Tag: freakshow

Yeah, I don’t call myself one either

Mr. John Scalzi explains, in considerable detail, why he does not call himself a feminist.  Even though he is.  He just doesn’t deserve to call himself one.  But don’t think he cares what anyone thinks, because he doesn’t.  And if you don’t believe him, he’ll write another 12 posts about himself just to prove you’re wrong.

I am a feminist in the most general sense of believing that women
are entitled to the same rights and privileges as men, with everything
that implies in terms of access to education, economic opportunity and
personal liberty. However, as far as I know most people don’t use the
term “feminism” in this most broad of definitions, either positively or
negatively. This is another reason I don’t tend to use the term to apply
to myself.

A third reason I don’t apply the term feminist to
myself is that, again to be blunt about it, I don’t think I deserve to.
I know myself well enough to know where I fall down on the subject. On a
very superficial level, I’m wary of touting myself as a feminist and
then doing something that shows my ass on the subject in a very public
way. Best not to set myself up for such a fall.

On a slightly deeper level, I know the personal journey I’m taking in
terms of my relationships with women, individually and generally. I’ve
always tried to be a good person to women in my life, and to women in
general, but there have been times I’ve fallen short of those goals,
through ignorance or through being (for lack of a better term) a dick. I
work at these things. I keep working at them.

Ye cats.  This post was poorly titled.  It should have been “Quick Notes on My Personal Effeminacy” or perhaps “Delving Into the Depths of My Navel: the Self-Portrait of a Gamma Male”.  Anyhow, if John wants to call himself a feminist, he’s certainly got my permission.  I don’t happen to call myself a feminist because feminism is the only ideology that is more intellectually incoherent than communism and more societally suicidal than the Skoptsy.

This is the best part: “I am delighted to annoy this category of status-anxious, woman-fearing moron.”  The President of the SFWA calling anyone “status-anxious” and “woman-fearing” tends to strike one rather like Charles Manson saying that someone else is “a little out there”.

Now why might that be?

I found British Prime Minister David Cameron’s concerns to be intriguing:

Shortly
after 11.30am, Mr Schofield challenged the PM over rumours about Tories
being accused of child abuse.  He handed over a card with names gleaned
from the internet, telling the Premier: ‘You know the names on that
piece of paper. Will you be speaking to those people?’

A
clearly-unhappy Mr Cameron said he did not like what the presenter was
doing, and warned he was fuelling a ‘witch hunt’. He said: ‘There is a
danger if we are not careful, that this can turn into a sort of
witch-hunt, particularly against people who are gay.

Now, why would would anyone imagine that accusations of child abuse would turn into a witch-hunt, particularly against people who are gay?  What an extremely educational reaction.

American liberals fear blacks

Bill Maher makes it obvious that American liberals are absolutely terrified of blacks.  Their purported anti-racism has nothing to do with color-blindness and everything to do with fear-based appeasement.

“If you’re thinking about voting for Mitt Romney, I would like to make
this one plea: black people know who you are and they will come after
you”

I get the impression that Maher doesn’t actually know very many black people.  Most of the blacks I know were more conscious of whites and actively afraid of white racism than the average white individual is even willing to admit to being cognizant of racial differences.  I’m as familiar with the actual crime statistics as anyone, but you have to remember that blacks are taught that whites are out to get them from the time they are children.  Fear is seldom based on an accurate view of reality.

John Scalzi is a rapist

Now, I was aware that the man had a twisted side to him, but it is really rather remarkable to see John Scalzi so openly admit on his blog that he has raped women:

“I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force myself on women without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually. The details of how I do this are not particularly important at the moment — although I love when you try to make distinctions about “forcible rape” or “legitimate rape” because that gives me all sorts of wiggle room — but I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control women and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have.” – John Scalzi, 25 October 2012

I wonder if the SFWA will be concerned that their current president is an admitted rapist or if they’ll take the approach towards him that NOW and the other feminist groups did towards Bill Clinton.  Of course, unlike Scalzi, Clinton never admitted to being a rapist.

Wait, he claims his confession is satire?  Well, that might fool anyone unfamiliar with the concept of blown cover as cover.  But even if we were to take him at his word to not take him at his word, where is the satire?  Satire is supposed to be ironic, but where is the irony? What is being exaggerated?  Given that a) one-third of all forcible rapists are black, and, b) blacks heavily support the Democratic party while whites are fairly evenly split, the statistics indicate that it is very nearly twice as likely a rapist would be inclined to write a fan letter to a Democratic politician rather than to a conservative Republican politician.  This isn’t irony, this is pseudo-ironic left-liberal fantasy.

Perhaps the satire is to be found in Scalzi’s implication that living human beings created without consent of the mother do not merit any of the legal protections and rights afforded all other human beings.  That must be it!  After all, the assertion that certain classes of homo sapiens sapiens are defined as not human isn’t merely a scientifically absurd proposition, but one historically known to be lethally dangerous.

Obama is out of control

In case you doubted that Obama is sabotaging his re-election campaign, Matt Drudge brings the following incident to your attention:

When asked whether he had a message for a six-year-old supporter,
President Barack Obama took the opportunity to describe his opponent
Mitt Romney as ‘a bullshitter’.

The extraordinary comment – most
American newspapers decline even to print such a word – came at the end
of an interview with ‘Rolling Stone’ in which Obama was asked possibly
the softest softball question ever lobbed at him.  As he left the
Oval Office, Eric Bates, executive editor of ‘Rollin Stone’, told Obama
that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she
wanted him to say to the president and she had responded: ‘Tell him: You
can do it.’

According to Bates, Obama grinned and said: ‘You know, kids have good instincts. They
look at the other guy and say, “Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can
tell.”‘

Now, he’s not wrong.  Mitt Romney is a bullshitter supreme.  The man is the flippiest of flip-floppers and naturally produces a prodigious quantity of the stuff.  As, of course, does Obama, athough he is not so much a bullshit artist as a mid-witted con man.  But there are certain things you simply do not say when you are, or are at least popularly supposed to be, the President of the United States.

At this point, it clearly isn’t enough to just keep the man away from the press corps, his handlers are going to have to gag him and hide him in a closet until November 2nd.  I mean, he can’t even talk to his most fervent supporters without committing silly gaffes.

Hey, not gay!

Contra the accusations of the occasional critic, it would appear that Steve Sailer’s system precludes my homosexuality.  I know I’ll sleep better, for one:

Checking out these claims and insinuations is highly time-consuming and uncertain, but there is now a way to at least rapidly measure public perceptions of celebrities using what I call Google Gaydar.

When you begin typing a search phrase, Google offers ten auto-completion prompts in order of popularity. (This convenience came into the news recently when the wife of a German politician sued Google for auto-finishing searches on her name with helpful suggestions such as “prostitute” and “escort.”)

We can use the rank order of Google’s prompts to quantify what Mickey Kaus called the “Undernews” back when only the National Enquirer dared report on presidential candidate John Edwards’s illegitimate baby.

Apparently I am so straight that even typing in “Vox Day Ga” produces the results Vox Day Game, Vox Day Gamma, Vox Day Game Chart, Vox Day Game Thrones, and Vox Day Game Theory.  Contrast this to Kevin Spacey, who only requires “Kevin Sp” for autocomplete to throw out “Kevin Spacey Gay”.  And then, there is Tom Cruise, who requires nothing more than one merely think about typing the letter T in order for Google to suggest “Tom Cruise Gay”.

Clearly this is solid scientific evidence of my hypothesis that it takes a real and very straight man to drink a chick drink with umbrellas while wearing Italian loafers.  Oh, who am I kidding.  I’m living a lie.  In truth, I don’t drink anything but red wine and prosecco these days.

Can you spot the criminal?

Who needs judge and jury when they can simply hire me to look at people and distinguish the innocent from the guilty. Of course, I am a superintelligence:

Your score is 90%

The interesting thing, according to the paper that inspired the online quiz, is that women are actually worse at identifying rapists than pure chance would indicate. This tends to support the complaints of lower-rank men that most women are unable to distinguish between predatory wolves and protective guard dogs.

Mailvox: a requested arbitration

You know you’re dealing with a very special individual when you find yourself longing for the simple pleasure of swatting away the usual anklebiters. And what is with my critics and their absolute obsession with the human posterior? Anyhow, Corona Rabbit requested arbitration:

CR: I would like to know who deleted the CoronaRabbit posts under “True libertarians won’t vote Libertarian”.

VD: One of the blog administrators authorized to do so, who did so correctly as per the rules I established. It’s not that hard. When you are asked a direct question that is relevant to the topic at hand, then answer the fucking question. If you can’t follow a few very simple rules of this sort, you can’t be part of the conversation here.

CR: How very snappy. If you are not available to act as arbiter, then you should not have conversations on your blog. Or rather, you can, but then please rename your site to: Home Of The Ass Flies: We Suck Asses Daily.

Are you aware that I ASKED you to look at my posts, and those of Josh, in order to resolve this very thing? I stated that I was WAITING for that resolution. Here is the thing, Vox: Josh DEMANDED that I comply with the reply-rule. I saw no need to reply to his bullshit. Still, given his DEMAND, I then asked that YOU make a ruling on whether I was right about Josh being a filthy fucking play-debater.

Surely I am allowed to do thusly? Apparently, it seems, not. More than that, I was not necessary that I respond: my response to his question (the first version, before he changed it) had already been given, before he even asked. But let me give you the sequence: that is, if you actually do give a fucking damn.

[LONG AND TEDIOUS REFRAIN OF COMMENT THREAD]

So do tell me Vox, did I have to answer Josh’s “Question”? Given that before he changed the question, I kind of already had? I was under the impression that the sort of things Josh did were very big no-no’s. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Now. Who the hell erased my last posts? I had classically cursed Nate in the last one, and was rather happy with it. Oh, and bought all the little wockers before the Lord: this is the real world, after all, where the Living God walks around. Read Lev 19 (KJV) for a refresher if you are in the mood.

I was not in the wrong here. Not 100% in the right, fine, but in terms of honesty and truth this was shameful. And do let me point out that Nate, the self-proclaimed Mr Awesome, had apparently read the posts… and then proceeded to proclaim judgement on the side of Josh. Apparenly I had managed to offend his unholiness with my lack of demonic glibness. (The act which led me to, in the absence of ANY fucking arbiter, to bring the Living God into the game.)

I am waiting for a reply. Not that I care, you understand. Not that I think you will act with any more integrity than the animals did. I would just like you to formaly chose the way of the devil. “I like my universe neat,” sayth the Lord.

THE REQUESTED VERDICT

VD: You very much need to learn to stop trying to tell other people what to do in their own house. Josh was correct. You had an obligation to answer his question and instead of doing so, launched an obnoxious and foul-mouthed series of idiotic comments. Moreover, it is utterly stupid to expect any blogger to act as an arbiter 24-7. That is absolutely ridiculous and you should be embarrassed to have even raised the point. Nor does failing to arbitrate between commenters on demand somehow transform a blog into an echo chamber. That doesn’t even make any sense.

It is 100 percent clear that you did not answer a serious and relevant question. You even admit it, you are simply attempting to justify not doing so. You claimed: “I DEEMED IT ANSWER ENOUGH. GIVEN THE CLASSICAL LOGICAL FALLACY JOSH WAS UNDOUBTEDLY KNOWINGLY COMMITTING, I SAW NO REASON TO TREAT JOSH WITH ANYTHING BUT DESERVED CONTEMPT”.

You were wrong. The various other aspects are irrelevant. You still have to answer the question. If Josh was committing a logical fallacy, you should have pointed it out to him, identified the specific logical fallacy committed, and then answered the question.

Cannibal dreams and the SFWA

Laura Resnick, an SFWA member, waxed homicidal on SFWA President John Scalzi’s blog:

Laura Resnick says:
August 17, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Whever I think “alpha male”… my daydream quickly becomes a Sweeney Todd nightmare in which I’m serving the remains to my dinner guests, disguised as some sort of heavy-seasoned stew beneath puff pastry, because I wound up killing said Alpha Male in sheer exasperation before sundown and need to get rid of the body….

Naturally, being an alpha male as per Roissy’s definition, I felt a little uncomfortable reading this strange woman’s fantasies about murdering and dismembering me. Seeing as some of my recent comments at John’s blog, none of which involved violence, had been removed by John himself, I was a little surprised that Ms Resnick’s comments were deemed acceptable and asked for clarification.

VD says:
August 21, 2012 at 9:08 am
That’s fascinating, Laura. It appears your female daydreams about the cannibalistic murder of alpha males are perfectly acceptable to the SFWA President here. Are male daydreams about raping “alpha females” equally acceptable to you, John? Or do we have to kill them first? I suppose it’s technically not rape if they’re dead. I don’t know about the cannibalism, though, and you know, Laura is really making me uncomfortable here….

It is more than a little troubling that the President of the SFWA is not merely free with his frequent accusations of assbaggery and other hurtful terms, but is now playing host to the murderously cannibalistic fantasies of certain SFWA members. It tends to raise the question: is John Scalzi still fit for the SFWA presidency when he maintains an environment that is so openly and violently hostile to men?

It is a painful question to ask, as I was a public supporter of Mr. Scalzi’s candidacy. But his recent actions have rendered me a troubled and frightened former supporter.

UPDATE:

Why is Laura’s comment ok, but not The Deuce’s? I’m confused. Is this a gender bias thing?
Cuspidor says:
August 21, 2012 at 12:01 pm

John Scalzi says:
August 21, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Cuspidor: Because “slut” and “alpha male” are not equivalent terms in any number of ways. Making an argument that they are is an indication of a failure to understand language. Which is why this sort of word substitution is often neither useful, nor actually anything approaching clever.

VD says:
August 21, 2012 at 12:26 pm
They are equivalent terms in the most important way, John. They are both human beings. So, are we to conclude that you find the murder, dismemberment, and devouring of a certain subset of men to be acceptable, but the murder, dismemberment, and devouring of a specific subset of women to be unacceptable? Why do you find it acceptable for Laura to publicly fantasize about murdering, dismembering, and devouring men on your site, but it is not acceptable for The Deuce to do the same regarding women? For the purposes of clarification, is it acceptable for Laura to also publicly fantasize about murdering, dismembering, and devouring women? Would The Deuce’s comments have been acceptable if he, too, was fantasizing about murdering and cannibalizing men?

Which Mr. Scalzi, being the coward that he is, promptly modified: [Deleted because I don’t have patience for VD’s special brand of complete nonsense on this topic. Stay in your own pit of manstink, would you, Vox? There’s a lad — JS]

VD says:
August 21, 2012 at 12:32 pm
C-c-c-c-coward! I’ll be bringing this up in the SFWA forum, of course, Mr. President. Your behavior is wildly inappropriate for an official representative of our fine professional association.