[Andy_B]

SJWs Always Lie is a book released a few months ago by Vox Day, one of Roosh’s friends who has done a few interviews with Roosh on his website.

I picked up this book recently out of curiosity and finished it in about 3 hours, in 2 sessions.

The book is basically a strategy guide for dealing with SJWs, both offensive and defensive:

- When SJWs are attacking you at work or as part of a group you participate in (defensive).

- When you are attempting to drive SJWs out of a culture or just defeat them generally (offensive).

The book has a lot of good ideas and I don’t have the time to review them all here, but I’ll give a basic overview:

Overview of main points.

- The author spends a lot of time discussing the main strategy SJWs use to get their way: namely, going after soft targets. The author convincingly demonstrates that those targeted by SJW firing campaigns tend to be—paradoxically—those who are themselves vulnerable in some way. This consists of basically 3 types of people:

1. Those whose employment is subject to termination, usually due to being contingent on SJW approval.

2. Those who show weakness by apologizing to SJWs.

3. Those within leftist circles who are not SJW, but vulnerable to SJW attacks due to accepting a few SJW-favorable doctrines.

4. And best of all, unsuspecting targets who can be easily ambushed.

- The author reviews in detail an 8 point “SJW attack sequence.” Explaining each step in detail would require too much space, but the gist of it is, the SJW focuses their attack on a single individual who has committed an offence, make a lot of noise about the individual’s offence on social media, attempt to demoralize the victim by pointing out how many other people are “against him,” stage a “show trial,” and then brag about their big victory in the media (or on the individual's wikipedia page if they have one).

- One of the most valuable points in the book is the importance of not apologizing when under SJW attack. The author makes this point convincingly by showing that in most of the high profile cases where individuals were fired under SJW pressure, their firing was preceded by an apology. This is most likely not an accident; it’s quite likely was that the apology caused the SJWs to “smell blood” and convinced them to go in for the kill.

Things I liked about the book:

- It’s extremely well written. I basically sat down and read 70% of it it one session, doing nothing except stopping to make notes for this review. And I almost never do that, with any book… And this book is not short.

- There’s kind of a “running story” that comes up repeatedly throughout the first half of the book, dealing with conflicts between Day and an SJW blogger named John Scalzi. It begins with Day calling out Scalzi for citing exaggerated blog traffic stats, with Scalzi responding that Day is jealous of Scalzi’s awards and reputation. Eventually Day’s crew manages to get Scalzi locked out of the sci fi awards altogether.

Critical points:

- There’s a section on GamerGate that in retrospect seems to have been too optimistic in its appraisal of what that movement could do against SJWs. GamerGate certainly put some points on the board, but as the events at Mizzou, Amherst and others have shown, the SJWs are back to getting people fired again. On the other hand, it does appear to be more acceptable to criticize SJWs in the media these days, with PC-critical articles appearing in The Atlantic, NY Mag and other places, and South Park’s running gag this season being essentially a mockery of PC culture on campuses. Maybe GamerGate helped contribute to this change in the narrative.

Either way, the point stands: people are still getting fired.

- The author in my opinion downplays the value of understanding SJW psychology. He says that there is no point in understanding why the SJW is what he is, it’s sufficient to say “he is what he is.” This in my opinion is misguided; in war it pays to know your enemy. To the author’s credit he belies his own point here and does spend some time psychoanalyzing the SJW (and perceptively); for example, in the section titled, “rule #3: SJWs always project.”

Overall:

A great read. 9/10. I only emphasized a few critical points in this article because I believe events in the past few weeks have shown that SJWs are still a force to be reckoned with, despite GamerGate, Sad Puppies 3 and similar developments.

The most incredible thing about this book is the “inside look” it gives at the workings of SJWs inside of institutions. It’s eye-opening and fascinating to say the least. They are so organized and attuned to each other that it’s almost impossible to believe they aren’t all part of some secret society, freemason style. The fact that they apparently aren’t, shows just what a good job colleges have done at embedding this stuff into peoples’ subconscious minds, so that they can function like a bona-fide cult without ever having gone through any ceremony or initiation ritual.

All in all, the book is well written, informative, and provides a great framework for taking action against SJWs in the future. IMO, the book’s strategic advice is more geared toward protecting yourself if you come under fire from SJWs, but there are plenty of ideas for offensive action to be gleaned from two sections:

1. The review of the SJWs’ own game plan; many points in it can easily be used against them.

2. The story of Sad Puppies 3 in the sci fi world, which showed a rare decisive victory against SJWs in control of an institution.

My advice is buy it now.

[Geomann180]

Just bought the paperback.

G

[Off The Reservation]

its on my phone now thanks for the review

[Seth_Rose]

Good to hear. Just bought it last night actually.

Thanks for the writeup.

[Dominance]

Cool, just got the kindle version. Thanks.

[MMX2010]

Here are two questions for everyone: (1) Do you believe that logical argument, allusions to scientifically supported information, and patient debate are the best weapons against Liberals and SJWs? (2) Do you believe that appeals to emotion signal weakness and a lack of commitment to Truth? If you answered YES to either of these, SJWs Always Lie is the best and most succinct book that argues, "NO!".

I read SJWs Always Lie about two months ago, and have always followed The Anonymous Conservative's blog for almost two years.

AC's blog has given me two important concepts that should be absorbed by everyone who likes SJWs Always Lie. (1) This article connecting amygdala weakness to Narcissism / Being An SJW. (2) This eight-part series detailing how to trigger the amygdala of an SJW or Liberal. (Please watch the video associated with Part Two of this series! It's the most important part, and you won't have to watch the entire hour.)

SJWs Always Lie best describes rhetoric - the emotional appeals coupled with allusions to the SJW's weakness, immaturity, petulance, and obvious contradictions. And SJWs Always Lie teaches you how to use rhetoric in an online debate. But Anonymous Conservative's book teaches you how to use rhetoric in a face-to-face debate, where you control your body language, tone of voice, and rhetoric to defeat and humiliate your opponent.

Mastering both techniques takes time and practice, but you will become a formidable person who is always given a wide berth, because you make it very painful for others to attack you. (Ironically, you'll learn that so much of Game, particularly Negging, is just implementing these ideas with a happier intention.)

===============

Secondly, SJWs Always Lie teams up very nicely with a specific experiment in Jonathan Haidt's excellent book "The Righteous Mind".

A large group of people is divided into three groups: Very Liberal, Moderate, and Very Conservative.

Part One: Everyone is given four or five moral dilemmas and instructed to answer as they truly believe.

Part Two: Everyone is given four or five different moral dilemmas and instructed to answer as they believe a Very Liberal person would answer.

Part Three: Everyone is given four or five different moral dilemmas and instructed to answer as they believe a Very Conservative person would answer.

The purpose of the experiment was to determine which political group can best and most accurately summarize the arguments of all groups.

Not surprisingly, the Moderates were the best.

But surprisingly, the Very Conservatives were almost as good as the Moderates. Whereas, the Very Liberals were significantly worse than most groups. (This has lead me to the amusing generalization, "When a Very Conservative person says you did or said something, you probably did. But when a Very Liberal person says you did or said something, you probably didn't.")

Haidt's book gives a long, well-researched explanation of why this happens. But the experiment confirms Vox's conclusion: SJWs Always Lie.

[Andy_B]

Quote:

(1) Do you believe that logical argument, allusions to scientifically supported information, and patient debate are the best weapons against Liberals and SJWs?

Short answer: no

Long answer: Logic and reason can make up a part of a campaign against SJWs, and can help, but shouldn't be the dominant strategy. Ultimately the SJWs have three main advantages:

1. They're organized
2. Their goals are considered 'moral' and 'righteous', even by those who don't share their overall worldview, or who think their plans are impractical. Their conscience is on their side, because their views more or less align with the values we are taught as children in school.
3. They have many popular celebrities and influencers on their side.
   

Of these 3 advantages, 1 and 2 are the most important. The 3rd is huge but it's basically a positional advantage they gained from the first two intrinsic advantages they possess; if we start beating them on points 1 and 2, eventually we'll gain the upper hand with respect to #3.

Now, if you take a look at the SJWs' advantages, it becomes clear they don't stem from reason and argument. They stem from organization, and from moral outrage. These are the main areas where we need to attack them.

You might respond to this by saying, well, organization and outrage are their advantages afterall, why not stick to OUR strengths instead of just copying them."

Unfortunately, things aren't so simple. The advantages that the SJWs possess in the culture war are THE Advantages in such a war, with a capital A. Saying that SJWs are just gonna hold onto that territory so don't even bother, is equivalent to saying we can't win the war.

Reasoned scientific arguments are a tertiary strategy at best because above all, they only persuade a small percentage of the population. First, you've got the TL;DR factor; reasoned arguments require a lot of text and most people don't have the patience to read long posts. Second, there's the fact that they depend on evidence and most people don't bother checking the evidence. So when you use reasoned arguments you're only going to persuade a small minority of very intellectual types.

The better strategy is to use the SJW's own rhetorical style against them: be moralizing, call them "disgusting," "sociopathic," "evil," "monsters," etc... sound a little bit unhinged. This doesn't come naturally to us because as guys we consider such language slightly pathetic, but overall, it's extremely effective; it's like being able to pack the power of a physical punch using only words.

Quote:

(2) Do you believe that appeals to emotion signal weakness and a lack of commitment to Truth?

I've basically already answered that question.

But I'll elaborate a little:

If you genuinely are outraged, it is extremely beta to feign that you are not outraged.

Remember, at the point that you become angry, the anger itself is just a reality you have to deal with. Denying it at that point is more beta than whatever caused the anger to occur.

[therealpoder]

I don't think logical argument appeal to most people on the left since most of their arguments are not based on reason. Without fail during an argument with a liberal you will hear one of these five things:

1. You are stupid
2. You are a bad person (e.g. racist, sexist, etc.)
3. I feel...
4. A bumper sticker slogan masquerading like an argument
5. Argument based on pity

Take these away and the left loses 90 percent of their arguments. In fact, I think most of their arguments can be destroyed by asking basic questions about their premises and the consequences of their policies.

It is usually a waste of time to debate leftists, unless there is an audience. Then you destroy them.

As far as converting liberals, life will do that. This is why many conservatives are formerly liberals. They realized that the world doesn't work the way liberals say it does, they experience the consequences of left wing policies, they get exposed to different opinions, etc.

Or they double down and become even more rabidly leftist.

[CynicalContrarian]

(11-24-2015 08:40 AM)therealpoder Wrote:  

I don't think logical argument appeal to most people on the left since most of their arguments are not based on reason. Without fail during an argument with a liberal you will hear one of these five things:

1. You are stupid
2. You are a bad person (e.g. racist, sexist, etc.)
3. I feel...
4. A bumper sticker slogan masquerading like an argument
5. Argument based on pity

Take these away and the left loses 90 percent of their arguments. In fact, I think most of their arguments can be destroyed by asking basic questions about their premises and the consequences of their policies.

It is usually a waste of time to debate leftists, unless there is an audience. Then you destroy them.

As far as converting liberals, life will do that. This is why many conservatives are formerly liberals. They realized that the world doesn't work the way liberals say it does, they experience the consequences of left wing policies, they get exposed to different opinions, etc.

Or they double down and become even more rabidly leftist.

My favourite is to point out an undeniable (if not harsh) truth indirectly. In a somewhat rhetorical fashion of course.
For example :
So when is Bruce / Caitlyn Jenner going to become pregnant?

Thus calling into question the idea that if Jenner really is a woman, wouldn't he be able to become pregnant?

Or you simply ask them to 'put their money where their mouth is'.
So for those that demand mass immigration or free entry for refugees, a simple question of :
"Is that you volunteering to house illegal immigrants in your own home at your own expense?"
Has yet to garner a response where they agree to do so...

[ColSpanker]

I've tried the "Oh, you like refugees? I have a few boatloads to send to your house." The response is always: "Wayyyyysist!"

[therealpoder]

In response to the two above approaches, those strategies are great, but only if there is an audience.

There have been many times where I have suggested to liberals that if they do not think that poor people are getting enough money via the welfare state, then why don't they personally donate more of their own money to charities? More of the money is likely to get to the poor due to reduced administrative costs and the money is more likely to be spent efficiently since charities have little resources.

Or I have suggested that if the minimum wage is too low in the United States or poor workers making $2 in India aren't earning, why don't they set up their own business and pay workers whatever they want.

You can imagine how seriously they took those valid suggestions.

You have to remember for liberals logic and facts don't matter, only the outcome they want matters. And the policies they propose are motivated by a) to feel good about themselves, b) to punish successful people and c) to help people they consider to be their "mascots".

[CynicalContrarian]

^
No doubt therealpoder.
Whether it's a salient point or an outright (harsh) truth, I wouldn't expect a die hard regressive to change their mind or conduct.
Yet, stirring the pot without resorting to name calling or personal attacks & using time tested axioms or harsh truths instead, is still rather entertaining.

[Off The Reservation]

Here is a new interview with Vox Day by Stefan Molyneux

[emuelle1]

SJWAL is a great book. Vox says he's working on SJWADD, the sequel. Will probably do SJWAP (always project).

Some people apologize way too easily, like a throwaway line. I like the Gibbs line from NCIS "Never apologize. It's a sign of weakness."

[Max Henrich]

SJWism really is like a religion, in the bad way: They believe in something totally absurd, and logic is their anathema.

[chicane]

I read it a couple of weeks after it was released. I sometime find myself quoting it in various situations.

[TheBoom]

Superb book. Two things that really stuck with me are:
1. SJW always project

2. (can't remember his terms) but moderates will always sell you out. I have found that to be true. A. They have been influenced by the narrative and can easily see you as a bad person. B. Even though they aren't as insane as the SJW, they are afraid of being seen as hateful person by the left and want to virtue signal that they are nice.