Thursday, September 3, 2015

SJWs Always Lie: A Non-Review

I first became acquainted with Vox Day from an article about what a terrible person he is. I won’t waste anyone’s time be repeating the list of evils Vox has been accused of. In the popular imagination, Vox is an inverted Jesus Loves the Little Children:

Vox Day hates the little children
Little children of the world

Red and Yellow, Black and Brown
He will run them out of town
Vox Day hates the little children of the world

Now, White Supremacists are something of a hobby of mine (a side effect of growing up as an “ethnic” in the South), so I immediately started reading his blog Vox Popoli for los llulz.

A year later, I wrote a series of posts summarizing what I had learned about Vox Day and how to fight back against him. To my dismay, the only people who had anything positive to say about the series were Puppies of the Sad and Rabid variety. The essence of their response was “I cannot believe a SJW is capable of understanding us.”

Now bear in mind, the essence of my argument was that the best way to deal with Vox Day is to treat him and the Puppies with kindness and humility. Disagree with them, but on the level of vigorous intellectual debate, not back-room sniping. One thing that I have in common with Vox is the belief that the Truth – the big Truth – can withstand public scrutiny.

Perhaps because of this positive Puppy response, Vox was kind enough to send me a review copy of his latest book: SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police. In truth, I was going to buy it anyway – the First Law of Vox Day is that Vox Day is never boring. Except for maybe those soccer stories.

Now, I have posted a traditional review on Amazon (three stars, for those wondering), but I would also like to criticize it from a more unusual angle. My thesis here is that SJWs resembles nothing so much as a piece of PUA literature. We’re going to look at three reasons why.

First, SJWs is not what outsiders assume it is (thought that goes for pretty much for the literature of any movement). I think many on the Left will assume that it is nothing more than a polemic; a preaching to the Aryan Choir or else a rant about how Vox was not hugged enough as a child. The author of John Scalzi Is Not A Very Popular Author And I Myself Am Quite Popular: How SJWs Always Lie About Our Comparative Popularity Levels certainly seems to think this is the case.

Outsiders tend to be familiar with a movement’s external trappings, but not its internal logic. In the case of PUAs, people know only their most visible external attributes: “peacocking” outfits, “negging” women with insults or indeed, an obsession with sexual conquest.

But this is not the core of PUA literature or other Neo-Masculine movements. PUA literature starts out with the promise of seducing women, but quickly moves to indoctrinating the reader into a new system of thinking. Indeed, seasoned PUAs will insist that the new system of thinking is the whole point. You will never get better at attracting women until you adopt the correct mindset.

This is the second point of commonality with PUA literature. The mindset taught in SJWs includes many things that have nothing to do with the original goal. It is a book that purports to teach you how to respond to SJW attacks, but it is at the same time building support for a new system of thinking. A system of thinking in which peaceful racial coexistence is impossible and no one on the Left is capable of coherent logical thought.

That’s not to say that Vox is being dishonest, or even that he does this intentionally. For Vox, his system of thought is what allows him to stand up against the bullies of the Left. Nonetheless, potential readers should be warned that the worldview they will be encouraged to accept is one in which racial equality is as impossible as a square circle. Equality and Progress are given as antonyms.

Third, SJWs is primarily a series of Scripts. For PUA manuals, these Scripts are opening lines, moving from one phase to another, shifting venues, et al. In SJWs, the first Script is the anatomy of a SJW attack (Point and Shriek and so on) and the second Script is the proper response (Don’t Apologize and so on).

There is, of course, more to this book than the two Scripts, but as with PUA literature, it is mostly there either to explain and support the Scripts or to explain and support the Worldview. There are calls to arms and sections on how to SJW-proof an organization, but this is so much window dressing. What really matters are the Scripts and canned routines.

The breakdown of dialectic vs. rhetoric is a good one, although it does claim that Leftists are incapable of dialectic reason. Again, this may be somewhat justified. After a year of following Vox, I have not yet seen an opponent attack him with a dialectic argument, for whatever reason.

At the end of the day, SJWs Always Lie will likely do exactly what it set out to do. The culture wars within fandom will escalate, the disqualification arms race will heat up, and both sides will steadily lose the ability to see the other side as human beings. I will never say that both sides are the same, but they do have one thing in common: the constant dehumanization of the other side.

Vox Day suggests that the only way to combat the intellectual policing of the Left is for the Right to engage in intellectual policing. This is what we have come to, and why I find Vox’s posturing as a hero of free speech disingenuous. Apparently the Hugo SJWs are not the only ones willing to burn down the city to save it.

Because SJWs Always Lie is a PUA manual, I expect to see many mini-Voxes running around in the near future, using its Scripts and techniques. Might I offer a suggested counter-script?

1). Accept that your opponent is a human being.
2). Attack ideas, never attack individuals.
3). Address specific statements with credible evidence.


You don’t defeat an insurgency by spreading chaos and you don’t restore stability by attacking innocent civilians. If you want to end the culture war before it turns into an actual war, you must start by loving your enemies and treating them as you would want to be treated. Bottom line, full stop.

79 comments:

  1. I applaude your good-faith attempts at de-escalation. I have two responses:

    1. It takes two people to compromise, but only one to start a fight. Right now the left does nothing but fight.

    2. Not including your blog, I have seen zero of my fellow liberals engage in a good-faith call for civility. What I see instead is melodramatic pearl-clutching about the horrible rudeness of our opponents as a way to discredit and disqualify their arguments without actually addressing them.

    The modern left successfully fought against the concept of religious heresy only to replace it with their own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. It's arguable who started the fight. It's arguable who is more morally culpable.

      2. Yes, which is why I was hoping to get the ball rolling. The Left is so locked into the "victim" mindset right now they we/they cannot see the effects of PC extremism. I'm hoping to start cracking that coconut.

