Steve Sckenda: Bully Hypocrisy

This post might be considered a follow up post for "Internet Revolt? Hardly!". I say this because in this post, we get to see a review of the bully book, "Off Topic: The Story Of An Internet Revolt". This review was a 5-star review by a bully supporter, Steve Sckenda, albeit, an anonymous supporter - until now.

I'm glad I stumbled onto this because this review, or should I say, the comments that follow it, showcases clearly the hypocrisy that dwells inside of Bully Nation.

The bullies, and their supporters, have been clamoring for such a long time about "freedom of speech" and their right to attack authors as they see fit in book reviews. They even defend themselves when they attack authors in the comments of those book reviews. There has even been documentation of the bullies going into other people's book reviews and attacking them not only just on this blog, but plenty more on STGRB. Especially if the book being reviewed is written by any author on their "shit-list". The bullies continue to gripe that this is them exercising "free speech".

The bullies have also made claims that anyone who gives an author on their "shit-list" five stars on their books, that it's a friend or family member, and in the minds of these bullies, it's not a "real" rating or review. Their theory is, if they don't like that author then nobody else should like that author. (It's that entitlement mentality kicking in)

But here today, we have a reversal of sorts. The bullies got together and wrote themselves a book, and now, it is open for public scrutiny. (And according to the bullies, so are they and their behavior now on trial, officially!)

What has been their response to their new book, which is filled with inaccuracies, and lies, being rated and reviewed? Well, just as expected actually. They aren't taking to kind to "negative" reviews or one star ratings. Kind of ironic, isn't it? But we're not here to see that type of hypocrisy from them (or maybe we are) but more so, their reaction to a five star review given by Steve Sckenda, and some negative comments to that review.

As I mentioned plenty of times, if anyone does not agree with these bullies in any way shape or form, even if it's done respectively, they really get offended. (And they say us REAL authors have thin skin) Trust me, these bullies have even more thin skin than any author they have ever attacked. In fact, one might say they have absolutely "no skin" at all.

Let's take a look at Steve's review, shall we?

It's okay if Steve thinks this "book of whine" was succinctly argued, even if he is wrong about that because in the book, as I mentioned in my post "Internet Revolt? Hardly!", the bullies actually contradict themselves when they say they are all about reviewing books (despite evidence clearly showing through the past two years of them bashing authors) then later in the book they say that Goodreads has taken the "fun" out of bashing authors with their new enforcement policy. Okay, we'll overlook the fact that Steve failed to see that in the book. But here's the thing, we can't go to his review and say that because otherwise, that would be "bullying" as according to him and the bullies. 

REALLY?! O_O

Think I'm kidding? Then look at the screenshots. 

Yes, poor Steve got "bombarded" by a few comments that disputed his findings in a book written by some bullies. Now, if you were to go by this comment alone, you would think that people were raiding his comment section (like it's been documented many times that the bullies do) and was called every name under the sun. And this hurt Steve's precious feelings. 

Well, get a grip you all, that's not exactly the case. What hurt his precious feelings was that someone with a different view of the book came in and questioned his findings from the book. You know, a few people at most was using Goodreads the way it was intended to be used. They went for a BOOK DEBATE! And a friendly one at that. Unlike the mannerism of the bullies when they invade people's book reviews of authors that are on the bullies shit-list. Their "debates" consist of calling people fucktards and such. Yeah, I know, we have seen the screenshots before. 

What I find amusing is, when the bullies do it, it's them exercising free speech, but when it's done to them, it's bullying. (And offensive) Then again, the bullies think anyone with a different opinion than theirs is offensive, and bullying. Yet, it's perfectly okay for them to do it. 

Before we get to the good parts, let's see how some of the bullies respond to poor Steve's hurt feelings, shall we? 

First of, Lisa, it's "Here, here!" not "Hear, hear!" - By I digress. Do you see how they are now saying about people who hold a different opinion and express that on Steve's review? You would think he just got "attacked" and or "bullied", right? And what to make of Mark's response to what horrible thing David said? Well, let's check it out, shall we? Let's see David's "typical condescending jackassery", okay? (And we will also see a comment by Jason who has witnessed this "brutal" attack against bully sympathizer, Steve Sckenda.

You see, David was responding to something Steve said in his review, comparing Goodreads to Nazi's like they do in the book. (I mentioned that in my post, "Internet Revolt? Hardly!", didn't I? And didn't I present screenshots of not only what was said in the book about such comparison, but I also showed other screenshots of other bullies doing the same in that post and other posts in the past? I'm pretty sure I did. And because of this, what David said, he was "bullying" poor Steve. Well boo-frigity-hoo, Scuba Steve.

And Jason makes a valid point, he asks if whether or not he has any right to question Steve's review where Steve alleges "corporate attack on reviewers". Since we all know that reviews are public, and some of the intent behind them is so people can "politely" debate their views and opinions, as alleged by the bullies themselves when they wish to defend their right to attack authors in comments and reviews, Jason is at least politely asking the question. The answer to his question is a resounding yes! However, apparently, in the minds of the bullies, the answer is a "hell no"! You see, to have that entitlement, Jason, you have to be a bully. Since you are not a bully, nor David, you have no right to comment on anyone's review of a book. (Getting the picture here?)

Then "Nandakishore" jumps in with bully logic. Check it out. 

Yes, yes! "Nandakishore", you figured it out! You broke the biggest conspiracy theory story of the century since, since, since it was discovered in the early 1990's that Double Stuff Oreo's really weren't "double stuffed" but actually, "one and a half times stuffed"! Great job. 

Okay, I am being sarcastic, but seriously, what "Nandakishore" says is honestly what the bullies believe, that Goodreads, along with Amazon, have joined "forces" with the "blog that shan't be named". (STGRB)

I guess all the times the bullies said that STGRB wasn't relevant, they were lying about that too. As it turns out, they are relevant. They have teamed up with the mighty Amazon / Goodreads for the sole purpose of eliminating "free speech" across the land. (That land being Goodreads, not an actual country as the bullies would have you believe) And yes, they have legalized "censorship" too! 

The bastards!

Then "Nandakishore" finishes up her "story of the century" with declaring that Goodreads has become a "book promotion" site and are "happy to see serious reviewers" leave. (And finalizes it with the old "Viva la Revolutione!" 

First of all, "Nandakishore", Goodreads has always been a "book - and author - promotion site. Otis Chandler has mentioned this often in interviews. So no, they didn't "just" decide "recently" to make it into that, it's always been that.

Fighting the urge to roll, my, eyes. 

And secondly, "serious reviewers" leaving? I think not. More like, "serious bullies" are leaving the site. (And I don't even know what the freak to say about her "Viva la Revolutione!" remark, so I'm just gonna roll them eyes after all and move on.)

Then something interesting catches my rolling eyes. In this next screenshot, have we stumbled onto one of the bullies who contributed to this bully book of lies? Check it out. 

Steve apparently knows that Manny is a contributor. Or did my rolling eyes deceive me? Steve is obviously thanking Manny for all his hard work (at lying) he put into the book. I know Manny isn't a "notoriously" well known bully, but he is a bully. Maybe Steve wasn't sitting so far on the sidelines as he would have many believe. (No pun intended) 

But back to the "thin" skin of the bullies. In regards to those earlier nasty comments which poor Steve got "bombarded" with? Well, Jason offers up an explanation. 

Well said, Jason. Well said. 

How do the bullies respond to Jason? See for yourself.

That last one by "Stephanie" shows how fast these bullies come to the aide of their bully friends. Almost as fast as they attack authors. Well, maybe not THAT fast. Then "Lisa" moans and groans of days past and long forgotten. Check it out. (And Jason's response)

You see, the dumb part of "Lisa's" comment was: "I come here to talk about books with my friends and other members. Please, let's be kind." and "That's not delicate flower stuff happening, but decent, mature behavior. Talking about a book is different than talking about a reviewer. Goodreads is supposed to be a community." * CoughWTFcough*

Did my eyes just read correctly? A bully actually said that? That talking about a BOOK is different than talking about a REVIEWER? ..... And yet ..... talking about a book isn't different than talking about an author? Or talking about a reviewer isn't different than talking about an author?

Is it me, or do I need to take my crazy pills? O_o

Yes folks, a BULLY said THAT! (You read it here first)

Oh, and the community part too? A community (of bullies) who attack authors or a community who discusses books? And if it's the latter, then isn't that what Jason (and David) is doing? Or trying to do? But what they get in response is poor Steve crying over how offended he is with 'different" views and opinions than his own? And being told to go away because this review isn't up for discussion? 

I have to now question Jason's hypothesis that "this isn't Sesame Street". From where I am standing, it would appear that the bullies really are kids. (Or is the more PC thing to say here is "children"?) Either way, where the bullies are concerned, anyone who disagrees with them, or challenges them, are nothing more than "Oscar The Grouch". 

Then comes some more bully tactics. When all else fails, call them trolls! (Just like "Laima" does.)

Jason will not take it sitting down. (Okay, he's probably sitting down at his keyboard, but you know what I meant)

Of course, when Jason asks "Delores" to show him where he "attacks" Steve, which is what "Delores" claimed, and Jason even supplies a link for her to make it easier, poor old "Delores" has no comeback. (Where have we seen this before? You know, when a bully makes an outrageous claim or lie and then gets the chance to "back it up" with evidence, and they fail to do so?) Me! You have seen me do it. Me is the answer that I was looking for. I also would have accepted STGRB.

I have called out many of the bullies for their lies and accusations and any evidence they have to support their claims, and to date - none have actually provided such. 

Then Ed has some wise words for Steve. 

Then Cynthia has some wise words for us all.

I'm Carroll Bryant .... and this is The Looking Glass.

Things We Learned Today:

* The bullies can't take their own medicine

* To disagree with the bullies is to be a bully in their mind

* Manny was one of the bullies who contributed to the "Bully Book"

* Hypocrisy grows in the bully garden like marijuana grows in my brothers garden

* The above statement would be funnier if you knew my brother

* My brother grows it for recreational purposes only - so back off FEDS!

* The above comment would be funnier if you knew my relationship with the FEDS

* This "Things We Learned Today" segment has really gotten off track

* It's okay to attack authors through book reviews, but not reviewers in reviews

* The above statement was - WTF? O_O

* Carroll called the bully book a "book of whine"

* The above statement would be funnier if I spelled it "wine"

* Carroll will, at times, fight the urge to roll his eyes

* The bullies can dish it out, but they can't take it

* Carroll said - "Scuba Steve"

* Carroll learned that Lisa was correct. It is "Hear, hear" and not "Here, here"

* Numb-nuts

* Carroll called himself "numb-nuts", but in an endearing manner

* Carroll isn't afraid of being wrong sometimes