Search This Blog

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Reasoning with Vox Day

You can't, not when he is committed to being in the wrong (*), and not when he controls the venue.

Consider this exchange-which-will-not-be --

In response to a couple of the all-too-common anti-semites (**) there, I posted this
never again @7 "Have you noticed that most Jews are against Trump?"

tz @10 "70% of US Jews voted for Obama in 2012."

Which is to say, a bunch of leftists who hate their grandparents' religion as much as they hate mine voted for Obama.

Why are you people such morons? Why do you people "reason" just like leftists do, and the[n] try to pretend that there is some substantive difference between leftists and yourselves?

And within minutes, Ol' VD himself responded thusly:
Which is to say, a bunch of leftists who hate their grandparents' religion as much as they hate mine voted for Obama.

Who said anything about religion? Who cares why they acted as they did, the point is that they did it.

Why are you people such morons? Why do you people "reason" just like leftists do, and the[n] try to pretend that there is some substantive difference between leftists and yourselves?

How is citing incontrovertible and easily confirmed facts reasoning "just like leftists do"? Do you really think leftists are known for correctly citing the facts?

Who are you trying to fool, and why?
Everything about this response is intellectually dishonest. But then, what else can one expect of a hypocrite such as 'Vox Day'?

Look, you God-damned (***) leftist hypocrite, go back to Mexico! (****)

(*) But then, that's true of everyone; it's just extra annoying coming from him because:
- it's clear that he *can* reason
- he likes to boast about his vast intellect and his commitment to rigorous reasoning.

(**) And believe me, I don't use that term lightly. In my opinion, the only thing worse than an anti-semite is someone who "refutes" any criticism of a Jew, or of Jewish persons, or as is more commonly the case, of a leftist/atheist whose grandparents were Jews, by shrieking about "anti-semitism".

(***) I also don't make that evaluation lightly.

(****) Yes, I know that he has already left/repudiated the USA. That was rhetoric; I expect he gets the point, even if he'll never acknowledge it, and sees the humor: how he must chuckle to himself as an "Aztec" and a "descendant of a Mexican revolutionary" to be the intellectual (such as it is) leader of a gaggle of low-rent whites who see "da Jooos" behind every tree.


FALPhil said...

The least you could do is answer the question.

Ilíon said...

There is no question to answer. "When did you last beat your wife?" is not a question.

Nick said...

Of course, Judaism itself defines a Jew as someone with a Jewish mother from birth, whether they're religious or not, which is why so many atheists can still call themselves Jewish. I don't like the antisemitism of so many on the alt-right, but they like to keep pointing to the predominance of Jews (a tiny minority worldwide) in things like Hollywood, pornography, and of course movements and ideologies such as Marxism.

Ilíon said...

But it's not "the Jews" who are, for instance, Marxists, any more than it is "the Whites" who enslaved "the Blacks" or who (south of the border) oppressed "the Hispanics".

Don't you find it odd that these alt-righters are so quick to reach for that favorite tool of the leftists -- wholesale demonization of some group, irrespective of the relevance to the particular issue -- while insisting that *they* are individuals?

Nick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ilíon said...

Consider how stupid these alt-right whites are --

* One of their big chest-pounders is that whites, en masse and on average, are more intelligent than (red) indians, and that both are more intelligent than blacks.

* Yet, here they are, this group at any rate, being led around by the noses (or whatever) by a self-proclaimed (red) indian-and-Mexican. I suppose what it means is that they are so "intelligent" that they can afford to sub-contract their thinking to a Mexican invader ... who turned tail and ran off to Europe.

Nick said...

Makes no sense. Yet Vox continually seems to enjoy proclaiming his ancestry, even going so far as to exult in the more vicious nature of Mexicans in Los Angeles who have driven blacks out of cities like Compton (he hates blacks more, I guess, but blacks aren't the invaders according to him?

Ingot9455 said...

You confuse 'exult' with 'pointing out obvious truths.'
It's a common mistake of emphasis.

If someone says, 'The Emperor Has No Clothes,' it is just a statement of truth.
Yet, to those who have lied to themselves or forbidden themselves socially from believing it, it seems radical. Even 'exultant.'

"Obama has doubled the national debt from 10 trillion to 20 trillion dollars."

Was I exultant right there?

Nick said...

No he was "exulting", because in the context of his comments, he wasn't just pointing out a fact, but was jubilant that he shared his heritage with then and that they would show no mercy to blacks. He was celebrating the "fact", not merely pointing it out.

Sorry, but my usage was correct.

Nate Winchester said...

Dear Ingot9455,

The sky over my house is blue.
The grass in my yard is green.
The predators are playing the sharks tonight in Nashville.
All the words were posted via the Internet.

Ingot9455 said...

At your leisure, example me with such an 'exultant' comment-with-context.
If you like.

Nate Winchester said...

. . .

Why yes, all the things I previous posted were true, trivially so.

. . .

Oh right, you're probably struggling and trying to figure out "why" - because that's what humans do, they only communicate when there is reason. Even the closest to an exception is what is called "small talk" and even that ends up serving purposes in passing the time, establishing social connections etc.

Usually facts are only shared between people for 2 purposes: 1) to prepare for a course of action and 2) to gain understanding and insight.

So "70% of US Jews voted for Obama in 2012" - and? Is this information being shared in preparation for something? Or is it being shared in an effort to gain insight into say... how to say Jews to Trump's side?

Hmm... seems the blog hosts' words make it pretty clear.

As for Vox himself, it's becoming pretty clear that however he may be in real life, online he is a copy of what he's fighting. One just has to look at the post where he distorted a twitter exchange with Matt Walsh in a manner that would make the MSM proud. Or notice the taunting many do at him when one of his published book had a typo giving it two chapter 5s (if I recall the number correctly) and yet he never responds or addresses this. Not even to turn it around or brush it off the way he, "the expert arguer", says one should (i.e. "my worst mistake was chapter number, your mistake was an entire book") Or even:

"Do you really think leftists are known for correctly citing the facts?"

Yes, of course they do, that's how they've made such successes by citing facts which are true upon a surface examination and counting on people being too busy or lazy to dig further. Exhibit A: Global Warming (or now Climate Change). It's a set of nested if statements:
IF(Globe is Warming) - IF(Humans impact Globe) - IF(Humans impact Substantial) - IF(Results from Impact Negative) { Policy }
The first two are trivially true (I mean the globe is either warming or cooling, it's not like a thermometer can go in more than 2 directions), but the last two are debatable (ESPECIALLY that the results of a warming globe will be all negative) which is why any time you try discussing with leftists Global Warming they'll try frame it as you arguing against the obvious fact.

It's pretty much the stock and trade. There are real and actual cases of whites abusing and mistreating blacks unjustly. The same with straights and gays etc. That Vox cannot see that leftists have adopted the tactic of building their lies upon a grain of truth (the Motte and Bailey argument tactic) makes him just like them as they claim any who disagree with them as denying the globe as ever warmed, or that any black or gay was ever abused.

That and the fact increasingly his posts will be fragrantly contradictory of each other, and that he seems to be buddying up with noted cultist Molyneux makes me wonder if Vox wants to be a cult leader or is setting up the most elaborate prank yet. It is interesting that he seems to think himself immune from the old lessons of hubris that he brags about reading in the original greek.

Nate Winchester said...

Well now Vox & Jonah are starting to fight.

This is not going to be a year that ends well.