Talk:Theodore Beale/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 16 June 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Phrase

In the article there is the phrase "female equalitarianism", is this a direct quote? If so it should be properly referenced beacuse it should either be equality or egalitarianism. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a reference with a link to his column in WND. Feel free to add a "sic".--ZooGuard (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a few dictionary references to it so I'll just let my inner pedant back down. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Marital rape

"First, there is no such thing as marital rape. Once consent is formally given in public ceremony, it cannot be revoked."

This is something I was going to bring up in response to a few people yapping on about "no safeword" relationships but since I never got around to that I can drop my rant here: this is utter bullshit. The entire concept of "consent" is only meaningful if we can withdraw it. We can pull out of a medical trial at any point. We can drop out of a reality TV show at any point. We can say "I don't want that medical treatment" at any point, even up to the second before they knock you out for surgery. That's the entire point of consent - otherwise it's coercion. You CANNOT give consent "permanently" and have it stay as consent by any meaningful definition of the term. The entire power of consent lies in the fact it can be withdrawn. ^narchist 17:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're asking an archconservative and dedicated misogynist to understand the concept of consent. As can be easily demonstrated by anyone who claims the only thing that stands between them and a life of rape is God, this is really asking too much of someone like Beale. EVDebs (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Once consent is formally given in public ceremony, it cannot be revoked outside of a formal ceremony." Just driveby fixing it, the revocation is done publicly in another ceremony, called a divorce. This is the entire reason that divorces exist, otherwise they would be completely useless. This is why it boggles the mind why homosexuals want marriage, the entire concept of marriage is there to temporarily enslave both parents into taking care of the kids. It's a pretty shitty agreement to be in just for hospital visitation rights. Geary (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Some BoN foaming at the mouth two years later

What is up with you shitlibs and your pathetic strawmen about Christians? You DO know that rape has always been a severe crime even when "archconservatives" were in the majority, right?

The "issue" of consent doesn't exist. COnsent has transformed into a meaningless word, much like "sexist" or "racist".

Also, if you honestly deny that black people are noticably less intelligent than whites, you deserve to be put in front of a firing squad.^{— Unsigned, by: 94.219.46.143 / talk / contribs} 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Broken link

Broken link - warmouse.com has been acquired by a domain squatter ^{— Unsigned, by: 99.116.247.68 / talk / contribs}

Sorted Scream!! (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

John Scalzi demonstrates how to deal with bigots

From now until the end of 2013 (and backdating to January 1st) when the Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit in question posts an entry on his site in which he uses my name (or one of his adorable nicknames for me), I’m going to put $5 into a pot. At the end of the year, I’m going to tally it up. All the money, up to $1,000, will be donated equally to the following organizations: RAINN, Emily’s List, Human Rights Campaign, NAACP

[1] Balaam (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

His Writing

Does anyone have any of his books so they can vouch for the quality(And hopefully riff them.)?--The Madman (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)The Madman

Mr. Beale posts so much of his material for free. I cannot imagine his fiction -which would have to be purchased- is any better. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This man is just plain evil

Just spent five minutes reading his blog. I don't know why I torture myself like that. If I ever meet him, someone's going to have to physically prevent me from beating him up. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 10:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I,for one, wouldn't bother to.--The Madman (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)The Madman

His Name, His Blog

Beale has a blog, Vox Popoli, and calls himself Vox Day. Ignoring the misspellings for a moment, "Vox Populi, Vox Dei" is an old saying, the "Voice of the People is the Voice of God". Seems highly suggestive, if not out right declaring, that he in his blog has God's Point of View on things. Wolfram.Tungsten (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity?

I saw it claimed on a Gamer Gate image that Vox is Native American but it is hard to reconcile that claim with what is written here. Is this a claim to promote a false diversity in the same way that some parents tell their kid, "Uh, I think we're Irish". 24.188.185.162 (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

He apparently got a genetic test done and it showed native ancestry - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Much as I'm not inclined to take Beale's word on anything, given the history of the US, this is a lot closer to the horse end of the claims spectrum than zebras. I'd be inclined to take him at his word and then criticize his implicit assumption that liberals should somehow give him a pass on his asshattery because he's a token. EVDebs (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

His mother is Peruvian, which is where he gets the Native American bit from.--Castaigne (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)--Castaigne (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Insulting John Scalzi

The article says that Beale "insult[ed] outgoing SFWA president John Scalzi by calling him "McRapey" for the usual predictable VD reasons", but given that Beale has explicitly advocated rape in the past, shouldn't this be considered a compliment coming from him? (Ignoring its inaccuracy of course.) Abed Nadir (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

So tell me.

