Punching Up, Punching Down, Punching Back

SJWs like to talk about “punching up.” Because The Man always deserves it. People in position of power deserve it. SJWs are never in positions of power because they’re always, in some way, oppressed. When their victim hits back, they’re “punching down.” Punching down is not okay because that person is oppressed. They’re weak, you big bully.  How dare you oppress them further.

Conservatives, on the other hand, like “punching back.” Punching an SJW is always punching back because SJWs are always attacking. The idea of punching back is tied also to the unfortunate obsession conservatives have with holding the moral high ground. The SJW attacked me first of course I’m justified in pounding them unmercifully.

That’s true… but sometimes mistakes are made. You’ll note how Brian Niemeier accuses me of gaslighting when I said he attacked me first. I have to have attacked him first because his attempt to crush me was totally justified and because he was totally justified any anger or attempts to defend myself are merely a cowardly refusal to take the licks I deserve for the initial attack. If Brian admits that I didn’t attack him first, he loses the moral high ground and I take it. Just look at his responses: “Then you have the balls to deny you attacked me while also denying I have a right to defend myself.” He’s not attacking me. He’s defending himself. He’s punching back.

Denial of an attack goes hand in hand with denial of defense.  If you didn’t get attacked, why would you need to defend yourself?  Besides if the person is actively attacking you now, what good does it do them to lie and deny the previous attack?  I didn’t attack you before, Brian, but I’m sure as hell attacking you now! But it makes sense once you realize that he’s desperately clinging to the delusion of being morally right in his actions.

This is ignoring, of course, that even if I had attacked him first, his interpretation of my post is still wrong. It’s also ignoring the fact that his declaration of intent to ostracize people for not joining his boycott could be interpreted as… an attack. (See my point about bad customer service.) It is at least a threat. A… hypocritical… threat.

And Brian Niemeier is a hypocrite.

the high ground

Shut up, Obi-Wan

Advertisements

Hypocrite

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:

  1. That I am the sort of person who is having difficulty cutting out SJW poz entertainment from my life
  2. 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.
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/hold+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.

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.

“Morally Equivalent”

“Stop giving money to people who hate you.”

Brian Niemeier has taken this to an extreme:

From now on, I will regard anyone buying a Marvel or DC comic or a ticket to a Disney movie as morally equivalent to an American who gave aid and comfort to known Communist spies during the Cold War. SJWs want me banished from society and killed. If you buy their products, you advance their goal.

Is Brian going to treat the people who buy his books on Amazon like Communist sympathizers too?  Because this is what I saw on Amazon last night:

engineer transgender leader

Just because Amazon isn’t as converged as Disney doesn’t mean that they’re not going to go down a similar path in the near future and screw over all of us.  Clearly they’re already working on their part to destroy western civilization.  But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for all the right-leaning indie authors to pull their books off Amazon.  That’s where the money is.

How do you stop giving money to people who hate you when everybody hates you?

Edit:

A clarification of what I meant here: That’s a nice strawman you have there. Shame if it caught on fire.

And Brian Niemeier is a hypocrite.

I F’ing Love (Medical) Science

There’s nothing quite like the blind worship of science by atheists and SJWs.  A person who is both, whom I discovered thanks to drama, has a fair amount on her blog about how vaccines are wonderful and science proves all the stuff.  The typical fair.  She had a post about the medical field specifically and why she thinks that anyone would turn to alternative medicine.  Her answer is a weird case of projection: she’s grossed out so that’s why people wouldn’t want to be stuck by needles.

But this part stood out to me:

Alternative medicine throws out the whole model of control groups and random studies and instead says: just try the thing and see if you get better. If you do, that proves it works! They’re basically working on all our biases and inability to generalize, as well as our fear and disgust of medical procedures, so that we’ll buy their products.

You know, there’s a funny thing about this… in my experience with doctors, they just say: try this thing and see if you get better.  The thing is actual medicine but there isn’t control groups or random studies behind it.  There is for whatever its purpose is, but there isn’t for my specific case.  Because rather than even try to do tests, or if the tests come back inconclusive, a doctor would rather throw medicine at a problem and see if it works without truly knowing what the problem is.

My experiences are not unique.  If you look around, you’re going to find an unfortunate number of people with odd health issues who have suffered for years going to different doctors, taking tons of pills, and never getting better.  Sure, there’s kooks out there who decide that pickles are going to cure every disease, but other people might be looking into medical alternatives because modern medicine failed them.  Not because squirting drugs directly into a vein is icky.

Well, I could certainly wish that mainstream doctors were more considerate of people’s feelings.

I’d settle for them curing people.

Drama Drama Drama

2018 seems to be shaping up to be the year of the never ending shitshow. Internet drama for everyone! So of course I had to do the dumb thing and get embroiled in some of my own.

It started fairly innocuously. January 21st, I wrote a post over at Antelope Games about a certain “Catholic” blogger attacking a Catholic college. On the 26th I wrote a follow up. The following week someone noticed it and decided to attack me. Boring and easily remedied.

But I tend to get obsessed over individual topics so I continued keeping an eye on things and continued to write about anything that struck me as worthy of it. During March and April three different alumni contacted me privately, the last of whom offered to give me “devastating” information about a group of SJWs involved in the situation. My first thought was to tell him to take it to someone who could actually help him, you know like a reporter, but my curiosity got the better of me. He then invited me to join a secret group on Facebook which was being used to share information and fight back or something.

The details are unimportant but from my perspective it was an obnoxious disaster from the get go.

Yesterday I was kicked from their secret club without warning or explanation. Either I did something unconscionable (by saying they could use an archive site if they didn’t want to give someone clicks?) or they finally came to their senses and realized that this was not a good idea. They very clearly had not thought certain things through.

They’re also doomed. I hope not, but the indications are not good. A significant amount of discussion revolved around how they couldn’t be mean to anyone, nor besmirch their names, nor mock them, nor should they pay any attention to them at all. It was a bunch of moderates and conservatives–cucks I would say were I feeling mean–who were trying to act tough and failing.

A couple of them had, privately, the idea that they were going “public” with certain things but doing so with the help of someone whose blog isn’t popular nor which they, as far as I could tell, read themselves is utterly nonsensical.

Ultimately the only thing I lose is being able to watch in horror as these people agree with and praise each other for declaring they can’t do anything.

Next time someone comes along offering secret juicy info, I’m going to decline.

Inordinate Dislike

I seem to be running into this a lot recently… What is it that makes a person dislike something so much that they expend a ridiculous amount of energy on hating it and sneering at anyone who likes it?

“I like old movies… but not too old. Not those silent ones–” The speaker then preceded to mock silent movies and the acting styles in them for several minutes. From that it was pretty clear that he’d not actually seen very many silent movies but that’s beside the point.

Why do people do this? It’s really an interesting psychological question, but one that I don’t have an answer to. It takes effort to get so worked up about something you don’t like. And for what? In this case, most people have never seen a silent movie. The silent hater had no way of knowing that any of the people listening to his sneers had ever seen one and thus they had no reason to care or know anything about the subject.

It’s a different animal entirely if you were engaged in a discussion of the merits of certain arts or formats instead of out of the blue raving about something being awful. If no one’s even brought up the subject, why waste the energy?

Then the other people are the ones who upon encountering something, say if you’re listening to music and they happen along, throw a fit because they don’t like it. Someone told Isambard that what he was listening to “f—ing sucks” and then almost the same thing happened to me the next day when someone else told me they needed “brain bleach” because of what I was playing.

Just say you don’t like it and leave it at that. Or don’t say anything at all because why should I care if you like it or not?