Vox Day thinks this comment on his blog highlights the essence of the fight between SJWs and the Rabid Puppies (his version of Sad Puppies):
Nice Guys believe that A) SJWs can learn, and B) compromise with them is possible.
When the downtrodden, outnumbered Hero finally gets the upper hand, he’s supposed to nobly offer a truce to his Enemy. His Enemy will be so impressed by his fortitude and nobility that he will gain a new respect for the Hero, and they will forge a new, better understanding based on mutual respect. Everyone lives happily ever after. Think of all the fantasy stories and buddy movies that are based on that kind of reversal.
So now that Vox has the SJWs on the ropes, he’s supposed to back away and offer them a draw, and they’re supposed to be so relieved and impressed that they turn over a new leaf. Then everyone can get along and just focus on good writing.
Actually, no, that’s not it at all. That completely misunderstands the reason that we (that is, those of us who have some sympathy for the Sad Puppies but almost none for the Rabid Puppies) advocate tolerance for the SJW crowd.
We are not under any delusions about how SJWs act. We’ve seen all the same evidence you have. It’s QUITE clear that the a great many feminism and/or "diversity" and/or gay rights activists don’t give a fig about tolerance or inclusiveness. Tolerance and inclusiveness are just tools they use to get what they really want; they aren’t virtues for them.
Thing is: they are for us.
It’s always the same problem with Vox. He claims to want to live and let live, but there’s never any evidence of it. And it’s always the same excuse: "they" won’t play nice, so why should he? This is sensible enough if reserved for extreme cases, but when absolutely every post on his blog that deals with SJWs is about the need to deny them a seat, the line between their tactics and his becomes impossible to draw.
Here’s the rub: if somebody doesn’t start playing nice, it just never happens.
And here’s the question: do you think it will be the SJWs who start playing nice? It won’t. We know that from all past experience. So, as the addage goes, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.
If you want tolerance and inclusiveness, you start by being tolerant and inclusive. It’s not that it doesn’t matter that "they" aren’t tolerant and inclusive, because obviously it would be nicer if they were. The fact that they’re not makes our job a lot harder. But our job is still to get to a community that’s tolerant and inclusive, and you just can’t do that with purges.
Quite the contrary, the way you get there is by making purges taboo. What you start with isn’t "hey, you purged us, you opened the gate, guess purges are OK now, so we’re gonna have one of our own!" Because at that point you have two purges rather than one, and they start to become normal. But the whole goal was to make them the opposite of normal. You don’t denormalize something by making it common, just like you don’t reduce demand for a product by making it cheap.
I get why Vox’s version of this is more fun. It always feels better to be doing something new and direct rather than shoring up the status quo. And indulgence is always more immediately gratifying than restraint. But if discipline were easy it wouldn’t be discipline. Goal-directed behavior means doing what gets you to the goal, whether or not it’s maximally gratifying in the moment.
I can’t see how purging SJWs gets us to the goal. If you want to pick one or two who have been particularly nasty and publicly denounce them for their tactics, fine. Great! But trying to crush them as a group is just going to turn back on you.
So if we can’t crush them, and we know that they’ll never turn over a new leaf (at least, not any time soon), then how do we win? Unfortuantely, the answer to that is a little disheartening: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Sorry, folks, but there’s no other way – at least none that I’ve seen. Liberty isn’t achievable in a neat "final solution." You can’t just banish your enemies and live happily ever after in Galt’s Gultch. Liberty means you establish some libertarian norms, and you constantly – and I mean constantly – defend them.
It’s rather like fighting crime. You fight it. You never beat it. And the reason you never beat it is that the price of beating it is too high. There are going to be murderers and thieves for the foreseeable future. Some of them will even get away with it. That’s what life in an imperfect world entails. The best we can do is keep these things to a minimum, by doing our best to instill social norms that discourage them, and then paying a police force year after year to do its best to catch the people that haven’t been socialized.
It’s mundane, I KNOW, but that’s how you "beat" the SJWs too. Meaning: you don’t beat them, not completely. You just minimize their effectiveness. You take a strong stance against the kinds of tactics they like to employ, and then you relentlessly point out when people are violating your norms. You do this regardless of their political opinions, partly to demonstrate your good faith, but mostly because you really are against those kinds of tactics.
Strong is fighting! It’s hard, and it’s painful, and it’s every day. It’s what we have to do. (source)
Yeah, got it, quoting Buffy – even one of its best episodes – won’t win me any points with the Vox Day crowd. But then the whole point of this has been that it’s getting really hard to see how Vox is ultimately any different from the people he’s constantly railing against. SJWs want to banish Christians and homophobes and anyone who doesn’t vote Democrat religiously. Vox Day seems happy to respond by banishing anyone who’s not Christian, or is homosexual, or who votes Democrat religiously. The vast majority of us just want to read good science fiction. We don’t want people purged because they believe the wrong things. We certainly don’t want Hugo ballots dominated by one publishing house – be it Tor or Castalia. We want a world where you can read Orson Scott Card and still get a job in publishing, and where you can read NK Jemison and do the same.
The quoted comment at the start of this post is a straw man, and straw mans are the coward’s path. We’re not running a naive feelgood campaign to win people over with good will. We’re running a campaign that we know is relentless and never-ending to keep stalinism-by-proxy at bay.