Mailvox: when is firing justified?

CC asks the wrong question:

Assume an employer discovers he has in his employ a vocal and known racist. Assume the presence of that racist in his employ is hurting his business due to people choosing to no longer do business with him. Is he justified firing the racist?

The answer is to this rhetorical query is, of course, yes? So, is a person who opposes racism justified in calling on people to not do business with an establishment that employs a known racist?

I don’t know why CC is even asking me this question. I believe in, and advocate, free association. That means that an employer can fire any employee for any reason he chooses.

So, I’m absolutely fine with an employer firing a racist simply for being a racist. What I would ask CC is this: is he likewise fine with an employer firing a black for being a black, a Jew for being a Jew, a woman for being a woman, a pregnant woman for being pregnant, a feminist for being a feminist, or a Communist for being a Communist? Because I support all of those hypothetical firings as well, on both logical grounds and on the basis of being protected by the Constitutional right of free association.

What is not fine, however, is those who are not involved attempting to put pressure on the employer to fire the racist, the black, the Jew, the woman, the Communist, etc. because they do not approve of the employee. Remember, Ben Shapiro did not say that he would refuse to hire anyone who is a socialist, he did not say he would not do business with anyone who employs Jews, he said that racists should be hunted down.

That is not free association.  That is not eucivic behavior that is compatible with either civilized society or peaceful coexistence. Society can survive many things, but it cannot survive this aggressive ideological totalitarianism aimed at extinguishing the acknowledgement of observable reality. SJWism is both dyscivic and dyscivilizational.

What SJWs want is thought policing and enforcement. They want certain thoughts protected from criticism and certain other thoughts eliminated. A person who opposes racism can only be justified in calling on people to not do business with an establishment that employs a known racist insofar as anyone else is equally able to call on people not to do business with other establishments for any other reason.

If that’s the war the SJWs want, that’s precisely the war they’ll get. But judging by their frightened response to something as minor as The Complete List of SJW, it seems unlikely that they are genuinely up for it. Because they know, as well as we do, that it is a war they will lose. Badly.

Listen up, retards

  1. Stop talking about “ad hom” or “ad hominum” or “ad hominem attacks” unless you actually know what an “argumentum ad hominem” is.
  2. “Insult” and “ad hominem” are not synonyms.
  3. Never talk about someone committing a “logical fallacy” unless you can identify the specific logical fallacy being committed.

Seriously, you’re all just embarrassing yourselves. Just stop it. It doesn’t make you sound either smart or convincing to use words you clearly don’t understand. Even if I disagree with you and you’re attacking me, it’s painful to watch. I mean, count the errors in just this one tweet alone:

#NewYork4Cruz ﻦ † ‏@politicsiswar
Ad hominem attacks. The mark of a Marxist. Why does WND still have you on payroll?

I don’t have enough hands for the facepalms required.

They also slash tires

Mike Cernovich brings us news that the SJWs have expanded their tactical set:

I on the 11th day of the 4th month of 2016 did maliciously attack a hate symbol protected by free speech. After disturbing the vehicle and dumping rotten food into the interior I feel I have improved the community and supported our nations values by stopping a promoter of hate speech. I do not wish to have ignorant bigots in my town and in a just world the person deserved what was received. The situation is made whole. As America is far from just, I expect the bigot will want to be made whole. With this I declare he is owed nothing. But as the situation is what it is, I intent to make individual whole provided he cease to promote ignorance and hate. I do not expect the law to recognize damage to tools of hate or racism, such things need to be destroyed so good people may remain and become free.

I don’t know about you, but I find that argument entirely convincing. More weapons in the anti-SJW arsenal, I suppose, although I don’t think we’ll bother with this one.

In attempted defense of chickenhawks

Ben Shapiro’s defenders are more than a little sensitive to his hypocrisy and shameless, well-documented cowardice:

Ben Shapiro ‏@benshapiro
Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level. His WSJ piece is written at a ninth-grade level.

