Bienvenue, #GamerGate

If you support #GamerGate, you are invited to join Milo Yiannopoulos, Mike Cernovich, and me at Le Killy-Jen in the 12ème arrondissement on July 11th at 8 PM for GGinParis. It’s an entirely casual affair and any #GamerGaters who can make it are welcome to come and meet up in the flesh. Buy your own drinks, buy Milo a drink, arm-wrestle Mike, or sit on the terrace, light a Gauloise, and argue with me about whether or not games truly represent Richard Wagner’s Gesamkunstwerk, regardless, a good time will be had by all.

As far as excitement goes, we’re anticipating a little less than GGinDC experienced with the bomb threat, but as you might expect, anti-GGers are greeting this with all the civility and bonhomie that we have learned to expect from SJWs around the world. After I posted the initial graphic, one Vincent M in the Ile de France responded as follows:

Vincent M.@vnz
Misère, je découvre l’existence d’une réunion de gamergateux à Paris, le #GGinParis. Prenons nous a rêver : suicide collectif ? Sivouplait ?

Damn, I discovered the existence of a meeting of GamerGaters in Paris, the #GGinParis. Can we dream of a collective suicide? Please?

Keep that in mind the next time you hear SJWs complaining about how terrible, awful, and very bad GamerGate is. We dream of better games. They dream of collective suicide.

Corporate action or censorship?

I don’t know how legitimate these reports are, but there is something bizarre about the level of coordination and specificity of this multi-corporation attack on the Confederate flag. There are several reports that it was ordered by the U.S. federal government. The reason I’m a little dubious is: why would any corporation as powerful as Walmart, Amazon, or Apple obey such an obviously unlawful, unconstitutional directive instead of going straight to the media about it?

The misrule of law

And the rule of lying men. This should suffice to explode any last lingering doubts about the survival of the rule of law in the USA:

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

Roberts continued, “In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice Antonin Scalia said, “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.” Using the acronym for the Supreme Court, Scalia said his colleagues have twice stepped in to save the law from what Scalia considered worthy challenges.

“The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so,” Scalia wrote.

Scalia added, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.’ And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.”

The USA presently enjoys not only the rule of men, but the rule of lying men rather than law. And, needless to say, Chief Justice Roberts helpfully demonstrates that electing more Republicans is not going to solve the problem.

Apple removes Civil War games

I almost wish I owned Apple products so I could stop using them in light of this:

Apple Removes All American Civil War Games From the App Store Because of the Confederate Flag

Many large US companies, like Walmart and Amazon, have already banned the sale of any Confederate flag merchandise as a reaction to the recent events. Now, it appears that Apple has decided to join them by pulling many Civil War wargames from the App Store. As of the writing of this story, games like Ultimate General: Gettysburg and all the Hunted Cow Civil War games are nowhere to be found.

I assume WWII games are next. Orwell was right. The totalitarians of the Left love nothing so much as erasing history. Some of the games removed:

  •     Ultimate General: Gettysburg
  •     AAA American Civil War Cannon Shooter
  •     Civil War: Hidden Mysteries
  •     Civil War The Battle Game
  •     Civil War Defense
  •     Civil War Battle Defense
  •     1861 A Civil War Rebellion
  •     Civil War: 1862
  •     Civil War: 1863

I’m buying Ultimate General: Gettysburg today to support one of the developers who have refused to modify their game in accord with Apple’s demands.

As you may have been already informed, Apple has removed our game from AppStore because of usage of the Confederate Flag. Ultimate General: Gettysburg could be accepted back if the flag is removed from the game’s content.

We accept Apple’s decision and understand that this is a sensitive issue for the American Nation. We wanted our game to be the most accurate, historical, playable reference of the Battle of Gettysburg. All historical commanders, unit composition and weaponry, key geographical locations to the smallest streams or farms are recreated in our game’s battlefield.

We receive a lot of letters of gratitude from American teachers who use our game in history curriculum to let kids experience one of the most important battles in American history from the Commander’s perspective.  

Spielberg’s “Schindler’s List” did not try to amend his movie to look more comfortable. The historical “Gettysburg” movie (1993) is still on iTunes. We believe that all historical art forms: books, movies, or games such as ours, help to learn and understand history, depicting events as they were. True stories are more important to us than money.

Therefore we are not going to amend the game’s content and Ultimate General: Gettysburg will no longer be available on AppStore.

You can’t run, you can’t hide

The SJWs will pursue you and demand inclusivity everywhere you go. You may as well stand and fight them:

Since Go was launched nearly six years ago, our community has grown from a small group of enthusiasts to thousands of programmers from all corners of the globe. I am proud of us; so many great projects and such a helpful and passionate group of people. Sincerely, I consider myself lucky to be involved.

But as we grow we should reflect on how we can improve.

Take this mailing list, for example. While the majority of discussions here are respectful and polite, occasionally they take a turn for the worse. While such incidents are rare, they are noticeable and have an effect on the tone of other discussions. We can do better.

At times we can be overly didactic, meeting opposing ideas with inflexibility. When challenged by a differing opinion we should not be defensive, but rather take the opportunity to discuss and debate so that we may better understand our own ideas.

I’m also concerned by reports of abuse, harassment, and discrimination in our community, particularly toward women and other underrepresented groups. Even I have experienced harassment and abuse myself. This may be common in the tech industry but it is not OK.

We are the Go community; we get to choose what is OK and what is not. It’s not a choice but a responsibility, and it is a responsibility that we have neglected too long.

The positive effects of diversity in communities are well-documented. If our community is to continue to grow and prosper, we must make it a more inclusive place, where all are respected and nobody is made to feel dismissed, unwelcome, or unsafe.

To that end, I propose that we establish a Code of Conduct that would cover the behavior of community members on the various Go mailing lists and the golang subreddit, on IRC, in private Go-related correspondence, and at Go events.

It’s long past time to start adopting anti-SJW, anti-entryist, anti-inclusivity bylaws and practices in every organization to which you belong, because if you don’t, you will soon find your hobby, your volunteer group, your sports team, or your place of employment subjected to the same sort of thought-policing.

And, of course, the Code of Conduct will only be enforced in one direction by the SJWs who wield it as a weapon. They are blatant liars; consider the statement that “the positive effects of diversity in communities are well-documented.” This is the precise opposite of the truth, which is that diversity destroys and segregates communities.

Here is my prediction: like the Episcopalian and Anglican churches, the new inclusivity policy is going to lead to a precipitate drop in participation in the Go community. Consider the final word in the “discussion”.

As the operators of the official Go forums, it is our ultimate goal and responsibility to guide this community toward a healthy and happy future. To do this, we must provide welcoming and safe spaces and a means to protect our most vulnerable community members. A crucial step toward this goal is to specify a standard of respectful behavior in the form of a Code of Conduct.

I hear and respect the dissenting opinions. In particular, I hear the concerns about limiting freedom of expression. Let me state this clearly: the official Go forums are not platforms for free speech. Your participation in them is a privilege, not a right. If you are not able to adhere to basic standards of respectful behavior then you are invited to leave.

Oh, I have no doubt they will. It’s also a good idea to excise SJWs from your social circles. Once you have discovered that someone is an SJW, refuse to have anything to do with them and tell them why. They cannot be reasoned with, they cannot learn from example, they can only learn from the emotional pressure of personal rejection. So help them learn.

And if your organization has already been taken over, or was created by SJWs in the first place, leave. Create a rival organization; all the people leaving the old one are going to need somewhere to go.

The game of thought police

It’s going to be interesting to watch the various retailers and government officials who banned the Confederate flag scramble as people begin to hold them accountable for everything from Nazi regalia to the gay rainbow flag.

Online retail giant Amazon’s Monday decision to ban the sale of merchandise depicting the Confederate flag has many Americans scratching their heads, as a quick review of Amazon’s site reveals the company still sells Nazi flags.

This is insane. Now even Gone With the Wind is under attack. After all, how can Amazon possibly sell a book and movie that shamelessly glorifies the Confederacy? And what about The Dukes of Hazzard? I mean, the car is even named the General Lee!

One thing is clear. We now know what Round Two’s banner is going to be. All the SJWs have succeeded in doing is heating up the cultural war while taking one of the more potent historical symbols of the past and making it relevant to tomorrow’s rebels.

And this, of course, is why it is ALWAYS a huge mistake to give an SJW so much as a single inch.

“Tearing Down the Confederate Flag Is Just a Start”
– Nicolas Kristof, The New York Times

I expect it probably is a start of something. But not necessarily the start of what he thinks it is.

Brainstorm tonight

People are still registering, but I’m going to cut off the monthly option in one hour, 30 minutes before the event starts, so I can get the registration information out in time for people to join us. The chat is already live, so if you’re a Brainstormer feel free to hop in whenever you like.

I’m told Nate is busy swimming in his Scrooge McDuck-like pool of gold coins in preparation for his pitch for fire. If you haven’t had a look at the Inflation/Deflation debate on the left sidebar, you might want to get up to speed now.

See you soon.

An interesting admission and EPH analysis

I have to admit, I’m a little surprised that the SJWs have been willing to be this blatant about their push to completely change the Hugo rules:

Andrew Hickey on June 24, 2015 at 5:51 am said:
[T]he point of the rules change isn’t to force “Day” to nominate a quota of Tor novels, or to affect people’s nominations in any way. It’s only meant to stop him having disproportionate power.

Oh, is that all? They were fine with Tor wielding disproportionate power with its little 40-bloc vote, and reasonably so because prior to Scalzi and his greedy “award pimpage”, Tor was always circumspect about quite literally letting other people win from time to time, but it’s when the Puppies show up with seven times that number, suddenly change is needed.

If I simply wanted to win a Hugo, I would have done what Jim Hines and Kameron Hurley did and picked off one or two of the easier ones like Fan Writer or Related Work by following the Scalzi model. Contra the constant SJW denials, people have been utilizing tightly focused bloc votes for decades, it’s just been hidden by the Worldcon counters. Note the Rosenberg votes in the 1984 example. I know of at least 12 other cases of focused bloc votes, in several cases directly from the Hugo nominee’s mouth who orchestrated the vote.

It’s not irrelevant to note that Joel Rosenberg had 19 bullet votes at
this stage (a few of whom had voted for other less popular candidates as
well), and that these included ten voters with consecutive membership
numbers who cast nominating votes identically for him in this category
and for a novel called The Sleeping Dragon and a short story called “The Emigrant”. You’ll never guess who those works were by.

Instead, I made about the biggest splash possible. Naturally, they conclude that this must mean that I want ALL THE HUGOS even though I didn’t nominate myself in numerous categories for which I was eligible. You would think that at some point, in the midst of all the angst and hysteria, they would stop and think for two seconds about what I meant by my statement that I will not destroy the Hugos, I will make them do it. Anyhow, we know better than to expect reason, coherence, or even the simple truth from SJWs

JJ on June 24, 2015 at 6:22 am said:
Well, the Gallo thing has pretty much run its course now, and the “boycott” of Tor has turned out to be an utter dud, and all the commenters here at File770 are talking more and more about books and paying less and less attention to the Puppies.

What is amusing is that this comment was immediately preceded by:

  • 28 comments about me and the Puppies
  • 5 comments about books

SJWs always lie.

One of the more amusing aspects of File 770 is the way that the commenters there are both a) absolutely obsessed with me and b) hell-bent on denying that I am of any import whatsoever. So they repeatedly claim that they just want to talk about books while mostly talking about the Puppies; in the meantime, nary a link in the round-up has anything to do with anything that isn’t related to me, the Puppies, or the Torlings dutifully doing exactly what I assumed they would do from the start, which is destroy the village in the name of saving it.

I find the EPH proposal to be very promising in this regard, as it is designed by the Torlings at Making Light to permit Tor Books to avoid being shut out in the future and ensure it at least one nomination per category every year. Of course, it will hand the Puppies the same fixed claim on the Hugos, which will gradually turn the award into a five-faction competition, perhaps four if we continue to build our numbers to the point where we can reliably lay claim to two nominations per category. It’s a very parliamentarian proposal.

It means that DAW and some of the other smaller publishers had better decide quickly whether they are better off fighting amongst themselves for the 2-3 open slots or fight the proposal, because if EPH passes, some of them will never see another Hugo nomination after 2017… unless the TORlings are willing to give up one of their own seats on what will effectively be the Hugo Security Council.

It’s telling that the Torlings would rather hand us the equivalent of a permanent nomination slot than compete directly with us. It demonstrates that for all of the bluster and splashing about of the small fry, the bigger fish in the little SF pond realize that the Puppies are a serious force with which they must expect to reckon indefinitely.

I am neither endorsing nor opposing EPH or any other rules changes this year. The reason is that when those rules changes implode the awards as I anticipate, I want all responsibility for the changes to be credited to those who proposed and voted for them.

Science is not a reliable guide

The problem with appealing to science isn’t limited to the problem of deriving “ought” from “is”. It is that the human element corrupts the process to the point that one cannot reasonably expect to rely upon science to accurately relate “is” any longer, barring exogenous real-world confirmation:

If you want to see just how long an academic institution can tolerate a string of slow, festering research scandals, let me invite you to the University of Minnesota, where I teach medical ethics.

Over the past 25 years, our department of psychiatry has been party to the following disgraces: a felony conviction and a Food and Drug Administration research disqualification for a psychiatrist guilty of fraud in a drug study; the F.D.A. disqualification of another psychiatrist, for enrolling illiterate Hmong refugees in a drug study without their consent; the suspended license of yet another psychiatrist, who was charged with “reckless, if not willful, disregard” for dozens of patients; and, in 2004, the discovery, in a halfway house bathroom, of the near-decapitated corpse of Dan Markingson, a seriously mentally ill young man under an involuntary commitment order who committed suicide after enrolling, over the objections of his mother, in an industry-funded antipsychotic study run by members of the department.

And those, unfortunately, are just the highlights.

The problem extends well beyond the department of psychiatry and into the university administration. Rather than dealing forthrightly with these ethical breaches, university officials have seemed more interested in covering up wrongdoing with a variety of underhanded tactics. Reporting in The Star Tribune discovered, for example, that in the felony case, university officials hid an internal investigation of the fraud from federal investigators for nearly four years.

This is why religion and philosophy will always trump science. Due to the human element of scientistry and its obvious susceptibility to corruption, science that has not yet reached the level of reliability and credibility we call “engineering” simply does not merit being taken seriously by anyone who is not a professional scientist.

Stage 2: snail mail

Since Macmillan has yet to respond to any of the many emails it has received from hundreds of people, it’s now time to take things to Stage 2 of the Tor Books boycott. Mail a handwritten postcard or index card to each of the following three individuals informing them that as long as Irene Gallo is employed by Tor Books or Tor.com, you will not be purchasing any books published by Tor Books.

Rhonda Brown
Executive Director of Legal Affairs for Employment
Macmillan
175 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10010
United States of America

Andrew Weber
Chief Operating Officer
Macmillan
175 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10010
United States of America

Tom Doherty
Publisher
Tom Doherty Associates
175 Fifth Avenue,
New York, NY 10010
United States of America

After you have mailed each of the three individuals, send me an email with STAGE 2 in the subject. We know that Serious Matters are being discussed at Tor; even though nothing appears to be happening from the outside there is quite a bit going on behind the scenes. These things take time, and especially with the CEO gone until next month, Macmillan is much less likely to act in anything but a deliberate manner. Someone has already reined in Moshe Feder on more than one occasion, and an anti-GamerGate rant on Tor.com was quickly taken down, so its clear that Macmillan is taking the matter seriously, but until they send Gallo on her way it will be clear that they are not taking it seriously enough.

Of course, if the executives have any sense at all, they will terminate Patrick Nielsen Hayden’s employment as well, given that he is the individual primarily responsible for the insane SJW crusade that Gallo and Feder have confused for their professional responsibilities. As for me, my position remains the same.

Until Irene Gallo and Patrick Nielsen Hayden are no longer employed by Tor Books or Tor.com, I will not:

  1. Purchase any books published by Tor Books
  2. Read any books published by Tor Books

Given (2), this means that if Ms. Gallo and Mr. Nielsen Hayden are still employed by Tor Books in 2016, I will not nominate any books published by Tor Books for any awards.

It’s interesting, is it not, to contrast the way in which Walmart, Amazon, and Ebay were so quick to respond to totally nonexistent pressure to stop selling Confederate flag-related material with Macmillan’s non-response to receiving thousands of emails. This is the difference that SJW entryism makes. I’ve seen the BBC “react” and change its policies due to “outrage” that was later reported to be a grand total of 17 complaints.

In any event, the word is spreading. Reaxxion editor Matt Forney wrote about the boycott yesterday at Return of Kings:

Since Grant launched his boycott of Tor on Friday, it’s picked up steam among Sad and Rabid Puppies supporters and drawn the opprobrium of SJWs, who’ve launched a “buy-cott” in response (complete with fake Twitter accounts in support). Vox Day has been one of the most vocal supporters of the boycott, pointing to libelous comments made by another Tor editor, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, and how both his and Gallo’s remarks violate Macmillan’s (Tor’s corporate parent) code of conduct.

SJWs’ panicked response to the Tor boycott is yet more evidence of how hypocritical and lacking in honesty they are. Leftists are happy to launch boycotts against companies whenever their employees make “racist,” “misogynist” or “homophobic” comments: indeed, instigating witch hunts against those they deem “bigots” is practically a sport among the left. But when one of their own is targeted, these fearless moral crusaders suddenly cry foul.

As has Allen Davis at the influential libertarian site LewRockwell.com:

I have always preferred Robert Heinlein to Marion Zimmer Bradley, Robert Forward to Samuel Delaney, and, more recently, John C. Wright to John Scalzi and “A Throne of Bones” to “Game of Thrones.”  Somehow, those preferences in science fiction and fantasy apparently make me something other than a “science fiction fan”–at least in the eyes of the current science fiction establishment.  And, in the opinion of some, they make me a pariah, a “heretic against the true church of science fiction.”

At least, now I know I’m not the only one.