Go away and stay away

In case you're wondering why Nate Winchester is now banned from commenting here.

Is there any benefit of the doubt or charitable interpretation I can extend to your words, which you have extended to Peterson's? This isn't even rhetorical. I haven't had the time to go over everything you have written in detail so I would not be surprised if there is a passage where you extend him charity. Only on my initial impression does it strike me that by the exacting standard you condemn Peterson, do you also stand condemned. Note also that this is my principle issue with Vox Day as by the standards he applies to Peterson, Vox then is every bit the liar, narcissist, and cultist that Peterson is - more so even.

What an utterly ridiculous statement. There is absolutely no charitable reading of Jordan Peterson that allows one to consider him anything but what he is, a liar, a globalist, and a practicing occultist. Nor does one require an "exacting standard" to condemn his vast panoply of lies, bait-and-switches, redefinitions, false postures, and deceptions. As for the idea that I am even more of a liar than Jordan Peterson, Fake Nate might as reasonably have claimed that I have been prescribed even more SSRI's than Peterson or dreamed more regularly about cannibalizing my extended family.

I neither need nor want shameless snakes like this around here. And I neither request or require any charity in reading what I have written. If any of you genuinely believe that I am a habitual liar, then by all means, just go away and stay away. Why would you ever want to read someone who lies to you on a regular basis in the first place?

How to not get banned here

Dire Badger kindly provides newcomers with a useful basic guide to commenting at Vox Popoli without getting publicly mocked and banned:

1. It's not about Vox Day. If you make it about him, you get banned.
2. You cannot talk crap about VD unless it's actually true. And relevant to the conversation at hand. And it 'seems' like VD revels in being called stuff like 'arrogant' and 'uncompromising'.
3. When he tells you the topic is over, shut up about it. Don't try to get the last word, because the last word has already been spoken... and usually, when he says shut up about it, the rest of the board stops following the conversation... so getting the last word is pointless anyway, since mostly no one is going to read it.
4. It's not about you. Personal anecdotes to illustrate a point is one thing, as long as it is a a valid illustration... but "not all _ are like that" with a personal anecdote that shows a statistical outlier just makes you look like a stupid troll with nothing of value to add... and people with no value are likely to get banned since it really won't hurt anything.
5. Figure out your sociosexual hierarchy position, your personality profile, or any other shit like that yourself. No one wants to answer your 'what am I?' question. This is not a facebook personality quiz stream.
6. Figure out what people here are like. You can disagree, but if you voice a disagreement that has been covered a million times, you are going to get hazed. Don't post a million times countering a million arguments, and especially don't respond to every single insult because you said something most people here think is stupid. That's spamming. (see the last word comment)
7. Cussing should be sparing. This is not HALO. Talking trash just for the sake of talking trash will get you banned as fast as making it all about VD.
8. When someone asks you a direct question without qualifiers, answer it. Even if the answer is "I don't know", or "I googled it but my search Fu was weak, I will find it later." if they ask you a question that starts with 'considering that...' or adds a weird goalpost-shifting frame like "Answer in a Haiku" or "Without using examples or Allegories..." feel free to answer or tell them to kiss your butt.
9. Statements of known fact are okay. Patronizing statements sharing your secret king wisdom "Because you all need to know this" will get you mocked and banned, especially if you never bothered to notice that there was an article about that very thing less than two days earlier. I suggest lurking for at least a month before making your first post, so you can figure out what kinds of people are here, and maybe even learn a thing or two before you open your mouth.
10. DO NOT GET DEFENSIVE! When you are wrong, admit it. Being able to learn from your mistakes is vastly more important (and more respect-worthy) than 'winning' an argument in the thread... mostly when you 'win' it's because people have just gotten bored with arguing with you. That doesn't mean apologize. Men only apologize when their actions have inadvertently harmed others. If you go off on a tirade and insult someone and find out later that you were wrong, an apology is cool, but don't apologize for being wrong. Just admit it, fix it if you can, and move on.

I would add that this blog has been here for 15 years. Readers, moderators, and blogger alike, we know what we're doing. VP was here before you. VP will be here after you. And the better you understand that VP simply does not need you or your comments, the more likely it is that your comments will be valued by the other readers.

No gammas

Okrane S. is now banned from commenting here.

Okrane S. August 04, 2018 7:50 AM
You seem weak and angry. Are these some of those nice Christian values you preach?

I neither know nor care who is the target of this comment, but this is exactly the sort of passive-aggressive gamma bullshit that is no longer tolerated here. If you're an emotionally incontinent gamma male, just don't try to comment here. It's not going to go well for you and you will end up being banned sooner or later.

Read and learn, or read and go away and snark about it somewhere else, but either way, your comments are neither wanted nor permitted here.

Delusion creates illusion

A comment thread at Bounding Into Comics about Alt★Hero #1 illustrates the core problem with tolerating gammas, even when one rides herd on them.

Considering how much of an asshole/sperg Vox Day is to everyone in his blog and his "my way or the highway" mentality, I'm surprised this isn't a massive disaster or that Vox didn't fire everybody midway through for not kissing his ass hard enough. That said, it seems this is fun and good enough, so I hope this does well and can keep going forward in the hands of other more capable people.
- Skullomaniac

Vox gets attacked constantly and doesn't tolerate it anymore. He is an excellent guy to work for, however, and allows a lot of creative leeway.
- David The Good

I have followed his blog for a couple of years now and I'm convinced he has a severe attitude problem with everyone who may dissent even 0.001% with him, and he often appears to demand complete obedience to his words.
- Skullomaniac

It's been an interesting process to watch. I started reading Vox Day's blog back in 2008 and the discussions were provocative and harsh at times, but they were also thoughtful and highly-intellectual. Stay on topic, but nothing was really off the table because it was by and large a self-policing community. No one was afraid to question anyone else, including the proprietor of the blog. It was still largely the same through the Sad Puppies situation. Then, as the Alt-Right started to become a thing and Vox Day became a figure within it, his blog readership increased very quickly and the community rapidly changed. When this happened, everything else changed with it, including the house rules and the attitude toward comments.
- Arcturus Rann

Notice the divorce between the guy who has followed the blog "for a couple of years now", the guy who has followed it for a long time and actually works with me, and the guy who has followed it for a decade.

Merely having to deal with gammas and the psychological trash they drag in with them has been sufficient to convince some casual observers that I am an oversensitive, incapable sperg who requires people to kiss my ass and doesn't allow any questioning of my opinion whatsoever. This, as those who work with me know, is almost the complete opposite of the truth; the most common criticism I receive from those who work with me is that I don't give them enough guidance and oversight.

Granted, I'm not given to much in the way of kumbaya and cuddles either, but if I have repeatedly erred, it has always been on the side of giving people excessive responsibility for which they were not truly ready.

Anyhow, being a game designer, I am putting on my design hat to address this problem. It's probably going to be based on letting the Dread Ilk decide who is, and who is not, allowed to comment here. What none of my critics realize is that I have actually been far more tolerant of the newcomers than most of the historical readership here prefers.

Gammas are not welcome here

I think it is now time to openly institute an anti-gamma policy. It's no secret that I detest them and their behavioral patterns, but I simply don't have the time or the patience to tolerate their antics any longer. The now-banned Pale Male's nonsense is a good example of why they simply aren't worth the effort required to put up with them.

You forgot the modifier:  Social science is not scientific. That's because "social" is a modifier meaning "not":  social science, social justice, social work.... Tell us, Vox:  have you ever taken a course in physics?  Did you pass?

This is classic gamma bullshit utilizing the four As of the gamma.

1. Assume a superior, lecturing pose.
2. Assert that the other party has made a mistake, and in doing so, demonstrate a complete failure to have understood what the other party said.
3. Attack the other party instead of addressing the subject at hand.
4. Attempt to disqualify and discredit the other party in lieu of demonstrating the errors of their position.

The whole point of the post, which was explicitly stated, was that scientistry (the scientific profession) is increasingly not utilizing scientody (the scientific method). That is what "science is not scientific" means and the observation applies to both the hard and the soft sciences, as has been chronicled here on several occasions. My having taken, or not taken, courses in physics at the high school and college levels has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of my observations concerning corruption in science. All aspects of science. After all, I haven't taken a single course in psychology, which would theoretically be even more relevant to the subject, and yet the gamma doesn't ask about that... because he knows perfectly well such questions aren't relevant.

You forgot that using the Stanford prison experiment to conclude anything whatsoever about physics is a non sequitur. Completely different people, methods, standards of evidence, reproducibility (institutional review boards would no doubt prohibit it today), everything.

I didn't forget anything. I'm literally the individual who coined the sarcastic expression "You can trust biologists. Because physicists get amazingly accurate results." As I pointed out in my response, that is like saying that because Charles Ponzi was a completely different person living at a completely different time and using completely different methods than Bernie Madoff, and operating under very different regulatory standards, it is a non sequitur to use his actions to conclude anything about Madoff's.

Physicists are people, subject to the same incentives and motives and character flaws as psychologists. They are corrupted in the same way and for the same reasons. And we already possess considerable evidence that some of them are behaving in exactly the same way, despite their various differences. Just ask Stickwick about how intellectually and scientifically pure academic physicists are these days.

Tell us, Vox: have you ever taken a course in physics? Did you pass? Your own rule: 2... If you are asked a direct question relevant to the topic, then you will be expected to answer it in a straightforward and non-evasive manner... I'd bet 10:1 I know the answer but I want it straight from you.

Notice that he is posturing as if he is confident, and yet he doesn't commit himself publicly to a position, for fear that he will be proven wrong. This is textbook gamma posturing. And he is still trying to make the subject about me, rather than about the big news concerning the scientific fraud underlying one of the most famous studies in social science, while trying to use my own rules against me.

Of course, being careless and obsessive like all gammas, he stopped reading once he found what he was looking for and failed to read the whole thing.

29. These Rules may in no case be interpreted contrary to the purposes and principles of Vox Day, as solely determined by Vox Day.

I'm still waiting for him to tell us if he's actually gone there in physics, and how far.

Notice how he's "still waiting" for an answer to a question he never even asked. That's because this is not a relevant question, it is an attempt to "win" the discussion through discrediting and disqualification; he's begun to fear that I have taken a course in physics and is preemptively laying the groundwork for moving the goalposts. Which, of course, is why I ignored the question in the first place. Whenever you successfully answer a gamma's initial attempt to discredit and disqualify you, he will simply respond with another question intended to do the same. This process never ends until a) you kick him out, b) he finally manages to come up with a question that allows him to say HA!, c) you have such impeccable credentials that he falls silent in embarrassment, or d) you ignore him so long that he finally gives up and goes away.

I wasn't the only one who noticed the flashing neon signs saying "warning: gamma at work ahead".

In what way is Vox's educational history relevant to the question? Are you always this dishonest, or only when challenged? This is a sneering, gamma-ish, and obviously false assertion of the appeal to authority, and you should know this.

And notice how the gamma always eventually brings the discussion back around to himself. Every single time. Note that literally no one asked about his credentials, his degrees, or what subjects he studied, but that didn't prevent him from telling everyone anyhow.

I stopped my formal study of chemistry in my freshman year of college, but I'm still working on it.  Autodidact, check.  I'm sketching hardware to do practical applications. 

After initially trying to ignore his antics to no avail, I opted for Option A and kicked Pale Male out. He's now banned from commenting on the blog, and I plan to similarly ban every single gamma who acts up and subjects us to similar antics. From now on, if anyone even addresses me in a personally challenging or passive-aggressive manner, I'm just going to delete their comments. I have learned over 15 years of daily blogging that it is always a waste of time to even answer such commenters; they add nothing to the discourse, they inevitably attempt to derail the discussion, they try to snarkily disqualify everyone who disagrees with them, and they inevitably start to talk about themselves instead of the subject at hand.

This is not a place for gammas to show the whole world what smart boys they are. This is not a place for anyone to attempt to work out their psychological issues. And above all, this is not a place to waste my time. Everyone is welcome to express THEIR OWN opinion about THE SUBJECT BEING DISCUSSED, they are not permitted to attempt to hijack the microphone or try to elevate their perceived status at my, or anyone else's, expense. If I tell you that you are wrong, you are welcome to try to prove that you were actually correct, but any attempt to attack, disqualify, or discredit me in lieu of an actual defense of your assertions will be nuked on sight.

And while you're welcome to try to correct me if you think I am wrong, you had damn well better cross your t's, dot your i's, and get all of your ducks in a row while you make your case for it, because there are few things I despise more than one of my intellectual inferiors wasting my time by erroneously attempting to "correct" me, especially by citing orthodox information with which I am obviously already familiar. If all you've got is a snarky passive-aggressive statement of opinion that is a prelude to the usual routine, just go away and don't come back. Or at the very least, keep it to yourself. I'm not even remotely interested in playing stupid gamma games.

Liar ban: WATYF

I've never been impressed by WATYF's incessant posturing, but since he usually remained within more or less within the boundaries of the rules. I mostly ignored him. However, seeing how he was blatantly misrepresenting my positions at John Wright's blog, I am now banning him from commenting here.

It's really rather remarkable how dishonest so many self-professed Christian conservatives are about the Alt-Right, particularly the Christian Alt-Right, which they prefer to pretend does not even exist. Because they cannot rationally or scripturally defend either their theological positions or their commitments to various forms of equality, they usually resort to lying about us when they can't simply ignore us. I've indicated WAYTF's false statements in bold text and his omission of the necessary context in italics.

WATYF
To be fair, Vox's emphasis on Christianity is just a bit offset by the fact that he says Christ preaches hatred as a virtue and that murder is totes OK (because war).

Benjamin Wheeler
Care to quote him on that? Or did you just think that because he says that not all men are equal that he preaches hatred? That, because he hates war, he wants to prevent it? I didn't realize that peoples who never meet each other still war.

WATYF
No, I'm not misunderstanding him nor am I drawing an inference from something he said. He has said directly and with no equivocation that hatred is morally good (according to Christianity) and that murder is permissible because we're in a culture war.

Here is the latest "hatred is good" post where he invokes God to justify his position. Remember, this isn't just "we should oppose this view", it's "we should actively hate these people".

Benjamin Wheeler
Strange, because all I got from that was the hatred of sin. The rhetoric is merely a vehicle. "I am proud of my wife for refusing to respect Jack and the social mores enforced by his little Safety Council. What is better than a hot blonde hater? Hate is human, and hatred is a human right. God hates deceit, God hates the wicked, and so should we."

I didn't realize I shouldn't hate evil. I should start loving it! Thank you! I didn't realize how wicked I was not hating sin.

WATYF
Yeah, your rhetoric isn't going to work on me so don't bother. I'm obviously not saying anything in your last sentence.

If all you got from that was the hatred of sin then you should read more carefully. He observably *isn't* just saying, "hate evil". He's saying, "hate these PEOPLE because they do evil (or rather, belong to a group that is disproportionately likely to do evil)". It's right there in the text you quoted.

Benjamin Wheeler
I know. I've got so long to go before I can match Vox.

WATYF
His doesn't work either. Rhetoric is generally only useful on the stupid and those who can't control their emotions. It also makes the user stupider the more they use it.

So as I was saying, Vox openly advocates for a version of Christianity that preaches the hatred of entire groups (and individuals) as well as some other rather unchristian "virtues". Yes, he repeatedly points out how Christianity is a pillar of Western Civilization (which I agree with), but I wouldn't go to him to find out exactly what Christianity is.

Benjamin Wheeler
Right, but he gets a reaction out of you, since you're both emotionally offended by him and unable to think past his rhetoric to any points underneath. I'm pretty sure you ignore any dialectic because it's easier to paint him with a brush thanks to rhetoric.

WATYF
Are you reading anything I'm writing? I'm trying to figure out if you're still trying to use rhetoric or if you just can't understand the argument.

I'm not "reacting" to what he's saying. I'm analyzing it (rather coldly and dispassionately). I'm quite able to "think past his rhetoric" which is why I can present the points underneath, and the points are explicit. People have asked him directly on his own blog to clarify and he has. At first, I assumed it must be some kind of tactic involving irony or whatever, but after enough times where he said it, explained his defense of the position, and confirmed it to people who asked, I saw no utility in assuming the opposite of what was obviously true.

But if you like, you can keep telling yourself that "God says it's OK to hate people" doesn't actually mean "God says it's OK to hate people". That just strikes me as a decidedly self-deluded way to approach the matter.

You're not "pretty sure" of anything here. Nothing you've said has actually addressed anything I'm actually saying. I started reading Vox over a decade ago when he mostly avoided rhetoric and engaged in dialectic debates on a regular basis. That's what attracted me to it. Now, it's almost non-stop rhetoric, all day every day. It's his blog, so whatever, but the change in the quality of the commenters there is a pretty good indicator of how that shift has affected his readership.

It's amusing that WATYF claims that it is non-stop rhetoric here. That's simply not the case. As for the intellectual quality of the commenters, it has naturally gone down as the readership has grown from 3,000 daily to 100,000 daily, but due to my consistently weeding out posers, gammas, trolls, and liars, it is a considerably more honest discourse than one will find elsewhere.

I would much rather have 10 honest commenters of average intelligence than 100 highly intelligent dissemblers and deceivers all trying to push their false narratives on the readers here.

As usual, WATYF is flat-out wrong. God does not just hate sin. God does not just hate wickedness. God hates the wicked. The wicked are clearly people, a subset of the human race set apart by their thoughts and their actions. Now, to the best of my understanding, the wicked are individuals who are not merely sinful, who are not merely weak, who have not merely given into temptation, but are those who have actively and purposefully set themselves against God and hate Jesus Christ. They are described as liars and deceivers and slanderers, among other things.

Should the Christian hate the wicked or should he love them? That is the question that I have yet to see a Churchian answer directly, without equivocation or dissembling or substituting words. And I also have an important follow-up question: is there a difference between sin and wickedness?

Pennywise banned

The commenter Pennywise has been banned for being caught lying on more than one occasion. Do not respond to her under that or any other name, as the moderators will spam any comments she attempts to make in the future.

UPDATE: Jason Yungbluth is also banned, under his various names including Vox Diabolus and Death Ray, also for repeated lying.

Mailvox: it's an ECHO CHAMBER

Phat Rephat, whoever that is, complains that excessive moderation is turning VP into "an echo chamber":

VD, I've been following you for quite a while and appreciate your viewpoint and the information shared. Of late, however, it seems you're shifting to the echo chamber model. I agree with your desire to keeping on-topic and without profanity. But not allowing contradicting views or the calling out of the GE when he appears to be losing focus, is not of value to any of us; concern trolls aside.

Well, obviously I am terrified of VP being called an echo chamber. I mean, what could be worse than an Alt-Right echo chamber? Where else will people be able to find conservative, or liberal, or mainstream media views being expressed?

Clearly we must act! I will take his well-considered advice.

Trolls, defeatists, anklebiters, have at it. Comment as you see fit. Be defeatist. Be despondent. Share your contradicting views. Call out the God-Emperor. Insult your fellow commenters. I'm not going to moderate anything at all. Moderators, stand down and let the commenters comment freely, as they obviously desire.

I will also unspam every spam comment that catches previous trolls.

It's certainly less work and time-investment on my part. I look forward to seeing precisely how much the comments are going to improve and how much value is going to be added to everyone.

UPDATE: Four hours and 47 minutes later:

Hello VD:

It's Phat Repat; I get your point.

PS This is a Mea Culpa. ;-)

Point? What point could that possibly be? I'm just astounded by all the added value!

Pro trolls are the majority

This is why I don't hesitate to nuke commenters who show even modest signs of possibly being hasbara, or, in the vernacular, paid trolls:

A majority of online and social media defenders of Obamacare are professionals who are "paid to post," according to a digital expert.

"Sixty percent of all the posts were made from 100 profiles, posting between the hours of 9 and 5 Pacific Time," said Michael Brown. "They were paid to post."

He began investigating it after his criticism of the former president's health insurance program posted on the Obamacare Facebook page. He was hit hard by digital activists pretending to be regular people. She reports that he evaluated 226,000 pro-Obamacare posts made by 40,000 Facebook profiles.

"Digital activists are paid employees; their purpose is to attack anyone who's posting something contrary to the view of the page owner wants expressed," he told Attkisson. "Sixty percent of all the posts were made from 100 profiles, posting between the hours of 9 and 5 Pacific Time."

Translation: a paid troll will produce 1,356 comments on a single subject. One reason why we don't see very much of that nonsense here is because the moderators and I operate on the principle that it is better to take out an honest critic than to permit a troll to comment freely.

This is why we de-troll

There is absolutely no point in tolerating endless repetitions of the same argument over and over again from rhetoric-limited SJWs who cannot learn from information and whose thick skulls remain impenetrable to facts, logic, science, and history. Case in point:

Sorry, but I happen to agree with the sentiment that many of the so-called "anti-amnesty" voices here and elsewhere are in fact, racist. I understand Ace's use of the word "spics"- I do the same thing, in an ironic sense when I make the point that for many of you, "illegal aliens" is a code word for "dirty fucking Mexicans".

I'm not slamming Mexicans, I'm slamming your attitude towards them and translating some weaselwords into their true meaning, without the code.
Posted by: docweasel at March 29, 2008 03:05 PM


Ah, the old "some of my best friends are dirty fucking Mexicans" ploy. I don't know about individuals. Its possible you are not. I'm saying that by and large the "anti-amnesty" Malkinite argument is that Mexicans deserve special attacks and exclusion is that 1. Mexicans commit a lot of crimes (while posting anecdotal news items about illegal immigrant crime 2. Mexicans use a lot of services and cost the community more money than they are worth 3. Mexicans are uneducated and unskilled and unworthy of being Americans 4. go back to Mexico, we don't want your culture here, we don't want your language here, assimilate and "act white" or you dont deserve citizenship.

Maybe not you personally. But taht's the way the argument has been framed. And I call racism. A lot of you say "I love Mexicans my best friend is Mexican I work with Mexicans I love Mexicans, btw, fuck Mexicans, we don't need any more in this country, expel as many as possible and lock the rest out.

The bottom line is, I don't believe the people who make racist arguments against Mexican immigration, then say they aren't Mexicans: face it, live with it, if you try to STEREOTYPE an entire ethnicity by thea few criminals you are a fucking racist, period. You don't like it and you reject it, but you are one anyway, motherfucker.
Posted by: docweasel at March 29, 2008 03:32 PM

And just 8 years later:

That image posted at the top of post isn't what I'd call "Christian"- I'm the last one to be over-sensitive or pulling the race card, but that image is flat out racist.

No one who calls themselves Christian or bemoans the loss of Christian ethics has any business posting something like that, or else they have a thin grasp of exactly what Christianity is in the first place.

I only started reading this site regularly a few months ago when a link from somewhere else brought me here. If this is the tone I don't guess this is the place for me.
Posted by: docweasel August 16, 2016 4:04 AM

Clearly the very last one to pull out the race card. SJWs ALWAYS lie. The appropriately named docweasel is banned for SJW. We neither want nor need SJWs here.

A new rule

Apparently this was insufficient warning for some commenters:

14. If you give a moderator reason to believe that you are not interested in honest, straightforward interaction, he will simply spam your comments. Continued attempts to post comments here will be considered harassment and dealt with accordingly. 

So, I'm adding a new Rule 17.

17. Speak for yourself, not for anyone else. If you falsely characterize or inaccurately summarize someone else's statements, arguments, or conclusions, your comments may be deleted and you may be banned. This is particularly true if you attempt to falsely characterize or inaccurately summarize something I have written.

I'm not going to be playing Summary Cop, so don't complain about this sort of thing at every possible opportunity. It's not a weapon for commenters to use against each other, it's intended to shut down a common professional troll tactic. The moderators and I will apply it judiciously, as we see fit.

You can speak your own opinion. You can criticize my opinion and the opinions of the other commenters. But what you are not permitted to do is to try to speak for others in order to set up straw men that you can criticize in lieu of their actual opinions.

And if you're not sure of what someone else is saying, the solution is eminently simple. Just ASK them for clarification. It's not that hard.

Trolls go pro

Keoni Galt explains why certain trolls are incredibly persistent these days and why they keep showing up under different names:

In the case of Vox Day, he's certainly correct that trolls aren't really a problem on both his Vox Popoli and Alpha Game blogs, since he is quick to identify and ban any obvious trolls that appear in his prodigious and popular comment threads.

But while the obvious trolls are easily identified as unhinged ideologues and usually true believers in the $ocial Justice Warrior cause (indoctrinated liberal progressive adherents of cultural marxism -- useful idiots,) I believe the other, more insidious types of trolls, the paid shills and psy op agents are far more pervasive and common than honest to goodness "trolls." - a.k.a. stunted individuals looking for cheap thrills by being an asshole on teh Interwebz.

These shills are trained in tactics to generate a "desirable outcome" of promoting and reinforcing an established narrative, and they are paid for by shady business fronts laundering Government agency funds in service to a covert agenda of FedGov PsyOps, all to promote and reinforce PC establishment propaganda.

In other words, their exists an entire industry of cubicle farm-desk jockeys who get paid to do nothing more than sit in a boiler room styled setup at all hours and troll teh Interwebz.

This is another reason that the moderators and I don't hesitate to spam any commenter who exhibits any sign of being a troll-whore. How you can recognize these trolls for hire:

1. It's usually a new name you haven't seen before, and often using a nomenclature that doesn't quite fit the blog regulars.
2. They tend to be monomaniacal and only comment on certain specific topics. Lately, those are a) immigration and b) Trump.
3. Their comments are pure rhetoric and are either triumphal or defeatist in tone.
4. They don't pay any attention to dialectical responses, no matter how effectively their statements and arguments are addressed. They NEVER admit that they are wrong, even when it is clearly demonstrated.
5. Unlike regular trolls, they don't get upset when they are spammed and banned. They just quietly disappear, then return under a different name spouting very similar statements.
6. They post similar, or even identical, comments on other right-wing sites such as Steve Sailer's site or the Unz Review.
7. They frequently have a written tic or some other tell that renders them readily recognizable.

How should you respond to them? By ignoring them. You are not helping when you engage with them, particularly when you attack them. That is exactly what they are seeking, to provoke some kind of reaction, any kind of reaction. Derailing the discourse is one of their top priorities, along with discrediting the primary blogger(s).

Just leave it to the moderators and I to handle them. We have various means at our disposal, from autovanishing comments with flagged words to spamming to simply deleting them as soon as they are posted. We've been doing this for a long time, most of the moderators are experienced and highly skilled in textual analysis, and it's easy for us to keep these troll-whores under tight control as long as the regular commenters don't fall for the bait and get in the way.

Every single time

Seriously, what is it with Gammas? They can't follow the rules, they get snarky and disrespectful when they're warned, then they bitch and cry and hurl angry accusations and threats when you follow through and ban them.

And they do this every single time, even though they've seen it happen to dozens of other Gammas. Are they totally incapable of learning from either their own experience or others? It's like they have no ability to recognize that what happened to others is going to happen to them if they do the same thing.

Anyhow, Ray is banned and spammed, so nuke him, moderators, when he pops up crying and flailing about. Everyone else, just ignore the wounded Gamma antics.

Of enthymemes and false erudition

First, Philalethes observes that my use of rhetoric was, indeed, effective:

VD's original use of "Aztec" in the WND article was effective rhetoric, the Slate author's snarky reference to it was at least attempted rhetoric, and then VD's present response was also rhetoric, by the clever tactic of twisting the poignard out of her hand and stabbing her back with it. For me, it worked quite well, whether or not it was based on an enthymeme (about which I knew nothing until tonight).

Which is the point: either rhetoric draws blood, or it does not. Maybe for Mr. Camestros it did not, but that's all he can legitimately say about it – though his effort to destroy the rhetoric by dialectic would appear to show that he is at least aware that this device did and would draw blood in the minds of most readers. So in sum I must agree that all Mr. Camestros has accomplished here is to make a fool of himself with his attempt to speak magisterially from the high seat on a subject about which he obviously knows less than does the person at whom he is aiming his barb.

Second, I will explain how the now-banned Camestros Felapton either badly misrepresented, or simply failed to understand, Aristotle's fundamental distinction between dialectic and rhetoric, as well as the purpose of the latter. He's rather like a tactician who doesn't grasp strategy, as he seems to have a basic knowledge of the technical aspects without understanding their basic purpose or how they can be utilized:

I know what an enthymeme is, thank you, which is why I re-expressed your enthymeme as a formal syllogism with premises. I do so to highlight what your un-expressed major premise was. Put another way, what was the underlying assumption that you were appealing to in your rhetorical device.

That assumption appears to be this:
"People who are part-X are not people who are paranoid about X" Which is best described using the technical term 'bollocks'.

If your response is an 'effective' one then it is because your audience is accepting that assumption as being correct.

An enthymeme has UNSTATED premises (or conclusion). The premises and/or conclusion are suggested or implied (in the non-logical sense of 'implied'). You seem to be thinking that 'unstated' means 'logically do not exist'. That is incorrect. With an enthymeme the reader is expected to 'fill in the gaps'. This is why I asked you what your premises were so as to re-express your enthymeme as a formal syllogism.

This initially made me suspect that Felapton was simply being dishonest. The reason he wanted me to translate the rhetoric into dialectic, and complete the formal syllogism, was so he could criticize it from a logical perspective and thereby discredit it in an attempt to persuade others to believe Slate's claim that I am paranoid about Aztecs. (Which was, in itself, merely another step towards his real purpose.) He was pushing me to state the unstated because an enthymeme does not only contain unstated premises, but those premises are often incorrect from the purely logical perspective. This is why Aristotle gave this type of syllogism a different name and devoted considerable effort to defining and explaining how it worked, because otherwise it would be nothing more than an incomplete syllogism.

Consider one example provided by Wikipedia:

"Candide is a typical French novel, therefore it is vulgar."

In this case, the missing term of the syllogism is "French novels are vulgar" and might be an assumption held by an audience that would make sense of the enthymematic argument.

Now, obviously not all French novels are vulgar, so therefore, Felapton would argue that the syllogism fails logically and is incorrect. That is why he was trying to get me to state the unstated premise of my Aztec enthymeme, so that he could attack it dialectically. But as I pointed out, the syllogism was an enthymematic argument, not a logical argument, and therefore his attempt to logically disqualify it was totally irrelevant. As I have repeatedly pointed out in the book he has not read, there is zero information content in rhetoric; it is not designed to inform and persuade, but emotionally convict and persuade, because, as Aristotle correctly informs us, many people cannot be persuaded by information.

This is the point that Felapton fails to grasp, and his subsequent comment tends to indicate that it is not merely dishonesty on his part, but also a genuine failure to understand the distinction between rhetoric and dialectic that underlies his incorrect statements on the subject.

A great place for you to start to get a better understanding of the role of enthymeme in general and its relationship with logic would be Aristotle's rhetoric itself. I think you perhaps have misunderstood the distinction as somehow rhetoric (in Aristotle's sense) as being utterly divorced from logic. If so then the word you are looking for is not 'rhetoric' but 'bullshit'. Substituting the word 'bullshit' for 'rhetoric' in your response, renders it a better description for what you seem to be trying to say.

However, Aristotle did not advance the notion of rhetoric as BS or sophistry but as an art of persuasion but persuasion towards TRUTH by rational means.

"It is clear, then, that rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion. Persuasion is clearly a sort of demonstration, since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to have been demonstrated.

The orator’s demonstration is an enthymeme, and this is, in general, the most effective of the modes of persuasion. The enthymeme is a sort of syllogism, and the consideration of syllogisms of all kinds, without distinction, is the business of dialectic, either of dialectic as a whole or of one of its branches. It follows plainly, therefore, that he who is best able to see how and from what elements a syllogism is produced will also be best skilled in the enthymeme, when he has further learnt what its subject-matter is and in what respects it differs from the syllogism of strict logic."

What Felapton clearly fails to understand here is that the fact a highly skilled dialectician will also be skilled in the use of rhetoric only means that the best and most effective rhetoric is constructed in a similar manner and is in line with the truth. It absolutely does not mean that the use of enthymematic arguments that are not in line with the truth are not rhetoric, for the obvious reason that there would be no difference between a syllogism presented for dialectical purposes and an enthymeme presented for rhetorical purposes. But the two related concepts are intrinsically different and we know why. Consider Aristotle's additional observations:

• Persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question. 
• The duty of rhetoric is to deal with such matters as we deliberate upon without arts or systems to guide us, in the hearing of persons who cannot take in at a glance a complicated argument, or follow a long chain of reasoning.
• It is evident, therefore, that the propositions forming the basis of enthymemes, though some of them may be "necessary," will most of them be only usually true.
• We must be able to employ persuasion, just as strict reasoning can be employed, on opposite sides of a question, not in order that we may in practice employ it in both ways (for we must not make people believe what is wrong), but in order that we may see clearly what the facts are, and that, if another man argues unfairly, we on our part may be able to confute him. No other of the arts draws opposite conclusions: dialectic and rhetoric alone do this. Both these arts draw opposite conclusions impartially. Nevertheless, the underlying facts do not lend themselves equally well to the contrary views. No; things that are true and things that are better are, by their nature, practically always easier to prove and easier to believe in.

In other words, Felapton has confused Aristotle's admonition to use rhetoric in the service of the truth with Aristotle's definitions of what rhetoric is as well as with his instructions on how to use rhetoric effectively. In fact, Aristotle makes it clear that both dialectic and rhetoric can be used impartially on either side of an argument, although it is much easier to identify the deceptive use of dialectic due to its reliance on complete syllogisms and strict logic than it is the deceptive use of rhetoric due to its incomplete structure and its reliance on apparent truths that are accepted by the audience.

What Felapton calls "bollocks" and "bullshit" is nothing more than what Aristotle calls "apparent truth". But, as we have seen, rhetoric can rely upon these apparent truths just as readily as upon actual truths. And in this particular application, my rhetoric, even structurally reliant as it is upon apparent truth rather than actual truth, is more persuasive, and therefore more effective, than Slate's rhetoric, in part for the obvious reason that it is absolutely true.

The schizo is back

As some of you know, I have some high-level contacts at certain technology companies. It occurred to me that this is a good opportunity to convince them that some changes need to be made to their comment system, so for the time being I've removed the Name/URL and Anonymous commenting options. This means you will have to be registered in order to comment. We may eventually go to a system where you will have to be a member of the blog in order to have commenting privileges.

The advantage of this is that trolls and schizos will no longer be able to pretend to be other commenters. My hope is that I will be able to take the evidence and convince Google to make some of the changes I have been recommending to them that will permit us to go back to a more open commenting system, albeit one that gives the moderators more precise and targeted moderation abilities.

Third time's the charm

I've put the comments back into moderation again, as I expect Mr. Spooner will be spamming the blog until he is prevented from doing so tomorrow. He was warned by the officer and agreed to comply with the officer's request after the officer's second visit, but proved unable to keep his word this evening. As a result, I have compiled a document containing his most recent 1,500+ comments and sent it to the officer. A very brief sample is below.

Funny thing about an "echo chamber" Vox: The only real discussion is going on between the self-absorbed moderator and the guy who's voice he keeps trying to silence. I'm in your head now bitch, and I'm not going anywhere. on Moderation is in effect
Andrew Spooner Jr. at 7:41 AM

Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to hide. on Moderation is in effect
Andrew Spooner Jr. at 8:20 AM

Your wife sucked my dick last night Vox. What a filthy hoe-bag. on Moderation is in effect
Andrew Spooner Jr. at 7:23 AM

I am making you own forces turn against you. Little puppet. I've been controlling you this whole time. I am your muse. Everything you have comes through me. And now I am instructed to take it all away. I will do so. And I will enjoy it. I will laugh a I do it. Because it is my purpose, and because you asked for it. on Moderation is in effect
Andrew Spooner Jr. at 5:39 AM

You can't doxx someone who has nothing to hide. Which tells me that YOU have something to hide. Thanks for that. on Moderation is in effect
Andrew Spooner Jr. at 5:19 AM
   
I fucked your wife, Vox, and she loved it. Good thing nobody will ever see this post. You have absolutely no proof I ever said it, but you WILL let your temper get the best of you and come after me. on Pseudo-dialectic posturing
Andrew Spooner Jr. at 5:17 AM

It's a pity, but Mr. Spooner left me with little choice. So, please leave your comments as usual and Markku, Matt, and I will approve them without too much of a delay. And you might spare a moment to pray for the guy. Something is clearly not right with him and the whole thing stinks of the spiritual world. The Enemy always attacks through weak links, and despite whatever he is going through now, Andrew Spooner has been one of us for years.

Goodbye Tiny Tim

After I warned Tiny Tim about his behavior here, he responded:

As if I give a crap. You would be doing me a favor. This blog is as useful as a circle jerk at the Sig Ep house.

I have done him the favor of banning him. I am far too busy these days to put up with commenter antics. If you want to discuss, disagree, analyize, argue, or criticize, that's all fine.

But if you're looking for attention, trolling, or attempting to work through your copious psychological issues, this is not the place to do it. It just isn't, so don't try it. I don't believe in fairness or equality, so this is the very last place to look for it or appeal to it.

The people have spoken

That will be enough, Porky. A sufficient number of readers have now expressed the same sentiment concerning your comments that I have decided your continued participation in the discourse is not beneficial, therefore your comments will no longer be permitted.

Rest assured that should we feel the need to be blessed with your wisdom in the future, we will not hesitate to seek your no doubt very valuable counsel.

A time of Romans

I guess we won't be seeing the New Zealand library-troll around here again anytime soon.

Internet trolls face up to two years' jail in New Zealand under a controversial new law which bans “harmful digital communications”. The law will help mitigate the harm caused by cyber-bullying and give victims a quick and effective means of redress, supporters said. Under the Harmful Digital Communications Act in effect from this week, anyone convicted of “causing harm by posting digital communication” faces two years in prison and a $50,000 (NZ) (£6,500) fine, while businesses face fines of up to $200,000. Harmful communications can include truthful as well as false information.

The Romans always win. In fairness to Phoenician, he had the sense to knock it off when I started going after Andrew Marston.

Speaking of hunting trolls

Gotcha, NTA. You weren't kidding about the north, eh? Turns out my theory last night was wrong.