It’s a man, baby!

In my previous post I originally assumed that Pastor Donald Sensing’s “eldest” was his daughter.  I made this assumption based on his very awkward phrasing in praise of his eldest child’s book, and the fact that while his “eldest” was drawing on “the author’s” combat experience as a Marine in Iraq, the main character of the book is a female (space) Marine:

I hope you will indulge a “proud dad” moment for me in providing the link to my eldest’s first novel on Amazon, Winter Three, a military sci-fi tale of far future Marines landing on their homeworld to wrest it back from the bad guys. It went live on Kindle today. It does rely quite a bit on the author’s experience as a US Marine in the Iraq War (Fallujah and environs, 2005-2006) and pays homage to Heinlein. It’s only $1.99, so give a vet a break and buy it!

The bolded references, especially the second one, are very awkward.  Pastor Sensing uses similarly awkward language in the disclosure he includes at the bottom of his Amazon review of the book:

Disclosure: Saintsing is a variant of my own last name; the author and I are related. But this is my honest, kid-you-not opinion of the book.

Who writes like that?  Moreover, his consistency in this regard is striking. From his 2007 Bio page*, he has a son, a daughter, and an eldest:

I married the former Catherine Stephens of Durham, N. C., in 1980. We have three children, the eldest is a former U.S. Marine and Iraq veteran, the second is a physician in the US Air Force’s Medical Corps. His wife is a civilian doctor. Our third child, a daughter, is a chemical engineer.

In a recent post on his blog titled Four Veterans, Sensing remains cagey when describing the picture of his eldest child:

This is our eldest, Lance Cpl. S. M. Sensing, USMC, who deployed to Iraq on the date shown in the photo, shown at Camp Lejeune, NC, with Cathy.

This is not the case when Sensing describes his middle child in the same post:

Dr. (Capt.) Thomas Sensing is in surgical residency at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, in the US Air Force Medical Corps. As a retired officer, I administered his oath of commissioning upon his graduation from medical school in 2016, one of the most memorable and fulfilling things in my life.

Based on the picture of Lance Cpl. S. M. Sensing in the Four Veterans post, he does appear to be a man.  But Sensing’s blog post A rollicking good sci-fi read about his eldest’s book is just as cagey about the child’s sex as all of the other examples I had previously found:

If a combat-vet US Marine were to write a short novel about far-future Marines mounting an assault to recapture their home world from the bad guys, and wanted to give homage to Robert Heinlein at the same time, what would it be like?

It would be like Winter Three, now on Kindle, a novella by my eldest, former US Marine Lance Corporal S.M. Saintsing (pen name for the book).

The cover picture shows a woman (space) Marine dressed in full battle regalia.

However, the link at the bottom of the quote points to a republication of a post Pastor Sensing wrote back in 2005.  Back then Sensing did what normal fathers do when writing about their sons (emphasis mine):

Yesterday my eldest son, Lance Cpl. [S.] Sensing, deployed with his unit to Iraq. His mother, brother, sister and I traveled to Camp Lejeune, NC, to see him off. Cathy’s dad, from Durham, went with us also.

He was released Monday at 10 a.m. until noon Tuesday, so we had a very good visit with him. Then he and his unit drew weapons and gathered their sea bags at the barracks to await transportation. The time of departure slipped a couple of times, but not by much. They shipped out to Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC, on commercial buses about 30 minutes later than the originally scheduled time.

At MCAS CP they flew by chartered commercial air to Kuwait; I don’t know the route. Just as I was typing the last paragraph, [S.] called from Kuwait to report he arrived fine and there were no problems. He couldn’t talk but a moment, so that’s all the news we got, but it was wonderful to hear his voice and know all was well. He did say he doesn’t know just when they’ll move into Iraq. He does know where they will go, but I’m not going to include that here.

It could be that Pastor Sensing is cagey about his son’s sex because it is awkward that his son writes from the perspective of a woman.  This is a very mild form of gender bending in our SJW culture, but even in current year it is at least a little awkward.

All of this merely reinforces my point in my previous post.  Pastor Sensing smugly claimed that he (ze?) and others like him (hir?) were holding the line on traditional sex roles, and that if I or my readers thought that Christian culture was caving in this regard, well we must not get out very much…

Related: If you can’t feel the current, you have already been swept away.

*Anchorman pointed out that the repost of the same bio page on his new blog says he has two sons.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Denial, Social Justice Warriors, Traditional Conservatives, You can't make this stuff up. Bookmark the permalink.

162 Responses to It’s a man, baby!

  1. bdash 77 says:

    The fact that a military man is writing about war form a woman’s perspective is concerning…
    Weak men

    Why mention is daughter in laws career- who cares she needs to be a wife.

    His daughter is a Chemical Engineer? I suppose he will be looking for a good servant leading house husband.

    Christianity and Christian men seem to HATE traditional male roles no matter what they say, in practice it is all about making men feminine

  2. David says:

    Reposting my analysis here :

    If a man devotes his entire life to whiteknighting and training men to see themselves as expendable (as Pastor Sensing has), there is an increased chance that his son (especially if the eldest child) will see transitioning to a woman as an action with a favorable cost/benefit analysis.

    I mean, if you can escape the expendable group and enter the privileged group, maybe you have to take the drastic step.

  3. The Question says:

    @bdash 77

    “Christianity and Christian men seem to HATE traditional male roles no matter what they say, in practice it is all about making men feminine.”

    My own personal experience is that churchians ask two very simple questions:

    What are the young women demanding?
    How can we get our young men to comply, aid, enable or meet those demands?

    It’s not even ideological. It’s about conformity.

  4. CSI says:

    If a male author writes a story with a female main character is that, in itself, a sign he is gay or trans leaning? No, nope. Male authors have been doing this for centuries. Means nothing. But perhaps there are other signs that we aren’t privy to that his son is trans inclined.

  5. Pingback: It’s a man, baby! | @the_arv

  6. galloper6 says:

    Churchanity has bought the beta roll totally.

  7. David says:

    Means nothing. But perhaps there are other signs that we aren’t privy to that his son is trans inclined.

    The fact that the Pastor refers to his eldest son with words that he does not describe his second son with, is a dead giveaway.

  8. Opus says:

    I have read what is available on Amazon of Sensing Jr’s novella and although I am not VoxDay it was certainly thrilling economically written stuff. SciFi always has a tendency (in hindsight) to not look much past the time in which it is written and so I was puzzled that the two main characters on the same side (the good guys) were American and Japanese. In the future it appears there are no Marines and females when tortured upon capture are not in any way used sexually.

    How I wonder can a former Marine and Iraq-vet write all that and with a straight face. It is the literary equivalent of being a castrato.

  9. The Question says:

    @David

    If you’re wrong, I’m sure the pastor will have no problem setting the record straight.

  10. Pingback: Drowning in a sea of smugness. | Dalrock

  11. Otto Lamp says:

    It is common for men who write romance novels to publish under a female name, because women don’t want to read a romance novel written by a man.

    It’s obvious the target market for this Sci-Fi novel is women, hence the use of a female pen name.

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    David has a very good point. Sensing is well pleased with his married son and his chem-E daughter. What would it be like for a White Knight to suddenly find out that his oldest son was wanting or even planning to have genitalia surgically removed? Cognitive dissonance for sure, at the very least.

  13. Gunner Q says:

    Let me guess. The book is about the second-best supersoldier humanity can offer, who is hated by the brass because of his unprecedented popularity with the troops. But alas, the hero cannot enjoy his effortless victories because the best supersoldier of all, a beautiful young woman, does not return his love.

    For bonus points, he has a romantic rival who is his competitor in the armed forces only because the rival’s father is a billionaire senator.

    For bonus bonus points, the romantic rival loses the girl when a bar scene reveals his latent homosexuality.

  14. feeriker says:

    If you’re wrong, I’m sure the pastor will have no problem setting the record straight.

    Someone needs to just ask him, flat out, if his eldest son is pre-op trans. Being a UMC “pastor,” this question shouldn’t bother him at all.

  15. Ilíon says:

    David:… and training men to see themselves as expendable …

    Any culture that wants to survive from generation to generation *must* train its men that they are expendable.

    Perhaps you (singular and plural) are conflating “expendable” for “disposable”.

  16. Kevin says:

    This is the longest self justifying correction I have ever read outside of the NYT. I agree he writes weird but why make accusations about an ex-military officer without anything beyond the moonshot circumstantial evidence that his father has a writing affectation.

  17. earl says:

    I’d probably put this in the ‘eh’ category until more substantial evidence comes out. Like if he starts saying he has two daughters and one son.

  18. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    his son writes from the perspective of a woman. This is a very mild form of gender bending in our SJW culture, but even in current year it is at least a little awkward.

    This feminization of sci-fi has been going strong since the 1990s. For examples, see the below books. All written by white men. All featuring lead characters who are female and/or non-white.

    * The three Rama sequels, by Author C. Clarke and Gentry Lee (1990, 1992, 1995). Written from the POV of a black woman Olympics champion (born in Africa), turned space traveler. She dates an insecure white mangina who worships her. She is the stronger of the two.

    * Cosm, by Gregory Benford (1999). Written from the POV of a black, female quantum physicist. She is dating a white mangina who worships her.

    * Expendable, by James Alan Gardner (1997). Written from the POV (first person voice) of a Hispanic woman space marine. The sequel is written from the POV of a female robot.

    * Forever Peace, by Joe Haldeman (1998). Written from the POV of a black space marine, who is dating an older white woman space marine. This is the sequel to the much superior Forever War.

    This doesn’t include sci-fi novels featuring white mangina leads, who worship their strong, independent wives and girlfriends (e.g., The Terminal Experiment, by Robert J. Sawyer, 1995).

    It seems that by the 1990s, white male authors were struggling to remain relevant by writing from female and/or colored perspectives. Of course, all these lead characters are exceptionally brave and brilliant, the white manginas vocally feminist and supportive of their “better half.”

    I stopped reading sci-fi by 2000, so I don’t know how bad it’s become since then.

  19. Boxer says:

    Dear Dalrock:

    Are we going after people’s kids now? If so, why? Maybe I missed something, but has the ambiguously gendered Lance Corporal ever published anything promoting degenerate?

    It could be that Pastor Sensing is cagey about his son’s sex because it is awkward that his son writes from the perspective of a woman. This is a very mild form of gender bending in our SJW culture, but even in current year it is at least a little awkward.

    Shakespeare wrote opposite-sex protagonists, so did Steinbeck and Flannery O’Connor. Contemporary examples include Tom Perrotta, Alice Munro and Tom Wolfe… and those are just the authors I enjoy and can think of off the top of my head.

    I think it’s considerably more difficult for a writer to try to create an opposite-sex voice, and I think the challenge is a large part of the motivation for many of them, rather than any sort of fetishistic desire to symbolically cross-dress.

    This feminization of sci-fi has been going strong since the 1990s. For examples, see the below books. All written by white men. All featuring lead characters who are female and/or non-white.

    It’s sorta beyond my ethical boundaries to hassle someone who is not involved, even if zhir is a tranny (and I haven’t seen anything but speculation on whether that’s actually true). Has said alleged tranny ever come at our side, or do we hate s/h/it simply because s/h/it’s dad is an asshole?

    Best,

    Boxer

  20. Pingback: It’s a man, baby! | Reaction Times

  21. Boxer says:

    Dear Red Pill Latecomer:

    I stopped reading sci-fi by 2000, so I don’t know how bad it’s become since then.

    It’s not just sci-fi. For two excellent books which mock the hell out of feminism, check out I am Charlotte Simmons by Tom Wolfe, or Little Children by Tom Perrotta. Both were written by men. Both have women as protagonists. I’m still in the dark as to how either of these men were able to get these novels published, during the peak feminism era which was the early 2000s.

