Addendum (2010/09/28):
To perhaps aid in the commbox discussion, I'm adding (the significant part of) Vox's post --
Culling the weak and simpleThis is the beginning of his post, this is what he intentionally chose to quote and comment upon from his target's post.
From the blogosphere:As an observer to this blog controversy, I am reminded of many similar incidents over the past six years of my blogging. I can certainly remember posts that I authored that (1) were taken the wrong way; (2) really upset folks in an unpredictable way or to an unpredictable degree; and/or (3) prompted personal and quite vindictive attacks. I remember the awful way I would feel for a day or two, afraid to even look at my email for fear of comments that felt like knives being thrown my way. The feeling (let's call it "bloghorror") is hard to describe. First, bloghorror is in part just a reaction to being attacked, but it's also a shame at having hurt someone else, even unintentionally, and it's also an anger at the completely unfair nature of the response. But most of all it's this feeling of being misunderstood. And unfortunately, there's no way to cure this. In 2005, my first reaction would be to explain myself, so that the blog audience would say, "Ah, I understand now." It took me a year or two to learn that once your audience has concluded that you are the devil saying devil things, any effort to explain will just add to the arsenal of the ammunition that will be hurled back at you.As I read this, I was filled with a mix of incomprehension, amusement, and scorn. Needless to say, an AWCA feels no shame at the idea of having hurt someone else, intentionally or unintentionally, because sometimes an emotional evisceration is the entire point of a post. As it is said, no pain, no gain. By inflicting pain, I am merely helping others to grow. The humiliation that is felt by an interlocutor whose arguments have been methodically carved up by remorseless logic is my gift to them.
I ask for no thanks. Artistry is its own reward. ...
There is *nothing* in what he quoted which justifies what he said in the part of his post I have quoted.
Now, let us consider the next (and reasonable) thing this particular fool said:
And there is no shame in being misunderstood. Being misunderstood is the norm. ...Obviously, and by his own standard (*) and admission, Mr Beale is among the "weak and simple" who deserve to be "culled." For, his target didn't say she'd felt shame at being misunderstood ... she said she felt shame at having hurt others, even unintentionally. Her mention of being (feeling, actually) misunderstood was to say that that feeling was the larger part of what she is calling "bloghorror," which was the temptation to just give up on blogging due to the negative, and often unfair, nature of (some of) the responses to what she'd previosly written.
(*) by his own standard -- except, of course, that he is a hypocrite: he cannot and will not abide criticism of what he says and does. The more just/deserved and to-the-point the criticism, the less he will abide it.
29 comments:
He does seem a nasty piece of work. Unless, of course, I am misunderstanding him.
I did get a chuckle, though, out of the commenters who are worried about whom they'll be expected to put up with in Heaven.
"... Unless, of course, I am misunderstanding him."
I don't see how you can be misunderstanding him; he's pretty clear and upfront right there in his first paragraph that he takes pleasure in trying to hurt or humiliate people (and, in case you don't know what he means by referring to himself as "an AWCA," it signifies "award-winning cruelty artist").
"Unless, of course, I am misunderstanding him."
The Vox went out of his way to say he doesn't give a rip if he is misunderstood. He says it's the norm, and an expected result due to the fact that most people are idiots.
(That Cathy is a little jokester).
Which is to say, she is having a bit of fun at the Vox's expense.
Sometimes, Nicholas, I'm too literal minded. At the same time, I saw your second comment in my inbox before I sat the first ... and from the second, I knew the point you'd be making in the first (and I did a mental forehead-slap).
At the same time, if I'd said I was playing along with her joke, who'd know different? For that matter, how do you know I wasn't, despite my previous post?
Humor can be so tricky.
Biggest problem with humor on the internet is that there are a large number of people who, were I to offer them as parodies of a position, would be rejected as far too "out there."
Come on, I've had folks seriously suggest eating humans-- even a modest proposal isn't safe!
Is this a parody post, or is the entire blog a parody?
I do agree that Vox is pretty foolish, but I don't see anything wrong with saying that he takes pleasure in bringing wicked people down. I do, too.
He doesn't say he's going for the wicked, he says he's going for the weak.
I also have a big issue with cruelty, especially if you take pleasure in the infliction of it. Sadism sucks, even if the tormentor is too cowardly to attempt physical attacks...yet.
Vox Popoli would be a lot more fun if he posted pictures of his cats.
Drew,
I would be the last person to criticize Mr Beale for "bringing wicked people down," I would be the last person to criticize him for being "mean" to fools (that is, intellectually dishonest persons, persons who refuse to reason properly). But, this is something quite different; this is cruelty for the sake of cruelty.
But, if he posted picture of his cats, someone might eventually make a connection between his (often justified, often not) mockery of "cat ladies" and himself.
@Foxfier
Imo, the "weak and simple" and the wicked tend to be the same people.
"The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel . . . for giving prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the young." (Proverbs 1:1-4)
@Ilíon
"As it is said, no pain, no gain. By inflicting pain, I am merely helping others to grow." (Vox Day)
"Weak and simple" is a very good description of children or my sister.
There's also the simple fact that "weak and simple" is often what those who delight in cruelty call those who are "simple" enough to believe in charity, and "weak" enough not to be equally cruel.
In context, I don't think Vox is talking about picking on children. He's talking about critiquing people who need to be critiqued instead of worrying about social approval.
Considering his brag of being a "cruelty artist," I think the context is wider than the post.
I would say he is brandishing his take no prisoners style and contrasting it with what strikes him as laughable feminine sensitivities. Reader reaction? Angry e-mail responses? This guy is an omellette maker, and damn proud of it.
Egg shells?! Who cares? That's a sign of success.
Not good company, though.
1) "Critiquing people who need to be critiqued (*) instead of worrying about social approval" is what I do. This is one of the things I mean when I say I am not "nice" and have no desire nor intention to be.
(*) to be more precise, critiquing their behavior and modes of thinking and especially as those are reflected in their claims and arguments.
To have the freedom to criticize what needs to be criticized without haveing to put up with irrational (and conveniently tendentions), and frequently hypocritical, whinging about how "mean" I am is one reason I finally started my own blog.
2) A "take no prisoners style" is what I do -- except that I'm all the time letting people escape (**); and these egg shells are people, God's creatures, same as you or I or Mr Beale.
(**) for instance, more than once, someone who is commenting in this very thread has criticized something I've said and it was clear that that criticism was based on misrepresentation of what I'd said. Now, if I absolutely followed a "take no prisoners style," I'd have ripped that person a new one; instead, I ignored that I was very annoyed with that person and I let it pass.
Drew: "Imo, the "weak and simple" and the wicked tend to be the same people."
Then your opinion is for shit, and you need to modify it ... lest I decide that you are wicked.
Fools -- persons who *refuse* to reason properly -- are indeed wicked, and morality demand we oppose them. But, the "weak and simple" are not wicked, and morality demands we extend charity and patience to them; this phrase (in context) covers a broad range of persons, form those who reason significantly less agilely than we do all the way to those perhaps never can understand certain, or even many, things.
Drew, you reason less agilely than I do (there is no shame in this, many people do). This may be a function of your youth/inexperience (and the even worse general "education" to which your generation were subjected than mine); it may even be constitutional, that you're just not as bright as I am. Should I treat you as "Vox Day" habitually treats others? Should I conclude that you're "weak and simple," and thus wicked and thus deserving of scorn?
The answer, of course, is "No, I should not." And, while I mildly regret telling you what I did, I don't see any other way (*) to get the point across to you.
(*) In contrast to Beale, I don't imagine I am, and certainly don't claim to be, some sort of "grey eminence" floating on an intellectual plane which others can just barely see. From experience, I realize or conclude that I am quicker in most things than most others whom I encounter (and slower in others than those very same persons) ... and from experience I conclude that there are surely millions who are quicker in most things than I.
Should I scorn those of whom I realize they are (in general) not as intellectually agile as I? Should grovel at the feet of those of whom I am in awe for their powers of reason? No, and no. And the same goes for you ... and for "Vox Day." We have no business -- it is immoral; it is wicked -- to scorn and mock those whom we believe (rightly or wrongly) to be less intelligent than ourselves.
Drew: "In context, I don't think Vox is talking about picking on children. He's talking about critiquing people who need to be critiqued instead of worrying about social approval."
Foxfier: "Considering his brag of being a "cruelty artist," I think the context is wider than the post."
No, Drew, he's talking about cruelty for the sake of cruelty -- while dishonestly presenting it as "for your own good."
I was going to comment upon this here in the commbox, but instead I've updated the OP.
Lastly, touching upon my claim in the OP that "Vox Day" is a sissy-hypocrite --
A couple of months ago, in the last direct exchange I am likely to have with that particular fool, he (ahem) ordered me "Rule 6, Ilion. Do not attempt to impart motives to me or Spacebunny. You were incorrect."
The context of that was that he had accused someone -- a woman, naturally (for he seems to despise the entire sex) -- of "snowflaking." She, asked what he meant, and I was one of the couple to attempt to explain it to her.
Now:
1) I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about his motives, but rather about his mindset as revealed by the things he says -- but let us ignore that distinction;
2) the verb 'to impart' means "to make known; to reveal"
SO, what he literally said is that he has a rule against commenters to his blog revealing, or making known to others his motives for doing and saying what he does and says.
NOW, I am sure that the word he *meant* to use is 'impute' -- and, given that he's a fool and an ass (and that I mock such), and given that he likes to claim to be so vastly more intelligent, and to have such a more rebust vocabulary, than others, this was too delicious to pass up. Mind you, I actually didn't mock him on this, but rather matter-of-factly said that I suspected he'd really meant to use the verb 'to impute.'
BUT, I can't supply Gentle Reader a link to my response (I mean, even aside from the fact that I don't know of any way to link to individual comments made to his blog) to this "order," for he deleted my response. He did, however, inform me that he had indeed meant to use the word 'impart' that he's used (and among which "information" was the helpful hint that I am ignorant of the meaning of the word ... I leave it to Gentle Reader to look up the two words).
He's a sissy -- a sneak; I'm convinced that when he was a boy, the other boys despised him as a sneak (*), and he certainly is one as an adult, and as a back-stabber. And, of course, he's a hypocrite -- he criticizes, frequently unfairly, but will not abide criticism.
(*) sneak -- this is what I mean in calling him a "sissy." While, of course, boys can be sneaks, boys tend to be direct; sneaking is more commonly something girls do.
My beloved Elf, dear husband and father of Kit, has bloody near no tolerance for willful stupidity. He also has a razor tongue and a wit to match. (Brief mental image of Drizzt with razor-swords, one labeled "word" and the other "thought.")
He has no problem letting rip on folks who are being idiots... but even though folks who are genuinely stupid-- "weak of mind"-- get under his skin, he doesn't let rip on them.
When there's someone who should be able to be smarter, but a subject just unmans them, he doesn't attack-- that weakness isn't a valid target, it would only destroy without having a chance of changing anything.
Obviously, I'm a slightly biased observer, but I do have some experience in the matter-- one of the geek group pass-times is crafting barbs to use on one another. Some folks always go in for the kill; some folks keep it a game, abet one that can improve you.
I sure wouldn't go drinking with those who go in for the kill.
We've left guilds over the guild structure exploiting the weakness of folks.
(Abused women are really weak and vulnerable when you first establish some sort of trust, then offer 'little suggestions,' especially if they're phrased as personal criticism, and especially if it's in the "for your own good" language. One of the standard precursors to physical abuse is mental abuse, making the person believe they deserve far worse. As my aunt put it-- by the time he hit her, she was glad, because she deserved it.)
Continuing about "Rule 6" -- I don't recall exactly what I said, but among the things I said was to point out that in using the word 'impart,' rather than 'impute,' what he had literally said was that I'd revealed something true about him; this being at odds with his claim that I was incorrect in what I'd said.
But, the above little addendum to the previous post isn't the main reason for this post. The main reason for *this* post is to point to "Rule 6" to again highlight "Vox Day's" hypocrisy.
Recall, this is what he said to me -- "Rule 6, Ilion. Do not attempt to impart motives to me or Spacebunny. You were incorrect."
But, he and 'Spacebunny' are forever imputing the motives (and mindset) of others, and presumably, they honestly believe themselves to be imparting to their readers true information about their targets. His comment I'd mentioned about (telling a woman commenter to his blog that she was "snowflaking") is an example of this.
So, "Rule 6" is *really* "Rule 6 -- Vox Day and Spacebunny may impute (believing ourselves to be imparting true information) motives and/or mindsets to you, but you may impart what you believe to be our motives and/or mindsets."
The "rule" is hypocritical; the man is a hypocrite.
Foxfier: "He has no problem letting rip on folks who are being idiots... but even though folks who are genuinely stupid-- "weak of mind"-- get under his skin, he doesn't let rip on them."
The "genuinely stupid-- "weak of mind"--" *are* idiots -- that's what the word means (it was originally a euphamism for "weak of mind" or "stupid"). Of course, I understand that when you referred to "folks who are being idiots," what you really mean is "folks who are [*not* idiots but who are willfully chosing to reason/argue *as though* they were] idiots."
But, not everyone grasps this subtlety of language. Many people, perhaps most, still rely upon the language, and thus the concepts, of the kindergarten playground to navigate the adult world.
Ilíon, I think this post is just an example of your adopting an overly literal interpretation of a phrase based on what you perceive to be the correct definition. Maybe it even *is* the definition, to the extent that any definition is ever really correct. But if the NIV uses the word "simple" to apply to someone who has NOT taken the opportunity to obtain God's wisdom, then I don't see any problem with Vox's use of the word here as a rough equivalent to "fool."
It's obvious that you despise this guy (and that you don't agree with his sexual theories), and I'm not a huge fan of him myself although I do read him on occasion, but I think you're just looking for things to nitpick.
"Being an idiot" is different from "is an idiot." It implies a choice is made. (One of those times English doesn't make sense....)
This guy is an omellette maker, and damn proud of it.
I don't know; is there any evidence to suggest that he improves anything or anyone? I admit I've only read a few of his posts, but those few have been beyond mean-spirited, and the responses seem for the most part to be I-can-top-that spleen-venting from the regular commenters.
He certainly breaks a lot of eggs, but it seems it's more a case of hurling them to the ground to enjoy the splat, and encouraging others to do the same.
And given that I formed my opinion over there, but expressed it over here, I suppose I'm guilty of importing motive. ;)
*grin* You naughty, naughty grl!
Drew: "It's obvious that you despise this guy (and that you don't agree with his sexual theories), ... but I think you're just looking for things to nitpick."
This isn't even close to the truth of the matter. But, even were it, it's irrelevant to the truth-claims I've made about his behavior and what that behaviour indicates about his mindset.
I gotta wonder what they teach in those fancy lawschools, 'cause it sure ain't logic.
Post a Comment