113 thoughts on “A New Hypothesis, Regarding the Dudebros

  1. Unlike Homer Simpson, however, I enjoy the fact that every single thing I do sends my Frank Grimeses into spinny paroxysms of foaming, impotent rage. They can’t not do it! And, well. If they spend that much time thinking about me, then that’s what they both want and deserve, I suppose.

  2. Maybe you should hyphenate dude-bros. At first I thought you were talking about some kind of Spanish drink. .

  3. While the reactions are spot on, I think you’re giving the DB’s too much credit. At least half of these guys wouldn’t know Frank’s work ethic if it walked up and plopped into Homer’s chair.

  4. I suspect I will go on a dudebro taunting moratorium pretty soon, as my book deadline inches closer and I have fewer brain cycles to waste on frivolities. I’m pretty sure on their side they will continue their foaminess, however. In at least one case, it’s pretty much all the dude has going on in his life, and it would be sad for him to be entirely bereft of an occupation, such as it is.

  5. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the Dude-bros (dudebros?), especially since reading the original links. John does look fetching in a dress.

    However, I do admit to I’ve never warmed to Homer Simpson. It’s a character flaw, no doubt.

  6. Dudebros Foam; for when you’re thirsty and hanker’n for a touch of ‘special’.

    Also, great lame band name.

  7. Beautiful. Mr. Scalzi, you pwn yet again!

    Also, PLEASE DON”T STOP TAUNTING THE DUDEBROS!!!!! “Taunting the Tauntable” is right up there in your motto, after all!

  8. Wait, is this someone new apart from the RSHD and the MartySueBDSMWankWankWanker? What am I missing?

  9. AND, I ask on behalf of the Homers of the world: just what is wrong with being a doltish oaf?

    Harrumph.

  10. Started to watch the vid but got bored real quick. I’m not sure I understand the whole dudebro thing, I see more about it here…

  11. [Deleted because it was a really substandard level of invective - JS]

  12. @ John Scalzi is Super Awesome etc. etc.:

    Of course he is! I love him too (not in a sexual way, especially after his haircut, but in a holy shit that book was fucking mind-blowing kind of way), and his awesomeness knows no bounds!

    ;)

  13. No, I don’t think that’s it. The person who made that was perfectly aware he was being silly. The dudebros are under the impression they are being clever. And we all know what the failure mode of clever is.

  14. You’re surely considered this question, but at some point does the taunting actually empower them? (I get the value of, for example, using their rants to raise money for a worthy cause. That’s good theater, and social good, as well.) When someone is ranting, they need to know that they are engaging the target, or else they tend to run out of steam. There are different rules, perhaps, governing online rants; those who would shovel out the rage presumably have their own communities of like-minded angry men that can satisfy their ego needs. But is a taunt from you the brass ring they crave?

  15. KSB: There’s a reason I tend not to single out any in particular, or if I do, use their name. Nothing annoys their attention-mongering little hearts more than not getting the recognition for their efforts, from Google or anyone else.

    I should note in any event that the number is relatively small; in the main, it’s the same three or four dudes with websites all enjoying the smell of each other’s farts, as it were. Occasionally a new person will pop up. These new dudes appear to be trying to currying favor with one of my regular detractors, which really is no way to get through life.

    Be that as it may, at this point, these dudes don’t need encouragement from me. I could ignore them completely and they would still come after me, because they think they are in some sort of epic battle with me or something. They can’t not get worked up about me. That being the case, in a very real sense it doesn’t matter what I do. They are self – validating.

    I don’t know. Maybe one day they will get bored. I won’t mind when that day comes. Until then, I don’t mind occasionally setting up a hoop and watching how excited they get to jump through it. It’s like watching squirrels in the yard: simple amusement featuring frantic animals.

  16. A lot of internet jerks these days want their targets to shut up and go away. The engagement they crave is not from their target; it’s from their fellow jerks. In that case, shutting up and going away is the last thing that’ll help. Demonstrating that not only will you keep talking, but you’ll refuse to let them tell the story of their relationship with you, is pretty healthy pushback IMO.

  17. Be that as it may, at this point, these dudes don’t need encouragement from me. I could ignore them completely and they would still come after me, because they think they are in some sort of epic battle with me or something. They can’t not get worked up about me.

    They really, really, really are obsessive at times. The polite reaction is to ignore them as much as possible. The impolite reaction is to poke a stick at them and watch as they gibber.

  18. @Phoenician, John started a book with an extended fart joke. I don’t think he has a problem with being thought impolite.

    Besides, it’s also a spectator sport. Look how much joy it brings to @Floored’s life.

  19. I was bullied as a kid. I got told, over and over again (often by the adults who should have protected me but didn’t) that I shouldn’t answer back, that would only encourage the bullies. But you know what? Ignoring them didn’t work. In the schoolyard, all ignoring taunts gets you is physical violence. It took me years to figure out that answering back, to be smarter, funnier, more biting in your responses actually *does* work. It may not stop the bullies, sure, but then again, at that point? They don’t matter anymore.

  20. Really, whether you respond to the dudebros or not has little effect on the validation they feel. If you respond, they will say, “Ha! I really got under his skin. Look at him flail.” And if you don’t, it will be “Ha! I have defeated him with my superior manly reasoning. Look at him cower like the gamma rabbit he is.” So, you know, might as well have a little fun with it if you don’t have anything better to do.

  21. Wow, people actuallly voluntarily try to curry favor with RSHD? That’s pathetic.

    @ Lurkertype: Mr. Scalzi’s taunting of dudebros is more entertaining than TV (especially since Primeval hasn’t been renewed yet and Agents of SHIELD only comes out on the 24th). I LIVE for Mr. Scalzi’s dudebro-baiting, and I think that a lot of other people do, too.

  22. I’m having trouble with this analogy. The problem is, in that clip, right up until he stupidly grabbed the high-voltage wires, Grimes was actually right. He may have been a little off the rails, but he wasn’t wrong. Homer really is a good-for-nothing slacker, and he really does get away with it for some reason.
    And the dudebros are so, so wrong. They’re not even worthy to lick Frank Grimes’ boots.

  23. It took me years to figure out that answering back, to be smarter, funnier, more biting in your responses actually *does* work.

    I would add in that practical demonstrations of the relative malleability of a one pound fist vs. a ten pound hardback book also help to get the bullies off your back. After a few of those, the bullies stopped picking on folks around a certain twelve year old geek.

  24. I’m thankful that John takes the “push back with a hefty dose of snark and incisive commentary” approach more often than not. It’s entertaining as hell to read, and it also restores a bit of my faith in humanity every time because not only am I seeing someone with a not-insignificant amount of social clout speaking out about how the dudebros are acting in ways that are wrong, misguided and hurtful, the vast majority of the comment threads are people agreeing with John’s sentiments and adding even more awesome snark and insightful commentary. I just wish I saw more of it in meatspace and on the internet.

  25. GeekMelang– I think the reason you don’t see it in meatspace is that typically, unless you are privy to the entire backstory, it is difficult to determine who is the bully/aggressor. If you didn’t know the whole story that explains JS’s entire rationale for this post, and all you knew what was in this post, you’d conclude that JS went out of his way to: (a) pick on someone who hasn’t even address JS; (b) that was ridiculing them without a reason and (c) permitting his fan base to do the same.

    Of course if you know the whole situation, it looks very different. But especially when there is a power/popularity differential, the same interaction in meatspace wouldn’t look funny/incisive/snarky, it would just look like JS or his proxy looking like a small, petty, jerk.

  26. JS– I suppose this could be a hoop for the enemy to jump through, but it’s sort of odd that would associate the other side with the one who was rationally and correctly pointing out that Homer is a loveable oaf with no redeeming qualities, who is mainly loveable only because he is worthless.

  27. dpporter:

    As noted earlier, the Homer Simpson analogy does not actually conform to reality, merely what they’re trying to assert. In the real world, they’re not actually Frank Grimes either; they’re just bigoted tools.

  28. I figure it’s Deeply-Closeted Forbidden Love for you on their parts, myself – which really makes them foamy!

    Sorry, that came out a bit more obscene than I intended….

  29. Can I just say I really hate the dudebro portmanteau? Some of the people who use dude and bro regularly are fairly mellow and unlike the archetype the name seems to have been attached to.

  30. The polite reaction is to ignore them as much as possible. The impolite reaction is to poke a stick at them and watch as they gibber

    Politeness is overrated.

    cf also Josh Marshall’s Bitch Slap Theory of Politics.

  31. I too do not get the Frank Grimes connection. Grimes’ character was dark humor pointing out everything that was wrong with Springfield or at least Homer. But having spoken the truth, Frank needed to die, cause nobody likes to hear the truth.

  32. This further illustrates that, as ever, The Simpsons is the ideal lens through which to understand everything.

    And for any of you “Grimey”s who may be reading this. I’ll simply say:
    Change the channel, Marge…

  33. Greg:

    Again, the comparison is not about what is real but how these dudes perceive me. From their point of view, they do a lot of screaming about how the emperor has not clothes. The problem for them is that the rest of the world apparently likes their emperors nude. And it drives them nuts.

  34. In the interest of curiosity:

    Is there a female equivalent for dudebro? Like chick-sis? I’m sure not all judgmental trolls are male (although the majority likely are)…

    Or is it more natural to think of all the internet dicks out there as dudebros?

  35. Dudebros are more like a bunch of Gil Gundersons and Hans Molemans that think they are Duffman. At best, they can be more like Comic Book Guy.

  36. Bored, now.

    I guess I don’t hang out in the same intertoobs as dudebros and their ilk, so Whatever is my primary source for news of this sort of mediocrity on the WWW. Which is fine, but it all so seems so repetitive and tedious. I don’t understand the sort of people who gather on boards to, what? LOLize random internet pics with text to communicate that “hey, we are ass-hats with no actual lives! w00t!” This is entertainment for whom?

    Really, it’s so far beneath my attention that to be beneath my contempt would be a massive upgrade.

    Can we please have photos of cats and sunsets, now? Pretty please?

  37. Completely off topic, but has anyone else watched the clip with the sound off and the close captioning on? The number of mondegreens is amazing!

  38. Well, jeez, mintwich and gulliver. “Regarding Dudebros” is right there in the title of the post. Fell free to skip right on past. Some of us find the dudebros hi-fracking-larious. seriously, it’s one of the entertainment highlights of me week. :-D

  39. Is there a female equivalent for dudebro?

    I can’t see how there would be, since dudebroism is rooted in a worldview that regards anything that hints at equality for women as anathema.

  40. JS–

    As noted earlier, the Homer Simpson analogy does not actually conform to reality, merely what they’re trying to assert.

    Thanks for clarifying, again, that point. I am not the skilled in the interpretation or references at play here, so it was good that you were able to explain what was really going with the analogy.

  41. w.b.–

    I can’t see how there would be, since dudebroism is rooted in a worldview that regards anything that hints at equality for women as anathema.

    Pretty sure you will have to help come up with something, because they are a surprising number of women who agree with the dudebro philosophy on life, the universe and everything.

  42. “John Scalzi is Super Awesome and I Love Him to Bits (name changed)”

    Please add one to your spittake count. That was priceless and so is the fact that the monitor didn’t short out.

  43. I believe in some locales the equivalent women are called “chill girls.” Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong!

  44. @Doc Rocketscience: I was on my way to ignoring it when John roped me in with a Simpson’s clip. What’s to be done?

  45. To the people who tried taking me to task regarding impoliteness:

    Poking idiots with sticks and watching them gibber online is one of my favourite hobbies.

    I think the Internet was invented solely because this was no longer allowed.

  46. The phrase “Stepford Wives” seems apt for dudebro-sympathizing females. Add “in Training” or other modifiers to accurately reflect marital status.

  47. John seriously, you shouldn’t even give the DBs this much space. Is there one of them who amounts to anything? They are all unknowns who claim to be “Alpha males” with imaginary girlfriends or wives but have nothing better to do than have a man crush on you.
    Not one of them will ever amount to anything, while you Mr. Scalzi, have already achieved more than all of them, put together, will achieve for the rest of their pathetic lives.
    John, you are like the muscle bound nice guy walking into the nightclub, the weaklings are jealous that the women all want you and are going to try to take a shot at you to prove their manhood, you really have to feel sorry for them.

  48. @Doc:
    Yeah, I could skip it and not comment, but then I wouldn’t have my voice heard. John will do what he damn well pleases, and more power to him, but as long as he allows me to post “bored, now,” I’ll fly that flag.

    Yay for you that you are still entertained, and I’m sure John appreciates your enjoyment. Or, not, actually, since I don’t have any idea, not being our host, but his postings on this topic indicate that he receives some sort of jiggly from it. I don’t, and I said so. Whatevs. Not a deal.

  49. To the people who tried taking me to task regarding impoliteness:

    Because going to an insane asylum for entertainment is exactly equivalent to participating with people who are online voluntarily.

  50. Well people like Voxday and Dudebro are more like Dwight from the Office than Frank Grimes. They are a bunch of nerds who think they are tough and uber-normal guys. That the world should be like them, and people not like them are weirdos. You are more like Jim Halpert fighting an army of Dwights. Your alt-right enemies be they Heartiste, Voxday, Koanic Soul, Dudebro, and others are just weirdos. Also pro-white is pro-weirdo. Let the alt-right peacock hordes know the truth.

  51. If you mean they get rather irritated seeing someone succeed despite lack of talent and obvious intelligence. And while submitted something poorly conceived and haphazard to win an award, then yes, I suppose that describes your detractors aptly.

  52. Scalzi, you did watch the clip before you posted it didn’t you? Homer turns in a clearly inferior project and wins because of biased judging. If you want to refute the so called dudebros, you shouldn’t use evidence that basically confirms you did the crime you are accused of.

  53. @Nate If you mean they get rather irritated seeing someone succeed despite lack of talent and obvious intelligence.

    Help us out here – are you Philip Roth or John Updike?

  54. Neither Nate nor Blume appear to have read the rest of the comment thread, otherwise they would know their observations have already been asked and answered. More than once.

  55. Nate, if you’re going to snark at someone’s writing talent and intelligence, it undercuts your credibility if you write so poorly yourself. Your post contains such a string of syntax errors that your intended point is badly mangled. But on the bright side, no typos.

  56. I personally wasn’t attacking his talent, simply noting the irony of his choice of examples, perhaps you need a little assistance in following rhetorical device. Also just because he says that’s not how it should be taken doesn’t make it any less telling.

  57. Grimes’ problem was that he thought he was living in a world that operated on Horatio Alger rules, when it actually worked on the level of slapstick comedy. Poor genre awareness – and when he finally began to figure it out, he failed to see that as the Straight Man, he could never make it work _for_ him.

    Similarly, many dudebros think they are in a Ayn Rand novel, when they’re not even in Genre Fiction.

    (Hmm. If they were in an Ayn Rand novel, what would they be? Incompetent fanboys of the protagonists? Do such entities even exist in Ayn Rand stories, or by definition anyone who agrees with the protagonists can’t be a loser?)

  58. Scalzi: how these dudes perceive me. From their point of view,

    Ah, I was reading it as third person semi-omniscient, but you were coming at it first person singular.

    Is there a female equivalent for dudebro?

    I think that would be the crazy cat lady. Lives alone, slightly off their rocker, long rants.

    Yes?

  59. No, crazy cat ladies don’t rant about how superior they are to everyone else, nor do they want to oppress everyone. They just want you to sell them the cat food and leave them alone. Crazy cat ladies don’t want sycophants, or for the culture at large to even notice them. They’re Gollum with kitties.

    (Not that I would know anything about this. Ahem. I only have two!)

  60. John writes: “I don’t know. Maybe one day they will get bored. I won’t mind when that day comes. Until then, I don’t mind occasionally setting up a hoop and watching how excited they get to jump through it. It’s like watching squirrels in the yard: simple amusement featuring frantic animals.”

    ******

    Well, I don’t know about that. To be fair, you do somewhat frequently indulge in partisan political essays (like your “straight white male” piece).

    If you stake out political positions on the Internet, people are going to occasionally disagree with you. It happens. However, you seem to be saying that anyone who disagrees with your positions on cultural/political issues is a mindless squirrel. The implication here is that you are the conscience of the Internet, and all dissenters are idiots.

    A word of advice (that will enhance your credibility should choose to take it): You will garner far more respect by actually answering the objections of those who disagree with you, versus simply engaging in ad hominem attacks.

    In other words, calling people “dudebros” does not a counterargument make.

  61. No, he’s saying the dudebros are mindless squirrels, and are bad at rhetoric, and they started the ad hominems in the first place.

    John has many friends and neighbors of different political opinions, but since they express themselves well, he’s fine with that. It’s the fixated gibbering he objects to. He wants them to step up their game and be grown-ups.

  62. Todd, in what way is the “straight white male” post partisan? It’s an essay, yes, with a strong point of view, as a good essay will have. I wouldn’t call it political (since it isn’t about the conduct of government or advocating changes in acts of government), but I suppose there could be arguments made on that point using some very loose definition of the term. But I’m really not seeing “partisan.”

  63. @Lurkertype: “No, he’s saying the dudebros are mindless squirrels, and are bad at rhetoric”

    ******
    That’s a pretty convenient way of evading debate–classify your dissenters as uniformly “bad at rhetoric”.

    I’ve looked on the websites/blogs of John’s opponents, which include a wide range of individuals. Yes, a few of them actually stoop to level of ad hominem attack that one reads in the above post. However, some of them (like Dr. Helen Smith) simply refute his arguments.

    John has a habit of evading debate by either

    a.) classifying his opponents as idiots, or
    b.) stating that his opponents’ arguments are too silly/rightwing/(pick your favorite cliche) to merit his notice

    Then he makes a vaguely referential post about them here, and his regular supporters chime in and tell him how wise/wonderful/superior he is.

    I have no problem with a blogger having a cultivated cheerleading section. I do, however, have to question to credibility of a blogger who cannot handle a difference of opinion without resorting to snide ad hominem attack and/or outright evasion.

  64. Todd:

    “The implication here is that you are the conscience of the Internet, and all dissenters are idiots.”

    Well, it’s your implication, Todd. You have a track record of pretty dubious interpretations of what I say and do, however, so I’m not particularly inclined to give your implication much credence, nor would I suggest it for anyone else. Which is also why this here:

    “A word of advice (that will enhance your credibility should choose to take it)”

    Is ludicrous; you have in your past interactions here showed yourself a not especially cogent observer of these things, which makes your advice highly suspect, which means I would be foolish for taking it. And indeed I would be:

    “You will garner far more respect by actually answering the objections of those who disagree with you”

    No, I won’t, not from these specific dudebros in any event, and you are either deluded or disingenuous for suggesting I would. If I were to save helpless kittens from a fire, these ridiculous assbags would declare kitten-saving the mark of a gamma tool of the feminazis. There’s no point in answering their objections, not in the least because doing so would imply that these jackasses have a point, other than being a grimy little circle jerk of male panic and poor rhetoric. They rate the response I do give them, which is derision and amusement when I spin them up to watch them go.

    Or, shorter version, Todd: I don’t respect them, nor do I believe they rate respect, and I’m certainly not going to waste brain cycles trying to earn the respect from them they would never conceive of giving. Fuck ‘em.

    I hope that is sufficiently clear for you.

  65. @John Scalzi: “There’s no point in answering their objections, not in the least because doing so would imply that these jackasses have a point, other than being a grimy little circle jerk of male panic and poor rhetoric. They rate the response I do give them, which is derision and amusement when I spin them up to watch them go.”

    ********

    Thanks for clarifying your position, John. Just so we are perfectly clear, may I assume that you also include Dr. Helen Smith in the above category? She took a pretty dim view of your positions in an essay posted on PJ Media’s site on 5/16/12.

    I’m assuming your answer will be a backpedaling of some kind. And this is what I am (reasonably, I hope) trying to get you to acknowledge. You want to cast all of your opponents as the one you call the RHSD, so you can dismiss them *all* as extremists. But the fact remains that your recent positions have drawn significant opposition from some very moderate quarters.

  66. JS

    That take down was as close to perfection as any mortal can hope for; left to me I would have simply said Fuck ‘em, which lacks both the gracenotes and the surgical precision with which you dissected Todd’s posts.

    I shall sleep soundly tonight, having seen Cheery’s battle cry in action…

  67. Todd

    I am reminded of the excellent advice said to be coined in the Great War; “when you are in a hole, stop digging.”

    Unless, of course, you are Digger…

  68. @Stevie: Actually, John is the one who has dug himself a hole here.

    @JohnScalzi: And just so you know, John: The first one to resort to the F-word is usually the one who has just lost the argument.

  69. Todd:

    “I’m assuming your answer will be a backpedaling of some kind.”

    Todd, you’re aware that one of the reasons I don’t think very highly of your rhetorical skills is that you attempt stupidly obvious rhetorical tricks like this one, right? I understand you probably think you’re being clever by attempting to insert Dr. Smith into the discussion, and then suggesting that if I don’t include her in the class that you’ve created but I have not agreed to, then I’ve conceded ground. However, I am not obliged to agree either with your probable assessment of your cleverness or with the terms of your bad rhetorical construction. Try the “when did you stop beating your wife” tactic with someone else, please.

    In the meantime, the next time I chat with Helen Smith, whom I have known for a number of years, who has interviewed me (in tandem with her husband) and who, among other things, has been kind enough to record part of an audiobook for me — and who I quite like, even though she has been critical of me from time to time, which is of course fine — I may recount for her this little attempt of yours. She may find it amusing.

    “And just so you know, John: The first one to resort to the F-word is usually the one who has just lost the argument.”

    Your problem, Todd, is that you appear to be under the impression that we’re having an argument. What we’re mostly having is a grading session. One of us is failing. As a hint, it’s not me.

    And now you have exhausted all my patience with you for this thread, Todd. Off with you, then.

  70. [Direct comment to Todd snipped -- Floored, see the comment immediately following - JS]

  71. Floored:

    In general, it’s not the best form to direct a comment to someone who I have invited off the thread, because they can’t respond, and that’s not fair. Also, in a general sense, for the future, it’s best to leave the snark and invective regarding commenters to me. I’ve gone ahead and trimmed back your comment, but don’t feel too bad about it; rather, just consider this knowledge for the future.

  72. @ Mr. Scalzi: Understood; I will be more careful in the future. Thank you for banning the troll; he was particularly annoying.

  73. Wait, you can prevent people from commenting on specific threads, while not permabanning them?

    I’m going to go spend some constructive time on 17th shard obsessing about Steelheart instead of wasting time on a currently removed troll; I will attempt to spread the good news of “The Mallet of Loving Correction” while I’m at it.

  74. Floored, yes, John has fairly granular controls here. Some people are banned permanently, others from specific threads; there are people here who have been invited off thread after thread and are still allowed to comment…because in OTHER threads they’re neutral-to-useful in the conversation.

    Wait until you see someone say something outrageous, write a long, scathing reply, and after posting it see that Scalzi has a) deleted their comment, which makes yours incomprehensible and inappropriate; b) given his own reply, which is of course better than yours (and not just because he’s the blog owner; you may have noticed that this dude can write); or c) dismissed the commenter from the thread, which again makes your comment inappropriate.

    In general if someone is trolling, we try not to answer them, because Scalzi is better at it and has more right. If someone’s just being desperately wrongheaded, we do answer them. Since Scalzi may draw that line in a different place than we do…we try to remember to refresh right before posting a response.

    I fail at this embarrassingly often, but I do try.

  75. Going off topic; curious what others here think the use of Latin phrases adds to the conversation in place of using plain English. As pretty as ‘ad hominem’ etc. is, it comes across as obstructionist puffery when dropped into ordinary conversation. ‘Personal attack’ too plain or am I hopelessly blue collar?

    I don’t see John Scalzi as Homer or the DB’s as Frank Grimes either but it is fun imagery.

    John, kudos on the Hugo and other recent recognition. Well deserved.

  76. @Ambivalent: many time the Latin phrases are terms of art, not just phrases. As such, they have subtleties and connotations in their meaning beyond the “plain English” meaning. Perhaps they are obstructionist puffery in ordinary conversation, but then again, I rarely employ them in ordinary conversation. Certainly the discussions on this blog rarely seem “ordinary” to me.

    I don’t know about you, but I tend to read this blog on a web browser. As such, I have vast informational resources available to me. When I see a Latin phrase dropped in a conversation I am unfamiliar with (like ‘tu quoque’), I can quickly look it up on Google or Wikipedia. Then I can find out what it means (Latin for “you, also”, and is the name of the fallacy of claiming your opponent’s hypocrisy invalidates their argument.).

    Actually, ‘tu quoque’ is a perfectly good example of the “subtleties and connotations” aspect. The “plain English” equivalent is the pot calling the kettle black. However, when most people invoke the “pot, kettle” phrase, they are actually committing the fallacy: they are asserting the “pot” is somehow wrong to make the claim about the kettle because of it’s own state of cleanliness, as if the level of soot on the pot in some way affects the level of soot on the kettle (yes, the idiom refers to the cleanliness levels of the pot and kettle from the days of cooking over open fires). When someone refers to ‘tu quoque’, they aren’t accusing their opponents of hypocrisy, they are saying that the hypocrisy (if any) is irrelevant to the argument.

  77. When we’re speaking of rhetoric and logical fallacies, yes, we need the Latin. They are the technical terms of the field, and as @Blaise Pascal said, they’re different from the English ones. (or the equivalent of “plain English” in other languages)

    We don’t say “give me the long pointy thing with the 4-sided dent at the end”, we say “give me the Phillips screwdriver”. Same with “hyperspace”, or (your term of any technology here). Et cetera ;)

    John is (Homer comparison aside) not in the business of restricting vocabulary. I am not averse to a little learning.

  78. Her political views aside, Dr. Smith is not a dudebro who gets wound up and gibbering about Scalzi. So, in fact, she wasn’t the subject of this post and shouldn’t have been dragged into it.

    Objection, facts not in evidence, Your Honor.

  79. Dr. Smith is a friend of mine, whose opinions on several subjects diverge from my own. Like nearly all my friends.

    Let’s go ahead and shelve any further discussion of her on this thread, please.

  80. The latest hare-brained dudebro theory (that Tor is stuffing the ballot box) is just ridiculous at the “Oh, come on” level.

    My personal theory is that your character is written to be a Hugo winner, so you are. You can’t escape The Narrative!

  81. Even if Tor is stuffing the ballot box (which it isn’t–I mean, come ON, that’s more pathetic than Dubya Bash trying to get back into politics), IT DOESN’T MATTER!!!!! The Hugos are pretty clearly not based on merit–whoever gets the most votes, wins, whether by pandering to readers or by pandering to the publishers. Remember, dudebro conservatiots: your precious Citizens United case says that corporations are people!

  82. Also, I have evidence to prove that Mr. Scalzi shot JFK!!!!! If you look at the photos, I mean really look at them and hold them up to the light and fold them just right, you can see him holding a smoking gun cleverly disguised as a pipe, which he had just used to shoot JFK. He’s right behind the Ninth Doctor if you get a view from behind the President’s car, two bystanders over from the TARDIS and right in front of Captain Kirk.

    I think that his accomplice was Mr. Spock, who is clearly visible in full Starfleet uniform in the President’s car, performing the Vulcan Nerve Pinch so that JFK can’t dodge.

    :D

  83. @Scalzi

    I guarantee you these assbags would be heartily offended at the assertion that I was punching down at them.

    Wonderful isn’t it?

Comments are closed.