When To Use Scorched Earth Against SJW’s

When to Employ scorched earth against SJWs/Social Justice Warrior
When to Employ scorched earth against SJWs/Social Justice Warrior
Scorched Earth

Vox Day via Milo Yiannapolous makes an important point in a recent post, “Embrace Your Extremists” regarding the current culture war and how we should deal with particularly active, aggressive, and rabid SJWs who are on the attack.

“If you want to stop people using bad tactics, the only way to do it is to make them prohibitively costly. And the only way to do that is to use the same tactics with such brutal efficiency that they cry “uncle” and agree to a ceasefire.”

I’ve come to realize that the moral high-ground isn’t just useless vs particularly active and vicious SJWs, but a dangerous handicap.  As Internet Aristocrat has said, “You can’t reason with these people. They don’t care. They are narcissists to the core.”

Now each situation is different, but when you deal with SJWs actively trying to go after you, fighting fire with fire is an absolute necessity – for instance when they try to change the Code of Conduct of a company/organization to begin their Stalinist purges and thought-police even the most meek of dissenters.  Note that these dissenters are often moderates, who at a certain point will get fed up.

If an SJW is going to attempt to get people fired from their jobs, dox people, and threaten them, then they should be subjected to the same treatment if not harsher to make them realize what terrible dicks they actually are – note legal restrictions.  This is exactly why Milo Yiannapolous wrote up his three part expose on Randi Harper to demonstrate how much of a vicious terrible hypocrite she actually is.

Now “scorched earth” tactic that Vox Day endorses in his primer “SJWs Always Lie” – which has been described as the digital Art Of War of are time for good reason – isn’t necessary all the time when dealing with SJWs. It’s the one’s that pick up the rifles that need to have salvos fired in return. If I learned anything from #GamerGate, its that the same boycott tactics, public shame, and pressuring tactics SJWs employ can be utilized against them with devastating effects.

Companies and corporations still have yet to realize that disgruntled people sending emails to them usually don’t represent even 5% of their customer base. Until they do, these tactics will continue to be effective and we should utilize them like our cultural enemies are.

If your enemy has a tank, you need one as well. If Julie Bindel wants to put all males in a camp for the proper re-education, we should advocate the same for her.

Consider the current raging tornado surrounding Sarah Butts who may have actually molested a child, not withstanding her views on the subject of pedophilia.

To be honest, Sarah was trying to engage in a philosophical conversation over the issues of age of consent, sexuality, ect on “her” forum posts and blogs.  However, when she started labeling opponents – namely #GamerGate and others with every “ist” and “ism” under the scalding sun – while trying to destroy any critics and GamerGate supporters, she began her own Pearl Harbor and the response she is receiving is her just due.   She refrained from actual honest intentions in her dialogue and began her campaign of extermination.

Now every SJW isn’t Sarah Butts.

I know some SJWs in real life. They aren’t active and they don’t participate in email and social media campaigns to destroy people.  They should be treated as POWs.   Never employ “scorched earth” against those who haven’t initiated it first. Guilt By Association SHOULD not be attached to what I would call the, “nominal SJWs.”

We don’t want to turn “thinkers” into flag-burning revolutionaries so to speak, which is why each SJW individual should be handled differently based on what they actually do and endorse.

The “Extremists”

Vox’s use of the word “extremist” is also telling and its an important indicator of how important the war over words actually is.  Consider what used to be considered an “extremist” 100 years ago or yet better a “fundamentalist”.

The connotation went from having fundamentals to being some sort of religious… extremist.  Brilliant when you think about it. “Extremist” is today’s current expansion on that concept and it’s unfortunate that the radical social justice left is winning when it comes to attaching a specific connotation when the word is used.

Labels are again the primary weapon.   SJWs will label anyone who dissents from their narrative as extremists.   Now any normal person who hears the word “extremist” attached to an individual or group will immediately assume a negative about them before hearing anything they have to say.

It’s important for us to use the word when referencing SJWs so that (1) their wordplay can’t be used to control the narrative, (2) they cant effectively utilize attacking the individual instead of the ideas by causing people to dismiss “extremists” without hearing what actually makes them extreme from a source that isnt an SJW.

Remember, when your opponents engage in demagoguery, label slander, and every other slight under the sun designed to destroy your character and reputation, it is absolutely necessary to not only fight back with their same tactics, but to do it with urgency.

Reputations of semi-private individuals can be destroyed online and the truth won’t matter, rather what the neutral public observes from the loudest mouths will shape their perception of who you and what you stand for.  It’s up to you to shape that.

Arguements with a personal twist.

Mittens Romney. Barrack Hussein Obama. What do these very politically charged “nicknames” have in common?  They are the constant recipients of personal attacks of every kind. Nothing seems to be off-limits these days for any political candidates, as Sarah Palin’s family found out the hard way.  The question that we must ask ourselves is, “Why do engage in these nasty portrayals of people’s character?”

Strong disagreements will always occur, but what matters about political positions are the ideas behind them, not specifically the people advocating them.  In today’s culture it seems we are dedicated to winning any debate, regardless of the casualties left behind.  You may be able to “win” the argument on a forum, in a conversation, ect, but the person you debated may be even more firmly entrenched in what they thought because of the conduct of the conversation.  Ideas have consequences, but the ways in which those ideas are endorsed, proposed, and manifested have consequences as well.

I personally tire of hearing rather personally charged attacks on Romney and Obama. If you disagree with them and those supporters behind them, which I do as well, discuss the reasons for your disagreement.  Insults like Liberal Whackjob, Bible Thumping Fundementalist, Liberal Nutjob, Ignorant Bigots, ect do nothing to make one’s argument and his or ideas more valid, rather they simply make the issues more polarizing to discuss then before. This is why it so hard to talk about controversial issues and ideas in today’s culture because everyone is afraid they will be branded and their reputations ruined. Calling someone a racist or an ignorant bigot today has rather disturbing consequences concerning how someone may be treated by society.

I reject the notion that people are ignorant. Instead I propose that people have reasons for how they think. Don’t bother with name calling, personal attacks, ect; get to their base presuppositions. Racists are racists because of their core ideas, the experiences that they have had, and the condition of their hearts. (And who knows how many additional factors…) Legislation can never change that. What can change that is the communities and families around them and conversing with those around them who have very different worldviews.

We need to get opposing worldviews and ideas into the open, not relegate them to the shadows. Someone may be afraid to discuss their thoughts and ideas openly, but this simply ensures that they will continue to retain those said thoughts and ideas. State what you believe and discuss your ideas with others who challenge them, regardless of whatever those ideas are and how politically incorrect, offensive, and shocking they may be.   In otherwords, show some real tolerance.