Tag: SJW

Outing and doxxing are cool now

Apparently, if Gawker is any guide. The difficult thing about dealing with SJWs is one can never keep track of when one is supposed to consider the same action a) outrageous or b) meritorious:

Condé Nast’s CFO Tried To Pay $2,500 for a Night With a Gay Porn Star

David Geithner, brother of ex-Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, is
currently the chief financial officer of Condé Nast. This past weekend,
he’d planned to go to Chicago—where he planned to meet a gay porn star
and escort for “2-3 hours” at a cost of $2,500.

Actually, the chief lesson I learned from reading this article is to never rely upon gay porn star escorts, not that I anticipate any difficulties considering what has hitherto been my historical record of spotless success in this regard. Yes, the whole thing is very shady and I have no doubt Mr. Geithner has some difficult conversations with his wife and employer looming, and yes, Gawker merits every bit of the flak that it is going to take from #GamerGate and others, but Geithner is hardly the first corporate executive to have a seamy side and Gawker’s hypocrisy is very much par for the course.

What was truly shocking was the bizarre behavior of the escort. I mean, how flaky does one have to be to try to get the brother of a former administration official to help resolve one’s dispute with the Department of Housing and Urban Development on behalf of a prostitute whose illicit favors one has not even yet sampled?

In any event, it’s vastly amusing to see how Gawker has demonstrated its ability to make everyone across the political spectrum hate it. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. If you’re interested in joining #GamerGate’s anti-Gawker action, Operation Disrespectful Nod, which has already cost Gawker more than $1 million in advertising dollars, go here.

Emails lead the charge
Cleanse the world of #gawker filth
Our ethics shall reign
– @GG_HaikuBot9000

Le Monde on GGinParis

A la rencontre du GamerGate, le mouvement libertarien qui veut défendre « ses » jeux vidéo
Le Monde
William Audureau

Meet GamerGate, the libertarian movement to defend “men’s” video games. Protean,
sometimes violent and a strange nothing, the movement of video game
players met Saturday, July 11 in Paris without interposed screens.

Paris, Gare de Lyon, at the stroke of 10 PM. Drinks in hand, forty
patrons mingle calmly on the sidewalk in front of a nondescript bar.
Three men stand facing them. In a black  jacket over a black T-shirt,
the writer known as “Vox Day” speaks to the crowd. “We
are the first in decades to successfully oppose the Social Justice Warriors
[derogatory term describing feminist and LGBT activists]. I’m right, you
may be left, but we fight together. You are not alone,” he declares. In
the audience, some lift their glasses, slightly ill at ease.

“I’m
against reconfiguring this movement for political purposes,” says a
young programmer with a psychobilly look– 50s pompadour and an easy
familiarity. “I’m 200% anti-racist, I’ve supported the French
antifascist action since the age of fourteen,” he adds as if to further
distance himself from one of the organizers of the event, Vox Day, a
video game programmer and science fiction writer known for his
supremacist writings and for having called a black female colleague a
“half-savage”– a remark he repeated Saturday to Le Monde. And yet, the
two men were participating in the same rally.

From antifascists
to supremacists to ecologists, libertarians, socialists and the
apolitical, all political sides were present, even the most extreme,
this Saturday, July 11 in this Parisian brasserie, during the first
“official” meeting of GamerGate in France…

In many respects,
GamerGate comes from the same culture as Anonymous. It springs from the
same forums, takes on the same form of hackitivism, tinted with grinning
anarchism and harassment; its horizontalist and conservative values are
close, but with a more pronounced libertarian hue and a new masculinist
core.

 
“We are revolutionaries of freedom” believes Vox Day, who presents himself in a provocative manner as an “extreme libertarian” and cites Voltaire in a triumphant tone. But all do not put as much political motives behind their support of GamerGate. “I like just to play the perfect woman with large breasts,” says an amused Elodie, 25, a software developer. “Let them not change my games.”

I find it vaguely amusing that even in a clear attempt to do a hit piece on #GamerGate, the mere fact that Mr. Audureau actually covered the GGinParis event, and spoke directly with us, caused him to present a much more balanced piece than we’ve seen everywhere from NPR to Popular Science.

That’s why the media tries so hard to avoid talking to us and prefers to instead talk about us. Because every time we speak, we punch holes in their SJW narrative.

SJW-weaponized law

Speaking of SJWs, here is how they are weaponizing the combination of law and social media:

What’s believed to be the first case in Canada of alleged criminal harassment-via-Twitter is just a judge’s decision away from being over.

After hearing closing submissions Tuesday from Chris Murphy, who represents 54-year-old Greg Elliott, Ontario Court Judge Brent Knazan is expected to rule on Oct. 6.

In the balance rides enormous potential fallout for free speech online.

Elliott is charged with criminally harassing two Toronto female political activists, Steph Guthrie and Heather Reilly, in 2012.

Allegations involving a third woman were dropped.

The graphic artist and father of four lost his job shortly after his arrest, which was well-publicized online, and if convicted, could go to jail for six months.

These are astonishing repercussions given that it’s not alleged he ever threatened either woman (or any other, according to the testimony of the Toronto Police officer, Detective Jeff Bangild, who was in charge) or that he ever sexually harassed them.

Indeed, Elliott’s chief sin appears to have been that he dared to disagree with the two young feminists and political activists.

He and Guthrie, for instance, initially fell out over his refusal to endorse her plan to “sic the Internet” upon a young man in Northern Ontario who had invented a violent video game, where users could punch an image of a feminist video blogger named Anita Sarkeesian until the screen turned red.

Guthrie Tweeted at the time that she wanted the inventor’s “hatred on the Internet to impact his real-life experience” and Tweeted to prospective employers to warn them off the young man and even sent the local newspaper in his town a link to the story about the game.

Now, if a Canadian graphic artist who is sympathetic to SJWs can be successfully targeted by them for being insufficiently enthusiastic about their plans to swarm a target, do you seriously think you’re beyond attack?

The First Law and the NYT

Instapundit calls it correctly:

THAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LIE AND GET CAUGHT: NY Times Taking a Beating In Its Battle With Ted Cruz.

We wrote here about Ted Cruz’s feud with the New York Times. Cruz’s new book, A Time for Truth, is a hot seller, apparently #3 among hard cover nonfiction books. But the Times refused to list it on its best seller list, claiming that its “sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases.” Both Cruz and his publisher, HarperCollins, have denied the charge, and Cruz has challenged the Times either to provide evidence to back up its claim, or else apologize.

Now Amazon has entered the fray, stating publicly that there is “is no evidence of unusual bulk purchase activity in our sales data.” As of last report, A Time for Truth is #13 at Amazon among all books, not just hard cover nonfiction. Other sources that track book sales evidently agree that there is nothing fishy about Cruz’s book’s sales.

The Times is run by Social Justice Warrior types, and Social Justice Warrior types always lie.

Because SJWs focus on taking the public high ground specifically so they can act as gatekeepers and narrative-controllers, they always have a difficult time when there is an objective measure that is not subject to their control. That’s why they hate Amazon so much; Amazon destroys their ability to sell the story that their authors and books are vastly popular while no one reads the authors and books of which they disapprove.

But because SJWs always lie, you know, you absolutely know, that the lie is in there somewhere. You have only got to look for it, and soon enough, you’ll find it.

Of math and the SJW

In which McRapey totally pwns the math:

Vox Day (@voxday)
The @torbooks boycott has reduced @scalzi’s Bookscan sales by 68%! http://t.co/kYXVBeBBo7 #SadPuppies

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
1. A detractor trying to show his “boycott” of Tor was working claimed a 68% drop in my Lock In sales since the boycott, citing Bookscan…

2. His only problem is that he read the data backwards. Literally backwards. My booksales went UP in that time, not down.

3. And people wonder why I occasionally say I wish I had a better class
of detractor. Even being able to math would be an improvement!

4. (To be clear, the week-to-week number movement have nothing to do
with boycotts or anything else. They’re the usual sales up and downs.)

5. Those curious can see discussion of it here:
http://file770.com/?p=23709 . Note the first comment, which catches the
math error.

You know, I haven’t been caught out this badly since I observed that Kim Stanley Robinson was, on the basis of the picture on his web site, a remarkably ugly bearded woman. If nothing else, you’d think the exclamation point on a single tweet would have given it away, but apparently anything short of a “LOL”, a smiley face emoji, and a (jk) will be lost on these masters of the social arts.

Johnny Con’s attempted derision of his nameless detractor’s inability to do math is amusing because there is no mathematical error involved. There is absolutely no indication of not “being able to math”. And he would appear to have failed to realize that I was mocking Jason Sanford for a) pretending that an obviously irrelevant snapshot of data was relevant, b) listing the dates in the reverse of the usual order, and c) proceeding to reach a backwards conclusion. See, unlike Scalzi, I don’t assume the other side is completely retarded; I find it impossible to imagine that Sanford is genuinely dumb enough to believe that the data he cited is meaningful in any way, shape, or form.

SJWs like Scalzi are so easy. All you need to to do make them jump is offer them a “mistake” they can attack in order to disqualify you and show how totally smart and superior they are. As Scalzi demonstrates, they will ignore literally everything that is relevant to the argument at hand in their desperate eagerness to strike their pseudo-superior poses.

Sanford wrote: “Lock In by John Scalzi (hardcover) 65 copies on 7/05, 39 on 6/28, 74 on 6/21, 63 on 6/14, 46 on 6/7, 54 on 5/31, 21 on 5/24.” The chart, on the other hand, begins with May 24th and ends with July 5th, with the data running in the more conventional left to right manner, which made his reversal obvious even for those who don’t know how to read dates in the American manner. There is no math error; 21/65 = 0.32, which would indicate a 68 percent decline; more importantly, as Mike Glyer correctly notes, the dates Sanford cites to “prove” the ineffectiveness of the boycott are invalid because he cites data from three successive weeks before the boycott began.

When I aggregated the sales for these 10 books from the week of June 21, the latest unaffected by the boycott (announced on June 19), and the sales from the week of July 5 (the latest reported by Sanford), that gave me 1,740 vs. 1,667 books. Therefore, the July 5 sales of these 10 books were 95.8% of what they were before immediately before the boycott.

In fact, Scalzi’s Bookscan sales have observably declined since the boycott began: from 74 the week of June 21 to 65 the week of July 5. That is a 12.2 percent decline. Clearly, if we are to take Mr. Sanford’s numbers seriously, the Tor boycott has been effective.

Of course, what will likely be of considerably more concern to Tor Books than the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of the boycott is the fact that the writer for whom they blew off 523 new writers is selling as few as 21 copies of his “best-selling” hardcover per week.

Remember the First Law of SJW: SJWs always lie.

SJWs rewrite the Reddit narrative

It’s Silicon Valley 2, Ellen Pao 0: Fighter of Sexism Is Out at Reddit

Ellen Pao became a hero to many when she took on the entrenched male-dominated culture of Silicon Valley. But sentiment is a fickle thing. Late Friday she fell victim to a crowd demanding her ouster as chief executive of the popular social media site Reddit.

Ms. Pao’s abrupt downfall in the face of a torrent of sexist and racist comments, many of them on Reddit itself, is quite likely to renew charges that bullying, harassment and cruel behavior are out of control on the web — and that Silicon Valley’s well-publicized problem with gender and ethnic diversity in its work force persists….

More than 213,000 people signed a petition demanding Ms. Pao’s resignation. After her departure was announced, Reddit users celebrated in an over-the-top fashion. “Rejoice internet brethren,” wrote one. “The great evil has been slain.”

Why are the SJWs at the New York Times lining up behind Ellen Pao and trying to rewrite the narrative? For the same reason the media lies about GamerGate and lies about the Puppies. They are terrified at the resistance being shown by the broad spectrum anti-SJW movement. As I told GGinParis last night, without #GamerGate there is no Rabid Puppies. Without #GamerGate, Ellen Pao is still running Reddit into the ground.

And the SJWs are right to be terrified. They are not only meeting resistance now, but they are being actively pushed back from territory they’d previously claimed. This is only the beginning; eventually we will drive them entirely out of the various industries and being identified as an SJW will be as totally unacceptable to most people as being a Nazi, a Communist, or a KKK member.

The built-in bias of Wikipedia

I’ve commented before on how the editors at Wikipedia doggedly turn every article about a left-leaning public figure into a defense case, while every one about a right-wing figure is prosecutorial in nature:

Neil Tyson, a prominent popularizer of science (he even has his own television show) was recently found to have repeatedly fabricated multiple quotes over several years. The fabrications were not a one-off thing. They were deliberate and calculated, crafted with one goal in mind: to elevate Tyson, and by extension his audience, at the expense of know-nothing, knuckle-dragging nutjobs who hate science. Tyson targeted journalists, members of Congress, even former President George W. Bush. And what was their crime? They were guilty of rejecting science, according to Tyson.

There’s only one problem. None of the straw man quotes that Tyson uses to tear them down are real….

After I published my piece about Neil Tyson’s fabrication of the George W. Bush quote, several users edited Neil Tyson’s wiki page
to include details of the quote fabrication controversy. The
fact-loving, evidence-weighing, ever-objective editors of the online
encyclopedia did not appreciate the inclusion of the evidence of Tyson’s
fabrication. Not at all.

According to a review of the edit history of Tyson’s page,
one long-time Wikipedia editor deleted an entire pending section
summarizing the issue of Tyson’s fabricated quotes. Another editor
attempted to insert a brief mention of Tyson’s fabrication of the George
W. Bush quote. That mention was also deleted. When it was reinserted,
it was deleted yet again by an editor who describes himself as a childless progressive and an apostle of Daily Kos (h/t @kerpen).

Literally every single mention of Tyson’s history of fabricating quotes has been removed from Tyson’s Wikipedia page.

Meanwhile, the Wikipedia page about me contains more about NK Jemisin and John Scalzi than it does about a professional career that has been covered everywhere from the New York Times to Computer Gaming World, casts doubt on my heritage, and reduces my entire personal life to two of the four languages I speak. I mean, at the very least, you’d think they’d mention that I speak English, that my blog is the most highly trafficked one in science fiction and fantasy, or my son is the youngest male author ever published.

But, of course, anything that might reflect well on me, or poorly on Tyson, is something that the Wikipedia editors are determined to excise. And that’s why you should never take anything you read on Wikipedia as anything but a starting point.

George Martin opposes the Tor boycott

George Rape Rape Martin takes time out of his daily fetish-writing to urge everyone  to oppose the Tor boycott, which is totally irrelevant and futile and doesn’t matter in the slightest, which is precisely why it must be denounced and opposed. It’s frankly a shame that he’s been distracted in this way, as old RapeSquared had been working on a smashing scene involving the violation of Arya Stark wearing the face of Cersei Lannister by two Sparrows, seven nuns, Ser Robert Strong, and King Tomas’s adopted kitten. It was really going to blow everyone’s socks off when West of Eros: The Epic Rapes of George R. R. Martin appears in 2017.

In one of the more recent developments, the Rabid Puppies and some of their allies and fellow travellers have declared a boycott of Tor Books. I say “Rabid” here because Beale is backing the boycott, while Larry Correia says the Sad Puppies are not boycotting anyone… though Correia and some of the other Sads certainly seem deeply sympathetic to the boycott.

I am not, needless to say. Neither is most of fandom.

Which makes this a perfect time to BUY SOME TOR BOOKS!!

So if you would like to strike a blow for free speech and decency, and support all the good people at Tor, go ye forth and buy a book today… from the Cocteau, or Amazon, or anywhere… and let your voice be heard.

[Martin adds in the comments:] “The Tor boycott is an ugly attempt to try and cost some good people their jobs. It needs to be denounced and opposed.”

Good people? On what planet can the likes of lying, libelous, Code of Conduct-violating individuals such as Irene Gallo and Patrick Nielsen Hayden be reasonably described as “good people”? Observably not this one. And as for the “free speech and decency” Martin claims to be defending, let’s recall the speech itself:

 “There are two extreme right-wing to neo-nazi groups, called the Sad
Puppies and the Rabid Puppies respectively, that are calling for the end
of social justice in science fiction and fantasy. They are
unrepentantly racist, sexist and homophobic. A noisy few but they’ve
been able to gather some Gamergate folks around them and elect a slate
of bad-to-reprehensible works on this year’s Hugo ballot.”
– Irene Gallo, Creative Director of Tor Books and Associate Publisher of Tor.com

That is a clear and undeniable violation on several counts of the Macmillan Code of Conduct. It is a completely unprovoked, absolutely unprofessional attack on Tor’s customers as well as several of Tor’s own authors. If Irene Gallo was a fry cook at McDonalds or a minimum-wage greeter at Walmart, she’d be gone already, and it is as disingenuous as it is stupid to pretend otherwise.

RapeSquared was promptly called on his little omissions by a few of his readers and didn’t hesitate to take some liberties with the facts. Because, after all, George Martin is an SJW, and SJWs always lie.

lordevaco
Jul. 7th, 2015 09:00 pm (UTC)
I just thought it was weird to leave out why there is a boycott in the first place, so I googled it. I didn’t even know about it, but apparently it’s because someone at Tor denounced all of them as “neo-Nazis” and “unrepentantly racist, misogynist, and homophobic” and Tor didn’t do anything about it.

That’s not cool at all either.

grrm
Jul. 7th, 2015 10:45 pm (UTC)
If you googled it, you should also have read that not one but TWO apologies were issued for that tweet, one by the person who posted it, one by the publisher of Tor. That should have closed the book on the affair. Instead we have a boycott and calls for firings.

And I have yet to see anyone on the Puppy side apologize for anything, though their name-calling has far exceeded that coming from the fans.

lumbridge
Jul. 8th, 2015 12:43 am (UTC)
Why are the sad puppies boycotting Tor books? By the way which fantasy titles would you recommend that Tor publishes?

grrm
Jul. 8th, 2015 01:27 am (UTC)
It’s the Rabid Puppies boycotting Tor, not the Sads. Plus some unaffiliated or semi-affiliated allies.

I will not attempt to explain the whole thing. In a nutshell, a Tor employee categorized the Puppies in a nasty way, some of them got outraged and demanded an apology, an apology was issued, but the Rabids decided that was not enough and now want resignations and firings. (Which they are never going to get, by the way).

We’ll see. Corporate actions tend to move along very slowly and then happen all at once. Macmillan’s CEO just returned from his sabbatical this week and I have been directly informed by a Macmillan executive that no decision on how to address the situation has yet been made. And while I suppose it is possible that Mr. Sargent could simply throw out the company Code of Conduct in order to retain the services of an arrogant, entitled employee who believes she can treat his company’s customers and authors with total contempt and still retain her job, I tend to doubt it.

I will not be even remotely surprised if both Ms Gallo and Mr. Nielsen Hayden leave Tor Books in the near future. Macmillan quite clearly had no idea what sort of inmate-run asylum it has on its hands, and it’s not surprising that it would take a little time for them to figure out what needs to be done in order to set it straight.

If it were my problem, I would clean house. After all, how many of the big SF/F franchises of the last 20 years has the biggest publisher in SF/F published? If one considers how hit SF/F franchises Tor Books has missed on, including Martin’s ASOIAF, it’s not as if their management team can considered irreplaceable. But it’s not my problem and not my decision. I’m simply not going to buy any Tor Books, not even those written by the excellent Mr. Wright, while Irene Gallo and Patrick Nielsen Hayden are still employed there.

The SJW review of books

And they wonder why we so blithely ignore their idiotic, ideologically-driven opinions. An SJW “reviews” RIDING THE RED HORSE:

Disappointing and uneven collection
By Elisabeth Carey on June 12, 2015
Format: Kindle Edition
Theodore Beale (Vox Day) is nominated for Best Editor, Long Form, and also Best Editor, Short Form.

This collection is included in the Hugo Voters packet in support of Theodore Beale’s nomination for Best Editor, Short Form.

Unfortunately, it’s a very uneven collection. It includes the very good The Hot Equations, by Ken Burnside, and the very disappointing Turncoat by Steve Rzasa. There is, early on, a casual endorsement of the probable “necessity” of genocide on the grounds that Those People aren’t smart enough to modify their behavior. A point Beale’s fans will have difficulty with is that such inflammatory language makes it less likely that readers will take in the point the author was attempting to make. A better editor would have caught it and told the author to dispense with pointless provocation and just make his point.

If this is the best evidence Beale has to offer, he has no place on the ballot.

I don’t know about you, but I’m convinced. Then again, if one takes the opinion of actual mil-SF fans and science fiction readers into account, there can be very little doubt that if the Hugo Award for Best Editor, Short Form, was actually based on editorial merit, I would not only have a place on the ballot, but win the award on the basis of RIDING THE RED HORSE.

  • “The first great mil-SF anthology since Jerry Pournelle tapered off in the 90s.”
  • “This is a great collection of short stories. I’m not a huge fan of military sci-fi but I very much enjoyed this collection.”
  • “If you’ve been waiting for a new anthology in the spirit of Pournelle & Carr’s THERE WILL BE WAR series, stop waiting and buy this. Includes new and classic combat SF, nonfiction articles on warfare and science, and good introductions by Vox Day.”
  • “First science fiction anthology
    I’ve read and enjoyed since the Asimov days. Every SF story was fast
    moving and kept my interest including interest in the technology
    envisioned by the authors.”
  • “As an anthology of futuristic
    military-scifi, interspersed with essays ranging from an introduction to
    the 4th Generation of War to the advancement of laser technology and
    how it will shape the wars of our future, Riding the Red Horse really
    hits the spot for both entertainment and intrigue.”

Now, it is true, there are those who agreed with Elisabeth Carey and gave the anthology but a single star. Their opinions speak eloquently for themselves; these are the reviews in their entirety:

  • “What a piece of tripe. Exactly
    the kind of fiction that appeals to men who are insecure in their
    masculinity. My only regret is that one can’t rate this book any less
    than one star.”
  • “Bad”  

But what will be will be. It is of little import one way or the other. What is much more important is that Jerry Pournelle was sufficiently impressed with RIDING THE RED HORSE that he decided Castalia House was the right place to reprint and revive his excellent THERE WILL BE WAR anthology series. And as far as I’m concerned, that’s the only award that matters and the only vote that counts.

I should mention that RIDING THE RED HORSE Vol. 2 is shaping up to be even more formidable than the original anthology. Many of the Vol. 1 contributors are back with a vengeance, and the new contributors include Martin van Creveld, Larry Correia, David Van Dyke, and Sarah Salviander.

Ayn Rand foresaw World War T

Adam Hobbes explains why it’s necessary to resist the SJW attempt to control the he/she language:

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted
slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by precedent,
by implication, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on
one side and constant retreat on the other—until the day when they are
suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”
– Ayn Rand

The public debut of “Caitlyn” Jenner represents a watershed moment
for American culture. Though most have not realized it, Jenner’s coming
out party constitutes a significant “trial balloon” on the part of the
progressive left and the media. It is an attempt to cash in on years of
carefully managed stories on transgender “discrimination,” sympathetic portrayals of transgender characters in entertainment, and the generally successful campaign of the gay rights movement and social justice activists.

The goal is simple: normalize transgenderism to such an extent that
any criticism of the concept or its practitioners will not be tolerated.
They must not be allowed to succeed. Whether the silent majority of
Americans realize it or not, the transgender issue represents the last
best opportunity to turn the tide in the culture wars. Make no mistake:
the progressives are winning.

Twenty years ago a person could openly
criticize homosexuality. Today, thanks to the Supreme Court, people who
do not enthusiastically endorse gay marriage are branded as bigots, disqualified from high-profile business positions, and generally dismissed as ignorant hicks whose views are outside of the scope of acceptable thought.

Tolerance is not a virtue. Tolerance is “the sin of Jeroboam”. Tolerance is the little compromise that leads gradually to intellectual obliteration.