No Peace for Pax Dickinson: On Being a Cultural Warrior

Posted in News
Fri, May 27 - 9:28 pm EST | 1 year ago by
Comments: 95
Be Sociable, Share!
    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    Pax Dickinson
    Photo credit: @JulieFoster

    Pax Dickinson, co-founder of WeSearchr and former CTO of Business Insider, has been battling social justice warriors for years, and he has no intention of stopping anytime soon. This week, he faced off against Anil Dash on Twitter in defense of Peter Thiel’s funding of Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker.

    We had the opportunity to talk to Dickinson about the battle with Dash, his firing from Business Insider in 2013, his new business venture and much more.

    EveryJoe: In your recent tweet, you referred to being blacklisted by Anil Dash. How did you become blacklisted?

    Pax Dickinson: I was fired from my job as Business Insider CTO after a Valleywag article (Valleywag is a Gawker property) took 3+ year old joke tweets out of context, the proximate incident actually being my pushback against the perpetually offended tech feminists during the “Titstare” controversy. Cathy Young chronicled the story here.

    During the whole uproar, Anil Dash was a major voice calling for me to be fired, and knowing we had been working in the same building I offered to let him say those things to my face. We agreed to a meeting over coffee and after the meeting he wrote a blog post about it, which included the line “If you’re a venture capitalist, and you invest in Pax’s startup without a profound, meaningful and years-long demonstration of responsibility from Pax beforehand, you’re complicit in extending the tech industry’s awful track record of exclusion, and it’s unacceptable.”

    I consider that a blacklisting, and I definitely lost other work because of it. People I interviewed with told me directly that I was the most qualified candidate yet they could not hire me, and several recruiters dropped me as a client when they found out who I was.

    Pax Dickinson tweet
    At the time of publication, Dickinson has been suspended by Twitter for 12 hours with no reason given as to why. The above Tweet was deleted by Twitter.

    EJ: What do you think about Peter Thiel’s funding of the lawsuit against Gawker?

    Dickinson: I think it’s great. It’s about time someone stood up against Gawker. Peter Thiel referred to them as a terrorist organization years ago and he was absolutely right.

    In my opinion, the way the rest of the media is defending Gawker in lockstep as some sort of exemplar of journalism is doing far more damage to the institution of journalism than anything Peter Thiel has done. If journalism was capable of policing itself none of this would have been necessary.

    Let’s remember Gawker is the company that made a business out of fomenting social justice mobs for profit and also published such Pulitzer-quality gems of journalism as “If You Don’t Want To Watch A Fish Suck a Dick, Here’s a Description” and “Horse Genitals Taste of Hay and More Curious Delights from a Horsefucker.” This isn’t some treasured civil institution, it’s a gang of leftist scumbags with a shitty blog. Gawker Delenda Est.

    EJ: Why do you think Silicon Valley has become such a hotbed of SJWs?

    Dickinson: I’m not sure, I think it might be a California thing. I’ve spent most of my tech career working in New York City and the culture of the NYC tech scene is pretty different. It’s less full of itself because in NYC tech is an industry that’s third or fourth on the totem pole at best.

    I don’t have a great feel for Silicon Valley because I hate that place and everything about it. I don’t know how people can possibly live in San Francisco, it’s such an awful, awful place. In one of the old James Bond movies Christopher Walken plays a villain planning to trigger an earthquake and flood Silicon Valley. That seems like a great idea, Bond should have let him do it.

    EJ: What is your new business WeSearchr about? How is it going to change things?

    Dickinson: WeSearchr is a business that applies the crowdfunding model to journalistic research. We allow Askers to post Bounties and get their interested audience to fund that Bounty in order to entice researchers and whistleblowers to produce the desired information. Upon success, the Asker gets to publish the Answer and keep 10% of the money raised. The winning researcher gets 75% of the Bounty, and we at WeSearchr keep 15%.

    WeSearchr decentralizes journalistic research and takes the decisions once made in newsrooms about what resources to apply to which story and lets the market decide. I think Journalism 2.0 was a failure, in that it just replicated the old newsroom structure and content and hired the same J-school grads and simply brought it to a new medium. It failed because it wasn’t doing anything new, and its degeneration into clickbait was as inevitable as the coming massive media business contraction.

    At WeSearchr we’re genuinely reinventing journalism with a brand new model incorporating crowdfunding to build a journalism that publishes whatever people are genuinely willing to pay for. We have bounties on political figures like Hillary and Trump, and corporate ne’er-do-wells like Twitter and Facebook, but we also want to publish bounties on entertainment and gossip and sports as well.

    WeSearchr is a genuinely innovative way of funding the news and helping to hasten the death of clickbait media, I don’t know how the experiment will turn out but I know it will be an exciting ride. If we succeed we’ll change journalism forever. It’s the most exciting thing I’ve ever worked on.

    EJ: Was it hard for you to re-enter business after what happened?

    Dickinson: I eventually managed to find work at below-market rates through friends and former co-workers, after promising to conceal my identity. I knew I wanted to launch another startup though, and the resultant notoriety from the blacklisting ended up putting me in contact with Chuck Johnson and he had this great idea for a journalism crowdfunding site, I couldn’t possibly turn down that kind of adventure.

    Ultimately being blacklisted and fired is the best thing that ever happened to me, due to the high-profile nature I was able to use it somewhat to my advantage. I’ve met so many amazing people because of what happened to me and while it did close a lot of doors for me, it opened some others and the ones it opened are far more interesting anyway.

    I think it’s important for me to keep my profile high and make sure everyone sees a guy who has been put through that social justice shaming ordeal come out the other side of it unbowed and refusing to slink away in disgrace. They’ve taken their shot at me and I’m still standing, and now they’re out of ammo and all it accomplished was pissing me off.

    EJ: Any advice for surviving an attack like you suffered?

    Dickinson: Vox Day’s book SJWs Always Lie is essential and he gets it right. Never apologize. I eventually let myself get talked into giving an apology of sorts, it was a mistake. I shouldn’t have bothered.

    I think now that it’s been publicized, there are people who want to help. I’ve talked to a few people who have been fired for their opinions and given them advice. I think those of us who have lost our jobs due to this kind of censorship need to stand together and support each other whenever possible.

    The only thing you can ultimately do is try to engineer a career for yourself that is as anti-fragile as possible. People like Mike Cernovich and Vox Day are leading the way and WeSearchr is an attempt to follow in that vein. When we get attacked by social justice warriors it only makes us stronger.

    EJ: What’s your opinion of Donald Trump’s presidential run? Do you think he’ll make a difference in fighting Political Correctness in America?

    Dickinson: I think Trump is great, and it has nothing to do with his policies. He represents the regular guy standing up and telling the PC gang that we’re not gonna take it anymore.

    Win or lose, he’s setting an example to the men of America how to respond to bullshit shaming tactics. The guy is an inspiration, frankly. I hope to see some other billionaires following the example that Trump and Thiel are setting. I get the sense that a lot of the Silicon Valley top CEOs are quietly sympathetic and I hope they find their balls and start pushing back as well before it’s too late. Trump is doing even more important work as a national life coach right now than he would probably be able to do as President.

    EJ: What do you think of so-called Republicans who are still #NeverTrump?

    Dickinson: A few past-their-prime pundits clinging to the wreckage of their sinking careers. The grassroots of #NeverTrump, such that it exists, will all come around and pull the lever for Trump when the election gets closer and all those Supreme Court vacancies start weighing on them.

    The “electability” people in the GOP got their way the last two elections and still lost. They made the grassroots eat a shit sandwich with McCain and Romney and now it’s their turn to take a big bite.

    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    Be Sociable, Share!

      Related Posts

      • clockworkelves

        Silicon Valley is a hotbed of SJWs because it is transhumanist at its core.

      • Kudzu Bob

        Pax Dickinson not only has a great deal of moral courage but is a comic genius as well. His Twitter feed is hysterically funny, and anyone who doesn’t follow him is missing out.

        https://twitter.com/paxdickinson

        • http://zimriel.blogspot.com/ Zimriel

          You shoulda seen Da Duck, jokeocracy. It was a thing of beauty.

          He’s still funny, but since his focus is more personal and work-related the comedy necessarily has to come third now.

        • Kudzu Bob

          I was a huge fan of The Duck. His Twitter martyrdom will never be forgotten, thanks to Weev.

          https://storify.com/weev/duck-enlightenment-s-final-tweet-spree

      • James

        It’s blacklisting, asshole. You can game it any way you want to in your leftist little mind, but in the end you are a blacklister. You clearly support and encourage the practice. Communists were regularly blacklisted back in the day, so why not just embrace it instead of doing your intellectual dance? If only it could happen to you. Get a taste of your mob psychology in action and all that.

        • Steven Schwartz

          ” but in the end you are a blacklister.”

          So, providing an opinion or information is now blacklisting? I’m really very impressed with how far you’re stretching the term.

          I mean, I don’t want to work for someone I think would create a hostile work environment for me or people I care about — and Dickinson has made it clear that he very well might. And, I’ll note, made it quite clear of his own free will.

          And if I were a venture capitalist, and had a choice between a startup run by someone who had a high chance of driving away talent, and one who didn’t, I wonder which I’d be more inclined to invest in?

          ” If only it could happen to you.”

