Against Blacklists

Against tribalism, rather than against a tribe

As many will now be aware, a certain person whose handle makes an unfortunate monogram has entered the LambdaConf controversy.  Like many on the SJ side of this long-running conflict, he appears to be making his living as a culture war profiteer, only by selling books rather than consulting services to monetize the tribal conflict he has stoked.  Now, just like some on the other side, he is compiling a targeting database of ideological enemies.

Lately the use of mobbing and ostracism tactics by SJ advocates has been a matter of much concern for me and for this blog. However, we must make it clear that our interest is in opposing these tactics and the mentality of total cultural war they arise from, rather than siding with the opposing tribe.  They’d be just as vicious if they had equivalent influence, as VD’s McCarthy-esque enemies list illustrates.

Instead, we must fight for the establishment of norms which allow peaceful coexistence and free association – and thus, against the authoritarian, universalizing tendencies within every cultural-ideological tribe – and for the possibility of pluralistic technical spaces with norms that protect the purpose they serve for technologists regardless of tribal affiliation, and resist being transformed into a no man’s land in between red and blue tribe trenches.  We must resist the growing atmosphere of pressure to fall into line with one side or the other, with instant mendacious vilification as the penalty for failure to conform, and defend the existence of social contexts wherein it is possible to decline to do so.  In short, we need to build the rudiments of a social technology of political toleration.

In the last week, following supporting LambdaConf publicly on Twitter, I’ve had my work attacked by tribalists fearing it obstructs the exercise of power in accordance with their wishes. I’ve had sockpuppeteers blatantly lie about me and my associates here at Status 451. Now, enter the other tribalists with their list of enemies and their angry trolls who will no doubt attack the first set like rabid animals and denounce me for being a degenerate lesbian in the process.  The image of a thousand tankies swearing Stalin did nothing wrong locked in eternal struggle with an equal force of anime nazis chuckling idiotically about ‘cucks’ like so many enraged capons is hilarious, and they really do deserve each other, but the rest of us must live in the blasted, battle-scarred world that a tech antifa vs. war profiteer trench war will create.  Let’s build a non-universalizing refuge from it all instead.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Against Blacklists

  1. Ash says:

    Pragmatically, creating a blacklist not only seems hypocritical, but bound to lose if we are in a virtue signalling world.

    As Joshua said, “the only winning move is not to play”, or as the ACLU once said, “the answer to ugly speech is more speech [not blacklists]”


  2. Anonymous says:

    The time for peace has passed. You can’t stop the war that has been going on for like a decade or more now – with wishful thinking. So long as the political landscape is so polarized, there will be war – simply because the two tribes share a space and compete to make the rules for that space.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Autist Overlord Attack Helicopter says:

      So long as people see that politics are zero-sum games at best, the question is framed as
      “You vs Me”.
      Andrea, like so many virtuous libertarians, is in a bargaining stage. She’s trying to bargain her way out of the inevitable: She’s truthfully questioning the framing as false dichotomy and doesn’t see that both sides to the left and right are arming up, ready to use her digital homestead as no mans land with scorched earth.

      And while I admire the effort, a war isn’t won by building a bunker in the middle.

      Ask Belgians.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Anonymous says:

      Mr “This is War”, yours is exactly the wrong mindset here.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Filthy Liar says:

        Sure, but the facts are the facts. It’s not redtribe/bluetribe by the way, that framing is useless. Either you believe in freedom of speech and association (which carries with it the attendant responsibilities to decide whose speech you will support and whose association you value) or you don’t. It’s facile to pretend that giving someone a platform for their speech isn’t supporting it and associating yourself with it.


      • LastRedoubt says:

        Remember, in war, the enemy gets a vote – and it only takes one side to start one. We don’t have to believe in war to have it believe in us.

        Liked by 1 person

      • HalibetLector says:

        Reality doesn’t care about mindset. It cares about results. This is why Truth and Justice has been getting its ass kicked by Virtue Signaling and Safe Spaces.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. anonymous says:

    I’m relieved to see one of the only (if not the only) people I respect who is involved with this blog calling for sanity regarding blacklists, but it is disappointing to see her buying into this notion of red/blue tribes.


    • Richard says:

      “disappointing to see her buying into this notion of red/blue tribes”
      All models are wrong, but some models are useful.
      Evidently, Status 451’s position rubs some people the wrong way: some are calling Status 451 a bunch of white supremacists (as a punishment for their stance), & there are others calling this stance weak / that stronger action is justified and necessary.

      Whatever model you’d prefer for these extremes, it’s beside the point of the post: that a “social technology of political tolerance” is better than the scorched-earth no-man’s-land the aforementioned are after; that the totalising/universalising attitudes are unconstructive.


      • Filthy Liar says:

        Nah, they’re just constructing something that you don’t like. Which is totally legitimate of course, and you should absolutely back your side. Just don’t pretend that “We don’t want to pick a side” isn’t a side.

        Liked by 2 people

      • ByzantineGeneral says:

        The first amendment is that protocol. That’s why this is about winning, no more inelegantly than necessary – but also, no less.


  4. Joel Salomon says:

    Give the devil his due: this list is not (as you wrote) “a targeting database of ideological enemies” with liberal turns of mind but is explicitly limited to those “on the record supporting censorship of some kind (no platforming, government censorship, or disemploying people)”. And the admins seem to be enforcing this rule.

    Ash comments above that this sort of blacklist seems hypocritical. I almost agree—I’d very much want to separate people’s professional personas from their personal politics. But the people on the list will themselves not allow you to do so.

    (See also ESR’s post about this list over at

    Liked by 5 people

  5. Psmith says:

    1. “Enemies list” was Nixon and CREEP; McCarthy had lists of Communists in the State Department.


    against the authoritarian, universalizing tendencies within every cultural-ideological tribe

    I don’t think this is actually true–Clark just posted something about how libertarians would be perfectly happy to let progs have prog-only conferences. Even if you’re basically right and this example is mere hashtag Not All Libertarians, I think it’s historically contingent and can be reversed. Basically, I think pluralism is compatible with having tribes, and that tribalism is not the enemy–that tribalism has a lot to do with Putnam’s social capital, and that most people need a tribe to live a good life.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. LastRedoubt says:


    I agree, it would be nice if everyone could follow, as someone pointed out on Eric’s G+ thread, the laws of war.

    But the laws of war, and game theory, make it clear that if someone wants to violate the compact: starving you and your family by cutting them off from society and employment, breaking into your house, attacking you with deadly force, attacking from a hospital or using ambulances as cover for warfighting – the answer is reprisals.

    They are not only legitimate, they are necessary.

    Add to this that the list is not a “wrong think” but “people who attack the livelihoods and careers of people for disagreeing with them” list, and it comes down to Sun Tzu.

    Know your enemy, and yourself. The people on the list have proven, by their actions, they are your enemy. My enemy. The enemy of anyone who is willing to disagree on the social justice cause of the week.

    Even if you know yourself, you cannot begin to know your enemy if you’re not willing to acknowledge who they are, much less that they ARE your enemy, for they have declared themselves so.

    Liked by 3 people

    • no says:

      Attack their means of attacking others, then. Defang them.

      Copying them only gives them legitimacy and power where they otherwise wouldn’t have much at all.

      Your “war” rhetoric is nauseating on a very fundamental level. I’ll actively oppose you just as much as I oppose the SJ extremists if you copy their McCarthyist tactics.


      • LastRedoubt says:

        Ah. “all violence is equally bad and immoral”

        What they taught you in Kindergarten was wrong. Time to grow up now.

        Liked by 1 person

      • lliamander says:


        > What they taught you in Kindergarten was wrong. Time to grow up now.

        Indeed. I know this because I have seen reprisals work to stop real, physical bullying. Sometimes just indicating that you are able and willing to use reprisal (such as a woman pointing a gun at a would-be rapist) is sufficient to prevent an incident from occurring.

        However, I would also like to point out that the alternative to reprisal is not “nothing”. We need to make sure we expand our bag of tricks and tactics, and to select those which are not only effective in the short-term, but support our long-term objectives as well.

        Also, win-win resolutions are almost always preferable to win-lose resolutions. Smart, freedom-minded people need to focus on the former. Sometimes though, you have to make it clear to your opponent that if the choose win-lose negotiation, they may lose. When the realization sets in, offer them the win-win solution. Right now, SJWs don’t seem to think they can lose (they are on the “right side of history” after all).

        In this particular situation, I see the list as being justified, and useful for people who pragmatically want to avoid SJW convergence.


  7. Arity says:

    That one egg was hilarious. If I read that one side of the conversation correctly, they grasp at straws to tie you to racism in order to dismiss your other opinions and then unironically say “Some people just want to take the moral high ground.” Highest zozzle.


  8. Orthodox says:

    No one on the SJW list is there because they hold the beliefs of SJWs, they are there because they have attempted or succeeded at getting people fired, shunned or banned for simply having the “wrong” ideas. It’s a list of people who favor destroying careers and companies if they don’t conform to their ideology.

    If you are a moderate, you should support the list. It is a moderate position to punish people who behave badly (not think badly, behave badly). It only looks extreme because the other side has gone so far off the deep end of extremism and because they are able to use the power of the state or corporations to do their bidding. Due to asymmetric power, the right can’t ignore crazy leftists who try to get them fired, instead they must build new institutions to keep the bad behavior out. The blacklist will either work as public shaming, or to help people exclude toxic people when creating new institutions.

    No one on the right is opposed to free association or pluralism. However, some leftists reject all of it if you hold the wrong ideological beliefs. By being a moderate or not wanting to get political, you fall on the right because the left is politicizing everything. To say you want to be non-political is an anti-leftist sentiment to the extreme leftist.

    If you support the list, tribalism is unlikely. People will stop toxic behavior and civil society can continue. If you don’t support the list, extreme leftists will destroy public spaces and the right will create new spaces off limits to leftists. Then you will have tribalism.

    Liked by 7 people

    • ashv says:

      Speak for yourself; free association and pluralism are liberal ideas and plenty of rightists don’t value them. They only make sense in the context of an individualist, universalist morality.


      • Bibliotheca Servare says:

        Classical liberal, yes. Modern liberal? …I think I broke something, laughing so hard. Modern liberals (regressive left) think free association is racist/anti-gay/otherwise evil. Despite the fact that it’s a right explicitly spelled out as inalienable in the U.S constitution. As for pluralism…define your terms. Cultural pluralism, where assimilation to a native cultural norm is evil? Or do you mean ideological pluralism? Or something else? Seriously, some precision would be helpful here.

        Liked by 1 person

      • tz says:

        The list started by the very open letter demanding no one associate with an individual – banning him from the conference after a number of people went after the sponsors but it was croudfunded – hardly an example of pluralism.
        All these severe examples of intolerance were public, and those doing so were and are proud of their actions. The list is merely a convenient index of such people.
        If they are not ashamed of being so intolerant as to getting someone banned or fired, I don’t understand why anyone would have a problem with the list. It isn’t outing anyone, they were publicly the grandmasters of the parade.


      • Dystopia Max says:

        You have your dependencies backwards(very bad when posting among programmers.) Free association and pluralism are luxuries afforded by pre-existing prosperity, strength, and a culture of basic trust. When those are removed or subverted fraudulently, then the practices derived from them will also disappear, at least until such time as the prosperity, strength, etc. come back.


    • Foo says:

      I was against the list initially, but you bring up some good points. I think the key question in the discussion is if everyone started using lists, would that be a good thing or a bad thing? It might be a good thing because everyone would keep professional and political identities separate. But it could be a bad thing because everyone would have to stay anonymous and anonymous discussion is nastier. Or it could be a bad thing because it would drive away cautious moderates and select for extreme ideologues. I really can’t tell.


    • Renee says:

      >No one on the SJW list is there because they hold the beliefs of SJWs, they are there because they have attempted or succeeded at getting people fired, shunned or banned for simply having the “wrong” ideas.

      Then how do you explain Alison Bechdel?

      At least as far as the list reveals, apparently her only crime is drawing a comic about movies that became popular.


      • LastRedoubt says:

        Reasons for being on the list.

        There are three criteria for inclusion on The Complete List of SJW:
        – Self-identifying as a Social Justice Warrior
        – Publicly advocating the disemployment or no-platforming of an individual for failing to submit to the SJW Narrative
        – Being a journalist and publishing articles that support the SJW Narrative or an SJW attack campaign.

        Regarding bechdel- the closest she comes , given the evidence, is #1.

        On one hand – radical feminists who come up with such stupid and sexist criteria for whether a movie is good are arguably SJWs. Even if she hasn’t declared herself explicitly, that is true enough to be taken as a given

        Otoh, given the narrow criteria for posting on that list- if agree she doesn’t belong there.

        Looking at the date on the page it was an early entry before the inclusion criteria were tightened up. Literally one of the first ones.

        So. Let’s see what happens if you contact support about that entry.


      • JaimeInTexas says:

        I emailed the admin about Alison Bechdel’s entry. Something you could have done yourself.

        Liked by 2 people

      • SarcasticCongratulations says:

        @JaimeInTexas, and yet, 3 days later, it’s still up there. You must be really convincing


  9. Filthy Liar says:

    Blacklists are a guaranteed outcome of Libertarianism though. Since you can’t be forced to serve the public there is nothing preventing you and your friends from perverting the Free Market and refusing your goods and services to someone for being the wrong X. Sure eventually the Market will correct itself, but that does the person whose starved to death in the meantime little good.


    • Bibliotheca Servare says:

      “…But that does the person who’s (not “whose”) starved to death in the meantime little good…”
      Which system has resulted in more people “starving to death in the meantime”? Totalitarian socialism/communism, or libertarian capitalism/ordinary capitalism l? Heck, which system has resulted in more people being *deliberately* starved to death “in the meantime”? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not libertarian capitalism or ordinary capitalism. Under a libertarian system, people’s hatreds and “lists” have only the power that the folks who share that hatred, or are weak enough to follow along, give them. Under a system where “government” dictates who must/must not be served by a business owner, that dictat has the power of the armed fist of the state behind it. No system is perfect, but giving the government, and it’s bureaucrats, the power to “ensure” “fairness” and so on is the worst system of all. The government can potentially be used to reduce the probability of people organizing into *armies* to punish the people on such “lists” but, short of that, government ought to be kept out of the issue. I’d rather no one starved, but if it’s a choice between one person *potentially* starving and 30 million people *definitely* starving? That isn’t a choice at all. Sure, we aren’t there yet, but your argument inevitably leads to that place, and if you use reductio ad absurdum, I’ll feel free to use it as well. Good day. 🙂


    • tz says:

      This started when some SJWs tried to destroy the conference because they blacklisted the creator of Urbit, then publicly followed up with their one person blacklist demanding he not be allowed to speak.

      But who will blacklist the blacklisters?

      Liked by 3 people

  10. Keith says:


    I admire your principled stand. However, there may be some highly legitimate reasons for the list in our pluralistic, free society.

    First, there are university professors who have now gone on record saying that LambdaConf should have violated the results of their own blind peer review for reasons of political favoritism. This raises serious questions about these professors’ (lack of) academic integrity. This is a legitimate point of discussion for those university communities, and any taxpayer (federal or state) who funds these universities.

    Second, corporations have legitimate reasons to pursue diversity in the workplace. This diversity includes many dimensions, including diversity of viewpoint. The people on the SJW list have clearly chosen to threaten diversity at LambdaConf, and have publicly embraced intolerance of competing viewpoints. Clearly, these SJWs are threats to workplace diversity, and a corporation needs to be aware of these threats in order to achieve the goals of workplace diversity.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. DeepThought says:

    So let me get this straight, SJW’s can destroy people’s lives and people should not take note? Try to avoid these unscrupulous? Do nothing?

    If a friend was stealing from you, would you warn others or let your soon to be ex-friend steal from the rest of your friends?

    Liked by 4 people

    • Richard says:

      In response to an effort to no-platform a conference, the authors of Status 451 each supplied $500, as well as launching a fundraiser for further funds to support the conference. This means the no-platform effort was a failure in this case; and a show of support for those who refuse to succumb to the efforts.

      Status 451 are against blacklists as a tactic.
      It’s by definition that a blacklist is a list of bad people. So it’s not compelling to say “but the people we’re listing deserve it”.

      Escalating bullshit doesn’t improve the situation, either.


      • JaimeInTexas says:

        It is not escalation but simply a defensive move. The SJW quit their war, we stand down. What do you do if challenged, turn and run and leave the date on her own?

        Glad you have $500 to piddle away.

        Liked by 3 people

      • no says:

        Agreed. The people escalating this need to be stopped before they become as big a problem for everyone else as the extremists they purport to fight.


      • lliamander says:

        What Status 451 did was excellent, and probably more than most of us who are commenting here end up doing. Sacrificing their own hard-earned money to block an no-platform maneuver was both effective and left them in the moral high-ground.

        Now, as to the previous commenter’s question, are you saying that it is not okay to warn others about a thief? These people aren’t being listed for their beliefs or even their speech; they are being listed for their actions (and, in many cases, a stated commitment to continue with these actions). As Eric S. Raymond said, this list in many ways a warning to potential employers or conferences, not that anyone else would cause the organization grief for associating with these people, but that the individuals listed would be the ones causing trouble.

        I am all for constructive solutions (like the funding drive) and I would rather make peace and resolve things through reasoned discourse and win-win negotiation. We need more ideas like that. I would not support the doxing, threats of violence, or any other such clearly wrong (and not to mention illegal) actions being taken against any of the individuals on the list.

        But I don’t think any of even the most pacifistic idealists who have changed the world for good have considered themselves above the use of shaming others to change their behavior. At some point you need some mechanism of enforcing civilized behavior and dis-incentivizing uncivil behavior (again, the emphasis is on behavior, not mere beliefs or speech). Unless you are going to outlaw the uncivil behavior – at which point it will be enforced at the barrel of a gun – you are left with “social consequences”.

        The only complicating factor in this is that it is being done through a very effective broadcast mechanism: the Internet. The ‘net amplifies “social consequences” both good and bad, sometimes to great extremes. I think we’re slowly learning to be more cautious about how we use it, and maybe one day we will get it more or less right.

        However, many (if not all) of these folks engaged in their uncivil behavior (again, I want to emphasize *behavior*) under their own names and broadcast their choice to the world. They want the good social consequences for this behavior. If you engage the world seeking praise, you also court condemnation. That’s just the way it works.

        What they do harms peoples’ livelihoods, and it harms the community by depriving us of the contributions of their targets. It is behavior that needs to stop.


  12. Mike Brendan says:

    The divide is clear. The “SJWs” as the far right like to call them, are working for freedom for all people, while they are trying to bring back the McCarthy Era.


    • Dystopia Max says:

      McCarthy was right and his detractors were provably wrong or evil. The SJWs of today are simply the much-less-canny evil and/or duped inheritors of anti-McCarthyism whose skill sets mainly revolve around internalizing and weaponizing the convenient corporate fictions of the day for their own benefit.

      Liked by 3 people

    • HalibetLector says:

      Having people fired for their personal opinions is “working for freedom for all people”? You have a twisted notion of freedom.


      • JaimeInTexas says:

        And you have a twisted sense of safety. It is not the the opinions but the actual working towards dis-employing someone with OPINIONS the SJW disagree with.


    • WallaceLeMay68 says:

      Mike, go straight to h@ll in gas soaked shorts.


    • And the Walter Duranty Award for Excellence in Political Commentary goes to… Mike Brendan! Well done, Mike. You can pick up your medal at the nearest Safe Space. Remember to check your privilege first.

      Liked by 2 people

  13. JaimeInTexas says:

    I followed a link here. Some, seem to want to fight a street fight following boxing rules.

    You fight the fight that was brung to you.

    If people want you to lose your job because of un-liberal views, or worse, you have already lost the job, the only way to even have a chance to return to a general climate of normalcy is to fight back the same way.

    The SJWs drew first blood, and second and third.

    What is the alternate means to fight back, to cower and hope your job is safe? So far, we have lost so much ground that the answer appears to be yes.

    Liked by 2 people

    • no says:

      This isn’t street fighting.

      This isn’t a turf war.

      This isn’t an existential struggle.

      You have drunken so much koolaid that you think normalizing the tactics of SJWs instead of rendering them ineffective is the way to go. You advocate for doubling the SJW problem by becoming the other end of the horseshoe. I cannot express strongly enough how bad that is.


      • Frank Ch. Eigler says:

        “instead of rendering them ineffective”

        How exactly do you propose that be done?
        Can you accept that some view “normalizing tactics of SJW” is just a means to the end of rendering them ineffective? Kind of like mutually assured destruction?

        Liked by 1 person

      • JaimeInTexas says:

        Can you define the borders of the turf being disputed? Is it one company, an industry, a State, these uSA?
        Splain to me, Lucy.


      • ByzantineGeneral says:

        Leading off with disqualification by confident koolaid assertion, you go on to claim to have means to render SJW tactics ineffective.

        o what are these means?
        o where did you apply them?
        o which specific SJWs stopped lying, doubling down and projecting as a result?

        Have you explained your ineffably inexpressible position to your friendly local HR department? I’d really like to hear about that – how’s it working out for you?

        For my part I frame reprisals as “tit for tat” — the optimal iterated prisoner’s dilemma strategy. Of course, you might get called names by a bunch of liars, so there’s that to consider.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. Joe Katzman says:

    “Let’s build a non-universalizing refuge from it all instead.”

    Sounds great. How will we do that, in a way that (a) protects the people who follow our banner and (b) disincentivizes people who want our freedom taken away? It must do both.

    “…instant mendacious vilification as the penalty for failure to conform, and defend the existence of social contexts wherein it is possible to decline to do so.”

    This != “social technology of political toleration.”

    This IS = “safe space.”

    There may be value in such spaces – but you’d better think it through beyond virtue signalling. Then you have to be honest about what you’re really creating, what its limits are, and what kind of complementary approaches are needed from outside groups. Everyone can contribute to an open society in different ways, as long as they all know how their chosen role fits into the big picture.

    You aren’t there yet. I hope you get there.


  15. BC says:

    Taken from here:

    A: “We’re going to target people for harassment if they don’t agree with our crazy ideology!”

    B: “We’re going to compile a list of every one of you who targets people for harassment.”



    Look, when the Germans started using poison gas in WWI, the British, French and other allied forces did not tsk tsk disapprovingly and show themselves to be the better people in order to convince the Germans through example to stop using such dastardly tactics. No, they used poison gas right back against the Germans, and did it even more effectively. Please note that this did not turn them into Germans.

    The result? Everyone stopped using poison gas.

    In the Culture Wars, holding oneself above the fray and showing that you are a better person has a consistent record of losing on nearly every issue for the past 60+ years. It doesn’t work. It is time for different tactics, to fight fire with fire, so to speak.

    If you are not willing to fight the good fight, so be it. At least stop turning your guns on your erstwhile allies because… *gasp* …they are using effective tactics that work.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Chippewa Water Filter Inc. says:

      SJWs look like SJWs because that’s how the kind of social group organism most adept at using SJW tactics looks.

      What you are collectively doing is competing for the ecological niche of apex predator while promising the rest of us that you won’t eventually evolve a voracious appetite and binocular vision.

      I am not up for being preyed on.


      • JaimeInTexas says:

        You are missing the point … you are being preyed already. And you think that the best tactic is to wait until the predator is jumping on you before you do something. The SJW predators are prowling and you are sticking your head in the sand.

        Liked by 1 person

      • no says:

        No, you are missing the point. We aren’t going to accept stopping one group of predators by enabling another group that just as well could go attack us in the future.

        No amount of World War 1 or 2 comparisons will change minds on this. All it does is further solidify the notion that you are divorced from reality and that giving you power is a very, very bad idea.


  16. Wanderer says:

    I think this sums up the point

    If we want social bullying to end, giving bullies a taste of their own medicine may make them more appreciative of the virtues of peace and tolerance.

    Liked by 3 people

    • no says:

      That doesn’t reflect my values nor do I see it as necessary. I’m especially wary as it *will* galvanize others to join them in opposition toyour bullying. It will make this war grow larger and even harder to end.


  17. Frank Ch. Eigler says:

    Andrea, the core issue is who initiated “force” as it were, and who is defending himself.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Right-wing and libertarian moderates seem to spend more time cutting down their own side than they do opposing left-wing extremists or defending social norms. I understand, I used to be a moderate libertarian. You take it for granted that the left is going to push some nasty ideas – they’re on the left, we’re on the right (even if only nominally, in the case of libertarians). They do things that we don’t like and it’s expected; our own side does things we don’t like and it feels like a betrayal of the social norms we want to build. So it’s more emotionally jarring to see our own side use effective tactics against the left than to see the left use ruthless tactics against us.

    This is precisely why Nazism and fascism are (correctly) vilified in the present day in *every* social context, but communism gets a pass anywhere the left has control (for example, in academia, the sciences, and media). Leftists don’t hold their own extremists accountable. It feels very warm and fuzzy to say, “Well, we won’t sink to their level!” But the end result is that the left is free to continue pushing their narrative.

    Take this public dis-employment trend. At best, you can get an individual moderate leftist to privately admit that maybe Brandon Eich didn’t deserve to get fired. Maybe Matt Taylor didn’t deserve quite as much vitriol as he withstood. But you won’t find a lot of public, principled stands against the SJWs. “That’s what separates us from them, we hold our own side accountable for mean tactics!” No, you cut your own side off at the knees anytime they rise to your defense. Polite tactics and rules of engagement are for enemies who also use polite tactics and rules of engagement.

    I’m delighted you were able to raise the money to same LambdaConf and help Curtis Yarvin avoid no-platforming. How many SJW attacks can you afford to thwart? What will you do for the next Brandon Eich? How about the next two victims of Adria Richards? Any chance you could help out James Watson while you’re at it? Are we going to find a way to counter SocialAutopsy when it starts up? If the SJW tactic is to get a few thousand people to spend 30 seconds of their lives on a tweet or email, and the anti-SJW tactic is to convince a few thousand people to spend a few hundred bucks apiece, that puts a serious upper limit on our ability to counterpunch. Your proposed tactic is on the ass-end of an asymmetrical battle. The SJWList is limited by the personal morals of those on the right. If moderates like you will get in on the ground floor and *help* a little, you can be sure that the list remains limited only to people who actually advocate no-platforming and dis-employment without suffering mission creep. And maybe we can actually bring some civility back to the culture wars.

    Liked by 1 person

    • no says:

      You see the world in simplistic archetypes of left and right. Liberal and conservative. You are exactly the kind of person that must not be permitted to gain power lest we replace one set of ideological bullies with another.

      I don’t accept the “it’s okay when we do it!” argument. I also don’t accept any comparisons to World War 1, World War 2, the Vietnam War, or any other war where people were at risk of getting killed. It lacks even the tiniest modicum of perspective.


      • LastRedoubt says:


        > I don’t accept the “it’s okay when we do it!” argument. I also don’t accept any comparisons to World War 1, World War 2, the Vietnam War, or any other war where people were at risk of getting killed. It lacks even the tiniest modicum of perspective.

        If “it’s okay when we do it!” is what you go out of the point we’re making, your education truly stopped in Kindergarten.

        Murdering someone is morally wrong. Killing someone in self defense, defense of the home, or defense of someone else, isn’t (regardless of the law, but the law in most of the US supports that…)

        Yet they’re both killing.

        Would you be so fascile as to claim that I’m saying “it’s Ok when person B kills someone, but not when person A”?

        Go learn game theory. Go learn the traditions of western law.


      • no says:

        You attack an attacker in physical combat when you have no other choice. When you will die if you don’t.

        This isn’t the same. Your head is stuck so far up your ass that all you can see is a war torn Vietnam battlefield and not some rich kids making nasty phone calls and writing nasty emails.


  19. Doktor Jeep says:

    I have spent an entire lifetime of “losing on principle” while watching “them” (from leftists to neocons – but they may well be the same operation considering the Trotskyist origins of the neocons) win, win and win.

    Can we argue that the people hauled off to camps by the Nazis were better people than the Nazis and those who supported the Nazis?

    I would say so.

    Did that cause the Magical Hand of God to come down and slap the Nazis silly and make them stop? Did the Nazis just fall out of their chairs and bleed to death from their own assholes because being terrible was a kind of disease that has consequences?

    I don’t recall anything in recorded history mentioning that.

    I do recall that people walked into camps expecting to be “relocated”. They also expected a group shower too.

    Speaking of Nazis, what was one of the first things they did as they rose to power? Ever see the beginning of “Hanna’s War” starting with the standard “here’s the award being taken from the Jewish student and handed to the blond-haired blue-eyed German” scene?

    Does all of this seem familiar? (OK things are different: the people running around in the streets bashing heads are NOT brownshirts, they are called “Antifa” or “anti-fascists” because well mass mind control through the media and academia is a thing or “why you don’t need to burn books and look like the bad guy when you render people unable to read or understand them” )

    The SJW list is exactly the sort of thing that belongs on the “they should have done this before ending up in the box car” list. You know, the kind of thing you might think about while being hauled off to your doom, the “should haves”.

    Now enough of Nazis. We have a new enemy. They have blue hair and blind eyes.

    If the SJWs were “on the right side of history” and doing nothing wrong, what are they worried about being on a list based on their actions?

    Where was all the “we’re better than that!” or “We should not stoop to a low level!” when this happened:

    Or this:

    “But… But…. those are whiteracistbigotCIShombophobegunownerchristianmaleswholikedGingeroverMaryAnne who deserve what they get!!!!!!!!1!!!!eleven!!!!!!”

    Ah, roaring silence from all those people of such high standards who decry “lists” when someone they don’t like (at worst) or simply don’t care or know about (at best) is on a list. Riiiight. So that’s how it works.

    (There are times when I wonder if our last hope is for the camps to be segregated by what you cared about and what you didn’t care about. Even the alt-right jokes about “knowing when we won”: “when we are being executed for being leftists we know we won”. Say “the masses” fast enough and what does it sound like?)

    I have known all sorts of people, activists, militia, right wingers, and people who worked for Ron Paul. Every time some list comes out from some leftoid org these people check it and get disappointed when they are not on it. When they have to take a flight and find out they are NOT on the no-fly list, they say “I must not be doing my job”. When they get concealed carry permits for firearms or take a background check and some sovereign citizen jackwagon (the “run and go live in a cave and be useless” crowd) says “oh, NOW you are on a list!” the retort is “So are tens of millions more. They want to use those lists, bring it!”

    So having lists is suddenly the incarnate of all that is wrong when people who deploy totalitarian tactics but think they are the good guys end up on it. The “fence sitters” and “Moderates” (still waiting on the book “Great Moderates in History” to arrive on the best seller list). Suddenly there are calls for reason, being nice, and all that.

    Hogwash. And we seldom see a clean pig, do we?

    The time is past to play nice with people who don’t play nice. The time is past to lose on principle against people who follow ideology that has already proven to be a murder machine. They already have a “wing” that beats people up in the streets. That “wing” is being backed up by a media and academia complex. This has happened before: Germany, Russia, China…

    Do you hear that train a’comin’?

    And if the Wings of Doom I hear flapping around my head turn out to be attached to my back, well then, I’m already the bad guy. Attach some weapons pylons to those wings and let me press on. My only hope is that the next generation will not have to experience the downfall I have seen over the last 40 years.


  20. Jason K. says:

    The moral high ground is great, but at some point it becomes the wrong hill to die on.The hard practical choice is: when is striking back more valuable than more martyrs? The big problem I see with this is not the technique, but the timing. As it sits, we aren’t riding a crest of public support. Without that, we do run the risk of alienating the essential middle. We need a really sympathetic martyr to get the middle support. We need something that brings the threat home to the general populace.

    SJWs gain ground because they have a cause. They have something that inspires their members to action. We need a counter cause. Without the inspiration to really push back, SJWs will continue to gain ground. Something like this will only slow them slightly unless it actually causes a corporation to take notice.


  21. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2016/04/17) - Social Matter

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.