Is vd really, as cp claims, someone who left America to live in another country because he disagreed with US immigration policies? REALLY. So he disliked US immigration policies so much he showed it by becoming an immigrant in an EU country? Oldusgitus (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It is more likely, but currently unprovable, that he left the country to avoid being asked questions by the IRS in relation to where some of his father's money went. There is some speculation that the money was used to fund his publishing company and lifestyle in Europe. No way to confirm. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That's literally the first I've heard that postulated. You're using passive voice there - where did this speculation actually come from? - David Gerard (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

VD Finally Lets It All Out

His blog post Who killed conservatism is probably the clearest he's expressed his aims in years. Not much waffling here. Salient quotes:

• "And neither do we of the #AltRight, because it is obvious that the Constitution has not only failed, completely, by its own stated purpose, but is today being used as a means of hand-cuffing the Right. The #AltRight believes in three things: 1. Nationalism. 2. Western civilization. 3. Winning. Everything else is negotiable or a means to one of those three ends. We aren't conservatives. We aren't philosophers. And we don't care about the Constitution, the Rights of Man, the Enlightenment, the Holocaust, or anything else with capital letters that is likely to get in the way. A Constitutionalist can be our ally. A Zionist can be our ally. A National Socialist can be our ally. A Pan-Arabist can be our ally. We don't care who you are or what you believe, as long as you're aiming in the direction of the enemies of nationalism and Western civilization." (Main Post)
• "First things first. What part of the 3 Rs did you find hard to understand? Until the USA return to the pre-1965 racial demographics, nothing else is likely nor is it worth discussing. Note that while I expect an eventual return to the pre-1965 demographics, one way or another, I do not expect the USA to remain intact." (Comment #8)
• "Christianity is one of the pillars of Western Civilization, along with the European races, the Graeco-Roman tradition, and science/technology." (Comment #70)
  

Also, he's using the echoes. Seriously. He's really run out of hyperbole. This is pretty much the end of that road unless he crosses over into rather unapologetic fascism. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

HFS: Vox Populi on the Green Revolution

BOOC coverage: "Possibly the most evil individual of the 20th century is not Hitler, Mao, or Stalin, but Norman Borlaug, the so-called Father of the Green Revolution, who is credited with saving one billion Africans from dying of starvation." Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi

In case there is any confusion:
Commenter: "I think it is a monumental miscalculation to include the 14 words unless you're just doing it for the lulz."
Vox Day: "Did St. Ted Cruz reveal that to you or did you come up with that yourself? You're absolutely wrong. That has been an integral element of the Alt Right almost from the start."
I think this is enough to finally officially label Vox a neo-Nazi. Don't know if it can be applied to the alt-right entire yet. Thoughts? --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Document it properly and yeah. And it's no secret the alt-right are various degrees of crypto-Nazi, with the cryptography usually being ROT26.

What I wanna know is if any third-party news source has mentioned this at all, even a very tiny one - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

What Castalia House books are like

I reviewed one for Phil Sandifer's site, and I've suffered for my art, so now it's your turn - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That hurt. That really hurt. You're tougher than I am. --Maxus (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Infogalactic: an alternative to "thought police" Wikipedia

oh my god read their rules it's hilarious FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 11:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

No one believes more firmly that Comrade Beale that facts are facts. He would only be too happy to let you make your edits for yourself. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been going "holy shit" about everything to do with this lately. Fucking "corelords", holy shit.

