A few days ago, racist skeezeball fantasy author Vox Day noted on his blog just how nice it would be to have a handy public list of all the people he hates. Sorry, a list of “confirmed SJWs.” It would be a handy resource, he said, both for SJWs looking to hire other SJWs, as well as “for those who wish to keep their organizations free of the creatures.”
You can probably figure out which of these two reasons is the real reason for the list, and which is the utterly transparent fig leaf.
Vox helpfully suggested that anyone seeking to make such a list could start with the names of those who signed a petition condemning a scheduled speech by programmer Curtis Yarvin at the upcoming LambdaConf, on the grounds that Yarvin, also known as Mencius Moldbug, is not only a programmer but is also “a founder and advocate of an ideological movement that promotes racist bigotry,” not to mention “an apologist for slavery.”
No sooner had Vox made this suggestion than a such a list appeared, in the form of a Wiki (archived here), featuring the petition-signers and a handful of other alleged SJWs. Vox claims not to have a direct hand in what the site rather misleadingly calls The Complete List of SJWs, attributing its sudden appearance to his followers — or, as he likes to call them, the “Dread Ilk.” But this is clearly the beginnings of the enemies list of Vox’s dreams.
So how does one get on such a list? The listmakers themselves don’t seem altogether sure. At first, they declare that
[t]he SJWs listed should be on the record supporting censorship of some kind (no platforming, government censorship, or disemploying people). This is not a place for grudges.
In the wiki’s FAQ, they reiterate this point, saying they will only include those who have
publicly called for someone to be fired, disinvited, shunned, no-platformed, or otherwise punished or silenced for refusing to submit to the SJW Narrative. The particular incident is linked to your name in the list.
Immediately after this pronouncement, though, they declare that the list will also contain the names of those who have declared themselves SJWs, as well as journalists who’ve published “articles that support the SJW Narrative” — whatever that means — “or an SJW attack campaign.”
So far they have not been following these rules very carefully. Some names appear on the list with no information given about their alleged “incidents.” Others are included, well, apparently just because Vox and his Ilk don’t like them.
The list also maliciously deadnames several trans women, attempting to justify this despicable policy by suggesting that these women are using “pseudonyms in place of their actual, legal names in an attempt to obfuscate their identities.” This is obvious nonsense.
So who makes the list?
The vast majority of the names on the list are simply people who signed the LamdaConf petition.
But there are some other, more recognizable, names. John Scalzi, a science fiction author who has long been Vox’s greatest nemesis, makes the list, naturally; the listmakers blame him for Vox’s expulsion from the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, though it is perhaps more accurate to say that Vox was expelled for being a huge racist dickhead.
Cartoonist and memoirist Alison Bechdel is included on the list because, 30 years ago, she drew a comic strip in which one of the characters said she only went to movies that featured at least two female characters who talk to one another, at least once, about something other than a man.
This comic strip is the origin of what’s now called the “Bechdel Test,” but Bechdel herself never publicized the “test,” the idea for which (as she freely admits) she got from a friend.
Actor, writer and geek icon Will Wheaton makes the list for Tweeting comments defending actress and Geek and Sundry founder Felicia Day, a friend of his, after a Destructoid writer, apparently drunk, made some ignorant and misogynistic remarks about her. The writer was fired, as drunken dickheads who do stupid things when they’re drunk sometimes are. “This tweet exemplifies [Wheaton’s] SJW status,” the listmakers sniff.
Writer, and former Jeopardy champion Arthur Chu is on the list because he jokingly referred to himself as “a social justice stormtrooper” and because “he is alleged to have been responsible for the bomb threat that disrupted the #GamerGate meetup in Washington D.C. on May 1, 2015.”
That’s right” “he is alleged.” There is absolutely no evidence, or even a good reason to suspect, that he had anything whatsoever to do with the alleged bomb threat. Gamergaters essentially decided to accuse him of making the threat because they don’t like him. And that’s good enough for Vox’s listmakers!
And then there’s Carpenter Brut, a composer included on the list because he objected to his music being used without permission in a virulently anti-refugee “documentary” titled “With Open Gates: The Forced Collective Suicide of European Nations.”
This 20-minute propaganda film is essentially a collection of out-of-context video clips edited together into a melodramatic montage by an 8chan user who debuted it by posting it to the notoriously racist /pol/ board; it’s been pretty thoroughly debunked by, among others, Snopes.com (which declared it “deceptive”) and Vice (which described it as “a mishmash of comically fake and out-of-context footage, bad subtitling and Islamophobic propaganda”).
Brut objected to having his music in this piece of garbage, so now he’s on the list.
Perhaps the list should be renamed The Complete List of Really Pretty Decent People Who’ve Offended Vox Day by Being Really Pretty Decent.
I’ve been observing GamerGate, The Manosphere MRAs and the like for a while now and one thing that just baffles me is the SJW thing and these guys constantly using that term as an insult. Since when having compassion for others and well, being a decent human being such a bad thing? Didn’t we learn this in kindergarten? You know, be nice don’t call others names that sort of thing? I know I know it’s the internet but still this just never ceases to amaze me.
Huggbees: I was going to say much the same. You beat me to it. I’m just baffled that this is an insult.
(I prefer the term, Social Justice Clerk, since I’m a librarian.)
Okay, I’m still wrapping my head around the idea that there are people on this earth (primarily white and male) who are proudly and vehemently against “social justice”, yet are not Klan members, per se.
So they’re “against ” justice?
Okay, now my head hurts.
You have to understand, that “social justice” here means, “pointing that dickheads are being dickheads, and that it’s a bad thing and they should cut that crap out”.
Since these guys ARE dickheads, it’s no surprise that they regard this as a pejorative term.
what the hell is “no platforming”?
I, for one, would be honored to be included on that list. Generally pissing off bigots is a good thing, IMHO.
And yeah, I have asked myself that question as well, many many times. I still can’t figure it out. Why would anyone be against justice unless they were like, a super villain or something.
“This is not a place for grudges” they proclaim as they assemble a list of people with no conceivable purpose other than to make those on it targets of harassment.
Any one see the movie “Summer of Sam”? remember that scene where the characters where making a list of who they think the .44 Caliber Killer is which was pretty much just a list of people they didn’t like?
Not wanting your art to be used without permission and compensation is censorship now?
I thought all these dudes were libertarians? They can’t even do that right. Property rights – and that would include intellectual property – is a pretty essential part of libertarianism. I’m just a silly little ladybrained commie SJW and even I knew that.
It’s almost like reactionaries really think freedom means “I do whatever I want and everyone does what I want too.”
Having your blue twitter checkmark taken away?
“No platforming.”
When people object to an objectionable speaker being given a platform or an objectionable writer being given column space, assholes used to cry ‘free speech’.
After about the billionth rebuttal pointing out, correctly that free speech doesn’t entitle anyone to a platform, the assholes made up a new expression ‘no platforming’. It basically describes something that is perfectly normal–that is, people/organisations with platforms being selective about who’s aloud to use said platforms–and trying to make it sound sinister.
@brian: I’m pretty sure “no platforming” is when you protest someone’s appearance at an event of some sort, like people saying, “Donald Trump is not welcome to speak on our campus” kind of thing.
Is anyone going to volunteer to let them know that their list won’t be complete until they put their names on it?
If I recall correctly, it’s like getting someone banned on [social media site] because they broke the rules and you reported them.
So, they’re like people who weren’t upset by the fact that Milo lost his widdle blue checkmark.
EDIT: Nevermind, I was way off. : P Thanks ninjas!
To be fair, a lot of these people, including Vox, are really not that far off from being klan members. I think the only reason a lot of them aren’t in the klan is that the klan is full of old fogies while the alt-right has a certain hip cachet, at least among racist “intellectuals.”
No platforming? Please!
I consider my website to be my parlor, Sort of like my living room, where people are free to visit and have discussions, with me or any other guest, in my house (I pay rent, it’s my house.)
If you come into my house and act like a fool, I have the right to “no platform” your ass right out the side door. And if I really don’t like how you showed your ass, the last time you visited, I can bar the door to your re-entry.
What about that do these fools not understand? It’s not about censoring free speech. It’s about them acting a fool in someone else’s living room.
As for public websites: I work in a library. The public is always welcome there as long as they act right. Act a damn fool and you will get kicked out of any public place. Libraries, grocery stores, the Capitol building… no matter how much you pay in taxes, it’s not your space and you aren’t allowed to disrupt it.
What’s hard to get about that?
I reckon it’s similar to my dad’s thoughts about the ACLU. He was ranting about it one day, and then specifically turned it to me and said I must be stupid to support the ACLU. I said something like, “I like civil liberties. I’m sorry you don’t enjoy liberties, but I do.”
His objection? That the ACLU doesn’t care about his liberties specifically, but only about the liberties of people who are not like him.
In other words, it’s partially racism, and partially “I’ve got mine, fuck you.”
Now, exactly like the ACLU, people who like social justice actually are concerned about the social justice that relates to otherwise-privileged white people. It just comes up less because those people rarely experience a miscarriage of social justice. Those factors that really do infringe on the rights of otherwise-privileged people are the actual focus of some actual activism by so-called SJWs, but racists and misogynists are angry that someone’s energy is going toward causes that don’t help them further their racism and misogyny.
My dad won’t admit it, and I could be wrong about this, but I think he’s also enraged when his racism is called what it is. Everyone knows that racism is bad and racists are bad people, but my dad thinks he is a good person. He doesn’t appreciate being called a bad person by the ACLU. When he sees people who believe the same racist things he does being sued by the ACLU and called racists, they are implicitly calling him a racist as well, and that makes him unhappy.
My understanding is that the term “social justice warrior” was first used sarcastically by lefties/feminists/etc to describe other lefties/feminists etc who were fanatical and full of themselves.
I think most of the antifeminsts/reactionaries who use the term also mean it as sarcastic, but apply it to all lefty/feminists rather than the obnoxious few.
But it is rather alarming how many of them sincerely think that social justice is evil, along with equality, democracy, all that stuff.
You can gauge your character by your enemies.
These people are people who think that caring about something is a sign of weakness. This would make a Social Justice Warrior, someone who cares a lot, into the weakest weakling who ever weaked, using dirty weak tricks to weakly connive their way into control.
In short, these people have been stewing int he toxic effects of hypermasculinity far too long. That’s really all there is to it, in my head.
David: Yep. Originally Social Justice Warrior was referring to the sort of overzealous social media attack dog eager to lead a dog pile at the slightest provocation.
These days, it’s used for describe anyone who believes racism and sexism hurt anyone other than white dudes.
I used to have a friend who later became very anti-social justice (he considered himself pro-social justice earlier). When he made it clear to me how anti-social justice he had become, he explained it’s because he stands for compassion above all. By that he meant compassion for Paula Deen because it so just so mean of the SJWs to accuse her of racism (at no point did he express compassion for her black employees), and it’s also just so mean of feminists to tell men about male privilege because it can hurt men’s feelings! And he was beginning to use that most compassionate of news outlets Breitbart as a source.
Yes, how compassionate of him.
“Hilarious” fact about how they also put that list together: they apparently gleaned names off “JewWatch” wiki, which is… well you can guess what kind of place that is.
I feel like the ONLY thing stopping these guys from becoming legit serial killers/mass murderers is their extreme physical laziness.
Not sure where it originated, but SJW got popular with Reddit shitposting screen shots from Tumblr for easy karma.
Not while it includes Ben Shapiro.
@ WWTH
There’s actually a bit of a schism in right – libertarian circles on that topic. A considerable proportion of them oppose the of intellectual property entirely.
I know a few of those names and a few names that all come from the same place. I wonder if they’ll make a response or just go “pfft” and move on.
Similarly, there’s someone I know who I figured would be on there who isn’t. I don’t know if it’s disappointing he hasn’t made significant enough of a splash to be included or relieved that he’s not what is essentially a hit list.
That said, I saw a few people talking about the list, making fun of it, wondering how they get on it. My favorite being one person saying, “I show that I’m on this list to get into clubs easier.” And that sounds like the best way to deal with it. As many people should get on the list as possible, and that will transform it from a bunch of targets to a monument of failure built by the people’s failure it represents.
At least, that would be a cool idea if I didn’t think most of the people that creates and are maintaining this list are going to get bored and move onto complaining at people talking about the appropriateness, or lack therefore of, of butt poses or something like that.
Oh, and I think this goes without saying, but if this situation was reversed and an MRA/alt-right/whatever list were created by people not those things (as “SJW” has become so nebulous that that’s basically what it means), the shit fit thrown by these people would shatter the internet.