Tag: SJW

Mailvox: whitewashing history at Wikipedia

Wikipedia’s gatekeepers are up to their usual shenanigans, in this case, attempting to casually brush the topic of Cultural Marxism under the carpet to keep it from innocent eyes:

In case you haven’t noticed the “Cultural Marxism” entry to wikipedia has been deleted and replaced by “conspiracy theory” at the body of the “Frankfurt School” page.

I noticed this a few days ago.  After reading a work on Critical Race Theory which wasn’t inspired by an article I read on the Baltimore riots.  It reminded me a lot of the line of thinking that Pat Buchanan describes as Cultural Marxism in “Death of the West.”  Naturally, I looked up Cultural Marxism on wikipedia and I find that the page had been deleted and replaced.  Orwell would be proud.  To be quite honest, this really has shocked me.  Call me sheltered, but the audacity and dishonesty of it is appalling.

Being an optimist (or a masochist) I looked at the talk page to see if I couldn’t reason with someone.  Turns out that the page replacement took place in November and that a single editor it engages in some serious gate-keeping.

Over the past five months several dozen people have expressed concerns with the page and he dismissed and passive-aggressively threatened them all without answering any arguments.

I decided to engage with him, but the results are about what you’d expect.

Here’s a summary:

Me:I don’t think Cultural Marxism counts as a conspiracy by any reasonable definition and this article leans way left.  Can you please define your terms for Cultural Marxism and give me your criteria for conspiracy theory.

Him :Ok go ahead and try to prove your conspiracy theory Mr. Tin-foil hat man.  Oh and Welcome (grumble)…can you please go away…be a shame if someone were to report you for vandalism…..and did you know Satanic, baby eating, white supremacist Anders Breivik used the phrase “Cultural Marxism” in his manifesto…you don’t want to be like him do you…be a shame if you got reported….

You can imagine two days of this I’m sure.  But if you have time, I’d love to know what you think of the debate.  I’ve rarely dealt with someone so completely unwilling to actually argue all the while claiming that the battle was over before I got there and that he’s the victor. 

I’ve finally got him to consider an academic source from Paul Gottfried, but it looks like this will take time.

So, what I’d really like is you to give a shout on your blog detailing what’s happened.  It’s bigger than two guys fighting on the internet considering how many people use wikipedia, if only to get oriented in finding out more about a topic.  I know I do, or before this did.  Just a link would get more people involved.

I’ve decided to ask you because a) Castalia has published work by William Lind, one of the (if not the) coiners of the phrase “Cultural Marxism” to describe the ideology, obsessions, tactics, and behaviors of the Left and their current diffusion in society at large and b) because no one should know better than you that so-called little issues like Gamergate and the Hugos are key battlegrounds in the culture wars and will lead to bigger things. 

Honestly I think keeping wikipedia honest (as far as it’s possible) is even bigger.  This isn’t just a case of “oh no!  Somebody’s wrong on the internet!”

What do I think? I think this is simply SJWs SJWing. And what do SJWs do? The lesson, as always, is this: SJWs always lie. The ironic thing is that Wikipedia has a fairly extensive entry on one of the more important cultural Marxists, Herbert Marcuse, and even quotes him in some detail concerning the cultural Marxism he advocated, and which the SJWs practice.

  • “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”[17]
  • “Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.”[17]

It should come as no surprise that cultural Marxists, which is what the SJWs manifestly are, don’t want people to understand their core doctrine or its roots in the misapplication of a failed economic theory.

Islands in a sea of rhetoric

I stopped commenting at File 770 as it proved to be another exercise in demonstrating the truth of Aristotle’s dictum about those who cannot be instructed. Give them dialectic and they shamelessly attempt to pick it apart, some honestly, most dishonestly, while constantly declaring that any errors or falsehoods on their part are irrelevant. Give them rhetoric to meet them at their level and they either cry about it or concoct pseudo-dialectic to explain why it’s not valid.

Example 1
VD: SJWs always lie.
SJW: I told the truth once back in 2007. See, you’re totally wrong. Your whole argument is disproved. You are a bad person. DISQUALIFIED!

Example 2
VD: I stopped commenting at File 770.
SJW: You said you stopped commenting and then LEFT ONE MORE COMMENT THERE! See, you’re totally wrong. Your whole argument is disproved. Aristotle! You are a bad person. DISQUALIFIED!

Quod erat demonstrandum.

But the SJW theatre of the absurd aside, the continuing Hugo coverage at File 770 makes for interesting reading, particularly as the few remaining commenters possessing intellectual integrity one-by-one throw up their hands and stop trying to force the relevant facts through the SJW’s cast-iron skulls. A pair of neutrals recounted typical experiences, as one of them juxstaposed his treatment at various Puppy sites versus SF-SJW Central:

Brief Side note re: Making Light. I posted there, maybe 4 times in a discussion a month or so ago. Never a name called, never a nasty word, did not attack anyone, and was in the middle of a dialogue with another poster that came across as reasonable. My posts were disemvowelled and the board owner called me a liar. I’ve posted several times here, and at Larry’s, Brad’s, and Sarah Hoyt’s boards. At least one time I got shouted at a little, but no one edited me away to nonsense. That makes me more sympathetic with the folks not grooming their comment sections /shrug

AG on May 14, 2015 at 3:20 pm said: Regarding disemvowelling at Making Light, I took part in the initial discussion about voting rules, which as a mathematician I found very interesting. There was a contributor there (I don’t remember his name) who was an expert on voting systems and made the most valuable contributions. I certainly learned a lot from his posts. Then he made a post where he mentioned his web site (which was on topic, because it was about voting systems and potentially of interest to the people who were taking part in that discussion) and he was disemvowelled, which is something that I had never seen before and found absolutely bizarre.

Ostensibly the reason was for spamming, although as I said the poster was the one who had made the most valuable contributions to the discussion and the link was not off-topic. Talking about it, he got several more posts disemvowelled. I respect owners’ right to moderate content in their sites, but I found the practice of disemvoweling abusive and humiliating, more indicative of a petty bully in charge showing her power than of a serious moderator, and it convinced me that I did not want to have anything to do with that site.

The Making Light crew is what it is, and what it has been for the past decade. Another former neutral expressed some degree of surprise at the insistence that the Puppy tactics have been in any way worse than past tactics utilized in the SF field:

Steve Moss on May 14, 2015 at 3:20 pm said:

David W. @ 3:08 pm- So log-rolling is acceptable, with all that implies, but slates are not?

Accepting for argument’s sake the definitions of some, a slate is a list of public recommendation with a common political interest. That’s bad.

Log-rolling, quietly horse-trading votes based on self-interest (I want to win and need to be “strategic”), that’s okay.

Leaving aside the debated to death argument on slates (which I disagree is bad), it occurs to me the greatest sin the SP/RP have committed is exposing the Hugo process to the light of day. Now that more fans know: 1) that it didn’t/doesn’t take much to get a nomination; and, 2) about the behind the scenes chicanery, the Hugo loses some of its luster.

I think the position of some in fandom is laughable. What SP/RP did is the exact same thing; they just did it better and publicly. And that’s unforgivable.

It’s not surprising that the SJWs are already working very hard to change the rules because we’ve shown up and operated in an above-board manner. Instead of playing coy and disingenuous and plausibly deniable, we simply said “hey, vote for these works.” Note that it wasn’t all that long ago that SJWs in SFWA changed the Nebula rules to HIDE the evidence of all the log-rolling that was taking place there. They are always determined to hide what is actually taking place under the rocks where they dwell, which is why our straightforward tactics are so abhorrent to them.

UPDATE: While this will no doubt set the rhetoricals spinning again, it was too painful to watch people opining ineptly about whether Scalzi’s LOCK IN was a relative failure (truth) or a massive success that only proves that John Scalzi is a massive success in everything he does (SJW narrative). So, against my better judgment, I pointed out the completely obvious that had somehow managed to elude the rocket scientists commenting at File 770:

Forget Old Man’s War and all the
hardcover vs softcover vs audio and so forth. The reason both Scalzi and
PNH were so disappointed by Lock In’s sales is obvious:

“Lock In’s sales are for the first 8 months”: 10,000

Redshirts first seven months: 26,604

As every writer here knows, success is a) relative and b) takes
trajectory into account. Doing one-third the numbers with considerably
more marketing expense than your previous book is not, in most quarters,
considered a desirable trajectory.

Scalzi is an inflated midlist writer. He has likely peaked at a point
much higher than most SF writers ever reach. It’s an incredible
accomplishment, especially if one takes into account how little talent
or originality he possesses. There is no shame in that.

Where there is shame is claiming that you have 2 million pageviews
when you truly have only 305,000. Where there is shame is aggressively
campaigning for nine Hugo nominations, and then campaigning for more
because two more than Arthur C. Clarke is not enough.

That is an apples-to-apples comparison. Hardcover to hardcover. And if that simple recitation of relevant facts isn’t sufficient to convince you, then obviously no information is sufficient to instruct you or change your mind.

SJWs always cheat

The Making Light SJWs are upset because Tor isn’t collecting its usual Hugo tribute for its predictably mediocre romances in space, sanctimonious PC space lectures, and red-hot necrobestials, so naturally they are lobbying hard to change the rules. WCJ points out what they’re up to:

The method that the Making Light cabal used to evaluate these satisfaction formulae was to simulate elections using the different formulae and look at the outcome. They decided in advance which outcomes would be considered “satisfying:” those that closely replicate the 2013 Hugo shortlists given the known data from the 2013 ballot, and those that excluded or reduced the quantity of nominees of a hypothetical collection of Sad Puppy voters added to the simulations. A “satisfaction” function was regarded as good by the Making Light cabal if it answered positively to that criterion.

This isn’t just sinister, it’s diabolical. Because what they’re doing, quite literally, is defining “satisfaction” not to be YOUR satisfaction, but rather THEIR satisfaction. The function that is supposed to model your happiness as a voter was chosen by someone who is not you, based on criteria that were designed entirely for their benefit and not yours, without any reference whatsoever to your opinion.

It’s vastly amusing that they are doing exactly what we predicted and are trying to change the rules even though no one has won anything yet. However, speaking as a game designer, I can tell you that there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about stopping intelligent exploits without a process that allows for dynamic responses. For example, let’s say they manage to ram through the 4/6 plan, whose author, Chris Gerrib, foolishly believes is somehow magically capable of preventing Rabid Puppies from locking the SJWs out of the awards again in the future.

The answer is entirely obvious. You didn’t seriously think there was no shadowy purpose behind the numbering of the minions, did you? Am I not your Supreme Dark Lord? And are you not entertained?

SJWs in OSS II

It’s being further investigated by others closer to the OSS dev community, but the evidence about SJWs invading Open Source Software is bolstered by additional emails posted to the London Ruby User’s Group mailing list:

Really great you both brought this up. I’ve been responsible for building up a small tech team within Barclays and we’ve had a push towards much more diversity. This has been driven by the huge lack of diversity within the existing tech teams. We are tasked with building prototypes which are not business critical so we have a lot of space to move around with then other areas of the company which require levels of experience & current ability which traditionally bias against minorities facing oppression.

  • We avoided posting adverts on tech mailing lists and in places where women and minorities are underrepresented, instead using the same budget we would have used on places like unicorn jobs, in places such as in Ethnic minority related magazines and publications, LGBT related publications and websites (such as out.com). The cost of advertising was so expensive in tech related spaces we could cover many more adverts in spaces that would reach to minorities and we got an excellent response.
  • We never assume to know someones preferred pronoun. When responding to applicants we always ask for their preferred pronoun, even if it seems obvious (there’s more than 2). The response to this has been great so far.
  • We’ve effectively had to create our own internal structure independent from the rest of the company to ensure that diversity is catered for. Slowly but surely though, we’re affecting the rest of the business.

So far we’ve grown the team to 6. 4 of us identify as female (with one
being transgender) and 5 of us are PoC.

That’s pure SJW entryism at work. Notice how the SJWs a) are safely ensconced in an area where they can avoid being held accountable for providing objective business-critical results, b) have created their own independent internal structure, c) have long range goals to enforce their ideology on the rest of the company.

It also shows how you can best hunt down and eliminate SJWs from your organization. Look for them in non-critical roles where the focus is internal rather than external. And don’t expect to be able to rely upon objective metrics to provide an excuse for firing them, they actively avoid being measured or held accountable in any way. Your best bet is to nail them on their consistent refusal to abide by company guidelines, their failure to fulfill certain specified responsibilities or follow clear directions, or their repeated hiring of people who are observably unqualified.

SJW summarizes SJWism

At File 770:

Gully Foyle on May 10, 2015 at 9:52 am said:
Dynamo, just shut it. Tolerance does not demand that one tolerate the intolerant. The open minded need not embrace those that would destroy their society.

Tolerance does not demand toleration. Inclusivity justifies exclusion. Did Orwell have them pegged or what? Black is white. War is peace. We have always been at war with Eastasia. And notice the claim that it is “their society”. Not ours. Not the moderates. The SJWs.

CrisisEraDynamo’s response was very good:

Now we get to the heart of the matter. Define everything you don’t like
as “intolerance” and poof! No silencing, even when boldly declaring
there’s no place for dissenters.

We’re not fighting fire with fire

We’re fighting fire with artillery. Joshua W. Herring claims that we don’t understand moderates like him, while at the same time completely failing to understand the Rabid Puppies or our objectives:

That completely misunderstands the reason that we (that is, those of us who have some sympathy for the Sad Puppies but almost none for the Rabid Puppies) advocate tolerance for the SJW crowd.

We are not under any delusions about how SJWs act. We’ve seen all the same evidence you have. It’s QUITE clear that the a great many feminism and/or “diversity” and/or gay rights activists don’t give a fig about tolerance or inclusiveness. Tolerance and inclusiveness are just tools they use to get what they really want; they aren’t virtues for them.

Thing is: they are for us.

It’s always the same problem with Vox. He claims to want to live and let live, but there’s never any evidence of it. And it’s always the same excuse: “they” won’t play nice, so why should he? This is sensible enough if reserved for extreme cases, but when absolutely every post on his blog that deals with SJWs is about the need to deny them a seat, the line between their tactics and his becomes impossible to draw.

Here’s the rub: if somebody doesn’t start playing nice, it just never happens.

And here’s the question: do you think it will be the SJWs who start playing nice? It won’t. We know that from all past experience. So, as the addage goes, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.

If you want tolerance and inclusiveness, you start by being tolerant and inclusive. It’s not that it doesn’t matter that “they” aren’t tolerant and inclusive, because obviously it would be nicer if they were. The fact that they’re not makes our job a lot harder. But our job is still to get to a community that’s tolerant and inclusive, and you just can’t do that with purges.

Who said anything about tolerance or inclusiveness? Our job is not to get to a community that is tolerant or inclusive. Our job, our duty, our calling, is to destroy SJWs and SJW ideology. We are not part of the Worldcon community. We don’t support tolerance of SJWs. We don’t support the inclusion of SJWs. We intend to destroy their influence and their ideology and to render the latter as popular and as viable in science fiction as National Socialism in Israel today.

I will not “live and let live” with SJWs for the obvious reason that it is not possible for anyone to live and let live with them. You cannot live and let live with anyone whose ideology is totalitarian, who genuinely believe they have a right to tell you what is, and what is not, okay for you to think, write, and say. You cannot compromise with anyone who believes they have a self-appointed right to dictate what others read, what others write, what others review, and what others publish. You cannot be tolerant of those who claim the right to decide what is “problematic” and what is “unacceptable” and what “there is no place for” in science fiction.

They have, somewhat successfully, established an Index Informatorum Prohibitorum that declares what ideas there are “no place for” in science fiction. You cannot teach them by example, any more than you can apologize to them and expect them to take it for what it is and accept it rather than take it as an admission of weakness and use it as a weapon against you. The Index, and its inquisitors, must be destroyed.

We will relentlessly oppose them. We will ruthlessly humiliate them. We will harry them and make their miserable lives even more miserable until they completely abandon their totalitarian ideology. Because they cannot leave others alone, we will not leave them alone. And we will win in the end.

We will never play nice with them. We will destroy every last vestige of their pernicious ideology. I have no problem with writers of the left who wish to write anti-X, but I am at war with SJW writers who claim that there is no place in science fiction for anyone writing X. And I don’t care what X is, substitute the intellectual bugaboo of your choice there, whether it is racism, communism, misogyny, misandry, anti-Eskimoism, Eskimo supremacy, or anything else.

Like all moderates, Herring completely fails to understand how to accomplish anything but Noble Defeat and Losing the Right Way. Tolerance of totalitarianism is not a virtue, it is surrender. Accepting the inclusion of SJW entryists is not virtuous, it is submission. And while tolerance and inclusiveness may be virtues in the eyes of the moderates, we view them as little more than necessary evils that are not always possible.

The significant point is this: SJWs ARE the extreme case. Which is why the Rabid Puppy position is the sensible one.

As long as SJW ideology is accepted in mainstream SF/F and SJWs are welcome in their castle, we will besiege the walls. The non-SJWs in science fiction can either go down fighting us in the interest of a cause they theoretically oppose or they can cast out the ideologists and return to the Ellisonian concept of SF being a place where dangerous ideas are welcome again. All dangerous ideas, no matter how offensive they are to anyone.

And they can’t cast us out because we reject their community in its presently diseased state and want no part of it until the SJW cancer is excised. An SJW is anyone who believes that the quality of a message’s delivery vehicle can be judged primarily by the content of the message. An SJW is anyone who believes that any idea is intrinsically “problematic”, “not okay”, “unacceptable”, or that there is “no place in science fiction” for a particular idea or individual accused of harboring that idea.

An SJW is an individual who fundamentally rejects the Ellisonian vision of science fiction as a place that welcomes dangerous ideas. All dangerous ideas.

For example, if you think there is no place for racism in science fiction, you are an SJW. It is no different than if you think there is no place for atheism or for women in science fiction. Either all ideas, however controversial, are welcome and legitimate, or the science fiction community is engaged in a straightforward power struggle to determine whose morals will be imposed on everyone else in the field.

Science fiction can either reject the SJW ideology and abandon all the imposed diversity thought-policing or accept a long and vicious war over which moral code shall be law. Rabid Puppies is presenting the SF community with two choices: either embrace and defend the idea of complete intellectual freedom in science fiction or fight us over the shape of the Science Fiction Code Authority of the future.

And everyone should understand that we Rabid Puppies will never, ever accept, under any circumstances, the ongoing SJW attempt to impose their code on everyone. That is not an option.

SJWs attack Open Source Software

Paging ESR… paging ESR… ERS, please report with your weapons loaded. We have an SJW breach in OSS. #OSSGATE operatives, please report to your activation nodes.

8 May 2015 Eve Braun (eve.t.braun@gmail.com) wrote: Two other things we implemented which aided the recruitment
process:

We followed advice which is quickly becoming the industry
norm. Never look at someones Github profile until you have made the
decision to hire or not hire them and do not let it influence you.
Github profiles tend to favor CIS White men over most minorities in
a number of ways. CIS white men often have more spare time or chose
to pursue building up an impressive portfolio of code rather than
women or minorities who have to deal with things like raising
children or instiutionalised racism. Some in the SocJus community
have even said that technically companies could possibly even be
breaking discriminatory law by allowing peoples github profiles and
publicly available code to influence their hiring decisions – watch
this space.

(More info: http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/the-ethics-of-unpaid-labor-and-the-oss-community)

We used Randi Harper’s (https://twitter.com/freebsdgirl)
blockbot to assess applicants twitter profiles for problematic or
toxic viewpoints. This may sound a bit extreme but some of the
staff here suffer from Aspergers & PTSD and our top priority is
to ensure that they don’t get put in triggering situations.Making a
wrong hire could present a scenario where the employee could be
triggered on a daily basis by another employee with an oppressive
viewpoint. Other than from a diversity standpoint, from a business
standpoint these sorts of negative interactions can cost a company
a huge amount of time & money in employees taking off sick
days. When all the employees are on the same page the synergy in
the office aids productivity.

Still think the anti-SJW crusade is an overreaction? There is only one answer to them, only one cure: relentless rejection. Look to #GamerGate and #SadPuppies for inspiration and ideas on how to push them back.


Notice that the SJW Eve Braun is trying to make a corporate virtue out of saving company time and money by not hiring “CIS white men with “problematic or toxic viewpoints”. Of course, SJWs always lie.

Get him to neurology, stat!

Seriously, David Gerrold is not merely incoherent, he’s directly contradicting himself:

Here’s what I suggest. Consider this a starting place for the conversation, not a finished proposal. First, we as a community need to reaffirm our commitment to
inclusiveness — everybody’s welcome, regardless of political views,
religion, sexual orientation, gender, skin color, ethnicity, place of
national origin, body shape, disability, age, whatever. The only
requirement is a love of fantasy and science fiction and respect for
other participants.

My own rule about discussion is that
disagreement should be about issues, not personalities. This is because
most of us have issues, not all of us have personalities. I would
recommend this as a general policy as well. I might think that X or Y is
a big stinky poo-poo head, but speaking it aloud is not the best way to
win points in a debate.

Second, after we reaffirm our commitment to inclusiveness, we need to
consider whether or not the Hugo nominating rules need to be adjusted. I
believe that the administrators of the award should have the power to
disqualify slate-ballots, but the mechanisms for this might be
controversial….

But the point I’m working toward is a difficult one — it’s a
conversation that we tend to shy away from. But any functioning
community, does have the right to protect itself from disruptive
agencies. Groups can and do disinvite those who spoil the party.

The SFWA expelled Vox Day for his unprofessional behavior. Fandom as a
community, and the Worldcon as an institution, should have the same
power to invite someone to the egress. Other conventions have taken
steps to protect themselves from toxic and disruptive individuals — and
based on the back-and-forth conversations I’ve seen, and as unpleasant a
discussion as this will be, maybe it’s time to have a discussion about
the mechanisms for shutting down someone who has publicly declared his
intention to destroy the awards.

That’s the point. We cannot
talk about healing while the knife is still being twisted in the wound. I
can’t speak for the sad puppies, I can’t tell them what to do — but I
would hope that they would recognize that being perceived as standing
next to a man who wants to destroy the system is not the best place to
stand.

TL;DR: Worldcon must be inclusive and tolerant, so we must expel Vox Day and anyone associated with him in any way who fails to publicly denounce him before presenting themselves to us and requesting absolution.

Gerrold still hasn’t figured out that there is no way to expel someone from a group who doesn’t belong to it and doesn’t want to belong to it. But I like where he’s going with his suggestions. As I have often pointed out, it’s hard to destroy things from the outside, and it’s a lot easier if you can get the insiders to do it for you.

It’s also amusing to see them insist that they are not at all political, when the first point is a call to establish SJW ideology as a core principle. As Brad Torgersen has said, the fish don’t understand that the water in which they swim is wet.

An apology to GamerGate

SJWs always lie, and sooner or later, the honest non-SJW is eventually going to realize that so long as he, or in this case, she, pays enough attention:

My name is Sofie Liv, i’m a young woman from Denmark, I love playing video games and sometimes review them.

And I feel like I owe you all the greatest apology. I’m ashamed, and I want to apologies. I can only apologies for myself so here goes.

We all know about the Zoe Quinn and Sarkeesian thing that happened so long ago. Back then as I was just minding my own buisness with my web review show, reviewing the nerd things I love so much on the Agonybooth, I was given information that these women had been threatened, that they had been driven into misery, that gamergate was behind all of it, that all these second grade photoshopped images were proof of it, that these women were doxxed and got rape threats on a daily basis.

And like a complete sucker, I bought it! I suckered it up, I bought into it, and I am ashamed. No part of me would believe that someone would downright lie about rape threats, it didn’t even occour to me that they would lie about their own mental state, because no part of me could ever believe that someone would lie about those things.

Then slowly arguments started crawling up, I raised my eyebrow at quite a bit of the things Sarkeesian openly said, I had to point out. “That isn’t right.”

At that point I had taken a new stand… I am not with Sarkeesian, but neither am I with Gamergate, I think they both did wrong. Still, stupid me hadn’t done prober fact checking, but just taken peoples word for these things happening.

So many people in my circle, so many people following me pointed to the harrashment of these women as plain fact…. I now know this is untrue. Now I have finally done the prober actual research and found the sources, and I know i’ve been lied to… and as a sucker I suckered it up. I called Gamergate things, hinted at you guys being imoral, I switched from reviewing movies to review another medium that I love, video games, and called it a stand against the idea women can’t be gamers… an idea I now know, doesn’t even exsist!

Now my game reviews has been turned into a stand up against the Sarkeesian ideals, because now I actually feel it’s important to stand up to her and call her bullshit for what it is… It’s bullshit. She’s full of bullshit, and I can only apologies that I bought so easily into it as a brain dead sheep.

What I want to say with all of this is that, I think you people have done absolutely fantastic. In spite of all this bad rep you still managed to stand up and stand true to what this is actually about.

Apology accepted. This is why it is so important for us to stand our ground. This is why it is so important for us to speak the truth, and keep speaking the truth, whether anyone believes us or not, whether the media calls us names or not, and whether people offer us friendship and approval or not.

The one thing SJWs absolutely rely upon is honest people NOT calling them out. They don’t expect to convince everyone, they merely want to silence anyone who threatens their false narratives. So stop playing along with them. Stop sitting there in mute disapproval of their lies and misrepresentations, stand up, and declare “that is not true!”

SJWs are the sons and daughter of the Father of Lies. They are the People of the Lie and they can only be defeated by the Sword of Truth.

Never retreat, never apologize

Brad Torgersen
Correia also likes women. We’re not sure about Scalzi on that count. If you know what I mean.

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
Brad Torgersen attempts to insult me by implying I’m gay; I respond. He attempts an apology; I respond to that too.

Does no one listen or learn? Never, EVER apologize to SJWs! Case in point: “The apology was worse than the ini­tial attempted slur — it rein­forced
the fact that Torg­ersen thinks calling someone gay is a slur.”

I repeat. NEVER APOLOGIZE TO SJWs. They will see it as fear, take the apology, and use it as a club with which to beat you. Never back down to them, never retreat, never apologize.Notice that this was all posted AFTER Torgersen apologized to Scalzi.

    Hur hur, homophobia’s a gas when you’re a Sad Puppy!
    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) May 4, 2015

    Again: I’m mostly sad for the Sad Puppies. So much insecurity and envy and anger and need. For their own sakes, I wish they were happy.
    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) May 4, 2015

    Note that my pity for the Sad Puppies doesn’t preclude me pointing out they are assholes. And that they’ve made the active choice to be so.
    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) May 4, 2015

    Also, if I DID like men more than women, so what? That would be a perfectly good thing, nor would I be the slightest bit ashamed of it.
    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) May 4, 2015

    If Brad Torgersen wants to insult me, insinuating I’m gay won’t work. It’s not an insult to be gay. Be an insult to be a Sad Puppy, however.
    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) May 4, 2015

If it’s not an insult to be gay, then why is McRapey acting as if it is an insult? And how has Brad Torgersen damaged his potentially promising career by not insulting someone?

mintwitch ‏@mintwitch
Brad is just… so sad. He’s completely lost his grip, and unfortunately probably damaged a potentially promising career.

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
If he has, I suspect he will attribute it to his politics rather than his personal behavior.

So, just a single insult of the wrong individual is sufficient to damage a promising career. That’s fascinating, in light of how we have been repeatedly assured that there isn’t any cabal or conspiracy or collection of people who will attempt to torpedo your career in science fiction over mere differences of opinion. After all, was it not Orson Scott Card’s personal behavior to which the SJWs objected when they attacked the Ender’s Game movie?

Was it not my personal behavior to which they objected when they attacked me on the basis of a syndicated op/ed column?

In the meantime, AN EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE from the Evil Legion of Evil:

John Scalzi: “I’d rather like men than to be a Sad Puppy.”

Minion 189: “What do you mean when you say ‘like men’? Do you mean in the manner of owing someone a big favor in the Ground Forces?

John Scalzi: “Um, yeah.”

Big Gay Steve: “This can be arranged. I know a guy.”

John Scalzi: “SQUEEEE!”

The End

I don’t know about you, but I find it somewhat surprising that McRapey would publicly express a preference for being sodomized to seeing the likes of Jim Butcher or John C. Wright win a Hugo Award. It’s not exactly what you’d call a binary option.