    Best,

    Boxer

  22. seventiesjason says:

    Really confused by this post. A man wrote it, but the protagonist in the story is a woman?

    And?????

    My favorite fiction writer, Douglas Coupland (a Canadian) has written several stories with a female protagonist. JD Salinger (my fav writer) wrote many short stories with female lead characters. They were good too (‘the war with the eskimos’ comes to mind)

    Confused by this. Then again my IQ is only average

  23. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    One problem with many of these sci-fi books is that there is no need for the protagonists to be female. There is nothing feminine about her personality or situation (i.e., not a mother, a wife, a debutante, etc.).

    These female protagonists are space marines, scientists, etc. They behave and talk like men — drinking, carousing, cursing, fighting, engineering. They just happen to be women. Because … why? They could as easily have been men. The only “female” aspect to their personalities is that they snark and sass at men.

    Why did these white, male authors make these space marines and scientists females? And strong, independent women at that. Strong, independent, smart, sassy women.

    These characters are not like Lady Macbeth, or Juliet, or even Portia, whose perspective and manners are uniquely female. These sci-fi women are men in drag, written as women so as to fill a quota, and sass at men, and mouth some PC speeches.

  24. Cane Caldo says:

    Anyone who writes female warrior heroes is either a satirist, a fool, or a degenerate. I am against the latter two.

  25. earl says:

    Why did these white, male authors make these space marines and scientists females? And strong, independent women at that. Strong, independent, smart, sassy women.

    They probably grew up with feminist mothers and married feminist wives or a healthy dose of feminist education. They don’t know any different.

  26. patriarchal landmine says:

    we’ve been programmed since childhood to be ashamed of being male. we are blamed for absolutely everything wrong that happens anywhere, and statistics will even be manipulated or lied about to make men look worse.

    that female space marine doesn’t even have sexy boob plate. just more terror of healthy sane male sexuality (or the appropriate admission that women are naturally weaker than men and would never wear bulky armor like that assuming they ever did see frontline combat).

  27. Lost Patrol says:

    This feminization of sci-fi has been going strong since the 1990s. For examples, see the below books. All written by white men. All featuring lead characters who are female and/or non-white.

    These sci-fi women are men in drag, written as women so as to fill a quota,…

    I think RPL has outlined a viable scenario. If you are a fledgling author and want to get your sci-fi published right now, this is the way to increase your chances. Done by design to get a foot in the door?

    Checking all the links, Pastor Sensing himself strikes me as old school, tradcon military officer (retired), which accounts for his notion that he is holding the line, even while showing obvious delight in his doctor daughter-in-law, and chemical engineer daughter (or whatever, I forgot the details but that’s the gist). It all fits the pattern. Even a move into ministry after retirement happens more often than you might think. I’ve seen many examples.

    The son, at the time in question, I won’t vouch for lately; is also by all appearances standard issue. He’s off to Iraq in the blog posts from 2005, and the Bn commander is there to send off a company, or detachment from his unit (Kuhn, at that time commanding the 2nd Amtrac Bn); and young Sensing is one of many going over to fall in on the equipment already in place. He looks just like the rest of them and thousands more like him.

    I can’t find anything nefarious in what we’re seeing here. It’s just the usual blue pill, uninformed white knighting that more than a few of us were guilty of until we came here and got wised up.

  28. crispyjoe says:

    1st book focuses on a female space marine. Yeap, that says lot right there. 40k heresy is always a good start.

    So anybody else bothered by the comparison to Starship Troopers some of the reviewers are making? It is like friends and family are reviewing the book and that is the only good sci-fi book that they can compare it too.

  29. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The sales rank is very low. Maybe one or two copies sold. So yeah, the reviews are fake.

    Starship Troopers invented the military sci-fi subgenre, just as Clancy invented the techno-thriller and Grisham invented the legal thriller. So again, yeah, the fake reviewers are probably not fan or readers of military sci-fi. They’re lying as best they can, hobbled by their own ignorance.

  30. PokeSalad says:

    If a man devotes his entire life to whiteknighting and training men to see themselves as expendable (as Pastor Sensing has),

    Well, zhe wouldn’t have had to serve in the first place if all those cowardly men who refuse military service had done their duty…..

  31. Anon says:

    Pat. Landmine,

    we’ve been programmed since childhood to be ashamed of being male. we are blamed for absolutely everything wrong that happens anywhere, and statistics will even be manipulated or lied about to make men look worse.

    Not to bring up an old topic, but the diffusion of Artificial Intelligence into many decisions across business, government, and more will make this much harder to sustain. Particularly when democracies fudge numbers to conceal female flaws, but a non-democracy like China does not.

  32. Guys, focus ONLY on the comments!

  33. Anon says:

    IBB,

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-04/maybe-sex-robots-will-make-men-not-women-obsolete

    I saw that earlier.

    Putting aside the fact that it will be VR Sex, not robots, that crater female SMV for the average male (for reasons that have been discussed countless times, and should be obvious).

    This article is just another example of how painfully clueless women are about how women think. It is scarcely any more intelligent than the articles where a ‘feminist’ claims that women are only physically smaller because men have been sabotaging them.

    Also note Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism here.

  34. Anon says:

    OMG. This is the photo of the ‘Sexbots will make men obsolete’ article :

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DI95ryLWAAA3oGn.jpg:large

  35. Anon says:

    Well, at least her outfit color matches with her hair :

    IBM could employ her as a mascot.

  36. MarcusD says:

    “She founded ORCAA, an algorithmic auditing company […]”

    Freudian slip, maybe…

  37. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anon
    Not to bring up an old topic, but the diffusion of Artificial Intelligence into many decisions across business, government, and more will make this much harder to sustain.

    Sure. Right about the time that fusion power becomes commercially viable. That’s just 20 years from now, right? Or maybe just after the Singularity…

    In the real world the Chinese government is using facial recogition, a form of AI, to find dissidents in public and keep track of Moslems in certain locations. No effect on women per se.

    Also in the real world Iceland has made it illegal to pay men more than women, Norway mandates that 50% of corporate boards must be female, feminist law professors are pushing “Yes Means Yes (Until it doesn’t)” consent standards to be included in US state law…and it’s not clear yet if #MeeToo will leave any lasting regulatory residue behind or not, but “warlock hunt by social media” has been established as a tool of the Female Imperative.

    It is obvious that Peak Feminism has not yet been reached.

  38. feministhater says:

    It is obvious that Peak Feminism has not yet been reached.

    Yep, the feminists are just getting started. 2018 is only going to get worse in that regard. Doesn’t matter to me. The more they push, the more extreme the eventual backlash will be. I want them to try harder, to push more. Moar #metoo, moar legal laws favouring women, moar privelges for women, just a never ending stream of largesse given to women; and then….. it all ends.

    Women have forgotten who produces everything, who builds everything, who built the world they now inhabit, who protects them, who provides for them. It will cost them. When men have finally had enough, the tide will turn and that is why things must get worse, far worse because men just can’t seem to say ‘no’ and thus they must be driven to it by forces outside of their control.

  39. feministhater says:

    Thanks for that article IBB. Some good commentary from you in there! Also laughing at the comments, so many Red Pills, so little time!

  40. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    What’s with the blue hair? What’s with women wanting to look like clowns? I went to the grocery store yesterday. There I saw…

    * A young latina cashier, with cherry red hair.

    * A middle-aged latina cashier, with blue lipstick.

    * A young white woman customer, with facial piercings.

    So many women, all decked out to be circus performers.

  41. Opus says:

    What I cannot understand is whether the author really believes that now or at some time in the not too distant future and not withstanding that he is himself a Marine and Iraq-vet and thus will have seen the reality of women not being front-line troops that the government of the country (a thinly disguised United States) is going to send women into the front line (no hint in the extract on Amazon of so much as a single male Marine). Does he really believe this or is it that now to make or rather to allege that his hero is actually a heroine is the only way a respectable person and with noblisee oblige can write fiction. .. and then there is the intriguing question of the lesbo-eroticism between the heroine and the female Japanese marine. Is this white-supremicism or just a re-write of Madam Butterfly?

    Men have often written convincing female characters and from the perspective of the female character but Anna Karenin was regrettably for her not a kick-ass jock! The final score being Steam Train – 1 Anna 0

  42. Ilíon says:

    patriarchal landminewe’ve been programmed since childhood to be ashamed of being male.

    And part of that programming is to say ‘male’, rather than ‘man’ (especially when referring to European-descended men).

    Start watching what others (and you yourself) say. You will almost never see women referred to as ‘females’, and you will rarely see male “persons of color” referred to as ‘males’.

  43. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    The sales rank is very low. Maybe one or two copies sold. So yeah, the reviews are fake.

    Certainly not! We know that’s not true, because if it were, it would entail that no one here had read it, either; and are writing reviews of a work they’re unfamiliar with (i.e. lying).

    This is the photo of the ‘Sexbots will make men obsolete’ article

    I read the title she’s holding up (Weapons of Math Destruction). She’s mildly entertaining, in a histrionic sort of way. The blue hair and terminal obesity doesn’t surprise me. She crticizes a lot of things she doesn’t fully understand, from the perspective of a wimminz who has been coddled her entire life, and she consistently takes a fake, BLM-lite position on every social concern. Anon would like this book, not only because it talks about the rudiments of AI that are developing (Assuming we include things like algorithmic predictions for police and corporate management in the definition.)

    2/5 stars

    Boxer

  44. Novaseeker says:

    And part of that programming is to say ‘male’, rather than ‘man’ (especially when referring to European-descended men).

    Start watching what others (and you yourself) say. You will almost never see women referred to as ‘females’, and you will rarely see male “persons of color” referred to as ‘males’.

    Yes, exactly.
    —-

    On the sexbots article, well she intended it to be funny, although it wasn’t particularly so. She seemed to think that the bots would be useful to women as kind of errandboy/butler type of things — like siri but with a mechanical tongue and penis. That’s pretty revealing more as to how she personally views men than anything else.

    The comments were priceless, however. The degree of pushback stuff like this is getting now is remarkable compared to only a few years ago. Things are getting edgier, it seems.

  45. MKT says:

    I know you’ve mentioned (and linked to) articles by the Baylys in the past. Here’s a really good recent one — “Presbyterian pastors who coddle their elders’ wives…” The same can be said of other denominations:
    https://warhornmedia.com/2017/12/30/presbyterian-pastors-coddle-elders-wives/

  46. Dalrock says:

    Thanks for the link MKT

    Do you have any thoughts on what he means by this line:

    By God’s mercy, our congregation has been blessed with elders’ wives who never try to manipulate their husbands and pastors away from risk, discipline, and manly zeal.

    Is this sarcasm, or is he being serious?

  47. MKT says:

    I don’t know him or his congregation personally, but I think he’s being serious. The “never” part is hard to believe. He may be exaggerating a bit and saying that compared to most PCA/evangelical churches, the manipulation is very minimal.

  48. MKT says:

    For example. the wives aren’t pushing the church to have sermons pandering to women, or replace older, more masculine hymns with touchy-feely praise songs. There are still churches like that.

  49. Dalrock says:

    Thanks MKT,

    That was how I read it as well, but it contradicts with the stated message of the post so I wanted another opinion. The thesis is that other Pastors/Elders need to stand up to their wives. Then he says he and his elders don’t have to stand up to their wives, because their wives are different. Basically, he is (rightly) pointing out that men need to stop being afraid to say no to their wives, but then he makes sure his readers know he and his elders aren’t saying no to their own wives.

  50. MKT says:

    I think that’s why he prefaced it with “By God’s mercy, our congregation has been blessed…” He’s saying it hasn’t been an issue at his church–wives aren’t trying to dictate how they worship. I’d assume they have to be told “no” at other times for other issues, but not weighty matters of the church.

  51. Novaseeker says:

    And another one from the “endlessly declining standards” department …

    Here we see the NYT (https://tinyurl.com/ya9a5yoc) singing the praises of a marriage between a Broadway actress and a Broadway musician. He, 36, was single, and she, 35, was divorced (of course). She priases him for being her barista at home and says he is domestic (he religiously cooks her meals after her shows as well), and he pledges to support her “relentless work ethic” and to shop with her between shows. He may not be a “beta bux” in this case because she has her own pile of bux, but he sure is a comfort beta. It really does stand out, though, that a hyper-careerist divorcee in her mid 30s is a catch for so many men — likely a combination of brainwashing, lack of other options, or personality (he seems obviously the skirt in the relationship here, the submissive one). Standards just keep getting lower, which fuels women’s increasing expectations across the board.

  52. Dalrock says:

    @MKT

    I think that’s why he prefaced it with “By God’s mercy, our congregation has been blessed…” He’s saying it hasn’t been an issue at his church–wives aren’t trying to dictate how they worship. I’d assume they have to be told “no” at other times for other issues, but not weighty matters of the church.

    I think you are right. But it confuses the whole post. Follow me men… by having the good fortune to have a wife who isn’t tempted the way the Bible tells us all women are tempted.

  53. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Novaseeker, some interesting excerpts from that article:

    From an early age, she sought the spotlight. For a preschool concert, she was relegated to the back row but parted the children à la Moses to take center stage when the singing started.

    Not a good sign when a female is desperate for “the spotlight.” In preschool, and already an attention whore.

    “Don’t tell Betsy she can’t do something because she’ll prove you wrong,” said her mother, Bonnie Wolfe, an artist and speech pathologist. Scott Wolfe, a history teacher, athletic coach and former professional baseball player, wholeheartedly agreed about his daughter.

    Sounds like a rebellious girl. (“Don’t tell Betsy she can’t do something…”), with a feminist mother and mangina father, both instilling a You go grrrrrl attitude into the little attention whore.

    Ms. Wolfe … not long out of a long marriage to her high school sweetheart, which had ended in 2012.

    Married young. Felt she’d missed out on life (i.e., the cock carousel). Especially when surrounded by the lights of Broadway and the center of attention. Made her realize she’d settled in her first marriage. That she could do better.

    Ms. Wolfe was raised in a West Coast conservative Christian home; Mr. Krauthamer grew up on Long Island, in Baldwin, N.Y., in a liberal Jewish family, the son of Marshall Krauthamer, a special-education teacher and guidance counselor, and Susan Krauthamer, a nurse practitioner.

    So she was raised “conservative” Christian, and married young. Maybe even a virgin? Didn’t prevent her from blowing up her first marriage. Nor did it prevent her parents from (apparently) celebrating her divorce and remarriage.

  54. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Pointing out all the lunacy and contradictions in this Craigslist personal ad really is shooting fish in a barrel. So much debris to pick through in this pile of human wreckage.

    Dominant sadist looking for a connection. (Seattle)

    I am a disabled woman in my 20’s. Looking for a masochist who wants to date, maybe develops into something serious over time. I prefer my partner to me skinny. I am slightly overweight. But I just like skinny dudes. Don’t really care about muscle build. I like Emos, Goths, geeks, nerds.

    I prefer to be in control. At least most of the time. I enjoy helping others. But when it comes to intimacy I tend to be more deviant and sadistic. I don’t draw blood though. I am a artist. I am into weird things like conspiracies, and the paranormal.

    I know I am not normal, and I have come to accept that. It runs in my family. I am spiritual. But I am not crazy religious. I believe what I want. I don’t expect others to believe the same.

    I am very open about being pansexual. But I prefer loyalty and honesty. I don’t need multiple partners to satisfy me. Please don’t send me any naughty pictures. Just a face pic. I will send one back.

    https://seattle.craigslist.org/see/w4m/d/dominant-sadist-looking-for/6437722073.html

  55. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    So she was raised “conservative” Christian, and married young. Maybe even a virgin? Didn’t prevent her from blowing up her first marriage. Nor did it prevent her parents from (apparently) celebrating her divorce and remarriage.

    One must note from the photos that the replacement husband is shorter than she is. He’s also Jewish. I dunno, maybe he has some game or something. She’s still fairly attractive, but my guess is that he was the best she could do for marriage. Canary in a coal mine?

  56. Novaseeker says:

    So she was raised “conservative” Christian, and married young. Maybe even a virgin? Didn’t prevent her from blowing up her first marriage. Nor did it prevent her parents from (apparently) celebrating her divorce and remarriage.

    Yes exactly. Also the first marriage is described as “long”, although the article is silent on whether she had kids (I’d expect if she did it would have been in there somehow). Seems like she probably married around 20-22 and divorced around 30.

    We can bet she wasn’t a Broadway star when she started that marriage, but she either was one or was becoming one when she ended it. That part is understandable to some degree from the human perspective — she remained focused on developing her career after she was married, and it made her into a fundamentally different person than she was when she got married, so the marriage had to go. Many people will assume “oh that’s because she married too young”, but really it’s more the case that she spent the rest of her 20s not settling into life as a wife and mother, but building her Broadway career and “following her dreams”, which, the way careers go, meant that at 30 she was really different, in terms of her life and goals and what she wanted out of life and a spouse, than she was when she got married in her early 20s. That, however, had to do with personal choices more than anything else, and more than her age at first marriage, just going from the fact that she must have focused like a laser beam on her acting career in her 20s in order to get where she was by the time she came across Hub 2.

  57. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Boxer, he cooks, he’s “domestic,” he loves to shop with his wife between shows, and he works on Broadway — as a musician (i.e., as a young boy he must have like Broadway musicals rather than heavy metal). Everything indicates that he’s GAY.

    I just can’t figure why Betsy would marry a gay man?

    Maybe he’s an undemanding Beta Provider, taking care of her at home, and not minding if she sleeps with other men?

  58. Boxer? Against your ethical boundaries? Is this satire? First, if Sensing is claiming to be a Christian pastor his children become evidence of his qualifications. If he had stayed silent on the subject who would know? But no, he’s promoting his child’s degeneracy. Fair game.

    Not being able to identify and clearly communicate opposition to moral rot isn’t “ethical” in my book.

  59. Opus says:

    Stars (even of the stage like Betsy of whom I have never heard) do NOT marry pit-musicians. Something very queer here and yet he does not seem clueless or incapable. Is he using her for career advancement? Either way I expect a quickie divorce.

  60. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Is he using her for career advancement? Either way I expect a quickie divorce.

    I don’t see that Betsy can do much for his career. He’s already an established musician. He doesn’t need her to find work. And I don’t see how she can help him be promoted to … what?

    It could be that she’s his beard. But why would a gay man, working on Broadway, in 2018, need a beard? Perhaps because his parents are in denial, and he wishes to help them maintain their illusion?

    Perhaps she married her Gay Best Friend, who’ll take care of her, while she acts as his beard?

  61. Hmm says:

    On the Bayly article, I was one of the elders who suffered through a church split a decade or more ago. The cause of it was a woman on the music team (I’ll call her Diane) who took issue with the worship pastor. She kept throwing innuendos and accusations but refused to back them up or meet to resolve the issues. When we confronted her, she and her husband (Jake) threatened to leave and take 100 people (of about 400) with them. This they did, and along with one of our associate pastors started a new church.

    What I noticed at the time was that, of the families that followed Diane & Jake to the new church, virtually all were “wife-led” households – the women called the shots. The husband-led households stayed, which made leading the former church a breeze for the next few years (and that church continues to thrive).

    The new church prospered and grew for several years, but thoroughly compromised the Gospel (their website didn’t even mention the Bible). Now I’ve heard that Diane is responsible for blowing up that church as well. She became a pastoress (in charge of “family life”), and when their pastor retired recently, he mentioned “toxic relationships” among the leadership. This has caused some of the hurt members there (many of them former members of the old church) to ask us about why Diane left the first church originally. That was something they never bothered to do during the original split, and it has opened some eyes. Time heals wounds, but it doesn’t heal sin.

    The moral here: look around your church for couples where the woman leads, and be extremely careful about putting them into positions of influence (either husband or wife). And if possible, work to de-feminize the husband.

  62. Boxer says:

    God Is Laughing sez:

    Boxer? Against your ethical boundaries? Is this satire? First, if Sensing is claiming to be a Christian pastor his children become evidence of his qualifications. If he had stayed silent on the subject who would know? But no, he’s promoting his child’s degeneracy. Fair game.

    Going after your ideological opponent’s kids is something that a scumbag would do. The fact that I have to point this out is depressing, but not entirely surprising.

    Not being able to identify and clearly communicate opposition to moral rot isn’t “ethical” in my book.

    But, that’s not what you and your ilk are doing. If this guy’s kid was spreading “moral rot” then you ought to be able to quote him doing it. You can’t. Neither can Cane Caldo, who implied he was a “degenerate”. Neither can Dalrock, who called him a tranny. Neither can feeriker, who talked about contacting him directly to demand answers. All you’ve got is a goony illustration of his book, which looks like it was jobbed out to a third-grade special ed student.

    This makes you all look incredibly petty and ridiculous. Very bad optics.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  63. Gunner Q says:

    Boxer @ 1:37 pm:
    “Going after your ideological opponent’s kids is something that a scumbag would do.”

    Christian standards for church leadership call for checking how well led the leader’s family is. Daddy refusing to identify his eldest spawn’s gender is a dismal performance. Not to mention the questionable ethics of promoting his spawn’s book. “Don’t worry, I’m not biased!” Yeah, right.

    “If this guy’s kid was spreading “moral rot” then you ought to be able to quote him doing it. … All you’ve got is a goony illustration of his book, which looks like it was jobbed out to a third-grade special ed student.”

    Per the book description on Amazon, the protagonist is a female military officer. That is an advanced stage of moral rot. Although it does indicate that my initial guess of a Gamma revenge fantasy love triangle is off target.

    If you want to buy the e-book for me then I’ll read it and give it a proper review on my blog. Show me the money, if you think we’re being uncharitable towards an innocent.

  64. Opus says:

    @RPL

    What I meant was:

    He seems to have a couple of other irons in the musical fire, according to the NYT, which do not involve his French Horn. I sense ambition. Being married to a star cannot hurt but exactly how big a star is she? So I looked into her resume. She had done a couple of off-Broadway shows and then took the female lead in Edwin Drood* and then was a replacement in Waitress. Waitress by the way is an all-female-run show, the music composed by a woman so obviously neither sexist nor likely to be banal. That show is now on tour around the U.S. but she does not seem to be in it: I suppose they met on Drood. Even were she in it the six-piece pit-band for Waitress does not include notes for a French Horn. Life for an itinerant pit-player can be fairly uncertain (backed up by a lot of teaching) as shows come and then fold. I knew a chap who played the pit in one (probably more than one) of the West End musicals – the same music every night for a few years until it folded. He hardly looked prosperous. Compare that with the life of a member of say the New York Phil – different (and better) music most days, the possibility of foreign travel, and, bar disaster, a job for life or for as long as you want it. Does New York have a big recording industry requiring session musicians able to read at site any score? That at least in London is the case. It is hardly a glamorous life but then theatre starlets are also two a penny.

    *Edwin Drood: I used to know the buildings where Dickens set the action, adjacent to the Cathedral.

  65. Boxer says:

    Dear Gunner Q:

    Christian standards for church leadership call for checking how well led the leader’s family is. Daddy refusing to identify his eldest spawn’s gender is a dismal performance. Not to mention the questionable ethics of promoting his spawn’s book. “Don’t worry, I’m not biased!” Yeah, right.

