Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Identitarians versus Universalists: a key to understanding Social Justice Warriors

What follows is essentially a footnote to Identitarians versus Universalists.

On the internet, there are people who are known ironically as "social justice warriors". Unlike history's social justice workers, who have always been universalists, the "warriors" are identitarians who seek to make a better world by using the worst tactics. They have appropriated the name of "social justice" without understanding it, and cannot grasp or do not care that their raging only hurts the causes they claim to support.

Some of them will grow wiser. Some will not. For the sake of those who will, and for the sake of those who wish to understand them, this blog is my attempt to document and analyze them.

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Why feminists should support Basic Income

This City Eliminated Poverty, And Nearly Everyone Forgot About It:
One woman called to say she remembered the Mincome project. In the early 1970s, she was a single mother raising two girls on welfare – then called Mothers’ Allowance. She said she had always been treated respectfully, but there was one thing case workers said that bothered her.
“She said she wanted to get some job training. They told her to go home and take care of her kids and they would take care of her,” explained Forget.
When the opportunity to transfer from Mothers’ Allowance to Mincome came along, the woman took it. With no restrictions on how she could spend the money she was given, she signed up for training and got a part-time job at the local library which eventually became a full-time career.

Monday, December 29, 2014

Must-read: Checking Privilege Checking - The Atlantic

I'm especially pleased that this appeared in The Atlantic, home of a number of privilege theorists: Checking Privilege Checking - The Atlantic. It has fine observations like: "it’s made cluelessness a greater crime than inequality".

James Gunn understands what George Lucas did not

James Gunn Clarifies Guardians of the Galaxy and Avengers Crossover Remarks - ComingSoon.net: "And, regarding the bigger picture, we all agreed on one thing, and that was to keep huge chunks of the Guardians separate from the Marvel heroes of earth, because they have a whole galaxy to explore. We wanted to use them as a way to make the MCU bigger, not smaller. "

Excluded by intersectionality: Timothy Fugatt

Return of the debtors' prison? Many still jailed for inability to pay fines | PBS NewsHour

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Universalist individualism versus identitarian collectivism

@iamcuriousblue got me thinking about universalism, identitarianism, individualism, and collectivism by tweeting this in response to Identitarians versus Universalists:
I replied: "I think the individual/collectivist division cuts across the identitarian/universalist divide." But when @iamcuriousblue responded, "Interesting - please elaborate," I had to reply, "Damn. You would ask about something I haven't thought through. :)"

I'm not claiming to have thought this through yet, but after more twittering with @iamcuriousblue and a night's sleep, I'm ready to try.

Until yesterday, I gave little thought to individualism versus collectivism because fundamentally, humans are collectivists. Armies, sports teams, and businesses fail when their members aren't willing to "take one for the team". Every great human accomplishment has been collectivist: explorers and settlers go in teams, artists and scientists learn in communities. As Donne noted, no man is an island.

So, if we're going to talk sensibly about the role of the individual in society, we should acknowledge that collectivism versus individualism, without adjectives, is a meaningless divide. It's when the adjectives come in that it gets interesting. Maoists and McCarthyites had radically different politics, but they shared a belief that individuals must conform for the good of the community.

In theory, Maoists and McCarthyites were universalists, because, in their purest forms, communism and capitalism are universalist beliefs. The pure communist believes everyone should share the wealth. The pure capitalist believes everyone who is in the position to control capital should be free to use that capital without restrictions. In theory, none of the world's social identities matter to communists or capitalists. And, to be fair to both theories, you can point to examples of people who practiced what they preached. Socialists have a rich history of opposing racism, sexism, and colonialism—feminism got its name from Charles Fourier, a socialist, and Marx observed,"Labor in the white skin can never free itself as long as labor in the black skin is branded." In the US, the right for gay people to serve openly in the military was won by the Log Cabin Republicans, and Herman Cain was the Republican frontrunner for the presidency until he stumbled over the same thing that has brought down many white politicians, a sex scandal.

So I would happily say the first socialists, like the first Christians, were universalist collectivists, and many contemporary capitalists are universalist individualists.

But identitarianism can creep in anywhere. This isn't the place for a nuanced discussion of whether Nazis were socialists; for now, I'll just say that if they were socialists, they were history's most identitarian socialists, and their full name, National Socialism, should have been reversed, because they were far more nationalist than socialist. Capitalists don't like to do things that limit their profit, yet identitarian capitalists demand the right to turn away people whose social identities they dislike.

Identitarian collectivists believe in limited collectivism: their collectivism does not apply to the people they identify as "other". Identitarians on the right and left believe that punishing their enemies is the proper follow-up to defeating them, and rewarding themselves is a manifestation of their righteousness. At Obama: WTF? A Facebook Roundtable of the Left, Adolph Reed said of Obama, "I’d refrained from saying that he, as well as his various running dogs, haunt me as illustrations of the modal type of Ivy League POC students I’ve been teaching for the last 30 years. That same mastery of performance of a cultivated, yet at the same time empty and pro forma, intellectuality, conviction that one’s career advancement literally embodies the victory of the civil rights movement, and that awe that Bromwich notes of the rich and powerful." (Italics mine.) Identitarian collectivism ends with the social identity that matters most to them.

My favorite people across the political spectrum are universalists. As for a point on the individualist-collectivist spectrum, I'll stay with the people who believe the purpose of a society is to allow individuals to become all they may be. Many capitalists will claim that's where they excel, saying they prefer equality of opportunity to equality of outcome, but only socialists realize that there's no equality of opportunity where there's no equality of means.

"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic." —Karl Marx

"With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols of things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all." —Oscar Wilde

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

White Female to Male Trans People are Oppressive White Males?

My favorite of The 11 Most Politically Correct Moments on College Campuses in 2014 is #5: "Students opposed a female-to-male transgender candidate for class diversity officer because he’s a white man." I keep thinking trans politics will break identitarianism. Had a white male-to-female trans woman run, would she also have been unacceptable because she had been a white man?

To be as clear as possible, I fully support everyone's right to claim the gender that makes them happy. But identitarianism breaks down when it tries to include trans people as a social identity, because identitarianism assumes you are what society sees you as, while trans people believe they are what they feel they are.

Identitarians versus Universalists

Most attempts to divide humanity into two groups come from an assumption that there's an eternal war of us versus them, and the only way to end the war is for us to defeat them by any means necessary. The common grounds for "us" are social identity groups based on race, gender, religion, and, in all its forms, tribe.

I reject identitarianism. I'm with Thomas Paine: "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." I think there's one race, the human race. I think there's either no gender or an infinite number of genders. I am a universalist. I agree with St. Paul: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one."

There is an easy way to tell universalists from identitarians: because universalists think we are all one, universalists believe in treating everyone with love and respect. Because identitarians divide the world in two, they feel free to hate and mock.

There's a strong instinct in humans to be identitarians. It gives us a simple way to understand where we fit in the universe. Responding to identitarianism with counter-identitarianism may be equally common. But the world's greatest thinkers have always rejected it.


"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." —Eugene V. Debs

"The wise man belongs to all countries, for the home of a great soul is the whole world." —Democritus

"I am not an Athenian, nor a Greek, but a citizen of the world." —Socrates

"The Holy Prophet Mohammed came into this world and taught us: 'That man is a Muslim who never hurts anyone by word or deed, but who works for the benefit and happiness of God's creatures. Belief in God is to love one's fellow men.'" —Abdul Ghaffar Khan

"We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now." — Martin Luther King, Jr.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Question of the day: Why aren't women's bicycle saddles the default for bicycles?

I've ridden on women's saddles because Emma and I share bikes sometime, and I've never thought a woman's saddle was less comfortable.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Excluded by intersectionality: Chad Chadwick

I usually restrict this series to people killed by the police, but this example of police violence is sufficiently extreme that I'm sharing it here:

Ft. Bend Police, Prosecutors Accused of Abuse in SWAT Incident - FOX 26 News | MyFoxHouston

As Quanell X notes, ""This type of police abuse and excessive use of force and concoction of criminal charges against innocent people is not just happening to black people, its happening to white people too."

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Why don't SJWs support Basic Income?

This is my latest contender for the best article on Basic Income: How to Fix Poverty: Write Every Family a Basic Income Check.

I keep thinking SJWs don't notice Basic Income for three reasons:

1. It also helps poor white men.

2. It's practical rather theoretical.

3. It calls for working with allies in the traditional sense of the word, people who disagree with your politics but agree that Basic Income would help people in need.

Hmm. And I fear there may be another:

4. There's no insulting name to yell at your opponents. Though "Die in a fire, you anti-basic-incomer!" could work.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Muslim mocks trigger warnings, gets vandalized by SJWs - who are caught on video

The story: Vandalized: Residence of U-M Student Who Dared to Mock Trigger Warnings - Hit & Run : Reason.com

CAUGHT ON VIDEO: Hate-crime vandalism against conservative student

The satirical piece that outraged the vandals: Do the Left Thing | Michigan Review

The vandals changing clothes in front of a security camera:



in case I have been banned at Skepchick

UPDATE: My message escaped moderation. This pleases me.

I've been in a discussion at Why I’m Okay with Doxing | Skepchick, and to be honest, I expected to be banned early on because that's the usual SJW response to dissent, no matter how civil. My most recent comment went into moderation, which might mean I was banned, or might mean I triggered some sort of filter. In any case, here it is:
No, I don’t think race and gender are irrelevant. I’ve never said that, and I never will. I think that in a capitalist society, race and gender fit within the greater system of class, which race and gender reductionists ignore, perhaps because they’re content with their class privilege. I know of no socialists who ignore race and gender, and in the fight against those forms of oppression, socialists have always been at the front: the word “feminism” was coined by a male socialist, and Marx noted, “Labor in white skin cannot emancipate itself where it is branded in black skin.” This isn’t to say all socialists have been enlightened in racial and gender issues, but their record overall is good.
I strongly recommend one very short piece by Adolph Reed Jr.: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Antiracism.html I agree with all of it.
As for condescension, it seems rather thick on your side. Interpreting tone on the internet is often difficult.

Sunday, December 14, 2014

8 Campus Rape False Accusations

The writer assumes the UVA story is a hoax. That may be premature, but here are eight stories that may be useful for people who believe accusations of rape, like accusations of any other crime, should not be automatically believed, but should be investigated while treating both accuser and accused fairly and supportively: 8 Campus Rape Hoaxes Like UVA Rape Story | The Daily Caller

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Rebecca Watson acknowledges what's been true since 2008: SJWs approve of doxxing

Why I’m Okay with Doxing | Skepchick

My take: What starts on the internet should stay on the internet.

If Watson's story of doxing Eliza Sutton is accurate, I agree with her: you can't dox people who shared their info in public posts. But I disagree with the general position of SJWs that you should dox people who annoy you.

Thursday, December 11, 2014

I fear I have a bit of environmentalist in me

Warp! has a bit of dialogue that I've loved for decades. If I remember it correctly, it goes something like this:
Character A: He wants to destroy the universe!
Character B: But where will he live?
I don't think of myself as an environmentalist, but I probably am. I hate science fiction stories where people assume the right or inevitable thing to do is to exhaust the Earth and move on. I really like this planet. I'm happy to be a city guy, but I've hiked and camped and canoed, and I suppose that's part of me.

I'm writing this post for two reasons.

Someone I like retweeted something really sweet: "Please remember that the world has always been this bad, and often much much worse. What has changed is your access to information." —Dan Curtis Johnson ‏@dcurtisj

I think that's a very important message. Yet I replied: "Well, except for the environment."

This morning, there was this:


Might Greenpeace have been more respectful of a historical site? Sure, but draping cloth and leaving a few footprints will do far less damage than capitalism is currently doing. And yet, in fine middle-class fashion, Alex Hern is upset because the protest was insufficiently genteel.

So I guess I'm an environmentalist. I can live with that.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

A former SJW speaks truth to power—to the power of the cult

“Everything is problematic” | The McGill Daily: "I used to endorse a particular brand of politics that is prevalent at McGill and in Montreal more widely. It is a fusion of a certain kind of anti-oppressive politics and a certain kind of radical leftist politics. This particular brand of politics begins with good intentions and noble causes, but metastasizes into a nightmare. In general, the activists involved are the nicest, most conscientious people you could hope to know. But at some point, they took a wrong turn, and their devotion to social justice led them down a dark path. Having been on both sides of the glass, I think I can bring some painful but necessary truth to light."

I especially admire her observation that SJWs are committed to vaporware.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

The recursiveness of "believe the victim"

If you thought it was possible an accuser might be mistaken or lying, you would say, "Trust the accuser." But because you have presumed guilt, you know the accuser is the victim and express yourself accordingly.

ETA: Tweaked this in the hope of clarity.

Monday, December 8, 2014

How "believe the victim" caused Rolling Stone's rape article debacle, or How "believe the victim" = "presume guilt"

When Rolling Stone published A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA by Sabrina Rudin Erdely, people who were familiar with traditional journalism noticed something odd: the other side of the story was entirely absent. When they began investigating, they discovered something else: the most basic fact-checking had been ignored.

The reason comes from the ethics of the internet's social justice warriors (not to be confused with actual social justice workers):


1. You must "believe the victim" if the accusers are female or consider themselves female.


2. You must not link to or allow comments from anyone who has been accused of harming women or who criticizes intersectional feminism.


The second point follows from the first: once you presume guilt, the guilty do not deserve a chance to defend themselves.


Their binary worldview warps SJW logic. For example, Zerlina Maxwell's No matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims, begins with an impossible notion: You cannot "generally believe" something happened. Either you believe it or you do not. 
If Maxwell was trying to avoid bias, her title would be something like "No matter what Jackie said, we should support people who say they were raped".

Maxwell's subhead carries her bias further: "Incredulity hurts victims more than it hurts wrongly-accused perps." Because she thinks credulity and incredulity are the only options, she speaks of "wrongly-accused perps". But there's no such thing as a "wrongly-accused perp"; a perpetrator is the person who did something. Good people presume innocence until the perpetrator has been identified beyond reasonable doubt.

What SJWs fail to realize is that rape is a crime like any other crime. Erdely's original article includes this line which she and her editor should have paid more attention to: "studies indicate that false rape reports account for, at most, eight percent of reports." Whether there are more or fewer false reports of other crimes, I don't know, but I do know that only suicidal people would play Russian Roulette if one chance out of twelve was fatal.

The proper attitude toward people who claim to have been raped is not to believe them or disbelieve them; it's to support them while their charge is investigated. To people like Maxwell, investigation equals incredulity, but to those of us who understand statistics, it's only an essential part of establishing truth.

Recommended:

Magazine’s Account of Gang Rape on Virginia Campus Comes Under Scrutiny - NYTimes.com

The College Rape Overcorrection: Campus sexual assault is a serious problem. But the efforts to protect women are infringing on the civil rights of men.  - Slate.com

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Why SJWs do horrible things that their community expects

Psychologists Have Uncovered a Troubling Feature of People Who Seem Nice All the Time - Mic: "Those who are described as "agreeable, conscientious personalities" are more likely to follow orders and deliver electric shocks that they believe can harm innocent people, while "more contrarian, less agreeable personalities" are more likely to refuse to hurt others."

Friday, December 5, 2014

Dennis Moore socialism, "money-baiting", fighting for justice by making the ruling class more diverse, and always getting fooled again

Nick Mamatas jumped into my twitter feed yesterday, which is always entertaining, though usually for the wrong reasons, but I'm especially grateful this time, because he made me realize there are a great many Dennis Moore socialists.



Dennis Moore socialists take many forms—and I'm sure there are those who'd say I'm one—but the most obvious ones are identitarian socialists who help the rich in the name of feminism or anti-racism without realizing that making the 1% more diverse does nothing for the 99%. Two kinds of "progressives" believe in female and black superiority, so they want a more diverse ruling class. Some think the superiority's inherent, and some think the experiences of women and black folks make them better people than white men. I was in the second camp until Margaret Thatcher showed me she was Ronald Reagan's equal in every way. That made me realize that if people are just people, something other than social identity must explain why those who have more contentedly exploit those who have less.


Yesterday's twittering was a response to my post about Brianna Wu. Nick Mamatas accused me of "money-baiting" when I pointed to her smugness, which amused me—when last I looked, Nick considered himself a socialist, yet he's quick to defend bourgeois folks based on their social identity. I'll grant that in tweeting to Wu, by the standards of middle class moralists, I was being rude, but I continue to think Wu's sense of entitlement is a fine example of the old saying about people born on third base thinking they're achievers when they run home.

In the twittering, Kari Sperring said, "There's an argument that increased female access to capital is redress for centuries of exploitation"


I replied, "Sure. That's Sheryl Sandberg feminism. I think it's why neoliberals love identitarian feminism."


She said, "I'm thinking in class terms, though: as a class, women are widely exploited to service male capital"


I favorited that and said, "Full Agreement."


That discussion went no further, but if it had, I'd have pointed out that Engels made that point, and that making the exploited the new exploiters does nothing to end exploitation.


The Who's "Wont' Get Fooled Again" includes this:

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Identitarians want the new boss. I want none.



"I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the systems of exploitation. I believe that there will be that kind of clash, but I don’t think that it will be based upon the color of the skin." —Malcolm X / El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, January, 1965

Thursday, December 4, 2014

Excluded by intersectionality: Brenda Sewell

No charges planned in KC woman's jail death | Local News - KMBC Home: "A prosecutor has decided that no criminal charges are warranted in the death of a Missouri woman at a Kansas jail two days after she and her sister were arrested for possessing a small amount of marijuana."

How I Became A Misogynist White Supremacist Doxxing Troll, or Things about me that SJWs cannot understand, or Fisking a Mixoning, A response to SciFi Fandom's most self-righteous warriors

The claims Somerville has compiled at Will Shetterly – the Mixoning are so wild that I suspect I shouldn't bother to address them. Those who believe them will believe them, no matter what I say. People who divide humanity into identity groups are ultimately alike: A Palestinian judged by Zionists, a Jew judged by Nazis, an African-American judged by "racial realists", a woman judged by male chauvinists, and a white man judged by intersectionalists all face the presumption of guilt: the belief system of their judges requires it.

But I'm a writing fool, so what the hell.

Two general points:

Being insulted makes me laugh. When SJWs call me "Shitterly", I feel like I'm being attacked by eleven-year-olds because that's what the children of Levy County's Ku Klux Klan called me in fifth grade. Somerville's latest, "Twatterly", is especially amusing because identitarians are usually obsessed with metaphors and therefore should object to an insult based on the idea that vaginas are a mark of inferiority. Frankly, I like vaginas and most people who have them. The only insult that's ever fazed me is "racist" because I was beaten by racists for speaking up for racial equality in my childhood. But once I understood SJWs think white people are racists in the same way Southern Baptists think everyone's a sinner, and I took Project Implicit's test and found I'm among the white people who have an implicit preference for black folks, the charge of "racist" stopped bothering me.

I like to think I'm moderately intelligent, but I know I'm not cunning, so when people come up with Machiavellian motives for me, I laugh again. If I was a member of the houses of Dragaera, I'd be a Dzur. I see problems, and I attack them head-on, and sometimes that solves them, and sometimes it makes them worse. This can be especially baffling to people who never do anything in a straight-forward manner. I had noticed this in my interactions with a former friend, which inspired me to commit fanfic: "Why the Dzur Stabbed the Yendi in the Back"

1.

Somerville starts by linking to wistfuljane | All Things Return to RaceFail, where the most extreme SJWs think Requires Hate should've gotten a pass and I should've been denounced instead. I like Wistfuljane's honesty: she admits, "I do not care for white people who...well, I would usually add some kind of qualifications here, but truly, I do not care for white people period."

Wistfuljane says, "Mixon's essay drew direct parallels to the many essays Will Shetterly (WS) publicly posted calling chromatic fans "racists" and "abusers" for being critical of racial representation in SFF or the millions of academic papers and blog posts in every fields and industries by white people detailing how chromatic people are "racists" and "abusers" for engaging in racial discourse and for wanting responsible racial representation. It's frankly triggering."

Now, just about everything is triggering to intersectionalists, so I don't doubt that part's true, but I must note that I've been "critical of racial representation in SFF" for decades. There's a reason the Feministsf Wiki said my “work features strong women characters and people of color." What I object to is the SJW love of mobbing, doxxing, and slander in the name of social justice, a concept they appropriated from people like Dorothy Day and Dom Helder Camara who believed in treating everyone with love and respect.

Wistfuljane says, "Will Shetterly has powers within the SFF field and he has used those powers to harass, stalk and threaten chromatic fans and to promote white supremacy. Will Shetterly is the reason that so many chromatic fans are no longer active participants in SFF or other fandom fields and he is the reason so many fans are so scared to mention his name publicly."

The notion that I have "powers" is amusing. I'm a minor writer with a small body of work and no significant awards. Like many writers, I've spent much of my life living below the poverty line.

Who I'm supposed to have "harassed, stalked, and threatened" and how I'm supposed to have done that, I don't know. Outside of the SJWverse, those words have specific meanings. But in the SJWverse, they seem to mean that I have responded publicly to public posts.

As for the idea that I'm promoting white supremacy, sigh. The white supremacists who recognize my name despise me because I've opposed them all my life—in the '60s, I was bullied in school because I spoke out for integration, and in the '80s, I got a death threat because I wrote Captain Confederacy, an alternate-universe comic book about a white man and a black woman who helped overthrow a racist CSA. But in the black-and-white world of intersectionalism, you're a Critical Race Theorist or a white supremacist.

Prominent SJWs show up in the comments there. K. Tempest Bradford says, "The "why not WS" was my FIRST thought on hearing about Mixon's post. Being one of the people he has consistently harassed since RaceFail, that has particularly galled me."

How I am supposed to have harassed Tempest, she does not say, but she is among the people I've answered in public. She doesn't note that whatever our relationship is, it began when she criticized me, and I replied rather than shutting up and converting to Critical Race Theory as a "white ally" is supposed to do.

Sparkymonster says, "Will Shetterly has self published a god damn book of his harassment of black women. Lets talk about that."

I first noticed Sparky in 2009 when she helped cherrypick quotes to misrepresent my beliefs in "Will Shetterly: Do Not Engage". Her partners were Micole Coffeeandink and MaryDell, two white women. It's true my god damn book includes women of color, but it also includes women of pallor, and devotes the most attention to my first cyber-stalker, the extremely white Micole Coffeeandink, so if you're taking an intersectional view, the proper charge to lay against me is misogyny, not racism. I will plead guilty to criticizing more female than male SJWs, but that's because there are more female than male SJWs. Their world view comes from Kimberle Crenshaw, coiner of the concept of "intersectionality" which fused Derrick Bell's neoliberal-friendly Critical Race Theory with bourgeois feminism. Saying I'm sexist or racist for disproportionately addressing women or people of color is like saying I'm anti-Italian for believing abortion should be legal or anti-Jewish for believing Palestinians deserve a viable state of their own.

I have written critical things about Jim Hines and John Scalzi, so white men are on my list. I suspect I have less to say about white male SJWs because they rarely offer anything original—they're too busy checking their privilege.

Sparky says, "Once I sat down once & compiled documents details his harassment of a particular person for a potential restraining order. The stack of paper was several inches thick (double sided) and fucking appalling. WS also specializes in deleting posts, comments, entire journals, etc. He deleted posts and complains that people aren't reading his words in context. We can't because he deleted them."

I'm assuming she didn't try for a restraining order because she couldn't find a lawyer who thought public posts on the internet were harassment. As for deleting posts, guilty, but this community has been obsessive about screen caps for ages, at least since they doxxed and terrorized Zathlazip. If I'd said or done something extreme, they would have dozens of copies to show it, and the first copy would probably be Sparky's.

Sparky says, "About 2 years ago I ended up sitting down with HR because of concerns that either WS or one of his comment buddies was going to start calling my workplace. In order for me to do my job, my work number must be public. My office location also public. The building I work in is open to the public. I am the only black staff member in the building. I'm the only WOC staff member in the building. It was, and is, fucking terrifying."

Two points: 1. Obviously, I never did what she feared. 2. What she feared is exactly what her friends did to Zathlazip. Sparky was afraid of getting what she had condoned and may have participated in.

2.

Somerville says, "I’m going to be using FFA as a source a lot. Get over it. Also, they have their own Wiki entry for Shetterly which has many useful links." FFA is FailFandomAnon, an anonymous community where many SJWs, including Sparky, show up. (I know Sparky appears there because I once commented that an Anon sounded like Sparky, and the Anon confessed by claiming I had outed her with my guess.) FFA should be trusted as much as any source where anyone may leave anonymous comments claiming anything.

Somerville says,
There are only a few similarities between RH and WS, none of which reflect well on either of them:

1. They have disproportionately targeted people of colour

2. They both come from privileged backgrounds, but claim to speak for the disprivileged

3. Both claim to be fighting for social justice, while using the most vile rhetoric to support injustice and terror

4. They both use terror to suppress criticism. (Although Shetterly hasn’t yet issued any death threats.)
1. Identitarians are obsessed with proportionality. My favorite example is poverty: it offends them because it is racially disproportionate, and therefore they don't care that, as Martin Luther King noted in '67 and is still true today, there are twice as many white Americans in poverty as black ones. I, a socialist, hate poverty because it exists. I like King's solution, which goes against everything SJWs believe: Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King -- Final Advice.

2. Identitarians often have a feudal understanding of class: they think you are what you're born into. While it's true the US has very limited class mobility compared to most northern European countries, I'm among the exceptions. RH's privileged background let her live in many countries; mine paid for my education, but did not cover my spending money, so my privilege let me work jobs like washing dishes at Howard Johnson's while I was a student. (For more, see A short autobiography by Will Shetterly.)

3. Uh, no. While I admire actual social justice workers, "social justice" is a concept favored by liberal capitalists because its goal is to ameliorate the class system rather than end it.

4. Terror? It's nice of Somerville to admit I haven't issued any death threats, but really, terror? I've received anonymous death threats from SJWs. That's terrorizing. Zathlazip had threatening hand-written notes left in her office by SJWs. That's terrorizing. If I had actually done anything that could be called terror, someone would cite it.

Somerville says,
Although he has deleted and edited some of the evidence for his actions, he has doubled down on most of them, and helpfully gives his critics plenty of material in his frequent, tedious self-defences. He has created a small number of alternate blogs, Livejournal, and Twitter accounts, but never tries to pretend to be anyone else.
And that's true enough. I hope my self-defenses will become less tedious as I accept the fact that I'm the SJWs' anti-Christ, or at least one of their anti-Christ's minor servants, and there's no hope of peace between us, though that saddens me. I've always wanted a world in which people with different beliefs could get along, but SJWs want a world in which everyone thinks alike.

3.

Somerville includes an ETA from an anonymous person who makes more wild claims without examples. That Anon, who sounds like Sparkymonster (but may not be her because SJW groupthink results in shared rhetoric) says my "hatred of black women in particular tends to include sexualized comments."

The Anon gives no examples of "sexualized comments" or my hatred. It's true that I was lucky enough to have had a romantic relationship with a black woman in my youth and I continue to think black women are as attractive as white and Asian women, but I haven't a clue what these "sexualized comments" are and hope someone will offer them so I can know whether I've been misunderstood or hoaxed.

As for my "frequent private attempts to contact people (women) who have repeatedly told him not to communicate with them," I have in a couple of cases emailed people in attempts to clarify things, but those attempts were few. One SJW, Stephanie Zvan, admitted on twitter, "Shetterly left me alone when I set boundaries." When people tell me not to contact them, I usually don't contact them.

I hereby give permission for people to freely share my emails. I only ask that they do it publicly so I may confirm them. During Racefail, I was hoaxed at least once (by an LJer who used the three-L "willlshetterly"). Any history of SJWs includes many hoaxes by them, so I'd rather not have a Genesis Hernandez offering her writing as mine.

4.

Somerville says, "His promotion of false accusations dating back to my days in fandom have literally been triggering to me."

Somerville seems to be determined to dox without being called a doxxer—which is standard operating procedure for SJWs. Her argument that she didn't dox because her subject was public reminds me of my argument about outing Coffeeandink, but so far as I know, the person Somerville wants to dox has never acknowledged her pseud, while C&I was using her legal name in public posts on her LJ for years. If you want to dip into the tangled story of Somerville's doxxing, you could start with her post, That's your best shot, Melissa? Or you could have, but it appears Somerville has deleted it or made it private recently, which amuses me enormously given her complaint that I've deleted posts.

5.

Somerville says I'm "a privately educated middle class cis het white male trust fund baby and formerly moderately respected SF writer who is now infamous for his anti-social justice campaigns, outing and doxxing women, supporting racists, and being an insufferable nuisance in online spaces. He is, at the same time, a complete joke who’s only taken seriously by other complete jokes, and also someone who’s made a number of women’s lives miserable by his persistent harassment and targeting."

It's true I have some private education thanks to money from my mother's father, but that money only covered my education; I was a trust fund baby who had to wash dishes for spending money. I had less private education than public; I went to public schools until tenth grade, was expelled from a private school, then graduated from an inner-city Washington DC school that had far more black folks than white, which I liked, and may be one of the reasons Project Implicit says I have an implicit preference for black folks. I'm not sure how middle class I am, regardless of what definition of middle class you use; I've mostly lived below the poverty line in working class neighborhoods. I calculated my wealth a few years ago and found I was almost exactly at the US median, which meant I had less than the median white American—which is far less than the average Australian's. Somerville's claim that I'm a complete joke is at odds with Wistfuljane's claim that I have powers (I love the plural on that), but I have learned not to expect consistency from SJWs. If you think gender is simple, you could say I'm cis and het because I'm married to a woman, but I think human sexuality is more fluid than SJWs can imagine. As for being an insufferable nuisance, sure, if you want a white man who will docilely accept the claims of bourgeois folk of any hue or gender, that ain't me.

Somerville says, "That obnoxiousness, for which he was and remains infamous, is why Coffeeandink made her “Will Shetterly: DO NOT ENGAGE” post. (Shetterly is in the comments, pretty much proving C&I’s point for her.)"

Actually, C&I began her post by noting that she blocked me long ago. Somerville makes very few verifiable claims in her Mixoning, so it's especially entertaining that one of the few she offers is wrong.

Somerville says, "He has now, appropriately enough, thrown his weight behind Gamergate (who also hate SJWs), although his attempt to find common cause with fellow racist misogynist white man and wannabe person of colour, Theodore Beale/Vox Day, ended hilariously badly."

I don't like bullies and doxxers and mobbers, and in Gamergate, neither side has saints, but it's true that I think Gamergaters are generally in the right: ethics matter, even in gaming. If, for example, my wife had been a World Fantasy judge when my book was nominated, people would be right to be outraged, and it would be disingenuous to claim their outrage was about sexism rather than nepotism. The number of gaming journalism sites that have since adopted stronger ethical policies suggests the Gamergaters' concerns were valid all along.

As for the notion that I was trying to find common cause with VD's gang, there is none possible, as I acknowledged in my first comment there when I pointed out I'm a commie egalitarian. I had heard that one of the VD crew had identified Cherie Priest as the person who was leaking private information from SFWA, so I asked—remember the point about me being a Dzur. It's the reason I asked Chip Delany about NAMBLA. I expected to be reviled at VD's blog because reviling is simply what some people do, and some people there do remind me of SJWs at their worst, but the person I wanted information from was willing to share it. That's an example of Dzur-tactics working. What I learned wasn't conclusive, though; my memory is my inquiries exonerated Cherie Priest, or at least established that there was no evidence that she was guilty.

6.

I've already written at unbearable length about the retroactive pseudonymity of Coffeeandink.

7.

Somerville's kind enough to link to many things I've said, but she puts her own spin on each example, sometimes in ludicrous ways. For example, she claims, "Shetterly’s biggest hobby horse is that there is no racism, only classism," and links to me saying this:
I love Frederick Douglass, but I don't know whether he would "exchange his sex and take the place of Elizabeth Cady Stanton." Oppression varies. Something too many people miss: In the Antebellum South, the lowest social group was white, not black: "In 1833 Fanny Kemble, an English actress visiting Georgia, noted in her journal: "The slaves themselves entertain the very highest contempt for white servants, whom they designate as 'poor white trash'"."
That has nothing in it to deny the existence of racism. It only points out that race and class are more complicated than intersectionalists can imagine. That Somerville says I am concerned with "classism" may illustrate the problem: "classism" is how intersectionalists think of class prejudice. They want the upper classes to quit being "classist" and treat the lower classes with the modern equivalent of noblesse oblige. They don't give it a name, but it's effectively bourgeois oblige. Being a socialist, I don't give a damn about ending classism. I want to end the class system itself. So Somerville's notion that I see myself as "victim of classism" is bizarre. Like 99% of us, I'm a victim of capitalism, which is an entirely different matter.

Somerville says I "waited until [redacted], the owner of STGRB, decided to use a frequently passed around link concerning me (and which contains a mixture of genuine and false RL identifying information) in an attempt to silence me." I note this purely because I'm amused that Somerville is still trying to dox someone after she complained about doxxing.

Somerville says I "replicated the tactic he’d used on Coffeeandink, for again doing nothing more than documenting and criticising his behaviour" To help people unfamiliar with SJW-speak, to SJWs, "documenting and criticizing" is what they do; "stalking and harassing" is what their opponents do.

So far, the only commenter at Somerville's blog is Stevie. I wrote a little about her last year: identitarian rhetoric, a case study: Stevie, Tibet, and slavery.

Well. If anyone would like any elaboration on anything, you only have to ask. Otherwise, I pray the warriors will ignore me now, because I still want to let this blog go to the Happy Blogging Ground.



ETA: In the comments at Somerville's blog, Stevie Gamble claims, "A few years earlier WS had hated Cherie; as far as i can tell, because her books sold better than his or his wife’s."

To which I say: Huh? Where did I ever say anything against Cherie Priest? If I wasted time hating people whose books sell better than mine or Emma's, I'd have mighty few good books left to read. I haven't read any of Priest's books yet, but Emma has read at least one and said nice things about it.

I just did a search on both of my blogs to see if I've said anything about Cherie Priest. All I could find was a link to Panty Raid, which I thought was fun.

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

What privilege looks like: Brianna Wu



I tweeted back:
I love the notion that accepting money from your parents is initiative.

The empty gesture of acknowledging privilege

At A Tale of Two Words | The Dream Café, L. Raymond asked,
How does it help you to deny society treats certain segments better than others? To acknowledge is not to endorse.
I answered,
You’re pointing at the problem without seeing it. To acknowledge is not to change. Identitarians and universalists both want a fair world and both recognize that sexism and racism and so many other isms exist. What identitarians fail to offer is a solution. Or rather, they think acknowledgement of a problem is an answer. But many Confederates acknowledged that slavery was unjust, and acknowledged their privilege as white men, and it still took a war to end slavery.
I was thinking of Robert E. Lee's letter to his wife in 1856 in which he said,
In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.
In the same letter, he went on to rationalize his privilege, much like contemporary graduates of schools for the elite rationalize theirs. Checking privilege makes privilege-checkers feel righteous, but it does not help a single person who has less so the privilege-checkers may have more.

The part of me that loves the Rebel Jesus thinks privilege-checkers are contemporary Pharisees who make great shows of goodness. Jesus's harshest words were for them:

“...you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others." —Matthew 6:5 ESV

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness." —Matthew 23:27 ESV

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Resuming regular blogging: the latest SJW doxxing and harrassing

I really did want to release my e-book and let this blog become history, but I should've realized the book would make the usual crew double-down on discrediting me. I prob'ly will give Somerville the satisfaction of a full response sometime soon.

In the meantime, here's the latest example of SJWs doing what they claim to oppose: What the hell, man? - Imgur

Yes, the woman's joke was in poor taste, and I couldn't disagree more with her politics. That doesn't mean she deserves to be doxxed and mobbed. Well, except in the SJWverse, where any hint of badthink must be crushed.

Sunday, November 30, 2014

And now I've read Ann Somerville's "Will Shetterly - the Mixoning"

What I said in the previous post is prob'ly sufficient, but I like to write, so I'll address a few points.

I'm amused that almost all of her claims are unsubstantiated. Anyone who thinks critically should note that it would be easy to provide screen caps of me saying things I'm supposed to have said if I had actually said them, because these people have been obsessive about screen grabs since at least 2007.

As for the few claims that have some documentation, some are simple matters of interpretation. By definition, members of a cult cannot grasp things in ways that do not fit the cult's understanding. For example, Somerville repeats the frequent charge that I have a class-only approach to understanding power, even though I have never said racism or sexism no longer matter.

The charge that I disproportionately criticize women and people of color when I criticize identiarianism is like charging me for disproportionately criticizing Russians when I criticize Stalinism. Identitarianism comes from the intersection of bourgeois feminism and bourgeois anti-racism--both Derrick Bell and Kimberle Crenshaw come from schools for the privileged where they developed ways to think about privilege that did not threaten their own privilege. By definition, bourgeois women of color are especially susceptible to identitarianism, so I have the choice of answering them or ignoring them.

Ah, well. Life's short, so that's probably enough about this. Still, if anyone would like to ask anything, ask away. Unlike Somerville's community, I don't ban people who deviate from a narrative I wish to promote. If you're afraid I'm a bogeyman, use a pseud. I really don't have some magical power to learn who you are. I was only able to "dox" Coffeeandink because she used her name in public posts on her blog. If you avoid that, your identity is safe from me, honest.

P.S. I'm having trouble following Somerville's logic about her attempts to out the people behind Stop The Goodreads Bullies. So far as I can tell, Somerville is admitting to doxxing or trying to dox the owner(s), because when I visited STGRB a couple of years ago, the posters there were pseudonymous.

Just did a Google Advanced Search for the person Somerville is trying to dox at stopthegrbullies.com and found this denial. It looks like Somerville's following the standard SJW practice of merrily doxxing anyone they disapprove of while roundly denouncing doxxing.

ETA: This just turned up in my twitterfeed:

Notifications

All / People you follow



Warriors obsess over other people's metaphors, yet they often fail to examine their own. If one of their opponents had used an insult based on "twat", they would notice that it's a gender-based insult which suggests there's something wrong with having a vagina. So it goes.

Sigh, another day, another stalker, or Ann Somerville needs love

The first time I was stalked online by social justice warriors was in 2009, when Micole Sudberg, Mary Dell, and Julia Starkey when hunting through the internet to create Will Shetterly: DO NOT ENGAGE. It baffled me then: why would anyone go to so much trouble to cherrypick quotes to misrepresent someone? But I came to realize that's what social justice warriors do. It's not that they intend to lie. It's that they're incapable of nuance, so either you're one of the saved or one of the damned.

Now Ann Somerville has written Will Shetterly – the Mixoning. I think she's feeling neglected. She's a minor figure in the history of fandom's fails. I've mentioned her a few times:

Ann Somerville, SJW

oh noes! Ann Somerville is cyberstalking me!

Alas, I must blog again, thanks to Ann Somerville: More about doxxing, or, That was quick!

My understanding is she's a rich Australian with bipolar disorder who has gone out of her way to dox at least one person, but I could be wrong, of course. If she's addressed that, please mention it in the comments. I haven't read her "Mixoning" yet, so I may respond to it later. For now, the simplest response to any SJW fantasy about my life is A short autobiography by Will Shetterly.

Gandhi said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." I suppose I should be flattered that they think I'm a threat, yet I'm no more a threat to them than a critic of Scientology is to L. Ron Hubbard's very profitable cult. I've always been the sort of idiot who thinks facts matter, and really, humans are just rationalizing animals. If SJWs truly wanted to make a better world, they would go offline and work to improve the lot of the poor. Instead, they rail at people like me who dare point at the limits of their conception. To believers, making converts and punishing heretics is all that matters, so all I can do now is sigh yet again.

I do wonder why people like Somerville want me to keep responding to them. If they would take their original advice and ignore me, this blog would be thick with cobwebs.

Well. Dear reader, I hope you're having a fine day, and if you want to make a better world, working for Universal Basic Income would be a nice way to start.

UPDATE:Doxxing in the name of social justice, with appearances by Skud, Liz Henry, Mary Robinette Kowal, N. K. Jemisin, and more!

Fandom's first major doxxing in the name of social justice was The Outing of Zathlazip in 2008. It seems the instinct to out people has not diminished since then. Two examples:
Xopher's intention to dox me is explicit in his tweet: "His name isn't on his profile."

Now, I don't mind being doxxed. I wanted to keep my general writing separate from my writing here, but I knew I was no more pseudonymous than Coffeeandink had been in 2009. Though I didn't identify this blog as my own, like Coffeeandink, I have used my name in public posts here when talking about my writing.

Which is to say that by the standards of people like the writers at Geek Feminism who claim I doxxed Coffeeandink, I was pseudonymous, and now I have been doxxed.

I sometimes wish someone had listed all of Zathlazip's doxxers. I was amused to note that Xopher's attempt to dox me was favorited by Liz Henry, the first person who doxxed Zathlazip. I can see the argument that favoriting is only approving of doxxing; it's not taking part in it, so I won't bother mentioning anyone else who favorited doxxing me. I'll only list the current would-be doxxers who joined in the attempt to out me:



For people who don't want to use the scroll bar above, here are Xopher's listed retweeters: blueXenologer, SJ Minion, auuaupe, SonomaLass, Fiadhiglas, Jacqueline Gross, Mary Robinette Kowal, N. K. Jemisin, Alice NotMorgan, Suzi Steffen, Alex Skud Bayley, anat, fidelio, Baroque Owl.

I'm especially amused by the people who "asked not to be shown in this view". Doxxers often want to keep their identities hidden, probably because they know that what they are doing is wrong, even if they think it somehow contributes to social justice.

The most surprising retweet was by Skud, who has often written about the importance of pseudonymity. One example: Hacker News and pseudonymity | Geek Feminism Blog. I look forward to someone adding Skud's name to Geek Feminism's wiki post about outing.

When I called Xopher on his attempt to dox me, he equivocated:
The "might" speaks for itself. He didn't ask whether it was a "big deal" to me; he simply followed his impulse to out me.

For anyone unfamiliar with my writing, I'll repeat something I told him: I'm not a crusader against social justice. I love social justice workers. It's the hate-filled tactics of social justice warriors that I and so many people oppose. If you find any evidence of any social justice warrior treating their opponents with love and respect, as social justice workers like Dorothy Day always attempted to do, let me know.


Related: The Outing of Zathlazip and the Hounding of William Sanders