The bottom-feeders grunt

From Pandagon’s comments:

“Be warned though, he tends to send his minions over to troll the comment threads of any blogs that post something negative about him.”

Judging by the three comments contained in most of the threads I’ve seen, this would appear to be somewhat of an exaggeration. Actually, if someone devotes the time to write a substantial critique that actually has a point, I usually post it here in its entirety. I did leave out two paragraphs of Amanda’s recent response to last week’s column but only because they were largely redundant and the link was provided for those who want to read the whole thing.

“In the meantime, ask any younger libertarian you know and they will also cringe at the mention of one Vox Day.”

Apparently these are the libertarians of the Bill Maher school who voted for John Kerry. That’s “libertine” not “libertarian”, mon cher. But don’t feel bad, there’s no shortage of Republicans who make the same mistake.

“It’s strange. On the one hand, he advocates marriage and childbearing for young women, but in other columns, advises young men strictly against marriage. What’s a girl to do? I think his answer would be: Submit to the man as the leader of your household so he can be assured that you will not divorce him in a family court where he is guaranteed to lose everything. Because if you have a career you will most likely emasculate him, then take him to family court where he is guaranteed to lose everything.

What this does — and again, this is anti-libertarian — is deny the individual nature of each human in a relationship. How can one self-actualize if one must live in submission to someone else’s will? If your partner need not and would not even entertain that you have a world worth seeking outside of marriage? Not libertarian.

In essence, “regular” libertarians, so to speak, believe that one person’s will need not work in conflict with another’s. If it does, then one is with the wrong person; it’s an individual situation. I am sorry to go on and on about this guy, but that he calls himself a libertarian confounds me.

This commenter fails to grasp that the interests of society and divergent groups within it can be at odds. Ergo, a young man wishing to protect his financial interests is best off pursuing one thing, a young woman wishing to get married and have children will benefit most from pursuing a very different path. Specific advice to either of these parties relating to the maximization of their interests should not be confused with what actions would be optimal for society at large.

The commenter also does not understand that libertarianism is a political philosophy relating to law and government, not pop psychology and interpersonal relations.

“I thought it was amusing when the president of the organization popped in to say they didn’t know Vox was such a dick until it was too late and that he was emphatically excluded from the next jury, but it was right to hassle the other guy who just whined that he basically put a jury together of anyone who asked to be on one. If they really are a 1400+ organization, I guess Vox was a wake-up call that in the future they’ll have to be a bit more careful. Awards lose thier prestige when people like Vox begin to tarnish them.”

In addition to being unable to spell, this commenter can’t read. To its credit, the SFWA is not about to exclude anyone from being on any of their juries on the basis of their political beliefs; I’m significantly less controversial than a number of SFWA Grandmasters were in their day. Anyhow, if the SFWA was concerned about the prestige of the Nebula, they shouldn’t have given the one for best novel to Catherine Asaro, the organization’s former president and foremost committer of romance novels in space.

His blog is worth checking out, especially the responses he writes to people who disagree with him. He seems to think that “calling him on his bullshit” == “lack of reading comprehension.”

It does seem strange that I should often conflate the two, considering the thoughtful, well-reasoned responses I so regularly receive. Just look at these fine examples!

By the way, what the hell is “casual dating” supposed to be, anyway? I get puzzled when all the personal sites distinguish between the goals of “dating” and “serious relationship” — everyone always checks both, anyway, but I guess someone other than Vox Day thinks in those terms.

Pandagon has quite the high IQ set, don’t they? Let me try to explain. Casual dating is an ongoing romantic relationship with someone in whom you have no real expectation of a permanent relationship. If you see no point in introducing your boyfriend or girlfriend to your parents, or even bothering to mention their existence, you are probably engaged in casual dating.

Good luck with that – I just went to Amazon to check out what he’d written, but oh dear, no entries. Must be self-published, then, I guess …

Okay, the average IQ there must be even lower than I thought.

“It’s my experience that women are less willing to marry in their early 20s than men are, since a woman has far more dating opportunities at this age (or at least an easier time of it).”

Apparently this poor soul missed the point about how a woman’s prospects narrow with age, while men’s tend to widen. That, or he doesn’t understand how the two concepts might relate.

I had no idea that politics and geography were ‘less academically rigorous’ subjects than computer science.

Oh dear. And this is from a woman studying physics. No doubt, like that professor at the University of Minnesota foolishly cited by one of the Electrolyte crowd, this commenter will wind up using her astrophysics BA to teach Lesbianism in Hindu Film for a Women Studies program.