Featured Post

For Those Who Disregard Prophecy

People who snub prophecy bewilder me. They say, "I'm not obligated to pay any attention to private revelation. The strict teachin...

Friday, January 22, 2016

Hypocracy from Fisheater's Owner: Part 2

Just when you think all of the the shenanigans from the Fisheaters' forum owner have expended themselves, she surprises the public once more with another round of double-dealing.

Here is a picture of Two-Face

Tracy, herself, has openly started to question whether or not it is possible for we on the Right to utilize Leftists' very own tactics against them. I, myself, was attempting an on-going discussion on this very topic last year, and my speculations culminated in a thread--and later a blog post--titled "Strategies and Tactics for Catholics in Taking the Net."

Tracy frowned upon my suggestions and demonstrations, and she then went on to ban me from the Fisheaters Forum.

Over a year later, Tracy actually speculates on the very idea she originally condemned:

What's in my brain right now are the matter of leftist tactics and whether the right should adopt any of them.
This came to mind when considering the case of Melissa Click, a University of Missouri Journalism professor, who called for the use of force to remove an Asian student who was filming some rally or other she and The Brainwashed were involved with, thereby trampling all over his 1st amendment rights. This is a Journalism professor, mind you! The video that brought this situation to light is here:
Click's actions enraged the Right and emboldened the Left -- at least most of them, to my understanding -- causing them to rally around her. 115 faculty members came through for her, signing a letter to the Administration, all in support of Click's inanities. From the other side is a petition, at change.org, calling for her to be fired. That petition is here.
You signed the petition?  How brave.
I signed that petition.

But now I'm bothered... I can't stand how social media are used to threaten people's livelihoods, used to make their lives a living Hell. The Left uses that sort of thing as a major tactic, rallying their troops to join in concerted efforts to get, for ex., some poor schlubs fired because they made a joke the Lefties couldn't understand, but took to be a slur. It's madness.
But that petition against Click is a chance for payback, a taste of their own bitter medicine. It's more than that; it's also, IMO, a righteously motivated thing to want to sign in order to clear out our campuses of the cultural Marxists that run them. One difference is that the Leftists will use gaffes or one-offs, and things apologized for to get Rightists fired. This Journalism prof hasn't apologized, to my knowledge. That's one major difference between "us" and "them." We believe in redemption and mercy. But they will go back 20 years in a person's History to find something to get 'em on. They don't accept warranted apologies. They don't submit to reason.

I guess my questions are:1) Would you feel cozy signing that petition?2) How can you fight opponents who fight dirty, as Leftists do?
That last question reminded me of [banning Laramie for mentioning this very thing, just last year?] something I said to the person who fired me [Oh!  Guess not.  Nevermind.] from the museum (written about in the "I was fired for political correctness" thread in this sub-forum): I told her that she heard a complaint from some young, brainwashed, leftist, feminist, but that I GUARANTEE that I've heard things on tours given by others that would annoy conservatives as well. I said that the difference between the Left and the Right, though, is that the Right doesn't run to whoever functions as "Daddy" to go throw some weight around. It wouldn't surprise me at all that the person who fired me truly has no clue that conservatives get equally as annoyed, ticked, bothered, and bewildered by the stuff they hear every single day! But we, typically, don't tattle like kids and ask Daddy/Mommy to step in and "fix things" so we feel better.
But should we? Should we start kvetching as the Leftists do? "The squeaky wheel gets the oil" and all that.
On the other hand, we could squeak all night and few would hear because we're a tree falling in a forest, with no one around, because the media ignore us. But on the other-other hand, the traditional media are waning in a huge way, being overtaken by blogs, websites, etc.
Where'd I hear this idea before? Oh yeah. Me.
I'm thinking out loud here.. What do you all think? What would Sun Tzu and Machiavelli have to say? When the rubber meets the road, how does one balance out such things as basic principles such as "one cannot commit evil so that good may come from it" "vs" (?) "real life," human nature, "lessons learned" from combat and History, etc. How do the Catholic principles of Just War play into all this sorta thing?
To use a Godfather analogy: Should Michael have whacked Freddo?
- - -

So, Tracy has recently been fired for barely talking about her beliefs at her new job, and she's even mentioning ideas that I originally brought up one year ago. Does she understand the ridiculous and unnecessary pains associated with ostracization? Is she beginning to finally grasp what some on those on the Right have been suggesting--that is, fresh aggressive tactics against the Left?

I thought I'd pop my head in and test the waters.  Here is what I said:
Vox, I cannot believe that you are honestly and openly considering the possibility of utilizing Leftist tactics, and "kvetching as the Leftists do." I cannot believe you are seriously putting this thought out there for your community, after you banned me for this very thing last year.

I was banned for my approach to taking back the Net. My approach involved the utilization of shock troops and shock troop tactics to combat the Left online. I was swiftly banned before there was any discussion for me to tone it down. In fact, you did not even inform me of the reason for being banned until I contacted you through private email after the fact.

I covered the subject of Right/Left tactics in my blog post, "Strategies and Tactics for Catholics in Taking the Net." I covered the events surrounding the ban in a four-part series titled: "Neither Fish nor Fowl."
I figured that these kinds of rejections are due to the fact that I'm actually one of those on the Alt-Right, a topic that DeoDuce was referring to in another thread.  I do not think that people trapped in the old paradigm of thinking are able to tolerate the kind of discussion of "shock troop" tactics I originally initiated last year.

Unfortunately, against all that is transparent, objective, and honest, Tracy managed to completely delete my reply to her post, and she has re-branded the avatar of my new account:

Tracy tells me I'm antagonistic in my approach to people--after she
bans me, prevents me from responding, and changes my avatar.

I'm devastated, I tell ya. Just devastated. And, sadly, for all of her bluster about intelligence, IQ, Mensa membership, and whatnot, she remains a petty TL;DR moderator, content with her sewing circle, and satisfied with her own hand-picked tribe. Her natural habitat continues to remain an echo chamber.

I thought these latest episodes of her tripping over previous contradictory statements were a window of opportunity to re-open discussion, overcome previous misunderstanding, and regain a friendly rapport with each other. But instead, she cut my hand after I extended it.

Her smug deafness when it comes to an unfamiliar opinion is almost as amusing as her mistaken pride:
Also, it'd be nice if those who want to evangelize for Tradition would promote (e.g., link to, mention, etc.) this site, which has probably brought more people to Tradition than any other site on the net.
What a sad mess. No matter. The quest for intellectual honesty continues.

I don't have an entire forum of people to ridicule Tracy in front of.
I guess my little ol' blog will have to do.  

UPDATE: After having banned me from her forum once more, she managed to work herself up to say something:
Laramie, your post got removed before I had a chance to respond, but it's very simple:  politics are politics; religion is religion. Using leftist tactics when it comes to religion is an entirely different story. Nonetheless, even with re. to religion, coming up with memes, art, and all that is great, as is "coolifying" it while not watering down dogma and doctrine by one single drop. I strongly encourage it, just as I encourage responding to anti-Catholic, anti-religion slurs from the atheist and the "I'm Too Sexy For Any God" types, with the attitude that you're not trying to change your interlocutor's mind, but are writing for people reading over your shoulders. 
You were very antagonistic in your approach, which is not what I am talking about --- not when it comes to religion (especially!) or politics. 
"Take Back the Net" is about defending the Faith. What I'm talking about in this thread are tactics and the political "alt-Right." At the bottom of the "Take Back the Net" page are these words:
Some General Tips
Always be charitable, and try to be pleasant, too. As my Mamma used to say, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. And as St. Francis de Sales wrote:
If you wish to labor with fruit in the conversion of souls, you must pour the balsam of sweetness upon the wine of your zeal, that it may not be too fiery, but mild, soothing, patient, and full of compassion. For the human soul is so constituted that by rigor it becomes harder, but mildness completely softens it. Besides, we ought to remember that Jesus Christ came to bless good intentions, and if we leave them to His control, little by little He will make them fruitful.
Let the true peace of Christ be reflected in you.
If you don't know something, say you don't know and don't pretend you do. Keep your ego chained up in the basement, and just tell the person you will do your best to find an answer for them.
We've discussed this already.
Define terms that are "iffy" before trying to come to an understanding. Words and phrases like "born again," "Bible-believing," Tradition," "anti-semitic," etc., have to be defined before anything good can come from using them with various groups.
Define their premises before trying to build your argument. What do they accept as true? Is that premise true or false? If it's false, disavow them of it; if it's true, build on it.
Finally, keep a sense of HUMOR!
In your "Take Back the Net" threads, you weren't "getting" that stuff. At least, you weren't expressing that you did.
# # #

How unfortunate that I do not have the ability to respond to her.  Doubtless, the woman doesn't care.  She has said her peace and had the last word in the thread, which is pretty much all that matters to her.  

Tracy has proven herself a TL;DR moderator.  If a discussion about this was allowed on her "discussion" forum, then I would refer her back to the Strategies and Tactics for Catholics in Taking the Net post.  I would remind her that taking the Net is not about converting people, but that it's about aggressively winning territory.  

When it comes to winning territory vs conversion, I would likely remind her of these points that I made a year ago, but that she did not read:

*  It often has seemed as though she wants Catholics to attempt to convert anyone we are confronting in a comment box. I have likened such attempts to the idea of someone going to a nightclub and attempting to convert people there.

Non-confrontational Catholic: "Oh, we have to engage the other side in order to convert the individual we are debating with."  Laramie Hirsch: "No. We must shame the opponent, win the social space, and plant a flag for our side."

* Should we focus on winning, rather than teaching and converting? Why not? If you focus on anything else, you will lose. You might feel good about yourself for taking the high road, but you'll lose. You are not going to convert any hostile opponent in an internet comment box. 
*  If anything, you will be drawing the SJW out. Sometimes that is all that you can do. Sometimes, there is no other "victory" when a person is being obstinate. You draw the person out, and the crowd twenty feet away from you is able to visualize what the entire monster looks like. You don't convert your opponent, but then that was never a realistic possibility in the first place. In such circumstances, goals become redefined. The Catholics in the crowd become reaffirmed that, yes, the individual is unreasonable and uncivil, and they become heartened that someone had the patience to do endure a "long game." The faithless in the crowd, meanwhile, recoil at you and bad talk you as a horrible villain. And if there are any people on the fence, they will see the demonstration you've made with your debate, and they will make their own decisions.

No matter.  Return to your sewing circle.

Heck, soon, even Facebook will be joining you, KK, and other narcissists in deleting undesirable "mean" posts and forcing "good think" onto their internet community.  So, it looks like you've got company in that regard.


  1. Isn't it true that you used a sock-puppet account to post on a site that you supposedly don't care about? Talk about dishonest jackassery...

    1. You're a nasty one, aren't you?

      I don't know if I'd call it a sock puppet if I'm still using my own name. I had no intention of deceiving Tracy or anyone on the forum. I'd say that's much more honest than your anonymous hit-and-run comment here.

      Furthermore, I'm unsure that I've ever said I don't care about either Fisheaters or SuscipeDomine. I wish I had the ability to speak to colleagues in these places. The current ban/ostracization tactics by the close-minded forum owners, who claim Catholicism, is troublesome. I daresay, unCatholic. I'm not losing sleep over it or anything, and it is sort of a nice thing to not to have to worry about their nonsense. However, it's food for thought when it comes to just how virtuous these forums are. FE and SD are somewhat worse than CAF.