Skip to main content

Zoe Quinn

Well, it looks like Zoe Quinn wasn't getting enough attention lately (people who actually don't create anything worthwhile in the world often have this problem) and decided that she needed to find herself some victimhood to become important again. Which meant finding a person to destroy while her toadies and sycophants worshiped her bravery.

The fellow she destroyed killed himself.

You know... anyone with any understanding of human nature watched her during the early gamer-gate times and what they saw is someone who was self-aggrandizing to the extent that anyone working on inclusion and social justice who didn't *go through her first* was put on the list for destruction.

She was like the mafia don and you had to go to her first and get her blessing or she'd find some fault in your program to promote women and your plans to support trans people and she'd sic her mob on you.

She suffered no competition in her supreme righteousness.

I never thought that my sentiments were on the wrong side of those kerfuffles and the primary reason was that she was accepted as the standard bearer, the arbiter of who'd live and who'd die.

And she never actually created anything worthwhile or contributed anything to *anything* other than her own importance.

And it wasn't a secret. It was right out there in public, front and center. And she still collected that power and controlled that mob. I mean, any particular *person* can be understood to be ultimately self-interested. But what sort of garbage excuses for human beings *follow* her?

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...
Post a Comment
Read more

Some times some people.

 
Post a Comment
Read more

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...
Post a Comment
Read more