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

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

SJW-weaponized law

Speaking of SJWs, here is how they are weaponizing the combination of law and social media:
What’s believed to be the first case in Canada of alleged criminal harassment-via-Twitter is just a judge’s decision away from being over.

After hearing closing submissions Tuesday from Chris Murphy, who represents 54-year-old Greg Elliott, Ontario Court Judge Brent Knazan is expected to rule on Oct. 6.

In the balance rides enormous potential fallout for free speech online.

Elliott is charged with criminally harassing two Toronto female political activists, Steph Guthrie and Heather Reilly, in 2012.

Allegations involving a third woman were dropped.

The graphic artist and father of four lost his job shortly after his arrest, which was well-publicized online, and if convicted, could go to jail for six months.

These are astonishing repercussions given that it’s not alleged he ever threatened either woman (or any other, according to the testimony of the Toronto Police officer, Detective Jeff Bangild, who was in charge) or that he ever sexually harassed them.

Indeed, Elliott’s chief sin appears to have been that he dared to disagree with the two young feminists and political activists.

He and Guthrie, for instance, initially fell out over his refusal to endorse her plan to “sic the Internet” upon a young man in Northern Ontario who had invented a violent video game, where users could punch an image of a feminist video blogger named Anita Sarkeesian until the screen turned red.

Guthrie Tweeted at the time that she wanted the inventor’s “hatred on the Internet to impact his real-life experience” and Tweeted to prospective employers to warn them off the young man and even sent the local newspaper in his town a link to the story about the game.
Now, if a Canadian graphic artist who is sympathetic to SJWs can be successfully targeted by them for being insufficiently enthusiastic about their plans to swarm a target, do you seriously think you're beyond attack?

Labels: ,

117 Comments:

Anonymous Giuseppe July 15, 2015 3:25 PM  

That is why I ask your book has a section on offence.
It will not be for all, but some of us are ok to go behind enemy lines and bring it to their faces.

Anonymous Alexander July 15, 2015 3:27 PM  

b-b-but... his job! his livlihood! I thought we were reliably informed that what someone may say on the internet is no reason to cost someone their income!

Yeah, I know. SJWs always lie.

Anonymous Lulabelle (68) July 15, 2015 3:37 PM  

From the link: "“If anybody was being criminally harassed in this case,” Murphy told the judge, “it was my client, it was Mr. Elliott.” ".

And the video game inventor was harassed as well. Charges should be brought against "Ms" Guthrie.

Anonymous Soga July 15, 2015 3:42 PM  

Pay attention, people. This is how the SJWs treat their moderates.

And the SJWs, with the exception of GamerGate and Puppies campaigns, have been winning for a long time.

Moderates should be treated worse than dirt. See how successful the SJWs are when they treat their moderates worse than dog shit.

Anonymous Curious ... and all that July 15, 2015 3:43 PM  

And the video game inventor was harassed as well. Charges should be brought against "Ms" Guthrie.

Agree. This is just so obvious.

Anonymous Soga July 15, 2015 3:46 PM  

And think about it... why did GG and Puppies work?

Actually, Sad Puppies didn't work. It was the more extreme (less plagued by moderates) Rabid Puppies that punched the SJWs in the jaws.

They worked because the "moderate" elements were either not present or were excised. GG worked because moderates and various other types of concern trolls were properly disregarded as "shills".

Anonymous Viidad July 15, 2015 3:50 PM  

(snicker)

Anonymous Soga July 15, 2015 3:51 PM  

And if you're afraid of driving a moderate to the other side... don't be. Just as there are Laws of SJWs, there are also Laws of Moderates.

Moderates gonna moderate. Meaning, they will always try to stake out the middle ground no matter what. The reason SJWs have been winning is because by pulling things their way, moderates be damned, moderates were forced to move leftward to remain in the "middle", "compromising", moderate position.

Law #1 of Moderates: Moderates gonna moderate.

Thus, disregard moderates and push things in the direction you want them to go. The moderate will inevitably slide along. He will offer token resistance, but it is only token.

Blogger Quizzer W July 15, 2015 3:52 PM  

If this is a criminal case then a publicly elected (?) prosecutor had to bring charges. Or do they award jail time for civil suits in Canada? As a political cartoonist, I'll have to look to Mexico for asylum once the madness comes to the States. I expect SJW-types to be mightily offended by some of the stuff we've done on Tempest in a Teardrop.

Blogger kh123 July 15, 2015 3:56 PM  

Hopefully, Sony - and several other companies that followed the subsidies offered up north - will feel a bit of this as time goes on: Treat America as a cultural bus stop, but oblige yourselves to the letter of the law elsewhere.

Sounds like a winning strategy, Katzenberg.

Anonymous Northern Observer July 15, 2015 3:57 PM  

"“If anybody was being criminally harassed in this case,” Murphy told the judge, “it was my client, it was Mr. Elliott.”

That Reilly, who was anonymous on Twitter and who directed her own volley of hateful tweets at Elliott, should come “to this court and the police and say she’s being criminally harassed is an abuse of the system.”"


This. One would hope that these women would be facing criminal charges of their own, or at the very least that Mr. Elliott would be preparing a civil suit.

Unfortunately, I suspect that even though the court will let him off, that the judge will admonish him for being impolite. Then he'll probably thank the judge and quietly slink off.

Anonymous Huckleberry (#87) -- est. 1977 July 15, 2015 3:59 PM  

I'll have to look to Mexico for asylum once the madness comes to the States

At any rate, they can be more easily bought off, so long as you stay on the right side of the cartels.

Anonymous moderates July 15, 2015 4:09 PM  

Don't campaign for moderates or the silent majority.

The silent majority looked away in Rotherham when thousands of children were brutally raped. Weren't their children after all. And when in some years the pendulum swings the other way and thousands of immigrants burn the silent majority will again turn their backs and hear nothing. They will faint outrage in words afterwards, but they will never do anything. Rotherham voted Labour back into power.

Blogger Quizzer W July 15, 2015 4:10 PM  

Good call... drug cartels off limits. Muslims too, dangit. I can see the headlines now, "Cartoonists Killed! Cute Critter Salads Served to SJWs!"

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 July 15, 2015 4:20 PM  

I predict that the white knights will save these women and the man will face a re-education camp, much like Dinesh D'Souza is.

Blogger GK Chesterton July 15, 2015 4:21 PM  

So is there an article friendlier to her case at all? Given that she engaged in the discussion and anonymously how on earth can she claim any sort of harm?

At any rate, they can be more easily bought off, so long as you stay on the right side of the cartels.

Or the Mormons. After that Vice documentary film on the Mormon village in Mexico I was intrigued theological differences aside.

Anonymous IsMise July 15, 2015 4:22 PM  

We are only doomed if we allow ourselves to think its Game Over.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 15, 2015 4:26 PM  

An interesting aspect of this is how desperately so many people want to be moderates, like that guy in the last thread calling himself a pro-gamergate moderate. There's a strong belief out there that extreme positions are always wrong and the best (smartest and most noble) position is always in the middle.

But that's obviously not true; if you think about it for more than a minute, you'll realize there are many situations where one extreme is correct and better than the middle ground. Take the choice between drowning and not-drowning: no one would say, "Well, I'm pro-not-drowning, but I'm a moderate about it; I think drowning should have a chance." No, you just say drowning is bad and to be avoided at all times and get on with your life.

In this case, there is no moderate position, because SJWs won't let one exist. They define the sides as SJW and not-SJW. And as this example shows, "not-SJW" doesn't just mean those of us 100% against them; it means anyone who's not 100% emotionally and socially engaged with every single SJW talking point. You're with them or against them, and there's no middle ground to stand on -- because of them, not us (though we're learning).

It's amazing to watch people on Twitter try to be moderate while being attacked regularly by SJWs for straying off the reservation by saying something shocking like, "I don't think women are being shut out of gaming." No-one on the non-SJW side is attacking them like that. Only the SJWs are trying to get their account suspended, get them fired, get them arrested. Yet every chance they get, they try to shuffle back out there in the middle and say, "Hey, I'm not taking sides; please don't shoot at me!"

It's incredibly hard to get that point across to people. Even those who are under attack have a hard time letting go of their "moderate" fetish.

Blogger Rabbi B July 15, 2015 4:29 PM  

One of the things SJWs expect is that their "victims" will never hit back and nor use the weight of their own tactics against them. They expect everyone just to roll over and fall in line because we don't have the energy or willingness to expend on their childish antics. To that end, they have no compunctions about moralizing to us how we should be behaving and acting.

I present this little "exchange" as just one example from a recent experience with GRRM as an illustration:

"The idea of a Rabid Rabbi boggles my mind somewhat. As a man of god, should you not be urging peace and understanding and acceptance, turning the other cheek, etc?"

(What does he know about what I SHOULD be doing? Does he really, truly care? Is his advice sincere? No, because these people always lie - it's their native tongue).

"I would think that, being not only a Jew but a Rabbi, you would be in the forefront of those condemning Beale and his hatespeech. You should be demanding apologies from HIM, not from Tor."

(More of the same . . . )

"Whether or not the Rabids are neo-Nazis, which can be debated, the views of their leader are repugnant in the extreme, and I would think any decent person would want to dissociate himself from them."

(More of the same . . .)

"When you talk about "spewing hatred," the Rabids are the spewers-in-chief, not the victims."

(More lies . . .)

And for the finish . . .

"Irene Gallo's remarks -- which, YET AGAIN, she apologized for -- were far less hateful than the stuff that VD blogs almost
daily."

(Another lie . . .)

"VD has apologized for nothing. In fact, he has often loudly stated "never apologize" as one of his tenets."

(Brings a tear to your eye doesn't it . . .? Don't you feel their pain?)

"Yes, of course, if you had never associated with the Rabids then you would indeed "have nothing to worry about." Gallo's remarks referred to a specific group, and apply only to members of that group. This seems blindingly obvious to me."

(More sage advice . . . )

"In any case, I am tired of going around about this. The remark was made, apologies were demanded, apologies were issued. Close the book and move on. That's what we are going to do here."

(Yep, another . . you know . . . lie.)

"And buy some Tor books too. They publish great SF and first-rate fantasy, that's what matters."

(No. The truth and integrity is what matters. You get the idea . . .)

How does it go? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?

WE, with all the power of the TRUTH behind us, will ALWAYS be the ones with the moral high ground and we must defend it and maintain it and take back any of it we may have foolishly conceded to these jokers. Our numbers are unequivocally and absolutely IRRELEVANT.

I don't see too much where G-d is complaining about having too few, but rather, more often than not, the problem is too many (see Gideon).

Anonymous DT July 15, 2015 4:30 PM  

So a (beta orbiter) male is facing prison time in the name of 'online criminal harassment' for disagreeing with a SJW feminist who was actually engaging in online criminal harassment?

Words cannot express my revulsion at the mockery that western law has become.

For all of America's many problems I am grateful that the 1st and 2nd Amendments appear to be holding. A SJW infested corporation may fire you for saying the wrong thing, but government efforts to curb both freedoms are still being swatted back. I don't know how long they will last, but seeing nonsense like the new laws in Spain and this Canadian farce make one appreciate what we do still have.

Blogger Salt July 15, 2015 4:35 PM  

And, he said, of the meeting both women attended in August of 2012, to discuss how Elliott would be called out, “That was a conspiracy to commit a criminal offence … they were conspiring to go out and publicly shame Mr. Elliott.”

Those girlz have done some damage. They deserve more than being taken behind the woodshed.

Blogger bob k. mando July 15, 2015 4:39 PM  

1. Giuseppe July 15, 2015 3:25 PM
That is why I ask your book has a section on offence.



1st rule, find a chick to go on offense and file charges for you.

you note that BY THE EVIDENCE, it was these whores who were harassing MULTIPLE people.

but it's the men being charged.

that was a CHOICE of the prosecutor.

the question of whether the judge rules in his favor is almost irrelevant. the prosecutor should be disbarred for his corruption in bringing charges before the bench.

Anonymous MPC July 15, 2015 4:41 PM  

Until then, the two were collegial online, with Elliott offering to produce a free poster for Guthrie’s witopoli (Women in Toronto Politics) group.

Once again, a "good ally" is attacked by the progressive groups he supported.

Maybe it's not as hard and fast as "SJWs always lie," but "SJWs always attack their allies" seems to be a good rule of thumb.

Blogger guest July 15, 2015 4:43 PM  

WBC tactics appear to be making more and more sense every day.

Anonymous Soga July 15, 2015 4:46 PM  

MPC: He wasn't an ally, though. He stopped being an ally of SJWs when he refused to go along with the SJW plan.

SJWs recognize, correctly, that moderates accomplish nothing but sabotage. The SJW agenda couldn't be advanced if this man and others like him had their ways.

Learn from this, people. As soldiers in this culture war, you must learn the tactics of the enemy and know WHY they work. And then use these successful tactics for the benefit of your side.

Blogger Jim July 15, 2015 4:49 PM  

For all of America's many problems I am grateful that the 1st and 2nd Amendments appear to be holding.

Bake me a cake, bigot.

The first is dying. It will take judicious exercise of the second to save it.

Blogger Salt July 15, 2015 4:50 PM  

the prosecutor should be disbarred for his corruption in bringing charges before the bench

He's a she. Not surprising.

Anonymous WillBest July 15, 2015 4:51 PM  

If that is where the battle line is, then you really ought to be pulling out the guns. You aren't going to be able to win in the courts or at the ballot box.

and the man will face a re-education camp, much like Dinesh D'Souza is.

Dinesh D'Souza is going to have one killer/book documentary coming out in a few years on this, and I will be buying that day 1.

Anonymous Peter July 15, 2015 4:55 PM  

Can anyone doubt that if the vox day faction were in power they would also outlaw free speech?

No sane, good person can support either the sjw's or people like vox day. Both are merely people interested in power and without principle.

They are mirror images of each other and deserve each other.

Rule by the vox day faction would be a cruel and immoral tyranny worse even than the sjw's, who at least pay homage to the language and concepts of morality through the act of pervwriting it to gain power.

Such a perversion of morality can be fought - but a power grab by vox day type petson would be pure, naked tyranny, with no lip service to goodness even.

The human race will have matured when people like vox day and his sjw mirror images are simply ignored and relegated to the margins of society. While vox day sits at the margins and despite his desperate efforts to claw his way to the center is likely to spend his life brilliantly strategizing to hit soft, undefended targets like the Hugos, the sjw's have to join him there where together they can claw each other to death in hideous faux moral rages and shrieks.

This way the rest of us can live in peace.

We need to build guarded cities where the weird, aggressive, status obsessed people who live to make pointless power grabs and score against each other out of low self esteem can engage in their favorite sport unimpeded by, and unimpeding to, the sane psychologically healthy mature majority whose lives are not about compensating for some personal inadeqyacy.

This way the world can be happy, everyone gets what they want, the vox days can indulge in their puerile fantasies of being magnificent warrior princes who are alphas or sigma or whatever, where they gave so much status and so are so superior to everyone else, and the sjw's can endlessly make agressive power grabs under the cloak of morality.

And the rest of us, we can live in peace. Amen.

Blogger dc.sunsets July 15, 2015 4:57 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger dc.sunsets July 15, 2015 4:58 PM  

Social Media aren't.

Blogger bob k. mando July 15, 2015 4:58 PM  

29. Peter July 15, 2015 4:55 PM
Can anyone doubt that if the vox day faction were in power they would also outlaw free speech?



a-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

WE enshrined the principle of 'free speech' in the 1st Amendment.

but you accuse US of trying to destroy it.

SJWs always project.

Blogger dc.sunsets July 15, 2015 4:59 PM  

Methinks Peter is staking out the land between castles, unaware that both sides' arrows reach him.

Blogger Salt July 15, 2015 4:59 PM  

We've been visited by Peter the Troll.

Anonymous Soga July 15, 2015 5:00 PM  

Peter, you fucking moron. Listen to yourself.

You want certain advocates of certain types of speech to be suppressed... in order to promote free speech?

You're an idiot.

Anonymous zeno July 15, 2015 5:01 PM  

This is the group they belong to:

FYI only. Not a call to arms. Not my place.

Who We Are

Women in Toronto Politics is a non-partisan grassroots group that amplifies women’s voices and promotes a more inclusive civic discourse for all women. For short, you can call us WiTOpoli (rhymes with “monopoly”!).

Through events, social media and other communication channels, we spark discussion in the broader public discourse about how city issues might have different impacts based on gender and other aspects of identity (e.g. race, class, ability, sexuality). We also challenge the ways our existing civic discourse may be hostile to and/or dismissive of women as politicians, media workers and engaged residents. Finally, we create inclusive spaces, online and offline, for women and trans people to share ideas and discuss municipal politics and city-building.

Join the discussion on Twitter (#WiTOpoli / @WiTOpoli) or our Facebook page, or contribute to our work by donating below on Paypal or Patreon.

Blogger Dan in Tx July 15, 2015 5:01 PM  

Oooo, Concern Troll is concerned.

Anonymous zen0 July 15, 2015 5:06 PM  

33. dc.sunsets July 15, 2015 4:59 PM

Methinks Peter is staking out the land between castles, unaware that both sides' arrows reach him.


I think he wants to be Poland just before WW2.

Blogger Nate July 15, 2015 5:10 PM  

" do you seriously think you're beyond attack? "

Yes.

Because I don't care.

Anonymous Sevron July 15, 2015 5:12 PM  

Peteykins, we talked about this. You have to take the medicine everyday, or we're going to have to take away your juice box privileges again, OK? Nobody wants that to happen, Pete, but we can't have you skipping your medicine again, alright buddy?

Blogger Rabbi B July 15, 2015 5:13 PM  

"The human race will have matured when people like vox day and his sjw mirror images are simply ignored . . ."

Oh, just like you're ignoring us right now? Classic.

Blogger Rabbi B July 15, 2015 5:14 PM  

Damn. It's probably Tad and I probably stepped in it . . . again.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis July 15, 2015 5:18 PM  

Pay attention, people. This is how the SJWs treat their moderates.

This does need to be kept in mind, because at this moment, even the American radical right treat right leaning moderates better than the American radical left treats there's; the radical right will just discount your opinion the radical left will try to destroy you.

Anonymous Scintan July 15, 2015 5:19 PM  

MPC: He wasn't an ally, though. He stopped being an ally of SJWs when he refused to go along with the SJW plan.

SJWs recognize, correctly, that moderates accomplish nothing but sabotage. The SJW agenda couldn't be advanced if this man and others like him had their ways.


That is simply not true. You confuse "moderate" and "appeaser", as well as "SJW" and "Extremist". In both cases, you are conflating terms and concepts that are not always identical.

Or, to put it in plainer terms, even the Jacobins weren't radical enough for everyone's tastes.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 15, 2015 5:20 PM  

Can anyone doubt...

No sane, good person can support...


And blah, blah, blah. Lots of projection with a side order of divide-and-conquer.

Next?

Blogger Mike Farnsworth July 15, 2015 5:20 PM  

@Peter, you go post that same thing on some SJW blogs right now (and prove it with links) or else you're either:

1) a moderate just sniping at the right, in which case the point of all the comments here have gone completely over your head, or

2) a SJW concern-troll...in which case, carry on, because the guys here are already having great fun at your expense

I'm still leaning toward (1) at the moment, but either way, you clearly don't get it.

Oh, and Vox seems to be more of this type of person: "I seek not for power, but to pull it down."

Anonymous Soga July 15, 2015 5:23 PM  

You're not thinking hard enough, Scintan.

If "let's not attack the game dev" man had his way, where would a SJW campaign be there?

How can there be a SJW movement if SJWs listened to their moderates the way people on the right listen to theirs?

You're wrong.

Blogger Dan in Tx July 15, 2015 5:26 PM  

All of this is quite illustrative of something I've come to understand as to how this world works. If you aren't forcing your values on others they will force theirs on you. It would be real nice if we could all just live and let be but it's just not the way this fallen world works.

Anonymous Scintan July 15, 2015 5:27 PM  

You're not thinking hard enough, Scintan.

If "let's not attack the game dev" man had his way, where would a SJW campaign be there?

How can there be a SJW movement if SJWs listened to their moderates the way people on the right listen to theirs?

You're wrong.


My thinking is fine, thanks, and I'm not wrong. Your position is just incredibly stupid, and flies in the face of history.

Blogger Tommy Hass July 15, 2015 5:33 PM  

I wonder if killing these people to encourage the others would have success or backfire.

Like those faggots forcing Christian bakeries to bake them a cake. I think that may actually help rather than hurt.

Anonymous Peter July 15, 2015 5:50 PM  

Settle down, I didn't mean to make everyone so angry.

No one is trying to take away voxxie's or anyone elses toys.

You guys get to live in comfortable cities where you can play with the other children at being magnificent warrior princes, you can be super duper alphas and sigmas and endlessly strategize about how you can prove to women and adults that you're really important, we can give you soft, undefended targets like the Hugos to attack and you'll be convinced you're brilliant super amazing strategists and alphas for figuring out how to do it and that's its your first amazing victory and harbinger of amazing triumphs to come, all because you're alphas with amazing strategy powers, AND you get to constantly fight SJW'S for points, status, and power and social posituon on the hierarchy.

Sometimes you'll win, sometimes the SJWs but it'll be super awesome because you'll demonstrate your alpha powers - remwmber, dont be too nice! The gods, errr, I mean women won't approve of you - and feel like you're one of the adults.

You're happy, the SJWs who are your kindred in spirit will be happy, everybody gets their toys.

And the adults get to live in peace.

You just can't leave these cities. Small price to pay for so much awesome alphaness, no?

Deal?

OpenID johnthefaster July 15, 2015 5:55 PM  

Moderates want to have their feet on both camps, but generally they have a "preferred" alignment.

For example, moderate Muslims would be OK with living under Shari'a law, but are also OK with living under Western law. Their preference is the Muslim identity, not the Western identity.

Moderates are notorious for enjoying the company of the more radical types, but doing nothing to actually support their cause. You don't need to worry about this. Continue to do what you do, and once you have a critical mass, moderates will happily ride your coattails.

And I'm not just making this stuff up. Sociologists study this kind of thing and try to understand how subcultures work.

Never worry about appealing to moderates. The only thing you should worry about is moderates polluting the directory you're going with poz from the wrong side.

Blogger dc.sunsets July 15, 2015 5:57 PM  

No wonder I eschew Twitter, Facebook, etc.

I already have a wife and three sons (who have their own families) and a set of in-laws. I need more and closer social ties like a snake needs tap shoes. Linked-In was a joke when it came to professional networking.

"Social media" are IMHO either a vice (generating shallow, widespread relationships at the cost of familial devotion) or just another marketing arm of our over-consumption, self-destructive society.

Thanks, but no thanks.
-----------------------
As to watching people incur legal and occupational bombs by use of social media, it is like watching a 21 year old man of Irish descent get drunk and belligerent in a bar whose main clientele is black, and then get beaten, knifed and shot by the other patrons. It holds no useful lesson for me since I'd never do such a thing in the first place.

Blogger JartStar July 15, 2015 6:01 PM  

Peter you really should read this. Alpha Game: Graduating Gamma 1

Blogger Rabbi B July 15, 2015 6:02 PM  

"Settle down, I didn't mean to make everyone so angry."

It never fails . . . VD writes an SJW-related post and these little snot-gobblers crawl out of the woodwork only to make VD's case better than the original OP.

But I digress. Please, continue, as we will all now try to settle our collective selves down and listen with rapt attention.

Anonymous Scintan July 15, 2015 6:04 PM  

Never worry about appealing to moderates. The only thing you should worry about is moderates polluting the directory you're going with poz from the wrong side.

Again with the nonsense about 'moderates'.

"Moderate" is nothing more than a point on a spectrum. To someone in favor of killing every animal on the planet, a person in favor of killing half of them would be a moderate. For someone in favor of saving all the animals, a person in favor of killing half of them would be an extremist.

Language matters. Moderate is the wrong term. Stop using it. It's not the moderates who are the problem, and denigrating the moderates is an excellent way to lose your fights.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 15, 2015 6:09 PM  

Settle down, I didn't mean to make everyone so angry.

That's exactly what you intended, but instead you got laughed at. No one's angry at you; you're not consequential enough to cause strong emotions.

So you're still lying. Yawn again.

Anonymous praetorian July 15, 2015 6:15 PM  

I am naturally a moderate.

Then, one day, I woke up and my boys were outnumbered by invaders 3 to 1, homos were leading boy scout camping trips, the government was confiscating sixty-plus percent of my income, TV was all-trannies-all-the-time and abortion mills were wholesaling off baby chunks.

Seriously. Fuck moderates.

Anonymous Senghendrake July 15, 2015 6:20 PM  

Toronto is the SJW mothership.

Anonymous ZhukovG July 15, 2015 6:22 PM  

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”
Sir William Shakespeare

Some people love peace so much, that they are slow to see that war has come upon them.

Anonymous Sevron July 15, 2015 6:24 PM  

Scintan, everybody knows what's meant when we discuss the moderates. Please knock it off with your odd obsession with this shit.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 15, 2015 6:24 PM  

Never worry about appealing to moderates.

Agreed, in the sense that you should never change your position to appeal to them or give them a say in anything. But there's still an open question of how to reach a moderate -- and I mean a real moderate, someone who just doesn't understand his position is untenable, not a poseur like Peter here. I know people like that in real life: they want to be good people and try to do the right thing, but they make two false assumptions:

1) They're very invested in the idea that the middle-of-the-road position is the most reasonable one. They hate the idea of being called an "extremist" about anything.

2) They don't really believe people can be evil. Maybe Hitler and Dahmer, but not that girl who tried to get a man fired because he said chicks is crazy. She's not evil, just probably abused and confused and needs a hug.

So #1 keeps them from allying with those who defend what they care about, and #2 keeps them from seeing SJWs for what they are.

Assuming you want to reach a person like that, there are probably some tactics that will work better than others. Or perhaps the real answer is that such people can't be reached intentionally; maybe this is one of those truths that people have to come to on their own, and only then can you guide them through the waking-up process. I'm really not sure yet.

Anonymous Scintan July 15, 2015 6:30 PM  

Scintan, everybody knows what's meant when we discuss the moderates. Please knock it off with your odd obsession with this shit.

Words matter, and framing the debate is very often how you win or lose. The fact that Vox, and others, are trying to work the "SJW" into the fray at every opportunity should make this clear to you.

Blogger Salt July 15, 2015 6:32 PM  

Scintan, everybody knows what's meant when we discuss the moderates.

He's an attorney, iirc, and pedantry is part of the curriculum.

Anonymous Geoff July 15, 2015 6:36 PM  

Christie Blatchford, the author of this article, isn't bad for an MSMer.

Anonymous Ain July 15, 2015 6:37 PM  

Giuseppe: "That is why I ask your book has a section on offence. It will not be for all, but some of us are ok to go behind enemy lines and bring it to their faces."

I venture to say that's probably why he's writing it. Vox is like a general in a war.

Anonymous Soga July 15, 2015 6:43 PM  

He's an attorney, iirc, and pedantry is part of the curriculum.

That explains everything. Also, it's my understanding that attorneys tend to be moderate because then, they get to play both sides for suckers.

Scintian, if "my position is incredibly stupid, and flies in the face of history", then surely, you can provide at least 3 historical examples of moderates playing a significant leadership role in major world-changing events.

And then provide reasons as to why the American Revolution, French Revolution, American Civil War, WW2, War for Texan Independence, The Crusades, the Protestant Reformation, the overthrowing of Bolsheviks, Mao Zedong's revolution, the French and Indian War were examples of radical elements listening to moderates.

Come on. You're an attorney, you can bullshit your way through this.

Anonymous Soga July 15, 2015 6:46 PM  

I forgot the Spanish Reconquista.

But that's okay, because my position flies in the face of history....... right?

And I haven't even touched Antiquity for examples backing my position.

Anonymous outsider July 15, 2015 6:48 PM  

I have always known from my personal experience alone the world is crap, though it does have some skilled dung beetles.
Basically anything can happen, and cynicism is always the best policy.

Blogger Salt July 15, 2015 6:49 PM  

Soga, now that's funny. If you're going to play with an attorney, you gotta do it right in framing your argument.

3 historical examples? One will do.

"of moderates playing a significant leadership role in major world-changing events" - Chamberlain; moderate/appeaser, and definately had a major role.

Anonymous Soga July 15, 2015 6:53 PM  

Salt: That's not a significant leadership role in a major world-changing event, though. Chamberlain accomplished nothing, literally nothing.

Anonymous Soga July 15, 2015 6:56 PM  

But now that I think about it, that would actually be a example favoring my position.

What did Chamberlain end up doing? ... Letting the OTHER side win. My position is that at worst, moderates hurt your side. Chamberlain certainly hurt Britain's side by letting Hitler run free in Europe.

Anonymous BGS July 15, 2015 6:56 PM  

years the pendulum swings the other way and thousands of immigrants burn the silent majority will again turn their backs

We can only hope the cops will look the other way like when little white girls got raped by 3rd world moslems.

One of the things SJWs expect is that their "victims" will never hit back and nor use the weight of their own tactics against them

Actually a judge in Oregon ordered the bakery to not talk about the dikes because they dikes where getting negative publicity
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/free-shut_988096.html
"That asshole [judge] in Oregon issued his order to shut the Sweet Cakes bakers up partly because the lesbian couple — which filed the complaint — says they’re butthurt by all the publicity that their actions caused."

Bake me a cake, bigot. Was contemplating getting a gay confederate wedding cake from wallmart.

Can anyone doubt that if the vox day faction were in power they would also outlaw free speech?

Where else can you joke about Barney Frank ordering chocolate covered baby penises from planned parenthood? That joke got concern trolling even at gaypatriot.

moderate Muslims would be OK with living under Shari'a law, but are also OK with living under Western law

They are OK treating welfare/dole as jizya until they have enough numbers to win.

Blogger Salt July 15, 2015 7:02 PM  

But now that I think about it, that would actually be a example favoring my position.

What did Chamberlain end up doing? ... Letting the OTHER side win. My position is that at worst, moderates hurt your side. Chamberlain certainly hurt Britain's side by letting Hitler run free in Europe.


And that, Soga, was the result of a major significant leadership role in major world-changing events. You made my point. Attorney Scintan need not rise.

Anonymous Scintan July 15, 2015 7:05 PM  

That explains everything. Also, it's my understanding that attorneys tend to be moderate because then, they get to play both sides for suckers.

Given my position on the political spectrum, it's likely that, politically speaking, I'm less of a moderate than you happen to be. I find it amusing that you tried the "disqualify!" method with my by pointing to my being an attorney as an issue, though.

Scintian, if "my position is incredibly stupid, and flies in the face of history", then surely, you can provide at least 3 historical examples of moderates playing a significant leadership role in major world-changing events.

We're going from disregarding, and shitting on, moderates to demanding examples of significant leadership roles for moderates now, when we see moderates in power all over the world and throughout history, so that you can argue against them by erecting straw men arguments and attempting to disqualify?

Child, please.

Do you even realize that you're trying to use textbook SJW tactics on me?

Blogger Rabbi B July 15, 2015 7:17 PM  

"I find it amusing that you tried the "disqualify!" method with my by pointing to my being an attorney as an issue, though."

Oh, come now, Scintan, you know it was sardonic and intended to clarify, not disqualify, right?

Anonymous Soga July 15, 2015 7:24 PM  

It's funny you talk about disqualification, Scintan, because you're trying to DQ me as being a SJW when it's pretty clear I'm not.

For starters... SJWs primarily use rhetorical weapons, not dialectal ones.

Now put up or shut up. Prove that my position flies in the face of history. I've provided you with ample examples of when moderates were outright disregarded, as I stated in my position above.

Blogger Salt July 15, 2015 7:27 PM  

200 Quatloos on Scintan.

Blogger Thucydides July 15, 2015 7:39 PM  

Some points to consider:

Canadian Crown Prosecutors are not elected, nor are Canadian judges.

Canada has been unfriendly towards Free Speech for a long time, and if the courts don't get you the "Human Rights" commissions or their "Tribunals" will. When I read of the abuse of due process in US colleges due to Title IX in the case of allegations of rape and sexual assault, I see they got their "Star Chamber" methodology, including the inability of the accused to have representation, the inability of the accused to know the accuser or often the full nature of the allegations, and the refusal to consider truth as a defense straight from us.

Canada's "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" and the "Constitution Act of 1982" are documents worded to ring all power to the State, and have enough loopholes and weasel phrases to allow the government and agents of the State to do virtually anything without limit. The SJW ism that is flowing northwards is simply supercharged under our system. And SJWism is indeed flowing North, especially after the Conservative Party won Parliamentry elections back in 2006 and again in 2011. American groups like the Tides Foundation, AVVAZ (an offshoot of MoveOn) and other left wing groups have been pouring literally millions of dollars into Canadian political parties and funding activists who fight any and all causes that can hurt conservatives in Canada. Between them and the Public Service Unions, they have captured the Provincial Liberal government of Ontario and driven that province to a state that is actually on par with (if not worse than) Greece with irresponsible borrowing and spending. The Province of Quebec is in a similar situation, and Alberta's government has been captured by a toxic combination of PS Unions and the Socialist NDP party, which threatens to not only destroy the "Alberta Advantage" (low taxes and regulations compared to the rest of Canada), but also drag down the nation since Alberta's oil industry provided much of the tax monies the Federal government had used as "equalization" payments to the poorer provinces.

So take a deep breath and remember while you may be facing a time of trials and tribulations, other people have gone farther down that same road, and are in much worse trouble. Save yourselves, if you can, then come and save us as well.

Blogger Nate July 15, 2015 7:41 PM  

"
That explains everything. Also, it's my understanding that attorneys tend to be moderate because then, they get to play both sides for suckers."

Scintan????


Moderate???


...


So your'e new here?

Blogger Nate July 15, 2015 7:46 PM  

"Language matters. Moderate is the wrong term. Stop using it. It's not the moderates who are the problem, and denigrating the moderates is an excellent way to lose your fights."

Actually I can see scintan's point.. though I'm not at all certain its possible to use a new word this far into the game. The fact is many people who hit the middle point on an issue really DO spend their time spouting at one side, usually the side they affiliate with, more than others.

Largely because its not a particular position that makes someone moderate. Its a particular personality type that makes someone want to be a moderate... and that personality type loves to yell about tone at its own side while ignoring the other side.

Scintan... give us a better word if you can think of one.

Anonymous AntiDem July 15, 2015 7:55 PM  

Now that the mainstream right has collapsed completely (other than when someone mentions Israel - that wakes them up) the SJW Red Guards have begun turning on the moderate Old Bolsheviks. It will get worse... more common, more vicious.

Good, good... I will clap my hands at seeing another left-on-left barbecue show.

As for everyone else, use pseudonyms, and even VPNs or other security measures if you can.

Anonymous Marchog July 15, 2015 7:57 PM  

Well hello Thucydides, funny seeing you here too.

Anonymous Soga July 15, 2015 7:59 PM  

Largely because its not a particular position that makes someone moderate. Its a particular personality type that makes someone want to be a moderate... and that personality type loves to yell about tone at its own side while ignoring the other side.

Also think logically about this. Moderates are terrible opinion leaders. They can be GIVEN a position, however, to make some influence in the direction they're leaning, but it's generally by design of a more fringe element. Think about the Democrats and how they nominated moderate Democrats to make these small, seemingly inconsequential nudges to the left that eventually culminated in the open attacks on Christian baker.

If moderates had been the driving force in US politics, you wouldn't have seen that slow, inevitable march to the crackdown of bakers. You might have seen a small push toward the moderate left's position, then it would have stalled out. There would have been no political need or desire to go any further to the left. But yesterday's lunatic radical is today's moderate.

Moderates are useful if you can get them to stop firing at you and act as smokescreen for your side, the way the Left successfully did in the past few decades. Their moderates would dismiss attacks against their extremists as being unfair characterizations, strawmen, and examples of slippery slopes (which they also mischaracterized as a fallacy).

But moderates on the Right will gleefully throw the Far Right under the bus, and the Far Right has much too often allowed their moderates to establish the frame of conversations among the Right. Too often we tried to be "reasonable" and tone back our arguments and internal discussions, too often we listened to our moderates and put them into positions of opinion leadership over us. And so with leftist moderates stepping in lockstep with their more extreme elements, our moderates were dragged leftward with them.

That's how we ended up in this mess.

Anonymous Marchog July 15, 2015 8:01 PM  

Why hello Thucydides. We meet again.

In any case, indeed the collapse of the mainstream right (which is in my estimation immanent in Canada) is probably not a bad thing. As long as conservatives believe (incorrectly) that they actually hold real political and cultural power based solely on the fact that a blue-coloured political party forms the government, they'll accomplish nothing.

Anonymous Sevron July 15, 2015 8:02 PM  

Nah, Scintan won't be able to actually prove his point. He's just going to do a few laps of "Not all moderates are like that!", declare himself victorious, and flounce away.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 15, 2015 8:11 PM  

Its a particular personality type that makes someone want to be a moderate... and that personality type loves to yell about tone at its own side while ignoring the other side.

True, and I think it's also a practical decision. Whether they're aware of it or not, they do know that the two sides aren't equivalent. They know that they can talk to us, and while we may be a bit blunt and even mean at times, we won't tell them to die in a fire or try to get them arrested for expressing a dissenting opinion. SJWs will.

So if your image of yourself is that of a peacemaker who will bring the two sides together, do you approach the reasonable side or the unreasonable one? That's an easy call.

Blogger Groot July 15, 2015 8:13 PM  

@46. Mike Farnsworth: I like Instapundit's formulation: "Libertarians want to take over the world and leave you the hell alone."

As to moderates, they exist and are the vast majority, as they are simply the clueless. Most people know amazingly little, almost nothing at all about everything. Most people are also conformists (even smart people).

The combination of cluelessness and conformity means they are easily led. If only SJWs step forward to lead, moderates follow them.

This is why GamerGate and the Puppies matter. The moderates are listening, and they are educable, on occasion, and will swell our numbers. Onward!

Anonymous Scintan July 15, 2015 8:52 PM  

It's funny you talk about disqualification, Scintan, because you're trying to DQ me as being a SJW when it's pretty clear I'm not.

I never did any such thing. Now you're just flat out lying. What I said was that you were using the same types of arguments that the SJWs use.

Big difference.

Anonymous Scintan July 15, 2015 8:55 PM  

Scintan... give us a better word if you can think of one.

The appeasers. The squishes. The malleables. The jellyfish.

Any of those fit, really.

Anonymous Scintan July 15, 2015 9:04 PM  

Nah, Scintan won't be able to actually prove his point. He's just going to do a few laps of "Not all moderates are like that!", declare himself victorious, and flounce away.

Compared to me, pretty much everyone here is a moderate. Nate knows that. However, sine you people are asking such an easy question, let's look to Republican moderates who fit the bill. But, first, let's demonstrate my point about Soga. I wasn't even the one who offered up Chamberlain, yet Soga went the "Disqualify!" route, just as I said would happen:

Salt: That's not a significant leadership role in a major world-changing event, though. Chamberlain accomplished nothing, literally nothing.

Now, 3 Republican so-called moderates who led on world changing issues, and I'm not playing the "Disqualify!" game:

GWB - Iraq 2
GHWB - Iraq 1
Reagan - Fall of Soviet Union

Anonymous Scintan July 15, 2015 9:11 PM  


He's an attorney, iirc, and pedantry is part of the curriculum.


Here's one example of why we don't want to be using the word moderate:

"In 1993, moderates made up 43 percent of Americans, down to 39 percent in 2004 and only 34 percent in 2013.

“Since 2009, conservatives have consistently been the largest U.S. ideological group,” Gallup says of the change.

Many of the changes in the ideological landscape come from the Democratic Party. In 2000, 44 percent of registered Democrats called themselves moderates, while 29 percent said they were liberals and another 25 percent identified as conservative."

It's stupid to start a war of words and ideas by pissing off 1/3 of the populace

One third of the country currently identifies as moderate. Needlessly alienating that large a block of people just because some people don't want to be more accurate with their word choices is political stupidity.

Anonymous Sevron July 15, 2015 9:13 PM  

I see the problem now- you don't know what moderate means. It does not include the ruling elite, at least not when regular people use the term. Also, a political moderate is not the same thing as a moderate, although there may be overlap. You have have an aspy-like fixation on the dictionary definition of "moderate", kind of like feminists. What's next, social justice isn't really about justice so those dictionary-ignorant knaves have to change what they call their philosophy?

Look, you can tilt at this windmill all you want, I'll even crown you king of the tower-slayers, but you're not going to move the needle on what normal people call moderates, nor is it necessary; like I said before, it's perfectly understood what's meant by the term.

Anonymous Scintan July 15, 2015 9:29 PM  

I see the problem now- you don't know what moderate means. It does not include the ruling elite, at least not when regular people use the term. Also, a political moderate is not the same thing as a moderate, although there may be overlap. You have have an aspy-like fixation on the dictionary definition of "moderate", kind of like feminists. What's next, social justice isn't really about justice so those dictionary-ignorant knaves have to change what they call their philosophy?

The problem's not on my end. It's on yours. I understand the language involved here, quite well.

And you're also joining with Soga with regards to the pathetic attempts at disqualifying, in your case, via attempted associations:

"Aspy like", "kind of like the feminists"


You're attacking me, a theoretical ally, using SJW tactics, and I've been bashing P.C. bullshit since the 70's. That kind of foolishness, by someone claiming to be on the same side I've been on for decades, makes this place worth visiting, time and again, because it shows me just how far things have to go in order to get fixed.


You need to get much better at this, and you need to learn who to aim your fire at.

Blogger SciVo July 15, 2015 9:43 PM  

@ MPC: Maybe it's not as hard and fast as "SJWs always lie," but "SJWs always attack their allies" seems to be a good rule of thumb.

SJWs always eat their own because SJWs are never satisfied, a.k.a. lefty cannibalization (it's a thing).

Blogger Cail Corishev July 15, 2015 9:45 PM  

A moderate (again, a real moderate, not a concern troll or some other type pretending to be a moderate) is a person who honestly wants to stake out a middle position because he thinks that's always the correct position. Often he believes as a matter of faith that every conflict can be resolved through talking and helping the sides to understand each other, which makes his moderate position almost a moral imperative -- the extremists need him to bring them together and help them compromise.

I assume Scintan knows people like this, as I do, so he distinguishes them from the knowing appeasers. The moderates I know truly believe the above; they're not pretending. They really do want to take the middle position, and they think they have. However, for reasons we've discussed, they end up appeasing the SJWs and sabotaging the other side more often than not. So they aren't allies, even half-allies, no matter how much they might think so. They can't be even half-allies until they give up the delusion that their "moderate" position is viable.

Scintan says we shouldn't alienate them, because there are a lot of them and they're decent people. On the face of it, that makes sense. I don't want to push most of the people in my family to the other side. However, let's say you offend a moderate, so he calls you a meanie and goes and appeases the SJWs some more....which he was already doing anyway. What have you lost, really?

On an individual basis, it might make sense to try to reach them. If your brother is a reasonable sort, but he has a blind spot about SJWs, thinking they're just harmless weirdos wanting some acceptance, you might be able to make some progress with him. But it'll take a lot of work, if it works at all. On the other hand, when a random "moderate" pops into an online forum and starts playing "Why can't you guys just get along?" I'm not sure there's anything to be gained by being nice to him. If you look at the pattern of several recent threads ("Aaron" being the last one I recall), when you attempt to reason with them, they just argue and move the goalposts forever.

That makes sense, because the moderate isn't trying to understand; he thinks he already understands. He's just trying to get us to give up our "extremism" so he can preside over the peace treaty. And he really doesn't want to have to go talk to the SJWs instead, because they'll cut a bitch.

And more often than not, after dozens of comments back and forth, you realize the pop-in moderate was really a concern troll all along anyway. So the average cost/reward ratio of playing nice gets even worse.

Anonymous Sevron July 15, 2015 9:47 PM  

I don't care about theoretical allies. Lead, follow, or get out of the way, but nobody is asking for your approval. You've been bashing PC bullshit since the 70s? From the looks of things, you were super effective. Or maybe just not enough people got on board with your dictionary lectures?

Honest questions- are you confused by what we mean when we say moderate? Are you under the delusion we can't be successful without them? Do you believe the Left needed them?

Blogger Salt July 15, 2015 9:47 PM  

Should have bet more Quatloos on Scintan.

Blogger automattthew July 15, 2015 9:59 PM  

Sevron, you're way over your head here. This is a high-context conversation, and some of the context involves knowing long-time commenters.

Scintan is making a very important point. It so happens that I disagree with him on a surface level, but that does not in any way diminish the significance of what he's saying. At a lower level, all of the cogent grownups in the room understand that there exists a group of people who say they have no allegiance, but they act otherwise.

We're arguing about what label should be applied to that group.

Scintan wants to preserve the term "moderate", by refusing to apply it to that group.

Some others of us realize that the term "moderate" has already been coöpted, and we want to burn the motherfucker down.

It's much like the situation with the Hugos.

Anonymous Scintan July 15, 2015 10:00 PM  

I don't care about theoretical allies. Lead, follow, or get out of the way, but nobody is asking for your approval. You've been bashing PC bullshit since the 70s? From the looks of things, you were super effective. Or maybe just not enough people got on board with your dictionary lectures?

Honest questions- are you confused by what we mean when we say moderate? Are you under the delusion we can't be successful without them? Do you believe the Left needed them?


Of course the left needed them. Get back to me when you're willing to talk like an adult, and with some modicum of knowledge and respect. Right now you're blathering on like an impudent child who knows nothing about himself or the world around him.

And the right's been losing for the better part of 100 years, so you belittling my personal efforts just emphasizes my point about your aim.

Anonymous Heaviside July 15, 2015 10:21 PM  

>Chamberlain certainly hurt Britain's side by letting Hitler run free in Europe.

It was Britain's war with the Axis that cost it its empire.

Anonymous Sevron July 15, 2015 10:31 PM  

OK, we do it your way. We stop referring to the problem moderates as moderates, even though that seems to be most of them, and we instead call them Squishes. We could even start calling the moderates beloved of you Heroes, if you like. Now what? Is it your belief this will swing the Heroes to our side, it at least stop them from shooting at us? What do you base this belief on?

Anonymous Starets July 15, 2015 11:04 PM  

"Scintan... give us a better word if you can think of one."

How about 'schoolmarm'? Is it not so much a case of staking out a middle position, as one of policing words and behaviour? Somewhat like the blue haired middle school teacher scolding her young male charges for rough housing on the playground. Where a prim and fussy order to stop playing dodgeball because 'somone might put out an eye' is analogous to 'don't be so mean to the SJW chick, she might start to cry'.

Anonymous zen0 July 15, 2015 11:08 PM  

>Chamberlain certainly hurt Britain's side by letting Hitler run free in Europe.

Chamberlain was merely following British policy moves from the last few decades. Churchill was on board with appeasement in earlier times.

Chamberlain failed to see that this time it was different. Wrong default strategy.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 15, 2015 11:36 PM  

give us a better word if you can think of one.

I think the word is "chickenshit." Or Gamma. Gamma may be better, because we're mostly talking about people with active moderate positions - they don't want conflict, but they can't keep their mouths shut either so they attack their allies thinking they're less likely to hit back. I think that distinguishes them from some guy who just has a moderate position on a issue.

The "Moderates" we're bashing here are people who want to have their opinion heard without being criticized because of it.

Blogger J Thomas July 16, 2015 12:17 AM  

Yeah, up here in Canada we don't have much freedom. What we have is feelings. It is quite sad.

Blogger rho July 16, 2015 3:13 AM  

To put it in terms the commentariat might understand, "moderates" are Deltas in a sea of Alphas, Sigmas, Gammas and Omegas who care more than the Deltas.

Blogger bob k. mando July 16, 2015 3:26 AM  

51. Peter July 15, 2015 5:50 PM
You just can't leave these cities.


a - we're the one who come from the rural areas, smegma licker. look at any county by county voting map.

b - amusing that you've now moved the goalpost accusations from "against free speech" to "dickhead PUAs". how bout you figure out what you want to accuse us of and once you make up your mind you come on back, ya damn two year old.



91. Scintan July 15, 2015 9:04 PM
Reagan - Fall of Soviet Union



Reagan, the man who was going to nuke the Evil Empire back to the stone age was a moderate?

what the hell are you smoking? Reagan was far and away the most 'Right'-ward candidate available in 1980 and for several prez cycles before that. certainly the most Right possible since Goldwater. certainly more Conservative than any Repug *nominee* since.

jeezus, almost all of the 1960s-80s establishment Repug candidates were Nixon / Kissinger "we can't possibly win against World Communism so we let's appease China" pansies.

Anonymous Heaviside July 16, 2015 4:23 AM  

>Reagan - Fall of Soviet Union

Hitler deserves the credit for that one. He did more than any other single person to end the Soviet Union as a geopolitical entity and to stop the spread of communism.

Blogger ScuzzaMan July 16, 2015 6:22 AM  

bob k: Right and Conservative are not synonyms, are they?

Reagan was hard Right, but he was no conservative. He massively increased government spending, ruinous foreign military adventurism, and interference in the private affairs of the citizens.

Blogger Shimshon July 16, 2015 6:23 AM  

I don't know where Linus Torvalds stands on SJWs, but this quote rocks:

Torvalds is also well known for his sharp tongue — when an audience member at a recent talk asked Torvalds if he thought his manner was turning off members of the Linux community, he replied "I don't care about you."

I. Don't. Care.

Does he read VP?

Blogger VFM bot #188 July 16, 2015 10:00 AM  

Sympathetic toward Scintan. Language matters in general, and framing the debate matters in particular. It's also reasonable to avoid potentially alienating a large cohort, the 1/3 who self-identify as "moderates".

All that said, Cail's analysis is also compelling, as are those who have said "moderate is a useful term that's been cemented into place by usage, and there doesn't appear to be an acceptable alternative at hand."

Problem is, we're so far gone that SJW victories are multiplying and accelerating. That's why places like this are growing and attracting adherents. Bottom line is that our situation is so dire that catering to "moderates" on any level is becoming pointless. So fuck'em. Burn it down.

Blogger VFM bot #188 July 16, 2015 10:05 AM  

Hey...how about "accommodationists"?

Lotta syllables, I know, but...fitting. Thinking of Reagan snarling "How about we win and they lose?" Who was he talking to? "Moderates"? No. "Accommodationists".

(Now accepting overwhelming applause.)

Anonymous Scintan July 16, 2015 1:19 PM  

And this:

what the hell are you smoking? Reagan was far and away the most 'Right'-ward candidate available in 1980 and for several prez cycles before that. certainly the most Right possible since Goldwater. certainly more Conservative than any Repug *nominee* since.

v. this:

Reagan was hard Right, but he was no conservative. He massively increased government spending, ruinous foreign military adventurism, and interference in the private affairs of the citizens.

is an great example of why I said I would not play the disqualify game. It's also a great example of why using the word "moderate" is stupid.

Thanks for the demonstration on both points, gentlemen.

Anonymous patrick kelly July 16, 2015 1:22 PM  

Ok,so:
Moderates are not the concern trolls who are only concerned about those opposing the SJWs/Marxists/??

Appeasers are not moderates, they are traitors and shills for the enemy.

So what evil nasty moniker should be applied to concern-trolling-appeasers?

Anonymous Tim Meehan July 16, 2015 3:48 PM  

Yes, Vox, this is really a problem. Thank you for covering this important issue.

As I am under a publication ban in Canada I cannot say more until the verdict is rendered in October, but as a Law Society of Upper Canada student, I informed both the Law Society and the judge about the shenanigans of these women.

A special shout-out to Scalzi from asg-x.

Anonymous Tim Meehan July 16, 2015 5:38 PM  


If this is a criminal case then a publicly elected (?) prosecutor had to bring charges.


In most provinces, the police lay the charge and the Crown Attorney decides if they will prosecute. However, there are directives that must be followed, and policies, like don't plead on DUIs and indictment rather than summary. These are determined by the Ministry of the Attorney General. While I don't know for certain (as LSUC refused to look at the case, requiring me to be amicus curai by writing to the Court) this was related to breaking conditions of a peace bond. He spent a week on remand before making bail.

Any policy directives on charge screening, though, must follow the principles of fundamental justice and equity. There is a concept that certain prosecutions, while technically valid, are not in the public interest. This prosecutor failed Mr. Elliott by pursuing a breach of condition matter in this manner (and that assumes a breach of conditions occured).

This is not advice, I am not a member or the NB or Mass. Bars, etc.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts