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

Monday, October 12, 2015

Mailvox: Irrelevant

To be more specific, irrelevant and outdated drivel written by a coward and a liar. That's the answer to a question I was asked by a reader concerning my response to this ridiculous guest post at Monster Hunter Nation by Charles Gannon:
My thought for the day:

Choose your battles carefully.

If you find yourself constantly in combat, you’re not being choosy enough.

Or you’ve decided that you are actually at war. Which means that you are now committed to destruction, not discourse.

No value judgments implied, but it was a call for courteous self-awareness when in discourse, and, more directly, a kind of diagram of what our discursive behavior tells us about our deepest motivations: are we talking to communicate or do battle? At no point do I imply that battle is always avoidable, or even wrong; just that it’s important to know when you’ve crossed the line, and what that really means.
This is remarkably stupid on two counts. First, you can't always choose your battles. When it comes to war, it takes one to tangle. I didn't choose my battles with SFWA, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, the Toad of Tor, McRapey, McRacist, George Rape Rape Martin, or Worldcon. They chose to attack me, completely unprovoked, and with the exception of Martin, I had never even heard of any of the losers prior to them attacking me. I didn't cross any lines. They did.

What separated me from everyone else they attacked was that I was willing and able to not only fight back, but break their megaphones. Clueless and cowardly suckups like Gannon find self-defense reprehensible; he is just hoping that he'll be eaten last. That's why he favors unilateral disarmament with regards to rhetoric.

Second, we are in, at the very least, the fourth decade of a cultural war that has its roots in the social justice ideals of JS Mill. You could quite reasonably argue that we are actually in its second century. The time for discourse is long over. There is literally nothing to discuss. Either all individuals and institutions are wholly given over to social justice, as Mill declared, or the war continues. Would-be fence sitting moderates (who, like all moderates, only shoot at the side they supposedly, nominally, support), are totally useless, yammering about the dire need for something that is both impossible and irrelevant.
On the other hand, Trial by Fire was the only SP-recommended novel that did not make the Hugo ballot. It was also the only SP-recommended novel not included on Vox Day’s authoritarian slate. I will let you decide if there might be some relationship between those two data points…

As many know, my presence on the SP recommendation list came as a surprise; I did not learn about it until a few days (a week?) later, when someone commented on it on my FB account. Perceiving it as a list akin to dozens I’d seen floated during Hugo and Nebula seasons since I first became an SFWA member in 1990 (I think), the one concern I voiced to Brad (Torgerson) was that I was only comfortable being included if Vox Day (whose proclivities were known to me only via general third-hand report) was not on the list. Which he wasn’t. So then I went back to work (I’m fortunate to have a number of novels under contract) and pretty much stopped following the Hugo process. (I’m the parent-on-call for four kids, so I don’t browse FB feed much and sometimes wonder why I even have a Twitter account…)

When I learned about the Rabid Puppies and Vox Day’s activities (which prompted my research into the details of his prior commentaries upon race, women, and more), I contacted Brad and we agreed that everyone must follow their own conscience if push came to shove. I should add, for the record, that I not only respect fellow-novelist Marko Kloos immensely for the choice he made, but I also understand what may have been his instinct not to add to the unfortunate spectacle until and unless circumstances made it incumbent upon him to do so.
There is a relationship, without question. Had I included Gannon's novel on the RP list, it would have been nominated, just like Kloos's. I didn't include it because I hadn't read it, I'd never heard of him, and now I'm glad I didn't because apparently Gannon is the same sort of cowardly SJW kiss-ass that Kloos is. Gannon and Kloos are like the National Review of science fiction. I was quite happy to see Kloos withdraw his nomination too; I warned Brad that it was useless trying to support moderates like him because they always run away from the heat. They come up with all sorts of noble excuses, but you can't help but notice that the direction is always the same: away from criticism and conflict.

I can't claim those various declined nominations were any part of my strategy, but I certainly expected to see them. Because moderates are always cowards, that's the real reason they're moderates.

Anyhow, Gannon is not only a liar, he's a rather stupid one to boot. Not only am I not an authoritarian, but it would be hard to find anyone on the planet who gives less of a damn what people do so long as they don't a) bother me or b) destroy Western civilization. And really, b) is pretty much a subset of a).

Notice that Gannon was willing to write me off entirely on the basis of "general third-hand report" while openly palling around with the likes of Scalzi. That means that his calls for civility and discourse are entirely meaningless. To claim that someone is outside the bounds of discourse means YOU have declared yourself their enemy and you do not merit any civility or respect from them in return.

Gannon poses as a moderate, but he isn't actually one. He's on the side of the speech police. He's on the side of the thought police. He may not be an SJW, but he is on their side, no matter what those who believe they are his friends might think. He'll turn on them eventually, of course. And when he calls my slate "authoritarian", he's doing what SJWs always do. He's projecting.

What the likes of Gannon don't realize is that they're entirely behind the times. They're still living in the 1990s. They think their pointing-and-shrieking, and false equivalences, and attempted disqualifications will somehow magically achieve disqualify "extremists" like me. But neither truth nor reality are on their side, and it's rather remarkable that someone who is supposedly intelligent still hasn't realized that yet.

Especially when the other side is writing delusional things like Laura Mixon:
“Bullies and abusers rely on the larger community’s desire for comity—our willingness to live and let live—to impose their will and silence dissent. In such a case, it’s incumbent on people with standing in the community to speak up against them, providing a counterweight to their destructive ideas. By speaking when she did, in my view, Irene was doing what other thought leaders in our field like N. K. Jemisin, John Scalzi, and the Nielsen Haydens have done: guarding the health and well-being of our SFF community by standing up against hate speech.”
I absolutely refuse to be a part of any community that has "thought leaders" of such an observably low quality. They are not only thought and speech police, they are proud of policing what they denounce as "hate speech". What they call "destructive ideas" are better described as "history, science, and logic".

Labels: ,

112 Comments:

Blogger Alexandru October 12, 2015 8:26 PM  

Honestly I have no idea who he is but I read the open letter and it grossed me out. What a sniveling wanker.

Blogger The Other Robot October 12, 2015 8:30 PM  

Who the f*ck is Gannon?

Gotta check out this non entity.

Blogger The Other Robot October 12, 2015 8:34 PM  

OK, so he might have written a short story about 120lb females besting a Male Kzin with one kick or something like that.

Blogger Jack Ward October 12, 2015 8:34 PM  

B is a subset of A. I can admire all that. As long as a reasonable version of civilization exist there is hope. When civilization is fully on the ropes [yeah, I know, it probably already is] then, the stuff starts hitting the fan. Trick is to be a thrower [and, a dodger] and come out smelling not too badly.

Blogger Geir Balderson October 12, 2015 8:47 PM  

"...the one concern I voiced to Brad (Torgerson) was that I was only comfortable being included if Vox Day (whose proclivities were known to me only via general third-hand report) was not on the list. "

He is after all leading from his behind. What an weasel! If he had taken the time to learn about Vox and have some courage to listen to his positions he may have come around to a thoughtful right-minded decision. But, then again, I doubt he is that type of person. He will follow the sjw hoards to hell.

Blogger Michael Maier October 12, 2015 8:48 PM  

Hey, Vox: Don't hold back, tell us what you really think!

I'm sick of the moderates too. They're like the coward marshal / sheriff / lawman in TOMBSTONE.

Blogger Soga October 12, 2015 8:50 PM  

Typical Gamma.

Doesn't get included on someone's slate? Call him an authoritarian, which is pretty much calling him a Nazi, which is pretty much the worst thing a cuckservative can think of calling people.

This just reads like butthurt over being unable to ride someone's coattail to a Hugo. I almost can picture him holding a gun to his head while standing on the edge of the roof of a tall skyscraper while he dictated the letter to someone, crying and sniffling all the while.

OpenID Steve October 12, 2015 8:54 PM  

gives less of a damn what people do so long as they don't a) bother me or b) destroy Western civilization. And really, b) is pretty much a subset of a).

Latrina's 21 illegitimate crack babies bother me because money comes out of my paychecks for their support.-BGS

Blogger VFM 188 October 12, 2015 8:56 PM  

In reading Gannon's essay, I found it to be wordy, prolix, and tedious. I hope all his writing isn't like that....

Blogger ajw308 (#98) October 12, 2015 8:56 PM  

The Psychotic Left by Kerry Bolton is a good read. It correlates other authors who've documented these repeating patterns run by the same flawed personality types from the French Revolution on. SJW's are nothing new, nor are their mindsets or mentalities. There's been thousands of Charles Gannon's throughout history and gutters of blood have always flowed from their works.

If his type is in constant combat, the Defenders of Liberty are doing their jobs.

Blogger ajw308 (#98) October 12, 2015 8:58 PM  

Bad link above. The Psychotic Left

Blogger Cataline Sergius October 12, 2015 9:07 PM  

The biggest problem with centrist, moderates is that they view the left as their intellectual peers. They are the people to be engaged whenever possible. They ultimately want the left's intellectual respect.

They never hesitate to sneer at and look down upon anyone who is farther to to the right than themselves. Particularly religious conservatives.

No Dr. Gannon is not an SJW but he most certainly a waffling windbag.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler October 12, 2015 9:07 PM  

'Them darn Looosers". Chanelling the Trumpster. The Trumpster has a wide effect.

Blogger Krul October 12, 2015 9:24 PM  

Ayn Rand on moderates:
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil."

Blogger Wednesday October 12, 2015 9:30 PM  

I tried to read Gannon's essay, because I always like to hear opposing perspectives and make sure I'm not falling victim to groupthink. I gave up halfway through. What a terrible writer! His writing's muddled, his ideas are muddled, and I don't think even he knows what he's trying to say.

This guy was a nominee on the sad puppies side? He was the best they could find? God, no wonder nobody reads Sci-Fi anymore.

Blogger Hammerli280 October 12, 2015 9:32 PM  

Good grief. I've never seen Vox pick a fight, only counterattack.

OpenID Jack Amok October 12, 2015 9:32 PM  

Vox Day’s activities

Oooooh! Activities. That sounds ominous. This Vox Day character must be a bad man if he's engaged in "activities."

In other news, I was reviewing resumes for a job opening today. One of them listed "social justice" under "hobbies". Unfortunately, that just didn't push the poor guy over the edge into the "consider" pile.

Blogger IM2L844 October 12, 2015 9:49 PM  

I was only comfortable being included if Vox Day (whose proclivities were known to me only via general third-hand report) was not on the list.

Critical thinking isn't really his long suit. I don't need to read his little diatribe on behavioral ethics to know it's full of holes. He should stick to things he knows. Philosophy ain't one of 'em.

Blogger JCclimber October 12, 2015 9:50 PM  

Vox has picked a few fights, a quick perusal of Me So Michelle would inform you of that data. However, you could say that Vox was provoked by the attack of sheer stupidity and lack of research that went into her book...

Blogger Daniel October 12, 2015 10:03 PM  

The only thing you need to know is that Gannon asked to post this on a dare. Coward from the gate. Courage would not only have inspired a different argument from Gannon, but also the initiative to post a broadside on its own merit.

I dare him to go crawl in a hole and whimper himself to sleep. What a heel.

Blogger maniacprovost October 12, 2015 10:10 PM  

I bought Gannon's "Fire with Fire" and it was all right. It wasn't particularly SJWish. More naively moderate, or leftist like a good Hollywood movie (oxymoron), I suppose.

I didn't get the sequel because I had heard rumors of his squishiness.

Blogger Groot October 12, 2015 10:30 PM  

"I am a communication specialist, have worked in that role in various capacities for over 30 years, and have seen (and been asked to help manage) this phenomena [sic] in many different scenarios."

He's been lying and cheating people for decades, with his painful, turgid prose just salt in the wound. The comments are ten times a better read than "the essay."

Blogger maniacprovost October 12, 2015 10:50 PM  

If you can’t communicate effectively, you can’t solve problems—not unless your “problem” is waging a war to utterly exterminate your opponent.

Hm. Clearly we are not the target audience.

Blogger Tucci October 12, 2015 10:56 PM  

"...the one concern I voiced to Brad (Torgerson) was that I was only comfortable being included if Vox Day (whose proclivities were known to me only via general third-hand report) was not on the list."

Hm. What kind of author declines critical recommendation of his work (that's what "the list" comprises) for no reason other than the fact that the list-compilers might have also endorsed as noteworthy the efforts of a writer to whom he objects?

How much confidence does Gannon have in his own works - like Trial by Fire (Baen, 2014) - that he would refuse his titles' mention "on the list" if said "list" speaks of any such title in the same breath as the fiction of somebody to whose unspecified "prior commentaries upon race, women, and more" Gannon takes exception?

Why the hell would he care? Would he refuse to see his books shelved in the same bookstore that also sells the works of the man he condemns as "authoritarian"?

Is he afraid of contamination, or is it just that he's not sure he can compete?

OpenID Steve October 12, 2015 11:04 PM  

What could go wrong here? http://whitegenocideproject.com/german-schoolchildren-will-cook-and-clean-for-refugees-as-part-of-work-experience/

Blogger Carl Philipp October 12, 2015 11:06 PM  

@24 Worse than that. At that point, he hadn't even looked up what Vox supposedly said on race, women, and more, relying only on "general third-hand report". So he willfully negligently took gossip as truth.

The Ninth Commandment is not a suggestion.

Blogger Cail Corishev October 12, 2015 11:16 PM  

Can anyone tell me what "the parent-on-call for four kids" means? Dad?

Blogger automatthew October 12, 2015 11:20 PM  

Gannon writes like a real world Church Lady trying to imitate the SNL Church Lady.

Blogger automatthew October 12, 2015 11:23 PM  

What the likes of Gannon don't realize is that they're entirely behind the times. They're still living in the 1990s.

Hello, Fire. Let me introduce you to my little friend, Fire.

Blogger ScuzzaMan October 12, 2015 11:26 PM  

@jack amok
Re "activities"

Are they what regimes do? I notice the Syrian government is always a regime. It has to be the stupidest, most transparent of emotional manipulations, yet it is universal in the MSM, at State, and etc, and it seems to work on large portions of the public.

Aa an experiment, try talking to people about the regime in DC or London. The honest puzzlement is v funny.

Blogger The Original Hermit October 12, 2015 11:48 PM  

Regardless of the *ahem* merits of his essay... This is just more signalling, isn't it? Because he didn't receive the nomination, he was under the radar during the Hugo kerfluffle. But now that things have settled down, the SJWs need a new sacrifice. He's got to do penance for being on the SP list or they'll turn on him.

Blogger Danby October 12, 2015 11:52 PM  

Verdammt. 5K words of unreadable prose. This guy is a published author? A communications specialist? I presume a communications specialist is a PR flack.
I swear I could feel my language neurons trying to escape as I trudged through his wall of vacuities and never-quite-saying-what-the-hell-he-really-means.

Blogger Danby October 12, 2015 11:54 PM  

@31 Hermit
Good point.

Blogger Soga October 12, 2015 11:56 PM  

@25 BGS: What could go wrong here? http://whitegenocideproject.com/german-schoolchildren-will-cook-and-clean-for-refugees-as-part-of-work-experience/

Looks like the German elites really want their own spiffy little Rotherham. Can't be letting the Brits steal all the progress.

Blogger bw October 13, 2015 12:02 AM  

..the fourth decade of a cultural war that has its roots in the social justice ideals of JS Mill. You could quite reasonably argue that we are actually in its second century

Damn right we are. Much older than the plebes care to think about.
We're out here. You ain't alone...as if you give a shit. Irony + Truth is hilarious... Bring it. Keep making your stand Brother. Fuck 'em.

Blogger The Original Hermit October 13, 2015 12:37 AM  

@27 "Can anyone tell me what "the parent-on-call for four kids" means? Dad?"

My guess is his wife is the actual bread-winner. He's housewife first, writer second. If his household duties interfere with his writing it doesn't negatively impact their finances because his royalties don't even pay for the electricity to run his PC.

Blogger Desiderius October 13, 2015 12:47 AM  

"No value judgments implied"

SJW always lie.

Blogger ray October 13, 2015 12:56 AM  

Four decades of the latest assault, and yeah about a century of concerted mass warfare against God and the sovereign nations of the west.

Of course the roots are much older. But this amount of evil on the plate is sufficient for current efforts.

Blogger StrongCoffee61 October 13, 2015 1:12 AM  

Thinking of this unfolding mega-tragedy of America and the radically different approaches to our future, has created an analogy in my mind.

I see America as a once beautiful, healthy, intelligent White female who has become darker and uglier, obese and unhealthy, and increasingly temperamental and stupid
.
I see this 400 pound mulatto, with a hacking cough, gratefully accepting Twinkies and cigarettes from the Progressive. The progressive tells America that she's beautiful and that the asbestos falling from the ceiling is magic fairy dust and the lumps on her breast are beauty marks.

The Patriotic Realist tells America that if gets the power he's going to patch the ceiling, take away the junk food and cigarettes, and take her kicking and screaming to the hospital where she's likely going to have surgery and begin chemotherapy.

The cuckservatives tell America in a smooth soporific voice " Uh, you know, I think you're beautiful and smart, buuuut, and don't get mad at me, I think you should maybe cutback a little on the cigarettes and junk food.

The Progressive: " You vicious cuckies and Patriotic Realists are mean spirited obesitists, lumpists, and asbestos haters.

The cuckies: " No, no, no! I apologize if I seemed too brusque. Please forgive me. I don't want to be divisive and I'm optimistic that everything's going to be o.k. Look I've got rainbows and unicorns on my undies. Please don't get mad at me.

Patriotic Realist: I don't give a rat's ass what you call me. America's dying of your progressive cancer and I'm going to be as divisive and realistic as it takes to get America to accept what she knows, deep down, is the truth.

Too many, otherwise good and patriotic, conservatives are afraid of getting out of their comfort zone. They're cuckholded by fear. Perhaps, if Trump gets the Republican nomination, the cuckies will learn that their proper role is to let the stronger minded take the lead in Conservative politics.

Blogger Pseudotsuga October 13, 2015 1:43 AM  

The main problem with Gannon's argument is the idealism of "can't we just get along?" it is clear to me that the SAPs (Scalzistic Anti-Puppies) are not interested in doing so. They NEVER argue or act towards that idea; indeed, they cannot, since doing so would be to nullify their signaling that the other side is so bad.
SJWs always lie, and Gannon fell for it in his desire to signal "nice" to them.
At one time, I would have agreed, but thanks to Malwyn and her expertly applied whips, now I don't care.

Blogger Jill October 13, 2015 2:35 AM  

I'm just tired of morality lectures. I get enough of those on Facebook.

Blogger Markku October 13, 2015 2:55 AM  

the one concern I voiced to Brad (Torgerson) was that I was only comfortable being included if Vox Day (whose proclivities were known to me only via general third-hand report) was not on the list

I was waiting for Vox to make this public knowledge.

Ladies and gentlemen, this person here is the reason Rabid Puppies came to exist. Otherwise there would only have been Sad Puppies, under Brad's leadership, and it wouldn't have been nearly as efficient.

I think an unwitting minion badge is in order.

Blogger Dago October 13, 2015 3:49 AM  

Vox,
It is a pleasure to read you. I am genuinely learning a lot about why/how that 30 point IQ gap makes us look deranged/fanatical/racist/homophobic/etc etc to most so-called normal people. I am also genuinely beginning to see some very definite patterns concerning how people of this type (that is our type) develop and evolve.
We definitely have a component of attention to detail that others classify as Aspie (and I truly do think there is something to this from.a biological perspective but my working theory is that in small doses our mirror neuron "defect" is actually a positive genetic trait) as well as a love for truth firmly rooted in justice even more than logic I would say.
And lastly, it is a pleasure to see that, though we may be few, and we may differ in certain aspects of our philosophies either due to our experiences or our current understanding of them (to say nothing of our personalised use of concepts we have evolved individually), that we agree on one point most certainly: we are at war.
Giuseppe

Blogger Steve, the Dark Ninja of Mockery October 13, 2015 6:43 AM  

My thought for the day:

Choose your battles carefully.


Says the guy who's never been in a ruck.

Or you’ve decided that you are actually at war. Which means that you are now committed to destruction, not discourse.

"Maybe if we're polite enough to the SJW's, they'll stop SJWing!"

No value judgments implied, but it was a call for courteous self-awareness when in discourse, and, more directly, a kind of diagram of what our discursive behavior tells us about our deepest motivations: are we talking to communicate or do battle?

Theoden: I will not risk open war.

Aragorn: Open war is upon you whether you would risk it or not.

On the same day, I learned that John Scalzi (who has always been friendly and polite to me) had mentioned my novel Trial By Fire (favorably) on his blog. He wrote that, “Also, I think it’s possible that some Puppy nominees could have gotten onto the ballot on their own steam — in the novel category Chuck Gannon has been nominated for a Nebula two times running, so I think he could have had a decent chance at the Hugo.”

He got a pat on the head from Scalzi. How cute.

Scalzi is a SJW, and what do SJW's always do? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

TRIAL BY FIRE was, now that you've mentioned it Chuck, not worthy of a Hugo.

Because it was boring.

Sorry, but it's true. I paid good money to read TBF and FIRE WITH FIRE, and they were bog standard uninspired sci-fi-by-numbers, with a tiresome protagonist who we're constantly told is SPESHUL and AMAZEBALLS and MANKIND'S ONLY HOPE!

Informed Abilities are a trope any good writer should avoid. But it can be forgiven if the story is otherwise enjoyable. Caine Riordan's adventures aren't particularly enjoyable or even amusingly (in a MST3K way) bad. They're just meh. If a book is a small piece of the author's spirit, Chuck Gannon has the soul of a Honda Civic - reliably unremarkable.

I've read much better books for free on Kindle Unlimited - B.V. Larson's books might be derivative and pulpy, but they're ten times more fun than Gannon's work.

Trial by Fire was the only SP-recommended novel that did not make the Hugo ballot. It was also the only SP-recommended novel not included on Vox Day’s authoritarian slate. I will let you decide if there might be some relationship between those two data points…

"I'm not like Vox. Vox is Bad Man. Please like me!"

As for the rest of Chuck's boring and gratuitously verbose screed:

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. - God.

What does it mean to be a man? Must we, like low-T middle aged college professors, be grey and wishy-washy like a damp dishrag hanging limply over a leaky tap?

Or should we strive for awesomeness?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 13, 2015 6:46 AM  

Can Gannon offer any proof of this intellectual discourse he mews about?

Blogger endwatcher October 13, 2015 6:54 AM  

Reading this site has helped me to move out of moderate positions, which were occupied due to fear instead of conviction. When you decide to be for God, you can't be lukewarm. When you believe in a divine order, the bottom (man, especially degenerates) are not to rule the top.

Blogger Cail Corishev October 13, 2015 7:14 AM  

My guess is his wife is the actual bread-winner. He's housewife first, writer second.

Except then he'd be the "parent," not the "parent on-call," right?

I guess I've gotten used to having to parse out what SJWs really mean by overly long phrases, especially where family and relationships are concerned. It's like when someone always says "partner" instead of "husband/wife," and you know he's either hiding something or trying to make a point. I hear "parent on call" and start wondering about poly group homes and surrogates and such.

I know, he's not a SJW. As a moderate signalling to SJWs, maybe he's automatically speaking their language for no other reason. Phrases like that just make me wonder what's being signalled.

Blogger Steve, the Dark Ninja of Mockery October 13, 2015 7:24 AM  

Except then he'd be the "parent," not the "parent on-call," right?

Fuck knows what "parent-on-call" means. He was probably aiming for cute, missed, and hit confusing instead.

Maybe the word "father" is triggering, what with all its heteropatriarchal connotations.

Darth Vader: No. I am your parent-on-call.

Luke Skywalker: No... that's not true! That's impossible!

Darth Vader: Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

Luke Skywalker: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOOO!

Blogger Cataline Sergius October 13, 2015 7:28 AM  

Ladies and gentlemen, this person here is the reason Rabid Puppies came to exist. Otherwise there would only have been Sad Puppies, under Brad's leadership, and it wouldn't have been nearly as efficient.

I knew it had to someone like that. I had figured it was Kloos. Gannon wasn't even on my radar.

Brad is one of the good guys, a superb writer and a most excellent teddy bear but he is not one nature's rabble rousers.

Blogger The Original Hermit October 13, 2015 7:59 AM  

@47 "Except then he'd be the "parent," not the "parent on-call," right?"

Probably shipped his kids off to school, so he's outsourced his parenting and only has to do it when the kid gets sick. Or it means something entirely different. I'm just guessing here.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer October 13, 2015 8:12 AM  

The use of "authoritarian" to describe Vox's Hugo recommendations struck me as strange. How can a list of recommendations be authoritarian?

And of course, Vox is the antithesis of an authoritarian. He is a Christian libertarian.

He isn't the one calling people who, if they weren't guilty of wrong think, would be considered minorities by the SJWs, white supremacists.

Blogger Cail Corishev October 13, 2015 8:37 AM  

Probably shipped his kids off to school

Ah, and he's the one the school calls if there's trouble. That would make sense. Still seems like "dad" would be more fitting, but that kind of exclusionary, triggering speech isn't appropriate in some venues.

Blogger The Original Hermit October 13, 2015 8:49 AM  

His original post was on Scalzi's blog over a month prior to republishing it on Monster Hunter nation, so he's definitely playing to a different audience.

Blogger bob k. mando October 13, 2015 8:59 AM  

48. Steve, the Dark Ninja of Mockery October 13, 2015 7:24 AM
Darth Vader: No. I am your parent-on-call.
Luke Skywalker: No... that's not true! That's impossible!
Darth Vader: Search your feelings. You know it to be true.
Luke Skywalker: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOOO!


very nice, very nice indeed.


speaking of whether moderates are on 'our' side or against us ...

how does pledging 100 million dollars to create artificial primary challenges NOT count as an attack?

and why aren't they doing this to the Demoncrats?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/12/chris-wallace-establishment-business-groups-ready-to-primary-conservatives-if-they-dont-play-ball-with-paul-ryan/

you see why i told that mewling drive by clown moderate last week to kiss my ass.

Blogger MendoScot October 13, 2015 9:18 AM  

@43 Dago
We definitely have a component of attention to detail that others classify as Aspie…

Very true, Giuseppe, and in keeping with this concept may I point out that to Brits you are a wop (dv: guappo), not a dago (contraction of hidalgo, although my dictionary insists that it’s Diego), and certainly not a wog (Brit. colonial worker of the government, prob. Egyptian). Out of respect for our esteemed host, we like to keep our ethnic slurs accurate.

Blogger Koanic October 13, 2015 9:34 AM  

The royal taxidermists have despaired of constructing trophies from the original material, declaring it "beyond ruined".

Blogger Brad Andrews October 13, 2015 10:02 AM  

I can't get authentication to work over there. It keeps complaining about things being setup wrong.

The author there is an idiot. His complaint in the comments that Tea Party people (I think) are just as bad in Congress as the left completely ignores the impassive stance the left takes on every issue they champion.

Standing for repeal of the travesty known as the ACA is horrible, but refusing any modification outside the illegal ones Obama has made outside his scope of authority are fine?

That would just be one example. You can't work with a group that is aimed at your extinction.

Sounds to me like "Mommy, mommy, Billy hit me back!"

OpenID Steve October 13, 2015 10:02 AM  

@47 . I hear "parent on call" and start wondering about poly group homes and surrogates and such

I figured he is such a bad writer that to pay his bills he has to rent his kids out to Phil Sandifer, and he has to clean things up when he is called.-bgs

Blogger Markku October 13, 2015 10:08 AM  

The use of "authoritarian" to describe Vox's Hugo recommendations struck me as strange. How can a list of recommendations be authoritarian?

Reading the original post, I didn't even realize it would become a controversial statement. I thought it's obvious that the nature of Rabid Puppies is authoritarian, and Sad Puppies democratic. That's exactly what makes Rabid Puppies work, as evidenced by the fact that the one title that was not on it, didn't get through.

Vox says, if you want to be a Rabid Puppy, then these titles are what you have to vote, whether you have read them or not. That's an authoritarian SLATE. On an authoritarian blog. That doesn't make Vox authoritarian.

Brad says, "here's some suggestions, acquired from a popular vote. Vote for them, or not, or vote for something else entirely. As long as you are Sad in spirit, you're with us." That's democratic.

And democratic is shit.

Blogger VD October 13, 2015 10:12 AM  

Vox says, if you want to be a Rabid Puppy, then these titles are what you have to vote, whether you have read them or not. That's an authoritarian SLATE. On an authoritarian blog. That doesn't make Vox authoritarian.

Authoritarian in the broadest sense of the term. Dialectically correct, but dishonest rhetoric.

Blogger Markku October 13, 2015 10:20 AM  

Yes, I was pretty sure you'd make that comment.

Damn I hate this rhetoric stuff. I understand it, and can and will use it when necessary, but I absolutely hate the fact that words become vague and nebulous.

God is authoritarian. God is arbitrary. These things follow from definitions in a straightforward fashion that cannot reasonably be objected to.

But use those particular words, and even a certain snowball wouldn't trade for those chances.

Blogger Rabbi B October 13, 2015 10:29 AM  

"Choose your battles carefully."

Yeah, because the battles never choose you.

When it comes to war, it takes one to tangle. I didn't choose my battles . . . They chose to attack me, completely unprovoked . . . I didn't cross any lines. They did.

It's a simple principle: We are not making war with anyone, nor is that our desire. But once they choose to make war with us and attack us unprovoked for no discernible reason, all bets are off and they can be sure we will take the fight to every city and stronghold in which they live. To do anything less only encourages more attacks and concedes defeat.

You don't negotiate with terrorists . . . ever.

Blogger James Dixon October 13, 2015 10:52 AM  

> “Bullies and abusers rely on the larger community’s desire for comity—our willingness to live and let live...

So long as you bow down before us and recognize ourrsupreme authority over every aspect of your life.

Hey, Laura, as I mentioned in another conversation yesterday, there's this saying involving a horse....

And yes, you can consider that hate speech if you want.

Blogger James Dixon October 13, 2015 10:54 AM  

> I figured he is such a bad writer that to pay his bills he has to rent his kids out to Phil Sandifer, and he has to clean things up when he is called.-bgs

His kids, bgs? I wouldn't be willing to make a bet on that.

Blogger James Dixon October 13, 2015 11:07 AM  

Reading through the post, I come upon the following:

> My own answer is to keep talking amiably with people from all over the spectrum, regardless of however different (or not) our opinions may be.

Unless they're named Vox Day, of course.

> I believe that if we insist on civility (as distinct from passivity), we will hasten our climb out of this discursive tailspin and enhance our collective ability to celebrate SF & F, regardless of its source or style.

Sure, Charles. Why don't we start by asking the employees of major publishers to not compare their writers and readers to Nazi's in their professional publications on Twitter? Maybe we could even ask them to avoid using profanity to women at public events? Or do you think that would that be asking too much?

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus October 13, 2015 11:18 AM  

John Scalzi - the men (in prison) want him, and the women want to be him.

Blogger Russell (106) October 13, 2015 11:19 AM  

@9 VFM 188
In reading Gannon's essay, I found it to be wordy, prolix, and tedious.

I slipped into a comma after the third paragraph, but awoken feeling energized. Thanks, Gannon!

Blogger VFM 188 October 13, 2015 11:25 AM  

I think an unwitting minion badge is in order.

For this idiot? Weak, stupid, and irresponsible as he is? Absolutely!

Blogger VD October 13, 2015 11:26 AM  

Damn I hate this rhetoric stuff. I understand it, and can and will use it when necessary, but I absolutely hate the fact that words become vague and nebulous.

I'm sure bomber pilots hate AA guns. And yet, they exist. Either one shoots back or one retreats. Those are the options.

OpenID Steve October 13, 2015 11:33 AM  

His kids, bgs? I wouldn't be willing to make a bet on that.

His wife must have told him the kids are brown because he went in the wrong hole.

OpenID Jack Amok October 13, 2015 11:50 AM  

I'm sure bomber pilots hate AA guns.

They frequently even hate the ones on their own side.

Blogger Danby October 13, 2015 11:56 AM  

@Markku
God is arbitrary.

No, Allah is arbitrary. Our God is a God of perfect Reason.

Blogger Rabbi B October 13, 2015 12:23 PM  

"No, Allah is arbitrary."

Who?

Blogger Danby October 13, 2015 12:28 PM  

@73 Rabbi
The imaginary god of the Arabs and other Paynim. An illiterate conglomeration of the attributes of the Jewish view of God, and the Christian God.

Blogger Markku October 13, 2015 12:40 PM  

Took longer than expected for someone to fall for that.

1. Depending on will or discretion; not governed by any fixed rules; as, an arbitrary decision; an arbitrary punishment. [1913 Webster]

The word has become to have the connotations of capriciousness and despotism, but it doesn't have them by nature. God is not governed by fixed rules but rather makes His decisions according to His will. Therefore he is by definition, arbitrary.

Blogger Rabbi B October 13, 2015 12:59 PM  

"The imaginary god of the Arabs and other Paynim."

Heh, heh . . . yes, recent arrivals.

They sacrificed to false gods, which are not God— gods they had not known, gods that recently appeared, gods your ancestors did not fear. (Deut. 32)

Blogger Sevron October 13, 2015 1:23 PM  

The Commandments are all entirely arbitrary- there's no physics law that would inform you that murder is wrong or that you shouldn't commit adultery. On the contrary- if I kill somebody and take his stuff, that's way easier than making stuff myself. It would also be super-useful with adultery to be ethically allowed to kill my spouse or my paramour's spouse if either objects.

I was forced to take a class on contemporary morality (ugh) in college as a freshman, and it really did change my life. The class was a desperate attempt to somehow convince you that a moral system can be created ex nihilo, but really proved the opposite. All moral systems rely on arbitrary axioms.

Blogger Markku October 13, 2015 1:43 PM  

It is understandable, but false, to think that arbitrary implies bad.

All human wills are evil. Therefore all arbitrary systems that we see, go bad quicker than rule-based systems do.

But God's will is the one good will.

Blogger Sevron October 13, 2015 1:53 PM  

@Markku

Agree. My thought at the time was, since all moral systems are equally arbitrary, may as well go with the one written by God. Worst case scenario, it's at least as good as any other one.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer October 13, 2015 2:03 PM  

@Sevron

I like pointing out to atheists who brag that they are operating on a higher ethical plain than theists because they act morally even though they don't think a god is watching them that, in fact, they are just unable to break free from their social conditioning and evolved instincts.

Their good moral character is the result of conditioning no different, in essence, than a chimp trained to push a button who gets extra treats if he shares some of his bounty with other chimps.

Blogger Rabbi B October 13, 2015 2:12 PM  

I like pointing out to atheists who brag that they are operating on a higher ethical plain than theists because they act morally even though they don't think a god is watching them that, in fact, they are just unable to break free from their social conditioning and evolved instincts.

Maximilian Robespierre was known to have said that atheism was a plot dreamed up by aristocrats. There have always been godless men, who scoffed at religious scruples and did as they pleased, bound to no moral code and paying homage to no one but themselves. But atheism as it is defined today is more specific than that. It is the belief that people can disbelieve in the existence of any god, and still live decent, moral, nice and pleasant lives in harmony with other people around them.

This belief only works in a certain setting: a society in which people are well-off and lacking for nothing, secure in their lives and livelihoods. It can only be maintained when there is peace, law and order prevailing in the vicinity of the believer.

In the event of a nation-wide or global catastrophe which killed a large segment of the population, the survivors would struggle to stay alive, to have food and other basic necessities, and for the most part to maintain a semblance of civilization for their own peace of mind, to prop up the illusion that the world they knew had not vanished entirely.

But as the months turned into years, and the years into decades, and the decades into centuries, what would happen? In a harsh world, characterized by violent death, severe privation and insecurity on all levels, men would need to deal with the question of morality. Either they would accept the doctrine of a Supreme Being (in whatever form that doctrine would be preached to them), or they would reject it.

Blogger Danby October 13, 2015 2:30 PM  

@MArkku
1. Depending on will or discretion; not governed by any fixed rules; as, an arbitrary decision; an arbitrary punishment.

Are you implying God's will is not a "fixed rule"?
God's will does not exceed His reason, nor does His reason exceed His will.

Blogger Sevron October 13, 2015 2:32 PM  

@Ron

I believe that's referred to as "Cut-Flower Ethics". Like a flower cut off from its plant to be made into a bouquet that appears to still be living for a time, but is assuredly dead, Western atheists are simply benefitting temporarily from the Christian ethics they've severed themselves from. After a little more time, those ethical principles will finish dying, and then it will be a simple war of all against all.

Blogger Markku October 13, 2015 2:36 PM  

Are you implying God's will is not a "fixed rule"?

Yes. Obviously. To say otherwise would be incredibly stupid. When the definition contrasts "will" with "fixed rule", that's when those two are the furtherst from each other that they could possibly be.

Blogger SirHamster October 13, 2015 2:41 PM  

Are you implying God's will is not a "fixed rule"?
God's will does not exceed His reason, nor does His reason exceed His will.


I think any disagreement you two have on this subject depends entirely on word definitions.

Is there a Reason outside of God, that God is subject to follow it? No. Does God act consistently with His Reason? Yes.

Is God acting consistently with His Reason arbitrary, or not? It is arbitrary in that God does what He wants. It is not arbitrary in that God and His Reason does not change, where mercurial change is part of our connotation of arbitrary.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer October 13, 2015 2:55 PM  

Western atheists are simply benefitting temporarily from the Christian ethics they've severed themselves from.

They seem to think that, absent Christianity, Western civilization would not differ significantly from what we have now, except of course we would be settling the universe because religion would not have held us back.

Isaac Asimov, an atheist, wrote a short story the premise of which was that Christianity never arose and the Roman Empire never fell and technological progress was achieved , but slavery never died out because it never occurred to anyone to question its morality.

Blogger Groot October 13, 2015 3:11 PM  

@55. MendoScot
"to Brits you are a wop (dv: guappo), not a dago"

Merriam-Webster says "Definition of DAGO
usually offensive
: a person of Italian or Spanish birth or descent"

I guess it's in the nature of a slur to imply that they're all the same.
And, since I'm there already:

Definition of KURGAN
: a burial mound of eastern Europe or Siberia
Origin of KURGAN
Russian, of Turkic origin; akin to Turkish kurgan fortress, castle

Blogger Danby October 13, 2015 3:23 PM  

@Groot,
More specifically, Kurgan generally refers to the Kurgan culture, a presumably Indo-European culture of Anatolia, Eastern Europe and the Balkans named for their distinctive burial mounds.
The Gimbutas school of archaeology see the Kurgan culture spreading out from the urheimat and destroying the peaceful, communal, matriarchal Goddess-worshipping author-insert culture that preceded it, thanks to their superior military skills and technology, and subjugating the wimmens and cultural minorities into virtual or real slavery. Based on essentially no evidence at all.
Physically, the Kurgans are probably the forebears of the Slavs, although I know of no actual genetic testing that confirms that.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer October 13, 2015 4:00 PM  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvnq_W0i3Bs

Blogger VFM 188 October 13, 2015 4:41 PM  

Western atheists are simply benefiting temporarily from the Christian ethics they've severed themselves from.

Inductive fallacy. Specifically hasty generalization. What makes you assume that all Western atheists "sever themselves from Christian ethics"? Agnostics too. Fact is, Western people who have trouble with their faith may still---and I think often do---hew to Christian ethics. Why? Because culture. You could refer to them as "cultural Christians." And they are neither evil nor anti-Chrsitian merely because they are bereft of the gift of faith.

Blogger Danby October 13, 2015 4:43 PM  

@90 VFM 188
And they are neither evil nor anti-Chrsitian merely because they are bereft of the gift of faith.
Name three modern Atheists who are neither evil nor anti-Christian.

Blogger Rabbi B October 13, 2015 4:48 PM  

@90 VFM #188

"And they are neither evil nor anti-Chrsitian merely because they are bereft of the gift of faith."

Whoever is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with Me scatters. (cf. Matthew 12)

Blogger VFM 188 October 13, 2015 5:31 PM  

You misstated your challenge, Danby. What you meant to say was this: "Name three modern, well-known Atheists who publicly assert their atheism who are neither evil nor anti-Christian." I cannot, and thankfully so. That's the thing about cultural Christians: They do not publicly strut their lack of faith. They are also not hostile toward Christians or the Christian religion. Put differently, they are not "aggressively atheist." Hence they don't care to argue the question, in public or in private. They also hew to Christian ethics despite their lack of faith. I have no doubt that many of them are sad, and wish they could knock and have the door opened, ask and receive, search and be able to find...in short, to believe.

But they are there, and you should pray for them. Do you doubt they exist?

Blogger VFM 188 October 13, 2015 5:39 PM  

Out of context quote, Rabbi, and I say that with all respect. The story told in 12 Matthew was Jesus chewing out the lowlife Pharisees. The fuller quote of Jesus's words at verse 30-32 is this: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." Cultural Christians bereft of faith do not blaspheme or speak out against the Holy Spirit.

Blogger Rabbi B October 13, 2015 5:59 PM  

"Cultural Christians bereft of faith . . . "

Without faith it's impossible to please Him. (cf. Hebrews 11) Bereft of faith = unbelief. We are saved and reckoned righteous by faith, without it men are doomed. The underlying principle of the passage fits.

I believe the only thing that cannot be forgiven is unbelief. Whoever has the Son has the life, whoever does not have the Son does not have the life. We are commanded to believe in G-d and to call upon His name and be saved from this crooked and perverse generation. Those who do not and who are deetrmined to remain recalcitrant to the end are condemned, are not with the Messiah, and therefore are not gathering but scattering, even if they are going about it quietly.

BTW, what is a "cultural Christian?"

Blogger Sevron October 13, 2015 6:01 PM  

@VFM 188

Wrong. You don't understand moral philosophy, or you did not understand what I was saying. When you sever yourself from the underlying arbitrary axioms that define the basis of your moral system, you will eventually abandon the rest of the moral system as it suits your needs. The underlying axioms of Western morality were that these things are right or wrong because God says so, and ignoring His will has consequences in this life and the next. Atheists do not subscribe to that, and thus generally drift away from the moral system entirely.

Blogger Sevron October 13, 2015 6:08 PM  

Just as one example, atheists have no answer to the question of why is murder wrong. They can give emotional reasons, like I don't want to be murdered and would take it as a courtesy that you not mirder me, or I don't think I would enjoy doing that (how do you know if you haven't tried it?), or expedient answers like it's necessary to prevent murder to have a functioning society (what if I don't care if society functions or not?), but they cannot say why it's wrong, and almost all of the major atheists have admitted as much.

And thus, we are allowing murder in the West, a little at a time. Abortion is OK, euthanasia a noble goal, maybe the President just needs to drone a muthafucka real quick sometimes, and so on.

Blogger Rabbi B October 13, 2015 6:09 PM  

"The underlying axioms of Western morality were that these things are right or wrong because God says so, and ignoring His will has consequences in this life and the next. Atheists do not subscribe to that, and thus generally drift away from the moral system entirely."

Yes. Very well said. The atheists are a law unto themselves, doing what's right in their own eyes. They have no other choice since they reject any objective standards outside themselves. Fot them, man is the measure of all things, not G-d and His directives:

There is a way that appears to be right,
but in the end it leads to death.


- Proverbs 14

Blogger VFM 188 October 13, 2015 6:12 PM  

Rabbi, "cultural Christian" is my label to reference an individual who for whatever reason has not or cannot attain faith---perhaps even after long struggle and desire---but who nonetheless supports the Christian religion and believes in Christianity as an institution as well as what it stands for, what it creates, and what it teaches in the way of ethics and morality.

Blogger Danby October 13, 2015 6:17 PM  

I have no doubt that many of them are sad, and wish they could knock and have the door opened, ask and receive, search and be able to find...in short, to believe.

Look, I realize you are depersonalizing this, so as to try to be dispassionate about it. My point is that, to a Christian, every single person is evil in his heart. Every. Single. One. Every saint started as a sinner, and still longs from time to time to do and be evil in his heart.
And the sad lament "I want to believe, but I just can't" is a pose, designed to shut up not the Christian, who doesn't believe it, but the voice of Christ Himself. You pretend that there's an obstacle besides your ego. The actual fact is you don't want to because you would have to give up something you love, even if it is just an unwarranted positive self-image.

Blogger VFM 188 October 13, 2015 6:19 PM  

Danby said in pertinent part as follows: When you sever yourself from the underlying arbitrary axioms that define the basis of your moral system, you will eventually abandon the rest of the moral system as it suits your needs.... Atheists...generally drift away from the moral system entirely.

Chock full of powerfully normative statements above, Danby. I dispute them. Cultural Christians by definition do not "abandon" or "drift away" from Christian morality. That's why they're still at least "culturally" Christian, even if, again, bereft of Faith.

Blogger Rabbi B October 13, 2015 6:22 PM  

@99 VFM 188

" . . . an individual who for whatever reason has not or cannot attain faith . . ."

OK, so the fools described here:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools . . . They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.

(cf. Romans 1)

Thanks.

Blogger VFM 188 October 13, 2015 6:22 PM  

I believe the only thing that cannot be forgiven is unbelief. Whoever has the Son has the life, whoever does not have the Son does not have the life....Those who do not and who are determined to remain recalcitrant to the end are condemned....

Do you think it to be easy for every person to believe, Rabbi?

Blogger VFM 188 October 13, 2015 6:26 PM  

Just as one example, atheists have no answer to the question of why is murder wrong.

This is not true, Sevron. A cultural Christian, whether atheist or agnostic, would say "murder is wrong because Jesus and the Christian Church say that it is wrong, and I believe in and follow the moral teachings of Christianity."

Blogger Sevron October 13, 2015 6:34 PM  

VFM 188

I have no interest debating the special snowflake group that exists only in your mind. It's simply too boring to be bothered with. If you want to address what I actually wrote, I'll give you another shot.

Blogger VFM 188 October 13, 2015 6:36 PM  

And the sad lament "I want to believe, but I just can't" is a pose, designed to shut up not the Christian, who doesn't believe it, but the voice of Christ Himself. You pretend that there's an obstacle besides your ego. The actual fact is you don't want to because you would have to give up something you love, even if it is just an unwarranted positive self-image.

Excuse me, Danby, but you appear to be talking about me. Yet you know nothing about me, my relationship to Christ, my beliefs, what church or churches I attend, what faith I may have or not have, what church my children were raised in, and on and on. I have never spoken of my own religion or religious beliefs on this blog, and don't intend to. Your aggressive assumptions are ill-conceived under the circumstances.

Blogger VFM 188 October 13, 2015 6:42 PM  

I have no interest debating the special snowflake group that exists only in your mind. It's simply too boring to be bothered with.

Major disqualify language, Sevron. I asked you above, and now ask you again: Do you believe there is no significant cohort in the world consisting of people who do not affirmatively believe in the divinity of Christ, but who nevertheless hew to the moral teachings of Christianity?

Blogger Sevron October 13, 2015 6:44 PM  

*yawn*

Blogger Rabbi B October 13, 2015 6:50 PM  

"Do you think it to be easy for every person to believe, Rabbi?"

No, I do not. But when these people, who found it so hard to believe, are standing before the Almighty on that great Day to give an account for the lives they were given, do you think the Almighty is going to give them a pass and excuse their unbelief in which they persisted?

When we were given the Torah, the difficulty excuse was addressed quite well:

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

For crying out loud, the Bible speaks of people who are protesting about all the great things they did in His Name, and they are summarily told: Depart for me you workers of lawlessness! I never knew you!

The road is indeed narrow and cramped and incredibly difficult and few find it, but broad and easy is the way to destruction and countless people find it. He who loses his life in this world is the one who finds it. For most, that is just simply too high of a price to be paid. They would rather spend their time building a bigger barn than be bothered with such trivialities. Their condemnation is deserved and they remain without excuse.

Blogger VFM 188 October 13, 2015 6:54 PM  

When these people, who found it so hard to believe, are standing before the Almighty on that great Day to give an account for the lives they were given, do you think the Almighty is going to give them a pass and excuse their unbelief in which they persisted?

No.

The road is indeed narrow and cramped and incredibly difficult and few find it, but broad and easy is the way to destruction and countless people find it.

Yes, that is true.

Blogger Sevron October 13, 2015 7:03 PM  

Sorry, drifted off for a moment.

See, that's not how intelligent conversation works, VFM 188. You asserted your special snowflakes exist- prove it. Then compare their numbers to that of the high and low church atheists. Then explain how this very important and significant group has been helping retard or reverse our gradual slide into Gomorrah. Then you could maybe tell us in what practical way they differ from low church atheists.

Blogger Desiderius October 14, 2015 12:02 AM  

VFM,

It is the nature of faith (and human nature) that there is no "cannot," only "will not."

This is the hard, but necessary, truth others here are attempting to bring home to you. Their concern for the salvation of the "will not" is unfeigned and neither needs nor bears any extraneous explanation impugning their motives.

"Do you believe there is no significant cohort in the world consisting of people who do not affirmatively believe in the divinity of Christ, but who nevertheless hew to the moral teachings of Christianity?"

Belief here is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that it is impossible to hew to the moral teachings of Christianity without affirmatively believing in the divinity of Christ, as not to do so violates the very first and Greatest Commandment in those teachings.

Now one can accomplish great things without that affirmative belief, indeed I would contend there is even a correlation there (given an upbringing among those who do have that belief) - the secular is often the fruit of the sacred* - but great accomplishment is distinct from hewing to Christian moral teachings.

The agnostic best follows Chruchill's example, who famously labeled himself a buttress of the Church - he supported it from outside.

* - the fruit inevitably rots, as we're seeing, providing the soil for new shoots of sacred growth.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts