Every time John Scalzi bans one book, two more appear in its place.
VFM is Hydra
Sneaky little hobbitses
Nero’s reflections after a year of covering #GamerGate:
Despite the common stereotypes of gamers as losers, nerds and shut-ins, gamers proved to be the perfect opponents for cultural authoritarians. The left relies on destroying the reputations of their opponents — but how do you destroy the reputations of people who have been ridiculed as often as gamers? When you’re already hated by the left, the right, and the media, the only way to go is dank.
Gamers also benefited from being one of the few genuine grassroots communities, with few leaders and no official structures. Unlike the tedious “movements” that regularly emerge from college campuses – whether Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) or Slut Walks – the gamers have no radical ideology.
They are ordinary, in some cases really quite apolitical, people, brought together by a shared hobby. They have no grand social objective beyond protecting the medium they love from authoritarian scolds and they cannot be neatly categorised.
The more you try to paint gamers as basement-dwelling straight white nerds, the more paraplegic black lesbian World of Warcraft addicts come tumbling out of the woodwork. (Is that offensive to dykes? I have no idea. Nor would the lesbians in GamerGate give a flying toss.)
One of the features of GamerGate is that it includes people from every background imaginable. A survey on GamePolitics found a broad mix of liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. Gamers don’t care if you’re black, white, gay, straight, or disabled. All that matters is that you know how to game. They’ll even welcome right-wing bastards like me.
That kind of diversity and tolerance — the genuine kind — frightens cultural authoritarians, not just because they are so mercilessly intolerant to their opponents, but also because it undermines their view of the world. Gaming is that most hated of words in identity politics: a meritocracy. Who you are is unimportant. All that matters is what you know, what you can do, and if you’re being honest with yourself and others about those two things.
It’s interesting to see how many people who actually take the time to listen to #GamerGate, pay attention to the interactions between #GamerGate and our enemies, and learn the substantive issues involved eventually end up declaring themselves full-fledged members of #GamerGate.
So, welcome to the Shire, Gandalf the Gay.
The one thing that the SJWs simply did not understand is that for the average gamer, the gamer identity supersedes all his other identities. Oliver Campbell is a black GAMER. Brixton is a female GAMER. I am a Native American GAMER. The SJWs misapplied their identity politics to the subject; they assumed race and sex, the identities we did not choose for ourselves, were more important than the identity that every single gamer has chosen and made his lifestyle. They focused on the adjectives, never realizing that what we value is the noun.
Meanwhile, the SJWs are, in addition to opposing #GamerGate, standing up for tranny pedophiles. Seriously. And to think there were those who thought I was going too far when I referred to Mr. Sandifer as Peddy Phil.
Everyone needs a hobby
This meme brought to you courtesy of Aaron S. Coming soon: All the Rapes of Westeros: An Encyclopedia of Sexual Assault Fantasies by G. Rape Rape Marten. Complete with illustrations drawn in crayon by the author. And by “soon”, I mean sometime in the next seven or eight years.
Sailer solves the Syrian refugee crisis
It’s a humane and entirely practical solution too. No more drowned little kids. Who could possibly object?
There’s much discussion in the press about where it would be best for Arab refugees from Syria to settle: Would they be best off in Munich? London? Reykjavik? Or Minneapolis? Which white people most need the blessings of diversity provided by Sunnis and Shi’ites? (Obviously, Syrian Arabs couldn’t go to other Arab countries like Qatar. Don’t be silly.)
The sophisticated reasoning of 2015 is that if you and your countrymen blow up your own country through your sheer mutual bloodymindedness, you therefore have an unassailable moral claim to inhabit the nicest countries on other continents. If you are a young fellow in your prime, why should you have to settle for a refugee camp in neighboring Turkey when there are Swedish girls unmolested in Malmo and English girls unpimped in Rotherham?
Think of the children!
Granted, most of the other times the West has imported lots of Muslims, we just wound up with dead cartoonists and gang-raped 12-year-old girls all over the place.
But, that’s irrelevant, because This Time Will Be Different!
Why?
Because. Just because.
Or maybe just because you shouldn’t mention the other times. It’s not nice.
Yet, it only now occurred to me that there is a place that would be ideal for Syrian refugees.
The Golan Heights. And, if necessary, Qatar. I understand that Hungary has relaxed its attempts to stop the invasion of its borders because it is planning to begin mass deportations of all of its illegal migrants soon. Perhaps the Hungarians can simply fly them to the Golan Heights. After all, they are mostly women and children seeking safety and a better life, so they couldn’t possibly cause any problems there, right? I received an email from a Hungarian reader yesterday.
Very much looks like, that in a couple weeks Hungary will seriously close the border. As you may know, they are building a wall, which so far has been easily overrun, police are not even putting up resistance.
Meanwhile, they are changing laws, including some laws that need a “constitutional majority” in parliament, meaning that the army will have the right to intervene in border protection, looks like they will have the right to use teargas, rubber bullets, a net that can be thrown on an escaping person, police will have the right to search houses with no warrant.
They are making illegal border crossing a crime, punishable by instant deportation.
They will make makeshift camps right next to the border, crossers will be put there, not into camps that are inside the country. One spokesman (Gergely Gulyás) said that number of illegal migrants may go down to zero after Sept 15th.
This is a very good sign. Because if the mass deportations of migrants don’t begin soon, worse things will before much longer. As for the humanitarians, note that 4,000 people have drowned trying to cross the sea to Europe this year. Thousands of people are dead because the humanitarians weren’t willing to sink the first 10 boats and make it clear that no one would be permitted to invade Greece and Italy from the sea.
It’s a good thing surgeons aren’t humanitarians. “Well, I’d sure like to do something about that malignant tumor, but cutting you with a knife would hurt you so I can’t do it in good conscience. Good luck!”
You can’t ban love
It should be absolutely fascinating to see John Scalzi trying to talk Amazon into banning another book, this one called JOHN SCALZI BANNED THIS BOOK and published by “451 Publishing”.
The quote cracked me up: “I obviously reported it to Amazon as inappropriate.” Popehat, can we get a verdict on this one too? Is it parody or libel?
In any event, if you missed your opportunity to buy the banned 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 before it was banned, don’t worry, you can still buy John Scalzi Banned This Book But He Can Never Ban My Burning Love: A Pretty, Pretty Girl Dreams of Her Beloved While Pondering Gender Identity, Social Justice, and Body Dysmorphia. I’m told it has just as many Chapter Fives.
A blazingly inventive parody that was banned by John Scalzi, despite Ms.
Eren being a huge Scalzi fan and an unemployed transgendered
up-and-coming romance author who needed the money so xe could one day
buy xerself a big, beautiful lawn of xer own. Soon to be nominated for
the Hugo, don’t miss the story of a love so bold it broke the Internet!”
As you might expect, the SJWs are back on their fainting couches. From File 770:
Gabriel F. on September 2, 2015 at 9:05 pm said:
The fact that John Scalzi is a Rapist was even briefly a bestseller is horrifying.
But wait, there’s more! SJWs Never Lie: Censorship is Tolerance! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!
Despite the claims of evil bigots, those who fight for social justice
never lie. And if they did, it would be for the right cause. The
once-proud title of Social Justice Warrior has been dragged through the
dirt of prejudice and hate long enough. Now, three prominent writers
speak out in its defense and on the public battles of our time:
“I, like, totally, don’t pay any attention to that racist, sexist,
homophobic douchevelociraptor Vox Day! Like, whatever, girl! Ten years
don’t… mean… nothing! Sashay, snap!”
-Brianna Scalzi, 147-time Hugo-nominated author of ‘Old Trope’s War’
Scalzi 451
Allum Bokhari reports on the cultural war burning up the Kindle Store for Breitbart.
The online culture wars have moved out of comment sections and into Amazon’s Kindle Store.Following the publication of a book by the controversial sci-fi
author Vox Day, two parody e-books surged to the top
of the store’s top-100 rankings. The first book was a parody of Day’s
work, while the other (which has now been removed from Amazon) mocked
John Scalzi, one of Day’s critics.Day’s book is entitled “SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police”,
and is intended to be a serious polemic. The book’s summary describes
SJWs (Social Justice Warriors — a term for authoritarian progressive
activists) as having “plagued mankind for 150 years” and describes how
they “invaded one institution of the cultural high ground after
another.” It presents itself as a guide to “understanding, anticipating,
and surviving SJW attacks.”The book includes a foreword from Breitbart associate editor Milo Yiannopoulos and was reviewed positively in the conservative online magazine American Thinker.
Online progressives were not so supportive. Alexandra Erin, a sci-fi
writer who described Day’s book as “rehashing old slights”, wrote a
short parody of the book for Kindle. Entitled “John
Scalzi Is Not A Very Popular Author And I Myself Am Quite Popular: How
SJWs Always Lie About Our Comparative Popularity Levels,” the book makes fun of Day’s alleged fixation with the progressive sci-fi author John Scalzi.Scalzi himself appeared to be delighted with the parody, saying he “loved it already.” He used the book in a fundraising drive
for a charity promoting diversity at sci-fi conventions, promising to
release an audio recording of him reading the book if $2,5000 was raised
within three days. The target was successfully met, and
Scalzi subsequently uploaded an audio recording.Supporters of Vox Day responded by releasing their own parody book, entitled “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.”The counter-parody was removed by Amazon today following complaints from Scalzi. Prior to its removal, it was the top seller in the “parodies” section of the Kindle store, two places ahead of Erin’s book.
Does Scalzi ever think through the obvious consequences of his actions? I mean, I know I literally wrote the book on it and all, but it was supposed to be RHETORIC. But wow just wow, SJWs really do always double down.
Why Johnny can’t sue
It clearly grieves Ken of Popehat to have to give McRapey the bad news, but let’s give the man credit for his professional integrity anyhow:
So: here is the short answer. The book title is almost certainly
parody protected by the First Amendment, because an audience familiar
with the circumstances would recognize it as parody and not as an
assertion of fact.The factors point very strongly to the book being treated as parody, and protected by the First Amendment, rather than as a defamatory statement of fact. With all respect to Scalzi, his question is wrong: you can’t analyze the book title in isolation. You have to look at it in the context of the whole. In that context, the intended audience (both fans of Beale and fans of Scalzi) would recognize it as a reference to Beale’s tiresome meme. Plus, the Amazon description explicitly labels it as “a blazingly inventive parody,” and the descriptive text is mostly nonsensical and evocative of ridicule of “SJW” concerns, and references some of the topics that anger Beale’s coterie in connection with Scalzi like the Hugo Awards.
I think this one is protected parody, and I don’t think it’s a very close call.
I’m not even remotely surprised; it was a stupid question in the first place. I suppose that leaves lobbying Amazon to ban books that make fun of John Scalzi, which I tend to doubt will be a successful strategy. UPDATE: Amazon just pulled down 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
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,736 Paid in Kindle Store
#1 in Humor & Entertainment > Humor > Parodies
#1 in Kindle Short Reads > 30 minutes (12-21 pages) > Humor & Entertainment
#2 in Nonfiction > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Political
Fascinating, in light of how Is George Bush a War Criminal and Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Paula Deen is a Big Fat Idiot are still available for sale there. I wonder who will be the next target of these dread parodists? McCreepy? Mary Three Names? George Rape Rape Martin?
They may own the mainstream media, but all their public persona now belong to us.
John Scalzi @scalzi
Just confirmed: That silly book with the silly title defaming me appears to be off of Amazon. In the US, at least.
John Scalzi @scalzi
We’ll see how long that lasts. I imagine someone might try to upload it again.
John Scalzi @scalzi
However, let me without reservation express my thanks to @amazon for dealing with that nonsense quickly. It’s appreciated.
John Scalzi @scalzi
Awwwwww, now the dudes who don’t understand what censorship is are ALL ANGWY AT ME.
Yes, I can’t imagine there won’t be any more parodies published about SFWA’s most prominent book banner. Of course, as Popehat told Scalzi, the book was not defaming him. SJWs always lie.
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.