So apparently I just had a debate with Vox Day?
A couple of days ago, you see, a Twitterer calling himself RedPillPhil suggested I was a bit of a coward for taking on an “easy target” like A Voice for Men rather than taking on the leading intellectual lights of the so-called “Dark Enlightenment” like … Heartiste, and Vox Day … who I actually write about all the time.
My laughter must have carried all the way to, well, wherever Vox Day lives, because Mr. Day soon appeared on Twitter and challenged me to a debate — on women’s right to vote. The very notion of two dudes earnestly debating female suffrage – in 2014, no less – struck me as beyond absurd, so I sent back what I thought was an appropriately dismissive Tweet:
@voxday @RedPillPhil @heartiste Yes, women should have voting rights, because they, like men, are human. I win the debate! The end.Thanks!
— David Futrelle (@DavidFutrelle) July 25, 2014
Apparently Mr. Day saw this tweet as my opening gambit in a debate that was now on, and replied with an attempted gotcha. Against my better judgment, I replied:
@voxday @RedPillPhil @heartiste No. I vote where I live, in the US.. So are you contending that no women live in the countries they vote in?
— David Futrelle (@DavidFutrelle) July 25, 2014
He replied, and I sunk deeper into the quicksand of this ridiculous “debate.”
@voxday @RedPillPhil @heartiste There are a few basic requirements for having the right to vote besides being human but being male isn't one
— David Futrelle (@DavidFutrelle) July 26, 2014
At this point I realized I needed to shut this thing down as quickly as possible. So I posted a couple of quick tweets:
And then, quite literally, I went and took a nap.
Later I discovered that Mr. Day’s possibly imaginary wife, known only as Space Bunny, had weighed in with her own attempted “gotcha.”
I thought that was that. So imagine my surprise to see that Mr. Day had retreated to his blog Alpha Game to boast about his great success in “exposing a Gamma.” That gamma being me.
In his typically pompous prose, Mr. Day explained that his Twitter encounter with me
should help illustrate why the critics of Game are so hesitant to directly challenge any of the leading Game bloggers; despite their pretensions they know very well that they are overmatched.
Oh, plus I’m a fat loser who can’t get laid:
Critics such as Futrelle and Scalzi are of low socio-sexual rank, which means that they have the usual gamma male’s distaste for conflict that has a clear winner. The reason is that as long as they can avoid losing, they can still claim victory in their delusional gamma style.
“Delusional Gamma Style” was Psy’s little known followup to Gangnam Style.
Notice how Futrelle tries to immediately declare himself the winner. This is normal. It’s all about the spin with gammas; substance is to be avoided to the greatest extent possible because the more of it there is, the harder it becomes to spin the selected narrative. They are undefeated in their own minds, victors in a long series of imaginary encounters.
At this point Mr. Day – apparently oblivious to irony– declares himself the winner:
But even in a short, character-limited exchange such as this, I was able to show Futrelle’s reasoning to be incorrect twice, so it is little wonder he does not dare risk a more in-depth encounter with me or one of the other men. The longer it went on, the more inconsistencies I would have been able to expose. Once he realized this, he promptly repeated his initial position and retreated.
Yeah, I’m sure you would have done a bang-up job showing me that since it’s ok to restrict people to voting only in the places in which they actually live, it is also ok to deny votes to women.
This is why we are winning. This is why we will win. Our critics and our enemies have to run away from us every single time we enter a new arena. All we have to do to continue convincing men of the truth of our perspective is to avoid getting lazy, to keep developing and presenting refined ideas, and to remember that rhetoric is no substitute for dialectic. And every time there is a minor encounter of this sort, more people will see that there is no rational foundation for the feminized dogma our opponents are so ineptly defending.
You just keep telling yourself that.
EDITED TO ADD: Just noticed this amazing comment on Vox’s site, from someone called Doom. (What’s with misogynists and their supervillain names?)
Actually, when women see these debates, they choose the strong side. I don’t think they always understand, or agree, but they instinctively know strong from weak, and generally choose strong. But then fall back into confusion without a steady stream of strength, which most men haven’t been presenting them. Game is changing that, from what I am seeing. There is as much hope as there is time. Then again, as things are setting up, a break will be for the good.
Game isn’t just a sexual struggle, it opens up much else in life. Men who begin to master game aren’t willing to be helpless in other parts of their lives. That bites into the need, and want, of bigger government. Zoom!
Ladies love mansplaining assholes! Soon the governments of the world will crumble before us!
—
“Are women people? Discuss!”
Nope, sorry, this is not up for discussion by decent human beings. Yes, we know that you guys have voluntarily excluded yourselves from that category, but that’s really no reason for other men to follow suit.
@ronehjr:
Oh no, he didn’t allow a debate! On twitter! About whether women should be able to vote! Shame on him. I’m still waiting for the day when he’ll finally engage all those flat-earthers and moon-landing deniers in legitimate debate on snap-chat. Then we’ll know he has intellectual credibility.
Q: Should MRAs have the right to vote?
A: This is a trick question, isn’t it? What makes you think they can figure out how to tick the boxes or use an electronic booth?
Why was a serious debate about women’s suffrage necessary? In the US, women have had the vote for nearly 100 years. The debate on this is over. In fact, nobody needs to debate the fact that all humans are human and should have basic human rights.
Just because Pox called a debate, doesn’t mean David has to do it.
Mr Beale has commented on his pen name on occasion – it is a play on the Latin “vox Dei” or “voice of God”, but also a combined Greek/Latin pun on “vox Theo” or “voice of Theo”. His name, Theodore, comes from the Greek, meaning “gift of God”. Yes, he is sooooo witty. As to the existance of Space Bunny, according to the London newspaper, The Independent, he has three children, a son and 2 daughters, which indicates a wife. Whether that wife is Space Bunny, I could not tell you. According to him, Space Bunny is blonde, has long hair and has a BMI of 18. Yes, that is important to him. He is Christian, but not Catholic – he calls himself some sort of evangelical. His “debate” with David is typical. According to him, he is always winning any thing he is involved in. I read his blog regularly as I teach a course in human diversity, and he is a perfect example of the antitheis of tolerance.
The question of whether women should be permitted to vote can ONLY be debated by men who have a perfect BMI and a certificate from at least ten people they have had sex with.
On Twitter.
/s
Or a perfect example of “Yes kids, humans are so diverse you can find characters like this if you lift up enough rocks!”
Hey dummy, why should anyone take seriously and engage in a debate re: whether women should possess basic human rights (unless they don’t percieve women as humans to the extent they percieve men are)?
Oh, that’s right – these guys hate women, don’t percieve them as people and aren’t worth engaging! Pathetic, indeed.
Should we take seriously and engage in debate re: whether poor people or disabled people or POC should possess basic human rights too? Would laughing at the bros on Stormfront, shaking our heads and walking away, maybe mocking them, be pathetic too? Is it our responsibility to seriously discuss with anyone who puts forth a “challenge” on Twitter whether black people should be permitted to apply for certain jobs?
Of course it’s not because people are human and entitled to the basic rights that come with being part of the species. You may as well be chiding people for not discussing the pros and cons of killing one’s disobedient children.
I almost forgot: these guys find some excuse to give men a fucking medal when they murder their children. When women do it though, THOSE TREACHEROUS BITCHES! THE EVIL WOMEN DO!
This reminds me of US history class in high school where we were divided into teams and made to debate whether or not slavery should have been abolished. Somehow it was “okay” because we were debating it from the perspective of 19th century US citizens. Grossed me out hardcore.
Here’s a paraphrase of the debate so far:
The paraphrase is incredibly generous (and actually favorable) to Teddy Beale.
– Should women have the right to vote?
– Sure, why not? Voting is a basic human right.
Is a decent summation of the argument to that point but:
– Should people have the right to vote in elections in places where they aren’t citizens and haven’t established residency? is not.
Beale didn’t say anything like that. He said, “You don’t get to vote everywhere, ergo women ought not be allowed to vote anywhere.” He never posed an actual question in his EU tweet.
There was no debate. Teddy set up “gotchas” for his fans to wank over, as they imagined “the leftists” being crushed in shame at not being able to “best” their talking points. It wasn’t meant to be debate, it was having a public wank.
Oh ronehjr: Hey dummies, in case you did not notice futrelle did not allow a debate, he simply made a couple of statements he did not allow with which he did not allow argument and then spiked the ball. How pathetic.
There was never a ball in play. Teddy Beale didn’t “allow”* debate either. He made a specious challenge (implying that David had ever said that his aim was, “engagement” and then set the table with red-meat for his sycophants (in which camp I am going to presume you belong).
When challenged (i.e. women are people, and people ought to be allowed to vote), Beale didn’t address the point. He pretended that somehow being denied the vote in a place to where one has no membership is equal to being denied the vote in a place where one does.
The he had a lackey (or sock-puppet) make a secondary (and no less nonsensical) claim that since some people are denied the vote, based on age, it’s fine to deny other people the vote based on gender.
Then Teddy said, “see how stupid he is, he can’t refute bullshit, so I win.
There is no way to “debate” that, all one can do is point and laugh §
*I would actually say, “engage in”, but for the moment I will use the loaded language you chose to make the focus of your rhetorical engagement
§To which end I point you to the subheader on this blog, Misogyny, [we] mock it.
With apologies to Eartha Kitt, now I’ve got a version of the Beale Street Blues in my head.
“If Beale’s shit could talk.”
vaiyt:
QFT.
Seriously, can someone remind VD that it’s the 21st century, not the 19th?
re “gamma males”
So I tried googling it and came up with lots of different definitions (it’s almost as if labeling men with Greek letters and then making sweeping statements about their personalities, sex lives and happiness based on some kind if perceived adherence to masculine stereotypes is complete and utter bullshit).
This guy even argues that “gamma male” is what a man wants to be:
http://www.donotlink.com/aqaz.
Fun bit from that blog entry:
Um…why, yes, heterosexual women do like genuinely kind men that they find sexually attractive. This is some kind of revelation to you?
Lol @ “nice” and “sexual” being mutually exclusive. Where does this idea come from?
“Gamma males” just makes me think that he’s suggesting that they’ve suffering some sort of horribly radiation exposure incident. It would fit in with the general stuck in the 50s theme he has going.
(Based on his, um, political writing you could not pay me enough to attempt to read his fiction.)
I thought his political writing was his fiction writing.
I have a feeling that Vox seethes with envy and jealousy over Scalzi’s achievements, which is why the inclusion of Scalzi as a “low socio-sexual rank…gamma male” was part of his attempt to gloat over the non-debate over Twitter.
bunnybunny:
Oh! I have no idea and wish that notion would die! My husband’s kindness and sweetness is one of the many things I find attractive about him.
Have you tried soap?
Sweetness and kindness are traits that many women find attractive, ime. Which is why when people want to market a male celebrity to women they often photograph them cuddling kids, petting dogs, and so on. Remember when Ryan Gosling took his dog on a talk show with him? Not exactly offputting to women judging by the response, is what I’m trying to say.
Soap is lying, man. It’s inauthentic.
Fuckhead-to-English translation: David won the argument without even letting it ever become one, because he made a few basic statements of fact that aren’t even up for debate! Not fair!
>whine, snivel, foot-stamp<
The Teddy Beale/John Scalzi thing is (from Beale’s side of things) personal. Beale was a member of SFWA (The Science Fiction Writers of America, an advocacy/lobbying/social/networking group for published SF authors).
He was being a pill for years,, and then he crossed the line (using SFWA resources inappropriately) and was kicked out. He is (as I recall) the only person to be so ejected (this is in keeping with the idea that SF is all inclusive; we have a problem with ejecting people. The Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society has, in the 80 years or so it’s been around kicked out a handful of people. One for stealing his roommates comic collection. I was active in the debate around the ejection of the third person to be expunged; it was because had been abusing a woman. There were also questions about rape. Like the Breendoggle it was really hard to get his obvious threat to be considered something which merited the club’s response. The main argument against kicking him out [it takes three votes of the attending members, at consecutive meetings to remove a member] was that none of his crimes had been committed at SF events/on club property, but I digress).
Scalzi was 1: president when this happened. 2: Was completely unapologetic about saying Beale ought to be kicked out. 3: Is supportive of women/minorities. 4: Said that Beale’s attacks on N.K. Jemison were beyond the pale; and might merit kicking him out on that basis alone (as I recall, there was a lot going on, and some of this may be conflationary memory about the provocative things Beale did).
In addition (though I forget the details) Beale did run for Scalzi’s seat as president of SFWA (and had, I think, run for it when Scalzi ran). Scalzi has a writing career which is doing well, is well regarded by the members of his profession, and has been nominated for Hugos in both pro, and fan categories.
Beale has been nominated for one Hugo, and only after another author ran an overtly political campaign to get himself (and others of his political cadre) nominated.
That all seems to rankle Beale, so any time he has the chance to make a dig at Scalzi, he stoops as low as needed to make it.
Is this real life?