[popcorn munching noise – the popcorn of despair]

The back and forth between Sarah Hoyt (Team Cruz) and Vox Day (Team Trump) continues.

Sarah Hoyt here: http://accordingtohoyt.com/2016/02/26/monsters-of-the-id/

Vox Day in reply here: http://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/racial-identity-is-dispositive.html

It is kind of interesting watching Sarah work out that the man she allied with stands for political ideas that are extraordinarily toxic.

Meanwhile, as other sections of Puppydom are having conniptions about people who deleted their own Tweets being persecuted by Twitter, Donald Trump outlines how he intends to suppress freedom of speech: http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/02/26/trump-wants-to-destroy-first-amendment.html but you know, keep on with the Twitter thing. Oh boy.

Will Day’s ‘useful idiots’ manage to thing through how they’ve all been played for years into advancing the cause of toxic-nonsense?


20 thoughts on “[popcorn munching noise – the popcorn of despair]

  1. Ouch. Historiarum incorrectus, mendosus, falsus, chapter fivus.

    He appears to be unaware of the past 30-40 years of actual historical research on the multi-cultural, multi-lingual, syncretic nature of early American life. St Augustine FL came before the 13 colonies and was black/white/indigenous. Puritan firebrand preacher Cotton Mather thought Spanish was important enough to the colonies’ future that he learned the language and wrote an important text in it. Some argue that the Iroquois model was used as one of the major inspirations to structure US constitutional democracy. Founding Fathers indeed.

    The 18th century is not what he thinks it was. Thomas Jefferson, for example, was accused of being a secret Muslim and advocated religious plurality (See Denise Spellberg, “Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an”). He also edited his own version of the Bible, leaving out the miraculous and distilling it down to good 18th century humanist codes of conduct. The Resurrection, for example, didn’t make into his version. I assume he does not consider TJ one of the founding fathers.

    On a purely argumentative level, if he is saying that the nation is posterity — and posterity according to the OED is “future generations of people” — there is no incompatibility with America-as-posterity and the evolving composition of the demographics of those future generations. I suspect he should be hitching his chariot to the 19th century Manifest Destiny crowd and not the Founding Fathers.

    His acerba sunt historiae Assertiones dolor mamma mia

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/jefferson.html

    https://newrepublic.com/article/117173/thomas-jeffersons-quran-denise-spellberg-reviewed

    Apologies for the non SF content. Non-fiction is more my thing.

    Like

  2. It is kind of interesting watching Sarah work out that the man she allied with stands for political ideas that are extraordinarily toxic.

    You think she’s working that out? I missed it…

    Like

    1. Well, she might work it out. I’m ever hopeful about the capacity of the human mind to reasons its way out of self-delusion. You’d think that when Vox keeps attacking her arguments on the grounds the she is originally from Portugal that she might start thinking ‘Gosh, this person isn’t so nice’.

      Like

  3. But Camestros, if they were capable of figuring it out, then they wouldn’t be idiots — useful or otherwise. QED. PDQ. LSMFT. Hoyt’s doing the usual Puppy thing of ignoring the cognitive dissonance and having it both ways — insisting to Teddy that she’s European and therefore white, but telling everyone else she’s Hispanic (which, no to any definition thereof).

    The Founding Fathers were pretty much all Deist, and Jefferson the least religious of all. TJ, the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence (and liked the African ladies). Ben Franklin thought the Iroquois League was a pretty swell non-monarchy.

    And have you ever eaten Anglo-Saxon Protestant food? Oof. There’s nothing more dull: devoid of flavor, fiber, and water-soluble nutrients; heavy in bad carbs and cholesterol. Everyone I know, upon their return from England, goes to a Mexican restaurant between the airport and home. A friend of entirely WASP New England background won’t fly there or to Britain without haviing small Tabasco bottles in her carryon luggage. Please let people of non-Northern European extraction stay so we’ll have edible food.

    (I forget where you’re from, Camestros, just that you’re one of them furrinners from Yurp.)

    Like

  4. Sarah Hoyt: You see, the progressives think there is no such thing as the subconscious.

    facepalm This woman is not even living in this universe.

    Sarah Hoyt: Or should we talk about California desertifying itself so that it can save the delta smelt?

    Sarah, dear — California has always been a desert. (At least, it was until it stole other peoples’ water sources and became only a partial desert.)

    Sarah Hoyt: [Trump is] a conventional democrat

    I do not think that word means what you think it means. No, Sarah, Trump is from your side of the aisle — and it’s people like you who have enabled his rise to power. Congratulations. You must be very proud.

    Like

  5. Camestros Felapton: That one about the subconscious was a brand new theory I think. I can’t say I’ve seen it before.

    I suspect that Ms. Hoyt is a charter member of the Baseless Loony Theory Of The Month club.

    At the Platinum “one brand-new, never-before-heard offering e-mailed you each week” Level.

    Like

  6. It’s interesting that after all this time claiming that VD wasn’t her problem, that she didn’t have to address her association with him, and certainly didn’t have to say anything bad about him, that the thing that triggers Hoyt to start direct conflict with VD is The Trump.

    (Also, what’s with her starting an Heinlein v Asimov argument? That’s just odd. Oh, and wrong. And odd.)

    Like

    1. ouch.
      I was going to say that Vox is making it personal but then again Hoyt’s argument is a kind of argument from personal authority – OK not quite authority but personal quality. Still the proposition she seeks to defend is more right than Vox’s.

      Like

    2. Back at Hoyt’s a VD defender made this comment: “Vox is trying to instruct his followers and you in the art of not being “nice” – because inherent niceness is the lever that marxists(socialists/islamists/SJW’s / etc, whatever name they choose) use to force others to follow their agenda and bow to their will.”

      I just love that. See those SJW’s they are being *nice* and that is one of the ways in which they are eeviillll.

      I’m going to be so nice to people today!

      Like

      1. Super nice is the new Sooper Genius?

        VD is now claiming Hoyt called him a “fucking fascist” and a “nazi” on Twitter (obligatory pinch of salt because I can’t find the original) which has so many levels of irony given how long she spent cloaking herself in claims that similar insults to VD were aimed at her.

        To add insult to insult, some of his commenters are calling her a Marxist. I really shouldn’t chuckle, but schadenfreud pie is tasty.

        Like

      2. Oh, never mind, he was just quoting someone else in such a way that you could read it as coming from Hoyt. Total coincidence, just a typo, nothing more to it than that, of course.

        Like

Comments are closed.