          Well, as it happens, there are states where I could perfectly legally be “blacklisted” — fired, etc. for no reason related to my work at all. I don’t approve of it — so I presume, since you’re so adamantly against blacklisting, you support LGBT protections in the workplace and housing market? Or is it just when your ox is being gored that you care?

        • James

          1. “providing an opinion or information is now blacklisting?” Not at all. But being “on the record supporting censorship of some kind (no-platforming, government censorship, or disemploying people)” is. Read all about it at the SJW-list at http://sjwlist.com/Main_Page.

          2. “I don’t want to work for someone I think would create a hostile work environment for me or people I care about…” That’s fine, and unobjectionable. What makes you a blacklister is being “on the record supporting censorship of some kind (no-platforming, government censorship, or disemploying people).” Again, read all about it at the SJW-list at http://sjwlist.com/Main_Page.

          3. “Well, as it happens, there are states where I could perfectly legally be ‘blacklisted’ — fired, etc. for no reason related to my work at all.” That’s not “blacklisting”. It is the right of every company to hire and fire whom it wants. So Pax’s company had the absolute right to fire him for any reason or no reason at all (although I’ll never do business with them again). What is objectionable is “supporting censorship of some kind (no-platforming, government censorship, or disemploying people).” See the links above. Then read the seminal work by Vox Day, “SJWs Always Lie.” If Pax had had the benefit of the book when he was attacked, he’d be much better off today. But he’ll do okay. Victims of SJW attacks ultimately do fine. Why? Because they’re generally people of ability and drive, and are admirable for those traits (see for instance Sir Tim Hunt, Brendan Eich, Vox Day, and Matt Taylor, to name just a few.)

          Everyone reading this, please keep one thing in mind: When the social disease that produces SJWs appears, it generally takes society time to gear up and produce the social antibodies necessary to fight and eliminate the disease. For some the process begins too late, and the society is overrun and subjugated (again, think communist, Nazi, and fascist regimes). In America we’re just gearing up (witness, for instance, the popularity of Donald Trump). It will be an ugly struggle, but the SJW parasites may have made their move, i.e. their typical lunge for power, too soon. Let’s hope so at least.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Let me give you a clue, James; if you think that “blacklisting” is a bad thing, then pointing people at a blacklist really doesn’t help your case.

          And yes, I know it *claims* to be in order to help SJWs get hired. This is a transparent lie, given the rhetoric on the rest of the page; the notional figleaf is just another one of Beale’s attempts to have his cake and eat it too.

          I do notice that you’ve managed (or he’s managed, since you’re clearly just parroting) to construct a system whereby the old bigotries are supported (you can fie whoever you want for whatever reason) while calling *out* bigotry is now the sin of “blacklisting” Congratulations — if one bought into your system, it would be worse to *call* someone racist than to *be* racist.

          Of course, there’s no reason to buy into that system — as evident from its front page it’s based on hypocrisy to the highest degree — a blacklist of “blacklisters” based on a book full of lies about how “SJWs” always lie, I mean, really…

          (And while you’re at it,. perhaps you should consider whether your eliminationist rhetoric is a form of blacklisting, and a far worse one; after all, you’re the one talking about people as parasites.)

          So, before you whine about “blacklisting”, perhaps you should set your own house in order.

        • James

          From Steven Schwartz: “(And while you’re at it,. perhaps you should consider whether your eliminationist rhetoric is a form of blacklisting, and a far worse one; after all, you’re the one talking about people as parasites.)”

          My response: ALL collectivist statists are parasites, and dangerous ones at that (nor does It matter whether they call themselves “socialists” or “communists” or “Maoists” or “fascists” or “Nazis” or “Leninists” or anything else). All need to be “identified and eliminated” from polite company and civilized politics. The difference between you and me is that you want people “eliminated” for thought-crime, whereas I and other want people eliminated for taking actions that result in the enslavement and death of millions.

          I wasn’t really addressing you anyway, Steven: I was talking to all those who will benefit from reading “SJWs Always Lie” and perusing the SJW List online. After all, dangerous people pushing pernicious ideas need to be called out…don’t you agree? :–)

        • Steven Schwartz

          “All need to be “identified and eliminated” from polite company and civilized politics.”

          In other words, calling for blacklisting people with political opinions you disagree with/find harmful. Like I said, hypocrisy and projection.

          “. The difference between you and me is that you want people “eliminated”
          for thought-crime, whereas I and other want people eliminated for
          taking actions that result in the enslavement and death of millions.”

          The quotes are very significant here, and I’m glad you put them in. You’re talking about removing people from the political process — jailing them, killing them, etc. While I, who never talked about “elimination”, want people to be able to make decisions based on useful information.

          And yet somehow *I* am the great threat to freedom?

          Thank you for showing your true colors.

          “After all, dangerous people pushing pernicious ideas need to be called out…don’t you agree? :–)”

          Indeed; you’ve done an excellent job of demonstrating your own pernicious ideas and contradictions — thank you!

          Anyone not already on your side, looking at the “SJW list” and comparing it to reality (and looking at your tactics) won’t end up on your side; so that’s helpful indeed.

        • Tehy

          it’s blacklisting the blacklisters, kiddo

          ultimately there is one group of people I am willing to blacklist without shame : bad faith actors. doesn’t matter where, when, or how, these are people who are entirely willing to deceive or misbehave badly to advance their cause. those are the dangerous people that need to be stopped.

          the difference between them and me is i will argue with anyone and never dismiss anyone, whereas they will call me a cis white male and therefore absolute scum.

        • Steven Schwartz

          it’s blacklisting the blacklisters, kiddo

          As has been pointed out elsewhere, repeatedly, if you’re going to use the same tactics, you do not get to cry shame and horror.

          bad faith actors

          So, say, someone who decided that it was better to make a mockery out of something important to a group of people because he could, rather than run a good-faith campaign to get things he wanted to be part of it, would be on your blacklist?

          these are people who are entirely willing to deceive or misbehave badly to advance their cause. those are the dangerous people that need to be stopped.

          Or someone who threatened to shoot anyone of a particular political bent if they seemed close to office, on general principles? Would that also meet your blacklist?

          whereas they will call me a cis white male and therefore absolute scum.

          Having debated with a bunch of people in that camp, and fitting that same bill, I can tell you that I’ve never been dismissed that way — even when I disagreed — because of the content and nature of those disagreements.

          I have seen people get dismissed that way — but for the content of their opinions and their manner, rather than their skin. (Especially since it’s really hard to judge, say, gender and race on the INternet. :))

        • James

          Yes, you and people like you are the true and great threats to freedom. Opposing you and people like you is crucial, even mandatory, to maintain freedom of thought and action. What if the Mensheviks had arrested and disarmed the murderous Bolsheviks in 1917-18? How many millions would have been saved? What if Chiang Kai-Shek had prevailed over Mao Tse-Tung and the communists in the aftermath of WW II? How many millions would have been saved? What if President Kennedy had given the Bay of Pigs freedom-fighters immediate air support? How many thousands would have been saved from torture and communist enslavement?

          If you would educate yourself by reading some F.A.Hayek, or Eric Hoffer, you would learn why communists, Nazis, and fascists are merely different implementations of an ugly, age-old human shortcoming, the statist collectivist mindset.

          Yes you are dangerous. Yes you are pernicious. And yes, people like you throughout human history have pushed ideas that have resulted in the enslavement and extinguishment of countless millions of innocent human beings. And you complain about resistance to your desire for a politically correct mind-control dictatorship? Hah! You ain’t seen nothing yet.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Ah, what-ifs. Always good rhetorical tricks, since you can never be sure. How many more people would have died if an isolationist right-wing President had been elected instead of Roosevelt? How many people would the Czar have killed to maintain his power? Two can play at that game.

          I’ve read Hayek and Hoffer — and found them unconvincing.

          To me, the line is not between “collectivist/statist” and “freedom-loving” — it’s between those who are willing to kill others for their political beliefs and those who are not. And it’s very clear that you put yourself in the same category as the Stalins and Maos on that scale.

          The idea that you object to “no-platforming’ when you advocate the most final and devastating kind of no-platforming is just a further example of your hypocrisy and doublethink.

        • James

          You’re not really addressing my point, Schwartz. Your attempt to tag me with advocating violence and killing is transparently false. Here, I’ll try again: Another way to highlight the difference between statist-collectivists like you on one side, and freedom-lovers on the other, is to note how much of politics can be boiled down to one thing: Conflict between those who want to be left alone, and those who won’t leave them the fuck alone. You and yours keep pushing…and then blame your intended victims for eventually resisting in self-defense? Wait till the counterattacks really ramp up. You will be subjected to the same treatment that you advocate for others. Enjoy it when it comes.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “Your attempt to tag me with advocating violence and killing is transparently false.”

          You’re the one who describes other people as “parasites” who need to be eliminated from the body politic — which is the same rhetoric as used by the Stalins and Maos. Advocating for people to change and saying they need to be eliminated are two rather different things.

          ” Conflict between those who want to be left alone, and those who won’t leave them the fuck alone.”

          So you support gay marriage, abortion rights, etc? Or is it only people with money and power (like the CTO of a corporation, or the heir to a real estate fortune) who get to be “left alone”?

          “You will be subjected to the same treatment that you advocate for others.”

          Actually, I advocate strong worker protections — it’s people who advocate for so-called “right-to-work” states who make it easy to jettison folks like Dickinson. :)

        • Tehy

          kek

          the issue is that nothing peter thiel has done is actually that bad and crucially most people don’t care. however, the small fragment of people that do are willing to screech, scream, lie, and deploy ridiculous rhetoric against people like Thiel. in short, your argument is that as long as enough powerful people are willing to throw tantrums and lie shamelessly, then it’s fine for the company to not hire certain people. i accept the company’s interests, but despise those who create those interests, and that’s the truth of it.

        • Tehy

          so is it OK to blacklist someone based on, say, communism?

        • Steven Schwartz

          I don’t believe in blacklisting. I do believe in offering people the chance to make a choice up to a certain point. If you don’t want to hire a communist, you don’t have to. OF course, if you go and tell all your friends in the industry that if they hire a communist, you won’t do business with them, or you’ll haul them up for congressional investigation, that’s rather different.

          We’ve decided in this country that there are certain things it’s not OK to use as grounds to discriminate; race, creed, sex (in some places), etc. Being a jackass who creates a potential hostile work environment isn’t one of those, at the moment.

        • Kudzu Bob

          So you admit that the criteria used to blacklist people are subject to change. Oh boy!

        • Steven Schwartz

          Once upon a time, you were legally prohibited from holding a government job in the U.K. if you were Catholic. At the same time, you were legally prevented from holding a certain level of government job in France if you *weren’t* Catholic. Blacklisting in its official and unofficial forms has historically been used all over the world, for a bunch of reasons. I’ve “admitted” nothing that wasn’t clear to anyone who wasn’t looking for a gotcha.

          I find it amusing that the side that’s complaining about blacklists is the one that’s maintaining a list, while the people they’re complaining about are pointing out individual instances of behavior, by and large.

        • Kudzu Bob

          Oh, I’m not complaining about blacklists. In fact, I’m very much looking forward to the day that you find yourself on one.

        • Steven Schwartz

          i’ve been on them. That’s part of how I know the difference between a blacklist and someone stating an opinion.

          Here’s a clue: Anil Dash gave a clear way for Pax to get *off* his “list”, in the tweet people first complained about. There was no way, short of denying a significant part of who I am, for me to get off mine.

          Fortunately, rationality kicked in, and I (and many people like me) were eventually removed. But I remember; I remember what it was like to see in the paperwork on the house my parents bought when I was 12 that we were, according to the deed, not allowed to live there. Said clause in the deed was unconstitutional, but the paperwork hadn’t been changed.

          It’s part of *why* I care when people throw around “blacklist” and the like so lightly, and misuse it — I’ve seen it.

        • Kudzu Bob

          Anil wanted Pax to deny who he was too to get off the blacklist, liar.

        • Steven Schwartz

          So, being a brogrammer with a tendency to crack racist, sexist, etc. jokes is who he was? Then Anil was utterly right in saying what he did, and he was, indeed, a potential hostile work environment lawsuit waiting to happen — I’d want him gone too, as would most HR departments.

          You’re not really helping his case. :)

        • Kudzu Bob

          His “case”? Pax nearly had his life ruined for joking while White, but at least he isn’t on trial, no thanks to SJWs like you. But don’t be too sure about yourself , a few years down the road.

          SJW power peaked sometime in late 2014, and from now on you sorry faggots have nothing to look forward to but decline, a gradual one at first, followed by sudden collapse that will leave you reviled and persecuted. You have no idea of the societal forces that you and yours have unleashed, but later on, when it’s much too late, at last you will understand just how badly you fucked up.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “Pax nearly had his life ruined for joking while White,”

          Making disparaging jokes and dismissing whole groups of people while in a high-profile public position is, I’m afraid, the sort of thing that gets you “asked to resign”. But, please, do go on and dismiss it, and demonstrate why people don’t trust you.

          And as for the rest, do continue posturing. It won’t mean much in the long run.

        • Kudzu Bob

          You’re just another sucker who thinks he’s on the right side of history but is really on the wrong side of biology.

        • Tehy

          but you have no actual proof of ‘hostile work environment’ beyond simply ‘i don’t agree with his views’ and if someone cannot tolerate working with someone who they do not agree with, they are the creators of a hostile work environment in and of themselves

        • Steven Schwartz

          but you have no actual proof of ‘hostile work environment’

          Which is why he was asked to resign, rather than sued into oblivion.

          if someone cannot tolerate working with someone who they do not agree with, they are the creators of a hostile work environment in and of themselves

          When it’s the CTO of a company, it makes a huge difference — the power imbalance is substantial.

          If I said “I can’t work with my company’s CTO because I disagree with him”, I’d be fired. Of course, if I knew I couldn’t work with him because of his beliefs, I would already have left. Someone at the top of the pyramid is in a very different position, as one would *think* would be completely clear.

        • Tehy

          but you still have no actual proof of it, and I have provided a far more logical narrative to explain the resignation. you can’t just assume that something is true without proof like that…

          “When it’s the CTO of a company, it makes a huge difference — the power imbalance is substantial.”

          but he has not said ‘I refuse to work with someone due to their beliefs’, meaning he has not created a hostile work environment. If it’s you that cannot tolerate someone else’s beliefs, then you are the one creating the environment. That’s the issue here; whether you are the CEO, the CTO, or a lowly grunt, if you bring political opinions into the workplace, the creation of a hostile environment is on you, as one would *think* would be mind-numbingly obvious

        • The

          Yes, “providing an opinion” is indeed “blacklisting” when the opinion comes from an influential person in an industry and is essentially nothing more than a narrative to signal “HEY, DON’T HIRE THIS PERSON BECAUSE (x)ISM!!”

          The completely irrational social justice histrionics that brought us such disasters as Brendan Eich and “donglegate” have created a counter-current that are propelling things like the Trump candidacy. Meditate deeply on that, Schwartz, the next time you crow about something-something-LGBT or something-something-workplace equality or something-something-diversity and then proclaim victory in the culture wars because something-something gay marriage. Your entire system of values rests on logically untenable bullshit and if history has shown us anything, it’s that you cannot bullshit all the people, all the time. Don’t worry, though. When it all comes crashing down, whenever that is, at least you can look back on the 90′s with fondness.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “Yes, “providing an opinion” is indeed “blacklisting” when the opinion comes from an influential person in an industry”

          So, pray tell — is it better to let bad behavior go uncalled-out because you might *gasp* *choke* blacklist someone? Because that appears to be the position you have to take — that it’s worse to call someone out for something bad than to *do* that something bad.

          “The completely irrational social justice histrionics have created a
          counter-current that is propelling things like the Trump candidacy.”

          Again — so what are peopel to do? Sit down, shut up, take what they’re given and not complain, unless they make matters worse? I’m sorry that social justice is so offensive to you — I rather thought that justice and society were good things, but apparently not. :)

          And I’ve heard warnings like this before — how dare those uppity coloreds make such a fuss? They’ll get what’s coming to them, won’t they?

        • The

          His behavior isn’t ‘bad’. That’s one thing you SJW droolers don’t understand. Since you cannot argue issues like “diversity in tech” on right/wrong grounds per the same rules of logic we apply to everything else, you thusly shift the premise to your own definition of “good/bad” and proclaim yourselves the victor, since your side is “good” and anyone else is “bad”. Should someone who made a bawdy joke be blacklisted from an industry? No. You think that, other hysterical SJWs think that but you’re a fringe minority. The problem is, corporate cowardice has yet to tell people like you to STFU so your whinging and crusades are effective at getting people fired (or, at least they were. That’s changing, too). Should someone who has unpopular opinions be blacklisted from an industry? No. What about someone who says something unpopular but otherwise factual? Should they be blacklisted? Again, no, but that’s essentially your position. As far as ‘warnings’ about rapidly shifting political and ideological sands, I’d suggest you look at Trump’s poll numbers, idiot, and reconcile what he stands for against everything you stand for. People like you have been waving him off every step of the way because something-something-(x)ism. How’s that been working out for you? Last poll I read, he’s beating Hillary in Florida. What will be your excuse then? (and please, stop with the Aspergers multi-quoting. Learn how to make a cogent reply instead of degrading the conversation down into autistic quips and quid-pro-quo replies).

        • Steven Schwartz

          “His behavior isn’t ‘bad’.”

          If you want to defend those tweets, go ahead. They’re certainly not the sort of thing I’d want to see going out from anyone I wanted to trust or employ.

          ” Since you cannot argue issues like “diversity in tech” on right/wrong
          grounds per the same rules of logic we apply to everything else,”

          Sure I can; it is beneficial to society to allow all its members to participate fully; things that serve as artificial barriers to entry are to be considered at best problematic. Isn’t that the argument we hear over and over again in terms of free markets?

          I can make plenty of arguments; you didn’t *ask* about any, rather choosing to simply assert they didn’t exist.

          “Should someone who made a bawdy joke be blacklisted from an industry?”

          How about someone with a lengthy history of offensive jokes, displaying a clear tendency of bias against certain groups — should they be called out on it? Or should everyone just stay silent, lest it damage the person’s job prospects?

          “What about someone who says something unpopular but otherwise factual?”

          Such as?

          “You think that, other hysterical SJWs think that but you’re a fringe minority.”

          It’s funny how so many companies are prepared to bend to a fringe minority, isn’t it? And how many appear to *agree* with that fringe minority? Perhaps you should reconsider your ratios.

          “I’d suggest you look at Trump’s poll numbers, idiot, and reconcile what he stands for against everything you stand for.”

          It appears to make perfect sense — his poll numbers suck with anyone who isn’t a white male.

          “What will be your excuse then? (and please, stop with the Aspergers
          multi-quoting. Learn how to make a cogent reply instead of degrading the
          conversation down into autistic quips and quid-pro-quo replies).”

          Heh. I am not at all surprised that you’re using autism as a slur, nor am I surprised that you are averse to being quoted and answered point-by-point. You are not, I’m afraid, the arbiter of what is appropriate iscourse, and if you don’t like being quoted, say something you don’t mind being quoted as saying.

        • The

          It has nothing to do with being ‘averse to being quoted’ you retard. It has to do with understanding how a human conversation flows for people not on the autism spectrum and comprehending the turgid pointlessness of spergs like yourself who are incapable of making a cogent point, instead devolving the discussion down a schizophrenic series of your own personal tangents and rabbit holes. This is a common rhetorical tactic to avoid confronting logical conclusions that emanate from facts, BTW. Its no surprise to see you reduced to it here.

          The problem with ‘diversity in tech’ is that different races aren’t ‘equal’, ergo you aren’t able to arrive at some racially balanced ideal since there are capability-differential issues. This isn’t even arguable. Jared Diamond wrote a whole book postulating a theory as to ‘why’. Since tech is massively intellectually top heavy (at least at the engineering level) but getting someone with an IQ above 120 – suitable for various tasks associated with “tech”- from a race that averages an IQ of 85 makes it completely impossible to fulfill your delusionaly idealistic vision of “diversity”. There simply aren’t enough blacks or hispanics with the intellectual horsepower to participate in complex systems engineering at the highest levels. Now, here’s the fork in the road for idealist turds like you… Do you acknowledge this painful reality but try to mitigate its implications with some variant of a “root causes” discussion? Or do you go into full denial mode and insist that every single thing we can observe and quantify about different races is really a magical illusion, see, we’re just ‘looking at it wrong’ and indeed, the reason we don’t have more Aborigines writing search engines is because of some sort of ‘systemic oppression’ or other nebulous concept? Notice how I don’t need to rest my argument into parsed-down little responses to whatever you say? How it speaks for itself? How no multiquotes are involved? If you want to argue a topic like this, I’d suggest sticking to idiots who don’t call you out on it or learning how to discuss something like a grown-up.

          Lastly, your assertion that “so many companies” are responsive to SJW squealing is pretty much incorrect. Actually, only a few are and there’s no way to tell which is which until a crusade is underfoot. The SJW ‘success stories’ suffer from massive survivorship bias, since all the failed crusades that end with “Yeah, I called his boss, they told me to not bother them anymore” don’t go viral on Twitter or Tumblr, unlike the few businesses that are dumb enough to make the massive tactical mistake of ‘apologizing’. The fact that idiots like you have managed to ruin a few people for something you deem wrongthink isn’t much more than an anecdotal example of what human garbage you, personally, and people like you, are. It isn’t evidence of any kind of meaningful ‘movement’. At least not one that’s been relevant in the past few years.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Ah — I see we have a full-bore racist here. No wonder you’re defending Dickinson.

          First off: did it ever occur to you that face-to-face conversation is not the only mode of communication, nor even the most appropriate one. The point-by-point rebuttal has been a form of written communication and response for a very long time. That *you* do not choose it does not make it “autistic” — it makes it different.

          “his is a common rhetorical tactic to avoid confronting logical conclusions that emanate from facts, BTW.”

          It’s also a common way to point out in *detail* when your opponent is being ridiculous/inconsistent/incorrect, rather than resorting to throwing around slurs — though “spergs” is, I admit a new one to me.

          The problem with ‘diversity in tech’ is that different races aren’t
          ‘equal’, ergo you aren’t able to arrive at some racially balanced ideal
          since there are capability-differential issues.

          See above in re: racist. And, of course I note you immediately go towards “racially balanced” rather than simply “diverse”. No one is advocating for a quota system; but a system that is *structurally* operating against people who *can* do the work is a flawed one — and it’s one you’re propping up with nonsense like this.

          I won’t even bother going into the IQ bit, since IQ is at best a dubious concept, at worst a total fraud.

          I’ll just leave it at this: “There simply aren’t enough blacks or hispanics with the intellectual
          horsepower to participate in complex systems engineering at the highest
          levels.”

          And this is why a company might want to rid itself of a Pax Dickinson — because they don’t want people who believe and act upon views like this as part of their culture, yet here you are, defending him.

          ” Notice how I don’t need to rest my argument into parsed-down little
          responses to whatever you say? How it speaks for itself? How no
          multiquotes are involved?”

          That’s because you’re not actually *responding* to me; you’re making a speech and waiting for me to make a speech back. And it allows you to engage in a shorter version of a Gish Gallop, where you say so many incorrect things that are *presumed* to be true that arguing with them requires detailed critique — which you then try to rule out as inappropriate. Congratulations; you’re arguing like a creationist.

          However, I’ll point you to Gould’s “Mismeasure of Man” for starters, because yes, when you have a system that keeps people down, fancy that — they don’t perform as well on the raw measurements. And you are a part of that system, promulgating the views that do exactly that.

          And it is interesting to watch how, at one and the same time, you try and dismiss the “SJW” threat and yet complain to the high heavens about how terrible and dangerous it is — that’s actually a common mental pattern among bigots, who simultaneously express their superiority over the hated Other and their sense of threat from the same.

          But do please go on; hearing you insult entire ethnic groups and people with mental differences (including some who make, from all accounts, *excellent* programmers because of the ways their brains differ) is, I’m sure, doing wonders for your cause.

        • The

          And here we see you’ve arrived at what is the terminus of any idealist who tries to enter a discussion of race: you’re bumbling around muttering ‘racist’ a lot but not refuting anything factually, other than to say that I’m “ridiculous/inconsistent/incorrect” but without any substance to support that point. You write off IQ yet if IQ is an invalid measure, why does it correspond so precisely to what we can observe, empirically, about different racial groups in terms of their performance in a complex society? So here we enter the deep waters of a conversation like this but your problem is that squealing “racist” really has no currency. It’s a 21st Century version of “Hallelujah”. You cannot refute anything I’m saying here factually, so you try to shift the premise to good/bad; that even if certain details are factual, they are “hate facts” ergo anyone who points them out is “bad” and really, you have no onus to refute the the hate facts since they’re “bad” and you’ve decided to take the ‘good’ position in spite of them… and naturally, you rest your case on some theory that holds the reason people perform differently isn’t the same Dawrinian evolution that dictates everything else in the natural world (indeed, evolution apparently stopped at the brain, according to the ‘equality’ thesis) but rather our differences are really an elaborate, multi-generational social failing!

          Your problem here is that this isn’t an argument you can win in this format since the only thing that matters in this format is fact and all you will be able to offer is to cry “racist” and appeal to the agenda wing of social psuedo-sciences, where everything is a theory and nothing is statistically repeatable. And you’ll probably say “ignorant” a lot.

          In short go ahead. Say “racist”. Use whatever rhetorical devices you choose to assert I’m “wrong” or “ignorant”, say “I TOTALLY CAN’T EVEN BELIEVE ANYONE THINKS THIS WAY IN (the current year)”, it’s not like discussions with people like you are ever substantive. All you can hope is that if you multi-quote long enough, I’ll lose interest in pointing out that you’re wrong since you can’t offer anything substantial to support your notion that we’re ‘equal’ or that any idealism-driven policies to try and force that outcome are anything more than irrational, emotional nonsense.

          What was your case for “diversity in the workplace” again? And just where are you finding all these competent black and hispanic CS engineers to demonstrate your theory is viable? Oh? What’s that? There aren’t any! So you’re left with an idealogical mandate (“diversity in tech”) you can’t seem to make work in reality? Why do you suppose that is? And at what point do you accept it’s because the things you believe about ‘equality’ are objectively wrong? Haha. That was a rhetorical question. We know people like you will delude yourselves forever.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “” but without any substance to support that point.”
          I’ve offered a citation, as you’ll note: it’s more than you’ve offered — you merely claim “It’s fact”.

          “ou write off IQ yet if IQ is an invalid measure, why does it correspond so precisely to what we can observe, empirically, about different racial groups in terms of their performance in a complex society?”

          Go look at the history of IQ tests, and then ask yourself the same question; they were built biased, they have remained so.

          “You cannot refute anything I’m saying here factually”

          I refer you again to the Mismeasure of Man. I can provide you with more citations, but since you haven’t provided any facts beyond blatant assertion, I don’t feel inclined to do any more work on your behalf.

          “and naturally, you rest your case on some theory that holds the reason people perform differently isn’t the same Dawrinian evolution that dictates everything else in the natural world (indeed, evolution apparently stopped at the brain, according to the ‘equality’ thesis) but rather our differences are really an elaborate, multi-generational
          social failing!”
          Given that it’s been barely three generations since the major discriminatory laws stopped being *enforced*, let alone the attitudes encoded in them, that’s really not all that surprising — and yes, I’d call Jim Crow laws and slavery and other forms of racial discrimination an “elaborate, multi-generational social failing”.

          “hat was your case for “diversity in the workplace” again? And just where
          are you finding all these competent black and hispanic CS engineers to
          demonstrate your theory is viable?”

          Working for places where they don’t feel discriminated against or shut out. Same as the female CS folks. Same as the Asperger’s people who you clearly would like to shut out as well.

          It’s really simple: Cutting out a percentage of the workforce because you don’t think they’re smart enough as a group (or allowing people to cut them out) is a really *dumb* way to run a company in the long run.

        • The

          Ahh, but see, your thesis is bullshit. “The Mismeasure of Man” is no more a ‘source’ for anything other than typical social theory psuedo science. It’s right up there with “Guns, Germs and Steel”. Just so we’re clear here: your assertion is that we’re all EQUAL? That everything we can observe and measure that says otherwise is really an illusion as a result of our ‘observing wrong’ and ‘measuring wrong’? Novel theory but it has nothing to support it in real terms. Likewise, ‘blank slate theory’ (the notion that we’re all “born equal”) has been decimated in various adoption studies. You can Google at your leisure.

          The problem with the “…but we’d be equal were it not for RACISM!” thesis is that it can’t be duplicated. Occams Razor is pretty simple on the race issue: we’re not equal, per everything we can measure. Some races are more intelligent than others and this predictably manifests itself in certain civil and cultural performance metrics. Your claim is that the reason certain races under-perform is because of “oppression” however there is certainly no correlation between “oppression” and having a low IQ or the inability to achieve meaningful civil advancements. If that were the case, why aren’t Jews the dumbest and least accomplished people on earth? Present company notwithstanding.

          You did fail to answer my question about where all the black and hispanic CS engineers are, though. You implied that the reason there are so few black and hispanic CS engineers is because “racism”? The problem with nebulous concepts like that is they eventually become a plug-all logic, every thing your thesis fails in reality.

          Your position is tantamount to a religion. We all know what the bible verses are… Mismeasure of Man, Guns Germs and Steel, “IQ testing is invalid”, “race doesn’t exist”, etc, etc, etc. The problem is, none of it withstands any unpacking or scrutiny. You wind up chanting mantras and saying “racist” a lot in the hopes that you can avoid the cognitive dissonance associated with maintaining a stupid ideal that doesn’t manifest itself in reality.

          This is why you can’t point to evidence. Only social theories. This is also why social-science academia has a sub-dogsh*t reputation among people interested in intellectual honesty and not flogging an ideological agenda.

          Here’s a quick summary, though.

          * Races are not “equal”. This might be unpopular, but it’s per every single thing we can measure and observe empirically.

          *Root causes theories does absolutely nothing to assuage the above reality. Even if it’s true that the reason Aborigines are dumber than the Malaysians is because of a nutritional quirk that occurred in the last glacial maximum, it does nothing but reaffirm how different we are, now.

          *High intellectual barrier professions naturally have a dearth of members of certain races since those professions require intellectual outliers to participate and said races do not produce enough intellectual outliers to have any meaningful representation, given how mean IQ works.

          * IQ is valid. There is nothing to indicate it isn’t, beyond the whining and squealing of egalitarians who hate what it reveals about different groups and their stupid theories on life. Things like “The Bell Curve” are methodologically valid to their core, the very predictable “debunking” or refutations of if were not only predicted in advance by the study’s authors, but nitpicks over methodological minutiae that in no way invalidates the core point. It does, however, provide people like you a “study to reference” in debates of this nature, even though you’ve never read it. Again, another failing of the “my study versus your study” method in lieu of logic.

          Sorry. You can’t win an argument when you’re wrong. At least you can take some consolation that your opinion is more popular and some people will say you’re a “good guy” for believing what you do. It’s just you can’t defend it… and your multi-quote spergouts are further evidence of how utterly untenable and indefensible your beliefs actually are.

          As far as punishing people for wrongthink, this discourse between us is a pretty good example of why we just can’t do that. You are on the objectively wrong side of a right/wrong issue. Your only positive footing is that you enjoy the benefit of cultural trends and post-modern values, where your beliefs are valued as being “good” in spite of being wrong. Historically, allowing that to go on unchallenged has been a recipe for disaster. Your comment history speaks for itself. Ask yourself why I believe that society is better off the more guys like you talk, whereas your belief is that society is worse off the more guys like me talk?

      • clockworkelves

        Only Anil knows what Anil thinks, I do not. I do know that Anil isn’t actually on a moral high ground. Pax doesn’t steal candy from babies. What the fuck does “anti-diversity” mean? That is what I mean by fake.
        It doesn’t mean anything. It’s defined in the negative. It’s casting SJW
        aspersions and seeing what sticks. Pax used his free speech so how the fuck is he in the wrong??

        EDIT: And are you a moral retard? Just telling the truth makes you moral? It’s WHO you tell this so-called truth to and what your INTENT is and knowing the IMPACT of your words DEFINE the morality.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Pax doesn’t steal candy from babies.

          Well, if he did, he’d be in jail, rather than spouting nonsense on the Internet. Really, is that your standard for “I don’t want to deal with this person/support this person”?

          What the fuck does “anti-diversity” mean?

          To take positions that actively diminish the chances of a diverse workplace, which Dickinson does.

          Pax used his free speech so how the fuck is he in the wrong??

          And Anil Dash used his, and yet *he* is somehow oh-so-terrible.

          “EDIT: And are you a moral retard? Just telling the truth makes you
          moral? It’s WHO you tell this so-called truth to and what your INTENT is
          and knowing the IMPACT of your words DEFINE the morality.”

          Ah — so if someone in your opinion is doing damage, then…you should judge whether or not it’s OK to talk about it based on whether or not it might have a negative impact on the person being talked about?

          Truth is a perfect defense against libel/slander complaints; it is also a much better place to start with when looking for the high ground than whining about “Hey! You said I said a thing and now I’m in trouble for it!”

          I’m reminded of how it seems, in some parts of the culture, to be far worse to *accuse* someone of being racist than to actually *be* one — because if you accuse someone, then we have to actually notice it and perhaps do something.

          Knowing what I know about Pax, I wouldn’t want to work for a company he ran, or over which he had much cultural influence. I suspect I’m far from alone in that — and that in and of itself (the potential talent drain) is reason for a VC to consider strongly whether to invest in him.

        • clockworkelves

          How are you not an SJW?

        • Steven Schwartz

          Do you have a real answer, or are you going to go “You’re an SJW, I don’t need to answer you!” or somesuch? (Speaking of blacklisting — describing an entire class of people (not, I will note, self-defined) as liars/unsuitable for discourse (as the person Pax cited above, Teddy Beale, did) is a reasonable specimen of the same thing, *especially* if you feel Dash “blacklisted” anyone.

        • clockworkelves

          You really don’t get it. I’ve adequately responded and it’s not entering your shit for brains. I’m being very gracious by even writing this for you. If you don’t get it by now, you are a genuine fucktard. End of conversation. I win.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Let’s see — it took you 4 whole posts to go into full-bore “random insults and declaring victory” mode. I notice you’ve managed to avoid answering most questions. Underwhelming, to put it mildly.

        • Tehy

          There’s really not much to say overall; SJWs, instead of engaging in some kind of a debate ‘did this guy’s joke tweets REALLY comprise some kind of character flaw?’ will simply decide that this person is trash and then try to ruin them. What justification have you to try and take away his job, you don’t like his opinions? Because he’s on a different side than you, blacklist him?

          that’s despicable fucking behavior.

          but really, you miss the point anyhow. an SJW is functionally someone who is incapable of putting their job first; rather, their ideology comes first, and they will sacrifice your company’s reputation to make certain progressive statements, or sacrifice efficiency in the name of some kind of progressive fairness, or etc. The SJWlist is simply a list of people who it would be a bad idea to hire EVEN IF YOU AGREE WITH THEIR POLITICS. Period.

        • Steven Schwartz

          ” SJWs, instead of engaging in some kind of a debate ‘did this guy’s joke
          tweets REALLY comprise some kind of character flaw?’ will simply decide
          that this person is trash and then try to ruin them.”

          Well, then I’ve never met an SJW. And am certainly not one myself, despite the people who want to call me one, because that’s not what I do.

          It’s really kind of funny, to see the strawmen that get floated around under the “SJW” banner.

          “What justification have you to try and take away his job, you don’t like his opinions?”

          Business Insider took away his job because, not unreasonably, they thought he was a risk to their reputation, along with putting them at risk for lawsuits-a-go-go, given what they had learned about his character.

          If someone (on their private account) tweeted things like “How do you know a republican? His tie is hanging out of his ass” and “Any time I see a man denying feminism, I know I’m looking at an idiot” — and that person was the CxO of a major organization — there’d be a hue and cry against them, on teh grounds of likely discrimination. Heck: tweeting an ambiguous tweet that might have offended a bunch of SF fans got an editor at Tor repeated calls for her firing.

          So don’t act as if this is “You guys do it, we don’t”.

          ” an SJW is functionally someone who is incapable of putting their job
          first; rather, their ideology comes first, and they will sacrifice your
          company’s reputation to make certain progressive statements, or
          sacrifice efficiency in the name of some kind of progressive fairness,
          or etc.”

          Well, then again you’re chasing at strawmen — assering that people who hold a particular set of politics will put it above their work.

          But believe what you will to make your conscience clear of your own blacklist while pointing in alarm and outrage at other people’s “blacklisting” by pointing out behavior. It’s amusing to watch teh rhetorical pretzels.

        • Tehy

          ” SJWs, instead of engaging in some kind of a debate ‘did this guy’s joke
          “Well, then I’ve never met an SJW. And am certainly not one myself, despite the people who want to call me one, because that’s not what I do.”

          But you are justifying the actions of those that do these things, you know?

          “Business Insider took away his job because, not unreasonably, they thought he was a risk to their reputation, along with putting them at risk for lawsuits-a-go-go, given what they had learned about his character.”

          he was a risk to their reputation because shrieking SJWs will lie about him and twist what he said. Like I said, it’s understandable on the end of the business, but despicable on the ends of the shriekers and twisters.

          “If someone (on their private account) tweeted things like “How do you know a republican? His tie is hanging out of his ass” and “Any time I see a man denying feminism, I know I’m looking at an idiot” — and that person was the CxO of a major organization — there’d be a hue and cry against them, on teh grounds of likely discrimination. Heck: tweeting an ambiguous tweet that might have offended a bunch of SF fans got an editor at Tor repeated calls for her firing.”

          did said editor get fired

          going to go ahead and bet she didn’t because you said ‘repeated calls’ and not ‘the company even considered firing said editor’ let alone ‘the company fired said editor’

          i’d also like to see the tweets pax sent which you are reversing, though I wouldn’t have a huge problem with those tweets and certainly wouldn’t want someone fired as a result of them. In fact, that would piss me off.

          “Well, then again you’re chasing at strawmen — assering that people who hold a particular set of politics will put it above their work.”

          no

          i am talking about people who hold those politics AND put it above their work. these people exist and are real and i have encountered them before, there is no strawman here, just a failure of understanding on your part

          “But believe what you will to make your conscience clear of your own blacklist while pointing in alarm and outrage at other people’s “blacklisting” by pointing out behavior. It’s amusing to watch teh rhetorical pretzels.”

          please, there’s no pretzels to be found here. the only ‘blacklist’ you are talking about is a list of people’s past actions, without much judgment one way or the other. It has perfectly sourced allegations and does not seek to thrust itself into the national conversation any time one of these people is hired; it simply exists if you want to see the bad actions of your prospective employee. I’m not *thrilled* about that, mind you, but it’s not turning me into a pretzel either.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “But you are justifying the actions of those that do these things, you know?”

          My point is that I am not at all convinced such people *exist*, and I’ve been in communities where you think you’d find them for a long time.

          You want to create an image of “the SJW” who is a hair-trigger keyword-responding ragemonster who doesn’t look at what any kind of reality is — and you can do so, but then when you accuse real people of being “SJWs”, you’re maligning them and doing precisely what you claim the SJWs do to you — going off keywords and making a knee-jerk reaction.

          he was a risk to their reputation because shrieking SJWs will lie about him and twist what he said

          They don’t need to lie about him or twist what he said — he’s the one who made racist, sexist, x-ist jokes all over the place, defends misogynists and misogynist culture, and compares feminists to Nazis in his own words. If he didn’t want to be judged by his own words, he shouldn’t have said them.

          “did said editor get fired”

          No; because Tor recognized a pointless witchhunt when they saw one. Said editor was also not in a position to poison the entire organizational culture in the way a CTO would be.

          “i’d also like to see the tweets pax sent which you are reversing, though
          I wouldn’t have a huge problem with those tweets and certainly wouldn’t
          want someone fired as a result of them. In fact, that would piss me
          off.”

          I was making up things of a similar, but *milder* nature. If you want to see some of Pax’s tweets, look here:

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/pax-dickinson-fired-business-insider-tweets_n_3900548.html

          As you’ll see, I was gentle.

          ” these people exist and are real and i have encountered them before,
          there is no strawman here, just a failure of understanding on your part”

          Perhaps some do; but the criteria listed for your “blacklist” doesn’t match that it calls for a very specific thing that does *not* mean what you claim it to mean here. If I called for Teddy Beale to be kept off the Hugo stage because he’s deliberately tried to ruin the events, that has nothing to do with how I do my day job — and conflating the two is ridiculous.

          “It has perfectly sourced allegations and does not seek to thrust itself
          into the national conversation any time one of these people is hired; it
          simply exists if you want to see the bad actions of your prospective
          employee.”

          Feel free to keep splitting hairs — there are people pointing it out all over the place — including its creator — and the fact that the list is somehow not itself injecting itself into the conversation does not mean others don’t.

          THe list doesn’t support your claims, it makes allegations damaging to people’s professional reputations — sure looks like a much worse case of the stuff you’re lamenting to me.

        • Tehy

          ‘My point is that I am not at all convinced such people *exist*, and I’ve been in communities where you think you’d find them for a long time.”

          they do. I don’t care that you haven’t been paying attention.

          “You want to create an image of “the SJW” who is a hair-trigger keyword-responding ragemonster who doesn’t look at what any kind of reality is — and you can do so, but then when you accuse real people of being “SJWs”, you’re maligning them and doing precisely what you claim the SJWs do to you — going off keywords and making a knee-jerk reaction.”

          no, this is simply an accurate portrayal, and furthermore, I simply communicate reality.

          you, for example, have defended these guys and basically excused their actions; again, I am fine with what the corporation did, but what they did was severely fucked up.

          “No; because Tor recognized a pointless witchhunt when they saw one. Said editor was also not in a position to poison the entire organizational culture in the way a CTO would be.”

          as opposed to the person who would’ve caused lawsuits because he…sent a couple of tweets you didn’t like the smell of? Come on, you know well enough that he got fired because of a witchhunt, and what happened to the Tor editor is not comparable because that person…wait for it…didn’t get fired!

          I was making up things of a similar, but *milder* nature.” If you want to see some of Pax’s tweets, look here:

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

          As you’ll see, I was gentle.

          And here we see tweets that, while controversial, can easily be explained away and certainly don’t create ‘workplace toxicity’

          1: ‘”horrible transphobia” ; not a fan but this is far from a settled issue and people are allowed to have opinions on it
          2: “if gay people protest in russia Putin will fuck them up”, if you know any Russians you know that’s the absolute fucking truth
          3: “explained as a Mel Gibson joke in a Reason article with Cathy Young”, this is why you ask for people’s explanations before you go off the rails.
          4: “a good point made about minimum wage” – if you can’t afford something, do not get it? isn’t that a no-brainer? yes it sucks, i agree, but it’s also a function of reality.
          5: “Criticism of Feminism, a type of ideology” are you aware of the sheer number and scope of articles written by feminists talking about how much they hate male feminists? there’s a lot. ‘but not all feminists’ well you are aware there were some jewish nazis and nazi sympathizers though right, the analogy is imperfect but it’s more complex than you think
          6: “the dreaded…RAPE JOKE AAHHHH” calm down dude, this really doesn’t disrespect sexual assault in any serious way. I know plenty of people that can laugh at a rape joke and not think the act is OK; get past your virtue signaling and you will acknowledge it’s not a big deal

          “Perhaps some do; but the criteria listed for your “blacklist” doesn’t match that it calls for a very specific thing that does *not* mean what you claim it to mean here. If I called for Teddy Beale to be kept off the Hugo stage because he’s deliberately tried to ruin the events, that has nothing to do with how I do my day job — and conflating the two is ridiculous.”

          yeah, it seems they’ve focused a bit more on the outside-of-work behavior, but it’s worth noting that this is still just a list of ‘things people have done’, not a blacklist or anything similar. People may choose to use said list, true. I would prefer they didn’t, but people have a right to know things.

          “Feel free to keep splitting hairs — there are people pointing it out all over the place — including its creator — and the fact that the list is somehow not itself injecting itself into the conversation does not mean others don’t. The list doesn’t support your claims, it makes allegations damaging to people’s professional reputations — sure looks like a much worse case of the stuff you’re lamenting to me.”

          there’s no hairs to split, and I don’t think Beale is the creator. Regardless, the key difference here is that A: the things done here are actions, not speech, and B: they are accurate and true, unlike ‘he sent some tweets that weren’t racist but I WILL CALL HIM RACIST ANYHOW’ which is the M.O. you have already displayed.

        • James

          Like all true SJW’s, “Steven Schwartz” is something of an energizer bunny that never, ever, EVER stops boring away at the foundations of whatever society or civilization is targeted. This is the way of all collectivists. It is why communists, Nazis, and assorted fascists held sway in much of the world throughout the 20th century. After all, those movements didn’t take hold because of lack of support (and they are all fundamentally alike at base). Schwartz is of the type, and is typical in his persistence.

          Incidentally, a comprehensive list of social justice warriors has been founded and is being kept updated at http://sjwlist.com/Main_Page. Read all about it. “Schwartz” may already be on the list under his real name.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “(and they are all fundamentally alike at base).”

          Bingo! Thank you, I needed the “Nazis and communists were the same — and left-wing!” spot on my bingo card. I mean, you’ve already filled in the “Right-wing projection slot” and several others.

          And no, I’m not on Beale’s little blacklist. I did check. :)

        • WATYF

          [Bingo! Thank you, I needed the "Nazis and communists were the same -- and left-wing!" spot on my bingo card.]

          I assume you mean your Historical Ignorance Bingo card, because yes, according to actual evidence (and not your emotions), the Nazis were similar to the communists in that they were collectivists who promoted State control of production and capital.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Pre-war_economy:_1933.E2.80.931939

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Wartime_policies:_1939.E2.80.931945

        • Steven Schwartz

          Let’s see: the Nazis privatized banks, the railroads, steelworks, utilities, when they weren’t at war. Then, when they went to war, they, like the United States, put a lot more government control over the economy.

          Yes, that sounds *just* like communism — if you’re desperate to make the comparison. With that record of privatization, Hitler sounds more like Thatcher than Stalin.

        • James

          Schwartz said: “Let’s see: the Nazis privatized banks, the railroads, steelworks, utilities, when they weren’t at war. Then, when they went to war, they, like the United States, put a lot more government control over the economy.”

          Riight! NAZI was a stand-in for “National Socialist German Workers Party”. So they were big *privatizers*! Who knew? :–)

        • Steven Schwartz

          Hey, James — why don’t you go back and look at the links posted in the comment I responded to, since I was paraphrasing *that data*.

          So, the answer to “Who knew” is “Anyone who bothered to do the reading, rather than assume that “socialist” in a party name meant precisely what they thought it did.” In other words, anyone actually trying to be informed and understand, rather than sticking fingers in their ears and trying to make a political point.

        • WATYF

          [Let's see: the Nazis privatized banks, the railroads, steelworks, utilities, when they weren't at war.]

          The first link I provided addresses this very thing. If only you had bothered to read it. Here’s the relevant section which renders your above counter-argument into the ahistorical nonsense that it is:

          “The Nazi Party election programs supported nationalization of major industries, though the Nazi government included a few actual policies of privatization in the 1930s. Between the fiscal years 1934/35 and 1937/38, privatization was a small source of revenue for Germany’s Treasury, representing only 1.4 percent of total fiscal revenues.”

          It later goes on to talk about how the Nazis controlled things like labor, retail, and even what cars could be produced. Note that this was all “Pre war” (counter your assertion that they only did these things once they were at war).

          [Yes, that sounds *just* like communism]

          No, it doesn’t, which is why I specifically didn’t say that the Nazis were *just* like communists. Let me quote what I said for you again, since apparently your reading comprehension wasn’t good enough to follow along the first time.

          “the Nazis were similar to the communists in that they were collectivists who promoted State control of production and capital.”

          Note my careful use of the word “similar” and then the fact that I followed up my statement with links detailing all of the ways in which the Nazis promoted State control of production and capital.

          [if you're desperate to make the comparison...]

          You’re projecting. I’m not desperate to do anything. I’m simply stating the historical reality of the situation. You, on the other hand, strike me as being desperate to avoid having the Nazis be on “your side” of the political spectrum.

          Not being one to base my views on emotion or peer pressure, I really don’t care who else is on my side of the political spectrum (however one chooses to arbitrarily define the “political spectrum”).

          Regardless, the fact is that the Nazis were collectivists and statists, just like the previous commenter said. All of the historical data supports this.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I did, indeed, read the link; I notice that you are placing much more emphasis on what’s in the “election program” rather than what they actually *did* — did you look at the very next paragraph from the one you cited, in which it discussed what was privatized?

          Furthermore; government dismantling unions and controlling labor is *just* *perfect* for a corporatist state — they can, and did, ban strikes — which are the main weapon organized labor *has* to protect itself against corporatist control.

          In other words, you are cherrypicking your data to match your conclusions — perhaps through unintentional bias, perhaps not.

          The Nazis were statists — yes — but also very strongly *corporatist*. That is a critical and fundamental difference, which the original commenter ignored, and which you appear to be ignoring as well.

          (It is also worth noting that if you’re going to divide the world along those lines, the traditional left/right differentiation breaks down; many social conservatives are, in that regard, collectivist with regards to moral and religious questions, while many leftists are anti-statists. But this is more a point for James.)

        • WATYF

          [In other words, you are cherrypicking your data to match your conclusions]

          I’m not cherry-picking anything. I’m pointing out the obvious: that the Nazis engaged in collectivist and statist policies, both before and during wartime. The areas where they didn’t engage in collectivist activity (or didn’t appear to) do not cancel out the areas where they did. The previous commenter referred to them as collectivists and statists, which is what gave rise to your objection to lumping them in with communism, but he was correct. All such ideologies are destructive, as both the Communists and the Nazis proved.

          You can read more about the way in which the Nazis were hard-core collectivists (even in the areas of their economy that were supposedly “privatized”) here: https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

          [The Nazis were statists -- yes -- but also very strongly *corporatist*. That is a critical and fundamental difference]

          This is also not true. The Nazis were first and foremost Nationalists. If you think they let corporate interests take precedence over the national interest, then you should spend more time reading the history of the matter.

          When they “privatized”, it was to gain advantage for the State. Ultimately, despite the objections of other socialists who don’t want to be associated with them, the Nazi’s name was a perfectly accurate self-description: They were socialists in service of Nationalism.

          There are many unique aspects of the Nazis socialism. They were unlike the Communists in many ways, but both ideologies are cut from the same cloth. They both place the State above the individual, and they use force to bring that ideology about.

          [It is also worth noting that if you're going to divide the world along those lines, the traditional left/right differentiation breaks down]

          That’s because the traditional left/right differentiation is logically incoherent. I reject the traditional “left/right” political spectrum entirely as it is excessively arbitrary and allows people to pretend that they aren’t on the same side as people they don’t like (or it allows them to pretend that their philosophies aren’t shared by people who actually share their philosophies). Its incoherence is never more noticeable than when the “Nazi” question comes up.

          I prefer this spectrum, which is based on a single metric (human liberty) and is much harder to manipulate based on one’s preferences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODJfwa9XKZQ

      • Kudzu Bob

        Actually, YOU’RE the one who now has to deal with the consequences of being a jackass. There has been a shift in the wind in the past couple of years, in case you hadn’t noticed. The Left is losing cultural hegemony, and it is glorious to see.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Well, I’m not the one whining about blacklists, and how the “evil ” are ruining the world. The only examples of the shift in the wind have been how much more *blatant* the Right has been; it does rather come across as bitter-enders rather than anything else.

          After all, the “past couple of years” have brought us gay marriage, the country laughing at the Bundy freakshow, and the like.

        • Kudzu Bob

          Whining? LOL

          In five years you’re really going to miss the days when the Right just consisted of a bunch of faggots who just wanted a 2% tax cut.

          Catch you later.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I’m not really worried, given the way things have gone, about anyone who dismisses people as “a bunch of faggots”.

        • Kudzu Bob

          SJWs are just hall monitors, nothing more.

        • Fail Burton

          And the wonders of 6 yr. old kids defining their own sex.

      • Fail Burton

        Dash said being professionally associated with Pax is tantamount to racial and sexual discrimination. Yes, that’s a call for blacklisting people. The only proven racist there is Dash himself, one of the feather merchants who allows himself to define his own hate speech with the usual women can’t be sexist, non-whites racist and gays heterophobes. Convenient.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “Yes, that’s a call for blacklisting people.”

          As I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, you seem to think it’s worse to *call* someone a racist/misogynist/etc. than to actually *be* one, since Dash was stating his opinion.

          As to the rest, do provide some evidence — Pax has given us ample evidence of his views — cracking rape jokes about Kobe Bryant and Cleveland, etc., calling feminists Nazis etc.

        • Kudzu Bob

          It is a call for blacklisting people, of course, since to be considered a racist is professional death.

          But the times they are a-changin’, as you will discover sooner than you think. Then YOU will be the one being blacklisted, and your cries of anguish will be the laugh-track of the funniest sitcom of all time.

          We’ve already reached Peak SJW, and deep down you know I’m telling the truth. You’re just too chickenshit to admit it, that’s all.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “It is a call for blacklisting people, of course, since to be considered a racist is professional death.”

          See above: you think it’s worse to call someone that than to be it. You may want a world where it’s safer for the racists than for anyone else, but I don’t.

          “We’ve already reached Peak SJW, and deep down you know I’m telling the
          truth. You’re just too chickenshit to admit it, that’s all.”

          People have been saying things like that for years; they’ve yet to come true. Indeed, based on the increase in extremist violence and paranoia coming from parts of the right, and things like the changing opinions of the young, I’d say the shoe was on the other foot.

          But by all means, bluster on.

      • Fail Burton

        There is no such thing as ideological or even casual misogyny and anti-diversity in America. You are a liar making things up out of your own head.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Wow. I don’t even know where to start — in a country with peopl who regularly insist that a woman’s place is in the home, that women shouldn’t have the right to vote — like this guy: http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31677/ (Oh, wait — he’s technically in Finland. But people here do still appear to be listening to him, on this very site), where MRA organizations exist, etc., you can say “No such thing as casual misogyny” — that is a level of blindness I have never encountered before.

          “If Hillary can’t satsify her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?” — if you can’t see misogyny in that, then your ideological blinders are too strong for *anything* to get through. And that’s a candidate for President of the United States.

        • Fail Burton

          “A country with people…” How many: 8? 498? Is this institutionalized on any level? You are a retard. There are people who regularly insist there are UFOs.

        • Steven Schwartz

          There are elected officials arguing against women’s rights all over the place — and you’re talking about *thousands* of people, between the Men’s Rights movement, the Quiverfull movement, heck — much of Gamergate fits the bill for casual misogyny. You said “ideological or casual” — not “institutional” (and even there, with a lot of churches, you can make the argument.) Like I said, a man with a significant history of misogyny is a major-party candidate for President — but there’s no “casual” misogyny? Get real.

      • Tehy

        would you care to provide an example of pax bullying anyone?

        • Steven Schwartz

          When your CTO is cracking rape jokes, comparing feminism to Nazi-ism, etc., I’d say you have a decent case for a hostile work envirohment. I hadn’t realized, until I dug in, just what a jackass Dickinson was.

        • Tehy

          lol

          that’s not bullying, and you have 0 case for a hostile work environment. feel free to provide proof for any of those assertions, by the way.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Either a) you think that Business Insider thinks so little of Pax professionally that they tossed him away for very little, b) the HR department had a valid worry to get rid of a valid employee, or c) you think Anil Dash is a Secret Master of everything. :)

          Like I said elsewhere — they got rid of him *before* the lawsuits or the exodus could hit; smart practice.

        • Tehy

          or D), as I have already explained, shrieking SJWs will swarm and no one wants to deal with it. Lawsuits for what, exactly?

        • Steven Schwartz

          Lawsuits for a hostile work environment, which an HR department could see looming from those tweets. All it would take would be one bad piece of judgment on DIckinson’s part in a work environment and *boom*.

          And again, if Pax was a valued employee, an SJW swarm would not have been so much a risk; which brings me back to point A). It’s not as if companies haven’t ridden out complaints of many different kinds before, unless you believe “SJWs” are somehow much mightier than, say, the Southern Baptists, for example.

        • Tehy

          kek

          Lawsuits for a hostile work environment, based on what? Rude tweets? Can you really be this foolish? There is no *boom* to be had…

          And again, the issue here is that southern baptists really aren’t stronger than SJWs; you can tell because they never manage to get anyone fired! But ultimately, I can’t prove anything to someone who is determined to lie to himself to preserve this idea that someone who says things he doesn’t like deserves to be fired. No one wants to deal with shrieking crowds of SJWs crying ‘racist’, so they do this regardless of the truth of the statement and then they win. It’s fucking despicable and it needs to stop, that’s all.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “Lawsuits for a hostile work environment, based on what? Rude tweets?”

          No, as you’d know if you’d bothered to read: someone who tweeted that stuff was a significant risk to say it somewhere in the workplace where it *could* become part of a lawsuit. I don’t know about you, I’d rather get rid of potential trouble *before* it turned into a lawsuit.

          “No one wants to deal with shrieking crowds of SJWs crying ‘racist’, so
          they do this regardless of the truth of the statement and then they win.”

          Hm. Lots of people still have jobs who are quite blatantly racist; I guess their employers decided they were worth it. Which gets us back to “Apparently Pax wasn’t a good enough employee to be worth the trouble”.

        • Tehy

          A pair of silly statements; let us dismantle them.

          1) If you really believe it is a ‘hostile workplace’ to be in the presence of someone who doesn’t agree with your ideas about gender, or whatever it is you’re claiming he has, you are the one creating the hostile workplace. Then there’s the obvious reality that most people are professional enough to separate twitter behavior from workplace behavior; furthermore, if Pax hadn’t already been fired, and he had already been like this, didn’t they know he wasn’t dangerous or volatile?

          2) name people who have gotten significant media attention for blatant racism and kept their jobs

        • The

          Or D) Corporate cowardice and buckling to SJW crusades hit a low point in the early 2010′s and as a result, anyone could be professionally damaged for anything that college students and left-bent ideologues squealed about.

      • James

        I want to take a moment to note two things on this thread. First, the debate is illustrative of just how persistent SJW’s are. Schwartz has expended thousands of words and who knows how many hours pushing his ideology here. “They never rest”; they are as pernicious as termites. Second, this thread illustrates how the purpose of SJW’s with their endless energy and focus is always the same: Amassing and imposing organized power over others. Every post by Schwartz attempts to justify it. The two characteristics are common, ubiquitous, and deadly. Their endless iteration throughout human history is why so much of it has been unremittingly ugly.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “Amassing and imposing organized power over others.”

          Heh. I find this hilarious, as an anarchist.

          Especially given the amount of effort anti-”SJW” people put into trying to *support* the current power structure, by maintaining the status quo and fighting against efforts to change it.

          But go ahead — do keep arguing that it’s worse to try and stop racism, sexism, etc. than it is to be racist, sexist, etc. — which is all you ever do.

        • James

          Oh sure Schwartz, you’re an “anarchist”. That’s so cool and transgressive! Give me a fuckin’ break. You and people like you ARE “the current power structure” and “the status quo” (insane as it has become, and temporary though it may be).

        • Steven Schwartz

          Serves you right for trying to project onto other people what you think they are; I am an anarcho-socialist, have been for many years.

          Perhaps this will teach you to think a bit more about who you’re talking to, and how to listen to them — probably not, but hope springs eternal.

        • James

          And there you have it folks, the ultimate oxymoron, a “statist anarchist”. For there’s *nothing* that makes a coercive, all-powerful, abusive, murderous State more necessary than “socialism”. So thank you, Schwartz. Your remarks are…enlightening! :–)

        • Steven Schwartz

          Why don’t you go look at the actual definition, rather than presume you know?

          Socialism wants *worker* control of the means of production, not *state* control.

          Then again, as your other post recently here indicates, paying attention enough to read is not your strong suit.

      • Steven Schwartz

        If I may intrude and respond to what appears to be a paid, parasite, SJW, troll (Mr. Schwartz)

        I am curious as to what makes you think I’m “paid” — I’m not, but it is an interesting attempt to discredit me.

        (I also note that you, like James, appear to be incapable of distinguishing “communism” from “socialism”. While I know that the Right often tries to conflate the two, in order to a) paint socialists with the worst excesses of communism, and b) claim that therefore the Nazis were the same as the Soviets through name-similarity, rather than looking at the facts on the ground, *do* try and do a bit of independent research and see if you can figure out the difference.)

      • Steven Schwartz

        I’m saying that communism (state control of the means of production on behalf of a communal working class) is a subset of socialism (worker control of the means of production) — and that equating the two is the same as saying “Well, all capitalism is bad, because look at the horrors visited upon the world by laissez-faire capitalism and crony capitalism in the form of blood diamond mining, Bhopal, etc., etc., and so forth.”

        Which is how you can get anarcho-socialists, for example, who stand in fervent opposition to state control of production, while being accused of being statists by people who can’t tell the difference.

      • James

        Your legerdemain with words, Schwartz, is like the Red Queen: Words mean whatever you *want* them to mean! Et voila! “Anarchist socialism.” Again, give me a break. Go back up above and read the disquisition of WATYF on his rejection of the “left-right” political spectrum. Socialism demands state control. How else are you going to dispossess all those evil capitalists of the factories they built? (Anticipating your objection to “dark, satanic mills,” go read some George Gilder, particularly his essay, “The Soul of Silicon,” which is a good read for anyone interested in the foundations of capitalism, which are the opposite of socialism.)

        Incidentally, thank you for admitting above that “communism is a subset of socialism.” Sure is. Same as fascism, Maoism, Nazism, Leninism, Stalinism, et al. All justify concentration of power in the hands of the few over the many, “For the good of all,” of course (and the state is the ultimate tool for achieving the aim). Hence, all are variants of collectivist statism.

      • Steven Schwartz

        “Socialism demands state control.”

        No, it doesn’t. That *you* cannot see socialism without state control doesn’t mean no one else can.

        ” How else are you going to dispossess all those evil capitalists of the factories they built?”

        By building worker-owned companies to compete with them, and eventually defeat them. Worker’s co-ops exist, they are competitive — and would be even stronger if there wasn’t such a knee-jerk reaction to the very word “socialism”.

        ” Same as fascism, Maoism, Nazism, Leninism, Stalinism, et al”

        Nompe. Fascism, Naziism, and Stalinism are not based on worker control of the means of production. Fascism and Naziism were quite content with capitalist control; as we discussed elsewhere, Naziism was quite willing to bring labor under government control to improve the profits of capital.

        “All justify concentration of power in the hands of the few over the many, ”

        Not anarcho-socialism. Nor are many forms of soft socialism, in which worker-owned production competes on a free market. Again, that you see “socialism” and read “statism” is your problem, not reality’s.

        Indeed, one could quite as truthfully state that laissez-faire & crony capitalism justifiy concentration of power in the hands of the few (the capitalists and their purchased cronies in government) over the many. We’ve seen it happen.

      • James

        Geez, this is sounding more and more like a freshman dorm room bullshit session (with breathtaking references to “worker control of the means of production”, “anarcho-socialism” and the such). But I’ll Tell you what, Schwartz: How about you cite some historical examples of “anarchist socialist” polities, and how they worked out, and I’ll give you some examples of real-world socialist regimes—including both nationalist and internationalist, e.g. Nazi socialists and Soviet communist socialists—and let’s compare and contrast how they all worked out. What? You say there never *has* been a real-world “anarchist socialist” polity? Quel surprise!

      Be Sociable, Share!