Small Government Book Fan Club discussion
General Book Discussions
>
Vox Day on SJW Voting Blocs in the Hugo Awards
Mod
Mod
Wow. In microcosm this is an excellent illustration of Leftist hypocrisy and tantrum-throwing.Scumbags like Scalzi lie and game the system to get noticed, get accepted into the "elite" fraternity because their abysmal formula drivel checks all the correct boxes, then he goes into meltdown when others surpass him via honest hard work.
Mod
Mod
That's what Scalzi said out of ONE side of his mouth. Vox has archived comments he's made that are almost opposite, too.But Vlad is right: he's got to be careful now what he says--mostly because Vox isn't letting him off the hook for what comes out of the other side of his mouth.
I listened to a podcast interview of Vox on "Downloadable Content." and one comment made the whole show for me. I never studied Socrates myself, but VD writes about dialectic vs. rhetorical all the time on his blog. But he summed it up so simply in the interview it was perfect:You're never, ever going to change the mind of an SJW by presenting them with information.
Henry wrote: "I listened to a podcast interview of Vox on "Downloadable Content." and one comment made the whole show for me. I never studied Socrates myself, but VD writes about dialectic vs. rhetorical all the..."Is Vox the same dude who also does the blog "Alpha Game"?
Yeah. Alpha Game and Vox Poppuli are his blogs (that I know of).
Henry wrote: "Yeah. Alpha Game and Vox Poppuli are his blogs (that I know of)."Thank you.
Mod
Mod
Speaking of DvR, found this:Wednesday, May 30, 2012
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/
Dialectic Vs. Rhetoric
The Ancient Greeks had a Goddess of Wisdom, Athena. We have Oprah. The Ancient Greeks had Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato. We have Paul Krugman, Jonah Goldberg, and Tom Friedman. Not a good trend. Actually, I'm exaggerating. We have some good thinkers today — Tom Sowell, Pat Buchanan, Sean Gabb, etc. — but we don't pay much attention to them, and would rather listen to the touchy-feely nonsense of the former ilk.
I don't know much about Ancient Greece and her philosophers, but I was just inspired to look into the difference between dialectic and rhetoric. Now, "dialectic" has a faintly Marxist feel to most of us, because we've only heard it in the context of "dialectic materialism," but it has a much more benign meaning than that. It's a method of dialog, wherein two people with differing opinions on a subject discuss the subject logically, using reason, to try to arrive at the actual truth. Read more at Wikipedia. This is contrasted with rhetoric, which is a method of persuasion not necessarily based on much logic, but on what the persuader reckons to be the best way to persuade his audience. It can include appeal to emotion, prejudice, precedent, just about anything. Read about that HERE.
Nowadays there's a lot of rhetoric and damn little dialectic, wouldn't you say? Now, if you're reading this blog, you probably are aware of the difference, even if you, like me, didn't use the rhetoric/dialectic terminology. But a problem with the public awareness, in education, politics, and media, is that not only are people unable to make the distinction, but are unaware that there is a distinction. As I've put it on several occasions, students today believe that thinking consists of memorizing slogans. And now we get to the crux of this — Education. Now, I suppose that there are little hidden corners of the educational establishment where logical thinking is taught, but they're lonely little corners. Usually, when educators talk about "teaching students to think," they mean not teaching them anything concrete, like math or science or history, but teaching them to use rhetoric in its worst sense, to express trendy opinions without any logical structure at all.
Anyhow, I was inspired to look into this by an essay on just this, the educational situation, wherein students are not only not taught about dialectics, but are deliberately taught, somehow, that there's no such thing and everything is rhetoric, thereby rendering them unteachable. The essay, by Vox Day, is HERE.
Masha wrote: "Well, the SJWs have done it now. They made Vox Day sound like the voice of reason. Very informative show."I kinda' wish there were more interviews of him to listen to. His rational side really shined through, he was articulate, but not wimpy like so many on our side. That's refreshing.
And I was kind of convicted when he talked about distancing ourselves from our radicals. I've never been a concern troll, but often I have an instinct to give disclaimers like "I disagree with (such-and-such radical) on X and Y, but..."
I'm gonna try to suppress that instinct going forward.
Mod
It's always up to our side to prove we're nice and reasonable. Brad has to post a pic of his wife; Larry and Sarah keep bringing up how brown they are. WHY do we have to do it? Why not turn the tables and have THEM prove they are not bigots and haters? We got more than enough material. We're not the ones wishing death and worse on people who disagree with us. We can play this game all day long, and we won't lose.
Mod
How does the No Award thing work? I'm still fuzzy on that.
Mark wrote: "Speaking of DvR, found this:Wednesday, May 30, 2012
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/
Dialectic Vs. Rhetoric
The Ancient Greeks had a Goddess of Wisdom, Athena. We have Oprah. The Ancient Greeks had ..."
Thanks for posting this, Mark. Good post and cool blog.
Mod
Masha wrote: "I wish we for once would turn the tables on them. "OK, you want me to disavow Vox Day? How about YOU call out a gazillion a-holes on your side who are ruining people's lives on a daily basis just ..."One of the reasons for which we've been placed in this position is that many of "us" have placed too many of our eggs in a reliance upon the "opposition" party to produce a counternarrative. I'm referring to the GOP. Of course this was rational simply because they have presented themselves as a party of "liberty" and "freedom". However, as time has worn on, their rhetoric did not match their actions. Lately, when the time came to challenge the SJWs and the myths they present, they fell silent. The most recent examples of this was the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown myth. These persons were thugs who were justifiably killed because they attempted to murder individuals who had done nothing. Eventually, the SJWs built the bogus "hands up" and "Black Lives Matter" meme off this myth (which is actually a lie). Where was this party of "liberty" pointing out the lie this narrative turned out to be? Nowhere. Then they turn around and attack those among them (a minority) who attempt to either offer a counternarrative or articulate a staunch support of those principles. The attempt to primary Justin Amash immediately comes to mind. The attacks by the GOP on Paul Ryan for speaking positively about Ayn Rand also come to mind. The GOP is not only feckless but useless.
I read Vox's other blog, Alpha Game, along with other "manosphere" blogs and it is there where I get badly needed dosages of optimism. There are fierce and sometimes brutal responses to the SJWs, and the result is predictable. The SJWs are punks and they immediately crumble. I've just come to learn about the astonishing success of the "Sad Puppies" campaign. The only reason why I've learned of this so late is that I've been consumed by the Gamergate offensive. It was fun learning how Gawker took a vicious beating along with other gaming journos who've been infested with SJW rot (I credit that last term to Matt Forney whose been carpet bombing the Silicon Valley venture capitalists).
The GREAT thing about the Interwebz is that private citizens have taken up the fight that the GOP has spurned in their pursuit of political status, prestige, and power. "Sad Puppies", "Gamergate", and "Disrespectful Nod" seem to me to be an outgrowth of the citizen journalism that emerged with the appearance of right leaning blogs. I often wonder if the decision by the FCC to "regulate" the internet is yet another instance by central government to attack dissent in order to pursue ideological conformity. It seems that way. History is my guide. In the same way Obama used an executive branch department to "regulate" something that provides a counternarrative, I think of the way the Adams administration, through factional control of the executive and legislative branches, sought to suppress the dissent that was coming from the Democratic-Republicans via the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1789.
Alton wrote: "One of the reasons for which we've been placed in this position is that many of "us" have placed too many of our eggs in a reliance upon the "opposition" party to produce a counternarrative...."Good points, Alton. The GOP needs to change its mascot from an elephant to a Judas goat. Why do we disavow our radicals but keep endorsing those who sell us out?
Pull the facades down and the Establishment Rinos are just the "good cop" to the Democrat "bad cop." (OK, or vice-versa depending on perspective.) But grass roots voters would rather keep enabling our betrayers than get behind a third party truly interested in securing liberty.
Henry wrote: "Alton wrote: "One of the reasons for which we've been placed in this position is that many of "us" have placed too many of our eggs in a reliance upon the "opposition" party to produce a counternar..."I think seeking change via a third party, or any other alternative party for that matter, is not the solution for it overlooks something I believe to be the main cause of the problems we are discussing. Our biggest beef, at this point in time, is a coordination between "Social Justice Warriorism" and the force of the federal government to promote SJW ideas. Our critique of the GOP is what appears to be a willful dereliction of critiquing this use of government power to enforce a conformity of ideas. The creation of third party participation in federal or central governance overlooks this form of governance as a tool used by factions to suppress dissent, to undermine individual rights, as well as to deprive property rights. In my opinion, a third party is merely to seek a different operator of a government mechanism that has both a history and recurrent pattern of depriving individuals of rights that are naturally in their possession. That's right, I just said that the federal government, in its current incarnation, has institutionalized the deprivation of the very rights it was created to protect. The problem is with the tools possessed in the federal government, and I don't mean any recent additions. I am saying that the Constitution created a government that possesses all the tools and instruments needed for absolutism. The SJWs are a faction that is now, under Obama, in control of those tools and they are using them. It's no surprise that the GOP "runs for the hills" and stays silent for they too are only waiting their turn to assume control of those same tools and instruments.
The Federalists were deeply mistaken and the dividends of their misjudgment are manifesting in greater severity. It started with John Adams using the power federal government to suppress dissent in the Alien and Sedition Acts. It's also seen in Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Did Wilson and FDR do the same thing too during WW1 and WW2 respectively? And what about Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon who all used the IRS to attack dissenting individuals through the tax exempt status they claimed. Sound familiar? There is a pattern of behavior that extends back nearly to the ratification of the Constitution.
And I've only pointed out the suppression of the right of belief by the federal government. We can go on endlessly about the way in which the federal government has destroyed the livelihoods of individuals through its intrusions into the economy. We continue to deal with economic hardship caused by the government's involvement in the housing market which caused the recession and the persisting unemployment of these times. And even though this current condition resulted from a law enacted in the early 90s, it was only made possible by policies enacted throughFDR's New Deal legislation which also set the foundation for the Savings and Loan debacle that helped to trigger the recession of the late 80s and early nineties.
And I'll stop here because I can go on and on because this is the area of research I am doing for a book I am writing.
Alton wrote: "Henry wrote: "Alton wrote: "One of the reasons for which we've been placed in this position is that many of "us" have placed too many of our eggs in a reliance upon the "opposition" party to produc..."I think a third party is the only choice. With the news today from Judicial watch that McCain was active in the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups, it's time we understand that R&D's are different sides of the same coin.
Jack wrote: "Alton wrote: "Henry wrote: "Alton wrote: "One of the reasons for which we've been placed in this position is that many of "us" have placed too many of our eggs in a reliance upon the "opposition" p..."The reason for which I am against the third party idea is that the tool used by the democrats and republicans remain available for abuse, the tools and mechanisms of the federal government. Consider this, the first government after the American Revolution was one in which the national authority was severely hampered in its ability to use force. This government was the Articles of Confederation. There was no judicial branch and there was no executive branch. The States had great power over national government and each of which had individual rights protections. The Constitution, on the other hand, gave central government a judicial branch and an executive to complement an existing legislative branch. These three legal powers are the powers needed for absolutism. IRS targeting is nothing but the executive branch using its power through an executive branch agency to target individuals based on beliefs. Instead of holding the IRS accountable, its time to hold the federal government accountable.
Mod
Mod
Speaking of which, Sanderson's Reckoners series addresses the "power corrupts" premise beautifully. I highly recommend it.
One of the greatest hinderances to action is making the Constitution and the Federalist Essays into a type of holy scripture and making faithfulness to democratic participation in this type of government structure a religion. This has the effect of placing the federal government beyond the realm of question. In my opinion, this is intentional so as to never consider the idea that the federal government exists through a privilege that is based on the consent of the people. The federal government exists only through this privilege, it has no rights.
Masha wrote: "Alton is right, though. As long as the federal government has as much power as it does, there's ZERO guarantee that even the perfect 3rd party candidate we elect (HUGE "if", but let's suppose) will..."That argument reminds me of John Kerrys argument against domestic oil drilling about 15 years ago. He said, "That's not going to be viable for another ten years." Ten years later, same situation. It all has to start somewhere. Are we going to win the first election? No, second? Probably not, Third, with a honed message and a groomed candidate, maybe. Let me clue you all in on a real powerful piece of wisdom. If you do what you have always done, you will get what you have always got. This argument has been out there for decades. Every time, I'm the idiot third party reactionary. "You can't do that, that will never work. Who am I really? Let me fill you in.
You see, while keyboard commandos were arguing the state of things, I was sitting at a round table with Pat McCrory working on putting him is the North Carolina governors mansion. While others were focusing on blog hits and establishing their computer fiefdoms, I was running a losing congressional campaign against one of the most ensconced Democrats in NC. While others were arguing what the definition of RINO was, The wife and I were two of a couple dozen people that worked to remove the Old Boy Country Club GOP from four counties and replaced them with conservative Tea Party types. The following election the North Carolina state house went republican for the first time in one hundred and forty years. But yet, I’m an idiot and those who would never deign to wear out shoes going door-to-door, manned phone banks, hosted fund raising dinners and golf outings, wrote five figure checks, begged property owners to put out huge signs on major highways. And made themselves available 24/7 for a candidate they believe in, well hell, They are the brilliant ones, Right?
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here nor do I choose to start a fight. Just know, I've operated in the belly of the beast. We don't have two parties. We have varying shades of a progressive party. Until people understand that. We are screwed.
Vlad wrote: "This "third party candidate" idea has already been solved. And it didn't require a brand new political party, but a new party within an established one.Tea Party candidates, while nominally Repu..."
You make a fine point. However, the big money comes from the national GOP. Our candidates need a separate funding source. When that happens it will deprive the GOP of their funding sources swinging their party back to the right to try to recover the loses. Money wins elections. As much as we all may hate that. It's the truth.
Vlad wrote: "Jack wrote: "Vlad wrote: "This "third party candidate" idea has already been solved. And it didn't require a brand new political party, but a new party within an established one.Tea Party candid..."
You would think, but no. That why Cruz was brilliant when he chose to announce at Liberty. He didn't spend a thin dime. The GOP still has Jeb on the mind.
I'm all for giving support to the Tea Party candidates but let us suppose we have either Rand Paul or Ted Cruz as our president, then what? Many of the issues we discuss originate from government functions, and those functions are sourced by department agencies that enforce law. For example, the income tax. There has been and continues to be many abuses. FairTax was offered as an alternative but to do this requires the abolition of the income tax as well as the IRS. I don't see how that happens. Then there is the EPA's long list of abuses. That is an agency that needs to be abolished. I don't see how that happens. Then what of the legislative branch and the deceptive acts it employs to pass legislation that benefits small interests. Once again, I don't see how any single person can bring transparency to the actions of the national legislature.This federal government is broken and irreparable. We need to realize this. Any attempts to fix are merely minor adjustments that are later undermined by the next faction that occupies government. Glass Stegall is repealed and replaced by Dodd Frank, Reagan reduces some of the tax rates and they are raised once he is gone. We seek a simplification of the tax code and the legislators let the tax lobbyists in the back door and such legislation is set aside and dies in committee. The system is broken and the federal government, on a daily basis, violates its social contract.
Alton wrote: "I am saying that the Constitution created a government that possesses all the tools and instruments needed for absolutism. The SJWs are a faction that is now, under Obama, in control of those tools and they are using them. It's no surprise that the GOP "runs for the hills" and stays silent for they too are only waiting their turn to assume control of those same tools and instruments."
You said a lot of stuff I agree with. But as Jack said, the Democrats and RINOs are effectively two arms of the same machine. How do we get any of those power-drunk fat cats to reduce their own power? We gave them the discretion to decide their own salaries and you see how that's been going.
And don't forget the GOP began as a third party, so it can be done in an unbroken electoral system. I'm just not sure we have one anymore.
Mod
For the record, Ted Cruz is in fact raising boatloads of money. Big donors prefer the Establishment, but in the end everyone wants to back the winner. At the moment he looks like the winner.
Vlad wrote: "Tea Party candidates, while nominally Republicans, ARE that third party. Guys like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee rock. ..."Yeah, and I do. But grass roots keep falling for the same snake oil, electing the Doles and Boehners and McCains over solid candidates.
I don't mean to be a downer, guys. I'm just frustrated. Thank-you, Jack, for getting it done in NC, and for sharing it. I needed to hear that.
Masha wrote: "Fundamentally nothing will change until people stop looking to government to solve their problems. That's a cultural change that might take generations.For the record, Ted Cruz is in fact raising..."
Boatloads compared to what? The GOP has wall street money which is why bush bailed out the banks and insurance companies. The banks did well. I lost an assfull of retirement money. Remember this Jefferson Quote
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
Alton wrote: "I'm all for giving support to the Tea Party candidates but let us suppose we have either Rand Paul or Ted Cruz as our president, then what?...This federal government is broken and irreparable. We need to realize this. Any attempts to fix are merely minor adjustments that are later undermined by the next faction that occupies government. Glass Stegall is repealed and replaced by Dodd Frank, Reagan reduces some of the tax rates and they are raised once he is gone. We seek a simplification of the tax code and the legislators let the tax lobbyists in the back door and such legislation is set aside and dies in committee. The system is broken and the federal government, on a daily basis, violates its social contract..."
And that touches on my conviction--that it is corrupted beyond any hope of peaceful repair. Which begs the question: what options do we have?
Vlad may have answered it, though "counter-revolution" would be more accurate. The revolution has already happened. Our government was stolen from us gradually, over generations and maybe the only reason there's no shooting yet is because the huddled masses of boob-tube zombies aren't aware, and might set their beer down, rip their eyes from the big screen TVs and take some kind of action if the cat gets out of the bag too soon.
My next novel is all about this. I know it's been done before. But it's either write about it or do it. Maybe Masha's right and it's possible to win a portion of the culture back. Or at least wake them up.
Mod
And yes, the super-wealthy (Wall Street or not) tend to back the Dems. They're suicidal that way.
Vlad wrote: "Jack wrote: "Boatloads compared to what? The GOP has wall street money which is why bush bailed out the banks and insurance companies. The banks did well."Do you have links/evidence to back up an..."
So, you missed the hundreds of billions in taxpayer money that went to bail out wall street?
Tarp? According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy. The news called it 700 billion. Also remember that we are printing money like mad. Rescue the economy? No, the economy would have made its natural adjustment and continued. This was rescuing wall street. Remember a guy named Barofsky? Barofsky was a senior federal prosecutor, specializing in mortgage fraud, at the office of the U.S. Attorney in New York City. He was then offered the job of special inspector general of TARP, by the outgoing Bush administration. Barofsky was shocked that as a known Obama supporter he was selected by the bush administration for that financial post.It's because they are all gaming the system. This is a tiny example of what happened. It's so big and so deep. All you really need to understand is that the Bush and Obama admins colluded to protect wall street.
I'm not a nut bag, I'm really not. But just go back and read the news they want you to see. Do it in a historical timeline context. They've been giving banks free money for years. Do you think for one minute they will let a president in the White house that will expose to the LIV's that level of theft? Oh good Christ no. Remember something else. Cruz's wife was an employee of Goldman Sachs. I don't know if that relationship continues or not. But it seems every pol has a one degree of separation to wall st.
We are in deep trouble and it just gets deeper every second.
Vlad wrote: "Henry wrote: "Yeah, and I do. But grass roots keep falling for the same snake oil, electing the Doles and Boehners and McCains over solid candidates.I don't mean to be a downer, guys. I'm just fr..."
Thank you for that. It's an unbelievable amount of work that many are unable or unwilling to do. The time is creeping up where we won't have a choice. We will do the hard work or be suffocated.
My point is the heavily back the progressives. There is no GOP or DEM. That's my point.
Vlad wrote: "Jack wrote: "So, you missed the hundreds of billions in taxpayer money that went to bail out wall street? "What does this have to do with your assertion that Wall Street as a whole heavily backs ..."
Sorry, should have done the reply thing. My point is wall St supports the progressives. They are party neutral. In order to grasp whats going on we have to drop party affiliation. It's fifty shades of progressive and we are being tied up, whipped and screwed, and not in a good way.
Mod
Mod
Vlad wrote: "Jack wrote: "My point is the heavily back the progressives. There is no GOP or DEM. That's my point."We need to establish some definitions. While there are sell-out Republicans (Boehner, McCain)..."
Whoa there, I never said I wouldn't vote for Cruz or Paul. Actually the wife and I had a discussion just last evening about Rand. His foreign policy terrifies me. However, his libertarian constitutional ideals are stout. I like Ted Cruz. I am a friend on his Facebook page and I continue to listen to everything he has to say. All of my discussions are based on the need of a third party. If that doesn't happen. I will continue to vote in every election for every candidate whose views most mirror our constitution as written. And yes, I campaigned and voted for Romney.
Masha wrote: "IN the meantime, on FB a well reasoned post in defense of Sad Puppies gets criticized for using the word "horseshit." That's why we can't have nice things."That's why I don't allow swearing on my Radio Show and I try very hard not to include it in any post. I am however and ex-sailor and sometimes I fail.
'Splodey heads all around.