The non-problem of pain

Gene Wolfe explains why the so-called “problem of pain” is simply not a credible argument for the non-existence or non-beneficence of God: 

You once said that pain tends to prove God’s reality rather than the opposite; that pain was not a theological difficulty for you.

No, it isn’t. If you catch a dragonfly and bend the end of its body up, it will eat itself until it dies. When people have had their mouths numbed for dentistry, they must be warned not to chew their tongues. I think if we assume that pain is simply an evil we’re oversimplifying things. 

[Thinks a moment.] You’re saying that pain may be a necessary design feature that the Divine Engineer—

Yes, absolutely. 

—put into his animated machines.
 If you had living things without pain, they would have a very rough time surviving.

More than ten years ago, I pointed out a similar observation concerning the existence of evil, which, far from being any sort of theological problem, is in fact evidence of the factual basis of Christian theology. Wolfe is observing that pain has an important purpose in life, as it is there to provide negative feedback to self-destructive actions. This does not mean that pain is good per se, only that it provides a good purpose.

For those interested in discussing the literary aspects of Mr. Wolfe’s observations, some of the more interesting parts have been posted at Castalia House, as well as a link to the full interview.


Objectives are the key to war

And when one looks at its objectives, it is apparent that Israel is losing the Gaza Tunnel War, both in 4GW and tactical terms:

As frustration grows in Israel over the military’s limited success so far in trying to neutralize Hamas, the militant Islamic group that governs Gaza, some military experts say it is increasingly evident that the Israel Defense Forces have been operating from an old playbook and are not fully prepared for a more sophisticated, battle-ready adversary. The issue is not specifically the tunnels — which Israel knew about — but the way Hamas fighters trained to use them to create what experts in Israel are calling a “360-degree front.”

“Hamas has changed its doctrine and is using the tunnels as a main
method of operation,” said Israel Ziv, a retired general who headed the
military’s Gaza division and its operations directorate. “This is
something we learned amid the fighting.”

In the Gaza war that began in late 2008, 10 Israeli soldiers were
killed, four of them from friendly fire. This time, 63 soldiers have
been killed, mostly in combat, and one is now a prisoner. “The military has been playing it by ear,” said Amos Harel, a military affairs analyst for the newspaper Haaretz, who added that despite the Israeli military’s knowledge of the tunnels, its planners did not draft a new doctrine for prosecuting a land invasion. “But it is pretty good at doing that, and has done it many times.”

In this latest asymmetrical war with Hamas, the third in five years, Israel thought it was prepared. It had built up an integrated communications systems able to transfer intelligence in real time to air and ground forces, an advancement that military officials called a “force multiplier.”

Precision-guided missiles have destroyed up to a third of Hamas’s rocket stocks, according to Israeli officials, as well as hundreds of houses or apartments that the military described as militant command-and-control centers and many other weapons production sites and stores. In 24 days of intense bombing, 4,300 targets have been hit….

What Israel was apparently less ready for was Hamas fighters who are
willing to engage and are trained to use tunnels, a tool of war whose
roots go back to antiquity. During Israel’s last ground incursion in the
winter of 2008-9, Hamas fighters largely avoided clashes, melting into
the crowded urban landscape. This time, they were prepared for combat.

War is not sport. Body counts are not a relevant means of keeping score; the fact that the IDF has killed more Hamas fighters than Hamas has killed IDF soldiers is entirely expected. That is one reason why the war is referred to as “asymmetric”. As always, air power is overrated, as the fact that 24 days of intense bombing hasn’t prevented Hamas from killing more than six times as many ground troops as in 2008. It seems the lessons of Tarawa and Iwo Jima still have not been learned by the descendants of Giulio Douhet and Billy Mitchell.

War is about using military force to achieve one’s objectives. Israel’s objectives are:

  • End the rocket attacks
  • Demilitarize Gaza
  • Deterrence
  • Eliminate Hamas’s senior military command and political leadership
  • Prevent Hamas from being able to rearm

Debka notes: “That nine of the 10 Israeli servicemen who died in the counter-terror
operation against Hamas Monday, July 28, were killed on Israeli soil was
a wake-up call for Israel’s war leaders. It meant that Hamas had used
the 22 days of combat to carry the contest from its own home ground into
Israel by grabbing the tactical advantage of surprise.”

After a month of war and considerable collateral damage among the civilian population of Gaza, it does not appear that Israel will be able to meet any of its objectives in this war. This is why it is so vital for Israel to learn to adopt 4GW tactics in asymmetric conflicts like these, as another 2GW victory and 4GW loss will only encourage Hamas and Israel’s other enemies. In another post, I will address what tactics I think should be adopted in preference to this 2GW pound-and-ground.


Did not see that coming

For reasons related to World War II, my heritage is a little complicated. I’ve always known there were issues with the Official Story, for the obvious reason that one parent’s age did not harmonize well with a grandparent’s military service record, even though the birth records supported it.

Now my brother has sent me the results of the genetic test he had done recently and several of the results were a little surprising. Namely:

  1. I’m not of English-German descent on one side, but English-Irish.
  2. I’m definitely Hispanic, but I’m not Asian after all. This was a little surprising at first, given the appearance of one of my brothers. But I’m still tri-racial because….
  3. I’m Native American. And not in the Fauxcahontas manner either. We’re talking about enough to qualify for membership in most Indian tribes. And, as it happens, more than enough to qualify for the relevant one.

So, as it happens, the racist whites of SFWA not only expelled a Person of Color, but one of its very few Indian members. I have to admit, I’m rather looking forward to the next person to resort to the “well, are you a Native American?” argument during a debate concerning the evils of immigration.


4GW commenting

I’ve been thinking a bit about how one might apply the principles of 4GW to blog commenting, mostly inspired by what happened in the comments at esr’s place after Andrew Marston showed up the other day.

What got me thinking about it is observing that online trolls have much the same sorts of advantages as non-state actors do in war; they can’t be destroyed even by overwhelming force, they are perceived as the weaker party, and they have the ability to control the time and place of the engagement. Even when they are roundly defeated, they can simply retreat only to reappear without warning in the future.

4GW teaches two forms of engagement, de-escalation and the Hama model. I think Tom Kratman’s direct assault on Luscinia/Marston can be taken as a good form of the latter. The challenge of the Hama model is that it is time-constrained. William Lind says that with today’s 24/7 global communications, a state actor has three or four days to fully unload on a non-state actor without taking serious flak on the moral level. The Syrian army took four days to flatten Hama, after which it spent three weeks hunting down insurgents in the rubble.

I interpret this to mean that if you’re going to go all out rhetorically against a troll, one has three, perhaps four comments before people start to get sick of it and turn against you. Not that sympathies will turn towards the troll, but they will begin to adopt a “pox on both houses” attitude and the moral level will be lost.

Moreover, the Hama model is best adopted when one possesses overwhelming force, which is to say, the delete key, because one has the ability to prevent the troll from answering back and prolonging the engagement.

As to what the de-escalation model would entail, I shall have to give the matter further thought. But I do know the one thing it relies most heavily upon is information….


Immigration and overpopulation

Finally a group concerned with overpopulation is turning its attention to the actual problem:

A group dedicated to saving the planet by cutting runaway population increases is raising a new and shocking issue in Washington’s bitter fight over immigration reform: Most of the nation’s population growth is from immigrants, and they are consuming resources dangerously fast.

According to Negative Population Growth Inc., 80 percent of the growth in U.S. population comes from immigration, legal, illegal and among American-born children of immigrants.

“With increased population, we see a direct increase in the problems our nation faces on a daily basis: pollution, over-consumption, traffic gridlock, crowded schools and hospitals, overburdened social services, unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, urban sprawl, over-development, threatened or extinct animal and plant species, and dwindling natural resources,” said said Tracy Canada, the group’s deputy director.

It is madness that groups opposed to housing spread, pollution, and overpopulation have remained silent on immigration for so long when 80 percent of the population growth comes from immigrants. The environmentalists, in particular, are guilty of selling out the environment, with groups such as the Sierra Club having had their silence on the subject literally purchased by the son of a pair of Jewish immigrants, David Geffen. 

Overpopulation is a third world problem caused by first world do-gooders. And more do-goodery isn’t going to solve it, but will merely make it worse. One of the best arguments for shutting down immigration and repatriating low-productivity immigrants is that otherwise, the first world will be in no position to help the third world once its infrastructure begins to collapse.


8 million views

8 million views for 2014. Just passed the number. Thanks to ESR for the assist. I’ll note again that this is just the views recorded by Google’s software; the actual number of views is higher. I’ll have a full report at the end of the year. But still: 8 million views. It doesn’t suck. Thank you.

I’m afraid I’m not being completely honest here. The actual number of Google pageviews recorded was 8,352,092, so 8 million was passed about a week ago. I just thought it was funny to imitate McRapey’s self-congratulatory auto-backpatting for his all-time best year… at the end of July.

And speaking of things I found amusing, this extended apology from Giuseppe, who felt he misjudged me, would have forced me to accept it on that grounds alone, if I had been inclined to take any offense in the first place, which I’m not.

Hi Vox.

Fuck! I read a lot more of your blog. And actually writing this e-mail is literally kinda painful. Honesty and honour demand it, but fuck, I don’t need to enjoy the process right?!

It has become quite clear, at least with respect to your elucidation of rhetoric vs dialectic that your understanding of the subject far surpasses mine. One could put this down to the simple fact that a number of things would seem to indicate you simply have spent more time studying the subject, and while this is undoubtedly true, as is the fact that your training as an economist no doubt also allows you to sift through volumes of data that personally I would find too boring to bother with (not saying they are devoid of instruction, just that they would not grab my attention to the required extent necessary for me to indulge enough in it that I would benefit from it anywhere near as much as you seem to have) and no doubt, other endeavours I may be better at, but the fact is that it has become clear that you excel at it compared to me because of another factor.

I don’t think you are materially smarter than I am. That is, you are very smart and in your chosen fields you will be more capable than me as a result, but  I would guess in my own chosen fields I would be more capable than you. It’s sort of academic anyway, and I don’t care, but precisely because it is extremely rare for me to come across someone smarter than me (and in a demonstrable fashion) I did notice it. Painfully sharply I have to say….

Your post on Modern vs Postmodern discourse on the Alpha Game blog was enlightening because it made me aware of how much I despise the postmodern methods (long before I came across you I came up with my own virulent hatred of all postmodern bullshit). It was so strong I literally had to take three goes at reading the postmodernist list, because it literally made my head spin with discomfort as if I had got a decent punch to the jaw. Now that this has become conscious knowledge, of course, I realise that psychologically I now have basically no option but to temper myself by full immersion/exposure to all that postmodernist babble, if for no other reason than banishing its existence wherever I find it trying to enter my life.

 [Long personal section redacted]

On some levels I still harbour a suspicion (increasingly I think I know it’s unfounded) that maybe, deep down, you’re still maybe just a very smart and well-read racist, fundamentalist Christian asshole… but… deep down I am realising this is not really the case. In fact, I recognise a certain level of natural ostracism by the crowds precisely because they are not smart enough to cope/see what you are really saying. Possibly, if I may even go so far, there may even be a certain level of humility in you. If I can see it, it is only because certain aspects of your style are not foreign to me. If the monkeys are gonna label you arrogant anyway, so be it, it’s a quick filter for stupidity.

And you may be guilty too (I know I have been) of probably taking a somewhat excessive pleasure in teasing their monkey-like brains (you bad Christian you!)

Nevertheless, all that said. I really just need to read more of your blog and learn more…. I know we are strangers, and that it probably means little or nothing to you, but I had clearly misjudged you. Honesty demands I apologise, at least to the extent that I was wrong, which I was. There are few people I can have honestly engaging discourse with. I have no doubt however, that you are one of them. Even if we were to disagree totally on some things, I am certain I would be able to respect your position for its integrity at least.

So yeah. Bastard of an e-mail to write, only one of its kind really, but it had to be done.

It is unusual for a writer to find a reader who genuinely understands him, even in part. What does Giuseppe mean by a certain level of humility in one of the most nakedly arrogant bloggers on the Internet? Well, he may not have been clear on the difference between rhetoric and dialectic, but unlike normal binary thinkers, he understands the difference between “I know I’m right” and “I know you’re wrong”. One can be humble with regards to the truth and yet utterly arrogant and dismissive of various peoples’ incorrect assertions regarding it.

He also grasps that the reason I don’t get upset about what he describes as “natural ostracism” is because I expect it. It’s exactly what has happened my entire life whenever I didn’t go to the trouble of veiling my intelligence and refraining from openly departing too far from the acceptably defined borders of consensus reality. Those who called me racist because I observed human differences when they insisted that “we are all the same inside” didn’t apologize to me when it was discovered that Caucasians and Asians are genetically different from each other, and from Africans, anymore than anyone apologized to me after repeatedly mocking me by demanding to know where the second Great Depression was when the economic recovery was declared for the first, second, and third years in a row.

It’s the behavior that is expected out of midwits. Stray too far from the intellectual fold and they are threatened by it. I’m not the first to be hated for it and I won’t be the last. But it is encouraging to learn that so many people are sufficiently open-minded to consider what I’m saying and actually think about it, rather than simply dismissing it out of hand because it is alien and scary to them.


Consequences will ne’er be the same

Our Friend Damien is concerned on behalf of the Hugo Awards:

Isn’t publishing an entire list of your Hugo nominations with No Award in every category kind of…being a shit?

Not if you’ve actually read all of the works concerned. I don’t see how anyone could possibly read all of the nominated short stories and conclude that any of them should win.

In any event, it’s vastly amusing to see the pinkshirts suddenly worrying about the idea that they might not win all their awards because if THEY’RE voting No Award and WE’RE voting No Award, why then, NO ONE WILL GET ANY AWARDS!

It’s almost as if they have no grasp of the relationship between actions and consequences….


A hell beyond

Karl Popper said: “Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell.” Think about how badly the promises of multicultural utopia through diversity have gone, and then think about the level of hell that experimenting with the entire food chain in search of transspecies utopia could lead:

The well-being of large and long-lived free-living mammals could be secured even with today’s technologies. Expanding the circle of compassion further is more technically challenging. Until a couple of years ago, I’d have spoken in terms of centuries. For sociological rather than technical reasons, I still think this kind of timescale is more credible for safeguarding the well-being of humans, transhumans and the humblest of nonhuman animals alike.

Certainly, until the CRISPR revolution, talk of extending an abolitionist ethic beyond vertebrates sounded fanciful because compassionate interventions would pass from recognisable extensions of existing technologies to a speculative era of mature nanotechnology, self-replicating nanobots and marine drones patrolling the oceans. For me, the final piece of the abolitionist jigsaw only fell into place after reading Eric Drexler’s Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology (1986) — a tantalizing prospect, but not a scenario readily conceivable in our lifetime.
 


Then came CRISPR. Even sober-minded scientists describe the CRISPR revolution as “jaw-dropping”. Gene drives can spread genetic changes to the rest of the population.

Whether for large iconic vertebrates or obscure uncharismatic bugs, the question to ask now is less what’s feasible but rather, what’s ethical? What kinds of consciousness, and what kinds of sentient being do we want to exist in the world? 

Naturally, just because a pan-species welfare state is technically feasible, there is no guarantee that some sort Garden of Eden will ever come to pass. Most people still find the idea of phasing out the biology of involuntary suffering in humans a fanciful prospect — let alone its abolition in nonhuman animals. The well-being of all insects sounds like the reductio ad absurdum of the abolitionist project. But here I’m going to be quite dogmatic. A few centuries from now, if involuntary suffering still exists in the world, the explanation for its persistence won’t be that we’ve run out of computational resources to phase out its biological signature, but rather that rational agents — for reasons unknown — will have chosen to preserve it.
 


Man never learns. In his attempts to improve the world, he has made things worse more often than he has made it better. The remarkable thing is that it is mostly people who believe evolution by natural selection has produced this world who are seeking to bring it to a crashing halt. I shudder to think the ways in which this latest plan for utopia could go awry and bring about a hell on Earth beyond the imagination of the average SF writer.

It does raise some interesting thoughts concerning the philosophical arguments against the existence of God related to the so-called problem of suffering. (I’ve always regarded them as rather stupid, but they do exist and therefore require addressing.) Since Man apparently has the power to end the “involuntary suffering” involved in the food chain, but thus far has declined to do so, is this similar evidence that he either a) does not exist, or b) is not benevolent?


ESR on SF and literary penis envy

Er, sorry, I guess that was literary STATUS envy. Although considering the predominantly female and low-testosterone gamma male makeup of the other side, either description would serve equally well. In any event, ESR addresses the Blue SF/Pink SF divide:

I’ve been aware for some time of a culture war simmering in the SF world. And trying to ignore it, as I believed it was largely irrelevant to any of my concerns and I have friends on both sides of the divide. Recently, for a number of reasons I may go into in a later post, I’ve been forced to take a closer look at it. And now I’m going to have to weigh in, because it seems to me that the side I might otherwise be most sympathetic to has made a rather basic error in its analysis. That error bears on something I do very much care about, which is the health of the SF genre as a whole.

Both sides in this war believe they’re fighting about politics. I consider this evaluation a serious mistake by at least one of the sides.

On the one hand, you have a faction that is broadly left-wing in its politics and believes it has a mission to purge SF of authors who are reactionary, racist, sexist et weary cetera…. On the other hand, you have a faction that is broadly conservative or libertarian in its politics. Its members deny, mostly truthfully, being the bad things the Rabbits accuse them of.

It’s interesting to see ESR weigh in on this, not only because he is an unusually intelligent individual, but as he says, he has sympathies on both sides of the divide. And, I would suspect, competing natural inclinations as well. But it was a little surprising to see him conclude that he tended to be more sympathetic to the side of evilly Evil. As the title of his post suggests, his observation is that the root cause of the divide is not political, but rather literary:

Alas, I cannot join the Evil League of Evil, for I believe they have
made the same mistake as the Rabbits; they have mistaken accident for
essence. The problem with the Rabbits is not that left-wing politics is dessicating and poisoning their fiction. While I have made the case elsewhere that SF is libertarian at its core,
it nevertheless remains possible to write left-wing message SF that is
readable, enjoyable, and of high quality – Iain Banks’s Culture novels
leap to mind as recent examples, and we can refer back to vintage
classics such as Pohl & Kornbluth’s The Space Merchants
for confirmation. Nor, I think, is the failure of Rabbit fiction to
engage most SF fans and potential fans mainly down to its politics; I
think the Evil League is prone to overestimate the popular appeal of
their particular positions here.

No, I judge that what is dessicating and poisoning the Rabbit version
of SF is something distinct from left-wing political slant but
co-morbid with it: colonization by English majors and the rise of
literary status envy as a significant shaping force in the field.

This is a development that’s easy to mistake for a political one
because of the accidental fact that most university humanities
departments have, over the last sixty years or so, become extreme-left
political monocultures. But, in the language of epidemiology, I believe
the politics is a marker for the actual disease rather than the pathogen
itself. And it’s no use to fight the marker organism rather than the
actual pathogen….

The Evil League of Evil is fighting the wrong war in the wrong way.
To truly crush the Rabbits, they should be talking less about politics
and more about what has been best and most noble in the traditions of
the SF genre itself. I think a lot of fans know there is something
fatally gone missing in the Rabbit version of science fiction; what they
lack is the language to describe and demand it. That being said, in the long run, I don’t think the Evil League of Evil can lose.

Of course the Evil League of Evil cannot lose. Not with me as its Supreme Dark Lord! I have studied the lessons of my many failed predecessors well and have subsequently implemented the following protocols:

  1. Installed a magical ground-to-air defense system called IRON CLAW that will grab, pull down, and dismember any airborne creature large enough to carry a hobbit.
  2. Scheduled rotating squads of crack guards, each including at least one experienced battlemage, to be positioned outside the side door to Mount Doom. Also hired new Head of Security after ordering the previous one thrown into the lava flowing inside the aforementioned mountain.
  3. Established an operation called HERODSIX that tracks global birth data and passes it on to a team of nutritionists who will arrange to feed abortifacients to any pregnant woman who has previously given birth to six sons.
  4. Constructed a well-guarded underground facility in which my undead, unkillable warriors are created. Instead of carting a heavy, rune-inscribed iron cauldron around to every prospective battlefield, the Evil League of Evil is paying top silver for freshly killed corpses in good condition, with a bonus for each one over 6’4″.
  5. Dismantled and reassembled the four thrones at Cair Laugharne. I’m looking forward to seeing the little bastards park their bony little arses on them as foretold now that they’ve been made into gold-plated wooden stakes.
  6. Armored the air intakes to my mighty mountain fortress, Gheddorodim, with plasma shields capable of deflecting the most powerful energy-torpedo.
  7. Implemented DOUBLE-TAP, a protocol which includes bans on monologuing, evil cackling, unauthorized torture, and extended prisoner-taunting by all lieutenants and minions of rank E6 or higher. It also lays out specific policies concerning proper confirmations of death (or True Death in the case of the undead), and corpse disposal. All employees of the Evil League of Evil who fail to abide by the protocol will themselves be subject to DOUBLE-TAP.
  8. Also, at the request of Generalissimo Xcrucifix, we now have cookies. Chocolate Chip and Oatmeal Butterscotch. I’m not convinced this actually enhances our security, but I don’t see how it harms it either.

Now, in my opinion, ESR is partially correct in his interpretation of the divide as being intrinsically literary. But while the literary aspect is absolutely another facet of the SF/F divide, and one which I have written about in some detail in the past, it’s only the second of five facets that separate the Evil League of Evil from the rabbits.

  1. Political. This is obvious. We tend to be center-to-right, they tend to be left-to-extreme left.
  2. Literary. They tend to be focused on style, followed by ideological concerns regarding diversity and social justice. While our best stylists, Gene Wolfe and John C. Wright, are better than theirs, it’s true that they tend to be more skilled when it comes to pure prose. As the International Lord of Hate has frequently pointed out, we are focused on story, story, story, followed by characters, followed by worldbuilding and/or ideas.
  3. Religious. We tend to be either religious or religion-friendly seculars. They tend to range from goddess-worshipping Unitarians to rabid anti-theists. Even the atheists in our midst are more comfortable with religion in their SF/F  than their most religious members.
  4. Socio-sexual. We tend to be men of Delta rank or higher. They tend to be women, feminized Gamma males, or Omega males. Our female members possess more of the masculine virtues of courage and honor than most of their men.
  5. Experiential. We tend to come from worlds outside of academia and education. We write and we work real jobs that are totally unrelated to writing. They mostly write, and write about writing, and teach, quite often about writing. I expect their academic majors were mostly English, with the occasional STEM degree, while ours are from a much broader spectrum. For example, by training, John is a lawyer, Larry is an accountant, and I am an economist. And ironically, for all their politically correct enthusiasm for diversity, we are probably more ethnically and linguistically diverse.

The differences between the two sides are often visibly identifiable, and not just because we’re the ones carrying guns. One of the two book signings I ever did was a big one featuring 20 different authors at a big Barnes & Noble, including Gordon R. Dickson, Joel Rosenberg, Lois Bujold, David Feintuch, David Arneson, and various other SF/F luminaries. One kid asking me to sign his book said: “You don’t look like an SF writer.” And, I had to admit, after looking to either side of me, it wasn’t at all clear that we belonged to the same phylum, let alone species.

In response to a few of the various statements and questions raised:

  1. I would never deny that it remains possible to write left-wing message SF that is readable, enjoyable, and of high quality. That is true. But I would argue that the Culture novels are an excellent example of how the left-wing messages tend to harm, rather than enhance, the fiction. It’s not an accident that nothing interesting ever happens in the Culture (or in the Federation), or that in order to simply tell a story, it is necessary to leave the left-wing utopia and go in search of adventure elsewhere. Just as the Left has only one joke (you know that guy there, he’s stupid, isn’t he?) it has only one story, that of the struggle of the transition of an entity, individual or collective, from Badthink to Goodthink. They don’t tell stories, they tell Very Important Lessons.
  2.  How do you separate real writers from wannabes with deep pockets? Who cares? Let everyone write. Publish them all and let Amazon sort them out. SFWA was already irrelevant because its reason for existence was subverted. It was captured by the mainstream publishers long ago, as illustrated by its lining up against Amazon on Hatchette’s behalf.
  3. The term “rabbit” actually comes from E.O. Wilson’s ecological r/K selection theory. I explained it in a post called Digging Out the Rabbit People. It is derogatory; it is also very apt. More importantly, it’s always fun to be able to throw in the occasional Lapine phrase from Watership Down.
  4. Contra Mr. Andrew Marston of Marshfield, MA’s claims, I do sell books. I’m no bestseller, to be sure but my books usually sell around 5,000 copies apiece. Not enough to live on, especially when it takes me two years to write one, but not bad for a hobby. My bestselling book sold between 35,000 and 40,000 copies. My bestselling game sold over six million copies. And I have never had a trust fund.
  5. The idea that the existence of the “Gamma Rabbit” t-shirt is evidence that the rabbits have a sense of humor about themselves indicates an insufficient understanding of the gamma mentality and the gamma male’s need to spin the narrative in his favor. It’s little more credible than Scalzi’s claims that he found my mocking his inept satire and exposure of his self-inflating traffic claims to be “adorable”.

UPDATE: The Official Spokesvillain of the Evil League of Evil, The King in Yellow, explains the identifiable attributes of the rabbits/morlocks/trog-progs:

There are thirteen identifiable markers of the membership of the tribe of Troglodytes:

1. Theologically, they are atheist and agnostic, or at least laiacist.
2. In Metaphysics, they are nihilist. They hold the universe to have no innate meaning.
3. In Epistemology, they are subjectivists and (ironically) empiricists.
4. In Ontology, they are materialists. They believe minds are epiphenomena of matter.
5. In Logic, they are polylogists. They believe each race and both genders possesses unique and exclusive rules of logic.
6. In Aesthetics, they glorify the ugly and destroy beauty.
7. In Ethics, they are Gnostics. Whatever we call good, they call evil, and whatever we call evil, they call good.
8. In Politics, they are statists, and tacitly totalitarian. They want arbitrary power rather than law and order.
9. In Economics, they are socialist. They want the law of supply and demand to vanish softly away.
10. In Semantics, they are nominalists. They hold words to have no innate meaning.
11. In their psychological stance, they are sadists.
12. In their psychopathology, they are suicidal. They don’t want to live, they want you to die.
13. Emotionally, they are infantile. The emotion that governs them is envy.

Now, these are rough generalizations only, and no one member of the movement believes all these points, and, being a strongly anti-intellectual and pro-irrational bent, few of them even know what these big words mean. Some of these points contradict each other. That matters nothing to them. Logic is not their strong suit.


    Well, he IS pretty cute

    This is a bittersweet pain every parent knows. To see our children grow up healthy and tall and strong is both the fulfillment of a heartfelt desire and a heart-ripping loss. It’s charming, of course, to see how upset the little girl to learn that her cute little brother with his cute little smiles is not going to stay exactly the way he is, the way she loves him. But I find myself wondering how much of the misinformation that is passed on from mother to son and from sister to brother concerning intersexual relations stems, at least in part, from this natural desire for things to remain as they are.