ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

SFWA Forum: the "moderated" posts

Since the freethinkers at the SFWA Forum are presently debating whether my comments can be permitted in the very place where I am attacked with the most badthink words the rabbits can produce, I hereby give myself permission, as per the SFWA Forum guidelines, to quote my posts here before they are disappeared again:

1. Posted Today, 03:41 AM
 
Her speech is ridiculous, her call for reconciliation is impossible, and, it should be noted, MS Jemisin is lying about me:

"For the past few days I’ve also been observing a “kerfuffle”, as some call it, in reaction to the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers’ of America’s latest professional journal, the Bulletin. Some of you may also have been following the discussion; hopefully not all of you. To summarize: two of the genre’s most venerable white male writers made some comments in a series of recent articles which have been decried as sexist and racist by most of the organization’s membership. Now, to put this in context: the membership of SFWA also recently voted in a new president. There were two candidates — one of whom was a self-described misogynist, racist, anti-Semite, and a few other flavors of asshole. In this election he lost by a landslide… but he still earned ten percent of the vote. SFWA is small; only about 500 people voted in total, so we’re talking less than 50 people."

I am not "a self-described misogynist, racist, anti-Semite, and a few other flavors of asshole".  It is John Scalzi, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, and Theresa Nielsen Hayden who have described me that way.  I merely posited that even if their false claims were true, I would still be the right choice for SFWA president given my industry connections and executive experience. Nor have I ever made any active efforts to take away the woman's "most basic rights"; I am in fact a libertarian. NK Jemisin's speech is not only ignorant, it is blatantly and provably dishonest with regards to me, with regards to the history of science fiction, and with regards to Florida and Texas state law.

I hereby demand a public apology from Ms Jemisin.

Moreover, based on the particular nature of her false claim, Ms Jemisin has clearly violated the Forum rules, which state "The SFWA discussion forums are for SFWA members only, and all posts made here are confidential. Material may not be re-posted outside these forums without the explicit permission of their authors."  Her false statement was clearly based on my announcement which was posted here in the forums by Lawrence Schoen.

I therefore also request that she be given a warning point by a Forum moderator.

2. Posted Today, 07:52 AM

[PERMISSION TO QUOTE REQUESTED]

She did nothing of the kind.  I have never described myself anywhere as misogynist, racist, or anti-Semite and a search of my blog will prove that.  The only time I've even bothered to address such stupid accusations together is here, in the Forum, which is why it is obvious that she violated SFWA confidentiality.  I have zero interest in debating with you, Mr. Sanford. I enjoy challenges and you're not half as intelligent as people I've crushed in three exchanges.

[PERMISSION TO QUOTE REQUESTED]


I should certainly hope so.  I was warned for violating SFWA confidentiality once because I was unaware even partial quotes were not permitted.  I expect Ms Jemisin to be similarly disciplined.  If not, well, then we'll know just how impartial the moderators are.  Anyhow, 20x more people will read this on my blog than will read it here.

[PERMISSION TO QUOTE REQUESTED]


Reality isn't racist, Mr. Sanford.  Neither is history.  They simply are.  And you can't escape the fact that Ms Jemisin lied about me and about the state laws of Texas and Florida.  As some of my Australian readers have already pointed out, Ms Jemisin has no idea what she's talking about concerning Australian race relations either.

3. Posted Today, 08:15 AM

[PERMISSION TO QUOTE REQUESTED]

So, if I'd simply written: "That post on her blog is one of the most racist attacks I've seen in a long time.", that would not require moderation?  Who are you trying to kid?

Meanwhile, the President-elect, Steven Gould, notes: "Lots of people calling for the expulsion of this guy. With reason."

Well, my lawyer and I would certainly enjoy seeing them try to expel a paid-up Lifetime member for the thoughtcrime of expressing his opinion.  You see, I've already got the entire SF Forum on record, so it would be fascinating to see them attempt to defend various statements by certain authors while claiming that mine were worthy of expulsion.

Labels: ,

190 Comments:

Anonymous WinstonWebb June 13, 2013 1:49 PM  

...it would be fascinating to see them attempt to defend various statements by certain authors while claiming that mine were worthy of expulsion.

Rabbits gonna rabbit. Your comments not warren-approved, while the other authors' are.

It's pretty simple, really (as I suspect you already know).

Anonymous bob k. mando June 13, 2013 1:50 PM  

wait, what?

you're a PAID UP LIFETIME MEMBER?

muwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

okay, i forgive you for trolling me on the fascist/Nazi thing. this is fucking comedy platinunubtoniam.

Anonymous dh June 13, 2013 1:53 PM  

I have never seen you threaten legal action. It seems WAY out character. What gives? Under your skin a little?

Anonymous Jabari June 13, 2013 1:57 PM  

@DH: You missed the whole thing with The Guardian a while back?

Anonymous Catan June 13, 2013 1:58 PM  

I have never seen you threaten legal action. It seems WAY out character. What gives? Under your skin a little?"

I believe Vox supports the "agree and amplify" strategy. If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander.

Anonymous Anonymous Poster June 13, 2013 1:58 PM  

dh; I have never seen you threaten legal action.
 
VD’s fairly litigious, or at least likes to appear so.  How’s David Barrett doing?

Anonymous TJIC June 13, 2013 2:02 PM  


Well, my lawyer and I would certainly enjoy seeing them try to expel a paid-up Lifetime member for the thoughtcrime of expressing his opinion. You see, I've already got the entire SF Forum on record, so it would be fascinating to see them attempt to defend various statements by certain authors while claiming that mine were worthy of expulsion.


Paid in advanced?

Archived all the discussions?

LOL. Awesome.

Anonymous Inane Rambler June 13, 2013 2:05 PM  

While I don't think this will come down to legal action, it would be amusing for it to do so and for Vox to win. Just seeing the warren spin themselves in circles over that would be worthy entertainment.

Anonymous Channeling the spirit of Steven Gould June 13, 2013 2:12 PM  

Yes, it's just a reason. But such a reason...

Anonymous dh June 13, 2013 2:12 PM  

@DH: You missed the whole thing with The Guardian a while back?

I did. Reader's digest version?

Anonymous realmatt June 13, 2013 2:14 PM  

They all hate you but you're a PAID lifetime member.

You , sir, have turned trolling into an art form.

BRAVO!

Anonymous RINO June 13, 2013 2:15 PM  

They could totally avoid these problems in the future by screening new members during their application process. Equalitarians only.

Anonymous bob k. mando June 13, 2013 2:15 PM  

dh June 13, 2013 1:53 PM
I have never seen you threaten legal action. It seems WAY out character. What gives?



do you think Vox actually values the SFWA?

do you think that if they hand Vox a chainsaw that he will not then use that chainsaw to dismember them?

they are engaging in blatantly prejudicial behavior and flagrantly violating their own rules in order to do so. it would be hilarious if Vox burned the whole org down around their ears less than a year after losing an election for leadership within the org.

and THAT would be best troll of all.

Anonymous VD June 13, 2013 2:18 PM  

I have never seen you threaten legal action. It seems WAY out character. What gives? Under your skin a little?

Not at all, just giving them fair warning. They're dumb enough to act precipitately without thinking through the probable consequences of their actions. See Scalzi's letter to Random House, for example.

Plus my lawyer broke his leg a few weeks ago. He's bored.

Anonymous Davey Hogan's Revenge June 13, 2013 2:24 PM  

This plays nicely into my theory that the SFWA will cease to exist in 2-3 years. The new revolution of indie authors will fill the void nicely.
Burn the fucker to the ground, Vox. You've got them now. It will be proven in the next several days when they snap their pincers and perform a basic military maneuver called the Crawfish.
Can this day get any better?

Anonymous Toby Temple June 13, 2013 2:25 PM  

Vox is just practicing the concept of a black knight.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben June 13, 2013 2:26 PM  

OT: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/white-share-of-u-s-population-drops-to-historic-low.html

Sounds like the evil whites are going to be a minority by 2043. Leftist scumbag professors rejoice!

Anonymous Tallen June 13, 2013 2:26 PM  

They're burning their own warren down, as rabbits are wont to do.

Anonymous Technojihad June 13, 2013 2:30 PM  

Burn the system...

to the core!

Anonymous VD June 13, 2013 2:31 PM  

VD’s fairly litigious, or at least likes to appear so. How’s David Barrett doing?

Fine, I presume. I haven't done anything since getting the information I wanted out of the Guardian. Been a little busy.

Anonymous VD June 13, 2013 2:32 PM  

Paid in advanced?

Yep.

Archived all the discussions?

Yep.

Anonymous Davey Hogan's Revenge June 13, 2013 2:33 PM  

And to you Vox, I tip my hat. Tonight I'll cap the day with a cut from a dead cow, spirits distilled in the Great State of Kentucky, and a pinch of Copenhagen. I won't squee though.

Blogger Nate June 13, 2013 2:34 PM  

This is the SFWA at this point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKxlvWOqmFs

Anonymous J. J. June 13, 2013 2:35 PM  

Do the SFWA bylaws have an expulsion process defined?

Anonymous Daniel June 13, 2013 2:37 PM  

My friend, I did not even know that my heart had cockles.

And yet they rejoice.

This is like watching Van Helsing on a sunny day walk into a graveyard with a bundle of stakes.

dh, look at it this way: he sacrificed the SFWA presidency in order to be declared Troll King of Heinlein's Rule #5: You must keep it on the market until sold.

And you thought his whims were fleeting.

Anonymous Davey Hogan's Revenge June 13, 2013 2:38 PM  

I was envisioning him throwing gasoline on the warren inferno and walking away. As y'all say: rabbits will rabbit.

Anonymous Stephen J. June 13, 2013 2:38 PM  

I am probably not saying anything Vox does not already know, but the reason this particular conflict is foredoomed is a simple clash of definition of terms. In short, both sides are saying to one another, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Let us take "misogynist" as an example. If one defines "misogynist" as "working to the political disadvantage of women as a group," then Vox, regardless of never using the term or never wishing any harm upon any women beyond what consequences could be reasonably predicted for their own actions, is a misogynist because he has expressed the opinion that society in general would be healthier if women were not allowed to vote in elections for political office. If one defines "misogynist" as "consciously believing in the objective general inferiority of women in all areas of morality and capability, and actively personally disliking most women as a result of this belief," then I think one would be very hard put to prove Vox guilty of this.

