Ambivalent Skeptic

August 11, 2011

New term: ancillary ultimatums

Filed under: debate — Clint1911 @ 4:12 pm

pajamas media has a story about a “Slutwalk” in San Fran.

It’s a good read for the event that contrasts what people are doing and they are trying to accomplish. The author(with an alas of “Zombie”) also discuses many inherit contractions inherent in the protest. For example: “sex is fun but men are evil.”

However, the important lesson here is the concept of Ancillary Ultimatums.

Basically, activist protest something everyone hates and which no one will disagree with you about (like rape).

Then they demand everything their greedy hearts desire.

The trick is simple; if anyone calls them out for being unreasonable, the activist bypass the issue of demands and attacks the critics for “sympathizing” with the evil being protested.

From the article:

This tilting at imaginary windmills is intentional. The goal is to protest an evil that is universally hated. That way, if anybody dares to disagree with you or even raise a minor quibble, you can shoot back, “What? Are you FOR rape? Do you think we SHOULD blame victims? You’re part of the problem!” As a result of this stance, your cause becomes above reproach, immune from criticism.

THEN… (did you really think the strategy stopped there? Tsk tsk tsk) once you’ve assumed this mantle of moral perfection, you can start heaping all sorts of ancillary ultimatums and issues onto your list of demands, and no one is allowed to resist or complain, lest you once again neutralize them with “Blaming the victim again, are we? Pig!”

This video that one of we sluts took of a speaker at SlutWalk reveals exactly this point about ancillary ultimatums: She sprinkles in a few self-evidently true statements at the beginning to lure you in, then starts making increasingly bizarre claims that stray further and further from reality, and then arrives at her actual destination: To politicize rape and turn into a wedge issue for all sorts of progressive/feminist/leftist demands:

hat tip:

August 2, 2011

Jeff Cooper on guns and mindset, June 1997

Filed under: Jeff Cooper,Uncategorized — Clint1911 @ 10:51 pm

August 1, 2011

If you are going to endorse a rifle…use logic

Filed under: commenting comments — Clint1911 @ 10:26 pm

Elmo Iscariot posted an interesting example of failed logic. Short version: people will justify whatever they want, however they want.

In this case it was the classic: “_____ is better because of a small advantage” while ignoring a large disadvantage.

Remember bias is found in what people do NOT say.

Elmo has a good point; check it out.

WARNING, do NOT read the article Elmo links to. It is horrible and a complete waste of time. I would (almost) show it to students as an example of how not to write (except for the fear it would cost them brain cells.)

My review:

If I wrote and typed that bad I would be embarrassed to put my name to it.

First there is the spacing mistakes, the missing commas, the commas with spaces in front! [facepalm]

Let’s just call them grammar errors and add his confusing “may be” with “maybe.”

He contradicts himself. (States there is no diff between the M1 and M14, but picks one over the other anyway.

He has sentences that do not belong in the paragraphs they are in. (And bad, wannabee-Yoda lead-ups to some of them.)

Uses “of course” and “Many have said” (etc.) when making a point he can’t back up.

Good news: there were footnotes. Bad news: he quoted mostly the same source for most of his points.
Worse news: that source was Boston T Party. Worst news: he quoted the guy so often it felt like reading a rehash of Boston T Party.

Then there is this little gem:
“I restricted the field to the weapons that I thought were the best.”
This is how egomaniacs try, and fail, to look humble.


Create a free website or blog at