomes obvious that the decision of the Taliban to attack Malala Yousafzai was not a random act of irrational violence against women, but rather the rational and purposeful targeting of an individual they correctly considered to be a traitor in the employ of their enemies.

Most people are entirely unaware that Yousafzai was no mere "innocent schoolgirl" who just happened to attend school, she was the daughter of a pro-Western activist, she had worked as a paid propagandist for the BBC and other Western organizations for four years, and she had even met with Richard Holbrooke before the "irrational" Taliban finally decided to silence her. Given that her family "ran a chain of schools", you could even make a reasonable case for her pro-education activism having been little more than a cynical marketing device on the part of her elders.

The Taliban has been fighting to defend their traditional way of life in their own tribal lands for 36 years. They have killed tens of thousands of people, from elite Spetsnaz soldiers to unarmed young women, in order to do so. It is quite clear that they will kill anyone who threatens that way of life, and considering how they have survived two invasions and occupations by two superpowers, their ruthlessness is not only rational, but understandable and even, from a strategic perspective, necessary and admirable. Less determined forces would have collapsed and surrendered years ago.

Does that mean I support the Taliban? Absolutely not. Does that mean I share their views? No. Does that mean I want to live the way they do? No.

But unlike PZ Myers and many people who apparently consider them nothing more than a momentarily useful rhetorical device, I take the Taliban seriously, for the obvious reason that anyone who can fight two numerically and technologically superior enemies to a standstill is obviously formidable and had damn well better be taken seriously. Fortunately, unlike ISIS, the Taliban appears to wish little more than to be left alone in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Here is the question for the left-leaning seculars in our midst. Suppose a young girl in your country adopted a strongly anti-homosexual ideology, was employed by Iraqi and Syrian agencies, met in secret with a top Syrian official, and over the course of four years was successful in convincing tens of thousands of people in your country that homosexuals should be killed by throwing them off rooftops. Suppose hundreds of homosexuals had already been killed in this way thanks to her public calls for such executions. Would you support her arrest and execution or would you oppose it?

Even if you would oppose it on moral or legal grounds, isn't it easier to see the Taliban's attack as being an entirely rational one when framed in that context? I see the shooting of Malala Yousafzai as being very little different than the English burning of Joan of Arc or the UK's hanging of William Joyce. It was an act of war aimed at an enemy effective, not a random and irrational act of violence rooted in prejudice.

It is also worth noting that the Taliban have left Yousafzai alone now that she's no longer living in Pakistan. They don't appear to care if she wants to take her message to foreign populations elsewhere, but they will not permit her to spread pro-Western propaganda among their own people.

Cantus asked me a few questions about this a few days ago that I did not see until now:
How do you justify the assertion that you've "never gone on the record as supporting the Taliban's attempt on her life"? Are you arguing that an action being "scientifically justifiable" does not amount to supporting it? 
Because I did not support the Taliban's attempt on Miss Yousafzai's life. I merely observed that the attempt was a rational act given their perspective, which I do not share. Yes, I unequivocally state that the fact that an action is justifiable from a scientific perspective neither makes it moral nor desirable. There are many things I consider to be scientifically justifiable that I nevertheless do not support because I do not believe science to be an appropriate or reliable guide to human behavior.

Labels: ,

153 Comments:

Blogger JP May 07, 2015 6:00 AM  

Yes, but you're a misogynist dipshit (and other things). So it's okay to put words in your mouth because reasons.

Anonymous andy May 07, 2015 6:04 AM  

Summarized for SJW's, so, you don't have to read the badthink.

blah blah blah I'm smarter than you blah blah blah "...rational act given their perspective" Vox supports violence against women! blah blah blah I'm smarter than you blah blah blah

Anonymous totenhenchen May 07, 2015 6:09 AM  

As Chris Rock said about OJ, "I ain't saying he should've killed her, but I understand."

Blogger Cail Corishev May 07, 2015 6:19 AM  

I have something of a rant simmering on how it’s still reasonable to conclude

It's so cute when they try to act all objective and scientific. They're like little girls playing dress-up with their mothers' clothes and makeup -- they recognize the forms, but they don't really understand how they go together to produce the final product.

Anonymous Fp May 07, 2015 6:20 AM  

"I do not believe science to be an appropriate or reliable guide to human behavior."

Uh Vox you know they're going to be quoting this one as well.

Blogger GAHCindy May 07, 2015 6:22 AM  

"Yes, I unequivocally state that the fact that an action is justifiable from a scientific perspective neither makes it moral nor desirable. "

There's their confusion. They really can't fathom the idea that the word scientific doesn't mean moral and good.

Anonymous zen0 May 07, 2015 6:23 AM  

> "I ain't saying he should've killed her, but I understand."

I am sure SJW's laugh at that also, it's just not safe for them to do so publicly. Somebody might see.

Blogger VD May 07, 2015 6:25 AM  

"Uh Vox you know they're going to be quoting this one as well.

Fine by me.

Blogger bob k. mando May 07, 2015 6:31 AM  

Fp May 07, 2015 6:20 AM
Uh Vox you know they're going to be quoting this one as well.



a - almost all of them will incompetently paraphrase what he said, they rarely actually quote him
b - why would he care?

Blogger Shimshon May 07, 2015 6:32 AM  

The only thing scientific about SJWs is that the feelbadometer is going to peg after they read this. Should've chosen a logarithmic scale.

Blogger Shimshon May 07, 2015 6:33 AM  

"Fine by me."

Don't you mean, "I don't care," Your Malignance?

Anonymous Ain May 07, 2015 6:36 AM  

This message isn't going to resonate with them. They are either completely incapable of understanding, or outright refuse to. Rational doesn't mean good, nor does it mean reasonable, but they're treating the words as if they are interchangeable. Rational and reasonable are listed as synonyms in thesauruses but that fails to convey the spirit behind the words. Through ignorance, laziness, apathy, or sometimes even shrewdness, most people don't make precision of language into a goal of theirs.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 07, 2015 6:38 AM  

Proving once again that SJWs always lie. Every day should be that of a SJW receiving a rhetorical jab to the face. A nice consistent message that they so richly deserve, good and hard.

Anonymous Ain May 07, 2015 6:50 AM  

In other words, one word is intellectual, the other implies a moral judgement. Fans of science fiction may be familiar with the trope of the rational but immoral scientist, but it may not have yet become a societal meme.

Anonymous Apollo May 07, 2015 6:55 AM  

Saying that a decision is rational isn't the same as saying it is scientifically justifiable. Is this just more misquoting, or was he referring to something else here?

Im not used to seeing you explain yourself in the face of misunderstandings of your positions Vox. Any reason why youre expending the effort to do this now? Is it anything to do with swaying the undecideds who have discovered you due to GamerGate and Rabid Puppies?

Blogger Matt May 07, 2015 6:58 AM  

"I want to marry the Taliban"
-Vox Day

Blogger Jay Lucas May 07, 2015 6:58 AM  

The difficulty of bringing up the scientific viewpoint is that most people assume it to be the Truth rather than a perspective, narrowed to certain features of reality.

Scientific is an intensifier for them, not a kind of philosophy or tool or technology useful for living when used appropriately. And in their own terms they are right. If they had made the same statement, they would have said it to show support for X, Y and Z.

Maybe if we packaged it with a few incantations like "The research shows that Vox day isn't a bigot" or "Key officials within the administration have confided to us that he's super nice" they'd get the idea.

Anonymous DT May 07, 2015 6:58 AM  

Is that insufficiently clear? Do I need to type more slowly for the message to sink in?

Sometimes...with people like that...you have to use crayon. Bright colors work best. Rainbows and a happy sun can help keep them focused.

Blogger VD May 07, 2015 7:02 AM  

"Saying that a decision is rational isn't the same as saying it is scientifically justifiable. Is this just more misquoting, or was he referring to something else here?"

No, the quote in Italics is correct. The decision was rational and it may have been scientifically justifiable. It was also immoral and made in pursuit of objectives I do not support.

The extent of the shameless dishonesty can be seen in the way that they completely ignore the word "may".

I'm not used to seeing you explain yourself in the face of misunderstandings of your positions Vox. Any reason why youre expending the effort to do this now? Is it anything to do with swaying the undecideds who have discovered you due to GamerGate and Rabid Puppies?

Yes. Exactly. It's less to convince them that I'm not a terrible evil individual - I am the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil, after all - than to undermine their confidence in the enemy propaganda organs.

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus May 07, 2015 7:05 AM  

"How do you justify the assertion that you've..."

How does this guy justify thinking that he is actually fluent in English?

Reading Is Fundamental

Anonymous Tom May 07, 2015 7:08 AM  

I wish Stalin had a comments section where he laid out his strategy and answered the Prols questions after each of his speeches...

Anonymous DT May 07, 2015 7:09 AM  

Maybe if we packaged it with a few incantations like "The research shows that Vox day isn't a bigot" or "Key officials within the administration have confided to us that he's super nice" they'd get the idea.

Last Thursday the science was settled when scientists reached a scientific consensus that Vox Day is not a bigot and does not hate women, according to science.

Those who claim otherwise are clearly deniers who hate science.

No word yet on research into whether or not he was the one who actually ordered the attack on Alderaan.

Anonymous DT May 07, 2015 7:11 AM  

How does this guy justify thinking that he is actually fluent in English?

Reading Is Fundamental


In his school it was "Reading is for the mental."

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni May 07, 2015 7:17 AM  

Would it be understandable to SJW rabbits to explain that one may understand that abortion of sodomite babies was "scientifically understandable" if one longed for grandchildren. At the same time, opposing abortion on moral grounds would prevent you from cooperating in child murder. Are SJWs so distant from moral calculations?

Anonymous Tom May 07, 2015 7:19 AM  

Vox, do you think they are being actively dishonest or just muddled and confused?

They seem to conflate similar terms and apply meanings to words that are understandable, though not technically correct.

For example, the "Rational = Good" and "Scientific = Good" mistakes. Those make total sense from their perspective. I know this because I used to think like that in high school. It is wrong, but I'm not sure it is intentionally deceitful.

However, when they don't respond to corrections like this with apologies and change the way they've been misusing the terms, that's when they become intellectually dishonest.

I really think that many of the situations that Vox views as them being conniving and evil are really them just being wrong or imprecise or sloppy with their thinking.

Can you really hold someone currently incapable of telling the difference between dialectic and rhetoric - not just incapable of using dialectic, but actually incapable of distinguishing between the two - as responsible for incompetent argumentation?

Remember, you need to take into account the environment most of us have grown up in. We and our parents are lucky to have even heard of Aristotle any more. Our schools certainly haven't taught grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric in any recognizable way for a long, long time. It is like most of us are grown up sized, but intellectually still children.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 07, 2015 7:22 AM  

Wouldn't it be fun if the SJWs fought it out on social media with ISIS and the Taliban supporters. "@Scalzi, I'll blow who I want to blow regardless of your religion" "@ISIS, sure" "@Taliban, NO me first"

If only a Black Knight would rise and connect the media streams, kind of like the safety warning in "Ghost Busters", but more fun.

Easy for this owlmirror goof to scold a Native American racial minority, he is helpless and cannot fight back, but the head choppers, woooah now.

Anonymous Apollo May 07, 2015 7:23 AM  

Yes. Exactly. It's less to convince them that I'm not a terrible evil individual - I am the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil, after all - than to undermine their confidence in the enemy propaganda organs.

Thought so. I never got the impression you cared about what people thought about you, and reasoned explanations are wasted on SJWs, so it follows that your recent clarifications had to be aimed at someone else, and for some other purpose. And illuminating SJW lies and manipulations to the uninitiated is an excellent one.

Most people just dont realise how deceitful the SJWs are - I know I didnt until I started reading your site and others like it. Our society can only improve if this knowledge is spread more widely.

Anonymous Nah May 07, 2015 7:29 AM  

I see the shooting of Malala Yousafzai as being very little different than the English burning of Joan of Arc or the UK's hanging of William Joyce. It was an act of war aimed at an enemy effective, not a random and irrational act of violence rooted in prejudice.

Hanging Joyce was not an act of war aimed at an enemy effective. The war was over. The enemy was defeated and had no more effectives. He was executed for high treason in order to punish him and deter future acts of treason.

Blogger Josh May 07, 2015 7:31 AM  

For the SJWs, both science and rational equal moral and good.

Anonymous p-dawg May 07, 2015 7:45 AM  

I'm sure you are aware of this, but they don't care whether you factually support anything. They "know" what you support, and your input is neither required nor desired. Just saying. Seems like a windmill you're tilting at here.

Blogger VD May 07, 2015 7:54 AM  

Seems like a windmill you're tilting at here.

Lesson: any time you address me with a sentence that begins with "seems" or "it appears" or "you seem to be saying", just stop. You are almost certainly wrong.

Why on Earth would you think I am attempting to convince the SJWs with dialectic? I am simply setting the factual record straight, which will convince all neutral parties capable of dialectic and provide for a platform from which rhetorical arguments can be launched.

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 07, 2015 7:55 AM  

In other words, one word is intellectual, the other implies a moral judgement. Fans of science fiction may be familiar with the trope of the rational but immoral scientist, but it may not have yet become a societal meme.

I beg to differ. The meme of the mad scientist has been commonplace in society at large since at least the 1931 Boris Karloff version of Frankenstein. The movie and novel Jurassic Park was based overtly on that very question; the notion that just because something can rationally and scientifically be done doesn't mean that its moral to do so.

Blogger VD May 07, 2015 8:01 AM  

Hanging Joyce was not an act of war aimed at an enemy effective. The war was over. The enemy was defeated and had no more effectives. He was executed for high treason in order to punish him and deter future acts of treason.

I suspect, though I do not know, that the Taliban considered Miss Yousafzai's activities to be similarly treasonous.

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 07, 2015 8:03 AM  

Remember, you need to take into account the environment most of us have grown up in. We and our parents are lucky to have even heard of Aristotle any more. Our schools certainly haven't taught grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric in any recognizable way for a long, long time. It is like most of us are grown up sized, but intellectually still children.

Those aren't true SJWs, though--those are just the poor indoctrinated. They may appear to be SJWs at casual glance, but they're not really, they just mimic the stances of SJWs because that's what they've been taught to do. And yes, most of us in Western Civilization are deliberately made to be this way. Even my parents didn't see the need to correct my indoctrination; either as a misguided attempt to let me find my own way, or because they didn't really know the extent of the deprogramming from society that I was going to need. That's really the only failing that I can lay at my parents' feet, and even then, I think it was done ignorantly rather than for any other reason. I've not made the same mistake with my children; they are deprogrammed almost daily so that there's not a major task of deprogramming them later as adults over the course of years, as I had to do.

It's astonishing how deep the programming goes. My wife once said to me that even though she agreed with me on most of my political and social views, I seemed really extreme and close-minded. The last was so wrong that I was taken aback for some time. Close-minded? Because I've actually considered sources that questioned The Narrative™ and found them of greater value than the indoctrination? The exact opposite is true.

But my wife was less hungry for red pills than I was. It's not her fault; how else should we expect someone to be who's grown up in our society, gone to our public schools, and been saturated in our media and entertainment her whole life?

Anonymous PhillipGeorge©2015 May 07, 2015 8:04 AM  

When they talk 'pluralism' they don't mean it. It is a magic word, like "tolerance". Science is another magic word, meaning 'good' exactly as long as it is ill-defined.

The idea that you empathize with the Taliban better than their better pluralists is one of the better evidences for the cognitive dissonance in their dystopian ideology.

All these fuzzy words again. In short they wish to annihilate individuality and cancel the horror that besets them with every glance in the mirror. Cancel humanity and the problem is solved.
It's death.

Blogger rcocean May 07, 2015 8:17 AM  

Joyce was executed for being a right-winger and out of pure spite and vengeance. He wasn't even English but an Irishman with an American passport. And his treason consisted of making radio broadcasts. None of the Americans who make Axis Radio Broadcasts were executed, just jailed - if that.

Anonymous MendoScot May 07, 2015 8:19 AM  

My wife once said to me that even though she agreed with me on most of my political and social views, I seemed really extreme and close-minded. The last was so wrong that I was taken aback for some time. Close-minded? Because I've actually considered sources that questioned The Narrative™ and found them of greater value than the indoctrination? The exact opposite is true.

I know this well, Joshua. I don't think my wife realizes how much her opinions have changed over the years to conform to mine, even though she originally refused to discuss them because I had "already made my mind up". I just smile, and later explain the reasoning to our daughter.

Works like a charm.

Blogger Gunnar von Cowtown May 07, 2015 8:20 AM  

All SJWs are poopy-pantsed crybabies with poor reading comprehension skills.

Hey, I'm starting to get the hang of this rhetoric thing!

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 07, 2015 8:27 AM  

I know this well, Joshua. I don't think my wife realizes how much her opinions have changed over the years to conform to mine, even though she originally refused to discuss them because I had "already made my mind up". I just smile, and later explain the reasoning to our daughter.

Right. It's a little delicate, but works quite well. What she really meant, although she couldn't articulate it as such until after the fact when she had more time to stew on it over time, was that I was too strident and too prone to get angry and/or contemptuous when talking about SJWs and liberalism in general.

Which is actually a decent lesson, at least when talking to her and to some extent to my daughter. My sons, on the other hand, don't seem to have any issue with my "rough-edged" approach.

Blogger AmyJ May 07, 2015 8:36 AM  

"Sometimes...with people like that...you have to use crayon. Bright colors work best. Rainbows and a happy sun can help keep them focused."

More like .gif and snark filled Buzzfeed articles. They don't have the attention span for grown-up talk.

Blogger David May 07, 2015 8:37 AM  

Boom. The last part of your last sentence brings it ALL home.

Science cannot be the guide for behavior, because science remains both subject to human interpretation and free of moral considerations.

Collectivists have corrupted science for a long, long time, dressing every pet folly in the patina of science (glo-bull-warming, renewable energy, etc.) which serves the purpose of diverting the debate to one of scientific validity instead of where it belongs, morality.

Collectivism rests on the foundation that initiating violence against people is necessary and (ends-justify-the-means) right if the stated (note, I didn't say real) aims are suitably laudable. This is Satan's morality, the creed of slaves clamoring for servitude.

Anonymous Anonymous May 07, 2015 8:38 AM  

Is "pantsed" even a word? Besides, if SJWs are crybabies, the correct, parallel word to "crybabies" would be "diapered." But, who wold want to change them...and powder them?

njartist

Anonymous Anonymous May 07, 2015 8:39 AM  

Google link isn't working.
njartist

Anonymous John V. Marsch May 07, 2015 8:45 AM  

It's my understanding that Mr Yousafzai owned a single school, but chaired an association of many such single-owner, low cost private schools, which are a modern phenomenon of education in India and Pakistan, where state education is viewed with distrust.

Blogger David May 07, 2015 8:48 AM  

"My wife once said to me that even though she agreed with me on most of my political and social views, I seemed really extreme and close-minded. The last was so wrong that I was taken aback for some time. Close-minded? Because I've actually considered sources that questioned The Narrative™ and found them of greater value than the indoctrination? The exact opposite is true."

When you have weighed all the apples thrice and written the total, it may look "closed minded" to a recently arrived observer that you're uninterested in weighing them again, and it may be difficult to provide a step-by-step review of what you did without it sounding curt.

Anonymous joe doakes May 07, 2015 8:51 AM  

Well, of course Vox supports the Taliban killing women. He supports murdering children, too. *

*Remember the Abraham and Isaac flap? Answer a hypothetical question honestly and see where it leads? And now this, which suggests two possibilities: stop answering hypothetical questions when you know your answer will be twisted around and used against you; or answer them honestly and let the twister be damned. Let me guess which option you'll choose . . . .

Blogger Gunnar von Cowtown May 07, 2015 8:54 AM  

Is "pantsed" even a word?
If it's not, it should be.
Besides, if SJWs are crybabies, the correct, parallel word to "crybabies" would be "diapered.
I heard or read that linguists consider "pants" to be the funniest word in the English language. Thus, "pantsed" is objectively funnier than "diapered". Since rhetoric is an appeal to emotion, "poopy-pantsed" is a more effective rhetorical tool than "poopy-diapered", because humor.

See that? I just used dialectic to back up my rhetoric. Man, I'm killin' it today!

Anonymous Harsh May 07, 2015 8:59 AM  

Shut up, Owen.

Anonymous Alexander May 07, 2015 9:00 AM  

This is one of the rabbit things that doesn't surprise me at all, and I don't think a good number of them are even trying to be disingenuous about you.

They do not believe in good/evil, but they do believe that in the spectrum of rational/irrational, and they accept it as a proxy for Christian Morality.

Hence Taliban = bad = irrational.
Christianity = bad = irrational.
Secular = good = rational.

White nationalism = bad = irrational.
Black nationalism = good = rational.

It's the same logic chain that allows you to take the base assumption that humans our destroying the planet, therefore population control, massive curb of freedoms for the masses, and abortion are rational (good!) things.

So I can easily see how when you say rational and scientifically justifiable, they see good and desirable, because they simply do not see any distinguishing features between the terms. Their morality, such as it is, is based on what they can defend as rational and scientifically justifiable. They assume the same of you, and conclude therefore that you believe the Taliban to be good.

Anonymous Alexander May 07, 2015 9:01 AM  

It's a similar syndrome of "this word is a good word to be, I am a good person, therefore this word describes me" There must be a term for this: it's too common a trait not to have its own word.

Blogger Rabbi B May 07, 2015 9:14 AM  

"Close-minded?"

Sounds like a compliment. Bravo.

Anonymous MendoScot May 07, 2015 9:14 AM  

See that? I just used dialectic to back up my rhetoric. Man, I'm killin' it today!

Nonetheless, I believe you erred in selecting "poopy-pantsed" over "poopy-panting", as in "GeRM poopy-panted a challenge for civil debate, but quickly swallowed his emission when the ELoE accepted".

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 07, 2015 9:23 AM  

When you have weighed all the apples thrice and written the total, it may look "closed minded" to a recently arrived observer that you're uninterested in weighing them again, and it may be difficult to provide a step-by-step review of what you did without it sounding curt.

Exactly so.

Nonetheless, I believe you erred in selecting "poopy-pantsed" over "poopy-panting", as in "GeRM poopy-panted a challenge for civil debate, but quickly swallowed his emission when the ELoE accepted".

Martin prairie-dogged the request for debate, in other words?

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 07, 2015 9:29 AM  

I would not say "pro-Western propaganda". The West died long ago. We no longer live in Western Civlization. It is more proper to say "Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevist propaganda".

Blogger Pogo Possum May 07, 2015 9:46 AM  

Oh, no!

You mean someone is taking something you wrote, and twisting your words to mean something you didn't even say?!?

The horror! How dare they?

Y'know, I heard of a case like this once. There was this writer who found a particular piece of legislation targeting rape victims to be dismaying. So, to express his dismay, he wrote a satirical piece, writing from the point of view of the person who would be most pleased with the legislation. That is to say, a rapist.

Then, this second writer, who does not like the first one, took this piece as "evidence" that the first writer had committed rape, or was supportive of rapists. Second writer even began referring to first writer using rape-based nicknames.

Christ, what an asshole, no?

Rather than taking the high road, no matter what his opponents do, decided to use the twisting of words as his tactic. Disgusting, no?

It would serve this second fellow right to find his opponents twisting his own words to mean something he did not say.

*I* would never stoop to it, but if I saw it happening, I would probably think it well-deserved. And if second writer ever had the *nerve* to complain that he was being treated unfairly, I would probably just smile, and think, "Well, what goes around . . . comes around."

Anonymous The other robot May 07, 2015 9:51 AM  

But, but, but, you're not part of the "community"!

Oh, exactly this. Min-maxers, munchkins, powergamers… the breed goes by many names, but it’s all the same thing. These are the guys who comb through the rulebooks, searching for that golden combo that is technically legal yet completely broken. They’re why Rule Zero of every role-playing game is that the GM gets to say no, with as much vehemence as needed, when such a situation surfaces. (And then he puts a house rule in place to keep it from happening again, but there’s always another loophole. Nature of the beast.) I’ve been that GM, and sometimes I’ve thought I would have to kick a player out of the game for that nonsense.

Unfortunately, in this case, that “ultimate sanction” isn’t available. The munchkins are quite vocal in not only their disdain for the people complaining about their actions, but their disinterest in being part of the community at all. Social pressure ain’t gonna fix this problem, folks. It’s time to fix the rules and plug the loophole.

Anonymous David-093 May 07, 2015 10:04 AM  

@Wheeler

And we have this threads obligatory reference to the Jews. This conversation about Vox's thoughts regarding a Pakistani propagandist is now complete.

Anonymous Apollo May 07, 2015 10:14 AM  

Pogo Possum

Well, what goes around . . . comes around.

Very true. I wonder if anyone has ever tried to point this out to frequent word twisting offenders via example... by giving them a taste of their own medicine.

You'd have to worry that it would be too subtle though... that some people would be too dense to grasp the point....

Blogger Stilicho #0066 May 07, 2015 10:15 AM  

Four things greater than all things are, --
Women and Horses and Power and War.


My wife once said to me that even though she agreed with me on most of my political and social views, I seemed really extreme and close-minded.

Of course you are "close-minded" after you have analyzed a situation and reached a conclusion. There isn't anything left to discuss unless new information is presented that might change your conclusion. A woman, on the other hand, is more susceptible to conditioning to "feel" for the other side no matter how wrong-headed they may be. Right up until such conditioning runs up against her best interests or those of her children. Then, even otherwise convincing new information is unlikely to change her mind. The key word in your description is "seemed'...in that context it indicates that her feelings are in the driver's seat even though she agrees with you intellectually.

Blogger wrf3 May 07, 2015 10:15 AM  

Vox wrote: There are many things I consider to be scientifically justifiable that I nevertheless do not support because I do not believe science to be an appropriate or reliable guide to human behavior.

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Anonymous Northern Observer May 07, 2015 10:15 AM  

"...I do not believe science to be an appropriate or reliable guide to human behavior."

That right there. That's what they don't get.

You just know that that there’s some neck beard sitting in his mother’s basement screaming “what else is there!? Chicken bones and advice columns? aaaaarrrggg!”

As long as the Science! (tm) aligns with their narrative.

Blogger Marissa May 07, 2015 10:16 AM  

This is a great post and makes me realize I prefer dialectic, it's much calmer and nicer. When I saw the title, I thought you were going to talk about how much you agree with Hillary regarding how women are the primary victims of war (joke).

Blogger Marissa May 07, 2015 10:25 AM  

"close-minded"

“Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” - G.K. Chesterton

Being "open-minded" seems like such a Boomer throwback. It reminds me of my passive-aggressive uncle who never married and whines about Bush after 6 years of Obama.

Anonymous Jeffrey S. May 07, 2015 10:28 AM  

I haven't bothered to read all these comments, but the fact that this post was even necessary, should show all of us how long and hard we are going to have to fight SJWs and other assorted liberals who can't reason their way out of a box. To anyone with their head screwed on straight, everything Vox said in this post should have been abundantly clear the first time his 'infamous' statement about the Taliban was ever quoted by anyone (or you read it directly on Alpha Game.) Have people lost their ability to comprehend words on a page?

I guess if you are a left-wing maniac, then the answer is obviously yes.

Anonymous Phil May 07, 2015 10:33 AM  

If I recall correctly, this isn't the first time this has been explained. I rarely post here because I don't think I have the brain power to keep up with the Dread Ilk. However, if even I have no problem understanding that stating empirical evidence for the rationale of an action and/or it's logic based on scientific observation, does NOT mean approval, what is the SJW excuse? Seems nothing more than the desire to be whining babies splashing about in the slime pit of false outrage and accusation or they just are not that smart. Probably both.

SJW's always LIE.

Blogger Plump Pleasant Plumber May 07, 2015 10:41 AM  

The Taliban still exist because they understand who they are fighting and why they fight. Malala was a legitimate target once you understand what she is, politically. You see, take a hard look at the situation in the west. Feminism is rampant, and is destroying our society. True, we still have soldiers to fight, but the feminist agenda is destroying the seed corn. Malala is a rabid feminist in her culture. That's just the way it is. She's extremely fortunate that her attacker didn't shoot her again.

Feminism is dedicated to destroying masculinity. Islam will not permit that. So, there's a real war going on. Feminised men lack testosterone. That means they can't fight and win. Think manginas in a foxhole. ISIS is the visual combat arm of Islam. They are playing it smart. They know that norm a lot men hate what feminism is doing to the west. Fact is, once they start random beheadings here in the west, they will have a growing recruiting pool. It all has to do with the naked, virulent hatred feminists have for young men and boys. It's all out there now. Can't be hidden. So, young males in this country will flock to the side of Islam. Because Islam will kill the feminists. Simple as that.

That sounds insane, doesn't it? Not really. There are some very intelligent folks that are the evil minions. Just how disaffected and alienated are the young men of today? I figure that were going to find out. How many men will fight for this feminist country? Islam will offer an opportunity for revenge that will be very appealing to those who have been scorned by feminism. You see, a normal young man knows that women these days are whack. Islam will offer an alternative that will be very attractive.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 May 07, 2015 10:46 AM  

Public Service Announcement:

You HAVE to ingest the thorazine in order for it to work. You know who you are. Proceed accordingly.

Blogger Rabbi B May 07, 2015 10:47 AM  

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

So, what's the problem?

Anonymous The other robot May 07, 2015 10:48 AM  

A hunk of prophylactic social-justice-warrioring

Blogger Plump Pleasant Plumber May 07, 2015 10:50 AM  

Inquiring minds wonder about Malala. Could she be a well thought out operation against through Taliban? You see, I wonder at her survival. If she was a real target, wouldn't they have been more thorough?

Blogger Russell (#0106) May 07, 2015 10:52 AM  

@ insanitybytes22

Your screed might work better if you hold your breath. Or whine really loudly. Or post it to another thread, especially where your screed has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Any of those would mean serious dialectic action is happening, and we should all listen and believe.

Anonymous Nah May 07, 2015 10:55 AM  

"I suspect, though I do not know, that the Taliban considered Miss Yousafzai's activities to be similarly treasonous."

Agree. And the West is going down because we not merely do not hang traitors, but let them run our countries.

"My wife once said to me that even though she agreed with me on most of my political and social views, I seemed really extreme and close-minded."

And why should I change my mind? Do you have some new facts that should cause me to do so?

"The Taliban still exist because they understand who they are fighting and why they fight."

And also, we didn't make any effort to exterminate them.

Blogger Rabbi B May 07, 2015 11:01 AM  

"Have people lost their ability to comprehend words on a page?"

Comprehension is irrelevant for those whose only objective is mischaracterization and finding every possible fault with people for whom they have decided to bear the most implacable hatred.

Anonymous Blaster May 07, 2015 11:01 AM  

The most pervasive, common failing I have observed among the left is a severe inability to distinguish rational, conflicting positions, once the issue has been framed in a moral light.

There's an incredibly naive and pervasive belief that rational motives always lead to moral actions and that moral actions are always rational.

Blogger Plump Pleasant Plumber May 07, 2015 11:01 AM  

What do you expect from a feminised society? It will not fight to the finish. However, Islam will. Might take a while, but they're the masculine side of this fight. Normal men are disgusted by we hat goes on in this culture. The human genome has a way of enforcing certain norms, and deviances get put to the sword.

Anonymous Alexander May 07, 2015 11:03 AM  

Let us break it down.

The declaration:
Open up your hate and let it pour over them. Don’t think for even one nanosecond that they don’t deserve it every bit of the criticism, of the contempt, of the disdainful dismissal that overwhelms them.

Pretty harsh words there. Can you explain why we should do that?

They are trying to destroy "Western civilization. They are trying to destroy marriage and civil society. They are advocates of child murder. They are advocates of a philosophy that makes National Socialism look merciful and Communism practical and Fascism coherent by comparison.

Ah, well. Fair enough. And then this would be the practical advice on how to do the above:

Do not hold back. Speak back twice as hard. Speak back until they fall silent. Women are particularly susceptible to shame. So shame them relentlessly…

So what exactly are we supposed to be hurtfeel about?

Anonymous Alexander May 07, 2015 11:06 AM  

I like how in a rant about how Vox supposedly advocates violence, you have a quote where Vox actually tones down the common phrase. speak back twice as hard. OH NO, THE HORROR!

OpenID malcolmthecynic May 07, 2015 11:14 AM  

Marissa,

That Chesterton quote is absolutely fantastic.

Blogger VD May 07, 2015 11:15 AM  

You mean someone is taking something you wrote, and twisting your words to mean something you didn't even say?!?

Yes, NPR and Popular Science are, among others.

Rather than taking the high road, no matter what his opponents do, decided to use the twisting of words as his tactic. Disgusting, no?

I didn't twist McRapey's words. I quoted him directly, something both Popular Science and NPR did not do. Now, what were John Scalzi's words exactly?

"I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force myself on women without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually. The details of how I do this are not particularly important at the moment — although I love when you try to make distinctions about “forcible rape” or “legitimate rape” because that gives me all sorts of wiggle room — but I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control women and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have."
- John Scalzi, 25 October 2012

No twisting. No making it mean anything he didn't say. Just a straightforward quote.

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 07, 2015 11:19 AM  

Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousifazi

Every soldier injured in Turdistan should get the Nobel peace prize as they made more of an active decision to go into harms way. If she wanted to earn the prize she would have to go back away from nice safe white areas. Maybe they will give Pamela Geller a Nobel Peace prize for putting down 2 savage moslems instead of running away.

Suppose a young girl in your country adopted a strongly anti-homosexual ideology, ...over the course of four years was successful in convincing tens of thousands of people in your country that homosexuals should be killed by throwing them off rooftops.

Bad example because pretty much all media outlets including most gay ones, on the take from Soros, stifled news of the moslem torching a Seattle nightclub, & the black moslem serial killer of gays in 3 states. They also don't report black on gay hate crimes. http://pamelageller.com/2014/02/seattle-devout-muslim-set-fire-packed-gay-nightclub-new-years-eve-planning-terrorist-act.html/ & http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2759901/Revealed-terrifying-one-man-jihad-U-S-soil-Extremist-executed-four-revenge-American-attacks-Middle-East-carried-bank-fraud-Cause.html

Wouldn't it be fun if the SJWs fought it out on social media with ISIS and the Taliban supporters. "@Scalzi, I'll blow who I want to blow regardless of your religion" "@ISIS, sure" "@Taliban, NO me first"

Delivering blows means different things to different people.

chaired an association of many such single-owner, low cost private schools, ~ many charities like Clinton's have 90%+ admin overhead

You see, I wonder at her survival. If she was a real target, wouldn't they have been more thorough?

She would have died if she didn't get taken to a white nation. A slow death would have been preferable to educate the masses. Her running away to a safe white nation and not coming back would be seen as a victory. You see one of the greatest medical mysteries was how so many African kids survived having their limbs hacked off when if you had a limb hacked off in the parking lot of most hospitals you would likely die by the time the savage was dealt with, but what happens is strong tribes put tourniquets on the limbs of weaker tribes kids before they do it because they want them to survive because charities will pay them protection money to get to the kids.(Reported in the book Shaking Hands With the Devil)

Good riddance to Charlie Hebo they are an enemy to western civilization
Je Suis Pamela Geller

Anonymous BGS May 07, 2015 11:22 AM  

Delivering blows means different things to different people.~ I heard to watch out for Mike Tysons snaggle tooth.

Blogger JDC May 07, 2015 11:32 AM  

From Vox's interview the other day:

Vox: A left wing SJW had claimed that it was totally irrational for the Taliban to behave in that way.
Int: Ya
Vox: Now, I don’t agree with the Taliban on much, if anything.
Int: Mmm, hmm.
Vox: But, I think it’s very, very stupid to assume that a force that managed to defeat the Soviet Union. A force that has apparently managed to defeat NATO, and is still pretty much in command of the territory that they claimed 20 years ago. I think that claiming that they are irrational is a really dumb idea. So I was simply pointing that if you accept their arguments, their behavior is not only rational but predictable.
Int: OK (long pause)
Vox: I should point out that rational does not mean good…

I remember listening to this and hearing the thundering silence of the pause. Now, it appears that the interviewer was perhaps having technical difficulties, but the very statement, "Their behavior is not only rational but predictable," threw him a bit. I don't think he could immediately respond - perhaps neurons were making new pathways from the frontal lobe to the amygdala, but I found myself catching my breath for a moment as well.

An SJW, in my opinion, would not have been able to recover from this statement without a complete dismissal or outright condemnation of the sentence, because something that is bad can never be rational (bad for the SJW of course determined on a sliding emotional scale).

I also laughed because the interviewer sounded exactly like Karl Pilkington from the Ricky Gervais show.

Blogger hank.jim May 07, 2015 11:48 AM  

"There are many things I consider to be scientifically justifiable that I nevertheless do not support because I do not believe science to be an appropriate or reliable guide to human behavior."

This took me awhile to wrap my head around. This is the argument against using science to make moral judgments. Well said.

Anonymous Alexander May 07, 2015 11:53 AM  

And yet... your quote of him was 'speak back twice as hard'.

Where are these women on the internet that he bullies, or the troubled men, or the people about to commit suicide? Please bring up the article where he mentions 'human trash', I'm sure if it's so compelling to your point you'll have no problem having the whole of it exposed to the light of day.

Or do you prefer to make vague statements about victim classes and limit posts to two words, that don't even include the subject?

Anonymous Soga May 07, 2015 11:53 AM  

insanitybytes22: Look, I know you really want in Vox's pants, but you really should try asking politely instead of being so uncouth about it.

Blogger natschuster May 07, 2015 11:53 AM  

It seems to me that the problem is largely due to the fact that SJW's think that their view of morality is so self-evidently true that only an irrational person could disagree. They can't, or won't make anyu distinction between reason, truth and morality.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 May 07, 2015 11:58 AM  

SJW's think that their view of morality is so self-evidently true that only an irrational person could disagree. They can't, or won't make anyu distinction between reason, truth and morality.

It's actually worse, they cannot see any distinction between truth and falsehood.

To be fair,though, when your head is that far up your ass, all you can see is shit.

Blogger JDC May 07, 2015 12:01 PM  

What do you mean by, "You people!"

Blogger Russell (#0106) May 07, 2015 12:04 PM  

"Skim until offended" is strong in this one.

"If a girl is old enough to be permitted to make legal decisions about murdering her unborn child, then surely she is old enough to decide if she wants to sell her body for money. It's not racism, it's simple common sense to leave an idiotic young whore to suffer the obvious consequences of her decisions. What are the police supposed to do, waste time and resources bringing her back so that she can run away again? That's ridiculous."

Truly, a staggering intellect.

Blogger Russell (#0106) May 07, 2015 12:11 PM  

If inanities comments keep going away, I'm going to sound more crazier than a craphouse rat hopped up on meth, eating my beard while muttering disdainfully at the wall.

Blogger VD May 07, 2015 12:16 PM  

Gabrielle, I warned you.

Here is Gabi's email address for anyone who wants to tell her to shut her rancid vagina every time she posts a comment: gabrielleguthrie@outlook.com

Telephone and address are next, Gabrielle. Do you really want to keep playing this game? Now go away and stay away. Or we start paying just as much attention to you and your husband as you have to VP and AG in the last year.

Blogger skiballa May 07, 2015 12:19 PM  

Don't be too upset Russell, I was about to post similar, it's amusing to see people try to prove a point when they don't bother to read what they try to damn VD with.

I mean, he even clarifies some points in the comments......whatever, it's done now.

Anonymous p-dawg May 07, 2015 12:20 PM  

@VD: I am not wrong that it seems that way. Also, I'll use whatever words I please. You can tell me whether I'm allowed to comment here, you cannot dictate what I write.

Blogger Josh May 07, 2015 12:22 PM  

Good riddance to Charlie Hebo they are an enemy to western civilization
Je Suis Pamela Geller


I am not Pamela Geller. She is a neocon psycho.

Anonymous clk May 07, 2015 12:27 PM  

"In light of the strong correlation between female education and demographic decline,"...

You use the word correlation ... but wouldnt infact killing her would only be of effect if there was a strong causation. ?

Blogger VD May 07, 2015 12:28 PM  

@VD: I am not wrong that it seems that way. Also, I'll use whatever words I please. You can tell me whether I'm allowed to comment here, you cannot dictate what I write.

It may seem that way to you, but the fact is that I am not and you did not understand the purpose. Instead of asking me what my purpose was, you kindly shared your opinion with all of us despite no one asking for it. You can certainly use whatever words you please, it's fine with me, but you're probably going to keep getting it wrong if you continue in that particular mode.

Blogger VD May 07, 2015 12:29 PM  

You use the word correlation ... but wouldnt in fact killing her would only be of effect if there was a strong causation. ?

Yes, but for the Nth time, correlation is a requirement for causation. And causation is not required for action, only the perception of causation.

Blogger insanitybytes22 May 07, 2015 12:42 PM  

Yeah, Vox flat out speaks words to men who are "broken in the brain" and they take it as encouragement to act violently.

Promoting hatred, dehumanizing women, and then doxing them are all tactics designed to encourage any willing violent psycho to take up a designated target. And it works. To sit back and try claim your hands are clean after doing such a thing is a lie.

You have just advocated violence towards women by doxing me, Vox.

Anonymous Anonymous May 07, 2015 12:54 PM  

insanitybytes22 May 07, 2015 12:42 PM

[snip]
You have just advocated violence towards women by doxing me, Vox.


Is your name Jenner?

harry12

OpenID douzeper20 May 07, 2015 12:57 PM  

Within the NPO I am involved with, there are many sjws, and I associate with them relatively frequently. Unfortunately, social analysis through a tactical filter/ruminating on ethical calculus through a cultural filter is automatically viewed as 'Bjorn's personal opinion, that horrible bigoted hateful mchatey hater' as opposed to the intellectual and theoretical exploration of probabilities of possible responses, results, and justifications so as to better understand an individual or group's potential response to various stimuli. It is always hilarious to let someone know 40 minutes into the conversation that I don't agree with the response that I believe to be tactically most sound for moral reasons, you can see the gears stripping in their brains behind the pained expression on their faces as they attempt to break through the gold-fish memory barrier to re-catalogue what they've heard in a new context, and, failing miserably, become hostile and dismissive.

Blogger skiballa May 07, 2015 1:20 PM  

If an anonymous masked person comes into my house or business and defecates all over my floor, acting like a fool while pointing their finger at me for ridicule, I would also remove their mask.

Blogger tweell May 07, 2015 1:22 PM  

Straw Vox is a very mean bad horrible person. If VD was like Straw Vox, I'd hate him too! Unfortunately for the SJW's, they are not alike at all.

Anonymous Alexander May 07, 2015 1:26 PM  

Straw Vox is a very mean bad horrible person. If VD was like Straw Vox, I'd hate him too! Unfortunately for the SJW's, they are not alike at all.

Curse that Vox Hay!

Blogger Russell (#0106) May 07, 2015 1:30 PM  

Vox Hei, you mean.

Blogger Pogo Possum May 07, 2015 1:31 PM  

VD wrote:

"No twisting. No making it mean anything he didn't say. Just a straightforward quote."

A quote of what he wrote, as a character in a satirical piece, and attributing it to him, in his own personna.

So, are we to understand that everything ever said by by character in anything you have written may be said to be your own personal admission of your own viewpoint? (I would normally never make that assumption with a writer, nor would I make such an unfair, out-of-context attribution."

You are being a bit precious here, Mr. Day.

Keep this in mind: One day, you will stand before the throne of God, and God will ask you if you thought it was wrong, or immoral, or unacceptable what NPR and Pop Science did to you.

And you will answer honestly, because you will have no other choice.

You will say, "Yes. What they did was twist, and quote out of context, and try to make me out to be something I am not. It was unjust, immoral, and unacceptable."

You will say that, because it is the Truth.

And THEN, God will ask you, "That being the case, and you KNOWINGLY that such behavior is WRONG, how do you justify using Scalzi's words to claim that he is a rapist, when, as far as you actually know, that is not true? Or, at the very least, you did NOT know that to be true, and you claimed it anyway?

You have been no better than the man you have condemned. You are no better than your enemy."

And you will say . . . ?

(And never mind the conversations Scalzi, or the eds of PS, or the directors of NPR will have to have. You cannot affect those in any way. But you might want to give some thought to the conversation YOU will have to have.)

A day is coming, Mr. Day. I hope when *I* face that day, I will be better prepared than you appear to be right now.

Blogger Copperheaded May 07, 2015 1:36 PM  

If an anonymous masked person comes into my house or business and defecates all over my floor, acting like a fool while pointing their finger at me for ridicule, I would also remove their mask.

Look, mister, there's... two kinds of dumb, uh... guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and, uh, guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don't matter, the second one you're kinda forced to deal with.

Anonymous Harsh May 07, 2015 1:37 PM  

Pogo, you're so far off base it's hard to tell if you're trolling or just obtuse.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 May 07, 2015 1:37 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 May 07, 2015 1:40 PM  

Mock not the rabbits for their foolishness, lest they lie about you and claim equivalence.

Letter of St. Hasenpfeffer to the Lapines, Chapter 4, verse 20.

Blogger skiballa May 07, 2015 1:43 PM  

@Copperheaded

Exactly that.

Blogger Gunnar von Cowtown May 07, 2015 1:47 PM  

"You have just advocated violence towards women by doxing me, Vox."

Poopy-pantsed: check
Crybaby: check
Poor reading comprehension skills: check

I stand by my previous rhetoric.

Blogger luagha May 07, 2015 1:53 PM  

Gabrielle should look on the bright side. If someone does come to her house and attack her, she will have died a noble martyr for her beliefs. She'll be proven right. What better satisfaction could she possibly have?

(Hmm. Probably shouldn't have said that. She'll likely try to fake her own demise now.)

#199

Blogger Danby May 07, 2015 2:10 PM  

You guys are getting this all wrong.
She IS a victim of violence. Becasue making someone take responsibility for their wrods and actions is violence. And it makes her feel bad. And since she's a woman, it is violence against all women.
On the other hand, trying to make Vox responsible for the motivations and secondary effects you imaginatively attribute to his words is only justice. And properly, since all men are violent rapists, except perhaps her effeminate child-man husband, simple justice requires her to behave this way.

If we were what they say we are, they would never dare say it.

Blogger Danby May 07, 2015 2:12 PM  

Her rape fantasy is getting out of control though.

Blogger VD May 07, 2015 2:13 PM  

And THEN, God will ask you, "That being the case, and you KNOWINGLY that such behavior is WRONG, how do you justify using Scalzi's words to claim that he is a rapist, when, as far as you actually know, that is not true? Or, at the very least, you did NOT know that to be true, and you claimed it anyway?

I take people at their word without knowing it to be true every single day. Granted, McRapey lies a lot, but he also likes to utilize blown cover as cover. Sans any information at all, I do him the courtesy of taking him at his word.

You morons keep telling me that I know McRapey isn't a rapist or sex assailant. Not only do I know nothing of the kind, NEITHER DO YOU. Did you know MZB was? Did you know Gian Gomeshi was?

All I know is that he's dumb enough to announce in public that he's a rapist. And I'm going to cheerfully quote him on that until he keels over dead of a heart attack in a few years.

Blogger VD May 07, 2015 2:14 PM  

A day is coming, Mr. Day. I hope when *I* face that day, I will be better prepared than you appear to be right now.

If that's the most serious thing held against me on that day, I will be very, very, very, very grateful indeed.

Anonymous trev006 May 07, 2015 2:15 PM  

Oh, Gabrielle. Didn't you learn anything from Andrew Marston? The man's a pitiful troll, but his career on stalking the blog ended with the Marshfield police looking down his shoulder:

http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2015/01/the-end-of-troll-hunt.html

Maybe releasing your e-mail address counts as him doxing you (ha!), but you're mentally defective if you think your social pressure can stop Vox. Look at what happens when you persist in cyberstalking an intelligent person with money and time to burn. Are you really sure you want to go down this road?

Anonymous Scintan May 07, 2015 2:28 PM  

You have just advocated violence towards women by doxing me, Vox.

I have to admit that the above is an impressively stupid line. The notion that the mere act of giving out an email address is advocating violence is just about as idiotic as it gets.

Anonymous clk May 07, 2015 2:35 PM  

"Yes, but for the Nth time, correlation is a requirement for causation. And causation is not required for action, only the perception of causation"

For the N+1 time .... this just a variation of "Correlation does not imply Causation". Correlation is not a "requirement" of causation but a "characteristic" of causation.

"Where there is smoke, there is fire " .... Fire causes smoke, there is a correlation of smoke with fire. ... smoke is a sometimes characteristic of fire ... but it doesn't run the other way -- smoke does not create fire and fire is not a characteristic of smoke. ... :)

Now to be fair education may play a role in birth rates but its total education, not just women and that is normally one of only many factors such as technology/ heathcare/ economics/ environment/ religion -- also sorts of reasons why birthrates in some western cultures are declining.

As a bit of a side note ...religion is one of my favorite causations of decrease in birthrates because with the exception the Catholics, most of the modern Protestamnt religions allow birth control amoung their populations...

From the meaning of life ...

“Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.”

Anonymous Curious but not an SJW May 07, 2015 2:48 PM  

I have to admit that the above is an impressively stupid line. The notion that the mere act of giving out an email address is advocating violence is just about as idiotic as it gets.

Since she gave out the same email address last year on this blog, is she guilty of doxing herself first?

Anonymous Scintan May 07, 2015 2:52 PM  


Since she gave out the same email address last year on this blog, is she guilty of doxing herself first?


She was apparently advocating violence against women when she did that.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 May 07, 2015 2:56 PM  

Since she gave out the same email address last year on this blog, is she guilty of doxing herself first?

It's symbolic of her struggle against reality.

She was apparently advocating violence against women when she did that.

Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

Anonymous WaterBoy May 07, 2015 3:08 PM  

Curious but not an SJW: "Since she gave out the same email address last year on this blog, is she guilty of doxing herself first?"

Yep, right here:

"Here, I'll save you the trouble of doxing me, I'm insanitybytes, GG, and gabrielleguthrie@outlook.com."

You can't dox the doxxed?

Blogger VD May 07, 2015 3:10 PM  

For the N+1 time .... this just a variation of "Correlation does not imply Causation". Correlation is not a "requirement" of causation but a "characteristic" of causation.

Don't be an ass. I know that and only idiots cite that stupid phrase. Correlation implies the possibility of causation. You don't have much causation without correlation and you have to start somewhere in looking for causation.

Blogger Rabbi B May 07, 2015 3:17 PM  

"Here, I'll save you the trouble of doxing me, I'm insanitybytes, GG, and gabrielleguthrie@outlook.com."

Self-injury disorder?

"You can't dox the doxxed?"

Doxxing to the second power.

Anonymous WaterBoy May 07, 2015 3:27 PM  

Square doxxing.

Blogger Russell (#0106) May 07, 2015 3:34 PM  

All I know is that he's dumb enough to announce in public that he's a rapist. And I'm going to cheerfully quote him on that until he keels over dead of a heart attack in a few years.

I laughed.

Since Scalzi wears dresses, does that make me encouraging violence against women? Or do I merely have blood on my hands from the violence already done to that poor dress?

Anonymous clk May 07, 2015 3:46 PM  

I think you mean "smart ass" and obviously neither one of us are idiots ....

Why cant you just be gracious and say .. "you know what, thank you ...technically your right but thats not the main point of my post anyway"

I find interesting the basic premise ... is it really the West that is wrong reducing its reduced birth rates ?.. that seems to be a logical and sound response to a world of limited resources.. Wouldn't the real problem be the populations that are over reproducing past what their own resources or even the world can substain and support... how do we deal with this ?.. is that what the west is doing right now ?

Its hard to believe, being female or male, that being too smart is real problem .. western culture didn't succeed because we out populated the others, but because we out smarted them ..

Anonymous WaterBoy May 07, 2015 3:49 PM  

insanitybytes22: "You have just advocated violence towards women by doxing me, Vox."

Typical.

1. Wants to blame somebody else for the consequences of her actions.
2. Expands those consequences beyond herself to all women.
3. Faults Vox for something she herself already did.
4. All this because Vox is not the TruChristian™ that she demands.

Ego much, Gabrielle?

Lady, get it through your head already that he apparently doesn't care what you think. That you continue acting the scold says more about you than it does about him.

Blogger Danby May 07, 2015 3:51 PM  

@clk
Educated does not equal smart.
Full stop.
No-one is suggesting that being too smart is the problem. that's a very stupid strawman you have there.
Intelligence is at least partly heritable, education is not.
If the smartest people in your populations are discouraged from reproducing, what is the long-term result?

Blogger Corvinus May 07, 2015 4:07 PM  

Mock not the rabbits for their foolishness, lest they lie about you and claim equivalence.

Letter of St. Hasenpfeffer to the Lapines, Chapter 4, verse 20.


I propose making hasenpfeffer the official soup of the Evil Legion of Evil.

Blogger Corvinus May 07, 2015 4:11 PM  

Or dish, rather. In my idiolect, I use "stew" for a type of soup.

Anonymous Porphyry May 07, 2015 4:17 PM  

I deny science b/c it messes with my belief that god told me to kill women - Vox Day
ah, the simple joys of rhetoric.

Blogger Rabbi B May 07, 2015 4:18 PM  

"In my idiolect, I use "stew" for a type of soup."

Wiki shares your idiolect . . .

Hasenpfeffer is a traditional German stew made from marinated rabbit or hare, cut into stewing-meat sized pieces and braised with onions and a marinade made from wine and vinegar. Hase is German for "hare" and pfeffer is German for "pepper", although the culinary context refers generically to the spices and seasonings in the dish overall, as with the German ginger cookies called pfeffernüsse. Seasonings typically include fresh cracked black pepper or whole peppercorns, along with salt, onions, garlic, lemon, sage, thyme, rosemary, allspice, juniper berries, cloves, and bay leaf.

Blogger Corvinus May 07, 2015 4:21 PM  

@Rabbi B

I was wondering, since all the pictures of hasenpfeffer on Google Images I saw showed it as a dish (my definition: "a meal that goes on a plate") rather than a soup ("a meal that goes in a bowl").

Blogger Blume May 07, 2015 4:27 PM  

Actually it was population. I mean the western hemisphere and Australia and new Zealand are full of white people because of our growth rates vs the natives. While Africa is still full of black people because they we still out producing the wore colonists.

Blogger CM May 07, 2015 4:36 PM  

/sigh

I missed all the fun. This thread is far more entertaining than pregnant women on birth boards.

Blogger Bogey May 07, 2015 5:34 PM  

That's quite an end run to get to the conclusion that terrorism works.

Blogger VD May 07, 2015 6:21 PM  

Why cant you just be gracious and say .. "you know what, thank you ...technically your right but thats not the main point of my post anyway"

A) Because you're not technically right. B) Because you were being a prick and you got it backwards; I pointed out the relationship precisely because morons always pop up with that stupid, obvious, and incorrect statement whenever correlation is mentioned.

Correlation DOES imply causation. It suggests causation, although it does not prove causation. Identifying correlation is often the first step in identifying causation.

After I pointed it out specifically to forestall the predictable idiocy, you pop up with it as it refutes what I just wrote. Which it doesn't.

In case it has escaped you, I despise all midwitted spergy "hey, I know that one" bullshit, especially when it's wrong. I don't ever want to hear anyone bring up "did you know 2+2". Yes, I do know. Everybody here KNOWS that correlation is not causation. We're not retarded. We're not even average. So there is absolutely no fucking need to point it, or any variant of it out. Not now, not ever.

Blogger The Aardvark May 07, 2015 6:53 PM  

Your post is clearly, understandably written, and I winced at each point that would be obfuscated and misunderstood by the lackwits bent on proving that A=treacle.

Blogger Josh May 07, 2015 9:37 PM  

I don't ever want to hear anyone bring up "did you know 2+2". Yes, I do know.

But did you know Riker was offered command of his own ship?

Anonymous Harsh May 07, 2015 10:06 PM  

But did you know Riker was offered command of his own ship?

A completely unsubstantiated rumor. Support or retract.

Blogger Eskyman May 07, 2015 10:53 PM  

Looks like I missed all the fun. Was any drooling involved? Poo flinging? All I see now is craters.

Had plenty of popcorn, too!

There'll be more, though. Kinda like bush flies, ya just can't get rid of them all.

#0276

Blogger Cuca Culpa May 08, 2015 12:54 AM  


All I know is that he's dumb enough to announce in public that he's a rapist.


Maybe he meant RAPPER or left the prefix off THErapist?

(That last bit stolen from either Dave Allen, Benny Hill or Monty Python. As I age, the mind gets foggy.)

#0328

Blogger Cuca Culpa May 08, 2015 1:01 AM  

Hasenpfeffer... I knew that one!

Bugs Bunny can be quite educational!

Anonymous Peter Garstig May 08, 2015 1:59 AM  

Vox, it made me sad reading this. You literally had to spell it out for people with degrees being able to understand your points?

OpenID unclfester May 08, 2015 3:03 AM  

"As a bit of a side note ...religion is one of my favorite causations of decrease in birthrates because with the exception the Catholics, most of the modern Protestamnt religions allow birth control amoung their populations... "

Just a small point but by definition be Catholic precludes being Protestant, thus "with the exception the Catholics, most of Modern Protestant religions... " is clearly a nonsensical statement. The correct wording should have been Unlike Catholics, most modern Protestant.... That you make the mistake only undermines your entrity to use oanguage correctly.

Also"

"but it doesn't run the other way -- smoke does not create fire and fire is not a characteristic of smoke. ... :"

Likely why VD used Correlation and not Causation. Smoke may not cause fire but there is a rather high correlation between the appearance of smoke and the existence of fire.

Blogger Thordaddy May 08, 2015 3:13 AM  

No such thing as "feminist women" and so no such thing as violence against nonexistent things.

Anonymous p-dawg May 08, 2015 7:37 AM  

@VD: This is not my blog. If I comment here, I am almost always going to be expressing my opinion without it being asked for. That is also what the majority of other people who are making comments are doing. You say I could have just asked your purpose - I thought that was what I was doing by using the word "seems". That is an indication that I understand there is another purpose there but not what it is. That was an invitation for you to explain if you wanted. Instead, you incorrectly corrected something that was not wrong. I never said you WERE tilting at windmills. I said it SEEMS that way. To me. And it still does, because despite protestations that you have another purpose, you haven't bothered to share it - which is fine. But it's rather silly of you to simultaneously decline to explain and also castigate me for not understanding that which you decline to explain. And yes, I'll probably be wrong quite often if I continue saying what I want to say. I'm not afraid of being wrong. I don't prefer it, of course, but it's not scary.

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales May 08, 2015 9:10 AM  

Actually, it looks like the Taliban might be expanding.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/08/world-view-fears-grow-in-central-asia-of-an-isis-taliban-alliance-in-afghanistan/

OpenID gregq May 09, 2015 1:47 PM  

1: The Taliban did not fight two superpowers to a standstill. The are post-USSR invasion and retreat. The Northern Alliance was more of the anti-USSR front, and the Taliban and they were enemies.

2: The Taliban provided a protected home for al Qaeda, which most certain does and did NOT want to "stay home". If you provide a sanctuary for anti-American terrorists, you are our enemy, and at war with the US.

Was it "rational" for them to attack her? yes. Are they evil vile scum, who need to be hunted down and slaughtered? Yes. AS they go after other people's families, does this mean genocidal warfare is legitimate against them?

Hell yes.

There is space in the world for Islamists, or for Americans. Not both. I'm willing to do anything necessary to make sure it's we Americans who win. If you're not, bad on you.

Blogger William Meisheid May 12, 2015 11:58 AM  

One of the things I have gotten from reading you over the years is your tendency (compared to academic writing where nuances and supporting scaffolding are spelled out - to help those who need the dots connected) to be minimalist in your statements and elaborations, at least initially, and thereby expecting more from your audience than they are often willing give, either in effort or thought - assuming they have the capacity in the first place.

This tempest in a teapot is a prime example and is why I often have to reserve judgment on what you say until my slower (not always lesser) mind is able to fill in the blanks and find the inferences in what you say and not jump to the first facile conclusion that presents itself (re: is he really saying that?).

This why all revelation needs commentary, so us 'regular folks' can get the point we might otherwise miss and so we don't go off on incorrect tangents.

Blessings.

Blogger William Meisheid June 16, 2015 3:15 PM  

Science is a process that has been turned into a religion.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts