Tag: rabbitology

Of SJWs and echo chambers

I have to admit, I’m a little surprised. Only #423 on the Level 2 SJW blocklist? How can this be? DON’T THEY KNOW WHO I AM?

Who will be added to the block list? The short answer is anyone that a blocker defines as block list worthy. The general rule is if you are the type that would find yourself banned on a blog on Freethoughtblogs.com, Skepchick.org or from the A+ forum then you will likely end up in the list…

And as I’ve noted, they operate solely at the rhetorical level. Their assertions and posturing are almost entirely devoid of any meaning beyond “me good, them bad”.

John Scalzi‏@scalzi
Oh, the transcendent irony of being accused by a GamerGater of living in an echo chamber.

John Scalzi‏@scalzi
Happy to say my Twitter feeds are full of brilliant, clever people, and that’s only partially because I mute the stupid, annoying jerks.

Apparently John “I am a rapist” Scalzi not only doesn’t know what satire is, he doesn’t know what irony is either. Keep this typical SJW behavior in mind when they begin with their entryist tactics and start babbling about the importance of inclusivity, diversity, discourse and dialogue. Words don’t have any objective meaning to them, they merely mean whatever the SJW needs it to mean in order to achieve whatever goal he is pursuing.

It will do you no good to point out to the likes of Scalzi that he observably lives in an echo chamber of his active making. “Echo chamber” is merely a bad word, and being a bad word, therefore cannot be applied to the SJW and must be applied to his bad opponent, regardless of what it actually means. If you agree with them, you are by definition “brilliant and clever”, and if you disagree with them, or even worse, criticize them, you are intrinsically “stupid, annoying jerks”.

This is why they don’t dare to compete in any venue that is not “heads I win, tails you lose.”  And this is how they can attack a libertarian as being a “fascist’ or a black man for being a “white supremacist” without even a hint of intellectual embarrassment. Because, for them, neither words nor truth have any genuine meaning.

Cultural war on Twitter

In a cultural war, communication is king. So, that’s why it behooves the potential 4GW forces of the Christian right to learn from #GamerGate as well as from the tactics of our SJW enemies. Here is one example of an SJW attempting to mine for DISQUALIFY:

Vox Day ‏@voxday
#GamerGate “Saying things on Twitter both feels futile and dangerous” – SJW. They are openly afraid of public ridicule now. Show no mercy.
28 retweets 33 favorites

Average Joe ‏@ridinjustice
@voxday are you really saying to publicly ridicule SJW without mercy??

Vox Day ‏@voxday
@ridinjustice Until we can apply for hunting licenses, yes, that will have to do.

Average Joe ‏@ridinjustice
@voxday and then what?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
@ridinjustice Then we will convince you of the error of your ways with Aristotelian dialectic and sweet reason.

Average Joe ‏@ridinjustice
@voxday why not use reason now?

Why not? Because, as Average Joe and I both know, the SJWs are incapable of having their minds changed by mere information. If they were capable of discourse at the dialectical level, they would not be SJWs in the first place. They are creatures of emotion, they communicate via rhetoric, and what Average Joe was seeking was something capable of inflaming emotions that he could wave as a red flag to incite his side. That’s how they operate.

But there was no need to spell it out or waste any more time on his fishing expedition. I baited him with the promise of a really big red flag, and then denied it to him. But that wasn’t the important part, that was just me amusing myself. The important part was the initial tweet, which the 63 retweets and favorites indicate had the effect of remoralizing people on our side due to the revelation of the demoralization on the part of one of our enemies.

As Col. Boyd observed, the moral element is the highest level of war, and morale is a vital part of it. (One can even connect Boyd’s model to the Aristotelian perspective by observing that rhetoric is an important weapon at the moral level just as dialectic is a primary tool at the intellectual level.) So, when people sneer at blog posts and tweets, all they are doing is indicating that they don’t understand how war operates at its highest level. One reason ISIS is so formidable is that they put out over 90 tweets per minute, a constant stream of remoralization for their own troops and demoralization for their enemies.

Later today, I will answer in more detail the question that was posed to me: “what can we do?” But one effective thing that everyone who is reading this can do, very easily, is this. Create a Twitter account. Follow me, Roosh, Adam Baldwin, Nero, Hotwheels, the Leader of GamerGate, The Devs of GamerGate, and other reliable schwerpunkts. Then do at least one tweet with a relevant hashtag, one retweet and one favorite per day. If even 500 people do that, it will have an observable impact on the moral level.

Remember, this is not about games per se. Games are merely the latest battleground that the cultural Marxists have chosen to attack. This is about the cultural war that has affected, and demoralized, so many of you. If you want your culture back, you will have to fight for it, and this is the first ground where there is a strong and fearless anti-SJW force that you can reinforce. So, whether you are a gamer or not, stop complaining about ads on TV and horrible messages in Disney movies and strike back. This is just a small step, of course, but every journey has to begin with one.

Of course, you have to expect this sort of thing from time to time. But don’t be put off by it, as women on our side can actually use it to our advantage:

Vox Day ‏@voxday
#GamerGate Women already have their game industry without men. I believe it’s called “Zynga”.

Damon Gant ‏@Demon_Gant
@voxday fuck you.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
@Demon_Gant Please stop harassing me. Your tweet is offensive, Indigenophobic, and harassment.

Damon Gant ‏@Demon_Gant
@voxday fuck you, you disingenuous asshole.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
@Demon_Gant You’re being repeatedly abusive. This is harassment and Indigenophobia. Please stop harassing me.

Damon Gant ‏@Demon_Gant
@voxday Shut up. Everyone hates you. You’re an awful human being. Pretend victim language doesn’t disguise your cloacal stench. #gamergate

Vox Day ‏@voxday now
@Demon_Gant This is the third time you have harassed me. I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to report your abusive tweets to Twitter now.

Here is another good one:

Robot Archie ‏@RobotArchie
To repeat that warning to the #gamergate community. @voxday is a genuine racist. He has done years worth of damage to the SF community.

Unsurprisingly, the Concern Rabbit didn’t get the response for which he was looking, but was instead met with derision by several parties for his racist indigenophobia and Hispanic hate.

Leaving Leftism

A onetime red-diaper baby, Danusah Goska, lists ten reasons for abandoning the Left:

10) Huffiness.

In the late 1990s I was reading Anatomy of the Spirit, a then recent bestseller by Caroline Myss.

Myss described having lunch with a woman named Mary. A man approached Mary and asked her if she were free to do a favor for him on June 8th. No, Mary replied, I absolutely cannot do anything on June 8th because June 8th is my incest survivors’ meeting and we never let each other down! They have suffered so much already! I would never betray incest survivors!

Myss was flabbergasted. Mary could have simply said “Yes” or “No.”

Reading this anecdote, I felt that I was confronting the signature essence of my social life among leftists. We rushed to cast everyone in one of three roles: victim, victimizer, or champion of the oppressed. We lived our lives in a constant state of outraged indignation. I did not want to live that way anymore. I wanted to cultivate a disposition of gratitude. I wanted to see others, not as victims or victimizers, but as potential friends, as loved creations of God. I wanted to understand the point of view of people with whom I disagreed without immediately demonizing them as enemy oppressors.

I recently attended a training session for professors on a college campus. The presenter was a new hire in a tenure-track position. He opened his talk by telling us that he had received an invitation to share a festive meal with the president of the university. I found this to be an enviable occurrence and I did not understand why he appeared dramatically aggrieved. The invitation had been addressed to “Mr. and Mrs. X.” Professor X was a bachelor. He felt slighted. Perhaps the person who had addressed his envelope had disrespected him because he is a member of a minority group.

Rolling his eyes, Prof. X went on to say that he was wary of accepting a position on this lowly commuter campus, with its working-class student body. The disconnect between leftists’ announced value of championing the poor and the leftist practice of expressing snobbery for them stung me. Already vulnerable students would be taught by a professor who regarded association with them as a burden, a failure, and a stigma.

Barack Obama is president. Kim and Kanye and Brad and Angelina are members of multiracial households. One might think that professors finally have cause to teach their students to be proud of America for overcoming racism. Not so fast, Professor X warned.  His talk was on microaggression, defined as slights that prove that America is still racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist, that is, discriminatory against handicapped people.

Professor X projected a series of photographs onto a large screen. In one, commuters in business suits, carrying briefcases, mounted a flight of stairs. This photo was an act of microaggression. After all, Professor X reminded us, handicapped people can’t climb stairs.

I appreciate Professor X’s desire to champion the downtrodden, but identifying a photograph of commuters on stairs as an act of microaggression and evidence that America is still an oppressive hegemon struck me as someone going out of his way to live his life in a state of high dudgeon. On the other hand, Prof. X could have chosen to speak of his own working-class students with more respect.

Yes, there is a time and a place when it is absolutely necessary for a person to cultivate awareness of his own pain, or of others’ pain. Doctors instruct patients to do this — “Locate the pain exactly; calculate where the pain falls on a scale of one to ten; assess whether the pain is sharp, dull, fleeting, or constant.” But doctors do this for a reason. They want the patient to heal, and to move beyond the pain. In the left, I found a desire to be in pain constantly, so as always to have something to protest, from one’s history of incest to the inability of handicapped people to mount flights of stairs.

9) Selective Outrage

I was a graduate student. Female genital mutilation came up in class. I stated, without ornamentation, that it is wrong.

A fellow graduate student, one who was fully funded and is now a comfortably tenured professor, sneered at me. “You are so intolerant. Clitoredectomy is just another culture’s rite of passage. You Catholics have confirmation.”

When Mitt Romney was the 2012 Republican presidential candidate, he mentioned that, as Massachusetts governor, he proactively sought out female candidates for top jobs. He had, he said, “binders full of women.” He meant, of course, that he stored resumes of promising female job candidates in three-ring binders.

Op-ed pieces, Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show,” Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon posts erupted in a feeding frenzy, savaging Romney and the Republican Party for their “war on women.”

I was an active leftist for decades. I never witnessed significant leftist outrage over clitoredectomy, child marriage, honor killing, sharia-inspired rape laws, stoning, or acid attacks. Nothing. Zip. Crickets. I’m not saying that that outrage does not exist. I’m saying I never saw it.

The left’s selective outrage convinced me that much canonical, left-wing feminism is not so much support for women, as it is a protest against Western, heterosexual men. It’s an “I hate” phenomenon, rather than an “I love” phenomenon.

This is all very well and good. But I note, with mingled amusement and contempt, that of these 10 reasons, only Nos. 2 and 3 have much to do with the only thing that should matter from the dialetical perspective: “It doesn’t work.  Other approaches work better.” 

So what does this tell us? Nothing that Aristotle didn’t already inform us more than 2,400 years ago. For most people, dialectal reasoning is only ever going to be part of the holistic super-rational process that wins people over to the truth. Rhetorical factors that appeal to people’s emotions on some level are usually going to be more important. This is a hard lesson for some of us to learn, a hard reality for those who pride themselves on their logic and clear-sightedness to accept.

Don’t get me wrong, there is a place for pure dialectic. But so long as men are not creatures of pure energy and reason, rhetoric will be the more powerful tool for reaching them and convincing them. That is where the Left, despite its irrationality and logical incoherence, has an advantage. Being limited to the rhetorical level, it should be no surprise that they are generally more comfortable operating on the only level they know, whereas due to the Left’s limitations, the finest minds of the Right are forced to engage on ground that is not of their choosing and where they are often distinctly uncomfortable.

And yet, once the necessity of operating on the rhetorical level is fully understood, the Right has an advantage because dialectic ultimately trumps rhetoric, which is precisely why the Left so often, and so dishonestly, rhetorically proclaims its dialectic superiority while voicing its pseudo-dialectic. Dialectic is supremely useful in puncturing and exposing false dialectic, but it must be understood that this is primarily a rhetorical device and is best exploited on a rhetorical level.

Lives of horror

The Anonymous Conservative explains The Dunham Horror:

The Lena Dunham saga is a good example of how amygdala development,
or lack of it, can produce a human’s nature. In it, you see a woman who
growing up had few if any instances of amygdala-developing stress, and
whose parents themselves seemed predisposed to amygdala atrophy. As a
result, she never developed boundaries on her behavior, because her
amygdala was never taught through adversity, “don’t do that.” Now, as an
adult, she will always seek the easiest, least stressful path, and will
lack the ability to map out the long term consequences of her actions.
Because she lacks the hardware, her brain actually sees a world without
any consequences, and because she isn’t adapted to hardship, any
hardship she walks into is traumatic beyond belief.

In many ways, her story is directly analogous to the broader issue of
leftism in America. She freely wrote a disturbing account of her
behavior with her little sister, one which could easily destroy the most
vital thing for a rabbit – her reputation and status. Yet her amygdala
could not map out the consequences of her actions, and now she is in a
perpetual amygdala hijack that she cannot escape.

Leftists are identical. They cannot map out the long-term
consequences of their actions. The amygdala hardware is just not there.
So they seek the pleasure of the moment, avoid any hardships – even
those which might yield benefit later if endured now. Eventually they
collapse the very governing structures they need to hide behind, to
shield themselves from reality. It is no surprise Dunham is a leftist
rabbit.

Although one can reasonably be skeptical about AC’s r/K psychological model, it is both rhetorically useful and practically testable. It will be certainly be interesting to see how the theory plays out in terms of the Dunham molestation scandal.

8 women accuse Jian Ghomeshi

More women come forward to accuse CBC radio host Jian Gomeshi of violence, sexual abuse, and harassment:

Eight women from across Canada now accuse former CBC host Jian
Ghomeshi of abusive behaviour ranging from allegations of beating and
choking without consent, to workplace sexual harassment. The allegations the Star is probing range from 2002 to the present. One of the women, popular Canadian television actor Lucy DeCoutere, has agreed to be identified. DeCoutere, who plays Lucy on

Trailer Park Boys

, recalls an incident in 2003 when she alleges Ghomeshi, without
warning or consent, choked her to the point she could not breathe and
then slapped her hard three times on the side of her head.

Make it nine now. In the meantime, this is what McRapey, who voluntarily appeared on Gomeshi’s show last year and while on it claimed to have fairly characterized me as a “sexist” and “misogynist”, among other things, had to say about the man with whom he was so chummy on the show:

Some thoughts on Jian Ghomeshi, about whom I feel entitled to opine because I was once a guest on his show — talking about the little fundraising thing I did last year which included RAINN, an interview which now in retrospect is sadly ironic….

I think it’s possible that Mr. Ghomeshi deluded himself into thinking
these attacks equated to consensual sexual play, which is both not an
excuse at all, and a good argument for availing one’s self of educators
in that particular field who can teach one how to do one’s play safely
and to know what “consensual” actually means. However, I think it’s
rather more likely that Mr. Ghomeshi, who is a full-fledged adult and
someone with some evident facility for words, was in fact quite aware
that what he was doing was not in the least consensual and relied on his
position at the top of the Canadian cultural heap to protect him from
the consequences of his actions, as indeed it appears to have done for a
very long time….

I don’t know Mr. Ghomeshi other than through a very brief professional encounter. I don’t envy the people who do
know him who are now learning about the allegations and who suspect
that they are true. What do you do with a friend like that? Do you
drop him? Do you maintain he is your friend but acknowledge what he’s
done is wrong? Do you fight for your friend, right or wrong? One of Mr. Ghomeshi’s friends addressed this in a post of his own,
which is worth reading. I don’t have any answers for this one. I know
what I think I would want to do; I don’t know if it’s what I would do because I’ve never had to be in this situation. What I can say is that I hope I never am in this situation.

McRapey is careful to say that he believes the women – of course he does – and that Gomeshi merits punishment if he is proven guilty and so forth. Which is all well and fine. But isn’t it fascinating that he still attempts to excuse Gomeshi as one who possibly “deluded himself”? And it is also informative to observe that even after NINE public accusations by women who claim to have been physically attacked by him, McRapey STILL hasn’t accused Gomeshi of being sexist or a misogynist, accusations he has flung at me many times over the years despite the fact that in all that time, no woman has ever come forward to claim that I have abused her, harassed her, or harmed her in any way (outside the dojo, anyway). Nor is there anyone to come forward, because I simply don’t harm, harass, or abuse women.

And so we see that to the pinkshirts, words are primarily seen as weapons meant to be utilized against the ideological foe. They are not actually viewed as literal descriptors in the way that normal people see them to be.

Pinkshirt thinking is so twisted and corrupt that they consider the nonexistent actions that could potentially be derived from an idea held by an individual they deem to be evil worse than the actual actions of the individual deemed to be on their side.

I may have misread that one

Anonymous Conservative explains how I didn’t correctly grasp the message that some pinkshirts were attempting to send me the other day regarding their concerns that I be informed about Roosh’s supposed shenanigans. According to him, they were not merely probing for weakness in the pro-#GamerGate ranks by dangling an approval carrot, but were actually attempting to frighten me by threatening a stick. Which intention, I have to admit, escaped me entirely. He explains in On Rabbits and Disqualification:

What those leftists are saying is not, “Roosh is disqualified because his reputation is not respected due to a (supposedly) factual assertion by me.” They aren’t even saying that, “Roosh’s opinion doesn’t count because I am smearing him.” What the rabbits are saying is, “Roosh is about to have the group turn upon him, so anyone who stands with him is in physical danger themselves. Do you want to be there with him when he’s attacked?” That is the dogwhistle which any rabbit will hear blaring in their ear.

Vox’s expected response is to flee the rhetorical vicinity of Roosh, because that is how a rabbit is programmed, and rabbits base all their assumptions about the behavior of others on how they themselves would react. You can see what happens when you have no in-group loyalty. You know you are alone, because you would eagerly betray yourself if the circumstances were reversed.

What is funny is that Vox is so totally lacking in such fear and conflict-avoidance circuitry that he seems unaware that anyone would ever even experience a fear of danger from such a trigger. Yet the fear (and desperate desire for conflict-avoidance) is so ever present in the rabbit, he just assumes Vox will flee from Roosh immediately, both sacrificing Roosh’s support for Vox’s position, and casting Roosh adrift alone. This is how rabbits gain social status, when people aren’t actively killing off the weak. They use rabbit fear and selfishness to foster betrayal among other rabbits.

Vox’s response is dead on. In tightening ranks with Roosh offensively, and casting rabbits as the enemy, Vox releases a signal that things are getting aggressive, and the leftist’s best course to follow for conflict-avoidance would be complete capitulation and supplication. Of course the leftist response will be to flee. The defense has become most offensive indeed.

AC knows considerably more about the psychological mechanics of the cultural war between the r/selected and the K/selected than I do, so I will defer to his interpretation with a mild degree of astonishment that anyone is seriously supposed to be intimidated into modifying his behavior by what he describes as “dogwhistling”.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And the SJWs are my enemy. I will stand firmly by anyone against them simply because there is no question that they are the sons and daughters of the Devil himself, they are the apostles of pure and undistilled evil. Whatever the moral failings of the broad spectrum of individuals who stand against them, those failings are nothing compared to the relentless, all-devouring monstrosity of the Social Justice Warriors. They are the Nothing Oecumene.

Give them an inch and they will take it with a smile, then come back for another inch tomorrow. There can be no compromise with them. They accept no moderates; to them a moderate is merely tomorrow’s target. Better to stand fast, stand by everyone who rejects them, and shoot back twice as hard.

Self-appointed identity police

The most dangerous blog on Tumblr observes that SJWs are not only the self-appointed Video Game Police, they have appointed themselves the Identity Police as well:

Catherine of Aragorn @PaleCompanion
@nero’s total lack of empathy with (& almost hatred of) the oppressed is so unique in a gay man I’m not unconvinced his sexuality’s an act.

remember you’re only gay if sjw’s say you are.

MOD 1:  Same for blacks or women or whoever else.

If you are “X oppressed minority” and you disagree with “approved
leftist minority groupthink,” you are no longer permitted to be a
minority. That’s what life is like today.  Being gay and/or black and/or woman
or whatever, and being told that even then, you are still not allowed in
our cool underdog outsider group because you don’t agree with OUR
politics.

Which brings these tweets to mind:

Trevor Curtis ‏@trevorcurtis23
I’m sorry to put it this way, but my balls are more Native American than @voxday 

Reggie Stone ‏@rock_regi
You are as “indian” as every other white guy claiming to be 1/16th Cherokee. Stop co-opting other’s race as a shield.

Pox Vay ‏@PoxVay
DNA, not heritage. No practicing of culture or tradition.

pure, impure ‏@pure_impure
Vox as as Indian as I am Yemeni.

Narc ‏@narciblog
If @voxday is Native American based solely on some genetic test, I’m black since all of Homo Sapiens came out of Africa.

I take it as quite a compliment that aside from two of the usual suspects (pure, impure is Andrew Marston), there are so few SJWs willing to take the risk of openly expressing doubts about my Indian heritage, although strangely enough, virtually no one has expressed any doubts concerning my Mexican background. Or perhaps it isn’t so strange, as there is no question that the Red Card trumps the Brown Card in the SJW mind. (One of these days, I’m going to finish designing that SJW card game I started. If you’re an interested artist, let me know.) My being an Indian increases their discomfort when they try to DISQUALIFY me.

Let’s face it, it’s more than a little amusing that the only writer ever expelled from the hyper-inclusive Science Fiction Writers of America was one of its only Native American members.

Anyhow, it’s pretty clear that more experienced SJWs like McRapey have finally learned that I simply do not lie when making direct and public claims such as these. They may be dubious, they may have their doubts, but they know that anytime I offer them something this easily attacked, it’s almost surely a trap. This demonstrates that I was wrong about them. It may be a long and painfully slow process, but as it turns out, they are capable of learning after all.

But denying science and playing Identity Police is nothing new. Back when I was in college, I remember a prominent feminist member of the faculty standing up and saying that “Margaret Thatcher was not of the gender woman” due to her offensive politics. In fact, Margaret Thatcher was indubitably of the female sex, whether the SJWs liked it then or not, just as I am a bona fide American Indian, and not one of the “1/16th Cherokee” sort either.

As for the claimed failure to practice either culture or tradition, that would be a surprise to anyone who ever had a birthday dinner with my family. The inability of SJWs to understand that some people are more interested in what they can make of themselves than what they are made of tells you all you need to know about their prospects in life.

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.

SJWs and the mask of sanity

Roosh wrote a very important column delving into what Social Justice Warriors are, what they do, and how they go about doing it:

Social justice warriors believe in an extreme left-wing ideology that combines feminism, progressivism, and political correctness into a totalitarian system that attempts to censor speech and promote fringe lifestyles while actively discriminating against men, particularly white men. They are the internet activist arm of Western progressivism that acts as a vigilante group to ensure compliance and homogeny of far left thought.

The true definition of SJW is up for debate, but most generally it has become a catch-all term that describes feminists and liberals who actively try to solve the perceived social injustices of modern society by organizing in online communities to disseminate propaganda, censor speech, and punish individuals by getting them terminated from their employment. They have also been successful at positioning themselves in the upper echelons of universities, media organizations, and tech companies….

SJW tactics evolved by necessity to keep their ideology alive in a modern climate where science—even 100-year-old science—contradicts the bulk of their ideas.

For example, a basic tenet of SJW thought is that there is no difference between men and women besides their physical bodies, that evolution stopped at the neck for human beings and gave both sexes an identical brain. Human biology can not sustain this notion [1] [2] [3], so when a person tries to state that men and women are different to a large audience, the SJW does one of three things:

(1) Attempts to censor the speech through mob action
(2) Calls the person a misogynist who hates women to inoculate the general population from considering the accurate information presented
(3) Destroys the livelihood of the person by contacting his employer so that he is less able to exercise his free speech

You’ll often encounter SJW debate tactics trying to use consensus to persuade you: “How can you think X when so many people think Y?” As you may already know, consensus is a poor judge of facts or morality.

Readers here know the SJWs as “pinkshirts” and “rabbits”, although if one wants to get more specific, the SF/F pinkshirts are a subset of SJWs and SJWs are a subset of rabbits aka r/selected. The important thing for those of us on the political right to keep in mind is that SJW!=leftist. SJW is an extreme subset of leftism, as Roosh points out, an extreme subset, and it is possible to ally with the leftists they are every bit as inclined to attack on a tactical basis from time to time. Just as the Bolsheviks wiped out the Mensheviks and NASDAP put the KPD in concentration camps, the extreme Left engages in internecine combat as readily as inter-ideological conflict.

It’s a long post, but a very good one. Read the whole thing. You will recognize most of the strategies and tactics he describes as what we’ve seen in the SFWA purging, the Eich affair, and in the comments here when the SJW trolls run through their usual routines.

The most important thing to take away from it is to understand the complete impossibility of compromise or even discourse with them. They do not engage in rational debate because they are not rational and they do not engage in honest discourse because they do not believe in objective truth. They can only be a) ignored, or b) destroyed. Since we’re not permitted to hunt them down like the worthless parasites they are yet (give it another 20 years), the current solution is implacable opposition, rhetorical dismissal, and a complete rejection of their wheedling attempts at entryism.

Every apology or attempt to find common ground will be viewed as a display of weakness and attacked. This is why it is important to ignore the well-meaning moderates, who simply do not understand with what they are dealing and will unwisely attempt to give the SJWs the very entry points they are seeking. Don’t argue with the moderates, just let them speak their piece, nod and smile, and completely ignore their self-defeating advice.

They inevitably attempt to sell their irrationality beneath a mask of seeming reason and common sense. Because they are intrinsically parasitical, they need to obtain acquiescence, if not full mental buy-in, from people in the organizations they are invading. They seek submission, eventually, but they will settle for tolerance. The pattern is clear: Step one: tolerance. Step two: compliance. Step Three: submission.

Therefore, the correct answer is always no. “Wouldn’t it only make sense if….” No. “Can’t we just….” No. “Wouldn’t it be fair to….” No. “You have to admit….” No. “If you would just apologize…” No.

“No” strips the mask of sanity from their faces and reveals the angry, shrieking madness underneath. Never forget, they cannot win without your compliance. So do not, under ANY circumstances, comply.

Disclose and DISQUALIFY

runsonmagic explains the reason behind the growing pressure to eliminate online anonymity:

Anonymity forces you to evaluate a writer only on their work, which is precisely why so many oppose it. The people against online anonymity are intellectually lazy. They want to be able to tell what they think of an idea based on who is telling them to think that way. They want to nod when a minority, “alpha male,” or person who looks like them tells them something. Knowing an author only by their words forces readers to think abstractly, to think for themselves, and they hate it.

Social justice warriors and feminists hate anonymity because they do not believe in objective truth. They believe it matters more who makes a certain statement than what is being said. The same words that are okay for a black lesbian to say, might be offensive if a white heterosexual male says them. This is precisely why social justice warriors hate Anne Gus and #notyoursheild….

The real reason many social justice warriors are against anonymity is
because it prevents them from harassing writers and getting them fired
from jobs. It prevents tech companies from collecting accurate data on
public forums. Even in the manosphere, anonymity prevents internet
marketers from slandering their competition by claiming they are “not a
real alpha male” without photographic evidence. Like most things, the
push against online anonymity comes back to money and power.

I can’t tell you how many times pinkshirts and other lefties have tried to out me. They assume that simply because one has a pen name, they must be trying to hide something. (Never mind that all it did was demonstrate their insufficient level of intelligence and classical education.) In fact, their deliberate choice of addressing me by my given name is always a dead giveaway that they are an ideological enemy.

The whole point of forcing disclosure is to DISQUALIFY, which is the only form of argument that the sub-intellects of the Left are ever capable of making. Which, of course, is why it is pointless to even attempt to engage in rational dialectic with them. Relentless scorn and dismissive rhetoric is the most reliable means of routing them, but it is a tactic that requires confidence and a combative nature.

But anonymity is an absolute necessity for every non-combatant who dares to stand in the way of the pinkshirts, which of course is why they are desperate to eliminate it in the belief that everyone will cower obediently before them once they are stripped naked and forced to choose between submission and being unable to make a living. They don’t realize that there are millions who will embrace the ISIS model before submitting to them. Their triumphalism is not merely foolish, it is insanely suicidal.

Look at how panicky they sound when a few advertisers simply withdraw advertising and show their vulnerability. And then imagine if we were truly the monsters they claim us to be. My strong suspicion is that they have limited imaginations and are simply incapable of realizing that the status quo is not built upon a foundation of stone, history does not progress inevitably in one direction, and civilization is considerably more fragile than they understand.