File770 covers it from the SF fan angle - David Gerard (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh man, those load times. Chances he's running this wiki on a whatever's-cheapest virtual box like I do for my throw-away game-servers. Pay me money so you can ban the few users who come to my already-almost-dead wiki. I gave this paid maintenance role an edge-lord name so you know that your self-importance is warranted. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The whole thing reads like a hilarious pisstake, but he's spent a year working on this and clearly thinks it is the most brilliant thing ever - David Gerard (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, someone on the alt-right thinks their unoriginal, bad idea is unadulterated brilliance? Stop the presses! We've got a new headline! ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

"Asshat Remains True To Self" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Beale ciphers

Should there be cross linking to the RW article for the above (which at least gets people exploring the area, and generates revenue for those providing them with services)? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Major cleanup and new content

Hi there :), I've cleaned up this article which was pretty messy. All of the sourced content is still here but I've trimmed up some of the redundant wording, and organized things into separate sections (e.x. political views, religious views, selected quotes) to make it more fluid and readable.

The only actual information that has been removed were few bits sources with dead links which are now offline, as well as a few statements that didn't actually match the sources linked. I also added new links and information, and attempted to find replacement links for some of the dead ones. I hope I've done a good job, I think the article is much more improved and may even qualify for featuring if others agree.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. Petey Plane (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :) here's a link to my draft draft, any chance of it being upgraded from Bronze status?--BrittanyPBone (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Was this edit actually an improvement?

Compare. While the editorial formatting is less horrendous in the shortened version, I suspect whitewashing. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I vaguely mean to go through it and review closely, but that would involve bothering - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You should. There's a dog buried here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed a few unsourced claims or claims which didn't match the links to avoid it just being a 'hitpiece' or containing libel (e.x. the article had said he was a PUA, but that wasn't actually correct, so I elaborated on his theory about a "social-sexual heirarchy"), but didn't remove any information just because it was negative, no - I also added more links to back the content up, so the article should be move informative on the whole). My goal is to make sure that negative claims about living people are sourced and worded factually rather than it reading as unsourced personal attacks, a la Encyclopedia Dramatica so that RW maintains good credibility and avoids any defamation/stalking allegations or lawsuit threats.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Beale, on the splendor of supreme whiteness

From here:

“”There are much bigger battles ahead than settling the question of whether Christianity is a necessary component of Western Civilization or not. Because we know the white race is absolutely a necessary component of it, and that is why, whether one is inclined towards the Alt-White or the Alt-West, every member of the Alt-Right who values both whites and the West has immediate and mid-range objectives remain exactly the same.

Though, to his defense, in an earlier, overtly apologetic post, he did say:

...I'm not inclined towards white supremacy myself. Most of the Alt Right is pro-white and pro-Western Civilization, but it is not white supremacist for the obvious reason that it does not believe racial supremacy exists any more than equality does.

But that's not the full quote. The full quote is actually:

I am an Anglo-Aztec-American Indian who is genetically superior to 99 percent of all blacks on the track and intellectually superior to 99 percent of all whites and Jews, so I'm not inclined towards white supremacy myself. Most of the Alt Right is pro-white and pro-Western Civilization, but it is not white supremacist for the obvious reason that it does not believe racial supremacy exists any more than equality does.

Nice save, dawg. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Those quotes aren't indications of white supremacy. The first quote is simply an acknowledgement that a civilization is the accumulation (sum, consequence) of its heritage (what came before and was pasted on and what one feels an inherent connection to) and a rejection of "Magic Dirt Theory". Vox Day doesn't believe that human beings are interchangeable. You can't take a cog from one machine and place it in a completely alien machine and expect the same exact results.

Your interpretation of the second quote is completely wrong. Although the first part sounds like white supremacist at first, a careful reader would recognize the following:

1. Day begins by acknowledging his mixed heritage.
2. 100 - 99 = 1, so Day is also saying that 1% of blacks are genetically superior to him.
3. 100 - 99 = 1, so Day is also saying that 1% of Jews are intellectually superior to him.
4. Day claims that he is superior to 99% of fellow whites.
5. Day isn't comparing one race to another; he's comparing them to an individual (himself).

Day didn't claim that whites are superior to superior to anyone. There isn't "white supremacism" here. Day isn't saying that one race is better in every respect than the others or that one race deserves to dominate the others. Day's only claim (as stated in the first quote) is that whites are better at being whites than others; Westerners are better at being Westerners than others. The same can be said of all ethicities and civilizations. Japanese are the best at being Japanese. Thais are the best at being Thais. Somalis are the best at being Somalis. A Westerner could never be better at being Japanese than a genuine Japanese person can. --Idris (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)