Tag: SJW

Stage 2: snail mail

Since Macmillan has yet to respond to any of the many emails it has received from hundreds of people, it’s now time to take things to Stage 2 of the Tor Books boycott. Mail a handwritten postcard or index card to each of the following three individuals informing them that as long as Irene Gallo is employed by Tor Books or Tor.com, you will not be purchasing any books published by Tor Books.

Rhonda Brown
Executive Director of Legal Affairs for Employment
Macmillan
175 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10010
United States of America

Andrew Weber
Chief Operating Officer
Macmillan
175 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10010
United States of America

Tom Doherty
Publisher
Tom Doherty Associates
175 Fifth Avenue,
New York, NY 10010
United States of America

After you have mailed each of the three individuals, send me an email with STAGE 2 in the subject. We know that Serious Matters are being discussed at Tor; even though nothing appears to be happening from the outside there is quite a bit going on behind the scenes. These things take time, and especially with the CEO gone until next month, Macmillan is much less likely to act in anything but a deliberate manner. Someone has already reined in Moshe Feder on more than one occasion, and an anti-GamerGate rant on Tor.com was quickly taken down, so its clear that Macmillan is taking the matter seriously, but until they send Gallo on her way it will be clear that they are not taking it seriously enough.

Of course, if the executives have any sense at all, they will terminate Patrick Nielsen Hayden’s employment as well, given that he is the individual primarily responsible for the insane SJW crusade that Gallo and Feder have confused for their professional responsibilities. As for me, my position remains the same.

Until Irene Gallo and Patrick Nielsen Hayden are no longer employed by Tor Books or Tor.com, I will not:

  1. Purchase any books published by Tor Books
  2. Read any books published by Tor Books

Given (2), this means that if Ms. Gallo and Mr. Nielsen Hayden are still employed by Tor Books in 2016, I will not nominate any books published by Tor Books for any awards.

It’s interesting, is it not, to contrast the way in which Walmart, Amazon, and Ebay were so quick to respond to totally nonexistent pressure to stop selling Confederate flag-related material with Macmillan’s non-response to receiving thousands of emails. This is the difference that SJW entryism makes. I’ve seen the BBC “react” and change its policies due to “outrage” that was later reported to be a grand total of 17 complaints.

In any event, the word is spreading. Reaxxion editor Matt Forney wrote about the boycott yesterday at Return of Kings:

Since Grant launched his boycott of Tor on Friday, it’s picked up steam among Sad and Rabid Puppies supporters and drawn the opprobrium of SJWs, who’ve launched a “buy-cott” in response (complete with fake Twitter accounts in support). Vox Day has been one of the most vocal supporters of the boycott, pointing to libelous comments made by another Tor editor, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, and how both his and Gallo’s remarks violate Macmillan’s (Tor’s corporate parent) code of conduct.

SJWs’ panicked response to the Tor boycott is yet more evidence of how hypocritical and lacking in honesty they are. Leftists are happy to launch boycotts against companies whenever their employees make “racist,” “misogynist” or “homophobic” comments: indeed, instigating witch hunts against those they deem “bigots” is practically a sport among the left. But when one of their own is targeted, these fearless moral crusaders suddenly cry foul.

As has Allen Davis at the influential libertarian site LewRockwell.com:

I have always preferred Robert Heinlein to Marion Zimmer Bradley, Robert Forward to Samuel Delaney, and, more recently, John C. Wright to John Scalzi and “A Throne of Bones” to “Game of Thrones.”  Somehow, those preferences in science fiction and fantasy apparently make me something other than a “science fiction fan”–at least in the eyes of the current science fiction establishment.  And, in the opinion of some, they make me a pariah, a “heretic against the true church of science fiction.”

At least, now I know I’m not the only one.

Let reason be silent

When experience gainsays its conclusions. Ed Trimnell argues against fighting fire with fire:

I expressed my disagreement with Vox’s position on the Tor Books boycott…and Vox expressed his disagreement with my disagreement.

My dislike of boycotts remains.

I remember the mindless campaign orchestrated against Orson Scott Card a few years ago. Card’s sin was basically to express a view of marriage that was all but universal (including among liberals and Democrats) until ten years ago. Yet the SJW mobs did their best to silence Card, urging a nationwide boycott of the movie adaptation of Ender’s Game, and barraging the offices of DC Comics until Card was dropped from the company’s Superman project.

Ah, but that is exactly the point….say the forces behind the anti-Tor boycott. The SJWs do it.

I believe it is important to remember what separates the freethinkers from the SJWs. The freethinkers seek to outthink their opponents with a more persuasive argument in the marketplace of ideas.

The SJWs seek to silence their opponents through harassment and intimidation. (This should surprise no one, since the SJWs are almost all anti-market and anti-free speech.)

I can understand the sentiments of those who think it is best to fight fire with fire. This is not a frivolous position. Tor Books has allowed a handful of unprofessional, bigoted, and downright childish individuals to become associated with its brand.

It is right and fitting to speak out against John Scalzi, the Nielsen Haydens, Moshe Feder, and Irene Gallo.

And it should be understood from the outset that no argument will persuade these hardcore ideologues and their core supporters.

Nevertheless, the pro-freedom efforts should focus on defeating the arguments of the would-be thought police, not on silencing them.

And that’s the chief question: Are you going to out-argue them, or are you going to silence them?

In my estimation, out-arguing one’s opponents—rather than silencing them—is the course that will persuade the great mass of people on the fence.

And the great mass of people on the fence are the ones who will ultimately decide the outcome of this battle—both in science fiction and in the wider culture.

Mr. Trimnell is conclusively incorrect for two reasons, one practical and one logical, that are related. First, he completely ignores the fact that the freethinkers have out-argued the thought police for thirty years and have nevertheless continued to be harried from their jobs and from the public discourse without ever losing an argument. It accomplishes nothing to win minor battles while losing wars; he is attempting to overcome superior strategy with better tactics, which is a recipe for certain failure. What he believes separates the two camps is not only not important, it is totally irrelevant. Tactics are not strategy. Means are not objectives.

He says that in his estimation, “out-arguing one’s opponents—rather than silencing
them—is the course that will persuade the great mass of people on the
fence”. This is flat-out wrong. Mr. Trimnell cites no evidence for this charming and attractive article of faith, he cites no logic supporting it, and he may as reasonably have stated that so long as we refrain from doing anything that will offend the magic garden fairies, they will magically grant us ultimate victory in the end.

How did Brandon Eich fail to out-argue his opponents? How did the Nobel Laureates Tim Hunt and James Watson fail to make their cases? The fact is that one cannot out-argue anyone in debates that do not take place, debates that Mr. Trimnell knows very well, from personal experience, will never take place. He can attempt to out-argue me because I am willing to engage with him, debate him, and discuss our differences in a civil manner rather than pointing, shrieking, and summoning an Internet mob to shout him down, disqualify, and disemploy him. He simply cannot do the same with the people at TOR Books, among others. He knows that.

Furthermore, Mr. Trimnell is ignoring the wise advice of Aristotle. He is appealing to dialectic in a rhetorical battle where the greater part of those on the other side are not even capable of understanding that dialectic. That is why following his advice is a surefire way to ensure defeat.

I am offering a proven way to win, one that is both historically and logically sound. Mr. Trimnell is offering nothing but certain defeat because feels. He doesn’t like not feeling morally superior to the other side, so much so that he would rather lose than give up that feeling of superiority in order to meet the enemy head-on. I dislike boycotts too, much as General Ferguson disliked poison gas. But I dislike being methodically mobbed, disqualified, and disemployed even more, I dislike being falsely accused and blatantly lied about even more, so I am utilizing certain SJW tactics even more efficiently and more effectively than the SJWs can. Everyone else of influence on the Right should be doing the same.

Mr. Trimnell is, ironically enough, justifying my course of action by his own example. Consider: I have offered him a logically superior argument that he has not been able to rebut, which should be sufficient to convince him to endorse the boycott. And yet, he is not convinced because his opposition to it is not rational, it is emotional. How then are we to convince him without using rhetoric, which you may recall is simply an articulated form of emotional pressure?

Now, I am certainly not suggesting that we should mob him, disqualify him, or disemploy him. How could I wish him to be silenced when he has so artfully highlighted one TOR author’s preening hypocrisy? I am merely pointing out that in light of the failure of civility and rational argument to change his own mind, Mr. Trimnell cannot possibly expect the civility and rational argument he advocates to dissuade SJWs from utilizing their habitual and successful tactics.

When you cannot win by out-arguing, you must win by out-silencing. Or you will be silenced.

A necessary endorsement

In which I explain why Ed Trimnell should endorse the TOR boycott:

First of all: I am on record as disagreeing with the positions of Patrick Nielsen Hayden and John Scalzi. (I’ve taken Mr. Scalzi to task on this blog many times.) I’m not as familiar with Moshe Feder and Irene Gallo. But what I have seen of them so far, I don’t evaluate favorably.

That said, I think the boycott is a bad idea. And here’s why:

I dislike the Internet mob—whether it is a rightwing mob, or a leftwing mob. I dislike the Internet’s hive mindset, which says:

“If you say something we don’t like, we’re going to whip up all of our minions into a frenzy, and then destroy your livelihood, or harass you into silence at the very least. Oh—and we’re going to do all of this anonymously, hiding behind bogus screen names, avatars, and IP addresses! And aren’t we courageous!”

That is, of course, exactly what the SJW crowd does. But I’m not one of them—and I’m not a joiner, either. Just because I disagree with John Scalzi & Co. doesn’t mean that I’m eager to flock to the banner of Vox Day and others on the far right.

(In fact, I think you’ll find that those on the far right and the far left of these Internet debates have actually achieved a sort of symbiosis—they are each dependent on the outlandish statements of the opposite group. But that’s another post.)

If Mr. Trimnell deplores the hive mindset and Internet mob tactics (and I see no reason not to take him at his word), then he should endorse the TOR boycott and join us. We are not a hive mind or a mob. We do not howl. We did not initiate the use of these mob tactics and we do not favor them as a first option. We prefer civil disagreement, dialectical discourse, and public debate, but as Mr. Trimnell knows very well, those are not credible options at the moment because the SJW crowd refuses to engage with us on such terms. They have left us literally no other choice except submitting to them, which will never happen.

Refusing to take a side and trying to remain above it all will no more bring an end to the tactics he dislikes than the League of Nations prevented World War II. Misbehaving bullies can only be stopped with superior force. To stop the lynch mobs, Mr. Trimnell should help us bring them to an end by multiplying our force. We will abandon the tactic as soon as the SJWs do… like Ronald Reagan with the Evil Empire, we will trust, but verify. But until the SJWs give up their rhetorical tactics of name-calling, marginalization, and disqualification, we will continue play by the Chicago Rules and exploit every mistake they make and every opening they give us. The TOR boycott is nothing more than holding TOR Books accountable for the wholly unprofessional behavior of its SJW employees, behavior that would have gotten a minimum-wage Walmart greeter fired on the spot.

Furthermore, there is no symbiosis. The SJWs are not dependent upon anyone’s outlandish statements; if an opponent has not said something objectionable, they will simply lie and claim he did, then run their usual insult-isolate-disqualify routine. We, on the other hand, have a rich and continuously replenished pool of outlandish statements from which to choose to use against them.

The second issue I have with the entire Tor kerfuffle (and similar online kerfuffles) is its evidence of the general decline in civility nowadays, and the unwillingness to engage in civil debate with those on the other side of an issue. The pattern on the Internet is for people to self-select into ideological echo chambers, usually centered around some charismatic blogger (such as a John Scalzi on the left, or a Vox Day on the right.)

This, admittedly, began with the so-called SJW (“social justice warrior”) faction, which achieved a podium on the Internet long before there were highly trafficked rightwing blogs (at least in the field of science fiction). John Scalzi loved having open comment threads for years, until his blog began to attract substantial numbers of people who failed to accept his received wisdom. Then he opted for his “mallet”, deleting comments en masse on the flimsiest of pretexts.

Mr. Trimnell graciously offered to referee a debate between Mr. Scalzi and me. I accepted. Mr. Scalzi declined. So Mr. Trimnell knows that his favored option is simply not a viable one. What I am offering is a viable tactic intended to force the SJWs to abandon their incivility and return to the more civilized norms that he favors. Given that he has no other options, I encourage him to rethink his position, endorse the boycott, and hold us accountable to lay down our arms should the SJWs eventually realize that they cannot win this sort of conflict and lay down their own.

Free expression and cultural war

This seemed relevant in the present circumstances:

A lesson is learned most firmly when the application of what has been learned turns failure into success. The failure, in Clausewitz’s estimation, was the humiliating defeat suffered by Prussia in 1806. He attributes this failure to Prussia’s adherence to eighteenth-century methods of warfare against an opponent emancipated from the limitations of those methods. The success, as Clausewitz saw it, was the resurgence of Prussia as a military power and the victory over Napoleon in 1813-15. Clausewitz attributes this resurgence to the replacement of the small professional (eighteenth-century model) army by a mass (citizen) army; that is, by recourse to the weapon with which France dominated Europe for almost two decades. In other words, Prussia achieved full nationhood by accepting the principle of national war.
– The Clausewitzian Century, Anatol Rapoport

In like manner, the SJWs have dominated the public discourse for almost two decades by assiduously targeting, attacking, and disqualifying those public figures they deem dangerous to their Narrative. In their foolish confusion of method with objective, conservatives, libertarians, and liberals have, like Prussia, insisted on adhering to outdated methods and gone from defeat to defeat as a result.

This is why the SJWs are so ferociously fighting against Irene Gallo’s well-deserved and overdue dismissal for cause by TOR Books. They know that the successful adoption and utilization of their own methods will lead to the freedom-loving right learning a very important lesson that will help bring about its resurgence at SJW expense.

We can beat them. We will beat them. The only way that we will fail is if we fail to emancipate ourselves from the limitations of outdated methods to which those who have been attacking us for over a decade do not subscribe.

The Third Law in action

It’s so terribly frustrating to SJWs when they can’t find any scary threats to point-and-shriek about that they have to go and manufacture their own imaginary ones. Either these people are lying for effect or they are literally, clinically and medically insane.

Ann Somerville on June 20, 2015 at 10:29 pm said:
I really fear for Irene Gallo and Moshe Feder. GGaters have no boundaries, and it’s beginning to look as if the Puppies of either kind don’t either.

Matt Y on June 20, 2015 at 10:59 pm said:
It’s not their jobs I’m worried about. It’s that small portion of the hyper-reactionary crowd that flock to some of these assholes get obsessed with trying to personally cause damage or harass people as if it’s some sort of game. Like GGs obsession with Quinn, Anita, and so on. I don’t know if that is what Anne is talking about but I’ve thought about that, which is really depressing that it’s even a potential concern.

Stevie on June 20, 2015 at 11:39 pm said:
Thank you, Anne and Matt. I was obviously being far too privileged to take on board the real physical dangers confronting them; I will try to do better.

Laura Resnick on June 21, 2015 at 1:02 am said:
I, too, have started wondering about Irene Gallo’s physical safety. Is she being cyberstalked or receiving threatening messages? Will the vitriolic rhetoric against her escalate to a level where she’s at risk from doxxing and physical stalking?

The apologies she and Tor issued should have resolved the matter. (And I assume Tor and Macmillan have remained silent since then because those apologies eliminated any legal exposure the corporation might have been concerned about.)

The bizarre, inexplicable ESCALATION we have seen over Gallo since then indicates that the Puppies and whoever else has joined this anti-Gallo hysteria are functioning so far outside the boundaries of rational behavior that their anger is self-feeding and could keep escalating, especially if the ringleaders keep feeding it. Which does lead me to wonder if unstable individuals in the group will harass and endanger Gallo, in the way that people like Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Briana Wu, and others have experienced in the past year or two.

I, too, have thought, oh, maybe I’m overreacting to what I’m seeing, maybe this is just Puppy Fatigue and not a realistic worry… But the very first person I mentioned this to, a few days ago, is probably my most level-headed anti-dramatic friend–and that person’s reaction was that this is a realistic concern and she’d been thinking about it, too. I see from the comments here that others were also thinking about it but thinking, “Oh, that’s probably just me.”

No, I guess it’s a bunch of people by now seeing some indicators in the Puppy mess of a pattern that we’ve already seen in GamerGate, and it’s alarming.

I’ve wondered much less about Moshe Feder, John Scalzi, or PNH’s safety than Gallo’s, partly because the angriest Puppies and boycotters seem so focused specifically on Gallo (and she’s the one whose apology, instead of being accepted by these people and ending the matter, has been reacted to with irrational escalations of rage), but also because they’re men. Yes, men also get doxxed, threatened, stalked, and harassed, of course, and these men could be in potential danger… but “movements” like this tend more toward stalking women than men. So I think that after Gallo, the next likeliest target is Teresa Nielsen Hayden. Plus, the Puppies have been heavily focused on her at times, and a number of them have already “unpersoned” her with nasty nicknames like the “Toad of Tor.”

Anyhow, nothing may come of it. But it seems like it’s something that probably many people are wondering about by now. Perhaps also at Tor.

Octavia on June 21, 2015 at 1:43 am said:
I agree. The vitriol of the puppies, especially against Irene Gallo seems to be spiraling completely out of control. Just like the narrative (comments instead of one comment with subsequent apology, attack against everyone and their dog, etc.).

Since some of the puppies/puppy-supporters own guns and a few have no problem with throwing all kinds of threats around, it does get really worrisome. Especially as none of the supposed “puppy-leaders” is even pretending to try and reign them in. Or call for some moderation. Instead they pour gasoline in the fire.

I hope Irene Gallo has a strong support network and people who can help her with the vitriol. I’m pretty sure that she’s receiving all kinds of threats at least on her work-email, maybe also on facebook.

First, the only person who has been doing any cyberstalking is Irene Gallo. She started following me on Twitter after this whole thing erupted and only stopped after I sent an email to the Compliance Officer at Macmillan informing them of her actions. And before anyone is stupid enough to point out the Facebook screenshot I posted, let me remind you that while I have a Facebook account, I have not utilized it in well over a year.

Second, Laura Resnick’s feigned concern over nonexistent violence is ridiculous given her own fantasies about sexually attractive men.

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

Imagine her reaction if I said I daydreamed about killing and eating Tor employees. The fact is that no one in the Sad or Rabid Puppy camps wishes any physical harm to come to Irene Gallo, Moshe Feder, or Patrick Nielsen Hayden. No one has suggested or even hinted at the desirability of them being physically harmed in any way. We merely expect them to receive pink slips as a reasonable consequence of their unprofessional and abusive actions.

In any event, it should be obvious that it is not our side that contains the mentally unstable. Ergo the Third Law of the Social Justice Warrior: SJWs always project

UPDATE: Sweet Mendel, but these people are stupid.

Jim Henley on June 21, 2015 at 9:23 am said:
I stand foursquare against taking a baseball bat to anyone. But when it comes to defending the honor of one’s spouse, I have been dwelling on this:

Brad Torgersen’s wife, as everyone keeps telling us, is black. In VD’s attack on NK Jemison, he asserted that “genetics tells us not all of us are equally homo sapiens.” This says “Brad Torgersen’s wife is not fully human according to Science!” far more explicitly than, for instance, anything Moshe Feder said about the Tor boycott applies to either Wright or Lamplighter. But other than saying, generally, “I’m not Vox Day,” Brad Torgersen refuses to repudiate VD or criticize him in specific. The guy who, not just by Puppy logic but any commonsense reading, called his wife subhuman.

I have a hard time squaring that with any concept of “personal honor” that means anything.

He obviously hasn’t been dwelling anywhere nearly hard enough. Brad understands what Jim quite clearly does not, which is that pointing out the INCONTROVERTIBLE GENETIC FACT that all of us are not equally Homo sapiens sapiens is not tantamount to calling his wife subhuman. My statement is not controversial nor any more debatable than “2+2=4” or “a fish is not a tiger”. Nor does it say, “Brad Torgersen’s wife is not fully human according to Science!”

Anyone can be uninformed. But only an idiot attempts to inaccurately summarize things he does not understand rather than simply ask for clarification. Jim literally does not understand the plain English of what I wrote. And neither Brad Torgersen nor his wife are going to criticize me for that statement because they are not scientific ignoramuses.

You’d think the morons would learn to start looking before they leap. But they never do.

UPDATE 2: And even when they’re explicitly told they’re being morons, they STILL jump in:

Paul Weimer (@princejvstin) on June 21, 2015 at 2:59 pm said:
My “translation of Beale” seems to be on the fritz. He updated his post with a reply to Jim with an explanation that I don’t grok. As far as I can make it (and that’s not far) means that Nora is subhuman, but Brad’s wife is not, because I said so that’s why.

FungiFromYuggoth on June 21, 2015 at 3:27 pm said:
You’re missing Beale’s dodge – he’s not arguing that black people are sub human, just that the people-he-likes are more evolved than baseline human. He thinks he’s being clever, and it speaks ill of the intellect and character of anyone who is impressed by that dodge. Especially if they’ve read his entire tirade. This is the essence of Beale – to weasel and imply while building a half-assed trick, and then to point and laugh at the people who understand what he’s actually saying, trying to claim that he’s the truly smart one.

Keep in mind when reading this, that these are people who genuinely believe they are more intelligent and better educated than we are. Because science. Also, vaccines. I’m not claiming to be smarter than them, I’m publicly DEMONSTRATING it.

Delusion and deterrence

Mr. Smith has a rather unusual theory about the Charleston church shootings:

Adam F. Smith ‏@Adampdx Jun 18
Haters like @castaliahouse  Theodore “Vox Day” Beale are the cause of massacre at SC AME church #SadPuppies #hugoawards

I look forward to the SJWs at File 770 being as horrified and outraged by this ludicrous accusation as they pretended to be by Mike Z. Williamson’s “too soon” joke. It’s particularly bizarre since I am not Castalia House and @castaliahouse has never taken any position on any American racial or religious affairs.

It’s rather amusing to see the many attacks by their own side the SJWs resolutely ignore as they go about their daily posturing and strike their latest outrage poses. Tor employees attack Tor’s authors and customers alike, Castalia House has undergone six straight months of cracking attempts, Vox Popoli is now into its third straight day of a DDOS attack, hundreds of people emailing Tor Books have been accused of being bots by Tor employees even as as Tor supporters create fake tweets to feign public support for Tor, and yet science fiction’s SJWs still preen and posture as if they’re the good guys because a few hundred science fiction readers followed the rules and violated an unspoken gentlemen’s agreement to which we were not privy and to which we never agreed.

And yet, some of those on our side still want to pretend this decades-long cultural conflict is some sort of white-glove affair. There is a fundamental disagreement between the noble defeatists and those who are less willing to continue to submit to the SJWs attempt to claim cultural dominance at Sarah Hoyt’s post on The Marquess of Queensbury’s rules:

thewriterinblack  
Another observation I have made in the past is that our enemies often not only know that we don’t play by the same “rulebook” as they do, they count on it. Those among the Jihadis who have even a ghost of a clue know that if we were really as bad as they make out, well, it would be easier to pray toward Mecca–just face the blue glow.

Apropos of nothing, I am reminded of a scene in an old Fantastic Four comment. Sue Storm as the Invisible Girl (I think this was before she started calling herself the Invisible Woman) facing Dr. Doom. “Doom, do you have any idea how dangerous my force fields would be if I decided to play by your rules?”

That’s us all over.

Dorothy Grant
And this would be why they hate and fear Vox Day above all others: because he does play by their rules.

RES
If we played by their rules the earth would be scorched. But playing by the Devil’s rules would be to concede defeat — what we fight for is ordered liberty, constrained government, rational argument over insanity.

Batman does not become the Joker, Superman does not accept the values of Luthor, Spiderman does not become Doc Octopus.

RES is completely wrong for the obvious reason that SJWs are not the Devil, they are merely his unhappy, not-very-bright children. And the vital point that RES completely misses is that you do not defend ordered liberty, constrained government, and rational argument over insanity with unconstrained liberty, government inaction, and talk. You defend it with force, and you defend it successfully with force that exceeds that of your opponent at the point of conflict.

The Romans did not become the Britons by defeating them with superior force. The USA did not become Nazi Germany by invading Normandy (although it may as a result of the 1965 Immigration Act). The Soviets did not become the Afghans and the Coalition of the Willing has not become the global jihad. Batman would not become the Joker even if he snapped the Joker’s neck, but he would certainly save the lives of all of those who would have been killed by the Joker in the future.

What frustrates me about the noble defeatists is that they are like a football team who refuses to accept the newfangled rules that permit the forward pass. They insist on playing the game in the outmoded way they believe to be the correct way, run the ball every down against a defense with 11 men stacked in the box, and inevitably lose when the other team passes for ten touchdowns and wins 70-0.

The problem is a conceptual one at heart. Even those whose devotion to free expression is unquestioned, such as Ken and Clarke of PopeHat, fail to understand that their efforts are doomed to failure so long as they confuse the objective with the methods used to defend it. This is not a “by any means” argument, it is a straightforward argument for Chicago Rules deterrence.

The best defense for free expression is not to permit the other side to freely libel and slander and calumniate and defame and lie while responding with few feeble protests that what they’re saying just ain’t so. The reason poison gas has made very few appearances on the battlefield since WWI is not because the French, English, and Americans set the Germans a good example, but because they promptly responded by manufacturing and using even more gas than the Germans did. The only reason the USA has not dropped an atomic bomb since 1945 is because the Soviet Union obtained their own in 1949.

Has the assault on free speech waxed or waned since Belgium introduced hate speech laws in 1981? The high-minded non-deterrent approach has failed, continuously failed, for the last three decades. The SJWs find speech-policing to be a useful weapon for marginalizing, disqualifying, and destroying their enemies and they are not going to give it up until they find themselves suffering from it to a greater extent than the free speech advocates do.

If you seek to defend free expression, you can do no better than to follow the lead of Lieutenant General Sir Charles Ferguson, who said of poison gas, which he deplored as a “cowardly” and un-English form of warfare:

“We cannot win this war unless we kill or incapacitate more of our enemies than they do of us, and if this can only be done by our copying the enemy in his choice of weapons, we must not refuse to do so.”

This does not mean we must blindly imitate the other side, particularly not in their instinctual resort to stupid and petty lies, transparent psychological projection, and a foolish insistence on defending the indefensible. Nor should we seek to be as blindly ignorant of them as they are of us. What it means is that we should adopt their more effective tactics, and, as the Allies did with gas in WWI, make even more effective and extensive use of those tactics until they agree to abandon them.

Mr. Feder fans the flames

Now Tor Books editor Moshe Feder calls Tor’s unhappy customers “idiots”:

As you may have heard, certain scoundrels have declared a boycott of Tor, starting today, to protest the efforts of some Tor employees to defend the Hugo Awards from attack. In response, some of our friends have declared today “Buy A Tor Book Day.”

I wouldn’t have the temerity to ask you to buy a book just because some idiots have declared war on us. But if there _is_ a Tor Book you’ve been meaning to get anyway, buying it today would be a a gesture I’d appreciate.

[As always here on Facebook, I’m speaking for myself and not the company.]

It’s got to be nice for Tor Books to know they’ve got so many imaginary friends defending them. As we have been repeatedly and reliably informed:

Since the Puppy boycott of Tor Books is on I just bought three ebooks from Tor and preordered two more.

And if Mr. Feder is only speaking for himself, who is this “us” to whom he refers? Whose friends are they? But it is nice of him to dial down the rhetoric from “racist neo-nazis” to mere “idiots” and “scoundrels”.

Meanwhile, Peter Grant points out that Feder is lying. Personally, I find Feder’s explanation of the boycott to be fascinating, as apparently Irene Gallo was merely defending the Hugo Awards from attack when she described Tor-published books as “bad-to-reprehensible”, attacked Tor’s customers as “racist” and “misogynistic” and “neo-nazi”. That’s an interesting priority. I was not hitherto aware that “defending the Hugo Awards” was a professional responsibility for employees at Tor Books.

It’s worth pointing out that we are not at war with Tor Books. We are merely asking Macmillan to save Tor Books from the observably self-destructive and unprofessional leadership of three of its senior employees, who have abused Tor’s authors and attacked Tor’s customers.

The Internet never forgets.

The war on free expression

The principled defenses have failed. The attempts to ignore it have failed. The attempts to placate have, predictably, failed. The only way to shut down the “army of self-appointed militants who see themselves as the guardians of correct thinking” is hit back twice as hard and hold the SJWs completely accountable to their own rules.

When Professor Tim Hunt, the Nobel Prize-winning biochemist, recently addressed a major conference in Seoul about women in science, he said he had three problems with ‘girls in laboratories’, namely that: ‘You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them, they cry.’

As a media storm erupted, Hunt insisted that his remarks were made in ‘a totally jocular, ironic way’.

But none of that matters to today’s self-righteous crusaders against offensive opinions, for whom language is never a laughing matter. Professor Hunt was immediately surrounded online by an outraged Twitter mob demanding his head on a pike.

These boycott-and-ban zealots are not content with exercising their right to criticise somebody who makes an offensive joke. Quivering with self-righteous indignation, they want to silence those who fail to conform to their group-think.

In this case, their bullying worked. The scientific authorities immediately caved in. Not only was Hunt forced to resign from his post at University College London, but he was also dismissed from the science committee of the European Research Council.

So biochemistry loses a brilliant pioneer, while we lose more ground to the forces of oppressive censorship.

For the saga of Tim Hunt’s downfall is just the latest example of how a culture of verbal prohibition is taking over society, led by an army of self-appointed militants who see themselves as the guardians of correct thinking.

If you don’t want to see more Nobel Laureates like Tim Hunt and James Watson hounded from science, more innovators like Brandon Eich hounded from tech, then you should endorse the Tor Books boycott and force the SJWs to realize that they will be held twice as accountable for their every joke, every tweet, every Facebook comment, and every personal statement as they hold everyone else.

The First Law in action

The SJWs trying to save Irene Gallo and Patrick Nielsen Hayden from the Macmillan axe must be getting desperate. In addition to launching a “Buy Tor books” campaign in response to the boycott they mocked, they’re doing what SJWs always do.

Which is what? All together now…. In this case, the SJWs in science fiction are pretending to buy books that they’re not actually buying. ED noticed a recurring pattern on Twitter today:

Kerian Larsen ‏@KerianLarsen  1h1 hour ago
Since the Puppy boycott of Tor Books is on I just bought three ebooks from Tor and preordered two more.

Phyllis Chandler ‏@phyllis_chandle  1h1 hour ago
Since the Puppy boycott of Tor Books is on I just bought three ebooks from Tor and preordered two more.

Maisy ‏@Maisy_Chandler  2h2 hours ago
Since the Puppy boycott of Tor Books is on I just bought three ebooks from Tor and preordered two more.

Kalia ‏@kalia_weaver  2h2 hours ago
Since the Puppy boycott of Tor Books is on I just bought three ebooks from Tor and preordered two more.

Desiree ‏@Desiree_Waller  2h2 hours ago
Since the Puppy boycott of Tor Books is on I just bought three ebooks from Tor and preordered two more.

Dee Foreman ‏@Dee_Foreman  2h2 hours ago
Since the Puppy boycott of Tor Books is on I just bought three ebooks from Tor and preordered two more.

Cherie ‏@Cherie_Blanchar  2h2 hours ago
Since the Puppy boycott of Tor Books is on I just bought three ebooks from Tor and preordered two more

Fernanda ‏@fernanda_wise  2h2 hours ago
Since the Puppy boycott of Tor Books is on I just bought three ebooks from Tor and preordered two more

Greta ‏@greta_welch  2h2 hours ago
Since the Puppy boycott of Tor Books is on I just bought three ebooks from Tor and preordered two more

Jayla Bauer ‏@JaylaBauer  3h3 hours ago
Since the Puppy boycott of Tor Books is on I just bought three ebooks from Tor and preordered two more.

Bria ‏@brialangley  3h3 hours ago
Since the Puppy boycott of Tor Books is on I just bought three ebooks from Tor and preordered two more

Kurt Busiek ‏@KurtBusiek  3h3 hours ago
Since the Puppy boycott of Tor Books is on, I just bought three e-books from Tor and pre-ordered two more.

On the plus side, I think we now have an answer to how John Scalzi has so many Twitter followers when no one is reading his blog anymore.

Tor boycott announced

Peter Grant explains why he is no longer going to buy any Tor products:

Regrettably, due to the apparent lack of action by (and the deafening silence from) Tor and Macmillan, the time has come to do as I promised.  I therefore ask all those who believe, as I do, that the recent statement by Irene Gallo, and the pattern of behavior and statements from others at Tor whom I’ve previously named, are completely unacceptable, to join me in refusing to buy any of Tor’s products from now on.

I support and endorse what Larry Correia said about this yesterday.

    … this is between Tor and its readers who feel insulted, not the Sad Puppies campaign or the people who ran it … To the Sad Puppies supporters, do what you think is right. All I’m asking is that whatever you do, try to be as civil as possible in your disagreements. Stick with the facts.

I am not a member of, and I do not speak for, either the ‘Sad Puppies’ or ‘Rabid Puppies’ campaigns (although I support the former).  I don’t represent cute puppies, playful puppies, cuddly puppies or hush puppies – only myself.  If you share, in whole or in part, my values and outlook on life, I invite you to join me in this boycott.  Don’t do so just because I, or anyone else, is asking you to do so.  Act on the basis of your own informed conscience and reasoned judgment.

As you can see, I have been a Tor Books customer since 1986, when I bought a mass market paperback copy of The Edge of Tomorrow by Isaac Asimov. And because I have considerably more experience of Tor Books and the consistently abusive and unprofessional behavior of its senior employees than Mr. Grant, I will go a little further than he has. Until Irene Gallo and Patrick Nielsen Hayden are no longer employed by Tor Books or Tor.com, I will not:

  1. Purchase any books published by Tor Books
  2. Read any books published by Tor Books

Given (2), this means that if Ms. Gallo and Mr. Nielsen Hayden are still employed by Tor Books in 2016, I will not nominate any books published by Tor Books for any awards.

I encourage those who deem Ms. Gallo’s behavior to be unprofessional and unacceptable to follow Mr. Grant’s lead and join the Tor Books boycott. I am the leader of the Rabid Puppies, I do speak for them, and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they will follow my lead in this regard with all the vim and vigor for which they are rightly known.

I am not concerned about whether the boycott is “successful” or not. The simple fact is that if Macmillan is at all interested in the long-term success of Tor Books, it will jettison both Ms Gallo and Mr. Nielsen Hayden on the basis of their disloyalty, their unprofessional behavior, and their repeated violations of the Macmillan Code of Conduct, regardless of what any outside parties may happen to believe. I simply won’t have anything to do with Tor Books as long as those two individuals are employed there.

There will be those who claim that the boycott will make no difference at all. They may well be correct. Regardless, in response I can do no better than to quote the wise words of the VFM. “We don’t care.”