text:
Personal unpersoning
April 13, 2015 Brad R. Torgersen Sad Puppies 234 comments
Ever since the furor over the Sad Puppies 3 slate kicked up last week, I've been getting tagged with comments about the infamous shock jock Vox Day. "When are you going to do something about him?" some ask. Others demand, "You must disavow him, otherwise it looks like you approve of his hate and racism." Still others claim, "The longer you go without disavowing Vox, the more it makes me think you might actually agree with him." And so on, and so forth.
Ah, gentle folk, such talk makes me tired. Are we really at that point? Have we really sunk to the place in the dialogue where failure to revile a man, automatically means approval or assent? If I do not hate him, I obviously love him?
It's clear this isn't about Vox Day as much as it's about me signaling to the tribe that I can be bent to the tribe's will.
Vox Day has been convicted of heinousness and expelled from the tribe. He is banished. While the rest of the Science Fiction village has turned its back, I've stood off to the side and observed the whole thing with a sour face, shaking my head. Neither with the tribe, nor against the tribe. Neither with Vox, nor against Vox.
Because I see two wrongs happening here. And like all of us were told by our grandparents, two wrongs don't make a right.
Vox Day is a shock jock.
People let Vox push all the right buttons.
You keep mentioning his name over and over and over . . . Just like he wants you to.
It reminds me of the scene from the third ALIEN movie:
DILLON: You don't wanna know me, lady. I'm a murderer and rapist of women.
RIPLEY: Really? . . . Well, I guess I must make you nervous.
See, that's precisely the reaction you give the shock jock. He says something guaranteed to make you go full retard on him, you cooly reply that his worst invective doesn't scare you, and you move on. That's how you beat the shock jock.
You don't devote years to a never-ending hissy fit of finger-pointing and jumping up and down, crying for his blood. That just makes the shock jock smile, because then he knows he's won. He knows he is living rent-free in your head. He has outwitted and outgunned you on the psych ops battlefield. He is laughing at your rage.
Did nobody else learn this stuff in school? Did nobody else learn how to deflect and deflate the jerk? The guy who needled you and knew how to push all your buttons, until you were red with fury?
Come on, folks, this is basic stuff.
Yet, my critics persist. They are convinced of the righteousness that they do.
I get it. The easiest thing for me at this point is to join in the discommendation: I RENOUNCE THE BAD MAN, AND HIS UNUTTERABLE BADNESS! HE IS FILTH! HE IS UNTOUCHABLE! THERE ARE BAD THINGS FLYING OUT OF HIS BAD FINGERS AND INTO HIS BAD KEYBOARD! I JOIN WITH ALL THE TRIBE IN POINTING MY FINGER — SUTHERLAND-STYLE — MY MOUTH GAPING, AND AN UNHOLY SHRIEK ISSUING FROM MY THROAT! EEEAAAAAAUGHHHHOOUGHHHHHHHHH . . . .
Still, I resist the temptation. And it is a temptation. All I have to do is admit that there are five lights, and the grilling and insinuation and character assassination will stop. I see four lights, but the commissars tell me there are five. Just say that there are five lights, Brad, like we want you to. Come on. You can do it. Five lights. Is that so hard? Better men than you have admitted it. Five. Lights.
So, how many lights do you see??
Vox yanks chains, kicks shins, and enjoys being a villain.
Vox has been (and will be again) a shit head.
But like I said, this isn't about Vox anymore. It's about the tribe. The tribe is trying to decide if I can be pressured to conform. If I can be pricked, poked, prodded, and cajoled into saying the words.
Say them, Brad. We need to hear you say them!
Five lights.
Hey tribe, guess what?
THERE . . . ARE . . . FOUR . . . LIGHTS!
Maybe Vox is terrible.
But the Marxist politics of unpersoning is much moreso.
It doesn't matter if you think it's justified.
Unperson enough people for enough "crimes" and you will eventually find yourself excommunicated from humanity.
I reject this. I reject the whole thing. As much as Vox is a serial dickhead, I reject his unpersoning. Being a dickhead is not a crime. It's uncool. But it's not a crime.
And I reject all who demand I partake in the unpersoning of anyone in this field. Even the polar opposites of Vox, who pour churlish and poisonous invective down onto the heads of innocent people; hatred from the so-called progressive side. These are broken souls – Vox, and his arch-enemies — but they are still human beings. They're still part of the human equation. Criticize what they say. Criticize what they do.
Unpersoning? No.
You don't know the fire you play with. You haven't studied history enough to understand the pattern you are repeating. You think you mean well. You think you do this for some kind of justice. You think you are on the right side of history.
When it's your turn to be unpersoned — for mere words; not even actions, words — remember that you were warned.
Previous Post: Flaming rage nozzles of tolerance
Next Post: Two Hugo final ballot changes, and a question
keranih says:
People keep on chanting "VOX DAY VOX DAY VOX DAY", as if it were some sort of anti-SP-cootie mantra. (Repeated use during conversations with SP peps prevents any actual SP thoughts from attaching to one's forebrain.)
As far as I can tell, the chant doesn't actually have any magical power. And unlike some cats in the herd, when called, he will bounce over and slobber all over you.
Mike In Seattle says:
First they came for Vox Day, but I did not say anything, because Vox Day was an asshole, and I was not.
Then they came for……….
leochampion says:
These people live and breathe herd mentality and unpersoning; I'm not sure they *understand* someone refusing to play their game.
Not to mention encountering a large group of people who do not care in the slightest what they think or whether they're offended.
Angus Trim says:
Vox Day seems to be the boogyman for every SJW and prog out there. But, you don't want Vox Day burning your house down, just leave him alone.
He's not Requires Hate. He hasn't attacked anyone on the right. He's not the Haydens. He doesn't attack anyone that hasn't opened the ball up. Now, he does seem to carry a grudge a bit. If you attack him, he'll counterattack and humiliate you. Leave him alone, and he'll likely ignore you.
Let them come for Vox Day. He'll eat them for lunch. I personally will lose a lot of respect for anyone on the right that denounces him.
In my view, that was really stupid of GRRM to equate Requires Hate with Vox. Not even close. My take on it.
Bart Trevoric says:
Do you or do you not think it was alright for Vox to stack the deck in these latest Hugo nominations?
You seem to speak out against a lot of other people who you feel have stacked the Hugo deck. Why not Vox? You tell us how many times Scalzi has been nominated, but never mention Wright: Wright was nominated six times in one year. Why the silence?
Your blog post about doesn't explain why you speak out against other people who you have "no control over" but refuse to speak out when evidence shows Vox stacked the deck. Is that because you were in on it? Did your ballot specifically leave spots open because you didn't want to interfere with Vox's nominations, nominations you knew were coming, nominations that would assist Vox and/or his publishing house?
When you talk about the Hugo nominations often being a stacked-deck of undesrving works, do you also include what happened this year, and do you include any role you played in helping stack it?
Robert G. Evans says:
It's like he's Beetlejuice and they're trying to banish him by saying his name repeatedly.
Wow, not only do you admit to watching Alien 3 but you actually quote it? What kind of monster are you?!?
Oh, well written otherwise.
Murgy says:
Commissar Bart,
You need to back off just a tad. First, you get him to confess there are 5 lights.THEN you hammer him with the "Are you now or have you ever been a Rabid Puppy supporter?" questions.
Better go back over to MakingSpite, and get some re-education.
Remember, this year, reading from Mao, not Stalin or Marx, because we're not reading dead white guys.
Yours in service to the Motherland,
G Lagamorph, PNH, TNH, AW, GRRM, OMGWTFBBQ
Instinct says:
You know, if you say 'Vox Day' three times in a mirror three times he will appear!
Hey Bart
Projection much? If you have a problem with Vox why do you need Brad to deal him? Man up, go to Vox's site and deal with him yourself.
Yeah, I can't type, it's my Friday.
Adam Lawson says:
This is also coming from the people who still haven't renounced/unperson'd Marion Zimmer Bradley.
What she did was far worse than some mean words.
Zander Nyrond says:
Well, you just said everything about him I wanted you to say, and you said it of your own free will. You don't agree with him. That's it. From my end, we're good.
I'm still part of what you call the tribe, and always will be, and I think you're mistaken about it in some ways, but certain elements of it have mightily annoyed me today, and in some ways you're right. There are too many people on both sides of this who are getting off on the fighting altogether too much ever to want to stop. We're all human, and we're all fans, and until and unless we stop fighting and start talking to each other like people, this will never end well.
Lynn Wyman says:
I never heard of Vox Day until I read these diatribes attacking him. Since they were accusations and not sourced . I cheeked his sight. He seems articulate and more nuanced than the rabid SJW. I even bought a book. It seems normal SF &F and not preaching horrible thoughts. Ishe the MULE and can influence me from his books?
Not just Bradley, but scores of SJW writers, bloggers, etc that carry on with their racist, sexist etc posts before they even start with their baseless accusations. The left should unperson all of them, denounce every single one of them, before they come talking about Vox.
Old NFO says:
Well said! And concur.
Ron Zeke Zukowski says:
I have said else-when that this constant return to Vox indicates how empty 'they' are. Taken together with:
The libel;
The 24/7 trolling;
The Redefining of Fandom so that it becomes a club more exclusive–and as hard to get into–as the US Congress;
It impels me to change my "cry".
I have said that I weep for my people (fandom) now I PRAY THAT THEY HAVE NOT LOST THEIR IMMORTAL SOULS.
R. Z.
James May says:
Was that a non-disavowment disavowment?
Chris Gerrib says:
What irritates me is you keep using Vox Day as some sort of boogieman who will wreck the Hugos unless we give you what you want. It's ,almost like "good cop bad cop" with you two.
Mary Robinette Kowal says:
Speaking as someone who has been the repeated target of Vox Day, this strategy does not work. Until April 11, 2015, I have NEVER mentioned him on my blog. EVER. I have him blocked on all social media.
"He doesn't attack anyone that hasn't opened the ball up."
HA! His first mention of me is mid-2013.
He has threatened to post where I live. And yes, he could, because he has the SFWA directory.
This idea that you can ignore him and he'll go away is demonstrably not how it works.
So much for good will. I have a tendency to disavow non-disavowment disavowments, though I reserve the right to disavow that at some future date.
speech disparaging a racial, sexual, or ethnic group or a member of such a group with the exception of heterosexuals, ethnic Europeans or men.
See: con man
noun phrase
1. A confidence man (1889+)
2. One adept at persuasion, esp at dishonest or self-serving persuasion (1900s+) also known as a flim flam man, trickster, swindler, or intersectional gender feminist.
Keith Glass says:
So Brad. . . let's see. . . As a Puppy, you're an Unperson. And then as a Person of Faith, you're also a Unperson. Do they mutually annihilate each other, leaving you a person again ?
Never-mind, you're ALSO in the Army, so as a potential baby-killer (how you'd do that with paperwork is beyond me, but, whatever. . .) you're an Unperson, And as the Powder-Blue Care Bear with a Flamethrower, you're Armed, and thus an Unperson again, and again, cancelling out, you're People again.
That was exhausting, no WONDER you passed your APFT. . . . (grin)
James May, I think that makes it a re-dis-undisavowment
Mary, no disrespect meant, but that doesn't ring right. Why would he threaten to post your address? Something must have brought you to his attention. Was it something besides your blog maybe?
You know, he may come by and clear things up for us. It's obvious that he's keeping track of the general trend of these threads. He's posted on MGW today, and yesterday he was here.
I can't follow your reasoning, James. Maybe I'm thick, but it looks to me like he told GRRM and other SJW's that want him to denounce Beale to go fly a kite.
In a long winded way, but still go fly a kite.
Htom Trites says:
Four. 4. IV. 1+1+1+1. Preach it, Brad. Never ask for whom the depersonalizers come for, for they will come fo r you. Light, light, light, light, and … that's all. Four lights.
@Angus. May I ask if you're saying that it's my fault? Because, it sounds like you are blaming me for his threat. That I must have done something to justify being threatened. Is that what you're saying?
Jake Freivald says:
I live in New Jersey. (Go ahead, laugh.) One very common political tactic in local elections is to point to an anonymous poster of a forum — one who is anti-administration and talks about too much spending, but who also makes overtly racist and jerkwad comments — and yell at a challenger candidate, "These are the kinds of people who support you! You're just like them!" If the challenger is too dull-witted to see the trap, he spends a lot on energy dissociating himself from the Evil Commenter — something that never fully works anyway — and too little time on talking about what he's in favor of.
Don't spend too much time dissociating yourself from Vox Day, Brad, even if he really is a noxious jerk. The people who don't trust you will never be satisfied, and those who read your positive messages don't need it.
And those of you calling for Brad to denounce him, shut up and focus on what Brad says, not on what some other guy whom Brad can't control says.
Brad, Sarah and Mike get interviewed by the Honey Badgers. Some audio distortion at the beginning.
I had fun on that podcast!
Jake: this is pretty much going to be my last word on the nefarious Mr. Day. After 8 days of people poking me on this, I'm kind of done with it. And no, I don't expect this will satisfy any of my determined critics, who will simply move the goal posts and adjust fire. There are a few people in this field who've severely perturbed me — some of them are Vox's vocal enemies — but I'd not want them given the Unperson treatment either.
Nice to finally hear you. 🙂
Ah, yes, Angus – kite-flying. Very popular in Amritsar.
MRK – I hope the crowd here treats you with the same courtesy and professionalism you showed in inviting people to your space.
I agree that one should not be blamed for the threats one receives from others. That is on them.
However, in our current age of lying hacks writing lies for global media, I think it is not out of line to say "I have not heard of this incident. Please expand." (I have not heard of this incident, I have not seen anything yet which would mark you as a person to lie or exaggerate, but it's only been a coupled days, please expand.)
I don't understand why one would have people blocked, aside from spam (feel free to expand here as well, but I'm much less invested in the answer, so don't feel required to respond.)
He has threatened to post where I live.
Disturbing, esp as you say he had opportunity to follow through, and borderline actionable ( as opposed to "just" disquieting and annoying) depending on the circumstances. (Threats vary in severity to the mockable three year old's promise to become a TRex and eat his baby sister to the traumatizing adult who holds a weapon on one while snarling in your ear that they will rape you to death. *Most* internet threats fall in between.)
Please feel free to expand, and for the lurkers, always get screen caps when people send you threats, and their ISPs.
Yes, a reminder that Mary Robinette Kowal isn't some troll who came here to cause grief. Please be respectful.
Dave W. says:
Brad, they're trying to use #12 of Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals to cut Vox off. Their methods always seem to come back to Alinsky.
"12."Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy."
Rigel Kent says:
@Mary, I can't speak for Angus, but it sounds like what he's looking for is some context. I know I'd like some.
There have been too many cases of people making dishonest accusations for me to accept another one uncritically. You've claimed Vox did this thing, but have provided zero evidence of him doing it, or even explain why he would want to.
Provide a link to him doing it, or some more explanation of the situation, or both. Then we can make our own judgments about it. Until then it's not something I'm going to give any weight to.
Peter Johnson (@incognomen) says:
MRK, I am as shocked as you are that he took exception to your 2013 post "Dear Twelve Rabid Weasels of SFWA, please shut the fuck up"
How could an outspoken then-member of the SWFA take exception to your courteous efforts to avoid mentioning him on your blog? He is a very bad man.
I am unable to find where he threatened to post your address. Perhaps you can provide a link so that we can deplore him together.
@ Mary
I'm not "saying", I'm "asking". I haven't been active "in the community" but just a little over a year. So, anything before Jan 2014 I'd be ignorant of unless I've seen something referenced. When something doesn't compute for me, I ask.
I haven't got the time tonight, need to finish some blurbs, synopsis, etc. But I can write Vox tomorrow or the next day and have his side of it. I expect he'll respond. You put me in the difficult position of quoting my words and disavowing them. Kool, but then when I asked, it seems that you're projecting. So now I feel I need to get to the bottom of this.
I don't believe or disbelieve. So far, from my perspective, you've accused Vox without offering any documented reference. Now I have to find out for myself.
When you separate out human beings according to their race and sex and then critique that skin and sex while conspicuously leaving others alone that is going to make people really angry. That is not going to ever change. There is a reason that is called hate speech. There is a reason Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian are receiving such a violent pushback and it is because they accused faceless but not sexless men of misogyny. That in itself is a case of misandry, since we have the actual identities and quotes of Wu and Sarkeesian. You notice Wu and Sarkeesian never include themselves in a sort of humanistic equation. That is because they are supremacists obsessed with a patriarchy.
Definitions are the Rubik's Cube wrapped in a Gordian Knot and buried under the Sphinx for a radical feminist. Until we can agree on humanistic definitions by which to address people on a human level of success and failure, this war will not end. Not ever. Not when it comes to gender feminism, since it is an ideology dedicated to stacking the deck against men, rather than constructing a humanistic strike zone. Think about what a court room would look like according to feminist strictures and then shudder.
Jake, it's… Chinatown.
Deck stacking is cheating. The SPs played by the rules, and (as far as I've seen), so did the RP.
No credible allegation of cheating has been leveled at either slate.
Claiming that the "deck was stacked" is a lie, and you are a liar.
Why do you imagine that anyone would want to have a conversation who can't even make it through one sentence without lying?
End of discussion.
How do I post an image here?
Put it on a page all by itself and then paste the URL into the comment box.
@James May. Thank you.
@Angus– Sorry, sorry. That was a kneejerk reaction on my part because the language you used parallels the victim-blaming that happens in cases of sexual harassment.
Anyway, here are some of his posts about me.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/search?q=kowal
And since someone noted upstream my Twelve Rabid Weasels of SFWA blogpost, Beale was, ironically, not the problem at that point. He has never sent me hate mail. So, he couldn't have thought it was directed at him.
And here's his tweet threatening to reveal my personal information. I screencapped it at the time, and I hope you'll forgive me that I really don't want to try to dig through Twitter to find the original.
That's when I blocked him on social media, because I was trying to follow Brad's advice of just ignoring him.
Which was my original point, that it doesn't work.
but it has to end in .jpg for the image alone to show.
Nick Gardner says:
The major point in this is the massive hypocrisy involved in demanding you to behave in a certain way or risk…… What? What are you risking by not doing what they demand? They'll hate your guts no matter what. Don't give in, there's NOTHING to gain, and everything to lose. Like White Castle selling veggie burgers. Anyone think vegetarians are eating at White Castle now?
This is such an amusingly stupid and senseless war. It can be summed up in one word: "definitions." Fix that and there's no Sad Puppies at all. No war. 90% of this acrimony would disappear in one night.
Re: Honey Badgers.
Anyone who uses Bloom County as an icon is alright with me, Brad.
Bart… It's not a crime when given five slots to nominate, to nominate five slots. I'm unclear on why this ought to be denounced other than that you didn't like the results.
richard mcenroe (@richard_mcenroe) says:
Stay strong, Brad. When you agree to see five lights, the next light you see will probably be a muzzle flash.
Confutus says:
The crime is that anyone who voted for the Sad Puppy slate or the Rabid Puppy slate is (supposedly) guilty of groupthink and reflexively voted mindlessly en bloc. Also, that by doing so, these combined minorities shoved more deserving authors out of the running. I've found these arguments both unpersuasive and insulting to both the voters and the nominees. (Get-out-the-vote campaigns have swayed close elections time out of mind, but screaming about the other side stole the election when there weren't any sides before sounds…rather ungracious and shrill)
Miss Kowal says "Yes, to all of this" when Jemisin asserts Brad has employed the KKK, Jim Crow literary tests and "violent bigots" like Daddy Warpig. I didn't know that, so now I rebuke and disavow Brad.
@Julie Pascal – For me, telling people "to nominate them precisely as they are" pushes it considerably beyond just offering a list of options to pick from. The nominations are supposed to be for work that you have read during the course of the last year.
Lists to jog one's memory are fine. Everyone does that. Everyone says, "Hey! I read this cool thing!"
It's when you tell people how to vote, and then people vote that *exact* slate that it feels like the intention of the rules has been broken, even if things are technically legal.
I would like to disavow my previous disavowal and change it to a demi-disavowment.
I voted most of the Sad Puppies slate this year. I read everything I nominated. I suspect I am in the majority in that regard.
And I know more than a few other who voted some of the works but not all of them.
Until the votes are released, we have no idea how many people voted the exact same way. And this wouldn't be the first time in Hugo history thats happened.
Everyone claiming that every Sad Puppy voter the exact same way is going to hurt themselves with the size brush they are swinging.
So please, unless you know it to be a fact (and if you do know, how exactly do you know?), stop saying it.
s1al says:
Do you have *any* evidence, at all, that this actually happened? Any? I've seen the accusation *incessantly*, but I have yet to see any evidence presented. Until there is evidence presented as such, I will continue to view this as a malign falsehood.
kamas716 says:
Stand Strong
principle/ˈprɪnsɪp(ə)l/
1. a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.
2. Within gender feminism, a fabulous myth or laughable stupidity akin to a chimera or basilisk.
I wasn't asked if I agreed or disagreed with voting without reading. I don't think that was the question. The question assumed that the deck was stacked, somehow. I know that Sad Puppies voters behave a bit like cats, the herding thereof, and were encouraged to read and buy everything. The question seems to hinge upon Rabid Puppies being unwilling drones to VD's super drone creating mind powers who voted exactly as their master dictated.
I'm tempted to say that this depends upon a number of unexamined and problematic prejudices. The whole "we're independent thinkers but they're authoritarian" thing gets old.
I think that any voter should only nominate what they have read and honestly found exceptional. It's entirely likely that a group who's tastes coincide will have tastes that coincide so that's no proof they didn't. I think that the very human impulse to vote for friends should be resisted. Nor do I think that anyone can credibly make the argument that no one ever voted for a Hugo winner in the past who they loved but hadn't had time to read the book.
I do understand that many people feel upset for a number of different reasons but the categories cannot be unswept. I believe other Sad Puppy supporters and bigwigs like Brad when they say that the goal is a wider range of competing stories. VD may just want to be able to put "Hugo nominated" on the books he publishes for all I know, which I don't know. But the goal for Sad Puppies truly is to have more variety. Brad listed the work he personally liked but clearly made an effort to list things that were not all the same, enough so that people came around howling about hypocrisy that some of the stories had messages and no guns. (It's so fun to be nothing but a stereotype to people.)
MC DuQuesne says:
Any previous slate voting? requires smoking emails and screenshots of collusion or are unprovable so automatically false.
Worldcon Members against puppy related sadness mindlessly voting a slate without reading anything, accepted as gospel with no evidence available.
If it weren't for double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
Far East says:
@ Mary Robinette Kowal
Here's is Vox's 2013 blog post where you became a "repeated target", apparently:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-never-will-be-attacks-jerry-pournelle.html
And here is the blog post you posted that sparked him:
A few highlights of your original post:
"Dear Twelve Rabid Weasels of SFWA, please shut the fuck up. I know you value your freedom of speech. Good on you. However there are 1788 other members of SFWA who also value their freedom of speech and manage to exercise it without being raging assholes.
:"Please quit. And by "quit" I mean, please quit SFWA in a huff. Please quit noisily and complaining about how SFWA is censoring you for asking you to stop using hate speech. Please quit and complain about the "thoughtcrime" of asking people not to sexually harass someone. Please quit and bellyache about the good old days when people could be bigoted jerks. I want you to express your opinions clearly so that everyone knows them and knows that you are quitting because the other members of SFWA want you to Shut the Fuck up"
Incidentally, as a military veteran I'm well aware of the frequently expressed (and so very adorable) notion that some precious thing is just too much of an "individual" to ever enlist because creativity or something. Which leads to erudite – in-their-own-mind howlers like telling a libertarian that they are authoritarian because (slam dunk) the write military sci-fi.
It appears that Brad and Larry expected to get one or two or three nominees on the ballot. For the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies between them to nearly sweep the nominations seem to be success beyond their wildest nightmares (as Capt. (ret.) Simon Illyan, Impsec, Barrayar once put it.)
Sorry, wrong link for Mary Robinnette Kowol's hate filled diatribe against the people she "never mentioned" in her blog:
http://maryrobinettekowal.com/journal/dear-twelve-rabid-weasels-of-sfwa-please-shut-the-fuck-up/
And then this reply from MRK in this thread:
" May I ask if you're saying that it's my fault? Because, it sounds like you are blaming me for his threat. That I must have done something to justify being threatened. Is that what you're saying?"
Don't know what he's saying, but that's what I'm saying.
Noah B. says:
Or in your case, and even more ominously, simply for the lack of words. Failure to say the right words at the right time is an unpardonable sin to the SJWs too.
So for those of you who think you'll be spared if you don't speak out or speak too loudly, you're wrong.
The Original Hermit says:
@MRK 'For me, telling people "to nominate them precisely as they are" pushes it considerably beyond just offering a list of options to pick from.'
Please show us a screenshot of where he actually said this. I have been following both Sad and Rabid Puppies closely, and I think I would remember seeing this.
I respect and appreciate your cool words on this issue. However, I wonder what you make of this:
http://www.xojane.com/entertainment/reading-challenge-stop-reading-white-straight-cis-male-authors-for-one-year
Here is a sci-fi writer urging others not to read works by authors based on their race, gender, sexual orientation. This, if adopted, is enough to ruin most writing careers by these authors. And yet, this "writer" who is urging a boycott of other authors does not garner a lot of criticisms from your side. I think this is much worse than calling one specific black author a "half-savage", because this actually can ruin careers.
I'm waiting for the outrage on this from your side, and I don't see it.
Quiet Lurker says:
For those interested, here's the link to an archive.org capture of the blog post that includes the language "to nominate them precisely as they are":
https://web.archive.org/web/20150202122454/http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/02/rabid-puppies-2015.html
As an outsider, I'm wondering how much this schism has to do with big publishing houses vs. small press/independent/self-publishing. Is that a factor? Looking over prior winners, it seems to me that a few big 5 imprints have dominated the awards. I find it odd in this era of "big business bad!" that no one is discussing that angle.
marsultor13 says:
Ms Mary Robinette Kowal forgive me, I am not familiar with your work or much of the inside baseball of professional writing, but I do need some clarification on what you posted. You posted a link to a twitter exchange between you and VD as proof that he threatened to release your personal details. However I do not see any. Did the "page 26" he mentioned contain your personal address? From the context it would seem to be a list of active members but not being in the SFWA or knowing what exactly the "page 26 scan" contains I can not say. From what I can gather the two of you were arguing about whether one Ed Kramer was or was not a member of the SFWA. Could you please explain what the "page 26 scan" was and what information it contained?
As to victim blaming, I for one am skeptical of any cries of "victim blaming" in general, since I have seen so many cases where people who were trying to teach women how not to become victims, such as firearm and self defense instructors, were accused of Victim Blaming. For example do you feel that someone who teaches women how to shoot and prepares them to responsibly carry a concealed firearm (as Larry Correia did for many years) is engaged in "victim blaming"? What about those people in the media who have advised young women not to get so drunk that they are unable to resist becoming a victim such as Emily Yoffe? Please understand, these are not meant to be "gotcha questions" but I am genuinely unfamiliar with your work, either in fiction or your blog and I would simply like to understand the POV you are coming from
MRK – Thanks for providing the screenshots, and thanks to some of the others for providing blogposts in context.
I see where having someone offering/threatening to post a copy of a document containing your home address, presumably where also your family lived and slept – particularly someone with whom you were already at odds – would be upsetting and frightening. I see now where you are coming from with this.
But as an outsider to this incident, and trying to find in this an example of a true threat, this is pretty weak tea, I'm afraid.
Firstly – Twitter has got to be one of the best tools the Devil never made hisself. We have both noted in the last few days how being both polite and clear takes a lot of words.
Secondly – just from the brief exchange you posted, including your remarks to Jim Hines, tempers were already flaring in that exchange.
This is my read of it, with paraphrasing:
MRK: "{rotten people} tried to say that {xyz} because {people} were in SFWA! And they weren't!"
Jim Hines: "{something about how one side has the facts and others dont}" (I don't at all recall what JH's invovement was, but the snide comment about "Reality has a liberal bias" is an old, old card in this exchanges.)
MRK (to JH) :"Right! But why mess with silly things like facts or proof?"
VD: " You're a lying liar who lies. There were too such people in SFWA! Want proof? I can give you proof that Ed Kramer is in SFWA by posting a copy of membership directory page 26 – the page WITH HIS NAME ON IT!"
MRK….*wracks brain trying to remember when Ed Kramer was in SFWA* *goes to old stack of directories, looking for relevant info* Oh, god, VD is right – oh, no – that's not the right year, that was the year before, what an idiot…wait. *looks at the data on that page* Holy cow, that page doesn't just have names, that page also has home addresses on it! Of lots of people! Including me!"
MRK: "VD just threatened to publish my home address!" *blocks VD*
My take aways from this? 1) It is unlikely that VD meant offering to post that information as a threat against your home. It is far more likely that he meant it as an attempt to demonstrate your error that Ed Kramer (who ever that person is) was in SFWA. 2) If VD HAD meant that as a threat against YOU – it was also a threat to disclose the home address of MULTIPLE OTHER PEOPLE who were also listed on that page. Yet you have not mentioned this possibility, nor the danger to other people. 3) Piss-off people shouldn't twit. But we already know that.
Again – I can easily imagine the sick feeling of shock when you looked at that page in the directory and saw not just Kramer's name, but also yours. And I think that – had the two of you been on professional speaking terms, instead of each of you seeing the other as of the Devil's closest advisers, an apology from him to you would have been in order. But instead the two of you remain at odds with each other. (Which hardly makes you unique, but does, I think, elevate VD into somewhat of a narrow group.)
And Twitter remains both stupid and evil – a better communication system, that was less responsive to emotion – would have served you all much better.
Thank you for explaining your position. I followed all of the pertinent links. Thanks for your patience.
Now I'm going to shut the laptop down, get my first cup of coffee, try and ignore my migraine, and report to work.
"It is unlikely that VD meant offering to post that information as a threat against your home. It is far more likely that he meant it as an attempt to demonstrate your error"
I don't think you can say that. Whether one thinks Vox Day is evil or not, that sort of statement could be seen as a threat. Maybe not a serious one, but just a jab at Mary; maybe not a threat at all; but maybe a serious threat. The ambiguity is precisely why they call it a "veiled" threat.
It would have been helpful to call out Vox, specifically asking about his true intent, but in the absence of further evidence to the contrary, and in light of Mary's previous experience with him, I think we have to say that it was reasonable for her to believe that he was threatening her.
@ MRK – also, regarding that infamous post about "12 rabid weasels" – Beale is specifically invoked multiple times in the comments, including by you. It's also a bit disingenuous to say "there are this people who are doing wrong things and enraging me, and they should all leave, but I'm not going to name them!"
I do have to agree with the people in the comments who came to your defense regarding the charge of being passive-aggressive. You were pretty aggressive, if largely unspecific, in your condemnation. And while no names were named, I do admire the purity of the crankiness you expressed. Many a person in that situation would have at least given a sop to their opponents (and the on-lookers) and acknowledged that there were assholes on all sides. You chose a more perfect response and held that all the toxic nastiness came from the non-feminist side.
(I think that was both a tactical and factual error, and was a building block to the divide that exists to this day. But again, neither passive-aggressive, nor compromising.)
Ashterah says:
@keranih
@MRK
Something I doubt that has entered into this conversation is whether Vox had intended to redact the personal identification on the page. Because you know you could post the page and yet block out addresses. But since Vox never posted it, we will never know. So he is to be condemned for NOT doing something that he might not have been doing in the first place. Interesting. And typical.
@Jake –
Your comment about 'veiled threats' is apt. A whisper, an insinuation, a hint – much more difficult to counter than outright action where one named specific names and declared ones self openly. It's part of the whole mess we're dealing with.
It would have been helpful to call out Vox, specifically asking about his true intent
Yes – done immediately would have made it all more clear. To be fair – I allow for the possibility that the realization of posting this page would have released the contact info for multiple people didn't hit MRK, VD, or onlookers until later.
but in the absence of further evidence to the contrary, and in light of Mary's previous experience with him, I think we have to say that it was reasonable for her to believe that he was threatening her.
…emmm. I agree that I don't see her suspicion that he was threatening her to be excessive, and that it was worth calling him on it. In the context of the argument going on at the time, I don't see "of course it was a threat" as a reasonable conclusion.
Quiet Lurker –
Ha, the same post that says:
"I would, of course be remiss if I failed to point out that as one of the very few Native Americans active in science fiction and fantasy, it would be horrifically racist against the First Peoples in general and Native Americans in particular to fail to gift-wrap me awards in all categories for which I am eligible. Because diversity. Thank you."
Yes, I'm sure that was all very serious. By that token are we to believe that a certain individual also believed that Day is literally a rabid weasel?
slarrow says:
Brad, well done for recognizing the trap that your opponents are trying to draw you into. If you "disavow" Vox Day, that wouldn't cleanse you in their eyes, only indicate that you are susceptible to their divide-and-conquer tactics. Then they'd throw up another for you to disavow and another until you're left alone. I recognize that you also are standing firm on a principle, but it's also a good tactical maneuver. Well played.
Chris Gerrib: you don't quite understand. Brad IS the good cop. He's not playing. Vox, however, IS playing, and he's playing bad cop to the hilt. That's why he's referenced the Xanatos gambit the past few week or so.
So let me see if I have this correct. This was part of the public argument as to whether convicted child molester Ed Kramer was still a member of the SFWA. Vox offered/threatened to post the membership directory page with Kramer's name on it as proof. Kowal and Kramer are alphabetically on the same page.
Is that correct so far?
AG says:
OK. I'm getting tired of so much drama these last few days. There's only so much one can take without getting poisoned by so many bad feelings, so I'm going to take a step back for a while, and spend the extra time reading books instead of reading and posting about this.
However, I'll say a few things: M R Kowal has been treating people during this affair with respect, which is something we all know can't be said of everybody. She obviously has an ideology that is quite extreme in certain aspects, but as far as I have experienced personally, she has listened to what everybody had to say and treated people decently. My respect for that.
It also seems that in the past she has been taking part in more unsavory activities, with aggressive diatribes much in the SJW style we know so well. I have also seen her in the comment section of a typical (that is, disturbing and hate-filled) Jemisin blog entry, saying she agrees completely. Regarding the link posted from her blog about the fight at the SFWA, it is extremely incendiary and I do not like it at all, although there I'll reserve judgment because I don't know who the people she was talking about were or had said. I just don't have the energy to investigate. I do know how that business ended up, with the nasty removal of Mike Resnick, who I know did not deserve any of that. That is the problem with SJWs, they can't accept the right of those who do not think like them to disagree about something and continue living in community. It must always be extreme and ending in the moral annihilation of the adversary. That mindset is bullying, unacceptable for civilized people and poisonous for any community. Someone has to stand up to them and show them for what they are.
Having said all that, there is no excuse whatsoever for threatening to publish someone's address and private data. Reading the twitter exchange, it is not clear to me whether VD was threatening that or not, but if he was it would be one step ahead of anything he has been accused of doing. If MRK felt she was being threatened I'm sincerely sorry. It must have been an awful sensation.
Speaking of VD, I'm completely fed up with him and his surrounding drama. I do not want to be associated with him in any way. I agree to a certain extent with what Brad and Larry say that it's not our problem, he doesn't speak for us and we don't speak for him and there's nothing we can do about him, and that there are much more important problems on the table. However, since there seems to be at least a slight connection in the origins of both SP and RP and since one of his stories was in SP2's list, I think there's some fairness in at least asking us about him, and it doesn't help me forget about him when Larry says that "I don't think you guys realize that most of me and Brad's communication with Vox consists of us asking him to be nice and not burn it all down out of spite". I would just prefer not to have anything whatsoever to do about him.
I have not really learned about SP3 until very recently, although I share many of your ideas about the tactics and destructiveness of SJW. I however would very much like it if after this year the SP moved forward and forgot completely about VD. Perhaps make longer lists so that it's not a slate and don't leave "free slots" for VD to complete and that way seem associated with SP.
I'll be following this and I'll keep an eye on SP4, and if I like how things get organized there I'll get involved and help as one more puppy.
At the very least, I want to commend the brave stand of Larry, Brad and everyone involved with this, particularly those who work in the field and risk much more than anonymous fans like me. There are many things that need to be said and are being said thanks to Sad Puppies. Whatever happens in the future, I think many people have heard the message and SJWs will find it a bit more difficult to do their thing. At the very least, we have all learned that the bullies have no real power over us.
Good luck, bye for a while and let's keep enjoying this hobby we love. Let's not let haters drag us into hating!
Well said, AG.
Well, they've managed to disqualify Wright's Hugo nom; I hope nobody has any typos on their registration forms…
Wait, what? Where's this?
Just the Novelette; it's an "existing work" (Published online). Just like Dune, Ender's Game, and Old Man's War But now, it's an issue, apparently.
Salt (@PeterWendtWhere) says:
Many people don't "get" Vox Day. That's understandable. Many people simply refuse to look through his glass darkly and see what he is saying, why he says it, then evaluating on its merit. All the rhetoric thrown his way by detractors who, and I mean this with all the love and understanding I can muster… are so owned.
"OK. I'm getting tired of so much drama these last few days."
Don't you get it? The drama is the point. We've never seen this much honesty from SJWs. When their gut reaction is to emote first, think later, they can't help themselves. Sure, they still speak with forked-tongues. But the more we keep them talking (typing), the more we'll be able to catch them out and expose them for the things we've only guessed at.
SJWs have been indulging in what amounts to an analogy to mass perjury for 5 years now, ever since they adopted their new Jemisin Mascot as the symbol of all justice. There truly is no better symbol for them.
malcolmthecynic says:
In other words: We don't offer up ransoms to the thoughtpolice so they leave us alone.
We are not Vox, and never were. Some of us agree with him, some don't. But 39 lashes isn't going to get them off our back, whatever they promise now.
Brad, you said yesterday that you replied to GRRM's elephant in the room comment on his blog. You might want to check with him, because he's put up a number of new comments since then and yours isn't one of them.
I'm very curious to hear what you had to say. Wouldn't hurt to post it here as well, if you feel so inclined.
Kent18 says:
"Renounce the unclean one! RENOUNCE HIM, we say!"
From the same side that so fervently embraced (and, by and large, still embraces) Requires Hate.
Priceless.
Luis M. Milan says:
If I may, I'd like to share an opinion here, as a reader who likes the works of authors from both sides of this conflict:
Imagine there's a big disagreement between two groups of people living on both sides of a river, the Green people and the Orange people. And both sides are complaining that the other side is catching a lot of fish in the river and leaving it depleted, even if both sides actually catch different types of fish. So there's disagreement, and then there's (metaphorical) fisticuffs, and it escalates into throwing rocks one to another across the river. A Green-versus-Orange war begins.
Except that there's no actual Green tribe: there's a Sad Blue tribe, and a Rabid Yellow tribe (I assume my metaphor it's self-explanatory). And people from the Orange side hate the Yellow leader with a passion, and say: "See? The Greens are following Yellow leader's orders!". And the Blues say: "What the hell are you talking about? He's no Blue, he lives way over there and we live way over here." But, in the eyes of the other side, there are no Blues or Yellows, there are only Greens.
On the other side of the river, the Red tribe have a lot of Winterfoxy Yellows living among them, and they are some of the ones that throw most of the rocks across the river at anyone they see (also, they sometimes tend to throw rocks at the Reds living in their side of the river, too). They don't get invited to tea frequently (go figure!). Many of them have been hurt by rocks before, and they learn to throw rocks at things that don't look as Yellow as they look ("throw rocks unto others before they throw rocks at thee").
And sometimes the Blues cheer whenever the Rabid Yellow throws a particularly big rock across the river, and when a Social Yellow lands a good hit some of the Reds say "Well, he must have done something wrong or that Green wouldn't have been targeted. He probably deserved it". This pisses people off. And so the conflict continues on and on and on…
Meanwhile, the rest of the people living in the area just want the war to stop so we can all go back to eating all kinds of good fish (Kum-ba-ya singing is optional).
… sigh. I think my metaphor got kinda lost in the way between brain and keyboard.
GRRM heavily censors his blog.
Marc DuQuesne (@MC_DuQuesne) says:
Here is the context for that Twitter threat kerfuffle: https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/unpersoning/
Note that the personal information from page 26 was redacted. The actual tweets were in reference to them removing Kramer from the membership rolls that day, then attempting to "Gotcha!" Vox without knowing he had his own screenshot.
Strange, every single time I try to put in the correct link the message won't save. The one time in my attempts through multiple browsers it did save is because I accidentally used an incorrect link . Bizzare, here's a shortened link to the context:
http://goo.gl/lSKT9E
Seth Gordon says:
This whole controversy is about "mere words", is it not? Nobody, as far as I know, is leading a campaign to beat Vox Day up and steal his lunch money, and nobody, as far as I know, has accused him of doing the same thing to anyone else.
The novel Redshirts is mere words. When Vox said, regarding N. K. Jemisin, "genetic science presently suggests that we are not equally homo sapiens sapiens", those were mere words. A list of SF stories is mere words. If I say "Vox Day is a bigot and a disgusting excuse for a human being", those are mere words. And if you, Brad, were to say "I renounce Vox Day and all his works and all his pomp", those, too, would be mere words.
If words are important, then it's fair for me to read the words that someone else has written, and form opinions regarding those words, and discuss those opinions, and make judgements regarding a person's character based on what they do or do not say. It's fair for me to say, based on that judgement, that I do not want to spend money on that person's literary work or endorse him for a literary award.
If words are not important, then the complaints of so-called Social Justice Warriors are unimportant, the Sad Puppies recommendations are equally unimportant, the Hugos (for every category other than Best Professional Artist and Best Fan Artist) are mere trinkets, and only a fool would spend money on books. In which case… why are we all having this discussion?
Please understand that when Vox mentioned the agent JJackson, that this is my agent.
I also understand how, if you have only seen the Twelve Angry Weasels post, it's easy to think that this is standard for me. It is pretty rare that I lose my temper. I lost it the other day with Will Shetterly, without regret. I lost it once with Larry and I do regret that and publicly apologized for it.
But even there, when someone is angry, to me there is a very big difference between calling out bad behavior and dragging individuals through the mud. And honestly, if someone reads that post and identifies *themselves* as someone who sent me hatemail?
Now, someone asked me about Tempest's challenge. She's not calling for a boycott on white authors, although the headline — and remember, authors don't write the headlines — does make it look that way. What she's suggesting is that it's worth taking a year to read outside your normal spectrum.The reason it takes a year, is because there's some deprogramming involved in shedding expectations. For instance, I'm trying to read more non-US authors and at first I kept finding myself thrown when the story didn't go where I expected it to go. My expectations are based on my prior reading experience and those are shaped by books reflecting culture and fashion. And the reason she's specifying white, cis, men is that the majority of the bookstore space is devoted to them.
Look. Try an experiment for me. Next time you're travelling, stop in the airport bookstore and look at the SFF section. Count the number of titles by women. Also pay attention to *when* those books came out compared to when the books by men came out. The number of books published by men and women in SFF is roughly equal. So challenges like this are to try to help people jump out of habits that they don't even realize they have. It's like… for Lent, I'm going to give up chocolate. NO ONE expects that you won't eat chocolate ever again.
Due to cross-posting… @Marc DuQuesne I'm pretty sure, though not 100% sure, that I hadn't seen Vox's post when I was talking with Jim.
Also, as I noted to Vox, if kicking someone out of SFWA was as easy as deleting them from the directory, his ass would have been booted a looooong time ago.
@voxday And believe me, if getting your ass out of SFWA was as easy as deleting a page on a website? But we have due process and all.
— Mary Robinette Kowal@🏡 (@MaryRobinette) June 24, 2014
Please do note that he ends with another threat. "But keep in mind I warned you all that if you chose this path, it would never end."
Bother, I thought that it would just link to the whole conversation.
Here's something that isn't "just mere words":
Child molester.
Marion Zimmer Bradley tortured and sexually molested her own daughter.
Tell you what: if and when I ever see George R.R. Martin, Arthur (noted rape apologist) Chu, Samuel R. Delaney, "Requires Hate," Teresa Nielsen Hayden, N.K. Jemisin, K Tempest Bradford and Mary Robinette Kowal all flatly and unambiguously denounce and "unperson" Bradley — sans any fannish codicils or ameliorants whatsoever — I'll give it all fair and due consideration.
MRK –
I salute your continued engagement here.
I do agree that the "12 Rabid Weasels Post" was out of character for what I've seen from you in the last bit. It is an aweful thing when we are best known for the worst thing we have ever done.
IMO this is why it is so important that we all of us keep our tempers and avoid loosing our shit at each other, even when – no, especially when we are most convinced of our righteousness.
I hold that your characterization of KTB's words are deeply incorrect: first, she was not broadening her reading, she was restricting it. And secondly she was restricting it with the goal of avoiding people who made her angry. In other words, people she disagreed with.
From the XOjane article: http://www.xojane.com/entertainment/reading-challenge-stop-reading-white-straight-cis-male-authors-for-one-year
Then I thought: What if I only read stories by a certain type of author? Instead of reading everything, I would only look at stories by women or people of color or LGBT writers. Essentially: no straight, cis, white males.
Cutting that one demographic out of my reading list greatly improved my enjoyment of reading short stories. That's not to say I didn't come across bad stories or offensive stuff in stories or other things that turned me off. (emphasis mine)
Had KTB actually encouraged expanding reading lists, and talked about the pros and cons of doing so, that would have been an entirely different article and it might have gotten an entirely different reception.
Any of the SP who openly advocated deliberately choosing to not read any works by homosexuals, or by women, or by non-Caucasians on the grounds that among those writers they frequently encountered ideas that made them angry (or even uncomfortable) – that person would likely be widely mocked as a racist, sexist knuckledragger. See the continued struggle of SP supporters against the charge that they don't like women writers – no matter how many times one repeats that it is that one doesn't like crap work or non SFF work by writers, period this gets lost.
I don't want to get too far into the weeds on the issue of "fair presentation in publishing" – much less in bookstores – because holy moley that is a deep hole. With regards to the problems that are there – KTB's call was a singularly unhelpful one.
Often, though, we don't know what works – or what will offend others of a different pov – until we throw it out there and see what sticks. I am not calling for any one to denounce anyone – particularly I find it unappealing for us-as-a-mass-of-strangers on the internet to call upon someone to publicly denounce someone they consider a friend.
(And MZB is dead, even if the people who were/may have been her victims are not.)
I would, however, appreciate accuracy on all sides about repeated accusations about what other people have said or done.
For all the mess that is, I have to note that in some places it is going better than I thought it might.
sfmurphy1971 says:
I like how it is that Tempest gets a free pass for her behavior. Reminds me of how it is that my younger brother could engage in endless mischief, misbehavior, and get an exempt card every time.
Or better yet, a comment I have seen repeated lately, "Well, I don't approve of her behavior but . . . blah, blah, blah," and then she is forgiven.
Just a general comment concerning her overall history over the past few years.
I disagree about how you interpret Tempest's disgusting challenge. She's not calling you to expand your reading horizons. She completely avoids authors based on the color of their skin, their gender, and sexual orientation. She could ask people to also read non-white authors, but no, she has to exclude them completely.
Just imagine a white male author whose books are not read for a year. That person is done as a published author.
Just imagine if someone said that this year they will not read any works by black authors. Would that not be a boycott? I think you would call it that, and you'd be right.
Your side has allowed people to talk trash about white males, and now to even take exclusionary action against them. I find that appalling.
Your example about chocolate is incorrect. Chocolate is not people.
"The first time she molested me, I was three.
"The last time, I was twelve, and able to walk away."
— Moira Greyland, daughter of MZB, and sexual abuse survivor
You know, it occurs to me that if Tempest were a college professor and she issued such a challenge that she could be charged with a Title IX violation.
Just sayin'. Title IX violations are pretty serious.
It's too bad Dierdre Saoirse Moen, who "broke the news" (in the sense of reminding people about uncomfortable stuff that was already in the public record) about MZB last year, did not end up with a Hugo nomination for Best Fan Writer.
maybe the that in that meatloaf song is renouncing vox days racism
keranih,
In that case, it should be quite easy for the SJW's to denounce her. They don't even need to worry about backlash. Or denounce Arthur Chu.
I want to thank you again for giving your side of things. I have to own up to not knowing how to interpret things.
However, I do see how you could feel that you were threatened. I could go into a long winded explanation why I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation, but I don't think that will change anything.
I think the best thing to acknowledge is that we have very different world views, which color how we interpret things. For reference, I'm a Viet Vet who interprets things how I've lived. That experience, and the two decades after {70's and 80's} color how I interpret life.
Saying that, I'm still sorry you feel threatened by Vox.
I don't agree with "unpersoning," whoever does it. I don't agree with kicking anyone out of the human race. For one thing, it's far too easy an out. But I can tell you that I have seen numerous blog posts from people on what was my "side" denouncing Requires Hate and not one, not *one*, supporting or embracing her. So, there's that.
I haven't seen many denouncing MZB or Walter Breen, and perhaps that is something what was my "side" should look into. Though, as keranih says, she is dead, the legacy of her private evils is not going away any time soon. Whether it is linked to her politics or her religion is too deep an ocean for me to plumb, but if we are to assume that Vox's opinions are linked to his, then we should at least consider it as a possibility, while of course bearing in mind, as with Vox, that many good people share those politics and that religion.
I felt that Tempest's challenge was all about "fair representation in publishing," which is why I believe there's no equivalence between it and keranih's hypothetical reverse case. I could be wrong on that. Reading *any* books I don't already own is a rare pleasure these days, and most of my old sff books are by white people (of both genders).
Anyway. I have strongly–possibly a little too strongly; I was angry–registered my disgust with anyone on my side who prefers fighting this singularly unrewarding fight rather than trying to get along. I am now, as far as said fight is concerned, not altogether on anyone's "side," because nobody is altogether on my "side," if you understand me; but Larry and Brad do have a point as regards liberal internet fandom at least, and *their* act (LIF's, just to be clear) could do with some cleaning up before they start on any motes that might be in your eyes.
I don't agree with "unpersoning," whoever does it. I don't agree with kicking anyone out of the human race. For one thing, it's far too easy an out. But I can tell you that I have seen numerous blog posts from people on what was my "side" denouncing Requires Hate and not one, not *one*, supporting or embracing her.
"Denounced" so thoroughly and unambiguously, RH actually ended up with a John W. Campbell Award nomination.
Wow. You monsters, you.
I do agree that the "12 Rabid Weasels Post" was out of character for what I've seen from you in the last bit. It is an awful thing when we are best known for the worst thing we have ever done.
bassmanco says:
Seth Gordon, the rape apologist. Hope that makes you feel all warm and cuddly inside.
Vivienne Raper says:
@Mary,
> The number of books published by men and women in SFF is roughly equal.
This simply isn't true in SF (unless you have better stats than I do). Tor.co.uk in the first half of 2013 found that, out of 503 submissions, only 22% of submissions to SF were from women (http://www.torbooks.co.uk/blog/2013/07/10/sexism-in-genre-publishing-a-publishers-perspective). There's a similar 2002/2007 study (in Strange Horizons) on short stories published in big US magazines. Also around 20-30% female submissions.
That suggests women aren't getting overlooked at the prize stage. They were never in contention in the first place. The question is why fewer women submit…
Tywin Lannister says:
I don't unperson anyone.
I express myself in the true American way.
Piss me off, I don't read your shit.
This Lannister sends his regards. 🙂
bassmanco: huh?
as far as the SFWA membership info, how public is that info to start with? If it's generally available, then publishing a screenshot of it isn't doing anything wrong.
JSmo says:
It's not just that he has views I "disagree" with. It's that he's an all around terrible person who's said, and done, terrible things.
http://www.fstdt.com/Search.aspx?Fundie=Vox+day (Wright's also on their a bunch)
And yes, he has posted personal information about critics before.
"I noticed that the number of fake reviews of my books on Amazon declined considerably after I tracked down the woman from Minnesota and posted her address on this blog." – http://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/to-sign-or-not-to-sign.html
I would take your point about Bradford were it a thing that had happened in isolation. But it didn't. Her entire history within fandom is one of flat out racial incitement against whites. The reason she does that is because she feels immunity to do so thanks to her own intersectional ideology's self-created "punching up" theory. She also feels that immunity because "diversity" has been self-evidently been used as an attack platform to call out whites. Third: this great idea about "diversity" is just as self-evidently and mysteriously never applied to anyone but whites.
When is obvious obvious?
Conversely, just by waking up in the morning I become part of a racially dismissive cult of "white privilege," and without trial or charges. What incredible standard is in play there?
Given Bradford's history, to believe "she's specifying white, cis, men" because of a devotion to fair play is laughable. One does not call whites "cracka ass cracka" or write "white people fear us," – aside from dozens of other inflammatory comments – when one is an "anti-racist."
Give us the credit for at least not basing this on lies. These are quotes. If you are so ready to stand by the idea Sad Puppies is a racist anti-non-white and anti-women initiative based on no quoted rhetoric to that effect, then in a world of logic you must be moved by Bradford's years of racial incitement.
Your initiatives would also have more credibility if you would stand by this idea of de-racializing or de-womenizing any other cultural artifact in America – a thing I personally find repugnant. The idea of calling for people to listen to fewer black blues musicians is insanely racist, especially were it to come from a white person with a history of anti-black comments.
Should we believe Men's Rights Activists if they come to us with big sad eyes and ask us to read fewer women romance authors? This entire thing leads to no good place. Make all the explanations you want – it's obvious we're not having it; and look at the result.
And, again – just ACCIDENTALLY all-white or all-male book displays, convention panels and any other accidental demographic becomes a white male supremacist ideology. By the same token, obvious expressions of racialized ideological expressions which support the intellectual, moral and spiritual inferiority of the white male suddenly becomes "we just want a seat at the table."
When is obvious obvious? I have quotes to that effect that run into the literal thousands. THOUSANDS!!! And against that you stack ACCIDENTAL demographic spikes that are otherwise conspicuously ignored by these exact same people in boxing, basketball, romance, rap, Samba, Bollywood and a thousand other things I could mention.
When is obvious obvious? What is the standard here? A standard of fair play? A standard all can benefit by. What is it, and where is it? What does the word "harassment" mean? Well, almost anything with punching up power-privilege theory. What does "racism" mean? Nothing. What does "hate speech" mean? Nothing. And this from a community of WRITERS? From where – the Ministry of Truth?
Nope, no, nyet, não.
Kent18: Benjanun Sriduangkaew, the new writer, got a Campbell nomination in the spring of 2014, but it was not until September of 2014 that she revealed herself to be the same person as Requires Hate, the blogger. It's not unreasonable to believe that most of the people who nominated her for the Campbell were unaware of her other identities.
Laura J. Mixon wrote a thorough report of everything that RH had done under her various aliases. And this year, Mixon has a Hugo nomination for "Best Fan Writer". She is the only nominee who wasn't on either of the Puppy slates.
Make of that what you wish.
@Mary
This "threat" was perfectly legal, and in my opinion, also perfectly justifiable — unlike Vox's expulsion from SFWA, which did not proceed according to its own bylaws. Legal threats are embedded in the fabric of our legal system: most lawsuits begins with one in the form of a demand letter. If this reality is too overwhelming for you, consider finding a safe hole to hide in for the rest of your days. Best of luck.
This entire thing leads to no good place. Make all the explanations you want – it's obvious we're not having it
[::Insert Thunderous Standing Ovation Here;;]
BTW Mary, would you classify that particular "threat" from Vox as a death threat or a rape threat?
Well, they know who Requires Hate is NOW, and they're buying her stories. Go look at who's hanging out with her on Twitter.
SURPRISE!! Anti-racist SJWs!!
Guess who was hanging out with her at her blog.
SURPRISE!!! The same SJW anti-racists!!
When does that ever happen. Mebbe during some confluence of planets?
As for Mixon's report, let me spell it out for you:
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
@James: What exactly is bullshit about Mixon's report?
It's not just that he has views I "disagree" with.
Looks like he's just posted something new, so he's there right now — this very moment — for you to debate, or upbraid, or what-have-you. Have at it.
Brad Torgersen isn't Vox Day. Sad Puppies aren't Rabid Puppies.
Just how many times, exactly, does this need to be explained, anyway…?
[::shakes head, disbelievingly::]
Majestic_Moose says:
Good to see I'm not the only one who thinks of Vox as a Shock Jock.
Well, they know who Requires Hate is NOW, and they're buying her stories.
Well, it's an exquisitely subtle form of "denouncing," granted…
Easier to say what isn't bullshit about that report.
Go read Mixon's "Patriarch's Day Part IV." It could've been written by Requires Hate herself, minus the vulgar humor. The commenters are also a perfect match, even some of the same ones that were at RH's site.
This entire feminist feud over RH is a supremacist cult arguing over pedantic protocols about how high a door should be to enable easier access to THE MAN.
It's along the lines of: No.1 rule of Fight Club: you do not criticize a PoC – EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Verstehen Sie??????
RH broke the rules. They'll take her back. The alternative is to treat straight white men as if they were human. Look who's arrayed on either side of this feud. It's all speakers-to-white-men. The sad, the oppressed, the marginalized.
And their sad racist clowns crying down by the river.
Buying RH's stories is more clever white diabolism. Wheels within wheels within wheels. We'll drive her normal. Next: Strange Horizons will have an all-Vox Day issue to further confuse everyone. Then: the Larry Correia Destroys Science Fiction special edition at Lightspeed. Then… they swoop in for the kill.
@Mary, am I correct in understanding the tweet exchange with the threat of it never ending was after his expulsion? B/C to me it reads very much as a notice of the very very slippery slope of expelling a member for his political views.
@Kent18
*snort* Indeed. Far too fine a distinction for this hick.
(And it shows yet another utility in not playing the "I denounce him! I am now clean!" games – ever – it saves on having to eat crow when it turns out you were wrong.)
(Ah, for the perfection of the moral clarity of my youth, when All that I ever did was Right.)
As far as I can tell, the only editor who has bought RH's stuff since her shenanigans were revealed is Neil Clarke. She had one story published on tor.com this year, but in the comments, an editor disclaims that "the story was written, purchased, and scheduled months before the controversy came to light".
So "they're buying her stories" is perfectly correct, if by "they" you mean "at most one of them".
I just pointed out him spreading the address of a woman and her immediate family. Forgive me for being a little weary of his "mere words"
And I know he's not Vox. However, Brad's adamant refusal to call him out on his behavior and actions (which he denies even exists) because it's apparently "unpersoning" is very telling.
Not half so "telling," IMHO, as is your steadfast and inexplicable refusal to head over to Day's site — literally, a single click! of the mouse away — rather than mewling continuously (and ineffectually) over here about it.
BE the change! Speak Truth to Power!
Well, Seth. They didn't have to publish it, did they?
@ JSmo –
Again, Vox ain't here. You know were to find him.
Having said that: that *is* a new charge (posting information against a reviewer) against VD – I give you 5 points for originality. (Minus ten for attempting to use a sound bite generator – which completely separates passages from context – as "proof".)
Information for broader context: 'Am I being Catfished by Kathleen Hale http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/oct/18/am-i-being-catfished-an-author-confronts-her-number-one-online-critic
Much has been banded about lately regarding false reviews and people using the internet to attack authors and fans. I don't know enough about the situation with VD and that reviewer to make a judgement. And I'm not your "hunt down VD" monkey, JSmo.
I'd like to thank those of you who actually listened to me, even if you didn't agree with me.
Now. I'm going to leave with these words, which I expect many of you to mock. When a women has been actually harassed or assaulted — Not she says she has, but she has. In your own head, pick the thing that happened to her — the reaction you showed here to me is a textbook case of what will happen to her.
And this, my fellow SFF fans, is why women don't feel safe reporting harassment. This is why people got away with it for so long at conventions. And this is why the rules are changing.
Again, thank you for your time and energy.
Forgive me of being a bit weary of a man who admitted to posting the address of someone's family on a site where I can't post anonymously. (Besides, I've already called him out on a bunch of other sites.)
And this, my fellow SFF fans, is why women don't feel safe reporting harassment.
Moira Greyland certainly didn't.
That… is who you were talking about, right?
(Besides, I've already called him out on a bunch of other sites.)
"It doesn't really matter if I actually have the barest, baseline amount of courage necessary to tell that big kid over there what I really think of him, to his face. I've already spray painted absolutely scathing graffiti about him in various other parts of town!"
Pitiful.
SumDood says:
@Vivienne Raper:
"There's a similar 2002/2007 study (in Strange Horizons) on short stories published in big US magazines. Also around 20-30% female submissions.
The first word in science fiction is SCIENCE. Which is a subject which the vast majority of women deem themselves to be uninterested in, if you believe the NY Times statistics.
I bet there is a similar lopsidedness to the gender of authors that submit to Cosmopolitan. Would the SJW cult be equally chagrined about that imbalance?
@James: There are a number of non-Puppy SF fans (including Mary Robinette Kowal and John Scalzi, IIRC) who have encouraged their peers to read all the Hugo nominees and vote for them according to their literary merit alone. In that same spirit, perhaps the Tor editors decided that since they bought RH's story based on its literary merit, they were honor-bound to publish it. Or perhaps they decided that since the story was already in the pipeline and their check had been cashed, publishing it would be following the path of least resistance. Or perhaps they decided that their duty as good SJWs was to close ranks with their comrade.
All three of those theories are consistent with the evidence that I have before me. Your mileage may vary, especially if you consider "SJWs always close ranks with one another" to be an accepted fact.
Another fact to consider: compared to how prolific she was in 2014, RH has barely published anything in 2015. This may be a sign that editors have backed away from her. Or it may be a sign that she is taking a break from short stories and working on a novel. Who can tell?
That's a brilliant Machiavellian exploitation of women who have actually been harassed or assaulted for your own personal gain. You're immune from criticism and being held responsible for your statements because somewhere out there, there's a woman who actually has been abused. Nice move.
Ashley J. Williams says:
It's unfortunate that you had an experience during which you felt threatened, but attempting to guilt everyone for pointing out that your stated experience does not quite match up to reality isn't going to do your cause any favors.
You claimed that you had never written anything to instigate a response from Vox Day, but that was shown to be false. Your attack on Pournelle and his supporters in the SFWA (one of whom was Vox) was quite clear. It doesn't matter how "out of character" it was. You wrote it. Subsequent comments then called Vox out by name.
You then claim that Vox Day threatened to doxx you…but the context in which that exchange happened was about proving that Ed Kramer was a member of the SFWA, information located on the aforementioned "page 26" scan. This would be evidence to prove his position correct, would it not? That was the point in contention, was it not?
