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

Wednesday, January 06, 2016

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.

Labels: ,

81 Comments:

Blogger FALPhil January 06, 2016 6:09 AM  

It would be interesting to test Goodread's "policy" by identifying a book by an SJW author, a book that SJWs have rated highly, and review it with a somewhat large number of honest low ratings. I think we can predict the outcome.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 January 06, 2016 6:20 AM  

It's going to be a fun year

Blogger VD January 06, 2016 6:23 AM  

I think we can predict the outcome.

If a bunch of SJWs do the same thing, it's simply the natural outcome of honest individual activity. If a bunch of non-SJWs do the same thing, it is a nefarious and evil conspiracy that must be stopped.

Anonymous Mook January 06, 2016 6:47 AM  

I think that a 'right wing alternative' is bound to fail simply because it will become known as a right wing site as soon as SJW's hear about it. Leftist sites will poison the well long before it becomes well-known to the public, if they even give it coverage at all.

It needs to be something that's flat out better than wikipedia. What, I don't know. Perhaps something with a standardized structure to discourage stuff like huge "Criticism" sections in which leftist apologists "debunk" conservative viewpoints on every page.

Blogger James Dixon January 06, 2016 6:50 AM  

> 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.

Which just proves that SJW's have no sense of humor. If they did, they would have 5 starred it saying, "It's the best thing he's ever written."

> If a bunch of non-SJWs do the same thing, it is a nefarious and evil conspiracy that must be stopped.

Or, in Hillary's terms, a "vast right-wing conspiracy".

Anonymous JohnnyLightwave January 06, 2016 7:06 AM  

The problem is, you can't make something that just offers the same thing as Wikipedia, only different. People will just stick with Wikipedia then.

I humbly recommend a site idea: www.textbooksummaries.com ... basically just wiki a summary of all college textbooks. Put anything important on the page, leave out the fluff. Give it a conservative slant.

Every single college kid will go there.

Blogger VD January 06, 2016 7:14 AM  

The problem is, you can't make something that just offers the same thing as Wikipedia, only different. People will just stick with Wikipedia then.

Absolutely. That is my guiding principle.

I humbly recommend a site idea: www.textbooksummaries.com ... basically just wiki a summary of all college textbooks.

Love it. That is definitely on the module list.

Blogger VD January 06, 2016 7:15 AM  

It needs to be something that's flat out better than wikipedia. What, I don't know.

Yes. I do.

Anonymous Shut up rabbit January 06, 2016 7:25 AM  

But Vox, they do it in secret and pretend they don't, that's totes different. It's not the activity that's wrong it's only being caught doing it by mommy and daddy that's bad.

Blogger Danby January 06, 2016 8:09 AM  

Hey, Vox, they're just talkin' with their homies. You're organizing a right-wing coup against the natural rulers.

Totes diff.

Anonymous Homesteader January 06, 2016 8:12 AM  

Get the rest of the book rights back, and issue the trilogy- The Irrational.., SJWAL, & Cuck.. Call it "an
updated Malleus Maleficarum for the 21st century".

Anonymous Rigel January 06, 2016 8:25 AM  

Waiting for my special email...I flagged a bad review where the reviewer stated in the first sentence she had not read the book.This makes no sense, how can they claim books win reader choice awards when they can be rated without reading?

Anonymous Hawk S. Rabidus January 06, 2016 9:03 AM  

Vox, there is no cabal working in concert to castigate you. Is it so hard to imagine that in all of Goodreads' user population there aren't 100 people who are of a like mind and who independently and individually decided that they didn't like your books?

But it's interesting to see how quickly you would throw Vlad under the bus. I'd have hoped that you'd use your intelligence for more than just deflecting criticism with plausible deniability, especially at the expense of your lieutenants.

This is why I said you were banned for your actions, not your words (no matter how carefully considered), and that you didn't like it. Proof that you don't like it is in the whinging that you've done.

Your words encouraged people to rate books they've read. Your actions of choosing a lieutenant who twists the spirit of that encouragement are hard to reconcile, and allowing him to determine a collective action that would skew the ratings, which are supposed to be a snapshot of the individual tastes of Goodreads users.

You sure are quick to deflect criticism to Vlad, though. That's interesting information. But, as we all know, lieutenants are expendable and replaceable.

For the record, I don't think that your Wasp Factory review should have been deleted. If there really was a cabal, and if I were in it, then I would have voted to let it stand.

Anonymous LastRedoubt_5411 January 06, 2016 9:08 AM  

Ya know - some people really need to figure out that a cabal can be a prospiracy and not just a conspiracy...

Anonymous LastRedoubt_5411 January 06, 2016 9:09 AM  

And accusing Vox of throwing Vlad under the bus?

Nevermind, rule #1

Blogger Student in Blue January 06, 2016 9:13 AM  

Hawk, there is no cabal working in concert to castigate you.

Anonymous #8601 Jean Valjean January 06, 2016 9:14 AM  

I hope the Irrational Atheist audiobook is narrated by the Voice of God.

Blogger Dave January 06, 2016 9:29 AM  

is narrated by the Voice of God.

Morgan Freeman might be tough to get for this one.

Blogger slarrow January 06, 2016 9:31 AM  

Hawk, you ignorant slut. When presented with a clear case of someone downvoting one's of Vox's books based on a dimwitted critique of a blurb, you accuse Vlad of attempting the skew the ratings. Thank you for providing further evidence of Vox's Laws:

SJWs always lie.
SJWs always double down.
SJWs always project.

Blogger Dave January 06, 2016 9:39 AM  

Dammit, time to get busy, I've got totes reviews to do of books I've never read.

Anonymous kawaika January 06, 2016 9:42 AM  

"If there really was a cabal, and if I were in it, then I would have voted to let it stand."

Best concentration camp guard ever.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet January 06, 2016 9:45 AM  

Concerning inability to use logic:

I've always kept a mental checklist for gauging someone's thinking abilities. One of them is whether they believe something is a contradiction when it is stated in a particular domain alongside a similar statement from another domain that differs.

It's a pretty reliable tell of the midwit, IMHO.

Anonymous Rigel January 06, 2016 9:50 AM  

@21 Dr.Pepper meet keyboard. Now im gonna get sticky keys...

Anonymous 8F24A02FBBF9F7BF652FE4385241BAB0 January 06, 2016 10:14 AM  

SJW entryism is extremely disturbing. The degree to which they are trying to seize control of ALL institutions is frankly alarming. I will be honest, I am actually a little bit frightened.

Blogger Nick S January 06, 2016 10:16 AM  

Their brains are broken. it's the only comprehensive explanation.

Anonymous kawaika January 06, 2016 10:20 AM  

"The degree to which they are trying to seize control of ALL institutions is frankly alarming."

We let it happen, therefore we can stop it. If it bleeds, we can kill it.

SJWs Always Lie is a groundbreaking work, I've read a couple other similar works, but nothing else is like it. One thing I've been thinking about, is if SJWs always project, no wonder they are so good at creating fictional dystopias--they are inherently destructive and they are simply writing what they know.

Anonymous YIH January 06, 2016 10:24 AM  

The problem is, you can't make something that just offers the same thing as Wikipedia, only different. People will just stick with Wikipedia then.
Tried and failed.
Can't even do funny.

OpenID basementhomebrewer January 06, 2016 10:25 AM  

@ 13 I can't believe you would throw TOR and Scalzi and Lis Carey under the bus by hypothetically voting to allow Vox's review to stay!

This is the equivalent of your conclusion that Vox threw Vlad under the bus.

Anonymous #8601 Jean Valjean January 06, 2016 10:25 AM  

@24

they are trying to seize control of ALL institutions

The SJW's have already taken control of all the institutions. So don't be frightened. It can't get much worse. In fact, the tide is turning.

Blogger Mint January 06, 2016 10:36 AM  

There are more than 100 people who independently and individually decided that they dislike that story that won Nebula award. Is it so hard to imagine? When Vlad showed that their voice can be presented, is it so hard to imagine that these individuals would show up on that site to make their voices heard? Is it so hard to imagine there are more than 100 people who are of a like mind who are happy to let people know their taste as readers of books?

Blogger buwaya puti January 06, 2016 10:41 AM  

FYI - just being paranoid I suppose re SJW conspiracies, but this morning hickock45's YouTube channel was taken down. Hickock 45 was the number 1 gun show on YouTube with millions of views and hundreds of episodes. He is or was the most influential firearms pundit in the world I think. So something may be going on.

Blogger Ragin' Dave January 06, 2016 10:44 AM  

@30 - "as readers of books"

Except for the fact that they admit they haven't even read the books they're reviewing negatively.

Rule 1, everybody!

Blogger Zaklog the Great January 06, 2016 10:46 AM  

Since they have now stated their non-policy, does that mean that we can, in good conscience, leave vicious, one-starred reviews of books we have not read by Scalzi, Sandifer, Jemison, etc? I wouldn't ordinarily do such a thing as I consider it dishonest, but they set the rules of the game, so is there some reason we shouldn't play by them?

Blogger VD January 06, 2016 10:49 AM  

Is it so hard to imagine that in all of Goodreads' user population there aren't 100 people who are of a like mind and who independently and individually decided that they didn't like your books?

It's not hard to imagine, it's impossible to believe. Because they clearly didn't READ the books at all. Many of them state it quite openly. Now, since Goodreads's policy permits one to rate a book one hasn't read, there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. And there is nothing wrong with anyone else doing the same.

You don't seem to grasp that there is no difference between "collective action" and "individuals acting in parallel". Whether the network is linear or has a central node is irrelevant; the same process is at work.

it's interesting to see how quickly you would throw Vlad under the bus. I'd have hoped that you'd use your intelligence for more than just deflecting criticism with plausible deniability, especially at the expense of your lieutenants.

First, I didn't throw Vlad under the bus. You said I was banned for an action I did not commit. Now you're trying to deflect attention from that by discrediting my perfectly legitimate response. It is not throwing anyone under the bus to correct your false statements. Second, Pete was also banned even though he didn't do anything at all.

This is why I said you were banned for your actions, not your words (no matter how carefully considered), and that you didn't like it. Proof that you don't like it is in the whinging that you've done.

It doesn't matter why you said it. What you said was false. I don't like Goodreads's actions at all. I think they were dishonest, unfair, foolish, short-sighted, hypocritical, and unjustified. But again you speak falsely. I'm not whining about their actions, I am using them to my advantage. I didn't bother with Goodreads for years, so to try to pretend that I am emotionally damaged by not being permitted to openly use it is ludicrous.

Do you seriously not realize that you don't win anything by claiming that the other person's feelings are hurt, whether your claim is true or not?

Your words encouraged people to rate books they've read. Your actions of choosing a lieutenant who twists the spirit of that encouragement are hard to reconcile, and allowing him to determine a collective action that would skew the ratings, which are supposed to be a snapshot of the individual tastes of Goodreads users.

You may find them hard to reconcile. Most people don't. First, my position is consistent with my past words and my past actions. Second, I didn't even know Vlad. He wasn't VFM, wasn't Dread Ilk, and wasn't even Ilk. I simply needed a moderator with actual Goodreads experience, he was qualified and he volunteered.

You sure are quick to deflect criticism to Vlad, though. That's interesting information. But, as we all know, lieutenants are expendable and replaceable.

I'm not deflecting anything. I cannot take responsibility for something I did intend, order, or do. And it's not "interesting", you're simply attempting to disqualify my legitimate response to your false accusation. You should try reading SJWAL. Then you would realize that I wrote the book on all your futile attempts to posture and influence. This is literally the worst place, and the worst audience, for you to resort to them.

For the record, I don't think that your Wasp Factory review should have been deleted. If there really was a cabal, and if I were in it, then I would have voted to let it stand.

Good for you. Perhaps you should let Rivka know.

Blogger VD January 06, 2016 10:53 AM  

Since they have now stated their non-policy, does that mean that we can, in good conscience, leave vicious, one-starred reviews of books we have not read by Scalzi, Sandifer, Jemison, etc? I wouldn't ordinarily do such a thing as I consider it dishonest, but they set the rules of the game, so is there some reason we shouldn't play by them?

Yes, their policy expressly permits ratings and reviews regardless of whether you have read the book or not. No, they have set the rules, not you. I

That being said, it will be more effective to simply leave one-star ratings without review and Like the genuine negative reviews. Think about how you feel when you read some ridiculous review by someone who clearly has no idea what is actually in the book. It's counter-productive.

When I advise people to utilize the SJW's own tactics against them, I do not mean they should make use of the stupid ones.

Blogger Mint January 06, 2016 11:13 AM  

@32 Ragin' Dave
I was responding to Hawk S. Rabidus using his/her own words. I believe when we rated 'If You were a Dinosour, My love', we have read it before Vlad gave the link to the goodreads review. Months ago, even. Many have stated their dislike of that stories here. Putting them where our voice can help new readersto decide if it is worth their time is what new. Apparently because it is a collective action, it is a sin.

Anonymous Dave January 06, 2016 11:18 AM  

goodreads is breaking new ground...

Underwriters Laboratories is now preparing to report that future reviews of products won't include actually testing the product: "Given the subjective nature of tests, it’s hard to designate one test as “wrong” and another “right.”"


Changes are also underway at Consumer Reports to review all products based only on the product packaging. Consumer Reports said "If it's good enough for goodreads to judge a book by it's cover, then we intend to base all future product reviews solely on the product packaging."


And Motor Trend has seen the error of their ways: "We have been shown by goodreads that we should judge a book by it's cover and therefore will no longer actually drive the cars we review"

Anonymous KoranBurningFaggot January 06, 2016 11:23 AM  

Tolerance cannot be intolerant. The bitch cant even get Intolerance will not be tolerated right, dieversecity is conformity

Hawk S. Rabidus-Vox, there is no cabal working in concert to castigate you. Is it so hard to imagine that in all of Goodreads' user population there aren't 100 people who liked reading how Lena Dunham sexually abused her 3yo sister. That should put it in a better perspective for you.

Underwriters Laboratories is now preparing to report that future reviews of products won't include actually testing the product

At least VW used logic and reason by setting their cars to perform differently in testing then trying to drive away from a Nigapocalypse.

Blogger pyrrhus January 06, 2016 11:36 AM  

Unbelievable that Goodreads would accept reviews from people who haven't read the book--obviously the SJWs have taken over...

Blogger Jon M January 06, 2016 11:49 AM  

@1. Can anyone recommend me an example of an SJW novel that deserves a one star teview based on the first two pages of text? Because I myself, acting purely independently and of my own accord with no desire to coordinate with anyone whatsoever, would very much like to add some dieversity to my reading list.

Anonymous Smells Like... January 06, 2016 11:55 AM  

@13 Hawk/Sean/whoever you are...

Your statements imply you're enough of a GR insider to KNOW you're lying. You might just be an ignorant prat who's trying to to look like an insider, but I'll take you at your 'word'.

GR has been a cesspit of bullying SWJ vipers, slithering around in their own feces, since long before the Puppies campaigns. And yes, there ARE mobs, cabals, or whatever one chooses to call them with recognized, known leaders.

Are you going to pretend you don't know about Jenny Trout (regardless of what sockpuppet she might use) and her swarming hate-mobs. Or Theresa "hapisofi" Nielsen Hayden's old gang, as it used to operate centered on Absolute Write?

How about the blood sport they and their followers have made FOR YEARS of aspiring, often young and female, and almost invariably apolitical or left-of-center writers, over the most petty personal grudges - often for merely having disagreed with part of the gang on some forum or other - and sometimes just for fun?

They're hardly the only ones.

Why does an entire site exist, Stop the GR Bullies, specifically dedicated to exposing the mobs - yes, the cabals - that operate there? There are any number of blogs by victimized or dissident writers that discuss the same things.

And don't bother bringing up GR's toothless 2013 anti-bullying policy, or the other reforms Amazon didn't have the guts to enforce.

Answers? Lies? Crickets? Well, buddy?

OpenID Jack Amok January 06, 2016 11:55 AM  

FYI - just being paranoid I suppose re SJW conspiracies, but this morning hickock45's YouTube channel was taken down. Hickock 45 was the number 1 gun show on YouTube

Send them feedback, deluge them.

Anonymous Bz January 06, 2016 12:01 PM  

The best read is the one you never even start.

Blogger bob k. mando January 06, 2016 12:15 PM  

13. Hawk S. Rabidus January 06, 2016 9:03 AM
Vox, there is no cabal working in concert to castigate you.



there never is a cabal.

JournoList didn't exist, did not conspire to propagandize FOR Democrats and did not denigrate conservatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

the Ars Technica led GameJournoPros was, of course, not in the least a cabal organizing a conspiracy to 'flood the zone' over a four day period with dozens of articles all proclaiming that "Gamers are Dead and Wimminz killed them". that was completely spontaneous.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate#MailingList

as related by John Wayne, Communists in Hollywood were blackballing Pulitzer Prize winning screenwriters BEFORE the HUAC hearings. this, of course, was in no way a conspiracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR9nIMOrqy4&list=LLFg1WJ-aAG9EJp4Ii_CGCwQ


there is no cabal pushing an anthropogenic global warming hypothesis nor falsifying data to support this, nor controlling the 'oversight' committees in order to rubber stamp and whitewash their actions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/


there is no cabal organized around the principle of advancing 'World Communism' ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto


there was, of course, no conspiracy involved in releasing multiple stories, international in scope, all libeling Brad Torgerson as a 'racist' ...
to which Brad responded by posting pictures of his negro wife and mixed race child.


we could go on.

but the only real answer is this:
SJWs fucking ALWAYS lie.

Blogger bob k. mando January 06, 2016 12:24 PM  

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.


mwuhahahahahahahahahahaha.

hey, all you leftist assholes?

you OWE Sean O'hara for this shitstorm.

Anonymous Ain January 06, 2016 12:40 PM  

Can anyone recommend me an example of an SJW novel that deserves a one star teview based on the first two pages of text?

Probably all of them.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett January 06, 2016 12:46 PM  

@13 Well, that answers my previous question about whether you're a gullible simpleton or a fucking liar.

Both/And

Blogger LP999 S.I.G. Burnin' Up January 06, 2016 1:12 PM  

What a valuable resource Goodreads remains to prove Vox's (and everyone here) concerns.

Fraud, lies, distortions, insults towards Vox, Tom K. will all be documented.

Also given as VERY RECENT examples of what kind of horrid uncouth policies at Goodreads.

However no one approves of such needless lies and ugliness towards writers who never warranted such insult.

Anonymous Baron Silas Greenback January 06, 2016 1:13 PM  

SJW entryism is extremely disturbing. The degree to which they are trying to seize control of ALL institutions is frankly alarming. I will be honest, I am actually a little bit frightened.

They take over because they usually don't build. They are parasites that need a host to cling to. They are like barnacles that believe they are the hull of the ship.

Blogger Chent January 06, 2016 1:14 PM  

Keep us informed about the fork of Wikipedia, Vox. It would be your most ambitious project and, if it succeeds, the one that will have more importance for the culture wars. If you need help, please tell us

Blogger VD January 06, 2016 1:24 PM  

If you need help, please tell us

We do. We will. Wikipedia has 562 admins. We will need a comparable number.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell January 06, 2016 1:25 PM  

If Goodreads is going to allow people to libel your work, can't you request that Goodreads removes your book from their site? I would think that would be more for the publisher then the author but I think either way you have a good cause to be concerned.

Blogger James Dixon January 06, 2016 1:26 PM  

Speaking of SJW's you can add Pinterest to the list of SJW infested companies: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-06/pinterest-s-new-head-of-diversity-explains-her-hiring-philosophy

Blogger Derrick Bonsell January 06, 2016 1:29 PM  

Given that you are the publisher I suppose they're one and the same.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell January 06, 2016 1:29 PM  

If Goodreads is going to allow people to libel your work, can't you request that Goodreads removes your book from their site? I would think that would be more for the publisher then the author but I think either way you have a good cause to be concerned.

Blogger VD January 06, 2016 1:30 PM  

If Goodreads is going to allow people to libel your work, can't you request that Goodreads removes your book from their site?

I did back in 2009. They won't do it.

Blogger Hank Brown January 06, 2016 1:54 PM  

Garbage like this is one reason we should refuse to play their word games. Just because they call themselves tolerant doesn't mean we should...it's not the truth. We should reject all their Orwellian Newspeak words, like "liberal" for instance.

Blogger Feather Blade January 06, 2016 2:07 PM  

Tolerance cannot be intolerant.

Oh, so now they want words to mean things, huh?

I think that squidge has left the wingding. It's too late to put it back.

Blogger Were-Puppy January 06, 2016 2:45 PM  

@53 James Dixon

Speaking of SJW's you can add Pinterest to the list of SJW infested companies: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-06/pinterest-s-new-head-of-diversity-explains-her-hiring-philosophy
---

There is an actual position called "Head of Diversity"? I can't even...

Blogger slarrow January 06, 2016 3:51 PM  

Let's always remember two things about tolerance:

1) Tolerance is not a virtue. Rather, it is an attitude that is context-dependent. A parent who "tolerates" a kid coming home later than expected is not the same as a parent who "tolerates" a kid setting animals on fire.

2) Tolerance entails dissent. You don't tolerance things you agree with--you accept them.

A number of observations flow from these points:

* Since tolerance is always context-specific, demanding tolerance on a topic (gay rights, women's issues, Islam, etc) is begging the question. Anyone who "demands" tolerance is trying to steal home field advantage for their ideas. Either don't let them or steal their thunder (e.g., demand tolerance for free association, self-determination, and personal autonomy.)

* SJWs love to talk about helping "marginalized" groups in the name of tolerance. But tolerance creates marginalization! The margin is the space between what is accepted/affirmed and what is rejected/prosecuted. What SJWs want is a binary world where everything they love is affirmed and everything they hate is outlawed. That they cloak this in mealy-mouthed concepts like "tolerance" just confirms what we now know:

SJWs always lie.

Blogger shinso January 06, 2016 4:01 PM  

@41 Don't use GR bullies as an actually good example, they are a bunch of whiners who put many rampant negative reviewers on their list. It's perfectly reasonable to give a book a star after reading 1/4 the book because you felt it was total garbage. It's also reasonable to give a book 1 star because it has too much violence and it triggered you or some nonsense. When you write a review telling the world I JUST GAVE THIS BOOK A 1 STAR CAUSE THIS AUTHOR IS RACIST it gets a little bit more to use their favorite word, problematic. I personally feel like these I didn't read the book reviews should be removed from the site (especially the 5* reviews from books that aren't even out yet) it's a lot more illuminating and makes me think "huh some of the low ratings are because of the authors politics" and I mentally bump up the authors rating. I might also go and check other reviewers to see if the racism is actually cringe worthy and why and how and by reading the reviews from the people who liked it and didn't like it I can put together a good picture of if I will enjoy the book.

I do understand their current policy however, policing improper reviewing is a nightmare and will just lead to people 1 voting or people using their agenda to remove valid but negative reviews. It's a lot easier to allow reviews to stand and more importantly allow everyone to freely comment under each review, which lets people challenge the review in a sense.

Also VD becoming a GR librarian isn't hard there are tens of thousands of us. In fact you could probably become one in very short order. Basically what I'm saying is saying that it's 2 GR librarians instead of 2 users makes it seem far more important than it actually is.

Blogger VD January 06, 2016 4:27 PM  

In fact you could probably become one in very short order.

Well, that would be a little difficult in light of my lifetime ban from using Goodreads in any capacity.

Blogger VD January 06, 2016 4:32 PM  

what I'm saying is saying that it's 2 GR librarians instead of 2 users makes it seem far more important than it actually is.

You realize that the reason being claimed by some SJWs for the banning of me, Vlad, and Pete was due to Vlad's encouraging people to become librarians, right?

Anonymous Ain January 06, 2016 4:59 PM  

@57, they don't seem to know what tolerate means in the first place. What they actually mean is celebrate.

We've been "tolerating" SJWs, but that has ended, as they will come to realize, if they haven't already.

Blogger Wrangler January 06, 2016 5:30 PM  

Got an email from goodreads about a half hour ago. I sent an email to Otis Chandler complaining about Rabid Puppies/Vox/Vlad getting banned, and pointing out a couple instances of librarians reviewing Vox's books and laughing about not reading them. They said they were looking into it. Probably, means nothing - but I was actually surprised they even acknowledged me.

Anonymous Hawk S. Rabidus January 06, 2016 5:37 PM  

Vox said:
"You realize that the reason being claimed by some SJWs for the banning of me, Vlad, and Pete was due to Vlad's encouraging people to become librarians, right?"


Wrong. The reason you were banned was because of the explicit instructions: 1) Go to the Dinosaur story. 2) Rate the story. 3) Our goal is to lower the average score below 3.2

If you only had step 1 and step 2 there, and left out step 3, things might have been different. But setting a target was the smoking gun.

And while it was Vlad who gave those instructions, Vox was the group owner. So he's responsible for shenanigans. Pete was the other group moderator, correct? That's why those 3 were banned.

That's it. Nothing else to see here. All other Goodreads users are still free to converge and 1-star the Swirsky story as much as they want. Provided they do individually.

(Which Vox has already pointed out will be indistinguishable from the directed action that was ongoing. So the site is not immune to being gamed. Just don't expect to remain a member if you're encouraging people to skew the system.)

Blogger shinso January 06, 2016 5:40 PM  

@63 Ahahahahahaha, scratch another win on the board for the SJWs I guess, because clearly giving you the power over merging duplicate editions of books would be WAYY to much. Who knows the damage you and the Dread Ilk could of wrought.

@62 Sad to see, and now I'm enraged that CHORF command has a group and rapid puppies got banned.

Anonymous IndecisiveEvidence January 06, 2016 5:45 PM  

The GR review terms are hilariously squirrelly. None of the negative criteria is forbidden. They just say it is less likely to make your review show on the first page. The mods are the only ones who can determine criteria for removal. There are no rules here.

Roosh's books are still being weighed down by a swarm of SJW troll hate reviews on Amazon and Amazon has shown no sign of removing them.

This and the Confederate Flag nonsense makes me fear Amazon is too converged for my liking.

Blogger Wrangler January 06, 2016 6:30 PM  

@66 Hawk S. Rabidus. CTL F for "goal" in terms of service = 0, CTL F for "lower" in terms of service = 2, both referring you GR lowering reviews. Doesn't appear you smoking gun #3 shows up in your terms of service. I assume that is why you didn't refer to where we could find the offense in the terms of service in your post. But I do give you cred for actually addressing it. Thanks for the response.

Blogger VD January 06, 2016 7:55 PM  

The reason you were banned was because of the explicit instructions: 1) Go to the Dinosaur story. 2) Rate the story. 3) Our goal is to lower the average score below 3.2 If you only had step 1 and step 2 there, and left out step 3, things might have been different. But setting a target was the smoking gun.

First, I didn't give any of those explicit instructions. Second, I was not given any reason for being banned. Third, there is no policy that bans those explicit instructions.

Fourth, how is Vlad setting a target any different than Getty Hess, the Goodreads librarian, urging others to lower the rating of my book? Even worse, and unlike Vlad, Getty was encouraging people to do it without reading it.

"I'm putting this review up because the book desperately needs a lower rating. One does not need to read this book."

You seriously don't think a lifetime ban is a wild overreaction to a new user who a) didn't do anything and b) didn't violate any policy?

Rivka's action was prodiguously stupid. The only result has been to anger people and sink the rating to 2.76, well below the banned target of 3.2. It accomplishes nothing. I could, if I want, just as easily sink the ratings of any book I choose whether I am a member or not, and thereby keep your moderators occupied for the next few weeks, months, or years.

I have no intention of doing so, I am merely pointing out that Goodreads gained absolutely nothing by the SJW moderator's reaction except for a little virtue-signaling to other SJWs and made itself look hypocritical, amateurish, biased, and short-sighted to tens of thousands of people.

Blogger VD January 06, 2016 8:04 PM  

Just don't expect to remain a member if you're encouraging people to skew the system.

Ahem. "I'm putting this review up because the book desperately needs a lower rating."

Look, you guys simply are not doing a very good job preventing people from gaming the system, but you don't mind because you're the amenable authority who provides cover, intentionally or not, to the SJWs who are doing it.

You're the equivalent of the referee who throws the flag at the second guy, leaving the original instigator unpunished and undeterred. Which means that you're going to lose control, sooner or later, because you're not dealing with the actual problem. If you insiders won't keep the SJWs there under control, someone else will do your job for you.

Anonymous Hawk S. Rabidus January 06, 2016 8:10 PM  

From "Goodreads Terms of Use" page.
https://www.goodreads.com/about/terms


You agree not to engage in any of the following prohibited activities:
(snip)
(x) interfering with the proper working of the Service


This covers more than just hacking. They have a vision for how the site will function.

So how do they envision the proper working of the site? It's intended to be a site where people have fun posting book reviews and discussing books. You can delve further into what they see as a proper book review at the next page:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/guidelines

And at the very bottom of this page, you can read:

"The reviews posted on Goodreads are individual and subjective opinions..."


When a random group of people individually make their way to the Dinosaur story, and rate it according to their tastes, it is indeed individual and subjective.

When a group instructs a large number of people to visit the Dinosaur story and rate it (with a target that will lower the average below 3.2), it is no longer an individual's subjective discernment.

Doing so violates the policy of "not interfering with the proper working of the service".

I'm sorry. I agree that Getty Hess has an very problematic statement in his review ("this book desperately needs a lower rating").

As an individual, I can feel subjectively that a book needs a lower rating, and I can do my part with my one vote, but I should never try to persuade others to join in with me. Not if I want to continue being a member.

The review posted by Getty Hess should be flagged. Whether it is deleted will be dependent on whether moderators see it as being "individual and subjective" or not.

Anonymous Hawk S. Rabidus January 06, 2016 8:18 PM  

Worse... if you read the review by Getty Hess, it is remarkably similar to the arguments posted in the review by Aaah.

If the same person has two accounts, and is using both to give 1-star scathing reviews to the same book, then that person is setting himself up to be banned.

Just needs to be caught, if that's the case. I don't know either of them. Just reading the style of writing and the point of the argument that each made.

Blogger VD January 06, 2016 8:34 PM  

When a group instructs a large number of people to visit the Dinosaur story and rate it (with a target that will lower the average below 3.2), it is no longer an individual's subjective discernment.

The group doesn't instruct anyone. No one has to do anything. The action is always individual; you are confusing motivation with action. Furthermore, you are confusing anticipation with control. If an RP had read the story and rated it highly, no one would have had any problem with that. But it doesn't take a genius to anticipate that simply getting people to read the story was going to generate the expected reviews.

Hell, some of the reviews are much more entertaining than the story!

So how do they envision the proper working of the site? It's intended to be a site where people have fun posting book reviews and discussing books.

I concur. That's why I signed up originally in 2009 or so. And then after seeing what was being permitted, I just let the account go dormant. The problem is that when you permit one side to carry on attacking authors for literal years while doing next to nothing, (admittedly, there was one attempt at cleanup in 2013) then crack down hard on what you know is a response to it, it's going to look bad every single time. It looks like you want authors being attacked if they are the BadReads.

Worse... if you read the review by Getty Hess, it is remarkably similar to the arguments posted in the review by Aaah.

Hmmm. I have to admit, I usually pick up stylistic tells and I didn't notice that. If you're right, nice catch.

Blogger Hank Brown January 06, 2016 10:05 PM  


They take over because they usually don't build. They are parasites that need a host to cling to. They are like barnacles that believe they are the hull of the ship.

That is a frigging outstanding analogy. Don't be surprised if I use it repeatedly.

Anonymous Shut up rabbit January 07, 2016 2:17 AM  

This thread should be preserved for posterity; the arrogant insanity of Hawk S. Rabidus is on show for the whole world to see. It contains enough research material for the follow up to SJWAL on its own.

Look at the assumption that she is right about everything. Can you imagine such a loon ever admitting they were wrong about anything? No, neither can I.

Look at the excessive ramblings to find a loophole to relieve the pressure of the cognitive dissonance her double-think entails.

Look at the equivalence - everything, just everything is the same as everything else in her broken mind.

I assume this kind of preposterous self-righteousness requires an utter lack of intelligence and no understanding of morality. Supplication to the state is all.

Pardon my Goodwin but people like Hawk S. Rabidus are the modern day Nazis, ready to do whatever they are told.

Thank god they are all fat, useless fucks and the only damage their hateful ignorance can do is on the Internet otherwise they would have been loading us onto cattle trucks long ago.

Anonymous JudgeDeadd January 07, 2016 2:45 AM  

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.

Are you talking of this one? https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15023044-earth-s-last-days
Unfortunately, as far as I know Librarians cannot delete books which already accumulated a number of votes (https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1061898-deleting-books#comment_59962928), so someone would have to contact Goodreads directly with a request and *hope* it would be listened to.

Big shame to hear that Goodreads apparently caters more towards the SJW crowd. I like the site and hoped it'd be free from SJW infection, in its management if not in community.

Blogger SteelPalm January 07, 2016 5:43 AM  

Haha, should have read the comments on this blog earlier.

It's as amusing that a SJW believes that Vox "threw me under the bus" as is their belief that my end goal was to "vandalize" the site when I encouraged people to become Librarians. SJWs always lie and project.

My posts were mine, no one else's, and they fully followed the site's rules. I made a book club selection, provided a link, and told members to rate and review it honestly. That most disliked the book, myself included, is immaterial. Reading purposely bad books, like watching bad movies (Plan 9 from Outer Space, The Room), is a common, popular activity.

Were they consistent, Goodreads would ban all groups that selected books and rated them poorly.

As for Vox, I am grateful to him for the opportunity to be moderator of the group, his excellent advice, and several other generous acts on his part.

No, I was neither a member of the Ilk or one of the VFM, but after this, I am now a ready, willing ally more enthusiastic than ever about fighting SJW scumbags.

Blogger bob k. mando January 07, 2016 11:36 AM  

78. SteelPalm January 07, 2016 5:43 AM
No, I was neither a member of the Ilk or one of the VFM, but after this, I am now a ready, willing ally more enthusiastic than ever about fighting SJW scumbags.



as i pointed out to Vox so long ago now, there is NO more effective recruiting tool for us than the words and actions of our enemies.

their constant lies, hypocrisies, dissembling and self-serving actions *as they claim* to be working for the "common good" eventually stirs feelings of disgust and revulsion in almost anyone near the neuro-typical side of the spectrum.

Blogger Vi M January 07, 2016 11:36 AM  

The unpublished book shows up on Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Earths-Last-Days-Apocalypse-Salvation/dp/1932100989/

You (VD as author) might be able to get amazon to delete it?
Since goodreads gets a feed from amazon, after amazon deletes it might be able to get goodreads to delete it.
Just a thought.

Anonymous Thought Police First Responder January 07, 2016 3:13 PM  

I've been wanting to do a website like the one @6 suggested in Portuguese, so I'm interested in working on such cause (say, have the Portuguese version subsidiary to an American version). Perhaps this is the project that I should move from "want" to "will", per Cernovich. If there are any other Portuguese speakers roaming here with a "will do" attitude as well, respond to this, and we'll figure how to get in touch.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts