Friday, September 04, 2015

Voltotter's Prayer

Anti-GamerGate is Pro-Pedophile

Unsurprisingly, SJWs Randi Harper, Arthur Chu, Chris Kluwe, as well as the SJWs in science fiction (who have in the past defended convicted child molester Walter Breen, convicted child molester Ed Kramer, confirmed child molester Marion Zimmer Bradley, and confirmed NAMBLA supporter Samuel Delany), have leaped to the defense of ANOTHER pedophile.
Phil Sandifer ‏@PhilSandifer
You know you're on the right side of an argument when it's not the side that unironically uses the word "degenerate"

Phil Sandifer ‏@PhilSandifer
Also for the record, lots of trans people have really complex and fraught relationships to childhood, what with missing theirs and all.

Phil Sandifer ‏@PhilSandifer
Also, for the record, the modern notion of childhood was invented by the Victorians, and like everything else they invented, was a fetish.

Phil Sandifer ‏@PhilSandifer
Here’s the thing - literally everybody attacking @srhbutts knows that if the shit they said in IRC or SMS were leaked they’d be humiliated.

Phil Sandifer ‏@PhilSandifer
Just want to say that @srhbutts is absolutely awesome before it becomes all trendy to do so. #FuckMiloYiannopoulos
It's important that we have fun while fighting the cultural war. It keeps our energy levels and our spirits up. But never forget that we are dealing with very, very evil, very, very twisted individuals here. They are not merely misguided. They cannot be reasoned with. They will not be convinced by information. They are wicked, they are devoted to wickedness, they revel in their sin, and there can be no compromise with them.

Labels: ,

One week at #1

Interest in SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police remains strong; it has 132 reviews and ranks in the Amazon top 500, which has been enough to keep it at #1 in Political Philosophy for a solid week now. Thanks to all of you for that; none of that happens without you buying the book, talking it up on Twitter and Facebook, and reviewing it. I hope you will continue to spread the word about it.

I'm gratified by both the positive responses from the Dread Ilk, #GamerGate, and the Alt-Right as well as the negative responses from the SJWs. Here are two recently published quasi-reviews, one from the gentleman plotting against me, another from a woman who is a strong supporter of Castalia House.
SJWs is primarily a series of Scripts. For PUA manuals, these Scripts are opening lines, moving from one phase to another, shifting venues, et al. In SJWs, the first Script is the anatomy of a SJW attack (Point and Shriek and so on) and the second Script is the proper response (Don’t Apologize and so on).

There is, of course, more to this book than the two Scripts, but as with PUA literature, it is mostly there either to explain and support the Scripts or to explain and support the Worldview. There are calls to arms and sections on how to SJW-proof an organization, but this is so much window dressing. What really matters are the Scripts and canned routines.

The breakdown of dialectic vs. rhetoric is a good one, although it does claim that Leftists are incapable of dialectic reason. Again, this may be somewhat justified. After a year of following Vox, I have not yet seen an opponent attack him with a dialectic argument, for whatever reason.

At the end of the day, SJWs Always Lie will likely do exactly what it set out to do. The culture wars within fandom will escalate, the disqualification arms race will heat up, and both sides will steadily lose the ability to see the other side as human beings. I will never say that both sides are the same, but they do have one thing in common: the constant dehumanization of the other side.

Vox Day suggests that the only way to combat the intellectual policing of the Left is for the Right to engage in intellectual policing. This is what we have come to, and why I find Vox’s posturing as a hero of free speech disingenuous. Apparently the Hugo SJWs are not the only ones willing to burn down the city to save it.
It's a fair and intelligent non-review, but I think Rev 3.0 makes the same mistake so many moderates do of confusing the TACTIC with the OBJECTIVE. There is nothing disingenuous about thought-policing SJWs in defense of free speech; how else does he think their attempts to exert control over everyone else's thoughts and speech are going to be combated?

Once your opponent introduces tanks to the battlefield, if you do not meet them with anti-tank measures, including more and better tanks, you will lose. Rev 3.0's implied notion of nobly relying upon even more free speech to combat the SJW speech police reminds me of the WWI French military doctrine that relying upon élan and esprit de corps was the right way to defeat barbed wire, trenches, and emplaced machine guns.

Isn't it possible that by utilizing their tactics we will turn into SJWs? It may be theoretically possible but it's not even remotely likely. We don't share their ideals, their goals, or their slavering hunger for control over others' thoughts and words. The Marines didn't magically transform into Nazis even though they adopted the maneuver warfare tactics that were developed by the Wehrmacht, and we won't turn into SJWs just because we have turned their own tactics against them.

As for why they won't attack me with calm, rational, and reasoned arguments, it is because most of them are incapable of dialectic. The few that can handle it also recognize that I am much, much better at it than they are. They don't flee from public debate with me because they are afraid they will defeat me too resoundingly and expose my intellectual limitations, but because they fear I will do that to them.

Ann Sterzinger's review is rather less coherent, and transforms into a Hugo 2015 summary before transmogrifying entirely into a review of John Wright's Somewhither in which she rather precisely nails some of the novel's weaker points. Unless she didn't.
Day’s brand-new nonfiction book on Castalia—SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police—is half Rabid Puppies memoir, half field manual for dealing with the sort of people who repeatedly call Day a white supremacist even though he repeatedly reminds them that he’s part Native American, and won’t shut up about his great-grandfather who was some kind of Mexican war hero.
The negative reaction by the SJWs is very nearly as satisfying, as the only time I have seen levels of butthurt this high was the day that that the 2015 Hugo nominations were made public.
  • this is an example of somebody piggybacking on a topic he knows will be popular for his own obvious self-aggrandizement
  • The book itself is named after one of his "Three Laws of Social Justice Warriors", a reference to Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics 
  • Adorable whining from a guy with a hardon about losing at the Hugo's
  • An unintentionally amusing account of how a pudgy, angry, little boy grows up into a pudgy, angry, little man.
  • This book is very poorly reasoned and complete garbage. The title is itself inaccurate and rhetorical fallacy.   
UPDATE: Greg Johnson has posted a long review at Counter-Currents:
At the risk of sounding like the Oprah of the New Right, I want every one of you to buy and read this book. Vox Day has written an indispensable manual for resisting the politically correct witch-hunts of so-called “Social Justice Warriors....

Chapter 8, “Striking Back at the Thought Police” and Chapter 9, “Winning the Social Justice War,” are the most exciting parts of the book, for Day makes it clear that he is not content with just fending off the Left, but on rolling it back completely. This is what sets him miles apart from mainstream conservatism, which has never conserved anything from the Left, much less taken back lost ground. I will just deal with the highlights of these chapters.

Day’s first strategic principle is to know oneself and one’s enemy, and act accordingly. Day points out that the Right has a systematic advantage over the Left, because the Left is based on lies; Leftists do not understand themselves or their enemies, but we do.

One of Day’s most important principles is to reject the ideals of SJWs: equality, diversity, tolerance, and progress. Day flatly rejects equality as a fact or a moral ideal. He flatly rejects the daft notion that diversity is a strength. He does not measure progress in terms of equality and diversity, but in terms of science and technology, and points out that these forms of progress are incompatible with the first two ideals. He dismisses tolerance as “little more than a cloak for SJW entryism,” noting that SJWs always demand it but never practice it.

Day simply denies the Left the moral standing to judge the Right. He dismisses them as followers of false ideals that lead to injustice and tyranny.  

Labels: , ,

Thursday, September 03, 2015

VFM is Hydra

Every time John Scalzi bans one book, two more appear in its place.

Labels: ,

Sneaky little hobbitses

Nero's reflections after a year of covering #GamerGate:
Despite the common stereotypes of gamers as losers, nerds and shut-ins, gamers proved to be the perfect opponents for cultural authoritarians. The left relies on destroying the reputations of their opponents — but how do you destroy the reputations of people who have been ridiculed as often as gamers? When you’re already hated by the left, the right, and the media, the only way to go is dank.

Gamers also benefited from being one of the few genuine grassroots communities, with few leaders and no official structures. Unlike the tedious “movements” that regularly emerge from college campuses – whether Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) or Slut Walks – the gamers have no radical ideology.

They are ordinary, in some cases really quite apolitical, people, brought together by a shared hobby. They have no grand social objective beyond protecting the medium they love from authoritarian scolds and they cannot be neatly categorised.

The more you try to paint gamers as basement-dwelling straight white nerds, the more paraplegic black lesbian World of Warcraft addicts come tumbling out of the woodwork. (Is that offensive to dykes? I have no idea. Nor would the lesbians in GamerGate give a flying toss.)

One of the features of GamerGate is that it includes people from every background imaginable. A survey on GamePolitics found a broad mix of liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. Gamers don’t care if you’re black, white, gay, straight, or disabled. All that matters is that you know how to game. They’ll even welcome right-wing bastards like me.

That kind of diversity and tolerance — the genuine kind — frightens cultural authoritarians, not just because they are so mercilessly intolerant to their opponents, but also because it undermines their view of the world. Gaming is that most hated of words in identity politics: a meritocracy. Who you are is unimportant. All that matters is what you know, what you can do, and if you’re being honest with yourself and others about those two things.
It's interesting to see how many people who actually take the time to listen to #GamerGate, pay attention to the interactions between #GamerGate and our enemies, and learn the substantive issues involved eventually end up declaring themselves full-fledged members of #GamerGate.

So, welcome to the Shire, Gandalf the Gay.

The one thing that the SJWs simply did not understand is that for the average gamer, the gamer identity supersedes all his other identities. Oliver Campbell is a black GAMER. Brixton is a female GAMER. I am a Native American GAMER. The SJWs misapplied their identity politics to the subject; they assumed race and sex, the identities we did not choose for ourselves, were more important than the identity that every single gamer has chosen and made his lifestyle. They focused on the adjectives, never realizing that what we value is the noun.

Meanwhile, the SJWs are, in addition to opposing #GamerGate, standing up for tranny pedophiles. Seriously. And to think there were those who thought I was going too far when I referred to Mr. Sandifer as Peddy Phil.


Everyone needs a hobby

This meme brought to you courtesy of Aaron S. Coming soon: All the Rapes of Westeros: An Encyclopedia of Sexual Assault Fantasies by G. Rape Rape Marten. Complete with illustrations drawn in crayon by the author. And by "soon", I mean sometime in the next seven or eight years.

Labels: ,

Sailer solves the Syrian refugee crisis

It's a humane and entirely practical solution too. No more drowned little kids. Who could possibly object?
There’s much discussion in the press about where it would be best for Arab refugees from Syria to settle: Would they be best off in Munich? London? Reykjavik? Or Minneapolis? Which white people most need the blessings of diversity provided by Sunnis and Shi’ites? (Obviously, Syrian Arabs couldn’t go to other Arab countries like Qatar. Don’t be silly.)

The sophisticated reasoning of 2015 is that if you and your countrymen blow up your own country through your sheer mutual bloodymindedness, you therefore have an unassailable moral claim to inhabit the nicest countries on other continents. If you are a young fellow in your prime, why should you have to settle for a refugee camp in neighboring Turkey when there are Swedish girls unmolested in Malmo and English girls unpimped in Rotherham?

Think of the children!

Granted, most of the other times the West has imported lots of Muslims, we just wound up with dead cartoonists and gang-raped 12-year-old girls all over the place.

But, that’s irrelevant, because This Time Will Be Different!


Because. Just because.

Or maybe just because you shouldn’t mention the other times. It’s not nice.

Yet, it only now occurred to me that there is a place that would be ideal for Syrian refugees.
The Golan Heights. And, if necessary, Qatar. I understand that Hungary has relaxed its attempts to stop the invasion of its borders because it is planning to begin mass deportations of all of its illegal migrants soon. Perhaps the Hungarians can simply fly them to the Golan Heights. After all, they are mostly women and children seeking safety and a better life, so they couldn't possibly cause any problems there, right? I received an email from a Hungarian reader yesterday.
Very much looks like, that in a couple weeks Hungary will seriously close the border. As you may know, they are building a wall, which so far has been easily overrun, police are not even putting up resistance.

Meanwhile, they are changing laws, including some laws that need a "constitutional majority" in parliament, meaning that the army will have the right to intervene in border protection, looks like they will have the right to use teargas, rubber bullets, a net that can be thrown on an escaping person, police will have the right to search houses with no warrant.

They are making illegal border crossing a crime, punishable by instant deportation.

They will make makeshift camps right next to the border, crossers will be put there, not into camps that are inside the country. One spokesman (Gergely Gulyás) said that number of illegal migrants may go down to zero after Sept 15th.
This is a very good sign. Because if the mass deportations of migrants don't begin soon, worse things will before much longer. As for the humanitarians, note that 4,000 people have drowned trying to cross the sea to Europe this year. Thousands of people are dead because the humanitarians weren't willing to sink the first 10 boats and make it clear that no one would be permitted to invade Greece and Italy from the sea.

It's a good thing surgeons aren't humanitarians. "Well, I'd sure like to do something about that malignant tumor, but cutting you with a knife would hurt you so I can't do it in good conscience. Good luck!"


You can't ban love

It should be absolutely fascinating to see John Scalzi trying to talk Amazon into banning another book, this one called JOHN SCALZI BANNED THIS BOOK and published by "451 Publishing".

The quote cracked me up: "I obviously reported it to Amazon as inappropriate." Popehat, can we get a verdict on this one too? Is it parody or libel?

In any event, if you missed your opportunity to buy the banned John Scalzi Is A Rapist: Why SJWs Always Lie In Bed Waiting For His Gentle Touch; A Pretty, Pretty Girl Dreams of Her Beloved One While Pondering Gender Identity, Social Justice, and Body Dysmorphia before it was banned, don't worry, you can still buy John Scalzi Banned This Book But He Can Never Ban My Burning Love: A Pretty, Pretty Girl Dreams of Her Beloved While Pondering Gender Identity, Social Justice, and Body Dysmorphia. I'm told it has just as many Chapter Fives.

A blazingly inventive parody that was banned by John Scalzi, despite Ms. Eren being a huge Scalzi fan and an unemployed transgendered up-and-coming romance author who needed the money so xe could one day buy xerself a big, beautiful lawn of xer own. Soon to be nominated for the Hugo, don't miss the story of a love so bold it broke the Internet!"

As you might expect, the SJWs are back on their fainting couches. From File 770:
Gabriel F. on September 2, 2015 at 9:05 pm said:
The fact that John Scalzi is a Rapist was even briefly a bestseller is horrifying.
But wait, there's more! SJWs Never Lie: Censorship is Tolerance! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!

Despite the claims of evil bigots, those who fight for social justice never lie. And if they did, it would be for the right cause. The once-proud title of Social Justice Warrior has been dragged through the dirt of prejudice and hate long enough. Now, three prominent writers speak out in its defense and on the public battles of our time:

“I, like, totally, don’t pay any attention to that racist, sexist, homophobic douchevelociraptor Vox Day! Like, whatever, girl! Ten years don’t… mean… nothing! Sashay, snap!”
-Brianna Scalzi, 147-time Hugo-nominated author of 'Old Trope’s War'

Labels: ,

Wednesday, September 02, 2015

Scalzi 451

Allum Bokhari reports on the cultural war burning up the Kindle Store for Breitbart.
The online culture wars have moved out of comment sections and into Amazon’s Kindle Store.Following the publication of a book by the controversial sci-fi author Vox Day, two parody e-books surged to the top of the store’s top-100 rankings. The first book was a parody of Day’s work, while the other (which has now been removed from Amazon) mocked John Scalzi, one of Day’s critics.

Day’s book is entitled “SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police”, and is intended to be a serious polemic. The book’s summary describes SJWs (Social Justice Warriors — a term for authoritarian progressive activists) as having “plagued mankind for 150 years” and describes how they “invaded one institution of the cultural high ground after another.” It presents itself as a guide to “understanding, anticipating, and surviving SJW attacks.”

The book includes a foreword from Breitbart associate editor Milo Yiannopoulos and was reviewed positively in the conservative online magazine American Thinker.

Online progressives were not so supportive. Alexandra Erin, a sci-fi writer who described Day’s book as “rehashing old slights”, wrote a short parody of the book for Kindle. Entitled “John Scalzi Is Not A Very Popular Author And I Myself Am Quite Popular: How SJWs Always Lie About Our Comparative Popularity Levels,” the book makes fun of Day’s alleged fixation with the progressive sci-fi author John Scalzi.

Scalzi himself appeared to be delighted with the parody,  saying he “loved it already.” He used the book in a fundraising drive for a charity promoting diversity at sci-fi conventions, promising to release an audio recording of him reading the book if $2,5000 was raised within three days. The target was successfully met, and Scalzi subsequently uploaded an audio recording.

Supporters of Vox Day responded by releasing their own parody book, entitled “John Scalzi Is A Rapist: Why SJWs Always Lie In Bed Waiting For His Gentle Touch; A Pretty, Pretty Girl Dreams of Her Beloved One While Pondering Gender Identity, Social Justice, and Body Dysmorphia.”

The counter-parody was removed by Amazon today following complaints from Scalzi. Prior to its removal, it was the top seller in the “parodies” section of the Kindle store, two places ahead of Erin’s book.
Does Scalzi ever think through the obvious consequences of his actions? I mean, I know I literally wrote the book on it and all, but it was supposed to be RHETORIC. But wow just wow, SJWs really do always double down.

Labels: ,

Why Johnny can't sue

It clearly grieves Ken of Popehat to have to give McRapey the bad news, but let's give the man credit for his professional integrity anyhow:
So: here is the short answer. The book title is almost certainly parody protected by the First Amendment, because an audience familiar with the circumstances would recognize it as parody and not as an assertion of fact.

The factors point very strongly to the book being treated as parody, and protected by the First Amendment, rather than as a defamatory statement of fact. With all respect to Scalzi, his question is wrong: you can't analyze the book title in isolation. You have to look at it in the context of the whole. In that context, the intended audience (both fans of Beale and fans of Scalzi) would recognize it as a reference to Beale's tiresome meme. Plus, the Amazon description explicitly labels it as "a blazingly inventive parody," and the descriptive text is mostly nonsensical and evocative of ridicule of "SJW" concerns, and references some of the topics that anger Beale's coterie in connection with Scalzi like the Hugo Awards.

I think this one is protected parody, and I don't think it's a very close call.
I'm not even remotely surprised; it was a stupid question in the first place. I suppose that leaves lobbying Amazon to ban books that make fun of John Scalzi, which I tend to doubt will be a successful strategy. UPDATE: Amazon just pulled down John Scalzi Is A Rapist: Why SJWs Always Lie In Bed Waiting For His Gentle Touch; A Pretty, Pretty Girl Dreams of Her Beloved One While Pondering Gender Identity, Social Justice, and Body Dysmorphia 

 Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,736 Paid in Kindle Store
    #1 in Humor & Entertainment > Humor > Parodies
    #1 in Kindle Short Reads > 30 minutes (12-21 pages) > Humor & Entertainment
    #2 in Nonfiction > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Political

Fascinating, in light of how Is George Bush a War Criminal and Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Paula Deen is a Big Fat Idiot are still available for sale there. I wonder who will be the next target of these dread parodists? McCreepy? Mary Three Names? George Rape Rape Martin?

They may own the mainstream media, but all their public persona now belong to us.

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
Just confirmed: That silly book with the silly title defaming me appears to be off of Amazon. In the US, at least.

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
We'll see how long that lasts. I imagine someone might try to upload it again.

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
However, let me without reservation express my thanks to @amazon for dealing with that nonsense quickly. It's appreciated.

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
Awwwwww, now the dudes who don't understand what censorship is are ALL ANGWY AT ME.

Yes, I can't imagine there won't be any more parodies published about SFWA's most prominent book banner. Of course, as Popehat told Scalzi, the book was not defaming him. SJWs always lie.

Labels: ,

Do you really want to hurt me?

A four-part series on "Killing Vox Day". And I have to say, despite his purportedly homicidal intentions, the author says nicer things about me than most of my friends and family do.
1). Vox Day is Honest
Whatever you think about Vox Day's opinions, you cannot deny that he states them publicly and consistently in the face of intense criticism.

Being honest does not mean telling the truth per se. It does not mean that what you say is ultimately correct. Honesty means telling the truth as you see it, based on your best understanding of the situation. Vox is acerbic, biased, and prone to fits of exaggeration, but taking these things into account, he generally says what he thinks to the best of his knowledge.

If anything, I've been stunned by how open Vox Day is about his evil, evil plans. In terms of Hugo strategy in particular, his modus operandi seems to be openly declaring his strategy, openly following through with said strategy, and then laughing at his enemies' confused responses....

2). Vox Day is Intelligent (and Sane)
One of the things I have noticed about detractors of Vox Day is that they assume Vox is either an idiot or insane. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Vox is an extremely sharp person. He knows how to argue successfully. He can set up a consistent argument, pick out flaws in his opponent's reasoning, and generally defend intellectual positions that few other people can. Why these positions are difficult to defend hardly matters. What matters is that he has the chops to defend them.

If you need an example of this, just look at the arguments he presents in any given blog post and the bleating of his supporters in the comments. There is a world of difference. And this is why they keep coming back – because he is very, very good at arguing for them. You don't rally around a person who consistently loses.

Another good example is this interview on CSPAN where he gives a logical and eloquent argument for the right of American states to secede from the Union. You can tell that the host was expecting an easy kill against a right-wing nut job and ended up with a lively, intelligent debate.

Vox likes to credit his years of strategy gaming for these abilities (Advanced Squad Leader in particular). Personally, I like to credit years of playing Cooking Mama for my three Michelin stars and Mario marathons for my six-foot vertical jump. The more likely factor is that Vox is an avid reader - he displays a more than passing familiarity with philosophy, statistical modelling, and yes, military history and tactics (particularly Fourth Generation theory - more on this later).

Again, this is not to say that his arguments are objectively true, only that he does a good job of flustering, discrediting, and generally taking down his opponents. He can think logically, tactically, and worst of all, strategically. He does not win because of the inherent strength of his positions, but because of his technique in defending them. That is not the behavior of a drooling troglodyte or an insane person.
After seeing the first two parts of the series, I sent the author a copy of SJWs Always Lie, as I thought he might find it to be useful in analyzing my thought processes. As I thought he might, I wasn't surprised to see he posted a fair review of it:
This book is a necessary buy for anyone who finds themselves under attack for their politics. Two sections in particular stand out: the anatomy of a SJW attack and the response scripts. It will tell you exactly what to expect, what frame of mind to get in, and how to respond.

That said, I take exception with Vox's suggestion later in the book that the antidote to the thought police is an equal and opposite thought police for conservative organizations. I understand his argument that 'they started it, so it's fair game,' but it seems like the opposite of the ideal outcome: un-policed thought.

I will hasten to add that this is a mere academic consideration when you are under active attack from a group that wants to destroy your good name and livelihood for political reasons. Your first priority is to defend yourself, and this book will help you do just that.
I will point out that the mistake he made in the second paragraph is no different than the one that many, indeed, MOST conservatives make. The tactic is not the outcome. The means is not the end. To achieve the objective of unpoliced thought, we must police our organizations against the SJW thought and speech police. Like the Germans with mustard gas in WWI, they will not abandon the tactic unless and until it is used against them with greater efficacy.



So, I wonder how many kitty pictures McRapey will post this week? But that's not all, folks, there's more!

Looks like the Os have it.

UPDATE: That scent you smelled this morning wasn't burned toast, it was the butthurt emanating from Bradford, Ohio.
John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
Question for the legal scholars among you: Is this title parody? Or libel?

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi 11m11 minutes ago
Personally, I'm not sure where it is on the parody/libel line. I am a public figure, but there is definitely malice, etc. It's a puzzle!

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
Also, for those asking, I obviously reported it to Amazon as inappropriate. I mean, the cover art is TERRIBLE. And, uh. Other things.
Here is a hint for the man with the 2.8 GPA: it's in the parody section. And the parody directly quoted you. But I'm sure everyone at Amazon will be astonished to learn that John Scalzi believes satire directed at John Scalzi is inappropriate.

Labels: , ,

In praise of Sam Harris

In case you're interested, I was a guest on the first podcast of Challenging Opinions Episode One - Education, Religion and Liberty. Give it a listen if you're so inclined. A brief selection from the transcript:
Vox argues that Sam Harris is the worst Atheist debater around, but he is willing to give him a little praise:

William: You can very easily accuse people on the liberal wing, on the left, of being too tolerant of fundamentalist Islam, and Sam Harris stands up to the intellectual inconsistencies of some people on the left such as noted philosopher Ben Affleck;  that tendency does exist and he does challenge it, isn’t that true?

Vox: That’s absolutely true, and I would go even further and praise Sam Harris for biting the bullet, for addressing one of the most important flaws of the atheist secular humanist perspective, which is their discomfort with the obvious difference between "what is" and "what could be".”
That's what I find fascinating about Sam Harris. On the one hand, he is intellectually careless and the most intrinsically incompetent debater I have ever observed. His idea of defending his ideas is to make an assertion with obvious flaws, then attempt to deal with the straightforward criticism of those flaws by claiming that what he very clearly wrote or said isn't what he really meant. He does this in every single debate!

On the other hand, he doesn't hesitate to take the giant conceptual bull by the horns and wrestle with it. In The Moral Landscape, Harris recognized that the Humean distinction between "is" and "ought" is a tremendous problem for secular humanism. The fact that he utterly failed in his attempt to use science to equate the two doesn't mean that we should not praise him for embracing the philosophical challenge and giving it his best shot.

Labels: ,

Building the next Nazis

When the ultra-nationalists take power in Europe, it is the "open borders" advocates and "save the poor refugees" advocates who will be responsible. And we'll all be lucky if they settle for mass deportations:
Italy’s simmering anti-immigrant sentiment has been stoked by the murder of an elderly couple in their home in Sicily, allegedly by an African asylum seeker. Mamadou Kamara, an 18-year-old from the Ivory Coast, allegedly slit the throat of Vincenzo Solano, 68, and then attacked his Spanish-born wife, Mercedes Ibanez, 70.

Ms Ibanez fell to her death from a second-floor balcony, during a robbery that turned violent.

Mr Kamara is one of thousands of migrants and refugees living at a vast reception centre at nearby Mineo, in south-eastern Sicily.

They are accommodated there after arriving by boat from Libya, and wait sometimes for months to have their asylum applications assessed.

The migrants are allowed to come and go freely from the facility, a former US military base where prostitution, links with organised crime and the trade in illicit goods is said to be rife.

Mr Kamara, who was rescued in the Mediterranean on June 8 and brought with other migrants to the port of Catania in Sicily, allegedly broke into the pensioners’ flat in the village of Palagonia, six miles away, and slit the throat of Mr Solano....Patience is wearing thin among many Italians, with some of the country’s 20 regions refusing to accommodate any more migrants and centre-Right parties accusing the centre-Left government of Matteo Renzi, the prime minister, of having lost control of the country’s borders.
I think we're two election cycles away from the end of the pro-EU governments. They may end up shutting down Schengen and taking away the welcome mats, but by then, it will be too little, too late. The anti-immigrant sentiment is rapidly approaching a full boil; mass immigration is invasion. As you will see in an essay that appears in Riding the Red Horse V2, mass immigration is invasion. Mass immigration is occupation. Mass immigration is war.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, September 01, 2015

"an excellent tactics manual"

Christopher Chantrill reviews SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police in American Thinker:
Fighting Back Against the SJWs

Social justice warriors (SJWs) are like the weather. Everybody complains about them, but nobody does anything about them, except for controversialist Vox Day who has just released an ebook on how to fight back against the SJWs, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police....

Vox Day is a warrior; he lives the eternal battle order: March towards the sound of the guns. He battles with social justice warriors, he runs Alpha Game blog on how to pursue women, he engages the lefties at science-fiction publisher Tor Books, and he publishes books by military historians and strategists like Martin van Creveld and William S. Lind. Naturally he writes a lot about 4th Generation warfare and Col. John Boyd's OODA Loop.

Vox Day likes bullet points, and so he begins SJWs Always Lie by defining SJW behavior with the following Three Laws of SJW.

1. SJWs Always Lie

2. SJWs Always Double Down

3. SJWs Always Project

That's all very well, but how should one actually do when an SJW takes offense at an inoffensive remark you make at work and starts to name and shame you? Vox Day has a list for that as well, but the most important is “Do not resign!” As in Brendan Eich and Sir Tim Hunt.

All in all, Vox Day has written an excellent tactics manual for survival in the SJW-infested cubicle jungle.
It's good to see the word beginning to get around not only #GamerGate and the Alt-Right, but also more mainstream conservative publications. We may have our disagreements, but the SJWs are gunning for all of us.

In addition to the reviews, people have been providing some useful suggestions; one that I thought was particularly good was from an author who said that a survival guide for those under SJW attack might come in very handy, a short PDF that people could freely distribute and hand out to friends and family members who were under siege.

So, I cut Chapter 7 down to five pages of the essential information, prefaced it with the SJW Attack Sequence, and exported it to PDF. THE SJW ATTACK SURVIVAL GUIDE can be downloaded, printed, and passed around as you see fit; I suppose it might even serve as an advertisement of sorts for the book. It is also available on the right sidebar. I hope none of you will need it, but if you or anyone you know does, you now know where to find it.

Labels: ,

I said "punch back twice as hard"

Not beat them to death with an iron bar, before sodomizing their corpses with it! (shakes head) See, this sort of thing is why we keep the minions leashed and muzzled when we have company.

Ah well. One of these days, the SJWs are going to realize that while I may be the Supreme Dark Lord, I am the calm and civil voice of sweet reason as far as the Evil Legion of Evil is concerned. The Dread Ilk are not dreaded for nothing, after all.

Just to be clear, I neither wrote nor published nor commissioned JOHN SCALZI IS A RAPIST: Why SJWs Always Lie In Bed Waiting For His Gentle Touch; A Pretty Pretty Girl Dreams of Her Beloved One While Pondering Gender Identity, Social Justice, and Body Dysmorphia. But I will readily admit to being deeply, deeply, amused by it.

I wonder if McRapey will want to do the audio book for this too?

Anyhow, I suppose this can be taken as a resounding NO vote for Mr. Martin's suggested reconciliation.

UPDATE: The initial SJW reactions are about what you'd assume they would be.
dream a dream@maryeverbright
"These people are absolutely vile. Can't you sue them for defamation or libel @jscalzi?

Princess Content ‏@ContentPrincess
@maryeverbright @jscalzi What the hell did I just see?  Why... WHAT????

Princess Content ‏@ContentPrincess
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU???  @voxday #HugoAwards #sadpuppies

dream a dream ‏@maryeverbright
@voxday @jscalzi You people are revolting, every single one of you. I'm glad you you'll never get a Hugo.
Hey, don't come crying to me. I didn't do it. I'm just sitting here on the old throne of bones, drinking a little fermented SJW blood, and laughing. "Absolutely vile?" What part of "Vile Faceless Minions" did she not understand?

Labels: ,

Ilk wanted

Corporations and professionals have noticed that the community here is considerably smarter and better-educated than most sites on the Internet. And, of course, SJW-free.

We would like to ask the Ilk for support in hiring for a few roles. The roles are located in London. Some of these are junior roles and aimed at university graduates; others are aimed at experienced staff in financial risk management/project delivery. The junior roles are for employees, the experienced ones can be both freelance contracting or direct employee roles; this is negotiable. Pay is competitive "at market".

If you are interested, please consider the following minimum skill-set and experience requirements (note different for junior versus experienced hires):

For the "graduate" roles:

You have an excellent academic track record from a good school. Your highest degree is a PhD or MSc (or equivalent level) with a written thesis in a numerate (STEM) subject. For your submission it is necessary that you have completed a thesis/final project; please include the thesis title in your CV.

Notice it is not necessary that the thesis has anything to do with finance; the institution wants to hire "simply the best in STEM". So if you're good for the mathematical bits, then the hiring institution will consider you for a trainee position and train you up in the finance stuff. You should however bring along a keen motivation to learn about financial risk management; in particular mathematical methods to model market risks, liquidity risks, credit risks. In addition, it would greatly help your chances of consideration if you had mastered some (or even all) of the following areas at university: PDE's, SDE's, numerical methods (such as Monte Carlo, trees, finite differences, finite elements), probability theory or statistical analysis, time series analysis, a smattering of computer languages (good ones are SQL, scripting languages such as Unix shell/Perl/Python, Java, C/#/++, data structures/mappings such as XML or FpML, but notice these are not developer roles). Obviously some pre-existing knowledge in mathematical finance will be helpful as well.

The hiring process for the junior roles will emphasise your academic track record, all the way back to GCSE/A levels/college degrees. List all your marks/grades on your CV, including the individual mark/grade of your thesis versus the overall mark/grade of your MSc/PhD.

Please do not send us your CV for the junior positions if:
    1. Your highest academic degree is a Bachelor or equivalent. The role will prove to be too challenging in that case. (Sorry Jonny Con!)
    2. Your master degree is an MBA, a Master in Finance, a degree in accounting or law, or similar. These roles are exclusively for STEM candidates. The financial services industry offers tons of roles for people with your qualifications profile; these roles are not such and therefore not for you.

For the "experienced" roles:

You have 3 or more years of experience in credit or market risk business analysis, financial risk management, risk modelling, and/or risk system project delivery. You understand the use of quantitative methods in finance, especially in market risk management, liquidity risk management, and/or credit risk management; and you can explain the effects of the models to your internal customers including senior management. You have previously produced typically required artefacts for each project stage (please list all such project documents in your CV!) including stakeholder sign-off.

Your academic degree ideally is in a STEM or related subject. Bachelor or equivalent is sufficient here; the strict minimum criteria from the "junior" section do not apply; the assumption is that your practical experience will have made more than up for less time at uni. If your degree is not STEM but your project track record evidences good experience with successful delivery of quantitative finance and/or risk measurement models, then please add a sentence or two of explanation to your CV.

Be aware that these are Risk roles; previous experience in Front Office, Operations, Finance, Compliance are all surely useful, but if you never have worked in Risk this will be an uphill struggle. Similarly be aware that these are roles for change business analysts with a strong affinity to quantitative risk modelling; but if you are from a pure operational/BAU analyst background without hands-on project delivery experience, this could be too challenging as well.

For either of the roles, please send your CV listing all relevant skills and professional experience to Vox.


Rape Rape always lies

George R. R. Martin tries to revise the Hugo Narrative on his Not A Blog because George R. R. Martin is an SJW, and as the book says, SJWs always lie:
The elimination of slates will be a huge step toward the end of hostilities. But there's a second step that's also necessary. One I have touched on many times before. We have to put an end to the name-calling. To the stupid epithets.

I have seen some hopeful signs on that front in some of the Hugo round-ups I've read. Puppies and Puppy sympathizers using terms like Fan (with a capital), or trufan, or anti-Puppy, all of which I am fine with. I am not fine with CHORF, ASP, Puppy-kicker, Morlock, SJW, Social Justice Bully, and some of the other stupid, offensive labels that some Pups (please note, I said SOME) have repeatedly used for describe their opponents since this whole thing began. I am REALLY not fine with the loonies on the Puppy side who find even those insults too mild, and prefer to call us Marxists, Maoists, feminazis, Nazis, Christ-hating Sodomites, and the like. There have been some truly insane analogies coming from the kennels too -- comparisons to World War II, to the Nazi death camps, to ethnic cleansing. Guy, come on, cool down. WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT A LITERARY AWARD THAT BEGAN AS AN OLDSMOBILE HOOD ORNAMENT. Even getting voted below No Award is NOT the same as being put on a train to Auschwitz, and when you type shit like that, well...

I remember being called an asshole by you for pointing out that the Sad Puppies' noms were as legitimate as anyone else's. A LOT of people associated with the SP have been personally insulted by the Haydens and his crowd. I don't see any apologies forthcoming, and I don't expect one from you. And that was after I defended you repeatedly to the Puppies. I still think you're a great writer, but I'm not so sure that you're all that decent a man.
- jordan179

This is the kind of nasty stuff that will make reconciliation impossible. Sweeping statemnts like "a lot of people... have been personally insulted by the Haydens and his crowd" without any specifics or citations makes your assertions suspect from the first. And you can't even get the names of the people you're attacking right. They are the Nielsen-Haydens, not the Haydens.
- grrm
Note that George Martin objects vociferously to his side being called Social Justice Warriors even though it is a name that self-professed SJWs originally gave themselves. Meanwhile, his side calls us "fascists", "Neo-Nazis", "thugs", "sociopaths", "sexist assbags", "gibbering follow monkeys", and "just straight-up assholes", among many other names.

My dear GRRM, your side absolutely and unequivocally started this war of words. We, however, are going to finish it. You are not only dishonest, you are demonstrably wrong. You can't even get the names of the people you're defending right! They are the Nielsen Haydens, not the Nielsen-Haydens.

Those specifics you claimed to want are easily supplied. Almost all of the SJW name-calling long predates any Puppy-related name-calling. The 90 specific quotes provided below range from 2005 to 2015 and are but a few dozen of the hundreds of examples that could be cited.

So, you can take  your lies, George, and to paraphrase Patrick Nielsen Hayden's recent advice to John C. Wright, delivered just last week to the man's wife, stick them up your oversized posterior. You may be rich, but you're not very smart, you're not at all honest, and you're still the same fat rape-obsessed gamma male that you've always been.

You're a liar, George. A proven liar. I may be cruel and I may be arrogant and I may occasionally be mistaken, but unlike you, I am not stupid enough to lie about the past in public.

Read more »

Labels: ,

Russia reinforces Syria

As if the Middle East wasn't already enough of a powder keg: The Russians are showing up in force:
While military direct intervention by US, Turkish, and Gulf forces over Syrian soil escalates with every passing day, even as Islamic State forces capture increasingly more sovereign territory, in the central part of the country, the Nusra Front dominant in the northwestern region province of Idlib and the official "rebel" forces in close proximity to Damascus, the biggest question on everyone's lips has been one: would Putin abandon his protege, Syria's president Assad, to western "liberators" in the process ceding control over Syrian territory which for years had been a Russian national interest as it prevented the passage of regional pipelines from Qatar and Saudi Arabia into Europe, in the process eliminating Gazprom's - and Russia's - influence over the continent.

As recently as a month ago, the surprising answer appeared to be an unexpected "yes", as we described in detail in "The End Draws Near For Syria's Assad As Putin's Patience "Wears Thin." Which would make no sense: why would Putin abdicate a carefully cultivated relationship, one which served both sides (Russia exported weapons, provides military support, and in exchange got a right of first and only refusal on any traversing pipelines through Syria) for years, just to take a gamble on an unknown future when the only aggressor was a jihadist spinoff which had been created as byproduct of US intervention in the region with the specific intention of achieving precisely this outcome: overthrowing Assad (see "Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US "Created" ISIS As A "Tool" To Overthrow Syria's President Assad").

As it turns out, it may all have been just a ruse. Because as Ynet reports, not only has Putin not turned his back on Assad, or Syria, but the Russian reinforcements are well on their way. Reinforcements for what? Why to fight the evil Islamic jihadists from ISIS of course, the same artificially created group of bogeyman that the US, Turkey, and Saudis are all all fighting. In fact, this may be the first world war in which everyone is "fighting" an opponent that everyone knows is a proxy for something else.

According to Ynet, Russian fighter pilots are expected to begin arriving in Syria in the coming days, and will fly their Russian air force fighter jets and attack helicopters against ISIS and rebel-aligned targets within the failing state.

And just like the US and Turkish air forces are supposedly in the region to "eradicate the ISIS threat", there can't be any possible complaints that Russia has also decided to take its fight to the jihadists - even if it is doing so from the territory of what the real goal of US and Turkish intervention is - Syria. After all, it is a free for all against ISIS, right?

From Ynet:

    According to Western diplomats, a Russian expeditionary force has already arrived in Syria and set up camp in an Assad-controlled airbase. The base is said to be in area surrounding Damascus, and will serve, for all intents and purposes, as a Russian forward operating base.

    In the coming weeks thousands of Russian military personnel are set to touch down in Syria, including advisors, instructors, logistics personnel, technical personnel, members of the aerial protection division, and the pilots who will operate the aircraft.

The Israeli outlet needless adds that while the current makeup of the Russian expeditionary force is still unknown, "there is no doubt that Russian pilots flying combat missions in Syrian skies will definitely change the existing dynamics in the Middle East."

Why certainly: because in one move Putin, who until this moment had been curiously non-commital over Syria's various internal and exteranl wars, just made the one move the puts everyone else in check: with Russian forces in Damascus implicitly supporting and guarding Assad, the western plan instantly falls apart.
I think this demonstrates why the US coup in Ukraine was a grand strategic disaster. Putin now knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that the USA isn't afraid to go after his backyard, which means that sitting tight is riskier for Russia than taking aggressive action. So, he's not going to shy away from destabilizing actions, and he can do considerably more than interfere with the West's plan to overthrow Syria under the guise of fighting ISIS.

I wouldn't be surprised if Putin started sending serious arms to the Mexican drug cartels and relaunching the Soviet Union's policy of funding revolutionary movements around the world. Thanks to the EU's insane immigration policies, he could even turn the USA's mujahideen strategy on its head and sow chaos throughout Western Europe if he wanted.


Monday, August 31, 2015

Why we need to replace Wikipedia

This technological innovator's experience is far from the only one of its type, and demonstrates that the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence renders Wikipedia unfit for purpose:
My primary reasons for writing this article are to record a bit of personal history, describe programming before the personal computer, and reminisce a bit. But I have another reason — some of my regular readers know there's an article about me on Wikipedia, but that article is likely to be deleted (update: it's gone — see below). The stated reason for deleting it is because it doesn't have enough references for its claims — for example, that I wrote a solar system model that was used by JPL during the Viking lander mission. Wikipedia rightly requires documentation for any claims made in its articles, and until this article, the article you're reading, that claim wasn't documented. It is now, by this article and by its attached correspondence. Nevertheless, once I saw that the article was being considered for removal, I added my own vote in favor of deletion. Why? Because it had become a cheap sounding board for people annoyed at my positions on controversial topics, particularly psychology and stockbrokers.

That's the real reason the self-appointed editors over at Wikipedia moved to delete the article (remember that anyone can sign up and edit Wikipedia articles). I've been tracking the article since it first appeared in 2006, and there have been any number of efforts to delete or destroy the article by people of varying levels of skill. One of the cleverer tactics has been to delete the list of references, wait 24 hours, then argue for the article's deletion on the ground that the article's claims have no references — that's been tried several times.

What's behind this? Why does anyone care so much about a short article that describes my activities? Well, I've noticed a correlation between my publishing something about psychology (I'm a critic of psychology's theoretical basis and practice, example: The Trouble with Psychology) and a subsequent effort to delete the Wikipedia article. Apparently some psychologists or fans of psychology think it's an appropriate response to criticism of their field — not to debate the issues honestly in public forums — but to try to remove any references to the critic.

The single best thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. That's also the single worst thing. It was my hope that a Wikipedia editor, one who doesn't care that I'm a psychology critic, would add a footnote reference to this article's documentation in the Wikipedia article, thereby removing an excuse to delete the article. That wouldn't have solved the problem, because I plan to continue criticizing psychology, but it woiuld have made it harder to justify future attacks.

Update: Through a combination of my efforts and that of others, and since I couldn't protect it from vandalism, the Wikipedia article has been deleted. During my research on this topic, I encountered this almost identical incident:

    Seth Finkelstein reported in an article in The Guardian on his efforts to remove his own biography page from Wikipedia, simply because it was subjected to defamation:

        "Wikipedia has a short biography of me, originally added in February 2004, mostly concerned with my internet civil liberties achievements. After discovering in May 2006 that it had been vandalised in March, possibly by a long-time opponent, and that the attack had been subsequently propagated to many other sites which (legally) repackage Wikipedia's content, the article's existence seemed to me overall to be harmful rather than helpful. For people who are not very prominent, Wikipedia biographies can be an "attractive nuisance". It says, to every troll, vandal, and score-settler: "Here's an article about a person where you can, with no accountability whatsoever, write any libel, defamation, or smear. It won't be a marginal comment with the social status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person, and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia."

    In the same article Finkelstein recounts how he voted his own biography as "not notable enough" in order to have it removed from Wikipedia.

As explained above, once I saw how often opponents of my views on psychology tried to rewrite or delete my Wikipedia article, I took the same action for the same reason. Those who want to read a short biographical note, one not subject to controversy or vandalism, may click here.

What does this mean about Wikipedia? It means that controversial issues and people won't be described fairly, or sometimes at all. The idea behind Wikipedia is that it's a people's encyclopedia, not an ivory tower production. The problem with this egalitarian ideal is that special interests can, and do, struggle to see their particular outlook become the only outlook in the pages of Wikipedia. And, since my view of psychology is quickly becoming the majority view, psychologists found themselves unable to argue against that position using reason and fair tactics. So, just as when they chose to study psychology in college, they took the low road, the easy path — they resorted to gangster tactics.
We're going to do this, the only questions are a) when, b) how much will it cost, and c) who is with me? I've had much the same experience. The three most notable and significant things I have done are completely absent from Wikipedia despite my being deemed notable by the editors and those three things being documented by reliable sources. And I'm far from alone in that.

Labels: ,

There is no escape

It's not possible to escape SJWs anymore. They are everywhere, in corporate America, in the universities, and on social media. Or perhaps I should say zhee are everywhere.
Multiple professors at Washington State University have explicitly told students their grades will suffer if they use terms such as “illegal alien,” "male," and “female,” or if they fail to “defer” to non-white students.

According to the syllabus for Selena Lester Breikss’ “Women & Popular Culture” class, students risk a failing grade if they use any common descriptors that Breikss considers “oppressive and hateful language.”

"Students will come to recognize how white privilege functions in everyday social structures and institutions.”  

The punishment for repeatedly using the banned words, Breikss warns, includes “but [is] not limited to removal from the class without attendance or participation points, failure of the assignment, and— in extreme cases— failure for the semester.”

Breikss is not the only WSU faculty member implementing such policies.

Much like in Selena Breikss’s classroom, students taking Professor Rebecca Fowler’s “Introduction to Comparative Ethnic Studies” course will see their grades suffer if they use the term “illegal alien” in their assigned writing.

According to her syllabus, students will lose one point every time they use the words “illegal alien” or “illegals” rather than the preferred terms of “‘undocumented’ migrants/immigrants/persons.” Throughout the course, Fowler says, students will “come to recognize how white privilege functions in everyday social structures and institutions.”
In the immortal words of USMC legend Chesty Puller, "All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us. They can't get away this time."

So lock and load, ladies and gentlemen. Lock and fucking load.

Labels: ,

"one of the most important books you will read"

Chris Nuttall, an Amazon Top 100 author and contributor to Riding the Red Horse, reviews SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police:
In the current climate this book may have a fair claim to being one of the most important books you will read. It is no surprise, therefore, that most of the one-star reviews on Amazon are insults directed at Vox Day personally, rather than the book itself. The unspoken intention is to mock the messenger, thus discrediting the message.

Read this book. You may hate it, but at least you will have the pleasure of knowing you made up your own mind.

One of the most heartbreaking stories to come out of the Soviet Union came from a man who’d been sentenced to the gulag (prison camp for dissidents); he asked himself, afterwards, why he hadn’t fought or run when the police came for him. He just sat in his house and awaited his fate. The answer, of course, is quite simple. The USSR was a prison camp above ground (and a mass grave below); the inmates – sorry, the population – were conditioned not to resist authority, even when authority was brutal, capricious, untrustworthy and quite thoroughly hypocritical.

Many people will say ‘it can’t happen here.’ But it can and it does.

Our society is under attack by Social Justice Warriors (or, as I prefer to think of them, Social Justice Bullies). They have, as Day points out, become the new thought police. Tell an off-colour joke? Lose your job, reputation and perhaps even your life. Disagree with the prevailing orthodoxy? Get harried into silence and then buried below a wave of focused scorn and contempt. Question the claims to victimhood of the aristocracy of victimhood? Get called a racist, sexist, homophobe, etc.
I think Chris is correct to point out that the choice of the SJW used as the example demonstrating the Three Laws of SJW can be seen as a weakness, but the fact is that there is no other SJW whose lies I know as well, that I can refute in such documented detail, as those told by that particular SJW. It is precisely because I have been in direct conflict with the man for the 10 years since he started attacking me that I have so much information on hand about his lying, his doubling down, and his psychological projecting.

As for the other weakness Chris mentioned, which is to say that he wanted to go deeper into the belly of the beast, that is easily rectified. As I mentioned to Spacebunny this morning, I now know what will be my next book project after I complete A Sea of Skulls.

Professor Nick Flor of the University of New Mexico called it The Art of War for the Digital Media Generation and even provided a brief review in a series of tweets:
Prof. Nick Flor ‏@ProfessorF
Okay, so you can probably tell from my Kindle Tweets that I thought @VoxDay's book "SJWs ALWAYS Lie" was superb. 5/5 stars

Prof. Nick Flor ‏@ProfessorFSJWinguts are EVERYWHERE—  @voxday's book teaches you how to recognize & effectively neutralize them. Must read.

Prof. Nick Flor ‏@ProfessorF
Man it's tough to do a 140-character review. The book is like the Art of War, except for the Digital Media Generation.

Prof. Nick Flor ‏@ProfessorFI really enjoyed the GG chapter and I finally understand Literally Who, Literally Who 2, and Literally Wu.

Prof. Nick Flor ‏@ProfessorFHe does a great job of putting everything in context, and it really makes you feel good about everything #GamerGate has accomplished.

Labels: ,

The sour grapes of Mensa

The Aesopean analogy doesn't quite work, though, given that foxes are a symbol of intelligence. And it's just so hard to maintain the pretense that you're the smartest guy in the room when you didn't even qualify for the high-IQ society with the lowest bar to membership. It doesn't take a, well, a Mensa member, to figure out why Mensa is such a sore spot for McRapey.
    Pro tip: Bragging about your Mensa card as an actual adult signals that while you may be "smart," you almost certainly are not wise.
    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) August 31, 2015

In the various recent kerfuffles surrounding science fiction and its awards, there have been a couple of people (and their spouses, declaiming about their beloved) who have been slapping down Mensa cards as proof that they (or their spouse) are smart. Let me just say this about that:

Oh, my sweet summer children. Just don’t.

If you want to be in Mensa, that’s fine. Everyone needs hobbies and associations, and if this is the direction you want to go with yours, then you do you. Not my flavor, but then, lots of hobbies and associations aren’t my flavor.

That said:

1. Literally no one outside of Mensa gives a shit about your Mensa card. No one is impressed that you belong to an organization that has among its membership people who believe that because they can ace a test, they are therefore broadly intellectually superior to everyone else.

2. Your Mensa membership does not imply or suggest that you are the smartest person in the room. Leaving aside the point that the intelligence that Mensa values is a narrow and specialized sort, a large number of people who can join Mensa, don’t, for various reasons, including the idea that belonging to a group that glories in its supposed intellectual superiority is more than vaguely obnoxious.

3. Your need to bring up the fact you have a Mensa card suggests nothing other than it’s really really really important to you for people to know you’re smart, and that you believe external accreditation of this supposed top-tier intelligence is more persuasive than, say, the establishment of your intelligence through your actions, demeanor, or personality. Which is to say: It shows you’re insecure.

4. Your Mensa card does not mean you know how to argue. Your Mensa card does not mean you do not make errors or lapses in judgment. Your Mensa card is not a “get out of jail free” card when someone pokes holes in your thesis. Your Mensa card does not mean that you can’t be racist or sexist or otherwise bigoted. You may not say “I have a Mensa card, therefore my logic is irrefutable.” Your Mensa card will not save you from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, and if you think it will, then you are exactly who the Dunning-Kruger syndrome was meant to describe. You Mensa card will not keep you from being called out for acting stupidly, or doing stupid things.
See, you're not supposed to brag about your Mensa-qualifying IQ and having one doesn't mean you know how to argue. What you're supposed to do is brag about your BACHELOR'S DEGREE in Philosophy of Language from the University of Chicago, which institution we are reliably informed does not hand them out like gumballs, and appeal to the authority of that degree whenever someone happens to observe your incompetence at constructing syllogisms and formulating sound arguments. Which, as it happens, is practically every single time McRapey attempts to construct an actual argument rather than simply posturing about his assertions.

As I noted back in 2013, McRapey hasn't changed what passes for his debating technique since at least 2005.
  1. Make an obviously questionable assertion.
  2. When the assertion is questioned, appeal to bachelor's degree.
  3. When the appeal to the bachelor's degree is questioned, question the questioner's intellect and/or good will.
  4. Avoid further questions.
  5. Posture as if one has thoroughly proved one's point.
He even went so far as to claim that I had never bested him in any argument. "As for besting me in argument, well, no, not at any point I can remember."

SJWs always lie.

Sure you don't remember, Johnny. Read SJWs Always Lie, Amazon's #1 bestseller in Political Philosophy. It will serve to refresh your memory in brutal and well-documented detail, and it even contains a chapter devoted to rhetoric that you will find educational.

Speaking of Dunning-Kruger, McRapey is a walking, talking example of the syndrome in action, particularly when it comes to rhetoric. For all that he majored in something that could be considered akin to it if you squint hard enough, he clearly doesn't know the first thing about it. The rhetorical device to which he habitually resorts is a sophistical and dialectically illegitimate one called "ambiguity", not that he could correctly identify or name it despite his famous bachelor's degree. But then, as we know, we shouldn't be too harsh on him considering that he's not even smart enough for Mensa. Aristotle had Scalzi's kind pegged more than 2,000 years ago.

"Now for some people it is better worth while to seem to be wise, than to be wise without seeming to be (for the art of the sophist is the semblance of wisdom without the reality, and the sophist is one who makes money from an apparent but unreal wisdom); for them, then, it is clearly essential also to seem to accomplish the task of a wise man rather than to accomplish it without seeming to do so."

As for me, I don't brag about my Mensa membership. Why on Earth would I? The requirements for joining aren't even within a standard deviation of my IQ or the three other residents of the Digital Ghetto back in the day. I joined Mensa after starting my WND column as an efficient and effective way to defang the inevitable "right-wing writer is stupid" disqualifications from the left. And that is precisely why some people on the right brandish it like a shield, because that is exactly what it is: a rhetorical shield that successfully blunts the left's most frequently used rhetorical disqualification: "dey stupid, DISQUALIFY!"

And since we're on the subject of SJWs lying, where, exactly, is the "bragging about your Mensa card" in Sarah's post, to which, of course, McRapey does not link? Go ahead, see just how much importance she and her readers place on it and note the context in which it was mentioned.

But do tell us more about how it is actually membership in Mensa that is stupid and totally doesn't matter and doesn't mean that one is intelligent at all, Johnny. Let it all out. You'll feel better after a good cry.

UPDATE: It turns out that Mr. "Bachelor's Degree in Philosophy of Language from the University of Chicago" graduated with a 2.8 GPA. See, obviously he was one of the cool party guys... at the University of Chicago.
I was not hugely grade-intensive. I didn’t stress out: I had a 2.8 GPA…. I did well in the classes that I liked, and I did very poorly in the classes that I did not care about.
Apparently he didn't care about his IQ test either, or he totally would have done well enough to qualify for Mensa.


Sunday, August 30, 2015

Europe starts getting serious

As I expected, Europe will be addressing its Third World invasion before the USA dares to do anything about its own:
Austria has just made a new law: Muslim imams will no longer be able to conduct their sermons in Arabic, but in German; all Korans will now have to be written completely in German, and Muslim groups will no longer be able to accept foreign money.

The updated “Law on Islam,” which was prepared by the coalition of the Social Democratic Party and the People’s Party, aims to regulate how Islam is managed inside the country, and includes provisions requiring imams to be able to speak German, standardizing the Quran in the German language, and banning Islamic organizations from receiving foreign funding.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan strongly criticized Austria on Feb. 28 for approving a controversial bill that revises the status of Muslims in the European country.
There is the fair warning. Unlike Americans, Europeans have never, ever, bought into the "melting pot" bullshit. And they are not going to permit their countries to be overrun, because also unlike Americans, the nation is the country.

Labels: ,

No one ever cared

Unwitting testimonial evidence concerning Chapter Seven: What to do when SJWs attack at Sarah Hoyt's place.
I can’t walk away anymore. I can’t stay on the sidelines anymore and pretend it doesn’t affect me.

Two reasons. First, thanks largely to you, Larry, Mad Mike, and Brad Torgersen, I’ve rediscovered great science fiction (mostly Baen authors, admittedly), and despite my best efforts, I seem to be turning into a science fiction author as well. I don’t want the Kickers to destroy the genre that I’m once again growing to love and am slowly becoming a part of

Second, and the main reason, is that I saw what the SJWs and CHORFs ad TruFans did to you and the rest of the Puppies. I was horrified and disgusted by their actions, but not in the least surprised. Because I’ve been there. It’s too long a story to post here, but back in college I found myself caught in the crosshairs of those so-called Right Thinking Moral Crusaders. I had my academic career, and very possibly my entire future put in jeopardy becausea small screaming minority of foaming at the mouth CHORFs took offense at something that was published in the student-run newspaper, of which I was one of the copy editors.

Nobody came to our defense. A few brave souls tried, only to abandon us when the Administration made clear that they would suffer the same extreme academic penalties that we were facing(read: loss of credits, possible suspension or expulsion) for doing so. The only reason they didn’t follow through with their threatened punishments was because the school’s lawyers pointed out that such actions would leave them wide open to a slew of bad publicity and – worse – a myriad of lawsuits.

I can’t do that. I can’t stand by and do nothing while the SJWs and CHORFs try to do the same thing to you.

What I’m trying to say is that I am with you. Through Sad Puppies 4 until the end, no matter how long that may be, I am with you. Come hell, come high water, come an avalanche of sh*t flung by the Social Justice Monkeys, I am with you, and I will do whatever I can to help the puppies, though admittedly given my present situation that probably won’t be much more than moral support and acting as a repeater on social media. But win or lose, I’m with The Sad Puppies until the bitter end.
From Chapter 7: 1. Rely on the Three Rs: RECOGNIZE it is happening. REMAIN calm. REALIZE no one cares.

This indifference on the part of bystanders is one reason why the SJWs have methodically proceeded from one victory to the next despite their relatively small numbers. They take out one Narrative skeptic and silence 100 others who henceforth fear to express doubt, let alone denial, of the most shameless falsehoods. The reason that Roosh, Mike, Milo and me, to name four, enrage them so greatly is that they have been unable to discredit us despite their best efforts, and as a result, ever so slowly, dozens, scores, hundreds, now THOUSANDS of people are beginning to understand what has been taking place and why our society is where it is.

And they are not happy.

I'm not saying you should care about the SJW war on truth and Western civilization because then you will be a good person. I'm not saying you should stand up the SJWs because it is a moral imperative. I'm saying you should care and you should stand up to the SJWs in your own naked self-interest and in the interest of salvaging and maintaining as much of Western civilization as possible.

Do you think either the Bolsheviks or the Russian people they conquered had any idea that the Impossibility of Socialist Calculation was going to leave them condemned to poverty and economic stagnation? If not, then it should be possible for you to understand that neither the SJWs nor the average individual who sees no harm in them realizes that the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence renders the SJWs a serious threat to the survival of Western civilization.

All of this stuff, from the universities to the churches to science fiction to games are the same evil, dyscivic, and dyscivilizational campaign. No aspect of it, however seemingly trivial, should be ignored.

Labels: ,

The media wanted a race war

It looks like they've got a budding one on their hands:
Authorities have charged a 30-year-old man with capital murder, after they say he ambushed a Texas county sheriff’s deputy at a suburban Houston gas station in an attack motivated by "absolute madness."

Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman identified the man in a news conference Saturday afternoon as Shannon J. Miles, who is in police custody.

Miles — who has a criminal history that includes convictions for resisting arrest and disorderly conduct with a firearm — was arrested less than 24 hours after authorities said he ambushed Darren Goforth, a 10-year veteran of the Harris County Sheriff's Office, at a suburban Houston Chevron station.

"I am proud of the men and women that have worked swiftly to apprehend the responsible person who posed a significant threat to both law enforcement and the community at large," Hickman told reporters Saturday. "Our deputies return to the streets tonight to hold a delicate peace that was shattered last evening."

Hickman said the motive for the killing had not been determined but investigators would look at whether Miles, who is black, was motivated by anger over recent killings elsewhere of black men by police that have spawned the "Black Lives Matter" protest movement. Goforth was white.
Somehow, the news media doesn't seem quite as enamored of how this race war is going as one would have expected considering all that they've done to bring it about. I guess they were expecting for white Republican suburbanites to be the targets rather than white reporters, white cameramen, and white cops.

Labels: ,

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Adventures in rhetoric

It's intriguing to see how a simple mention of an easily verified observation brings, shall we say, the medicated, out of the woodwork:
Vox Day ‏@voxday
It's impossible to balance constant SJW claims of "laughing" and "hilarity" with how many of them are on anti-depressants and psychotropics.

Popehat ‏@Popehat
well, the world's a meritocracy, innit? We can't all be as sane as you and the other WorldNetDaily writers.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
And here I thought you believed in equality, Popey. Are you "laughing so hard" all the time too?

Popehat ‏@Popehat
Nah. Definitely sometimes though. Thanks!

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Are you trying to claim that people who need to take drugs to be mentally stable are more sane than those who don't?

Popehat ‏@Popehat
I would never throw shade at your mental stability Vox. How can a crazy person like me question someone so sane?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You didn't answer the question. Are those who require drugs to be mentally stable more or less sane than those who don't?

Popehat ‏@Popehat
Less, by most definitions. And that's important. How can we aspire to your clarity of thought without getting sane first?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
By correctly applying sound logic to observed facts. Don't you understand yet that your rhetorical antics accomplish nothing?

Popehat ‏@Popehat
How could they against an intellect like yours? I'm crazy, your sane. Let people value sanity accordingly.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
They would accomplish nothing against a stone  as well. You might as reasonably attempt to achieve your goals here by juggling.

Popehat ‏@Popehat
never! Juggling is part of the gutter culture of carnies and non-Europeans

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You're doing a fine job of demonstrating the pointlessness of speaking dialectic to a rhetoric speaker. Please continue.

Popehat ‏@Popehat
I'll agree you're operating on an entirely different plane than I am.

Vox Day ‏@voxday 
I'm delighted to hear we can reach an accord on something.
As predicted in SJWs Always Lie, speaking in dialectic to a rhetoric speaker is totally pointless. The information content is irrelevant. Popehat will continue in this vein, seeking to provoke an emotional response, or at least one that will permit him to play the victim, as long as he thinks there is a chance he can provoke something.

Another example. Notice how every comment is an attempt to provoke some kind of emotional reaction, combined with an amount of posturing.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
It's impossible to balance constant SJW claims of "laughing" and "hilarity" with how many of them are on anti-depressants and psychotropics.

Jeff Fecke ‏@jkfecke
That is not how depression works, T. Pratt.

Vox Day @voxday
Are you the expert, then, Feckless? How many anti-depressants and psychotropics have you been on?

Jeff Fecke ‏@jkfecke
Oh, I do love when Ted "Theodore" Beale tweets me. How's your dad doing?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You didn't answer the question, Jeff. How many anti-depressants and psychotropics have you been on?

Jeff Fecke ‏@jkfecke
I am currently on fluoxetine. I have also used Lexapro.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
I acknowledge your superior expertise on the subject. In answer to your question, my father is very well. Got an email 2 days ago.

Labels: ,

SJWs and parody

What is it with SJW parodies and long titles anyhow?

The Angel Vox Day and the War for the Heavenly Gamergate Puppies (Give Me a Hugo!): Chapter 1: The Wicked Victory of Shoeless John! (The Chronicles of ... Angel Vox Day and His Flaming Sword!!!!!!)
by Tim Lieder

John Scalzi Is Not A Very Popular Author And I Myself Am Quite Popular: How SJWs Always Lie About Our Comparative Popularity Levels by Theophilus Pratt aka Rainbow Brite Boy

My favorite aspect of this is the way in which they've now roped in John Scalzi to read a parody that draws attention to the fact that he lies about his traffic and jokes about being a rapist. Nearly 30 pages of audio of Rapey McRaperson talking about himself? The Pink Rabbit Posse is practically beside itself with anticipation.

It's also amusing how some SJWs are frantically insisting that they are totally LAUGHING and they find the whole thing HILARIOUS even as others talk about how depressed and upset and hurt they are. Remember, McRapey went with the whole "ha ha ha, this is SO ADORABLE" line for 26 months until he cracked and began angrily denouncing the "obvious lies" I was supposedly spreading about him.

SJWs always lie.

UPDATE: Apparently Peddy Phil didn't read Chapter 10.

23m23 minutes ago
Vox’s claim that SJWs aren’t really laughing at him is shrill and desperate even by his standards:

The basic idea is that if you can make the other person feel small or angry, you are winning at SJW rhetoric. This is why SJWs are constantly accusing other people of being mad or upset; it's just another way of them claiming to be winning the conversation.
Is it not fascinating how they repeatedly prove the truth of my words as they seek to undermine them?

Labels: ,

Allan Davis reviews SJWAL

His article Counter-Attacking in the Cultural War is featured on Lew Rockwell today:
Last weekend, the SJWs who rule science fiction fandom were forced to retreat with a “scorched earth” tantrum, as they refused to award five of the sixteen Hugo categories–rather than see them presented to a winner not approved by the ruling faction.

Gamergate is a line in the sand, “this far, no farther.”  The Puppies demonstrate that SJWs can be beaten.  What the world needs now is a combat guide–a field manual exposing the SJWs and their tactics, and describing the most effective ways of fighting them, and beating them.

Vox Day has written that manual.

“SJWs Always Lie:  Taking Down the Thought Police” is a no-holds-barred depiction of the SJW “in the wild.”  It contains detailed information on the motivations and behavior of the SJW and, most importantly, how to fight back against them.

Vox, who was active in both the Gamergate and Puppies campaigns against the SJWs, lays out the full story of both fronts in the war against Political Correctness.  He details how his long-running feud with John Scalzi and his “purging” from the Science Fiction Writer’s Association helped him to formulate the Three Laws of the SJW:

    1. SJWs Always Lie
    2. SJWs Always Double Down
    3. SJWs Always Project
One of the things I've noticed in the Amazon reviews is that those readers who have themselves either been the object of an SJW attack, or who have witnessed one, recognize the patterns I am describing in the book. I am pleased to see this, as it testifies to the veracity and utility of SJWs Always Lie.

Also, by sheer happenstance, Castalia House makes a second appearance on Lew Rockwell today. David the Good, Extreme Composter, explains why you should start planning your spring garden now that fall is approaching:
As the main growing season winds down and fall gardens are being planted across much of the country, you might think it would be time for me to post on fall gardening.

Fall gardens are well-worth doing, but instead of jumping on that train I’m going to focus on what you can do right now that will make your spring gardens better than they’ve ever been.

Gardeners, like most people, tend to think of their gardening in terms of one season. When you step back, however, and see how building up your plots and planning ahead will benefit your gardening for years to come, a whole new window opens.
In related news, Castalia will have a new gardening book out from David the Good before the end of the year.

Labels: ,

Breaking the duck

Although I started last season well, scoring six goals in the fall half, I missed nearly half our games in the spring and didn't score at all, missing far too many good opportunities. Scoring is funny for an attacker; when it comes easily it comes effortlessly, but the more you think about it, the harder it gets. Some of it is bad luck, some of it is nerves, and some of it is poor decision-making.

We started the season this weekend and I figured I'd get less playing time because we've got two new attackers in their early thirties who have moved up from the first team due to losing their starting positions to younger, better players. Along with a pair of new midfielders, they are much-needed reinforcements that should see us back in competition for the league title that we used to own. Rather to my surprise, I ended up starting at left wing, although only because the usual starter was arriving late since he was coaching one of the kid's teams on one of our other fields.

We needed a referee, but our captain turned down Ender when he volunteered because the team we were playing is an all-Albanian team new to the league. Albanians are famous throughout Europe for their volatility, even in comparison with Italians, and it was easy to understand why a teenage referee would be a suboptimal choice. The guys were pretty pessimistic about the game in general, as apparently the Albanians had one former second-league player and at least two former third-league players, which was three more high-level players than we had.

However, I tended to like our chances a little better after the Albanians arrived and five of them turned out to be former teammates, two of whom I particularly like. The atmosphere was the exact opposite of heated, as everyone was visibly glad to see each other, many handshake-hugs were exchanged, and I realized that three of their players were technically skilled players who made our team worse two years ago because they seldom pass the ball and never, ever look outside. Better yet, the really good striker who played two games with us two seasons ago and is a serious scoring machine (5 goals in those two games), was injured and had come only along to watch, so that left the guy who had been my favorite partner up top being the only serious cause for concern among the known quantities.

We got off to a bad start, however, and it was partly my fault. The captain told me to play with a defensive orientation, as Sylvan, the defender behind me, was the weak link in the back four, being short and the only player on the team older than me. (It's generally not a good sign when the average age of your left side is 47 and their attackers and center mids are all in their early 30s.) But despite our age, both of us are in very good condition, and for the most part, we managed to control the left... except for the one time - the ONE time - I didn't hang back and attacked.

By that point, I knew I could beat my man, their right wing, whenever I wanted, so when we had the ball in their half and I saw the left defender follow an attacker inside, I waved at our center mid and broke hard. The timing was perfect and I was onside with a clear path to goal, but Sandro mishit the ball and it curved well behind me. Their right wing intercepted it and passed it immediately up the field to Vallon, a former teammate who doesn't pass, but is strong, fast, and formidable on the ball. Sylvan did his best and fought him the whole way, but was overpowered and outrun, and Vallon beat Giuseppe, our keeper, without any trouble.

Despite being down, we were starting to control the action and just missed on two half-chances. The regular left wing showed up not too long after the second one, so I came out just before we started scoring. Their left wing just couldn't cope with our right wing, who sent over a pair of crosses that both ended up in the net. Then a missed offsides call gave us a one-on-one break that one of our new attackers finished in a clinical manner, so it was 3-1 at the half.

A penalty kick and another headed cross made it 5-1 before I finally went back in, this time as an attacker. I beat the defenders on the left and had a great chance, but shot the ball a little too high, at waist-level, which let the diving goalie get his arm on it. Our left wing followed me in and should have scored on the rebound, but he tried to play around with it before shooting and was promptly shut down. My second chance was much the same, a weak left-footed shot that was blocked, but it was worse because I somehow missed seeing a wide-open Sandro in the center. (In fairness, he didn't call for the ball, so I had no idea he was there.)

Sandro didn't hold it against me, though, when later he dribbled around both defenders on the right, drew the goalie out to meet him, then slipped the ball backwards to me as I trailed. I probably should have driven hard to the left to clear the keeper then passed the ball into the empty net, but instead I hit it on the first touch from outside the box, putting it in a nice high arc that cleared the goalie before abruptly dipping down into the upper right corner. Thus was the duck broken. Our captain put in one more to close out the game, and we ended up winning 7-1 against the team everyone had expected to beat us.

The lesson: a team that runs and plays well together will easily beat better players who don't run well. Losing both wings killed them, because for all their ball skills, that meant they were forced to attack straight down the clogged center, then deal with our wings and outside defenders collapsing on them if they managed to break through the two center mids and the two central defenders. At times, their wings were 20 or 30 meters behind ours, so they were consistently reduced to trying to attack 3 or 4 on 8 in limited space. It was a testimony to their skill that they managed any pressure on us at all.

Tactics + athletics beat skill. The two least-skilled starters of the 22 men on the field were our right-wing and me, and the normal starter who replaced me on the left wing isn't much better, although at least he is left-footed. But all three of us can run, and it doesn't matter how good your ball skills are when you're consistently 15 meters behind the ball. And if your worst players can contribute two assists and one goal, plus control both sides of the field between them, then your team is probably in pretty good shape.

The guy who had been their keeper in the second half was my former attacking partner; he'd gone into the net at halftime. He came up to me after the game and gave me a hard time about getting stuffed on the two easier chances, then hitting on the difficult shot. I explained that I am a football artist and scoring in easy and obvious ways only bores me. He laughed, but I don't think he bought it.


Older Posts
cdn title