Tag: debate

Wright vs Banks

Or if you prefer, Hugo nominee vs PhD. A few weeks ago, Phil Sandifer challenged me to a literary debate. He suggested we each select a work we particularly disliked that the other individual favored and take turns criticizing and defending it.

He chose the Hugo-nominated “One Bright Star to Guide Them” by John C. Wright. I selected one of the BBC’s top 100 novels, The Wasp Factory, by Iain M. Banks, which in my opinion is one of the worst books I have ever read. We’re doing the debate tonight, it will be recorded and broadcast later on “a lefty sci-fi podcast called Pex Lives”.

Phil is not what you would call one of my biggest fans, but he’s been here on and off of late and has comported himself impeccably, so it should be an interesting and civil discussion, if nothing else. We would appear to be rather more in his wheelhouse than mine, but it’s always interesting to venture out onto new ground.

Anyhow, I’ll let you know when the podcast is broadcast and will link to the transcript when it is available.

UPDATE: We went about 1:45 and while there was an amount of talking past each other, I think the discussion was fairly substantive on the whole. It definitely illustrated the size of the gap, or rather, massive chasm, that separates our opinions of what a good book is, but there was the occasional common ground to be found too.

I’ll leave it to the listeners to decide whose perspective was more compelling, but I was satisfied with both the case I made for “One Bright Star to Guide Them” as well as my case against The Wasp Factory. And while I don’t agree with either of Phil’s arguments, I now have a much better understanding of why he feels so differently about both works.

I will provide the links once Pex Lives provides them to me.

A lesson in rhetoric

VOX DAY:   Dialectic is based on the construction of syllogisms, so it’s very
obvious when one is lying. Rhetoric is “the faculty of observing in any
given case the available means of persuasion.”

It’s not even strictly true to say one CAN lie rhetorically, since an
enthymeme is not a true logical syllogism, all that matters is that the
persuasion is achieved by proof or apparent proof.”

It might be easier to think in terms of “logically sound” and “not
logically” sound than true and false. The point is that I can construct a
logical syllogism that proves or a pseudo-logical enthymeme that
apparently proves, but in either case, they point towards the relevant
truth of the matter.

For example, if I say “SJWs occasionally lie” in response to your
false statement, this is good dialectic but poor rhetoric that is likely
to fail to persuade a rhetorical of the actual truth, namely, that you
are lying in the present circumstance. The better rhetorical statement
is “SJWs always lie”, which is not dialectically true, but persuades the
rhetorical to believe the truth, which is that you are lying.

Hence the importance of knowing your audience. When you speak in
rhetoric to a dialectical, it sounds very dishonest even when it is good
rhetoric in line with the truth. But you can’t speak dialectic to a
rhetorical for the obvious reason that they cannot be persuaded by it.
They simply don’t have the capacity.

SETH GORDON: And yet, I remain unpersuaded. Either I am not “a rhetorical” or VD is not very competent at using rhetoric.

(That was a dialectical statement.)


“SJWs always lie. First, you all do care how I feel. That’s why you constantly twist and pervert and attack at every opportunity.”


Because, of course, it has to be all about VD, the man more popular
than John Scalzi, the man whose approval we all seek more than anything
else in the world.


(That was a rhetorical statement.)

VOX DAY: You are unpersuaded, but your inability to be persuaded by a
particular enthymeme does not mean you can be persuaded by a logical
syllogism. The first horn of the dilemma is false.

You are unpersuaded, but your inability to be persuaded merely means
that a single enthymeme failed to persuade a single individual. Since even
rhetorical masters fail to universally persuade everyone at all times,
this single failure of rhetoric on my part is insufficient to support
the claim of rhetorical incompetence. The second horn of the dilemma is
false.

You constructed a false syllogism, proposed a twice-false
non-dilemma, and your assertion of incompetence was meant to resonate on
the emotional level. Ergo your statement was not dialectic, but merely pseudo-dialectical rhetoric.

But yes, the rhetorical statement was rhetoric. One out of two isn’t bad.

Will, on the other hand, sticks to pure rhetoric and does rather better with it.

“Come on down to Rhetoricalville: We have no idea what we’re talking about it, but somehow, we’re happy and free of rabies.”

Bi-discoursality

It never ceases to confuse the rhetoricals. From the comments at File 770:

“Mr. Beale divides the world into two parts: “facts” and “rhetoric”. Where the dividing line in depends on where he’s been challenged, and what looks right at any given time, as far as I can tell.”

Not me, but Aristotle. I merely follow his lead in this regard. I strongly prefer dialectic, but that is reserved for those who are intellectually honest and capable of changing their minds on the basis of information. In general, I speak dialectic to those who communicate on that level and rhetoric to those who don’t.

Rhetoric, which is the form of discourse to which SJWs are limited, is not based on logic or reason, but emotion. However, because many SJWs attempt to cloak their rhetoric in pseudo-dialectic, I use the dialectic to strip them of their cloak on behalf of those capable of following it, while communicating directly in rhetoric to them.

For example, it is not strictly true in the dialectical sense, that SJWs never tell the truth. But as Aristotle tells us, the best rhetoric is rooted in truth, and the statement “SJWs always lie” rings emotionally true, because SJWs lie so often that it resonates with everyone who has been witness to their reliable dishonesty.

The interesting thing about rhetoric is that it makes no sense to those who are limited to the dialectic. I didn’t fully grasp the way it worked until reading RHETORIC for the second time. It can be bewildering when people tell you that they have been convinced by something that you know can’t logically have persuaded them. In such cases, you know they have been persuaded by rhetoric, not facts, reason, or logic.

I wouldn’t expect an individual who only speaks one form of discourse to be any more able to follow me into the other than if I abruptly switched to speaking Italian or French after beginning in English.

For example, this was written for dialecticals. Rhetoricals only see “blah blah blah, I’m so smart, blah blah blah, Aristotle” and scan through it seeking to find some point of attack they can use to minimize or disqualify me. And if they can’t, that’s when they strike a bored pose or return to the snarky ad hom.

After 12 years of this, you eventually start to notice the patterns.

Noam Chomsky bitchslaps Sam Harris

I told you Sam Harris wasn’t more than a high midwit. It should have been readily apparent to everyone after my dissection of his reliable sloppiness in The Irrational Atheist. But if it wasn’t then, it certainly is now, as Noam Chomsky demonstrates the difference between a wannabe and an actual intellectual:

April 27, 2015
From: Noam Chomsky
To: Sam Harris

I am sorry you are unwilling to retract your false claim that I “ignore the moral significance of intentions.” Of course I did, as you know.  Also, I gave the appropriate answer, which applies accurately to you in the al-Shifa case, the very case in question.

If you had read further before launching your accusations, the usual procedure in work intended to be serious, you would have discovered that I also reviewed the substantial evidence about the very sincere intentions of Japanese fascists while they were devastating China, Hitler in the Sudetenland and Poland, etc.  There is at least as much reason to suppose that they were sincere as Clinton was when he bombed al-Shifa.  Much more so in fact.  Therefore, if you believe what you are saying, you should be justifying their actions as well.  I also reviewed other cases, pointing out that professing benign intentions is the norm for those who carry out atrocities and crimes, perhaps sincerely – and surely more plausibly than in this case.  And that only the most abject apologists justify the actions on the grounds that perpetrators are adopting the normal stance of criminals.

I am also sorry that you evade the fact that your charge of “moral equivalence” was flatly false, as you know.

And in particular, I am sorry to see your total refusal to respond to the question raised at the outset of the piece you quoted.  The scenario you describe here is, I’m afraid, so ludicrous as to be embarrassing.  It hasn’t even the remotest relation to Clinton’s decision to bomb al-Shifa – not because they had suddenly discovered anything remotely like what you fantasize here, or for that matter any credible evidence at all, and by sheer coincidence, immediately after the Embassy bombings for which it was retaliation, as widely acknowledged.  That is truly scandalous.

And of course they knew that there would be major casualties.  They are not imbeciles, but rather adopt a stance that is arguably even more immoral than purposeful killing, which at least recognizes the human status of the victims, not just killing ants while walking down the street, who cares?

In fact, as you would know if you deigned to read before launching accusations, they were informed at once by Kenneth Roth of HRW about the impending humanitarian catastrophe, already underway.  And of course they had far more information available than HRW did.

Your own moral stance is revealed even further by your complete lack of concern about the apparently huge casualties and the refusal even to investigate them.

As for Clinton and associates being “genuine humanitarians,” perhaps that explains why they were imposing sanctions on Iraq so murderous that both of the highly respected international diplomats who administered the “Oil for food” program resigned in protest because they regarded them as “genocidal,” condemning Clinton for blocking testimony at the UN Security Council.  Or why he poured arms into Turkey as it was carrying out a horrendous attack on its Kurdish population, one of the worst crimes of the ‘90s.  Or why he shifted Turkey from leading recipient of arms worldwide (Israel-Egypt excepted) to Colombia, as soon as the Turkish atrocities achieved their goal and while Colombia was leading the hemisphere by far in atrocious human rights violations.  Or why he authorized the Texaco Oil Company to provide oil to the murderous Haitian junta in violation of sanctions.  And on, and on, as you could learn if you bothered to read before launching accusations and professing to talk about “ethics” and “morality.”

I’ve seen apologetics for atrocities before, but rarely at this level – not to speak of the refusal to withdraw false charges, a minor fault in comparison.

Since you profess to be concerned about “God-intoxicated sociopaths,” perhaps you can refer me to your condemnation of the perpetrator of by far the worst crime of this millennium because God had instructed him that he must smite the enemy.

No point wasting time on your unwillingness to respond to my request that you “reciprocate by referring me to what I have written citing your published views.  If there is anything I’ve written that is remotely as erroneous as this – putting aside moral judgments – I’ll be happy to correct it.”

Plainly there is no point pretending to have a rational discussion.  But I do think you would do your readers a favor if you presented your tale about why Clinton bombed al-Shifa and his grand humanitarianism.  That is surely the least you can do, given your refusal to withdraw what you know to be completely false charges and a display of moral and ethical righteousness.

Harris is a completely inept debater. This is a bit more drawn-out than the norm, but it completely fits the way his debates almost invariably proceed

  1. Harris states something.
  2. Opponent presents obvious problem with Harris’s statement.
  3. Harris claims that is not the correct way to read his statement.
  4. Opponent presents historical quote from Harris proving that it is the correct way to read his statement.
  5. Harris claims that the quote is not being interpreted properly.

Either Sam Harris is the worst and most unclear writer in the history of the written word or he is an inept and intellectually dishonest interlocutor. I leave it to the reader to decide which of these two possibilities is, in fact, the case. But it should come as no surprise than an Irrational Atheist should be unable to have a rational discussion.

Debate the Dragon

Puff the Magic Dragon was talking very brave until it was suggested that he debate me himself.

Go ahead and debate Vox yourself, puff. If he’s the soft target you
think he is, you should really be able to make him look foolish.

Debate
what? What are his actual positions? That’s what this is all about. He
puffs himself up into a controversial figure on the internet and when
someone calls him out on it, you find out it was all smoke and mirrors.
Is that supposed to be impressive? These issues aren’t as cut and dried
as you people seem to think they are, and apparently neither does Vox.
You guys have bought into the persona as much as those “rabbits” have.

Now, since Puff admitted that he is insufficiently knowledgeable to debate me on an economic subject, we will avoid economics despite it being one of my specialties. So, here are five actual positions that I offer Puff the Magic Dragon to debate me on. If he runs like Myers, Martin, Scalzi, and others, we will all know the value of his opinion.

  1. That One Bright Start to Guide Them is a great book and The Wasp Factory is a dreadful one. Oh, wait, sorry, I agreed to debate that with Phil Sandifier on a left-wing SF podcast. Let’s start over.
  1. That there are a series of continental-scale wars on the medium-term horizon that will be vicious, unconventional, and are likely to result in severe racial and national separatism.
  2. That John Scalzi is a fraud.
  3. That “The American Tolkien” is not a credible title for George R.R. Martin.
  4. That “marital rape” is a logical, historical, and legal contradiction in terms.
  5. That all modern human beings are not genetically equal.

That seems like a nice broad range of subjects from which to choose. I thought it was interesting to learn that for some people, the Pakman interview was informative in helping them understand my problem communicating with people:

For the record, Vox was correct about the common law. He did seem caught off guard about the fact that rape, even within marriage, is against the law in most states if not all. Pakman tried to use this as a “GOTCHA!” moment, and Vox looked confused, even though his point was not invalidated and his argument was still correct. The average person would come across thinking Vox was wrong, though.

This was actually the first time I really made sense of how Vox’s mind works. As an earlier commenter said, Vox is so far ahead that it seems to stump him that someone isn’t making the same logical jumps as quickly as he does — having to explain every step is very annoying.

It’s not always annoying (although it often is) but it is usually confusing. This is especially true when I am dealing with someone new because I have no idea at what point their ability to follow the train of logic is going to fail without warning. I was very confused when Pakman brought up US law in a bizarre attempt to rebut my reference to the historical Common Law. That’s rather like pointing out that the US lost in Vietnam to rebut a claim that the US invaded Normandy in World War II.

Where does one even go with that? Try to give him a basic primer on the historical basis for US law? Tell him that he’s an ignorant MPAI member and leave it at that? The best thing would have been to point out that his reference to US law was irrelevant and to observe that the post to which he referred was written in response to an Indian court upholding section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, except I didn’t recall that at the time because I had no idea I was going to be asked about a short three-paragraph blog post from over a year ago.

Rhetorically speaking, I suppose the best thing to do if I’m concerned about my self-image is to say “so what” and unmask the fact that he can’t follow the train of thought. But I try to be a polite guest. Perhaps I will need to rethink that policy if the host is an ambush artist; virtually none of the interviews I’d given in the past attempted to play gotcha without giving me fair warning about what the subjects would be beforehand.

I highlighted the irrelevance of his appeal to US law by reminding him that I don’t live in the USA. Which I have no doubt sounded like a non sequitur to many, only the non sequitur was Pakman’s. But I can’t help it if a lot of people didn’t understand that, because I can’t simultaneously fill in the gaps in their knowledge and defend myself against a dishonest, time-limited ambush at the same time.

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.

Show or skedaddle?

George Martin responds to my offer of honest dialogue and a debate:

So… I post here about how pleased I was to enjoy one good night, away from all this Puppygate shit, and you feel the need to drag Vox Day into it?

What would be the subject of this “debate?” Whether women should have the vote? Whether black people are savages or only half-savages?

Perhaps after that debate, I could debate Requires Hate on whether writers should have acid thrown in their faces, or just be raped by dogs.

We can debate whatever issues are so important that you claimed you wanted to be able to debate when you said: “Can’t we just debate the issues?”

I am giving you that opportunity. The opportunity you said you wanted.

We can certainly debate whether women should have the vote if you wish. We can debate whether black people are savages or half-savages, if that is a subject that is of particular interest to you.

I think it would be more interesting to debate your demand for no tolerance of hatespeech and the proper limits of free speech. There is also the strange contention that Requires Hate and I “are twins. Mirror images of one another.” You made the assertion. You have neither recanted nor apologized for it. Therefore, it seems a reasonable subject of honest dialogue and debate, given that I very much disagree with the assertion. Alternatively, we could debate the long term ramifications of the No Award tactic, the quality of the 2015 Best Novel shortlist compared to past Hugo shortlists, or any other aspect of Puppygate that you might find interesting.

The point, Mr. Martin, is that you said debate and honest dialogue are important. You are one of the biggest and best-known figures who claims to be on the side of those you call “the good guys” in SF fandom. I am the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil and a rising figure in science fiction. If you cannot bother to engage in honest dialogue with me, then why should any of the less famous, less notorious, less influential individuals on either side of the ideological divide in science fiction bother to do so either?

I’m entirely comfortable with the idea of an open, all-out ideological war. War-War is intrinsically more entertaining than Talk-Talk, after all. Are you?

Now, it’s possible that you didn’t mean what you wrote. It’s possible that you are just another posturing SJW, who puffs and preens and bluffs until he is called out, then promptly runs away. Many of my readers, who are also your readers, believe that. But I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you transparently were not willing to give me.

If you want to run away and claim that you are too busy doing Very Important Things to engage in what you said was required, that’s absolutely fine with me. I can certainly use that to my advantage. I have with others who ran away in the past. But because I have enjoyed some of your work since “Sandkings”, I will violate Napoleon’s dictum and point out that you will likely end up hearing my name a lot more often if you run away than if you do not.

Mailvox: an offer to debate George Martin

n4apound quotes George Martin and proposes what Mr. Martin has said he is seeking.

“[Vox Day is] spewing forth the venom of hatred and violence, poisoning any attempt at honest dialogue.”

Honest question: Can you point to a real example of this?  (Poisoning honest dialogue, as opposed to an internet pissing match.) Since you seem to be referencing direct knowledge, have you personally ever attempted an honest dialogue with Vox Day? As a reader of VD, I thoroughly doubt your claim.  I have read VD dismantle opponents’ arguments logically, sometimes using rhetorical flair as well, but I have never seen him use hatred and violence to poison an attempt at honest dialogue. In fact, he seems to *relish* honest dialogue.

“When we disagree, is it really necessary to spit and snap at each other, to throw around insults and obscenities, to make death threads, rape threats? Can’t we just debate the issues?”

Good questions.  I say that (since I am a fan of VD’s books) as a hate-enabling toad or something like that.

“Can’t we just debate the issues?”

Since you are calling for a “conservative in the house with the courage and integrity… honest and brave enough” to denounce VD, perhaps you would lead the way in displaying those attributes and make your specific case against him (or his part in the Hugo noms) in a new post and invite VD to respond.

As a voice of liberal moderation and reason, if you made a good-faith effort to reach out and VD responds with threats and hatred as you portray, then I guarantee that your effort to marginalize him will be greatly aided.  I imagine at that point you would even get conservatives to denounce him as you desire.  You would absolutely OWN the moral high ground.  Or if you were able to reason him away from his “extreme” positions, even slightly, you would win that way as well.

(Of course, it may be too late for an honest dialogue now that you have attacked not just him but his benighted fans.  He has a policy regarding that.)

The only way you lose in such an endeavor is if the hyperbole(?) in your post above is shown to be wrong.  And is that really a loss?

I am quite willing to debate Mr. Martin blog-to-blog on any subject he chooses. In fact, I will go so far as to guarantee that if I resort to threats and hatred in the course of that debate, I will ask both Brad Torgersen and Larry Correia to denounce me in the strongest possible terms.

We certainly can debate the issues. I have debated economics, evolution, the existence of gods, and even ancient philosophical skepticism without any need to resort to threats, hatred, or even rancor. But it is difficult to debate when SJWs constantly run away from debate whenever it is proposed to them.

I once offered a debate on racism to Jason Sanford. He ran away from it, declaring that some things could not be debated. I once responded to PZ Myers’s call to debate the existence of God. He ran away from it, claiming that I was a crackpot. I subsequently offered to debate him in his field of expertise, but he ran away from that too. A third party proposed a debate between me and John Scalzi. I accepted, whereas John Scalzi ran away from it.

You have asked if we cannot simply debate the issues. I say we can. I am entirely willing to debate the issues with you without spitting and snapping, without throwing around insults and obscenities, and without threatening to rape or kill you, if you are willing to do the same. My readership is considerably smaller than yours, but it is not insubstantial; my blogs now see 1.6 million pageviews per month. In the interest of amity within the science fiction community, I am even willing to overlook the fact that you have repeated various falsehoods about me, concocted some fascinating new ones, and insulted my loyal readers by calling them “toads”.

Nevertheless, I am willing to debate the issues, Mr. Martin. I am willing to engage in honest dialogue. Are you?

Probing for weakness

Here is a good example of an SJW sally on Twitter. Notice that it is absolutely rife with dishonesty, false pretenses, and attempts to DISQUALIFY from start to finish:

Brosephus Aurelius @Brobuntu
but what the fuck is a pink shirt

Vox Day
A subset of SJWs. (link to Roosh’s article)

Brosephus Aurelius
wait isnt Roosh that PUA sex tourist guide guy that offended a good chunk of europe with his books?

Vox Day
Straight to DISQUALIFY. Textbook SJW. Well done.

Brosephus Aurelius
I’m not disqualifying his opinion, just checking if you knew his past public exposure before linking. I’m still reading the link

Vox Day
Roosh has not offended most of us who live here in Europe. I know exactly who he is. And I don’t subscribe to the Genetic Fallacy.

Brosephus Aurelius
hey there’s not a single mention of pink anything in that link, so I’m confused as to how it ties into my question

Vox Day
Perhaps this will help you: (link to my response to Roosh’s article.)

Brosephus Aurelius
wait so you personally made up this word and it’s definition, then expect everyone to keep up with it by default?

Vox Day
I don’t have any expectation of you at all. I don’t care what you do, say, or think. Accept or reject, as you see fit.

Brosephus Aurelius
well this is a pretty vast conspiracy put forth, I’m going to need somewhat of a more rigorous source than a few people’s blog posts

Brosephus Aurelius
especially when you’re making an implicit appeal to ethos without any visible standing in that regard, as you’re anonymous

Vox Day
My “visible standing” is 1.5 million monthly pageviews. Accept or reject, as you see fit. Not my concern.

The object, obviously, is to create a rift between us that he can exploit; the rabbit is dangling the opportunity for me to win his approval by denouncing Roosh, which he will then immediately turn into a weapon to use against Roosh. This is the “Divide and Denounce” tactic. My favorite part is where he attempts to deny that he’s trying to disqualify Roosh and claims he’s merely “checking if you knew his past public exposure before linking”. As you do, I suppose. But his language gives him away even in the denial; he says “I’m not disqualifying” rather than “I’m not trying to disqualify”, which tells us that he assumes that his opinion is sufficient to disqualify someone. This is a key SJW trait.

The correct response to “Divide and Denounce” is to refuse to denounce or otherwise separate yourself from the target they are attempting to isolate, no matter who the target is or what they are supposed to have done. (#GamerGate, in general, has done a stellar job of this, it is one of the things that makes it antifragile.) So, it’s no surprise that when I refuse to rise to the bait, he then proceeds to attempt to disqualify BOTH Roosh and me, because he’s going to need “somewhat of a more rigorous source” than our blog posts. Quelle surprise! This is the “Pose as a Moderate Who Finds the Evidence Unconvincing” tactic, which is, of course, simply a variant of their primary tactic, DISQUALIFY.  We see it utilized every election season with all those fake “Republicans who have always voted for Republicans in the past, but this year, Romney/McCain/Bush/Dole is simply too extreme”.

And notice how when I simply kept answering him in a straightforward manner that clearly indicated I did not care what he did, thought, or said, he dropped the moderate pose and retreated to snarking about Roosh’s article. (It’s remarkable how SJWs are always “laughing”. They must be very jolly people indeed.) If, on the other hand, I had showed any weakness, taken the bait to separate myself from Roosh, or accepted him as a legitimate judge as to my standing as a source, he would have immediately pressed that point.

One reason for SJW success is that they operate on a mixed 2GW/3GW model, 2GW firepower/attrition on the larger scale combined with 3GW maneuver by their fanatics. But, as we know, 4GW trumps both. In any event, the mention of Roosh led another SJW to leap in and attempt to DISQUALIFY him, at which point a modest degree of hilarity ensued.

James Mathurin @jameswiseson
@Brobuntu @voxday Don’t forget he’s also an admitted rapist.

Vox Day
No, that’s John “I’m a rapist” @scalzi. You can even hear him admit it here: (link to MP3)

James Mathurin
Nah, it’s Roosh.

Vox Day
That’s a direct quote from 25 October 2012. You literally can’t get any more “self-admitted rapist” than that.

James Mathurin
At some point, will you explain why you think I care? I was talking about Roosh V being an admitted rapist.

Vox Day
You’ve provided no evidence at all. I’ve provided conclusive proof that John Scalzi is a self-admitted rapist.

Vox Day
So, you are actually saying that you don’t care that John Scalzi is a self-admitted rapist. Wow just wow.

Brosephus Aurelius
11/10 wizard tier trolling

This is another point to notice. SJWs are shameless hypocrites. They will completely ignore the very same charges that they hurl – in this case, a knowingly false charge against Roosh for “violating” a U.S. state’s age of consent law in a country with a lower age of consent – against their targets if those charges are directed at them or someone they consider to be on their side. While you can easily expose their hypocrisy in the eyes of others, being exposed won’t even slow them down, so don’t hang your hat on it.

Notice that I am expected to care about his undocumented claim that someone he is attacking is “an admitted rapist”, but he is not expected to care about my documented proof that someone else is a “self-admitted rapist”, which is exactly what Roosh describes in the article the SJWs are trying to DISQUALIFY: “SJW’s do not believe in objectivity. Instead, speech and ideas must be
viewed relatively depending on the source and its intended audience…. SJW’s have started labeling men as rapists based on anonymous internet
allegations, even when the supposed victims never reported the crime to
police.” 

You have to admit, he certainly called that one correctly.

DISQUALIFY! is not discourse

I’m adding a new reason for insta-spamming, as this shameless and ill-informed attempt to disqualify the military expert and Castalia House author William S. Lind should suffice to demonstrate:

DISQUALIFART: I think I’ll take my advice on military affairs from someone slightly less fucked up in the head.

VD: The more fool you. Lind is highly respected by Marines with extensive combat experience from lieutenants to Commandants.

DISQUALIFART: Spend much time among Marines, do you? Let’s be honest. The chances that a marine knows who this lunatic is, is somewhere next to zero. Tell them what he believes (“We ought to have a king in America and darn it those blacks would be better off as slaves) and you’ll get a really sense of what marines think of such a Cau Cau.

VD: I have spoken to two former members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the last week alone who are not only personally familiar with Mr. Lind, who was lecturing at Quantico this weekend, but think very well of him. The co-author of one of Mr. Lind’s forthcoming books is an active-duty LtCol in the USMC. You know literally nothing about this subject.

STILICHO: Yep, and I are one too! Lind has been well known and respected in the
Corps for decades. I certainly knew of him in the late 80’s and I
understand he was a regular lecturer/consultant at Quantico well before
that. Al Gray was well known as an admirer of Lind’s theoretical work.

Al Gray, of course, being the former Commandant of the Marine Corps. In addition to being the foremost among the fathers of 4th Generation Warfare, Mr. Lind is also the author of the Maneuver Warfare Handbook, which formalizes and explicates John Boyd’s theory that has been incorporated into formal USMC and British Army warfighting doctrine.

But none of that matters to a left-liberal troll who is hellbent on DISQUALIFY despite not only being in complete ignorance of the relevant facts, but continuing to attempt to do so after being warned of his ignorance.

No discourse is possible with people this ignorant and shameless. From now on, any attempt to DISQUALIFY is going to be met with instant spamming. There is absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with attempting to demonstrate why your position is superior to another one.

But DISQUALIFY is the singular tactic of the stupid and the shameless. It is what they reliably resort to because they cannot successfully make a rational case for their own positions or construct a rational critique of the positions presented by others. This is no place for them and I have no intention of suffering such fools in any way at all.