While Vox Day IS the Internet equivalent of a shock jock, and he is undoubtedly a dick who often writes things just to bait others who don't agree with him, that's how he gets his critics to bite. He's also a scary savvy guy who backs up his threats. I just don't see any actual threat here, and he certainly never posted the scan.
I appreciate your civil discourse, but what bothers me is your accusing others of victim-blaming as you head for the exit. Claiming that women don't feel confident coming forward with reports of harassment because others may actually question them rather than simply accepting the veracity of their claims whole hog is both dishonest and manipulative.
Take that guilt someplace else. Shame doesn't work here.
"…many of the terms have mutable meanings" – Mary R. Kowal addressing her use of definitions on her post about the Hugos.
hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha
Doooooooooonnnnngggggggggggggggg
Oops, gotta go, the clock just struck 13 and I'm having lunch at the center of the spinning Earth with The Mole Man. He's not actually a mole man at all but a giant intelligent crab. Well, actually he's kinda stupid, but you know what I don't mean. Don't/do you?
dkeie99elzl)) – Feminist motto
"Harassment" is not defined by one's feelings. We have repeatedly seen the bar for what constitutes "harassment" lowered for feminists until an arched eyebrow is "harassment."
On the other hand, apparently no white or male has ever risen to the strict feminist standard of "harassment" in the history of SFF internet fandom.
Until that is straightened out and "harassment" becomes less "mutable," you'll find no tracks in my heart, nor will anyone who seeks to constrict my rights with silly double standards.
Seth, I'm guessing she painted a small tunnel mouth on a wall and then repeatedly tried to crawl into. That alone will severely hamper anyone's literary output.
It's even worst than that: flouncing off in high dudgeon, while simultaneously invoking the shades of hypothetical female victims of abuse… she sullenly refuses even so much as a murmur in support of an actual one (i.e., Moira Greyland); or the merest breath of condemnation, re: her incestuous, rapist mother.
Evidently, not peeling Vox Day in the public square, with a flensing knife, over his use of words (thereby hurting someone's fragile, gossamer fee-fees) = OMG SERIOUS ABSOLUTE ENDORSEMENT YOU GUYS!!!11!!
Wonder what that makes anyone who refuses to apply the exact same "Unperson them, NOW!" standards towards the principled denouncement of some soulless,m conscienceless creature who tortured and sexually assaulted her own three-year-old daughter…?
Yeah. I wonder.
I'm not going to mock. I take you entirely seriously. Which is to say that I believe you chose your words with great care in order to make your point.
Which that you said when a woman has been actually harassed or assaulted – you absolutely meant it.
Women. Who must always be believed, must not be questioned, and can not possibly be incorrect, mistaken, or lying their asses off.
There is no room in your pov for men who have been assaulted. There is no room in your pov for the possibilty of women manipulating and abusing other people by filing false claims. There is no room for the possibility of self-identified POCs as vicious, nasty, bigoted people who enjoyed making other people hurt.
In the world you've constructed, there is no possibility that Emmett Till didn't actually assault anyone. There is no possibility that a group of people with a grudge to grind got handed an inaccurate account by someone who was over reacting to an emotional situation. This is the world you're building. AGAIN. AFTER WE JUST BARELY GOT RID OF THE OLD ONE.
Instead, you hold onto the refined definitions of racism and sexism that it only can be applied against women, and only against people of ethnic minorities, and only against non-het people, instead of remaining open to the possibility that every one of us can be utter freaking assholes to each other.
And when you are presented with the evidence of specific asshole behavior on the part of specific women, on the part of specific people of color, on the part of specific "non-cis" people – you retreat to the idea that this all part of a general tendencies on the part of American society against women and minorities and the QUILTBAG community.
You remove their agency and make them helpless against general social attitudes, and you just tried to do that to yourself.
No. Not letting you do that. You went off on a scrapping screed against a group of your peers, and you got some pushback. You were the President – not the secretary. You were in the position of authority as a past president. You got into an argument with VD over the status of EK in SFWA, and he said he would prove you wrong, using an official document of the SFWA. The "threat" was appears to be no more than a side step in that argument. You prioritize your emotional reaction and failed to take into account the intent and the actual actions – and you erase any responsibility on your part to look at it from anyone else's pov.
As a fellow woman – stop it. Stand up and own your own space and quit asking others to defend it for you.
When people tell you these other people are being derogatory towards other people on the basis of their gender, their race and their sexual orientation LISTEN TO THEM.
When people tell you "the way you are using that word is shutting down convos and enraging people" listen to them, and quit telling them that you have the right to define words how ever you like.
When people say there are lying liars out there who lie to us and about us RESPECT THEIR OPINION. You are perfectly right if you ask for proof. When they deliver the proof, listen to it.
And when people say I hear you have an accusation against someone else, please expand on your accusation QUIT TELLING THEM THEY ARE EXCUSING RAPISTS.
Given the context of the whole damn exchange, which was in the SFF's community's broad refusal to deal with MZB and EK,(*) your reaction to polite requests for substantive information and to dispassionate examination of the incident is particularly troublesome.
Again – do not mistake me for mocking. I'm not laughing.
We are, however, in the same boat, in the same Fandom, and I would hope eventually to have the chance to fangirl at you at a con sometime, and buy you a beer, and talk about this whole dang mess.
(*) To be fair, I think EK got caught sooner and dealt with more appropriately. Reducing this to a soundbite is not helpful.
HURRIED NOTE TO SELF: Never, ever, e-v-e-r piss keranih off.) 😉
Just so you don't get the wrong idea, unlike some of the more respectful people here, I am most definitely mocking and laughing. The hilarity of someone successfully masquerading as a feminist progressive and yet refusing to stand up for rape victims against the wealthy and powerful is just too much. Don't ever change!
Back off cis-hets, and stack your privilege up over there before coming in. We have rules against undermining anyone's lived experience, just so you know. Learn to #JustListen, like a giant ear, and don't diminish the words of any marginalized folks, cuz that's a creeper move. Don't mess with anyone's agency, and try and diminish your own. Otherwise, enjoy yourself.
A more general note:
When a person has been illegally or unacceptably damaged by another person, two things have happen: One person has broken the rules, and another person has been damaged. (I simply down to one person on each side for clarity. Complex situations are complex.)
The damaged person – the complainant – needs protection from further harm and to be healed of the harm they have received, so they can go back to operating normally in society.
The person who has been broken the rules needs to be investigated and dealt in a manner that discourages similar incidents in the future (by this person and by others.)
These can be competing processes, with bad trade-offs that happen when one arm is over-emphasized. We have not done a good job in our society in sorting out how to delegate these competing processes – both of which are vital.
Both of these processes have been (somewhat) refined by professionals in the field in order to best deal with the issue before them. The layman's primary role to is avoid fucking things up for everyone involved by taking actions based on assumptions unsupported by facts. In other words, NO FUCKING LYNCH MOBS. No god-damn re-victimization of the damaged person.
Evidence needs to be collected. Statements must be made. Collaborating witnesses and refuting witnesses must be found. The rights of the accused must be respected. Care must be given to the complainant. The actual sequence of events and the occurrence of a crime must be established.
In general, you as the accused and you as the complainant should each have two different groups of people taking care of you – your friends, lawyers, and social workers who will watch out for you and help protect you, and the authorities and the public, who must see to it that the proper process is served to allow for the best outcome by that societies' rules.
These are two different jobs. It is not the role of society to act as your particular shoulder – there are a million other victims out there who also need help – and a million others accused of crimes who need a fair trial and rehabilitation. Nor is it the role of society to wreck particular vengeance upon you or for you.
Your friends, lawyers and social workers should believe you (as either complainant or accuser) and support you. It would be a betrayal of their role to say "I don't believe you."
BUT THE WHOLE INTERNET IS NOT YOUR FRIENDS. Nor your lawyer. Nor your lynch mob. It is a betrayal of our roles as adult citizens if we attempt to pretend that is what we are.
Well, if you remove the sexist gendering of that comment, it pretty much exactly describes GRRMs response to Larry's Worldcon experience. Nicely played if it was conscious.
Well said, Keranih.
it pretty much exactly describes GRRMs response to Larry's Worldcon experience.
Right? The most jaw-droppingly surreal inquisition since the days of Cotton Mather: "Now, Larry… are you absolutely certain you didn't maybe somehow entice those people into spitting on you in the con suite, or to make the horned Sign of the Beast at you whenever you passed by in the corridor? Don't you think that, just possibly, that slutty come-hither get-up of yours bears at least some of the responsibility, here? And are you were keeping your knees together while on the con panel…?"
"And are you sure". Dammit
Because twitter is something he'll completely miss. Now, if you could get your head out of your posterior, that would be lovely.
And what's the deal with "mere words" anyway. You're a professional writer, you should know what "mere words" can do.
Because twitter is something he'll completely miss.
Whatever helps you to sleep tonight, little bunny.
You're still a naked, shivering coward, though.
I wonder how you sleep at night knowing you're defending a man who has said that raping women is better for society than letting them have jobs. Repeatedly.
Really? Links or STFU. Repeatedly.
What is it with the WHtM trolls? Yeesh.
And I do love how atheists don't get when Vox is mocking them. Really, it's fascinating. You'd think they'd eventually catch on when he *comes rights out and says it*.
JSmo defends the Nationalist Socialist Feminist Party. That's pretty bad.
you're defending a man
Show us all, exactly, where I'm supposed to be "defending" him,poppet. Point to it.
I'll wait.
Nothing whatsoever, then…?
So noted.
James M. says:
Ms. Kowal "Speaking as someone who has been the repeated target of Vox Day, this strategy does not work. Until April 11, 2015, I have NEVER mentioned him on my blog. EVER. I have him blocked on all social media.
He has threatened to post where I live. And yes, he could, because he has the SFWA directory.."
He only started mentioning you because of your "12 rabid weasels" comment while he was still a member of SFWA during the 2013 scandal. It looked like an attempt to purge the membership rolls so he commented on it.
And threatened to post where you live? No he didn't do that. I just checked his archives. He posted Ed Kramer as being still listed in the SFWA directory (as a convicted child molestor) and your name came before his so he posted them both, but the addresses were redacted.
but the addresses were redacted.
[::mic drop::]
How many more years will it take to explain what a strike zone is to a gender feminist?
60guilders says:
@Kent18: My good sir, I am offended at your comparison between Cotton Mather and the people carping about Larry Correia.
Cotton Mather actually changed his mind when the facts were in.
@James May –
VD originally offered to post a scan, rather than the screenshot and text he later put up. A scan would have potentially included the info.
@keranih-"VD originally offered to post a scan, rather than the screenshot and text he later put up. A scan would have potentially included the info."
He did where? Not on his blog, and I'm not James May.
James, my apologies, of course you're not. My error.
The offer to post a scan was what MRK shared with us upthread, in a twitter convo.
I suspect at least a large portion of ongoing misunderstandings is one person shouting on twitter, another on a blog, a third on a second blog, and someone else is on facebook and in a forum simultaneously Then the buzzer goes off, they all switch to new chairs – and the one on email gets out of bed – and then they all start shouting again, as if they could be assured that the other ones are listening. Rinse, repeat.
I didn't read the thread until now. Anyway that's not really a "threat" against her. It was to prove that Ed Kramer was still in SFWA, which Mary denied. Of course she thought it was all about her.
Bob Eggleton says:
This is tremendous Brad. Really well said and well written. Sums it all up.
Here's one of my favorite Kowal posts:
http://maryrobinettekowal.com/journal/revising-weaving-dreams/
Lavie Tidhar red-flagged her on Twitter for crimethink. Ace PoCsplainer Aliette de Bodard was immediately consulted.
Just remember, if you've "perpetrated racist and colonialist tropes" by using "half-breed" in a fictional story, revise it. "Diminutive half-breed… is a pejorative term." Replace it with "petite Hidden Person." Then niceness will descend on you like a perfumed mist-tent at a Lilith Festival.
Dear.
@James May
After reading Kowal's "Weaving Dreams" posts, I realize I was far too civil in my response to her. She's much too entrenched in her solipsism and the SJW muck. No wonder she thinks Vox Day "threatened" her; how could it have been about anyone or anything else?
Vox Day could have just quickly blacked out (either physically or in Photoshop) the personal info before he published the scan. Either way, given what he eventually posted it's pretty clear to me that it was never his intention to publish anyone's personal information.
@ Ashley – I largely agree. (And not just because "would he have published it" is a hypothetical that we've already given far more thought to than needed.) Given the level of distrust between them, I completely understand Kowal feeling that it was a threat.
I am beginning to find the "OMG VD IS EVUL" accusations tiresome. If people came up and said "He's an obnoxious ass who delights in picking fights and entangling people into 'gotcha' arguments – and oh btw he's conservative" I would have to agree, yes, that is so, but it's not clear to me why this is my concern
But they keep claiming he's done actual evil things – mostly on the grounds that he disagrees with their opinions, and with the most cobwebby skeins of proof.
(Again, when it becomes illegal to be an arse on the interwebs, let me know. I have a list of people I would like to, out of the kindness of my heart need to, as a concerned citizen, warn of the change in law.)
My largest concern at this point is that he does slip over into doing something worse than having unsavory opinions, and because the adults in the room have gotten so tired of the crying wolf, people get actually hurt before he gets shut down.
Have you ever seen Petite Hidden Person-Tossing? That's pretty good.
David, internet troll says:
Then, I didn't say anything because he was so busy bitch-slapping them and I was laughing so hard that I couldn't stop. So, that turned out well.
jayn says:
Just wondering, would those of you demanding MZB's posthumous immolation on the pyre of all her books demand the same for Arthur C. Clarke? Why or why not? I ask merely out of curiosity.
Just wondering, would those of you demanding MZB's posthumous immolation on the pyre of all her books demand the same for Arthur C. Clarke?
Depends. Any charges versus Clarke backed up by first-hand testimony — in the form of (oh, say) a sworn deposition — by one of his purported victims?
Said victim(s) sexually tortured, as well as raped?
Said victim(s) three years old at the time of the first assault; a horrifying series of which continued for a decade afterwards?
Said victim(s) his own offspring?
None of these are in any way meant to diminish or wave off the monstrous nature of Clarke's own alleged crimes, obviously. Were similarly convincing evidence of loathsomeness on his part to be offered up as well, I, personally, would have no problem whatsoever excising him from the SF body politic right alongside the demonstrably soulless MZB.
Unless and until such time, however: it would appear you are comparing apples to ostriches.
@ jayn –
Kent18 doesn't speak for me. No. No calls for denouncing anyone, or striking their names from the book, or anything of the like.
This is not the same as "ignoring what is going on" – and it is not the same as insisting everyone invite everyone else to ones home (or webpage.)
There is room to discuss what are appropriate punishments/repercussions for offenses – but that is moot here, as both are dead.
Kent18 doesn't speak for me.
Hence the "I, personally." 😉
But if it is moot because both of them are dead, why are people's opinions here being disqualified depending on their attitude toward the dead? And if convincing witnesses ever appear concerning Clarke's statements to the Mirror regarding his use of pubescent male prostitutes, would that mean to you, Kent18, that his great body of SF work would suddenly lose all value? And would keranih than be considered an apologist for rape for not thinking the same?
Begging your pardon – I hasten to add, statements to the Mirror that Clarke denied later having made?
Clarke's statements to the Mirror regarding his use of pubescent male prostitutes
Post links, please. I'll need to see these for myself, first.
And would keranih than be considered an apologist for rape for not thinking the same?
Nice try.
@Jayn
Remember that it's the SJW side that's calling for the 'unpersoning', not us. We don't think it's right to 'unperson' anyone.
We are just pointing out the hypocrocy of the SJW side for demanding that we 'unperson' Vox while they refuse to 'unperson' MZB and continue to 'excuse' her.
As Brad says, we don't have to agree with someone or like them to decide that we aren't going to 'unperson' them.
I admit I have only the most superficial knowledge of the whole scandal, as to who Vox Day is and why he was expelled from the SFWA. I gather from his detractors' quotes of him that he regularly makes blatantly racist statements, as well as sexist and homophobic ones. I gather from his SUPPORTERS on this thread that he is an asshole. I also gather that they believe him a "shock jock" who (as far as I understand the term) says things he doesn't mean to get attention.
For youse who think he doesn't REALLY mean all those vile things he says, I'd be much obliged if you'd show me some quote of his where he disavows such views. Otherwise, I'll take him at his word (and his own supporters' opinion) as far as I know it and presume him a racist, sexist, homophobic asshole. Which he is, of course, free to be. But why is the refusal of the SJWA to be obliged to associate with a living racist, sexist, homophobic asshole by expelling him an "unpersoning" equivalent to demanding dead MZB's or ACC's works be sent to the flames?
I gather that VD is an SF writer. I have never read his work (not a reflection on his politics, I can only afford to read a little these days). He may very well be a good one. But if his way to get attention for his work is to spout racist, sexist, homophobic drivel (in "shock jock" fashion or in deadly earnest) instead of letting the merit of his work get the attention, I can't help but believe he isn't all THAT good.
I also gather that VD's enthusiastic support for Torgeson's cause was what pushed it to the success it has achieved thus far. So I find Brad's noble refusal to condemn racism and homophobia and his statement that he wishes to hover above the disgusting muck and mire of such condemnation as things that are beneath him just a TAD disingenuous. He's not just refusing to condemn VD out of the perfection of his tolerance and open-mindedness. He OWES VD big time, because without VD he wouldn't have the attention and the microphone he has now. But he can't accept the enthusiastic embrace and boost of a man who rolls in shit for a living and come out unstained, no matter how loftily he declares that his cleanliness is unsmirched. Marko Kloos understood that, hence his refusal of the Hugo nomination. I have to say, that makes me want to spend my limited cash more on trying out a work of Kloos' than one of VD's. Or Torgerson's.
@jayn:
Still waiting on those links.
As to the remainder of the tantrum:
Brad Torgersen was this year's guiding force behind S-A-D Puppies.
Vox Day was the individual responsible for R-A-B-I-D Puppies.
Sad Puppies =/= Rabid Puppies.
Brad Torgersen =/= Vox Day.
All that foot-stamping and CHORFish high moral dudgeon, in clumsy pretense otherwise, simply renders you tiresome.
Don't be tiresome.
@jayn "For youse who think he doesn't REALLY mean all those vile things he says, I'd be much obliged if you'd show me some quote of his where he disavows such views. "
Vox Day has said on his own blog that he doesn't agree with everything he writes. What exactly he disagrees with though he doesn't specify,
Ambivalent in Tokyo says:
What a depressingly sad group you all are. For heaven's sake, get out of the house and take a walk, go upstairs and ask your mom for a hug or, you know, get a puppy if you have no one else to make nice to you. Seriously, you're turning this side of the internet into an emotional black hole.
That's the best you can Concern Troll? /fail
Kent18, dear, you said: "Sad Puppies =/= Rabid Puppies."
But if Sad Puppies + Rabid Puppies = Hugo Kerfluffle, whereas Sad Puppies alone = obscurity, then the Sad Puppies do owe their success to the Rabid Puppies, ergo, Brad does owe to VD, even if he praises his refusal to condemn him as a heroic stand against "unpersoning."
The term, "unpersoning" someone, AFAIK, came from "1984", a great work where George Orwell (a Socialist to the end of his life, BTW) used the word to mean the process of literally murdering someone and then erasing the murdered person and his works from all history…a process that Hitler attempted and Stalin actually DID during Orwell's lifetime, which Orwell had no problem condemning with great art. I really think Brad's appropriation of the term to mean nothing more than, "verbal condemnation of a racist, sexist asshole" is a BIG stretch. And therefore I think his fond portrait of himself as a hero nobly resisting the temptation to condemn VD, equivalent to Winston Smith risking life and sanity in a struggle against all-powerful Big Brother…is a bit disingenuous and self-aggrandizing.
Do I believe that it is an act of noble forbearance to refuse to call a racist, sexist asshole a racist, sexist asshole? It will not kill VD for Brad to do so. It will not erase him or his books from history. It may even boost the sales of his books to similar assholes. It seems a lot more credible to me that Torgerson knows he owes his current attention bath to VD's support of his cause, and that he doesn't want to lose that support by condemning him…not to mention that it's better to have such an asshole in your tent peeing out, than to alienate him and then have him outside your tent peeing in. An understandable motive, but not quite as heroic as Brad paints himself above.
As for the links to the Clarke thing…I'm at work, I'll get to that later…though I assume you CAN google.
@ Jayn
I note that you are not, actually, calling me a rape apologist. I ask that you be more clear in speaking in the future, in order to prevent confusion. Failure to exert oneself in helping the reader to the most charitable interpretation of ones words is a fault in much of internet conversation.
As you are not deeply familiar with what has been done and said, I suggest that you read as broadly as possible. File770 is an excellent place to start. (Mike Glyer is not a SP supporter but is trying hard to accurately present the opinions of all sides.)
For a better view of what VD thinks – short of actually going and asking him, I suggest you look at this link: http://www.johndbrown.com/what-vox-day-believes/
I suggest that much of your opinion of the debt BT owes VD is based on your present information sources, which strongly hold that RP and SP are one and the same, and that all Evil League of Evil persons share exact opinions. This is not correct.
Repeatedly calling on other people to cast people with whom *you* disagree is, imo, rude, overstepping the bounds of polite behavior, and very unhelpful. I would ask you to stop this, and take up your issues with the people with whom you actually have an issue. I would also ask you to encourage other people to stop this.
@jayn –
Another note -because we might be talking past each other – labeling someone or something as "racist" "sexist" or "homophobic" has far less impact on this side of the divide than on the other side. We have seen far too much dilution of the terms, too many badly founded witch hunts (both on line and IRL) and far too much hypocrisy on the part of the other side to give much credit to those labels.
Which is why we say "tell me exactly what the problem is" – which, thus far, has not been helpful in identifying actual "bad thought" and even less bad behavior.
But if Sad Puppies + Rabid Puppies = Hugo Kerfluffle, whereas Sad Puppies alone = obscurity, then the Sad Puppies do owe their success to the Rabid Puppies
Count the number of unsupported assertions in that sentence fragment. (HINT: it's more than one.)
I'm not the one who dragged Clarke into the conversation, in order to (attempt to) bolster my own argument. Your claim; your responsibility to substantiate same.
Pingback: One More | John C. Wright's Journal
Here's your link, Kent. I agree that I dragged in Clarke, but I did that to make a point about the dragging in of MZB that had already occurred in this thread. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/notw-editor-spiked-paedophilia-scoop-on-arthur-c-clarke-for-fear-of-murdoch-7920816.html
As for:
I totally agree that I have no independent polling to cite regarding my impression that Vox Day's support this year pushed the Sad Puppies slate to a sweep it did not achieve in the 2 years before. But unless you have independent polling to cite yourself, the counter-assertion that Vox Day's support was negligible and Brad and the Sads therefore owe Vox Day nothing is ALSO unsupported.
keranih – Thank you for noting that I was not calling you a rape apologist (and for the record, I'm not calling anyone else on this thread a rape apologist either). I do think it's funny, though, that I merited a solemn finger-wag cautioning me to be careful with my words lest someone think I am offensively calling them a rape apologist, when the dude who flat-out CALLED someone a rape apologist in this thread got a free pass.
Thank you also for sending me that link regarding the letter John Brown got from VD clarifying his views; it saved me poking around VD's sites again, the few glimpses I got previously were nauseating, and I would rather avoid repeating the experience. I have to say, the clarification didn't change my opinion about VD's worse quotes cited elsewhere. To me it seems quite plausible that the guy who wrote that stuff to John Brown would ALSO write stuff speaking of the shooting of Malala Yousefzai because she dared to get an education "perfectly rational and scientifically plausible."
"Another note -because we might be talking past each other – labeling someone or something as "racist" "sexist" or "homophobic" has far less impact on this side of the divide than on the other side."
Doesn't surprise me much that there are quite a number of people who believe large segments of the population are inherently inferior, and that there are a greater number who think such beliefs are NBD. It's edifying (in a stomach-turning way) to see it in action, but it's not surprising.
As for this:
"Repeatedly calling on other people to cast people with whom *you* disagree is, imo, rude, overstepping the bounds of polite behavior, and very unhelpful."
Who am I being rude to? Kent18? Or do you mean I'm being rude to Brad with my statements? I stated the fact that Brad used a word "unpersoning" that had been coined by George Orwell to describe murder – not JUST murder of an actual human being, but erasure and murder of that human being from human memory by book-burning and record-falsifying – which were real crimes that actually happened and were fictionalized by Orwell. I stated the fact that Brad was using the term not to denote a murder or a book-burning, but simply the fact that he was asked his opinion about VD. I notice you aren't disputing those facts as I wrote them.
I then stated my OPINION that Brad was praising himself for his decision NOT to give his opinion about VD's vile views as if he had nobly refused to commit literal murder and bookburning – the actual MEANING of unpersoning. I expressed the opinion that there are other, less noble reasons Brad might not want to condemn VD that he completely omitted, such as that his pet cause is benefitted by VD's support, and also that VD would be a godawful annoying headache to have as an enemy. I gave my reasons for my opinion. I'm thus expressing a much less heroic view of Brad than he's expressed of himself above. But IMO, if you write a lengthy editorial praising your own daring and courage in your blog and then open it to comments, you shouldn't be surprised to be called on your self-praise.
Lastly: "I would also ask you to encourage other people to stop this."
Believe it or not, there's no one I know personally I COULD encourage to 'stop this', because not one friend of mine has mentioned the Hugos to me as a subject of interest. And I hang out with a group of SF fan friends whom I've played D & D biweekly with for the past twenty years. They range from Libertarian to Republican to Democrat, and not one has mentioned it in person or in their social media. I myself only heard about it in the past couple of weeks on Io9 and dropped by to rubberneck at the train wreck. So if you're thinking of me as part of an organized cadre of left-wingers sworn on harassing you en masse, I'd advise you to take your own advice regarding your view of "the other side of the divide" :
" …that all Evil League of Evil persons share exact opinions. This is not correct." 😉
The Deuce says:
Hey jayn, if you want some people to denounce and unperson as racist, sexist assholes, start with these chumps, and STFU until you do. K thx.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/04/messages-from-sjws.html
Personally, I like the way that Vox is going about Rabid Puppies. He isn't burning the Hugos down outright. He's giving them an opportunity to redeem themselves and show that there is something there to be salvaged, and will only burn it down if they choose that path for themselves in their petulant rage at having to share their toys.
I also think he's helping Sad Puppies in large part. While it might be annoying to have the SJWs in the media repeatedly conflate Sad Puppies with Rabid Puppies and demand that Brad and Larry denounce and unperson Vox, the reality is that if Vox were not there, Brad and Larry would be the "extremists" that the same people would be demanding more "moderate" Sad Puppy supporters denounce and unperson.
Near as I can tell, Brad and Larry have already put more distance between themselves and Vox than any of the SJW detractors have put between themselves and NAMBLA-supporters like Sam Delaney (not to mention the many supporters of murderous ideologies like communism in their midsts), so if there are to be denunciations for badthink, the onus is entirely on the SJW side to start denouncing their own post haste.
"However, I'll say a few things: M R Kowal has been treating people during this affair with respect, which is something we all know can't be said of everybody…
It also seems that in the past she has been taking part in more unsavory activities, with aggressive diatribes much in the SJW style we know so well. I have also seen her in the comment section of a typical (that is, disturbing and hate-filled) Jemisin blog entry, saying she agrees completely."
Why, it's almost as if she's a manipulative individual who thinks it convenient to feign politeness so that she can play victim when the pressure is on her and her clique, rather than being in the position of the shrieking mob trying to destroy others. No, that can't be it. I'm sure she had a sudden character transplant the moment the SP and RP slates met with wild success.
Feather Blade says:
Having said all that, there is no excuse whatsoever for threatening to publish someone's address and private data.
I hate to tell everyone this, but names, addresses and phone numbers are… not private data. They are what is known as "directory information" and are not legally protected from disclosure even by the notoriously restrictive FERPA. (The only exception is if an individual specifically requests that a given organization ~not~ disclose their directory information. And the individual must make this request individually of every organization that has access to the records.)
Day asking Kowal if she wanted him to post "that evidence" is as much of a threat as saying "Do you want me to take a page from the phone book and post it in your twitter feed?" …which is exactly what the question was.
I'm not touching that link. Who knows where it's been? 😉
I'll take your word for it that the people referred to in the link are racist and sexist assholes (yes, I'm aware that such exist on all sides of the political spectrum). But (unlike Brad) I'm not about to achieve my cherished dream of three years' running with the help of aforementioned assholes (as it is becoming increasingly clear of Brad, since GRRM, who Brad has expressed deep respect for, has mentioned that the nominees specific to the Rabies Slate seem to outnumber the ones specific to the Sads, which means that Brad likely could never have achieved his Puppy sweep without the Rabies' help).
So since I'M not receiving help and benefits from the racist, sexist assholes in your link and I'm pretty sure they've never mentioned ME specifically as allies in their struggle to be greater assholes, I'm not their associate and I have no reason to denounce them by name to disassociate myself from them. I owe them NOTHING.
Whereas Brad is in the position of a man getting a free ride to a longed-for destination – in a car that belongs to a loon with a megaphone screaming hateful bullshit as they drive through his neighborhood. In this blog post (which position he has somewhat walked back from since) he is complaining about how unfair it is that all his neighbors are calling him on his cell to demand to know if he AGREES with the noisy, hateful loon who's racketing through the neighborhood, and he explains how noble of himself it is to withhold his opinion about the racist, sexist bullshit his driver is screaming. It may very well be noble – but to me it sure looks more like Brad wanted to have his cake and eat it too. He wants not to be seen as a racist, sexist loon praising the shooting of Pakistani schoolgirls as "perfectly rational and scientifically plausible" like his driver is – but dammit, he wants that free ride, and he knows that if he actually says what he thinks about his chauffeur's positive opinion of shooting Pakistani schoolgirls, he may get thrown out on the roadway. I feel kind of sorry for Brad at this point – by now, he's sure aware that he's the tail and VD is the dog who is wagging him – but he got himself into this.
On Unpersoning:
There were different answers at different schools. "Beat him up until he shuts up" was one of them. "Ban him from the school" was another. It's hard for him to push buttons, when he's off the campus.
On one hand, I won't deny that there are and were people who want to "unperson" Vox Day, who want his name to never be spoken again, like Voldemort. Those people fail, because there's always someone – in the fictional example, people such as Dumbledore – there's always people who won't go along with peer pressure to ignore any particular aspect of reality.
On another hand, there were people who had no delusion of their authority or their actual power to end Vox Day's existence, and who merely wanted to remove Vox Day from the WSFS Twitter, the halls of Worldcon, and every other WSFS-owned resource. "What you do is your problem, Vox Day, as long as you go do it somewhere else." That's a reasonable decision, for WSFS to make *about its own territory and resources*.
The actual outcome doesn't demonstrate one of those decisions prevailing over the other If some members of WSFS wanted to unperson Vox Day, well, they probably came as close as they could, within the limits of their abilities. If the WSFS simply made the mine-and-thine decision that Vox Day was no longer welcome to use the WSFS as part of his broadcasting network, then that's what actually happened. The empirically observable results neither prove nor disprove the hypothesis that the crazies who wanted to "unperson" Vox Day were predominant within WSFS.
You've heard of the "science" part of SFF? Let's use that part, rather than fantasy, when we draw conclusions about WSFS and Vox Day.
Be aware that this isn't "Brad Torgersen's sweep" any more than it is "Larry Corriea's sweep" or "Sarah Hoyt's Sweep" – this is the Evil League of Evil's Campaign Against Puppy-Related Sadness, and We Are Legion."
So stop assuming this is one person's idea, an in particular, stop with the idea that this is ONE person dictating terms to MULTIPLE other people. You're only going to hurt yourself on that edge.
As to what you have said:
the dude who flat-out CALLED someone a rape apologist in this thread got a free pass.
Clarify, please. The last person passing out rape-apologist cards in BT's comments was a woman, IIRC, but I could have missed someone.
To me it seems quite plausible that the guy who wrote that stuff to John Brown would ALSO write stuff speaking of the shooting of Malala Yousefzai because she dared to get an education "perfectly rational and scientifically plausible."
Except that my read is that VD is a Yousefzai fanboy to the point that he would be proposing marriage if his religion and previous matrimonial state didn't permit it. You might want to reconsider how well you've read the material in question.
…I need you to clarify. Because if you think it's sexist to think that the average female is inferior to the average male in physical strength, or vs versa in empathy, or racist that the average African is superior to the average Asian in melanin, or the average European superior in lactose tolerance, or that the respect due to human dignity is not related age, sex, intelligence, race, or geography, we're going to have words – first over your lack of comprehension of basic biological principles, and secondly on your lack of Christian charity.
Brad used a word "unpersoning" that had been coined by George Orwell to describe murder – not JUST murder of an actual human being, but erasure and murder of that human being from human memory by book-burning and record-falsifying – which were real crimes that actually happened and were fictionalized by Orwell. I stated the fact that Brad was using the term not to denote a murder or a book-burning, but simply the fact that he was asked his opinion about VD.
So, you're saying that we don't actually have to murder VD and erase him from history, but that some lesser form of repugnation would suffice? Please, do go on with your description of the degree of disavowing that you would find acceptable.
I note that you fail to pick up on the most simple reason to bow to your demand for repudiation: that it is an inhuman and intolerable thing to ask of other people, and that only fiendish people go 'round expecting it.
If you are alone in your opinion that SP are wrong, please understand that we welcome folks of all sorts into our ranks, including those who disagree with others in the SP "cat herd". All that is required is that you give others leave to think as they feel best. If you're up to it, we'd be glad to have you.
Over to you, man.
So? So am I a woman, but I got the solemn finger-wag of rebuke from you merely for wording my comment in a way that might make a careless person think I was calling someone a rape apologist when I wasn't. Whereas a person (woman or not) flat out called another participant in this very thread:
….without a schoolmaster's fingerwag from you. Which gives the impression that you are applying a double-standard of politeness to people on your "side" of "the divide", and are far more ready to perceive insult and offense from people on the other "side", whether you mean to or not. Just saying.
"Except that my read is that VD is a Yousefzai fanboy to the point that he would be proposing marriage if his religion and previous matrimonial state didn't permit it."
Ew. And yet the quote I gave of VD calling her shooting "perfectly rational and scientifically plausible" act is genuine. (I checked). In reading John Brown's VD letter, I think it's perfectly plausible that VD thinks Malala is hot and intelligent and therefore a suitable genetic vehicle to be his barefoot bride and bear a million of his horrid, poo-flinging babies – and AT THE SAME TIME think it's a perfectly rational act to have her shot. In VD's ideal society, according to John Brown's letter, women should not be allowed to be educated beyond high-school level, so that the intelligent ones are available to the men for breeding intelligent babies instead of studying. So it's perfectly "rational" in VD's eyes for the Taliban to shoot the chick he thinks is hot and intelligent for wanting to study, to discourage OTHER hot, intelligent chicks from trying to do the same and (heaven forbid!) take them out of the marriage pool for men like VD. There's no contradiction there. So I think I've "read the material in question" well enough to leave my poor opinion of VD unchanged. He's gross, I don't want to support him with clicks that give him advertising revenue or buy his books, and I can choose to share what I know about VD with others that they may decide whether or not to do the same. And indeed, I may begin to look askance at any acquaintances of mine who tell me they either agree with his views on the shooting of schoolgirls or think it's no big deal. And that's my right. Freedom of speech and freedom of association cuts both ways.
"So, you're saying that we don't actually have to murder VD and erase him from history, but that some lesser form of repugnation would suffice? Please, do go on with your description of the degree of disavowing that you would find acceptable…I note that you fail to pick up on the most simple reason to bow to your demand for repudiation: that it is an inhuman and intolerable thing to ask of other people, and that only fiendish people go 'round expecting it."
Goodness me, you must live a very sheltered life, if you think only "fiendish" people would judge other people poorly for either chattering about the shooting of schoolgirls as rational, scientifically plausible acts, or saying that such chatter is NBD. Yes, VD hasn't shot schoolgirls, his diatribes are "nothing but words." So were The Turner Diaries. If I saw an acquaintance of mine pick up The Turner Diaries or a book by some Holocaust-denying historian, or a NAMBLA advocate, and I told them about the author's views – is that "fiendish?" If I urged them not to buy the book because such money will benefit that person and the causes he espouses – is that "fiendish"? If I told him that such books that treat violence toward others as NBD and even desirable because of the inferiority of those others can actually PROMOTE violence toward others among the people who read and endorse them (as Timothy McVeigh did with The Turner Diaries) – is THAT "fiendish"?
And if the acquaintance with the book tells me he's aware of the author's views and is the biggest fan of both them and the author, or that he's aware of the views but thinks they're NBD, and the author has done him favors and the author's association with my respectable acquaintance has helped publicize the author and thus increase his visibility and sales, and I judge my acquaintance poorly because of this, and speak of it to others – is THAT "fiendish" of me? I am not advocating laws to shut up the author or my acquiantance. They are free to say whatever vile things they want. And I am free to judge them for it and to speak of my judgement to others. Their freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism and consequences.
"Be aware that this isn't "Brad Torgersen's sweep" any more than it is "Larry Corriea's sweep" or "Sarah Hoyt's Sweep"
I think I made it very clear in my previous post that I'm fully aware that Brad's Sads are distinct from the Rabies', and that I don't think Brad holds the same vile racist, sexist viewpoints that VD propagates so enthusiastically. I think that I've ALSO made it clear that the Sads undeniably benefit from the Rabies' support of a large portion of their slate – and that therefore Brad DOES owe the success of much of his chosen slate to VD. He has been put in an advantageous position because of VD, and IMO, he can't reap the benefit while dodging all negative consequences, however much he tries.
IMO, what happened is that Brad, by choosing to electioneer, wrangle votes and game a system based on his political agenda, has unfortunately descended from the level of artist to the level of politician…so he has opened himself to being judged by a politician's standards, instead of as an artist. And when a politician has a guy next to his podium echoing his speeches and urging his agenda, in between passing out Stormfront literature and driving hundreds of his skinhead acquaintances to the polls – enough, in fact, that the politician owes his triumph to the guy – it is only fair for the crowd to ask the politician whether he AGREES with the Stormfront stance, and to judge him on what he says – whether he agrees or condemns. And if instead the politician prissily replies that it's beneath him to notice such things, and that indeed it's the people who notice Stormfront and point out their repugnant viewpoints to their acquaintances and urge them not to support them with money or clicks on their website that are the REAL villains, and compares himself to heroic Winston Smith in resisting them – then the crowd is free to judge him unfavorably on that. (Mr. Torgersen, you are no Winston Smith).
And I think that's sad, because it seems to me that Brad Torgersen is a fundamentally decent person who has lost the good opinion of authors he respects, and seems genuinely hurt by it. But he wanted the prize THAT badly, and accepting it, he must accept that the framed photo of his victory lap will always have VD running right beside him taking the applause along with him, no matter how he tries to airbrush him out with his words.
Ew. And yet the quote I gave of VD calling her shooting "perfectly rational and scientifically plausible" act is genuine. (I checked). In reading John Brown's VD letter, I think it's perfectly plausible that VD thinks Malala is hot and intelligent and therefore a suitable genetic vehicle to be his barefoot bride and bear a million of his horrid, poo-flinging babies – and AT THE SAME TIME think it's a perfectly rational act to have her shot. In VD's ideal society, according to John Brown's letter, women should not be allowed to be educated beyond high-school level, so that the intelligent ones are available to the men for breeding intelligent babies instead of studying. So it's perfectly "rational" in VD's eyes for the Taliban to shoot the chick he thinks is hot and intelligent for wanting to study, to discourage OTHER hot, intelligent chicks from trying to do the same and (heaven forbid!) take them out of the marriage pool for men like VD. There's no contradiction there. So I think I've "read the material in question" well enough to leave my poor opinion of VD unchanged. He's gross, I don't want to support him with clicks that give him advertising revenue or buy his books, and I can choose to share what I know about VD with others that they may decide whether or not to do the same. And indeed, I may begin to look askance at any friends of mine who tell me they either agree with his views on the shooting of schoolgirls or think it's no big deal. And that's my right. Freedom of speech and freedom of association cuts both ways.
My apologies, that quote was in a wall of quotes from James May, which frankly I tend to skip anymore, on the grounds that quote mining is not as useful to reaching agreement as it is in keeping people's opinions wound up. So if it offends that I put more emphasis on what you have said here, than what JM quotes from the endless twitter feed o' outrage.
Also: your posts could do with some proof reading. And shortening.
And yet the quote I gave of VD calling her shooting "perfectly rational and scientifically plausible" act is genuine.
Yes – and I agree that in the service of maintaining the sort of society the Taliban want to keep such actions are rational and not illogical. I have seen no evidence that VD actually agrees that the ideal society (by Taliban standards) is what he – or anyone else – thinks is a good idea. You're focusing too much on the argument and refusing to grasp the context.
You can't argue people out of bad actions unless you understand what drove them to those actions. Do try to stretch your mind a bit and look at the assumptions other people are making.
I am not advocating laws to shut up the author or my acquiantance. [sic] They are free to say whatever vile things they want. And I am free to judge them for it and to speak of my judgement to others. Their freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism and consequences.
Your augment against listening to "bad thought" is only strengthened by your understanding of the BadThought in questions, and only weakened when you (obviously) skim until you are outraged. Your criticism is only noise if you don't understand what it is you are protesting.
Likewise, your claims that BT (or any else of the Sad Puppies) "owes" the success of the SP to VD…if you think that the SP movement is sufficiently tainted by the presence of VD anywhere in the solar system that you can not support it – well, go forth and be well. I wish you joy in finding a cause so pure that you can deign to attach yourself to it.
Meanwhile, SP is going to continue to attempt to expand the focus of the Hugos past the tiny group that currently controls it – without your help, as it appears.
We will try to get past that.
@keranih:
Exactly. A mad action can be perfectly rational if one is pursuing the goal of a madman.
To use the current example: The goal of the Taliban is to actually subjugate women and treat them as chattel. Therefore, attempting to silence Yousafzai and others like her by killing her is a rational step toward achieving that goal.
Now, because the goal and the step are both evil, it is deemed impermissible to state that such a thing could be a rational action. Because, in this Brave New World, rationality is good. In reality, rationality is nothing more than recognizing what your goals are and the necessary steps to achieve them.
That having been said, VD could have and should have expressed himself in a way that could not be soundbited–especially when he says so many other things that are slightly bonkers.
@ 60guilders:
If people came to me and said "Vox Day is acerbic" or "Vox Day does not argue in good faith" or "Vox Day is a plain dealing villain or "Vox Day picks his words in order to piss off his listeners rather than to bring them to his side" or "Vox Day has articulated positions the ramifications of which are difficult to grapple with" or even "Vox Day has put his flag on positions where the data may well show his stance to be incorrect in a few years or decades" then absolutely I would agree. And IMO all of those are both a) legitimate reasons to not count VD amongst one's best buddies and b) legit reasons to deplore him as a debating opponent.
But people don't say that. They say instead he's a racist misogynistic sob and then point to the same 5 quotes again and again. And I throw up my hands and say you are repeating soundbites and even worse you are repeating OTHER PEOPLE'S soundbites and then I say STFU and come back when you have actual things to yell about.
So. I am so very tired of hearing about VD. But even more, I am tired of hearing about other people's emotional reaction to VD. I am doing all I can to manage my own reaction to him, and don't need their issues.
"I have seen no evidence that VD actually agrees that the ideal society (by Taliban standards) is what he – or anyone else – thinks is a good idea."
No? Yet the John Brown link that YOU gave me quite clearly states that VD thinks that education for girls beyond high school is bad for society because it keeps them from reproducing. This is pretty much the reason the Taliban shot Malala – because they ALSO believe that women's proper sphere is marriage and children, not school. He also says that he feels that women's rights (things like the vote and the right to work) are "a disease" that is bad for society, that in fact will destroy it. "I consider women's rights to be a disease that should be eradicated…The women of America would do well to consider whether their much-cherished gains of the right to vote, work, murder and freely fornicate are worth destroying marriage, children, civilized Western society and little girls.""
The Taliban enthusiastically agree with such a program depriving women of voting rights, and the right to work in the benefit of their society. Of course, they work from a different premise: The Taliban thinks women should not vote, work or be educated so they can dedicate themselves solely to husband and multiple children as Allah mandates women's role. Whereas VD believes women should not vote, work or be educated because they go against his sociological and genetic 'scientific' beliefs that women should not vote, work or be educated for the good of society.
"Yes – and I agree that in the service of maintaining the sort of society the Taliban want to keep such actions are rational and not illogical. "
You left out the part where VD ALSO calls the Talibanic views and murderous actions "scientifically plausible." The Taliban want to maintain that type of oppressive society because they think Allah wants them to. How is that 'scientifically plausible'? That part of VD's remark makes no sense UNLESS you couple it with his beliefs in the sociological and genetic evils of letting women vote and be educated. He's saying that the Taliban's oppression and slaughter of women is "scientifically plausible" and it agrees with his own view (which he considers scientific) that a society would be better off without women voting, working, or being educated beyond puberty.
And you say that I'M "skimming"?
Anyway, though I have not read ALL of VD's oeuvre, I think I've read and presented here enough evidence to show that he believes quite sincerely that women having the vote, working, or being educated beyond puberty is bad for society, AND that the effort to discourage women from doing so by attempting to murder them is rational and scientifically plausible. You say that VD does NOT in fact believe these things, but you have not presented any evidence that he doesn't. (As I said before, saying "But he thinks Malala is HAWT!" is not a refutation.) So you urging me to continue deeper study of VD on your assurance (unsupported by evidence) that he and his views AREN'T as despicable as they seem to be – that's kind of like urging me to finish a cowpat pie, that I have already tasted several spoonfuls of and found to be disgusting bullshit, possibly contaminated with some contagious disease, on the grounds that you think there MIGHT be a tasty plum filling at the bottom.
Sorry, no. Unless you can present me with more convincing evidence that VD actually denies the beliefs he appears to hold above, then I think I've read enough of VD. Life is short, and there are so many better authors to read who DON'T put a thick layer of racist, sexist, noxious bullshit frosting on their work.
60guilders:
I don't think it's a particularly leftist or centrist (or for that matter, conservative) belief that Rationality Always Equals Good. Speaking strictly for myself, I agree with you that it depends on what premises you start out with. Like for example, if a guy has a theory that Jews are genetically inevitably destined to be parasites off the honest work of non-Jews and have engineered society to facilitate their parasitism, and backs up this theory with scientific-sounding statistics regarding the greater numbers of Jews among bankers, professors and the entertainment industry than their total numbers seem to warrant. If he accepts this premise, then he can proceed from there to reason that gas chambers are a perfectly "rational' and "scientifically plausible", measure with no flaw in his logic between premise and conclusion. It will not cease to be evil, however, I think.
And if a man today expresses such opinions toward Jews, and says that the gas chambers were rational and scientifically plausible responses to such nasty people, then IMO it's fair to call that person a Neo-Nazi. And IMO, even if the Neo-Nazi in question writes a brief postscript to his sincere statement of his Anti-Semitic beliefs that he HIMSELF does not advocate forcefully getting rid of Jews due to his libertarian beliefs (as VD does regarding his denial of actually advocating violent behavior against women or black people he believes genetically inferior) that alone does not absolve him of being a Neo-Nazi espousing and propagating vile and demonstrably dangerous beliefs. And IMO, it is also fair to look askance and express misgivings at people who engage in mutually profitable dealings with such Neo-Nazis on the grounds that such beliefs are No Big Deal, because such people as the Nazis do not meet success without the aid of numerous people whom may disagree with their beliefs but feels such considerations are minor as long as they get benefits from dealing with them. The danger of people who prattle scientific-sounding reasons about how Jews or women or black people are dooming society – even if they don't advocate violence – is that enough of such prattle, unanswered and unopposed, can start making people who are already inclined to believe such ideas think they are normal and acceptable – and so either act on them or shrug when others act on them.
So IMO, it's a moral responsibility when someone prattling such ideas gains influence to point out those ideas as despicable, as well as the person propagating them, to limit the influence such ideas have on the unwary. A moral responsibility not to do violence to such prattlers – that is wrong -or to make laws trying to keep them from prattling – that is also wrong. But a moral responsiblity to speak out and say, "Those are despicable beliefs, and no decent person would hold them. And if you benefit from dealings with such a person in a way that increases his influence and enables his ideas to reach more people, what YOU'RE doing is morally dubious as well."
Now I honestly believe that Mr Torgersen did not intend any such thing when he started his politicking for his slate, and would undoubtedly have preferred to have a victory of his slate without such a person as VD to help him to it. But politics makes strange bedfellows. Torgersen DID, unfortunately, have to rely on VD's help for the triumph of his slate. He made that bed, he got into it with VD, and as long as he refuses to either categorically kick VD out of it or get out of bed himself, there he still lies side by side with VD, right out in public. So IMO, any complaining of his that people are looking down at him and criticizing his choice of bedfellows sounds like whinging to me.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2015/04/22 | Free Northerner
William Underhill says:
"If I saw an acquaintance of mine pick up The Turner Diaries or a book by some Holocaust-denying historian, or a NAMBLA advocate, and I told them about the author's views – is that "fiendish?" If I urged them not to buy the book because such money will benefit that person and the causes he espouses – is that "fiendish"? If I told him that such books that treat violence toward others as NBD and even desirable because of the inferiority of those others can actually PROMOTE violence toward others among the people who read and endorse them (as Timothy McVeigh did with The Turner Diaries) – is THAT "fiendish"?"
Perhaps not 'fiendish', but certainly intrusive and nosey. What business is it of yours what your friends choose to read? Perhaps you might consider that they want to read those works as a form of recon – read the arguments put forth by someone with whom you disagree in order to better refute them? Does it not seem to you that a far more charitable approach would be to assume that, until proven otherwise, your friend is sufficiently adult and mature as to be able to read such works and still retain their integrity? On the specific case of Mr. Beale, I haven't read any of his work. However, until I have, I'm not going to judge the worth of his work by his activities elsewhere.
Something I'm going to put out there, and if I can get away with it, I'll put it on a few of the "opposition"'s sites, too. Read Eric Flint's "Prime Palaver #8" (April 26, 2002). I can't link directly to it specifically, but if you follow this link (http://www.baenebooks.com/10.1125/Baen/9781625791214/9781625791214.htm), then select Chapter 8 from the box in the left menu, you'll get it. It's a powerful, cogent argument for why one should carefully distinguish between an author's work and an author's political/sociological beliefs. Not authors alone, either.
Damn, I hate that I can't go back and edit a previous comment, since I now have a direct link: http://www.baenebooks.com/10.1125/Baen/9781625791214/9781625791214___8.htm. Go read it.
Has Vox Day ever openly wondered if he was missing any exciting new SFF by whites?
"Tananarive Due @TananariveDue · Apr 20 Have I missed any good recent black #scifi/fantasy shorts?… #Afrofuturism"
hahahahah. That's hilarious. That's what happens when humans have the principles of an ant. "Compared to what?" becomes the most feared concept in the universe.
I declare the unpersonhood of Gerrold and Due by reason of non compos mentis, and an oozing similarity to white immorality and heterosexual misogyny. They've been running with the wrong crowd in a bad Aryan patriarchy neighborhood for too long.
Case closed. Wheel in the next pair.
BradA says:
MRK,
Due process in the SFWA? That is why you violated the rules at the time to kick him out to salvage the egos of a past president and others? Can you explain exactly the due process in that? Who is the next to fall under the so-called due process that does not exist?
I am amazed that so many of you can't see the core issue.
MRK says "this evil person was not a member of the SFWA"
VD says, "yes they were and I can prove it."
How is that threatening MRK? Could she not just have said, "you are right that he was, but he is no longer, though currently only because he has not paid his dues. I will be driving/supporting the effort to ensure he cannot be a member in the future"?
The point was that the SFWA had a very unsavory character and did nothing about it.
But views they disagree with are much more important, enough to violate the due process she claims exists.
Isn't that nice. I guess some people are just more equal than others.
Deep Thought says:
Why keep lying? Yes you did not attack Vox on your blog BUT you sure as hell attacked him on Twitter. He shows you evidence of your false accusation and you just make up stuff.
get the truth and read and see who is lying. Open your eyes, folks.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/04/sjws-always-lie.html
My post was directed at Mary Robinette Kowal not Brad T.
Ah, so Mary Robinette Kowal's claim that Vox threatened to dox her is complete, 100% made-up bullshit. I assumed it given her dishonesty, but it's nice to see confirmation.
Quite a list of names you labeled Vox with but I have yet to see you label his attackers with such labels. It is obvious to me, you are waivering and wish you had not gone against the tribe.
What charge against the Hugos's and Tor's manipulation of the Hugos is wrong? A lie? Inaccurate?
What statement characterizing his expulsion from the writer's guild is wrong?Aa lie?
What statement by Vox showing John Scalzi lying about his page views over the years is wrong? A lie?
Just like Vox's recent statement concerning the lies Mary Kowal has espoused. What is wrong with his defense? Is it a lie?
I would challenge you Brad and others to find one false statement concerning Vox's past battles with the tribe and their supporters. The tribe is a hate filled venomous sac of liars and some times the only way to survive is to stomp the snake that trys to bite you.
Reading his blog from start to finish recently has thought me one thing. It is Vox's ideas they have attacked. His religion. His Philosophy. The tribe has declared them off limits and they started a series of attacks upon him and his followers. he did not start this but he definitely will not back down.
The fact that Vox Day is willing to punch back twice as hard as they do, does not make him a serial dickhead. it makes him a man of integrity who will not see his reputation tarnished by the wacko tribes. Does he not have the right to fight back as viciously as they attack? Should he just play nice and take the abuse from these weird ones?
Your labeling of Vox with these names is wrong and needs to stop. You are no better than the tribe if you continue with these false statements. I hope you will reconsider your position considering Vox.
James Dixon says:
After reading this entire thread, the only thing I can say is: Congratulations to keranih for being the adult in the room.
Man in the High Castle says:
I stumbled into this brouhaha via the Internet and have read every word above. I gave up reading sci-fi long ago and I am impressed by my prescience. Mary Kowal has delivered one of the most egregious examples of a full blown hissy fits known to man, not one word of which tied to any rational thought beyond her own interior goblins. I don't know you, Mary, nor do wish to ever cross your path, but here's a newsflash; your tripartite name and a google search bar will result in thousands of data points leading directly to your front door for all but the dimmest bulbs on the Internet. The exchange between you and Mr Beale was clearly one in which you were caught in a lie and now scream in pain at your outing. Had you as much as a mustard seed of good sense you would have mea culpa'ed your way back into obscurity and let the spanking wear off. But no, you double down on your lack of maturity, pull out a second mortgage on whatever shred of honesty you may have had in your life and go full blown toddler for all the world to see.
Children; stubborn, vindictive, self-centered, ill-mannered babies, the lot of you. If you had any sense of honor, any integrity or a value system based on something other than your own feelings and needs you'd all be deeply ashamed of yourselves. Clearly that's not likely.
Brad, you've done yourself a major disservice by even allowing these drooling idiots one more second of your short time on earth. Stop, stop now while you can still claim some sort of high ground. These people are filthy with hypocrisy and deceit and they want you to get down and dirty with them. They clearly do not care for you, have nothing to offer but their hatred and derision and are so far beneath your talents- If I Were Dinosaur My Love? Is that supposed to be a joke? Are we being catfished into lunacy?- that the best thing you could ever do is pull up your tent stakes and shake the dust off your feet. Your best bet is to leave the infantile world of SFF as far behind you as humanly possible.
I pray to God that none of you have children who depend upon you.
MGA says:
I quote the inestimable JCW on the tendency of SJWs (Mary – this is you to a "t"):
"This is the way of evil. Evil lies because no one is attracted to evil when its nature is clear. The lie serves only limited use, and must be extended and expanded in order to maintain credibility. The lie metastasizes, and grows to a point when no sane man can believe it any longer. (Some) tell lies even beyond the point where anyone is expected to believe or be deceived by them, pointless lies, absurd lies, unintentionally comedic lies.
At that point, a man makes a decision: either he is loyal to sanity, abandons the lie and saves himself; or so great is his loyalty to the lie, he makes himself go mad, hating sanity and sunlight, and he rides the cherished wreck down through the maelstrom into the darkness. Even such souls as that can be saved. I was sunk lower than this, and so I pity and do not despise. How empty his life must be if he has nothing but these cold and angular self deceptions to clasp to his breast for comfort, false as the smile of a harlot, and nothing but venom for his milk."
I object to the idea that keranih is the only adult in the room. I am a wizened crone.
Mr. Underhill (BTW, there's a lovely story by Ursula K. Le Guin with a character by that name, you should check it out): I have noted your comment with respect, and will eventually answer with the care and thought it deserves.
"Perhaps not 'fiendish', but certainly intrusive and nosey. What business is it of yours what your friends choose to read?"
Mr. Underhill: I was specifically responding to the charge keranih leveled that the behavior I described as acceptable is "fiendish" (as well as "inhuman" and "intolerable"). I happen to think that's…overstated…on his part, so I disputed it. (I also think Brad's use of "unpersoning" is also hyperbolic, to a lesser degree, in the same way).
As for being "intrusive and nosey"? Sure, sometimes I have (probably less than you'd think, though). I think there are occasions when it's inappropriate to ask questions of friends and acquaintances – and occasions when it's called for.
You may think that it's the essence of friendship and/or gentlemanly behavior when you happen to spot The Turner Diaries on a friend or acquaintance's desk or a Klansman's robe hanging in his coat closet to avert your eyes discreetly and just go on talking about the football game. Myself, I think that it's acceptable – and, depending on the friend/acquaintance, maybe even necessary – in that situation to ask, "Dude, what's THAT?"
Of course, the rest depends on the friend/acquaintance's reply. "I'm doing a thesis on the history of white supremacists" would get a different answer than, "I heard it was an awesome alternate-history novel!" (in which case I'd mention the written-by-a-white-supremacist, depicts-the-extermination-of-nonwhite-races, found-in-Timothy-McVeigh's-getaway-car details). If he answered, "I think the author's ideas are true and profound and I'm going to do my best to spread them all I can," I'd feel obliged to try to convince him otherwise. And if he's having great success spreading white supremacist ideas around, I WOULD feel obligated to tell the people it's spreading to why I think he and those ideas are wrong.
"Perhaps you might consider that they want to read those works as a form of recon – read the arguments put forth by someone with whom you disagree in order to better refute them?"
Do I need to read the whole of The Turner Diaries and the collected works of the author before I can conclude the work is racist and approving of violence in the service of racism? I've read excerpts and descriptions, IMO enough to form an opinion, and if anyone declares that the work and its author are NOT REALLY racist or approving of violence in the service of racism, I'd expect them to be capable at least of giving their own quotes and excerpts supporting their declaration – not just expect me to take it on faith.
Of course VD's work is not as well studied as the Turner Diaries. It is much more trivial (and I devoutly hope he will remain so), so the information garnered may be biased. I came here originally because I'd read about a respected author apparently allying with a man who wrote of people of African descent as genetically inferior and incapable of civilization and of Malala Yousefzai's attempted murder with casual approval as "perfectly rational and scientifically plausible" in the light of his pseudoscientific sociological and genetic beliefs that women having things like the vote or an education after puberty or the right to decide when to have sex and children is dooming society. I was aware that the sites I had read these things on had already taken a vehement stand against them both and might not therefore be the whole truth, so I came here to see if what I'd read was in fact accurate. I came here to ask, "Dude, what's THAT?"
And If you read this very thread, you'd see I DID "read the arguments" as you recommended. I read Torgersen's view that VD was just a "shock jock", meaning (I suppose) that VD doesn't actually mean the inflammatory things he says, only says them to get attention. I then read the complete VD blog entries and writings the quotes came from, to see if they were taken out of context, or clearly written satirically. They didn't seem to be. Keranih on this thread (who has been quite civil, and also appears somewhat favorable to VD), told me the quotes were genuine, but overblown, and directed me to a link he felt properly explained VD's views:
http://www.johndbrown.com/what-vox-day-believes/
…which is a letter from VD to blogger/reporter explaining what his views are…hence it's information straight from the horse's asshole, worded in VD's most polite address.
Keranih also informed me that he didn't think VD REALLY approved of Malala Yousefzai's attempted murder, because VD in another context expressed that he found Malala attractive and wished Malala could marry him and have his nasty, poo-flinging babies. (Keranih did not provide a link for this, but I don't really want to hear VD's masturbation fantasies anyway). Keranih also told me "I have seen no evidence that VD actually agrees that the ideal society (by Taliban standards) is what he – or anyone else – thinks is a good idea."
I duly read the link keranih provided and found that VD DOES in fact believe that women's rights (things like the vote and the right to work) are "a disease" that is bad for society, that in fact will destroy it. Also that he believes people of purely African descent are genetically inferior and incapable of civilization. He bases these beliefs in a self-proclaimed "scientific" basis bent on avoiding "dysgenic and dyscivic social policies." About the only marginally positive thing I read of him is that he does not advocate violence himself (though this scruple apparently is loose enough to permit him to express approval of and applaud people who DO carry out violent attacks on groups he disapproves of while continuing to spout pseudoscientific babble about how such attacks are justified.)
I haven't read ALL of VD's diarrheic output, but I think I've read enough to state that there IS a Klansman's robe hanging clearly on the front of his closet. Yes, he's one of those Klansmen who makes a point of stating he's not advocating violence, just marching in the streets with his pals now and them, reminiscing fondly about the good old days of burning crosses and applauding in his blog some new atrocity here or there committed by someone else while explaining why he thinks such actions are beneficial to society.
I don't believe such a man should be arrested or censored. But I do think that working with this man for your own profit while increasing that man's profit and publicity by lending him your own respectability is ethically dubious. By helping such a man increase his influence you enable him to reach more people. By lending him the respectability of your association with him you tend to make his ideas more respectable. And the history of the Klan shows what happens when too large a portion of society accepts such ideas as respectable.
So when Mr Torgersen cribs the word "unpersoning" from a writer much better than most of us could ever hope to be – a word that originally meant actual murder and a book-burning rewriting of history – and melodramatically insists it's happening to him, in order to give himself airs of heroic martyrdom in resististing it, I can't help thinking he's lost perspective completely.
Because as far as I can tell, no one is doing anything worse to him than judging him poorly for the company he keeps and the people he profits from and symbiotically helps to profit. And that is no Orwellian atrocity. It's only something that's been going on in human society and that we all have to deal with.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl