Marquess of Fantailer Rules – By David Pascoe

Hurrah, Huns! Forward the Raiding Party! Der can be on’y one t’ousand! I’ll gi’ ye sich a kickin’!! (pre-digression: do we have a battle cry? I was tempted to write Deus Vult, but I know we aren’t all believers, let alone Christian. Perhaps, “let the deity/greater power of his/her choice sort them out!” would be more appropriate. Tongue planted firmly in cheek, of course.) This has been building for a bit. In that dark pit inside my skull. Some was sparked by comments here made weeks ago now. Some just came clear with the recent sound and fury over post-binary <del>sex</del>gender and Tor’s ongoing … oddness (more on that later).

We don’t all play by the same rules.

It’s obvious, really. You and I (and others of our ilk) hold with honor and deals made on a handshake between two honest people. We believe in working hard for our daily bread in the hopes of passing on a better world to our spawn. We believe in doing well by those around us, whatever their origins, and provided they aren’t outright antagonistic.

And this is reflected in our readin’ and writin’. Slightly outsized people – because who wants to read about the normal, especially when there’s dragons needing slaying (metaphorical dragons; all slaying of real dragons should be left to the professionals, who more likely than not will receive a late-night visit from a dark dragon in a black suit) – doing heroic things, often with high-powered implements of one stripe or another. Yeah, they get, well, perhaps an overgenerous helping of life’s slings and arrows, but they roll with it and fight back. Preferably within a few hundred pages or so. No really, no more than three books. <i>Seriously</i> no more than seven. More than that is just too many. Unless it’s good. Is it good? It is good, isn’t it?

*cough*

Anyway, we believe in behaving politely toward our fellow man. Or woman. Or, perhaps *cough* whatever gender applies. Others do not believe this, or anything approaching it. There are those who act – the truest indicator of belief – in a manner that betrays their assumption that narrative trumps reality. When you speak of facts (in your small-minded, modernist insistence) there is an instant check against the dominant narrative.

Is the government spending more money than it takes in revenue each year? This doesn’t mean mounting debt (well, it does, but you’re too unenlightened to understand the intricate realities of such enormous numbers, you ‘orrible little non-person, you); what it really means is that we’re leveraging our population to provide much-needed assistance to reduce income disparity among those victimized by systemic privilege. And it’s a <i>good</i> thing, you racisssss! When the rest of the world’s collective jaw drops at our chief executive bowing to foreign heads of state, it’s not because that’s a sign of weakness -akin to showing your belly to the alpha wolf – so much as a clever gambit in the on-going (and subtle, which you clingers just don’t understand) smart diplomacy, which will gain us the trust of potential allies in the war against the Man.

This can be seen in the ramp-up to every election cycle (which suggests that both of the major parties participate in this peculiar form of mass delusion) when <del>lying liars</del>politicians will say nearly anything to get into or remain in office. Following their success, they then work to stay in <del>power</del>office as long as possible, so as to maintain their opportunities for graft. I’m given to understand there are a few who actually do work to serve their constituency instead of fleece them, but it’s often tough to tell them apart.

The above is, perhaps, one of the more accessible examples, but it is by no means the most egregious. After all, politicians have to please <i>someone</i> to attain and then hold power. Much more common are those who buy into the pernicious lie of postmodernism without even the excuse of personal, material gains. Most of the useful idiots of the world (whatever their adherence) get only the feeling of being inside their particular circle. To know that their views are approved of by somebody, even if only in potentia.

As an aside, the Magic of teh Interwebs(TM) has provided a wondrous realm of sparkles and anonymity; a safe haven for tribes to gather and make war on each other without fear of spilling their own precious bodily fluids. In my darker moments, I pray for an Event that will give a non-fatal electric shock to anybody who posts something stupid online. In my more lucid moments, this notion makes me fear for the future of the species. End aside.

