That’s a nice strawman you have there. Shame if it caught on fire.

Well, looks like I’ve got get out my pearls and sob into a pile of Disney princess action figures because I’m a pearl-clutching paypig!

Brian Niemeier got amazingly butthurt over the little post I made yesterday so much so that he had to write a polemic in which he misinterprets everything I said and is so petty he copies my entire post without linking back to me. I don’t know what I’m going to do without out those sweet, sweet page views.  I am not so stingy, however.  Here’s a link, Brian.  I can’t promise anyone will actually click on it. (Edit:  Brian below says that he was going to link back to the original post and he did… then removed it and all references to my name.  What a shame I archived his post.)

The very first line tells you exactly how seriously Brian’s response needs to be taken:

A blogger named for the president who normalized relations with the ChiComs

Gonna make fun of my name, huh? Or is Brian really that stupid?  (Just in case he is: I’m sorry you can’t understand the humor of equating my name with Richard Nixon’s, but I’m not named after him.)

It’s a sadly common scene in America these days: The addict lashes out at friends trying to cure him of the vice that’s destroying him.

That’s a heck of a conclusion to jump to there, buddy. You know, maybe you shouldn’t lash out and make assumptions about people whose blogs you don’t read and therefore don’t know anything about them at all.

1. Brian Niemeier has taken this to an extreme…

The accusation of extremism, a shopworn rhetorical jab of the Left. I could stop right here since Nixon is clearly proceeding in bad faith…

The statement that Brian Niemeier has taken this to an extreme is a statement of opinion which makes no moral judgment on whether being extreme by itself is bad or not.  What I should have said was “Brian Niemeier has taken this to an idiotic extreme.” Is that easier for you all with poor reading skills to understand?

First, implying I’m any kind of Amazon sycophant is just dumb. I’ve never hesitated to call them out when they’ve messed up before, and I won’t hesitate to call them out in the future if they mess up again.

Speaking of which, the Amazon Stories ad Nixon came across definitely qualifies. Bad Amazon! For shame.

Wow! You sure showed them!

But since they’re not fully converged–Nick Cole and Vox Day agree it’s mainly just some mid-level SJWs who’re easily bypassed…

Jeff Bezos isn’t an SJW who uses his fortune acquired from the success of Amazon to fund the Washington Post which is hell bent on destroying our society? Nope.

Nixon is telling right-leaning authors to pull their books from Amazon

I did not say that, you fucking liar. I did not imply that. I’m not going to hold my breath for authors to pull off of Amazon because it doesn’t make financial sense for them to do so regardless of how converged Amazon is or not. And when Amazon is completely converged and you whine for people to abandon it, I’m not going to expect them to leave then either.

Brian and the geniuses who jumped to the conclusion that I’m some kind of binary thinker or SJW-dreck addict completely and totally missed the point of my post: How do you stop giving money to people who hate you when everybody hates you?  This question was simply something I wanted to think about.  It was not a refutation of “don’t give money to people who hate you.”  It’s an acknowledgement that the situation has nuances.  And I wanted to think about it.  That’s it, numskulls.  But it does raise a couple other questions.  Such as: Where is the line where someone doesn’t hate you too much so you can still give them money? Who died and made Brian Niemeier arbiter of which companies are too converged to do business with and which aren’t? What gives him the right to attack his customers because they have the nerve to disagree with him?

Here I am a nobody with a blog that nobody reads and Brian, big blogger and author, flips out over an insignificant nothing that I wrote. A response like this tells you a lot about the other person and highlights something that I didn’t mention in the other post: Brian’s declaration of treating people like communist sympathizers is BAD CUSTOMER SERVICE. Brian is a creator and a businessman selling a product. But not to people who don’t meet his ideological standards. Don’t think for a second that anyone who gets attacked by him for being a paypig is going to buy his books. Ah, but they wouldn’t anyway, right? He couldn’t possibly lose any business. It’s not like they could have been convinced of the error of their ways by being exposed to his significantly superior brand of entertainment.

The people who hate you could be faceless, soulless, rotting corporations… or it could be some author with a swelled head and a blog.  Don’t give money to people who hate you.


9 thoughts on “That’s a nice strawman you have there. Shame if it caught on fire.

  1. Apparently, the favorite pastime of authors, bloggers, and generally anyone who has any following on the internet is to make complete fools of themselves and alienate actual and potential fans. There’s nothing like seeing an author you liked acting like an ass online to turn you off their books forever.
    I hadn’t read any of Brian’s books, but I certainly won’t now.
    Also, isn’t this a bit insecure of him to wig out over this?


  2. About your point of having to give money or not to people who hate you when everyone hates you: making sure your money only goes to worthy businesses and causes is very difficult and would severely inhibit your ability to buy anything (or do any sort of business, including taking out any loans or making any investments). The reality of life is that to truly do that would be a very big sacrifice. And maybe we’re going to be called to make a sacrifice like that. But right now choosing to support only entertainment that furthers the Western/Christian worldview and cause, probably means giving up most, if not all available entertainment. But it gets complicated: what if a certain movie studio produces bad stuff, but then they come out with something that’s actually decent. Do you go see it to show support that they finally made something decent or are you just funding the whole evil enterprise? And then there’s lots of cases of things that are mixed: a little good and a little bad. Can you affirm the good and reject the bad? Even giving money to a “Christian” charity (or the Church) has become difficult when every other day one turns out to using funds in a very un-Christian way. But the thought of trying to root out all the bad places I shouldn’t be allowing my money to go, is a bit overwhelming. Is it enough to cut off the worst offenders?


  3. OK.
    1) Good call about the missing link to your OP. I added the link to my post in an update.
    2) Do you think right-leaning authors should continue doing business with Amazon?


  4. What does that question have to do with the fact that you’ve misrepresented and slandered me at your blog, at Superversive, on G+, and whatever other social media accounts you use?


  5. Sorry, sweetheart, this my blog. I’m not answering questions from a disingenuous shitbag who’s attacking me. Answer my question or GTFO.


  6. Pingback: “Morally Equivalent” | Nixon Now

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s