SJWs Always Lie

by Vox Day

  Hence the importance of knowing your audience and understanding which language of discourse they speak. When you speak in rhetoric to a dialectic-speaker, you will tend to sound very dishonest even when you are utilizing effective rhetoric that is perfectly in line with the truth. But you can’t speak dialectic to a rhetoric-speaker for the obvious reason that they cannot be informed or persuaded by it. They simply don’t have the capacity.

  I strongly prefer dialectic myself, but that is a language reserved for those who are intellectually honest and capable of changing their minds on the basis of information. So, I speak dialectic to those who communicate on that level and I speak rhetoric to those who don't. Recall that rhetoric, to which SJWs are uniformly limited, is based not on logic or reason, but emotion. However, because many SJWs attempt to cloak their rhetoric in pseudo-dialectic, you can use sound dialectic to strip them of that pseudo-dialectic cloak on behalf of those capable of following the real thing, while communicating directly in rhetoric to the SJWs. This requires a degree of fluency in both discourse-languages as well as the ability to switch back and forth between them at will, a skill that takes some time to develop.

  For example, consider the title of this book. It is not strictly true, in the dialectical sense, that SJWs never tell the truth. To be dialectically sound, one should say “SJWs frequently lie” or better yet, “SJWs have often been observed to lie in situations when doing so will serve their immediate interests”. But as Aristotle tells us, the best rhetoric is rooted in truth, and the statement “SJWs always lie” rings emotionally true because SJWs lie so often, and so reliably, that it resonates with every individual who has been witness to their habitual dishonesty. That is why “SJWs always lie” is flawed dialectic, but accurate and effective rhetoric.

  The interesting thing about rhetoric is that it makes very little sense to individuals who are limited to the dialectic. In fact, I didn't fully grasp the way it worked until reading Rhetoric for the second time. It can be bewildering when people tell you that they have been convinced by something that you know can't possibly have logically persuaded them to change their minds. In such cases, you know they have been persuaded by rhetoric, not facts, reason, or logic. And you should probably communicate with them through rhetoric in the future if you want them to understand you. Remember, even if you're speaking dialectic, the rhetoric-speaker hears it as rhetoric. Or, not infrequently, as complete gibberish.

  Dialectic and rhetoric are two different languages, and the number of people who can speak both of them fluently is relatively small. You wouldn't expect an individual who only speaks one form of discourse to be any more able to follow you into the other I wouldn't expect an individual who only speaks one form of discourse to be any more able to follow me into the other se passo a scrivere in italiano o francese senza preavviso dopo l'inizio di una frase in inglese. Il est déroutant quand quelqu'un se coupe subitement langues sur vous, est-ce pas?

  In case it is not already apparent, this chapter is primarily written for dialectic-speakers. Rhetoric-speakers, especially SJWs who are inclined to think badly of me, will only see “blah blah blah, Aristotle, blah blah blah, I'm so smart, blah blah blah, spaghetti spaghetti” and scan through what looks like total word salad to them trying to find something they can use to minimize or disqualify me.

  And that is exactly what the SJWs do to you whenever you are trying to argue with them using logic. Have you ever had an experience where you have clearly laid out a complete train of thought for someone, only to have him stubbornly declare that you are wrong, that you must be wrong, and there is no possibility you could be correct, without pointing to a single flaw anywhere in your argument? You were speaking the wrong language. You were speaking in dialectic to a rhetoric-speaker, and it didn't work, did it?

  Even SJWs who can more or less understand dialectic don't speak it themselves. That is why they are infamous for never admitting they are wrong even when everyone else can see it, and why they are constantly moving the goalposts and revising the history of what everyone knows actually happened. It is absolutely pointless to speak in dialectic to them; unless you are actually talking to them for the benefit of an audience, there is no reason not to go directly to rhetoric and hammer on their emotions rather than relying on reason to accomplish the impossible.

  Consider the following exchange that took place on Twitter with an SJW from the game industry in light of what you've learned regarding SJWs, dialectic, and rhetoric. To put the discussion into context, it may help to know that Palle Hoffstein is a German SJW who is the Creative Director for Blue Byte, an Ubisoft-owned studio. Mark Kern, aka Grummz, is a highly respected game designer who is the founder of Red 5 Studios and League 4 Gamers, but is best known for having been the team lead for World of Warcraft while at Blizzard. He has an impressive list of development credits that, in addition to World of Warcraft, includes massively successful games such as Starcraft and Diablo 2. I am a longtime game industry veteran who was a nationally syndicated game reviewer and a contributor to Computer Gaming World, and I have worked with Intel, Creative Labs, THQ, Sega, GT Interactive, and Funcom, among others, as a lead or senior designer. Both Grummz and I have been in the industry for more than two decades, while Hoffstein has credits dating back to 1998. American McGee is a well-known lead designer with whom I have been acquainted since he was a level designer working on Doom II: Hell on Earth.

  At the time, Mark Kern was not a GamerGater, although he was known to be sympathetic to #GamerGate, and three months later he announced, to widespread approval: “That is F()&#$%king it! I AM NOW #GAMERGATE !!!!!” This is important, because as you will see, it shows the First Law of SJW in action.

  In the discussion below, I have indicated rhetoric in bold and observably false statements in strikethrough.

  Palle Hoffstein

  Grummz and Vox are "the future of gaming" apparently.

  Palle Hoffstein

  Gaters in my mentions defending Kern. For a leaderless group they sure love their leaders.

  Palle Hoffstein

  Also Kern is now chiming in on the Hugo awards, another thing he knows nothing about.

  Palle Hoffstein

  So Mark Kern is getting chummy with Vomx Day? I suppose it was just a matter of time.

  Mark Kern retweeted

  Vox Day Apr 2

  American McGee's criticism of SJW characters in games is similar to my criticism of them in SF/F books.

  University Watch

  So if you are going to say spiteful things about @voxday and @Grummz #Sayittotheirface Palle. #GamerGate

  Palle Hoffstein

  I have spoken to them many times. Settle down.

  Vox Day

  When have you ever spoken to me? I'm afraid I don't recall.

  Palle Hoffstein

  Twitter. A while ago. Not that memorable for me either.

  Vox Day

  So once on Twitter is “many times”? Look, if you've got criticism, that's fine. The line is over there.

  Palle Hoffstein

  I wasn't the one who tagged you. I was talking about Kern. If I feel the need I will address you directly, I assure you.

  Vox Day

  No, you were talking about me. And you have not talked to me many times. So you've lied and tried to dissemble. Why?

  Palle Hoffstein

  Look Vox, I didn't tag you. I didn't want to talk to you. I can't imagine anyone ever wants to talk to you. Buzz off.

  Vox Day

  No, you wanted to talk ABOUT me. I would think as a game designer, you would get how this "social media" thing operates.

  Dave Injustice

  ‏@Palle_Hoffstein for someone not talking to someone, you sure spend a lot of time talking about them

  Notice that the majority of Hoffstein's statements are rhetorical and are intended to provoke emotion rather than communicate information. In only eight tweets, he tells six provable lies, and offers up two attempts at misdirection. (It's technically true t
hat he didn't “tag” me, but the relevant point he is evading there is that he was the one responsible for bringing me up in the first place.) The most glaring SJW tell in this exchange is when Hoffstein, having been caught red-handed lying about having claimed to have talked to Mark Kern and me “many times”, doesn't back down and admit it, but instead resorts to pseudo-dialectical rhetoric combined with pure rhetoric in order to try to spin the Narrative and retain his pose of superiority. Remember, he's a game dev talking down to gamers, so he's not only caught out, he's also caught off-guard by suddenly having to deal with someone who is at his level of status in the industry. And so we see both the First and Second Laws of SJW at work, as well as the SJW's expected rhetorical response to dialectic.

  My statement is pure dialectic; it is nothing but raw information. Although I have had some dealings with Ubisoft, it was with two different studios, I did not recall ever having spoken with Hoffstein and I was pretty sure I never had. Later, I went back through my Twitter account and was able to confirm that contra Hoffstein's assertion, he had never spoken to me and I had never spoken to him. I also asked Mark Kern if he had ever spoken to Palle Hoffstein. He could not remember ever having done so, but did recall once exchanging a pair of tweets with him. According to Twitter Advanced Search, this took place two months after Hoffstein claimed to have spoken to both of us “many times.”

  SJWs always lie.

  As for Hoffstein's response, it is part false pseudo-dialectic (“Twitter. A while ago”), and part pure rhetoric intended to try to invoke a negative emotion in me (“Not that memorable for me either”). This is very typical. Because the SJW cannot speak dialectic, he will attempt to intimidate the person to whom he is speaking through rhetorical posturing. This is why, when pressed, SJWs invariably either run away or resort to shrieking angry insults that often don't even make any sense in the context of the conversation.

  The correct strategy is to fight dialectic with dialectic, expose pseudo-dialectic with dialectic, and fight rhetoric with rhetoric. And the most important thing about implementing that strategy is to understand that with rhetoric, the actual information content is largely irrelevant.

  Rhetoric is all about what emotions you trigger in the other person; when SJWs talk to each other they try to inflate themselves at the other's expense in order to sort out their position in the SJW hierarchy. Of course, SJW metrics are all but unintelligible to normal, sane human beings, so it can be amusing as well as educational to watch them attempt to simultaneously exaggerate both their importance and their victimhood. The perfect Queen of the SJWs – and she would be a queen, never a king – would be a mixed-race lesbian from Sweden who was abused as a child by a conservative white Republican politician and kept as a sex slave by English neo-Nazis prior to writing a bestselling novel about a fictionalized version of her terrible experiences, appearing on Oprah, and starring on a science fiction TV show popular with white nerds.

  The basic idea is that if you can make the other person feel small or angry, you are winning at SJW rhetoric. This is why SJWs are constantly accusing other people of being mad or upset; it's just another way of them claiming to be winning the conversation. If you can make the other person submit, run away, or fall silent, then you have won the conversation and you are higher in the SJW hierarchy than they are. So it doesn't matter what you actually say, and in fact, resorting to straight-up name-calling, the more ridiculous the better, is often the fastest and most efficient way to get through the conversational process with an SJW. If they launch the usual “sexist, racist, homophobic, Nazi” line, don't blink, just hit them right back with “racist, child molester, pedophile, monster” and watch them run. If you're of a more delicate constitution and are not willing to go that far even when attacked unprovoked, try “creepy” and “stalker” on the men and “psycho” or “ugly” on the women and it will usually have much the same effect. You know your rhetoric is effective when they block you online, or in person if their eyes widen with shock and their jaw drops. You will know you have mastered the art of rhetoric if you can actually make an SJW run away crying or make a room full of people gasp before bursting out laughing at the SJW.

  Again, you must keep in mind that the actual information content is irrelevant. SJWs communicate in competitive emotion. If you're not doing the same, then you're not communicating with them, you're doing little more than play target for their verbal assaults. I realize this probably doesn't make sense, but that's because you are a normal, sane individual who thinks rather than feels. But keep in mind that just as their argument that X is Not X because feelbad makes no sense to you, your argument that X cannot be Not X due to the law of non-contradiction makes no sense to an SJW.

  Don't try to work through the logic of it all. Just try it. It works. Chances are that you'll be as surprised as I was to discover how effective it can be to speak in rhetoric to the rhetoric-speakers. When Milo Yiannopoulos destroyed a feminist on live television during a public debate concerning modern Britain's hostility to men, it wasn't his smooth recitation of relevant facts that left her reeling in shock and disarray; she blithely ignored all of that. It was his dismissive use of the word “darling” that literally muted her. Her wide, staring eyes and gaping mouth made it very clear how powerful a well-placed, well-timed rhetorical bomb can be.

  Ironically, if you do respond to them in their own rhetorical language, SJWs can not only better understand you, but may even express an amount of begrudging appreciation for your mastery of it. Consider this purely rhetorical exchange that took place with a pair of SJWs who were attempting to convince me to abandon my support for RooshV, and thereby increase the social pressure on him by isolating him. But instead of responding as they expected by either a) accepting their attempt to disqualify Roosh or b) trying to defend Roosh dialectically against the false charge of him being an admitted rapist, I challenged the Narrative by using rhetoric that redirected their disqualification attempt towards one of their fellow SJWs.

  Notice, as you read it, that they're not offended by this and that they can't even bother to pretend to care about the supposedly serious criminal accusations being flung about. They are, however, quick to recognize that because I am utilizing their own form of rhetoric against them, there is no point attempting to put any further social pressure on me in this regard. Had I given in, they would have increased the pressure and demanded that I demonstrate my newfound purity of heart by publicly denouncing and disavowing Roosh. Had I tried to defend Roosh using dialectic, the exchange would have gone on for pages as they danced around all of the relevant facts and continued to turn up the rhetorical heat on me. But because they received a muscular response in their own rhetorical language, they were quickly convinced that their efforts were doomed to be futile.

  Brosephus Aurelius

  wait isnt Roosh that PUA sex tourist guide guy that offended a good chunk of europe with his books?

  Vox Day

  Straight to DISQUALIFY. Textbook SJW. Well done.

  Brosephus Aurelius

  I'm not disqualifying his opinion, just checking if you knew his past public exposure before linking. I'm still reading the link

  James Mathurin

  Don't forget he's also an admitted rapist.

  Vox Day

  No, that's John "I'm a rapist" Scalzi. You can even hear him admit it here: (link to MP3)

  James Mathurin

  Nah, it's Roosh.

  Vox Day

  That's a direct quote from 25 October 2012. You literally can't get any more "self-admitted rapist" than that.

  James Mathurin

  At some point, will you explain why you think I care? I was talking about Roosh V being an admitted rapist.

  Vox Day

  You've provided no evidence at all. I've provided conclusive proof that John Scalzi is a self-admitted rapist.

  Vox Day

  So, you are actually saying you don't care that John Scalzi is a self-admitted rapist. Wow just wow.


  Brosephus Aurelius

  11/10 wizard tier trolling

  Remember that there is no truth content in emotion-based rhetorical speech, all that matters is for the emotion to be genuine in the moment. And that is why SJWs always lie. Because as long as they don't feel as if they're lying, they don't believe they are lying, regardless of what objective reality might have to say about the falsity of their assertions.

  This connection between social justice warriors and emotion is neither a new nor an original observation; F.A. Hayek made the connection 40 years ago in The Mirage of Social Justice when he wrote, “The commitment to 'social justice' has in fact become the chief outlet for moral emotion, the distinguishing attribute of the good man, and the recognized sign of the possession of a moral conscience.”

  So, with support from the brilliant minds of Aristotle and von Hayek, you can be assured that you are on sound intellectual ground when, instead of relying on information and dialectic to convince the SJWs with whom you are communicating, you focus on using rhetoric to manipulate their emotions and thereby their behavior.

  Postscript

  Friends, remember that you are as honorable as the risk you take for your opinions.

  —Nassim Nicholas Taleb

  The self-appointed thought police are everywhere. And yet, we need not despair at the size of the monumental task that lies before us because we will eventually defeat them. Sooner or later, reality always tears through the veil of even the most powerful illusion. We have no need of numbers. One man armed with the truth will eventually overcome ten million preaching a lie. SJWs not only lie, they are aware, on some instinctual level, that they are lying; that is the reason they defend their ever-mutating Narrative so ferociously. Even a modicum of the truth is enough to chip away at it; even a single man who refuses to declare that there are five lights instead of four is a threat to them, which is why not even an inkling of the truth can be tolerated by the SJWs, and why those who depart from the Narrative are attacked with such vengeance.