Point-and-Shriek, or Why SJWs are SJWs

This is a guest post from a well-respected writer who must remain nameless for the time being.

This started out as an essay on fallacies believed by Social Justice Warriors. Somewhere along the lines, it split into two parts.

One of the problems with Vox Day’s recent, and highly recommended, book SJWs Always Lie, is that it doesn’t really define the average Social Justice Warrior. This is not, in fact, an easy task. Unlike fascists, communists or even radical Islamists, the SJWs are a collection of attitudes, rather than a genuine conspiracy.  The average SJW may appear to be a decent person – he or she may even be a decent person – yet sharing the SJW attitudes or fallacies, as I call them,  makes them a potential danger to human civilisation. These attitudes act as triggers. When pulled, they convert a decent person into an SJW, or, as I think of them, Social Justice Bully.

Some of my readers will say that the above statement is absurd.  Bear with me a little.

The sheer irrationality of the SJWs is hard to comprehend, which works in their favour; it’s hard to get a grip on an opponent who thinks so differently from yourself. Indeed, many people view SJW ‘point-and-shriek’ assaults as being unique, even though we have seen dozens in the past few years alone. They seem to be a brand of craziness that has no explanation.  But it does.

The average human being has what we may as well define as two minds, the rational and the emotional.  When one of these minds is strongly involved, the other goes out the window.  For example, a man might discover that one of his children is not actually his own – his wife cheated on him.  He will often attack the child even though the child is the sole innocent in the affair.  Or, upon discovering that her husband had a previous relationship, a wife will often go mad with rage, even though the relationship started and ended before she and her husband ever met and her husband is guilty of nothing more than keeping the relationship from her.

These are both emotional reactions, governed by the emotional mind.  It matters not that a rational man is perfectly capable of adopting a child and treating him/her as his own child, it matters not that the wife is perfectly capable of understanding that her husband had no obligations towards her before they met.

As long as the emotional mind is engaged, rational thought is impossible.
This explains some of the odder political theories that still remain in the political mindset, even though they have failed spectacularly time and time again.  ‘Tax the rich’ sounds good, particularly to someone who isn’t rich or doesn’t consider themselves to be rich; it does not, however, account for the rich moving away, evading the taxes or simply not producing as much the following year because they have to pay taxes rather than reinvesting in their businesses.  Emotionally, socialism and communism sound good, so good that the emotional brain fails to grasp their flaws.  No politician has ever been elected by warning people that they would have to tighten their belts and do more with less.

We see this on a personal level too.  Everyone wants to be good – and be thought of as good – without giving much thought as to what ‘good’ actually is.  The charge of ‘racism,’ therefore, can be used to silence debate because no one wants to be thought of as a racist, as racists are evil.  Indeed, this is so pervasive in our society that the mere mention of the word ‘racist’ forces the accused to prove his innocence (and you can’t prove a negative) rather than the accusers his guilt.  People, therefore, will bend over backwards to avoid the charge, thus turning a blind eye to anything that remotely smacks of ‘racism’.

Or, on another level, let us suppose you are in line for a promotion.  You know you have all the qualifications for the post, but your pointy-haired idiot of a boss promotes one of your co-workers instead.  Rationally, you may realise that the co-worker had additional qualifications you didn’t have, but emotionally you’ll be looking for a reason the boss favoured your rival over you.  She’s a woman, he’s black, she’s a lesbian … you will cling to these feelings even though they have no basis in reality, because that’s easier than admitting you simply didn’t come up to scratch.

When a SJW is triggered, his/her emotional brain takes over.  Rational consideration and debate – even the ability to accept that someone may honestly disagree without being a bad person – becomes impossible.  Instead, the SJW horde – as Vox Day points out – attacks its victim relentlessly, seeking to completely obliterate the target and wipe him or her out of social existence.  Think of every school story you’ve ever read where someone is singled out as the sole target for the bullies and you get the idea.  No one wants to be associated with a target for fear the horde will turn on them next.

The weird thing about this is that it isn’t entirely an unjustified reaction.  Triggers that push the emotional brain to the fore can cause a wave of strongly negative emotions.  Trying to escape the cause isn’t actually a bad reaction, on the face of it.  But the reaction is so strong that it overwhelms any consideration one might have for the rights or feelings of others.  If someone happens to be so scared of dogs that they have panic attacks every time they see one, they may push for a complete ban on dogs even though hundreds of thousands of their fellows not only love dogs, they have dogs as pets.

However, there’s a nasty catch.  The average individual cannot sustain a blatant emotional reaction for very long.  At some point, the person will stop emoting in panic, which will allow the logical brain to take over once again.  If, however, more than one person is involved, the emotional reaction from one triggers an emotional reaction from the other, which in turn spurs the first person into a bigger reaction.  This leads, eventually, to mob thinking – “a person is smart,” as Tommy Lee Jones told us in Men in Black, “but people are dumb panicky dangerous animals and you know it.”

Imagine that something bad happens to you – you get fired, perhaps.  Your first reaction will be the ‘fight or flight’ response; you’ll want to tell your former boss what you think of him, you’ll want to get down on your knees and beg for mercy or you’ll want to put as much distance between yourself and your former co-workers as possible.  You may not be able to think straight for hours afterwards, but once you do start thinking straight you’ll realise that things are not as bad as they seem.  You are still alive and you can find a new job.

If, however, you go home before you calm down and tell your partner, or your parents, or your children, you’ll only prolong the emotional response because they will be emoting too.  It will take you much longer to calm down and start thinking rationally once again.

The SJW ‘point-and-shriek’ attack pattern is designed to keep that emotional reaction going as long as possible.  Ordinary people, as I noted above, cannot sustain an emotional reaction for long without outside prompting.  The more people who join the attack, the longer the attack lasts; the herd stampedes its victim into the ground before enough of its members manage to assess if the victim truly deserves it.

Vox Day’s three laws of SJWs – SJWs Always Lie, SJWs Always Double Down, SJWs Always Project – fit neatly into place.  SJWs lie – or, in some cases, build a mountain of untruth out of a kernel of truth – in order to galvanise the emotional reaction.  They double down because they cannot risk allowing the emotional reaction to abate before its target has been destroyed (i.e. pushed into resigning, which to them is an admission of guilt.)  And they project because they know, at some level, that they do not regard people as individuals … and fear their enemies feel the same way too.

The only way to handle such an assault is to remain calm, do nothing and understand that it will eventually come to an end.  However, as the target’s emotional brain is also being pushed into a ‘fight or flight’ reaction, this isn’t the easiest of tasks.


GJS Siempre Mienten

If you were a) the translator or b) the Spanish proofreader, please get in touch with me via email. I am on a different machine and I don’t have your email addresses.


Convergence at ESPN

It’s no secret that ESPN is fully SJW-converged. But now they’re not even bothering to hide it:

ESPN has fired Curt Schilling over his recent anti-transgender comments on social media.

Schilling, a baseball analyst for ESPN and former Boston Red Sox pitcher, shared a Facebook post this week that lampooned critics of recent laws passed in North Carolina and other states restricting transgender men and women from using the public restrooms that correspond with their gender preferences. Schilling added his own comment to the post, criticizing transgender people.

“A man is a man no matter what they call themselves,” Schilling wrote. “I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.”

The original post featured a man in a wig with his breasts exposed, captioned, “LET HIM IN! to the restroom with your daughter or else you’re a narrow-minded, judgmental, unloving racist bigot who needs to die.”

After first announcing Wednesday that it would review Schilling’s comments, ESPN announced later in the day that it had fired him. “ESPN is an inclusive company,” the network said in a statement. “Curt Schilling has been advised that his conduct was unacceptable and his employment with ESPN has been terminated.”

I quit reading ESPN years ago. But they are clearly an excellent demonstration of my Impossibility of SJW Convergence in action, which states: The more an institution converges towards the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice, the less it is able to perform its primary function. 

ESPN can’t even employ an intelligent Hall-of-Fame commentator to discuss baseball if he doesn’t publicly submit to the SJW Narrative. That is full convergence. Sports is no longer ESPN’s primary function.


Target goes full-tranny

If you’re opposed to the latest SJW Narrative, take Target off your list:

The Target department store chain has jumped into the transgender bathroom debate by declaring that men who claim to be women may use whatever bathroom or changing room they choose.

“Inclusivity is a core belief at Target,” a new company statement reads. “It’s something we celebrate. We stand for equality and equity, and strive to make our guests and team members feel accepted, respected and welcomed in our stores and workplaces every day.”

The retailer added, “We welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.”

“Everyone deserves to feel like they belong,” the statement concluded. “You’ll always be accepted, respected and welcomed at Target.”

Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder added that the policy statement is a public confirmation of its longstanding policy. “It’s just us being very overt in stating it,” she said.

Customers and potential customers almost immediately spoke out against Target’s decision to ignore the biological difference between men and women.

The thing is, there is nothing wrong with unisex bathrooms. In Japan, for example, many of the bathrooms are unisex because space is at a premium and there is only room for one bathroom in many establishments.

But we’re not seeing the elimination of sex-segregated bathrooms, we’re seeing the demonic “five lights” strategy, forcing people to submit to the Narrative and admit to something they know to be untrue.


The cost of convergence

Some people doubted the veracity of my claim that the purpose of the SJW list is to help SJWs find employment at SJW-converged companies. What they fail to understand is that there is no better way to legally ensure the segregation of those individuals from the sane elements of society as well as ensuring that the converged companies more quickly experience the full consequences of their embrace of social justice:

The University of Missouri will be shaggier and dirtier and faculty will be responsible for taking their own trash to dumpsters under the plan for cutting 50 jobs in campus operations detailed in an email memo sent Friday by Vice Chancellor Gary Ward.

Landscaping operations will be cut back so sidewalk edges are trimmed no more than twice a year and only in the most visible locations, Ward wrote. After Saturday football games, the debris left by tailgaters will not be picked up until Monday, he wrote.

Custodial staff no longer will clean or remove trash or recyclables from offices, Ward wrote. “This frees up custodians to assist with recycling, which, previously, has been a volunteer effort,” Ward wrote.

The plan to save $5.47 million in the MU Operations division that employs 842 people exempts the MU Police Department and MU Environmental Health and Safety. Ward warned it likely means slower response time for maintenance issues, less overtime and slower snow removal.

In the email, Ward warned that “we will be unable to sustain the level of service for which you have become accustomed. I do not anticipate that changes beginning July 1, 2016, will inhibit the academic mission at Mizzou, nor is it my intention for that to ever happen.”

Ward’s email is his response to a March 9 directive for a 5 percent cut to general fund budgets from interim Chancellor Hank Foley. The directive imposed a hiring freeze and warned there would be no salary increases.

The Columbia campus is trying to cover $22 million of an expected $32.5 million shortfall because of declining enrollment and new commitments such as the new Division of Inclusion, Diversity and Equity, spokesman Christian Basi said. The cuts do not take into account possible state budget reductions or increases.

Notice that this $32.5 million shortfall is not only the result of their target market’s negative reaction to SJW activity at the university, but also due to the fact that the SJWs running the institution would rather pay for the Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity than pay custodians to prevent them from living in filth.

Many people make the mistake of thinking that common sense aversion to negative consequences will suffice to prevent SJWs from pursuing total societal convergence. The decisions of the SJWs at the University of Missouri should suffice to disabuse them of that notion. It won’t, but it should.


Names are harassment now

It’s always amusing what contortions SJWs will twist themselves into in order to try to justify their actions beyond “me no likee”. Reddit is suspending accounts for linking to pages “posting the personal information (including the full names) of non-public people.”

As some of you may know, there is a list of “confirmed SJWs” being passed around on various sites.

Do not post or link to it on Reddit. It’s considered personal information, and you will likely have your accounts suspended for it.

We already had one user post it here, and it was removed earlier today by the admins, and the account suspended. Similar issue happened on /r/SJWsAtWork, as well.

This was the ruling given to us:

    Our rules aren’t just against connecting IRL names to reddit user names, they are also against posting the personal information (including the full names) of non-public people.

Just wanted to give y’all a heads-up as to what’s going on, so none of you lose your accounts or think that we’re censoring it.

The funny thing is that despite their attempts to justify banning anyone who links to a list of which they don’t approve, and thereby creating a rule that requires the banning of anyone who links to any page with just one individual’s full name on it, the rule doesn’t actually apply to The Complete List of SJW because it doesn’t feature full names.

It does, however, ban anyone from linking to Facebook, among other sites. Not that it will be applied that way by the moderators, of course, because SJW.

It seems the primitive magicians were right. There is dark power in the knowledge of true names!


Mailvox: when is firing justified?

CC asks the wrong question:

Assume an employer discovers he has in his employ a vocal and known racist. Assume the presence of that racist in his employ is hurting his business due to people choosing to no longer do business with him. Is he justified firing the racist?

The answer is to this rhetorical query is, of course, yes? So, is a person who opposes racism justified in calling on people to not do business with an establishment that employs a known racist?

I don’t know why CC is even asking me this question. I believe in, and advocate, free association. That means that an employer can fire any employee for any reason he chooses.

So, I’m absolutely fine with an employer firing a racist simply for being a racist. What I would ask CC is this: is he likewise fine with an employer firing a black for being a black, a Jew for being a Jew, a woman for being a woman, a pregnant woman for being pregnant, a feminist for being a feminist, or a Communist for being a Communist? Because I support all of those hypothetical firings as well, on both logical grounds and on the basis of being protected by the Constitutional right of free association.

What is not fine, however, is those who are not involved attempting to put pressure on the employer to fire the racist, the black, the Jew, the woman, the Communist, etc. because they do not approve of the employee. Remember, Ben Shapiro did not say that he would refuse to hire anyone who is a socialist, he did not say he would not do business with anyone who employs Jews, he said that racists should be hunted down.

That is not free association.  That is not eucivic behavior that is compatible with either civilized society or peaceful coexistence. Society can survive many things, but it cannot survive this aggressive ideological totalitarianism aimed at extinguishing the acknowledgement of observable reality. SJWism is both dyscivic and dyscivilizational.

What SJWs want is thought policing and enforcement. They want certain thoughts protected from criticism and certain other thoughts eliminated. A person who opposes racism can only be justified in calling on people to not do business with an establishment that employs a known racist insofar as anyone else is equally able to call on people not to do business with other establishments for any other reason.

If that’s the war the SJWs want, that’s precisely the war they’ll get. But judging by their frightened response to something as minor as The Complete List of SJW, it seems unlikely that they are genuinely up for it. Because they know, as well as we do, that it is a war they will lose. Badly.


They also slash tires

Mike Cernovich brings us news that the SJWs have expanded their tactical set:

I on the 11th day of the 4th month of 2016 did maliciously attack a hate symbol protected by free speech. After disturbing the vehicle and dumping rotten food into the interior I feel I have improved the community and supported our nations values by stopping a promoter of hate speech. I do not wish to have ignorant bigots in my town and in a just world the person deserved what was received. The situation is made whole. As America is far from just, I expect the bigot will want to be made whole. With this I declare he is owed nothing. But as the situation is what it is, I intent to make individual whole provided he cease to promote ignorance and hate. I do not expect the law to recognize damage to tools of hate or racism, such things need to be destroyed so good people may remain and become free.

I don’t know about you, but I find that argument entirely convincing. More weapons in the anti-SJW arsenal, I suppose, although I don’t think we’ll bother with this one.


Funding suspended

Apparently Kickstarter is not completely converged:

Wave Goodbye to Cyberbullies and Trolls: SocialAutopsy.com

 Funding Suspended

Funding for this project was suspended by Kickstarter about 1 hour ago. 

It’s good to see Kickstarter, unlike Twitter, is willing to enforce its Terms Of Service against SJWs.

This is how the #GamerGate model works. Don’t wait for permission, don’t talk about your clever idea for X, Y, or Z, do something. Or, as they say, shut up and email.


Two more SJWs for the SJW list

Nick Mamatas endorses no-platforming of “fascists” while defending the continued inclusion of Communists and socialists:

1. No-platforming. This has become widely misunderstood as militant liberals have generalized a particular radical practice—the demand to keep fascists from having a public platform at events and within organizations. One can and should no-platform fascists for the simple reason that fascism is a totalizing and universally negating political philosophy—it cannot prosper without the destruction of all points of view via political violence. Even Stalinist and Maoist Communism, say all the horrifying and accurate things about it you can, is self-protective—that is, it can adapt to diplomatic needs, introduce or quash markets internally etc. There is still a core of “dialectic”—a philosophy based on change. (Thus China going from economic backwater to central driver of the world economic system in a generation while still putatively remaining “communist”.) Fascism is based on achieving a certain transhistorical perfection, which is impossible and inherently anti-rational, and thus it not only can broke no diplomacy/debate, it cannot even keep itself stable. It destroys everything, including ultimately itself (and takes plenty of people with it when it collapses). THAT is why it must be kept from growing.

Never mind that Fascism has been a defunct ideology for seventy years now. Or that it was eminently civilized in comparison with the murderous records of Stalinism and Maoism. This guy’s idea of fascism is “anything to the right of Bernie Sanders”.

Brian Keene takes it to a new level, as he not only endorses the no-platforming of “a person who has previously demonstrated a bias against others based on their race, religion”, he is tarring the entire HWA by association:

Today, the HWA released the following statement regarding their decision to allow an avowed white supremacist and fascist serve as a Bram Stoker Award Juror. Quote: “The HWA does not support discrimination of any kind, including discrimination based on political views. Not only is this form of discrimination specifically illegal in a number of U.S. states, HWA’s Board of Trustees also does not believe it’s in keeping with our principle of supporting and practicing freedom of expression. In specific regard to HWA’s Bram Stoker Award juries, the HWA will certainly act if/when a juror’s personal views have a provable impact/bias against a writer or his/her works.” End quote.

So, I’m speaking now to all current members of the HWA. If, after today, after learning that the HWA will allow this to continue– if, after today, after learning that the HWA will allow a person who has previously demonstrated a bias against others based on their race, religion, etc. to participate as a Bram Stoker Award Jury member — an award which will include candidates of various races and religions — IF AFTER TODAY, you intend on renewing your membership and paying membership fees when they come due again on January 1, 2017, or if you are paying to attend any of the organization’s Stoker Cons or awards banquet events in future years, then you are part of the problem.

These self-destructive SJWs don’t seem to understand that if there is no place for competing perspectives ruled beyond the pale in their world, then there can be no place for them should any of their many opponents take power. First they declare there is no place for us, next they no-platform us, then, when we build our own platforms, they whine and cry that we don’t talk to them, we don’t listen to them, and we show them neither mercy nor regard.

They create the very monsters they fear, and they create them ex nihilo.

So be it. Let them whine and cry and beg to no avail. There is no place for SJWs in any civilized society that wishes to survive and thrive.