A local friend of mine posted a link to this National Review article earlier today: Chick-fil-A to End Donations to Christian Charities after LGBT Backlash
The article follows from the headline, but feel free to read it if you wish.
This was always going to happen.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb once wrote about the power of intolerance, and the concept is very applicable here.
Let’s say you’re cooking a meal for a group of friends, and you chose pork. Now, everyone who can eat pork is obviously okay. The Jewish guy might not eat the pork due to his religious beliefs, but he’d probably attend anyway. Maybe he’ll bring something he can eat along with him to cook up or just pick at the non-pork side items. His religion forbids him from eating the pork, but his religion does not concern your eating habits. Invite an extremist Muslim, and he’d want to kill everybody for eating the pork (a moderate one may just refuse to attend).
To be intolerant toward a practice personally (the Jew in the pork example) does not give you any power over the guy cooking the food. But to be intolerant toward it generally (the Muslim in the pork example) gives you veto rights over the meal, unless the host chooses to be fine with not inviting you (and the attendant social consequences).
How does this relate to Chick-Fil-A? I mean, besides the fact that “attendant social consequences” in their case resolves to roundabout 50% of their entire customer base?
Well, Leftists are intolerant generally with regard to patronizing organizations who go against their political orthodoxy. Chick-Fil-A has been losing some amount of money – only they probably have a good idea of how much – due to this intolerance. Furthermore, the price continues to go up. Leftists continue to make a bigger and bigger issue of this. Leftists actually got restaurants blocked in some places over this. At some point, it could easily threaten the company’s existence, and the leadership knows this. They pay X dollars for staying closed on Sunday, and were fine with that. But to donate to the ‘wrong’ charities costs them an increasing and ultimately unknown future price which could eventually drive them out of business.
Rightists may, for a while, be lackluster about Chick-Fil-A after caving, but ultimately they lack the Left’s general intolerance, and their desire to eat good chicken will overturn any Rightist boycott. It’s not enough to overturn Leftist boycotts – at least, not forever.
Thus the Left wins, and the most intolerant wins.
Rightism suffers from a weakness which has long been exploited by the political Left. Ultimately, Rightists generally believe that politics must serve man. Eating well supersedes the political beliefs of an organization in all but the most extreme cases. Leftism reverses the order. Man must serve politics. Each organization’s political stances are hugely important, and perhaps more important than the products and services offered.
Remember GamerGate and Brianna Wu? Brianna was a “game developer” who made an atrocious game called Revolution 60 (although nowhere near as bad as Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest). With poor graphics that looked like the game came from the mid-90s (despite using a modern game engine), and atrociously terrible art, design, and plot, Revolution 60 was a failure in every respect.
Yet while Brianna Wu stood against the supposed racist, sexist bigots of GamerGate, SJWs continued to praise the game. When Brianna Wu made a political misstep, I remember the SJWs turning on her and saying “finally, we don’t have to pretend to like her game anymore.”
Politics above all else. That is the mantra of the intolerant Left, and it guides them to what they must support, and what they must boycott. And until that changes, expect every organization that is challenged by them to eventually cave-in to their demands. Some may last longer than others, and all things considered, Chick-Fil-A lasted a very long time indeed.
But in the end, all will surrender to them, unless Rightists become equally intolerant in turn.
SJWs are probably cheering with joy, jumping up and down that they have finally scored a victory in the Culture Wars. They have bent Twitter to their will, and had the likes of Anita Sarkeesian appointed as high and mighty Czars of political correctness.
The Exodus has begun:
I have a lot of respect for this man. Sad to see him leave.
He’s not the only one, though. The shadowbanning that began recently has come to include my own ecosystem. My Twitter traffic has slowed to a crawl. Certainly, my own feed has started to look rather bare, as most of the people I follow are on the wrong side of the political correctness debate. I didn’t see Daddy Warpig’s tweets for weeks before this announcement was made. They have effectively destroyed the #GamerGate groups and a good portion of the Conservative and Libertarian networks on Twitter.
I may leave soon, also. There’s little point in Tweeting to the empty air.
SJWs don’t have a clue what they’ve actually done, however. Twitter’s core draw was that it was a place where vitriol and “hate speech” could be freely exchanged. Insults drove it and nourished it. You could tell Kim Kardashian that she had the IQ of a toilet seat in Tijuana, and there was a good chance it would actually reach her. Opposing sides in ideological conflicts created chains so long and obnoxious that people would actually asked to be removed from tagging. That doesn’t even happen on most bulletin boards.
Without that traffic, Twitter will wither and die. SJWs only succeeded in destroying the platform. This is what they do. They go into an organization, a platform, whatever… and they deconstruct it. They dig under the foundations until whatever it is collapses. They can only destroy, they cannot create. The SFWA (and the Hugos) was rendered into an impotent echo chamber (see: Tumblr) by them. They have destroyed numerous OSS projects. They ruin science. And, now, they have destroyed Twitter. Like MySpace, it will soon vanish into the ether.
But meanwhile, I have followed Daddy Warpig’s blog. And my blog continues to exist, and that of many others I conversed and interacted with on Twitter.
And these blogs belong to us. There is nothing to deconstruct, SJWs. They are invulnerable. You have forced us to move from a position that was hard to defend, to one that is completely independent of your control, and then you nuked your own position. Congratulations.
My previous post on the limitations of Libertarianism, and its failings before the Progressive enemy, ruffled a few feathers and stirred up some further discussion. Contrary to the paladins of Social Justice, I find that disagreement on such matters is evidence that the subject is important enough to merit further investigation (SJWs, naturally, prefer to shut down such discussions).
Let us begin with Jordan:
Libertarians don’t believe that government is the sole enemy of freedom. You’ve setup quite the strawman there. There are all sorts of libertarians out there and you’ve basically described a loud leftist minority.
No such strawman exists, but I readily concede how it appears that way. The point I am attempting to make, and which I have evidently failed to articulate sufficiently, is that Libertarians have a marked tendency to tolerate those who do not, in turn, tolerate them. A common theme in the #GamerGate movement, which has attracted a number of Libertarians, is that SJWs have gone too far, by demanding things like the censorship of games, the implementation of hate speech codes/laws, lying repeatedly about gamers themselves, committing fraud and other such ethics violations, etc…
In other words, if SJWs would stop being dicks, for lack of a better way to put it, many Libertarians would consider the battle sufficiently won and return to playing their games. Libertarians are thus fighting in the pursuit of tolerance. This makes them vulnerable to subversion, which is precisely how SJWs obtained power to begin with. Already, with CultOfVivian’s attacks on TheRalph, one can see the beginnings of SJW infiltration into GamerGate itself.
CultOfVivian is a great example, because she has repeatedly stated that she observes the dictates of Political Correctness, is concerned on matters of racism-sexism-homophobia, etc… She agrees with the SJWs on all ideological points. It is only their implementation which bothers her. She would prefer a less obnoxious, less obvious means of ideological subversion. Yet, for the longest time, Libertarian GamerGaters supported her. She didn’t argue for official enforcement of the Trifecta (racism-sexism-homophobia), and thus Libertarians were fooled by her.
Fundamentally, I share many of the core principles of Libertarianism. But where something clearly does not work, it must be discarded and replaced with something that does work. The test is practical application. The Left has exploited the natural tolerance of Libertarians for their own socio-political ends.
Now, it’s important to note that Libertarians are not the only ones who have failed. Conservatives, likewise, have failed to stem the Progressive tide. They have been in retreat for decades, perhaps centuries. They have failed to stand up to the Left at all. Libertarians have at least done that in some smaller scale actions. GamerGate successfully rolled back a lot of smaller scale ethical corruption in their own industry. But compare to the wider Culture Wars:
Libertarians are able to successfully fight “The Man” in certain areas. In particular, they have done well on organizing resistance to government censorship, and have established bona fides in resisting some forms of corporate corruption, also, especially where such ties into government. They know how to fight official organizations.
But SJWs are more like mobs. Or, perhaps, chameleons. They infiltrate organizations from within, including Libertarianism itself. There is no “The Man” for Libertarians to fight. The Libertarian’s live and let live philosophy makes such infiltration and subversion easy. They will win a small victory against the Left, at which point the Left’s ire is raised and either the mob of Social Justice will come for you, mobilizing the political establishment against you, or individual SJWs will attempt to ruin your group from within.
A simple analogy would be that Libertarians are perfectly willing to fight a defensive action, but find the notion of offensive action unpalatable.
If the Conservatives are too wimpy to fight (somebody might call them mean names), and the Libertarians easily infiltrated and subverted, how then are we to win the Culture Wars?
Tough call. That’s what I’m trying to figure out. In any event, the core principles of Libertarianism are something I still hold dear. But there’s a point at which you have to realize that a good portion of the populace doesn’t just disagree with you, they want to destroy you. They want to bankrupt you, take away your livelihood, threaten you, ruin your life, or even take your life, should they find the power to do so. They are your enemies. Tolerating them in the name of live and let live won’t work. You may very well have to destroy them back.
Francis over at Bastion of Liberty sent a great link in reply, one which my readers would be well-advised to peruse. The money quote is below:
I hope to see a continuing refinement of libertarian-conservative or “fusionist” thought. I do what I can to advance it. Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, and others of greater stature than myself are also working on it, from their particular perspectives. It is the most important effort under way in political thought. Unless it succeeds, and allows us to build a single front — united on critical matters and tolerant of divergence on lesser ones — with which to oppose the statism and special-interest-propelled panderings of the Left, freedom in America is doomed. Libertarians will have to face an accelerating loss of the freedoms they cherish. Conservatives will have to face the ongoing reduction of their bastions, as the power hungry, ideologically propelled forces of the Left eat into their numbers via the schools, the media, and the awful power of their patented divide-to-seduce technique.
The answer may well be in some form of Conservative-Libertarian fusion. Libertarians have the backbone that, evidently, Conservatives are lacking. And Conservatives can consider the breaches of absolute freedom that may be necessary to preserve the remainder of it from Leftist destruction, something Libertarians have some difficulty with. The combination could result in a movement which, as Francis describes, is united on important matters and tolerant of divergence on more minor matters.
The beginnings of such a movement have already begun, with the televised collapse of the Republican establishment on Prime Time, a necessary prerequisite to building something stronger in its place.
An answer must be found to the Progressive weapon of ideological subversion and deconstruction which has continually been employed against us since at least before World War I. Vox Day, TheRalph, and others have had some success with employing such techniques against Leftists themselves. Trump has more or less hinged his entire candidacy on this.
But that brings up something I read in one of Tom Kratman’s books, not long ago. When you fight an enemy long enough, there is a tendency to become an awful lot like him. I’m not sure that’s the angle to go for, either.
Some folks, even a few on the Right, think I exaggerate the extent of media bias. The thought is that most media bias is a result of unintentional personal bias. In other words, there are more Lefties in media, so their reporting takes a subconscious Left-wing slant.
Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s that simple. While I am similarly skeptical of the conspiracy theorists’ idea of some dark room filled with stale cigar smoke, where cloaked figures set their plans in motion, I do suspect that the media colludes actively with one another to set narratives.
When #GamerGate began, there was the GameJournoPro list that was revealed to the world, where Progressive SJW journalists colluded to write the “Gamers are Dead” narrative against the burgeoning consumer revolt. It’s hard not to suspect more of this type of thing when the shooting of thug and thief Michael Brown is deemed far more newsworthy for the nation than this story:
Moments before an elderly man was killed and his wife beaten, the 19-year-old accused killer asked his parents for permission to go for a walk. When he came home he had blood on his clothes. Now police are trying to figure out why a teen who has never been in trouble with the law could be accused of such a horrible crime.
In a desperate plea for help, 94-year old Harriet Anderson called 9-1-1 after she and her husband were attacked in their home here on East 46th Street Wednesday evening. “Somebody got in the house and attacked me and my husband and I’m all bloody. And I’m an old woman,” Mrs. Anderson told the dispatcher. “And I’m on the floor and my husband’s been hit in the head.”
But help would come too late. Anderson’s husband, 97-year-old Rupert Anderson died after the attack. Minutes after police arrived, 19-year-old suspected killer Ngor Makuey walked past the police car of one of the responding officers with blood on his sweatshirt. The police car’s dash camera caught a shot of Makuey. It was shown to neighbors and he was arrested.
The parents, of course, insist that their son is a “good boy” and would never do something like that. The fact that he was covered in blood and the police video identified the man is, of course, all fabrication by the racist establishment. Or something.
Anyway, the murder of a 97 year-old veteran is, of course, less important than the fact that Black Lives Matter… even after they just got done robbing a convenience store. Narrative uber alles.
I’ve spoken multiple times about the correlation between Islamic immigration and rapes. This subject fascinates me because it is a clear cut example of Progressive doublethink. Fraternities are condemned without evidence, and when the claims made against them are later revealed to be bogus. Due process suffers on college campuses. The possibility of false rape allegations is frequently dismissed in the service of the false statistic that 1 in 5 women are raped.
Yet the very obvious correlation between Islam and abuse of women is completely ignored.
Take a look at this video, a report from Germany, where 4 brutal gang rapes have occurred in the same city the last few weeks. In each case the perpetrators are described as “having southern features.” That, of course, is a euphemism for Arabic and/or Islamic.
I’ve spoken at length in previous posts about this phenomenon, as have many others far more notable than myself. Yet this all falls on deaf ears. There is weasel room in the statistics, as there is in most statistics. Correlation does not equal causation, they will say. And this is true.
At the same time, the anecdotal evidence confirms the statistics. We know with certainty that the rights of women in the Muslim world are far behind those of the West. So why is it a surprise that importing large numbers of Muslim men into Western countries is resulting in rape and abuse?
This isn’t rocket science, people.
The Muslim migrants do not magically embrace Western law and jurisprudence simply because they step foot in a Western country.
But, while this goes on, Radical Feminists are busying themselves blaming a heart icon on Twitter for promoting rape culture and make the platform “less safe for women.” Seriously.
This is insanity, absolute lunacy. Those who honestly believe that Twitter’s heart-shaped like button is more of a threat to women than gang-raping Muslim migrants need to be locked in a padded room and medicated to the hilt. This is evidence of severe mental illness.
Notice, of course, the implied connection to #GamerGate here, too. And before you say “no, Dystopic, this is just one loony, or just a troll. Nobody is that stupid.” There’s more…
These things are everywhere, and they spend their time denouncing men on Twitter for disagreeing with them, considering the matter the equivalent of violence against women or outright rape.
Muslims, naturally, are rarely mentioned at all, and if they are it is only to illustrate how Evil White Men have been oppressing them since the Crusades. Because, naturally, a war that was over centuries ago is far more relevant than violent gang rapes going on today.
One of the fascinating side effects of being involved in both #GamerGate and Sad Puppies, is that there are thousands of Social Justice Warriors intent on referring to me as evil. Ben Kuchera was fond of telling GamerGaters to “clean themselves up.” And references to Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies as outright Nazis are not terribly difficult to find.
It’s worth noting that this is the same man who said “pedophilia is not a moral wrong.” I think he’s evil, but not because he disagrees with me on #Gamergate.
What is it that we stand accused of doing? What Evil have we actually done? GamerGaters are not murdering anybody. So far as I know, they do not justify pedophilia or child molestation (as the Antis have been known to do on occasion). At least as many bomb threats have been sent to GamerGate meetings as have been sent to Antis, and it’s not clear that anybody in GamerGate was ever involved in such activities to begin with. One suspects the hand of 4chan in both sets of threats. There have been no rapes (crappy fictional treatments in Law & Order SVU aside), no thefts, no assaults.
Just what evil are we supposed to have done?
I’m a results sort of guy. Show me that a group of people has done something, or is more likely to do something, and you will have my attention. But the rantings and ravings of SJWs are about vague concepts and political disagreements. I don’t want to play the game Steve Davidson did recently by dumping a bunch of strawmen on you, but suffice it to say it is a principle of mine that political disagreements alone do not elevate to some kind of cosmic battle good vs. evil.
Or, put in more simple terms, actions speak louder than words. You can say you are for equality until you are blue in the face, but if you toss around the hashtag #KillAllMen, and are not doing so in some kind of sarcastic or ironic fashion (or trolling), then you are functionally not for equality. You are for killing men. I.e. you are evil.
But the evil isn’t because you disagree with me politically. It’s because you want to kill all men. Stalin, for instance, could protest innocence and goodwill until he was blue in the face, but I would not believe him, because of the massacres, the gulags, and the terror campaigns.
Communism is, in my opinion, an evil ideology, because whatever the intentions of the ideology, the results are catastrophically bad. But even members of an evil ideology are not necessarily all evil themselves. C.S. Lewis explains:
‘Lord, is it then true… that thou and Tash are one?’ The Lion growled so that the earth shook and said, ‘It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites.
For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?’ I said, ‘Lord, thou knowest how much I understand.’
But I said also, ‘Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days.’ ‘Beloved,’ said the Glorious One, ‘unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.’
This is similar to my own view of Islam, which I also view as a fundamentally evil ideology. Yet I would not be alive today if it were not for the actions of a Muslim who saved the lives of my own ancestors in the Ottoman Empire. The ideology was evil, but in this case, the individual was not.
This separation of individual and ideology is something that SJWs just cannot seem to manage. They may (wrongly) view my own political positions as evil, but they also seek to tar the individual with the same brush, seemingly unaware that this is a colossal mistake. The drive for ideological purity convinces them that they need to expel individuals who disagree with them, and that disagreement is, itself, a form of evil.
A commenter over at Vile770 dismissed and denounced me handily as a GamerGater, as if to say “well, he’s automatically evil because he’s a GamerGater.”
Any ideology which contains within it a drive for purity will result in evil. Nazism desired racial purity. Communism desired a purity of economic class. Islam desires a purity of religious thought. This, incidentally, is why I am a Christian. Christ explains that all of us are sinners. We have all done wrong. We are all impure.
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Since mankind is categorically impure, an ideology that desires purity of any kind will inevitably result in violence and evil because human nature will not accord with it. Only force can make it so. And this is my beef with Social Justice. The Virtue Signalling among them is a a sort of ideological purity test. Agree with a particular instance of supposed racism, sexism, etc… or you will be denounced. They seek to control the state, the levers of power within social groups, corporations, etc… so as to force you into alignment with their political philosophy.
Don’t worry. Be this evil, and a few decades later, Capitalists will sell you on a T-Shirt and make millions.
I disagree with fellow Sad Puppies all the time, and even more often with fellow GamerGaters. #Gamergate crosses all sorts of political spectrums. Yet this does not become some kind of fundamental divide. I do not think these individuals evil for their disagreement. I don’t even think all Leftists are evil, or all Muslims, or all of anything. I oppose the ideologies, and will not waver in this one iota, but understanding that individuals are not the ideology is important, so as to avoid the very sin of purity to begin with.
So I guess the point of all this is that not only has my side in gaming and Science Fiction not done anything particularly evil that I am aware of, Social Justice Warriors are unable to separate the individual from the group. They cannot distinguish between specifics and generalities. They falsely label the group as evil, when the group has done nothing of the sort, and then ensure that each individual adherent is also treated as evil.
In earlier posts I was debating with a fellow about the Muslim rape rate, but I would not see an individual Muslim and say “he’s an evil rapist!” An adherent to an evil ideology, perhaps. But like C.S. Lewis tells us, he may serve Aslan truly, and only invoke the name of Tash. I have no way of knowing. That doesn’t mean I want to countenance large-scale Muslim immigration, mind you. But there it is, the separation of individual and ideology.
It is my observation that Left-wing groups are particularly prone to this, though it’s not entirely absent on the right either, mind you. Leftism has a tendency to elevate the group ahead of the individuals, and in so doing is at particular risk of denying the worth of the individual entirely. Once the group is established as the highest priority, it is not long before individuals are sacrificed in the name of the group, in order to make it “better” and “more pure.”
The Socialist Utopia is just a few hundred million bodies away… That went on for a century and went nowhere.