Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Dialogue with a moderate

This discussion between Nate and a #GamerGate moderate should help illustrate the essential problem with the moderate perspective and demonstrate how they are never truly on the side they nominally claim to be supporting. It should also make it clear that for all his posturing and preening, the moderate is guaranteed, on the basis of his own unprincipled philosophy, to be a loser.

Mr. Scary Cell @gameragodzilla
If you respond to disagreement with any of these: Shill, Concern Troll, Divide and Conquer, you want a hugbox just like SJWs do.

Nate @bloggerblaster
horse shit. moderates shooting at their own side because they are scared to shoot at the actual enemy. Concern Trolls suck

Mr. Scary Cell @gameragodzilla
Fuck this tribalistic "us vs. them" crap. If you can't handle dissent, you're no better than "the enemy".

Nate @bloggerblaster
We didn't make them the enemy. They made us the enemy. Talk to them.

Mr. Scary Cell @gameragodzilla
So? If you refuse to allow dissent and dismiss criticism with labels, you're no better than "the enemy".

Mr. Scary Cell @gameragodzilla
I'm not dismissing your criticism of me. I'm still talking to you, aren't I? Meanwhile, you dismiss all criticism from me.

Nate @bloggerblaster
more poser bullshit. Look son...we're being punched. and now you're bitching at us because we're punching back.

Mr. Scary Cell @gameragodzilla
I'm not gonna engage in the same tactics SJWs do when it's their tactics that make me dislike them in the first place.

NOTE:  The tactics are what make him dislike SJWs. He apparently has no problem with their ideals or objectives.

Mr. Scary Cell @gameragodzilla
If I "punch back" in the exact same manner, then there is no functional difference between me and "the enemy".

Mr. Scary Cell @gameragodzilla
If you handle dissent this way, then I have no desire to help you "punch back". And nor will the vast majority of people.

Nate @bloggerblaster
But using dialect to people who only respond to rhetoric is not only ineffective its actually counter productive.

Mr. Scary Cell @gameragodzilla
I don't compromise my principles for what is supposedly "effective", especially when I remain unconvinced that your rhetoric will do anything other than alienate those who might be sympathetic but aren't as extreme.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
That's because you're ignorant. Aristotle explained your position was hopelessly wrong 2,400 years ago.

Mr. Scary Cell @gameragodzilla
I'm criticizing the idea of using the exact same tactics SJWs do when SJW tactics are what make me dislike them.

Vox Day @voxday
Then you have no principles. It is the objectives that are relevant, not the tactics.

Mr. Scary Cell @gameragodzilla
It's the tactics that I find distasteful about SJWs in the first place. If I use those tactics, I'm' no different.

Nate @bloggerblaster
You'd rather lose than win wrong. Then go away loser. We want to win.

Mr. Scary Cell @gameragodzilla
Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.

Vox Day @voxday
Compromise what? You have no principles. You dislike certain TACTICS. That's just style over substance. That's etiquette!

Mr. Scary Cell @gameragodzilla
My principles forbids the use of certain tactics.

Nate @bloggerblaster
so you admit it. You'd rather lose than win wrong.

Mr. Scary Cell @gameragodzilla
Winning by becoming just like SJWs is no victory at all.

Vox Day @voxday
You're being a complete idiot. TACTICS do not make you like the other side. They have different objectives.

Nate @bloggerblaster
I would tell you that history is full of losers with your view. but it was written by those that killed them. so no.

Mr. Scary Cell @gameragodzilla
And history is also full of people who fought against monsters and eventually became them in the end.

NOTE: I actually double face-palmed here...

Vox Day @voxday
No, it's not. That's a stupid aphorism that isn't even remotely close to being true.

Mr. Scary Cell @gameragodzilla
And I'm supposed to just accept that so I can beat whichever enemy is in vogue right now? No thanks.

Vox Day @voxday
That's fine. Then lose. That's what moderates always do.

Mr. Scary Cell @gameragodzilla
If the extremist tactics on either side win, I lose either way

Nate @bloggerblaster
sounds like you're used to losing already. So honorable!

 Vox Day @voxday
That's what we've been telling you.

Labels: ,


«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 233 of 233
Blogger John Wright October 27, 2015 10:48 PM  

Continued from above

I am great puzzled why civilized men and Christian gentlemen cannot see the difference between fighting another Christian king or commonwealth, who respects the Peace of God, and fighting the barbarian who believes in total war, war to the knife, war to the teeth.

If you fail to notice the difference between the way Christian enemies act and should be treated,and the way the children of Ishmael or the children of Sodom should be treated, then you hold Christianity to be equal to its mere opposite, and you offend Our Lady, and the angels weep for your lackwittedness.

Certainly turn the other cheek when your brother strikes you. But when he strikes from ambush latches his teeth on the throat of your crippled and harmless daughter like a mad beast, what then?

I do not know what Amish or Seventh Day Adventists or Christian Scientists think about the Just War doctrine, but we Catholics were an old and wise church even before we passed through the purging fires of thousand years of war with Islam from the Seventh Century to the Seventeenth, not to mention wars with Norsemen and Huns and so forth that helped to for our character. We have a place both for monks who vow never to raise a sword and for knights who vow never to sheath it.

Deus Veult! I say death to the SJWs as I would say death to a nest of scorpions.

I call upon Saint George to witness my oath, Saint Demetrius, Saint Theodore Stratelates, Saint Mercurius and Saint James Matamoros.

Simple rule: civilized rules for civilized foes. Gentleman's rules for gentleman. Barbarians, Mohammedans, Huns, Dogs, and Socialists are enemies of God and Man and therefore must be caned back into their dens, and terrified into submission, or slain.

Biblical scholars will remember that the horrifying commands given the Children of Israel to blot out every living thing that breathes was not directed against the sojourner, or stranger, or even the Hivites, who surrendered, and not (as it is in Islam) against all outsiders not conquered and enslaved, but to the Amelekites, whose enmity toward the Jews could not be quenched, and a few other specific foes.

Such are the rules of war and of sportsmanship. It is the way civilized men behave.

Civilization is not a suicide pact, nor is sportsmanship is way to throw a game to a team that cheats, nor is the normal courtesy of apology meant to be a weapon in the hand of an enemy.

The benefits of such rules extend to to others who abide by them, and no further. One apologizes to a gentleman whom one has wronged. One does not apologize to a mad dog, one clubs it to death with a shovel.

2 of 2

Blogger Daniel October 27, 2015 11:02 PM  

Here's my dialog with a moderate:

Me: Don't wander into the middle of the road, idiot.

Moderate: Stripes!

Blogger Sevron October 27, 2015 11:03 PM  

Here here. JCW knocks it out of the park again.

Blogger Cail Corishev October 27, 2015 11:04 PM  

They are natural allies with the Mohammedans: both are humans who have repudiated their humanity, thinking subhumanity is stronger.Both praise subhuman barbarism, both hate Christ, both despise civilization.

Yes. Those who think SJWs and Mohammedans are natural enemies must be falling for the homo-propaganda that says everyone is defined by his position on homosexuality. The fact that SJWs worship homos while Mohammedans sometimes kill them (while engaging in plenty of buggery themselves) by no means makes them natural enemies. They may not particularly like each other, but they don't need to to be allies. They share a common enemy whom they both hate far more than they could ever hate each other.

Blogger Groot October 27, 2015 11:22 PM  

@201. John Wright:
"I say death to the SJWs as I would say death to a nest of scorpions."

My fertile, woody loins produce offspring, often of the female persuasion, and I think of the SJWs as the natural end product of a feminization of some institution, usually state-supported. Death is the least-favored outcome. They are feelz and squealz, the latest shows and isn't such-and-such so cute?! They love baby animals. They love the bejeebers out of me. And they are so easy to tickle and make laugh and inspire to goofiness. They are not evil, even if they will grow to vote in the evil.

The path we must take, in my view, is not a violent path, strewn with bodies, but a path whereby the SJW, the sperg, the sociopath, are quietly shushed. The rules of the game are where the leverage lies, cleanly and with no shovel.

OpenID Jack Amok October 27, 2015 11:37 PM  

After you shoot him 8 times..

8 Times. That would imply motherhood, apple pie, and a man with an M1911.

Blogger FP October 28, 2015 12:11 AM  

Ugh, all this hate! Come on, these guys over in Finland seem rather moderate to me:

We just need to dialog with them, get to know them better. Yeah, thats the ticket.

Blogger Donn #0114 October 28, 2015 12:13 AM  

Again I find myself in agreement with Mr Wright. Christian men are not all called to the same tasks. We have to recognize our gifts and callings if we are to succeed and we all need to support each other however we can.

As he said some are called to the sword and some are not. A moderate on the other hand is just an enemy who only shoots at his own side. Our battles are fought shoulder to shoulder locking shields.

There is a reason that God despises the moderate. He cannot be trusted not to let a gap in the line and the enemy get into the rear.

OpenID Jack Amok October 28, 2015 12:15 AM  

Do you really think that the goal of ending SJW-ism, for example, justifies physically destroying them?

Yes. It also justifies destroying anyone who gets in the way.

Blogger Koanic October 28, 2015 12:39 AM  

"therefore must be caned back into their dens, and terrified into submission, or slain."

This is like where "Awake in the Night Land" is SO HARD and then climaxes with a middle-aged date night in the restaurant at the end of the universe, Wright? Sweet Our Lady of Oneitis. I suppose it's not quite as bad as Cowboy and Spaniardo duelling past Singularity VR porn for ye faire maiden's light-years-distant hand. Save a skin flake and make two, FFS.

The best character you ever wrote was the wolf who trashed his master's corpse. Read Peter Watts for the materialist darkspiration counterpoint to your Ptolemaic Pollyanism. Redemption should be precious, not predictable. PTSD exists cuz real protags don't shift ugly off-camera. Raep.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit October 28, 2015 12:43 AM  

Rabbi B. asked earlier: who died?

All the apostles.

Blogger Double E October 28, 2015 1:26 AM  

I see. So if the SJWs use cars and computers to further their cause, we should avoid those tactics lest we be "just like them"

Blogger John Wright October 28, 2015 4:52 AM  

"This is like where "Awake in the Night Land" is SO HARD and then climaxes with a middle-aged date night in the restaurant at the end of the universe, Wright? Sweet Our Lady of Oneitis. I suppose it's not quite as bad as Cowboy and Spaniardo duelling past Singularity VR porn for ye faire maiden's light-years-distant hand. Save a skin flake and make two, FFS."

I can't read your crazy moon language. (

I do have a manic depressive brother in law who suffers from what used to be called 'Flight of Ideas' which consists of words and acronyms of a secret lingo strung together without any rhyme or reason, but delivered with great emotional force, as if some desperate secret were on the brink of being conveyed, and so your method of speech is not unknown to me.

Blogger Stingray October 28, 2015 8:44 AM  

Mr. Wright, I found myself wanting to hop on my table and loudly cheer your comments from last night. I will be saving them. As you sometimes take comments and put them at your own blog, I ask you to consider doing that with your own from here. Too many people do not understand what you have stated having been brought up in the "church of nice".

Blogger John Wright October 28, 2015 9:21 AM  

"As you sometimes take comments and put them at your own blog, I ask you to consider doing that with your own from here."


Blogger BassmanCO October 28, 2015 10:10 AM  

Mr. Wright, you stated much more eloquently and precisely what I was trying to state much earlier in the comments. Well done, sir.

Blogger Tommy Hass October 28, 2015 10:31 AM  


"We weren't looking to conquer and enslave them, we wanted to stop fighting and go home."


Yeah right. I mean, had the Fat Man not been dropped over Hiroshima, there's no way Japan would've stopped attacking you. Had Truman asked "We will stop killing your people when you stop killing ours" the Japs would've denied it. /sarcasm

Didn't Churchill say something along the lines of "We shouldn't offer Hitler a peace, he might accept!"? Or the fact that Japan only attacked the US because they thought an invasion by Americans was inevitable so they said "What the fuck" and shot for the moon by bombing Pearl Harbor and potentially shell shocking Americans. (didn't work, lol)

Blogger Tommy Hass October 28, 2015 10:40 AM  

"both hate Christ"

I don't know who wrote this, but whoever it was, he is an ignorant punk.

JCW, was it you? In that case, let me inform you: it's not my kind that hates Jesus. It's your wife's kind that does.

Blogger Carl Philipp October 28, 2015 10:42 AM  

@217 And I'm sure all those nuns in Constantinople were busy plotting to rape jihadis.

Blogger Koanic October 28, 2015 11:24 AM  

If brevity is the soul of wit, unintelligibility is the height of it. Twas but too toothsome jest, to wit:

conjunction "or" unfortunate derailed your screed importunate - in manner reminiscent.

Honest teamwork's looming means my blackheart funnybone's dooming; I fear I must apologize and be more unassuming.

This name is burnt with freedom foul; I'll pick a pick a nick with lesser scowl. For though TheRedSkull's visage grim, Koanic is a shark to him.

Blogger Blaster October 28, 2015 11:49 AM  

John Wright's sports analogy is spot on. Very eloquently written. The other I might consider in the context of the OP is a videogame analogy, where SJWs are the cheaters who use glitches and hacked software (lies and propaganda) to give themselves infinite health and ammunition to cause grief and take the top slots on all community leaderboards. The countermeasure tactic involve two steps: IDENTIFY the cheaters by detecting their abuse of glitches, and then KICK/BAN them.

In my experience, self-styled moderates miss the "identify" step, then argue that the kicks and bans are abuse of power. When moderates hear language like "you cannot reason with these people," it makes them feel bad, because they miss the part where we've explained that yes, they are fucking cheaters-- they have been caught glitching themselves infinite health (lies and subversion) and that's why they are being banned.

Blogger Danby October 28, 2015 11:52 AM  

@Tommy Haas
Your kind love the Jesus that doesn't exist.
Jesus as He is, Jesus as Son of the Living God, Jesus God, you hate. You hate Him with a passion, with the fiery intense hatred of a thousand suns.
You love your make-believe Jesus.

Blogger Were-Puppy October 28, 2015 1:00 PM  

@213 John Wright

I can't read your crazy moon language. (


Blogger Were-Puppy October 28, 2015 1:04 PM  

@222 Danby
@Tommy Haas
Your kind love the Jesus that doesn't exist.
Jesus as He is, Jesus as Son of the Living God, Jesus God, you hate. You hate Him with a passion, with the fiery intense hatred of a thousand suns.
You love your make-believe Jesus.

A Straw-Jesus.

Blogger Were-Puppy October 28, 2015 1:07 PM  

Moderates do not understand that if two sides are in a battle of survival, then they are not going to be tolerated by either.

If I was in a fight with 5 guys with knifes, and some idiot intervenes to prevent me from using a gun, he get's the first bullet.

Blogger TheRedSkull October 28, 2015 1:07 PM  

This loathsome fellow hath gat hence
No longer shall the poets wince
(Wolfish infiltrate commence)

Blogger Were-Puppy October 28, 2015 1:08 PM  

Who here want's to let someone else stupidity to cause our doom, raise your hands.

Blogger Durandel Almiras October 28, 2015 1:41 PM  

Where is part 2?

Blogger Paul Widdecombe October 28, 2015 6:43 PM  

Surely the defining difference between Social & Antisocial Justice is that the former is based purely on shifting alliances whereas the latter has a fixed, external, absolute point of principle.

The strengths of the two movements are therefore respectively:

SJW: Nihilistic, solipsistic, values based on narrowly focussed clusters of identity politics with overlapping shared interests, able to score tactical victories by agile adaptation & forging powerful alliances to overwhelm defences.

Anti-SJW: Idealistic, outward looking, from a broad range of interests, based on shared ideals, able to form genuine grassroots defensive reactionary opposition & coherent offensive strategies when properly oriented.

Correspondingly, each has their own weaknesses.

SJW: Directionless, easily divided. Supremacy in the hierarchy is decided by any given unit's usefulness to any given group at any given time. Usefulness which, in turn, depends on unsustainable levels of intensity which hinders the ability to develop a cohesive strategy and consistently apply it.

Anti-SJW: Hypocritical, dogmatic, liable to procrastinate & pontificate. The exacting standards of the abstract ideals makes real world leaders difficult to find & easy to attack on principle. Supremacy within the hierarchy may be accorded on the basis of effectiveness. Whereas something other than self-interest may define what that is, it may in turn be at odds with aforementioned principle. Distraction techniques also work well against something that is implied rather than present.

Blogger Paul Widdecombe October 28, 2015 6:44 PM  

Assuming the above to be true, it is safe to say that any attempts at comparison of the tactics SJWs use against the strategic wisdom inherent in the traditions and ideologies they seek to replace are doomed to failure, not just as false equivocations, as argumentum ad temperentiam / populam / baculum, nor even are they destined to fall on the incompetence of their syllogisms.

Such comparisons are simply category error. Tactics != Strategy

SJWs can have no coherent strategy other than destruction. No offensive tactics are permissible to the Anti-SJW for any purpose other than defence.

To move away from the topic of strategy vs tactics for a moment, contemplate the nature of each. SJWs seek to divide, to isolate, to polarise. Those that oppose them draw on the shared values that civilisation is built upon.

Spoiler Warning: All the preceeding verbiage was of course foreplay to enable me to spout off some half baked moderate wishy washy, namby pamby, half baked "Jesus loves" you crap that has been brainwashed into me by the evil 17th century Kaballist Spinoza, so if you have only made it this far in the hope of being able to get off on how you would shoot me in the face if I tried to get in the way of your constitooshnl right to unload ordinance towards dangerous enemy nationals, it was worth the wait.

I can understand that some envy the ruthlessness that defines the SJW crowd, but it rather baffles me why anybody would want to ape their ruthless divisiveness. Whilst a house divided is a great place to throw a party, it isn't somewhere that I would like to live.

I don't look at intersectional Feminists in awestruck admiration at the purity or versatility of their polemic (cant even decide which it is...) when they move to ban other feminists for suggesting that other feminists with whom both parties disagree may be worthy of debate. I rightly consider it to be a manifestation of insanity.

Let's call it "meta-conflict". Do you really want to get into that? Whilst we can agree that swift furious rage driven application of blunt force trauma is an appropriate response to discovering somebody in flagrante delicto non consensuallissimus with your nearest and dearest or a young person, it strikes me as rather unproductive to insist on the excommunication of anybody who might tolerate the existence of a personage guilty of insufficient enthusiasm for instant execution of anybody who failed to prevent the act.

SJWs is as SJWs does. The moment you take up arms in somebody else's defence you declare "W"ar in the name of "J"ustice on behalf of a member of "S"ociety. That somebody may be a member of your family, a neighbour, a fellow countryman, a member of your ethnic race, or the human race. The difference comes down to a combination of whether you actually represent the wishes or interests of the people you purport to defend, along with proportionality of the solutions you propose relative to the magnitude of the problem in something other than your own imagination. The difference also lies in good part on whether you are able to apply some degree of fairness and equality in how you proscribe transgressions. Whether you can put yourself in the shoes of the accused and ask how you would have acted in their position.

And yes, that does lead onto "I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me, I'm just a poor boy from a poor family...." Every ideology contains the seeds of its own destruction in this fallen world.

Blogger TheRedSkull October 28, 2015 11:12 PM  

Well, that was brilliant, although I am mystified as to whether I agree with whatever the eventual conclusion was.

As Jesus demonstrated, sometimes baffling your would-be persecutors is enough.

Blogger Patrikbc October 29, 2015 12:18 AM  

only 8 times, You watching your budget?

Blogger Paul Widdecombe October 29, 2015 2:09 PM  

The conclusion? When you are intolerant of tolerance you must guard your ilk against the perils of Fitna.

Warrior / Monk symbionts should focus their energies on defeating the forces of evil arrayed against them, for sure. I don't suppose that there is anything particularly novel to the history of Christendom in the kind of bickering that occurs on threads of this nature. We have expended far more blood & treasure throughout history battling to prove ourselves the most pious / ruthless than we ever have on our enemies.

The thing that occurs to me though is that these discussions tend to be rather one sided; attack & destroy the moderates as fifth columnists. Does such a thing as a meta-moderate exist around here, or are they despised too? Just a question, as it seems a reasonable proposition to suggest that some moderates might be worth winning over, especially the ones who walk the walk & tackle the extreme views of the opposition with equal or greater vigour.

Pigs MIGHT fly, after all.

But then again, even if they don't, the point is that the final destination of extreme prejudice is not the exclusion of mythical moderates, it is suspicion, division and exclusion of everybody.

Let's say the purging of the moderates eliminates 50% of the membership who were a hodge-podge of tepid supporters and fifth columnists. So you've eliminated all of the fifth columnists, but now the centurion has 25 meta-moderates angry at the treatment of people they felt to be loyal comrades. Rather than try to figure out which half of them could be brought back into line, they are all purged too. 15 of his most loyal followers are unable to withhold their dismay & they too must be purged, as meta-meta-moderates cannot be tolerated either. The unit has literally been decimated...

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 233 of 233

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts