Mean Girls Pick Fights With The Weak

My post about leadership failures has touched a nerve with the failed leadership. First, Ms. Regina George’s sycophants decided to respond to my post by getting angry at other people on Facebook. But one of them, Jared, has finally found his balls and come over here to play with me directly. For that, at least, I give him credit. For the rest, not so much.

Before we begin, let’s remember the three laws of SJWs:

  1. SJWs Always Lie
  2. SJWs Always Double Down
  3. SJWs Always Project

Now, let’s get into it.

Well, now that I am home and can actually write more than a line or two, I will respond. That I am “picking a fight with a girl” is your first falsehood, in attributing to me motives you cannot possibly discern, but it won’t be the last I point out.

No, Jared. I called you names to make you angry. This accomplished two goals. It turned your attention away from those you’d focused your attack on, directing it toward me (who can take it, easily). It also made you stupid, as we’ll see from the rest of the post.

Calling me a coward is also a falsehood, since, again, you have absolutely zero evidence to back up such a claim. You don’t know me from Adam, as I do not know you from Adam. However, given that you rush to defend someone who does not in fact need it does give me decent evidence to suggest that what you are displaying here is not manhood, but chauvinism.

Since Jared has, in fact, shown the courage to arrive here, I will retract the claim. Note, however, an important point: Jared’s entire argument is that I am lying. Yet right away he proves he doesn’t even understand the definition of the word. Lying is knowing something to be false yet saying it anyway. In this case, it is clearly not a lie. Jared acted like a coward, so I called him on it. Now that he has exhibited different behavior, I have corrected the record.

He is correct: someone is assuming intentions he can’t possibly know. What Jared doesn’t say in his response is that his very first comment was to accuse me of lying. So straight up, he assumed intentions he couldn’t possibly prove, and then accused me of the same thing.

Right here, we have all three rules on display. Jared is lying about my motives, he’s doubling down on already bad behavior from Ms. Regina George, and he’s projecting that lying and bad behavior onto me. But it gets better, as we will see all three rules on display throughout this screed.

That your first inclination to being disagreed with is to childishly attempt to make fun of my name also suggests chauvinism rather than manliness.

Here, Jared is following rule #3 and projecting. His first response to something he disagreed with was to go pick a fight with a girl and to simply call me a liar, rather than to actually engage with anything I said. I responded in kind, hard. But of course, he has to project his own feelings onto me. Note that now that there’s actually something to engage with, I engage.

As for your suggestion to step into the dojo, for any of us, the answer must needs be no. You don’t get to start a fight in the realm of words and then move the venue to somewhere you think you have the advantage would actually be evidence of cowardice.

Again, Jared projects. You see, I didn’t  start any fights. I responded to an attack on one of my authors. Note that Ms. George made a similar attack nine months ago. I responded. Once. And then I let it go. Until she made the attack again. He did, however, finally find the courage to call me a liar to my face. So once more, I will give him the small amount of respect he deserves for that. Small.

That you alternate between white knighting for one woman and attempting to degrade another in this way is fascinating. It does reinforce my chauvinism theory, in that the words and tactics you use seem to indicate that you view woman as weaker and good for only a few specific things. In the end it is more degrading to you than anything else, so that is all I will say about that. (The crime is its punishment, as it were.)

Note here the next behavior, which is really Jared’s ultimate aim all along: it isn’t to actually debate anything. He merely wishes to disqualify. The problem with this tactic is that I was never part of his group to begin with, and I don’t have any desire to be. You can’t outgroup a sigma. It doesn’t work.

“I run two small businesses. I *HAVE* put my money where my mouth is…” That is not logically sound. Having your own business in one realm does not translate to anything in another realm entirely.

Jared hasn’t done his homework, which is clear from the beginning. One of my businesses is a publishing company. It is the same realm. Entirely the same realm. But he doesn’t actually care, because his goal is to disqualify, disqualify, disqualify. Also, SJWs always lie.

Given that you are now (as I type this) accusing those you disagree with as being SJW’s

I call things as they are. Jared acts like an SJW, I name him as such.

“This tale has everything, incompetence, insanity…” A calumny already, and not even a paragraph in. Charges of insanity would be below the belt for any real man, but I suppose it does count as evidence for my chauvinism theory.

When I see a grown woman going off the rails publicly insulting someone in a completely uncalled for way for no reason that makes any logical sense, I call it insanity. Note again, however, that he doesn’t actually argue the point. He merely tries to disqualify, disqualify, disqualify… because that’s what SJWs do.

“SPV failed in literally every conceivable way,” hyperbole *and* still false, as you are abrogating to yourself the power to determine for others what their goals were. There is a lot of that in this post.

Again, there is no attempt to actually argue the point – simply an accusation of lying. He shows no evidence to the contrary. He does not claim, at any point, what the Sad Puppies V goals actually were – only that my interpretation isn’t correct. Because he has no interested in argument, only disqualification.

“To be fair, Sad Puppies IV dropped the ball pretty badly and started the descent. The Hugo Awards allow five nominees per category… They nominated ten works per category, completely diffusing all of their voting power. As a result, they completely failed to get anything nominated for a Hugo that wasn’t also on Vox Day’s Rabid Puppies list.”

Again, you are assigning to them motives and goals they did not have. The point was not to swamp the Hugos, but to show that, even when they ostensibly did what the other side was saying we should do to be ‘respected’ it wouldn’t actually change the response. Rabid Puppies goals were not the same as SP. Last year it would seem that *both* met their goals, they simply diverged as to what those goals were.

At last we have an actual argument. Here he does claim SPIV has different goals than my interpretation. Yet still, he only backs up my first point that their goals were pointless. Everybody involved already knew this, which is why SP participation dropped dramatically. Nobody cared.

“Think that’s bad? SPV got even stupider. Rather than promoting a confined ballot of books that could focus their firepower, they diffused it further. What is SPV? “Oh, we’ll just create a list of indefinite size of recommended books. For any award, not just the Hugos.”
Epic. Fail.”

That is a fail only by *your* metrics. You are not in charge of Sad Puppies and do not get to decide what their goals are. Personally I think continuing to give money needlessly to people who hate us would be a much bigger failing. You are of course welcome to your opinion, but just stating it here doesn’t make it truth, so while not strictly a lie it is a falsehood as you are attempting to dictate to others without any right to do so.

Sure, it’s failure by my metrics. Give me other metrics. Regina George provided no metrics by which to judge Sad Puppies V, so I use mine. If you have other metrics, fine. You know what? That’s still a leadership failure, because leadership provided no metrics.

“Hugo Award nominations were due on January 31st.” Yes, they were. Given that SPV is explicitly no longer worried about the Hugos that matters not one whit. If you want a list for the Hugos, Vox Popoli is over yonder. Have fun storming the castle and paying for comped meals for the attendees. Seriously, all the best in your endeavors. I wish you luck. That said, you don’t get to forcibly conscript others or their groups for that effort.

For someone complaining about ‘shooting at your own team’ you seem to engage in it a lot. You may disagree, but avoiding that is one very good reason not to name a party to a disagreement after said disagreement is worked out. Of course I imagine you disagreeing with this statement will include one or more uses of the word ‘pussy’ so whatever.

Ms. George drew first blood, not me. She launched an unprovoked attack on my author, Declan Finn. As I noted above, she could – and should – have let this matter die in January. But as Mr. Finn’s editor and publisher, I have a relationship at stake. She’s speaking publicly and badly of my author less than a month before we launch his book, and yes, she has a far louder megaphone than I do. Even if he did everything she’s accused him of, there was no reason to bring him up now.

So if she shoots at me and mine, I will shoot back. My megaphone is far smaller than hers, but I’m not afraid of her bullying or her sycophants stepping in for her. Bringing this issue up now, right before his book launch, is a direct financial shot at both Mr. Finn and myself. So yes, I will shoot back.

Anyone who is actively shooting at me and mine is not on my side.

“But do you know what an actual leader does when it becomes clear that she’s too sick to, you know, lead?

She steps down and finds a new leader. She would’ve had plenty of volunteers.”

I would have thought someone so concerned with ‘picking fights with girls’ wouldn’t be one to rush in and declare for a woman that she is too sick to do something. Since she is in fact a grown woman she can make that determination just fine on her own, and since, apparently, they had never intended to worry about the Hugos at all the issue wasn’t pressing anyway.
And yes, she would have volunteers. Just because they would volunteer doesn’t necessarily mean they are right for the job. Turning SP into a copy of RP would be one of those ‘not right for the job’ issues.

I didn’t declare her too sick to do something. She declared that, in her own blog posts, in her own words. And yes, she can make that determination. And like any other grown woman, she can be wrong. Clearly in this case she was.

So Declan is wrong for the job. I might not even disagree with that. There were plenty of other people available who would have done it, and it still doesn’t give her an excuse to be a bitch to him in public.

“Meanwhile, while she’s going about abject failure at every level, she’s projecting all of her own incompetence, greed, and narcissistic attention whoring onto other people.”

Well, here’s one of the bigger falsehoods of the piece. Objection, facts not in evidence would be where I would start, and that if before digging into the amazing amounts of calumny on display.

Jared is clearly done with any actual argument now, and he resorts again to just accusing me of falsehood. Rule 3: SJWs always project. Rule 2: SJWs always double down.

“Meanwhile, of course, the sole reason she’s holding onto “leadership” of SPV, despite running the Titanic straight into the iceberg, is so that she can use it to market her books.”

That’s straight up a lie.

Copy and paste my previous comment. It applies exactly here as it did before.

“Failure #6 – Refusing to let it go”

I assume you are familiar with the third law? I would not dream of calling you an SJW, but the third law does apply to more than just them.
“Here’s a tip, Sarah: lay off my authors and get back to work…”
Funny, my advice to you would be fairly similar.

Very familiar, as I’ve quoted it throughout this essay. Jared again projects. He accuses me of refusing to let it go when, in fact, I did let it go for six months. Ms. George could and should have let it go and chose not to. Fine.

Let’s dance.

Similar Posts:

2 thoughts on “Mean Girls Pick Fights With The Weak

  1. Jared Anjewierden says:

    (Note, I do apologize if it is not always clear who is speaking, but responding to your responding of my response in a comment box does not lend itself to clear distinctions between levels of quotes)

    Interesting.

    The first thing I would point out, my specific complaints were *not* that you were lying.

    First comment:

    “Yeah… no. This is a bunch of bull. True, SP isn’t willing to recommend people spend money to support an organization that hates us.

    Not how he would run it. That’s true, but so freaking what?

    And not naming isn’t cowardice, it’s an attempt to not further widen a conflict that is still friendly fire.”

    Second:

    “I’m not sure there is a single statement in there that isn’t opinion and/or conjecture masquerading as facts.

    A rather bigger and uglier case of friendly fire than the one he complains about.”

    Granted, I was wrong about it being friendly fire, as I was mistaken about your position in the matter. Still not saying you were lying. I was saying you were mistaken. Crucial difference there.

    That is also why I used the term Falsehood for the most part. To lie does mean to knowingly say something false. Falsehoods, or “the state of being untrue” do not require the person to knowingly be lying, but merely be mistaken. It is of course quite easy to be mistaken about a group you do not belong to. Take, for instance, the amount of lying about the Alt-Right from the media. Just as I would think it folly for anyone to accept uncritically what the media says about them, I think it folly for anyone to accept what you say about the Sad Puppies. Not that I am directly comparing you to them. The media *does* knowingly lie almost constantly, rather than simply getting things honestly wrong.

    “If he still wants to fight the hugo fight, by all means, the rabid puppies are that away. Have fun.

    No, seriously, I mean it. Go forth and conquer, bask in the lamentations of their femme presenting folk, whatever you want.

    Just don’t try to force me to do the same.

    Dominating the nom list was *never* a goal of SP. The primary goals of SP have in fact all been met.”

    Still not calling you a liar there, merely noting that our goals are not the same.

    And that’s it. Those are my comments on Dawn’s post that caused you to call me a coward and a pussy.

    You say this is all about an attack on your author. I find that odd for a publisher to intervene in this manner at all, but especially that you demand she drop it while simultaneously being incensed that she didn’t name him in the post.

    Not naming him in the post *was* her trying to drop it. The event was materially linked to the post at hand, namely explaining what has happened with Sad Puppies and what will happen in the future, and as such needed to be mentioned for the sake of clarity, but dragging the individuals name into it wasn’t necessary, as that would bring up the fight anew, so she didn’t name him specifically. Those who already knew would know, but it wouldn’t change their impressions of it anyway, and those that didn’t, well, for them it wouldn’t matter. Sure, the other comments can be discussed, but that isn’t my place to argue. Of course you naming him for her makes the effort moot now.

    I also am reminded of something I saw Vox say the other day.

    “Dear #AltRight,

    The Alt-Lite is going to virtue-signal and punch right occasionally. Ignore it. They will join us in time.

    Love,
    Vox”

    Now, obviously you and I disagree about what the post in question was trying to do, and how much of an attack it was. I saw it as her basically saying, ‘their goals aren’t ours, that’s fine, let them do them and we’ll do what we want,’ and you see it as a direct attack. Maybe I am wrong, maybe you are. You attacking back twice as hard only serves to worsen things, as far as I can see,

    Anyway, getting back to your response.

    “Right here, we have all three rules on display. Jared is lying about my motives, he’s doubling down on already bad behavior from Ms. Regina George, and he’s projecting that lying and bad behavior onto me. But it gets better, as we will see all three rules on display throughout this screed.”

    I didn’t say you were lying, so where did I lie?
    I didn’t bring up her comments about the author in question at all, so how am I doubling down?
    As for projection, I wasn’t attacking Dawn, but simply disagreeing. I wasn’t doing it in a derogatory or accusatory manner, so the accusation of projection seems to fall flat too.

    I would also note that you are wildly misusing the term SJW. As Vox noted in his original post about it, to be an SJW requires more than following the three rules (even were we to concede for the sake of argument that I have, which obviously I don’t)

    “(I)t will be useful to know if an individual is an advocate of an ideological movement that promotes the politicization of the workplace, insists that all individuals and organizations make social justice their primary objective, and seeks to disemploy or no-platform everyone who rejects their principles or refuses to submit to their ever-shifting Narrative.”

    One of the gravest mistakes the actual SJW’s have made is to fling about the accusations of all the various ists and isms until they have no meaning. Falling into the same trap does their opponents no favors.

    “As for your suggestion to step into the dojo, for any of us, the answer must needs be no. You don’t get to start a fight in the realm of words and then move the venue to somewhere you think you have the advantage would actually be evidence of cowardice.
    Again, Jared projects. You see, I didn’t start any fights. I responded to an attack on one of my authors. Note that Ms. George made a similar attack nine months ago. I responded. Once. And then I let it go. Until she made the attack again. He did, however, finally find the courage to call me a liar to my face. So once more, I will give him the small amount of respect he deserves for that. Small.”

    You of course assume that I knew about your response from nine months ago. Since I already said I don’t know you from Adam that seems a poor assumption to make. I also didn’t call you a liar there either, if you’ll note what I actually said. The quote here only deals with your repeated desire to move this from a debate of words to a fight with fists.

    You are right, you can’t outgroup a Sigma. I also find it extremely unreliable for people to assign themselves to a category.

    To quote Vox again, “So, hopefully that makes everything a little more clear. To me, it is lunacy to attempt to describe yourself in some manner that you think is “better”. No one cares what you think you are and your opinion about your place in the social hierarchy is the one that matters least. There is no good or bad here, there is only what is observable social interaction. Alphas seemingly rule the roost and yet they live in a world of constant conflict and hierarchical testing. Sigmas usually acquired their outsider status the hard way; one doesn’t become immune to the social hierarchy by virtue of mass popularity in one’s childhood. Betas… okay, betas actually have it pretty good. But the salient point is that you can’t improve your chances of success in the social game if you begin by attempting to deceive yourself as to where you stand vis-a-vis everyone else around you.”

    “Jared hasn’t done his homework, which is clear from the beginning. One of my businesses is a publishing company. It is the same realm. Entirely the same realm. But he doesn’t actually care, because his goal is to disqualify, disqualify, disqualify. Also, SJWs always lie.”

    Having a publishing house (which I did vaguely know after reading the first post and before responding) isn’t actually as pertinent as you would like to assume. Being an author/publisher is great. Good for you! The point is that businesses – even publishing ones – aren’t actually campaigns about the Hugos/other SJW converged things. Hundreds and thousands of people likewise are authors and or publishers and never even heard of the Hugos.

    “Also, SJWs always lie.” Where did I lie, exactly?

    “I call things as they are. Jared acts like an SJW, I name him as such.”

    Really? I call for disemploying and politicizing the workplace? Objection, facts not in evidence.

    “When I see a grown woman going off the rails publicly insulting someone in a completely uncalled for way for no reason that makes any logical sense, I call it insanity.”

    Speaking out about someone trying to publicly usurp what is yours is not completely uncalled for or without logic. A conversation could probably be had about the form that speaking out takes, but the act itself is not insanity.

    Also, “that which has been put forth without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.”

    Again, not saying you are lying, just wrong.

    This next bit made me laugh, I must admit:

    “Again, there is no attempt to actually argue the point – simply an accusation of lying. He shows no evidence to the contrary. He does not claim, at any point, what the Sad Puppies V goals actually were – only that my interpretation isn’t correct. Because he has no interested in argument, only disqualification.
    (Me quoting your first, cut for space)
    Again, you are assigning to them motives and goals they did not have. The point was not to swamp the Hugos, but to show that, even when they ostensibly did what the other side was saying we should do to be ‘respected’ it wouldn’t actually change the response. Rabid Puppies goals were not the same as SP. Last year it would seem that *both* met their goals, they simply diverged as to what those goals were.
    At last we have an actual argument. Here he does claim SPIV has different goals than my interpretation. Yet still, he only backs up my first point that their goals were pointless. Everybody involved already knew this, which is why SP participation dropped dramatically. Nobody cared.”

    Again, made me laugh, because you go from accusing me of not showing evidence then immediately show me giving evidence.

    “Yet still, he only backs up my first point that their goals were pointless. ”

    *To You* You’ve already said you aren’t part of the group, so why does your assessment of the goals matter, at all?

    “Sure, it’s failure by my metrics. Give me other metrics.”

    I did, just above that.

    You don’t get to proudly proclaim you aren’t part of the group and then be made their leadership isn’t working for you. It isn’t meant to, anymore than a drill sgt.’s efforts with the recruits is supposed to work for a troop of pre-teen girl scouts.

    “Ms. George drew first blood, not me. She launched an unprovoked attack on my author.” Sorry, but it wasn’t unprovoked. One side or another might have gone too far, etc. but it wasn’t unprovoked. I *still* don’t think you’re lying about that, just wrong, but eh.

    “Bringing this issue up now, right before his book launch, is a direct financial shot at both Mr. Finn and myself. So yes, I will shoot back.” And what, exactly is your evidence to back this claim up?

    “Meanwhile, while she’s going about abject failure at every level, she’s projecting all of her own incompetence, greed, and narcissistic attention whoring onto other people.”
    Well, here’s one of the bigger falsehoods of the piece. Objection, facts not in evidence would be where I would start, and that if before digging into the amazing amounts of calumny on display.
    Jared is clearly done with any actual argument now, and he resorts again to just accusing me of falsehood. Rule 3: SJWs always project. Rule 2: SJWs always double down.

    Except… you haven’t provided evidence for those accusations to begin with, except incompetence, and your arguments there were not exactly persuasive.

    And now we get to where I did call you a liar: “Meanwhile, of course, the sole reason she’s holding onto “leadership” of SPV, despite running the Titanic straight into the iceberg, is so that she can use it to market her books.”

    I said lie here instead of falsehood because I have read all of the posts she has made, Brad has made, Kate, etc. and I have never seen it used to market their own books.

    I have seen Declan do that, though…

    “Very familiar, as I’ve quoted it throughout this essay. Jared again projects. He accuses me of refusing to let it go when, in fact, I did let it go for six months.”

    The fact that you are bringing it up again when she went out of her way not to name him suggests otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *