Tag: SJW

SJWs shift the Narrative

Classic virtue signaling trigger manipulation. The Left is now being pulled into defending pedophiles by hardcore SJWs at Salon:

I’m a pedophile, you’re the monsters: My week inside the vile right-wing hate machine. My pedophilia essay outraged the right. My attempt to humanize a real problem brought out their nastiest rage

My article
“I’m A Pedophile, But Not a Monster”
was published last week and it has been a whirlwind since. I’ve spent
days doing radio interviews, even an appearance on TV (HLN’s Dr. Drew on Call), but mainly just answering the hundreds of emails that have poured in. Yes, the vast majority of them have been supportive.

While
there has been a visible backlash, predominantly from the political
right, in private it has been a different story. This piece has
generated debate and controversy all over the world, well beyond my
wildest imaginings. When I first approached Salon with the idea, my
editor was receptive, but throughout the process of refining the piece,
she asked me if I really understood what I was getting into. Her concern
was palpable. I assured her I did, which was mostly true; I had no idea
it would blow up as quickly as it did, and the bigger it got, the more
of a tempest it became. Even so, I have no regrets. I knew when I wrote
it that it was going to be an important piece, something unique and
necessary. And so it was.

Remember, SJWs are all about the Narrative. And what we’re seeing here, as many have recognized, is the SJWs deciding that it’s time to move on from Bruce Jenner and “transphobia” in order to start normalizing pedophilia. Because he “outraged the Right” and brought out “their nastiest rage”, that is the signal that his position is the virtuous one. As for the pedophile’s claims to have never touched a child sexually, do recall the truism: SJWs always lie.

We will see all the same arguments that we’ve seen since homosexuality was normalized. It’s not their fault, love is love, no one is harmed, you’re a bigot and on the wrong side of history if you dare to judge them on the basis of a sky fairy, and so forth. These are the early days, and we’ll know they’ve been officially normalized in SJW eyes when McRapey hires Nickerson to do some art for him in order to signal his virtue.

But we are not the previous generation and we do not fall so readily for their moral modification sequence or the ever-shifting narrative. Our answer is a straightforward one. We reject tolerance, we reject pedophilia, and we reject pedophiles. They are monsters and there is no place for them in any rational or moral society.

Reviewing the reviewer

It’s amazing how predictable SJWs can be and how easy it is to smoke them out. I posted this tweet about SJWs Always Lie this morning:

Vox Day @voxday
172 five-star reviews in a month and the #1 bestseller in Political Philosophy. What more do you need to know?

Which quickly prompted this “review’ by one Jeremy Lance Software Engineer, Educator, Project Manager, Utter Geek, Jack of All Trades (Master of a Few), who works at Perficient in the Greater Detroit Area and is on the Penguicon Board of Directors.

I feel like I’ve seen better delivery mechanisms for these thoughts on …
ByJeremy K. Lance on September 30, 2015

Not especially well written, and not very well thought out. Even if I agreed with the subject matter, I feel like I’ve seen better delivery mechanisms for these thoughts on bus benches and bathroom stalls.

I feel like I’ve read more convincing fake reviews by people who don’t speak English and have never heard of the book being reviewed. Of course, Jeremy Lance is precisely the sort of SF-SJW loser you’d expect to engage in Amazon activism. He’s a tech nerd with a blog who isn’t very intelligent, went to community college, and just happens to be – surprise, surprise – an overweight alcoholic with drug problems prone to depression and “suicide”.

It was during this narrow window of my life that I found myself sitting in the bedroom that I rented from a friend holding the shotgun he kept beneath his bed and crying. It was a place I found myself in a lot around that time. Several times each week—sometimes several times in a single day—I would find myself sitting with that gun simply trying to work up the courage to use it. For weeks I kept returning to that familiar position, wanting so much to no longer be alive and being trapped in life by a fear of literally and figuratively pulling the trigger.

On this occasion, though, I was committed. So much so that I had written my note, had dressed in the clothes that I wanted to be found in, and had gone and sat in the bathtub with the shower curtain pulled closed—I certainly didn’t want to make my exit more of an imposition on anybody else than it needed to be, they’d already put up with so much.

So brave. Thank you for this. Fucking Gamma drama queens. Those “suicide attempts” sound about as genuine as the “book review”. I’ll bet he found himself in that place a lot. For weeks, he kept returning to that position, waiting for someone to find him and stop him in the nick of time.

Anyhow, if you happen to work at or with Perficient, you should probably be aware that Jeremy K. Lance is a mentally unstable SJW. Can a responsible corporation really afford to take the risk of continuing to employ an individual like Jeremy K. Lance who is known to have access to firearms, to abuse drugs and alchohol, and who observably poses a risk to himself and others?

I was a bit amused to see Lance call himself “the David Foster Wallace of software development” when he’s quite clearly not qualified to call himself that.

UPDATE: The icing on the cake:

Milo Yiannopoulos ‏@Nero
@voxday You are cruel, vindictive, mean and heartless. Never change!  

No place for SJWs

Leo Grin demonstrates the correct way to deal with SJW entryists in proper Cimmerian fashion:

Gentlemen: it’s our duty to report that Barbara Barrett, erstwhile Cimmerian blogger, has been caught engaging in Orwellian “social justice” bully behaviors against REH fans.

An increasingly fervent proponent of feminist thought-policing and Codes of Conduct since entering this overwhelmingly male and non-ideological field several years ago, Barrett has recently weaponized her rhetoric in an attempted ISOLATION and DISQUALIFICATION of the most revered Sword-and-Sorcery expert in pulp fandom: former Official Editor of REHupa Morgan Holmes. His crime? Associating with Hugo-nominated fantasy author and longtime social justice critic Vox Day, thus violating Barrett’s cultish SJW narrative.

Unleashing a coordinated assault against Holmes and Day in not one but two separate print a.p.a.s — REHupa (The Robert E. Howard United Press Association) and PEAPS (The Pulp Era Amateur Press Society) — Barrett followed the SJW ATTACK SEQUENCE to the letter:

    Step #1 — Locate or Create Violation of the Narrative: ENACTED
    Step #2 — Point-and-Shriek: ENACTED
    Step #3 — Isolate and Swarm: ATTEMPTED (inexplicably the requisite mob of weak men needed to support her strong feminism has failed to materialize).

In service to her hoary “racism! sexism! homophobia!” attacks, Barrett fell back numerous times on the Three Rules of SJW:

    RULE #1: SJWs ALWAYS LIE
    RULE #2: SJWs ALWAYS DOUBLE DOWN
    RULE #3: SJWs ALWAYS PROJECT

Her goal with all of this is clear: ruin the reputations and livelihoods of two men, put the fear of suffering the same fate into everyone else, and then shame that cowed group of non-ideological male fans into establishing a fem-friendly code of conduct that would facilitate her becoming The Elderly Nazi Den Mother of REH Fandom, allowing her to ban WRONGFUN and BADTHINK wherever she might find it.

The Cimmerian Blog has been defunct for half a decade, but now that one of our former bloggers has been exposed as an SJW, we feel impelled to rise from our slumber to declare that we stand 100% against SJWs and their travelling freakshow of interlocking fetishes and predatory abuses.

As a now-confirmed SJW, Barbara Barrett is hereby EXPELLED from this blog. We have struck her prose from every post, and her face from every picture. Let her name be unheard and unspoken among us, erased from the memory of our august fellowship, for all time. So let it be written. So let it be done.

We publicly express our support, unequivocally and without reservation, for Sword-and-Sorcery expert Morgan Holmes, as well as for fantasy author Vox Day. Both are great and good friends of REH fandom, and of liberty.

Or to put it another way:

It’s worth noting that this unequivocal approach has the distinct benefit of smoking out other SJWs who are just as inclined to thought policing but are not quite as open or aggressive about it. Although it is a bit ironic to have someone who cries about having been attacked for his support of Scottish independence being afraid of being attacked for being somehow associated, however remotely, with someone who supports Scottish independence.

Of course, as with every other SJW, it’s all about the Narrative.

Mailvox: how SJWs metastasize

An individual familiar with the con scene explains how SJW entryism metastasizes once they take control of an organization and start using it as a vehicle to spread their thought control elsewhere.

Greetings from Minnesota. I recently read SJWs Always Lie, and I noted in particular the parts about entryism and the way Codes of Conduct are weaponized to cull enemies from organizations because it parallels my own experience with the local fan con scene.

The big fan con, locally, remains CONvergence (“CVG”). Damn near all of the other local fan cons follow its lead and participate in an association with the defacto parent org, the Geek Partnership Society. When this organizational realignment occurred there also came the inclusion of the current Code of Conduct (masked as a simple “Harassment” statement), pushes for Costumes Are Not Consent as another fork in the process, and the inclusion of the Atheism Plus crowd via con-within-a-con Skepticon (Rebecca Watson, Amanda Marcotte, and P.Z. Myers are much loved by the ruling clique here.) as a recurring element. I wondered what the hell was going on.

Well, one of the former CVG con com members is a man by the name of Michael Lee who has recently organized a convention specific to organizers of fan con: JOFCon MSP. This con has an explicit Code of Conduct, and I note that this code makes explicit in writing what is in actual practice at CONvergence regarding how its harassment policy is intended to work.

Furthermore, this is a con catering to the “Secret Masters of Fandom” clique, and many of the current and former CVG con-com members who will attend JOFCon MSP adhere to the SMOFs in large part due to the Torlock crowd being long-time regulars at CVG . The Former Guests of Honor, Visiting Authors, and Attending Professions are listed and I’m sure you’d recognize many of those listed. Yes, this meant any “acceptable” talk of Sad Puppies or Gamergate was NOT in support.

I offer my above-linked examples as real-world cases worthy of study, as both CVG (in its current status as Local Con of Cons, and therefore a significant point in the con-centric travelling circus that many authors and artists run to earn their living) and this JOFCon seem to possess more influence than they seem. WorldCon is not the only example of SJWs using leverage to fuck up the greater culture; I suspect that they’re using the entire con scene to engineer their poison into the culture.

I’m telling others sympathetic to the anti-SJW push across all fandoms that attend conventions to check their materials for similar signs of entryism and reconsider the state of organizational integrity for that convention. I would advise professionals to do likewise for conferences related to their interests. Given the alternatives now available, it may be possible to render those too far gone totally irrelevant while others can be reconquered and then purged of the cultists.

Keep this in mind if you are feeling any qualms of conscience about jettisoning an SJW from your club or organization because “he hasn’t done anything yet”. Don’t look at them as individuals because they don’t operate as individuals and they certainly don’t think for themselves; they are merely an invasive tendril of the SJW hive mind that is attempting to force its way into your area of responsibility.

If you don’t force them out, if you don’t keep them out, they will eventually take you out and take it over. Don’t think you, your organization, or your purpose is too valuable or important, the Narrative ALWAYS comes first and foremost for SJWs.

And if the SJWs are already running the show, leave. Stop supporting it. If you can summon the manpower to take it back, then do so, but if you can’t, set up your own show in direct competition with it and run them out that way.

SJWs invade Cimmeria

As it has been said, SJWs always lie. Yet another example, this one from the world of Robert E. Howard scholarship:

At one time the Cimmerian Blog was the cream of the crop for online Robert E. Howard scholarship and I was very proud to be a contributor there in 2009-2010. Since closing down that year the blog has remained online as an archive of scholarship, hosted by the owner Leo Grin.

This weekend I learned that owner had posted a political rant attacking one of the other bloggers, Barbara Barrett, and endorsing controversial science ficiton writer Theodore Beale (a.k.a. Vox Day) founder of the Rabid Puppies group that tried to hijack the Hugo Awards this year. The wording of his rant in the first person plural makes it sound as though all of the other bloggers endorsed this action as well as the ideology of Vox Day. This is not the case at all.

I was not consulted about this and I do not in anyway endorse Leo Grin’s comments or the beliefs of Vox Day and the Rabid Puppies. I have asked that my name, image, and posts be removed from the site and Leo has complied. I will likely be reposting some of my less-dated material here as time permits in the weeks to come. I am very saddened that this had to happen and that what was once a great REH blog has been tarnished by such divisive politicization.

That said. there are amazing things happening in Howard fandom and scholarship now and coming in the future. We will not let this petty nonsense get in the way of that great work.

Allow me to translate: “petty nonsense” means someone dared to disagree with an SJW. “Divisive politicization” means that an SJW attempt to take over the organization was resisted.

SJWs can’t easily operate out in the open before they’ve seized effective control. That’s why they will cooperate and play along right up until the moment that it becomes clear that their entryism is futile. Then they’ll make it clear that their allegiance is to the Narrative, not to the organization or its objectives.

It’s all right there in the book. Their playbook never changes much. So learn it and learn how to deal with it, because sooner or later, it will affect you directly.

Mailvox: the power of rhetoric

RM puts SJWs Always Lie into practice:

On Twitter I was able to apply your tactics in realtime against some atheist chick. I demolished pseudo-dialectic with dialectic, and met rhetoric with rhetoric. Additionally, I also worked in the Red Pill, maintained frame and got her hamster working over time by saying her profile pic was one of a 4, and hitting the Wall must drive her to seek male attention. I got six tweets in response for one of mine with her hamster spinning like mad to qualify herself to me.

In the end, she started following my account and asked if I’d follow her and if I wanted to have a conversation with just her since she was shy on Twitter.

I dropped it and walked away at that point, shuddering.

Granted, I have room for improvement. It took me far too long to get her to that point and I replied too often, but the end result was a confirmation of your tactics for logic and your observations concerning socio-sexual interactions.

There is a definite connection between rhetoric and Game that merits further exploration. And on a tangential note, I’ve had some requests for how to respond to common rhetorical attacks. For example, it’s quite common to see atheists use the Old Testament to rhetorically attack Christianity, to which the ideal rhetorical response should be obvious: “You’re attacking the Torah? You’re an anti-semitic Jew-hating Nazi!”

It would be helpful, in this regard, if you would list some of the common rhetorical attacks you’ve observed at school, at work, or online.

Never apologize to SJWs

Or to the media, as both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter, among others, have repeatedly demonstrated:

Appearing with Jimmy Fallon on the Tonight Show, Donald Trump was in the mood to tweak his own persona — to a point. “I think apologizing’s a great thing,” he said. “But you have to be wrong. I will absolutely apologize, sometime in the hopefully distant future, if I’m ever wrong.”

It’s funny because it’s true: Trump’s steadfast refusal to apologize for his controversial antics may be the most striking thing about him. A significant portion of the Republican base craves it, and a handful of pro-Trump conservative pundits does, too. None of them looms larger, perhaps, than Ann Coulter.

It makes sense. Trump has given political expression to a model of conservative discourse perfected by Coulter and subsequently emulated by Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, and others: 1) Say something controversial or provocative and get a ton of attention in the process. 2) When the media and the Left inevitably demand an apology, adamantly refuse to provide one, driving your critics batty and burnishing your conservative credentials with the base. It’s been Coulter’s modus operandi for her entire, lucrative career, and now Trump has brought it to the campaign trail: A real conservative never says he’s sorry….

Coulter has made a fine living with the same mantra for decades. “Never apologize, at least not for what liberals want you to apologize for,” she advised in her 2004 book, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must). It’s a rule her critics know she follows all-too-well.

During the George W. Bush years, Coulter’s use of the terms “raghead” and “faggot” in speeches at CPAC generated some furious reactions but no public contrition. In 2012, the Today Show spotlighted a father who was demanding that she apologize for using the term “retarded,” and cease using it in the future. She insisted she wasn’t really referring to the mentally handicapped and said, “screw them!” when asked about her critics in a radio interview with Alan Colmes. (As recently as this May, Coulter wrote a column entitled, “Knowing What We Know Now, Would You Say Jeb Bush Is Retarded?”) Later that year, a Latino GOP group demanded she apologize for a column entitled, “America Nears el Tipping Pointo.” She declined to do so.

