As much as people view me as some hyper-political figure, I rarely actually talk much about politics. I don’t spend my time talking issues or arguing about what this or that politician said on repeat on social media. Obviously in what’s gone on with my near-industry-wide blackballing at this point, I’ve had to state a couple of things, but for the most part I keep topics to books, comics, science fiction, or instances where oligopolies/monopolies in those fields or these big tech platforms abuse their power to hurt individual artists. Something pretty non-controversial that if taken out of the identarian political game and put into a vacuum of ideals, almost everyone would agree with.
The reason I don’t discuss these things on walls or the like is for a couple reasons. One, because I want to be open to all audience, not just those who agree or disagree with whatever platform I’m interested in on that day. And two because of the way social media works where it’s not something ever fruitful. This can be broken down into 2 parts which is:
- The whole concept of social media is to a. attack b. defend or c. promote. There’s nothing else to it at all unless we’re posting pictures of our ham sandwich for lunch that day. which most people then ignore.
- The Pile On Effect. No matter what the topic, it devolves into angry attacks where one or both’s friends/followers just start picking at things and so you can’t have a rational discussion.
It’s pretty simple. So I, like most, keep things at the identarian level. And my identity by itself offends the hell out of the SJW establishment that has a complete monopoly on the science fiction industry. It’s funny to think about that way, but it’s true. And, pointing that out and how ridiculous that is, is why I do it, and simultaneously why they find me so threatening that they have to relentlessly block, call me names and blackball.
In my observations on their identarian games, I’ve found that they’re always very quick to wax about their emotions on any particular hot topic of the day, in a condescending way that shows their perceived virtue. When they’re threatened, they’ll flip out and call upon their audience to hate someone, or simply block. It’s always a heavily emotional gambit, nothing rational (or they wouldn’t be discussing it on social media). Vox Day has pointed this out on his blog via several commentaries on dialectic vs. rhetorical arguments. Once I saw the rhetorical game and viewed none of this as dialectic (because none is), it opened my eyes to how and why they act. Which, of course, made it easier for me to show up and get them to freak out at me for my identity, and thus grows my audience every time they do.
Now I’ve never seen one of these establishment figures in a formal debate about policy. Not once. If you look at their social medias, the whole idea that anyone could have any opposing opinion to whatever their selective outrage of the day is, they find incredibly offensive to the point they will tell you about it — and never stop telling you about it. So it’s not surprising. On the flip side, I’ve seen folk in my circles debate and debate each other over micro-issues that really aren’t all that relevant to a larger discourse.
I wanted to remedy this. So last night I challenged John Scalzi to debate Free Speech. He is, by all I see on his Twitter account, opposed to free speech, as are those that he follows in his industry (as they don’t allow any art produced that is outside their ideological bubble). I want to know why, and if that has a net benefit to society in his mind. I think his audience would love it. I think my audience would love it. It’d be a great time, and we can show a path forward for creative society that we don’t have to block and echo chamber each other out, but can talk in appropriate forums. Think about what this kind of regular exercise would do for the community.
Naturally, this was very popular among my crowd. They would love to see this happen, as would I. I don’t think Mr. Scalzi is an unintelligent person or anything like that, so it would be rather fun. I myself was on debate team in college, so I’m a bit rusty, but I loved those formal rounds back in the day. It would be a good mental exercise at the very least. But of course, Mr. Scalzi has yet to respond.
If someone from that camp wants to show they’re not just a rhetorical freak-out game, and take me up on that, I[ll open this call to any Hugo winner. Let’s have some fun, show that this is intellectual and it’s not about “hating the other” as Mr. Scalzi so put it on his blog when he went off on the Dragon Awards. We are the intellects and creators of our time. It’s time to act like it.