When objective reality intrudes on the narrative, it’s reality that must change. See Obamacare, Fast & Furious, or the continuing Benghazi attack aftermath. In more recent memory, see the moving goalposts in Larry Correia’s skirmishing with scifi establishment (how do you damn the Man when you <i>are</i> the Man?). It’s never about the arguments made, or the people who died; it’s about what they </i>mean</i> to truly important things like reproductive freedom or who has the power to circumvent the Constitution.

When somebody asks, “what difference, at this point, does it make,” whether an attack was caused by an obscure YouTube video or by deliberate malice aforethought, implicit is the guiding narrative that causes are unimportant next to how an event can be used to further a political ideology. If, whether for political purposes or simply because somebody couldn’t be arsed (what difference, at this point, does it make?), American citizens are left without sufficient protection in a hostile environment and rescue attempts are killed in the womb, it’s more important to use it for one’s own advantage than to do what is “right.”

After all, postmodernism decries such outdated concepts as good and evil. There is only, “what is right for me,” and “what is less right for me.” It’s far more important to feel good about your choices, whatever they are, than it is to choose something good in the first place.

Which aren’t the rules by which the rest of us typically operate. We (specifically those of us here) presume that physical reality imposes certain limitations that bind any philosophical framework we build to guide our choices. Just because we don’t like a facet of reality doesn’t mean we get to ignore it’s implications. Or at least, we assume that we ignore it to our ultimate detriment.

Part of joining civilization is the subordinating of certain individual natural rights (the right to kill people and take their stuff, for example. just off the top of my head) to some nebulous concept of a greater good. One of these is the right to be unconstrained in social interactions. Most civilized apes learn early on – with their mother’s milk, one might say – that our right to swing our fist ends at the next ape’s nose. And in verbal exchanges, as well.

What, then, do we do about those who refuse to play fair? How do we treat the barbarians in our midst? And can we do it without sacrificing our own integrity, or must we stoop to their level?

How about not arguing basic facts? Suppose you’re “discussing” the <del>coming ice-age, global warming</del> I mean, climate change. Let them have “man causes climate change,” and then inquire as to how much of a causative factor. Then make them show their work. Find a reputable source that claims humanity is the primal cause of global climate change across millennia. They can’t? Odd, that. Caveat: this method will only work with those without strong  – read: progressive – pre-conceived notions.

Beyond that, when dealing with those whose minds are closed and unreachable, is mockery the best policy? The Korreiakin emphasizes that he doesn’t argue on the internet to convince anybody, but to provide ammunition for those who agree with him, and garner a modicum of relaxation from the rampant foolishness of others. Do you think this is true? Is there any other way of dealing with vile progs whose minds are beyond the reach of reason?

69 responses to “Marquess of Fantailer Rules – By David Pascoe

  1. I’ve found it nearly impossible to reason someone out of a position they didn’t arrive at using reason to begin with.

    To me it makes more sense to concentrate on changing what you can change, and there is no one thing, it is different for each of us.

    • It is possible to embarrass others to associate with them and, even better, so humiliate them that they learn to remain silent in order to avoid removing all doubt.

  2. Arguments that had no force on me at the time sometimes have had a way of sticking in my head for years or even decades, only to convince me when I was ready. I’m sure it seemed to the other person at the time that he was wasting his breath, but he wasn’t. For that purpose, the less mocking and insulting the argument, the better.

    I remember sitting outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in my youth, when I took for granted that the important thing to do was make the area safe for young women who were coming in for abortions. There were anti-abortion protesters across the street. One carried a sign saying “I love YOU, and I’d fight for YOUR life, too.” I never forgot it, even though it was many years before I came to agree with her.

    I tell that story sometimes to avid abortion supporters, and the most common response I get is “you’re making that up.” But maybe they remember it for years, too, until they’re ready to hear it.

  3. I’ve found – invariably – that insisting others face facts results in charges of unkindness, bullying, and the like. As though to make things even, I should check my brains at the door. I guess that would make it easier to accept some of the prevailing narratives. I’ve gotten so disgusted with the entire rationale I no longer care.
    Forgive me as I delve momentarily into symbolism. Symbols are important to humanity – they often inspire us by the assigned meaning; our national flag is given meanings behind the colors, stars and stripes; our national animal, the eagle is representative of vigilance, soaring ideals and so forth.