Coulter’s remarks have attracted the ire of bigger fish on the right, as well. A few months ago, Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren called on her to apologize for saying that South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, who is of Indian Sikh heritage, “is an immigrant and does not understand America’s history.” No such apology was forthcoming.

What I find remarkable is the way that despite the clear and conclusive evidence that a public apology always does more harm than good, people are STILL dumb enough to offer up public apologies. Matt Damon is only the latest to learn this very simple and obvious fact; Brad Torgersen learned the same thing when he made the mistake of apologizing to John Scalzi. As will not surprise anyone who has read SJWs Always Lie, Scalzi immediately took Brad’s apology and turned it into a weapon he used to launch an attack on the Sad Puppy leader.

Look at it this way. An apology is a confession. And what do prosecutors do with confessions? They use it to prosecute the person who gave it to them. 

If you’re ever being put under pressure to apologize for something, ask yourself this question: What are the real objectives of those who are putting pressure on me? If they happen to be your critics or political opponents, you can be confident their real objectives don’t happen to include your best interests.

The Toad is getting worried

Keep in mind that Teresa Nielsen Hayden, aka The Toad of (formerly) Tor, has never directly addressed me on Twitter. Yet today she did so twice in order to publicly claim that her husband never shouted at Jagi Lamplighter Wright and to insist that both Mr. and Mrs. Wright are lying.

tnielsenhayden ‏@tnielsenhayden
@voxday Did JCW not warn you how many witnesses were within earshot of his event-that-didn’t-happen? Now you both look like idiots. @pnh

 tnielsenhayden ‏@tnielsenhayden
@voxday Note for future: if you’re going to make up any more stories like that, don’t set them at the pre-Hugo reception. @pnh

Notice that Patrick Nielsen Hayden hasn’t issued any public denials on Twitter. He doesn’t want to risk getting caught out publicly lying about his own behavior. The Toad is obviously getting desperate. I wasn’t there. I don’t claim to have been there. I haven’t made anything up and it wouldn’t even make sense for me to make anything up.

The fact of the matter is that contra the Toad’s lying, the Senior Editor at Tor Books, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, did raise his voice, he did shout at a woman, he did tell her to tell her husband, a Tor Books author, to “stick it up his ass”, and he did shout about “blood libel” to a Jewish woman. He is an unprofessional and verbally abusive man.

Those are facts to which there were several witnesses. The Toad wasn’t there any more than I was, but she is an SJW, and as we know, SJWs always lie… and they always try to reshape the Narrative.

Now, I wonder why the Toad is suddenly feeling the need to reshape this particular Narrative? And also I wonder how much longer Macmillan intends to put up with these unprofessional lunatics at Tor Books. I mean, by this point, they have to realize that it is never going to stop until Patrick Nielsen Hayden is replaced by actual professional editors with real college degrees and everything.

Doxxing and outing is bad

Unless the SJW-infested media does it to an anti-SJW. Then it’s news.

 ‘Julia Caesar’, an anonymous right-wing blogger who has blasted Swedish journalists for writing an “epoch of lies” about the benefits of immigration, is herself a former reporter for Sweden’s biggest broadsheet, Dagens Nyheter, according to a Swedish tabloid.

The controversial writer, who has sought to keep her identity secret, has been causing a huge stir on social media since 2010. Her blog posts lay into mainstream politicians and what she describes as “the corrupt media” for promoting what she argues is an “epoch of lies” about immigration. They also praise the rise of the nationalist Sweden Democrat Party.

“It simply isn’t possible to lie about the blessings of multiculturalism or mass immigration forever when citizens clearly see with their own eyes how their country is being dismantled in front of them,” reads one of her recent posts, which has also been translated into English on a separate blog by one of her supporters.

On Wednesday, Sweden’s Expressen tabloid revealed that the blogger – who has also published three books – is herself a former journalist for Dagens Nyheter (DN), a Swedish newspaper.

The reason SJWs are always so desperate to out and doxx people is because they want to be able to exert social pressure on them, discredit them, and disemploy them. This is why the protection of anonymity is vital, and why it is always a wise idea to establish more than one online identity if you are going to stand up against SJWs in any context.

And this is also why it is very important to offer public support to those the SJWs have successfully identified and targeted. Not everyone is psychologically suited to deal with direct targeting, but as for me, I laugh every time I see my given name “revealed” again in a blog post or news article.

I always wonder how the writer justifies it in his head. Does he ever refer to Bono as Paul Hewson? Or 50 Cent as Curtis Jackson? Or Brianna Wu as John Flynt? It’s useful, though, as whenever I see my given name appear, I know the writer is an SJW who is hoping to increase the social pressure on me, as if just a little more will finally do the trick.

Mailvox: Rhetoric in action

The lightbulb goes on for IndecisiveEvidence:

My first instinct reading that exchange is to shake my head. It’s just you and Kluwe doing catty girl sniping. I’m a troll so I get it but it seems stupid. Then it hit me. You reminded me in the comment thread here. I read your book. You’re exercising the language Sparklepunter speaks. Brilliant. It’s still stupid but now in a completely different light that makes perfect sense.

Rhetoric often strikes those outside its emotional impact range as stupid. Think about the nasty little comment about her new dress that absolutely crushes the teen girl; the same comment made to anyone else might not only seem stupid, but insane. However, as I seem to keep having to point out to those who are quite stupidly attached to the idea that flawless logic and reason are genuinely capable of persuading 100 percent of all human beings of anything, rhetoric is devoid of information content. It is not intended to instruct or inform. It is intended to emotionally influence.

In the case of adversarial rhetoric, the objective is to cause sufficient emotional pain to the other party to force them to withdraw from the conflict. Now, withdrawal does not necessarily mean that any emotional pain has been caused, but one can usually tell if this is the case or not on the basis of any abrupt alteration of one party’s behavior. Usually, this will be the attacking party suddenly breaking off contact. To utilize the catty girl sniping analogy, whoever bursts into tears and runs away loses status, whoever remains there gains it.

Kluwe’s rhetoric was unfocused, shallow, and ineffective. He tried to associate me with Nazis, which is neither new to me nor true, and has no more effect on me than the previous five thousand attempts. Recognizing that, he then tried to pick at what he thought would be a sore spot, but I hadn’t spent any time thinking about how to respond to him and having three Hugo No Awards doesn’t bother me in the slightest. After all, I knowingly sought two of them this year. So he moved on to the assertion that my movement, whatever that may be, is failing and that my supporters are rats attempting to disassociate from me.

Considering that the VFM have grown from 434 strong to 445 in the last few days, the new book is still #1 in Political Philosophy, and the site traffic is on course to set a new monthly record, this was the precise opposite of effective rhetoric, which always has some basis in truth. How terrible do you feel, having been labeled a disloyal rodent by Sparklepunter?

Contrast with that my own rhetoric, which associated Kluwe, the father of two young girls, with pedophilia. This had a strong basis in truth, since Kluwe was actively defending a known pedophile in his unprovoked challenge to GamerGate. It was focused, as I continued to harp on that theme, and it was effective, as Kluwe rapidly went from attacking GamerGate and publicly asserting his support for Nyberg to retreating and hitting the mute button in the course of just a few tweets.

It was somewhat of a pity, because I had some even sharper rhetoric prepared, but it should illustrate that contra the mindless catty girl sniping some erroneously thought it to be, it was effective rhetoric that demoralized an enemy and defeated his rhetorical attack. No one came away from reading that thinking about National Socialism. A dialectical response that cited Nyberg’s various deeds would have been totally ineffective since Kluwe was already familiar with all of the relevant information and had chosen to ignore it.

“Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest
knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For
argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people
whom one cannot instruct.”
– Aristotle, Rhetoric 

I repeat: Meet dialectic with dialectic. Meet rhetoric with rhetoric. Meet pseudo-dialectic with dialectic to expose the rhetoric, then follow it up with rhetoric. Those who tend to favor dialectic very much need to understand that the emotional impact of dialectic in response to rhetoric is every bit as ineffective as the logical impact of rhetoric is in response to dialectic.

It may help to keep in mind that whenever you try to use information to persuade a rhetoric speaker, you sound like “the train is fine” guy. You may be correct, but you’re totally missing the point.