John C. Wright's Blog, page 37

More on Moral Retardation

Another evidence of Moral Retardation, aside from an utter inability to distinguish between opposites, is an utter inability to distinguish between differences of magnitude, as when, for example, the Moral Retard equates an insulting act, such as throwing a harmless metal baseball called a practice grenade into a mosque, with an act of war, such as having trained commandos attack the offices of a satirical magazine and kill the civilians in a grisly mass murder.

The favorite game of the Moral Retards is the game of ‘Moral Equivalence’ where any criticism of any of the favored allies or mascots of the Moral Retards is answered by saying the crimes of the mascots are no worse than the crimes of whatever group the critic is (or can be said to be) a member of.

In logic, this is known as the informal fallacy of Ad Hominem, or, specifically, Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. It is not only the favorite, experience shows to the be the only verbal behavior of a Leftist seeking to rebut an argument. In rhetoric, this is known as changing the subject and attacking the messenger. In psychology, this is known as having a frantic squirrel racing in circles in your otherwise empty brainpan.

However, even if it were not a logical error, it is still an example of Moral Retardation. Whenever a sane person says anything unflattering about the Jihad, the Moral Retard gives his instinctive verbal behavior of Ad Hominem. This typically takes two forms: (1) accusing the sane man of bigotry, usually by asserting that the sane man failed to genuflect to the idol of the Mythical Moderate Muslim, as when he calls the Jihadists ‘Muslims’ (which they are) but not ‘Radical Muslims’ (which they are not) and ergo he is a racist or Islamophobe; and (2) claiming the Christian terrorists are just as bad as the Islamic terrorists.

The difference between the two kinds of terrorist, from a sane perspective, can be illustrated by comparing the Wikipedia pages for Christian terrorism in the US

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#Christian_extremism)

versus Islamic terrorism in the US

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Islamist_terrorism_in_the_United_States).

The former is six bullet points in a small section of a single page; the latter is a category comprising 6 sub-categories and 67 pages.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

On the Moral Retardation and the Islamophobic Backlash

Earlier in this space we were visited by two anti-Christian anti-civilization bigots and morally retarded persons who used the opportunity of the mass murders of French satirists by Jihadists to express their delight and love for all things anti-Christian and barbaric.

I use the phrase ‘morally retarded’ extensively here, so allow me to explain what is meant. We speak of a man being ‘mentally retarded’ when he is unable to perform commonplace or elementary mental functions as heeding, comprehending, processing, deducing, judging and expressing himself on matter requiring abstract or concrete mental skills. It is different from being illiterate in that the ability is to perform the skill is missing, not just practice in the skill.

Likewise, here, MORALLY retarded is when a man is unable to perform elementary moral functions, as comprehending or processing, deducing or judging any matter requiring abstract moral judgment or concrete moral conscience. It is different from being an innocent savage because the ability to make elementary moral judgments is absent.

For example, a morally retarded person might be able to function anywhere in society, or even in academia, in terms of the ability to grasp abstract concepts and read and write and deduce a logical conclusion from a syllogism. But he is unable to make the moral distinctions and judgments of probity or relevance that even a child or a savage could make, or, indeed, not even these.

For example, a normal grammar mavin might from time to time be annoyed at seeing an ungrammatical term or expression in causal conversation, and, when it was appropriate to do so, correct another person’s grammar and generally be a jackass about it, much to the annoyance of all concerned. But the annoyance is tolerable, and the jackass is tolerated, because the matter is insignificant.

However, a morally retarded person will select a day on which innocent people have been slaughtered by blood sopped troglodytes from hell in the name of Islam, as part of a millennial-long war between Christendom and Dar-al-Islam, to make his grammar corrections, sniffing imperiously and adjusting his horned rimmed glasses to tell all and sundry that, in theory, there are somewhere moderate Muslims who do not support Jihad, so that calling the terrorists ‘Muslims’ is as technically inaccurate as calling a whale a fish. Whales are mammals.

This is not because the person is a jackass. A normal grammar mavin is a jackass. This is because the person is a moral retard. He actually cannot tell the difference between the moral gravity and significance of the mass murder of twelve innocent civilians by a sneak attack and the the moral gravity and significance of using an imprecise term in a conversation. To him, indeed, the grammar error if MORE SIGNIFICANT than the mass murder.

Now, keep in mind that moral retardation is not caused by a brain defect nor by a childhood trauma. It is something as deliberately induced and embraced and self inflicted as the blindness of Oedipus. In this case, it is not the alleged grammatical imprecision of using the word ‘Muslim’ to mean those who follow the teachings of Muslimism, including the doctrine commanding Jihad, nor the alleged grammatical imprecision of using the word ‘Mohammedan’ to refer to those who follow the heretical teachings of the heretic Mohammed which provokes the ire of the morally retarded jackass.

No, the jackass is afraid of a backlash.

He is afraid of me, an overweight, overage and undercoiffured science fiction writer.

He is afraid that if I say the magic word ‘Muslim’ to refer to those who (as all orthodox Muslims do) support the Mohammedan teaching of Jihad, that holy war against the infidel is not just allowed but mandatory, that I and the other Christian peasants, because we are a vile, stupid, violent and bigoted lot of neanderthal-jawed knuckle-dragging yokels, will form a lynch mob and immediately attack the nearest Mosque, where frail Muslim grandmothers and innocent big-eyed waifs huddle, cowering and trembling, while we Christians prance our savage war dance about the pile of burning Korans, brandishing our torches and pitchforks.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

On the Moral Retardation and the Islamophobic Backlash

Earlier in this space we were visited by two anti-Christian anti-civilization bigots and morally retarded persons who used the opportunity of the mass murders of French satirists by Jihadists to express their delight and love for all things anti-Christian and barbaric.

I use the phrase ‘morally retarded’ extensively here, so allow me to explain what is meant. We speak of a man being ‘mentally retarded’ when he is unable to perform commonplace or elementary mental functions as heeding, comprehending, processing, deducing, judging and expressing himself on matter requiring abstract or concrete mental skills. It is different from being illiterate in that the ability is to perform the skill is missing, not just practice in the skill.

Likewise, here, MORALLY retarded is when a man is unable to perform elementary moral functions, as comprehending or processing, deducing or judging any matter requiring abstract moral judgment or concrete moral conscience. It is different from being an innocent savage because the ability to make elementary moral judgments is absent.

For example, a morally retarded person might be able to function anywhere in society, or even in academia, in terms of the ability to grasp abstract concepts and read and write and deduce a logical conclusion from a syllogism. But he is unable to make the moral distinctions and judgments of probity or relevance that even a child or a savage could make, or, indeed, not even these.

For example, a normal grammar mavin might from time to time be annoyed at seeing an ungrammatical term or expression in causal conversation, and, when it was appropriate to do so, correct another person’s grammar and generally be a jackass about it, much to the annoyance of all concerned. But the annoyance is tolerable, and the jackass is tolerated, because the matter is insignificant.

However, a morally retarded person will select a day on which innocent people have been slaughtered by blood sopped troglodytes from hell in the name of Islam, as part of a millennial-long war between Christendom and Dar-al-Islam, to make his grammar corrections, sniffing imperiously and adjusting his horned rimmed glasses to tell all and sundry that, in theory, there are somewhere moderate Muslims who do not support Jihad, so that calling the terrorists ‘Muslims’ is as technically inaccurate as calling a whale a fish. Whales are mammals.

This is not because the person is a jackass. A normal grammar mavin is a jackass. This is because the person is a moral retard. He actually cannot tell the difference between the moral gravity and significance of the mass murder of twelve innocent civilians by a sneak attack and the the moral gravity and significance of using an imprecise term in a conversation. To him, indeed, the grammar error if MORE SIGNIFICANT than the mass murder.

Now, keep in mind that moral retardation is not caused by a brain defect nor by a childhood trauma. It is something as deliberately induced and embraced and self inflicted as the blindness of Oedipus. In this case, it is not the alleged grammatical imprecision of using the word ‘Muslim’ to mean those who follow the teachings of Muslimism, including the doctrine commanding Jihad, nor the alleged grammatical imprecision of using the word ‘Mohammedan’ to refer to those who follow the heretical teachings of the heretic Mohammed which provokes the ire of the morally retarded jackass.

No, the jackass is afraid of a backlash.

He is afraid of me, an overweight, overage and undercoiffured science fiction writer.

He is afraid that if I say the magic word ‘Muslim’ to refer to those who (as all orthodox Muslims do) support the Mohammedan teaching of Jihad, that holy war against the infidel is not just allowed but mandatory, that I and the other Christian peasants, because we are a vile, stupid, violent and bigoted lot of neanderthal-jawed knuckle-dragging yokels, will form a lynch mob and immediate attack the nearest Mosque, where frail Muslim grandmothers and innocent big-eyed waifs huddled cowering and trembling while we Christians prance our savage war dance about the pile of burning Korans, brandishing our torches and pitchforks.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

From the Pen of Jim Butcher

Here are the opening paragraphs of Jim Butcher’s column called Freedom v Fear. He is the author of the finest urban fantasy series, The Dresden Files, ever written.

I don’t make statements like this a lot, and I don’t really feel like engaging in a huge debate. But there’s something I need to say regarding Charlie Hebdo.

God knows I have little in common with the folks who died. I doubt we’d have agreed on very much. Looking over some of their work, I find myself rolling my eyes a lot.

But I do agree on at least one matter with them–they should be free to speak their minds without fear.

I saw this tweet attached to one of the cartoons responding to the massacre:

“Still mortified about our fallen cartoonist colleagues, but free speech will always win.”

No.

No it won’t.

The history of the human race demonstrates /very/ convincingly that free speech is the /exception/ to the human condition, not the rule. For millennia, those who spoke out were imprisoned or killed. Hell, you could say something that wasn’t even subversive, just inept and stupid, and be destroyed for committing the crime of lese majeste.

Make no mistake. What we have today is a level of freedom and self-determination on a scale unparalleled in the history of our species. We live in what is, in many ways, a golden age. So much so that we give tremendous credit to the adage, “The pen is mightier than the sword.”

But everyone always forgets the first half of that quote:

“Under the rule of men entirely great, the pen is mightier than the sword.”

I’m not sure I know of anyplace that’s ruled by anyone “entirely great.” That adage wasn’t a statement of philosophy, as it was originally used: it was a statement of irony.

Don’t believe me? Look around. Notice that everywhere you go in the world, whoever happens to be ruling seems to have a great many swords.

Still, the idea contained within the quote is a powerful one–that intangible ideas, thoughts, and beliefs can have tremendous power. And that’s why we should be paying close attention.

After all, intangible fear can be mightier than the sword, too. Hell, it has been for quite a while now. Don’t believe me? Try getting on an airplane without taking your shoes off in the security line. While you’re doing that, try cracking a joke about having a knife.

That’s the power of fear, guys.

We. Are. In. Danger.

The threat isn’t aimed at our government or our borders or our resources. It’s targeting something far more precious–our identity. It’s changing us, who we are, how we live, and not for the better.

Read the whole thing: http://jimbutcher.livejournal.com/4837.html

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Klavan: The Debate is Over

A reader has informed me that, since Fox News is not reliable, the ‘no-go’ zones in France simply do not exist, that is, the banlieues or suburbs where Muslim immigrants in France have menaced and deterred police and fire services to the point where the writ of the Republic no longer runs.

For those of you who do not trust American news, there is always Hungarian: http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/03/a-war-zone-in-the-banlieues-video/

This reminds me of my favorite bit of mockery from Andrew Klavan.

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Klavan: The Debate is Over

A reader has informed me that, since Fox News is not reliable, the ‘no-go’ zones in France, that is, the banlieues or suburbs where Muslim immigrants in France have menaced and deterred police and fire services to the point where the writ of the Republic no longer runs.

For those of you who do not trust American new, there is always Hungarian: http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/03/a-war-zone-in-the-banlieues-video/

This reminds me of my favorite bit of mockery from Andrew Klavan.

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Do Your Part for Evil

Michael Z. Williamson, an esteemed member of the Evil League of Evil, and hated by all the right people, has a new book to consider purchasing for your postchristmas buying spree:

[image error]

Wisdom from My Internet

You learn some amazing things on the internet. The War of 1812 was just a dispute over labor and hiring practices. Pico de Gallo was not a conquistadore. Hugo Chavez is not a line of clothing. There was no medieval siege engine called the Battering Lamb. Americans apparently like debt–they keep voting for more of it.

Join SF writer and satirist Michael Z. Williamson for a collection of snark, comments, random typings and alcohol-fueled puns that is worth at least half the cover price.

 

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Islam is a Theopolitical Party

A friend of mine, and several other commentators and pundits have pondered and wondered why it is that Muslims seem to have so much trouble policing their own. Why is it that this peaceful religion of peace cannot control nor restrain the radical extremists in their midst who commit acts of terror and mass murder?

This question and questions like this are based on a false assumption, nay, an illusion. The acts of bloody murder we see in the newspapers every day committed by Mohammedans are simply not the acts of radicals. By definition, a radical is one who proposes far-ranging and absolute changes to a system, changes from root to crown, radical changes, and is willing to embrace radical and unheard-of means to do so. Again, by definition, and extremist is someone far from the mainstream, an outlier, an unlikely fringe example.

What the modern Muslims are doing is using modern tactics, perfected by the Communists and the Anarchists before them, committing of terror and mass murder in front of the press, to promote their most ancient strategy, and to continue the work their prophet, Mohammed, began in his lifetime. This is a strategy to spread their heretical religion by means of sword and terror.

Islam is Shariah Law. Shariah Law is Islam.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Leftists Love Islam

Twice now Leftists have presented themselves on my blog to argue that, no, Leftists do not side with the Dar-al-Islam against Christendom, and moreover I am a simply horrible and contemptible person for believing so. Both times, I produced lists and lists of famous Leftwing figures expressing sympathy and support and solidarity for Islam, and both times, I was answered with fragmentary and incoherent statements calling my character into question, flatly denying the evidence of their senses, and changing the subject.

Now that the Mohammedans have slain more people in France this day, and the major news outlets, the White House, and all the usual suspects alike fail to use any ‘trigger words’ like ‘Islam’ or ‘terrorist’, it might be an apt time to revisit a story from October of last year.

It seems Leftist icon and agitprop comedian Bill Maher had the effrontery to criticize Mohammedanism. Among other statements, he said:

“It’s the only religion that acts like the mafia,” Maher said. “They will f*cking kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book.”

See here for the surrounding conversation and context: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/it...

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Only you can make literati heads explode: Torgersen & Sad Puppies 3

An announcement from the esteemed and bold Brad R Torgersen. These next words are his:

The Hugo awards window (for 2015’s nominations) will be open soon. As one of Baen’s newest authors, I wanted to be be the first guy out of the gate with SAD PUPPIES 3. For those of you who don’t know what SAD PUPPIES is, it’s a (somewhat tongue in cheek) running effort to get stories, books, and people onto the Hugo ballot, who are entirely deserving, but who don’t usually get on the ballot. Largely because of the nomination and voting tendencies of World Science Fiction Convention, with its “fandom” community. In the last decade we’ve seen Hugo voting skew more and more toward literary (as opposed to entertainment) works. Some of these literary pieces barely have any science fictional or fantastic content in them. Likewise, we’ve seen the Hugo voting skew ideological, as Worldcon and fandom alike have tended to use the Hugos as an affirmative action award: giving Hugos because a writer or artist is (insert underrepresented minority or victim group here) or because a given work features (insert underrepresented minority or victim group here) characters.

Likewise, the Hugos tend to be a raw popularity contest, for all definitions of “popular” that include “Trending with Worldcon.” Which may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with actual sales success on the open market. And that was Correia’s original point: if the Hugos really are the preeminent award in SF/F how come the Hugos so often ignore works and people who are, in fact, successful ambassadors of the genre to the consumer world at large? What the heck is going on here?

So, SAD PUPPIES has tended to push back. Against the Worldcon fandom zeitgeist.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.