      Delete
    2. "It's arguable who started the fight."
      Not really. Both sides acknowledge this in their names: "conservative" vs "progressive. It's pretty clear which is the moving party.

      Delete
    3. "It's arguable who started the fight."

      "Bill, there’s no point in arguing over things we can look up." -Charles Murray (to Bill Maher)

      Delete
    4. It depends on what you consider "starting the fight." For example, homosexuality has been a capital offense in the West for most of the last few centuries. From the homosexual perspective, they did not start the fight.

      Delete
    5. In response to point 2:

      For what it's worth, I often see people in the LessWrong/Rationalist community who also identify as liberal engage in similar calls for civility. The best example I can think of is Scott Alexander's http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ just in case anyone is looking for one. They might be similarly ineffective against the more rabid elements of either side, but they certainly do exist.

      I'm not sure if I'd necessarilly consider myself part of the LessWrong community, (I haven't even bothered to read Yudkowski's sequences yet) but I follow and enjoy enough blogs of people who are, and see enough similarities between your style and theirs, that I figured they deserved a plug, in case you hadn't heard of them. The blog I linked above, Slate Star Codex, is particularly good.

      Also, just because this is my first comment here, hi! I was also initially led to your blog through the Killing Vox Day series, and thought it was an excellent and fair summary of the Hugo situation, but just haven't had time to comment.

      Delete
  2. "Except for maybe those soccer stories."

    Yeah, I usually skip to the comments for those and usually there will be lot's of the entertaining never OT subjects like NFL, guns, and whiskey. Fun times.

    "This is what we have come to, and why I find Vox’s posturing as a hero of free speech disingenuous"

    We consider this to be war, not normalcy. In war you capture people, lock them up, kill them, blow up their stuff and do all kinds of things which would be otherwise considered extremely unreasonable during peace.

    "The modern left successfully fought against the concept of religious heresy only to replace it with their own.'

    Well said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We consider this to be war, not normalcy."

      Yes, but like the War on Terror, the War on PC Extremism will never end. Is there even a win condition? When will you be free? Would you accept the institutionalization of torture? Of constant, warrantless government surveillance and phone tapping?

      Accepting Counter Thought Police is the old "liberty for security" switcheroo.

      Delete
    2. "Is there even a win condition?"

      When SJW evokes the same reaction in polite society as KKK, and the mere accusation could count as fighting words.

      Delete
    3. Is there even a win condition?

      Not having to ask myself if I want to risk being Justine Sacco, "Mr Hank", the woman at the counter at Memories Pizza, or Brendan Eich if I voice my opinion when sitting around having lunch.

      That's why it is war because the other side is "killing" people in the same way you write about "killing" Vox Day. Those four named things did more to make me want to stand next to Vox Day than anything else. I see that and can't but help to conclude the culture war is now a war of survival.

      Note I didn't say the people opposed to the four name individuals' statements had to be silenced for it to be a victory but they should have no more power to get me fired than I do them. If they insist on having that power over me I have no choice except to gain the same over them in weird cultural form of MAD.

      Delete
    4. Victory conditions: When I do not have to take my children away from the park because there's used condoms and needles lying around. When my child can make a 'finger gun' at school and not get suspended or expelled. When I can see a Nativity display in my local park. When my High School can say a prayer before a football game. When I can go in public with my children without having to explain perversion to a preteen.

      When the rules are the same for both sides. No special privileges for anyone. When codes of conduct do not specifically state that you can harass any 'privileged' person for any reason for as long as you like and the 'privileged' person has no recourse nor may even ask it to stop.

      When I don't have to worry about my daughter sharing a bathroom with a guy who calls himself 'Nancy'. When I can leave my doors unlocked and keys in my car without worrying it will be gone in the morning. It's not coincidental that our society started becoming a low trust society at the same time we started tolerating every perversion and criminal behavior under the sun. When the DSM labels paraphilias correctly as such.

      In short I want the society that I grew up in. Those are my victory conditions.

      SJW's would be better off not having rubbed our noses in their victory before it was a total victory.

      Delete
    5. @TWS: Hell, yeah. Nicely written.

      It is a concept of life that is nice, and normal, and wholesome.

      The Rev, as the host who is due his courtesy, I'll say that you seem a nice and wholesome individual. I'm guessing: young Hispanic man, raised in the South, single and heterosexual and looking for some game. To my mind, this is as normal and cool a place to be as can be imagined. I've read some very little PUA stuff, but it seems very off to me. There is no one-size-fits-all. Find your strengths, shore up your weaknesses, and find women whose type you fit. Lose the gut, work out, use your obvious verbal gifts, and find that percentage of women who think your type is cool. If they like the brothers, or the little blond surfer dudes, or the emo goth types, they're not looking for you. Just find that 10-20-40%, whatever, that go for you, and mine that gold until you find her highness, Princess Buttercup, that delights in you.

      Delete
    6. I'm going to argue that the rise in crime/decline in morality is more due to economic factors driven by changing technology than the extreme Left's cultural agenda. Arguably, both contribute. Either way, that's a much longer discussion.

      @Groot

      Ehehehe...I read PUA material for the same reason I read Esoteric Hitlerism. It's an extreme worldview with interesting cultural constructs.

      Delete
  3. "You don’t defeat an insurgency by spreading chaos and you don’t restore stability by attacking innocent civilians."

    True. Look at your allies, and ask yourself whether they are doing these things.

    "If you want to end the culture war before it turns into an actual war, you must start by loving your enemies and treating them as you would want to be treated. Bottom line, full stop."

    True.

    But what if it is a war, just in its opening stages? Hitler's war did not start with the invasion of Poland. It started internally first (read "Defying Hitler: A Memoir").

    Will Mao's Red Guards or fascist Brownshirts fall to the above method? Will ISIS or its religious equivalents? No, no, and no. So then, what is to be our war? I would say that it must include quite a few of your techniques. It just can't be confined to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " Look at your allies, and ask yourself whether they are doing these things."

      Right, they are. Which is why I'm pleading with them to stop.

      "But what if it is a war, just in its opening stages?"

      Remains to be seen, won't know until it happens. Remember, I'm advising my side, not yours. Your tactics are your own to decide in line with the situation and your ethics.

      Delete
    2. Has anyone on your side taken heed to your ideas yet? If not, then maybe they consider you a moderate?

      You've got your work cut out for you. Just this morning, I hear of a lady being thrown in jail for not putting out marriage licenses. I hear of Taylor Swift being attacked for a video. I hear of cops being killed by BLM. Look at the crazy Amazon hijinks going on surrounding SJWAL.

      Sure most of these don't pertain to the Hugo or Gamergate, but in regular peoples minds they are all the same lumped in with various other issues. By regular people, I mean people who aren't actively participating in either side.

      I believe I first saw it mentioned on Monster Hunter Nation, where Larry said he wasn't arguing to convince the other person, he was arguing for the audience. Your concept of de-escalation would perhaps prevent further growth of Puppies, or GG.

      Also, I don't believe Vox is equating SJW with the Left. Most SJWs are on the left, but there are certainly something akin to them on the right.

      Delete
    3. Right, they are. Which is why I'm pleading with them to stop.

      Good luck with that, mate. Your allies aren't the types to take heed to sensible advice.

      Delete
    4. @Were-Puppy

      Vox Day generally positions SJWism as the ultimate end state of all Leftism. That is to say, the intellectual underpinnings of the Left will inevitably lead to SJW-style moral crusades. He does recognize that not all Leftists are SJWs, but his worldview implies they eventually will be.

      Delete
  4. "You don’t defeat an insurgency by spreading chaos"

    We are the insurgency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, you are. And I am advising the counter-insurgency.

      Delete
  5. Regarding the 'thought police' comment, it should be noted that what Vox objects to is the SJW's desire to force /everyone/ to conform, while what Vox desires is to make sure everyone /on his side/ conforms. The former is a dictatorial power grab, and unreasonable. The latter is a desire to make sure that everyone claiming to fight under your banner is actually a loyalist to said banner and not an agent provocateur... which isn't that unreasonable, is it?

    Or to put it more pithily, the only division that a Thought Police should have is Internal Affairs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "what Vox desires is to make sure everyone /on his side/ conforms"

      And that is extremely troubling. Particularly since it is a vague policy goal, open to interpretation, and lacking in specific "thou shalt nots." Sounds like a SJW Code of Conduct to me.

      Maybe there will be a more specific version released in the future that will set these concerns to rest. For the moment, ask yourself: what would I be forced to accept?

      Delete
    2. There are ranks of members in VP. The VFM are people who have actually agreed to follow, to the letter, whatever orders Vox wishes to give.
      This does not apply to the Ilk in general.

      Delete
    3. What Were-Puppy said.

      The Dread Ilk are a highly diverse, very fractious (in the best possible way) bunch of people. We do not agree on everything and we take a very dim view toward anyone else telling us what to think. That is why Vox's blog is the freewheeling madhouse that it is. God love 'em for it.

      We Vile Faceless Minions, on the other hand, volunteered to work under Vox's commands and rules. And even we don't always do exactly what he tells us to.

      Vox has very clear and very simple rules for people who wish to post and comment at his blog. Not one word of those rules reads anything like a "Code of Conduct", which your side would dearly love to impose upon the rest of us.

      Delete
    4. @Were-Puppy, @Didact

      Yes, and that works fine on Vox Popoli. Will this new Wikipedia alternative have the same tiered structure? Will Left-leaning editors be allowed to submit evidence that contradicts the official Narrative the VFM-equivalents are tasked with policing?

      Delete
  6. "If you want to end the culture war before it turns into an actual war, you must start by loving your enemies and treating them as you would want to be treated."

    Better an actual war than the passive destruction of our cultural and ethnic heritage.

    Today the left decided that after *decades* of cheering civil disobedience and the belief that leftists bureaucrats and politicians can defy the law through noncompliance (let's have a look at California civil servants regarding immigration, shall we...) that the time has come to throw a clerk in Kentucky in jail.

    Okay, so that's the new rule. That's how the game is played. And I will cheer and vote for a candidate who would now ruthlessly purge the civil service of anyone doing the same thing in favor of the other side.

    But to a face, the left boot or the right boot is irrelevant!, they cry. You can't support a set of values if you will betray them to maintain them!, they gloat.

    What one fails to realize is that we no longer have the option of no boots, nor do we have the option to live by our values among our own and allow others to do the same. The rules are now that one side must be the boot and one side must be the face - I have no interest in sqwaking because the initial positions may change.

    It is a giant cultural game of chicken, where the left has been dismantling our cultural birthrights one piece at a time, always sure that just when it looked like we might fight for it, we'd swerve off the road instead. Now, there's a sense of panic that we're charging forward one more time, only now we've thrown at the steering wheel and welded the pedal to the floor.

    Let the culture war transform. We don't care. The outcome can't be any worse than the current one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The rules are now that one side must be the boot and one side must be the face"

      Eh. Only as long as we keep stepping on people's faces.

      Your cultural and ethnic heritage is being as much destroyed by advances in technology and global capitalism as it is by Leftist conspiracy. Sure you really want that Technological progress? The Industrial Revolution is what started the destruction of the old order.

      Delete
    2. "The Industrial Revolution is what started the destruction of the old order."

      So much truth. If I ever meet you, this divine right monarchist will buy you a drink.

      Delete
    3. "Your cultural and ethnic heritage is being as much destroyed by advances in technology and global capitalism as it is by Leftist conspiracy."

      I actually just read a pretty good argument for those being the same thing.

      Delete
    4. Cpitalism is no respecter of persons.

      Delete
    5. "Capitalism is no respecter of persons."

      Depends how you look at it. To the extent capitalism is the free exchange of goods & services, it respects persons by leaving them free to direct their own efforts.

      Delete
  7. Rev, you just made an argument for civil dialectic as an approach to the problem. That only works if both sides play by the rules.

    Even Jesus used rhetoric ("you brood of vipers ") when it was the sensible response. Likewise, the winner in formal debates is almost always the individual who shapes the form of discourse (see: W.L. Craig vs. well, almost anyone -and- Hitchens vs. Berlinki).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. And I want it to start with the Left, not with your side.

      Rhetoric is fine. Treating people as sub-human is not.

      Delete
    2. Of course, but the Modern Left (not liberalism) *does not have* anything other than rhetoric.

      Socialism (and all related philosophies) demonstrated to be a complete and utter failure in every instance of implementation?

      No True Scotsman fallacy is repeated, along with appeals to "equality."

      Gay Marriage debate?

      Appeal to emotions.

      Global Warming demonstrated to be (at minimum) dramatically overstated, and possibly entirely fraudulent?

      "Anti-science Republicans! Think of the children!"


      And on and on and on. There is no discourse to be had here. Even in something as small as the Hugo debacle, every opposition argument made stemmed from deliberate misinterpretation and the most extreme framing possible.

      Delete
    3. And I have said that there is nothing wrong with Rhetoric. But when your opponent is using Dialect, it's best to switch gears.

      The reason most Leftists use rhetoric is because it's usually all they need. That doesn't mean we are incapable of using it.

      Delete
  8. but they do have one thing in common: the constant dehumanization of the other side.

    You still don't get the "War" part of "Culture War", do you.

    "War" is the noun.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1). Accept that your opponent is a human being.

    I agree, but there are some terms and conditions that involve being civil and polite, which I know is not all that fashionable these days.

    2). Attack ideas, never attack individuals.

    I disagree. Attacking ideas doesn't work as a strategy for changing other people's ideas. Again it's psychology 101, and a problem that faces anyone who want to change their ideas. As always I recommend the light and fluffy introduction to cognitive biases written by David McRany – You are not so Smart.

    3). Address specific statements with credible evidence.

    Actually no. See above. A dialectical approach takes an open to change perspective and asks how something works, rather providing evidence per se. Evidence gathering is a mutually agreed upon task, because it requires agreement and effort to achieve and is done as part of a task to discover what works or what doesn't work in a set of behaviours or beliefs that a person holds.

    While change may not always be possible, one can hope that people will learn to tolerate difference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "there are some terms and conditions that involve being civil and polite"

      I disagree. A human is a human, even if they are being a jackass.

      "Attacking ideas doesn't work as a strategy for changing other people's ideas"

      The goal isn't to change other's ideas, but to de-escalate the conflict. That will not happen as long as the Left uses personal attacks and disqualification as its primary tools.

      "one can hope that people will learn to tolerate difference"

      And that's the Left that I thought I signed up for.

      Delete
    2. [And that's the Left that I thought I signed up for.]

      After reading several of your posts, I'm not entirely convinced that you are "Left". Maybe it will just take you a while to realize that what passes for the modern "Left" is nothing close to what you actually value.

      You might want to consider going further to the right of conservatives. The water's nice and warm. :o)

      WATYF

      Delete
    3. What WATYF #0222 said. Are you familiar with the Political Compass? I just started reading your site, so apologies I'm treading over old ground.

      Delete
    4. I'm probably best described as a Left-leaning moderate with a few extremely unpopular opinions. My main trigger issues are free speech, free religion, anti-war, and pro-Life.

      Delete
  10. To my dismay, the only people who had anything positive to say about the series were Puppies of the Sad and Rabid variety. The essence of their response was “I cannot believe a SJW is capable of understanding us.

    This should tell you something about your fellow "SJW" brethren.

    After a year of following Vox, I have not yet seen an opponent attack him with a dialectic argument, for whatever reason.

    Ditto.

    In SJWs, the first Script is the anatomy of a SJW attack (Point and Shriek and so on) and the second Script is the proper response (Don’t Apologize and so on).

    Similarly, a book on how to avoid getting mugged in New York City would list how a mugger operates, and how to avoid or counter.

    If you want to end the culture war before it turns into an actual war, you must start by loving your enemies and treating them as you would want to be treated.

    That hasn't worked out so well for people on Vox's side. Talk to Brendan Eich, for example. He seems to have followed your counter-script, yet found himself without a job.

    I believe Vox states in this book that all his side wants is to be left alone. The attacker must vanquish; the defender need only survive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Similarly, a book on how to avoid getting mugged in New York City would list how a mugger operates, and how to avoid or counter."

      Right. I'm not saying that Scripts are good things or bad things, just that "SJWs Always Lie" shares similarities with PUA literature.

      "That hasn't worked out so well for people on Vox's side."

      I'll leave Puppy strategy to the Puppies.

      Delete
    2. "Talk to Brendan Eich, for example. He seems to have followed your counter-script, yet found himself without a job."

      He apologized, he resigned: both off-script.

      Delete
  11. The culture wars within fandom will escalate, the disqualification arms race will heat up, and both sides will steadily lose the ability to see the other side as human beings.

    Since the Left long ago lost the ability to see the right as human beings, the only alternative is for the right to fold up and go away.
    I admire your logiccal, dispassionate approach, Rev, but I really doubt anyone, literally anyone, on the SF Left is going to heed your advice.
    What I find really funny is that Vox said exactly the same things your saying now, last spring, at File770. He told them exactly how to make this all go away, which was essentially, "stop attacking everyone on the Puppy side and calling them names" and "vote for the Hugo nominees you think are the best of the lot, just like you would in any other year."

    They wouldn't listen then either.

    VFM #0301

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What I find really funny is that Vox said exactly the same things your saying now, last spring, at File770."

      Ha. I didn't know that, but it's pretty hilarious. He really does tell people the honest truth and then sit back and laugh while they punch themselves.

      Delete
  12. Upon first stumbling into VD's site, the overwhelming impression was of an old muckraking journalist who knew the law when it comes to defamation, libel and slander. Not so many of these old dogs survived into the new media era, but in their day they knew how to write stories that skirted the very edge of the law, but rarely if ever crossed it. Most of them could teach lawyers a thing or two about libel, and how to write an article from which people could infer an awful lot but on closer inspection didn't quite say what its detractors invariably shouted about.

    One of the key characteristics of old muckraking journalism was to keep it as neutral and dispassionate as possible. Let the reader infer. When your enemies shout about your slurs, quietly but firmly note you said nothing of the sort. Be very careful to use exact quotes. When your enemies shout, calmly note you're only quoting, and be sure you can point to the exact quote. Precise use of words at all times, so when your enemies shout you can show exactly what you meant versus their inferences. Know exactly where the line you can't cross is drawn. Choose your battles. If you're going to muckrake, choose your targets well. Never lose your temper. Never write anything that's not demonstrable. Pick a well known target. Someone famous who say/writes a lot. Pick quotes that let readers infer certain things (without naming those things).

    He's quite good at this, but he's not the master. I'd say that title belongs to a guy in Australia called Tim Blair (who by no coincidence cut his journalists' teeth in the gutter press). VD has a tendency to let ego overshadow strategy, and sometimes lets the cat out of the bag when he speaks his mind. Tim Blair is a model of restraint, and has the patience to play the long game. VD could learn something from him with regard to both.

    The biggest lesson from all this,though, is how to successfully market a book. And how to leverage your detractors' insults into your own marketing. He makes Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter look like losers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, you first make that sound like a bad thing, but then your admiration shines through. You would love The Other McCain.

      Delete
    2. Heh. I appreciate people who are precise with their words.

      This probably has something to do with the "soft target/hard target" distinction, but from what I've seen, Vox is a lot more careful to toe the libel line when speaking about someone who might shoot back. His interviews are usually on point.

      Delete
  13. As a follower of the manosphere for around 7 years now, I remember first reading Vox in the comment sections of sites like Spearhead and In Mala Fide. His approach was much more direct than we participants who, as new red-pillers, were just starting to clear the fog from our eyes.

    Fast forward to today and there is a broader range of perspectives in the manosphere - more mature, diverse, cutting-edge. At this rate, I believe the principles we are advocating will become more entrenched in society.

    Your attempt to advance the debate between the Left and neo-masculinists (for lack of a better term) is well-regarded and could help clarify how each side is structured.

    I think my side is already past GG and know it was an unsolicited attack, yet again, by the perpetually aggrieved. But we have been around long enough to know that the STRUCTURE in which SJWs operate is the greater goal. Like a human body that has a secondary brain, overriding the original in order to feed off its energy, the Left's far-reaching mark on society has to be slowly unwoven.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rev:

    You frequently speak of your desire to de-escalate the conflict. I have a simple question: why? What purpose is served by doing that?

    I'm not just being disingenuous, either. Given that one side has rather commanding entrenched positions in both publishing and fandom, de-escalation means essentially restoring the status quo. This is fine for them, but what about the people who were unhappy with the status quo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TheRev is still on their side.

      Delete
    2. First, because treating human beings as human beings is always the right thing to do.

      Second, because free speech should always be protected to the maximum possible extent (ie, no protection for child pornography, libel, and direct calls to violence).

      Third, because as Danby said, I consider myself a Leftist and do not support the actions being taken in my name. If the Left wants to win, we need to return to fundamental values, like protecting free speech.

      Delete
  15. > If you want to end the culture war before it turns into an actual war...

    When people start losing their jobs because of legal political contributions, it's already far too late for that. As Crispy already noted, ask Brendan Eich, One side has already declared it to be war, and it wasn't Vox.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Losing jobs? People have been jailed. People are daily threatened with jail and swatting by the SJWs. People have been dragged through court for doing nothing more than calling the man strangling your wife a 'ni@@er'.

      The left demanded we accept their speech saying First Amendment and Tolerance, Free Speech, and progression. Then when they gained power they said, "You know that whole free speech thing we demanded? Well that's being changed slightly."

      "You know that whole toleration of other behavior we demanded? Well not so much now it's celebration or jail take your pick."

      Delete
    2. And again, from the perspective of descendants of slaves, the Right did start this war. Has the Left taken things too far - past the point of Equality and into the sphere of institutionalized Inequality? Yes. But that doesn't mean the Right has been sitting around playing harps and clouds for the last few centuries.

      Delete
    3. Hi Rev,

      1: Which "descendants of slaves"? Would that be the ones whose ancestors we sold into slavery by Barack Obama's ancestors?

      2: Which "the Right"? I do not have a single ancestor who made it to America before the Civil War. So, not guilty.

      3: Do you remember the fighting in Bosnia? Do you remember reading about, or listening to, people justify their hatred because 500 years ago, the other people's ancestors switched religions?

      I remember, very vividly. And I remember thinking "what a bunch of idiots!" People saying "it's ok for me to do unspeakable things now, because someone else's great great grandfather did bad things to another person's great great great grandmother" are lunatics. But that sounds a lot like what you're saying.

      4: Please explain What slavery and the civil War has to do with forcing Brendan Eich to resign because he contributed to Prop 8. I'd really like to hear this logic.

      5: If we're going to score this on evils done by "the Left" and "the Right", you're going to lose. Ukraine 1930s starvation. The entire bloody history of the USSR. The Cultural Revolution. The Khmer Rouge. North Korea.

      Here in the US we can take a look at the Progressives. Shall we take a look at the Wilson Administration? His racism. His fascism during WWI?

      When it comes to blood, death, slaughter, oppression, and destruction, anti nobody beats the Left. Not at any time in history from the French Revolution onward.

      Delete
    4. You're a little late to the party, but let's!

      "1: Which "descendants of slaves"? Would that be the ones whose ancestors we sold into slavery by Barack Obama's ancestors?"

      Yes, those ones. The ones that European slave traders purchased from African slave traders. The ones that were kept as property for ~200 years.

      You're going to have a hard time arguing that African slave traders were progressive Liberals.

      "2: Which "the Right"? I do not have a single ancestor who made it to America before the Civil War. So, not guilty."

      Me neither! Which is why I am talking about the Right and not Republicans or your ancestors.

      "The Right" can mean more than its current incarnation - just as you are tracing "The Left" at least back to the French Revolution.

      "3: Do you remember the fighting in Bosnia? ...People saying "it's ok for me to do unspeakable things now, because someone else's great great grandfather did bad things to another person's great great great grandmother" are lunatics. But that sounds a lot like what you're saying."

      No. I am responding to a specific form of argument - "because people on the Left have done bad things, it is okay for us to do bad things."

      IF: (The Left has done bad things = The Right can do bad things in response)

      THEN: (The Right has done bad things = The Left can do bad things in response)

      If the Transitive Property holds, then it all comes down to that most classic of schoolyard pleas - "he started it!" Because the Left is progressive and reactionary, it is logically impossible for them to have 'started' anything. Therefore, the Right started it. If retaliatory violence is justified, then all of the Left's evils are justifiable.

      Again, this is not my argument. The premises are ludicrous at best. I am merely chasing down another person's argument to its logical conclusion.

      "4: Please explain What slavery and the civil War has to do with forcing Brendan Eich to resign because he contributed to Prop 8. I'd really like to hear this logic."

      Nothing! Absolutely nothing - unless we accept the argument that group guilt and retaliatory violence are acceptable. If so, the Right started it by persecuting homosexuals for millennia. If not, please explain why the Brendan Eich incident has anything to do with treating all Liberals as Morlocks.

      "5: If we're going to score this on evils done by "the Left" and "the Right", you're going to lose. Ukraine 1930s starvation. The entire bloody history of the USSR. The Cultural Revolution. The Khmer Rouge. North Korea."

      I disagree. The Left may have some big headlining incidents, but the Right has by definition been around longer. If we are going by the logic that it is acceptable to lump together every wrong committed by any person on a given end of the political spectrum, the Right is going to lose.

      Inquisition, 100 Years War, suppression of homosexuality since the Church of Rome took power, the de facto enslavement of women since basically forever, genocide of the Native Americans (North and South), Colonialism, the Opium Wars, etc etc etc.

      Not to mention that we could arguably include every evil committed by a Monarchy (what's more Rightist than Monarchy?) or even by Islam (can't say that they're progressive Lefties) belong to the Right. It would be dumb to do so, but arguably no more dumb than blaming Joe Liberal (Joe Box Wine? Joe Espresso?) for the Khmer Rouge.

      So, let's bottom line it:

      1). Is it acceptable to blame everyone on a given end of the political spectrum for every evil committed by every other person on that end of the political spectrum?

      2). Are retaliatory evils justified? Is this the fault of whoever "started it?"

      3). If so, who started it?

      Remember, the French Revolution didn't come from nowhere.

      Delete
    5. 1). Is it acceptable to blame everyone on a given end of the political spectrum for every evil committed by every other person on that end of the political spectrum?

      No. Wrong question. Better question:
      Is it acceptable to blame people for the evils done by their allies, while they sit and watch on the sidelines?

      I say yes. Now, if a former ally does something you don't approve of, and you stand up in public and say "that is wrong, I don't agree with that", then you're clearly not guilty in that situation, despite previous support for the ally.

      2). Are retaliatory evils justified? Is this the fault of whoever "started it?"

      Of course "retaliatory evils" are justified. That's the basis of any system of criminal justice. Arresting someone? Throwing them in jail? That's kidnapping. Fines? That's theft.

      If people get to change the rules when they don't like the current ones, then it is just, right, proper, and decent to inflict on them the full power of the rule changes they brought into effect. That's how you keep people from changing rules in bad ways, the sure and certain knowledge they're going to have to live with the changes.

      3). If so, who started it?

      Whoever establishes a new precedent "started it".

      Delete
    6. 4: " If not, please explain why the Brendan Eich incident has anything to do with treating all Liberals as Morlocks."

      We you active online when Brendan Eich's life was being destroyed? Did you stand up and say "this is wrong! Diversity means we must allow people to disagree with us, and hold different points of view!" No? Do you associate with the people who went after him, with the groups that went after him? Then you, personally, were and are an accomplice in his destruction.

      1: Given how many of the slave traders came from Boston, I don't know. :-)

      But, more importantly, what % of the Left had ancestors who were slaves, and didn't have any ancestors who were slave owners? Or do those ancestors not count?

      Now, what % of the Right were Irish ("no dogs or Irish"), Chinese, Italian, or any of the other groups that received lots of discrimination?

      And why does Barack Obama, who almost certainly had slave selling ancestors, and almost certainly doesn't have any direct ancestors who were slaves in the US, get any benefit from this "descendants of slaves" dispensation?

      2: I am part of "the Right". I personally face the attacks you are excusing under "slave privilege." In what version of "justice" is it acceptable to harm someone who's done nothing wrong, and whose ancestors had nothing to do with the claimed wrong, and for that harm to be administered by people who personally did not suffer the claimed wrong, and in most cases the people doing the attacking have no ancestors who were hit by "the wrong"?

      Or, to put it another way, I can't not see any reason why "the perspective of descendants of slaves" means anything when talking about the actions of mostly white "Progressives". Esp. when you consider how racist the actual "Progressives" were.

      3: I believe that the argument you're responding to is "these current members of the Left are acting in a particular way, so it is entirely appropriate for members of the Right to do unto those people the way they are doing unto others." Which is an entirely different thing from talking about whose ancestors did what to who.

      The witch hunts are going on right now. Be it the "No Award" campaign, and the lies, hatred, and racism thrown at the Sad Puppies, to Brendan Eich losing his job for donating money to Prop 8 supporters, to Horizon Pizza getting shut down for the owners saying "no, we wouldn't cater a gay wedding", to Kim Davis being thrown in jail, the Left in the US is actively attacking people, destroy lives, jobs, and businesses, and recruiting government to destroy people for "wrong" thinking.

      Where are you when the With hunts are taking place? Are you defending the right of people to think differently from you? Are you cheering the mob on? Are you watching the mob, saying nothing, being an accomplice?


      "Because the Left is progressive and reactionary, it is logically impossible for them to have 'started' anything."

      The Left is actively trying to destroy current American society, and replace it with their screwed up ideas. No, they didn't create the great society they're trying to destroy. But in trying to destroy what currently exists, they are most certainly "starting the fight".

      Delete
    7. I did not know about the Eich situation until I read about it in SJWs Always Lie. When I heard about it, I thought "That is dumb. That is truly dumb." On the other hand - look, you guys really need to start cycling your examples. Everyone leads with Eich.

      As to culture war, I will accept that the Left is "starting the fight" if you will admit that it is retaliatory violence. MLK actively 'tried to destroy what currently existed.' The Abolitionists 'tried to destroy what currently existed.' The Gay Rights movement is actively 'trying to destroy what currently exists.' But they did/are doing it because 'what currently exists' is systematic oppression.

      We have established that retaliatory violence is acceptable. Are you going to deny that Slavery/Segregation/Anti-Sodomy Laws constituted systematic violence against Blacks/Gays?

      It's not enough to say that "current members of the Left are acting a certain way." The question is, "why are they acting this way?" The French Revolution didn't come from nowhere, and neither did Rules for Radicals.

      Anti-Sodomy laws were enforced and Lynchings were performed within living memory. Do some elements of the Left take things too far? Yes. Is getting people fired from their jobs for their political views despicable? Absolutely. Did the Left start it? Only if you ignore all history prior to, oh, say, the 1980s.

      Look even Žižek is starting to go against the Safe Space Brigade (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2nd6rg) and he's as Marxist as you can get without being Marx. The Left != The Shrieking Left.

      Delete
  16. I find your approach good, and too late. The Anti-Puppy side (for lack of a better term) have cheered when they thought they were winning (at the Hugo's) but said booing was wrong. GRRMartin says the Puppies should start being nice without bringing up the lies and slander of the APs. It takes two to make a peace work. The APs are not ready yet.

    While laying out a script, I think SJWs Always Lie is more of a 'this works, try it' type of book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are not only not ready now, but it has been too late for years. Even if the SJWs fully repented of their sins against humanity, the truth is that the reckoning is underway and must run its course before they can even petition to have a voice in civilization.

      Fortunately for normal people, the SJWs are unrepentant and stiffnecked creatures. Repentance is unlikely to be a consideration, so it shouldn't be an issue.

      Delete
    2. The normal term for the rank-and-file anti-puppy folks is "puppy-kickers."

      Delete
    3. @Loyd

      Unfortunately, I agree. That doesn't mean that it's too soon for the people on the Left who are fed up to start calling for human decency.

      And that sort of script is very similar to PUA materials. I can't tell you how many people have been using canned materials from "SJWs Always Lie" in the comments this last week or so. PUA materials suggest adapting the canned material to your own personal style, which is what I see most Rabids doing.

      Delete
  17. Rev, you seem like a pleasant fellow, the type that would make an excellent guest at a Saturday barbecue. Conversation would be lively but respectful, and disagreements always followed by a smile. You'd be invited back every time.

    Men like you, however, are irrelevant to the thrust of history. Cultures are neither built nor destroyed by men who demand civility and walk the middle path, rather by ruthless men who hoist a flag and are willing to slit throats.

    During the middle years of a civilization it is possible to live by your ideals of civil discourse, respectful debate, etc. However, we are not in that civilizational apex. That time ended in the 1960s. Western Civilization is descending rapidly into a new dark age that, like all other descents, will end in actual war sooner than anyone wants to believe.

    Every societal marker—from education, to productivity, to morality, to demographics, to debt, to wealth--is pointing in the direction of decline. There is nothing that will save us from the barbarians now except the rise of strong men who are willing to fight against the forces that propel that decline.

    Men like you, Rev, pleasant as you may be, will simply be bystanders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everyone dies and almost everyone is forgotten. Kings and popes, peasants and slaves. I'm not concerned with my place in history, but my place in eternity.

      The middle path is what endures when the shouting of the moment has ended. The middle path will endure when this society has declined and another has replaced it, when the idols of the day have been smashed and only the historians remember their names.

      We and all our causes will all be swept aside by history. We can encourage other human beings to act with humanity or encourage other beings to act with savagery.

      The circles of Archimedes will be disturbed, but the science behind them endures.

      Delete
    2. While I agree in broad strokes with everything you've said here, it's worth pointing out that Aristotle (as just one example among very, very many) was also one such person, and Vox still quotes him relentlessly. The same is true of many similar personalities throughout history. They may not be able to stop the barbarians themselves, but they're still worth listening to.

      Delete
  18. I'm just curious, watching the current flare-up over "Sarah" Nyberg (don't know what his real name is), are you ever troubled by the kinds of behaviors your fellows on the Left are willing to defend in their allies? I mean, if pedophilia is not out of bounds . . . what is? If that will not get you ostracized, what will?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nyberg's name is Nick.

      If that will not get you ostracized, what will?
      Making them feel bad by disagreeing with them.Or even refusing to support them. Or not supporting them enthusiastically enough. Try saying out loud "I do not support gay marriage." In many circles, that will get you death threats.

      Delete
    2. Case in point: Ben Shapiro getting man-handled by the man-in-a-dress Zoe on a talk show. If the situation was reversed (Shapiro threatening a tranny), the media would scream to high heaven.

      And remember, the reason Shapiro was threatened was not due to any overt violent act or threat, but rather his refusal to speak newspeak.

      Delete
    3. @Zaklog

      The Butts debacle is a difficult one. Right now, the evidence against her looks really, really bad. I'm willing to give her the "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" treatment for now. But if she is a practicing pedophile, she needs to be forcibly put into incarceration/psychiatric care to prevent her from hurting children.

      My old roommate was a non-practicing pedophile. We had an understanding: if I ever found out he had become a practicing pedophile, I would end his life. These were conditions of his own choosing, mind. He said it gave him extra motivation to keep up with his counseling and medication. He was terrified that his desires would lead to actions and was willing to do anything to prevent it.

      I'm going to flip the question. A big part of Vox's strategy is not shooting at allies. So, what if it came out that a major GamerGater was a pedophile? Has he/she removed him/herself from this protection? If not, why not? If so, are there any other offenses that would remove this protection?

      Delete
    4. It's a good question. I can't say for certain what Vox would do, but I can say that if he were defending a known pedophile, many of his fans would drop away in disgust almost immediately and he knows this. There is one other wrinkle here, which is that we are accustomed to having absolutely baseless smears flung at us (Puppies & GGs alike). If a fellow GamerGater were accused of pedophilia, it would be entirely in character with Vox to defend them . . . until actual evidence started showing up. What he would do then, I do not know, but I think a rational weighing of his options would lean him towards walking away from this person.

      What other offenses? I don't know. But you have to admit in most Americans' minds, pedophilia is ranked pretty darned close to murder.

      Delete
    5. And that's a fair standard. My issue is that there is a difference between "evidence" and "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt."

      Right now, the evidence against Sarah is bad. Edgelord or not, posting pictures of her niece was unacceptable. And yet, I'm willing to bet that we all said/did some terrible things for shock value during those dark days of Web 1.0. The edgelord story is plausible.

      The police do not find the presented evidence actionable. Until more evidence surfaces - evidence that she is continuing this behavior or evidence that she acted this way IRL - I will do the civilized thing and assume innocence until proven guilty.

      Of course, if a GG supporter had engaged in behavior even half this inappropriate, they would be dragged through the streets and crucified. That disparity of standards is unacceptable.

      I completely understand and support her extended family's decision to keep her away from their children and would likely do the same thing in their situation. Edgelord or not, she crossed a line.

      Was her past behavior unacceptable? Yes. Did she put children - her own niece and nephew - at risk? Yes. Is she a pedophile? Maybe, maybe not.

      I do find it interesting that Sarah did not address her back tax issues or the accusation that she lives off of hosting copyrighted video game music, two accusations which have more concrete evidence behind them. But then I suppose the "PEDOFILA!' war cry is more effective than the "financial misconduct!" refrain.

      Delete
  19. "1). Accept that your opponent is a human being.
    2). Attack ideas, never attack individuals.
    3). Address specific statements with credible evidence."

    Houyhnhnms of course obey these rules as a matter of course. Yahoos have no other arguments to give and indeed nothing else whatever to say, aside from ad hominem attacks, that is, attacks against the person. Hence any Yahoo who obeyed the first rule would cease to be a Yahoo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Accept that your opponent is a human being? They can't even accept their own children are human beings. Some argue you can kill them after they're born.

      No, that is beyond them.

      Delete
    2. This is indeed the heart of the issue. What most (many? some?) of the Puppies are fed up with is not the Left per se, but a faction of the Left that no longer feels obligated to present evidence.

      But I have met the Liberal Houyhnhnms and have observed the Conservative Yahoo from an unsafe distance (a herd of stampeding YahooCons is a fearsome sight). They are not mythical beasts, for better or for worse.

      I can understand wanting to throw down the SJWs - the real SJWs who consider evidence and logic relics of the Penisarchy. But the assumption that Leftism = SJWism is a fallacy. A fallacy that SJWs commit as well.

      Delete
  20. The left can have it's little word war for the preservation of precious snowflakes and the "advancement" of their preferred suicidal culture; The Rev is wise to encourage de-escalation.

    I'm collecting equipment and undergoing training for a future phase.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Amen, brother. I keep saying that I'm a conservative because they're the only ones willing to support my liberal values: All people, even Evil Pale Penis people have dignity and worth, ad hominums suck, and truth, even if uncomfy, matters &etc.

    I wish you all the luck in the world in convincing your fellow lefties. Please defeat us evil wossname cons with rationality and reason.

    Godspeed.

    ReplyDelete