Cool! Banned by Vox!

I had to give Vox a little lesson on Aristole and logic the other day and now he seems to have got a tad upset with me.

Second, while Camestros Felapton has gotten himself banned elsewhere in the Puppyverse, he’d always behaved himself here and never done worse than embarrass himself by demonstrating his inability to understand the core difference between rhetoric and dialectic, and between enthymemes and logical syllogisms. However, he’s been blatantly lying about both me and Castalia House elsewhere, so he’s now permanently banned from commenting here as well.

http://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/sjws-strike-back.html

Oopsie!

The rationalization is because of the point I made on File770 regarding the Castalia House published work on Gene Wolfe:

I’ve been a fan of Gene Wolfe for a long time. I love the idea of the work you are doing and from what I have seen the scale of work and scholarship you have put into is impressive. However, I can’t vote for your work when your publisher is promoting it by attempting to exploit issues like child-sexual abuse. There isn’t some neat way of separating ‘Castalia House’ from the actions and strategies of Theodore Beale/Vox Day and there is a qualitative difference between authors who have been unwillingly nominated by the Rabid slate and authors who have willingly chosen to work with Castalia House. I understand that for you it was a matter of getting your work published and promoted and I understand why any author would want that for their work – but in the case of Castalia “promoted” necessarily includes stunts like slating the Hugo awards and attempts to trash whole categories, and it includes slurs and defamation of *other authors* people who, like you, have poured sweat & scholarship and long days/nights into their work. However, I also get that Vox Day perceives criticism as betrayal and that he has a tendency to ‘punish’ what he perceives as betrayal. So I am certainly not asking you denounce Day or withdraw from the awards or any other kind of symbolic action, but I am saying I can’t vote for your work and I can’t see it as a legitimate nomination because there is no way of seperating what is published by Castalia from how Castalia promotes itself and its published works.

Vox claims this somehow ‘proves’ Larry Correia’s point about politics and the Hugos or something. Which is odd because the focus of my point was not Vox Day’s admittedly unpleasant and confused politics but his active campaign against the Hugo Awards and other science-fiction writers.

He also says:

But, as Felapton admits, since he can’t separate the work from the publisher, the merit of the work does not matter and he will not vote for any Castalia-published work on the basis of the genetic fallacy.

Sigh. That isn’t the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of IRRELEVANCE that confuses the SOURCE of a claim with its VERACITY. There isn’t a factual claim at stake here – I’m not saying a factual claim made by an author is false by virtue of his publisher (e.g. if somebody was to say that a claim about Gene Wolfe in the book was false purely on the basis that the book was a Castalia House book THAT would be the genetic fallacy).

My claim is that I can’t reward obnoxious behavior by Castalia House. Nothing to do with the genetic fallacy. Vox concedes that I raise one valid point, which is that “there is no way of separating what is published by Castalia from how Castalia promotes itself and its published works.” That is the ethical basis of my position and Vox concedes that it is valid and not fallacious.

What is more interesting is Vox losing his cool. That is a major departure from his play book and poor tactics. He is actually rattled? Surely not by me, so I assume it must be by El Sandifer’s campaign.


39 thoughts on “Cool! Banned by Vox!

  1. Camestros, I offer you my congratulations. Being banned by such a low, irrational troll is certainly a badge of honor.

    My cat  hat is off to you. 🐱

    Like

  2. I feel this comes under the heading of ‘I wouldn’t want to be in a club which would have me as a member’, but you’ve obviously had fun.

    I suspect VD is completely panic stricken by Chuck Tingle, and is flailing around trying to restore his feeling of being in control. He can’t; having opened Pandora’s box he is stuck with Tingle until the sun goes nova..

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I can’t fathom why he thought that, in particular, would make librul heads asplode. Is not SRBI quite literally “You ARE a Dinosaur, My Love”?

      Like

      1. I don’t know. I think they (alt right) think nobody but them have a sense of humor plus they really don’t understand people’s views on erotica. They assume the left’s objections to sexual exploitatiion is simply puritanism. So i guess they thought we’d all faint and be scandalized.

        Like

  3. Sigh, you’re now so far ahead of me in the getting-insulted-or-banned-by notable-puppies stakes that I’ll have to concede abject defeat.

    I noticed something a bit concerning on that VD link: he says he’s publishing a book by Moira Greyland. (Possibly I’d missed that bit of news) I think that moves her essay into the Castalia-promotion category for me.

    (I also spotted his swift move to quibble about the precise age depicted in that Ms Marvel cartoon. He doesn’t seem to realise that when you’re claiming “she swore she was 18” you’ve already lost…)

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Mark: I noticed something a bit concerning on that VD link: he says he’s publishing a book by Moira Greyland. (Possibly I’d missed that bit of news) I think that moves her essay into the Castalia-promotion category for me.

        If that’s the case, I hope she understands what sort of Klown Kar she’s signing on for.

        But it’s irrelevant to me. Whilst I think her story is worth reading, and people should read it, I don’t think it meets the criteria for Related Work simply because her parents were SFF authors, and it will be going below “No Award” on my ballot.

        Like

      2. Using her past as an excuse to push an “all non-cis non-heteros are evil child molesters” narrative?

        She knows.

        Like

    1. Is she fessing up to the years she spent working as a dominatrix (no actual sex, just being Mistress, so I was told), of her own free will? It was pretty well-paid work.

      Probably, since non-cis non-hetero non-vanilla are evil.

      Like

  4. Gosh, Camestros, I’m so proud of you. I feel privileged to know you.

    He really can’t stand having people who know formal logic and rhetoric better than he does around.

    The whole dichotomy between naked teens and pretending to care about sexual assault reminds me SO much of former US House Speaker (and current felon) Hastert.* For non-Muricans, he was very loud about passing bills that were tough on child molesters. And guess what he’d done for years with the boys of the wrestling team he coached? Got it in one.

    Hypocrisy (another good Greek word).

    *He also created Homeland Security and the Patriot Act… the latter is what got him caught, ironically.

    Like

  5. However, he’s been blatantly lying about both me and Castalia House elsewhere

    Just tell him you were using rhetoric, which is something he obviously doesn’t understand…

    It’s also amusing to see him flailing around in his flop-sweat as you call him on being a serial bullshitter:

    And in this particular application, my rhetoric, even structurally reliant as it is upon apparent truth rather than actual truth, is more persuasive, and therefore more effective, than Slate’s rhetoric, in part for the obvious reason that it is absolutely true.

    Which, translated, means “Yes, Felapton correctly pointed out my argument was emotionally-charged bullshit. But pay no attention to that, because what I am lying about is nonetheless true – and I have to construct an argument on lies because ARISTOTLE!!!!”

    What a pretentious fucking loser.

    Like

  6. In a later post he claimes to be amused by all this. When VD is “amused” you know he is really upset.

    Like

  7. Now you’ve managed to get Vox to fisk you. I am impressed.

    (It also says something to his current state of mind that he palms a really obvious card right in the first couple of paras, he’s normally much better than that)

    Like

  8. First, you need to learn how to spell Aristotle.

    Second, it is indeed a form of the Genetic Fallacy, or at least a corollary of it, and you should be intelligent enough to see that. The fact that you don’t appear to (or at least claim not to) understand the logic of that is very telling.

    It’s simple: all you have to do is substitute “quality of a work” for “veracity”.

    You have claimed to be unable to separate your judgment of the quality of a work from your judgment of the “worthiness” of its source… or even its publisher.

    That you parade around such disability, in fact seem to actually revel in it, is quite hilarious.

    Like

    1. Which is rather like saying that we can substitute the word ‘wombat’ for veracity. I won’t spell it out at this point but it is a good exercise for the reader to consider.

      But kudos on spotting my true weakness – poor spelling! 🙂

      Like

    2. Oh hell, I’ll spell it out:

      “veracity” and “quality of a a work” are not synonymous, and cannot be used interchangeably.

      Anne Ominous, it’s best to ensure that you actually know what you’re talking about before you try to school someone else; otherwise, as in this instance, you end up making yourself look very foolish. 🙄

      Like

      1. I didn’t claim they WERE synonymous, JJ. In fact I explicitly stated otherwise.

        Maybe you should stop inventing fake things to argue about.

        Like

    3. You are incorrect. Camestros did not say he couldn’t separate his judgment of the book’s quality from his judgment of Castalia House’s conduct. He said he would not vote to reward the book with a Hugo regardless of its quality because of Castalia House’s conduct.

      If I refuse to order Papa John’s pizza because Schmatter is a vocal right-wing tool, I’m not thereby saying his pizza is bad. I’m saying I refuse to buy it. (His pizza is bad though.) When I refused to patronize Chik-Fil-A because they put money behind opposing gay marriage, I wasn’t saying “Their chicken is bad because their politics are bad.” I was saying I wouldn’t reward them for their conduct. (Their chicken is good!) You are confusing Camestros’ moral judgment with his esthetic judgment. A plain reading of what he wrote would have spared you that embarrassment.

      Like

  9. The quality of “logic” you folks display is laughable. I expected nothing else.

    Have a fun day. I am.

    Like

      1. I dunno, in terms of logic and rationality, I’d say that they’re at about the same level as the Phantom… say, kindergarten or so.

        Like

    1. I used to be neutral on this issue. I am just a regular Joe who doesn’t understand the complex issues you are discussing. But when I read that Chik-fil-a is superior to Papa John’s… this, sir, shall not stand! I now consider myself a rabid puppy. Let us burn the world, for mediocre pizza is still better than mediocre fried chicken! Fiends! Fiends!

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.