But Vox's opponents in this argument sincerely believe that to argue the former position is taken as concrete and irrevocable proof of the latter; the idea that there could be a distinction in definition, that it could be possible to argue for the restriction of political power to a defined group without personally hating or condemning those not part of that group, is literally impossible to comprehend. It is not "dishonesty" on their part, because they literally cannot grasp the distinction Vox makes save as dishonesty on his part.

I used to pride myself on being able to understand both sides in most arguments, until it was pointed out to me that I was using this as an excuse to smugly consider myself above all of them. Let this therefore be taken as merely an explication of the conflict, and not as any attempt to resolve it.

Anonymous DrTorch June 13, 2013 2:39 PM  

Seems you could package this up as it's own SF story, sort of like Who's Cribbing?

Anonymous Boogeyman June 13, 2013 2:41 PM  

I've foolishly have tried talking to a few of these people about this in the comment sections of some of their blogs. I tried to be as calm and accommodating as possible, just trying to suggest that while blatant sexism is stupid and rude, could we all stop whining about it so much? Just deal with it then move on? Some of the stuff they claimed happened was wrong, but the way they went on and on about it tended to make them look like a Portandia bit come to life, and no one likes a whiner. Constantly beating your chest about even minor things made them look silly, like caricatures of themselves busy dealing with a very middle class white woman's problem.

No dice. I guess I just really didn't understand how far gone these people are. It took actually dealing with them for the reality to sink in. I blame myself for not being the blunt person I normally am. Trying to be delicate with my words, trying to play nice while trying to say something they don't want to hear, got me the same angry, illogical blow back I would have got if I just came out and hammered them with what was really on my mind. Stupid me. If I've learned anything after all this time is that I should never be a phony. Playing nice will just get you run over, and no one will respect you if you are not yourself. Never again. Next time I'll slap 'em hard or not bother at all. Shake the dust from my feet and all that.

And I blame this place. It's spoiled me for anything but brutal honesty in debate with intelligent, uncompromising people. No one here will spare my feelings if I say something stupid or stroke my ego. But I know you will all be honest with me, push me to think more clearly, and open my eyes to knew ideas even if I end up rejecting them. The words and comment may be harsh at times, but in the end they are a greater kindness than any amount of happy talk.

Blogger El Borak June 13, 2013 2:41 PM  

Davey Hogan's Revenge: This plays nicely into my theory that the SFWA will cease to exist in 2-3 years.

No way. It may no longer do anything but politic, but so long as it has a shred of credibility* it will go on forever. Just look at the Presbyterian church or any other organization taken over by liberals; countless examples exist. SFWA will shrink to a soulless, shriveled shadow of what it was and could have been, but it will never go away so long as liberals can use it to give awards to each other and be in the paper.

* Not in the sense of "actual writers respect it" but in the sense of "newspaper readers will attach credibility to an opinion because of the name."

Anonymous bob k. mando June 13, 2013 2:51 PM  

FUBAR Nation Ben June 13, 2013 2:26 PM
Sounds like the evil whites are going to be a minority by 2043. Leftist scumbag professors rejoice!




back in the 80s/early 90s MTV had this choice PSA out. it consisted of nothing but a little old white woman speaking. WITH A BLACK MAN'S VOICE dubbed in. and the subject of the ad was that by 2050(?) the US would be majority black ... and how would all the racist whites feel then?

can anyone find this? we need to do a follow up ad with a black punk overdubbed with a chicano voice explaining how the Hispanic population has already outstripped the blacks as a percentage of the US pop and pointing out that ( at current rates ) blacks NEVER WILL be a majority in the US.

Blogger IM2L844 June 13, 2013 2:51 PM  

Let us take "misogynist" as an example. If one defines "misogynist" as...

How about we stop trying to redefine words and use a dictionary instead?

Anonymous Davey Hogan's Revenge June 13, 2013 2:53 PM  

El Borak:
I'll give you that. In my excitement I overlooked your everyday standard model prog. That said—a soulless, shriveled shadow is good enough for me.

Blogger GF Dad June 13, 2013 2:53 PM  

Burn the warren down, smoke the bunnies out and let the predators of the real world take them down one by one. They are enemies of civilization and should be given no quarter.

Anonymous Stephen J. June 13, 2013 2:57 PM  

"How about we stop trying to redefine words and use a dictionary instead?"

Works for me, as long as we find a definition that people will (a) agree on, (b) stick to even if it works against their argument, and (c) not try to sneak things not covered by the definition in under its umbrella using the rubric of "well it amounts to the same thing doesn't it?".

Blogger Guitar Man June 13, 2013 2:59 PM  

I couldn't care less about the SFWA, but I do so enjoy a good throw down. Will the rabbits forever banish VD from their exclusive club? Popcorn!

Blogger Markku June 13, 2013 3:00 PM  

Stephen J:

I don't think the operative word is what you think it is. It is "self-described".

Anonymous Stephen J. June 13, 2013 3:01 PM  

And to follow up: Dictionary.com defines misogyny as simply "hatred of women".

If you cannot conceive of any motivation for thinking that votes for women is a socially bad idea other than personal hatred of women, or cannot believe that any claim of such motivation can actually be honest, then arguing that women should not be allowed to vote is, ipso facto, proof of misogyny.

Anonymous VD June 13, 2013 3:03 PM  

Do the SFWA bylaws have an expulsion process defined?

Yes, they do:

Section 10. Expulsion of Member. The officers of the Corporation may, by unanimous vote, expel any member for good and sufficient cause. In the event of such expulsion, the said member’s dues, if paid, shall be refunded on a pro rata basis. If a member so expelled is a life member, the refund shall be the life membership fee paid by the member minus $50 per year elapsed since the life membership was purchased. A member so expelled shall be reinstated upon petition of two-thirds of the active membership. The Corporation shall have no responsibility to circulate the petition.

Their problem is going to be defining "good and sufficient cause" in a manner that doesn't stick to the likes of Scalzi, Hines, Jemisin, and numerous others who have made inflammatory comments in public or the SFWA Forum. I'm sure they're working very hard on that right now....

Anonymous Daniel June 13, 2013 3:08 PM  

Stephen J., you already condemn one side of the debate as fools the instant you concede that they define words as dictated by their political purpose, as opposed to the dictionary. You are exactly right, though: you have one mob of writers mauling the plain meaning of words in order to tell lies about a single writer who insists on participating in an existing dialog about his writing pursuit and on using words the proper way.

That's where the law comes in. As it did in the Guardian case of libel, applying the legal rule of hate speech and discrimination has very little to do with renumeration or forcing the law to effectively acknowledge his right to exist as a member of the Sci-fi community.

It has everything to do with demonstrating, to the fullest degree, that the genderless, raceless squee-indentifying folk of the last gutter of the dead genre of sci-fi/fantasy, who murdered in the first place, are now drowning in its in blood.

The financial reward itself, even if he pursues it, would be out of rhetorical charity. Obviously, he knows much faster and efficient ways to earn money, but there's something fairly delicious about tricking the warren of society-haters to request a public beating...only to find out later that it is for themselves.

I have a hard time believing that an anti-Semite would be able to bring himself to employ the techniques of Mordecai and Esther to his - and, more importantly, the genres' -great advantage.

Then again, his sense of fun appears to be unfathomably deeper and broader than it might first appear...

Anonymous Stephen J. June 13, 2013 3:08 PM  

"I don't think the operative word is what you think it is. It is "self-described"."

Well, that's the reason I'm looking at how people understand their terms.

If your stance is such that you can see or believe no possible reason for advocating certain policies other than hatred of the people affected by those policies, then to argue for the policies is, ipso facto (I apologize for repeating myself), to effectively describe oneself as an example of that hatred. Whether you use the word or not is irrelevant.

If I were to say, "I sunburn in February, all my ancestors are Irish, and I have green eyes and red hair and freckled skin," and somebody then said, "a self-described white man," of me, would you really take as valid my objection that I never used the word "white"? (You might, if there was another way to use the word "white" that I could reasonably claim not to have meant -- but whether such a claim is possible or reasonable is the fundamental clash of perspective here.)

Blogger Guitar Man June 13, 2013 3:09 PM  

But it is nicely illustrating my point about their fascism and censorial tendencies, isn't it?

Rabbits gonna fascist.

Blogger IM2L844 June 13, 2013 3:10 PM  

Stephen J, every dictionary I looked at unambiguously defined misogynist as a person who hates women. Nothing to discuss. Vox clearly does not hate women.

Blogger Markku June 13, 2013 3:12 PM  

First dictionary hit in Google:

"used for saying what type of person someone says they are"

If Vox doesn't say he is a misogynist, then he couldn't possibly be a self-described misogynist. The very term exists precisely so that it would remove the ambiguity you are talking about.

Blogger Markku June 13, 2013 3:14 PM  

To say a person is a [pejorative] is a statement of opinion. To say he is self-described [pejorative] is a statement of fact.

Anonymous bob k. mando June 13, 2013 3:18 PM  

and a statement of purported fact WHICH IS FALSE opens the window to slander / libel claims.

it doesn't establish them.

but it will certainly get an extended hearing before a judge.

Anonymous The CronoLink June 13, 2013 3:21 PM  

Dance, puny rabbits, dance!!

Blogger Markku June 13, 2013 3:21 PM  

But what if there were such false statements of fact, AND they went out of their way to prevent the victim from clearing them up? Well, then you'd just be screwed.

Anonymous Daniel June 13, 2013 3:22 PM  

how people understand their terms.

What does it matter, Stephen J., if they are misunderstanding their own terms, how can they possibly expect to be understood?

Just because these SFWA folks apparently had Steve Martin for a father, should they really be offended when no one gives them directions to the bathroom when they ask, "Mambo dogface to the banana patch?"

They aren't even in an argument. They are in a weeping contest, and only one side is playing.

Anonymous kh123 June 13, 2013 3:25 PM  

Besides the entertainment aspect, is a thorough case dissection of the political underbelly in publishing that most folks more than likely aren't privy to or aware of.

I'd almost want those interesting woodcut sketches with Latin description alongside each part of the process, a'la Vesalius.

Some variation of this for the title page, the Ilk gathered around specimen rabbit. Vox as the researcher.

Blogger IM2L844 June 13, 2013 3:25 PM  

Vox: "Reality!"

Rabbit: "But perceptions and feelings!"

Anonymous Rufus June 13, 2013 3:28 PM  

"And I blame this place. It's spoiled me for anything but brutal honesty in debate with intelligent, uncompromising people. No one here will spare my feelings if I say something stupid or stroke my ego. But I know you will all be honest with me, push me to think more clearly, and open my eyes to knew ideas even if I end up rejecting them. The words and comment may be harsh at times, but in the end they are a greater kindness than any amount of happy talk."

This ^

Anonymous dh June 13, 2013 3:30 PM  

Their problem is going to be defining "good and sufficient cause" in a manner that doesn't stick to the likes of Scalzi, Hines, Jemisin, and numerous others who have made inflammatory comments in public or the SFWA Forum. I'm sure they're working very hard on that right now....

Do you think they'll feel bound by precedent? It doesn't strike me a principled organization.

Anonymous Desiderius June 13, 2013 3:33 PM  

"whether such a claim is possible or reasonable is the fundamental clash of perspective"

There is only a clash because one party to the clash has with great effectiveness, and, yes, the utmost savagery, employed every means at their disposal to blur any possible distinction between hatred of certain groups and statements about group characteristics regarding said groups, whatever the motivation of those making the statements.

Truth is among the casualties of that savagery.

Anonymous dh June 13, 2013 3:35 PM  

I will join King Rat in matching donations in the $1500-$2000 range. Plus, every $500 increment after that, I will match half of the previous increment (half for $2000-$2500, quarter for $2500 to $3000, eighth for $3000-$3500, etc.).

They can't even donate money efficiently or effectively. I suspect this guy has never heard of an asymptote.

Blogger Markku June 13, 2013 3:35 PM  

Do you think they'll feel bound by precedent?

Of course not. Vox is preparing for the lawsuit. Hell, maybe that will provide him the necessary motivation to go forward with the one already in progress, because hey, when the same lawyer is already dealing with one, then there's no reason to not go for a twofer. You're already spending time on it.

Blogger Markku June 13, 2013 3:38 PM  

And why a lawsuit? It's obvious, it's material for Alpha Game. Leading by example, about how not to get cowed by rabbits. That you'll win, if you just don't get scared along the way.

Anonymous Daniel June 13, 2013 3:39 PM  

Do you think they'll feel bound by precedent? It doesn't strike me a principled organization.

No. Ergo, the threat of binding them by law. Don't ever forget that dealing with rabbits is a stick and carrot affair. The only trouble Vox has is that he can't possibly grow a carrot filled with enough carbohydrates to satisfy them. He even tried to deep fat fry one for them back when he proposed his platform, but it wasn't enough.

It still required them to actually write something that people would buy.

Blogger IM2L844 June 13, 2013 3:40 PM  

If you were to say, "I sunburn in February, all my ancestors are Irish, I have green eyes and red hair and freckled skin and have been known to drink a little Irish whiskey on occasion" and somebody then said, "self-described alchoholic", would you find that objectionable?

Anonymous VD June 13, 2013 3:42 PM  

Do you think they'll feel bound by precedent?

Of course not. They'd do it in a heartbeat if they thought I'd go away quietly. But their fear is that I can afford a lawsuit and would have a reasonable expectation of winning it since there are so many recorded instances of members doing and saying far more objectionable things than in this particular response to a false and very public attack.

You see, The Perfect Aryan Male and I have NEVER lost a lawsuit. We once forced a company that originally was only obligated to write me a letter to cough up more than $200k. And that was a publicly traded New York corporation with much better lawyers than SFWA has.

Blogger Res Ipsa June 13, 2013 3:42 PM  

Vox,

You’ve enjoyed more personal and professional success across a wider range of endeavors than any ten of these guys put together. I can see why they should want to have you around, but they don’t. You seem to be the only interesting person at SWFA. Why even bother with these pin heads? They don’t want to improve their trade, their personal artistic achievement or the profession in general. What are you doing hanging out with these losers?

Anonymous dh June 13, 2013 3:43 PM  

No. Ergo, the threat of binding them by law.

It sounds quite weak. There is nothing (presumbably) saying that the good cause has to be applied uniformly. It's not bound by anti-discrimination law (1st amendment).

It would be a breach of contract suit, I suppose...

Anonymous dh June 13, 2013 3:45 PM  

But their fear is that I can afford a lawsuit and would have a reasonable expectation of winning it since there are so many recorded instances of members doing and saying far more objectionable things than in this particular response to a false and very public attack.

Yeah, I suppose. It would be an interesting case. Private member only organization, not bound by any rules of fairness, only bound by contract law, I would think. And bylaws.

They aren't bound by precedent, they aren't bound by objective fairness.

Anonymous Athor Pel June 13, 2013 3:50 PM  

Remember children, when another player is making moves that make no sense to you, he might not be playing the same game as you.

Anonymous Stickwick June 13, 2013 3:53 PM  

Remember children, when another player is making moves that make no sense to you, he might not be playing the same game as you.

Words of wisdom.

Anonymous Inane Rambler June 13, 2013 3:54 PM  

Yes, dh, but the point isn't to win, the point is to carry out the threat, and to make the threat if it's warranted. Even if it was to come to Vox's expulsion from SWFA, then a lawsuit, Vox wins as long as he doesn't back down.

Anonymous Daniel June 13, 2013 3:56 PM  

This a textbook case of long time preference vs. short-time preference.

Doesn't matter how good or bad the long-term consequence of these actions are, rabbits will rabbit. Doesn't matter how good or bad the short-term consequence of actions are, long-termers will invest.

Blogger Sean June 13, 2013 3:59 PM  

I'd like more info if possible on The Guardian situation. I'm on the site multiple times a day every day, but I honestly don't remember reading about this. I love reading tales of Vox taking out stupid people.

Anonymous VD June 13, 2013 4:01 PM  

Why even bother with these pin heads? They don’t want to improve their trade, their personal artistic achievement or the profession in general. What are you doing hanging out with these losers?

I generally don't. But I did get some good insights on the current project from three of them in the last week and there are a few people I wouldn't mind publishing once the game grows up and the channel becomes more attractive to established writers.

Anonymous dh June 13, 2013 4:01 PM  



Yes, dh, but the point isn't to win, the point is to carry out the threat, and to make the threat if it's warranted. Even if it was to come to Vox's expulsion from SWFA, then a lawsuit, Vox wins as long as he doesn't back down.


How is that a win?

Anonymous Susie June 13, 2013 4:04 PM  

A libertarian hiding behind the government?

Blogger Markku June 13, 2013 4:09 PM  

A libertarian hiding behind the government?

Contract law is one of the most fundamental things about Libertarianism. It's how the society is envisioned to function.

Anonymous VD June 13, 2013 4:15 PM  

How is that a win?

It all depends upon what the objective is. If, for example, I wished to set up a rival organization, it might be more effective to encourage the existing one to burn itself down first. Or perhaps I'm deeply wounded, emotionally, and I'm simply lashing out in the only way I know how.

Or it could be the objective is to win three Nebula prizes running as part of a settlement. Or perhaps I think this is the way to become president of the organization since I couldn't win in a free election. Or it could simply be an instinctive desire to sow chaos.

Who can say? That's the infuriating thing about Sigmas. One really has no idea what their real motivations are. It makes them hard to predict.

Anonymous Inane Rambler June 13, 2013 4:20 PM  

How is that a win?

Go to Alpha Game and read about Black Knighting, and it will all make sense.

Here's a link: http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2013/03/black-knights.html

Anonymous liljoe June 13, 2013 4:21 PM  

"A libertarian hiding behind the government?"

Nothing more "libertarian" than asserting one's individual rights as agreed to in a Contract

Anonymous Inane Rambler June 13, 2013 4:22 PM  

Whoops, continuing:

Anything is a win for Vox, since he's not concerned so much about dragging SFWA down, he's more interested in just his own amusement from forcing them to play by the same rules their ilk support.

Anonymous liljoe June 13, 2013 4:23 PM  

Or what Markku said, and more eloquently succinct I might add

Anonymous T14 June 13, 2013 4:26 PM  

Seems a bit like going to a high school gym to show off your deadlift. Yeah you'll win, but...? Eh, no accounting for taste.

And aside from dues, what are the damages to be claimed?

Anonymous Daniel June 13, 2013 4:32 PM  

...Except when that high school gym sponsors an international weightlifting contest, and claims that you are a weakling, and bans you from competition...and it is your high school.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 13, 2013 4:32 PM  

A libertarian hiding behind the government?

"Libertarian" and "Anarchist" are two entirely different philosophies. But then I suppose all non-rabbits look alike to the flop-ears.

Anonymous VD June 13, 2013 4:32 PM  

And aside from dues, what are the damages to be claimed?

That would be TPAM's area, not mine.

Anonymous Salt June 13, 2013 4:34 PM  

That's the infuriating thing about Sigmas. One really has no idea what their real motivations are.

Since the enjoyment factor trumps all, who cares?

Anonymous Daniel June 13, 2013 4:36 PM  

Damages?

Come on. The mind reels. Take your pick:

Civil
Professional damages, emotional damages, cost damages, PR, Justice, Fees, Organizational Collapse

Criminal
Charges, convictions and fines

Depending on one's mindset, any one of these results might be a delightful side effect of rattling the gamma cage until it squees.

Anonymous Stephen J. June 13, 2013 4:37 PM  

IM2L844: If you were to say, "I sunburn in February, all my ancestors are Irish, I have green eyes and red hair and freckled skin and have been known to drink a little Irish whiskey on occasion" and somebody then said, "self-described alcoholic", would you find that objectionable?

Oh, without a doubt. But that's because I, and most people who aren't ragingly anti-Irish, recognize that claiming the former characteristics is not itself a de facto admission of the latter. Whereas Vox's opponents do not recognize that advocating a policy disadvantageous to one group need not equate to or derive from personal hatred towards that group, at least when the group is question is one they are part of or allied with.

Desiderius: There is only a clash because one party to the clash has... employed every means at their disposal to blur any possible distinction between hatred of certain groups and statements about group characteristics regarding said groups, whatever the motivation of those making the statements. Truth is among the casualties of that savagery.

And that is precisely my point: From their own point of view, it is the Truth that there is no distinction between making statements about group characteristics and expressing hatred towards said group; they consider the former to amount to the latter, and any attempt to claim otherwise is ipso facto dishonest -- an attempt on Vox's part to make Truth a casualty of the conflict. They see erasing any and all such distinctions as restoring Truth, not obscuring it, because they genuinely believe that such distinctions are false and unreal.

Now as a position this is consistent. Whether in practice they have avoided the fatal self-contradiction of "it's wrong except when we do it to you" is another question. But it always helps to understand those of different opinions, I think.

Anonymous Emperor of Icecream June 13, 2013 4:37 PM  

Well, my lawyer and I would certainly enjoy seeing them try to expel a paid-up Lifetime member for the thoughtcrime of expressing his opinion. You see, I've already got the entire SF Forum on record, so it would be fascinating to see them attempt to defend various statements by certain authors while claiming that mine were worthy of expulsion.

Mr. SFWA, expel this man!

Let hilarity ensue.

Anonymous Mike M. June 13, 2013 4:39 PM  

I suspect Vox has the establishment of an alternative SF Writer's League in mind. Cracking the legitimacy of SFWA is the start of this.

He's already run for SFWA president. Lost, but this established him as a player. Expelling him shows the SFWA leadership as motivated both by ideology and by a desire to quash competition. Which Vox can prove.

Phase 3 - Set up new organization.

Anonymous Ferd June 13, 2013 4:42 PM  

"Archived all the discussions?"

"Yep."

Alrighty, but if you find yourself short of verbatim conversations, the NSA is setting up a hotline to retrieve any lost files.

It is a small way that government assists citizens to fulfill themselves!!

Anonymous Salt June 13, 2013 4:42 PM  

The problem the SFWA has in expelling anyone is, as Vox has said, no bylaws to go by. Any expulsion would be capricious and open the officer(s) and organization to legal sanction. Whether Vox is a lifetime member or not is irrelevant.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza June 13, 2013 4:43 PM  

What absurdity!! Team Vox!

See, if Theo would have won the SWFA seat, things might have been different.

Blogger Brad Andrews June 13, 2013 4:46 PM  

Not fighting battles like this has been a major factor in letting the culture go down the tubes. Too many defaults will take you completely out of the play.

Anonymous Anonagain June 13, 2013 4:49 PM  

Vox Day v. Fascist Freaks of the SFWA

The reason these blithering retards think they can get away with their vicious inanity is because nobody stands up to them. Most people would rather just step away from the red ant hill.

I completely agree with Vox. Give em all the hell you can, Vox. This is not an isolated incident. Individuals and groups are routinely bullied, censured, and shouted down by Leftist scum. We either stomp them out, or the red ants take over.

Anonymous Anonymous Comment June 13, 2013 4:49 PM  

Salt; Article 4, Section 10 of the SFWA By-laws state, “The officers of the Corporation may, by unanimous vote, expel any member for good and sufficient cause.”   ”Good and sufficient cause” would be in the case, the use of the SFWAauthors Twitter feed to attack another member. 

Anonymous VD June 13, 2013 4:53 PM  

the use of the SFWAauthors Twitter feed to attack another member.

First time that's happened, is it? Is "good and sufficient cause" also the use of the SFWA Forum to attack another member? Or the use of the SFWA Bulletin to do so....

Blogger wrf3 June 13, 2013 4:54 PM  

Mike M. wrote: Phase 3 - Set up new organization.

All Vox has to do is start teaching the Ilk Martian then stage a glorious public martyrdom.

Anonymous Rantor June 13, 2013 4:57 PM  

Vox, May you own them when this is over

Anonymous bob k. mando June 13, 2013 5:01 PM  

LP 999/Eliza June 13, 2013 4:43 PM
See, if Theo would have won the SWFA seat, things might have been different.




yes, because the SFWA warren initiating a proceeding to expel their own elected president/drag him into court would be EVEN MORE amusing.

you don't seriously think that something of this nature was NOT going to happen?

the armies of Squee can't tolerate the presence of Teddy Beale and they would have pretexted something.

Anonymous Daniel June 13, 2013 5:01 PM  

Don't be mean, Rantor. That's like wishing syphillis on a guy. These dolts wouldn't even make decent slaves. They'd be unproductive and fifteen times as expensive to keep fed.

Anonymous Stephen J. June 13, 2013 5:04 PM  

"First time that's happened, is it?"

Probably not; but the rules only say the officers may expel a member for good and sufficient cause, not that they have to, so the choice not to do so in one instance doesn't deprive them of the right in other instances. And I doubt the rules explicitly define what "good and sufficient cause" is either.

Which is why I hate weasel phrases like this: in practice they amount to, "We can expel whoever we like at our own discretion, we're just trying to give ourselves a patina of pre-emptive justification."

Anonymous Daniel June 13, 2013 5:09 PM  

Stephen J., then why haven't they expelled him yet? He obviously causes them a lot of trouble. They clearly fear the related legal issues. They aren't as free to do whatever they want as you might think. It isn't just a club, after all. It is a professional organization in the publishing industry.

If you think they've simply been frozen for a decade, trying their best to keep his long-since spent membership dues in the bank, looking for any reason to keep him in...

well, we disagree.

Blogger Lovekraft June 13, 2013 5:10 PM  

As soon as you see a leftist charging 'sexism' and 'racism', you know you are dealing with a moonbat. Not worth consideration.

It is the leftists who have to answer for their scurrilous behavior.

Anonymous Stephen J. June 13, 2013 5:15 PM  

"Stephen J., then why haven't they expelled him yet? He obviously causes them a lot of trouble. They clearly fear the related legal issues."

Good points, but never underestimate the inertia of any bureaucracy and the short half-life of Internet disputes. There is a difference between "fearing the legal issues" and "not considering it worth the time or paperwork". Frozen, no; lazy and distractible, quite possibly.

Of course, poke the laziest dog often enough, hard enough, and it will snap....

Anonymous dh June 13, 2013 5:17 PM  

Any expulsion would be capricious and open the officer(s) and organization to legal sanction. Whether Vox is a lifetime member or not is irrelevant.

Maybe. It would be an interesting case. I poked around LexisNexus & PACER and did not see any obvious case law that interested me on the matter. It sure sounds like membership in a not-for-profit 503(c) is 100% by discretion of the bylaws. You can even discriminate on any basis, even protected membership.

As long as the club is not a public accomodation, I think they can do whatever they want. You could sue for breach, I think, whenever a contract or agreement is not upheld.

The damages may be the best part. Because a breach would probably easy to prove. Then the SWFA would be in the position of arguing that their are no damages because membership is literally, legally, worthless. And then VD could drag up every marketing claim they've ever made about how great and valuable membership is.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 13, 2013 5:20 PM  

And aside from dues, what are the damages to be claimed?

Hoyboy, that could be interesting. In order to claim there were no damages to lost membership beyond the refunded dues, the SWFA would need to claim the organization provided no professional benefit to SF/F authors.

I mean, I'm not saying the facts wouldn't back up such a claim, but...

Anonymous dh June 13, 2013 5:22 PM  

I mean, I'm not saying the facts wouldn't back up such a claim, but...

This is the premise that gets the Catholic church into contortions, arguing in court, say, that a fetus is not a life for the purposes of avoiding wrongful death claims, or pharmaceutical companies arguing that their drugs are not inherently valuable and therefore not subject to various trade restrictions.

Much better organizations that the SWFA have been embarrassed by having to first plead essentially not-guilty, and then plead guilty but we suck.

Anonymous realmatt June 13, 2013 5:28 PM  

How is that a win?

Oh my dear boy...there's nothing so sweet as being hated by people who can do nothing about it.

Anonymous Stephen J. June 13, 2013 5:29 PM  

To engage in my own act of fine distinction, the Catholic argument is not "The fetus isn't alive so that wasn't a wrongful death"; the argument is "The law cannot claim both that a fetus is not alive and that this was a wrongful death, because the one contradicts the other, so you have no case under the law." Pointing out your opponent's self-contradictions is not a contortion.

I imagine a number of Catholics would be happy to see the case lost, if it could be used to establish the legal precedent that the fetus was legally alive.

Anonymous Razoraid June 13, 2013 6:00 PM  

Totalitarian tyranny only works as long as the dissidents can be silenced. The days when these girl-goons can rape free speech to stifle the natural backlash are about over.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard June 13, 2013 6:21 PM  

It all depends upon what the objective is. If, for example, I wished to set up a rival organization, it might be more effective to encourage the existing one to burn itself down first. Or perhaps I'm deeply wounded, emotionally, and I'm simply lashing out in the only way I know how.

Or it could be the objective is to win three Nebula prizes running as part of a settlement. Or perhaps I think this is the way to become president of the organization since I couldn't win in a free election. Or it could simply be an instinctive desire to sow chaos.


The sincerest form of flattery? Bless you, mortal man. I will continue to watch with professional interest. Thus far, I am not disappointed.

I do like chicken, by the bye, in case you feel like making an offering. I am fairly certain I have a minion outpost near you.

Blogger Phoenician June 13, 2013 6:34 PM  

Well, my lawyer and I would certainly enjoy seeing them try to expel a paid-up Lifetime member for the thoughtcrime of expressing his opinion.

http://www.sfwa.org/member-links/by-laws/

Article IV

"Section 10. Expulsion of Member. The officers of the Corporation may, by unanimous vote, expel any member for good and sufficient cause. In the event of such expulsion, the said member’s dues, if paid, shall be refunded on a pro rata basis. If a member so expelled is a life member, the refund shall be the life membership fee paid by the member minus $50 per year elapsed since the life membership was purchased. A member so expelled shall be reinstated upon petition of two-thirds of the active membership. The Corporation shall have no responsibility to circulate the petition."

Go ahead and pay a lawyer. I'm sure they'll be happy to take your money for a case you can't win, dipshit.

Anonymous Desiderius June 13, 2013 6:36 PM  


"Good points, but never underestimate the inertia of any bureaucracy and the short half-life of Internet disputes. There is a difference between "fearing the legal issues" and "not considering it worth the time or paperwork". Frozen, no; lazy and distractible, quite possibly."

There has been inertia on all sides. The contradictions are in the process of building up the critical mass necessary to surmount it.

"Of course, poke the laziest dog often enough, hard enough, and it will snap...."

Hence Vox's response to the half-savage. It will not be the last.

Anonymous Stickwick June 13, 2013 6:40 PM  

Go ahead and pay a lawyer. I'm sure they'll be happy to take your money for a case you can't win, dipshit.

This has already been covered, nimrod.

Blogger Phoenician June 13, 2013 6:44 PM  

Section 10. Expulsion of Member. The officers of the Corporation may, by unanimous vote, expel any member for good and sufficient cause. [...]"

Their problem is going to be defining "good and sufficient cause"


Congratulations, dipshit, for showing just how stupid you really are. The language is crafted, as is normal, so that *any* cause is "good and sufficient" if an unanimous vote of the officers decides it is.

Whimpering that "other people do it" isn't going to cut it, you pathetic little twerp. By all means go ahead and pay a lawyer to tell you the same thing, or to take you into court to have a judge tell you the same thing.

Your concept of law is literally at the level of a four year old ("He did it too, mommy!"). Is it any wonder you're laughed at as the dipshit you are?

Anonymous Desiderius June 13, 2013 6:59 PM  

Stephen J.,

"And that is precisely my point: From their own point of view, it is the Truth that there is no distinction between making statements about group characteristics and expressing hatred towards said group"

What is your evidence that those you so generously suppose hold to this point of view believe in the existence/possibility of Truth at all?

See Frankfurt's "On Bullshit" for a more accurate characterization of their philosophy, such as it is.

"they consider the former to amount to the latter"

I see little evidence of any consideration of anything at all beyond the power to be gained by uniting one's tribe around the hatred of those who dare to consider otherwise.


"They see erasing any and all such distinctions as restoring Truth, not obscuring it, because they genuinely believe that such distinctions are false and unreal."

No, they see it as a means to power. I will grant that many who go along with it (usually out of the inertia you mention, and/or having better things to do) vaguely remember some taboo about group differences that was part of some consensus on race and gender that once inspired widespread allegiance, and thus will feel vaguely uneasy when someone violates that taboo.

The thing is that consensus was destroyed with the utmost savagery by those who recognized the potential for personal gain in taking advantage of that inertia among those entrusted with maintaining that consensus. There are millions of small-time operators in that category, such as Vox's interlocutor here, but the real muscle comes from the place it always has - illegitimate power threatened by any real meritocracy.

Half-savages are easier to keep down than civilized resistance, let alone superior civilization.

Anonymous VD June 13, 2013 7:00 PM  

Go ahead and pay a lawyer. I'm sure they'll be happy to take your money for a case you can't win, dipshit.

They already get paid anyhow. Do you not know what corporate lawyers are?

Congratulations, dipshit, for showing just how stupid you really are. The language is crafted, as is normal, so that *any* cause is "good and sufficient" if an unanimous vote of the officers decides it is.

Your take on things is always good for some mild humor, Phony. Of course the board can make that determination and hope that it will stand up in court. The question is if they want to set a precedent that will allow any member to utilize that precedent to go after other members, or make it obvious that they are kicking out members for first offenses.

You seem to have forgotten that there is already a specified penalty for attacking other members via the Twitter feed, and that penalty has already been enacted. Furthermore, it now appears to be apparent to the membership that they are enforcing the rules selectively, as Jemisin has not, to my knowledge, been disciplined for breaking confidentiality.

Anonymous Desiderius June 13, 2013 7:03 PM  

Phoenician,

So good of you to show up on cue to provide such a vivid illustration of the savagery identified by Vox.

Anonymous Myrddin June 13, 2013 7:06 PM  

If Vox has no legal leg to stand on, that only means he is defeated if damages are his sole objective. Any number of objectives could find victory in defeat. Snopes lost the monkey trial, but the ACLU considered it a PR victory which they continue to thump to this day. If the goal is to demolish or reform the SFWA, even a loss could accomplish it.

In reality, his claim to have bled a decent sum out of a company that only owed him a letter is a claim to be able to win legal battles with both his legal legs tied behind his back. Your claim, therefore, that he cannot win is effectively a claim that the strict letter of the law is always followed, which is demonstrably false.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 13, 2013 7:22 PM  

Phoenician must have learned a new word at school today.

Anonymous Gx1080 June 13, 2013 7:57 PM  

@dh

I think that the "why" is very simple. Personally, I think that the idea of McRapey and Co. having to give Vox money after losing a lawsuit is hilarious. I'm sure that I'm not alone on this.

You leftists could use some sense of humor.

Anonymous bob k. mando June 13, 2013 8:00 PM  

Phoenician June 13, 2013 6:44 PM
Your concept of law is literally at the level of a four year old ("He did it too, mommy!").





Jemisin libeled him.

the SFWA is aiding and abetting her in this libel.

come get some, bitch.

Anonymous Richardthughes June 13, 2013 8:07 PM  

I don't agree with you very often, but it's important you have a voice and that I listen to voices other than my own.

Anonymous VD June 13, 2013 8:18 PM  

I don't agree with you very often, but it's important you have a voice and that I listen to voices other than my own.

People do tend to look at you a little funny when you talk to yourself....

Blogger IM2L844 June 13, 2013 8:27 PM  

Whereas Vox's opponents do not recognize that advocating a policy disadvantageous to one group need not equate to or derive from personal hatred towards that group, at least when the group is question is one they are part of or allied with.

Illogical. Fallacy of composition. That Vox's opponents and possibly you do not recognize that is telling, but irrelevant.

Anonymous zen0 June 13, 2013 8:30 PM  

dh explains They aren't bound by precedent,...

Superior in operation to the courts, then. One judge makes a mistake, everybody has to make a mistake again.

Anonymous zen0 June 13, 2013 8:40 PM  

What the hell is up with that phoenician character? Incipient brain tumour? If he had false teeth, he would get so worked up they would be interfering with his lips moving and he would be saying "blf blf mffl blfin mffl".

Which is a lot more sensible than his typing message.

Anonymous TheExpat June 13, 2013 8:42 PM  

The SFWA warren is approaching the situation as a warren: their only tool is the hammer of groupthink, so every dissension is but a nail to be pounded down by force of numbers and loudest voices. these legal geniuses probably think that all they have to do to win a civil suit is convince the jury* that the litigant is indeed a RSHD.

* Think carefully and you may get the joke, rabbits.


I haven't had this much fun watching a trainwreck develop in real time since, oh... let's see... maybe the epic YBD thread on the BB misc forum?

Anonymous Davey Hogan's Revenge June 13, 2013 8:47 PM  

This Phony is not an operator. It is a moot point if Vox wins or loses a lawsuit (albeit a win equals hilarity). If he 'lawyers up' the damage is done. SFF authors to the right know this. I hope he does.
In this business, at the present, to lean to the right is poison. We mid-listers and indies (who are frowned upon by SFWA) recognize what is at stake. I did not join. Many of my author friends are members. The fact that Vox got the votes he did is proof enough that we are out there and unhappy with the prog mob.
This is a watershed moment for SFF authors.
I for one hope you ratchet this up, Vox. SFWA is dying. It's time to put a boot on the throat.

Anonymous Inane Rambler June 13, 2013 9:20 PM  

Even if Vox supports stripping women's suffarage away, who cares?

Voting is so vastly unimportant it really doesn't matter, and other than "You can vote Democrat" voting is not something that the SFWA Warren members think too much about.

The American obsession with "voting rights" is almost pathological in its obsession. All the more hilarious because most eligible voters don't bother to vote anyways.

Blogger tz June 13, 2013 9:24 PM  

Would they find the following member acceptable (a historical figure):

(as to laws on marriage - why it caught my eye).

I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races… nor qualifying [negroes] to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.

I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. …

I will add to this that I have never seen to my knowledge a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.


Who might it be?

Blogger "1951" June 13, 2013 9:24 PM  

dh, 3 June 5:17 pm: As long as the club is not a public accomodation, I think they can do whatever they want. You could sue for breach, I think, whenever a contract or agreement is not upheld.

LOL

*** BEGIN QUOTATION***

[T]he Civil Rights Act of 1964 are Titles II and V, for these sections destroyed the freedom of association enjoyed by citizens of the United States... by destroying the distinction between public life and private property in our country.

Prior to 1964, Congress had little power to prohibit racial discrimination by private individuals or organizations on private property. Prior to 1964, the United States Supreme Court had consistently defended this limitation of federal power. But after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, any limit on federal power ended. Title II of the Civil Rights Act outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other “public accommodations” engaged in “interstate commerce”.
Subsequent court decisions and legislation have made it plain that “public accommodation” means “any place other than a private, members-only club”. If you own a restaurant, a retail store, a hotel or motel, or any other business, the federal government says that you must admit black people whether you want to or not. That’s right: it may be your business, your investment, and your risk, but you no longer have the right to say who can and cannot come onto your private property. You have no say. You have no choice. If you keep a black man from entering your property, or even make him think you might want to do so, you are a criminal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In a just and civilized world, in a free country, the owners of a private property would be free to admit or deny admission to anyone on any basis they might choose. It’s their property, after all.

But it isn’t. Not in America. Not anymore. Not since Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. Not since Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (379 U.S. 241 [1964]) and Daniel v. Paul (395 U.S. 298 [1969]) were handed down. (For more on these decisions see below.) Not since the so-called Fair Housing act of 1968 (Pub.L. 90-284, 82 Stat. 73 [1968]) made it through Congress...

The federal government never defines “private” in this Act, which is of course the same as saying that in any given case, “private” means whatever the federal government says it means. If you try making your business or organization a members-only outfit, you will find that the federal civil rights police have another trick up their sleeves: the Commerce Clause. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that the Congress shall have power “To regulate Commerce… among the several States”. This clause is the key that gives the federal government the power to pick the lock of your private organization and force you to admit anyone that wants in. With one Supreme Court decision (the above-mentioned Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, Congress ruled that a privately-owned motor inn could not turn away black travelers on the basis of race. By doing so, it gave itself the power to regulate any business that serves “interstate travelers” – which of course means every business in America. After all, every alley, street, and road in America is connected at some point to a road that crosses a state line. Every airport, bus station, and train station in America is connected to the nationwide transportation grid in some fashion. Therefore, if your business or organization is accessible by road, street, or path, by air, or by any other means, it “serves interstate travelers”, and is subject to Congress’ racial justice laws.

[continued]

Blogger "1951" June 13, 2013 9:25 PM  

[continued]


In Daniel v. Paul , [the Court] ruled that a privately-owned swimming facility in Arkansas couldn’t keep out black kids. Never mind that the club and its facilities were 100% privately-owned. Never mind that the place was a strictly local operation. The federal government decided that since three out of the four items sold at the facility’s snack bar were purchased from outside the state, the owners were engaged in “interstate commerce” – and their swimming facility was therefore subject to regulation under Title II of the Civil Rights Act, which defines “commerce” as “[T]ravel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.”
The club’s owners never had a chance. With a definition of “commerce” that broad, no one can escape. “The snack bar serves a limited fare-hot dogs and hamburgers on buns, soft drinks, and milk,” wrote the Court in its decision. But, since “principal ingredients going into the bread were produced and processed in other States” and “certain ingredients [of the soft drinks] were probably obtained… from out-of State sources”, it said, then “there can be no serious doubt that a ‘substantial portion of the food’ served at the snack bar has moved in interstate commerce...”

And thus the entire members-only, privately-owned facility fell within the ambit of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and its owners had to admit black people to their private property whether they wanted to or not.

What this means to you is that you are no longer free. Even if you have a private club, even if it is owned by the members, and even if you keep the club’s address and phone number totally secret, your club is almost certainly a “public accommodation” and is subject to federal anti-discrimination law. After all, the light bulbs used in your clubhouse were made in China. That’s interstate commerce! The air filter in your clubhouse’s air conditioner was bought at a store owned by a company in Arkansas. Interstate commerce again! The coffee you serve at the clubhouse bar was grown in Hawaii. Interstate commerce, baby! No matter how private your club may be, no matter how exclusive its membership, no matter how remote its location, as far as [Black Run America] is concerned your club is engaging in interstate commerce, and is therefore subject to the ever-loving Civil Rights Act of 1964...

The law is clear. Under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, every business, club, and other organization or facility is a “public accommodation”, or is engaged in “interstate commerce”, or both.

[Source]

*** END QUOTATION ***

Live by oppressive federal intervention, die by oppressive federal intervention.

Anonymous Stephen J. June 13, 2013 9:51 PM  

"Illogical. Fallacy of composition."

Agreed, but they are evaluating Vox's position not by formal logic but by functionalist logic, where only the ultimate effect matters; if you (the rhetorical you) are arguing for something that will disadvantage me for no believable or understandable reason, you are being hostile towards me, regardless of whether you consciously feel any hostility or not.

It is an unfortunate fact that very often arguments for policies which will negatively affect a group are driven by personal hostility towards the members of that group, so while the assumption is not logical, it's not always unreasonable. It only becomes irrational when it is Bulveristically assumed to always be the case, regardless of the strength of the argument itself or the disclaimer of the arguer.

OpenID thewriteagenda June 13, 2013 10:09 PM  

Those voting stats are way off; considering that the SFWA membership is 1800.

Blogger Scott June 13, 2013 10:30 PM  

Lets face it, the board has wanted Theo er Vox out of their clubhouse for some time. He frequently displays on this blog, which commands more attention than they can ever hope for, the utter frauds they are. They know full well what they're doing here, they're fully aware of the double standard they're applying.

The question in my mind is whether or not this situation will come to a head. If so, Vox's case has legs, the strongest IMO being the fact that the board has painted itself into a tight corner wrt setting a terrible precedent that would forever taint its membership. Although, given their general acceptance of feminism and other isms festering in the metro-sexual hive-mind, I kind of wonder whether or not they'll understand the long term impact of their decision.

Anonymous NateM June 13, 2013 10:40 PM  

dh June 13, 2013 1:53 PM
I have never seen you threaten legal action. It seems WAY out character. What gives?

If I grok'd the plan correctly, I always thought Vox intended to get kicked out. And why not, the SFWA doesn't do anything for him and is becoming irrelevant at this point. And what better way to anger them than to whip them up into a frenzy so they are baying for blood and then force them, by law, to keep him around so he can continue doing it. Then their tears will be his sweetest nectar, and their butthurt his ambrosia.

Blogger "1951" June 13, 2013 10:43 PM  

No compromises. The only way to deal with bitches like these (both male and female) is a good, solid pimp slap with the ring-encrusted back of one's hand.

I work in a closely-related biz and I can tell you from direct personal experience that Sci-Fi authors are almost all penniless big-talkers. The prospect of doing something besides blathering -- something like, say, putting on a Sincere Suit and sitting across a table from a corporate lawyer to the tune of two hundred bucks an hour for weeks on end -- will not appeal to the SFWA junta. One look down the barrel of a no-shit, big-bucks legal case is all it will take. They'll fold like Belgium.

Since when do science fiction authors need a professional guild anyway? I am a published author of nonfiction (all still in print) and I've done just fine without having to join any Nonfiction Writers of America club.

Burn it down, VD. Burn it all down. It's time someone put these cunts in their place.

Anonymous Matthew June 13, 2013 10:44 PM  

NateM: "and their butthurt his ambrosia"

I'm not sure what physiological mechanism you're envisioning whereby butthurt exudes ambrosia, and I'm horrified by my own vivid imagination.

Anonymous Desiderius June 13, 2013 10:52 PM  

Stephen J.,

"Agreed, but they are evaluating Vox's position not by formal logic but by functionalist logic, where only the ultimate effect matters; if you (the rhetorical you) are arguing for something that will disadvantage me for no believable or understandable reason, you are being hostile towards me, regardless of whether you consciously feel any hostility or not."

Again, you choose to ignore the power dynamics inherent in that choice of logic. Why?

One who prioritizes truth will seek out believable or understandable reasons. One who prioritizes power will ignore those staring them in the face. Is it not obvious which is the case here? The tremendous power already accrued that you choose to ignore?

Anonymous Russell B. Farr June 13, 2013 10:58 PM  

Here's my advice

1) as you're a "a paid-up Lifetime member" ask the SFWA to give you a refund when they boot you out

2) don't let the door hit your fat white ego on the way out.

Anonymous bob k. mando June 13, 2013 11:15 PM  

NateM June 13, 2013 10:40 PM
Then their tears will be his sweetest nectar, and their butthurt his ambrosia.



Russell B. Farr June 13, 2013 10:58 PM
2) don't let the door hit your fat white ego on the way out.



Russell is sooooooooooooooo slow on the uptake. i mean, damn, it's not like everybody here hasn't already told him what's going on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbIR51_J_qY

and, oh my, he made reference to Vox's 'white' ego?

does this now mean that it's permissible to make references to Jemisin's 'black' ego?

you know, without getting accused of 'raciss'.

Anonymous kh123 June 13, 2013 11:25 PM  

"Here's my advice..."

Can you move your other cheek; not sure the advice has room to fit.

Anonymous AlteredFate June 13, 2013 11:27 PM  

"don't let the door hit your fat white ego on the way out." -Russell B. Farr


"does this now mean that it's permissible to make references to Jemisin's 'black' ego?"

How about references to Russell B. Farr's less than flattering physical attributes? Let's see here...dickless, fat, nasty, day-walking ginger.

Anonymous AlteredFate June 13, 2013 11:40 PM  

This is rich...

"So while those challenging Resnick and Malzberg may have a valid argument, I feel that the messages being conveyed aren’t the most conducive for mutually respectful dialogue on the issue. Respect." -Russell B. Farr

So explain to us how exactly you reconcile your comment above with what you just now wrote over here on Vox's blog? I am disrespectful of those I deem deserving of disrespect(see above), but you, you are a blathering hypocrite.

Anonymous Inane Rambler June 13, 2013 11:48 PM  

bob k. mando: does this now mean that it's permissible to make references to Jemisin's 'black' ego?

you know, without getting accused of 'raciss'.


No, of course not. I mean go ahead and make references to Jemisin's 'black' ego, but you will be accused of 'raciss'. Not that any of the Dread Ilk care about that. It's just the price you have to pay.

Blogger IM2L844 June 13, 2013 11:53 PM  

it's not always unreasonable

Yes, their butt-hurt feelings are not always unreasonable given their emotional investments, but it's their emotional investment in the presuppositions of an untenable worldview that isn't rationally justifiable.

Anonymous Matthew June 14, 2013 12:06 AM  

No one gets butthurt for being called white. Most everybody gets butthurt when called black. Assess the relative value of being white or black.

Anonymous bob k. mando June 14, 2013 12:26 AM  

Matthew June 14, 2013 12:06 AM
Most everybody gets butthurt when called black.




no, no, no. calling black people 'black' is still ( mostly ) okay. you're no longer permitted to refer to them as "Negro" ( despite the fact that the UNCF still exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Negro_College_Fund ). or use the word "niggardly".

and i wouldn't get butthurt if you called me black. i'd just think you were stupid. and color blind.




Inane Rambler June 13, 2013 11:48 PM
Not that any of the Dread Ilk care about that.



never have considered myself a member.

if i wasn't already a Militant Apathist, that means i would have to care.

Anonymous Matthew June 14, 2013 12:31 AM  

Bob, by "black", I mean to include being called anything that implies you're a Negro in the case that you're actually a Negro. When I was a youth, I knew a white boy who called his mother "niggerdog". He was obviously trying to offend, and so no one was offended.

Anonymous David of One June 14, 2013 12:53 AM  

So is this "President-elect" an officer of "the corporation"?

Just curious.

A "President-elect" should know that they aren't "The President".

Awful damn eager to get involved ... especially if he isn't "The President" yet nor an officer of "the corporation".

Has this individual said anything else?

Who are these "officers"? Have they joined in the rabbit fun separate from their official duities?

Anonymous Stephen J. June 14, 2013 12:57 AM  

"Again, you choose to ignore the power dynamics inherent in that choice of logic. Why?"

Ignore? I was attempting to point them out, to emphasize that the perception of power dynamics are the whole cause of that logic: when you're convinced that all conflicts of value or analysis are merely cloaks for power struggles -- false-consciousness at best, malicious at worst -- it's natural that you judge the motive or mindset of an antagonist solely by the practical effect of their positions.

"One who prioritizes truth will seek out believable or understandable reasons. One who prioritizes power will ignore those staring them in the face. Is it not obvious which is the case here?"

That depends on whether one is rejecting a reason because it honestly seems impossible to believe, or whether one is rejecting it because it practically seems likely to undermine one's position -- but it is always very easy and tempting to represent the latter as the former. We all want to believe that the Truth is on our side.

I am not defending the opposition here, merely trying to explicate their thinking so it may be better understood.

Anonymous Matthew June 14, 2013 1:05 AM  

Stephen J. is on our side, doing yeoman's work trying to provide a window into these fools' monads. Sadly, I think it will be all for vapor. Monads have no windows.

Anonymous Peter Garstig June 14, 2013 2:46 AM  

I am not defending the opposition here, merely trying to explicate their thinking so it may be better understood.

You might think that doing that is a good cause. All you're doing is giving them a free pass by declaring from their motives and from their point of view they are doing the exact right thing. You are validating them when there's nothing to validate. Because given given their motives and point of views, they do everything wrong, because it defies reality.

Reality bites them, no matter if anyone understands anything or not. Sometimes understanding something gets in the way of a good lesson to be learned.

Anonymous The Black Book June 14, 2013 7:54 AM  

1951, ah yes, the wonder years of bedsheets and fires.

Anonymous Educated Professor June 14, 2013 7:57 AM  

....where Theo gets pwned by Kinga Burger....

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/641182929

Anonymous Toby Temple June 14, 2013 8:04 AM  

And here comes the other rabbits.

Anonymous Desiderius June 14, 2013 8:09 AM  

Matthew,

"Stephen J. is on our side, doing yeoman's work trying to provide a window into these fools' monads. Sadly, I think it will be all for vapor. Monads have no windows."

And I on yours' doing likewise.

That log can make it difficult to see.

Anonymous VD June 14, 2013 8:10 AM  

....where Theo gets pwned by Kinga Burger....

Writing a fake review is "pwning" now?

Anonymous Educated Professor June 14, 2013 8:12 AM  

... I also can't wait for the day when Theo literally gets his ass kicked by a progressive SF author / martial artist like Matthew Woodring Stover... just wait

Anonymous Desiderius June 14, 2013 8:25 AM  

Stephen J.,

"Ignore? I was attempting to point them out, to emphasize that the perception of power dynamics are the whole cause of that logic: when you're convinced that all conflicts of value or analysis are merely cloaks for power struggles -- false-consciousness at best, malicious at worst -- it's natural that you judge the motive or mindset of an antagonist solely by the practical effect of their positions."

Yes, was already aware of all that. I'm just suggesting that you may have the casuality backwards. The judgement does not, I believe, flow from the perception, but the perception from the judgement. The perception is a rationalization of the (savage) decision to demonize and dominate.

Reasoned discourse and mutual understanding transcends the dominance game, it does not displace it. One must demonstrate the capacity to win that game before the mutual respect necessary for good faith can exist. The contempt conveyed by Phoenician, Stross etc... is a signal that they believe there is no meaningful resistance to their dominance.

To put it in game theory terms, you have to show the capacity to play tit-for-tat (responding correctly to both signals) before mutual cooperation can be established. Responding to bad faith with good fails to do that. Their savagery is in their leading with bad.

In terms of a different game theory, you're failing their shit test.

Blogger Nate June 14, 2013 8:58 AM  

"... I also can't wait for the day when Theo literally gets his ass kicked by a progressive SF author / martial artist like Matthew Woodring Stover... just wait"

Bahahahahahaha

Anonymous Desiderius June 14, 2013 9:12 AM  

"We all want to believe that the Truth is on our side."

No, no we do not all.

Some, for real, do not believe in Truth at all. We do not take them at their word at our peril. In refusing to do so yourself, not only are you not defending them, you're also not understanding them to the extent you imagine yourself to be doing.

For me, Truth is not on my side. I strive to be on Truth's side. For both intrinsic and instrumental reasons.

At times I fail to get there.

Anonymous Eric C June 14, 2013 9:13 AM  

... I also can't wait for the day when Theo literally gets his ass kicked by a progressive SF author / martial artist like Matthew Woodring Stover... just wait

I notice liberals have no problem with violence against their perceived enemies, they just always want someone else to do the work for them.

Anyway, I say they battle on Kick A Ginger Day. I've got 20 on Vox.

Anonymous VD June 14, 2013 9:19 AM  

I also can't wait for the day when Theo literally gets his ass kicked by a progressive SF author / martial artist like Matthew Woodring Stover... just wait

I'm younger, faster, and stronger than Stover. You see, I've probably fought more full-contact rounds than he has and I know a blended Jeet Koon Do style as well.

Anonymous VD June 14, 2013 9:21 AM  

The contempt conveyed by Phoenician, Stross etc... is a signal that they believe there is no meaningful resistance to their dominance.

And there isn't any in the SFWA or the world of professional SF/F.

Anonymous dh June 14, 2013 10:14 AM  

I'm younger, faster, and stronger than Stover

In a world where women are fighters and often beat men in deadly combat why would any of these things matter?

Anonymous AlteredFate June 14, 2013 10:53 AM  

"In a world where women are fighters and often beat men in deadly combat why would any of these things matter?"

Apparently dh is such a big fan of modern sf/f that it has destroyed his ability to understand the difference between it and reality. Granted he probably didn't have a very good grasp on reality to begin with.

Anonymous Eric C June 14, 2013 10:55 AM  

"Apparently dh is such a big fan of modern sf/f that it has destroyed his ability to understand the difference between it and reality. Granted he probably didn't have a very good grasp on reality to begin with. "

Your sarcasm detector might be a tad off...

Anonymous AlteredFate June 14, 2013 11:00 AM  

It is still early. I apologize dh if it was sarcasm I wasn't picking up on. And I hope I'm not a Tad anything...

Anonymous Eric C June 14, 2013 11:16 AM  

"And I hope I'm not a Tad anything..."

Heh. An exceedingly poor choice of words on my part.

My apologies.

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus June 14, 2013 11:57 AM  

Didn't somebody say the same exact thing about wishing Matt Stover would beat down Vox a couple of months ago?!? (prob the very same poster) Besides the obvious point, already made, that Rabbits are inordinately fond of violence exercised on their behalf which may be the worst rank cowardice. I remember looking at Stover before and thinking A) He probably won't appreciate others writing checks for his body to cash, and B) He appears skilled but a little on the smallish side (150 - 160lbs) to be dishing out serious punishment.

Anonymous Daniel June 14, 2013 12:16 PM  

He probably won't appreciate others writing checks for his body to cash.

Bingo. The man volunteered by a chump to be the "him" in "let's you and him fight" is, generally, far more likely to be in a fighting mood with the chump, and not the "you."

"I read a novel by a guy who knows karate" is not as an intimidating of an approach as the gamma assumes it to be.

Anonymous GreyS June 14, 2013 1:15 PM  

(Daniel)"They aren't as free to do whatever they want as you might think. It isn't just a club, after all. It is a professional organization in the publishing industry."

This ends up being the main point and huge problem for them. A *current* president and *current* various members of a professional organization band together to kick out a guy whose opinions they don't like. Possible career damages alone, argued by a skill lawyer, could literally end the organization.

(Afterward--- Pints will be raised in Glasgow as the Scottish Football Writer's Association ends up with the only claim to the acronym.)

Anonymous Desiderius June 14, 2013 1:58 PM  

VD,

"And there isn't any in the SFWA or the world of professional SF/F."

My guess is that there is a significant quantity of powder being kept dry and talented people taking care of other business until the storm passes.

Of course there are also the Larry Correias and Sarah Hoyts and the independent/self-published. I doubt the Neal Stephensons of the world are thrilled with the current state of the community either.

I don't think the thing breaks until liberals (in the broad sense, including libertarians) decide to give up the Rousseauian pedestalization of the Right and decide to retake the Left from the illiberal rabbits. That, or the inevitable economic correction and the elimination of a lot of overripe reliance interests.

Probably both.

Blogger Vox June 14, 2013 2:21 PM  

I remember looking at Stover before and thinking A) He probably won't appreciate others writing checks for his body to cash, and B) He appears skilled but a little on the smallish side (150 - 160lbs) to be dishing out serious punishment.

(laughs) He wouldn't dare go full-contact with me. I go 185 these days and play wing. Being down 25+ pounds, plus being older, slower, and weaker, is really not a good combination even if you have better techniques.

Anonymous GreyS June 14, 2013 2:52 PM  

"... I also can't wait for the day when Theo literally gets his ass kicked by a progressive SF author / martial artist like Matthew Woodring Stover... just wait"

Or, alternatively, maybe a progressive SF author will become POTUS and send troops to start a war with Italy wherein VD gets injured or worse. Just wait.

Anonymous Daniel June 14, 2013 4:00 PM  

could literally end the organization.

Considering that the SFWA's revenue and assets are about a tenth of the Society for Creative Anachronism, yes, it would not take much. When your membership marketing organization for people trying to make a living is outspent by a membership organization of people who like to make their own clothes and swordfight, it might be time to call it a day.

OpenID a-hermit June 14, 2013 4:37 PM  

Vox Day is still around and still a fucking clown I see..

Anonymous Stephen J. June 14, 2013 5:10 PM  

"I'm just suggesting that you may have the casuality backwards. The judgement does not, I believe, flow from the perception, but the perception from the judgement. The perception is a rationalization of the (savage) decision to demonize and dominate."

Well, for some people that may be true. I have to admit that I personally am a bit of an optimist about human nature: I genuinely believe that most people don't adopt a conscious view that all human relations are dominated by, or merely modes of, factional power struggles until one of two things happens: 1) they are either personally damaged by such a struggle that they come to believe that experience is representative, or (2) they are taught to view their daily conflicts through that filter, by someone who already subscribes to it.

It really has been my experience and observation that most people sincerely believe it's never them who throws the first punch, basically; and sometimes it genuinely wasn't them. That's exactly why hostility circles are capable of indefinite feedback.

"To put it in game theory terms, you have to show the capacity to play tit-for-tat (responding correctly to both signals) before mutual cooperation can be established. Responding to bad faith with good fails to do that."

I have to admit that I fail to see how responding to bad faith with bad faith would succeed in establishing cooperation. (Not that I think such an outcome remotely likely at this point, but nonetheless.)

"All you're doing is giving them a free pass by declaring from their motives and from their point of view they are doing the exact right thing."

To make another distinction, I'll note that I don't think doing the latter amounts to the former. I never claimed that anybody was due a "free pass" simply because they happened to sincerely believe in the truth of their own perspective; I'm simply pointing out that if, in one's best judgement, one assesses an opponent as sincere but mistaken rather than dishonest and malicious, different treatment may be appropriate.

For what it is worth, believe me: I am very much aware that if I attempted to help people understand Vox's positions in his opponents' forums or blogs, as I have done here, I would not receive even this much of a hearing, let alone a semi-reasonable one; and I am very conscious of what that difference means.

Anonymous VD June 14, 2013 7:13 PM  

I'm simply pointing out that if, in one's best judgement, one assesses an opponent as sincere but mistaken rather than dishonest and malicious, different treatment may be appropriate.

Of course. But, you see, I've been observing these people since the late 1990s and dealing with their personal attacks on me in response to my professional political op/ed since 2005. There is nothing "sincere, but mistaken" about it.

That's why I'll never back down to them. And it's why you will never see them confront me directly.

Anonymous bob k. mando June 14, 2013 11:01 PM  

Stephen J. June 14, 2013 5:10 PM
I have to admit that I fail to see how responding to bad faith with bad faith would succeed in establishing cooperation.



you don't respond to bad faith with 'bad faith'.

you respond to bad faith by kicking their teeth in and then informing them that if they deal in bad faith with you again that you'll powder their jaw bone.

you offer them the option of dealing in good faith or getting the fuck out.

Anonymous Desiderius June 14, 2013 11:52 PM  

Stephen J.,

All other things equal, you're the kind of man I'd want my daughter marrying or as a business partner or even, as long as we had a bad ass or two on the team, with me in a foxhole. You're a liberal in the best sense of the word, and for me at least that's among the highest praise I offer.

All that said, read up a bit on the Prisoner's Dilemma and Tit-for-tat and get back to us. I believe you and many more of our finest citizens are being played, and it tears me up to see it.

One thing that opened my eyes was realizing that all this "power is all that matters" bullshit does not in fact originate from the powerless themselves, but rather from the most powerful who recruit mascots to promote it.

The nicest bookstore in the richest neighborhood in my region of the country is where one will find the highest concentration of Left-wing (sic) books. Critical Legal Theory gained prominence at Harvard, not Howard. It is the trustifarian offspring of the rich and powerful who serve on the boards and provide the footsoldiers for all the Left-wing (sic) NGO's who push all this crap with their billions.

It is in fact a coup, and it is as illiberal as any other reactionary coup in history.

OpenID feministx June 15, 2013 12:02 AM  

Vox, I can see that your membership in SFWA was meaningful and important to you. I am sorry that you are being sidelined from an organization that was valuable to you because you expressed an intellectual opinion. I know this must be very frustrating because even good arguments will not help you gain understanding from your opponents.

Anonymous Desiderius June 15, 2013 12:03 AM  

Stephen J.,

"Well, for some people that may be true. I have to admit that I personally am a bit of an optimist about human nature: I genuinely believe that most people don't adopt a conscious view that all human relations are dominated by, or merely modes of, factional power struggles until one of two things happens: 1) they are either personally damaged by such a struggle that they come to believe that experience is representative, or (2) they are taught to view their daily conflicts through that filter, by someone who already subscribes to it."

Conscious has nothing to do with it.

If one is better at savagery (domination/raw power) than civilization (cooperation/truth-seeking), one has a great deal to gain by convincing the maximum number of people that savagery is in fact the only game in town. This is doubly true for those who were born with a dominant position in their mouth, whether that dominant position was gained via savagery or civilizational excellence in the first place.

It's not about optimism or pessimism. The human animal enjoys ample potential for both good and bad.

Your cheap grace creates great moral hazard.

Blogger "1951" June 15, 2013 3:13 AM  

@The Black Book June 14, 2013 7:54 AM
1951, ah yes, the wonder years of bedsheets and fires.


Replaced by the wonder-world of Knockout King, Beat Whitey Night at the Iowa State Fair, and Treyvon.

According to the Tuskeegee Institute, 3,446 blacks were lynched in the United States during the 86 years of the Jim Crow era (1882-1968). That's about 40 white-on-black lynchings per year. Blacks today kill (i.e. murder) about 500 whites each year in the U.S. according to the FBI. That means that blacks are out-murdering whites each year by a factor of more than twelve to one!

It took Whitey almost 90 years to lynch 2
3,446 blacks, It only takes America's blacks about four years to murder that same number of whites. White Privilege, ladies and gentlemen!

But don't believe me.

Look up the facts and draw your own conclusions about whether or not things were better prior to Dr. King's Dream.

Anonymous The Black Book June 15, 2013 5:30 PM  

What you are perpetuating is fraud regarding the "genocidal" nature of blacks. Dude, poverty and crime are the factors behind the murder rate in ANY and ALL communities. Go to the poor neighborhoods of Rio De Janeiro, Jakarta, London, and Krakow, for example. You are just as likely to have your throat slit as a white person as you are a black or brown person.

But, since you want to slum it and play the race card, be aware that white people are also identified as contributors to the crime phenomenon each and every time one of their "clan" makes their unfortunate choice. Day in and day out we see the phenomenon of white crime in the news. A schizophrenic white mother kills her children because she thought that Jesus was talking to her through the can opener telling her she had to do it in order for them to make it to heaven. White kids arm themselves to the hilt with shotguns, assault rifles, and pistols in order to kill as many people as possible as part of their school project before they commit suicide. A couple of white guys who have spent a major portion of their lives in and out of jail are released and go to a posh neighborhood, murders a doctor’s wife and their two daughters and then sets the home on fire. A man holes himself up in a church one Sunday morning and starts trying to take out people who come to worship before being taken out by snipers. A white woman breaks into a home of the couple that adopts the baby that she surrendered to Child Protective Services. A wrestler murders his family before committing suicide himself. A white woman leaves her baby to die in the car left if the sun with the windows rolled tight because she wanted to get her hair done. White pedophiles attack little white children. All of these are instances of the always overlooked phenomenon of "white on white" crime.

Eighty-four percent of whites are killed by other whites.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Based on sheer numbers, whites killed blacks and Native Americans by the hundreds of millions, so American blacks today are WAY behind.

REAP IT!

Anonymous kh123 June 15, 2013 5:39 PM  

"What you are perpetuating is fraud regarding the "genocidal" nature of blacks."

Translation: Statistics be raciss.

Anonymous kh123 June 15, 2013 5:45 PM  

...And remember, when dealing with FBI stats, there is such a thing as total number/percentage of crimes documented relative to the respective population of racial category featured.

Anonymous Stephen J. June 17, 2013 12:19 PM  

"You're a liberal in the best sense of the word, and for me at least that's among the highest praise I offer."

Well, the compliment is graciously appreciated, although the irony is that I consider myself a conservative, as would most of my progressivist friends if they really knew the degree to which I have moved away from my youthful views.

The one way in which I remain what is popularly called "liberal" is that I have an extremely acute empathy sense and a reflex-response insistence on "fair play", both traits that developed from being bullied as a geeky bookish kid. As a result I strongly understand and sympathize with the sentiments driving most progressivist causes; I have simply come to recognize that most progressivists don't do nearly as much checking of (a) the math and (b) their motives as they should. Is there a term for "liberal in hope but conservative in practice"?

Anonymous kh123 = asshat456 June 17, 2013 5:51 PM  

No, the statistics are NOT raciss, they are factual. It's the INTERPRETATION of those statistics that I call into serious question.

Anonymous duckman June 17, 2013 6:50 PM  

I am attacked with the most badthink words the rabbits can produce

"Most badthink" is improved in The Dictionary of IngSoc to "doubleplus ungoodest".
It has always read that way. To think otherwise is Thoughtcrime.

Death to Goldstein and all enemies of Oceana!

Anonymous Desiderius June 18, 2013 4:21 PM  

"Is there a term for 'liberal in hope but conservative in practice'?"

Liberal full stop works for me.

Most of the true believer progs I know grew up in a particularly dysfunctional conservative environment, likewise the other way around. The fervor of the convert distorts the debate.

Contemporary conservatives have their own host of issues which tend to be obscured by those who come to self-identify as conservative in order to battle the pathologies the Left has brought to Liberalism.

You and I are liberal in temperament and our ideals, and I believe those ideals are worth claiming in a manly, forthright way and fighting for against the illiberal whatever their origin or whatever they call themselves.

Vox's value is in his puncturing of the shibboleths that plague Left, Right, and Center. He's a skeptic. Most have forgotten what that is and how important a role the skeptic plays.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts