A seaborne invasion

Why are these murderous invaders being permitted to enter the West at all? Who is under any illusion that they will behave any differently once they possess the sort of power they presently have in the lands they are trying to escape?

Muslims who were among migrants trying to get from Libya to Italy in a boat this week threw 12 fellow passengers overboard — killing them — because the 12 were Christians, Italian police said Thursday. Italian authorities have arrested 15 people on suspicion of murdering the Christians at sea, police in Palermo, Sicily, said.

If the first ten invading ships had been sunk, none of this would be happening now. There are problems that will go away in time. This is not one of them. This is the sort that is absolutely guaranteed to get worse, the longer it goes unaddressed.


Messages from the SJWs

A number of writers have some messages for Straight White Male publishing:

1. “Diversity is not publishing the one story. It’s publishing multiple stories from people of diverse backgrounds.”
—Karissa Chen

2. “My main characters are not always black.”
—Sophfronia Scott

3. “Read less straight white men.”
—Natalie Eilbert

4. “We read. (And buy books.)”
—Lisa Lucas

5. “Get over it.”
—Susan Orlean

6. “Be honest.”
—Yahdon Israel

7. “Listen.”
—Lauren Hilger

8. “We owe you nothing.”
—Amanda Bullock

9. “Grow up.”
—Roxane Gay

10. “Look out the window.”
—Jane Ciabattari

11. “Sit down and let us abolish you.”
—Franny Choi

12. “Ain’t nobody got time for that!?!”
—Ru Freeman

13. “Chill.”
—Morgan Parker

14. “Asian American author with an Asian American editor.
—Matthew Salesses

15. “She’s coming for you.”
—Emily Bell and Amelia Gray

16. “Plz stop.”
—Rowan Hisayo Buchanan and T Kira Madden

17. “We are not tokens.
—Rowan Hisayo Buchanan and T Kira Madden

18. “You have not doomed us. You’ve doomed yourselves.”
—Saeed Jones

19. “Pay attention to the world. (—Susan Sontag)”
—Jynne Dilling Martin

20. “Hire women. Diversity makes you strong.”
—Annelies Zijderveld

21. “We don’t need you.”
—Jayson P. Smith

22. “Take a vacation (a long one).
—Chelsea Reimann and Meg Day

23. “Don’t assume that you are at the center.”
—Cheryl Strayed

Are you still buying the “oh, we are just poor homeless writers who only want to join the discourse and find a place at the table” propaganda? They are fascists, they want control, and any publisher who was foolish enough to permit these entryists a place at the table will soon find that he’s been pushed to the side, if he hasn’t been already.

Diversity is self-destruction, because a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Meanwhile, publishing is actually 74 percent female and rising. As recently as 2010, the industry was 70 percent female.

It’s no secret that lots of women work in publishing. But just how
many more women work in publishing than men? In PW’s recent Salary
Survey (Aug. 2) one statistic stuck out: 85% of publishing employees
with less than three years of experience are women.

Total Responses: 1,584
70% Female 30% Male

Under 3 Years Experience: 164
85% Female 15% Male

3 to 6 Years Experience: 388
82% Female 18% Male

That was then. This is now: “Women accounted for 74% of the publishing workforce and men only 26%.”


Of Lew and Hugo

Allan Davis informs libertarians about the Hugo Awards:

Larry Correia, Brad Torgerson, Vox Day, and all of the other “Puppies” supporters set out to demonstrate that the Hugo process was politicized and broken.  They said that if authors were nominated who didn’t “fit the mold,” who weren’t approved by the ruling faction, they would be blacklisted, ostracized, insulted, and deliberately voted dead last, regardless of what they had written or how well it was done.  Their predictions have come true, and they have proven their point admirably.

Libertarians, and especially science fiction fans with libertarian leanings, should pay particular attention to the Puppies campaigns.  Like last year’s Gamersgate controversy, the Puppies drew a line in the sand–a stopping point in the ongoing culture war between individualists and statists, between the people who believe in freedom of expression and the mindless drones who believe in political correctness.

Brad Torgerson makes the point perfectly: 

    Folks, until or unless political correctness is given the boot, this kind of stuff isn’t going to stop. It won’t be just me getting the torch. It will be you too. You other authors, and you other fans. Political correctness has a bottomless stomach, and is red in tooth and claw. Even if you try to appease the beast, it will eat you eventually anyway.

The rage of the Left is considerable, but it is to be expected. And celebrated, because they are only smiling when the Right is going down to its customary Noble Defeat.

They will point-and-shriek, they will bluff and bully, and they will play divide-and-conquer. They’ve been trying to isolate me, a Sigma, for ten years now. (Oh no, a briar patch!) Now they’re back at it again, little realizing that giving me more freedom of movement is not exactly something I regard as a problem. We are so far ahead of them in the OODA loop that it will likely astonish you once the next stages become apparent.

The most important thing to keep in mind is this: if they’re not shrieking, we’re not winning. And speaking of Brad, he has an excellent post up highlighting what both Larry and I have already said. He is not me. He is not responsible for me. He does not answer for me. And I can only smile to see the cowards of the other side desperately trying to get them to take me on because they are afraid to do it themselves.

The Sad Puppies are not Rabid. We are. And of course, as this comment shows, the other side has very good reason to be afraid:

After seeing last nights events I really started losing heart. I feel a little better today, but it’s just too much pain to deal with over the last month to really put any effort into looking far enough ahead to the possibility of light somewhere, someday. It was bad enough when it was Damien Walter, the HuffPo and Daily Kos spreading the disinformation, lies and character assassination, but when Davidson, Willis, GRRM, and others that are supposed to be some of the TOP PROFESSIONALS OF THEIR FIELD do it I have a hard time seeing the hope. All I can see right now is that Vox wins, no matter what. His slate of nominees win: he wins. The SJWs get enough votes together to burn it down this year with No Award and Vox wins. Worse, if that happens, Vox gets enough followers together next year, and possibly decades afterwards and No Award takes all the categories going forward.

Imagine that. A professional game designer, an elite wargamer who specializes in one of the most complex wargames ever developed, a student and editor of two of the finest strategic minds on the planet, might be able to construct a Xanatos Gambit? You don’t say.

Let them lie. Let them disinform. Let them assassinate my character for, what is it now, the 7,436th time?  After all, are we not reliably informed that what is dead may never die, but rises again, harder and stronger. And again. And again.

It will take a long time, but trust me, if you thought this exploit was even remotely amusing, you’re going to love what is coming down the pike in the 2017 timeframe. There are some pieces that still need to come together – the execution is always in the details – but if it works as designed, it will be beyond epic.

And if you’re not part of the Rabid Puppy pack yet, join Sasquan before July. Whether Jim Butcher or John Wright or Noah Ward walks off with the plastic rockets, you’ll want to say that you were there for Rabid Puppy 2015: the Ravening.


The Sinister Stone

I backed this kickstarter today from Autarch, The Sinister Stone of Sakkara. For the gamers here, you should check it out. They do quality stuff that isn’t generic:

The default setting of ACKS, the Auran Empire, was also designed to support the player characters’ advancement from adventurer to king. The Auran Empire setting was inspired by the collapsing empires of earth’s Late Antiquity (250 – 750 AD), a turbulent era in which ancient glories were drowned in a torrent of violence. However, in the Auran Empire setting, the horror of civilization’s imminent collapse is worsened by the existence of nightmarish evils lurking in the world’s dark places, threatening to strike mankind at its weakest moment. The established leadership is too preoccupied by the empire’s political and military downfall to take these shadowy threats seriously, leaving them to be handled by adventurers, fortune-hunters, and would-be heroes. The adventurers’ success in dealing with such threats is, however, what garners them the fame, wealth, and strength they need to take power and restore order. Of course, the adventurers are not certain to win; indeed, the odds are stacked against them.

The premises underlying ACKS’ setting are evident throughout The Sinister Stone of Sakkara, most notably in its backstory. The adventure begins with local hamlets and villages suffering from beastman raids because the troops that ought to be protecting them have been sent to stem an invasion at another border. With the local military barely able to garrison its strongholds, it falls to the adventurers to deal with the monstrous threat.

The setting premises are also evident in the design of the dungeon itself. The upper level of the dungeon was inspired by real-world ancient architecture, and the brigands and beastly barbarians that populate it would not be unfamiliar to any Late Roman centurion (albeit the barbarians who menaced Rome were only figuratively beastly). Conversely, the lower level of the dungeon is a warren of weird horror wherein lurks an insidious evil that is far more threatening than mere beastmen. The dungeon thus represents the Auran Empire setting in microcosm – visibly endangered by mundane threats, appallingly imperiled by hidden horrors.

What I like about ACKS is the way it incorporates a military aspect into the role-playing. The world isn’t all random events, and you get the sense that things happen for a reason there, even if you have no idea what that reason is.


Two tribes and an alien invasion

Brad Torgersen explains his view of tribalism in science fiction:

The Hugos (and the Worldcon tribe alike) brand the Hugo as the award for the entirety of SF/F: books, stories, movies, television, music, art, you name it. This is not just the totem of the single SF/F tribe. This is the totem of all the SF/F tribes.

But the single tribe (Worldcon) wants the exclusive right to decide how the totem gets distributed — to which tribe members, and for what kinds of work.

It’s the totem of all, but to be decided by only some.

That — right there — is the root of the conflict. Totem of of all, decided by some. Sad Puppies 3 (and to a certain extent, Sad Puppies 2 and Sad Puppies 1) made the audacious claim that the totem for all, should be decided by all. Anyone willing to pay the poll tax (Worldcon membership) should have a say. We invited everyone to the democratic process. We didn’t care who was or was not in the “tribe” of World Science Fiction Society. This is the totem of all! And the rules pretty much make it so that all can participate!

But the Worldcon tribe — or at least certain vocal members within the tribe — have gone full-retard-tribal about the affront to “their” award, and “their” convention. So it’s tribe-vs-tribe. Are you in-tribe or out-tribe? How can anyone tell? Are you “of the body” of the tribe? Were you inculcated? No? Then what the hell are you doing coming to our tribal ground and fucking with our totem? It’s ours, dammit! Not yours! Ours!!

Protestations about propriety are merely bureaucratic dressing for tribal reactionary mud-slinging.

Mud-slinging which was taken to the broader media by a few tribe-members determined to “nuke” us invaders: Sad Puppies.

But not just us alone. We were almost incidental. The partisans of the Worldcon tribe had a more serious foe in mind.

Because of all the things most frightening to the Worldcon tribe, the worst are the Visigoths of Vox Day. Not just an out-tribe, Vox and his fans represent an explicitly war-like and hostile tribe, come to seize the totem by brute means. So, some of the Worldcon tribe said, “No, we will destroy the totem first, before we let the Visigoths have it!” To which the Visigoths and their heathen king Vox replied, “If you destroy it this year, we will most certainly destroy it next year — and there is nothing you can do to stop us!”

Now, the heathen king is terrifying to the Worldcon tribe. He is a literal barbarian. He talks and walks and threatens like a barbarian. He’s not precisely the guy anyone planned on walking through the democratic door. But because the Hugo voting process is democratic, nobody can be barred for purely tribal reasons. You pay your poll tax, you get a vote. The Worldcon tribe stares at both Sad Puppies 3 and the Rabid Puppies with equal dismay.

Brad’s analogy makes sense, for the most part, but it misses one crucial detail because he is not of the Rabid Puppies. We’re not the barbarians. As it happens, they are. We are a foreign culture, possibly less numerous, but with much better technology, discipline, and foresight. We appear hostile and warlike, to be sure, but only because our thinking and objectives are entirely alien to them. Not only do they not understand us, but they have not even made any effort to do so. Nor would it likely avail them much if they did, if this reaction by one member of the Worldcon tribe is any indication:

I think you really hit the nail on the head about tribalism. While I don’t feel tribalism in general about everyone different from me politically, I have felt very strong fear and vile about… that other guy, you know, the one who you won’t (and shouldn’t) unperson. 🙂 I have spent a lot of time on his blog and, to be frank, it terrifies me. It made me feel sick yet I couldn’t stop reading. I began going through his historical archives and a lot of his views on suffrage and marital relationships, in particular, made me feel nauseous. And what is the kneejerk reaction when someone like that makes us so sick… ban them, shun them, etc. And I think that is why GRRM asks you that question. Because He Who Should Not be Named isn’t just the “other side”, but someone who openly espouses, IMO, horrible, horrible views. I know he says that he doesn’t, but I can’t help but define his statements as misogynistic and racist.

Yet, the more I’ve thought about it, and read your words, I guess if you truly are going to be inclusive, that voice has the right to be heard as well, no matter how much it may scare or bother us. I personally believe that if we were to stop shouting about him as much or shouting at him and just back off and let him come and do what he wants, he actually would, in a way, “lose” some of his power.

When I said fear, I was trying to be more general of all of us on the left “side” but I’ll try to be more clear. I guess I fear the fact that such… Nasty sentiments still exist in this day and age. It’s hard for me to comprehend. It’s not just his views… It’s the very insulting terminology he uses. And again, this is from actually reading years worth of his posts. The comparisons to training a wife like an animal, insulting the physical features of women he deems unattractive, he is a very mean, cruel person and I feel fear that those mindsets and hateful way of speaking still exists. He also seems to feel pride in his hateful words.

For what it’s worth, I’ve also spent a lot of time reading Wright’s blog. Like I said, I was determined to do my research and not just repeat what others have said. In terms of Wright, I actually agree with you. While I obviously don’t agree with a lot of his views, I didn’t find him to be purposely mean at all. As you said, hate the sin, love the sinner. I have actually seen that Christian mindset in him, Brad, and others. Nothing about VD comes off as Christian. He is mean to people, plain and simple. Nothing to do with just disagreeing, he goes out of his way to call people fat, ugly women look like a tranny, and way too many other numerous comments. It actually emotionally hurt reading many of his blogs. I never felt that way reading Brad, Larry, or Wright, even if I didn’t agree with their view….

I have no real, actual complaint. I was just speaking of my perceptions.

Despite her pain and fear, the commenter is, surprisingly enough, correct for the most part. Silencing us is not an option. They have no power to do so. Shouting at us is pointless. We don’t listen to them or care what they say. Shouting about us is also pointless. That only spreads our message and wins us more sympathy within their own tribe and among their allies.

They’re in the position of Flatlanders attempting to defend against an opponent operating in three dimensions. We can come at them any time we want from directions they don’t even know exist. But we don’t need to come at them at all. We have our own objectives that they would not credit even if we explained them fully and in detail; they can no more grasp them than a Flatlander can comprehend a cube.

For example, I have repeatedly stated for more than a year now that I have no particular interest in the Hugo Awards. I still don’t. Had they simply voted my work last year into last place and left it at that, I would never have even looked at the Worldcon rules. But once I was accused of gaming the system to obtain a 6 of 5 reward, I naturally decided to take a look at them. The rest, everyone knows.

The Dread Ilk are not a barbarian tribe that wants to take the land of the Worldcon tribe. We are an advanced foreign civilization that is simply going about its business in what naturally appears to be an inexplicable manner. We’re quite content to leave the primitives alone so long as they stay out of our way, but if a few of them decide to loose arrows at us as we work, we will respond with lasers and cobalt bombs without even thinking twice about it. Or paying any attention to the collateral damage.

My advice to the Worldcon community is very simple: don’t dig the hole deeper. Don’t scream at us, don’t insult us, don’t “send a message”, just settle down and do what you’ve always done and vote for whatever works you find to be the best, or the least offensive. Smile and politely do your jazz hands if a few of ours happen to claim the totem this year. We have no intention of camping the Hugos unless you give us a reason to do so. I have absolutely no desire to ever have as many Hugo nominations as Arthur C. Clarke, let alone Robert Heinlein or Isaac Asimov, but annoy me enough and I promise you that I will end up with more than David Hartwell and Mike Glyer combined.

There is nothing to stop the Worldcon tribe from continuing to double-down until it is destroyed entirely. It’s their call. The situation rather reminds me of a conflict I once had with a very large, wealthy and arrogant publisher. All they had to do was send me a letter. A one-page letter. Nothing more. But they wouldn’t, for various reasons that mostly have to do with pride. They firmly believed that there was no way that two young game designers in Minnesota could do anything about it.

Eighteen months later, they gave me the letter, a very large check, and not long after, went out of business. All I wanted was a letter. And I got the letter, unfortunately, I had to publicly eviscerate a large publicly-traded company in order to get it. Plus hundreds of thousands of dollars for my trouble. Whether the Worldcon tribe stands down or doubles-down is largely irrelevant to me. I will achieve my objectives in either case. But I really would prefer to minimize any unnecessary collateral damage.


Accepted

An apology:

Marko Kloos, on April 16, 2015 at 1:32 am said:
On reflection: I apologize to Vox Day for calling him a shitbag. I loathe his politics and race diatribes, disagree with his theology, and have absolutely nothing in common with him philosophically, but there’s no reason to get uncivil and resort to name-calling.

It’s worth noting for the record that this marks the first apology I have ever received from an author in the science fiction community since my nationally syndicated op/ed column first came to the attention of Teresa Nielsen Hayden in March 2005.

There are many on the left who believe the mere fact that my beliefs exist and I dare to openly express them comprise a sufficient provocation in themselves, but it is as ridiculous to claim that being scientifically literate, historically aware, and logically correct can justify uncivility and name-calling as it would be to insist that I have the right to attack others in a vulgar manner simply because they happen to subscribe to Keynesian economics or advocate gun control.

So, rather than concerning yourself with the minutiae of Mr. Kloos’s apology or his decision to withdraw his nomination, reflect upon the difference between his actions and the actions of those with whom he makes his philosophical home. It took him less than four hours to do what many others have not done in more than ten years. So don’t hold it against him. I certainly won’t.

On an unfortunately tangential note, two more people have responded to Glenn Hauman’s call for posting fake reviews on Amazon. Jeromy Stone has posted a fake review of Mr. Wright’s AWAKE IN THE NIGHT LAND, of all things:

One Star
By jeromy stone on April 15, 2015
Format: Hardcover
trash

You know the drill. Report for Abuse and Inappropriate Content. The more strongly we respond to these attacks, the more likely it is that Amazon will eventually step in and do something serious about it.

Ugggggggh!

By phangirl on April 15, 2015
Format: Kindle Edition
Wow.
Call me underwhelmed. If you like purple prose, this is the book for
you. Bad writing plus bad editing makes for a bad book. Don’t waste your
money on this dog.

As phangirl is a fan of Jim C. Hines, I ask Mr. Hines to make a statement to his readers concerning his opinion of posting fake one-star reviews of other authors’ works on Amazon. I have no doubt that Mr. Hines opposes the practice, out of sheer common sense if nothing else, and I hope that he will see fit to tell phangirl and his other fans to cease and desist such antics. Meanwhile, Mark Rogers has posted a fake review of RIDING THE RED HORSE, as well as of three other Castalia House works all of them today.

One Star
By Mark Rogers on April 16, 2015
Format: Kindle Edition
Hateful drivel. Nazis will love it

I’m contacting Amazon today to ask them to investigate Glenn Hauman’s call for fake reviews. It is readily apparent that his malicious attempt to harm Castalia House’s business is having real and material effects on our book reviews and I note there is legal precedent in the UK addressing compensation for such activities. My personal opinion is that Amazon should not permit authors who post fake reviews or encourage others to do so to sell their books on Amazon. It will be interesting to learn Amazon’s opinion of the matter, considering that they recently sued some companies that provide fake reviews.

Here are five more posted yesterday by J. Carnell of Edinburgh, Scotland.

Hauman can disingenuously attempt to deny whatever he likes, but the fact is that he made the call and a number of fake reviewers promptly responded by posting fake reviews. It should be a simple manner to show that all of the fake reviewers read his call and responded to it, especially since at least one of those fake reviewers writes for the same site upon which he posted it.

So, Mr. Hauman, if you send me an email admitting that you called for fake reviews to be posted, apologizing for doing so, and asking both Amazon and your readers to take down the fake reviews posted after your piece entitled What Do You Do To Rabid Puppies? (Answer Below.), I will post it here, and the matter will be considered closed as soon as the fake reviews come down.


Annie Bellet withdraws

One of the 2015 Hugo nominees has withdrawn her short story from consideration:

I have withdrawn my story “Goodnight Stars” from consideration in this year’s Hugo Awards.

I want to make it clear I am not doing this lightly. I am not doing it because I am ashamed. I am not doing it because I was pressured by anyone either way or on any “side,” though many friends have made cogent arguments for both keeping my nomination and sticking it out, as well as for retracting it and letting things proceed without me in the middle.

I am withdrawing because this has become about something very different than great science fiction. 

 As has 2015 Best Novel nominee Marko Kloos.

It has come to my attention that “Lines of Departure” was one of the nomination suggestions in Vox Day’s “Rabid Puppies” campaign. Therefore—and regardless of who else has recommended the novel for award consideration—the presence of “Lines of Departure” on the shortlist is almost certainly due to my inclusion on the “Rabid Puppies” slate. For that reason, I had no choice but to withdraw my acceptance of the nomination. I cannot in good conscience accept an award nomination that I feel I may not have earned solely with the quality of the nominated work.

I also wish to disassociate myself from the originator of the “Rabid Puppies” campaign. To put it bluntly: if this nomination gives even the appearance that Vox Day or anyone else had a hand in giving it to me because of my perceived political leanings, I don’t want it. I want to be nominated for awards because of the work, not because of the “right” or “wrong” politics.

As to anyone feeling betrayed by this, don’t be. Leave them alone and respect their decision; do not criticize them for it. Regardless of why they chose to withdraw, that is their right and their choice, and it is neither a problem nor a concern of ours.

UPDATE: Marko Kloos wasn’t quite so judicious on Facebook, apparently.

My withdrawal has nothing to do with Larry Correia or Brad Torgersen. I don’t know Brad personally, but Larry is a long-time online acquaintance and friend. We’ve known each other since before our writing days. I have no issue with Larry or the Sad Puppies. I’m pulling out of the Hugo process solely because Vox Day also included me on his “Rabid Puppies” slate, and his RP crowd provided the necessary weight to the ballot to put me on the shortlist. I think Vox Day is a shitbag of the first order, and I don’t want any association with him, especially not a Hugo nomination made possible by his followers being the deciding factor. That stench don’t wash off.

What is with these SF writers and their absolute preoccupation with all things excremental anyhow?


Ukraine has consequences

I’m sure the Israelis are just delighted with this particular blowback from the neocon invasion of Ukraine:

Vladimir Putin blew a geopolitical raspberry at the Obama Administration on Monday by authorizing the sale of Russia’s S-300 missile system to Iran. The Kremlin is offering the mullahs an air-defense capability so sophisticated that it would render Iran’s nuclear installations far more difficult and costly to attack should Tehran seek to build a bomb.

· Feeling better about that Iranian nuclear deal now?

· The origins of this Russian sideswipe go back to 2007, when Moscow and Tehran signed an $800 million contract for delivery of five S-300 squadrons. But in 2010 then-President Dmitry Medvedev stopped the sale under pressure from the U.S. and Israel. The United Nations Security Council the same year passed an arms-embargo resolution barring the sale of major conventional systems to the Tehran regime.

· That resolution is still in effect, but the Kremlin no longer feels like abiding by it. With the latest negotiating deadline passed and without any nuclear agreement in place, Moscow will dispatch the S-300s “promptly” to the Islamic Republic, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

· So much for the White House hope that the West could cordon off Russia’s aggression against Ukraine while working with Mr. Putin on other matters. Russia and the West could disagree about Crimea and eastern Ukraine, the thinking went, but Washington could still solicit the Kremlin’s cooperation on the Iranian nuclear crisis.

Jerry Pournelle points out that it’s not that big a deal from a practical perspective, since any denuclearization attacks would likely have to be launched before the air-defense systems could reasonably be installed anyhow. And while he’s probably right, Putin’s action is yet one more reminder of how any US foreign policy that is not based first and foremost on the US national interest is bound to have unforeseen negative consequences, even for those who wish to manipulate it for their own ends.


Interview with the devil

John Brown rather commendably decided that he should learn exactly what I thought about various issues before leaping to any conclusions or judgments about me, and asked me a number of questions on some controversial subjects:

I just had a conversation with the devil.

Well, from what people have been posting, he seemed like the devil. But I know how the internet can be. Mitt Romney at one time was the devil. Now, I think he’s been degraded in those quarters to janitor of the hot place. Yeah, that one Romney who is out raising tons of money to help fix blindness among the poorest of the poor, that evil son-of-a-gun.

So when I saw there was a new head honcho in town, I decided to see what he was all about.

I did try reading various posts on the internet, but after a dozen or so of those, I realized it would just be easier to go to the source. And so I went to Vox Day’s website and clicked the contact link, which popped up an email.

I asked Day if he’d mind answering a few questions.

He agreed.

What you will read below is our conversation, arranged for easy reading.

Why am I doing this?

Well, who doesn’t want to scoop the devil? But beyond that, I agree with George R. R. Martin: internet conversations that are not moderated to maintain a tone of respectful disagreement are a bane upon us all. Actually, Martin said they were part of the devil’s alimentary canal, but I didn’t want to confuse the topic.

So I’d read a number of posts that Day had made and others folks had made about Day and saw all the bad juju going back and forth. And I wanted to know what this guy actually believed. Once I understood that, if I disagreed, then I could disagree in a way that I think is actually productive.

We talked about some of his views on two subjects—race and women. Are his ideas provocative? Well, you need to know what they are before you decide.

I thought he was mostly fair, if lamentably inclined to harbor some strong opinions about things he admitted to knowing nothing about. I did find it mildly amusing that my position of support for women voting in universal direct democracy is somehow taken to be more limiting of the electorate than a mere disagreement over where the precise line of the restrictions inherent in so-called representative democracy are best drawn.

As for his points about the rhetoric of offense, this bit actually made me laugh:

Offense closes both parties off to challenges, biases, and ideas. It
closes them off to new information. And new information is such an
integral part of learning.

That sounds nice and all, but I have a one-word rebuttal: Aristotle. As the readers here know, Mr. Brown’s point concerning how my rhetoric “dramatically undermines his ability to get others to consider his ideas, let alone believe them” does little more than inform us of his level of communication. And as you can see, while I provided him with the requested information, it did not change his mind. This is no surprise.


Kicked out of the warren

The atheists in Ireland found that PZ Myers’s relentlessly odious and bullying style was finally too much for them to take any longer:

Atheist Ireland is publicly dissociating itself from the hurtful and
dehumanising, hateful and violent, unjust and defamatory rhetoric of the
atheist blogger PZ Myers. The final of many, many straws were his
latest smear that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is ‘happily exploiting atrocities’,
and his subsequent description of Atheist Ireland’s chairperson as ‘the
Irish wanker’…

Some examples of his hurtful and dehumanising rhetoric
 

He said that ‘the scum rose to the top of the atheist movement’, that
it is ‘burdened by cretinous reactionaries’, that ‘sexist and
misogynistic scumbags’ are ‘not a fringe phenomenon’, and that if you
don’t agree with Atheism Plus, you are an ‘Asshole Atheist’. He agreed
that science fetishism reproduces the ‘white supremacist logic of the
New Atheist Movement.’ He said ‘I officially divorce myself from the
skeptic movement,’ which ‘has attracted way too many thuggish jerks,
especially in the leadership’.

He said Richard Dawkins ‘seems to have developed a callous
indifference to the sexual abuse of children’ and ‘has been eaten by
brain parasites’, Michael Nugent is ‘the Irish wanker’ and a ‘demented
fuckwit’, Ann Marie Waters is a ‘nutter’, Russell Blackford is a ‘lying
fuckhead’, Bill Maher’s date at an event was ‘candy to decorate [her
sugar daddy’s] arm in public’, Ben Radford is a ‘revolting narcissistic
scumbag’ and his lawyer is ‘J Noble Dogshit’, Rosetta scientist Matt
Taylor and Bill Maher are ‘assholes’, and Abbie Smith and her ‘coterie
of slimy acolytes’ are ‘virtual non-entities’. He called Irish blogger
ZenBuffy a ‘narcissistic wanker,’ after she said she has experienced
mental illness….

He also employs hate speech against Christians (‘I left the theatre
filled with contempt and loathing for Christians’), apocalypse-mongers
(‘they make me furious and fill me with an angry contempt’), ‘your
average, run-of-the-mill Christian’ (‘I despise Karen Armstrong almost
as much as I do Fred Phelps’), and several people who were organising a
prayer initiative (‘Jesus Christ but I hate these slimebags’ who are
‘demented fuckwits every one.’)

He uses violent rhetoric. He said ‘I’ve got to start carrying a knife
now’ to kill Christians if they pray instead of helping him while he is
dying. He said about a meal: ‘Don’t show up to pick a fight or we’ll
pitch you off a pier.’ When a Brazilian priest died in a charity
ballooning accident, he said ‘my new dream’ will be shooting priests out
of the sky from an aircraft. When a Christian shopkeeper apologised for
offending atheists, he refused to accept the apology, saying ‘No. Fuck
him to the ground.’ He would rather debate William Lane Craig in writing
‘where I can pin him down, stick a knife in the bastard, and twist it
for a good long while’. He praised a blog post that ‘shanks Thunderf00t
in the kidneys and mocks him cruelly’.

He has encouraged his blog commenters to ‘rhetorically hand [critics]
a rotting porcupine and tell you to stuff it up your nether orifice’.
They in turn have told people to ‘put a three week old decaying
porcupine dipped in tar and broken glass up your arse sideways’, to
‘fuck yourself sideways’ with a ‘rusty chainsaw’, ‘red-hot pokers’ or a
‘rusty coat hanger’, and to ‘go die in a fire. slowly. seriously’. More
recently he said of ‘faux-Vulcan shit’ that he encourages his
commentariat to ‘draw their knives and flense it so thoroughly the
dispassionate ass is feeling the pain in every nerve ending’.

You know PZ spiraled completely out of control when not a single example of his regular hate-on for me didn’t even make the Top 40 list. I quit paying attention to him years ago, and I’m a little sorry about that because it appears we missed some quality antics during that time.

On the plus side, at least he didn’t end up selling his corpulent body in a Las Vegas brothel. It could have been worse.

There is one interesting thing here. You’ve probably noticed that all the various calls for Larry Correia, Brad Torgersen, and others to disavow me are based on a very small number of cropped and ungrammatical quotes; they don’t even dare to quote a single complete sentence. And yet, there are no calls from public figures for Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris to disavow PZ Myers despite there being considerably more examples of considerably more objectionable public statements.

Why might that be?