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

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Let reason be silent

When experience gainsays its conclusions. Ed Trimnell argues against fighting fire with fire:
I expressed my disagreement with Vox’s position on the Tor Books boycott…and Vox expressed his disagreement with my disagreement.

My dislike of boycotts remains.

I remember the mindless campaign orchestrated against Orson Scott Card a few years ago. Card’s sin was basically to express a view of marriage that was all but universal (including among liberals and Democrats) until ten years ago. Yet the SJW mobs did their best to silence Card, urging a nationwide boycott of the movie adaptation of Ender’s Game, and barraging the offices of DC Comics until Card was dropped from the company’s Superman project.

Ah, but that is exactly the point….say the forces behind the anti-Tor boycott. The SJWs do it.

I believe it is important to remember what separates the freethinkers from the SJWs. The freethinkers seek to outthink their opponents with a more persuasive argument in the marketplace of ideas.

The SJWs seek to silence their opponents through harassment and intimidation. (This should surprise no one, since the SJWs are almost all anti-market and anti-free speech.)

I can understand the sentiments of those who think it is best to fight fire with fire. This is not a frivolous position. Tor Books has allowed a handful of unprofessional, bigoted, and downright childish individuals to become associated with its brand.

It is right and fitting to speak out against John Scalzi, the Nielsen Haydens, Moshe Feder, and Irene Gallo.

And it should be understood from the outset that no argument will persuade these hardcore ideologues and their core supporters.

Nevertheless, the pro-freedom efforts should focus on defeating the arguments of the would-be thought police, not on silencing them.

And that’s the chief question: Are you going to out-argue them, or are you going to silence them?

In my estimation, out-arguing one’s opponents—rather than silencing them—is the course that will persuade the great mass of people on the fence.

And the great mass of people on the fence are the ones who will ultimately decide the outcome of this battle—both in science fiction and in the wider culture.
Mr. Trimnell is conclusively incorrect for two reasons, one practical and one logical, that are related. First, he completely ignores the fact that the freethinkers have out-argued the thought police for thirty years and have nevertheless continued to be harried from their jobs and from the public discourse without ever losing an argument. It accomplishes nothing to win minor battles while losing wars; he is attempting to overcome superior strategy with better tactics, which is a recipe for certain failure. What he believes separates the two camps is not only not important, it is totally irrelevant. Tactics are not strategy. Means are not objectives.

He says that in his estimation, "out-arguing one’s opponents—rather than silencing them—is the course that will persuade the great mass of people on the fence". This is flat-out wrong. Mr. Trimnell cites no evidence for this charming and attractive article of faith, he cites no logic supporting it, and he may as reasonably have stated that so long as we refrain from doing anything that will offend the magic garden fairies, they will magically grant us ultimate victory in the end.

How did Brandon Eich fail to out-argue his opponents? How did the Nobel Laureates Tim Hunt and James Watson fail to make their cases? The fact is that one cannot out-argue anyone in debates that do not take place, debates that Mr. Trimnell knows very well, from personal experience, will never take place. He can attempt to out-argue me because I am willing to engage with him, debate him, and discuss our differences in a civil manner rather than pointing, shrieking, and summoning an Internet mob to shout him down, disqualify, and disemploy him. He simply cannot do the same with the people at TOR Books, among others. He knows that.

Furthermore, Mr. Trimnell is ignoring the wise advice of Aristotle. He is appealing to dialectic in a rhetorical battle where the greater part of those on the other side are not even capable of understanding that dialectic. That is why following his advice is a surefire way to ensure defeat.

I am offering a proven way to win, one that is both historically and logically sound. Mr. Trimnell is offering nothing but certain defeat because feels. He doesn't like not feeling morally superior to the other side, so much so that he would rather lose than give up that feeling of superiority in order to meet the enemy head-on. I dislike boycotts too, much as General Ferguson disliked poison gas. But I dislike being methodically mobbed, disqualified, and disemployed even more, I dislike being falsely accused and blatantly lied about even more, so I am utilizing certain SJW tactics even more efficiently and more effectively than the SJWs can. Everyone else of influence on the Right should be doing the same.

Mr. Trimnell is, ironically enough, justifying my course of action by his own example. Consider: I have offered him a logically superior argument that he has not been able to rebut, which should be sufficient to convince him to endorse the boycott. And yet, he is not convinced because his opposition to it is not rational, it is emotional. How then are we to convince him without using rhetoric, which you may recall is simply an articulated form of emotional pressure?

Now, I am certainly not suggesting that we should mob him, disqualify him, or disemploy him. How could I wish him to be silenced when he has so artfully highlighted one TOR author's preening hypocrisy? I am merely pointing out that in light of the failure of civility and rational argument to change his own mind, Mr. Trimnell cannot possibly expect the civility and rational argument he advocates to dissuade SJWs from utilizing their habitual and successful tactics.

When you cannot win by out-arguing, you must win by out-silencing. Or you will be silenced.

Labels: ,

219 Comments:

1 – 200 of 219 Newer› Newest»
Blogger rho June 23, 2015 5:03 AM  

Never heard of Ed Trimnell.

Continue to be okay with that.

OpenID xsyq June 23, 2015 5:13 AM  

I left this comment on that blog post:
But please, how is holding someone accountable for their actions silencing them? A boycott does not remove internet access or place a gag order, and there is a difference between a boycott of someone who opposes gay marriage and a boycott of someone who has called you a neo-nazi, just as there is a difference between shooting someone coming at you with a knife and shooting someone running away. I do not see how refusing to do business with those who have offended you is in any way reprehensible.

Anonymous Gary June 23, 2015 5:26 AM  

If I could offer an observation?

If social justice whores could be reasoned with they would not be social justice whores.

The only thing they understand is burning it down and salting the earth so by God I say hand it back to them 10 fold.

Anonymous Analogy Cop zen0 June 23, 2015 5:33 AM  

Arguing with the Thought Police is like quoting the Constitution to a Swat Team, while the Marketplace of Ideas is as unfettered as the stock market.

And, there is no fence. Sidelines maybe, fence, no.

Anonymous Steve June 23, 2015 5:44 AM  

If only sane, normal Chinese in the 60's had thought to out-argue the Red Guards.

Blogger Krul June 23, 2015 5:52 AM  

"In my estimation, out-arguing one’s opponents—rather than silencing them—is the course that will persuade the great mass of people on the fence.

And the great mass of people on the fence are the ones who will ultimately decide the outcome of this battle—both in science fiction and in the wider culture."


Being "silenced" does tend to interfere with one's ability to persuade the fence-sitting masses, doesn't it?

Anonymous Misanthrope June 23, 2015 5:52 AM  

> Sorry for my bad english language

What about your bad behaviour?

Yourself $%#$ go, yes?

Anonymous awesome June 23, 2015 5:53 AM  

I think Ed is making the error of thinking that it's the moderates that matter, and this post will just convince him that putting the focus on the sjw's is where we go wrong. If he can be convinced at all it would be by showing him that moderates are moderates not because they want to judiciously weigh the evidence of both sides before being convinced, but rather they simply 'don't want to have to think about this'. They want to know which way the wind blows, and what the consensus is, and the guys who viciously claim that their side is in the right and who effectively shut down debate ARE the ones who win over the moderates. Maybe reason ruled for so long not because of reason itself, but because moderates were convinced that 'reason' was the in the right.

Blogger totenhenchen June 23, 2015 5:59 AM  

He doesn't like not feeling morally superior to the other side, so much so that he would rather lose than give up that feeling of superiority...

Noble losers have always been romanticized, but none of them ever fucked the prom queen.

Anonymous Anonymous June 23, 2015 6:00 AM  


I've said it before, but Trimmel might as well have said his favorite tactic in dealing with the SJWs is to go home, and bake some apple snacks.

He would be just as effective, and accomplish just as much as utilizing his current tactic.

What does he think would happen if every fence sitter on the planet, agreed with him, and took his side based off his arguments? That we'll have even more people that represent zero threat to the SJWs because they incorporate his same approach?

Those people would be absolutely useless unless they do something other than just try and engage in more debate.

Blogger VD June 23, 2015 6:12 AM  

Choose a Name, Anonymous.

Anonymous Steve June 23, 2015 6:18 AM  

I believe it is important to remember what separates the freethinkers from the SJWs. The freethinkers seek to outthink their opponents with a more persuasive argument in the marketplace of ideas.

And how has that been working out for you, Ed?

I understand his stance. He wants to be one of the Good Guys. The cowboys in white hats. The wide-eyed farm boys who are called on a heroic Quest. Don Quixote. Superman. Errol Flynn's Robin Hood, merrily bounding through Sherwood Forest with a twinkle in his eye and nary a rip in his immaculate green tights.

It's good to have ideals, but it's better to defeat your enemy than to be a noble loser.

When you're engaged in battle with an enemy who uses every dirty, low-down, cheating trick in the book, it's just bloody stupid to rule out learning from their more successful tactics.

Real life is not an episode of MacGyver. When the bad guys come after you with Uzis, you'd better have something more than a stick of chewing gum, some dental floss, and noble intentions to fight back with.

Furthermore, what we're talking about here is simply voluntarily not buying from a company that publicly shits on its customers and some of its own writers. Boycotts are just the free market at work.

If Ed Trimnell is happy to be called an idiot and a neo-Nazi, then he's entitled to masochistically send his money to Tor.

I'm a father and am trying to raise my sons to walk tall and have some pride in themselves. What sort of example would I be sending them if I did business with people who spit on me?

So no, Tor and Macmillan won't be getting any more business from me till they clean house.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 23, 2015 6:25 AM  

Extremely well put.

Anonymous The Deuce June 23, 2015 6:28 AM  

The closest we will ever be able to get to arguing with SJWs is blasting them publicly in media like this, as they will never agree to actual debates. And putting pressure on their jobs in no way prevents us from doing that at the same time.

And Mr. Trimnel is wrong. We will NOT cause reasonable people to join our side just by convincing then with reason. They will only do so IF their agreement with our view outweighs their fear of the SJW mob. By putting the mob on defense through ridicule and consequences to their own livelihoods for their actions, we make it safer for others who would otherwise be too intimidated to come out.

Blogger AmyJ June 23, 2015 6:33 AM  

Reminds me of the scenes in The Dark Knight Rises, where Batman prevents Catwoman from using her gun against thugs trying to kill them because he wants them to be better than that, only for her to save his life - and ultimately all of Gotham - later by shooting the man about to kill him.

What end result matters most? Overcoming an evil enemy intent on destroying you, or being "better than that"?

Blogger VD June 23, 2015 6:34 AM  

They will only do so IF their agreement with our view outweighs their fear of the SJW mob.

Excellent point. The reason the SJWs have been so desperate to disqualify me is because they understand that I am not even a little bit afraid of them. And they are concerned that the more people who see me stand up to them, the more people will feel able to do the same.

And frankly, if they understood why I am not at all afraid of them, they would be absolutely fucking terrified.

Anonymous Rhys O'Reilly June 23, 2015 6:36 AM  

Vox, I think you may be interested in this. Following Dylann Roof's arrest a pulitzer winning NYT author contacted all his facebook friends and was then trolled by a 16 year old English kid who convinced her that Roof was a Brony. NYT published this and then the Boston Globe copied it.

A third party account: http://fusion.net/story/154553/how-a-16-year-old-tricked-the-new-york-times-into-reporting-that-dylann-roof-was-a-my-little-pony-fan/

The 16 year old's account: https://nextgenerationblogs.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/how-i-screwed-with-the-biggest-news-outlet-in-the-world/

Anonymous FriarBob June 23, 2015 6:36 AM  

Ed, didn't your dad teach you right? "Never start a fight... but always finish it." One should never throw the first punch. But only a moron or a coward curls up into a ball and tries to reason with a person punching them in the face.

Anonymous old man in a villa June 23, 2015 6:40 AM  

"I remember the mindless campaign orchestrated against Orson Scott Card a few years ago. Card’s sin was basically to express a view of marriage that was all but universal (including among liberals and Democrats) until ten years ago. Yet the SJW mobs did their best to silence Card, urging a nationwide boycott of the movie adaptation of Ender’s Game, and barraging the offices of DC Comics until Card was dropped from the company’s Superman project."

I look forward to reading the well reasoned defense of Orson Scott Card that Mr Trimmel wrote at the time that effectively reversed the loss of the Superman writing gig...

Hello? Is this thing on?

Oh, that's right, it didn't happen.

Thanks for the Super Advice, Dave.

Blogger Rantor June 23, 2015 6:44 AM  

So Mr Trimnel has a belief about how things should be and he is willing to discuss the issue.

To an extent, the Dread Ilk share in that belief. We just go a step further, taking action to support our beliefs. That means we have a cause, something which is right and good to fight for. Something that men of stout heart and courage must fight for. Even if it is but a war of email and blog posts, we will fight them on the Dells, on the HPs, with the Samsungs and the Apples. We will not quit nor faint before victory is ours.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 23, 2015 6:48 AM  

Vox, you are nothing if not patient. The more I read the more respect I feel for this.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 23, 2015 6:57 AM  

Speaking of self control and SJW, science is proving that the "liberals" have less self control than conservatives, or so says an article in the LA Times.

You see science says we should help the SJW control themselves, science is never wrong.

Blogger Jourdan June 23, 2015 7:06 AM  

Perhaps as he sees SJWs high-fiving over his decision and lauding it as a victory for their side he will reconsider.

Blogger Jack Ward June 23, 2015 7:12 AM  

Mr. Trimmnell seems like a decent sort; would probably be a great guy to talk with. Would not want him in the foxhole next to me.
He wants us to be 'better' than them. OK. I can see being better than the shrill sjw crowd as they go down in flaming defeat. Using their own tactics so well laid out by VD and others. I can live with that.

@VD And frankly, if they understood why I am not at all afraid of them, they would be absolutely fucking terrified.

Yes. And, that lawsuit hanging over the SWFA. Looking forward to that playing out. Libel suits in the proper venues, that too. Oh, so much to look forward to. Gosh, life can be good sometimes.

Meanwhile, we look to the Evil Lord of Evil to program the individual missiles, that we each are, to the proper directions for maximum effect.

Blogger VD June 23, 2015 7:17 AM  

And, that lawsuit hanging over the SWFA.

There isn't one. I have no grounds. They didn't expel me.

Blogger Nate Winchester June 23, 2015 7:31 AM  

This reminds me of the joke Chuck of SFDebris made during his Best of Both Worlds review:

Worf- "The Borg have neither honor nor courage. That is our advantage."
...
Chuck- "So he gives Worf time to work on that gun powered by honor and courage..."

Vox isn't wrong, the most consistent instances of those abandoning the SJWs are when the mob turns against them and they realize they're not safe. I do wonder that in going on the attack, we give them a single threat to unite against and slow the civil war that is inevitable among them. The best strategy may be to sow dissension among their ranks. Though obviously until this can be better formulated into a plan, frontal assault it is.

Anonymous Giuseppe June 23, 2015 7:36 AM  

"Aeoli PeraJune 23, 2015 6:48 AM
Vox, you are nothing if not patient. The more I read the more respect I feel for this."

Seconded.
I pretty much always thought of patience as an excuse for the witless, but VD has demonstrated empirically what Clausewitz meant by the fourth type of military commander.

Blogger pyrrhus June 23, 2015 7:53 AM  

The battle between real humans and cultural marxists is one in which no quarter can be given, simple as that...

Blogger Shimshon June 23, 2015 7:53 AM  

"They didn't expel me."

So the whole thing was just a stunt? How far have they carried it out? You mentioned being blocked from forum access. Are you still on the member list? Do you get member emails?

Blogger Cail Corishev June 23, 2015 7:54 AM  

Yesterday on Twitter, a FreeBSD contributor revealed how he's being attacked by Randi Harper (freebsdgirl) for the crime of saying software projects don't need her Code of Conduct (apparently that's a Thing that SJWs are pushing on open-source software across the board, not just in that opal case). She found out he has friends in #GamerGate (though he himself is neutral), so she reported him to the FreeBSD foundation, threatening to get him booted for that -- with lots of swear words mixed in, or course. These female SJWs are trashy in a way I never saw when I lived in a trailer park. She's a seriously nasty piece of work, and apparently she's known for this kind of stuff.

I thought this guy deserved some support, so I joked that she must have contributed a whole lot of code, if she thinks she can get people purged from the project just because she doesn't like their associations. He defended her, pointing to her contributions and saying he has great respect for them. That missed the point -- no number of contributions gives someone the right to purge others -- but also overstated her contributions. She looks like the typical girl coder who did some coding for a while -- maybe because she liked it, or maybe just to gain credibility -- then switched to full-time social policeman who goes to conventions, talks about her politics, then claims the foundation supports her politics because they were talked about at a convention.

People were pointing out to him, Dude, you can't reason with her or 'respect' her into leaving you alone. This is what she does; she tries to destroy people who disagree with her and gets off on it. He responded with, Be kind to her. We don't need Codes of Conduct; we just all need to shut up and code. He may be somewhat protected from her tactics because he's a freelancer, so she can't get him fired the usual way; but he could "respect" his way right out of the project that he cares about and that provides part of the foundation for his livelihood. This morning he's still posting about the healing power of kindness or something.

Seems like a real nice guy, but I couldn't help thinking of the line from Hank Rearden: "I am sorry, gentlemen, that I will be obliged to save your goddamn necks along with mine." If we win, we'll save these Nice Guy, high-road moderates from the SJWs -- and they should be saved, because they're good people who do good work -- but we're going to have to fight them to do it.

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo #0368 June 23, 2015 7:55 AM  

I never liked that saying, "Let reason be silent..."

You know why? Because it presumes that experience isn't a part of reason. If reason fails, it's because the person doing the reasoning was missing part of the puzzle, not because reason has weaknesses.

It's like getting the wrong answer when you are trying to calculate a geometric equation. Mathematics didn't fail; you did.

Anonymous Stephen J. June 23, 2015 8:00 AM  

I respect Trimnell's desire to be true to his principles, but I also think he's forgetting one major difference between the situations he parallels -- the anti-Tor boycott is in response to Tor's employees lying. The anti-Card boycott was in response to him telling the truth. Surely that must make some difference in principle as well as practice.

And yes, the SJ side sincerely believes that description is backwards and they are the ones with truth on their side. But one of us is wrong and one right, and while I sympathize with the urge to resolve the conflict -- being a terminally wishy washy can't we all just get along sort myself by instinct -- sooner or later you have to decide what you believe and stand for it.

Blogger VD June 23, 2015 8:01 AM  

If I wasn't patient, the only person with whom I would talk is Big Chilly. The difference between slowing things down for the 2 SD crowd and the 1SD crowd isn't considerable. Below 1SD, I talk about sports and girls.

The one irritating difference between the 1SD crowd and the 2SD crowd is that the former always get hung up on rules. For example, if you say "always", then there can be no exceptions. They love to dive into pedantic holes and completely ignore the topic at hand.

It can be mildly amusing to simply crank up the pedantry and crucify them on their own generalities, but for the most part I just stop talking to people who do that. If you can't tell that your pedantic little "correction" makes ZERO FUCKING DIFFERENCE to the point, I can't be bothered. It's particularly annoying because if you tailor your speech to avoid their pointless "corrections", they get upset that you're going into such unnecessary detail.

That being said, it's a useful tactic for dealing with trolls. Because it's so annoying.

Blogger VD June 23, 2015 8:04 AM  

If we win, we'll save these Nice Guy, high-road moderates from the SJWs -- and they should be saved, because they're good people who do good work -- but we're going to have to fight them to do it.

How fortunate that it's so easy to steamroll the morons. Just send in a woman to guilt-shame them in the right direction.

Anonymous Apollo June 23, 2015 8:09 AM  

And frankly, if they understood why I am not at all afraid of them, they would be absolutely fucking terrified.

Do tell.

By the way, I liked the demonstration of strategic thinking in this post - good read. How did you develop the facility to apply this type of approach to thought? Youve mentioned reading books on strategy and playing stategy themed games... is there more to it than that?

Anonymous MendoScot June 23, 2015 8:12 AM  

17. Rhys O'Reilly June 23, 2015 6:36 AM
Following Dylann Roof's arrest a pulitzer winning NYT author contacted all his facebook friends and was then trolled by a 16 year old English kid who convinced her that Roof was a Brony. NYT published this and then the Boston Globe copied it.

The 16 year old's account: https://nextgenerationblogs.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/how-i-screwed-with-the-biggest-news-outlet-in-the-world/


That's hysterical, Rhys. Major black knighting.

Blogger grendel June 23, 2015 8:17 AM  

Ed, like libertarians, won't open his eyes to see that this isn't about having honest disagreements with people who honestly don't understand how right we are. It's not right vs confused. It's right vs wrong, good vs evil.

Blogger bearspaw June 23, 2015 8:27 AM  

Trimnell reminds me of all those folks in the graveyard who have " I had the right of way " carved on their tombstones.

Blogger Joshua Dyal June 23, 2015 8:31 AM  

I'm not trying to silence Gallo, nor do I "hate" her in any way.

I'm--however--expressing to Tor my complete and total unwillingness to conduct business with a company that is willing to let its employees publicly trash me, other customers like me and authors I enjoy.

That's what he's completely missing. I'm not trying to "silence" anyone, nor do I care to. I just refuse to do business with those who publicly declare me to be their enemy.

Blogger Kryten 2X4B 523P June 23, 2015 8:33 AM  

Out-arguing the SJWs assumes that:

a) they have a valid, rational argument.
b) they are arguing in good faith.
c) They are willing to listen and change their position based on fact

They cannot meet any of these criteria, which is why they resort to lies, silencing and mob tactics.

You cant out-argue someone that has no argument in the first place.Better for all concerned to show they have no argument and shut them down, hard.

Anonymous Culture War Draftee #151 June 23, 2015 9:01 AM  

What are we supposed to say to Tor, Gallo, Feder, and the rest of that crew? Thank you, may I have another please?

Whenever you criticize the SJWs for boycotting or ostracizing an author or company or whoever, they come back with "it's my right to spend my money where I want." True enough, even an SJW clock is right twice a day. Weird how some folks don't like it when people like us exercise the same right.

Blogger Elocutioner0226 June 23, 2015 9:28 AM  

So if Irene Gallo is fired from Tor she'll be silenced? As in, she'll have just as much access to the Internet and social sites as we do? She should check her Tor.com privilege, we can't post articles there. I can't even.

All those marxists who believe in speech codes are just complaining about this startling new trend of being held personally accountable, just as they demand of their opposition.

Blogger Steveo #238 June 23, 2015 9:33 AM  

I have come to understand that I have really been in a culture war all of my life, I was under the misapprehension that it was a political war, and so fought it on that front. (Wow, remember that Contract with America thing - wow, a battle was won. What happened in the war?) We have nothing but Neville Chamberlain's like Trimnell running in that parade. Do something? No, we'll talk Hitler back out of Austria, the Sudetenland, etc., etc. that's what we'll do!

VD stands & commits like Churchill commits, to complete & total victory. What's more he groks the principles, values, strategy and tactics necessary to win. But when he stands and others see that stand and decide to stand with him... it is true relational leadership which SJWs cannot understand. And you can come and go as you like, he has not thrown legal or social chains around you. Indeed, the soft will quietly leave as they are wont to do. But others will remain and still others will join. Irene Gallo's (& Moshe, PNH - et al) authority is solely positional - UNDERSTAND THIS - she is nothing without her position. She chose to make it a platform from which to brow beat and insult the innocent (and marginally concerned) customers of Tor & therefore Macmillan in order to foist her private SJW agenda on the world. Do you know what you are going to hear when she is forced to leave Tor? When PNH and others are forced to leave? CRICKETS. That quiet will serve Tor & Macmillan very nicely thank you very much.

Because it just got real. The warren hates real.

The SJWs hate VD for his well-reasoned opinion & its successful defense, but they fear him because they know he's not a Neville Chamberlain. I'm not sure they understand that he's a Churchill. For once Trimnell, find a Churchill and stop growing Nevilles.

Blogger Iowahine June 23, 2015 9:44 AM  

ED: The freethinkers seek to outthink their opponents with a more persuasive argument in the marketplace of ideas.

And furthermore, no, freethinkers may be motivated to persuade others to their ideas, but mostly, freethinkers want to be left alone to think freely - and live accordingly.

Blogger Sean June 23, 2015 10:05 AM  

A couple of things I don't understand about Ed's response. The first is, how can there ever be a rational discussion when the gate keepers at Tor will never allow it? The only way to do so is to first remove the gatekeepers, which is what this boycott is intending to do. The difference between his Card reference and the Tor Boycott the Puppies are endorsing is that the SJW's wanted Card and his opinion wiped off the face of the map never to return. The Tor boycott just wants the gatekeepers removed so that Tor can get back to publishing readable SF.

The second is that if a case can be made without an official boycott, how can any right thinking person not eventually come to the conclusion that Tor doesn't deserve my money, which in essence becomes a defacto boycott anyway on an individual level. The only problem is that this eventual victory is much slower and it does not give the good guys the Hammer that can be wielded in future battles with SJW's.

Blogger CM June 23, 2015 10:06 AM  

See... i would see the unsuccessful boycott of OSC and Chick Fil A along the same lines that those boycotts mentioned by another commentor in a previous thread were successful.

Same reason gay marriage fails in popular votes and why the majority of citizens are actually anti-abortion while calling themselves "pro-choice".

Moderates aren't so much "on the fence" as they are simply cowards who believe they are the minority.

In some cases, its because they don't want the fall out from a "reasonable" friend who is triggered by a certain subject and is loud enough to make you a bad guy for bad thought. In others, they don't know enough about it and so they keep quiet to not look like fools.

Others see this as tangential to their lives and so it doesn't really matter as long as they keep their head down and live their lives.

Boycotts, voting, and donations allow these people to participate without losing anonymity or publishing their views or significantly altering their lives.

So "right" sided ones tend to be more successful than "left" sided because there really are more of us than them.

Anonymous Not Anonymous June 23, 2015 10:28 AM  

VD: Choose a Name, Anonymous.

Okay, I'm curious. In all capital letters above the comment box, you post the rule: NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. And you ding someone who posts as "Anonymous." But someone can post as CM, Iowawhine, old man in a villa, etc. — all essentially anonymous. I've seen many other examples of anonymous handles, some that seem specific to the topic of the post.

So, what is the rule and the expectation of posters? Pick a name and stick to it, even if it protects your anonymity? Pick any name you want, as long as it isn't "Anonymous" and change it as often as you like? This doesn't appear to be addressed in the blog rules.

I'm not trying to be pedantic (though I may be unintentionally succeeding). I'm genuinely curious about the rule.

Apologies for going off-topic.

Blogger Corvinus June 23, 2015 10:33 AM  

From Bateful Higot:

Doherty as Hitler video

Anonymous Northern Observer June 23, 2015 10:38 AM  

I don't understand his opposition to a boycott. It's just an example of market pressure. e.g. you insult your customers, you loose their business, if the sales suffer enough, then that should lead to changes within the company.

If people were calling for someone at TOR to be arrested, fined or some other state penalty, then yes, I could see why he would oppose that (not necessarily agree, but at least understand it) but in this case he's being unreasonable.

Anonymous Bz June 23, 2015 10:40 AM  

Presumably because when you get tons of anonymous morons the conversation gets difficult to follow. Also, you could easily filter out the drive-by wits, though our host seems too polite to just quietly junk the anons.

Blogger Joshua_D June 23, 2015 10:42 AM  

What is with these people?

Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Of course, that assumes you want to win. If you don't want to win, don't even bring a knife.

Blogger VD June 23, 2015 10:44 AM  

And you ding someone who posts as "Anonymous." But someone can post as CM, Iowawhine, old man in a villa, etc. — all essentially anonymous.

I don't care about people's actual names. I just want them to have a single identifier that is different from everyone else's in order to make it possible for people to follow the discourse. Unfortunately, Blogger doesn't permit one to remove the standard Anonymous option without requiring registration.

Anonymous BigGaySteve June 23, 2015 10:52 AM  

Ed Trimnell shouldn't be called Mr. he has less balls than Bruce Jenner and the Williams sisters.

And frankly, if they understood why I am not at all afraid of them, they would be absolutely fucking terrified.

I can verify that pink rabbits really get their cages rattled when they realize their power words have no effect.

But someone can post as CM, Iowawhine, old man in a villa, etc. — all essentially anonymous.

I am the gay guy that doesn't love penises as much as GeorgeRapeRapeMartin loves Doritos That narrows the field to less than 1% of the population. It also allows people to respond to my arguments by name.

I remember the mindless campaign orchestrated against Orson Scott Card a few years ago.

When the Card boy cot came up I told people that there had to be gays in Hollywood employed in making the move & that Bath House Barry said he was against gay marriage more recently, to no effect. When I told people they where missing out on the shower scene that had Ender & 2 other boys with lots of action they broke the boy cot.

Anonymous The other robot June 23, 2015 10:55 AM  

OT, or not: Google's Technovation Challenge where only females can apply:

Google has committed $435,000 in funding to Technovation, the technology entrepreneurship program for young women.

Anonymous ticticboom June 23, 2015 10:56 AM  

@Not Anonymous:

Aspie gonna aspie. But at least the train is fine.

Anonymous ticticboom June 23, 2015 11:00 AM  

Trimnell is the kind of guy who goes into the Prisoner's Dilemma loudly proclaiming he'll never betray no matter what the other guy does.

That doesn't make him noble, it makes him a fool. Reciprocity in all things.

Blogger pdwalker June 23, 2015 11:00 AM  

Not Anonymous,

It's very simple. If everyone replies as Anonymous, then how do I reply to a specific one? Is the same person making 5 comments or 5 people with one comment or something in between?

It's to avoid confusion

Anonymous Jake June 23, 2015 11:11 AM  

Trimnell is falling victim to the Perfect World fallacy. In a perfect world, this would happen. Yes, but we don't live in such a world. On the battlefield, you may have more and better soldiers, but if they have air supremacy it doesn't matter. The best laid plans of mice and men, etc. Trimnell is a good man, but good men get run over by SJWs. Like the Amish, if he's to survive, it will not because he has a better way of living, it will be because other good men fight.

Anonymous BGS June 23, 2015 11:13 AM  

Google has committed $435,000 in funding to Technovation, the technology entrepreneurship program for young women.

Will the winner be a tranni, someone whose boyfriend did the work or both?

Anonymous Elijah Rhodes June 23, 2015 11:16 AM  

I think Trimmel is motivated primarily by his desire to be liked. Like David Brooks, he offers his views in a pretty little non-threatening gift basket. But as we know, being a token conservative does not make one iota of difference in the culture war, any more than the left’s tolerance toward Islamists will not prevent them from being considered a useful enemy who they’ll deal with later.

What will it take for the Trimmels of the world to wake up? There's an old saying that until the pain exceeds the fear we won't change. Until Trimmel feels the pain of being personally ravaged (and let us not fool ourselves, if we allow the SJWs to keep winning, they will come for the moderates soon enough) he won't overcome his fear of not being liked.

Blogger Danby June 23, 2015 11:18 AM  

I understand Ed's dilemma. Just like Ed, I like to think I make my decisions rationally. and if I make my decisions rationally, then of course that's the best way to make decisions, and it's how everyone should make decisions.

But I don't.

Most people's decisions are made emotionally. Not all the time, true, but most of the time. Though habit, fear, anger, pride, lust, sloth, envy, greed, and yes, gluttony.

The SJWs win because they appeal to fear vs pride. Agree with us and you too can be Morally Superior, without having to actually be Morally Superior. Disagree with us publicly, and we will make your life as hellish as we can. So do nothing.

Ed himself is appealing to pride. He's proud that he's above it all, not down in the trenches where the Vile minions go (that sounds like a hymn title "Down in the trenches where the vile minions go"). He's not going to get HIS hands dirty, he's Better Than That. He's not making a rational argument at all.

Blogger JaimeInTexas June 23, 2015 11:18 AM  

VD""There isn't one. I have no grounds. They didn't expel me."

Have you been excluded from participating, in any way, in SWFA? Not received information available to other SWFA members?

Anonymous Jack Amok June 23, 2015 11:19 AM  

Because it presumes that experience isn't a part of reason. If reason fails, it's because the person doing the reasoning was missing part of the puzzle, not because reason has weaknesses....It's like getting the wrong answer when you are trying to calculate a geometric equation. Mathematics didn't fail; you did.

You still got the wrong answer. Maybe because you used bad math. "Let reason be silent" means, if you got the wrong answer to your geometry problem, don't insist your calculation are right and the river must be 50 feet across even though your 50 foot bridge only reaches halfway.

"Reason" isn't synonymous with "good." It's just thought, and thought can be horribly misguided. "Reason" is an attempt at mentally simulating the real world, and while potentially very valuable, it's also dangerous if you start to mistake your simulation for the real thing.

Anonymous Bird on a Wing June 23, 2015 11:21 AM  

Oh, well done Vox. Well done.

I think you'll have to do it a few more times before everyone starts to catch on.

Last week I saw someone laying rhetorical traps in the comments at Brad Torgerson's and referencing you when she pulled the reveal on the SJWs.

---------------------------------------------

I think it worthwhile to consider methods of rehabilitating men like this. We would do better with him active and engaged on our side, and most importantly, not taking pot-shots at his fellows...

Ideally, the best way would be an epiphany. There are ways to persuade another by an induced epiphany. It is a tricky thing to manage -- more art than science -- and almost always happens in a one-on-one dialog.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 23, 2015 11:21 AM  

Unfortunately, Blogger doesn't permit one to remove the standard Anonymous option without requiring registration.

Ah. I assumed you left it activated as an IQ test.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 23, 2015 11:25 AM  

how can there ever be a rational discussion when the gate keepers at Tor will never allow it? The only way to do so is to first remove the gatekeepers, which is what this boycott is intending to do.

Ding, ding, ding.

A prerequisite for having a rational discussion is dealing with rational people.

Blogger rcocean June 23, 2015 11:27 AM  

Unfortunately people like Trimnell run the Republican party and comprise most of the "Conservative" pundits on TV and in print. Lets not fight, we might scare the moderates. But obviously, if tactics like Boycotts and disqualification alienated the moderates they would've joined our side long ago when the SJW/Left started using these horrible tactics. And the SJW/Left only wants to win, ethics are irrelevant to them. So if debating and being nice was a winning tactic they would've employed it. Which they don't.

Blogger rcocean June 23, 2015 11:32 AM  

And yes, lets refuse to use a winning tactic -boycotts -so we can keep using one that's never worked in 30 years. After all, maybe, it'll work this time.

Anonymous Not Anonymous June 23, 2015 11:33 AM  

Thanks for the clarification, VD. Makes sense.

Ah. I assumed you left it activated as an IQ test.

Ha!

Blogger bw June 23, 2015 11:36 AM  

an example of market pressure. e.g. you insult your customers, you loose their business, if the sales suffer enough, then that should lead to changes within the company.

The only ways of having a say in someone else's Corp is to get Govt to force them to do such and such or consumers must force a Corp to do such and such by withholding money. The former is too dangerous, and the latter, well Westerners are too comfortable and most do not even see the argument.
It's a two-fer. Govt steals your labor and uses it against you. We willingly give Corps monies to use against us. That's how the Agenda moves forward.
Boycott and withholding $$ - from Govt, which ain't happening, or from Corps which *easily can - is the only way.
*The purpose of Consolidation of ownership of Corps over the last 50 years is exactly so this is not so easily accomplished any longer. Want a phone or some entertainment or some cheaper goods from China-Mart...?? They're all on the same page, at least to the extent that it matters to us.

Blogger rcocean June 23, 2015 11:37 AM  

And Vox comment on Trimmell's own refusal to be reasoned with was pure genius. It lays bare the truth that most "Moderates" are so enamored with being "Moderate" "Reasonable" "the only adult in the room" that they'll literally die (see 1917 and 1933) than fight.

Blogger bw June 23, 2015 11:37 AM  

It's not called monopoly capitalism for nothing. Govt grants corporate status and eliminates competition for the Corp, which owns the Govt.

Blogger Log June 23, 2015 11:39 AM  

Vox, the point isn't to win against one's external enemies, but through adhering to principle, even while your enemies might dance over your smoldering or crucified corpse, you win your soul in the eternal worlds above from the true enemy inside.

Blogger Log June 23, 2015 11:40 AM  

And that principle is, for the disciples of Christ, "all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them, for this is the law and the prophets."

Hence turning the other cheek, allowing oneself to be defrauded, returning good for evil, etc, all of which are derived from the law.

Blogger Log June 23, 2015 11:41 AM  

For what shall a man give for his soul? If by winning in this world, you lose in the next one, did you really win, even if you danced on the smoldering or crucified corpses of your enemies?

Blogger VD June 23, 2015 11:43 AM  

Vox, the point isn't to win against one's external enemies, but through adhering to principle, even while your enemies might dance over your smoldering or crucified corpse, you win your soul in the eternal worlds above from the true enemy inside.

The all-important principle of buying science fiction novels from TOR Books? I admit, I am unfamiliar with that principle.

Blogger VD June 23, 2015 11:47 AM  

For what shall a man give for his soul? If by winning in this world, you lose in the next one, did you really win, even if you danced on the smoldering or crucified corpses of your enemies?

I have seldom seen Scripture misquoted so blatantly. I suggest you stop it now. The idea that not buying science fiction novels is tantamount to losing one's soul is so ridiculous I can't believe I'm even addressing this.

OpenID mattse001 June 23, 2015 11:49 AM  

Shorter version: MPAI. You cannot instruct idiots.

Anonymous Full-Fledged Fiasco June 23, 2015 11:51 AM  

"Do nothing, only keep agitating, debating; and things will destroy themselves."

Thomas Carlyle, The French Revolution, Part I, Book VI, Chapter II.

Blogger Danby June 23, 2015 11:51 AM  

oh yay! Another non-Christian concern troll, here to tell us what we believe!

Anonymous Soga June 23, 2015 11:55 AM  

I like this Log guy. Normally, our anklebiters are just licking the window on the back of the short bus. This one gnaws on the chain link fences at recess.

I mean, LOL. "Better buy these Tor books or you're going to hell!"

Hey SJWs... next time, try reading the Bible for yourself. You'll be surprised at how much your SJW buddies and comedians make shit up that's not in there at all.

Anonymous Huckleberry (#87) -- est. 1977 June 23, 2015 11:59 AM  

allowing oneself to be defrauded

Oh for fuck's sake man, ask your wife to give you back your testicles.

Anonymous Krul June 23, 2015 12:02 PM  

Winning is evil, so when you fight against the forces of evil, make sure you always lose. Heaven is for losers.

Anonymous Soga June 23, 2015 12:06 PM  

Of course, what's even sadder is that the tactic being used by Log here actually works on a lot of Churchians. Oh no! I'm not voluntarily offering people to take advantage of me and defraud me? Woe is me, I'm a sinner! I'd better go find myself the local SJW Patreon and donate so he can help hasten the arrival of the day the totalitarian Left rises and stomps on my face with a jackboot!

And then one recalls that Churchians commonly have a sexual fetish for cuckoldry.

Anonymous Joe June 23, 2015 12:08 PM  

VD,

This post calls to mind this warning with sobering historical analogy.

But also, more encouraging, this real-world (college-campus, anyway) example of SJWs successfully countered.

Blogger Bateful Higot June 23, 2015 12:18 PM  

I've given this subject a lot of thought, and it really is a rather silly debate. Since many conservatives with Mr. Trimnell's viewpoint tend to romanticize gentlemanly conduct and chivalry, imagine, if you will, taking this mentality to an actual duel.

Mediator: Okay, gentlemen... take 5 paces, then turn and shoot. SJW has won the coin toss and will shoot first. Understood?
Conservative: Yes.
SJW: Whatever.
Mediator: One...
SJW: -turns and points pistol, hand trembling in terror-
Mediator: -looks at SJW scornfully- Two...
SJW: CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE! -shoots in Conservative's general direction... misses horribly-
Conservative: What the deuce? -turns around- You bastard!
SJW: How dare you turn around! You're not a gentleman!
Mediator: Conservative! You must take three more paces before you may turn around!
Conservative: That coward shot at me after two!
Mediator: Do not lower yourself to his level! Death before dishonor!
Conservative: That doesn't mean what you think it does! -aims at SJW-
SJW: EEK! -cowers-
Mediator: How dare you! -draws pistol on Conservative- If you do not turn around this instant I shall shoot you, myself, you dishonorable cur!

Anonymous ticticboom June 23, 2015 12:18 PM  

People who have led such sheltered lives that they've never been in a physical confrontation have no idea how deeply insulting and contemptuous turning the other cheek is.

Like calling them a limp-wristed fairy, only backing it up with action.

Blogger rcocean June 23, 2015 12:23 PM  

I think any Bible Scholar will agree thatJesus would've bought TOR books.

Blogger rcocean June 23, 2015 12:27 PM  

That sort of "Theology" reminds me of Gov Huckleberry who proclaimed that Jesus would've supported Open borders and Illegal immigration. And anyone who didn't want to help Arkansas Rice growers get cheap labor was going to Hell.

Blogger rcocean June 23, 2015 12:30 PM  

Erik Erickson has the same flexible "theology". Per Erik -It seems that Jesus would take down the Confederate flag, No doubt because Jesus would want a "reasonable conservative" gig at CNN .

Blogger Joshua Dyal June 23, 2015 12:30 PM  

Unfortunately people like Trimnell run the Republican party and comprise most of the "Conservative" pundits on TV and in print. Lets not fight, we might scare the moderates. But obviously, if tactics like Boycotts and disqualification alienated the moderates they would've joined our side long ago when the SJW/Left started using these horrible tactics. And the SJW/Left only wants to win, ethics are irrelevant to them. So if debating and being nice was a winning tactic they would've employed it. Which they don't.

The thing is; it's not the only battleground where you can see action. There are (yet) few where conservatives have done well, but there are some, and there are more all the time. The Hugos, Tor the Puppies; it's part of a bigger puzzle that's just barely starting to coalesce. And they're hardly even the first ones.

In mean, there's a reason why we say that the secret ingredient that makes Chick-Fil-A sandwiches taste so great is liberal outrage. There's a mass exodus from universities going on, and from the media. And it's not just "going Galt"--more and more people are aware of what and why that's happening. Rolling Stone is choking on very public ethics probes and lawsuits.

There are a lot of setbacks; a lot of losses still, and of course there is a tremendous amount of ground to regain. But it's starting to happen. I think these principles are starting to come back. It's slow; it's the proverbial turning of the Titanic slow, but it's happening. And once the turning starts to gain inertia, it'll start happening really fast.

Anonymous Steve June 23, 2015 12:30 PM  

And, lo. I say unto you: whoever amongst ye buyeth Ancillary Sword shall be blessed.

Happy are those who are called neo-nazis by Irene Gallo.

And the spittle that floweth from Moshe Feder shall be as frankincense unto you.

Blogger Corvinus June 23, 2015 12:32 PM  

@Bateful Higot

Yup, sounds about right.

Blogger Lovekraft June 23, 2015 12:40 PM  

Progressives would rather burn the whole place down than giving up power. Here in Ontario, a lesbian career unionist/bureaucrat snuck her way into power (using massive teachers and nurses union support) and quickly stated to impose her lifestyle in elementary schools, rather than tackle decimated manufacturing sector, bloated bureaucracy, encroaching police state etc.

Blogger Bateful Higot June 23, 2015 12:43 PM  

@Corvinus

I believe the technical term for that morality is, "Lawful Stupid."

Blogger Lovekraft June 23, 2015 12:44 PM  

back on point: anti-SJWs need to be very careful from here out as we know the progs will try to do anything to provoke us, thus justifying final solutions to cement their hold on power.

Which is where myself and others like me will be commenting occasionally to remind the Ilk of this fact and to recommend caution and restraint. Any talk of chest thumping should be met with suspicion.

And no, speaking as someone who has taken on progs for over fifteen years, I am not at all recommending action that would hinder our cause. Rather, I believe Vox has shown us victory is ahead and we shouldn't do something stupid after all this time.

Anonymous Joe June 23, 2015 12:46 PM  

Bateful Higot,

Except the SJWs aren't missing. They're better shots than the Conservatives.

Blogger Danby June 23, 2015 12:49 PM  

@lovekraft,
No need to worry abut fire discipline here. VFMs are very good at following orders.

Blogger Bateful Higot June 23, 2015 12:52 PM  

@Joe

But of course. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. If the Hugos controversy is any indication, SJWs only stand a chance when firing at an unarmed or unwilling opponent.

Blogger Dexter June 23, 2015 12:57 PM  

The all-important principle of buying science fiction novels from TOR Books? I admit, I am unfamiliar with that principle.

I'm not sure Tor believes in it, either, based on their sales figures and their habit of vomiting on their customers.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 23, 2015 1:03 PM  

1. SJW's have enjoyed the perception of occupying the moral high ground (MHG.) It is the source of their power.
2. By using SJW soft coercion power against them, you may dissuade some of them from employing it but the source of their power, the MHG, is what matters in the larger picture.
3. The MHG resting in social justice is simply a side-effect of the last 100 years' dominant Narrative (Progressivism, which largely is that people suffer due to outside forces, not mostly as a result of their own choices, and that coercion is justified to ameliorate that suffering.)

I believe this Narrative is nearing the end of its life span, as evidenced by the insanity being mainstreamed now by SJW's (who have defined deviancy down to the point of absurdity and beyond.)

Use SJW tactics or not, as you desire. What matters is that anti(fill-in-the-blank)-ism is increasingly seen as petty, vicious and contrary to observable reality. The pendulum swung massively too far, and as Gays demand the rights to adopt, transgenders demand the right to shower with teens of the (actual) opposite sex, and black mobs cannot escape the Truth Of Youtube, the old Narrative is headed for deafening reversal and rejection.

This blog is an important catalyst in that evolving reversal, speeding a process that already is inevitable. The strategy best employed now is for victims of SJW outrage-mobs to properly frame the mob action as vicious, backstabbing brutality by a bunch of passive-aggressive chicken-shit assholes bent on forcing everyone to do what they say and think what they allow.

Take away their MHG. They never deserved it in the first place.

Blogger rho June 23, 2015 1:05 PM  

Yesterday on Twitter, a FreeBSD contributor revealed how he's being attacked by Randi Harper (freebsdgirl) for the crime of saying software projects don't need her Code of Conduct (apparently that's a Thing that SJWs are pushing on open-source software across the board, not just in that opal case).

I'd be quite upset to see FreeBSD go full retard, but there's always OpenBSD. Theo de Raadt will never, ever, fall down before SJWs. Torvalds will go before Theo does.

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 1:09 PM  

"He says that in his estimation, "out-arguing one’s opponents—rather than silencing them—is the course that will persuade the great mass of people on the fence". This is flat-out wrong."

He is flat out right.

Debate over issues happens all the time, every day, in a variety of public forums. Gay marriage is a perfect example.

20 years ago gay marriage was opposed by a majority of Americans. No today. This evolution did not occur because of silencing tactics. I occurred because the pro gay marriage contingent made their case one- on-on, in various mediums, in political environments, in courts, etc, etc.

More importantly, the anti-gay marriage contingent also made their case in all these places.

In 20 years, those supporting gay marriage has moved from 20% to 60%: http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx

Where has the silencing taken place. We have heard relentlessly from anti-gay marriage people that allowing gay marriage will be bad for the Republic, for families, for the state and for the country. We've heard it from talking heads on TV, in print, on the internet, everywhere....just as we've heard the opposite from pro gay marriage people.

The arguments were made. The anti-gay marriage side has lost and there has been no silencing.

Trying to argue that silencing is what worked for the pro gay marriage side is just plain old bitterness; claiming that there was some sort of cheating or the playing field wasn't fair. Plain old bitterness at failing to have made your case.

Blogger Dexter June 23, 2015 1:10 PM  

Vox, the point isn't to win against one's external enemies, but through adhering to principle, even while your enemies might dance over your smoldering or crucified corpse, you win your soul in the eternal worlds above from the true enemy inside.

And that principle is, for the disciples of Christ, "all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them, for this is the law and the prophets."

Hence turning the other cheek, allowing oneself to be defrauded, returning good for evil, etc, all of which are derived from the law.


This new learning amazes me! For nineteen centuries or so, Christians did not believe that they had to be dead and defrauded but noble losers in order to be proper Christians and save their souls. (The Victorians would have been amazed at this idea, to say the least.) But now we know differently, it seems.

Blogger Corvinus June 23, 2015 1:21 PM  

20 years ago gay marriage was opposed by a majority of Americans. No today. This evolution did not occur because of silencing tactics. I occurred because the pro gay marriage contingent made their case one- on-on, in various mediums, in political environments, in courts, etc, etc.

Woohoo. SJWs always lie.

1) The Brendan Eich affair.

2) Point and shriek that anyone who disapproves of gay marriage is a "hateful bigot".

True, y'all managed to steamroll the sheeple into agreeing with your boneheaded positions. But your claim that it was through actual honest debate is, quite frankly, ludicrous. You used the Stalin method: tell a lie often enough [and suppress the opposition as bigots], and eventually everyone will think it's the truth.

Anonymous Pax Romana June 23, 2015 1:21 PM  

"How fortunate that it's so easy to steamroll the morons. Just send in a woman to guilt-shame them in the right direction."

[deep belly laugh] Anyone know any worthy women in the LA area that I can use to guilt-shame some morons? I have quite a few that need a good steamrolling (because I've been unable to argue them into our camp).

Blogger Corvinus June 23, 2015 1:23 PM  

Except the SJWs aren't missing. They're better shots than the Conservatives.

@Joe
No, Higot's right. SJWs use the spray-and-pray method.

Blogger Sean June 23, 2015 1:26 PM  

@The SJW: There has been no silencing of the anti-gay marriage side? Are you serious? SJW rule #1. SJW's always lie.

Anonymous Soga June 23, 2015 1:28 PM  

Don't forget that 2 years ago, more than 50% in California, of all places, voted against gay marriage. It got overturned by totalitarians in black robes.

Sounds to me like progressives were out-argued, but pressed their levers of power to coerce their belief against the general public.

Blogger VD June 23, 2015 1:30 PM  

20 years ago gay marriage was opposed by a majority of Americans. No today.

It still is. That's why the SJWs are still going to the courts rather than to the legislatures.

Blogger Bateful Higot June 23, 2015 1:31 PM  

@The SJW

If it's so popular why was it necessary to lobby the judicial branch to make legal what failed to pass in nearly every referendum?

Blogger VD June 23, 2015 1:32 PM  

The arguments were made. The anti-gay marriage side has lost and there has been no silencing.

Just remember, your side threw out democracy. Don't bother appealing to it when we crush you.

Blogger Dean Esmay June 23, 2015 1:38 PM  

I have stayed out of this fray for the longest time only because I try to keep message discipline and speak only of political issues I genuinely (A) have taken the time to learn about, and (B) think I can have some influence on. Further, because I know that the very idea suggesting men and boys may be experiencing widespread attacks on their civil rights is considered disgusting and evil, and I don't want anyone standing next to me tarred with that.

I have been a Science Fiction fan since the late 1960s. And I mean FAN. Not just Star Trek, though I remember it from when I was 3 (in the late 1960s). Then I got into books. I read literally thousands of --they saved me from abuse, neglect, and worse as a child. They're who taught me that racism and even sexism were wrongheaded and foolish. They're what taught me to accept people for who they are no matter how weird, as long as they were good people. I wrote and published my first and only novel about 10 years ago, and it was a science fiction novel (which got critical acclaim and abysmal sales, oh well).

The Social Justice crowd were attacking my work even then, and still do (it's funny how some of the reviews on Amazon are from people who clearly haven't read the book, just hate me). I know one author who got far worse than I did--with an outright confession from her agent that the issue wasn't the book, it was her politics completely outside the book—and he had to drop her since a person at the publishing house sent him a private note letting him know he needed to either drop her as a client or none of his other authors would get work again either. Surprise, he dropped her.

But it must just be her writing's no good eh? Yeah right. I have another friend--Erin Pizzey--who was flat out told by a feminist at a major publishing house that she hated Erin's work and would see to it that all her books were taken out of print. Which promptly happened: her entire line was remaindered, despite good sales. Ask her. Dozens of books in print, all remaindered as an act of political revenge.
I know professional researchers who got bomb threats for what they wrote in peer reviewed journals. Things that are now accepted, noncontroversial science. Do you want to talk to them?

As a Science Fiction fan practically from birth, when Scalzi shit on my sons I thought something was wrong. Then I looked more and saw everywhere how people with his mentality were actively working to not just ignore or argue with and dismiss people who had a problem with what they were saying, and began working openly to ostracize and eject and ruin the careers of anyone who called bullshit on their ideology.

It looks all too familiar.

Blogger Lovekraft June 23, 2015 1:39 PM  

Soga: Sounds to me like progressives were out-argued, but pressed their levers of power to coerce their belief against the general public.

this is how it went down in Ontario back in 2003 or something. I observed how the liberals maneuvered the committees to ensure voting power, not to mention it being approved by some unseen judge.

Blogger Danby June 23, 2015 1:43 PM  

@The SJW,
Were I to publicly state my opinions on Gay "Marriage", under my real name, I would lose my job, within a week. Literally.

Stop lying you sack of crap. And don't piss in my face and tell me it's sunbeams, sugarpants.

Blogger Lovekraft June 23, 2015 1:45 PM  

the SJW: "Where has the silencing taken place?"

thanks for coming by to remind us how disingenuous your camp is. Progressives are overwhelmingly in power in academia, HR departments, media the list goes on and on. Progressives character-assassinate mras and virtually anyone against your policies.

Progressives are offended when a man wants to return to some type of traditional morality vis a vis men and women, but turn silent when Islamic infiltration in western countries unleash rape gangs and preach genocide.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 23, 2015 1:54 PM  

SJW's are bullies, pure and simple. They use soft violence (get you fired, etc.) which is a hallmark of feminine backstabbing rather than overt violence men mostly outgrow after a few schoolyard fistfights.

SJW-ism is femininity at its worst, mixed with political violence. Until it is seen as an adult outgrowth of the viciousness of girls backstabbing each other in high school, it can continue destroying lives.

It is just one hue revealed by running Progressivist collectivism through a prism, one of many current illustrations of how people expect belief to trump or alter reality.

I expect the entire spectrum to collapse when the Great Asset Mania implodes, and reveals so much fallacious belief as the insanity it truly is. Unfortunately, I also expect overt violence to replace the stupid soft violence, because this is the natural sine wave oscillation of history.

Blogger Joshua_D June 23, 2015 1:56 PM  

The SJW June 23, 2015 1:09 PM

The arguments were made. The anti-gay marriage side has lost and there has been no silencing.

Trying to argue that silencing is what worked for the pro gay marriage side is just plain old bitterness; claiming that there was some sort of cheating or the playing field wasn't fair.


Shut up, liar.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 23, 2015 2:00 PM  

@the SJW, wait until Gay men demand to adopt boys from state-licensed adoption agencies or demand to foster young boys (I'll bet $$$ this is already occurring.)

When SJW's impose their fantasies via the courts they simply move us one step closer to a violent repudiation of the entire program. And I mean VIOLENT.

Wait, too, for when you bring your teen daughter to the local YMCA for a swim and she exits the locker room white as a sheet because as she was putting on her swim suit she noticed in a 19 year old male "transgender" standing in the shower, nude, with his junk in hand, staring at her.

Shit's going to get REAL, and soon, if these lunatics keep on their track.

Blogger Sean June 23, 2015 2:01 PM  

Is there a specific twitter hashtag thingyfor the tor boycott we should be pushing like there was for GamerGate?

Blogger SirHamster (#201) June 23, 2015 2:08 PM  

But of course. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. If the Hugos controversy is any indication, SJWs only stand a chance when firing at an unarmed or unwilling opponent.

Worse. SJWs only stand a chance when their opponents shoot themselves.

Anonymous ticticboom June 23, 2015 2:08 PM  

@Sean:

#TorDelendaEst sums it up for me. I hope it catches on.

@SJW:

Move along. No one is buying your bullshit

Blogger VD June 23, 2015 2:18 PM  

Daddy Warpig has been using #optordrop

OpenID crazdmadman June 23, 2015 2:19 PM  

Leigh Butler at tor-dot-com equates gamergate with Westboro Baptists and KKK...

http://www.tor.com/2015/06/23/the-wheel-of-time-reread-redux-the-great-hunt-part-5/

Anonymous Elijah Rhodes June 23, 2015 2:30 PM  

Welcome Dean Esmay. I used to read your blog about a decade ago. Somewhere along the way you fell off my radar. Glad to see you're still at it.

Anonymous Discard June 23, 2015 2:38 PM  

dc.sunsets: Homosexuals DO foster parent and adopt children in California. The social workers applaud.

Blogger Danby June 23, 2015 2:47 PM  

In many state, (like Mass) Catholic agencies are lo longer allowed to place adoptions because they will not place children with homosexual couples.

Blogger Bateful Higot June 23, 2015 3:05 PM  

@Danby

So... in order to become a progressive society free of hate, we need to make sure that the oldest champion for orphaned children is no longer allowed to do so?

Sounds like a winner, if I've ever heard one.

Blogger Danby June 23, 2015 3:14 PM  

It's more important that special snowflake flowers not get their feelings hurt than that abused, neglected and abandoned children be placed with functional families.

Blogger CM June 23, 2015 3:19 PM  

So... in order to become a progressive society free of hate, we need to make sure that the oldest champion for orphaned children is no longer allowed to do so?

Its always been so, has it not?

I mean, in early church days, Christians rescued them off the rocks.

Now, we have to pass home inspections, psych analysis, and take classes on state approved discipline.

Anonymous Ed June 23, 2015 3:25 PM  

Can't speak for Vox but if nothing else a blog post full of anonymous comments is a pain in the arse to follow.

OpenID crazdmadman June 23, 2015 3:26 PM  

Wow...I wonder if Tor or Tor-dot-com is running scared....seems they yanked the blog post I mentioned a few posts above...

A couple of folks complained in the responses, which got deleted by the mods, then "poof" the entire post was gone...

Blogger VD June 23, 2015 3:27 PM  

Wow...I wonder if Tor or Tor-dot-com is running scared....seems they yanked the blog post I mentioned a few posts above...

Always archive. Don't bother to mention anything you don't archive first.

Anonymous BGS June 23, 2015 3:45 PM  

Catholic agencies are lo longer allowed to place adoptions because they will not place children with homosexual couples.

Some states try to put boys with dikes so the dikes wont lick the kids all day & vice versa and you end up with
http://www.news.com.au/world/well-stop-puberty-so-tommy-can-become-tammy/story-e6frfkyi-1226169281540

Blogger Elocutioner0226 June 23, 2015 3:55 PM  

I managed to archive it. The link: https://archive.is/k20Ea

Here:
" there is the point that purport-to-be-beneficial-but-actually-are-horrible organizations are totally things that really exist."

The last three words are links to Wikipedia for Westboro Baptist, Gamergate, and KKK respectively.

OpenID crazdmadman June 23, 2015 3:56 PM  

Yeah, I should have when it happened, I was being lazy...never expected them to yank the whole thing just because the poster was being a smart ass and "hiding" links in words.

Blogger Elocutioner0226 June 23, 2015 4:01 PM  

Everyone do this now - go to http://archive.is

At the top of the page is a gray button - drag that to your browser toolbar. The next time you run across something like this just hit that new button (link) on the toolbar and it will do all the work for you. Just make a note of the short archive.is url and download a copy.

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 4:17 PM  

"Progressives are offended when a man wants to return to some type of traditional morality vis a vis men and women.

This sounds a lot like the people who are complaining that if the Supreme Court declares same sex marriage a constitutional right, then they will have to support gay marriage. If this comes to pass, no one will be required to like gay marriage nor marry someone of their sex.

You are more than welcome to adhere to a moral position vis a vis men and women. But if you are a public figure and if you make a public statement that gays ought not be allowed to marry because....well....because something....you can't expect to simply be ignored and not see push back.

Years ago, if a person suggested that gays ought were just like you and I and they should be treated as such under the law there were consequences for uttering that position that were not pleasant.

Don't whine and try to change the rules just because you lost the argument.

Blogger Groot June 23, 2015 4:21 PM  

82. Huckleberry (#87) -- est. 1977 June 23, 2015 11:59 AM
Oh for fuck's sake man, ask your wife to give you back your testicles.

First LOL of the day. You guys get up early. Are you all on the east coast?

As for the gay thing, I still take the libertarian position. Live and let live, but actions have consequences. I think there's a genetic component, so it's a self-imposed Final Solution. How many offspring does Big Gay Steve produce (and shit babies don't count)? A couple of decades after widespread acceptance of the gay lifestyle, and gay people will all be like the Japanese and hippies: all old. No worries, though, SJWs, this is one of those one-way pendulums.

Blogger Sean June 23, 2015 4:23 PM  

SJW, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 4:25 PM  

"Were I to publicly state my opinions on Gay "Marriage", under my real name, I would lose my job, within a week. Literally. "

Then find a better job with a boss that isn't an asshole.

---------------

"Just remember, your side threw out democracy. Don't bother appealing to it when we crush you."

No...where gay rights is concerned, there was no throwing out of democracy. There was only the presentation of a winning argument. And if you are referring to courts potentially deciding that states may not ignore gays married in other states, I'll take your point seriously when you call each and ever court decision as incompatible with democracy.

----------------------

"Don't forget that 2 years ago, more than 50% in California, of all places, voted against gay marriage. It got overturned by totalitarians in black robes.
Sounds to me like progressives were out-argued, but pressed their levers of power to coerce their belief against the general public."

But when decisions go your way, the Robes aren't so totalitarian. #hypocrite

-------------------------------

"20 years ago gay marriage was opposed by a majority of Americans. No today."

"It still is."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 4:27 PM  

"SJW, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul"

Sean:
I'll take your word for it when you explain rather than just proclaim. The former delivers substance. The latter is just silly emotions.

Blogger Danby June 23, 2015 4:35 PM  

@TheSJW,
Stop lying you sack of crap. You have not addressed our responded to your previous post, in which you claimed there was NO silencing of critics. Several people pointed out both public and personal ways people were silenced.

Now you claim there will be no personal repercussions for the legalization of gay "marriage". unless of course, you're in any way a public figure, engage in business, or otherwise try to make a living, and raise your head the least little bit. Then you can expect the full force of the mob to destroy you, economically and personally. But no one is ever silenced, it's all been fair and above board. Because we deserve it.

I just realized you won't be able to draw the connection here, though it's obvious to normals. You support your second claim by contradicting your first claim.

Your side has carried the day so far because no-one on our side has replied with your own tactics. You've managed to silence our side, and recruited the so-called elite to force what you want on us plebs. Remember this day when you're hiding from the counter-reaction. though, honestly, I doubt you personally have the courage to stand up for your "principles" in the face of real resistance.


And stop fucking lying, it's unbecoming and nobody here believes a word of it.

Blogger Danby June 23, 2015 4:39 PM  

"Were I to publicly state my opinions on Gay "Marriage", under my real name, I would lose my job, within a week. Literally. "

Then find a better job with a boss that isn't an asshole.

And that is just stupid, Your side has been relentless pushing and infiltrating for 40 years to eliminate any possibility of those jobs existing. As it happens, my skill set is of use only to extremely large organizations, which are uniformly in the hands of SJWs, particularly the HR departments.

And stop lying, you lying sack of crap.

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 4:41 PM  

"Your side has carried the day so far because no-one on our side has replied with your own tactics. You've managed to silence our side"

No...You side has managed to be out-argued and you've lost the debate on so many issues.

You think it's just terrible when people react loudly to someone on your side saying gays are immoral; that they should not have the same marriage rights. Why? I see you doing the same thing here.

Furthermore, consider the employ who consistently makes public statements along these lines: "The niggers are worthless and we need segregation to protect white women and girls from being raped". You mean you are upset when there is a negative reaction to this? You mean you are shocked when the employer warns that they can't have someone with such ugly opinions representing them and fires them?

Well be shocked! No one cares that you are shocked. But try not to be shocked when your side makes disparaging comments about gays and lesbians.

Why do you think there ought not be any reaction to publicly stated positions that offend a great number of people?

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 4:46 PM  

"And that is just stupid, Your side has been relentless pushing and infiltrating for 40 years to eliminate any possibility of those jobs existing."

No my side has been relentlessly pushing for gays not to be exposed to extreme discrimination. And we one.

If you want to argue to say publicly how terribly and immoral and dirty gays are, fine. Knock yourself out. But don't at the same time make the case that employers and clients ought to be tainted by association.

You lost, we won...get over it.

Blogger Danby June 23, 2015 4:51 PM  

@The SJW
Stop pissing in my face and telling me it's sunbeams, you lying fuck.

All victories are temporary, and it will swing back, either now, or later when our society has collapsed and the Moslems are running the place. Then you'll mourn the days of Christian society.

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 4:54 PM  

"All victories are temporary, and it will swing back, either now, or later when our society has collapsed and the Moslems are running the place. Then you'll mourn the days of Christian society."

Calm down...don't get so darned hysterical. And no, all victories are not temporary.

And "Moslems"??? What kind of non sequitur is that?

Blogger Danby June 23, 2015 4:55 PM  

Try to keep up. I realize you're not too bright, but do look around and try to figure out what's going on. Smugness may be fun, but it seems to be preventing you seeing and assessing threats in the environment.

Blogger Russell (106) June 23, 2015 4:58 PM  

I see CivilServant aka The SJW is back at it.

You and your kind will be wiped from the face of the Earth someday. I pray you find Christ before that day comes.

Until then, you and yours are a blight upon civilization.

And are you really trying to suggest that a random poll has more weight than multiple voting records? Why yes, yes you are, you Quisling.

Once the things start going the other way, once the wheel turns, you'll roll over and pretend you've always been on the side of the strong horse. You'll come crawling, looking to lick the boots of the powerful again, and you can't imagine why no one else isn't willing to fit themselves to the chains that bind you, to the Procrustean bed you've fitted yourself into.

Keep posting, you too shall serve in Voxemort's legions, regardless of your intentions.

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 5:06 PM  

"
And are you really trying to suggest that a random poll has more weight than multiple voting records?"

Well, first, it's not random.

Second, you and yours always say things are going to "start going the other way" or that their will be violence if gays get to marry or some other tragedy happens. And it never does.

You sound like the the person that says "America will fall" if gays can marry. You know what will happen if gays can marry? Gays will marry. And they will divorce. And your marriage will be the same. And politics will go on.

More importantly, look what happens when there is ideological motivated violence of the sort you predict. The confederate flag came down in SC and not a soul endorsed the violence.

Take your loss like a man, move on and be a productive citizen.

Blogger Corvinus June 23, 2015 5:15 PM  

No my side has been relentlessly pushing for gays not to be exposed to extreme discrimination. And we one.

@The SJW
I suppose you won "one"... but the next win is ours.

So what's to prevent your type from advocating for pedophilia, or sex with animals, or polygamy? After all, homosexuality is just as abnormal and disgusting as these other things. Somehow, you've BS'ed a lot of people into not thinking it is, but believe me, your snow job won't last forever.

Blogger Corvinus June 23, 2015 5:19 PM  

Actually, I modify my previous statement: polygamy is less disgusting than homosexuality or those other things. Yet you weirdoes went straight for the perversion.

Blogger Achillea June 23, 2015 5:19 PM  

[deep belly laugh] Anyone know any worthy women in the LA area that I can use to guilt-shame some morons? I have quite a few that need a good steamrolling (because I've been unable to argue them into our camp).

I'll add yours to the list, but be advised I'm already backed up. There's a lot of morons in the LA area and only 24 hours in the day.

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 5:26 PM  

"I suppose you won "one"... but the next win is ours."
What does that next "win" look like?

"So what's to prevent your type from advocating for pedophilia, or sex with animals, or polygamy? After all, homosexuality is just as abnormal and disgusting as these other things."

Nothing is to stop anyone from advocating for these things. But that doesn't mean those advocates will win the day...does it. And "disgusting" is in the eye of the disgusted, isn't it.

Anonymous I Am Irony, Man June 23, 2015 5:27 PM  

This sounds a lot like the people who are complaining that if the ILLINOIS Supreme Court declares NEO-NAZI FREE SPEECH a constitutional right, then they will have to support NEO-NAZIS. If this comes to pass, no one will be required to like NEO-NAZIS nor LISTEN TO THEM.

You are more than welcome to adhere to a moral position vis a vis NEO-NAZIS. But if you are a PUBLISHING figure and if you make a public statement that NEO-NAZIS ought not be allowed to SAY WHAT THEY WANT ABOUT THE HUGOS because....well....because something....you can't expect to simply be ignored and not see push back.

Years ago, if a person suggested that NEO-NAZIS were just like you and I and they should be treated as such under the law there were consequences for uttering that position that were not pleasant.

Don't whine and try to change the rules just because you lost the argument.

#hypocrite

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 5:31 PM  

@I Am Irony, Man:

Exactly!!!

Anonymous I Am Irony, Man June 23, 2015 5:36 PM  

So, you agree that Gallo should be sacked because of her attitude toward Tor's NEO-NAZI customers.

Excellent.

Blogger Russell (106) June 23, 2015 5:36 PM  

Second, you and yours always say things are going to "start going the other way" or that their will be violence if gays get to marry or some other tragedy happens. And it never does.

No, your time horizon is exceptionally short. I'm pointing out a recurring pattern in history. Something you are so ignorant of it takes a government employee to fully, and willfully, misunderstand.

This period is a blip, a pause, a bubble. The victories of the Left are short lived. The progress of the Right, of civilization, is about to come undone.

If you're still alive when the wheels fall off, you'll become one of the horde, screeching for salvation, seeking to lick the boots of your betters, scrambling for crumbs. Your life, defined now by material wealth and means, will be Hobbesian.

Again, I urge you to find God and accept Jesus before then. Cast off the chains which you have willing bound yourself. Then, and only then, will the coming hardships be changed from abject mortal misery into soul edifying experiences, shared with the community of Christians.

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 5:44 PM  

"So, you agree that Gallo should be sacked because of her attitude toward Tor's NEO-NAZI customers."

Personally, No. I don't agree. However, I agree that if she expects to feel no push back over her comments, she's as dumb as the anti-gay person who expects no consequences for their statements.

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 5:47 PM  

"No, your time horizon is exceptionally short. I'm pointing out a recurring pattern in history. ..This period is a blip, a pause, a bubble. The victories of the Left are short lived. The progress of the Right, of civilization, is about to come undone."

You aren't doing a very good job of pointing to any pattern, reoccurring or not. All you are doing is making proclamations. What makes you think that there will be a turn back to persecuting homosexuals, for example?

Blogger Russell (106) June 23, 2015 5:53 PM  

What makes you think that there will be a turn back to persecuting homosexuals, for example?

The progress of the Right, of civilization, is about to come undone.

You truly have a vast reading comprehension problem, no doubt gained toiling under the insanity of the government.

So far, all you've done is state untruth as truth, mortal edifices as being eternal, and evinced a constant misunderstanding of how societies function, rise and fall.

Your entire worldview is predicated on your current existence remaining as such perpetually.

To what end are we progressing?

Anonymous I Am Irony, Man June 23, 2015 6:03 PM  

The SJW: "However, I agree that if she expects to feel no push back over her comments, she's as dumb as the anti-gay person who expects no consequences for their statements."

Are you aware that the pushback/consequences you just described is commonly referred to as 'silencing'?

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 6:09 PM  

"Are you aware that the pushback/consequences you just described is commonly referred to as 'silencing'?"

Not by any normal folks. There has been this kind of push back for centuries. Sometimes the push back occurs from a very small band with no impact, as in the Gallo pushback or it occurs among a very large group and has a huge impact, as in the response to the south to the civil rights marches and demonstrations of the 60s.

Certainly no one was silenced in the South. And certainly Gallo is not silenced.

Gallo is free to do whatever she wants. She can say whatever she wants.

Blogger Danby June 23, 2015 6:37 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger automatthew June 23, 2015 6:43 PM  

Danby, good comments, but tone down the namecalling, please.

Blogger Danby June 23, 2015 6:47 PM  

sorry. wilco

Blogger Danby June 23, 2015 6:48 PM  

Gallo is free to do whatever she wants. She can say whatever she wants.

As can Brendan Eich and Tim Hunt. So can I. What I cannot do, however, is draw the ire of the howling mob, not if I want to live in peace. So what would qualify as silencing according to the great and might SJW,?

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 6:52 PM  

"As can Brendan Eich and Tim Hunt. So can I. What I cannot do, however, is draw the ire of the howling mob, not if I want to live in peace. So what would qualify as silencing according to the great and might SJW,?"

A law preventing you from voicing your opinion.

Let me ask you a problem....If you were an employer and your VP of Marketing declared, "those niggers in the church got what they deserved" on twitter and his facebook page, how would your react?

And would you be surprised that, when word got out, that an internet mob took him to task, as well as your company and you for keeping this kind of guy on staff? And would you be shocked when the media reported the incident?

Blogger Danby June 23, 2015 7:00 PM  

And if you could be fined 350k for refusing to write "I hate niggers" on a cake, how would you react? Cause that's where we are.

Blogger Sean June 23, 2015 7:00 PM  

I can't figure out the point that this fool is trying to make. But way to drop the n word in the comments.

Blogger Danby June 23, 2015 7:01 PM  

Well, evidently, it's okay to call your readers idiots and your authors neo-nazis if you're in the publishing industry, so why not go full-bore free speech?

Anonymous ticticboom June 23, 2015 7:03 PM  

@SJW:

Do you believe that someone who points out the fact that there are far, far more crimes committed by blacks against whites than vice versa should lose his livelihood and be driven from public life?

Do you believe traditionalists have the right to do to people who support gay marriage and gender equality what was done to Eich and Hunt?

Or is it only good and just when your side does it? It seems to always come down to, "Who, whom?" with you people.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 23, 2015 7:07 PM  

I can't figure out the point that this fool is trying to make.

Could it be Philip Sandifer in disguise? I'm starting to get the same whiff. No, wait, same attitude, but not wordy enough. If he lost his thesaurus, though....

Blogger Danby June 23, 2015 7:08 PM  

@Cail,
no, the SJW is actually making declarative statements that have a content payload. He's not a fog generator.

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 7:16 PM  

"Well, evidently, it's okay to call your readers idiots and your authors neo-nazis if you're in the publishing industry, so why not go full-bore free speech?"

Danby,
You don't get it. The problem you and Vox Day have is that there just aren't enough people who care about Sci Fi Publishing AND who disagree with Gallo. That's why you lose this very, very small and inconsequential battle you've tried to start.

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 7:20 PM  

"Do you believe that someone who points out the fact that there are far, far more crimes committed by blacks against whites than vice versa should lose his livelihood and be driven from public life?"

I can't think of anyone I'd want to see driven from public life for expressing themselves. Some people are so evil they are entertaining. That said, if this statement were made and given no context at all I would not feel sorry for the person once the internet got up in his grill because he would have demonstrated that he's only being malicious.

"Do you believe traditionalists have the right to do to people who support gay marriage and gender equality what was done to Eich and Hunt?"

Speak out against them? Well of course they have that right. It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of fact.

I think what upsets you and others on your side of the line is that when you try to shame, or speak out against, or demand a reaction, you just don't get it because there are not enough people who think like you do to make any impact.

Blogger automatthew June 23, 2015 7:23 PM  

The problem you and Vox Day have is that there just aren't enough people who care about Sci Fi Publishing AND who disagree with Gallo.

I'm curious as to what evidence you're basing this assertion on.

Blogger automatthew June 23, 2015 7:25 PM  

"Sci Fi Publishing"

And don't imagine we don't know what you're doing with that phrase, there.

Blogger Lovekraft June 23, 2015 7:31 PM  

SJW: And "disgusting" is in the eye of the disgusted, isn't it.

this, my friends, sums up how pointless and self-defeating it is to engage a leftist. This person should offer a minimal level of disclosure; age, gender, race, education and employment. And the kicker question: if he/she has children, what morals is he/she teaching them/

quite irrelevant really though (see rule # 10.

Blogger Lovekraft June 23, 2015 7:32 PM  

I meant rule # 1. But I'll go ahead and submit my own Rule #10

SJWs should not be put in any position of authority over children.

Blogger Lovekraft June 23, 2015 7:37 PM  

SJW: Don't whine and try to change the rules just because you lost the argument.

I can without a doubt promise you that if you and I were to meet face to face, free of any outside authority, i wouldn't be doing any whining.

Blogger M Cephas June 23, 2015 7:38 PM  

"Choose a Name, Anonymous."

Name chosen.

Blogger VD June 23, 2015 7:43 PM  

You lost, we won...get over it.

Amusing. You win one little battle for one blip in time and you think it is over. But nothing is ever over. You clearly don't realize that the "winning" you are celebrating likely means that gays are going to be slaughtered across the West the way they are in Iraq and Syria now within 20 years.

Don't you understand that the closet was protection? The pendulum always swings back, whether we want it to or not. Everything you are celebrating as "progress" is simply the usual late stage decadence that triggers the overreaction. This is nothing new.

Anonymous Donn #0114 June 23, 2015 7:44 PM  

SJW - I think what upsets you and others on your side of the line is that when you try to shame, or speak out against, or demand a reaction, you just don't get it because there are not enough people who think like you do to make any impact.

Chick Fil A.

Blogger VD June 23, 2015 7:47 PM  

What makes you think that there will be a turn back to persecuting homosexuals, for example?

1. Islamic State.
2. Rome.
3. 1930s Berlin.
4. Uganda and other African countries.

Moral degeneracy always leads to a violent overreaction of one sort or another. That's one reason why it should be restrained in the first place. Too late now.

Anonymous I Am Irony, Man June 23, 2015 7:53 PM  

The SJW: "Not by any normal folks."

Well THAT (redefinition) was certainly an unexpected tactic. /s

Tell me -- do 'normal folks' use the dictionary? Or do you claim to be abnormal?

2 silence:

transitive verb

: to cause (someone or something) to stop speaking or making noise : to cause (someone or something) to become silent

: to stop (someone) from expressing opinions that are opposed to your own or from telling people about bad things that you have done

: to stop (something) from being expressed or revealed


Stopping does not mean only physical force; other types of pressure may also be applied. This is the way Progressives have been using it for years, and your attempt to hand-wave it away now that the roles have been reversed is duly noted.

Yes, Irene Gallo is fully able to continue to comment in the same vein, on her personal Facebook page, just as she originally did. Do you think there won't be any negative consequences regarding her Tor employment if she does? That is the conventional meaning of 'silencing' in this context, and it's rather disingenuous of you to deny that.

Now, reconcile that with your original question about silencing opposition to gay marriage, especially as regards examples like Brendan Eich and Chik-Fil-A.

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 8:32 PM  

"You clearly don't realize that the "winning" you are celebrating likely means that gays are going to be slaughtered across the West the way they are in Iraq and Syria now within 20 years....Don't you understand that the closet was protection?"

Slaughtered by whom??? The bigots who never got around to slaughtering the gays in the bigots heyday?? You think there is going to be some sort of uprising in the U.S. against gays because of legalized gay marriage when there is not one shred of precedent for that kind of reaction in the U.S? Shit, I want some of what you're smoking.

"Moral degeneracy always leads to a violent overreaction of one sort or another. That's one reason why it should be restrained in the first place. Too late now."

"moral degeneracy". I love it. This is exactly what was said about giving blacks the vote and the ability to hold office during reconstruction. This is exactly what was said would be the consequence of women voting and women in the workforce. This is exactly what was said about the consequences of desegregation in the South. This is exactly what was said of the consequences of the Loving decision. And this is exactly what was said would be the consequences after the Roe decision.

And not once was there any sort of uprising.

Listen, you just can run off a few phrases and think you are going to make a point of some kind...particularly when your phrases and circumstances bare exactly no resemblance to circumstances in the U.S.

There's no slaughter of gays coming in the U.S. for the same reason that there will be no fall out from the boycott of Tor....Not nearly enough people care about gays getting married. At least not enough to make any difference. And there certainly isn't enough caring about the issue to result in any kind of slaughter.

You know what the most vociferous opponents of gay marriage said would happen if it were legalized? That they wouldn't issue the licenses.

Oh my god!!!

Blogger Groot June 23, 2015 8:38 PM  

SJW gets points for remaining civil, but demonstrates why his attitude will lead to backlash. Works, lives with and is surrounded by SJWs, so he cluelessly thinks that everybody else is a tiny minority. Within the warren, disagreement is shamed into silence. Pretty soon they're pushing things like cross-dressing as the new normal. Then the internet, which never forgets, displays them to the world. Why this intense over-reaction? Everybody marries their sister over there, anyway, the neo-Nazi, racist, perversion-haters.

Blogger VD June 23, 2015 8:59 PM  

You think there is going to be some sort of uprising in the U.S. against gays because of legalized gay marriage when there is not one shred of precedent for that kind of reaction in the U.S?

Two years ago, gays weren't being publicly executed in the Middle East. Believe what you like. It's not going to change anything. You have methodically cut down the trees that protected you. Soon Satan will have nowhere left to hide.

Anonymous ticticboom June 23, 2015 8:59 PM  

Given SJW was the first to drop the N-Bomb, I'm pretty sure he's a vile racist trying to distract attention by accusing everyone else. Go back to Stormfront, you sick bastard.

Do your family, friends, and co-workers know what a disgusting human being you are? I have some black friends that would love to show you what they think of people who use the N-word.

Bigot.

Blogger Russell (106) June 23, 2015 9:15 PM  

@Cail

The SJW is CivilServant, an occasional commenter here.

@VD You have methodically cut down the trees that protected you. Soon Satan will have nowhere left to hide.

+1 for "A Man for All Seasons"

Blogger SciVo June 23, 2015 9:17 PM  

Nate Winchester: I do wonder that in going on the attack, we give them a single threat to unite against and slow the civil war that is inevitable among them. The best strategy may be to sow dissension among their ranks. Though obviously until this can be better formulated into a plan, frontal assault it is.

They all want to be the one who gets to decide tomorrow's thoughtcrimes. They will always fight amongst themselves; they're just more open about jockeying for position when they feel like they're winning. We have nothing to lose by making them present a fake united front, since it shifts the Overton window in our direction by taking oxygen from the most radical.

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 9:18 PM  

"Two years ago, gays weren't being publicly executed in the Middle East."

VD, get a hold of yourself. Homosexuals have been executed in the middle east for age, not just the last two years. Nothing has changed other than there now being millions more people on earth to object.

I'm still willing to ask how you think this fact about the middle east is going to have any impact on gay relations in the U.S. Who will be doing the slaughter here? The gigantic contingent of muslims? How come we haven't seen a slaughter in Minnesota.

Get a hold of yourself, VD.

Blogger SciVo June 23, 2015 9:23 PM  

(That, or the previously apparently moderate will step out on a limb with the radicals, where they can all be discredited at once. One way or the other.)

Blogger CM June 23, 2015 9:23 PM  

Slaughtered by whom???

Gawd, your dense.

Anonymous The SJW June 23, 2015 9:29 PM  

"Gawd, your dense."

I'm not dense, CM. Rather, I'm seeing someone suggest a slaughter of gays is coming to American and asking, oh, who will be doing this slaughtering? And I get no serious answer. All I get is "the muslums"! But this is crazy talk. Even worse, it's crazy talk without even the crazy explanation.

Really, can you imagine the degree of disinterest it would take to watch a slaughter of gays in America by muslims. I can't and either can you. It's just not a scenario that's on the horizon and in fact its a possibility so remote you actually have to contemplate the motives for actually suggesting it. Because I know VD isn't crazy. So there must be another reason for offering up such a batshit crazy idea other than representing his honest thoughts on the future of gay relations in the America.

Blogger Elocutioner0226 June 23, 2015 9:30 PM  

AC has a new post today on just this subject. Rabbits are rather myopic.

Anonymous I Am Irony, Man June 23, 2015 10:24 PM  

@ The SJW: You still haven't addressed the question of the silencing of gay marriage opponents, by myself or others, and contrary to your original claim.

I even pointed out the common definition as it is used in this context, if that helps you to understand 'normal folks' better....

Blogger automatthew June 23, 2015 11:29 PM  

How do we know that "The SJW" is the artist formerly known as "civilServant"?

If Vox declared it, I missed it.

civilServant was never banned, he just declined to answer a direct question, choosing instead to join the squadron led by Sir Robin.

1 – 200 of 219 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts