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

Sunday, April 24, 2016

Fighting fire with fire

And doing so in a legitimate manner. Allen Davis considers blockbots and blacklists at Lew Rockwell:
“Are you, or have you ever been, a supporter of Gamergate, NotYourShield, Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies, Men’s Rights Activists, Ron Paul, Donald Trump, White Supremacists, etc, etc etc?”

Blacklists have come a long way since the bygone days of McCarthy.... In a blog post, Vox Day suggested creating a list of confirmed SJWs, and his blog readers set about to create it.  Within a few hours, SJWList.com was being populated by a staff of volunteers.

Being added to SJWList has very specific criteria; the person in question needs to be “…on the record supporting censorship of some kind (no platforming, government censorship, or disemploying people).”  SJWList is structured as a Wiki, so each individual listed has their own page, linked to their statements and actions and thereby justifying their inclusion.

Criticism of SJWList has been vocal, as might be expected. Reddit suspended @TheRalph’s account for simply posting a link to SJWList.com.  Accusations have ranged from “building a list of people to harass” to “”sinking to their level” to “becoming SJW by adopting their own tactics.” 

The crew and supporters of SJWList, however, view it as more of a response to SJW tactics, an entirely acceptable escalation in the “arms race” that is the ongoing culture war.  As Brandon Eich, Tim Hunt, and many others can all attest, the social justice warriors have declared “track what they say or do and get them fired for it” a valid tactic. 

If one side in a war uses poison gas, while the other side refuses to “stoop to that level,” then they will cheerfully be the moral, upright, and dead, losers of the war.  The only way to convince the first side to stop using poison gas is to retaliate in kind.
He's absolutely right. As Tom Kratman has pointed out, reprisals have usually been considered a legitimate and justified response to both escalations and even war crimes.

Frits Kalshoven writes about reprisals: When a belligerent party is hurt by conduct on the part of its adversary that it regards as a grave breach or systematic encroachment of the laws of armed conflict, one possibility is to retaliate by means of an action that itself violates the same body of law. While recourse to such retaliatory action can be arbitrary and in total disregard of any constraints, rules of customary law have developed in the past that provide the limits within which retaliation could be regarded as a legitimate reprisal. The main elements of this customary “right of reprisal” are: subsidiarity (failure of all other available means), notice (formal warning of the planned action), proportionality (the damage and suffering inflicted on the adverse party not to exceed the level of damage and suffering resulting from its unlawful conduct), temporary character (termination of the reprisal when the adversary stops violating the law).

As can be seen in the Davis article, which notes the difference between the SJW-created blockbot and the SJW List, even if one considers the list to be an expose rather than a hiring guide, the SJW List still fits all four limits of a legitimate reprisal: subsidiarity, notice, proportionality, and temporary character.

I have repeatedly warned SJWs that every tactic they utilize will be utilized against them. And since they have not only declared people's employment to be fair game, but repeatedly acted in attempts to disemploy everyone from police officers to programmers, from students to scientists, it is entirely legitimate to target their jobs and their careers.

Indeed, the mere fact of being openly sympathetic to any social justice cause should now be sufficient to give serious pause to anyone contemplating any form of a relationship, however fleeting, with an SJW.
When a belligerent party is hurt by conduct on the part of its adversary that it regards as a grave breach or systematic encroachment of the laws of armed conflict, one possibility is to retaliate by means of an action that itself violates the same body of law. While recourse to such retaliatory action can be arbitrary and in total disregard of any constraints, rules of customary law have developed in the past that provide the limits within which retaliation could be regarded as a legitimate reprisal. The main elements of this customary “right of reprisal” are: subsidiarity (failure of all other available means), notice (formal warning of the planned action), proportionality (the damage and suffering inflicted on the adverse party not to exceed the level of damage and suffering resulting from its unlawful conduct), temporary character (termination of the reprisal when the adversary stops violating the law). - See more at: http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/reprisal/#sthash.Hfd61ZIT.dpuf
When a belligerent party is hurt by conduct on the part of its adversary that it regards as a grave breach or systematic encroachment of the laws of armed conflict, one possibility is to retaliate by means of an action that itself violates the same body of law. While recourse to such retaliatory action can be arbitrary and in total disregard of any constraints, rules of customary law have developed in the past that provide the limits within which retaliation could be regarded as a legitimate reprisal. The main elements of this customary “right of reprisal” are: subsidiarity (failure of all other available means), notice (formal warning of the planned action), proportionality (the damage and suffering inflicted on the adverse party not to exceed the level of damage and suffering resulting from its unlawful conduct), temporary character (termination of the reprisal when the adversary stops violating the law). - See more at: http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/reprisal/#sthash.Hfd61ZIT.dpuf

Labels: ,

63 Comments:

Anonymous Winston April 24, 2016 1:27 PM  

Unilateral disarmament is a losing cuckservative strategy.

Blogger Shimshon April 24, 2016 1:33 PM  

"Start nothing, finish everything" is a very powerful lesson, but one that is very hard for those on the right to absorb. They always want to think they're the better people, above the fray, etc. While losing battle after battle. No more.

Blogger OGRE April 24, 2016 1:41 PM  

I never did understand that "we won't stoop to that level" mentality.

If one side wants to disregard a given custom or etiquette, a proper and often effective response is to disregard it in return. Oddly enough its usually the side who can employ the tactic less effectively who is most likely to disregard the restraining etiquette. Thus, you respond in kind so as to 1) not lose any strategic advantages, and 2) as a deterrent to having the tactic used at all. "Fine if you want to disregard the customs, we can do the same. Here's the results."

Why did the soviets never launch a nuke against the US? They knew we'd disregard the "don't nuke each other" rule in a heartbeat if they ever did.

Blogger David Adams April 24, 2016 1:57 PM  

I wish there were many more People like Vox that confront Leftists, Sjw's and Atheists so forcefully.

Anonymous BGKB April 24, 2016 2:25 PM  

How is Tom R.R. Kratman doing on his next book?

Blogger Lovekraft April 24, 2016 2:40 PM  

What I find the funniest/disturbing is the sheer hypocrisy of the marxists in trying to justify their witchhunts as 'social justice.'

No matter how this plays out, it is the sjws who brought this upon themselves, no matter how much appeal to mercy they make.

Blogger rcocean April 24, 2016 2:59 PM  

I disagree. I suggest a "Rope-a-dope" strategy. We let the SJW pound us, attack us, censor and dis-employ us until they get tired and stop.

This will of course will require patience. I estimate 30 years. But meanwhile, we can feel morally superior for not stooping to their level.

Anonymous Scintan April 24, 2016 3:14 PM  

I never did understand that "we won't stoop to that level" mentality.


Like most sayings/approaches/mentalities, "we won't stoop to that level" has its time and place, but is not going to be applicable 100% of the time. That's why other sayings are essentially the opposite.

The "who, what, where, when, how, why" is where everything gets fuzzy.

Blogger James Dixon April 24, 2016 3:16 PM  

> This will of course will require patience.

http://cheezburger.com/3057568512

Blogger Were-Puppy April 24, 2016 3:28 PM  

Another slap in the face to the Cuckish "That's not who we are" nonsense.

OpenID basementhomebrewer April 24, 2016 3:43 PM  

The best aspect is the whining from the SJWs. I suspect it's because the list is simple and very effective while requiring little effort on anyone's part.

Contrast that with the SJWs tactics. They have to drag themseleves out of bed. Find the target of the week. Work themselves into an emotional rage. Relentlessly bombard the target with every one of their thoughts and actions that week. Then throw a small victory parade and try and find the next target. All of that takes a lot of emotional capital and only handles one target at a time.

Meanwhile, this list requires a relatively small amount of maintenance and only requires someone do a quick check of it when they are in the process of selecting a potential employee. It takes away the gratification of seeing your target crumble (which is what it is all about for the SJWs) but it requires minimal investment while paying large and widespread dividends.

OpenID sigsawyer April 24, 2016 3:44 PM  

"Indeed, the mere fact of being openly sympathetic to any social justice cause should now be sufficient to give serious pause to anyone contemplating any form of a relationship, however fleeting, with an SJW."

As a student, if I followed that advice I'd never get laid and have very few friends. The college spergertarians aren't exactly the funnest people to hang around with. I've had people try to give me shit because the Triumph Motorcycles patch on my jacket looks like it says TRUMP.

Anonymous Bah April 24, 2016 3:58 PM  

Sig, enjoy fighting that false rape charge, chump.

Blogger Thucydides April 24, 2016 4:09 PM  

Probably posted this on the wrong thread, so here is another one for the SJW list:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/232166/

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: Very Special Snowflakes: Harvard Refuses to Name the Student Who Repeatedly Insulted a Visiting Former Israeli PM by Saying She Was “Smelly” and Had a “Very Smelly Odor” – and removes the exchange from video of the event. “Note the efforts Harvard Law is going to here on behalf of benevolent censorship — they’re not trying to silence this ugly cur. They’re trying to protect him. He made public statements, in a public forum, but Harvard is going hyperactive to delete his statements from the public record.”

Winston Smith, call your office.

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): His name is Husam El-Qoulaq.

Blogger Unknown April 24, 2016 4:12 PM  

I am not necessarily commenting on this post by Vox Day so much as I am here to establish my own position and exhort you all to take a careful assessment of yourselves.

I refuse to abandon chivalry. I will carry cartel against any adversary. I have no fear of man. The SJW has no knight. They have no warrior. It is darkness. There is no combat against darkness other than the struggle within our own Christian souls. We must first be examples of all that is right. Second, we must be kind and strong. The truth is not subject to destruction. Never, for one second, believe that this battle will be lost.
If you have it in you, if you can be strong, then do so. Cease the pretending that this enemy is worthy, or able to be, fightable.
Look to your souls.

Blogger sconzey April 24, 2016 4:13 PM  

Unrelated, but an excellent song.

Anonymous BGKB April 24, 2016 4:24 PM  

so much as I am here to establish my own position and exhort you all to take a careful assessment of yourselves.

Its hard to tell if the Brady campaign actually had the motto: "A rape can be over in 30 seconds but a murder is forever. Guns are not the answer" or if it was a parody of leftist/Cuck thought.

Blogger VD April 24, 2016 4:27 PM  

I refuse to abandon chivalry.

Well said, Noble Sir! I tip my fedora to you!

Blogger Elocutioner April 24, 2016 4:30 PM  

Thanks for that Unknown. I'm sure the starving kids will take real solace that mommy or daddy is a sanctified Real Conservative martyr who went down without a fight and was vanquished by an unworthy enemy after they were disemployed by a howling mob of moloch worshipping, blue haired, misgendered freaks who destroyed a career for their own evil purposes.

Hmm.. I suspect JCW might weigh in on this one.

Anonymous Dave April 24, 2016 4:35 PM  

@15 I am here to establish my own position


Says the anonymous commenter posting on someone else's blog.

Anonymous LastRedoubt April 24, 2016 4:37 PM  

I see the sanctimonious churchians have shown up to tell us how they're better people than they are because they'll stand by and let people suffer rather than attack the bullies and petty monsters..

Blogger tz April 24, 2016 4:40 PM  

@15 - you've already abandoned the truth and Chivalry has abandoned you. You stand there while good men and women are hounded out of their jobs, they are subject to slander, where a vengeful mob destroys them - when they are the weaker. So Chivalry now idly watches a group of strong bullies beat a weak person to death?

No rational person wants to have anything to do with such an evil, soulless person.

Blogger Jon M April 24, 2016 4:42 PM  

rcocean, you do that. Good luck with it. Here's hoping you enjoy being beaten, silenced, and broke.

Meanwhile, shut up and stay the hell out of our way, you soft headed imbecile.

(Here's where this gets fun. Either rcocean objects and fights back, proving he is a traitorous liar, or he walks the walk and we never see him again. You can tell he is a Republican, can't you?)

Blogger tz April 24, 2016 4:44 PM  

@15 I am here to establish my own position

Bent over.

@17 - a murder victim can't testify against you, so perhaps it is best to do both.

Anonymous Dave April 24, 2016 4:49 PM  

@23 Somebody forgot to turn on their /s meter.

Blogger ray April 24, 2016 4:51 PM  

'“Are you, or have you ever been, a supporter of Gamergate, NotYourShield, Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies, Men’s Rights Activists, Ron Paul, Donald Trump, White Supremacists, etc, etc etc?”'


White Supremacists? MRAs, Gamergate, Puppies, sure. Somebody's choice of politicians, not so much. And White Supremacism, no.

I recognize there are negative effects connected to the ebonification of America (Hi Barry!) and I recognize that European culture is superior to African culture.

Bible says reps from all nations included in the Kingdom, so, that's a governor on me getting overly racial. It's a factor, it's not a religion, and I'm not making it mine.

Is this a White Supremacist web page?

Blogger tz April 24, 2016 4:58 PM  

The Feds have made it illegal to fight fire with fire and will prosecute you as a terrorist - ask the Hammonds (the ironically Burns, OR).

Fire and SJWitches are best fought with water

(Were super soakers banned in munchkin land?).

A more important and serious question as the alt-Right creates their social networks and news and information media is how and when to use algorithms. I think an internal search engine might be better.

The block-bots are merely the first stage in AI - like the earlier post on the singularity. Pre-crime (can't take a joke), removing all results in a PC censorship, etc. We would need to create a libertarian world, but insure it is kept that way. Since "I'm the product" with much of Google, I keep wondering how they are getting feathers from the goose or milk from the cow. Factory farms add hormones and other things to the feed. How can they clickbait without being obvious to you, the fish?

Anonymous Ain April 24, 2016 5:03 PM  

"Indeed, the mere fact of being openly sympathetic to any social justice cause should now be sufficient to give serious pause to anyone contemplating any form of a relationship, however fleeting, with an SJW.

Indubitably. I had a German friend of a few years that turned out to be a total SJW in light of the immigration crises. When I told her it would result in more rape (this is before the rape reports started coming out), she doubled down. When I was proven right, she blocked me, even though nobody had brought it up again. There's no being friends with these people. It's as if they're mentally ill.

Blogger Kona Commuter April 24, 2016 5:09 PM  

In other words, like most political correctness/social justice issues, the key difference between the two systems lies in “who you are” versus “what you do.”



The best quote IMHO

Blogger Unknown April 24, 2016 5:23 PM  

That other unknown can say what he wants, but _this_ one will not take SJW aggression meekly. I intent to make the rubble bounce.
I don't know why my Google account log in shows up as "unknown", but it is what it is...
I saw that Harvard Law thing this morning, I figured someone would bring it up. All involved are on my own personal Never Hire™ list.

Anonymous Wyrd April 24, 2016 5:26 PM  

...Tom Kratman...

A Desert Called Peace #7 or GTFO!

Anonymous Icicle April 24, 2016 5:44 PM  

That moving face is freaking me out, man.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 24, 2016 5:45 PM  

Unknown wrote:I refuse to abandon chivalry.

"{the fact that, beyond all else, when discussing chivalry one must never forget the reality that medieval knights fought with a tacit understanding that pragmatism could overrule ceremony wherever necessary. If saving an enemy knight from slaughter was deemed financially or politically favorable, the knight could survive, but certainly not for altruistic reasons; the reward was either land, gold, or war booty. It is this reality that historians often overlook"{

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 24, 2016 5:55 PM  

The so-called "Code of Chivalry" was a set of rules by which the Frankish knights kept their peace-time manpower losses to a minimum, by allowing quarter, specifying standard rates at which a Frankish (and later Norman) knight could ransom his life after losing a duel or other combat.
It never applied to peasants, heathens or heretics.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 24, 2016 6:12 PM  

Personally, I think that view of proportionality is wrong and wrong headed. The damage should, as with other actions, be proportional to the gain and, moreover, it should be sufficient to deter the conduct sought to be deterred.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 24, 2016 6:21 PM  

"I won't stoop to their level" generally translates to "I'm afraid I would lose if I fought back."

Anonymous BGKB April 24, 2016 7:00 PM  

I have heard that the mob does more to protect NYC from moslems than the govt does, now I see it is in Italy also.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3546081/Mafia-declares-WAR-migrants-Sicilian-gangster-shoots-innocent-Gambian-head-amid-soaring-levels-migration-Italy-mayor-saying-Sicily-s-capital-no-longer-European.html

TZ- a murder victim can't testify against you, so perhaps it is best to do both Train is fine

I am pretty sure that the Brady Campaign motto meant victims shouldn't shoot rapists to stop them.

Is this a White Supremacist web page? Its a realist page, if you like you can check out the GayKK http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/231932/ “At Austin Peay University in Tennessee, the campus erupted in outrage when rainbow nooses were discovered hanging from a tree."

Blogger tz April 24, 2016 7:17 PM  

Proportionality is an aspect of justice, not war. With Justice, one is attempting to assess desert - a proportional punishment (See CS Lewis "Humanitarian theory of Punishment" which goes into the evil of mere deterrence).

Note that some just punishments might seem disproportionate when you fail to consider the destruction of societal trust or the deeper effects beyond the actual crime.

With war, one must insure the defeat of the enemy. After insuring the result of action won't be worse than inaction, one is justified in doing in general what is needed to destroy the evil (without doing greater evils). War will be horrible so there is a reason to insure it won't be repeated. This mitigates some things which if done outside the aspect of (a just) war would be evil.

Even so, that is why there is the sacrament of Reconciliation when we need to act without spending hours studying philosophy and theology - a check valve if you will.

Pacifists, when not that way out of cowardice, are that way because they can never be sure where the line is and wish to avoid any guilt, but it is the act of a pharisee.

Blogger lowercaseb April 24, 2016 7:47 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:The so-called "Code of Chivalry" was a set of rules by which the Frankish knights kept their peace-time manpower losses to a minimum, by allowing quarter, specifying standard rates at which a Frankish (and later Norman) knight could ransom his life after losing a duel or other combat.

It never applied to peasants, heathens or heretics.


Bravo! Thank you for bringing this up. I'm sure everyone knows how it was brilliantly co-opted by Eleanor of Aquitaine to include worship of women and courtly love.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 24, 2016 7:54 PM  

Regarding one line in the LewRockwell piece:

If you are a person who wants to hear the viewpoints of both sides and are willing to run the risk of being offended by the words you read, then you also run the risk of being added to the Autoblock simply for trying to listen.

Well of course - if you're listening to the other side, then you're not pointing and shrieking, and if you're not pointing and shrieking, you're not an SJW and you must be deplatformed.

An important element of SJWs pathology is that they require everyone to acknowledge them as being right. Anything less and their egos explode, turning them into either raving lunatics or whimpering piles of despair.

Anonymous krymneth April 24, 2016 8:01 PM  

People mistake the result of civilization for the contract of civilization.

The contract of civilization is that you will defend it. Said defense involves being obligated to attack those who break the contract of civilization, with whatever it takes to preserve it.

The result of consistently applying this principle is that eventually you don't have to anymore, and you get peace. (At least locally.) But this is not because you pre-commit to peace at all costs; it is because you pre-commit to defending the peace, and by doing so, often don't have to.

The SJWs are barbarians. They lack the civilized virtues, they lack respect for their civilization, they have opted out of the contract of civilization, they hate civilization.

Those who refuse to honor their contract to defend are perhaps not barbarians... but neither are they civilized. They are some third category that our language lacks a word for since we haven't had this kind of wealth in the past before to get this far along the post-civilization track. ("Cuckservative" is a flavor of this, perhaps, but not the totality of the concept.)

It is not a higher morality to insist on not using effective defense against the barbarians. It is a lower morality. I could make a case for it being a lower morality than even the barbarians have, though that is debateable. But that is the moral debate that it raises, not "which is a higher morality, those who effectively defend civilization or those who consider only their own moral character?" but "which is preferable, the barbarian or the one who does nothing to stop the barbarian?"

Braying about one's refusal to honor their civilizational obligations is not a point of pride; it is a badge of shame.

OpenID sigsawyer April 24, 2016 8:12 PM  

@13

Enjoy living in fear of girls, man

Anonymous Ain April 24, 2016 8:16 PM  

"I won't stoop to their level" generally translates to "I'm afraid I would lose if I fought back."

It's also an excuse to do nothing, and pretend to be virtuous on top of it.

Blogger James Dixon April 24, 2016 8:17 PM  

> I am here to establish my own position...

Good. You've stated it. Now if you won't fight get out of the way.

... and exhort you all to take a careful assessment of yourselves.

We have. We disagree with you.

> Look to your souls.

The affairs of our souls are between us and Christ, not you. Look to your own and know you had to power to help stop this evil, and did nothing.

> Is this a White Supremacist web page?

There are a bunch of people who use any excuse to claim it is.

> It's as if they're mentally ill.

As if?


Blogger Jon M April 24, 2016 8:23 PM  

@25 Somebody needs to write better. If rcocean shows up to set me straight, I'll apologize. Until then, what he's written...how to put this? To paraphrase a pedo: Any sufficiently advanced statement of SJW principles is indistinguishable from satire.

Blogger Giuseppe The Kurgan April 24, 2016 8:24 PM  

I just put it up on my blog at www.gfilotto.com had to be done

Blogger tz April 24, 2016 8:33 PM  

@40 To call a SJW a barbarian isn't quite accurate as they have the benefits of civilization but are engaged in self-hate and self-destruction.

Blogger Were-Puppy April 24, 2016 9:18 PM  

Yes. SJWs are more like degenerates, than barbarians.

Anonymous mature-Craig April 24, 2016 10:08 PM  

"I won't stoop to their level"

I am a big believer in this tactic, I use it all the time, I barely have any friends but that's fine I wouldn't want to be friends with people on such a low level

I prefer to be around people that might talk about Sanskrit and use words like ex-nihilo

Anonymous Sagamore April 24, 2016 10:34 PM  

Prison rules.

Anonymous Sagamore April 24, 2016 10:41 PM  

@2 The cop who wanted a garden variety bribe is now under national security investigation for selling information out of CPIC.

Oops.

Blogger VFM #7634 April 24, 2016 11:24 PM  

I never did understand that "we won't stoop to that level" mentality.

Me neither.

Indeed, if you want to read an excellent and chilling example of how trying to take the high road and virtue signal can destroy your entire society, just read about the Moriori and what happened to them when the Maori invaded them.

A hui or council of Moriori elders was convened at the settlement called Te Awapatiki. Despite knowing of the Māori predilection for killing and eating the conquered, and despite the admonition by some of the elder chiefs that the principle of Nunuku [i.e., Moriori pacifism] was not appropriate now, two chiefs — Tapata and Torea — declared that "the law of Nunuku was not a strategy for survival, to be varied as conditions changed; it was a moral imperative." A Moriori survivor recalled: "[The Maori] commenced to kill us like sheep.... [We] were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to escape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed - men, women and children indiscriminately." A Māori conqueror explained, "We took possession... in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped....."

Blogger John Wright April 24, 2016 11:41 PM  

"It never applied to peasants, heathens or heretics."

Thank you.

JCW does not need to weigh in on this. Chivalry is not a suicide pact, and it only applies to gentlemen. Being an Enlightenment-style American, I am willing to allow anyone of any rank the dignity of being treated as a gentleman if they act like a gentleman.

The gentlemen, however, do punch back. Cowardice is not a part of their creed.

Certainly publishing a list of SJWs is not unseemly. If the curs were gentlemen, they would loudly insist on being known for what they are, and live up to what they have become.

Does Vox Day object to being called a Dark Lord? Or does he wear it proudly, as a badge of honor, and smile a cruel but pleased smile when urinating in a jakes made entirely of the pelvic bones of his enemies?

Blogger SciVo April 25, 2016 12:32 AM  

Tom Kratman wrote:Personally, I think that view of proportionality is wrong and wrong headed. The damage should, as with other actions, be proportional to the gain and, moreover, it should be sufficient to deter the conduct sought to be deterred.

I'm fond of the phrases "hit back twice as hard" and "make the rubble bounce." I think the response should be discouraging.

But then, that's typical of the Jacksonian instinct.

Blogger ray April 25, 2016 1:14 AM  

"JCW does not need to weigh in on this."


You refer to yourself by your own initials?

Blogger SciVo April 25, 2016 1:32 AM  

@54:

Who is Prince?

Blogger Feather Blade April 25, 2016 1:34 AM  

@53 That article is amazing. It explains so much.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit April 25, 2016 2:15 AM  

It's basic iterated prisoner's dilemma: tit-for-tat, forgiving, nice (not hitting first) and not greedy.

Perhaps if one put it those terms, conservatives would understand.

The kow-towing to political correctness means that some of the folks who appear to be standing up to SJWs are yobbos who enjoy kicking guys in the nuts, and it's sheer dumb luck that this week they're bullying a race-and-gender theorist.

It's useful to have a simple rule to distinguish between the two.

And of course, Christians face another dilemma: As useful as the-tit-for-tat rule is, (especially among State actors) we may not employ it in disobedience to God's commands.

And yes, that weakness may cost us "goods, fame, e, child, or wife." But at the end of the day, this world is not our home.

Anonymous FrankNorman April 25, 2016 6:47 AM  

Does anyone else here hope that as awareness that the Alt-Right is "making a list, and checking it twice" spreads, it will have a chilling effect on SJW behaviour?

Anonymous LastRedoubt April 25, 2016 9:53 AM  

@Jon M

Any sufficiently advanced statement of SJW principles is indistinguishable from satire.

Damn you, I was drinking coffee when I read that....

Blogger Akulkis April 25, 2016 1:16 PM  

@40
"The SJWs are barbarians. They lack the civilized virtues, they lack respect for their civilization, they have opted out of the contract of civilization, they hate civilization.

Those who refuse to honor their contract to defend are perhaps not barbarians... but neither are they civilized. They are some third category that our language lacks a word for since we haven't had this kind of wealth in the past before to get this far along the post-civilization track. ("Cuckservative" is a flavor of this, perhaps, but not the totality of the concept.)"

The labor union left has two words for such a concept:
"Free rider" and "scab"

The invective is hurled at those who receive benefit from undermining those who built up and support the union's strength. Ethically, their terminology is a bit dodgy, as the "free rider" and the "scab" have never bought into the union's viewpoint.

Getting back to SJWs and Cuckservatives. SJWs are CLEARLY worse than "scabs". SJWs LOVE to talk about the "social contract" and yet they clearly violate the social contract to allow non-work-related opinions and employment to be kept seperate. Cuckservatives CLAIM to buy into the social contract (retaliating to SJWs in kind is wrong, because it takes all of society down to their level), while vehemently refusing to do ANYTHING about the SJW.

Not sure exactly how this all fits together, I'm just putting these thoughts out there for discussion as to the similarities and differences between the SJWs and Cuckservatives vs Scabs and free riders. (Scabs are strike breakers; free riders are those who get paid the same as union members for the same job, but who refuse to join the union and pay union dues).

Blogger DtheMan April 25, 2016 3:05 PM  

Someone should add Kim Pallister to that. He's the Intel guy who got feministfrequency all those millions.

Blogger LP9 Forever Solidified in Gold! Rin Integra S.I.G. April 26, 2016 5:15 PM  

"Indeed, the mere fact of being openly sympathetic to any social justice cause should now be sufficient to give serious pause to anyone contemplating any form of a relationship, however fleeting, with an SJW."

Serious matter, I caution against the usual: don't SJW. Let us women not invade men's spaces and be careful if not avoidant of sjw-pal ship, they are not your freinds (mispelled on purose)and will cause you harm. SJW's wont ever encourage the good, promote the smart honorable men, if one is a lady - be a lady, if one is a man be your own man, sjw's won't communicate to others that a certain worldview is felled/wrong, sjw's wont promote or link to the right or best reading like CH's: 'Equality', 'SJWAL', 'Cucks'.

Recall Trump's comment of "taking in a sickly pretty snake and the snake bit her, I'll die, oh shut up, you knew I was a snake when you took me in."

This is a cross over issue, we've watched migrants or refugees kill their kind hearted hosts and Trump's story resonates as I watch/listen remaining objective. SJW's cultural marxism and political correctness has no place in our era, we do not have time for safe spaces, petting ego;s or coddling the maladjusted.

Speaking of safe spaces, I am still culture shocked we have voters in their 20's needing a safe space, lunacy.

SJW men are just revoltingly weak. Instead they cost harmless stupid people like a great deal and I let it go - Why? Move on, there is nothing better than letting go of that which is just a waste of brain time over their nullsense.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts