Interesting to see that the red pill is proving not to be enough for some people and the logical solution to many of our society’s ill becoming apparent to them even if they’re not quite ready to go all the way.
If, for some reason, you needed a better reason to monitor what your children look at online, here it is: Hitler in a bikini dancing to nursery rhymes.
The internet was a mistake.
The current internet explosion centers around Ethan Ralph and his livestream known as the KIllstream. A few weeks back, Ralph did a “Healstream” using the Youtube feature which allows superchats to go directly to a charity of their choice. St Jude’s Children’s Hospital was the recipient. Superchats, for those who haven’t heard of them, are a way for streamers to make money on Youtube. A commenter donates money and the streamer, usually, reads the chat comment on the stream. It makes streams a lot like talk radio with superchat breaks instead of advertisements. These comments range from innocent questions to various repetitions of “kill the Jews 1488” and worse.
The Wall Street Journal decides to do an article about hate and superchats, contacts Ralph for comment, then the next thing you know, all the St Jude’s superchats have been refunded and Ralph has all his channels deleted.
TL;DR has a good run down of the timeline and events surrounding this:
A few sources reporting on this debacle have characterized the Healstream as essentially virtue signalling:
Killstream is known for both its controversial guests and similarly toxic chat. Users have been known to take advantage of YouTube’s Super Chat system to buy and pin toxic messages in the live chat, further defaming the stream’s reputation.
This prompted show host Ethan Ralph to fight back by holding a charity stream to benefit St. Jude’s, a research hospital for children with catastrophic diseases. However, YouTube’s new policy on harmful Super Chats has caused a major rift between Ralph and the platform, as well as the Wall Street Journal – which he is now accusing of taking money away from sick children.
This isn’t exactly accurate. The superchats for charity idea was originally proposed because Sargon of Akkad refused a debate on Ralph’s channel because Ralph would be getting the money for it. Ralph offered to give all the money to charity. Sargon, no doubt because he didn’t want a repeat of the Spencer debate and have someone tell him he’s not as smart as he thinks he is, refused anyway so they had it without him.
Ralph and co. have moved to a different site and promptly crashed it by bringing too much traffic with them.
I had linked to Brian Niemeier favorably on this blog a couple times but that was before it turned out that he’s an idiot. On my personal blog, I made, what I thought to be, an innocuous comment about something stupid he said. He responded by attacking… a bizarro world version of me.
Read the whole thing and when everyone who knows me stops laughing lets look at this.
A blogger named for the president who normalized relations with the ChiComs…
Puts the idea in people’s head from the get go that this Nixon fellow he’s a communist sympathizer.
The addict lashes out at friends trying to cure him of the vice that’s destroying him.
Nixon = addict. Brian = nice person who just tries to help people!
Nixon’s clumsy effort … sounds more like the squealing of Disney paypigs wallowing in the muck, shivering for their next fix of poz slop.
Wait, wait, I’ve got to wipe away a tear with my Kylo Ren t-shirt.
…a shopworn rhetorical jab of the Left…
Who uses leftist rhetoric? Leftists.
…Nixon is clearly proceeding in bad faith…
Easy way to discount something that’s said without actually addressing it.
It’s not on me if being confronted with the true moral character of your entertainment choices triggers your amygdalae.
Projection. I wrote a post which was less than 200 words on a blog which nobody reads and he does this. Somebody’s amygdala was spun up, but it wasn’t mine.
As an aside, that sentence is also an example of why it’s very annoying that English doesn’t have a distinct plural second person pronoun. On first glance it might look like he’s referring to a single “you” but amygdala is plural so it can’t be.
…this guy’s pearl-clutching…
“From the image of a genteel woman clutching her pearl necklace in shock… (idiomatic, derogatory) Prim, prudish, or easily offended.”
…that shit test…
Shit tests are things that women do. He just called me a girl.
Niemeier went on to continue in this vein on Google+ especially with the accusations of being girlish, the best being where he orders me to “Grow up, talk to me like an adult male instead of a cat lady with PMS”.
His post is an excellent illustration of rhetorical attack. The point is to trigger the target and make them cry (metaphorically or not). This is the sort of rhetoric you’d expect to see used on an SJW because, not being able to reason with them, people kick them instead.
What happens if the target isn’t an SJW? What happens if the target is someone who’s been studying rhetoric and trying to teach himself how to spot and use it? Well, not what it’s supposed to do that’s for sure. This is another reason why studying rhetoric is so important. It gives you the tools to be able to spot attacks like this, see what the aggressor is doing, and if you’re inclined to be hurt by silly insults, understanding where they’re coming from and why should certainly help to avoid being hurt. Knowing rhetoric also allows you to hit back and to analyze what you might have done wrong in responding to the other person.
It’s a tool like a hammer. You use a hammer with nails. You don’t use a hammer with screws. So in order to use rhetoric, you need to make sure first that you’ve got a nail. If the person shows up and starts calling you a cowardly piece of shit instead of addressing points, as seen here previously, then it’s a pretty safe better they’re a nail. But in that case, I googled every one of them. I also didn’t go far enough because my response one in particular would have be different if I had taken the time to read more of her blog and see that she was bipolar.
You won’t be able to research everyone who attacks you, but you also don’t have to respond to everyone who does. I know this is hard for internet egos to understand but when someone talks about you on the internet when you’ve set yourself up as public figure, they’re not actually talking to you. Sure, there’s some “notice me, sempai!” types but some people just want to have discussions and make comments without wannabe e-celebs butting in.
Learn rhetoric. Learn how to use it. Learn when to use it. It’s good for you.
I’m LITERALLY SHAKING. Do you have any idea how creepy and sickening it is when some weird, unknown person on the internet is going around talking about you to other people and sharing links to things you said publicly on the internet.
You know, like this:
Who is this “Brenda”, who is her anonymous “friend”, and how dare she read my public blog posts?!?!
I’m kind of “amused” too– that she thinks blue haired feminist was supposed to be an insult.
Now I have to go back to cyberstalking Shia LaBeouf because He Will Not Divide Us IS BACK but he isn’t there like the dancing monkey he’s supposed to be. 😡 Come back, Shia, Pepe is waiting for you!
Brian Niemeier knows how to do it:
Experience shows that the best advice on how to argue with SJWs is that you shouldn’t. You should mock them relentlessly instead.
It bears repeating: Do not attempt to answer SJWs’ loaded questions or engage with them rationally. They do not want information and are only giving you enough rope to rhetorically hang yourself. Go on the offensive, and punch back twice as hard!
He provides an illustration on how it’s done in a twitter conversation with an SJW.
JD Cowan, in the comments, adds this:
It’s easy once you keep in mind that they’re being dishonest and have no desire to be rational about anything.
Turn every question against them. No matter what you answer it will be used as ammo against you, so twist it into being about them instead. They will soon get frustrated and wander off trying to “win” before usually coming back with one massively spergy comment to end on.
Keep in mind that they think you’re evil and they want to destroy you. Once you remember that it’s easy to see everything they do coming before it does.
This is gonna seem like harping on the subject, but people don’t get it. I can’t turn around without tripping over another conservative trying to insist that if they just use facts and carefully answer and refute each point of the SJWs argument, then they’re going to win somehow. It’s a waste of time; don’t do it.
Edit: It should be noted that Brian later proved himself lacking the understanding on when to employ rhetoric, but even stopped clocks are right twice a day.