Debating the SJWs

“Know your enemy” is a wise axiom usually attributed to Sun Tzu, but probably goes back even farther, almost to the first human conflicts.

Vox Day’s new bestseler, SJWs Always Lie, is a long overdue resource for knowing our enemy. Whatever you may think of him based on his remarks about race, it’s often hard to deny the brutal validity of his insights. Even before the book came out, it was one of his off-the-cuff observations in an interview that helped me finally know the enemy.

VD would say we’re in the midst of 4GW or “4th Generation War” right now (I think). I’ve been saying for a while that, in the USA at least, we are in a cold civil war. This could change any week now, but so far the weaponry being used are words and ideas, expressed through a variety of mediums.

shootingblame

In the interest of knowing the enemy I wanted to show a real-world example of what it’s like to meet an SJW head-on in the marketplace of ideas. There was a debate with an SJW from 2010 I thought would be very demonstrative of rhetorical vs. dialectic, but alas: the transcript appears to be misplaced. So instead, I’m posting a transcript of a much more recent debate from seen.is. For the sake of length, I picked out the sub-threads from the primary antagonists (the attempted friendly fire by the Concern Trolls was not only inept, but incoherent). It may not be a perfect example of rhetorical vs. dialectic, but it’s a decent example of an attempt to disqualify the opposition.

We know from government documents and more than a few leaks that Bible-believing Christians are considered enemies of the state by the globalists, and have been called “domestic terrorists” along with constitutionalists, veterans and gun owners. But long before this became official, Christians were a favorite target of the SJWs because they have been (falsely) taught that they need to be milquetoast wimps who surrender at the first sign of opposition.

Someone posted a thread asking the question who the elect are (refer to Matthew 24/Mark 13; Luke 18:7, Romans 8:33, etc. For those interested).

danbrown

Almost immediately, yapping ankle-biters stormed the post all guns blazing, with their Concern Troll support troops in tow. The topic was hijacked by those with an axe to grind against Christianity in general and the Bible in particular. I tried to keep the thread on topic for a while, but the others on the Christian side (including the Original Poster) disappeared and these kinds of comments persisted:

ANKLE-BITER #1: “Absolute truth” is such a seductive and dangerous idea….

ANKLE-BITER #2: this is such exclusivism .. the whole we are special and we are saved and those others are not… this is a real problem with our species, particularly when people get stuck in this type of ideological prejudice

Notice that right away they are rejecting absolute truth. This comes into play later.

ANKLE-BITER #2: moral superiority complex.. this is what all such notions indicate

VP: Are you addressing anyone in particular? And do you have anything substantive to contribute that could work toward answering the question of this thread? If not, but you and (ANKLE-BITER #1) would like to debate moral superiority and whether truth is relative or absolute, let’s start a topic and do that. I’ll be happy to participate if you’ll abandon the hijacking of this thread.

ANKLE-BITER #2: addressed in general to anyone who is possessed by this kind of paradigm of, we are better because we have embraced this belief elect, saved it is an illness which is the same root as every other prejudice and bigotry comes from How are we going to make positive progress as a species if we cannot evolve past the medieval brainwashing which has infected our species? this just keeps people divided and a house divided cannot stand

Keep in mind this is a person who allegedly doesn’t like the idea of “ideological prejudice” or “moral superiority,” yet considers himself the authority on what “positive progress as a species” is.

VP: You make a big show of being outraged by those with a “moral superiority complex” and you butt into a thread (that was NOT posted for discussion of whether Christianity is valid or not) in order to assert moral superiority over those trying to have a civil discussion among themselves, piling on the insults like “possessed,” “illness,” “medieval brainwashing which has infected our species.” I offered to debate both of you in a separate thread so this one could be unmolested. But of course you’re not interested in honest discourse–you only want to attack those you assume are morally inferior with your hypocritical invective. Then after working so hard to bring division into a conversation that doesn’t concern you, you use the “house divided” remark. Your hypocrisy is amusing, but again, doesn’t belong here.

ANKLE-BITER #2: hmm a bit offended when all i am doing is criticizing an idea, not anyone personally.. since it is this idea that threatens our present and our future only those who are attached to such an idea would be offended

VP: Why are you offended? I’m only pointing out hypocrisy and criticizing tactics, not anyone personally.

ANKLE-BITER #1: Take the hubris out of the question, Who Are The Elect, and you have a topic worth discussing. When people are telling you that they are part of the Elect, you know you’re in the company of fools.

Here is a person who openly rejects absolute truth, yet has unilaterally decreed, for everyone, what topics are worthy of discussion. Also note how easily he resorts to name-calling: anyone who disagrees with his position is a fool. And it is never explained how the “hubris” is to be removed from the question. According to him, the question itself is the manifestation of hubris. So take the hubris out and what question remains? This is the fingerprint of an SJW–statements calculated to put you on the defensive, but that don’t stand up to even rudimentary logical analysis. He continues:

…It isn’t hard to figure out who might qualify. In Matthew 7:12 and again at 22:37-40, Jesus makes it clear. He reduced the ten commandments to two: Love God, love others. This same simple code is expounded in every one of the major religions, and to this day no more than a handful of people have even come close to living up to the standard.

According to this comment, Islam (for instance) is a religion of love. His New Age indoctrination is showing here: all religions are equal.

Interesting that he uses biblical references in an attempt to qualify his argument, isn’t it? Maybe it reminds you of somebody who did something similar after Jesus had fasted 40 days in the wilderness (read about it in Matthew 4:6).

But wait! Ankle Biter #1′s not done:

If there is a God who judges people, it won’t be over which denomination or even which religion we belong to. It’ll be over how we live up to the simplest of moral codes: Love God. Love each other.

VP: Those were 2 of my favorite passages you referenced. Does your use of them indicate you accept the source as dependable and we can therefore use the 66 books of the Bible to determine what is true in this matter? Or are you simply using the typical anti-Christian tactic of cherry-picking select verses in an attempt to invalidate the text you lifted them from?

BTW the same person you quoted claimed to be the ONLY way to the Father (John 14:6). My guess is you don’t like or use those kinds of excerpts. (But, giving you the benefit of the doubt,) since you apparently accept Bible quotes as valid evidence in this matter, feel free to also provide chapter and verse on Jesus questioning whether there is “a God who judges people,” and where Jesus tells us that said judgement will not be based on what a person believes.

ANKLE-BITER #1: So, VP, let me guess: you’re a Christian? As far as I’m concerned you are totally welcome here, not that I have anything to say about it. But this is an open forum, specifically created for free and open exchange of ideas. If you want to have your own Christian threads, that’s fine, but other folks are going to make comments. You should be glad they’re taking the time to read what you write. Yeah, (ANKLE-BITER #2) was a little shrill. Deal with it. Of course, if what you want is Christian conversation without the annoyance of having people disagree with some things you may say, there are tons of Christian forums out there. Have at it. Peace.

Hard to miss the pose he’s trying to strike, here: the smug, benevolent intellectual who welcomes diversity of opinion. He welcomes it so much that he dog-piles on with his bedfellows to shout down others with differing opinions trying to have a polite discussion among themselves.

You can already start to see some uncertainty leaking through the condescending contempt. He’s a little off-balance because one Christian had the audacity to stay on the thread rather than retreat at the first sign of conflict. He’s still fairly confident–just a bit disappointed that one of his intended victims didn’t roll over and play dead.

Also note his crafty tactic of painting this as a problem with anyone who might “disagree with some things you may say” rather than a deliberate hijacking. Desperately trying to skew the other side into the role of intolerant villain when Ankle-Biter #1 was politely offered to debate these points of contention in a thread specifically for that purpose.

VP: (ANKLE-BITER #1) said: ”… Yeah, (ANKLE-BITER #2) was a little shrill. Deal with it.”

Thanks–I am dealing with it.

Your plattitudes about polite public discourse sound noble and all, but if you truly wanted that you would have accepted my offer. No, you wanted to sabotage this discussion.

I don’t follow Islam. In fact I have a lot of problems with it. However, I don’t barge into a discussion between a Sunni and Shiite about who should have succeeded Mohammed and continually interrupt them to spout off on how their religion sucks. And if I did, I’d be shouted down by a thousand sheeple, demonized at every turn, and possibly blamed for the next Benghazi. But it’s A-OK to do it to Christians, because we’re so intolerant, right?

ANKLE-BITER #1: My, but you simply radiate love for your fellowman, Friend! To answer your question, ” Does your use of them indicate you accept the source as dependable and we can therefore use the 66 books of the Bible to determine what is true in this matter?” the answer is no, because there is no logic in that. What I believe is that the Bible is inspired by the Divine, and that Jesus was probably the most actualized human being who ever lived. Believing the Bible to be literally, word-for-word true or factual (in English no less), will greatly hamper the ability to see much of its greatness.

Translation: “DISQUALIFY! Christians are supposed to run away when I use these tired old talking points! Obviously, you lack love!”

No doubt he hoped to generate guilt with his snark about love and inspire an apology–which 99% of Churchians would have given him.

VP: (ANKLE-BITER #1) said: ”My, but you simply radiate love for your fellowman, Friend!”

Ah, I see I’ve encountered an expert on what love is. Perhaps you’d care to provide an absolute definition of love.

ANKLE-BITER #1: Guess I’ll let the Elect have the thread. Virtual Pulp, I’m not trashing your religion. The way I see it, you’re doing a better job of that than I could. You’re welcome to it.

Desperate parting shot, there: claim victory while running away. In the face of mounting butthurt, he is looking for a way out…but still couldn’t resist another inept attempt at psyching out a Christian (because so many of us assume that love is telling people what they want to hear and never ruffling feathers). And after his relativistic BS earlier, he has been hoisted on his own petard by assuming there is a universal standard of love and he knows what it is.

BTW: Neither the Original Poster, nor anyone else, ever claimed to be the Elect. Again, the purpose of the conversation was to answer the question of who the Elect are. That purpose was hijacked before it ever got off the ground.

Notice he brought up the Bible as an alleged buttress for his argument (assuming the opposition didn’t know the source material as well as he thinks he does) but is not willing to accept it as a standard. He abandons that approach so fast, it’s almost like it burned him.

VP: Nice try, but that statement falls of its own weight, and fails to salvage your disastrous attacks.

ANKLE-BITER #1: My only problem with this thread is that it doesn’t belong under News. It belongs over in the spirituality section.

See that? NOW the only problem is that the thread is wrongly categorized. Funny how he never once even mentioned that before in all his comments. Translation: “Retreat!!!!!!!!!”

But once I’ve left the conversation, he’ll get reinforcements and start all over again.

ANKLE-BITER #2: well, nobody is any more special than anyone else including Jesus who was no more divine than anyone else so this idea is an issue it is this kind of thinking , the saved, the elect, the blessed, which is really just a divisive us and them idea that is propagated by pretty much every religion

It’s worth noting that the two ankle-biters in this tag-team operate on opposite assumptions: one that all religions are equally valid; one that all religions are equally bad. And yet they work together to silence any Christian conversation. ANKLE-BITER #2 continues:

…setting a dividing line between sheep and goats, wheat and chaff, etc etc… that keeps us in the dark ages and feeds petty prejudice and bigotry this is the fact and if it was a muslim thread making the same claims on the board I would be saying the same thing there as well so don’t feel singled out … i call this kind of thinking out wherever I run across it, but I don’t go out looking for it.

This is a lie easily proven by looking through his comment history. And followed up by another lie: that he doesn’t “go out looking for it.” Also easily debunked by his comment history. But I let that go and addressed his faux-definitive statements about Jesus:

VP: And how did you come to this conclusion, (ANKLE-BITER #2)?

ANKLE-BITER #2: …….Direct revelation

Finally, faced with how he can’t defend his argument by what he purports to believe, he hides behind snark.

And there is one example of how SJWs debate.

For the impending regime, these kind of people are the useful idiots. Most of them will be killed off once their usefulness is expired, but plenty of them will be your commisars, your political officers, your imbedded snitches, and some will be manning guard towers. You should study how they think (and don’t think) now, before they are issued uniforms, armbands and weapons.

Amazon’s Censorship Continues (And SJWs Still Always Lie)

Last time I blogged about how one of my Amazon product reviews was rejected for the first time since I started reviewing. Amazon sent me a list of reasons why a review might be rejected, none of which applied to what I wrote.

The elephant in the room is that the review addressed the politics in the book…

But not from the state-approved left-wing perspective.

 

Now  infamous liar and impudent hypocrite John Scalzi, after being targeted in a short parody e-book, has convinced Amazon to remove the book from their virtual shelves. Judging by the Soviet zeitgeist strangling our entire culture, I doubt he had to twist their limp-wristed arms.

The book in question is John Scalzi Is a Rapist: Why SJWs Always Lie in Bed Waiting For His Gentle Touch… The title alone takes advantage of Scalzi’s self-identification as a rapist, and seems to also poke fun at the masturbatory hive mind of Social Justice Whiners in general, as I sort of did in The Greater Good.

Just to catch you up (in case this is new to you) after the Hugo Wars surrounding Sad Puppies III and the Rabid Puppies, Vox Day released his e-book SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police on the anniversary of #Gamergate. It quickly shot to the top of the Amazon rankings.

It also quickly inspired a parody by the target of his literary roast: John Scalzi is Not a Very Popular Author and I Myself am Quite Popular. In true SJW fashion author “Theo Pratt” attempts to skew the debate away from relevant points by portraying Vox Day as some kind of sore loser obsessed, offended, and in denial about Scalzi’s popularity. This can be traced back to Scalzi’s lies about his own website traffic, and the fact that Vox Day refuses to let him off the hook for it.

That parody evidently inspired a counter-parody…and now you’re caught up.

In many ways, Amazon is run on sound business principles–that is how they rose to the top. But look at this:

#1_parody

So a company that otherwise practices sound business strategies banned a #1 bestseller (while leaving the left-wing parody on the same subject, #3, on the shelf.  Notice?) even after Ken at Popehat  advised him the parody is First Amendment-protected.

Fascinating, in light of how George Bush is a War Criminal and Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Paula Deen is a Big Fat Idiot are still available for sale there.

It’s doubtful the SJWs will ever recognize that they have proven that they are, indeed, thought police.

Scalzi is just being Scalzi–a predictable Marxist/feminist/homophile/transphile tool who tries to dish it out but just can’t take it. The alarming aspect of this is Amazon being so eager to lose profits (when there is no legal neccessity) in order to impose a double standard on the expression of ideas.

“I vill not tolerate any hate thpeech! Love winth!”

Get used to this. For those who have paid attention, it’s obvious the SJWs only believe in freedom of speech so long as the speech agrees with them. We are losing every liberty formerly protected in the Bill of Rights as I write this. It has been piecemeal and incremental up until now, but you can expect the crackdown to spread like wildfire soon, across every front. This is the first little mudslide of the avalanche.

(Update: looks like the thought criminal Alexa Eren has re-published her book under a new title; and more counter-parodies have been released  by puppy-friendly authors. How long before Amazon grinds these titles under its pink jackboot is unknown at this point. Image links are sprinkled throughout remainder of post.)

A clarification might be in order. “SJWs always lie” has been Vox Day’s mantra well before this book came out. You may have trouble with the title, because SJWs don’t literally always lie. They sometimes speak the truth when it fits the Narrative and advances their agenda. They might even be truthful when asked mundane questions like “what is your favorite flavor of Starbucks latte?” or “what color is your Prius?”

What the author is doing with that assertion (and title) is commenting on the character of SJWs by speaking their own language. Day has studied Aristotle, who compared rhetorical to dialectic debate. Pinkos, cultural Marxists, CHORFs, SJWs…whatever you choose to call them…are completely incapable of dialectic reasoning, and so must be engaged rhetorically.


An example may help illustrate: A former female companion had a primordial compulsion to instigate strife and drama. While I sometimes forgot things that did happen, she often remembered things that never happened. It baffled me how easily she resorted to dishonesty in an argument, and could ignore facts right in front of her face in order to double down on some preposterous accusation she insisted on holding to. I could write a book-length breakdown on her absurd behavior, but one little tactic that annoyed me for some reason was her use of “always” and “never” according to the circumstances of the argument–not according to reality. Me pointing out the truth after one of her ridiculous lies never got me anywhere. Then one day, out of exasperation, I decided to give her a taste of her own medicine. She accused me of always doing this or never doing that (I forget which) yet again, and I calmly replied, “You always say that, and it’s never true.”

For the first time I can remember, she was speechless. In fact, that finished the argument. It was like I forced unconditional surrender by unleashing some devastating secret weapon. The war was won, but at the time even I didn’t understand why the weapon had been so effective.

I, for one, really appreciate the Orwellian reference in the subtitle.

Looking back now, I understand that my choice of words had built a temporary bridge between the rhetorical and dialectic that even her reptilian brain could briefly cross.

I have Vox Day to thank for my epiphany regarding communication with these kind of people. I had never been taught about dialectic vs. rhetorical, but I had been frustrated by debates with SJWs for 20+ years, never understanding that I was using dialectic and they were only fluent in rhetorical. Then one time Vox said, “You will never, ever, change the mind (of an SJW) by giving them information.”

Everything clicked into place in an instant. All my frustration and years of wasting my breath using honest, rational arguments suddenly made sense. Why my ex-girlfriend’s mouth was closed with such finality that one time years ago suddenly made sense. Women in general suddenly made a lot more sense. The wilful ignorance of Obamunists and Klintonistas suddenly made sense.

It is possible for us to switch to their language, but but not for them to understand ours.

For example, an SJW who reads this blog post from beginning to end would come away from it with this mental summary:

“Blah blah blah John Scalzi sucks blah blah blah I hate women blah blah blah I’m probably racist too blah blah blah.”

Literally that is all they would grok. And I could spend hours in a comment flame war quoting what was actually said in defense of myself…but it would be entirely moot. Like trying to explain the workings of an internal combustion engine to a house cat.

Save yourself cumulative years of futile labor trying to reason with these people. Jesus addressed such people in His time this way:

John 8:43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!