    Except that this article, and many of the comments aren’t going after “Daddy” (lol at the Milopropism). They’re directed at someone that none of you know, simply because he’s related to someone you don’t like.

    Per the book description on Amazon, the protagonist is a female military officer. That is an advanced stage of moral rot. Although it does indicate that my initial guess of a Gamma revenge fantasy love triangle is off target.

    Big deal.

    If you want to buy the e-book for me then I’ll read it and give it a proper review on my blog. Show me the money, if you think we’re being uncharitable towards an innocent.

    In other words, you’ve never read the book, but feel inclined to criticize it anyway, because you can jump into the mob. Way to groupthink. Very manly.

    There is some “moral rot” on display here, but it’s not the author of the dopey e-book who is illustrating it.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  66. earl says:

    What’s with the blue hair? What’s with women wanting to look like clowns? I went to the grocery store yesterday. There I saw…

    * A young latina cashier, with cherry red hair.

    * A middle-aged latina cashier, with blue lipstick.

    * A young white woman customer, with facial piercings.

    So many women, all decked out to be circus performers.

    My first inkling with all of that is they have something weighing on their conscience.

  67. Gunner Q says:

    Boxer @ 2:13 pm:
    “In other words, you’ve never read the book, but feel inclined to criticize it anyway”

    Absolutely. I used to love reading SF and have spent the last twenty years watching it devolve into a stinking morass of pussy worship, necrophilia, Gamma rage and Christ-hate. You want me to give a book about a female soldier, with Captain Barbie on the freaking cover, the benefit of doubt with that kind of context? Not gonna happen.

    My offer remains open. Buy it for me and I’ll honestly report on it, if you think I’m wrong. I WANT to find good SF. I enjoy it when I find it. But when it’s time for me to spend my money, I’d be stupid to risk $2 on Captain Barbie turning out to be satire or parody.

  68. earl says:

    First, if Sensing is claiming to be a Christian pastor his children become evidence of his qualifications.

    They are evidence of his parenting…but they are not evidence of his Christianity. My grandparents are devout Catholics and yet some of their kids went away from the faith.

  69. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    My offer remains open. Buy it for me and I’ll honestly report on it, if you think I’m wrong.

    strawman. I didn’t make any claim about the book, only about the hostility toward someone that none of us knows anything about.

    If I were to buy you a book, it wouldn’t be an e-book by a no-name author you guys are raging at for no reason. Incidentally, have you ever read Cormac McCarthy? I get the feel that you’d probably like that guy’s books. Not really sci-fi; though, I don’t know what to call them. Dystopian realism?

    They are evidence of his parenting…but they are not evidence of his Christianity. My grandparents are devout Catholics and yet some of their kids went away from the faith.

    They’re not evidence of anything, since there is no evidence in the original post, nor in any of the comments, about this man. The people who are libeling him here don’t even know his first name.

    Best,

    Boxer

  70. tbayly says:

    Maybe I exaggerated, but it’s basically true: we love our wives and lead them without having to engage in machinations with them. Of course, this took a lot of work over many years—both their work and ours. Love,

  71. Dalrock says:

    Boxer,

    I think I get your discomfort. When I wrote the initial smug post I really believed that Sensing was being so cagey with his language about the sex of his daughter, not his son. In our culture the former is pretty mainstream. The latter still feels weird. If I had thought he was doing this regarding a son I don’t think I would have included it. As a United Methodist Pastor, Sensing is soaking in a world of SJW rot, and the quote from the lesbian bishop about Christ being a bigot was sufficient to demonstrate this. Him playing the gender neutral game with (what I thought was) his own daughter is pretty standard tradcon feminist fare. I didn’t realize I was treading on gender bending from the other direction. But once I was in, I was in.

    Either way, in the English language it is very awkward to write about a person while concealing their sex. For a father to do this repeatedly is I think you would agree quite weird. Part of the problem we have is we can’t confront feminism, gender bending, etc because confronting it isn’t nice. Men drawing on their own wartime experience to fantasize about kickass warrior women is weird. Doing so in the form of publishing a book is making that public. I didn’t call him a tranny, but I did say that it is weird, and a very mild form of gender bending. As I’ve been writing for the past few weeks, gender bending has become quite normal in our culture (even a virtue), especially for women seeking to be mannish.

  72. Mich says:

    If I had to read anything into this, I’d guess his son is an MtF and the pastor (rightly) doesn’t feel comfortable calling his son a “her” or “she”, but he also doesn’t want to lose his relationship with his kid over being MtF, so he avoids the issue in a peace-keeping compromise. It’s hard to fault a guy for loving his kid, even if you want to debate how approach.

    But, I don’t want to read anything into it because I agree with Boxer. The “evidence” against him is vague at best and he has no relevance to anything we do here, except that he may be one random degenerate in a world filled with degenerates of every flavor. He has no power or influence; this outrage is confusing.

  73. Mich says:

    *his approach

  74. Pingback: Ethical Trolling – v5k2c2

  75. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    “Either way, in the English language it is very awkward to write about a person while concealing their sex. For a father to do this repeatedly is I think you would agree quite weird. ”

    It’s also ironic, or hypocritical, when it’s someone who dismisses claims that modern churches are corrupted by feminism. They are simply proving the point made.

  76. dragnet says:

    @ The Question

    “It’s also ironic, or hypocritical, when it’s someone who dismisses claims that modern churches are corrupted by feminism. They are simply proving the point made.”

    Exactly. This should be plainly obvious.

  77. Going after your ideological opponent’s kids is something that a scumbag would do. The fact that I have to point this out is depressing, but not entirely surprising.

    The “kid” is an ideological opponent too. Female space Marines is enough for me. Your mileage may vary.

    Optics

    Tone policing the culture war? Weird.

  78. Big deal.

    About those ethical standards.

  79. Anon says:

    Marcus,

    It could all just be a coincidence (maybe he just dislikes his first name?), though odd nonetheless.

    That is besides the point. The damning evidence is that the father refers to the second son as ‘son’ and ‘his’ but the eldest is merely the ‘eldest’.

    The only question is whether he just ‘identifies’ as a female or actually got scammed into doing the surgery (remember that it is not technologically possible to change a person’s chromosomes).

  80. Opus says:

    To refer to someone as your eldest presupposes at least in the Anglo world that you are speaking of a son much as to refer to someone as a Doctor or a President or a Lt Cpl presupposes a man. That there are Doctors, Presidents or Lt Cpls who may not be men does not alter the supposition because the qualifications or positions are naturally masculine qualifications or positions. In the same manner Nurse and Flight Attendant are naturally female and Teacher (not withstanding the presence excess of female teachers) also presupposes a man at least above the teaching of infants.

    Perhaps it is merely an English thing (and I never cared for it) but when I was very young, men would routinely be known by their initials eg G.K. Chesterton or H.G.Wells – indeed in person many people were merely referred to by their surname. This again assumes that the person is male and thus we might say that J.K. Rowling is gender-bending. She is not the first female author to hide her sex; all three Bronte sisters by assuming male first names did the same. It is often suggested and on no evidence – indeed contrary to the evidence* – that women did this because publishers were anti-woman but there were as many women who had novels published under their own names as did men such that whatever the Bronte’s reason for the deceit it should not have been fear of publishing rejection and looks like more female envy and FtM gender-bending. In short: they were lieing.

    One can sense Pastor Sensing’s disappointment or embarrassment as to his eldest: Pastor Sensing’s Amazon review tells a half-truth (to say that he is related to the author is surely such an understatement as to be misleading and intentionally so) and so reviewing ones own son’s effort makes the novella look like a vanity project. Funny the way it is often the biggest and butchest of men and in the military who feel the need to cross-dress. It is I think to be pitied rather than praised much as one would not praise someone who felt the need to assume a different race or sought to regress to childhood or for that matter wore higher heels to disguise lack of height or a rug to hide alopecia. It is Alonso Quijano deciding that he really is a Knight Errant but Cervantes mocked that conceit four centuries ago.

    * I rely on literary critic Franco Moretti who has crunched the numbers at least of English novelists for this insight. What he was unable to do was determine the sex of those novelists even of the eighteenth century who merely used as some then did their initials.

  81. Lost Patrol says:

    @ Opus

    “…the qualifications or positions are naturally masculine qualifications or positions.”

    Your Anglo Saxon Liberation Patriarchy is showing. I know the feeling but we have to keep up with the times. There are clearly no qualifications or positions that are naturally anything. Maybe that sort of thing was held true in a less enlightened age but these days we know that biology can be overruled by fiat and consequences be damned.

  82. Speaking of biology…..I got my DNA results in. Raised eyebrow…..I knew I was Slavic and Celt (majority)…but the DNA says I am also French, and about 3% Nigerian.

    Not one drop of English blood sadly. I am more “insulted” by the French DNA truth be told 😉

  83. JDG says:

    but these days we know that biology can be overruled by fiat and consequences be damned.

    Consequences? What consequences? There’s consequences?

  84. Opus says:

    @Jason

    Some time ago I came to the conclusion that DNA testing was a fraud and a scam; that the testers have no idea where people’s ancestors might come from – if anywhere – and that each assertion is used to provide a new hypothesis to promote their junk science. Frankly, I also came to the conclusion that The Theory of Evolution by way of Natural Selection has more holes in its patchwork than does Swiss Cheese. I’d ask for your money back if I were you but I bet that is not in the small print.

    Would DNA testing be an offshoot of that odd American striving of its inhabitants to find their roots? This I think is not really known elsewhere. Your Welsh boyo!!!

  85. Opus says:

    By my further calculations if you are 3% Nigerian that means that one or other of your Gt Gt Gt Grandparents came from southern Africa (around 1800 that would have to be). With a Polish Father and Welsh mother Jason that strikes me as about as absurd as one could get. A quick gaze in the mirror should resolve any doubts.

  86. Well Opus……it wouldn’t “surprise” me. British Colonial Africa. Going back into the Victorian age….I do know one of my descendants was in Africa in the Royal Army. He was Welsh, and they kept making him sign his name to “enlist” again…he couldn’t read or and had very little understanding of English.

    I won’t discredit the DNA………remember its “macro” not micro. Going way back. On my mothers side written history and documentation on my paternal great grandmothers side goes back to the 1600’s. On my Slavic side……….there is nothing dating pre WWII the NAZIs took care of that in Poland…..and Slavic sensibilities throughout the ages……well………who knows…..

  87. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jason, the 3% Nigerian is quite possibly nothing more or less than a lie. SJW’s at the genetic testing companies have rather gleefully admitted to each they are doing that just to “mess with racists”. It’s taking the statistical noise in a test and using it for pollitical / social manipulation.

  88. Gunner Q says:

    seventiesjason @ 9:48 am:
    “I got my DNA results in. …. about 3% Nigerian.”

    Which company did you go to? One of them, 23andme, has been suspected of falsifying data to claim whites have small amounts of African DNA in order to force diversity awareness. 23andme has also been in trouble with the FDA for fraudulent sales tactics and misappropriation of data. A couple relevant articles:

    http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2522-inside-shady-world-dna-testing-companies.html

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/23andme-is-terrifying-but-not-for-the-reasons-the-fda-thinks/

    Hmm… ninja’d by AR.

  89. This was Ancestory. Doesn’t bother me if I am…….like I said, more annoyed at the “french” in there 🙂

  90. Cane Caldo says:

    Boxer said:

    Neither can Cane Caldo, who implied he was a “degenerate”.

    No, I didn’t. I didn’t imply anyone was anything. I listed three possibilities, and said I am against two of them. People are free to read the synopsis on Amazon and draw their own conclusions.

  91. Cane Caldo says:

    All the DNA companies can geographically track is where a bit of DNA has been previously found. They cannot say from where those genes originated. So, for example: If a bunch of Europeans who live together in a mostly white community in Nigeria were the source of a series of DNA samples used by the company, then your “heritage” could test as some percentage of Nigerian. That would be so even if it were the case that your ancestry was 100% European, and the ancestry of all the Europeans living in Nigeria were European.

    IOW: They don’t test for race. They merely compare your DNA to other DNA. All they can tell you is where on a map the sample comparisons live.

  92. Opus says:

    I suspect that one day it will explained that DNA is no more nor less reliable than finger-printing which as we are now informed is more art than science. Hmmm.

    I had a friend who paid for his DNA check and was informed that he was fifty-thousand years out of Africa: he believed this. (I had to withdraw tactfully so as to prevent violence on my part). I have got to say that I find Genesis the less unbelievable. Really.

  93. Anyway all…….gonna go on an Internet diet for a bit! been real. Expect me when you least expect me!

  94. Derek Ramsey says:

    The first mistake was doxxing Pastor Sensing’s kid. The second was, upon realizing that the information presented was speculative and inaccurate, to write a second post doubling down on it, rather than retracting/deleting.

    Who knows why Pastor Sensing is cagey about his eldest. Maybe the eldest requested that his Dad grant him some measure of online anonymity in his online postings and this is his father’s rather pathetic attempt at it. It shouldn’t matter and I don’t want to know. All I need to know is that the father was obscuring the identity of the kid.

    I think I get your discomfort. When I wrote the initial smug post I really believed that Sensing was being so cagey with his language about the sex of his daughter, not his son.

    That information should have been out-of-bounds. Sure knowing the status of his kids might lead insight into the father, but it doesn’t matter. You don’t dox. At minimum the comments listing the kid’s real name should be retracted.

  95. Derek Ramsey says:

    Please redact the real name from the comment. Forgot to say please. Sorry about that.

  96. Now it’s “doxing”? Oh my. Between the tone policing and now allegations of doxing there are an awful lot of concerns here.

    Between the UMC “pastor” and degenerate (yes, it was me that asserted that) space fantasy author I don’t see anybody worth pulling punches on.

    I sleep okay at night.

  97. Anon says:

    I don’t think Derek Ramsey knows what ‘doxing’ is.

    Dalrock has only linked to things that Pastor Sensing has himself said or linked to.

  98. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    That information should have been out-of-bounds. Sure knowing the status of his kids might lead insight into the father, but it doesn’t matter. You don’t dox. At minimum the comments listing the kid’s real name should be retracted.

    This has actually been a really interesting thread to watch. One will notice that “God is Laughing” seems to guard his own name, place of employment and home address pretty jealously, all while reveling in the furtherance of the real-world harassment of others. Laughable and pathetic.

    Now it’s “doxing”? Oh my. Between the tone policing and now allegations of doxing there are an awful lot of concerns here.

    Yes, that’s what it is.

    Between the UMC “pastor” and degenerate (yes, it was me that asserted that) space fantasy author I don’t see anybody worth pulling punches on.

    May you be treated the way you treat others, you piece of human filth.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  99. BillyS says:

    Noting the sex of someone is not doxxing them. Give it a rest.

  100. Boxer says:

    Noting the sex of someone is not doxxing them. Give it a rest.

    Publishing your opponents child’s legal name, when the child clearly wants to remain private, is indeed doxxing. It’s also pathetic. Moreover, it doesn’t work, unless your ultimate goal is to convince normies that you’re a dismal loser. If you approve of these tactics, go join Antifa or the feminist pussy-hat brigade. It’s the sort of scuzzball shit they do.

  101. Ilíon says:

    Anon:I don’t think Derek Ramsey knows what ‘doxing’ is. …

    Since when has any concern-troll ever concerned himself with knowing what he’s talking about?

  102. BillyS says:

    I am not convinced that publishing a name rises to the level of Doxing Boxer. Doxxing also implies the intent to harass, and I have not seen that here.

  103. Opus says:

    Is (the neologism) Doxxing freedom of speech or does it breach the strictures of The Corn Grower argument as set out by John Stuart Mill? I, for once, side here with Mill.

  104. feministhater says:

    I’m not really into this comment thread or the previous one on the same subject, it doesn’t really interest me. However, I have to agree with Boxer. It might not be doxing with the intent to harass and/or intent to cause social sanctions on the person via job losses and such but it is bordering towards that.

    I don’t think it’s in our interest to publish the full names of people that had nothing to do with the publishing of an article even if their names are wildly available. Pastor Donald Sensing is the name attached to the article and not his children or wife.

  105. So Boxer? Are the good pastor or the Marine going to lose their jobs as a result of any of this? You’ve got a mighty high horse there I might add.

    Regards degenerate.

  106. Suggesting that my discretion is a symptom of hypocrisy is also bogus. When I box I don’t lead with my chin. Does that make me “human filth” for desiring to land blows on my opponents?

    I don’t see these guys as any type of extraordinary evil. I see people getting more upset about doxxing and tone than I do about the Reverend Sensing taking a monumental dump on John Wesley’s heritage.

  107. Opus says:

    Allow me to lighten the tone (as we cannot unscramble eggs) and with a couple of interesting observations:

    1. I was looking at some photographs from the early Twentieth Century (in my possession) and observed the extravagant clothing and too-good-for-you demeanor of the women. Much as we hate hate hate Feminism, Feminism is like just the latest of the Hydra’s many heads in that it is only the latest manifestation of the Female Imperative of which the women in the photographs greatly seemed possessed.

    2. I was looking at some photographs of the 1930s and 1940s (in my possession) of which there were a number of wedding photos. These were not Register Office weddings, one even being a Cathedral wedding and another with the Vicar and Curate visible, but in all of them the men are merely wearing lounge-like suits and not one of the women are dressed in white but are wearing – and not even of angle length – frocks. Don’t quite know what to conclude from this.

    3. I was looking at some photographs in my possession form the late Nineteen Twenties of girls at an English School (all boarding). The school will, in eight years celebrate its TRI-centenary, that is to say it considerably pre-dates the inauguration of your country. I conclude that for three centuries young women (at least those with wealthy parents) have been oppressed with education.

  108. Derek Ramsey says:

    “..getting more upset about doxxing and tone than I do about the Reverend Sensing”

    False dilemma. The faults of Pastor Sensing don’t reflect poorly on Dalrock or those who comment here. The same cannot be said about doxxing. Taking the moral high ground while engaging in doxxing is hypocrisy.

    “Doxxing also implies the intent to harass, and I have not seen that here.”

    Unsubstantiated accusations of gender bending, transgenderism, etc. against a private third-party individual with the purpose to mock or attack them? That’s libel, which easily qualifies as harassment. If that wasn’t already completely clear, read what God is laughing said: “..desiring to land blows on my opponents?”

    I am not convinced that publishing a name rises to the level of Doxing Boxer.

    With that name, you can easily find the names of all his family members, his age and birth year, place of residence, phone numbers, etc. The pseudonym used for the book is now directly linked to his full real name, where previously it was not. That name is now attached to those unsubstantiated accusations, which could have all sorts of (un)intended social consequences.

    I don’t think Derek Ramsey knows what ‘doxing’ is. Dalrock has only linked to things that Pastor Sensing has himself said or linked to.

    It is so obviously doxxing that it shouldn’t need to be spelled out. As to your second sentence, see point #5 below.
    1) Is the subject a private individual? Yes.
    2) Has the subject demonstrated a desire for anonymity or pseudonymity? Yes.
    3) Is the only interest subject because he is he family member of an opponent? Yes.
    4) Was personally identifiable information collected and linked together? Yes.
    5) Is the publicly available personally identifiable information sourced mainly from third-party sources rather than the subject? Yes.
    6) Were negative accusations made against the subject that could be considered damaging to their reputation? Yes.
    7) Has the subject admitted to the accusations publicly? No.

  109. Dear Derek:

    Good post. Please see below.

    Unsubstantiated accusations of gender bending, transgenderism, etc. against a private third-party individual with the purpose to mock or attack them? That’s libel, which easily qualifies as harassment.

    There was an antifa asshole who made a game of hitting his opponents over the head with rocks and other heavy objects, in an attempt to murder those he disagreed with. Of course, he did all this while he was wearing a mask, in a huge crowd of fellow travelers, thinking he was utterly anonymous. (He almost got away with it.) The character of a few people here has been uncovered, and I find similar minds and motivations among our ranks. We should be grateful for their honesty and remember them. They’re too unhinged to trust and letting them represent us is a colossal mistake.

    On a more general note, this is why I encourage everyone to guard their real world information carefully, and to resist the temptation to do meatspace meetups with people. Even on Dalrock blog, these kooks exist. The minute they disagree with you on some minor point, you can be sure you’ll see real-world consequences for it.

    Best,

    Boxer

  110. Dalrock says:

    @Derek Ramsey

    Please redact the real name from the comment. Forgot to say please. Sorry about that.

    This is a fair point. I’ve redacted all of the instances where the real name was included.

    But as to the larger point, would you have objected to my noting that Pastor Sensing was promoting his feminist daughter’s book about a female warrior? It turned out that I was wrong on this, but if I had been right, would that have been out of bounds to note? Or, if instead Pastor Sensing had gone out of his way to make it ambiguous as to whether he was married to a man or a woman. Would noting that have been out of bounds? For example, if he had gone on Instapundit to plug his spouse’s new cookbook with:

    I hope you will indulge a “proud spouse” moment for me in providing the link to my life partner’s first cookbook on Amazon. It went live on Kindle today. It does rely quite a bit on the experience xe has amassed cooking for our family!

    Would noting that have been out of bounds in the context of the original (sea of smugness) post?

  111. Boxer says:

    Dear Dalrock:

    I’m not Derek, but you called me out above, so I’m getting on to thank you for returning anonymity to the noncombatants. You also ask an interesting question, that I’m going to answer. You are, of course, free to ignore it.

    But as to the larger point, would you have objected to my noting that Pastor Sensing was promoting his feminist daughter’s book about a female warrior? It turned out that I was wrong on this, but if I had been right, would that have been out of bounds to note?

    I think it skirts the boundaries of acceptability. We could analogize it to your blog, which features claims that you are married and have children. If someone dug up a description of your wife, and started lampooning her, simply based on your admission that you have a wife that you love/are proud of, I would expect normal men (those with honor, anyway) to object. In the first place, your wife is not involved. Equally important is the fact that such a person would simultaneously be hinting at real-world harassment, while tacitly admitting s/he was incapable of debating the relevant issues you bring up here.

    Best,

    Boxer

  112. Derek Ramsey says:

    @Dalrock

    “I’ve redacted all of the instances where the real name was included.”

    Thank you.

    “would you have objected to my noting that Pastor Sensing was promoting his feminist daughter’s book about a female warrior?”

    If you didn’t use her real name, probably not. That said, whether the book was written by a feminist daughter or a feminist son, the important point is that one of his (feminist) kids wrote a book about a female warrior. You’d have to weigh how important additionally pointing out the sex is to your overall point against the privacy concerns. There is some room for nuance there and I’m not trying to be the thought police.

    I’m not convinced you intended any hostility towards Pastor Sensing’s child and it isn’t doxxing if you had no malicious intent. It still might have been unwise to put all that personal information out there though, but that’s your call to make. Certain other commenters certainly had hostile intent.

  113. Derek Ramsey says:

    I think it skirts the boundaries of acceptability.

    I completely agree with Boxer on this. In cases like this, it’s up to you, the blog author, to make the decision. Personally, I’d be hesitant to target criticism of someone when it involves family members. Sometimes the correct decision is to move on and let it drop. Plenty of other topics and people to write about. Nobody is forcing you to write about Pastor Sensing or his kid even if it is directly applicable to your point.

  114. Opus says:

    Why does Derek Ramsey consistently refer to Sensing Jr as a kid when he is an adult? Is it that he is depriving Sensing Jr – an Iraq vet – of moral agency? An author who publishes is going public and the public thus has a right to know the author’s identity. The lack of Christian names of Sensing Jr when his father goes so public about all the members of his family and their occupations can hardly be about protecting his son’s identity or private life. Why then should Dalrock be held to a higher standard? I sense that Derek Ramsey is engaging in moral posturing; SJW snowflake-type behaviour. I refer to my earlier comment as to John Stuart Mill’s test for freedom of speech.

  115. Ilíon says:

    Opus:… in eight years celebrate its TRI-centenary, that is to say it considerably pre-dates the inauguration of your country.

    Don’t confuse the state for the nation; the nation is another 150 years older.

  116. Boxer says:

    Dear Opus:

    Why does Derek Ramsey consistently refer to Sensing Jr as a kid when he is an adult? Is it that he is depriving Sensing Jr – an Iraq vet – of moral agency? An author who publishes is going public and the public thus has a right to know the author’s identity.

    “God is Laughing” and “Opus” are both publishing, right here on Dalrock blog. Does the public have a right to know their legal names and home addresses?

    Why then should Dalrock be held to a higher standard?

    Because Dalrock has consistently proven himself to be a better man. His deletion of the legal names in this conversation suggest that I was correct to expect a level of civility from him that would be alien to masked antifa goons or looney tradcons.

    Best,

    Boxer

  117. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Unsubstantiated accusations of gender bending, transgenderism, etc. against a private third-party individual with the purpose to mock or attack them? That’s libel, which easily qualifies as harassment.

    Libel does not “qualify” as harassment. Libel and harassment are two separate causes of action.

    And I’m not sure that it is libel to accuse someone of transgenderism. It used to be libel to falsely accuse someone of being gay (e.g., the Oscar Wilde libel trial). But the public acceptance of gays, courts are less inclined to regard false accusations of homosexuality as being libelous.

    For a statement to be libel, it must not only be false, it must be defamatory (i.e., something bad). So a plaintiff must prove in a court that being gay (or a tranny) is a bad thing, such that being accused of it is defamatory. And that’s increasingly hard to do in our gay-celebratory culture.

    If being a tranny is not bad, not defamatory, it doesn’t matter if the accusation is false. It wouldn’t be libelous.

    I Googled, and this was the most recent article I found on the subject: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2153256/Gay-rights-activists-angry-court-rules-calling-person-gay-slander-leaving-open-lynching-mob.html

    Falsely calling someone gay is no longer slander, according to a New York court decision, because it is not considered shameful to be homosexual.

    It is a ruling that has upset gay rights activists who fear that social hostility toward homosexuality remains in many parts of the country.

    The Appellate Division in Albany on Thursday wiped out decades of rulings, including its own, to say that society no longer treats false comments that someone is gay, lesbian or bisexual as defamation. Without defamation, there is no longer slander, the court ruled.

    The new case law was set after the court tossed out a gay defamation case but it could still go to a definitive ruling by the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.

    That article is from 2012. I assume the trend has since moved in further in this direction.

  118. Opus says:

    Boxer has now fallen straight into the trap that I set him (I knew you would) as well as Boxer’s failure to deal with any of my substantive points. I therefore ask Boxer who cannot but be familiar with J.S.Mill (in between gorging on the bearded one and his friend Herbie) how he can square his attack on Dalrock with the 1st Amendment. Be careful for that is surely another trap.

    In the meanwhile I have had a look at Derek Ramsey’s Blog and I think he needs to explain whether he has a dog in this fight. I go to the blog to ascertain his identity yet we are told that those going there might be expecting someone else. Why so cagey? or is it only for those in the know which obviously I am not. Dalrock is obviously not Dalrock’s day-by-day name yet Derek Ramsey is to all intents a normal day-by-day name, but is he really Derek Ramsey. I think we should be told.

  119. Boxer says:

    Dear RPL:

    Libel does not “qualify” as harassment. Libel and harassment are two separate causes of action.

    I don’t know if Derek was speaking of the legal concept, and I won’t answer for him, but I can tell you that there’s also a moral definition of libel, which doesn’t completely cohere with yours. Look up Ethical Basis of the Law of Defamation (Harper, 1926) for an analysis. I imagine it’s on JSTOR or the web someplace.

    Lots of immoral things are illegal. I’m amazed that a regular reader of Dalrock doesn’t know this already.

    No doubt you’re right on all counts, and by many other standards as well (I don’t think that printed speculation by a few kooks, who have zero credibility, has much chance of materially injuring the e-book author’s reputation, for example) and thus we’re all immune from a lawsuit. None of that really matters. Men are at least as concerned about the rightness of an act as they are of its legality.

    Best,

    Boxer

  120. Boxer says:

    Boxer has now fallen straight into the trap that I set him (I knew you would) as well as Boxer’s failure to deal with any of my substantive points. I therefore ask Boxer who cannot but be familiar with J.S.Mill (in between gorging on the bearded one and his friend Herbie) how he can square his attack on Dalrock with the 1st Amendment. Be careful for that is surely another trap.

    Sorry, I’m not a Mill scholar. I know him as little more than “that tabula rasa guy.”

    And again, the first amendment makes lots of immoral things illegal. Do I really have to explain the fact that ethics and law, while related, are not bijective? If so, then you’ve really learned nothing from your years of reading Dalrock (not to mention your trip through the courtrooms).

    Best,

    Boxer

  121. Boxer says:

    Boxer sez:

    And again, the first amendment makes lots of immoral things illegal.

    Boxer, you idiot. You meant the first amendment makes lots of immoral things legal

  122. Derek Ramsey says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer

    Excellent points regarding the legality. I was using the legal terms (inadvisably?) in an informal moral and ethical context. The ‘harassment’ doesn’t have to cross over into an actual crime for it to be something that is distasteful on this blog. The personally identifying harassment still qualifies as doxxing (another informal, non-legal term). That’s where Opus went wrong, citing freedom of speech instead of being concerned with what is honorable.

  123. Opus says:

    Derek Ramsey is raising the bar too high and by circular argument is blaming Dalrock for failing to jump as high as Derek Ramsey says he might. I see he fails to clarify his identity.

    Meanwhile I also see that I need to give Boxer a little lesson in proper philosophy: English Philosophy that is. God knows I am no fan of Mill for he is the ultimate bleeding-heart liberal yet Mill was surely the cleverest person in England during the Nineteenth Century (fluent in Greek by three and attendee at University Math lessons at eleven as well as an employee of the East India Company). His litmus test for freedom of speech though I surely do injustice to his felicity goes something like this: At the time of his essay the most hated people in England even more than Bankers and Realtors and Lawyers and foreigners were Corn Growers. So hated were Corn Growers that some people might want to kill them. This is where Mill felt the line should be drawn but not in saying or writing horrible things about Corn Growers and what one wanted to do to them but drawing a mob to protest outside the Corn Grower’s home and then inciting the mob to violence. That, Mill thought, was too much and where the line should be drawn. Now however on this blog and like a group of feminists and their mangina supporters (Vox’s Gammas) we are told that even amplifying a man’s initials so that his names (pass the smelling salts please) should be off-limits.. You can set the line for free speech where you like but if you set it lower than does Mill you can hardly claim your support of the 1st amendment which is of course what those on the campuses (campii?) at Berkeley do and who see free speech as violence thus confusing words with actions. I say that that is what Derek Ramsey and Boxer are doing.

  124. Boxer says:

    Dear Opus:

    Thanks for the Mill lecture. Please see inside text…

    Now however on this blog and like a group of feminists and their mangina supporters (Vox’s Gammas) we are told that even amplifying a man’s initials so that his names (pass the smelling salts please) should be off-limits.

    strawman

    If said man has ever published anything degenerate, or ever indulged in any hostility toward our side of the aisle, I’m sure you’d be able to cite some examples. You can’t, of course, because he hasn’t. His sole offense (or offence, if you’d like) is to be a relative of someone who wrote some feminist-friendly theology.

    I shall remain thankful that I am not held responsible (legally, morally or otherwise) by your kooky mob, for the misbehavior of my own relatives.

    You can set the line for free speech where you like but if you set it lower than does Mill you can hardly claim your support of the 1st amendment which is of course what those on the campuses (campii?) at Berkeley do and who see free speech as violence thus confusing words with actions. I say that that is what Derek Ramsey and Boxer are doing.

    Another strawman. No one is infringing upon your free speech. No one is infringing upon mine, either. You can keep doxxing uninvolved strangers, obsessing about the perverted stuff you think they might be into (with zero evidence), and I’ll keep mocking you for it.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  125. Dalrock says:

    No doubt Opus would advise me to remain silent while he kindly demonstrates that he is a master of his craft. I will however ask for clarification of the offense. This has been from what I can see a constantly moving set of goalposts. First I was falsely accused of calling Sensing’s son a tranny.

    But, that’s not what you and your ilk are doing. If this guy’s kid was spreading “moral rot” then you ought to be able to quote him doing it. You can’t. Neither can Cane Caldo, who implied he was a “degenerate”. Neither can Dalrock, who called him a tranny.

    I pointed out that this is false and there doesn’t seem to be any further argument on that point. I should also note that Cane Caldo was falsely accused of calling Sensing’s son a degenerate. From there it has been a constantly shifting insinuation of doxing and harassing and overall being a meanie.

    So I will ask my question again. Was I out of bounds in the original Smug post when I pointed out that Pastor Sensing was very oddly and repeatedly concealing the gender identity of his warrior offspring while promoting the warrior woman book said offspring wrote? Is this, by itself, something I must not mention when rebutting Sensing’s claim that my reader must not get out much if he thinks pastors are failing to hold the line on the distinction of sex roles?* If so, why? Is it because sowing gender confusion is no big deal, and therefore it is petty to mention that Sensing does it? Or is it because it is shameful, and therefore must never be called out?

    Moreover, is it an offense against the author of the book to note that Sensing is his father? If so, isn’t Sensing the person the charge should be leveled against, since Sensing not only trumpets this fact on his own blog, but on other blogs (Instapundit) and even hints at this fact in his review of the book at Amazon?

    *Put another way, was it the smug post itself which caused offense, or my correction where I admitted my misunderstanding caused by Sensing’s deliberate effort to sow gender ambiguity about his warrior offspring?

  126. Boxer says:

    Dear Dalrock:

    You quote me without addressing me. I assume you won’t mind if I answer your question, since the assumption that the question is directed my way isn’t (at least from my perspective) unreasonable.

    I will however ask for clarification of the offense. This has been from what I can see a constantly moving set of goalposts. First I was falsely accused of calling Sensing’s son a tranny.

    Apologies and retractions if “tranny” wasn’t what you meant by “gender bending”. Even so: I think if you read your article from the perspective of an average reader, you’ll find my interpretation plausible.

    I should also note that Cane Caldo was falsely accused of calling Sensing’s son a degenerate.

    Wrong. Here’s what Cane Caldo wrote:

    Anyone who writes female warrior heroes is either a satirist, a fool, or a degenerate.

    Cane Caldo would probably admit that he’s never read the book in question, so “degenerate” is a fair assessment of his accusation.

    I should also probably inquire as to which of these three goony characterizations Hemingway (author of “For Whom The Bell Tolls”) falls into. Cane? Any thoughts? There are a couple of “female warrior heroes” in that novel, and it clearly wasn’t satire.

    Put another way, was it the smug post itself which caused offense, or my correction where I admitted my misunderstanding caused by Sensing’s deliberate effort to sow gender ambiguity about his warrior offspring?

    I can’t speak for anyone else. For me it’s the notion of “going real life” on an ideological opponent. I’ve explained that in some detail here:
    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2018/01/05/ethical-trolling/

    I’ll again thank you for deleting the uninvolved family members’ real names from the conversation. I think that was a sound move. I also don’t think we’re going to agree on this, but I thank you also for letting me respond.

    Best,

    Boxer

  127. Derek Ramsey says:

    @Opus

    ..we are told that those going there might be expecting someone else.

    You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. As my identity and especially your ability to read is off-topic, there is no need to say more.

    …blaming Dalrock for failing to jump as high as Derek Ramsey says he might…

    Dalrock did the right thing, so… no.

    @Dalrock

    I will however ask for clarification of the offense.

    First and foremost allowing full names to be used for third-party family members. This was, thankfully, resolved.

    Second, the two posts are reminiscent of what is not-so-graciously called ‘butthurt’. He attacked you and you responded accordingly. Then you saw him using strange language and, sensing blood in the water, pounced. It was completely unnecessary. It should have been enough to note that one of his children was writing a feminist-inspired book staring a female-warrior and he was endorsing it. Had you done that, there would have been no need for clarification and your point would have been much clearer. For example:

    “Moreover, on a separate Instapundit post Pastor Sensing put in a plug for a book written by his child, a book staring a female-warrior”

  128. Cane Caldo says:

    @Boxer

    Cane Caldo would probably admit that he’s never read the book in question, so “degenerate” is a fair assessment of his accusation.

    That is a lie. I made no accusation, as your quotation of me proves. At best your reading comprehension is in serious doubt.

  129. Derek Ramsey says:

    @Dalrock

    It’s possible that I still misunderstand what your objection Pastor Sensing’s endorsement of the book is, because all the harping on the eldest’s identity was really distracting. What combination of the author’s sex or gender identity, the author’s status as a Marine, and the female-warrior protagonist made this a sign that the father’s endorsement of it was proof of his being infected by feminist rot?

  130. Boxer says:

    Dear Cane:

    It’s really quite simple.

    That is a lie. I made no accusation, as your quotation of me proves. At best your reading comprehension is in serious doubt.

    Here’s what you wrote:

    Anyone who writes female warrior heroes is either a satirist, a fool, or a degenerate.

    or, in a simpler form,

    x implies a or b or c

    I assume we’re using an exclusive or, here; but it wouldn’t matter either way, because a is not the case, given that you haven’t read the book you’re pretending to comment on, and b is not the case, given that when you made that goony pronouncement, you didn’t even know the author’s first name, and weren’t in a position to comment on his intelligence. That leaves c := degenerate as the only choice in your proposition. In context, with all the weird sexual allusions flying around, this is also the only choice that has any semantic content anyway.

    Hope this helps,

    Boxer

  131. I get the sense that Derek and Boxer would complain if critics of Kim Jong Un didn’t make themselves known publicly, and call them cowards for not marching in the streets of Pyongyang in open protest. Their moral posturing ignores the real damage that’s been accomplished across our denominations and institutions. But that’s all okay, because today they are criticising us.

    We can all see what gets your panties in a twist.

  132. Cane Caldo says:

    @Boxer

    I think it’s only right that–instead of trying to misdirect everyone while redefining multiple words–you admit:

    1) I did not make an accusation.
    2) That you have lied about that multiple times.

    …especially considering the panty-twisted cries for fair play that you have put on display.

  133. Cane Caldo says:

    @GIL

    Ha! You beat me to the observation of undergarment impairment by mere moments!

  134. Boxer says:

    Dear Cane:

    I think it’s only right that–instead of trying to misdirect everyone while redefining multiple words–you admit:

    1) I did not make an accusation.

    Did you, or did you not, make this accusation?
    Anyone who writes female warrior heroes is either a satirist, a fool, or a degenerate.

    2) That you have lied about that multiple times.

    …especially considering the panty-twisted cries for fair play that you have put on display.

    Since the first and second choices are obviously false, and only the third (degenerate) is plausible, you’re now admitting to either lying (i.e. true antecedent, false consequent) or posting gibberish (false antecedent).

    Which are you admitting to?

    Best,

    Boxer

  135. @ Cane, that’s kinda weird.

    Also, having Boxer essentially lecture me on the Golden Rule has caused me to meditate on his arguments. No, I wouldn’t want to be doxxed, and no I wouldn’t like what Dalrock wrote if I was the subject. That is not the end of the matter though or Christ would have never confronted, rebuked, or mocked ANYONE. I don’t have to be neutered to suit their version of the Gospel. And God is laughing, yes, He holds people in “derision”.

    Could someone point me to the verse that says “Thou shalt not dox.”

  136. Boxer says:

    That is not the end of the matter though or Christ would have never confronted, rebuked, or mocked ANYONE. I don’t have to be neutered to suit their version of the Gospel. And God is laughing, yes, He holds people in “derision”.

    I’m sure you and Cane will point me to the part of the New Testament where Christ publicized the full legal names of his enemy’s family members, just as soon as you both quit giggling about “panties” and other manly stuff, that reflects similarly well on us all.

  137. Ofelas says:

    @ Boxer
    Sorry to interfere, but you seem to be introducing some brand new class of semantics or logic here – Caldoan maybe?
    A statement can be true regardless of whether the one making it knows whether it is true or not.
    There’s vast area of natural language statements, that each of us makes every day, that fail to be captured by mere predicative or propositional logic.

  138. Boxer, could you tell us when your compendium on internet lawyering and ethics will be coming out? Will it have you name on it? And will I make gains if I curl with it?

  139. Boxer says:

    Dear Ofelas:

    A statement can be true regardless of whether the one making it knows whether it is true or not.

    Of course, that’s understandable. If the antecedent is false, then any consequent is true, whether or not any of us has direct acquaintance with it (here I’m paraphrasing one of Opus’ other countrymen, namely Bertrand Russell.) However, much of the time, such true propositions are meaningless. Hence my question to him who originally asserted it.

    There’s vast area of natural language statements, that each of us makes every day, that fail to be captured by mere predicative or propositional logic.

    Cane’s accusation was really quite simply put, and very easy to understand.

    As a fellow who knows more about this topic than I do, could you help me understand a scenario (any scenario) in which a person could make the statement in question, in the present context, in good faith?

    Best,

    Boxer

  140. Boxer says:

    Boxer, you moron:

    If the antecedent is false, then any consequent is true, whether or not any of us has direct acquaintance with it

    If the antecedent is false, then the proposition is true, whether or not any of us has any direct acquaintance with the consequent.

  141. Cane Caldo says:

    @Boxer

    My statement was no more an accusation than the statement, “If the shoe fits, wear it.”, or “Murderers deserve the death penalty”, or any other general statements about people generally. You continue to redefine words (a type of lie), overtly lie, and attempt to misdirect on both.

    This is similar to the time you falsely accused both Sir Hamster and myself of calling you a pedophile. While I wouldn’t put pedophilia past a person with a profile pic of blue hair, problem glasses, and a leftoid description: I didn’t actually write that you are one.

  142. Ofelas says:

    Cane made a generalized statement, that can be grounded eg in his reader experience with books depicting female warrior heroes or in any other body of experience or not grounded at all. We don’t know, so you saying that the first and second option are false, because he hasn’t obviously read the book, and therefore only the degenerate option is plausible, so he is either liar or saying gibberish, is nothing but a sophistic. You don’t know whether the first two are false, you only assume Cane has’t read the book, but that doesn’t make the two options false, if he posits them. You can doubt his conclusion or ask ‘what makes you think there’ s only these three options?’ but your applying of logical formulas on the statement is not accurate – whether Cane knows or doesn’t know something doesn’t make the fact true or false, nor it makes his statement about the fact true or false.

  143. Dalrock says:

    @Boxer

    You quote me without addressing me. I assume you won’t mind if I answer your question, since the assumption that the question is directed my way isn’t (at least from my perspective) unreasonable.

    Not at all. This was my intent.

    I should also note that Cane Caldo was falsely accused of calling Sensing’s son a degenerate.

    Wrong. Here’s what Cane Caldo wrote:

    Anyone who writes female warrior heroes is either a satirist, a fool, or a degenerate.

    Cane Caldo would probably admit that he’s never read the book in question, so “degenerate” is a fair assessment of his accusation.

    What you quoted from Cane Caldo doesn’t back your initial accusation.

    I should also probably inquire as to which of these three goony characterizations Hemingway (author of “For Whom The Bell Tolls”) falls into. Cane? Any thoughts? There are a couple of “female warrior heroes” in that novel, and it clearly wasn’t satire.

    I can’t speak for Cane, and it has been a long time since I read the book in question. However, as I recall:

    1) Hemingway isn’t writing from the POV of a woman warrior. I believe there are some female partisans in the story, but it is somewhat different than a book about a warrior babe space marine who leads the men into battle.
    2) FWTBT is about a group of Soviet partizans fighting to bring Stalinism to Spain, and my read is that Hemingway wrote it to advance the Stalinist cause.

    With this in mind, I would say degenerate. Hemingway is however a very talented degenerate.

  144. Ofelas says:

    Apologies, the wording – your applying the formulas is accurate, but the type of statement you apply them on is, by it’s nature, not one where it would make much sense, that’s what I meant.

  145. Ofelas says:

    … nor it makes his statement about the fact true or false.

    Unless the statement would be something like “I’m sure that x” or a like of course.

  146. Cane Caldo says:

    @Ofelas

    Yes, exactly. Furthermore, I did not even establish that the book referenced in the OP depicts a female warrior hero. Cover art can sometimes mislead, or even be irrelevant.

    Really, when I want to make an accusation, it will be stated as an accusation. For example: Boxer has frequently and deliberately made false witness against myself and others, and his comments should be held in contempt by everyone until he repents and makes amends.

  147. Boxer says:

    Dear Ofelas:

    Cane made a generalized statement, that can be grounded eg in his reader experience with books depicting female warrior heroes or in any other body of experience or not grounded at all.

    Cane made an accusation, implying that “Anyone who writes female warrior heroes” (the antecedent) “is” (implication) “either a satirist, a fool, or a degenerate.” (the consequent)

    The consequent is a series of disjunctions. Thus if any one of his three choices is true, and the antecedent is true, then the entire proposition is true, and he has made a meaningful statement (switching from syntactic to semantic here, because it’s relevant).

    By “meaningful” of course, I’m not talking about the nature of his accusation. I’m talking about its meaning to me. I’ll get to that immediately.

    We don’t know, so you saying that the first and second option are false, because he hasn’t obviously read the book, and therefore only the degenerate option is plausible, so he is either liar or saying gibberish, is nothing but a sophistic.

    It’s just a simple derivation, which clues us in to the fact that Cane was either lying, or he was posting meaningless gibberish. I’ve seen him do both, in the past, on numerous separate occasions, so I have no opinion either way.

    You don’t know whether the first two are false, you only assume Cane has’t read the book, but that doesn’t make the two options false, if he posits them. You can doubt his conclusion or ask ‘what makes you think there’ s only these three options?’ but your applying of logical formulas on the statement is not accurate – whether Cane knows or doesn’t know something doesn’t make the fact true or false, nor it makes his statement about the fact true or false.

    It’s not really about truth or untruth. The truth or untruth of the proposition is merely the ladder that we climb to see his character. It’s about posting in good faith. Whether or not the guy he libeled, who he has never read, and doesn’t know, is a degenerate or a fool or a satirist, is only relevant due to the fact that Cane effectively boxed himself into his dilemma through his proposition.

    I know Cane wasn’t posting in good faith, because he was either lying or he was posting gibberish. No other option is possible in context. That, my brother, is what this is really all about.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  148. Boxer says:

    Dear Dalrock:

    What you quoted from Cane Caldo doesn’t back your initial accusation.

    What do you suppose he meant when he made that accusation? Honestly curious how you can possibly spin this.

    I can’t speak for Cane, and it has been a long time since I read the book in question. However, as I recall:

    1) Hemingway isn’t writing from the POV of a woman warrior. I believe there are some female partisans in the story, but it is somewhat different than a book about a warrior babe space marine who leads the men into battle.

    Have you actually read the crappy e-book, then?

    2) FWTBT is about a group of Soviet partizans fighting to bring Stalinism to Spain, and my read is that Hemingway wrote it to advance the Stalinist cause.

    You could more accurately (and more honestly) spin it as a story about an American, fighting with a group of American-backed democrats, against Nazis. The Spanish Civil war was far more complicated than either of us are acknowledging, but anyway.

    With this in mind, I would say degenerate. Hemingway is however a very talented degenerate.

    I don’t think he’d balk at that, actually. He still won the book award for it.

    Best,

    Boxer

  149. Ofelas says:

    @ Boxer
    I understood that you apparently had a beef with another, because otherwise to pick and analyse one’s statements like that would seem actually a great example of a breaching experiment from ethnomethodology..

  150. Dalrock says:

    @Boxer

    I can’t speak for anyone else. For me it’s the notion of “going real life” on an ideological opponent. I’ve explained that in some detail here:
    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2018/01/05/ethical-trolling/

    At Instapundit Pastor Sensing mocked one of my readers for saying that pastors aren’t upholding biblical gender roles, by offering himself as proof that this was not true. In rebutting this, I quoted something else Pastor Sensing later wrote at the same blog. Is this really what you mean by “Going real life”?

    1) He held himself up as the example proving that there was no problem with pastors not preaching biblical sex roles.
    2) At the very same forum, he later promoted a book glorifying women as warriors, while taking great care to obscure the sex of his warrior offspring.

    If quoting someone’s words about their own life, written under their own name, to prove another claim they made about themselves is absurd is “going real life” you are placing an incredible amount of mischief off limits. I don’t agree with that. Like I wrote above, if I had realized he was being coy about the sex of his son, I don’t think I would have included the quote. Not because it is wrong to ever point such a thing out, but because it is weirder than what I thought he was doing and my intent was not to embarrass him but to simply point out that he was indeed being smug in the original comment. I truly can’t fathom a father wanting to obscure the fact that his warrior son is a man. It goes beyond garden variety kickass conservative gal fawning to a form of gender bending that (thankfully) still feels weird to us. It also is wierd enough that it created a distraction from the point of the post.

    FYI, I took a look at your post. I see that kryptonian51 is claiming that I banned him for disagreeing with me:

    “Dalrock is one of the most effective bloggers for our side”

    Sorry but I strongly disagree with you on that one as well……What’s the point in having those that agree with us on the Manosphere, if our comments are continually monitored and subject to the strictest scrutiny….I followed Dalrock for months, and made many many comments, and not once was I ever pulled out of moderation, even though I agreed with EVERYTHING that Dalrock has ever said..And when I pulled him up on it he promptly banned me….so FUCK EM, I don’t need his shit in my life, life is way too short to stress over some fuckwit who is such a pussy mangina that he cowers behind his impenetrable wall of moderation….Need I remind you, that YOU took me out of moderation on my very first comment in here, as far as I’m concerned that makes you a real man in my sight

    I banned kryptonian51 after he went batshit crazy on one of my posts. Read the whole wacky exchange where he kept accusing me of banning him when I had not, and of lying about how wordpress moderation rules work:

    Your statement and I quote “There isn’t a moderation setting I can set to move comments to trash” is a bold faced lie and you know it…..In WordPress there is no distinction between the spam bin and “trash”….any comment that is not approved of first is sent to the spam bin PERIOD
    And all these settings can be changed in your WordPress account easily, I know because I checked
    Once you change the setting under “Before a comment appears” and untick those 2 boxes, ALL comments show up permanently

    You lied Dalrock, plain and simple, and I’m calling you out on it

    You have a wordpress blog so I assume you understand how nutty this is. On the question of wordpress having separate spam and trash bins, see this discussion on the wordpress forums. I had forgotten that the blacklist says it will send comments to trash, because (as the linked thread confirms) it actually sends them to the spam bin instead.

    At any rate, kryptonian51 finally completed his meltdown by accusing me of nefariously not banning him:

    Wow, your duplicitousness knows no bounds…..Strange how NOW after I exposed you, that my comments suddenly instantly appear….That “trash” bin of yours has some seriously advanced A.I ….VOMIT

    And the ONLY reason you allowed my comment back in here which exposed you, after deleting so many others of mine, is to make YOURSELF appear to others that you have done no wrong and that I’m a troll with an ax to grind….your duplicity, and deceit is shocking for me to behold

    At this point I finally did ban him. See the full thread. I sincerely tried to help stop his comments from getting binned, and was I think incredibly patient with him. Here is the post with the exchange: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/12/02/tucker-carlson-on-lggbdtttiqqaap/

  151. Dalrock says:

    @Derek Ramsey

    Second, the two posts are reminiscent of what is not-so-graciously called ‘butthurt’.

    You went through all of that just to call me butthurt? Are you still angry that I don’t write about the Amish?

  152. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    I missed Boxer’s question about Hemingway, quoted below:

    I should also probably inquire as to which of these three goony characterizations Hemingway (author of “For Whom The Bell Tolls”) falls into. Cane? Any thoughts? There are a couple of “female warrior heroes” in that novel, and it clearly wasn’t satire.

    To which you responded:

    1) Hemingway isn’t writing from the POV of a woman warrior. I believe there are some female partisans in the story, but it is somewhat different than a book about a warrior babe space marine who leads the men into battle.
    2) FWTBT is about a group of Soviet partizans fighting to bring Stalinism to Spain, and my read is that Hemingway wrote it to advance the Stalinist cause.

    With this in mind, I would say degenerate. Hemingway is however a very talented degenerate.

    I fully agree, and I think we can add fool to the list. Hemingway wrote, “All thinking men are atheists.” It seems entirely likely that Hemingway put himself in that category. Google tells me that his biographer, Paul Johnson, wrote, “[Hemingway] did not only not believe in God but regarded organized religion as a menace to human happiness… [he] seems to have been devoid of the religious spirit… [and] ceased to practice religion at the earliest possible moment.” I am a Christian and must happily confess that the Psalmist is true when he writes: The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

    He was also a poser. Here’s a scathing bit from the UK’s Independent newspaper:

    He went to Spain during the civil war, not to fight, like George Orwell, but because he was commissioned to report on it for the North American Newspaper Alliance – and because his new love, Martha Gellhorn, was going there. He stressed many times that he wasn’t taking sides, and didn’t want to see the USA embroiled in a foreign war. In Madrid, despite the bombardment, he had the time of his life – enjoying caviar and vodka at the Gaylord Hotel, the Russian HQ, making a movie called The Spanish Earth and supplying its gravelly commentary, writing his broadly fictional dispatches for newspapers that criticised them as “very inefficient”. He looked the part of a hunky warrior, but he was a lucky dilettante, who could have left Spain any time he liked. He wrote a play about Madrid in 1936 called The Fifth Column, about Dorothy, a plucky female journalist, who falls for Philip, a tough, intrepid, hard-drinking spy masquerading as a war correspondent. Self-projection turned into self-parody.

    Burn.

    He was an alcoholic; which is foolish, and degenerate.

    He was married four times and divorced three. That’s foolish, then degenerate, then both, then both, then both again.

    Finally, let’s not forget that Hemingway shot himself in the head with a shotgun. That is also a very foolish and degenerate (literally) thing to do.

    And, it so happens, that Hemingway was also a sometimes satirist. He wrote one called, The Torrents of Spring.

  153. Cane Caldo says:

    @Boxer

    It’s not really about truth or untruth. The truth or untruth of the proposition is merely the ladder that we climb

    Haha!

    I mean, everything is just, like, a construct, man.

  154. Boxer says:

    Dear Dalrock:

    Heavy snippage follows. If I miss something, feel free to follow up with a pointed question.

    In rebutting this, I quoted something else Pastor Sensing later wrote at the same blog. Is this really what you mean by “Going real life”?

    Yes. I’ll explain.

    Suppose that I’m arguing with someone here. Suppose I know my opponent’s legal name and the town he lives in. Now suppose I get all weepy about something he said about me, using his pseudonym, and responded by posting the names of his children.. Also let’s assume that none of his children ever had any part in my opponent’s behavior.

    That sort of thing might shut my opponent up, but would it be ethical? Of equal importance: would it be effective? Would people assume I had won the argument with my opponent, after shutting him up in this fashion? You tell me?

    If quoting someone’s words about their own life, written under their own name, to prove another claim they made about themselves is absurd is “going real life” you are placing an incredible amount of mischief off limits. I don’t agree with that.

    Many people don’t. I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree.

    RE: Kryptonian, I don’t know what happened (I think he either used to post here under a completely different pseudonym, or you cleaned up whatever he got banned for). It’s not really any of my biz. You should ban whoever you want. I would hope that if you ever need to ban me, you not firewall me from viewing. I wouldn’t be offended if I was asked to quit posting, but I would be disappointed if I couldn’t read your articles any longer.

    At this point I finally did ban him. See the full thread. I sincerely tried to help stop his comments from getting binned, and was I think incredibly patient with him.

    I believe you. I get false poz for comments about 5% of the time. Occasionally people who were pre-approved get thrown in there.

    Best,

    Boxer

  155. Cane Caldo says:

    @Ofelas

    to pick and analyse one’s statements like that would seem actually a great example of a breaching experiment from ethnomethodology.

    Sounds like some kind of Hell-forged post-modern trolling according to a Wikipedia article.

  156. Boxer says:

    I asked Cane Caldo:

    you’re now admitting to either lying (i.e. true antecedent, false consequent) or posting gibberish (false antecedent)…Which are you admitting to?

    And Cane Caldo responded:

    Haha!

    I mean, everything is just, like, a construct, man.

    Thanks for making this so easy,

    Boxer

  157. Cane Caldo says:

    Boxer, you are pathetic.

  158. Derek Ramsey says:

    @Dalrock – “You went through all of that just to call me butthurt? Are you still angry that I don’t write about the Amish?”

    No. And no, lol, why would I care about you writing about the Amish? You’ve never made me angry and you owe me nothing. I’m the intruder in your ‘home’ and I appreciate your tolerance.

    I’m suggesting that you were trying so zealously to find evidence to support your claim that you included unnecessary personally identifiable information on his family. I’m saying you were careless, not “butthurt”. The unnecessary speculation (see below) is what gives your post the appearance of the latter. Other commenters took your speculative lead and ran with it.

    ”my intent was…to simply point out that he was indeed being smug in the original comment”

    You said that he was being smug while clearly missing the feminist rot around him in the UMC and “moreover” in the book endorsement of a family member (to be clear, it was not a problem to quote it). Shouldn’t the woman-warrior protagonist of the book be sufficient to illustrate the rot? Can you please explain why you instead needed to speculatively discuss the cagey language and gender confusion involving third-party personal details in order to show your point?

    Hopefully I’ve finally and successfully communicated my objection. If I’ve failed once more, let’s just call it really poor communicating on my part and just move on.

  159. Visiting my FiL he was telling us about his new UMC pastor and her husband. Seems that he also pastors in a congregation one county south. And he never has to hear about Jesus Christ or other “bronze age myths”. And he never has to worry about pastoral visitations. It’s a beautiful arrangement.

  160. Pingback: On “Going Real Life” – v5k2c2

  161. Pingback: The Permanent Revolutionary – v5k2c2.com

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.