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.

Tic-tac-toe

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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?

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.


Teresa Nielsen Hayden

(1) “It’s really, really obvious that VD is not acquainted with actual women. I don’t just mean sexual relations. I mean he’s had little or no social interaction of any sort.” (http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/006122.html#76168)
(2) “It’s pretty clear that VD fears and dislikes women, and that his gender theories are a back-formation. It seems perfectly appropriate that he’s a fan of that patently misogynistic suspected female impersonator, Ann Coulter.” (ibid.)
(3) “a third-rate intellect” (http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/006122.html#76250)
(4) “a tad unbalanced” (ibid.)
(5) “a generally unpleasant fellow” (ibid.)
(6) “Given your stated opinions on women, I’d love to see you take on the RWA. Bring a friend so there’ll be someone to take charge of the remains.”
(http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blogstatic/2007/11/sfwa_attempts_to_commit_public.html#comment-12114)
(7) “Anybody here in favor of turning Vox Day over to SFWA’s female members? I’d pay money to watch.” (ibid.)
(8) “Good heavens. Did you imagine you were worth arguing with? You aren’t.”
(http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blogstatic/
2007/11/sfwa_attempts_to_commit_public.html#comment-12155)
(9) “Vox Day’s true opinion of women has always been clear to me: he’s terrified of them.” (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blogstatic/
2007/11/sfwa_attempts_to_commit_public.html#comment-12243)
(10) “He is a wuss.” (ibid.)
(11) “You’re also a singularly inept sockpuppet, O Bane/Vox/Theeeeeodore.” (ibid.)
(12) “out-of-the-closet racist” (http://nkjemisin.com/2008/09/too-late-for-sf/#comment-119)
(13) “obviously unbalanced” (ibid.)
(14) “been known to put in a good word for the Nazis” (ibid.)
(15) “Vox Day is unbalanced. His SFWA candidacy is a symptom, not a practical
undertaking.” (https://twitter.com/tnielsenhayden/status/323597546125672448)
(16) “I take it you think Cory should instead have taken his arguments to the private SFWA area on SFF Net, a toxic morass where he could have been pointlessly abused at great length by the whole pack of gargoyles: Jerry Pournelle, Andrew Burt, Bud Webster, Will Sanders, et cetera et al.: a stunningly unattractive proposition.”  (See: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blogstatic/
2007/11/sfwa_attempts_to_commit_public.html#comment-12244)
(17) “I want the Justice Department to declare them a criminal organization
and hit them with felony charges. It would not be an excessive response
to their actions.” (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/016177.html#4059966)
(18) “The self-valorizing sociopath contingent seems to be involved.”
(19) “When you invite thugs into your argument, you’re not using them as shock troops; they’re using you as cover. And you’re pretty much guaranteeing that at some point in the future, you’ll wind up feebly protesting that you had no idea they’d do that. And maybe you didn’t; but you did know they were thugs.”

 Patrick Nielsen Hayden

(1) “The humor of the situation, in my opinion, is the ongoing degradation of the prestige of the once-coveted Nebula Award. Certainly if I were running a literary award that was widely perceived as being increasingly tarnished by arcane rules, unabashed logrolling, and general ridiculousness, my next move would definitely be to recruit me a yawping borderline anti-Semite and woman-hater for the award’s jury.”
(2)  “However, the mere fact someone’s crackpot notions about Jews or women
(or crop circles or ancient astronauts) can be defined as in some way
“political” doesn’t shield them from mockery. Nor is it impermissible
to raise an amused eyebrow when the organization once run by Damon
Knight and Poul Anderson is reduced to running on the volunteer efforts
of chuckleheads you’d cross the street to avoid. As I’ve said more than once, I have very mixed feelings. I do in
fact approve of my subculture’s habitual tolerance for head cases of all
sorts. I also periodically feel, after glancing encounters with some
of them, like I need to go boil myself in antibiotics.”
(3)“An underreported aspect of being around for a long time: the horror of watching your onceadmired elders turn into blithering nincompoops.” – Patrick Nielsen Hayden (See: https://twitter.com/pnh/status/340787331067940864)
(4)  “Likewise, many people, me included, think that #Gamergate is an association of terrible human beings that we don’t want to see joining us.”
(5) “The SP campaign… rises all the way to “downright evil.””

 SFWA President Steven Gould

(1) “Does this mean we can’t make fun of Vox Day (Or VD as I like to call him) for his distressing use irrational arguments? Of course we can. It’s like finding one of those dishes of leftovers in the back of the refrigerator that is busy creating it’s own little ecosystem. You comment on it, you drop it in the trash, and you don’t swallow it.” – Steve Gould (See: http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/006122.html#75922)

SFWA Vice-President Mary Robinette Kowal

(1) “Dear Twelve Rabid Weasels of SFWA, please shut the fuck up. I know you value your freedom of speech. Good on you. However there are 1788 other members of SFWA who also value their freedom of speech and manage to exercise it without being raging assholes…. Please quit. And by “quit” I mean, please quit SFWA in a huff. Please quit and complaining about how SFWA is censoring you for asking you to stop using hate speech. ” – Mary Robinette Kowal (See:
http://www.maryrobinettekowal.com/journal/dear-twelve-rabid-weasels-of-sfwa-please-shut-thefuck-up/)

And then there is the name-calling machine that is John Scalzi. Of course, this list of name-calling by Mr. Scalzi – which began before I’d ever heard of him – is mostly taken from my response to the SFWA report published in 2013 and is FAR from complete.

SFWA President John Scalzi

(1) “a jackass, and a fairly ignorant jackass at that”
(http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/006122.html#75601)
(2) “his political jackassery” (ibid.)
(3) “of all the dumbassery Beale may be rightly accused of” (http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/006122.html#75636)
(4) “chucklehead” (ibid.)
(5) “We may also equally and more simply posit that Vox has his head up his ass on this matter” (http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/006122.html#75912)
(6) “the lunatic fringe” (http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/006122.html#75914)
(7) “the willfully stupid” (ibid.)
(8) “your head is pretty far up your ass” (http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/006122.html#75924)
(9) “when I call you the “lunatic fringe” I am discussing your hypoxic opinion” (ibid.)
(10) “I know quite a few devout followers of Christ who would also think you have your head up your ass regarding your opinion” (ibid.)
(11) “I’m also happy to say he’s got his head up his ass” (http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/006122.html#75933)
(12) “I’m happy to grant that in other subjects, he may not exhibit such profound sphincto-cranial tendencies” (ibid.)
(13) “there’s a definite head-ass conjunction on his part” (ibid.)
(14) “a fascinating example of sphincto-cranial interaction” (ibid.)
(15) “You’re a “lunatic fringe”… because you hold a position that is clearly intellectually indefensible, yet appear to give it the same weight as fact.” (ibid.)
(16) “You’ll just be feeding his persecution complex. Lots of writers are jerkwads.”
(http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/006122.html#75941)
(17) “his misogynistic jerk-like tendencies”
(http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/006122.html#75945)
(18) “Vox Day… may yet one day regret his sphincto-cranial position” (ibid.)
(19) “His position isn’t right or left; it’s just stupid and sexist.” (ibid.)
(20) “Nothing he’s written here suggests either sophistication or a sense of irony. The question was whether he was a garden-variety jerk or something else entirely. Looks like he’s in the “something else” camp.” (http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/006122.html#75948)
(21) “To restate: Your thesis is wrong and you lack the rhetorical skills to present your thesis in a coherent fashion. Your latter-day attempt to brush off your sexist and ignorant statement as sarcasm is baldly transparent as backtracking; even if it were true, it shows that your use of such devices is appallingly clumsy. Again one wonders how you got your columnist gig, or, alternately, if anyone bothers to edit you, as you so clearly need.” (http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/006122.html#75958)
(22) “you have settled into the “bad writer” excuse for your dumbass and sexist statement.” (ibid.)
(23) “we’re back to you having (to put another spin on use my new favorite phrase) a sphincto-cranial event of monumental proportions” (ibid.)
(24) “To massacre Voltaire’s sentiment, Vox may have indefensibly stupid opinions, but I for one would fight for the right for him to be an SFWA member with indefensibly stupid opinions. Lord knows he wouldn’t be the first, or the last.”
(http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/006122.html#76006)
(25) “Poor, deluded Vox.” (http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/006122.html#76032)
(26) “Silly Tracina. Expecting a logical argument from Vox. If he couldn’t try to change the subject, he wouldn’t be able to argue at all.”
(http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/006122.html#76034)
(27) “Either Vox meant what he wrote, in which case he deserves his thumping on the grounds he’s a sexist pig. Or he didn’t mean what he wrote, in which case he deserves a thumping on the grounds he’s an unfathomably poor writer. Either way he deserves a thumping, and a thumping is what he’s getting.”(http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/006122.html#76062)
(28) “Now, run back to your comment monkeys and declare victory, Vox. I’m sure they’ll pat down your fur for you.” (ibid.)
(29) “I should check to see if one of the gibbering follow monkeys of that Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit who has an adorable mancrush on me has smeared a turd all over one of my comment threads.” (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/01/31/troll-report-active-with-increasing-chance-ofstupid/)
(30) “And of course, this is his prerogative; if it makes him feel better about himself and pumps up his social status with his clutch of equally insecure racist sexist homophobic dipshit admirers, then by all means he can spout as much garbage about me as he likes.” (ibid.)
(31) “The pathology of it is pretty standard elementary-school taunting dynamic, which is to call me a name they think is clever (top of the hit parade at the moment is “McRapey,” because the main Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit apparently believed this was real, and once it was explained to him what satire was, had to rather embarrassingly suggest he was doing satire too so there, which, again: adorable), followed by generally unimaginative insults regarding my work/position/status, followed by rah-rah plumping for their beloved leader.” (ibid.)
(32) “Also, as a general rule, I’ve been recently avoiding having the primary racist sexist homophobic dipshit’s name in the comment threads, mostly because at this point I just prefer not to have it about, and also because I find “racist sexist homophobic dipshit” is more than adequate at this point in terms of reference. However, to avoid silliness, you may call him by name if you like. I still prefer not have links to his site, however. It’s a hygiene thing.” (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/01/31/troll-report-active-with-increasing-chance-ofstupid/#
comment-431974)
(33) “If his existence is validated by this particular post, we should all reflect on what sad and wan existence it is. Beyond that, this, post, once written, obviates the need to have to write anything else about this person (or his follow monkeys) again. So there’s that.” (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/01/31/troll-report-active-with-increasing-chance-ofstupid/#comment-432250)
(34) “My language isn’t particularly abusive. He is in fact a racist and a sexist and a homophobe. The dipshit part accurately describes his personality as far as I can tell. If he doesn’t wish to be described as a racist sexist homophobic dipshit, he can work on not being those things. Let’s just say I won’t be holding my breath on that. As for the idea that the psycho-sexual fixation flows the other way: AH HA HA HA HA HAH HA. Dude, if I’m gonna do a man, it ain’t gonna be that pathetic ball of issues. I don’t do pity fucks.” (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/01/31/troll-reportactive-with-increasing-chance-of-stupid/#comment-432614)
(35) “No. The racist sexist homophobic dipshit in question most certainly did appear to believe I was actually outing myself as a rapist, and then frantically backtracked when people pointed out his  error, re-establishing that he’s a racist dipshit in the process.” (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/01/31/troll-report-active-with-increasing-chance-ofstupid/#comment-432799)
(36) “I mean, I get that the racist sexist homophobic dipshit feels bad about being revealed to be a credulous unsophisticate in front of all his gibbering follow monkeys.” (ibid.)
(37) “Beyond this, the trolls are the gibbering follow monkeys who show up at the site, not the racist sexist homophobic dipshit himself, who at least has the presence of mind to realize he lost his commenting privileges here some time ago and doesn’t darken my door. I’m sure that the racist sexist homophobic dipshit is having a good laugh about the fact I have to deal with the braindead little cretins who detatch from his site and show up here. He’s just the sort of selfaggrandizing
tool to confuse my irritation at having to deal with his play pals with some estimation of his own self-worth. This is what you do when you’re an asshole, as he clearly is.” (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/01/31/troll-report-active-with-increasing-chance-ofstupid/#comment-432799)
(38) “@scalzi Christ, this whole thing is crackers, but huge respect for turning it into a positive. Can I email you about it for a journo thing? @davidmbarnett Sure. My e-mail is on my site under “Contact Information” in the sidebar.”
(https://twitter.com/davidmbarnett/status/297830195077988353)
(39) “Troll’s comments prompt author to pledge charity donation for every insult. ‘Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit’ will cue rewards for civil rights and LGBT groups by attacking John Scalzi. Heavy troll … John Scalzi has an unusual defence against his troll.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/feb/05/trolls-prompt-author-charity-donation)
(40) “there’s a Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit out there on the InterWeebs” (underline indicates a link to: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Theodore_Beale)
(http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/02/solving-my-racist-sexist-homophobic-dipshit-problem/)
(41) “I don’t want to have to read the Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit’s site” (ibid.)
(42) “even if the Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit never mentioned me again” (ibid.)
(43) “But believe me, the racist sexist homophobic dipshit in question will know.”
(http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/02/solving-my-racist-sexist-homophobic-dipshitproblem/#comment-433514)
(44) “And there’s nothing passive aggressive about what I’m doing to him now. I’m aggressively using his racist sexist homophobic nature to promote causes he almost certainly hates.” (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/02/solving-my-racist-sexist-homophobic-dipshitproblem/#comment-433557)
(45)As noted before, there’s very little I could do one way or another that wouldn’t play into his delusions of grandeur and his desire to be seen as opposing me in some way; the fellow has an infinite capacity for “HA HA HA THIS IS GOING EXACTLY AS I PLANNED.” (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/02/solving-my-racist-sexist-homophobic-dipshitproblem/#
comment-433582)
(46) “This dipshit is going to drag my name through crap no matter whether I ignore him or not.” (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/02/solving-my-racist-sexist-homophobic-dipshitproblem/#
comment-433675)
(47) “The trolls are the gibbering monkey followers of his that wash up on the site. You should still not feed them. The Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit doesn’t troll the site; he does all his nonsense from a distance.”(http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/02/solving-my-racist-sexisthomophobic-dipshit-problem/#comment-433696)
(48) “Of all the things the Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit in question is, my “tormenter” is definitely not one of them.” (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/02/solving-my-racist-sexisthomophobic-dipshit-problem/#comment-433803)
(49) “At this point I’m done pretending to be nice to the dipshit in question.”
(http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/02/solving-my-racist-sexist-homophobic-dipshitproblem/#comment-433808)
(50) “Robert, are you trying to give the fellow a race on the dipshit front, or is that just an unintentional side effect of your bad logic here? I’m not going to dispute that giving the dude a slot was not one of my best ideas, to put it mildly, but that doesn’t change the fact you’re engaging in something akin to victim-blaming. One Big Idea slot given doesn’t mean I should just accept this dipshit’s calumny as my just desserts, and you’re being a bit of a truculent dick to suggest so.” (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/02/solving-my-racist-sexist-homophobicdipshit-problem/#comment-433888)
(51) “It should be fairly obvious that this is what I am saying about him, and to him. It should likewise be fairly obvious that I don’t give a damn what anyone else thinks as regards the appropriate way to deal with this dipshit.” (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/02/solving-myracist-sexist-homophobic-dipshit-problem/#comment-434008)
(52) “I’m aware that the Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit in question would like me to treat him with any sort of seriousness, and it irritates both him and his gibbering monkey followers that I don’t, I don’t care. I don’t refer to the dipshit by name because it amuses me to call him Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit;” (ibid.)
(53) “Obviously, the dipshit is going to do as he pleases…. So let the dipshit max it out; I’ll pay my share gladly.” (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/02/solving-my-racist-sexist-homophobicdipshit-problem/#comment-434076)
(54) “Aside from the fact that that would be far more effort than I would want to invest in this dipshit, if I recall correctly he lives in Italy, which would make any of that difficult to arrange.”(http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/02/solving-my-racist-sexist-homophobic-dipshitproblem/#comment-434199)
(55) “Once again: I don’t care how the racist, sexist, homophobic dipshit in question responds to it.” (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/02/solving-my-racist-sexist-homophobic-dipshitproblem/#comment-434479)
(56) “Guys, let’s not try to analyze him here. Dipshittery happens for all sorts of reasons; on this end, we only have to worry about the results.”(http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/02/solving-myracist-sexist-homophobic-dipshit-problem/#comment-434551)
(57) “Deleted because I don’t have patience for VD’s special brand of complete nonsense on this topic. Stay in your own pit of manstink, would you, Vox? There’s a lad – JS” (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/08/17/your-second-thought-for-the-day/#comment-353892) (58) “sociopathic assbag” (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/08/17/your-second-thought-for-the-day/)
(59) “I’m sure “Waaaaah! Scalzi deleted my comments on his personal site and said I was a sexist assbag!” will prompt a rush of members to demand my removal.” (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/08/17/your-second-thought-for-the-day/#comment-353914)
(60) “Too late. VD’s tribe of sexist assbags came in a little late for that.” (ibid.)
(61) “a bigoted shithole of a human being”
(62) “Vox Day is an asshole who likes being an asshole”
(63) “the bigoted shitheel who used the Sad Puppy slate like a parasitic wasp uses the hollowed-out husk of a tarantula”
(64) “Vox Day is a grasping sociopath”

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.

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.