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
And you went to law school instead of serving your country while calling for other Americans to go to war.

THE Chris Coon ‏@Coondawg68
these PC SJW Trumpkins are now yelling “Chickenhawk!!” “Bu$Hitler lied!!” FFS…

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Now? I observed that the coward @benshapiro was the Littlest Chickenhawk back in 2005

From my August 29, 2005 WND column, The Chickenhawk Clucks

 I – like 62 percent of the soldiers and veterans who frequent Vox Popoli and Blackfive – am in accord with the notion that “chickenhawk” is an appropriate label for a warmongering young columnist who urges others to make sacrifices he has no intention of making himself.

    Most of us realize that during wartime, sacrifices must be made … But taking such a stand requires common sense and the knowledge that we are in the midst of the great battle of our time.
    – Benjamin Shapiro, WorldNetDaily, July 28, 2005

I would be remiss if I did not note that many of these military men and women favored a different 11-letter word that also begins with “chicken.”

The genuine flaw in the use of the “chickenhawk” label is that in most cases it is being applied years, even decades, after the fact, and inherently attempts to equate two different historical situations. However, due to Mr. Shapiro’s precocious position in the national media, this common flaw does not apply. While his peers are dodging sniper bullets and IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. Shapiro is bravely urging them to invade five more countries in the establishment of global empire from the safety of his Harvard dorm room.

    Did Iraq pose an immediate threat to our nation? Perhaps not. But toppling Saddam Hussein and democratizing Iraq prevent his future ascendance and end his material support for future threats globally. The same principle holds true for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and others: Pre-emption is the chief weapon of a global empire. No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for Americans and for the world.
    – Benjamin Shapiro, WorldNetDaily, Aug. 11, 2005

The America Bar Association already boasts more than 896,000 lawyers, America has no desperate need for another one. The U.S. Army, on the other hand, is currently 8,000 men short of its 2005 recruiting goals. I am only one of many non-pacifist, non-leftist Americans who believe that Mr. Shapiro would do well to heed his own words of Aug. 26, 2004. “Now’s the time: Either put up, or shut the hell up.”

And before you ask, on January 18th, 1991, my friend Big Chilly and I went to the Roseville, Minnesota recruiting office and attempted to enlist in the United States Marine Corps. Our enlistments were not accepted, in fact, the recruiter ripped up the papers after reading them over and asking us a few questions, but he also shook our hands and thanked us for being willing to serve our country.

So we never served, but we were ready and willing to do so without being asked. And that is something that Ben Shapiro, for all his hectoring bluster about the pressing need for Americans to die in war, was clearly not willing to do.

As further evidence The Complete List of SJW is effective, several of Shapiro’s defenders are extremely intent on having him removed from it. But unless and until he recants his public statement about hunting down and disemploying racists, (and assuming no further evidence of his social justice sympathies is discovered) he quite clearly belongs on it.

Syria or Colorado

Whose elections are less legitimate? Paul Craig Roberts points out the irony of American politicians decrying a purported lack of democratic legitimacy in Syria.

Today (April 14) Syria held parliamentary elections at 7,000 polling stations, keeping the voting open an extra five hours to accommodate the massive turnout. All were allowed to vote, even displaced Syrians from the two provinces still terrorized by Washington and Israeli backed ISIS.

Washington is angry, because Syria held elections before Washington had time to purchase its slate of politicians and organize Washington-funded NGOs to take to the streets to protest and to claim that Assad had stolen the election.

Despite the massive voter turnout and extended hours for voting, the US State Department set the tone by declaring that the elections are not legitimate in Washington’s eyes and do not represent “the will of the Syrian people.”

Washington’s two-bit punk vassals in London and Paris chimed in with both claiming that the war conditions in Syria to which London and Paris have contributed mean that the idea of elections is “totally unrealistic.”

The New York Times lied, characteristically, that the elections, which seem to demonstrate nationwide solidarity against the Western-backed overthrow of the Syrian government, “highlight divisions and uncertainty.” The Washington Post added its lies and misrepresentations to the propagandistic reporting.

The Western governments are far out on a limb with their lies that the Syrian people prefer to be governed by the Washington supported terrorists who were overrunning their country and conducting with Western supplied weapons mass murder on the Syrian people until Russia put a stop to it. Now the Western liars are exposed yet again by election results, and so the liars must pretend that the election lacks validity.

So, Republicans are in the fascinating position of arguing that Syria’s elections, which actually allow people to vote, are illegitimate and do not represent “the will of the people” because “war conditions”, whereas the Republican nomination in Colorado, where no one is even voting, is legitimate and does represent “the will of the people” despite the people having no voice because “rules”.

And people wonder why Americans support a quixotic outsider like Donald Trump. I vote for a blind and incontinent basset hound before I’d vote for any member of the Republican establishment, which now observably includes Ted Cruz. Of course, if I lived in Colorado, I wouldn’t be able to vote at all.

This isn’t that hard. Yes, we all know America is not a democracy. The point is that if you’re going to repeatedly go to war for democracy, then the first place you should do so is in the USA.

500 more votes

MidAmericaCon II reports more than 4,000 nominating votes for the 2016 Hugo Awards:

Over 4,000 nominating ballots were received for the 2016 Hugo Awards, nearly doubling the previous record of 2,122 ballots set last year by Sasquan, the 73rd Worldcon held in Spokane, WA.

I would assume that this bodes poorly for the Rabid Puppies, as it tends to indicate a stronger turnout by the No Awards than predicted by Chaos Horizon. His prediction assumed 3,620 nominating votes, about 500 short of what we will assume was 4,100 votes.

So, I have to conclude that expectations of a second-straight Puppy sweep are highly unlikely, although we will likely get a few nominations where there is an amount of crossover appeal. If the vote had come in around 3,000, I would have felt reasonably confident. Over 4,000 and I tend to doubt the 500-strong Rabid Puppy vote can compete effectively with what has become an increasingly uniform SF-SJW vote until EPH passes.

However, this still indicates a high probability of an entirely satisfactory result, as our primary goal was to break the Tor cabal’s stranglehold on the awards, not to dominate them in turn.

Mailvox: “one of the most substantive debates I’ve heard”

MC rather enjoyed the free trade debate:

This was fantastic.  Clearly one of the most substantive debates I’ve heard.  Both of you made your points well and it really gave the audience the ability to truly focus on the subject matter and the pertinent points of each argument.  I was impressed with Dr. Miller as he did not seem like your typical Academic, but really a guy that is interested in honest discussion (although naive).  Would love to hear more of these.

I am of the opinion that Free trade works well in theory, in a perfect world with honest players, but such a world does not exist this side of heaven.  I believe due to the fallen nature of man, protecting the nation-state is much more important than the benefits of open free trade, because of the eventual destruction of the culture and national identity.  I think the founders understood this much better than us, which is why they advocated tariffs and an American First mindset.

Great debate, I was very impressed, this is really good stuff.  More Please!

I’m glad everyone enjoyed it so much. I intend to keep doing this sort of thing and more at Brainstorm, and the more people that support Brainstorm by joining or simply showing up for the free events, the more high-quality guests like Dr. Miller and Dr. Hallpike will be interested in participating.

Speaking of the debate, some of you will recall that I felt the purely logical aspect of my critique of free trade could be improved and further refined. In that regard, a syllogism occurred to me that I believe  succeeds in succinctly and conclusively refuting Dr. Miller’s corruption argument for free trade.

  1. Dr. Mill argues that free trade is beneficial because it reduces corruption by removing power from the hands of elected politicians and transferring it to the board members and executives of multinational corporations, who are presumed to be less corruptible than politicians by virtue of being answerable to the Invisible Hand of the free market.
  2. But it is the board members and executives of multinational corporations who are the primary actors responsible for corrupting the politicians.
  3. And the causal factor of the process of corruption is, obviously, more intrinsically corrupt than the various parties being corrupted by it.
  4. Therefore, Dr. Miller is incorrect, the hypothetical ability of the Invisible Hand to rein in the corruption of the corporate interests is insufficient, and free trade will tend to increase corruption by transferring power from state politicians to multinational corporate interests.
  5. Therefore, free trade is not beneficial.

Funding suspended

Apparently Kickstarter is not completely converged:

Wave Goodbye to Cyberbullies and Trolls: SocialAutopsy.com

 Funding Suspended

Funding for this project was suspended by Kickstarter about 1 hour ago. 

It’s good to see Kickstarter, unlike Twitter, is willing to enforce its Terms Of Service against SJWs.

This is how the #GamerGate model works. Don’t wait for permission, don’t talk about your clever idea for X, Y, or Z, do something. Or, as they say, shut up and email.

Two more SJWs for the SJW list

Nick Mamatas endorses no-platforming of “fascists” while defending the continued inclusion of Communists and socialists:

1. No-platforming. This has become widely misunderstood as militant liberals have generalized a particular radical practice—the demand to keep fascists from having a public platform at events and within organizations. One can and should no-platform fascists for the simple reason that fascism is a totalizing and universally negating political philosophy—it cannot prosper without the destruction of all points of view via political violence. Even Stalinist and Maoist Communism, say all the horrifying and accurate things about it you can, is self-protective—that is, it can adapt to diplomatic needs, introduce or quash markets internally etc. There is still a core of “dialectic”—a philosophy based on change. (Thus China going from economic backwater to central driver of the world economic system in a generation while still putatively remaining “communist”.) Fascism is based on achieving a certain transhistorical perfection, which is impossible and inherently anti-rational, and thus it not only can broke no diplomacy/debate, it cannot even keep itself stable. It destroys everything, including ultimately itself (and takes plenty of people with it when it collapses). THAT is why it must be kept from growing.

Never mind that Fascism has been a defunct ideology for seventy years now. Or that it was eminently civilized in comparison with the murderous records of Stalinism and Maoism. This guy’s idea of fascism is “anything to the right of Bernie Sanders”.

Brian Keene takes it to a new level, as he not only endorses the no-platforming of “a person who has previously demonstrated a bias against others based on their race, religion”, he is tarring the entire HWA by association:

Today, the HWA released the following statement regarding their decision to allow an avowed white supremacist and fascist serve as a Bram Stoker Award Juror. Quote: “The HWA does not support discrimination of any kind, including discrimination based on political views. Not only is this form of discrimination specifically illegal in a number of U.S. states, HWA’s Board of Trustees also does not believe it’s in keeping with our principle of supporting and practicing freedom of expression. In specific regard to HWA’s Bram Stoker Award juries, the HWA will certainly act if/when a juror’s personal views have a provable impact/bias against a writer or his/her works.” End quote.

So, I’m speaking now to all current members of the HWA. If, after today, after learning that the HWA will allow this to continue– if, after today, after learning that the HWA will allow a person who has previously demonstrated a bias against others based on their race, religion, etc. to participate as a Bram Stoker Award Jury member — an award which will include candidates of various races and religions — IF AFTER TODAY, you intend on renewing your membership and paying membership fees when they come due again on January 1, 2017, or if you are paying to attend any of the organization’s Stoker Cons or awards banquet events in future years, then you are part of the problem.

These self-destructive SJWs don’t seem to understand that if there is no place for competing perspectives ruled beyond the pale in their world, then there can be no place for them should any of their many opponents take power. First they declare there is no place for us, next they no-platform us, then, when we build our own platforms, they whine and cry that we don’t talk to them, we don’t listen to them, and we show them neither mercy nor regard.

They create the very monsters they fear, and they create them ex nihilo.

So be it. Let them whine and cry and beg to no avail. There is no place for SJWs in any civilized society that wishes to survive and thrive.