I said Brian Niemeier’s reaction was amazing and I thought he’d double down on it, but MAN did he double down.
There’s two major misconceptions fueling Brian’s hysterical freak out:
- That I am the sort of person who is having difficulty cutting out SJW poz entertainment from my life
- That my saying I won’t hold my breath waiting for right-leaning authors to leave Amazon that I’m attacking them for being hypocrites
I’ll get the second one out of the way first: authors, I DON’T FUCKING CARE WHAT YOU DO. Okay? Is that clear? But if you’re the sort of person who would get upset about this, then maybe you need to step back and reevaluate your own emotional state that you could get so upset by something so minor.
As for the first point, this assumption is clear even in all subsequent interactions with him. He tries to give me advice on how to cut the cord so to speak, to wean myself off of modern entertainment. Jon Mollison does too but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for having come to my post via Brian and his snide comments.
The assumption colors all further discussion. We’re not even on the same plain. What am I supposed to do about it? Give a catalog of my favorite movies? Swear up and down that I like black and white better than color, I haven’t bought a comic book from DC in my life, that I’m an aspiring recluse like it says on the About page so maybe I don’t go to the movies very often?
On Google+, he decides to take a semi-rhetorical question very seriously while working on his triple-axle double down.
Listen, chief, I’m trying to resolve this situation. It’s not easy when you keep batting away my olive branches.
You didn’t think I’d read your post? Too bad. I did. You say I misunderstood it? The way that I, and almost everyone else who read it, interpreted what you wrote was that you were attacking me and other right-leaning authors for hypocrisy. So far you haven’t done much to disabuse me of that notion.
There are a million other things I could be doing besides talking to a brick wall on G+. Instead I’m here asking what you meant so I can find out if I made a mistake, and if so, to make it right. This is your chance to convince me I got it wrong. You don’t want it? Your call.
Brian likes to brag on his blog how good he is at rhetoric. He likes to post screenshotted Twitter conversations in which he totally pwns that loser SJW. Yet this man who claims to be so good at it takes a “what? why are you acting angry?” attitude of bafflement. He’s offered me an olive branch! He’s asked for clarification!
I mean, he demanded that I answer a question after I asked what it had to do with anything and he gave me his email address so that this could go private. Make a mess in public, clean it up in public.
But Brian’s a pussy. He’d have to admit that he got something wrong. He’d have to be emotionally stable enough to realize that making this big a deal over two sentences is laughable.
You’ll notice also the “everybody agrees with me!” How odd! All my friends read it, then read Brian’s post and said “what is he talking about? that’s not what you said.” And what does that mean? NOTHING. It wouldn’t matter if the entire internet agreed with him. He’s still wrong.
Here’s a free tip: The victim act won’t help you get what you want from me. Being on the level will.
And drop the gaslighting. Everything we’ve written is online for everyone to see. I know what I wrote, and I know what you wrote. I also know what it looks like to independent observers. To them it looks like you sniped at me under cover of relative obscurity, got caught, got called out on it, and went on a two-day teen girl hissy fit, projecting like IMAX while I made repeated requests for you to clarify.
Note that I said looks like. That may not be what you intended at all. But those are the optics. I’m open to the possibility that I fucked up, but you’re not giving me any evidence to the contrary.
Let’s clear the air. You wrote a post where you correctly quoted me saying I morally equate paying for Disney movies to aiding commie spies during the Cold War. You followed it up by asking if I’d treat people who buy my books on Amazon the same way because you saw an ad with a pride pin. Then you accused Amazon of wanting to destroy Western civilization and said you weren’t going to hold your breath waiting for right-leaning authors to pull their books off Amazon.
If you don’t see how that statement could be interpreted as an attack, you don’t know how English works.
The dictionary definition of “to hold one’s breath”:
2. To wait for something specific to happen. In this usage, the phrase is usually negative. “The electrician said he’d be here before noon, but I won’t hold my breath.” She wrote a letter of complaint to the airline asking for a refund, but she isn’t holding her breath.
Which means you said: “Right-leaning authors should pull their books from Amazon, but I know they won’t because they’re chasing shekels.”
Now, it’s possible that’s not what you meant. But that’s the meaning of the words you wrote. I gave you two chances to clarify that statement on your blog. You refused twice and told me to GTFO. I don’t stay where I’m not wanted, so I GTFO’d,
You claim I called you a paypig. Only if you refuse me the benefit of the doubt you’re demanding for yourself. To give you the clarification you deny me, I didn’t intend to call you a paypig. I choose my words carefully, and I mean what I say.
I did imply you’re an addict. In the same context I also called myself your friend. Which you can tell I still consider myself because I am still here talking to you. However, offense was clearly taken if not intended, so I’m sorry. I was wrong. I acknowledge and affirm you are not an addict.
FYI: All of my blog posts are cross-posted to Facebook, G+, and Twitter. I didn’t know the post in question had been posted to Superversive SF. Someone over there must have taken it upon himself to do it.
I am, however, the guy with editorial authority over the post and my social media accounts, so if you want some form of relief, I’m how you get it. I’ve made multiple good-faith efforts to open a dialogue to that effect, viz.
-Adding a link to your OP on my blog when you complained it was missing.
-Giving you my email address so we could sort this out privately instead of in public, which you refused, leading to me…
-Twice asking for clarification in your blog’s combox.
-Asking you for clarification here.
If you don’t see those olive branches, it’s probably because they’re growing from the chip on your shoulder. I’m about to say fuck this and stop wasting my time trying to help you. I couldn’t care less what high school insults you throw at me. What tries my patience is your constant deflecting and dissembling.
Get this straight: I don’t owe you jack. Yeah, my blog and social media presence is bigger than yours. You should’ve thought of that before posting your smarmy little jab. Then you have the balls to deny you attacked me while also denying I have a right to defend myself because Streisand Effect. Not how the internet works.
Grow up, talk to me like an adult male instead of a cat lady with PMS, and we’ll deal. Otherwise we’re done here.
You see, Brian is the reasonable one here, that’s why he’s calling me a cat lady with PMS. It’s almost like the dude doesn’t even understand his own rhetoric. Why are you unhappy that I’m ignoring every substantive thing you say and are mad that you’re being attacked, you fucking faggot? People respond really well to reasonable and accommodating dialog like that.
Reread the second to last paragraph. In other words, when the other person is bigger and more influential than you are, you need to roll over and play dead or else they’re totally justified in stomping you to death. He got it wrong but onus is on me to abase myself and grovel in order to escape the two minute hate.
I already explained what I meant by that post. I already told him multiple times that I didn’t say that, I didn’t mean that. Brian instead doubles down. Admitting that you got something wrong hurts really bad when you’re insecure.
But the real irony comes from his “advice” on weaning yourself off of SJW poz:
The final step is a judgment call that’s up to you to make. If the purveyors of certain IPs want you and your children dead and think it’s funny, continuing to pay them constitutes proximate material cooperation with your own disenfranchisement and debasement.
Like you said, this attitude is pretty much ubiquitous in the legacy media world. Quitting them all cold turkey is difficult if not practically impossible. My readers have mentioned coming up with a few different ways of approaching the problem that they’ve tailored to their own unique circumstances. Some weed out SJW-infested brands slowly. Some just plunge right in. Whatever works.
Whatever works. So he’s not going to treat people like communist sympathizers for seeing Solo because they aren’t ready to quit cold turkey? The complete opposite of what he said previously. He actually is a hypocrite?
Figuring out what it was that triggered him so badly is enlightening. When someone freaks because he thinks you’re implying he’s a hypocrite, then he is a hypocrite and he knows it.