Tag: debate

Aaron attempts to rationalize his own uselessness in the cultural war:

Danby, you’re just a partisan, like everyone else – you recognize no objective standards of honesty, or morality, rationality and merely wish to use naked aggression to support your cause, whatever it may be, rationality be damned. If that means banning someone who politely, intelligently, and honestly disagrees with you using logic and evidence, then rationality and fairness be damned.

I can’t respect that, but its human nature. I hold myself to a different standard of conduct than you and I am willing – I even feel I owe it to myself as someone with courage, strength, and nobility – to fight my enemies under the same overarching code of rationality and honesty that I hold myself to.

I’m not saying treat an enemy who has shown himself to be weak, scummy, and dishonest with rationality and honesty. Roosh, for instance, who has shown himself to be weak and dishonest, would simply be ignored by me.

But when I ban people for politely disagreeing with me I show MYSELF to be weak and pathetic. But this is an older tradition of thinking and feeling that seems to be dying out in the world, to be replaced by a tradition better fit for emotional weaklings like Roosh and those incapable of self-discipline.

It’s telling that Aaron thinks of himself as strong and noble when he is observably weak, self-centered, and feminine. This is what happens when white-knighting gammas venture forth from saving fair maidens from dragonish pick-up artists and enter the cultural wars.

What does a wartime general do when one of his soldiers doesn’t follow orders, but instead “politely, intelligently, and honestly disagrees using logic and evidence”? He has him shot for insubordination. Aaron is lucky this is only a cultural war at this point, and he’s only being banned by one of the leaders who is fighting it. To call someone like Roosh, who has taken more heat from the Left than anyone else I know, including me, an “emotional weakling”, is not only shamelessly dishonest, but downright laughable.

Aaron is a self-delusional liar. He wouldn’t ignore Roosh. In fact, he’s not ignoring him now, but repeatedly brought him up out of context here. Not only is Aaron projecting when he talks about Roosh being weak and dishonest, but his “overarching code of rationality and honesty” is obviously not something to which he actually holds himself.

We don’t need self-delusional nevilles on our side. They are literally worse than useless, always far more interested in trying to elevate their own relative stature by shooting at their own side instead of taking risks by taking on the other side. Roosh was obviously right to ban Aaron, and if he persists in attacking us rather than the SJWs, I won’t hesitate to do the same.

If Aaron genuinely wishes to be strong, rational, and self-disciplined, I would encourage him to revisit his assumptions in light of the way his behavior observably contradicts them. He should also recognize that focusing on the other side rather than tone-policing your own is not in any way tantamount to recognizing no “objective standards of honesty, or morality, rationality”.

When experience gainsays its conclusions. Ed Trimnell argues against fighting fire with fire:

I expressed my disagreement with Vox’s position on the Tor Books boycott…and Vox expressed his disagreement with my disagreement.

My dislike of boycotts remains.

I remember the mindless campaign orchestrated against Orson Scott Card a few years ago. Card’s sin was basically to express a view of marriage that was all but universal (including among liberals and Democrats) until ten years ago. Yet the SJW mobs did their best to silence Card, urging a nationwide boycott of the movie adaptation of Ender’s Game, and barraging the offices of DC Comics until Card was dropped from the company’s Superman project.

Ah, but that is exactly the point….say the forces behind the anti-Tor boycott. The SJWs do it.

I believe it is important to remember what separates the freethinkers from the SJWs. The freethinkers seek to outthink their opponents with a more persuasive argument in the marketplace of ideas.

The SJWs seek to silence their opponents through harassment and intimidation. (This should surprise no one, since the SJWs are almost all anti-market and anti-free speech.)

I can understand the sentiments of those who think it is best to fight fire with fire. This is not a frivolous position. Tor Books has allowed a handful of unprofessional, bigoted, and downright childish individuals to become associated with its brand.

It is right and fitting to speak out against John Scalzi, the Nielsen Haydens, Moshe Feder, and Irene Gallo.

And it should be understood from the outset that no argument will persuade these hardcore ideologues and their core supporters.

Nevertheless, the pro-freedom efforts should focus on defeating the arguments of the would-be thought police, not on silencing them.

And that’s the chief question: Are you going to out-argue them, or are you going to silence them?

In my estimation, out-arguing one’s opponents—rather than silencing them—is the course that will persuade the great mass of people on the fence.

And the great mass of people on the fence are the ones who will ultimately decide the outcome of this battle—both in science fiction and in the wider culture.

Mr. Trimnell is conclusively incorrect for two reasons, one practical and one logical, that are related. First, he completely ignores the fact that the freethinkers have out-argued the thought police for thirty years and have nevertheless continued to be harried from their jobs and from the public discourse without ever losing an argument. It accomplishes nothing to win minor battles while losing wars; he is attempting to overcome superior strategy with better tactics, which is a recipe for certain failure. What he believes separates the two camps is not only not important, it is totally irrelevant. Tactics are not strategy. Means are not objectives.

He says that in his estimation, “out-arguing one’s opponents—rather than silencing
them—is the course that will persuade the great mass of people on the
fence”. This is flat-out wrong. Mr. Trimnell cites no evidence for this charming and attractive article of faith, he cites no logic supporting it, and he may as reasonably have stated that so long as we refrain from doing anything that will offend the magic garden fairies, they will magically grant us ultimate victory in the end.

How did Brandon Eich fail to out-argue his opponents? How did the Nobel Laureates Tim Hunt and James Watson fail to make their cases? The fact is that one cannot out-argue anyone in debates that do not take place, debates that Mr. Trimnell knows very well, from personal experience, will never take place. He can attempt to out-argue me because I am willing to engage with him, debate him, and discuss our differences in a civil manner rather than pointing, shrieking, and summoning an Internet mob to shout him down, disqualify, and disemploy him. He simply cannot do the same with the people at TOR Books, among others. He knows that.

Furthermore, Mr. Trimnell is ignoring the wise advice of Aristotle. He is appealing to dialectic in a rhetorical battle where the greater part of those on the other side are not even capable of understanding that dialectic. That is why following his advice is a surefire way to ensure defeat.

I am offering a proven way to win, one that is both historically and logically sound. Mr. Trimnell is offering nothing but certain defeat because feels. He doesn’t like not feeling morally superior to the other side, so much so that he would rather lose than give up that feeling of superiority in order to meet the enemy head-on. I dislike boycotts too, much as General Ferguson disliked poison gas. But I dislike being methodically mobbed, disqualified, and disemployed even more, I dislike being falsely accused and blatantly lied about even more, so I am utilizing certain SJW tactics even more efficiently and more effectively than the SJWs can. Everyone else of influence on the Right should be doing the same.

Mr. Trimnell is, ironically enough, justifying my course of action by his own example. Consider: I have offered him a logically superior argument that he has not been able to rebut, which should be sufficient to convince him to endorse the boycott. And yet, he is not convinced because his opposition to it is not rational, it is emotional. How then are we to convince him without using rhetoric, which you may recall is simply an articulated form of emotional pressure?

Now, I am certainly not suggesting that we should mob him, disqualify him, or disemploy him. How could I wish him to be silenced when he has so artfully highlighted one TOR author’s preening hypocrisy? I am merely pointing out that in light of the failure of civility and rational argument to change his own mind, Mr. Trimnell cannot possibly expect the civility and rational argument he advocates to dissuade SJWs from utilizing their habitual and successful tactics.

When you cannot win by out-arguing, you must win by out-silencing. Or you will be silenced.

In which I explain why Ed Trimnell should endorse the TOR boycott:

First of all: I am on record as disagreeing with the positions of Patrick Nielsen Hayden and John Scalzi. (I’ve taken Mr. Scalzi to task on this blog many times.) I’m not as familiar with Moshe Feder and Irene Gallo. But what I have seen of them so far, I don’t evaluate favorably.

That said, I think the boycott is a bad idea. And here’s why:

I dislike the Internet mob—whether it is a rightwing mob, or a leftwing mob. I dislike the Internet’s hive mindset, which says:

“If you say something we don’t like, we’re going to whip up all of our minions into a frenzy, and then destroy your livelihood, or harass you into silence at the very least. Oh—and we’re going to do all of this anonymously, hiding behind bogus screen names, avatars, and IP addresses! And aren’t we courageous!”

That is, of course, exactly what the SJW crowd does. But I’m not one of them—and I’m not a joiner, either. Just because I disagree with John Scalzi & Co. doesn’t mean that I’m eager to flock to the banner of Vox Day and others on the far right.

(In fact, I think you’ll find that those on the far right and the far left of these Internet debates have actually achieved a sort of symbiosis—they are each dependent on the outlandish statements of the opposite group. But that’s another post.)

If Mr. Trimnell deplores the hive mindset and Internet mob tactics (and I see no reason not to take him at his word), then he should endorse the TOR boycott and join us. We are not a hive mind or a mob. We do not howl. We did not initiate the use of these mob tactics and we do not favor them as a first option. We prefer civil disagreement, dialectical discourse, and public debate, but as Mr. Trimnell knows very well, those are not credible options at the moment because the SJW crowd refuses to engage with us on such terms. They have left us literally no other choice except submitting to them, which will never happen.

Refusing to take a side and trying to remain above it all will no more bring an end to the tactics he dislikes than the League of Nations prevented World War II. Misbehaving bullies can only be stopped with superior force. To stop the lynch mobs, Mr. Trimnell should help us bring them to an end by multiplying our force. We will abandon the tactic as soon as the SJWs do… like Ronald Reagan with the Evil Empire, we will trust, but verify. But until the SJWs give up their rhetorical tactics of name-calling, marginalization, and disqualification, we will continue play by the Chicago Rules and exploit every mistake they make and every opening they give us. The TOR boycott is nothing more than holding TOR Books accountable for the wholly unprofessional behavior of its SJW employees, behavior that would have gotten a minimum-wage Walmart greeter fired on the spot.

Furthermore, there is no symbiosis. The SJWs are not dependent upon anyone’s outlandish statements; if an opponent has not said something objectionable, they will simply lie and claim he did, then run their usual insult-isolate-disqualify routine. We, on the other hand, have a rich and continuously replenished pool of outlandish statements from which to choose to use against them.

The second issue I have with the entire Tor kerfuffle (and similar online kerfuffles) is its evidence of the general decline in civility nowadays, and the unwillingness to engage in civil debate with those on the other side of an issue. The pattern on the Internet is for people to self-select into ideological echo chambers, usually centered around some charismatic blogger (such as a John Scalzi on the left, or a Vox Day on the right.)

This, admittedly, began with the so-called SJW (“social justice warrior”) faction, which achieved a podium on the Internet long before there were highly trafficked rightwing blogs (at least in the field of science fiction). John Scalzi loved having open comment threads for years, until his blog began to attract substantial numbers of people who failed to accept his received wisdom. Then he opted for his “mallet”, deleting comments en masse on the flimsiest of pretexts.

Mr. Trimnell graciously offered to referee a debate between Mr. Scalzi and me. I accepted. Mr. Scalzi declined. So Mr. Trimnell knows that his favored option is simply not a viable one. What I am offering is a viable tactic intended to force the SJWs to abandon their incivility and return to the more civilized norms that he favors. Given that he has no other options, I encourage him to rethink his position, endorse the boycott, and hold us accountable to lay down our arms should the SJWs eventually realize that they cannot win this sort of conflict and lay down their own.