    I’ve chosen my totem to be the wolverine.
    The wolverine is smaller than many animals, and has as its primary defense neither claw nor fang, but attitude. It will use both claws and fangs unremittingly. Wolverines have been known to START fights with larger animals – and win.
    Unless there are extenuating circumstances (extreme hunger, rabies, pain, etc) most other animals, including Grizzly Bears, will back cautiously away from a spitting, snarling wolverine.

    I suggest, Huns and Hunnies (please don’t kill me! I have grandchildren!) that we adopt the Wolverine as our representation of our intent. We are small, with few defenses. But we can have attitude. Unremitting attack against encroachers.

    An old story I’ve heard explains to young Marines how they are to conduct themselves. If they are taking a dump in the middle of the woods, pants around their ankles, and suddenly find they are surrounded by enemies, armed and ready, with weapons locked and loaded — attack at once. It’s their only chance of survival.

    I think it’s ours as well.

    • This might just be me being tendentiously dense, but I have trouble reconciling your opening (with which I may agree, but will not accept as a reason to back down), with your suggestions, (with which I most heartily agree).

      In regard to American rule of law, I consider myself a smash-mouth constitutionalist — no mercy, no quarter, no prisoners. And, if my enemies consider my insistence on adherence to the rules of the game as they are printed on the inside of the box lid to be bullying, well, tough toenails.

      But, I will insist on it, with — if necessary — the single-minded tenacity of the wolverine. “These are the rules. Follow them or face my wrath.” That’s MY reasoning. If the enemy won’t accept it, that’s HIS problem, not mine.

      But, also, being a rational anarchist, I will obey those laws and rules according to the preachments of the patron saint of this house:

      I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. — Robert Heinlein

      And I will accept as a possible eventuality the attempts at chastisement of my peers. They may persuade me. They may harm me. But they will damned sure know they’ve been in a fight. The Wolverine.

      M

      • Although he would probably never admit it that is the basis of Christian behavior. The individual is solely responsible (to God) for their own behavior. We are quite free to sin (misbehave), as long as we understand that the consequences are inescapable. Physics says that there “is a reaction for every action.” That means whatever we do, there really is a price, whether we see it immediately or not. The problem being that many Progressive Liberals, never learned that lesson. They, apparently, always escaped the costs of anything that they did.
        As to “attitude, I don’t “look” dangerous, but have backed down people bigger/stronger than I am. For some reason, My “flight or fight” is tied into a strong survival instinct. On the extremely rare occasions that I’ve actually been in a fight, I came very close to seriously injuring/killing my opponent.
        Sadly, I disagree with Sarah’s optimism, as I see it becoming a fight to survive/rebuild, rather than repair. I fear we are already past the point of salvaging many of the Coastal (Left and Least) populations.

      • What – the checking my brains at the door bit? But that’s what LibProgs *Insist* as being fair. I won’t do it. Hey, if the poor fools can’t deal with Aristotelean reasoning, they aren’t going to deal with the metaphysical mouthings current in liberal theology (in the belief sense, not deist).

  4. Let them have “man causes climate change,” and then inquire as to how much of a causative factor. Then make them show their work. Find a reputable source that claims humanity is the primal cause of global climate change across millennia.

    Nah, that just gets the “you prove it doesn’t” claim, and lots of appeal to authority.

    • They lie anyways. Oops, sorry, they norm the data to fit the curve because of changes inherent in shifting sampling criteria occaisioned by technology change.

    • We don’t have to prove it doesn’t. They’re the ones proposing to spend trillions of dollars to fight it. They at least have the burden to prove their bogeyman exists.

    • And how about proving that if the climate really is warming – human caused warming, natural warming, mix of the two, no matter, and whatever they call it now they still seem to mean ‘warming’, so let’s stick to that – that warming climate would be bad, considering that in those eras of past when the temperatures seem to have been even higher than they are now human civilizations seem to have bloomed, while the colder eras have been harder on us.

      Especially when taking into account the previous interglacials, and how long they lasted, this one should actually be getting close to its end. Surely glaciation would be worse, and anything which might push that date forward good? (Yes, says somebody who lives in an area which will go under in a few generations once that happens, which is why when the talk first changed from ‘we are doomed! ice age is coming!’ to ‘humans are causing climate to warm’ my first reaction was ‘Yes! Great!’ and I could not figure why this was seen as something bad. Yep, somebody thought up that scenario we are shown in accelerated form in that classic movie, whatever its name was, where we get instant ice age once the Gulf Stream stops because of global warming and wolves in frozen New York City only days later, but that wasn’t talked about in the early days, as far as I remember, then it was just about poor polar bears and stuff. 🙂 )

      • Btw, that whatever its name was movie has been one of the few during which I have behaved badly in the theater. I went to see it with a friend because it was the only one of the ones showing we could sort of agree upon, but I kept giggling (other one where I did the same was The Core – hey, I remembered that name). Had some suspension of disbelief problems, I’m afraid. If you take it as a comedy it was pretty good. 🙂

  5. I speak up to simply show the flag. Assuming the site does not delete “unfortunate” comments that don’t echo the narrative, simply demonstrating that different views exist is enough to a) encourage questions in the doubting and b) enrage the brainwashed. Anything more than that is gravy. Any more effort than that is inefficient 😉

  6. Vladimir Ilyich
    Facts, reality and external evidence are all irrelevant to the man who’s world only exists in the confines of his own mind.

    I have yet to find a Progressive that this doesn’t hold true to. I can present good arguments; but, that’s only if there is someone there that might listen. Like Larry Corria on the Tor sight- stacked deck and no agreement; however, when the gal with the ‘nothing’ Twitter account that claimed I forget how many ‘friends’ who were not involved in reading-writing-or censorship stepped in, Larry had the opportunity to get his opinion out. Like one preacher said- When they say ‘That church is on fire’ that will attract onlookers,’ I’ll bet Larry gets a few more book sales from it. Like Texan99 said, it will come up later when people think about what was said. I would add that to get that future light bulb effect, chose your ground carefully.

  7. I don’t find that arguing does a dang thing except get me hot under the collar– even so, I still say something if I know it is so far out of whack to be ridiculous. Yes, I use the word and they have to look it up.

    • Since I don’t argue well I don’t usually argue at all, least of all face to face with anybody because I’m worried about my temper, socking somebody will most likely not change their mind. What I do is trying to slip questions into discussions. Something along the lines ‘I think I saw this somewhere’, maybe add some musings about all the things which were once upon a time thought to be certain, and then proven wrong, or alternatively, what was once fringe and then was proven right (like the idea that continents move). Then just hope that maybe the other person will be curious enough to try checking the thing some day. Lots of people seem to get all their information from sources like mass media, planting some doubts as to the reliability of that might just work with at least a few of them.

      • Great idea – I am a better writer than speaker. Plus since the chemo the brain (in the speaking centers) doesn’t process as well. My wit is in words on the page. So I do understand …. very much. 😉

        • I am a far better writer than a speaker, because I get worked up and can’t articulate anything.

          When it’s online, I will put in my two cents when an idiot speaks up, in order for there to be a counter opinion when those whose minds are not already made up come around to see it. Otherwise, they might think that it’s a consensus opinion, if no one opposes it.

  8. it’s more important to use it for one’s own advantage than to do what is “right.”
    But you see for the typical lib/prog there is no conflict here, for whatever fosters the current narrative and wins their case is by definition “right.” And I have yet to observe a politician who does not believe that they are the best choice for the job no matter how abysmally they may have conducted themselves up to that point, so their advantage is really for the good of the people, don’t you know.

  9. “You and I (and others of our ilk) hold with honor and deals made on a handshake between two honest people. We believe in working hard for our daily bread in the hopes of passing on a better world to our spawn. We believe in doing well by those around us, whatever their origins, and provided they aren’t outright antagonistic.”

    (Looks over his shoulder) Who you talking to?

    Seriously, I’d love to believe that that glowing description applies to me, because it’s what I’d like to believe about myself. Not sure how hard I actually work, though, being a government drone and all. And I’m not sure my spawn are very impressed with me. No; strike that. I’m sure my spawn are not very impressed with me.

    I have found that arguing with anyone over almost anything is almost pointless until some trust is established between the two of you. And it’s hard to establish that trust if you don’t already share a considerable worldview.

    I’m gonna go into grumpy old man mode here, and growse that our arguments over politics used to be debates within a common world view. When that world view shattered, so did any ability to discuss politics civily with the opposition. Pity.

    • Kent, yes, there are many that will never listen/consider any other viewpoint. But, there are some that can be persuaded. You never know who is Listening (reading), and maybe gets persuaded, without your knowing it. The alternative is to “end it all, because the idiots are winning.”

  10. Immortal in my memory is the poster who got abusive and then, when I responded to her belligerent questions with answers, deleted all responses because — I had observed that there is, in fact, no evidence that the famous Hypatia was a pagan rather than a Christian.

    The facts in evidence are:
    1. No contemporary sources call her pagan.
    2. All of her known students were Christians.
    3. She was killed in an intra-Christian quarrel.

    Yet, somehow, it’s monstrous not to say that she was pagan.

    • :boggle: Well, I learned something new today. It had never occurred to me that there was any question Hypatia was pagan, but suddenly her mobbing makes more sense. Um, in the sense that I understand a lot better how she came to be mobbed, not in the sense that mobbing her was the sensible thing to do.

      Thanks.

  11. I try (really!) to present civil and logically consistent arguments on the theory Texan99 discussed above. I also try to remember that the ‘left’ side of the spectrum contains far more than vile progs (no point arguing with them) and that rational discussion is often rationally considered.

    Having said that, I deal badly with obstinate ignorance and arguments derived from no premise other than talking points. For these, mockery would seem to suffice.

  12. When you mention “Useful Idiots” and how they work to advance an agenda without even benefitting themselves, I had to pull this quote from “Red on Red” (Still in work) about Minions.

    He asked her about this, and her answer shocked him. “Of course they get killed. That’s how they get rid of the ones who aren’t any good.” It was like a world-wide eugenics program. But to what end? What did they want? And who were “they”? An obscure Harry Harrison quote from Bill the Galactic Hero came to him then, “They are everyone who wants to be one of them…. They die off and are replaced, but the institution of theyness goes on.” It’s something you see in all the low level functionaries who follow what they think is the agenda of some secret conspiracy they can’t even be sure exists, in the hopes that they will be rewarded for their loyalty by the unseen masters behind the plot. The masters might not even exist, but the plot goes on, leaderless, without true direction, but still advancing in its own vague way.

  13. Christopher M. Chupik

    Watching the Twitter “attack” on Larry was amusing. I’ve always wondered what it would look like if sea cows attacked a shark.

  14. I hate arguing. I get too emotional about it. But I do have fun watching Larry and others crush the leftists.

  15. *Hits third paragraph and brain shoots off on a tangent* Oh drat, Dave, now I’ve got a mental picture of a True-dragon with a pinstripe pattern and a fondness for fake-Italian accents. I don’t need another story in my head today! Arrrrrgh!!!!!

    OK, back to the essay.

  16. Sod the Marquess of Fantailer.

    The other day I had a debate with a vile prog about the Keystone XL pipeline. I even managed to refrain from calling him an idiot, though he certainly deserved it. It was a useless exercise. They kept quoting Kos and Politico saying that this and that policy would create so many jobs, and never responded to me laying out how job estimates are necessarily flawed. Then they pointed out that Boehner was invested in oil companies and ignored me pointing out that pretty much everyone is invested in oil companies, they’re large blue-chip stocks with reliable markets; you have to work hard to NOT invest in them.

    If they could think then they wouldn’t be vile progs. The only thing we can do is point out how they’re wrong for the bystanders and mock them mercilessly to punish them for letting their stupid out.

    • re: Keystone Pipeline

      1. Will the Canadians leave the oil in the ground if we don’t build the pipeline?

      2. Is there an environmentally safer way to transport the oil?

      Feel free to accuse them of hating Canadians wanting to deny them their turn on the world stage, and accuse them of trying to prevent Canada funding its health care system.

      • 1. Oh hell no! Canadians are about ready to kiss us off, run a pipeline to their west coast, and sell all that tar sand oil to the Chinese.
        2. Pipeline is the safest method currently known as we’ve proved up on the Alaskan north slope, not to mention just about everywhere in the lower 48.
        addendum: if sold to the Chinese that oil would of necessity be loaded onto super tankers, and we all know how safe they are. And once in China it would be burned in some of the most heavily polluting industry on the planet.
        BTW, if I understand correctly, even though the US never signed the Kyoto accords our industry meets or exceeds the restriction called out in those agreements. Guess who does not.

      • I mentioned the first point, as well as the fact that not building the pipeline would benefit everyone who owned rail stocks (which is basically the same set as those who own oil stocks). It doesn’t matter. They’re not interested in arguments, they just want to parrot talking points back and forth to one another. I had a friend of my sister’s drop me on Facebook because I mentioned that gays don’t have the right to get married (because nobody has the right to get married). I didn’t say gays were evil, or that they shouldn’t get married, just that there’s not such thing as a right to a government license. The message he sent when he dropped me can only be described as histrionic. That’s when I began to realize that leftist “thought” was dominated by emotion, not reason.

        It’s warm and comfortable in the cocoon. Anyone who threatens it must be destroyed.

        • It has been observed, frequently, that Progressivism is about claiming unearned moral superiority. Clearly, you have seen it in action.

          My own conclusion is that the Left, by-and-large, are a bunch of cheap b@st@rds: they want to buy stuff with other people’s money and other people’s lives. The examples are so abundant it would be embarrassing to compile.

  17. Buried in the post, is something darkly suspicious. I know — I just *know* you aren’t slyly suggesting that dragon-hunting be left to professional… dragon-hunting-UNIONS. HNNMMMMM??????? >:-)

  18. Re: battlecry, the best I could come up with (nuance is hard!) is Scribe eos omnes. Novit enim Editor qui sunt aptus. Or for the common English version, “Write them all, let the Editor sort them out!”

  19. Is there any other way of dealing with vile progs whose minds are beyond the reach of reason?

    I picked up an old Ace Double with both sides being Erik Frank Russell, and in it he has a short story called Diabologic which is a first contact story. A lone scout comes to an alien planet and proceeds to tie the aliens into logical knots while they try to figure out what to do about him. At the end one of the researchers comes to talk to the scout where he is being held:

    “…I deduce a basic rule applying to lifeforms deemed intelligent.”
    “And what is this rule?”
    “That the governing body of any lifeform such as ours will be composed of power-lovers rather than of specialists.”
    “Well, isn’t it?”
    “Unfortunately it is. Government falls into the hands of those who desire authority and escapes those with other interests.” He paused and went on, “That is not to say that those who govern us are stupid. They are quite clever in their own particular field of mass-oganization. But by the same token the are pathetically ignorant of other fields. Knowing this your tactic is to take advantage of their ignorance. The weakness of authority is that it cannot be diminished and retain strength. To play upon ignorance is to dull the voice of command.”

    I love Russell. He had insights and I just have to ask how did he see them?

  20. “Part of joining civilization is the subordinating of certain individual natural rights (the right to kill people and take their stuff, for example. just off the top of my head) to some nebulous concept of a greater good”

    You may want to look up the definition of natural rights again. Killing someone and taking their stuff is not now, and never has been, a person’s natural right.