SJWs are already crying wolf

As I mentioned in SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police, SJWs are all offense, no defense. They can't take ANY heat, or even the simple, factual documentation of their public statements and actions:

I work in a datacenter and we have just received an abuse complaint (at 1:30 in the morning) from Tim Chevalier regarding the website SJWList.com - a site hosted by one of our clients - claiming it, "Incites harassment and violence against individuals."

He's asking us to "take appropriate action according to our acceptable use policy" meaning take it down, which, knowing our client, probably won't happen. But anyway… the abuse emails are submitted to every person on our team, so I can't just ignore it and have it go away, but I'd just like to let it be known that this type of backlash is occurring. They are trying to use GG's tactics against it.

This is who submitted the abuse report to us. He works at Google, apparently.

This sort of counterattack is precisely why I told everyone to keep things absolutely factual and very tightly and narrowly defined on the SJW list site. If you are stupid enough to justify or rationalize the inclusion of anyone whose presence on the list is even remotely questionable, it's going to be portrayed as incitement or harassment or rape or something equally false.

So, do not explain, justify, rationalize or add anything that involves the words "since" or "because". Stick to the cold, hard, and objectively verifiable facts that do not require any context or agreement with your opinion.

And clearly, someone needs to add Tim Chevalier to the list for his deceitful attempt to have the site taken down by filing a false report of inciting harassment and violence.

In the meantime, the front page is locked down and a number of admins have been appointed, so there won't be much trouble handling the griefers. You can still create new pages for individual SJWs and admins will add them to the list on the front page once they're created.

Of SJWs and echo chambers

I have to admit, I'm a little surprised. Only #423 on the Level 2 SJW blocklist? How can this be? DON'T THEY KNOW WHO I AM?

Who will be added to the block list? The short answer is anyone that a blocker defines as block list worthy. The general rule is if you are the type that would find yourself banned on a blog on Freethoughtblogs.com, Skepchick.org or from the A+ forum then you will likely end up in the list…

And as I've noted, they operate solely at the rhetorical level. Their assertions and posturing are almost entirely devoid of any meaning beyond "me good, them bad".

John Scalzi‏@scalzi
Oh, the transcendent irony of being accused by a GamerGater of living in an echo chamber.

John Scalzi‏@scalzi
Happy to say my Twitter feeds are full of brilliant, clever people, and that's only partially because I mute the stupid, annoying jerks.

Apparently John "I am a rapist" Scalzi not only doesn't know what satire is, he doesn't know what irony is either. Keep this typical SJW behavior in mind when they begin with their entryist tactics and start babbling about the importance of inclusivity, diversity, discourse and dialogue. Words don't have any objective meaning to them, they merely mean whatever the SJW needs it to mean in order to achieve whatever goal he is pursuing.

It will do you no good to point out to the likes of Scalzi that he observably lives in an echo chamber of his active making. "Echo chamber" is merely a bad word, and being a bad word, therefore cannot be applied to the SJW and must be applied to his bad opponent, regardless of what it actually means. If you agree with them, you are by definition "brilliant and clever", and if you disagree with them, or even worse, criticize them, you are intrinsically "stupid, annoying jerks".

This is why they don't dare to compete in any venue that is not "heads I win, tails you lose."  And this is how they can attack a libertarian as being a "fascist' or a black man for being a "white supremacist" without even a hint of intellectual embarrassment. Because, for them, neither words nor truth have any genuine meaning.

The cost of convergence

Some people doubted the veracity of my claim that the purpose of the SJW list is to help SJWs find employment at SJW-converged companies. What they fail to understand is that there is no better way to legally ensure the segregation of those individuals from the sane elements of society as well as ensuring that the converged companies more quickly experience the full consequences of their embrace of social justice:

The University of Missouri will be shaggier and dirtier and faculty will be responsible for taking their own trash to dumpsters under the plan for cutting 50 jobs in campus operations detailed in an email memo sent Friday by Vice Chancellor Gary Ward.

Landscaping operations will be cut back so sidewalk edges are trimmed no more than twice a year and only in the most visible locations, Ward wrote. After Saturday football games, the debris left by tailgaters will not be picked up until Monday, he wrote.

Custodial staff no longer will clean or remove trash or recyclables from offices, Ward wrote. “This frees up custodians to assist with recycling, which, previously, has been a volunteer effort,” Ward wrote.

The plan to save $5.47 million in the MU Operations division that employs 842 people exempts the MU Police Department and MU Environmental Health and Safety. Ward warned it likely means slower response time for maintenance issues, less overtime and slower snow removal.

In the email, Ward warned that “we will be unable to sustain the level of service for which you have become accustomed. I do not anticipate that changes beginning July 1, 2016, will inhibit the academic mission at Mizzou, nor is it my intention for that to ever happen.”

Ward’s email is his response to a March 9 directive for a 5 percent cut to general fund budgets from interim Chancellor Hank Foley. The directive imposed a hiring freeze and warned there would be no salary increases.

The Columbia campus is trying to cover $22 million of an expected $32.5 million shortfall because of declining enrollment and new commitments such as the new Division of Inclusion, Diversity and Equity, spokesman Christian Basi said. The cuts do not take into account possible state budget reductions or increases.

Notice that this $32.5 million shortfall is not only the result of their target market's negative reaction to SJW activity at the university, but also due to the fact that the SJWs running the institution would rather pay for the Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity than pay custodians to prevent them from living in filth.

Many people make the mistake of thinking that common sense aversion to negative consequences will suffice to prevent SJWs from pursuing total societal convergence. The decisions of the SJWs at the University of Missouri should suffice to disabuse them of that notion. It won't, but it should.

SJWs, exposed

The SJW calling himself Hawk S. Rabidus made a risibly false claim.

Nobody else is organizing or manipulating things on Goodreads (or the Hugos) using concerted action. There is no cabal.

There most certainly is, as in both cases, the emergent behavior of the various individuals who share an interest in pushing social justice is observably manifest. In the case of the Hugos, the editors at Tor Books have been engaging in concerted action for decades. They have, by their own admission, decided when new awards will be created, when they will win those awards, and when they will step back and permit others to win them. In the case of Goodreads, it is a group of petty SJWs and SJW librarians who have collectively sought to lower the ratings of right wing authors. Thanks to Sean O'Hara, we were able to put together the list of all 100 or so, including moderators like rivka, and librarians like banillah, Bryan Young, davidofterra, and Getty Hesse.

 SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police
by Vox Day, Milo Yiannopoulos (Foreword)
Getty Hesse's review
Jan 04, 16

did not like it

I'm putting this review up because the book desperately needs a lower rating. One does not need to read this book. The very blurb is resplendent with contradictions.

SJWs subject the world to "their intolerant thought and speech policing," and yet the VERY NEXT SENTENCE speaks of "the SJW agenda of diversity, tolerance, inclusiveness, and equality." Tolerance cannot be intolerant. Vox Day is saying here that something is not itself. And he doesn't even suggest that their "agenda" is something else masquerading as "diversity,tolerance, inclusiveness, and equality," oh no, rather these things contradict "both science and observable reality." I'm not even going to bother to explain why that statement is incredibly idiotic. Anyone with half a brain cell should be able to figure it out.

And, for the record, Vox Day is not "the most hated man in science fiction." He's the most laughed at.

If SJWs could do logic, they wouldn't be SJWs. Forgive the digression, but Getty Hesse's pseudo-dialectic makes my teeth itch. It's true that X cannot be Not X, but Y most certainly can be. In much the same way Tom Brady is not the New England Patriots playbook, SJWs are not the professed SJW agenda. As usual, both Vox's First Law and the First Law of SJW can be seen here.

What is interesting about Goodreads is that it provides an excellent way of publicly identifying where people stand on the socio-political spectrum. Aside from the amusement that this latest showdown has provided, it has sparked some very interesting discussions in our tech circle, including some things we're going to discuss in our next Brainstorm, where we will talk about the planned fork of Wikipedia and the shape of its eventual replacement.

More importantly, this has finally allowed me to answer the core question with which I have been wrestling: do we create something that is a right-wing alternative to Wikipedia or do we shoot to replace it entirely with something better that the left can be safely permitted to use without converging it like they always do?

Speaking of things that provoke laughter, Rolf Nelson received an email from The Goodreads Team explaining why they would not be removing an obviously fake review in which it was apparent that the reviewer could not possibly have read the book.

Goodreads policy allows users to rate a book as soon as it is listed on the site. We do not dictate on what basis Goodreads members form their personal opinions about a book, so we have no rules about reading the full text of a book before rating and reviewing it. We recognize that not everyone will agree with this policy, but it is one that has worked well for the Goodreads community over time.

Users are entitled to express their honest opinions about the book, even if others feel them to be misguided or wrong. We don't evaluate a reader's opinions based on how, when, or why they made a judgement about the work that they read. Given the subjective nature of reviews, it’s hard to designate one review as “wrong” and another “right.” Even if we could, it would be impractical to manually verify the authenticity of every statement made in a Goodreads review, and we have to be consistent in how we apply our policies.  

That would explain why they were able to ban me in good conscience: they have no need to be consistent about how they apply their unviolated non-policies.

But we shouldn't be surprised that Goodreads' policy permits the review of books one hasn't read, as it even permits the review of books that don't exist. Two Goodreads librarians have one-starred a book that I supposedly wrote for Ben Bella that was never signed to a contract, that I never wrote, and Ben Bella never published. It's nice that ignoring reality has worked well for the Goodreads community over time, but history is quite clear on the way that reality tends to impose itself in the end.

One more tangent, if you don't mind. Ben Bella graciously returned to me the audiobook rights to The Irrational Atheist and we expect it to be available on Audible from Castalia House sometime in the February-March timeframe.

You don't say

Chaos Horizon provides additional evidence of how the SF-SJWs guide their bloc vote:

A few weeks ago, the 2015 Tor.com Reviewers’ Choice list came out. Over the past several years, this has been an important list to track for several reasons. First, it gathers recommendations from 11 Tor.com critics, making it a collated list of its own. Second, it has been fairly well synced up to the Hugos and Nebulas, at least before the campaigning of last year. In 2013, they recommended Ann Leckie’s Ancillary Justice three times; it swept the Hugo and Nebula. Last year, Goblin Emperor was recommended 3 times; it scores Hugo and Nebula noms and that could very well have won the Hugo if not for the Puppies.

Tor Books has been an award-chasing publisher for decades. That fact that the Puppies have risen up to stop them from dominating the awards every year is why they changed the rules with E Pluribus Hugo. Patrick Nielsen Hayden and his little coterie calculated that as long as they can guarantee themselves a single nomination per category, they can muster enough muscle to win at the final round.

What Puppykickers quite willfully fail to understand is that in 2015, the Puppies, even the Rabid Puppies, engaged in less bloc-voting, in percentage terms, in 2015 than the SJWs did. In the past, the Tor-led SJWs didn't need to publish public lists because it was all a whisper campaign among a few dozen people; you could see references to it in every "I haven't read X yet, but I'm voting for it because I hear...." statement. You could also see the Nebula logrolling take place in the SFWA NAR every year, until it was hidden from the public; to Cat Rambo's credit, she has apparently made public what, if I recall correctly, John Scalzi was responsible for hiding.

Table 1: Correlation Between Top 6 (and Ties) of the 2014 Nebula Suggested Reading List and the Eventual 2014 Nebula Nominees

Novel: 4 out of 6, 67.7%
Novella: 6 out of 6, 100%
Novelette: 5 out of 6, 83.3%
Short Story: 6 out of 7, 85.7%

Total: 21/25, 84%

The Tor.com Reviewers' Choice has reinforced, and to a certain extent supplanted, the Tor whispering campaign; based on the way in which reviewers tend to chase the crowd, we can anticipate that the novels the SJWs will be pushing for the award season include:

Uprooted by Naomi Novik (Del Rey)
Ancillary Mercy by Anne Leckie (Orbit)
Karen Memory by Elizabeth Bear (Tor)
The Fifth Season by N.K. Jemisin (Orbit)

It's all women, as one would expect, but surprisingly light on Tor-published books. One would assume the fifth book would be The Dark Forest, the sequel to The Three Body Problem, but there is very, very little SJW buzz about it. Perhaps the SJWs finally figured out that Cixin Liu is a man. Or perhaps it is perceived to have been tainted by the Puppies playing kingmaker last year. Who knows? These are not rational people.

We now also know why John Scalzi very publicly counted himself out in 2015; unlike last year, he is aware that neither Tor nor the SJWs are pushing his latest mediocrity for any awards. No doubt he's waiting for EPH, when Tor can again guarantee him a spot to make up for his declining popular support.

Now let's go and see what the top novels are in the 2015 SFWA Suggested Reading List. And note that I did not see these until AFTER reaching my conclusions based on the Tor.com reviewers' choices.

21     Uprooted     Novik, Naomi     Del Rey
17     The Grace of Kings     Liu, Ken     Saga Press 
16     Karen Memory     Bear, Elizabeth     Tor Books
15     Updraft     Wilde, Fran     Tor Books   
14     The Traitor Baru Cormorant   Dickinson, Seth  Tor Books
12     Ancillary Mercy     Leckie, Ann     Orbit
11     The Fifth Season     Jemisin, N. K.     Orbit   

Interesting, is it not? All four novels identified are there. After looking into the three previously unmentioned novels, I think it's likely that Seth Dickenson's debut novel will turn out to be the book that Tor is pushing in 2015. They badly need a new star now that Scalzi is running out of steam and they lost the HALO books; based on this review, Dickenson certainly appears to understand the Tor Game: "While I enjoyed The Traitor Baru Cormorant, and will read the second book in the series when it arrives, I felt at times I was being giving a sociology lecture by someone steeped in women's and LBGT studies and political economy."

Seth Dickinson, we are told, "is the author of THE TRAITOR BARU CORMORANT and more than a dozen short stories. During his time in the social sciences, he worked on cocoa farming in Ghana, political rumor control, and simulations built to study racial bias in police shootings. He wrote much of the lore and flavor for Bungie Studios' smash hit DESTINY. If he were an animal, he would be a cockatoo."

Yeah, about that... "Destiny’s initial release was met with a chorus of ‘meh’.  It wasn’t a bad game, but it was hampered by a damp squib of a main storyline."

In any event, Mr. Dickenson sounds like an ideal standard bearer for Tor Books for the next few years. Regardless, I won't be reading The Traitor Baru Cormorant, because BOYCOTT TOR BOOKS.

A shriek and a miss

Wired discovers that no one is buying Senior Technology Writer Nitasha Tiku's lame attempt to launch a point-and-shriek swarm at the behest of those 15 poor, besieged Googlers who can't harass and physically threaten their colleagues with violence and disemployment without their behavior being exposed to the public. Not even the sane non-SJW Left, who are beginning to understand that they are every bit as liable to be targeted by SJWs as the Right, and they are even more vulnerable to their swarmings.

As it happens, these were the highest-rated comments among Wired's own readers:

ThanksfortheFishes
"goading them into inflammatory statements"

How do you force anyone into writing a statement or saying something inflammatory if they don’t already want to say it? Personal responsibility is outdated I guess. Or maybe it’s just for white males.

Markew
So "diversity advocates" are upset that tactics that have been used for years against those who don't agree with the diversity advocates are now being used against themselves? Huh.

RightishLeft
Only insecure idiots would want diversity to be forced from above by holding back some racial / gender groups and promoting others. It implies that the very people promoting diversity secretly believe that some groups are less able to win on merit alone than others. The only way to promote true diversity is via fair hiring and job promotion policies that emphasize individual merit, and merit alone.

John Reece
DIversity is swell, turning it into an obsessive-compulsive fetish thing is something else. 'Diversity' has also become leftist code for "don't like white males", when after all, it was mostly white males who invented Silicon Valley and most of modern science and technology.

NotSure2006
So...you are saying it would be wrong to leak the internal conversations on controversial subjects like diversity in the workplace if the person could experience backlash or doxxing. I wasn't there but I can only assume the keyboard burst into flames from the irony.

indio777
Well, to quote 'liz fong' " claiming she "could care less about being 'unfair' to" them, 'them' being white males...just because they're white and male. That is most repugnant, unfair attitude ever. Perhaps that is why people hit back at this nitwit because now they're saying 'I could care less about being unfair to liz fong and her band of diversity pushers'. If you can't take it, don't dish it fool.... DISGUSTING! Wired, why didn't you print WHAT these 'minority group' neanderthals actually wrote openly and were cheered on by other bigots within Google? Read the damn lawsuit. These people were mean, vicious, ignorant. There is NOTHING 'diverse' about picking on another group. EVER.

Mayrode Parashkov
It's reminds me of Jordan Peterson interview and how Cathy Newman and Channel 4 played the victim card after losing the debate and the intellectual battle. Google, YouTube and Twitter and the leftist employees are not the victims here. You fire and harass people and now people are fighting back.

Of course, the article never mentions what those poor besieged Googlers actually did and said about their colleagues. Allow me to correct that sad journalistic deficiency.

You can believe that women or minorities are unqualified all you like - I can't stop you - but if you say it out loud, then you deserve what's coming to you. Yes, this is "silencing". I intend to silence these views; they are violently offensive.
- Colm Buckley, Google

I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that nobody holds these opinions and feels marginalised in a genuine way. To those folks I would say "Doesn't feel nice, does it?". Leave it at home. If you're not prepared to leave it at home, then leave yourself there.
- Dave O'Conner, Google

I will absolutely go out of my way to make sure that I never work anyone involved with or who endorsed that garbage. Because Nazis. And you should absolutely punch Nazis.
- Anthony Baxter, Google

I'm going to devote at least the first third of my 45 minute interview time to a discussion of experience with diversity. If the first fifteen minutes doesn't satisfy me, I'll continue the discussion. If need be, it will take forty-five minutes. I would encourage others to do the same. Judging "googliness" by a vague gestalt with no deliberate attention to such things is inadequate.
- Thomas Bushnell, Google

Fun fact! Keeping a list can get you called out on a certain reprehensible internal mailing list, and have threats of being reported to HR. Threats I ignored, naturally, and which ironically grew the list substantially.
- Paul Cowan, Google

While Google appears to be doing very little to quell the hostile voices that exist inside the company, I want those hostile voices to know:

• I will never, ever hire/transfer you onto my team. Ever. I don't care if you are perfect fit or technically excellent or whatever.
• I will not actively work with you, even to the point where your team or product is impacted by this decision. I'll communicate why to your manager if it comes up.
• You're being blacklisted by people at companies outside of Google.

- Adam Fletcher, Google

I keep a written blacklist of people whom I will never allow on or near my team based on how they vew and treat their coworkers. That blacklist got a little longer today.
- Collin Winter, Google

The only way to deal with all the heads of the medusa is to no-platform all of them.
- Liz Fong-Jones, Google

It wasn't just the highest-rated comments that opposed Tiku's SJW spin either. Some comments were considerably more biting.

Something I Said?
AS A contributor to Wired #1 I have to say that the authoress of this solid slab of slop has flatulated the most unbalanced article in memory. And, as for the cited Vox Day, he has this authoress' number when he notes: " This is particularly effective if the SJW and his allies have connections in various media organizations, which allows them to rapidly transform a minor event into something that is perceived by the public as a major one. The purpose of the media campaign is two-fold: to stamp the Narrative with an “objective” perspective that echoes the SJW's accusations and to let other potential allies know about the hate campaign in the hopes that they will add their weight to the hogpile."

Here's Your Sign
So.... Wired interviewed 15 people from one side of the debate and only threw in a few inflammatory comments from the other side? Modern journalism...

So much for the idea that Googlers are inclusive. Or intelligent and well-educated, for that matter. Let's face it, that's the real reason the SJWs at Google are so furious. They have been publicly exposed as highly politicized, intellectually fraudulent do-nothings instead of the smart, productive, 21st-century rocket scientists they consider themselves to be.

Attacked at Berkeley

Stefan Molyneux interviews Katrina, the blonde woman who was on video being assaulted by the SJW thugs rioting at UC-Berkeley. She was pepper-sprayed and concussed; her husband was beaten unconscious and several of his ribs were broken.

Watch the video. Notice how they attack. They're very skirmish-oriented, very hit-and-run. Effective, limited-force counters are going to require interfering with their ability to do so. Canes and staffs taking them down to the ground by application to the legs would likely be most effective for the untrained; sweeps and strikes to the knee would be the right tactic for the trained. Take them down, then have your allies drag them back away from their companions and zip-tie them.

It's clear that they are inclined to use pepper spray, but those trying to pepper-spray can be taken out very easily, as when they extend their arm, they are vulnerable to either a) being taken down with a rotation, b) having their arm broken, or, if they're small enough, c) thrown behind. The key is to be aware and ready for it; as soon as the arm comes out, grab with the opposite hand and pull hard.

Notice that Katrina and her husband thought they were prepared; they both were wearing kevlar vests. But defensive measures are not enough; one has to be prepared to neutralize the attackers when they attack. Always wear a belt, as it's easy to loop it over an attacker's neck, particularly one attacking someone else, and incapacitate them with it. In extremis, it can also be used in combination with a set of keys, or a pocket knife with a loop, as a flail.

Notice that both the pepper-spray attackers were women. These are not fearsome streetfighters, they are relying on getting in and out without being touched.

But most importantly, stop relying on the police and the media! They are not going to defend you, they are not going to take your side, and they are not going to give you a fair shake.

It occurs to me that as they rely upon anonymity, an Antifa List should be added to the SJW List so that everyone knows exactly who these people are.

The most replaceable SJW institutions

I'm working on a list for the book. Wikipedia is at the top of my list, for various reasons, but I'm interested in hearing more ideas for SJW-infested institutions that can be most easily replaced with alternatives.

For example, WPP, the advertising giant, would be hugely significant, but it would be very, very difficult to effectively provide an alternative to it. And I don't even know that it is the advertising agency most responsible for pushing various SJW memes via advertising anyhow.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is probably the most important SJW institution at the moment due to the $3.3 trillion it is giving away on an annual basis, but obviously, it's not going to be easy to produce an alternative to that either.

So, if you have ideas on this score, please make your case.

If you wonder why I left Twitter

Twitter observably does not want anyone to the right of MSNBC to use it. I thought it was interesting that despite having 28k followers, I'm not on the list. Perhaps they realize that I've already walked away from it for good.

No amount of followers is going to protect anyone on this list. They've already made a few test runs at Mike Cernovich and several of the others on this list. It's time to leave Twitter and get on Gab. Twitter is simply not a viable option for anyone who wishes to be able to hold an opinion that diverges from the SJW Narrative.

The list makes it very clear who they hate. Successful conservatives, Alt-Lite figures, and anyone who is even remotely identifiable as being pro-white.

The SJW reader challenge

Larry Correia fisks Teapot Bradford's call to not read straight white male authors while Superversive SF takes her SJW reader challenge:

In the spirit of taking this challenge seriously, I will be making an effort to avoid such writers and see what it does for my outlook. So I guess I should make a list of authors that are “acceptable” to read because they aren’t “cis white het males” to make it easier for anybody that wants to join me.

So lets see what is in?

    Sarah A. Hoyt – POC Womyn
    Larry Correia – POC
    L. Jagi Lamplighter – Womyn
    Kate Paulk – Womyn
    Amanda Green – Womyn
    Vox Day – POC

and out

    John Scalzi – Cis Het White Male
    Jim Hines – Cis Het White Male

It really is time that Native American literature finally found its place in fantasy and science fiction after all. It is, frankly, shocking how white women like Catherynne M. Valente are shamelessly appropriating our culture and our legends. I can only applaud Ms. Bradford for encouraging her readers and followers to read my work and I hope they will enjoy it.

Meanwhile, another SJW at File 770 warns about the consequences of the cultural war in SF in light of the attempt to ban Adam Baldwin from a convention in Australia:

This isn’t going to end any better than the rest of these discussions.

Let me ask a question based on two possible thought experiments. Those who want to can ban Adam Baldwin if they want. The right get to ban a person of their choice from an event of their choice. Are we all happier and better people?

Alternatively we allow this sort if banning but to stop people using it capriciously we say you have to pay some amount of money which is not easy to raise in order to do it. The ‘other side’ get to donate it to a non political charity of their choice. In this case I’d guess it would be between a quarter and a half million dollars. Is this issue really that important to people if it comes down to real effort, not just arguing online?

Think up your own method if you like but remember that your opponents get to use the same rulebook.

We can’t go on doing this. It has just about destroyed the gaming community and it could do the same to the SF community. The politics don’t matter. The same situation will crop up sooner or later with different politics. The problem is that neither side respects the process. Whoever amasses the most angry tweets wins but nobody believes that is either just or fair. Nobody has their thinking chaged, simply reinforced. The losers just retreat to reorganise and swear to be more vicious next time.

And now, the punchline, from the same SJW, Martin Easterbrook:

At Loncon last year we had many fans from the Ukraine and Russia, two countries who are effectively at war and who go out of the way to humiliate each others POWs. There were no problems with any of them. They stuck to the fan tradition that, as far as we can, we “leave our guns at the door”. This has become unfashionable lately but for some of us it remains something that is part of the core of being a fan.

Some decisions are difficult, for instance I’ve personally suggested to a convention that they exclude Vox Day because I believe he has personally insulted another author to the point where she would be justified in punching him on the nose if she met him. I would not want to attend a convention that had Orson Scott Card as a goh but neither would I want to go to a convention that excluded him completely.

As I pointed out, by Mr. Easterbrook's standard, John Scalzi is due enough punches in the nose that he's effectively given me permission to beat the little creep to death. I wonder, how many insults does Larry Correia have to take before he is justified in playing Mountain to Scalzi's Viper?

SJW review of games

It seems to me that just as we have a useful metric for dividing Blue SF/F from Pink SF/F, it would be helpful to have one that allowed people to summarize, in a single number, just how SJW a game is. Here is an initial pass at a points list, with 0 equaling not at all SJW and 10 indicating full SJW.

+1 has homosexual or bisexual character
+1 per token Black/Hispanic/Asian
+1 has Magic Negro and/or Saint Gay
+1 contains left-wing political message
+1 core plot concerns left-wing political message
+1 protagonist or sidekick are kickass waifu
+1 female developer mentioned in marketing and PR (see: J. Raymond, Z. Quinn)
+1 takes shots at Christianity or traditional Western morality

Any ideas for improvement? I was considering "+1 produced by Bioware", but that seemed too obvious and redundant.nt

The hysteria crescendos

Chris Hensley appears determined to provide conclusive evidence of the Three Laws of SJW:

Chris Hensley on June 30, 2015 at 9:46 am said
I will make this point, again. I will repeat his point until I am blue in the face. Vox Day and his Rabid Puppies are a hate group. They are extreme-right wing, white supremacist, homophobic thugs. Their actions are racist, misogynistic, homophobic and the list goes on. I have shown my evidence of their bigotry, repeatedly. Everyone else who has made those claims here has shown their evidence, repeatedly. You have not shown a shred of evidence to the contrary. There is no war, there are no sides. The only people talking about a war are Vox Day and his supporters. They are thugs, because they behave like thugs. Despite your claims to the contrary, they are not behaving as reasonable men. They are behaving as bullies and cowards.

You can admit those facts. You can provide evidence showing that their actions towards the Worldcon, Irene Gallo, and a great many others does not constitute harassment and cowardice. If you are willing to do neither then there is nothing to discuss. If you continue to defend their actions, if you cover for them while they harm others, then you share responsibility for those actions.

We see all Three Laws of SJW on display here.

1. SJWs always lie.
2. SJWs always double down.
3. SJWs always project.

If this Hensley is to be taken seriously, a collection of individuals voting on an award, and doing so in considerably less lockstep than numerous confirmed historical bloc votes, are "a hate group"? Spending $40 and filling out a ballot makes us "thugs"? Indians and Latinos and Asians and blacks are "white supremacists?" A writer with a gay fan club and three electronic dance hits on a gay record label is "homophobic"? Simply not buying books from a publisher that has openly and publicly attacked us is "behaving as bullies and cowards"? Nominating books we like instead of books they like constitutes "harassment and cowardice"? 

That is not taking liberties with the truth. That is not twisting and contorting the truth to present a false image. That is holding the truth hostage in the cellar, chaining it to a bed, and repeatedly raping it in a futile attempt to father a false narrative. It is very easy to observe that our actions are not any of the things the SJWs claim them to be. Entertainment Weekly had to issue multiple retractions after being foolish enough to take the SJW claims at face value. Other publications will eventually do the same.

But all the various lies that Chris Hensley and the other SJWs keep hurling in the futile hope that they will finally stick and disqualify aren't interesting. Most of them are literal repetitions of the same narrative Johnny Con has been selling to no avail for several years now. What is interesting is how their level of hysteria has observably increased. Why, one wonders, is it necessary for them to lie until they are blue in the face? Why are they even more desperate to disqualify me now than they were back in April or May?

Why are they still babbling incoherently about us while simultaneously insisting on our totally irrelevant wrongness?

I don't know. Perhaps they fear that the record influx of Supporting Members are not all reliable SJWs and Truefen flooding in to defend the Hugo Awards by voting to not give out any awards. Perhaps they notice that my site traffic has continue to rise, and that support for both Sad and Rabid Puppies continues to grow as more sane people observe the behavior of the SJWs and realize we were not exaggerating. Perhaps it is simply a reflection of the wider cultural war that has heated up of late. Perhaps it is a reflection of the economic instability that now haunts even those who don't pay much attention to the economy. Perhaps it is because we use their tactics against them more effectively than they do.

But whatever the reason, it is clear that they are afraid of me, of you, and of the growing number of people who realize that they are incoherent lunatics who possess an insane and immoral vision for society. Let them hurl spurious labels and tell ridiculous lies. It's what they do. We are immune to all their pointing and shrieking and posturing and preening attempts to DISQUALIFY.

We don't care. And as for the idea that the "only people talking about a war are Vox Day and his supporters", see: the First Law of SJW. And note that this reference to a cultural war happening in fiction precedes the existence of Rabid Puppies by five months.

UPDATE: Mike Glyer has noticed the increased activity as well.

Activity in June was so intense that 19 of last month’s posts now rank among this blog’s 25 most-viewed of all-time. The reason is the huge amount of dialogue in the comments section. Five posts drew over 1,000 comments. “Lord Foul’s Baying,” the June 14 roundup, is not only the month’s top post but trails only the photo essay about the Bradbury house teardown as this blog’s most-read entry. It collected over 1,300 comments.

I'm sure that intensity is simply the result of the SJWs being so interested in talking about the books they love. It wouldn't have anything to do with their insane obsession with shoring up their crumbling Puppy Narrative, as we are reliably informed that we don't matter, we're totally irrelevant, we're only bots with a bunch of fake Twitter accounts, and absolutely no one pays any attention to anything we write, say, think, or boycott. Also, unrepentant bad-to-reprehensible racist misogynistic homophobic neo-Nazi hate group thugs.

Killswitch the Linux Code of Conduct

Don't wait to be ejected from the Linux Kernel Community, contributors. Throw the killswitch, rescind your license grants NOW, and force the SJWs who are trying to converge your project to permanently withdraw the cancerous Code of Conduct.

Date Thu, 20 Sep 2018 09:28:14 +0000
From unconditionedwitness@redchan ...
Subject Re: A Plea to Unfuck our Codes of Conduct

Regarding those who are ejected from the Linux Kernel Community after this CoC:

Contributors can, at any time, rescind the license grant regarding their property via written notice to those whom they are rescinding the grant from (regarding their property (code)) .

The GPL version 2 lacks a no-rescission clause (the GPL version 3 has such a clause: to attempt furnish defendants with an estoppel defense, the Linux Kernel is licensed under version 2, however, as are the past contributions).

When the defendants ignore the rescission and continue using the plaintiff's code, the plaintiff can sue under the copyright statute.

Banned contributors _should_ do this (note: plaintiff is to register their copyright prior to filing suit, the copyright does not have to be registered at the time of the violation however)

Additionally when said banned contributors joined the Linux team, they were under the impression that it was a meritocracy: in-fact this belief was stated or ratified by those within the governing body regarding Linux when the contributors began their work (whatever that body was at that time, it could have been simply Linus, or Linus and a few associates).

The remuneration for the work was implied to be, or perhaps stated, to be fame as-well as a potential increase in the contributors stature, in addition to membership in the Linux Kernel club or association, or whatever it is that the Linux Kernel Community actually is (which a court may determine... it is something, suffice to say).

Thusly for work, consideration was promised by (Linus? Others? There are years of mailing list archives with which to determine).

And now that consideration has been clawed-back and the contributors image has been tarnished.

Thus the worker did work, however the other side of the implied, or perhaps written (email memorandums), understanding has been violated (once the contributor has been banned under the new non-meritocratic "CoC").

Damages could be recovered under: breach of contract, quazi-contract, libel, false-light. (services rendered for the contractual claims, future lost income for the libel claims). In addition to copyright claims. (statutory damages, profits)

For greatest effect, all rescission should be done at once in a bloc. (With other banned contributors).

Contributors: You were promised something, you laboured for that promise, and now the promise has become a lie. You have remedies available to you now, as-well as in the close future .

Additionally, regarding those who promoted the Code of Conduct to be used against the linux kernel contributors, knowing full well the effect it would have and desiring those effects; recovery for the ejected contributors via a tortious interference claim may be possible.

Most of the legal babble is the usual ignorant nonsense, but the license rescinding threat is both real and significant. And in this case, because the Code of Conduct has already been imposed, all the non-SJW contributors would be advised to act now and force a complete retreat by those who are successfully attempting to converge the project. We know how this always turns out.

These losers did the same in the comic industry and the gaming industry and now they are trying it in the open source community.

Fortunately, some contributors are seriously considering withdrawing their code, although they need to simply go ahead and do it now. Dire threats and warnings never, ever work with these lunatics. They always - and usually correctly - assume that you're going to back down.

My company is already considering the full withdrawal of all contributed code to the kernel project and related embedded kernel projects. You literally can’t run embedded Linux on industrial controls or handheld scanners without this code.

Assuming the Code of Conduct can be removed, an anti-SJW inquisition would be the correct next step, followed by permanent exclusion and ideological policing. Because, as you have been openly warned, the Code of Conduct is an SJW weapon and it is only a prelude of ruthless enforcement and even worse things to come.

Coraline Ada Ehmke @CoralineAda
Sep 20
Adopting a code of conduct is STEP ONE and does nothing to address systemic issues. The hard work is in designing an enforcement process, answering some hard questions about accountability and safety, and following through.

Coraline Ada Ehmke@CoralineAda
Sep 20
Looking for community financial support. Having a CoC is a first step, but fair enforcement is what makes all the difference. I’m working on an open source SaaS app to make this easier.

Fortunately, some in the Linux community are clearly aware of the SJW threat to their open source projects, their technology, and their careers.

With the recent Social Justice capture of the Linux kernel, many in the open source world may find this guide from Vox Day to be useful. I present it here as a public service; you can find the original PDF here. If you are interested in how to resist the introduction of the Contributor Convenant and other Social Justice derived Codes of Conduct, you may wish to watch this presentation or see the slides for it.

Some readers will recall that I specifically warned about Cancer Coraline and xir Codes of Conduct in SJWs Always Double Down.

The two primary weapons utilized by corporate SJWs to marginalize opponents of convergence are the now-ubiquitous Code of Conduct and the Community Committee. While codes of conduct sound sensible enough in theory, in practice they are very vaguely worded documents that serve much the same purpose for the Community Committees responsible for enforcing them that petty traffic laws do for the police. Namely, they permit the Community Committee, which may be named the Steering Committee or even the Code of Conduct Committee, to charge anyone who is insufficiently enthusiastic about the organization’s new social justice priorities with Code of Conduct violations. Since both looking at another individual and not looking at another individual can be deemed violations of the vast majority of these codes of conduct, you can probably see how they can be weaponized in order to freeze, isolate, and eliminate opponents.

In practice, codes of conduct are also used to smoke out and identify opposition to the SJWs, as the initial skeptics who are the most able to understand the danger posed by a proposed code of conduct will usually tend to serve as the nexus of the resistance against it.

The science fiction is settled

The SF-SJWs never learn, never change, and fail to realize that the changes in the distribution system means that their ability to play gatekeeper has ended.

You see, all this introduction about SF being about Change, and defining that change as the emergence of narcissistic navel-gazing natterings is just so that he can call anyone who doesn’t embrace that as neanderthalic bigoted throwbacks.

Instead of discussing the content and the quality of the stories, some people made derogatory comments [about] the race, gender, sexual orientation, and behaviors of other authors. These were comments that were rooted in bigotry. I should point out here that bigotry is not an expression of hatred as much as it is a demonstration of fear, insecurity, and cowardice. It’s natural to fear the unknown — real courage is embracing it.

God help me, but I’m gonna invoke Vox Day. “SJW’s Always Project.” And here’s the perfect illustration of DARVO and Gaslighting. Since the Puppies were always about the quality of the stories, and Gerrold’s side has always been about denigrating writers on the basis of their race (if white), Gender (if male), sexual orientation (if straight), etc. He’s managed to swap the sides in this statement, trying to claim the moral high ground, and in the process ceding that the other side had it. As an old white male himself, Gerrold had best tread carefully among his fellows, since he’s terribly short on intersectionality points.

And that, perhaps is the real point of this essay. One which he inadvertently makes himself, if you’re not viewing it through SJW lenses. He must maintain his cred that he’s one of them.

There’s an old Russian story about a Communist party meeting, and when the party chairman’s name is mentioned, it is required to stand and applaud his name. The clapping continues and continues, loudly and uproariously because nobody wants to be the first one to stop clapping. After ten or fifteen minutes, the audience is in agony, but nobody dares to stop out of fear. Simply put, because even though it gives everyone else the excuse to finally stop, the first to stop is never seen or heard from again.

This is the danger of playing the Virtue Signaling game. And he goes right out and illustrates this as if it were proper thinking.

Larry Niven has wisely said: Never throw shit at an armed man. Never stand next to someone who is throwing shit at an armed man. In fact, one could distill this into a much more general rule. Never throw shit. Never stand next to anyone throwing shit.

This is profoundly good advice. There has been too much shit-flinging. Monkeys are good at it, but human beings have made it an art form. Some of us enjoy shit-flinging so much that we forget we’re human beings, we become fecal trebuchets.

Now this is extraordinary advice, considering the speaker was the Master of Ceremonies at the single greatest celebration of shit flinging in the entire history of SF Fandom (One of his claims to fame in his bio at the end of the piece). This is a classic example of “Let’s stop after I get my last shot in.” Of course, on the internet, nobody gets the last word, not even me.

So again, he’s projecting his sins upon others. (Also, he missed the point of the Niven quote.)

And why? Because for the next few screens worth, he goes on and on about one single idea. “So let’s have this conversation be about remembering our essential humanity — and what we must do to preserve it. It’s this simple. If someone is throwing shit, verbal or otherwise, silence is interpreted as agreement.”

Fine, this is why I am not being silent, because he has been at the forefront of the gang denying people’s essential humanity. And this goes back to well before the Hugo Wars. He blocked me on Facebook ages ago when I took offense to one of his many (since purged) screeds about how Republicans should be put to death that came up on a liberal friend’s feed. The list of shit he’s thrown, and shit he’s been silent and complicit about is long and horrid, and I’m sure he feels smugly satisfied about every single turd.

But there’s the root of it. This is why he has to make this point calling everyone who disagrees with him in the slightest misogynist, racist, and homophobic. Because in SJW-land, you HAVE to. If you miss one Two Minutes Hate, then your silence is interpreted as agreement, and they will attack you twice as bad for being a traitor to the cause.

It is satisfying to see that more and more people are beginning to see what I was trying to tell them from the start. There is no compromising with this people. It is not possible. They cannot be fixed, and their behavior can only be influenced by force and fear. They are fundamentally damaged and their behavior is driven by internal processes rather than reactions to external influences, so one can no more talk sense into an SJW than one can convince a person with tuberculosis to stop coughing.

And is there a word that male SF-SJWs love more than "fecal"? It's a dead tell.

Mailvox: convergence kills the cons

A former conference speaker who is still very much in demand explains why he doesn't even attend technology conferences anymore. Sounds like we don't just need #AltTech, but #AltCon as well.

These technology conferences are usually run by community-minded people, not corporates, by people who devote themselves to the endeavor, enter into huge financial risk and often wind up losing money at the end of it. Yet this kind of over-the-top virtue display is becoming increasingly common. Once upon a time I seriously considered launching a conference myself, but there's no way I'd expose myself to this kind of drama, which is almost guaranteed now.

These tech community controversies fall into 3 broad categories:

1. Not enough speaker diversity.
You're guaranteed this kind of outrage now if you don't have 50% or more women speakers. I'm certain the bar will move once parity is achieved and you then need PoC, then trans, then ... You even have popular speakers now making statements like "I won't speak at a conference or be on a panel unless there are least 50% women and PoC" such as this fellow. ElectronConf is a hilarious example of this controversy. Electron is an important and rapidly growing technology. It's what applications like Slack, Skype and Brave and many other desktop applications are built on. It's an open source project run and owned by GitHub. They announced their first conference in 2016, got speaker proposals, and even did a blind speaker selection, but ended up with all male speakers, which is obviously not surprising to the rational observer. This kicked off a controversy. The conference was initially postponed, then went dark and completely disappeared. It's supposedly back again for 2018 and calling for speakers, but there is no reason to assume the same thing won't happen again.

2. I won't speak if X is speaking!
Identify a problematic speaker on the list along with yourself and make a big show of how you are cancelling your talk because you won't appear at a venue that promotes problematic Mr X. Often the timing is guaranteed to give the organizers an aneurysm. Nodevember in Nashville in 2016 was a great example of this. Doug Crockford, a well-respected old-guard from the JavaScript community,  literally wrote the book on JavaScript best practices that was a reference for many years--JavaScript: The Good Parts, was on the speaker list but had recently caused conference controversy for "slut shaming" because he was making a technical point and referred to the "old web" as "promiscuous" and the "new web" as "consensual", the case being that he was equating promiscuity with something negative. Kassandra Perch, a typical screechy non-contributing SJW who creates controversy wherever she goes, pulled out and made a scene. She was backed up by the usual Twitter suspects in that community and caused a headache for the organizers. The organizers then had a falling out because one took it upon himself to disinvite Crockford immediately, while another organizer stepped down in protest of the first guy's unilateral action and released a public statement about it. All hell broke lose. This is a conference organized by individuals, who invest their own time to make a fun community thing and have to go begging for sponsorships to make it happen. Somehow they survived and are still doing it each year.

3. A man looked at me! Reeeeee!
This used to be a common tactic as a tool used to justify and introduce Codes of Conduct as a standard practice at conferences in the first place, before they were pushed into our code repositories. There is rarely evidence of actual wrongdoing, just hearsay, and often even that hearsay is a head-scratcher. Now you can't run one of these without a CoC, you just won't get sponsors because they'll be targeted if you don't. See LambdaConf as the last non-CoC conf that has now introduced their own, a bit less SJWized version in an attempt to have one but not completely submit to the narrative. Now that all the conferences have CoCs, the screeching is about supposed violations that aren't correctly handled. They are either pure virtue-signaling or an attempt to undermine the unconverged organization committee. It's not surprising that this current controversy is around a conference in eastern Europe where they are less attuned to SJW culture and don't properly understand how to feed that dragon. They probably stepped on a tripwire and alerted this individual that they hadn't fully signed up to the narrative. The non-West suffers the most from this and comes because they see a need to invite Western big-names to attract ticket sales.

As that guy you interviewed in SJWs Always Double Down said, tech community conferences were the initial gateway for SJW convergence of open source, and my assessment is that they'll be the canary in the coal mine for the costs that convergence will eventually extract from open source. Tech conferences are becoming too risky to organize. The rules around what is acceptable, who you can have speak, ratios of acceptable groups to feature in your speaker lineup, and so forth, are just too hard to understand as the SJW standards mutate over time. The financial risks are huge and you have to rely on large sponsors to fund your events; ticket sales don't do it. But your sponsors are flighty and will withdraw at the first hint of controversy. Quality speakers are becoming increasingly difficult to book and the ratio of knowns to unknowns will deteriorate too far to attract sufficient ticket sales. Particularly when you have to insert so many token speakers who don't contribute to the attractiveness of the conference, and will sometimes even detract from it.

Of course women and other minority groups in tech will bear the greatest cost. The rest of us will just have fewer venues to meet with our peers and hear about cutting edge developments in person. But women, PoC, trans people, etc. are already being promoted at significantly higher numbers than they exist at large in tech with the bar being set very low to make this happen. Low-quality speakers from these minority groups are all too common. The same names keep appearing and people wonder why because they never seem to have anything interesting to add. Non-technical soft talks are becoming too common, and nobody wants to go to a tech conference to be moralized at, but it's now standard practice.

The tech community at large is being presented with artificial evidence that these minority groups are simply full of low-quality and non-contributing individuals. Then we're told that that this is caused by rampant sexism, racism, and transphobia in tech. I don't believe this is true but I wouldn't blame regular conference attendees and video watchers from concluding that their non-white, non-cis, non-male peers are indeed of lesser quality considering the anecdotal evidence being force fed to them. There are great women, PoC, trans, whatever, people in tech, but the high-quality ones exist in proportion to their numbers overall. And those overall numbers are small. For all the reasons that James Damore was chastised for pointing out.

He must be jealous

John Scalzi opines, mostly in experienced, but uninformed ignorance about Milo's bestselling book, which actually made the New York Times bestseller lists on the merits of its own performance.

This is a little bit of publishing inside pool which apparently Yiannopoulos is not aware of (or is trying to fudge), but: You don’t count wholesale orders because wholesalers will eventually return books if they don’t sell them. The publisher has to make them whole for that, either by shifting credit to other books (which in this case Yiannopoulos as a self-publisher of a single book does not have), or by refunding the money. Yiannopoulos may have shipped 105,000 hardcover copies of the book, but that’s not the same as having sold them. I don’t know in this case what “direct orders” mean — it could be sales to individual book buyers (in which case that would be a sale) or to individual booksellers (in which case they are probably returnable, as book stores are loath to stock anything on a non-returnable basis), or to organizations which are making a “bulk buy” for their own reasons, say, a conservative organization who wants to hand out copies to employees or on the street or whatever.

But however you slice it, by Yiannopoulos’ own words (and by his apparent lack of understanding of how bookselling works), he probably has not in fact sold all 100k of the hardcover books. Also, with regard to the wholesalers and other booksellers, I do hope someone in his organization is keeping money in reserve to deal with returns when they (inevitably) happen. I’m also curious as to how he as a self-publisher is dealing with long-term storage and shipping of the books; I really don’t see Yiannopoulos himself handling that. I don’t picture him as a detail-oriented person. Perhaps this will be a job for the interns.

With all of this said, and again with the reminder that I find Yiannopoulos a hot feculent mess of a person, sales of 18,000 hardcovers in one week is pretty darn good. It was enough to land Yiannopoulos at #3 on the USA Today list and at #4 on the New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction list (and #2 on the paper’s print/ebook combined list). He’s a legitimate bestseller. And those 18K sales don’t cover ebook sales, which given his audience demographics I suspect are pretty high. Most authors would be absolutely delighted to have 18k in hardcover sales in their first week. People exercising schadenfreude about all this are thus advised to temper their glee somewhat. The book is not a failure in any manner except in contrast to Yiannopoulos’ industry-specific hype, and also (if the professional reviews are to be believed) as a book worth reading.

Can Yiannopoulos sell 100,000 copies of his book? I suspect so in the long run, especially considering that Yiannopoulos can now have it as a rider for speaking events that whomever is having him speak will be obliged to purchase a certain number of the book in order to have him appear — and speaking events and appearances are the actual bread-and-butter for a creature such as Yiannopoulos, for which this book is mostly advertising.

Has he sold that many in the first week? I doubt it. The actual number, in all formats, across all retailers, is somewhere between 18,000 and 100,000 copies. Which, again, is not at all a bad number of books to sell in the first week. Had Yiannopoulos been smart, he wouldn’t have alleged selling 100K books in his first week at all, he simply would have taken those USA Today and NYT list rankings and waved them about happily, and built PR around those.

But apparently he’s not really that smart. Now most of the stories are about how he only sold 18,000 copies in his first week, rather than the 100,000 copies he alleged.

It's rather amusing to see Scalzi opining on someone else's book sales and strategies, in light of how his fans claim that anyone doing the same to Scalzi is doing so out of envy. (For the record, I am not envious of Scalzi's career nor do I think he is envious of Milo's.)

Now, I can state, with certainty, that Scalzi has it mostly wrong. I won't say more than that, because Milo's secrets are not mine to tell, except to observe that no author publishing through the major publishers really understands how the world of independent publishing works at the top. In fact, even trying to compare unit sales doesn't even make sense, because Milo will be making somewhere between 3x and 5x more per unit than Scalzi and other mainstream-published authors depending upon whether one is utilizing hardcovers, trade paperbacks, ebooks, or audiobooks as the metric.

Where Scalzi is correct is when he notes that Nielsen Bookscan woefully undercounts book sales, so much so that I pay it absolutely no attention whatsoever. And I am absolutely confident that Milo will sell more than 250,000 copies of Dangerous before the end of 2017; my expectation is that he will sell somewhere between 300k and 350k this calendar year. And that is copies sold to the reader, NOT merely units in the distribution channel

As for permitting the media to spin the story of Milo "only" selling 18,000 copies, that is the statement of a man who is accustomed to the media fawning on him and repeating his lies without question. No matter what Milo did, the media was going to find a way to say something negative. But  his assumptions about Milo's dishonesty is a timely reminder of the 3rd Law of SJW: SJWs Always Project.

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".

Dave Truesdale culturally enriches Worldcon

The SJWs in science fiction are upset again, this time because Dave Truesdale, the editor of Tangent Online, pointed out the long term consequences of their actions in a panel at MidAmericaCon II. From File 770:

At 3:00 PM at today’s panel on The State of Short Fiction, Dave Truesdale (of Tangent Online) shocked panelists and crowd alike by abusing his position as moderator to give what sounded like an alt-Right rant against political correctness. He declared that political correctness had destroyed short SFF by making it bland and destroying the careers of people. He waved around a fistful of pearl necklaces and told people to “clutch your pearls” and shut up whenever they felt the urge to point out some injustice.

He had started reading from a multi-page prepared speech (which he attributed to the late David Hartwell) when Sheila Williams shouted at him to stop. (It helped a lot that he seemed to be clueless as to how to operate a microphone whereas she was clearly a master, so she easily shouted him down.) He seemed very surprised that almost the entire crowd (minus one person who might have been a relative) was angry with him. From his behavior, I think he expected to have at least a large cohort agreeing with him.

Eric got a photo of Truesdale reading while Neil Clarke turned his back and other panelists grimaced.

The panelists denied that SFF had declined in quality or that political correctness particularly influenced them as editors. They did note that overt bigotry was no longer acceptable, but Truesdale indicated that he was okay with that change.

At a subsequent panel, we heard that MidAmeriCon II apologized to the panelists, saying no one had any idea this would happen. According to one source, he’d been about to launch into a section titled “definition of a bigot” before he was derailed. Most people seemed to agree that they’d never seen a panel moderator abuse his position to hijack the panel as a platform for his or her own personal agenda.

Seemed. Exactly. Remember, SJWs always - ALWAYS - lie. Translation: they'd before never seen a moderator fail to support the SJW agenda.

I very much doubt Truesdale was surprised in the slightest by the crowd's reaction. These morons have absolutely no idea what to do other than virtue-signal and blindly defend the current Narrative. This picture of Neil Clarke prissily turning his back in order to maximally signal his virtue in order to avoid besoiling himself with badthink association is hilarious.

Considering that Truesdale was directly addressing the subject matter, the state of short fiction, it's obvious that the reason they are angry is not that he "hijacked the panel", but because he told them the unpleasant truth as they know it to be.

Here is how one SJW subsequently characterized it.

Sunil Patel ‏@ghostwritingcow
This panel is fucking UNREAL. It's DT being a whiny pissy manbaby and everyone else yelling at him.

Well done, Dave. Mission accomplished.

And speaking of Worldcon, Tor's campaign for E Pluribus Hugo continues apace, as the EPH Analysis for the years 2014 and 2015 has been released(pdf). Of course, they didn't dare publish their analysis for any other years, for as they have tacitly admitted, doing so would prove that there are whisper slates that have been having an effect on the Hugo Awards for years.

Here is the first amusing thing about it. In the "slate" year of 2015, 10 long list spots and 14 ballot spots changed under EPH. In the "non-slate" year of 2014 - never mind that Sad Puppies was in action then - 17 long list spots and 5 ballot spots changed. And they wonder why I support EPH!

The second amusing thing is the fact that the authors got it wrong. Contra their insistence that only the long list would have been affected, had EPH been in effect in 2015, Alyssa Wong would have made been a Campbell finalist in the place of Rolf Nelson.

Nothing is safe

The anti-SJW faction of #GamerGate is proved correct once again. It's not about the subject at hand, it's about whatever the Narrative happens to be at the moment. SJWs will attack anything and anyone they deem offensive. Forget video games, comics, and tabletop, even pigs are a potential battleground as far as SJWs are concerned.

One day I embarked on what I believed to be a simple, innocuous project: provide a list of cute little pigs being cute little pigs. Around the internet, these creatures have a few interpretations. Some call them micropigs (also known as mini pigs), believing them to be a special breed of animal that stay the size of a tiny piglet.

Some believe the whole micropig idea to be a hoax. From my research, I found the reality of the micropig to be somewhere in the middle. Sure, there were specially bred pigs that were smaller than their massive farm-dwelling counterparts, but they certainly didn’t stay baby-sized. They were, however, gosh darn cute in their younger years, so I decided to make a list of them being adorable while making sure to include a caveat that what you see is not, in fact, what you always get if you purchase a micropig.

I then added a few pictures of micropigs at an adult size for good measure. At the end of the day, though, I had the comfort of knowing that no sane person would look at a listicle of cute pigs and decide to purchase one the same day without, you know, doing a slight bit of research before throwing a few thousand dollars at a breeder.

I trusted in people’s ability to make smart decisions for themselves. When it comes to writing things on the internet, that is not a good decision....

Almost immediately, my list of cute pigs was seen by some very vocal people as a damaging portrayal of the micropig myth that leads to the abandonment and death of pigs around the globe every day. I was a monster, I had created a monster, and I should be shamed publicly for my creation.

The comments began, as they always do, on Facebook. The traffic for the piece was, at the time, record shattering for the site. But as the post started spreading, the comments started accumulating. Some genuinely appreciated the article for the cuteness it provided. Some tagged their friends to enjoy the cute pictures.

But some were enraged. Some worked in animal shelters that had pigs abandoned by people who thought their pet would stay a baby forever, but some were simply fighting the good fight for all people everywhere. I was wrong and, fueled by the ever-intoxicating assumption that they were right and needed to teach the world why I was wrong, they went on a tear.

They needed to save the public from themselves and, most importantly, from me, a caption writer on a listicle website.

Was I taking this too personally? Here’s the thing: When people are angry on the internet, they get personal. And they get mean. And boy, do they get creative.

Soon, people weren’t just commenting on the article. They found me on Facebook, on my photography website, and on Twitter.

 SJW delenda est. Identify and eject them without hesitation wherever you find them.

More SJWs for the SJW list

Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post went running to the ADL because mean people tweeted memes at him.:

Jonathan Weisman Verified account ‏@jonathanweisman
Anti-Defamation League assembles high-powered team to look at racist, anti-Semitic harassment of journalists

 The high-powered team:

• Danielle Citron, Lois K. Macht Research Professor & Professor of Law at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law and expert on online harassment
• Steve Coll, Dean of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
• Todd Gitlin, Professor and Chair, Ph.D. Program, Columbia Journalism School
• Brad Hamm, Dean of the Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern University
• Shawn Henry, retired Executive Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Julia Ioffe, GQ Contributor and freelance writer
• Bethany Mandel, New York Post and Jewish Daily Forward contributor
• Leon Wieseltier, Contributing Editor at The Atlantic and Isaiah Berlin Senior Fellow in Culture and Policy at The Brookings Institution

They're going to make a list and check it twice. Of course, we make lists too. They should probably be given their own category as the ADL's Journalist Police.

I almost pity them. Almost. How long do you give it before all of them shut down their social media accounts?