ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Response Part VII

In section B.1, Matthew Johnson plumbs new depths, as he attempts to frame my oft-satirical responses to repeated attacks on me by former SFWA President John Scalzi, current SFWA Board member (who has not recused herself from the process) Lee Martindale, SFWA Associate Member Teresa Nielsen Hayden, and others over the last eight years as "attacks on members".
1. Attacks on members

Attacks on members which occurred through SFWA channels or in SFWA-controlled spaces are addressed in part A. The following looks at attacks and threats which were made in his blog and other public space.

Personal attacks


Beale has made numerous attacks on fellow SFWA members which may be seen as going outside the bounds of professional conduct. The best-known and most consistent is likely his use of derogatory nicknames, such as “McRapey” for John Scalzi and “McRacist” for N.K. Jemisin (see Fig B.1). He has also compared Amal el-Mohtar to an Egyptian cleric who has, according to Beale, called for the ethnic cleansing of Egypt (Fig B.2); accused James Enge of “despicable behavior” (see Fig B.3); accused Ms. Jemisin of plagiarism (see Fig B.4); and has published a blog comment claiming that Teresa Nielsen Hayden has herpes. (See Appendix I for the question of whether and why to consider blog comments. In this case, though, Beale actually reprinted the comment in one of his own blog posts, making him more clearly the publisher of the comment: see Fig B.5)

Threats by commenters

Beale has permitted and, arguably, encouraged threats of violence against SFWA members on his blogs and elsewhere. (See Appendix I for the question of whether and why to consider blog comments.) As we have seen, Beale allowed one threat of rape against Ms. Jemisin to remain in the post that was published through the SFWAAuthors Twitter feed; a similar threat was made in the June 13 post “SFWA Forum: the moderated posts”:

"Jemisin libeled him. the SFWA is aiding and abetting her in this libel. come get some, bitch." (See Fig B.6)

On June 18 an implicit threat was made by a commenter against member Aliette de Bodard:
"Didn't we used to drop bombs on Europeans who were fascinated by racial literature? Eventually people like de Bodard will need the air raid sirens." (See Fig B.7)

Another series of threats was made against Lee Martindale following a comment she made on Jim Hines’ blog (see Fig B.8) to which Beale took offense (see Fig B.9). Commenters to Beale’s blog post posted threats such as suggestions that she should commit suicide (see Fig B.10), statements that “she needs to get punched or laid… or maybe both in quick succession” (see Fig B.11), requests to “Post her home address, I dare you…” (see Fig B.12) and detailed descriptions of her murder: I’m pretty sure that Bane [a former commenter] would have had a long, eloquent post about seeing an eye through a scope and then the brilliant crimson & grey spatter when he caressed the trigger, or maybe something about the slippery, warm feel of entrails spilling over his hand. (See Fig B.13. Note that Beale ended this post with “This post is dedicated to the memory of Bane”; see Fig B.14]

One comment provided instructions on how to “SWAT” her (send a police SWAT team to her house): "If you want to SWAT at the gnatstys [Internet spelling of “nasties”], you could use skype from a café and call into the police phone number local to the threat, impersonating the threat and saying something like you’ve just killed your family, are going to blow up a school, etc. and watch the militarized blue-coats go after them." (see Fig B.15)

A few notes may be valuable in providing context. First, the suggestion that Beale should provide Martindale’s home address was not an idle one: on at least one prior occasion Beale has posted the home address of a reviewer (not an SFWA member) he felt had not read his book before reviewing it (see Fig B.16. for the post in which this happened. Although the full address was removed by the time that screenshot was taken, the comment seen in Fig B.17 shows that it had been posted.)

Finally, on June 15 2013 (two days after Beale’s attack on Ms. Jemisin went out via the SFWAAuthors Twitter feed) Martindale also received a threat by e-mail which, while it cannot be traced directly to Beale, echoes threats made against her, and the specific language used in them, on his blogs:

"Keep on doing what you do, keep on following the same routine, you will be located, and you will be dealt with just like you deserve to be. My friends are starting a bail fund for me. See, you're not the only one who can make veiled threats of violence, you fat, stinking, ugly cunt. Kill yourself now and save someone else the trouble you rotten, repulsive piece of human trash."
With regards to my "attacks on fellow SFWA members", I will simply note the following:

1. John Scalzi, the former SFWA president to whom I refer by the derogatory nickname "McRapey" has publicly referred to me in the following ways since 2005:
  • the lunatic fringe
  • a jackass, and a fairly ignorant jackass at that
  • your head is pretty far up your ass
  • there's a definite head-ass conjunction on his part
  • his sphincto-cranial position
  • stupid and sexist
  • a sexist pig
  • he deserves a thumping, and a thumping is what he's getting
  • Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit
  • sociopathic assbag
  • that pathetic ball of issues
There are hundreds of references on Mr. Scalzi's blog and several other SFWA member blogs such as Electrolite referring to me as either "Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit" or "RSHD". It would be informative to learn if the SFWA Board considers that to be inside "the bounds of professional conduct". Mr. Scalzi has also referred to the readers of my blog as:
  • VD’s tribe of sexist assbags
  • your own pit of manstink
  • the gibbering follow monkeys of that Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit who has an adorable mancrush on me
  • his clutch of equally insecure racist sexist homophobic dipshit admirers
  • gibbering monkey followers 
  • dipshits
Note that in addition to demonstrating that the "derogatory nickname" I use for John Scalzi is well within the bounds of professional conduct as demonstrated by the SFWA president's own example, this would appear to indicate that it is John Scalzi who is truly the racist, as I am a Writer of Color and I have a large number of black and Hispanic readers to whom the presumably white Mr. Scalzi openly refers as "monkeys".

Moreover, given that Mr. Scalzi has openly, (however satirically), written "I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force myself on women without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually" and was recorded stating "John Scalzi is a rapist" on Canadian radio, it can hardly be deemed outrageous to satirize him as "McRapey".

2. The comment "claiming that Teresa Nielsen Hayden has herpes" was clearly satirical, considering that it was written from the perspective of a Sonoran Desert Toad. As in, the warty little frog-like animal that hops.  The full quote was: "I would point out that licking *me* brings on a state of euphoria and a series of pleasant hallucinations, while licking Ms. Nielson would cause spastic uncontrolled vomiting and give you herpes."

Moreover, Ms Nielsen Hayden has addressed me in the following professional manner since 2005:
  • It's really, really obvious that VD is not acquainted with actual women. (2005)
  • he's had little or no social interaction of any sort (2005)
  • VD fears and dislikes women (2005)
  • a third-rate intellect (2005)
  •  a tad unbalanced (2005)
  • a generally unpleasant fellow (2005)
  • He is a wuss. (2007)
  • You're also a singularly inept sockpuppet, O Bane/Vox/Theeeeeodore. (2007)
  • Vox Day's true opinion of women has always been clear to me: he's terrified of them. (2007)
  • out-of-the-closet racist (2008)
  • obviously unbalanced (2008)
  • been known to put in a good word for the Nazis (2008)
3. In the interest of keeping this less than entirely tedious, I will address the other accusations in my actual response to the Board.  In the meantime, I will simply point out that my "attacks" have almost always been responses to the attacks of others.
With regards to the various statements made by commenters, both here and at other blogs, I will simply point out that I maintain a very light moderation policy with rules that are clearly posted, which is one reason why my blogs are among the most popular in the SFWA, with 1,170,000 pageviews last month alone.  I find it strange to have to point out to a professional writer's organization that I am obviously not responsible, in any way, for anyone's words or actions besides my own.  Nor have I ever incited anyone to do anything; quite to the contrary, I have actively dissuaded my readers from responding to various forms of attacks in kind.

I have already shown in my response to section A.3 that Mr. Johnson's assertion of a previous "rape threat" to Ms Jemisin was, in fact, not a threat at all, and the following three comments, all of which still remain on this blog in addition to many other similar comments, should suffice to demonstrate that my failure to delete a comment does not indicate either permission for, encouragement of, or agreement with the comment, its sentiments, or the commenter.
  • "You sad, silly little fuck. Your father really screwed you over for life, didn't he?" (Phoenician February 04, 2013 4:16 PM) 
  • "I own your mental space. First Scalzi made you his little bitch. And now I've made you my little bitch. You'll have to face up to the fact that this isn't a coincidence. It seems to be in your nature to seek out a dominant male and make him treat you like a bottom." (Pheonician February 09, 2013 8:53 PM)
  • "What a strange, depressing man you are. And how fearful and strange and depressing many of the folks in the comments are. This post is full of logical fallacies that sort of laugh in the face of psychology and history, but . . . it's not even worth getting into them with you. If you've ignored facts up to this point in your life, there's no real any evidence that you'd start taking them into consideration now."  (Maggie Stiefvater June 14, 2013 3:14 PM )
Of the 136,270 comments presently available on this blog, a statistically significant percentage of them contain sentiments of which I do not approve, assertions with which I disagree, and claims which I believe to be false.  I am not responsible for any of them.  And I am most certainly not responsible for any threats made here or elsewhere to others by others.

Unlike many members of the SFWA, I believe in unmitigated free speech and free expression.  Calling speech "hate speech" does not justify limiting it any more than calling it "blasphemy" or "uppity negro speech" does.  I find it absolutely and utterly reprehensible that the SFWA Board has abandoned the organization's formerly strong position on free speech and is not only prosecuting a member for his own free speech, but for permitting others free speech as well.

Stephen Brust might be thinking to mock the critics of SFWA with his "Anthem of the SFWA Fascists, but the simple fact is that the SFWA Board is acting as if it wears "rainbow-colored jackboots" as it actively attempts to limit the ability of its members to freely express their opinions in a hypocritical and one-sided manner. And I find it extremely amusing to observe that Mr. Brust has turned off comments for the video.




§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Labels: ,

191 Comments:

Anonymous Savoir Faire Eez Everywhere - Not Paris, So Chill July 14, 2013 9:10 AM  

Huh, PC racist writers who can't read. Whodda thought? For people who laugh at any grammatical mix up, the SFWA can't figure out the difference between writing "people LIKE de Bodard," as in racists in general, and de Bodard herself? And anyway, bombs? really? Someone at the SFWA thinks the 8th Air Force will be alternate-historied and used in a campaign to bomb de Bodard's Paris? Hey fools, stop reading your own fiction.

And in point of actual historical fact, didn't people LIKE de Bodard actually need air raid sirens from repeatedly being bombed for such things as using institutionalized hate speech, LIKE SFWA Nebula-winning de Bodard's, to kill millions of Jews?

Anyone who can read de Bodard's blog and tell me with a straight face it is not anti-white is a straight up liar. And the proof of that is that since she has been publicly called out for it, she has virtually stopped using such speech on Twitter after months of anti-white sentiment on a virtually daily basis. This is a matter of archived cached facts, not opinion.

In other words, de Bodard has come to the same conclusion about her own incessant and bigoted racial and gender attacks about an SF genre "overwhelmingly male, white and American," "aliens in SFF started out as the equivalent of POC natives in a colonial narrative frame," "clueless colonial," "'escapism': it's geared to white patriarchy)," "I won’t get into how much everyone is lily-White, but that was also a significant problem in that particular episode. (Sherlock Holmes TV show)" and many other similar quotes.

So yeah, put the word "Jew" in there and in fact we did bomb the shit out of morons LIKE de Bodard. Put 20 million people LIKE de Bodard in charge of gov't institutions and it's likely to be repeated some decades into the future.

And in what world is Scalzi's "Racist Homophobic Sexist Dipshit" not an attack? Or is that 8th Air Force territory for general bombing? How about calling someone a terrorist murderer for mere disagreement, as Scalzi most certainly has done? Want the quote?

Blogger Nate July 14, 2013 9:20 AM  

Rainbow striped jackboots.

That is freaking glorious.

Anonymous Laz July 14, 2013 9:36 AM  

Typical pinkos, do as I say not as I do. Emotions mean more than logic. Observing the emotionally based accusations it looks like it's a foregone conclusion that Vox is on the way out.

Anonymous VD July 14, 2013 9:46 AM  

Put a sock in it, James. You're on the five-post limit on these SFWA Board report posts; you just keep saying the same thing over and over and over again. It's tedious. If you have an actual tweet or blog post which you think relevant, great. Otherwise, save it. And stop the inept parodies; if you're not going to mimic the writing style, they're not even proper parodies.

Anonymous VD July 14, 2013 9:49 AM  

Want the quote?

Yes. See, that's the sort of thing that is useful, not sharing your familiar opinions about the same people over and over again.

Blogger Cinco DeMayo July 14, 2013 9:59 AM  

"Rainbow striped jackboots"

That may be the best phrase to enter the English lexicon in the past 5 years.

Anonymous Salt July 14, 2013 10:00 AM  

Scalzi's entreaty to civility in his Rapist post caveats-

6. Finally, remember politeness counts in comment threads, especially towards the other commenters.


Hardly the case he upholds as Vox has demonstrated.



Anonymous Harsh July 14, 2013 10:03 AM  

So what I gather from this is that the SFWA believes:

1. A blog writer is responsible for *all* content on his blog, including comments that were written by other people.
2. All insults and threats are to be taken seriously no matter if they are obviously written in sarcasm or part of a parody.
3. By not policing his blog and deleting offending comments, the blog writer is guilty of implicitly endorsing said comments.
4. All content and comments must conform to SFWA "standards" despite the blog not being an official SFWA site of any kind.

Does that about cover it?

Anonymous TJIC July 14, 2013 10:09 AM  

I find it extremely amusing to observe that Mr. Brust has turned off comments for the video.

ZING!

Back when I had a blog I'd often get attacks in my comments. I, like you, allowed all comments to persist. I'd rather humiliate commenters by defeating their arguments point by point by point than ban them.

One thing I found amusing was that many of my most vociferous opponents had links back to their own blogs. Which - as you can guess - disallowed comments.

Anonymous TJIC July 14, 2013 10:11 AM  

@Harsh:
So what I gather from this is that the SFWA believes:

You're overthinking it.

Lefties like the SFWA thought police believe:

* lefties are right, everyone else is wrong
* "principals" cited to defend us and attack others not really principles at all, but are just tactics.

Anonymous Cinco July 14, 2013 10:18 AM  

@TJIC

I don't personally believe they see things in through the right vs. wrong paradigm.
They see things in terms of equality vs. perceived inequality. If they have to tweak outcomes to ensure equal representation among the various groups, they are more than happy to do so. If anyone gets in their way, they are either racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or just stupid.

I don't know who said it first, but, "equality is what doesn't exist among equals."

Anonymous Krul July 14, 2013 10:34 AM  

That song...

At first I thought Steve was just a regular VP reader mocking the SFWA. Then I found out that he's actually on THEIR side and trying to mock VD!

This is Gamma Rabbit all over again. Just as Scalzi embraced his identity as a gamma and a rabbit by proudly wearing a creepy pink cartoon on a T-shirt, Steven Brust has embraced his identity as a "SFWA Fascist" by proclaiming it to the world! In song, no less!

My God. These people are bound and determined to humiliate themselves. If you called them "suicidal" they'd probably jump off a cliff screaming "Ha! That'll teach ya" all the way down.

Anonymous TJIC July 14, 2013 10:34 AM  

@Cinco

@TJIC, I don't personally believe they see things in through the right vs. wrong paradigm. They see things in terms of equality vs. perceived inequality.

We may be in radical agreement.

Lefties like the more extreme of the SFWA hacks believe that

(1) a world where hate speech is censored is a just one

(2) a world where blacks make up exactly 12.0% of all PhDs, 12.0% of all science fiction authors, 12.0% of all Hugo award winners, 12.0% of all software engineers, etc. and woman exactly 51% of each category is a just one

(3) anyone who works to bring about that world is a Good Person and does so out of the highest motives

(4) anyone who works against bringing about that world is a Bad Person
and does so out of the lowest motives

(5) censoring speech, redistributing income, taking over organizations, rewriting (de jure or merely de facto) the rules, expelling people from organizations, etc. can be called "principles", but in fact they are just tactics to win the battle between the Good People and the Bad People. i.e. there is nothing inherently good or bad about rewriting rule or about censoring speech. If a witch hunt is done to help leftism (Vox's SFWA situation) it's good. If a witch hunt is done to hurt leftist (i.e. Sen McCarthy's situation) it's bad.

This is what I mean about tactics versus principles.

Anonymous Anonymous July 14, 2013 10:35 AM  

"I don't personally believe they see things in through the right vs. wrong paradigm..."

They do. They're right and you're wrong. Perceived equality/inequality is secondary to all that. Often they are the most vicious to those who have stepped off the plantation, women, minorities, anyone who hasn't stayed in their perceived place. Try thinking for yourself and you'll discover just how little they care about equality. They'll unleash the gates of hell on you.

Anonymous Krul July 14, 2013 10:37 AM  

By the way, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe that "Brust" is German for "Breast" (as in "Mammary Gland" as opposed to "chest").

What's that Roissyism again? "Manboob"?

Anonymous VD July 14, 2013 10:45 AM  

Oh, it just gets better. I've done a bit of work on yesterday's issue and there are no less than seven members who are indisputably guilty of "linking to an attack on a member in an SFWA space" and closer to 20 who are at least arguably guilty of "atttacking a member in an SFWA space". In one particularly delightful case, it actually comes right out and refers to "a personal attack".

If they were to try to a) claim that the misuse of the Twitter feed is an offense worthy of expulsion and b) be consistent, they'd have to expel about 25 other members. And I haven't even begun looking at SFF.

I doubt they will be consistent, of course, but the process will very clearly expose the double-standard. Especially once I'm no longer limited by membership confidentiality.

Anonymous MrGreenMan July 14, 2013 11:16 AM  

When you have the 25 members dead-to-rights, since clearly some of your accusers have sought the Star Chamber model and hope to have tattled on you in anonymity, please post the names here.

Wait, I said dead-to-rights; they'll think I'm threatening them, or perhaps they'll edit out "-to-rights" and suggest we're plotting something.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza July 14, 2013 11:20 AM  

Team Vox then and now.

While it is unfortunate that Vox and the response policy issues are rolling out, there are two sides. V has consistently provided both sides of the issue or conflict and will more than likely continue to do so. These issues were brewing for a long time so this is an expected outcome.

Carry on.

Anonymous TheExpat July 14, 2013 11:26 AM  

To avoid reposting, again, I'll just link it:
Gross hypocrisy by Scalzi/Rothfuss/Hines and the Puppinette

Possibly a good opportunity for Black Knighting, too.

Anonymous Daniel July 14, 2013 11:26 AM  

One of the funniest things about McRapey is his desire to claim that what he does is exactly what he does not do. It is like the guy in the ER with the vacuum cleaner hose lodged in his rectum who claims it was a freak cleaning accident.

All the nurses say, "Okay, man. Okay. Let's just get it out."

McRapey doesn't discuss SFWA matters on his personal blog like teenage girls don't facebook.

His responses to his commenters are priceless:

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/01/31/troll-report-active-with-increasing-chance-of-stupid/#comment-432062

January 31, 2013 at 7:27 am

Jason Sanford:

I’ll note that in keeping with my general practice of not discussing SFWA matters in any great detail on this, my personal blog, I would prefer not to go into the current presidential campaign, other than that of course I encourage SFWA members to go to the online forum area where candidates are currently fielding questions to acquaint themselves with the candidates and their positions, and to speak to each other about their choices for election this time around.

MRAL:

Being vaporized would give them the same sort of thrill, I imagine. You can’t win with a troll, so you don’t try. You just scrape their shit off the walls.

Anonymous David of One July 14, 2013 11:27 AM  

Vox,

You've performed a very real service by exposing this debauchery to all whom are passionate about reading substantive/visionary Science Fiction & the explorative lore of Fantasy.

This is true of those whose passion of the same is such that they write for themselves and for all of us. An honored giving true to those whom came before and that will come after.

The perpetrators of this are found out and will enjoy the spoils that they have earned ... each other.

Again, Thank You Vox.

___ ____ ___
____( \ .-' `-. / )____
(____ \_____ / (O O) \ _____/ ____)
(____ `-----( ) )-----' ____)
(____ _____________\ .____. /_____________ ____)
(______/ `-.____.-' \______)

Anonymous Anonagain July 14, 2013 11:30 AM  

See, Vox, you are a white male, but have the unmitigated gall to not hate yourself - your race, sex, religion, DNA, values, morals, traditions, civilization, and worldview. Given your willful lack of self-loathing, you are therefore responsible for all the emailed, tweeted, commented, youtubed, snail-mailed, published, whispered, smoked signaled, and imagined offenses that have, are, and will be perpetrated on the special good people of the protected classes within the SFWA. You have no excuse. Your existence is offensive.

Anonymous Daniel July 14, 2013 11:31 AM  

Oh this one was particularly interesting. He'll rape women, but won't sleep with Vox:

January 31, 2013 at 10:34 pm

Ridip:

My language isn’t particularly abusive. He is in fact a racist and a sexist and a homophobe. The dipshit part accurately describes his personality as far as I can tell. If he doesn’t wish to be described as a racist sexist homophobic dipshit, he can work on not being those things. Let’s just say I won’t be holding my breath on that.

As for the idea that the psycho-sexual fixation flows the other way: AH HA HA HA HA HAH HA. Dude, if I’m gonna do a man, it ain’t gonna be that pathetic ball of issues. I don’t do pity fucks.

Beyond that, the minute his gibbering follow monkeys stop visiting my site is the minute I stop thinking about him. However, considering the number of dipshits I had to Mallet today and the fact that your post rather tragically qualifies as the most coherent from his cohort, I am not exactly holding my breath on that, either. More’s the pity for me.

Anonymous Daniel July 14, 2013 11:50 AM  

Question: is Absolute Write an SFWA channel? They go after SFWA members publicly quite a bit.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271144&page=33

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 12:07 PM  

I'm now a Witness for the persecution.

Context is everything but the quote (with full context, it was on my tablet so my typing was way off):

Is Here

The target was:

Imagine the horror and fear that struck me when I read the following:

lee_martindale wrote: Feb. 1st, 2013 04:19 pm (UTC)
Ah, yes. Mr. Beale. When I decided to run for re-election as SFWA South-Central Regional Director, someone asked me what I would do if Mr. Beale won the Presidential election. I replied, "Ask my friends to start a bail fund."


Naturally, I was panic-stricken by the violent implications of the Regional Director's threat. After I got off the phone with the local police, Homeland Security, the FBI, and Interpol, and managed to compose myself...


It was also a response to several recent incidents of "SWATing", done mostly against liberty advocates or conservatives.

OTOH it was intended to show the lack of creativity on Mr. Martindale's part, and to warn Vox (and the Ilk) that there might be a gamma rabbit with a few sigmas.

They missed the last and best line:

The frightening thing is the presence of armed rabbits who won't learn.

A wise man once pointed at the moon. The crowd stared at his finger.

I feel honored but have the sudden urge to walk through a car-wash.

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 12:12 PM  

I would also note leaving their bare naked nonsense (and occasionally my own) available for everyone to see is actually worse than deleting the proof of their wickedness, stupidity, and foolishness.

Anonymous VD July 14, 2013 12:12 PM  

Question: is Absolute Write an SFWA channel?

No, I don't believe so.

Anonymous Molon Rouge July 14, 2013 12:17 PM  

I have a limited income and do not wish to throw my hard-earned coin to any of the hares in the SFWA warren. Can anyone point me to a list of the authors to avoid? Thankfully, i have never purchased a Scalzi book. I hope he is happy that with his mean-spiritedness, he has reduced his paying audience? Being PC has its consequences today!

Anonymous Anonymous July 14, 2013 12:24 PM  

Daniel,

AbsoluteWrite isn't an official SFWA channel. I'm not sure what you mean by: "They go after SFWA members publicly quite a bit."

What do you mean go after? And who do you mean by they?

In regards to AbsoluteWrite, it's a leftist site known for shutting down commentary that disagrees with the groupthink they have going on there. It's a site where women gather together and bemoan how diminished they are.

One of the more obnoxious feminist posters there has this a comment policy on her blog:

"I will not, however, delete comments solely because I disagree with you. I will also be far more lenient with rhetoric from anyone coming from a place of oppression or a place traditionally granted less privilege in intellectual discourse. If you want to know why, read about the tone argument. I am happy to silence a bully who has strutted around with power his or her whole life; I am not happy to do the same to someone who feels marginalized and whose mode of discussion is understandably angry because of it."

Source of quote: http://www.slhuang.com/blog/about/

Double standard. Hypocrisy. Par for the course.

There are still a few good, rational people left on AbsoluteWrite, but, like usual, the rational ones are drowned out by the mad rantings of the liberals who thinks publishing needs a strong dose of affirmative action.

Anonymous kh123 July 14, 2013 12:27 PM  

Chub with the guitar even looks like a rabbit.

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 12:34 PM  

To put it perfectly, my worry was specifically that the SFWA jackboots might use the technique against Vox or the Ilk.

I don't remember anywhere in the thread an explicit threat against Ms Martindale, or any of the SFWA illiterati, except Psychic? She's a witch. (looks around for lighter) So, ah, Liz, where was that you said you were from?

I hope Vox demands compensation. Going through the SFWA discussions must be like a walk through the Aegean stables. Hazmat handling is usually expensive.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 14, 2013 12:36 PM  

Molon Rouge July 14, 2013 12:17 PM
Can anyone point me to a list of the authors to avoid?




The Scribblies has a highly disproportionate number of participants in quite a few of the recent squabbles. most, if not all of them, are actual socialists / marxists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scribblies

John M. Ford ( who wrote an issue of Captain Confederacy for Will Shetterly ) was a member and Ford's widow is ... Elise Matthesen.

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 12:41 PM  

Cinco February 02, 2013 2:12 PM

Post her home address, I dare you...


Is the only reference to a home address I can find, and as far as I can tell, it was universally ignored. I think she herself said her email address was easily googled. My response was to the root post and not Cinco's comment.

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 12:41 PM  

Can libel be a class action?

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 12:47 PM  

@Molon Rouge

You should not avoid good literature based on the politics of the author. You just make yourself poorer.

That said, generally any well written books (many recommended in an earlier "Response" thread) are written despite as opposed to because of any involvement of the SFWA. Just stick to good books.

(Unless you happen to actually like vampire erotica, Xena clones, and Space romance novels, in which case I would suggest investigating treatment options).

Anonymous Anonymous July 14, 2013 12:49 PM  

Steve Brust can pretend like he's making fun of people rebelling against the fascist SFWA all day long, but the fact is his song hit the nail on the head.

I only wish believing the SFWA capable of this insanity was foolish. The fact is, as the report against Vox shows, the SFWA is acting outside the scope of its mission, per its by-laws. The SFWA is trying to police the thoughts of members and wants to kick Vox out for nothing more than a violation of ideology. While being demonstrably guilty of the same things they're charging Vox with.

Question for Vox: I've received emails from unpublished writers talking about how they're afraid to speak out. They're afraid of speaking against the establishment because they're afraid the establishment will actively work to hurt their chances at publication with well-known publishers, like Tor. What is your advice to writers who may share your world-view, but are currently fearful of expressing as much?

Anonymous VD July 14, 2013 1:11 PM  

I've received emails from unpublished writers talking about how they're afraid to speak out. They're afraid of speaking against the establishment because they're afraid the establishment will actively work to hurt their chances at publication with well-known publishers, like Tor. What is your advice to writers who may share your world-view, but are currently fearful of expressing as much?

My short advice? Life is too short to live in fear. Your chances of getting conventionally published were always slim and are fading rapidly as the publishers begin to contract and die in the new environment.

The playing field has never been more level. The ideological gatekeepers are dying. The behavior we're seeing from SFWA is indicative of death throes, not self-confidence and growing power. Self-publish and speak your mind.

Be Fox News to their ABCNNBCBS

Blogger Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 1:23 PM  

It is amusing that on a post about free speech, someone is asking for a list of authors to avoid. TZ is right: "You should not avoid good literature based on the politics of the author. You just make yourself poorer."

Regarding Mando's support of blindly accepting someone's list of authors to avoid: John M. Ford was not a member of the Scribblies, and while he was an astonishing writer--anyone interested in alternate history should read his work, especially The Dragon Waiting--I don't remember him saying anything that suggested he considered himself a socialist. Nor are all Scribblies socialists. Steve, Emma Bull, and I are. Patricia Wrede is not. I should ask Pamela Dean for her opinion, but I do know she has a strong identitarian streak that makes her very comfortable with WisCon's general neoliberal politics. I'm even less sure of Kara Dalkey's politics. The Scribblies exist to create better stories, not to plot the overthrow capitalism.

Also entertaining is the notion of a number of commenters here that free speech is not a concern of the left. Is the ACLU now considered a rightwing organization? The fact is middle-class moralists cross the political spectrum.

Last, the whole business of name-callers complaining about name-calling is more pot and kettle fighting. I noted before that VD is not living up to St. Peter's advice to respect everyone. I've got another quote y'all might like. Robert Heinlein said, "For me, politeness is a sine qua non of civilization."

Anonymous Cinco July 14, 2013 1:36 PM  

"requests to 'Post her home address, I dare you…' (see Fig B.12)"

First, this was not a request. Second, it was written in jest, and was rhetorical. Third, I am amused by the inclusion of one of my comments in their little report. To be located side by side with Stormfront forum posts and hypothetical Bane comments actively fulfills one of the 7 remaining items on my bucket list.

Ironically, I thought by making the Hitler parody that I was being kind of snarky, as this little battle had nothing to do with me. Now I am overjoyed by the fact that it was totally justified.

Anonymous Salt July 14, 2013 1:40 PM  

Last, the whole business of name-callers complaining about name-calling is more pot and kettle fighting.

Absolutely. Is it name calling that this whole brouhaha is about?

Anonymous Black Rabbit Moan July 14, 2013 1:42 PM  

Theodore Beale
He a jerk
Makin' me do lotta paperwork.

Anonymous VD July 14, 2013 1:46 PM  

TZ is right: "You should not avoid good literature based on the politics of the author. You just make yourself poorer."

I concur. I like both Stephen Brust's and Charles Stross's books. I think John Scalzi's are mediocre. I think Umberto Eco's are great. And ironically, Scalzi is the least distant from me in the ideological sense.

I noted before that VD is not living up to St. Peter's advice to respect everyone.

Not everyone is respectable. I live up to my philosophy, which is to address others in the manner I am addressed. What tends to throw the gammas and women of the world is that they don't seem to grasp that their passive aggression is still aggression. I simply bring the aggression out into the open, thus leading to the pattern that Larry Correia identified.

Leftist 1: attack attack attack attack
Leftist 2: attack attack attack attack
Rightwinger: ATTACK
Leftist 1: So rude!
Leftist 2: Yes, so very rude!

Blogger Justthisguy July 14, 2013 1:46 PM  

As a junior member of your pit of manstink (Jtg sniffs his armpit. Yep) I approve of this blog post.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 14, 2013 1:47 PM  

Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 1:23 PM
It is amusing that on a post about free speech, someone is asking for a list of authors to avoid.





it is amusing that a leftist prog would confuse censorship with a fan choosing to spend his limited entertainment budget in one way and not another.

oh, no i'm not. that's typical mis-attribution propaganda which leftists have been doing for most of a hundred years now.

you see, Will, if you're looking for the opposite of "free speech" the concept you're looking for is "censorship". and censorship is NOT refusing to buy a book. censorship is refusing to allow any avenue for an author to publish.

or, like forcing an editor out of his job for purported actions ( the specifics of which, no one is allowed to know ) which have nothing to do with his job.

just for your info, i purchased the entire first run of CC. your conceit was amusing enough. but Ford's issue was head and shoulders above yours in writing quality. i spent some time after that trying to find stuff that he had written ... with little enough success.

as for me personally, i have bought all of the Dragaeran books and intend to continue doing so. i just don't seem to make a very good censor.

i will, however, help another fan out if asked for advice on a filter ...



Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 1:23 PM
John M. Ford was not a member of the Scribblies


well enough. it seems to have been a pretty free-form group. would you agree that 'he was a Minneapolis area writer who hung out with you guys a lot'.




Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 1:23 PM
Nor are all Scribblies socialists.



they're comfortable enough with the concept to go along with participating in a group named after the Wobblies.



Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 1:23 PM
The fact is middle-class moralists cross the political spectrum.


you, for instance.

Blogger Justthisguy July 14, 2013 1:58 PM  

Savoir, I am partial to my Dad's old outfit, the 20th Air Force. They had nukes. Yah, only a couple or so, but still...

Oh, Dear Old Dad, the War Criminal, when he was working for Curtis LeMay on Saipan. Sigh!

Anonymous VD July 14, 2013 2:00 PM  

Is it name calling that this whole brouhaha is about?

Yep. Because Respect. And Professional.

Anonymous Anonagain July 14, 2013 2:03 PM  

1. Attacks on members
Blah blah blah blah ... blah blah blah ... blah.


It should come as no surprise that the insane, immoral, and vicious will classify anything other than total appeasement and submission as attacks.

The slightest slight is an attack, stating facts about them is an attack, noting their attacks is an attack, defending oneself against their attacks is an attack, debating them is an attack, disagreeing with them is an attack, pointing and laughing at them is an attack, looking at them the wrong way is an attack, talking about them is an attack, etc, etc.

One cannot expect reason or fairness from these rabid, frothing creatures.

Anonymous Sigyn July 14, 2013 2:07 PM  

middle-class moralists

Dat raciss.

Anonymous Susan July 14, 2013 2:11 PM  

After reading her assertion that Vox has not acquainted himself with actual women, I had to google her for a photo.

I am thinking she is under the impression that women aren't real unless they weigh in at over 200lbs at least and are on the homely side. She is one very fluffy woman. Too many Dorito nights I would imagine.

Would a side by side comparison with SB be too cruel to ask for?

Anonymous Lesbian Dorito Night July 14, 2013 2:15 PM  

How the series of tubes work and the general legal principles around it are difficult to understand for rabbits.

IANAL, but Vox sure seems to have an open and shut case if they expel based in any portion on what someone else said.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 2:24 PM  

"it is amusing that a leftist prog would confuse censorship with a fan choosing to spend his limited entertainment budget in one way and not another."

I would swear that in the various SF "fails", the fans of "shitlists" made the same argument--I'm sure if you look, you'll find people saying that now about the Orson Scott Card boycott. I've never been able to figure out what the difference is between leftie political correctness and rightie political correctness. But if you want to stay in your echo chamber, that's your right, of course.

'he was a Minneapolis area writer who hung out with you guys a lot'

That's your filter? It includes Joel Rosenberg.

"Ford's issue was head and shoulders above yours in writing quality"

Full agreement. Why would I ask someone who did worse work to do an issue?

"they're comfortable enough with the concept to go along with participating in a group named after the Wobblies."

That was my joke. When Pamela moved to Connecticut, it occurred to me that we could be the Interstate Writers Workshop and call ourselves the Scribblies. The rest of the folks thought it was funny. It was simultaneously a reference to "Always scribble, scribble, scribble! Eh, Mr. Gibbon?", so even monarchists could approve.

"you, for instance."

Nope. I'm on the side of free speech. I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU who supports them for supporting the rights of people like the Nazis and the KKK. I'm very curious about how the current brouhaha about VD's SFWA membership will end. If he's expelled, I'll stop thinking Steve's song is funny.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 14, 2013 2:40 PM  

Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 1:23 PM
The fact is middle-class moralists cross the political spectrum.

bob k. mando July 14, 2013 1:47 PM
you, for instance.

Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 2:24 PM
Nope. I'm on the side of free speech.




well, looky there.

another prog-leftist conflation-of-definition meant to deceive.

almost your entire posting history here has consisted of haranguing *US* for failing to meet your 'moral' standards. a moralist MAY employ censorship ( or even re-education camps ) but these are FAR from the only tools in a moralist's arsenal.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moralist
3: one concerned with regulating the morals of others

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
: a person who supervises conduct and morals: as
a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter
b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful


fortunately for us, the influence of you and your ilk doesn't seem to extend beyond hounding certain people out of publishing jobs in the SFWA ghetto.

yet.


Anonymous dh July 14, 2013 2:46 PM  

I suspect that there is some very furious cleanup going across various SFWA member blogs. It takes a tremendous amount of discpline to allow a basically unmoderated forum to exist. The easiest response in the world is "delete".

Anonymous Harsh July 14, 2013 2:48 PM  

It is amusing that on a post about free speech, someone is asking for a list of authors to avoid.

Why is that amusing? Free speech includes discussing authors that one would like to avoid or boycott. Boycotting has been a legitimate political tool for a long time. Why can't authors on this side of the political fence use that tool?

TZ is right: "You should not avoid good literature based on the politics of the author. You just make yourself poorer."

That's rhetorical nonsense. The logical conclusion of that statement is that if I don't read every book deemed "good literature" written ever, I'm a poorer person. Frankly, I don't have that kind of time. I select and choose books I read based on a variety of merits. The author's political viewpoint is but one (and rarely the most important one.)

Anonymous Cinco July 14, 2013 2:51 PM  

"If he's expelled, I'll stop thinking Steve's song is funny."

I think it's 60/40 that they will expel him. Part of me still considers the possibility that they will try to just let this whole thing die, 34 page reports not withstanding.

Never underestimate a rabbit's ability to sit and stew in perpetual ignorance. Denial is after all, just a river in Egypt to them.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 2:52 PM  

Oh, I am a moralist in that sense. Y'all are moralists, too--you couldn't be judgmental if you weren't. I'm just not middle-class in any meaningful way, and I don't support censorship.

My haranguing here has mostly consisted of reminding you of a couple of other moralists, Heinlein and St. Peter. I really have no illusions of changing what you believe. Most people cling to their worldview so long as life doesn't whack them upside the head.

Also, I let my SFWA membership lapse some time ago, and I do think the efforts of a loud minority to impose a SFWA speech code are as wrong-headed as can be, no matter what the political rationale may be.

Anonymous Harsh July 14, 2013 2:52 PM  

I noted before that VD is not living up to St. Peter's advice to respect everyone.

Ugh, yet another lefty trying to shame a Christian using Christian principles. You are a walking, talking cliche. I'm only surprised you didn't throw Matthew 7:1 out there yet.

Blogger Markku July 14, 2013 2:54 PM  

I think it's 60/40 that they will expel him.

I think it's 90/10.

Anonymous VD July 14, 2013 3:01 PM  

My haranguing here has mostly consisted of reminding you of a couple of other moralists, Heinlein and St. Peter. I really have no illusions of changing what you believe. Most people cling to their worldview so long as life doesn't whack them upside the head.

I don't mind being called to account, Will. I actually appreciate it regardless of the motivation. It's not a bad reminder, especially when being under fire from so many sides creates the temptation to switch from aimed shots at legitimate targets to calling in the artillery.

Anonymous VD July 14, 2013 3:04 PM  

I think it's 90/10.

Wow, that's better than before. You optimist.

Blogger dixiedog July 14, 2013 3:06 PM  

Mr. Shetterly, censorship is FORCED avoidance, by official(s) in whatever capacity said censor operates, not VOLUNTEER avoidance of material by the Mundanes. You mentioned a boycott, earlier, which is a VOLUNTEER effort and not coerced by officialdom at any level.

Does the bulb light, at least dimly, now?

Anonymous Salt July 14, 2013 3:08 PM  

I think it's 60/40 that they will expel him.

I think it's 90/10.


Bigger question is, how many pounds of rabbit dropping will there be when that happens?

Anonymous Anonagain July 14, 2013 3:13 PM  

Brust's wiki info says his ethnicity is Hungarian. There are two kinds of people - those who learn from the failures of the past and guard against it, and those so arrogant and willful as to completely disregard it. The latter kind, in which Brust clearly belongs, are the instruments whereby history repeats itself.

That fucking Hungarian, who imagines himself as precious and enlightened, is steeped in Marxist-mutated DNA.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 14, 2013 3:14 PM  

Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 2:52 PM
Oh, I am a moralist in that sense.




in the sense of the dictionary defintion? and you purport to write for living?

listen Will, there are only two possible explanations for your statements here:
1 - you're ignorant of basic aspects of the English language
2 - you're intentionally misusing the English language


which is it to be? stupidity or malice?




Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 2:52 PM
Y'all are moralists, too--you couldn't be judgmental if you weren't.



what. the. fuck.

when did this discussion become US trying to say that we DIDN'T have morals?

YOU are the one who came in here trying to shit all over US for being 'moralist censors'. when that assertion IS A BALD FACED LIE. NO effort was made at any time by any one of us to have someone fired or to prevent someone from being published.

but then, lies in the service of ideology have a long, LONG history with Marxists.



Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 2:52 PM
I'm just not middle-class in any meaningful way,


and we're glad not to have you. did you notice that the only word in that sentence that i bolded was 'moralist'? you think maybe there was a reason for that?

you know, previously you've asserted that you were a 'leveler'. that you wanted to bring all of society approximately the same position.

me? i'm just a poor, dumb, stupid, ignorant bourgeoisie. maybe you could explain something too me?

IF you bring all of the upper classes *down*
AND you bring all of the lower classes *up*
THEN isn't the entirety of the mass of humanity 'middle class'?

signed
confuszled in suburbia

Anonymous Holmwood July 14, 2013 3:23 PM  

@Will I noted before that VD is not living up to St. Peter's advice to respect everyone."

I'll get to the quote last. Though I will say, on Heinlein, good one.

First, I stumbled across your blog in the wake of this SFWA kerfuffle. I thought what you wrote on Beale, Jemisin and race was extremely good. While I did not agree with all of it, you were at pains to be rational and to cite why you thought as you did.

(I consider myself a mix of the culture/HBD camp. I think HBD is more important than you give it credit for, but I agree on the Flynn effect. Moreover, I expect that widespread proliferation of smartphones and tablets globally are likely to have a leveling effect on things like IQ. FWIW, Americans would not consider me a white person.)

Second, what do you mean by "neoliberal" in describing Wiscon? Perhaps it has some unusual American meaning with which I was previously unacquainted, but while one could fairly accurately call Wiscon (pejoratively) fascist, (positively) highly progressive, (descriptively) culturally Marxist, I cannot conceive of calling it neoliberal in any way that makes sense.

Third, (finally!), getting to your quote above. I think a key element is this: Vox Day, at least in the wake of 9/11 became a polemicist. Note his evolution from game columnist to political columnist. Not one as constant or as Ann Coulter or Molly Ivins perhaps, but a columnist with at the very least colorful exaggeration in argument for effect.

Someone (in the SFWA I believe) some years back decided to unmask the Beale/Day connection, I believe to ensure he would be condemned by the then-President of the SFWA and effectively barred from ever serving on a Nebular jury again.

This is a tendency on the left, to "out" people, be they gay, politically incorrect, evil racists like Paula Deen, what have you. Perhaps it is a good thing, perhaps not. I see nothing wrong with compartmentalizing aspects of one's life. Indeed pseudonymous free speech is an old and honoured American tradition.

Day/Beale became exposed. with two consequences; first, the deployment of Alinskyite tactics against him (Freeze the Target, polarize it, etc.); second, the inevitable leakage of the Vox Day polemical persona into the life of Beale.

I have found Beale, in correspondence, and even to statements that might annoy him to be uniformly polite and logical in his responses.

For that reason, I do not think that your invocation of Peter in that context is appropriate for Day. I have noted he tends to politely defend his positions, and respond with fire only when personally attacked. I would argue that "Respecting everyone" does not mean respecting them after they attack you or attack your faith. (See Christ and the money-changers for example).

I do not think Christ would advocate one should respect someone who lies about you and unfairly attacks you. Love, perhaps, respect, no. He might well say one should turn the other cheek; and there polemicist Day fails. I shall not bestir myself to criticize him harshly for that, since I have a log in my own eye to attend to.

True, you could argue Day is implicitly lacking respect for a broad swath of people in much of what he says. There your invocation of Peter might hold. I think that differs from respecting individuals as a default, and that is how I interpret Peter (otherwise why would he also say, in your words, "respect the community").

Indeed, polemicist Day does come off as more of a (metaphorical SFWA readers!) follower of your Malcolm X quote. The bit about the cemetery. Metaphorically speaking.

In any event, Will, assuming you managed to read this, thanks for your thoughtful contributions here and elsewhere. I consider your economic links to be... uh... the kindest phrase I can come up with is "half-baked", but your own actual writing (possibly even on economics) is quite thoughtful and persuasive, even the bits I disagree with.

Blogger kudzu bob July 14, 2013 3:30 PM  

A note to bob k. mando: If you look at Will Shetterly's blog, you will see that he might be a bit more fair-minded than your words here suggest.

Anonymous rabbitfarts July 14, 2013 3:37 PM  

Making shit up again Will Shutterflea?

How about this...let us define left-libertarians as national socialists.

I ask you Will, why do you being your jew-hatred here, Shutterfleam you racist you?

Will, why can't you listen to Budda, Bono and St. Peter and cease your genocidal screeds?

(see how easy it is? make up shit... then pretend to be self-righteous while you shovel the bullshit. it's the shutterflea way... fart in the elevator but blame the other guy...)

Anonymous NateM July 14, 2013 3:41 PM  

Will- I suppose where the tautology is breaking down here is where an organization seeking to exclude someone from membership because of their beliefs and opinions (harming them professionally, if marginally) is not censorship, but people choosing not to support those same authors for doing as much Is.

Blogger Nate July 14, 2013 3:42 PM  

"Oh, I am a moralist in that sense. Y'all are moralists, too--you couldn't be judgmental if you weren't. I'm just not middle-class in any meaningful way, and I don't support censorship."

There are a lot of ways to use that word.. "jurdgemental". For example... as a Christian I know homosexuality is a sin. I do not however support government law making homosexuality illegal.

Amusingly.. that is what should be considered tolerance. You tolerate things you disagree with.

Now.. everyone has the lines. I don't think any of us, left or right, are particularly tolerant of non-consensual cannibalism.

So I suppose we're all moralists... and the word really has no meaning at all. One is either a moralist... or a barbarian.

Anonymous rabbitfarts July 14, 2013 3:42 PM  

Did Shutterflea ever explain how libertarians like Vox support "corporate rule"? Why is Shutterflea examept from Vox's blog rules...??? He farts, runs aways, then comes back to fart again.

Blogger Nate July 14, 2013 3:44 PM  

What I particularly enjoy is that Scalzi and some of the others have actually in the past warned against banning people for political views. Scalzi was aware that at some point his own views may not be that popular and he didn't want his out-spoken positions to cost him anything.

Its almost like he forgot saying that.

Anonymous Anonagain July 14, 2013 3:47 PM  

If you look at Will Shetterly's blog, you will see that he might be a bit more fair-minded than your words here suggest.

Fair-minded Marxists slaughtered millions of people. Because equality.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 14, 2013 3:47 PM  

kudzu bob July 14, 2013 3:30 PM
A note to bob k. mando: If you look at Will Shetterly's blog, you will see that he might be a bit more fair-minded than your words here suggest.





*shrugs*

all i'm doing is explicating the tactics WHICH HE HAS USED *HERE*.

if you want to dispute this, that's fine.

but i'm going to be really amazed if you can find ANY evidence of ( attempted ) censorship of authors here OR proof that large portions of the Ilk do not adhere to morals or standards of one sort or another.


as too 'fair minded', i already commented on Brust's support for Snowden in a previous thread. Shetterly's will be much the same.

IF they choose to stand against Obama it's going to be because he has been insufficiently revolutionary, not because he's violating the Constitution.

that was always one of the funniest things about reading the World Socialist Web Site ( wsws.org ) reviews of books/movies/music: almost every single damn one of the reviews boiled down to "not good because not revolutionary enough". it got to the point where it wasn't amusing any more and i stopped reading it years ago.


ps -
an aside to Shetterly:
before you try to waste any time on this, most everyone here was against Bush / McCain / Romney / Obama. for the reasons that they are anti-Constitutional and that they are all paid apparatchiks of the Bankster Party.

Blogger Nate July 14, 2013 3:51 PM  

"Fair-minded Marxists slaughtered millions of people. Because equality."

only the meglo-maniac ones that actually seek power. Until Will goes out and runs for office he's no more deadly than anyone else.

And also..

Why marxist kill so many workers?

BECAUSE WORKERS RIGHTS!

Blogger Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 3:53 PM  

dixiedog, Google 'private censorship' and aclu. It might be enlightening.

mando, whenever you only see two possibilities, look again.

Anonymous Harsh July 14, 2013 3:53 PM  

Amusingly.. that is what should be considered tolerance. You tolerate things you disagree with.

Well said, Nate. The Left, it seems, want to define tolerance as agreement and acceptance.

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 3:56 PM  

TZ is right: "You should not avoid good literature based on the politics of the author. You just make yourself poorer."

That's rhetorical nonsense. The logical conclusion of that statement is that if I don't read every book deemed "good literature" written ever, I'm a poorer person.


No, not every good book. This is not unlike a cafeteria. You are free to consume anything, however if you start eating more sweets and starches because you don't like the chef doing the salads and meat, you will become fat and diabetic. Or starve.

It takes extra effort to try to find the political or philosophical point of view of an author (when it doesn't come through in the preachy-ness in the writings). And if you don't read anything before doing a background check on the author, you will read very little.

But I will go even further. If you don't read even the classics you might disagree with - e.g. Plato's Republic, you will be far poorer. The great works (and thus the modern good works) will, or at least should cause you to think. Evaluate. Find the strengths and weaknesses in the argument or story.

Even if all you read is the Federalist Papers and the story of the Constitution and revolutionary war, you will be poorer if you don't also read the anti-federalist and the rest. Paine and Burke debated the French Revolution.

We don't need any more rabbits that can only regurgitate talking points, not even Christian rabbits, or libertarian rabbits, or traditional rabbits. For those who remain rabbits will quickly find themselves slaves - even if to the warren, while those who think might be in conflict with others who think, but thinkers will remain free both temporally and spiritually regardless of the circumstance

Anonymous Harsh July 14, 2013 4:02 PM  

@Will Shetterly

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did no see my original question, so I will be more clear this time. Please state the specific premise with which you used to arrive at the conclusion that avoiding an author's work is tantamount to an infringement of his free speech. I quote your original assertion and my reply below for clarity.

It is amusing that on a post about free speech, someone is asking for a list of authors to avoid.

Why is that amusing? Free speech includes discussing authors that one would like to avoid or boycott. Boycotting has been a legitimate political tool for a long time. Why can't authors on this side of the political fence use that tool?

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 4:02 PM  

@rabbitfarts Did Shutterflea ever explain how libertarians like Vox support "corporate rule"?

Vox doesn't if I remember his postings, nor do I. I've stated that corpseorations are undead monsters given life only by Dr. Frankenstate. You cannot legitimately create "a person" that does not have even the potential for will or intellect.

To my knowledge, except for the pure anarchists here, most of the Ilk support the "rule of law" (in the context of natural law, my interpretation), so individuals would have rights but also be held (strictly) responsible.

I have no problem with joint-and-several liability partnerships. The corporate veil is merely an old form of crony capitalism, where rich men can form something so they benefit if it succeeds, but "ah ah ah, limited liability" limits losses if it fails.

Anonymous Anonagain July 14, 2013 4:02 PM  

only the meglo-maniac ones that actually seek power. Until Will goes out and runs for office he's no more deadly than anyone else.

Without fair-minded, useful idiot Marxists like Shetterly, those megalomaniacs can never attain power in the first place. He doesn't need to run for any office to be deadly.

Anonymous David of One July 14, 2013 4:04 PM  

The discourse regarding the ultimate thumbs up or thumbs down regarding Theodore Beale's continued membership with the SFWA may not be so simple.

During the past 7 days or so their collusive debauchery combined with irrefutable & damning complicity being brought to light should have impressed upon them of that their own exposure of accountability is serious.
Their accountability is formal and delineated through the positions of trust within the SFWA. Mr. Beale's is not.

Try as they may to concoct and 'make up as you go' to formalize and legitimize rules & some sort of 'code of conduct' is all after the fact even all the while they continue to indulge themselves in behavior they condemn.

Mr. Beale, Ms.Jemisin nor any other SFWA members are not accountable to any rules made-up after the fact. But those making up the rules & policies are responsible. They are accountable.

Consequently they may have suddenly felt the sobering effects of reality, their exposure, their responsibility and accountability will likely be judged more severely by the Membership (Stockholders) and others whose responsibility is to hold such to account. The result may also be retroactive and punitive.

This is why I think that the activities of the last several days may actually change the assumed outcome by those for whom formal accountability exists despite their delusions of power.

Blogger Justthisguy July 14, 2013 4:06 PM  

Let us consult Eric Flint about this. Hey, Eric? Are ye there? Hello?

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 4:07 PM  

Now.. everyone has the lines. I don't think any of us, left or right, are particularly tolerant of non-consensual cannibalism.

I've heard that in China, (human) fetus soup is considered a delicacy.

The left does more than tolerate forced abortion.

Oh, and I forgot on one of my earlier posts to note Vox called Scalzi's works mediocre. I don't think he even excels at mediocrity, but perhaps "Excellence in Mediocrity, with regular purges of RSHDs" could be the current SFWA motto.

Blogger Nate July 14, 2013 4:09 PM  

Also Will... the reason so many here are surprised to see anyone from the left actually defend the First Amendment... is because it has been attacked from the left so much recently.

Anonymous Harsh July 14, 2013 4:09 PM  

No, not every good book. This is not unlike a cafeteria. You are free to consume anything, however if you start eating more sweets and starches because you don't like the chef doing the salads and meat, you will become fat and diabetic. Or starve.

Come on, man, this is more empty rhetoric. Reading is not food. You will not literally starve if you never read a good book. You may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but that's another issue.

But I will go even further. If you don't read even the classics you might disagree with - e.g. Plato's Republic, you will be far poorer. The great works (and thus the modern good works) will, or at least should cause you to think. Evaluate. Find the strengths and weaknesses in the argument or story.

A fair point and in the general sense of the argument, you're right.

Blogger Nate July 14, 2013 4:14 PM  

"Without fair-minded, useful idiot Marxists like Shetterly, those megalomaniacs can never attain power in the first place. He doesn't need to run for any office to be deadly."

So you've built your position on the solid rock of "you get the government you deserve." and then taken the corollary... that therefore you have some culpability in the actions your government takes. Is that fair?

Anonymous bob k. mando July 14, 2013 4:15 PM  

Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 3:53 PM
mando, whenever you only see two possibilities, look again.



look again for reasons why you constantly misuse the language?

nah, sounds like a waste of time to me.

how bout you pick up a dictionary and consider abandoning convenient propaganda attempts at unilaterally redefining words for the purposes of libeling people not of your political affiliation?

which, you know, is something that you've actually done repeatedly here.

that some fine set of morals you're demonstrating for us.



another note:
"neo-liberalism" has a definition. odd that it's not a socialist / communist / cultural marxist one.

neo-liberalism is a class of economic theories. and Austrian Theory is included in this definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Austrian_School_of_Economics


does ANYONE here seriously think that WisCon is a hotbed of Austrian or even Monetarist economic theories?

or is this yet ANOTHER word that Shetterly is willfully misusing?

how CONVENIENT.


even the dictionary only states that "neoliberalism" can be considered "not quite" so averse to big business or accepting of unions as the Wobblies.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neoliberal?s=t


and that's after the cultural marxists have subverted the historical meaning of the word in the 1960s.

the fact is that 'neoliberal', as Shetterly is attempting to use it, is word substitution for 'progressive' in an attempt by Leftists to disassociate themselves from the shitty reputation that has accrued to the term 'prog' DUE TO THEIR ACTIONS.


Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 1:23 PM
but I do know she has a strong identitarian streak that makes her very comfortable with WisCon's general neoliberal politics.

Blogger Nate July 14, 2013 4:17 PM  

"Come on, man, this is more empty rhetoric. Reading is not food. You will not literally starve if you never read a good book. You may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but that's another issue."

Harsh... reducto absurdum is not a magic harry potter spell that makes you when arguments.

Blogger Nate July 14, 2013 4:17 PM  

when???? WIN.

fail.

/facepalm of shame.

Anonymous Harsh July 14, 2013 4:22 PM  

Harsh... reducto absurdum is not a magic harry potter spell that makes you when arguments.

It should be though. It sure sounds like one. But point taken.

Anonymous Anonagain July 14, 2013 4:22 PM  

So you've built your position on the solid rock of "you get the government you deserve." and then taken the corollary... that therefore you have some culpability in the actions your government takes. Is that fair?

That's not it at all. We're not even talking about government. We're talking about ideology, which when implemented always leads to the same results, and the reason these fair-minded Marxists brush the slaughter of millions under the rug. Or have I completely missed their loud cries of protest and denouncements?

Blogger Nate July 14, 2013 4:31 PM  

"We're not even talking about government."

But the government is the hammer that is being used to drive the nails.

The ideology would be the rationalization used to select the carpenter.

Seems to me if you're an ideological marxist... and you work to put marxists in power... then those marxists kill millions... that is reason enough to lay the blame at your feet. You hold some culpability there... because you helped get them into power.

We've likely just come to the same place through different routes.

My only question is... before we decide if we can blame Stalin on Will.. shouldn't we first ask him if he is a trostkyite or just a plain old socialist of the George W Bush / Bill Clinton sort?

Blogger Nate July 14, 2013 4:34 PM  

Harsh:

Peastant: "Look supreme executive power results from a mandate from the masses. Not some farcical aquatic ceremony!"

Arthur: REDUCTO ABSURNUM!!!

***POOF***

Peasant: Right. It can be a monarchy then.

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 4:36 PM  

To give an example of corporatism and some of the other discussion here, today at copblock.org, there was a question about "private prisons", with a libertarian giving a rambling, incoherent answer in a youtube video. I posted a comment, but am not subscribed to follow-ups since it tends to be a libertarian warren.

I also quoted Lewis "humanitarian theory of punishment". (I can make the argument but no more concise nor persuasive than the link). I also pointed to a few holes in the argument - yea, violent criminals are going to cooperate with house arrest, factual errors, and omission of rather notorious cases.

And there are liberals who defend the freedom of speech and the press. Glenn Greenwald is probably the most prominent example, but he has had to post constantly about the press being Obama's lapdogs (or worse, the dogs are female). He re-tweeted a picture of Snowden with the caption "I saw something, I said something". But they are few. Similar to conservatives who defended anything and everything Bush did.

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 4:38 PM  

I do not so much mind them getting the government that they deserve, but the problem is that I get the government that they deserve too.

Anonymous Anonagain July 14, 2013 4:48 PM  

My only question is... before we decide if we can blame Stalin on Will.

I never blamed Stalin on Shetterly. I blamed the ideology of fair-minded Marxists, of which Shetterly identifies himself as one, as responsible for the slaughter of millions.

Whichever faction he belongs to is of no importance to me. He's a little snake that wears whichever mask he thinks will best provide him with the opportunity to slither his propaganda into the narrative.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 4:56 PM  

Holmwood, thank you. I don't have time for a full response, so forgive me, because I appreciate your approach to discussing differences of opinion.

WisCon attracts Obamapologists and it's extremely identitarian in its approach to justice--even when they talk about class, they tend to take an identitarian rather than a socialist approach, stressing respecting poor folks over helping them. David Harvey, author of Neoliberalism, notes:

"Neoliberal rhetoric, with its foundational emphasis upon individual freedoms, has the power to split off libertarianism, identity politics, multi-culturalism, and eventually narcissistic consumerism from the social forces ranged in pursuit of social justice through the conquest of state power. It has long proved extremely difficult within the US left, for example, to forge the collective discipline required for political action to achieve social justice without offending the desire of political actors for individual freedom and for full recognition and expression of particular identities. Neoliberalism did not create these distinctions, but it could easily exploit, if not foment, them.

And:

"Civil rights were an issue, and questions of sexuality and of reproductive rights were very much in play. For almost everyone involved in the movement of '68, the intrusive state was the enemy and it had to be reformed. And on that, the neoliberals could easily agree. But capitalist corporations, business, and the market system were also seen as primary enemies requiring redress if not revolutionary transformation; hence the threat to capitalist class power. By capturing ideals of individual freedom and turning them against the interventionist and regulatory practices of the state, capitalist class interest could hope to protect and even restore their position. Neoliberalism was well suited to this ideological task. But it had to be backed up by a practical strategy that emphasized the liberty of consumer choice, not only with respect to particular products but also with respect to lifestyles, modes of expression, and a wide range of cultural practices. Neoliberalization required both politically and economically the construction of a neoliberal market-based populist culture of differentiated consumerism and individual libertarianism. As such it proved more than a little compatible with that cultural impulse called 'post-modernism' which had long been lurking in the wings but could now emerge full-blown as a both a cultural and an intellectual dominant. This was the challenge that corporations and class elites set out to finesse in the 1980s."

Regarding the outing of VD, you're right that social justice warriors love to out and "call out" people. (For people who don't know me, I distinguish between social justice workers, who actually work, and social justice warriors, who rarely venture off the internet.)

But if anyone claims outing is a leftist flaw, I'll remind you of the McCarthy era.

I have noticed that VD is polite until he consigns someone to the enemy camp--it's another trait he shares with his opponents. I'll happily annoy rightwing Christians by cite another favorite bit from the Bible, Matthew 5:46-47.

As for Jesus and the money-changers, he didn't call them names, other than to compare them to robbers, and being a socialist, I have no problem comparing bankers to robbers. The only other epithet I remember Jesus using is "hypocrite", and that seemed very precise in context.

I should prob'ly add that I fall short of treating everyone with respect, too. But I usually try.

I'm not sure what Peter meant by "brotherhood" or "community", but I think it's about the people you encounter often. Then again, it might be much broader. I suspect Peter would've agreed that it's easier to respect everyone than to love everyone.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 4:57 PM  

Harsh, I like Matthew 7:1 a lot, but when I meet someone who complains about leftist Christians, I'm more likely to cite Luke 3:11 and Acts 2:44-45.

kudzu bob, thanks. I try. Some of the things Mando has been complaining about make me wonder if he's mixing me up with someone else.

NateM, I would say that from what I currently know of the situation, if SFWA kicks out VD, they're censoring him--in a way that the First Amendment doesn't cover, of course, but still, it's censorship. For all its flaws, SFWA has had a strong history of free speech, which includes a history of people freely insulting each other.

Anonagain, you may think Stalin was a democratic socialist, but a little reading might assure you he was not.

tz, I've appreciated what you've said about reading broadly, but I'm disappointed with your mention of human fetus soup. The quickest google brings up Snopes' answer. (Seems I can't paste the url here, but you should be able to find it in 10 seconds.)

Nate, true--I've noted before that one of the biggest surprises over my life has been the number of leftists who've given up free speech and the number of conservatives who've embraced it.

Anonymous VD July 14, 2013 5:00 PM  

I have noticed that VD is polite until he consigns someone to the enemy camp--it's another trait he shares with his opponents. I'll happily annoy rightwing Christians by cite another favorite bit from the Bible, Matthew 5:46-47.

Totally untrue, Will. I'm not really an American anymore and that binary thing isn't really applicable over here.

I am polite as long as people are polite with me. I'm also a former full contact fighter, so I don't mind straight-up brawling either. As a Marxist, you are quite clearly an ideological enemy; have I been impolite to you?

Anonymous T14 July 14, 2013 5:05 PM  

Had no idea SF was such a depressing subculture. These guys make furries look socially adept.

Anonymous Harsh July 14, 2013 5:05 PM  

Harsh, I like Matthew 7:1 a lot, but when I meet someone who complains about leftist Christians, I'm more likely to cite Luke 3:11 and Acts 2:44-45.

OK, such is your right.

You still haven't answered my request for you to defend your assertion about free speech.

Anonymous Anonagain July 14, 2013 5:08 PM  

A Marxist by any other name is still a murderous, control freak.

Did Shutterflea ever explain how libertarians like Vox support "corporate rule"? Why is Shutterflea examept from Vox's blog rules...??? He farts, runs aways, then comes back to fart again.

I recall something about that. Unless I am mistaken, Vox banned his Marxist ass for not answering a question.

Shetterly blathers about respect, but if he indeed was banned, then he obviously has zero respect for this blog.

Anonymous Harsh July 14, 2013 5:12 PM  

I am polite as long as people are polite with me.

A good point, VD. A lot of trolls come in here with a snarky and condescending attitude and then are shocked -- SHOCKED -- when they are called names. But what they don't understand is that they simply invite the level of discourse they deserve. If they want to be treated like men (and women) and engage in a rational discussion, they need to drop the immature attitude.

Anonymous Stickwick July 14, 2013 5:13 PM  

As for Jesus and the money-changers, he didn't call them names, other than to compare them to robbers, and being a socialist, I have no problem comparing bankers to robbers. The only other epithet I remember Jesus using is "hypocrite", and that seemed very precise in context.

So, disrespect would've been calling them names, not whipping them, kicking them out, and overturning their tables?

Also, I don't necessarily have a problem with you reminding Christians of their own standards, as long as: a) you believe in them; and b) there is some recognized standard to which you can likewise be held. Would you tell us what that might be, Will?

Blogger Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 5:19 PM  

VD, you've been perfectly civil; it's why I decided to comment in this thread. I haven't followed you enough to say whether you've ever attacked first, but I haven't noticed it.

As to whether I'm a Marxist, I dunno. I greatly admire Marx's tools of analysis, but "Marxist" became effectively meaningless during his own life. One of my favorite Marx quotes is his observation of a French group that called itself Marxist: "If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist." I'm a democratic socialist or a left-libertarian, which does make me your ideological opponent. Still, I like your take on Snowden and while I'm not a fan of vituperation, I agree with you on free speech.

Hmm. And it looks like we agree on binary thinking, too.

Anonymous rabbitfarts July 14, 2013 5:23 PM  

Will Shutterflea....

McCarthy was a Progressive and best friends with Joseph P. Kennedy ...and a backer of JFK.

McCarthy was a leftist anti-communtist.

But you already knew we'd say that, since we already explained this to you Will a WEEK ago.

But here you are, lifting your leg a little to fart out another lie... before you run away and leave us with the stench.

JUST like you did with your "libertarians are corporatists" falsehoods.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 5:25 PM  

Harsh, sorry. I thought I covered that in an answer to someone else, and I hate repeating myself. Google "ACLU What is censorship" and you'll see what I agree with.

Stickwick, yup. Acting on your principles has nothing to with name-calling.

a) When I told VD I'm either a democratic socialist or a left-libertarian, I almost included "or a very old-fashioned Christian", but I thought that wouldn't be helpful.

b) I'm very fond of Gene Autry's Cowboy Code, but where he says patriotism, I use Carl Schurz's definition--and think Autry would agree.

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 5:26 PM  

@Will, the reference I remember was not to the snopes/hoax item, but something earlier (several years ago), but I shall apologize for that and withdraw the reference until such time I can find an independent source. It may be buried by the hoax.

Conservatives only embrace free speech when Liberals are in office and vice versa. Remember the Iraq war and the call for suppressing speech in the name of fighting terrorism? "Material support for terrorism" can be simple speech. Al Alwaki to my knowledge only spoke out against the US (i.e. did not build or supply arms) and he and his son were killed in drone strikes.

As far as I can tell, VD only consigns someone "to the enemy camp" when they aren't participating in the discussion in a constructive manner and that has nothing to do with ideology - no give an take, worrying about the meta-commenting ("the technical philosophical definition of that word is..."). If you have a position, you must defend it. If you are dodging things, and dialectic isn't working and direct rhetoric also fails, then it has to be whatever is left that might work.

As to the McCarthy era, the problem was not so much outing of communists, but the denial of their rights and entrapment (you joined X which was later declared to be a communist front so you lied under oath), and the "outing" people who never were communists.

And the problem that "Communism" at that time meant the other nuclear superpower that was our declared enemy and also remembering Stalin (and later Mao's) atrocities. It would be hard to say you loved communism but hated Stalin and the USSR. You could support "workers" and the poor - things like social security - without joining the communist party.

Fighting evil brings out the worst in man and often he will become a greater evil than the one he originally desired to combat. We still have the war on drugs and terrorism which Obama managed to take from Bush, adding a war on whistleblowers. We have become the Evil empire, and I'm not sure (except for Snowden and a hoped for wake-up call) that the USA in a few years would not be different than the world had the USSR won the cold war. What victory is it if the FBI, DHS, NSA, and TSA are worse than the KGB, GRU and Stasi?

For me the question comes down to will you use Government power to create your utopia, or will you limit it to violence, theft, and fraud; Thou Shall not Kill, Steal, or Bear False Witness.

This is similar to the good book or not without worrying about the other opinions. We can differ about how to help the poor, or even if they should be helped, but I have more in common with someone who is a total socialist (and I would argue the Church itself is commanded to be that), but who in government will not use the power to advance socialism and tear down what is there which goes beyond the three commandments which are also criminal.

What is good and evil is profoundly affected by the agency that has the competence and authority to affect the good. Attempting to have even what might otherwise be a good institution (and I'd call government a necessary evil, not a good), that has no competence or authority to do good is a grave evil in and of itself.

Anonymous Sigyn July 14, 2013 5:32 PM  

I suspect Peter would've agreed that it's easier to respect everyone than to love everyone.

You are referring to 1 Peter 2:17, I'm assuming?

It's funny, but I've been studying that book for an article I'm writing, so I can help you out with what it means. ((And my husband is an amateur Bible scholar who likes him his linguistics, so you're getting both our brains here.))

The word translated "everyone" is pantas, which specifically refers to "every part of a [specified] whole". "All of them", in essence. Who "them" is can be interpreted a number of ways, but as it falls between two passages talking about honoring human institutions, the passage is probably NOT about all people everywhere.

Similarly, "respect" here is not "be nice". The word there is timaó, "to value at a price; to honor" in economic terms.

Your favorite passage does not mean "be polite to everybody" but "give them [possibly government] what value they are assigned."

Now you're educated enough to stop abusing that passage, Mr. Shetterly.

Anonymous Harsh July 14, 2013 5:35 PM  

@Will Shetterly

Harsh, sorry. I thought I covered that in an answer to someone else, and I hate repeating myself. Google "ACLU What is censorship" and you'll see what I agree with.

I don't see anywhere you've answered that question and I don't believe giving a Google phrase is an acceptable response. (I'll defer to VD on that.) If you have answered the question in the comments section of this thread, please give me a suitable phrase so I can find it. Searching "free speech" doesn't not take me to it. If VD says that your Google phrase is an acceptable response, I'll concede the argument.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 14, 2013 5:39 PM  

Someone thinks that pretending to be gay to stop a creep from bothering a woman was a great white knight thing to do.

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 5:40 PM  

Google "ACLU What is censorship" and you'll see what I agree with.

I have no problem with what they post, with the exception of "public schools" which I am forced to pay for and which try to demand children attend even when their parents do not wish them to be taught certain things.

Yet there is also copyright, and CleanFlix that removes the objectionable material is often the recipient of notices (while claiming artistic integrity, to get it on cable TV they will any ads, and mutilating the story far more). I am skeptical of "free expression" when they try to simultaneously it is commercial, private speech regulated by copyright and EULAs.

Children don't and can't consent, so I would put a higher threshold for public areas, especially places targeted toward children. It is bad enough that you have to homeschool, it is worse that the environment is let become toxic. I don't see the ACLU defending "lighting up a cigarette" as free expression. If they did I might be persuaded, but cigarettes are out of fashion.

I also think the ACLU was hypocritical in their defense of the jury verdict of the nuremberg files site. If it wasn't about abortion (compare the contemporary threats against Zimmerman which are far worse), would they endorse the verdict? They bobbed and weaved, but I would have had a lot more respect for them if they came out clearly that amorphous and non-specific threats cannot be generated from emanations and penumbras.

And isn't that exactly what the SFWA is trying to do to Vox?

Anonymous Anonagain July 14, 2013 5:41 PM  

Will Shetterly July 03, 2013 5:33 PM

I'm a redshirt, not in the skiffy sense but in the commie sense.


But he's not sure about being a Marxist.

Is that like a woman admitting she's a whore, but denying she's a slut?

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 5:42 PM  

Correction, /facepalm

emanations and penumbras from amorphous and non-specific threats cannot be made to add up to a specific threat.

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 5:44 PM  

I'm a black shirt. And pants, coats, and underwear. It simplifies doing laundry and dates back when monitors did not have anti-reflective coatings, but is still useful (my PDA on my motorcycle has a smooth glass screen and barely overcomes sunlight when it is indirect).

Anonymous rabbitfarts July 14, 2013 5:49 PM  

Anonagain: it's a matter of making up definitons, i.e. making shit up. Why? To shut Vox up... but in a kinder, gentler way ... with Scriputure verses to soothe the Jebus-folk and guilt us into submission. Pretentious jackass. I won't even go into how Will bullshitted how he "read" Goldbeg's Liberal Fascism, but ran away (as usual) when challenged on specific contents of the book. Does he think w'll forget his BS from mere weeks ago here?

He's the guy who farts in line at the grocery store then gives the cashier a dirty look.

Blogger Justthisguy July 14, 2013 5:50 PM  

I am careful to wear an orange shirt on Saint Patrick's Day.

Anonymous Stickwick July 14, 2013 5:54 PM  

Stickwick, yup. Acting on your principles has nothing to with name-calling.

What if a person's principles include treating someone in the exact manner in which they are treated? If he is called a name, then name-calling in return would be acting on one's principles, would it not? In any case, you have a very strange sense of what constitutes disrespect if using physical violence is not disrespect, but name-calling is. By this standard, a man ought to just slap his wife instead of calling her a bitch.

a) When I told VD I'm either a democratic socialist or a left-libertarian, I almost included "or a very old-fashioned Christian", but I thought that wouldn't be helpful.

As in an actual Christian -- you believe in Christ and follow Him?

Anonymous Anonagain July 14, 2013 5:55 PM  

Anonagain: it's a matter of making up definitons, i.e. making shit up.

Oh, you don't have to tell me. I can smell the unctuous secretions of his kind from a mile away, and the brightness of their halos are quite nearly blinding.

Anonymous VD July 14, 2013 5:56 PM  

I recall something about that. Unless I am mistaken, Vox banned his Marxist ass for not answering a question.

No, I don't believe so.

I haven't followed you enough to say whether you've ever attacked first, but I haven't noticed it.

I think I was guilty of it with Scalzi after his White Male Privilege post. In fairness, I was attacking what he was saying more than him, but it seemed to send him over the edge very rapidly. Jemisin has been going on about my "racism" since 2008, it turns out.

My response is going to be very long and brutally embarrassing to the organization, mostly because some of these people whining about my attacking members didn't realize that those members have been taking potshots at me for more than eight years now.

Anonymous David of One July 14, 2013 5:57 PM  

Imagine a far off place in a distant time ...

One of Great Haus, the Publibank Guild, had secretly met with a solitary member of (familia colorguardius) of the "Libertas! House Imaginarius!".

A meeting never foretold, prophesied or even imagined. An improbability event string was unfolding. Solidifying.

The Publibank Guild sought to seal an agreement of it's own blood revenge through the arrangement of enlisting the solitary Libertas! House Imaginarius! member. An agreement that would unleash the Dreddnauts of the Imperium as well as the entire Libertas! House Imaginarius!.

The Publibanks sought to avenge one of their own. A Publibank Navigator was falsely & brutaly attacked by a Deranger. Derangers ... protected, nurtured and bred by ClubestInkus.

A formally honorable group that originally existed solely to serve & protect Dreamists. But now who are slaves and fed upon by the Derangers that invaded ClubestInkus.

Publibank needs Dreamists for it very survival and the attack of their Nav forced them to act.

The solitary Dreamist of the Libertas! House Imaginarius! was said to possess power of ancient speak combined with ultra-tech wherein a single word could kill.

A word, a name that could destroy.

A captured Deranger was brought into the great hall were the alliance was being sealed.

Looking down they saw a horror ... where eyes had been, burned-out sockets remained. Black vile ooze drained from it's ears. Death's vapor exuded from it's mouth as the vile creature kept repeating ...

quietly ... voxmaximus.

Voxmaximus!

A final scream unto the mouth of death ... VOXMAXIMUS!!!!

The great hall shuddered, then rumbled while parts of the great hall was torn and rent open!

VOXMAXIMUS!!!!!!

Anonymous Steve July 14, 2013 5:58 PM  

"only the meglo-maniac ones that actually seek power. Until Will goes out and runs for office he's no more deadly than anyone else."

Sure,I'll concede that. He's no more deadly than anyone else who wields a billy club gleefully against anyone who would stop megalomaniacal Marxist murders from attaining the power to do what they have done every time they have ever gained any sort of political power.

You could forgive a neo-nazi his views. Many of them believe the Holocaust was faked, and in any case, there's only been one time in history where an explicitly Nazi organization has gained power and killed a bunch of people. It might theoretically be possible to have a peaceful Nazi government, we can't know unless we repeat the experiment with more rigorous control and independent tabulation of government murders.

Marxism, on the other hand, has been tried repeatedly, all over the world, with the exact same results every time. Political opponents are brutalized,marginalized, degraded,political opposition is sometimes fabricated out of thin air and blamed on real people who are then disenfranchised,robbed, or murdered by the state.

Shetterly, and others like him, aren't simply naive or mistaken. They aren't ignorant of the history. They don't think that Marxism didn't kill 200 million people. They talk about it as if it didn't and extol what they perceive to be its virtues, but they know it is an ideology of oppression and murder.

That's what they like about it.

He's no more deadly than the AIDS virus,quietly and insidiously breaking down the natural immunoresponse until, years later, the host dies of a common cold or flu. Only,AIDS can't come along later and say, "Hey, that wasn't ME that killed that guy, it was the influenza virus!"

Anonymous VD July 14, 2013 5:59 PM  

That's enough, Anonagain. You need to learn when to stop rather than keep saying the same thing over and over again. There is an important difference between being combative and being an effective combatant.

You appear to tend to forget that for every commenter, there are more than 100 readers.

Anonymous John July 14, 2013 6:59 PM  

Number one blogger. Hate to have to go heads up in a debate against this guy. If he played devils advocate he could probably even make feminism sound reasonable.

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 7:08 PM  

My response is going to be very long and brutally embarrassing to the organization, mostly because some of these people whining about my attacking members didn't realize that those members have been taking potshots at me for more than eight years now.

Their current accusation document is already nasty, brutish, and long. And embarrassing. This version of Hobbes is a paper tiger. But Team Calvin should be able to make a good case for total depravity.

Those who have been taking potshots should be charged with theft or larceny. Someone else could have done a far better job. There is something to be admired in a master jewel thief, but this is "world's dumbest criminals". Check that, I don't mean to insult dumb criminals by the comparison.

What is surprising about "whining about hitting back" or even raising a shield?

The only unfortunate thing is I doubt anyone on the SFWA side will do an entertaining point by point "attempted defense".

Rabbit Warren => Smoking Crater.

Blogger Phoenician in a Time of Romans July 14, 2013 7:11 PM  

"I own your mental space. First Scalzi made you his little bitch. And now I've made you my little bitch.

Which has, of course, been demonstrated by your inability to stop talking about me.

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 7:15 PM  

Old Chinese herbal proverb:

He who consumes fermented marijuana liquor is likely to take pot-shots.

Anonymous Stilicho July 14, 2013 7:15 PM  

Which has, of course, been demonstrated by your inability to stop talking about me.

Well, a malodorous turd on the floor does tend to get a bit of attention.

Anonymous Stilicho July 14, 2013 7:18 PM  

Brust is a very talented author, an admitted trotskyite of the communism-would-have-worked-if-the-right-people-had-been-in-charge variety, a horrible musician, observably butthurt, and very...very...gay.

Vlad wept.

Anonymous Harsh July 14, 2013 7:20 PM  

Which has, of course, been demonstrated by your inability to stop talking about me.

The only reason anyone here talks about you is because we find you such a startling example of both social and intellectual failure.

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 7:21 PM  

Feminism is easy to make sound reasonable as long as you don't mean to include actual real-world women (or men).

It depends on which version of Marxism. Chico, (quietly) Harpo, Zeppo, Gummo, or Groucho (Say the secret word and you can learn a lot from Lydia).

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn July 14, 2013 7:24 PM  

Which has, of course, been demonstrated by your inability to stop talking about me.

Precisely. That Vox can quote one of the many times you've dropped by to deposit a "dipshit" on his carpet proves that you are ever on his mind.

And that you go out of your way to visit and give him your personal attention...

...I wonder.

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 7:25 PM  

@iPonecian, will you, like L. Martindale, need a jailbreak?

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 7:34 PM  

Appropos my discussion on the practice of Swatting

After you've finished the Greenwald interview.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 7:38 PM  

Harsh, I looked back at your comment: "avoiding an author's work is tantamount to an infringement of his free speech". I agree that avoiding an author's work is not an infringement of free speech. Never said it was. When I spoke of lists, I was talking about people who make lists of writers who are politically incorrect according to the person seeking ideological purity. That is not in the spirit of free thought, though it's certainly legal.

I cited the ACLU page because it has a nice discussion of the difference between government and private censorship.

tz, this is good enough for this not-a-lawyer: "there is no constitutional error requiring reversal because in another instruction, concerning plaintiffs' statutory claim under FACE, the jury was properly instructed on plaintiffs' need to prove a specific intent to intimidate".

Anonagain, you can call me a democratic communist if you want. But it seems to me that to be a Marxist, you need to have a better idea of Marx's thought than I have--and than a number of self-proclaimed Marxists have. Marx said some nice things against censorship, for example, and nothing in support of it that I'm aware of. Marx thought socialism had to follow capitalist democracy and had serious doubts about whether it could succeed in Russia--doubts which seem to have turned out to be true. Blaming Marx for Stalin and Mao is like blaming Jesus for Torquemada and Hitler.

Stickwick, there have been times in my life when I believed in doing unto others as they did unto me. Then I decided it's better to take the moral high ground. The advice about wrestling with pigs has been credited to many people, but whoever first said it was completely correct. It's a lesson I wish I'd learned when I was much younger. Now I try to stick with the golden rule.

I doubt my Christianity is like yours, but yes, I do my best to live by Jesus's teachings. Perhaps it'll help if you think of me as a Jamesian Christian, because I think faith without works is dead.

And no, I'm not setting myself up as a model. I aim high and sometimes hit my foot.

Steve, you could have a lot of fun comparing deaths attributed to capitalism with deaths attributed to communism, but it would call for reading sites you probably would prefer to avoid.

Time for me to bow out. At the very least, I'll be following VD's SFWA posts, so y'all may see me again sometime. Ciao!

Anonymous Stickwick July 14, 2013 7:48 PM  

Will,

Fair enough on a) and b), though it's curious you did not claim the Christian standard as that to which you should be held. Unless you meant you meant the Cowboy Code to be in addition to / corollary of the Christian standard.

Anonymous Harsh July 14, 2013 7:55 PM  

Harsh, I looked back at your comment: "avoiding an author's work is tantamount to an infringement of his free speech". I agree that avoiding an author's work is not an infringement of free speech. Never said it was. When I spoke of lists, I was talking about people who make lists of writers who are politically incorrect according to the person seeking ideological purity. That is not in the spirit of free thought, though it's certainly legal.

Thank you for clarifying.

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 8:25 PM  

@Will. even now there are "bubble zones" around clinics where free speech is banned, and when there is police brutality, the ACLU is nowhere to be found. They once would do something like defend Nazis who wanted to march in Skokie. I know of NO case the ACLU has even commented on where the pro-lifer was the subject of far worse abuse than would normally trigger things.

I'm glad they are around for things like the right to film the police, but I somehow doubt that if someone was filming the police beating a pro-lifer to death outside of an abortion clinic and they tased the cameraman, destroyed the camera, and broke his legs that they would take the case.

It is sad, but in this case they put abortion ahead of free speech.

Beyond that, as a "liberal", do you believe that in the case of the unborn, you can ignore a holocaust? And I'm not being provocative. If I'm wrong, a woman who consented to sex would be inconvenienced for a few months. If the pro-aborts are wrong, they are responsible for a holocaust worst than Stalin and Mao and Hitler. There are liberal pro-lifers, about as many who truly defend the 1st amendment or no cruel or unusal punishment? My Faustian bargain on "rape" (incest tends to be ill defined) is on another thread, but I doubt you would take it.

Which circles back to the original divide - are you willing to do evil - using government to do evil - to get your ends? Do your good ends justify any evil means?

I'm quite serious about the Church being socialist and condemning, censuring, or even excommunicating plutocrats, but I'm not willing to have have the state shed one drop of blood.

I would arm "those under a vow of poverty" for at least 5 years to be exempt from any robbery, theft, fraud, or larceny, so they could break into a rich person's home, use identity theft, or just put a gun to their head and eliminate the middleman. If it does not violate "thou shall not steal" to put a badge on someone called a "tax collector" so that they do the IDENTICAL action by proxy, it ought not be a problem to directly do the act.

Anonymous Anonymous July 14, 2013 9:11 PM  

I find it absurd that the SFWA report claims the Board should be worried others will quit if you aren't kicked out . . . while Robinette is busy posting messages about how she *wants* members to quit.

She has a blog post asking members who pay dues to quit. She has at least one twitter message telling a well-known author "we don't want you" as if she alone speaks for the SFWA.

I couldn't be more angry. I want to hold my tongue, to take the higher road, to stand on the higher ground. But these people are infuriating me.

Normally, I'm of the opinion that art should be separated from the artist. If a book is good, it's good, and I don't care who wrote it. But these people are pushing too far. I'm to the point of joining in boycotting their work, and I'm getting closer to actively crusading against their insidious group think everyday.

Sorry if this post is pointless. Sometimes I just need somewhere to go to get this crap off my chest. I listen to Scalzi and Robinette and Gould and I smile and nod and pretend like their irrational nonsense is sane. When inside I despise them. I despise the way they avoid acknowledging any real critiques of their behavior and their words. I smile and nod while they pat each other on the back and pretend that their detractors are just mad at them for *caring* about people. Like all Scalzi's crowd is just walking around saying, "gosh, I sure do wish people would respect one another." And then Scalzi's crowd is getting attacked for it. What rubbish.

Blogger tz July 14, 2013 9:17 PM  

@Anonymous - you need to not be anonymous to have your post deleted, please do read the instruction even if you are irate.

Normally, I'm of the opinion that art should be separated from the artist. If a book is good, it's good, and I don't care who wrote it. But these people are pushing too far.

It was something I had to decide long ago. There were many works by those who I considered immoral. But the works were beautiful (and/or true and/or good). Chopin. Yet I, too, am a sinner, but just not in the same way. I may differ in kind but would not venture to judge on degree lest I be judged. So I became tolerant. Perhaps too much, but at the bema seat, I plan to plead that I was excessively merciful as the beatitude said I should be, so I would pray that God be excessively merciful.

This does not mean I don't condemn sin as such when I see it, but condemning the sin and condemning the sinner are different things.

Anonymous Anonymous July 14, 2013 9:26 PM  

tz,

1. Vox mentioned that he was allowing anonymous comments in the SFWA posts. IIRC

1b. In fairness, I assume Vox meant he was allowing *helpful* anonymous comments. And my comment may be judged as being less than helpful.

2. I'm okay with being deleted. I simply wanted to express my thought. Temporary as that expression may be.

3. I understand your position on art versus artist. I commend it. Tonight, I'm too angry to share it.

Anonymous Steve July 14, 2013 9:27 PM  

"Anonagain, you can call me a democratic communist if you want. But it seems to me that to be a Marxist, you need to have a better idea of Marx's thought than I have--and than a number of self-proclaimed Marxists have. Marx said some nice things against censorship, for example, and nothing in support of it that I'm aware of. Marx thought socialism had to follow capitalist democracy and had serious doubts about whether it could succeed in Russia--doubts which seem to have turned out to be true. Blaming Marx for Stalin and Mao is like blaming Jesus for Torquemada and Hitler."

Yeah,all that murder and oppression by the state is just a tragic coincidence. It's like how black people are always in the wrong place at the wrong time. They didn't do nuffins. All that crime,rape, and murder just magically appears in a place whenever blacks move there. It comes out of nowhere, and of course has nothing to do with blacks,per se... that would be racist!

"Steve, you could have a lot of fun comparing deaths attributed to capitalism with deaths attributed to communism, but it would call for reading sites you probably would prefer to avoid."

Tell me again how many people were murdered in the West for "anti-capitalist expressions" by their government?

Isn't it true that all of the people you claim were killed in the name of capitalism were in fact killed in the name of democracy, a softer and not mutually-incompatible form of totalitarian Communism, as you admit yourself by labeling yourself a "democratic communist"?

In light of that, aren't the victims who were murdered in the name of democracy really then just more uncounted victims of Communism?

Really now, you must think you're dealing with some doe-eyed ignorant upper class white college student here. "Reading sites I would prefer to avoid..." I read sites that everyone would prefer to avoid. I ask questions that everyone would prefer go unanswered. You have no idea what kind of person you're addressing. I have a soul as black as sackcloth and a heart of iron. There is no sentimentality or pity in me.

I will speak the hard truths that others shrink from because the pitiless shattering of others' sentimental ideas makes me giggle. I like to rip the covers off the heads of the noctophobic and expose the "boogeyman" they were afraid of as the contents of their own depraved imaginations staring back at them from the dark in the absence of optical input,I enjoy the soul-crushing pain this realization brings to the weak.

Now, tell us the truth... Despite all of your shucking-and-jiving about free speech,Christianity, etc, you support Communism because you would like to be able to kill those who disagree with you. Because if everyone doesn't agree with you, in your mind,that means your ideas are wrong, and you can't be wrong. Not Mommy and Daddy's special little snowflake.

That's what the reality is.

Also, everyone note that the fact that Communism has killed at least 200 million people (more if you count democracy) is known to Shetterly, and he is not in the slightest perturbed by this fact,even as a supposed "Christian". Who among us isn't horrified by murder? Murderers (or would-be murderers), that's who.

Anonymous Anonymous July 14, 2013 9:53 PM  

SusanJuly 14, 2013 2:11 PM
Would a side by side comparison with SB be too cruel to ask for?


Do you regularly mix Drano in with your martini? If not, why mix beauty with, uh, not-beauty?

- Azimus

Anonymous Sigyn July 14, 2013 9:56 PM  

Everyone gets a response but me...and here I even stretched myself to learn something and condense it for a guy who says he has a "long list of things to learn".

Oh well. Once an uncredited research assistant, always an uncredited research assistant. At least my last paying boss appreciated my hard work.

Blogger Nate July 14, 2013 10:03 PM  

Will
If I may I would caution you to actually read the gospel and pay attention to what Jesus actually says. He actually insults people quite regularly. "Haven't you morons gotten this yet???" could rightly be called one of the corner stones of His teachings.

Also... for some excellent name calling and disrespect we can see what Paul said to Peter.

If you're so fascinated with cutting the skin off of dicks why don't you go ahead and cut the whole thing off?

Yes yes... very respectful.

Anonymous David of One July 14, 2013 10:04 PM  

What? ;-)

I'm now scrolling back to see what it was you posted.

Blogger Nate July 14, 2013 10:34 PM  

"Oh well. Once an uncredited research assistant, always an uncredited research assistant. At least my last paying boss appreciated my hard work."

Forgive Will. He doesn't realize how spectacular your rack is. If he did... he would've responded. And complimented you on your insight.

Blogger Nate July 14, 2013 10:36 PM  

Will and or DH

Guys.. as liberals do you find it strange that its the rightwing sites now that are permissive when it comes to bawdy humor and sexual innuendo while the leftist sites are getting more and more uptight about such things?

I mean aren't the right wingers supposed to be the do-gooder churchians that are easily offended and looking to burn Slaughter House Five because it has bad titty drawings?

Anonymous Anonymous July 14, 2013 10:38 PM  

> Is that like a woman admitting she's a whore, but denying she's a slut?

A whore, being an entrepreneur participating in the personal services market, is a capitalist.

A slut, performing non-market transactions undercutting the whore's market, is a communist.

Like most communist interference with the free market, the whore works out cheaper.

Blogger Nate July 14, 2013 10:39 PM  

"Steve, you could have a lot of fun comparing deaths attributed to capitalism with deaths attributed to communism, but it would call for reading sites you probably would prefer to avoid."

pipe down lefty... or we'll bring up Malaria.

Blogger Nate July 14, 2013 10:42 PM  

Also Will.. I would encourage you to stick around. You'll find that many of us ilk not only are open to those debates...but we read those sites often. We know the arguments they make and can happily show you the flaws (we're being general hear but these flaws almost always boil down to a failure to understand what capitalism is. almost all of the leftist sites that make that comparison conflate capitalism with corporatism. They honestly can't tell the difference.)

Blogger Nate July 14, 2013 10:43 PM  

hear!!!! for fucks sake... I've typed when for win and hear for here on the same thread.

Clearly I'm not drinking enough.

Wenches! Bourbon!

Anonymous Molon Rouge July 14, 2013 10:52 PM  

You should not avoid good literature based on the politics of the author. You just make yourself poorer.

I do thank you all for your comments. However, I just feel in in my heart that I do not wish to enrich writers that are so awful to good people such as Vox. It may sound mean-spirited and an affront to free speech but I dislike rewarding idiots.

Anonymous Anonymous July 14, 2013 11:18 PM  

What if a person's principles include treating someone in the exact manner in which they are treated? If he is called a name, then name-calling in return would be acting on one's principles, would it not?

The golden rule v2.0: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you, until they have done unto you, then respond in kind.

By their actions towards you they have shown how they wish to be treated.

Blogger Nate July 14, 2013 11:26 PM  

"However, I just feel in in my heart that I do not wish to enrich writers that are so awful to good people such as Vox. "

I am so confused.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 14, 2013 11:45 PM  

Sigyn, I hate it when people feel left out, so my apologies. There was a discussion in an earlier thread about that passage, and I mentioned the Greek meaning then. It certainly could be translated as "Honor all of them." You say "it falls between two passages talking about honoring human institutions" but it does not. The previous sentence, using the translation you linked to, is "Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves." That's about being free, not about being bound by institutions. The following sentence is much trickier, but since one of the main themes of the Bible is being delivered from bondage, I think it's about accepting what you cannot change, not about submitting to oppression. Galatians 3:28 makes it clear that in God's view, we're all equal.

Anyway, I didn't want you to think I didn't appreciate your effort. But I will continue to quote that. I hope you noted that the KJV is "Honour all men" with "men" italicized because it's an addition by the translators in an effort at clarity. Had those scholars thought it meant all rulers or all in authority or all rich folks, I'm sure they would've used something similar instead.

Anonymous Desiderius July 14, 2013 11:50 PM  

"do you find it strange that its the rightwing sites now that are permissive when it comes to bawdy humor and sexual innuendo while the leftist sites are getting more and more uptight about such things?"

Thisis not a right-wing site.

Anonymous Desiderius July 14, 2013 11:52 PM  

"If I may I would caution you to actually read the gospel and pay attention to what Jesus actually says. He actually insults people quite regularly. "Haven't you morons gotten this yet???" could rightly be called one of the corner stones of His teachings."

Exactly.

The Churchianity cult of niceness has completely obscured what's in the actual Bible itself.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2013 12:13 AM  

"Haven't you morons gotten this yet?"

Care to mention which verse you think you're paraphrasing there? One of the things I love about Jesus is when he felt like that, he went into the desert instead.

Here's 1 Peter 2:23:

"When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.'

Yes, there are the "generation of vipers" comments and the treatment of the Canaanite woman to be considered, but the first was aimed at groups, not individuals, and he ended up helping the Canaanite woman, so when all's said it done, what matters is what Peter points out.

Anonymous kh123 July 15, 2013 12:17 AM  

"The great works (and thus the modern good works) will, or at least should cause you to think. Evaluate. Find the strengths and weaknesses in the argument or story."

Right, but the original reason this was all brought up was over SF/F, not all of the noble examples cited. Given what passes for the former these days, I can sympathize with someone wanting to bypass having to invest several chapters into a book only to find they've been reading yet another introductory course in Marxian multicult worship, complete with some sort of nihilist stab at the civilization that allowed the printed word to be both creative and profitable. There's always PZ, The Ocean, or National Geographic if one wants pseudo intellect with their evening pablum - why pay money and invest time when these are easier bits of pablum to sample.

Besides the slog, it's difficult to find someone who can make sympathetic characters from the opposite end of their own spectrum, which aren't cartoon caricatures that ring hollow in some way.

Anonymous kh123 July 15, 2013 12:19 AM  

...I'm apparently hankering for some delicious pablum right now, since I said it twice in the same breath.

Blogger Nate July 15, 2013 12:28 AM  

Will I suggest you read the bit about Jesus calming the angry sea.

The fact that you haven't already noticed this pattern indicates to me that you're reading some really watered down version of the Bible.

Blogger Nate July 15, 2013 12:32 AM  

The fact is the Jesus did not DO what Paul advised Christians to do. And neither did Paul.

There were plenty of times when Jesus was disrespectful. Read the Woes for example. Equating church leaders to dirty tampons is not exactly respectful disagreement mate.

and yes... when He says "uncleanliness" that is exactly what He means.

Blogger Nate July 15, 2013 12:40 AM  

"Thisis not a right-wing site."

Mate... libertarianism is the right wing extreme. The only thing to the right of libertarianism is anarchy.

The political spectrum doesn't work like you think it does.

Anonymous Matthew July 15, 2013 12:59 AM  

I can't believe no one has brought up the "brood of vipers" racial slur yet.

Blogger Don Kimberlin July 15, 2013 1:23 AM  

The political spectrum doesn't work like you think it does.

The spectrum is a plane not a line, as Pournelle detailed in his PolySci thesis, and is explained here.

Anonymous David of One July 15, 2013 1:39 AM  

Nate,

I read your "right wing extreme" and disagree.

I quickly thought of the John Birch Society and went to Wikipedia to provide me their definition. Curiously it was defined extreme right wing.

They even included the "Southern Law Poverty Center" definition of "Patriot Group".

At this point I released that radical and extreme liberal elements were controlling the dialogue.

Very simple ideas of individual freedom & responsibility are characterized as extreme, far right, ultraconservative ...

I suppose my point is that if the dialogue is controlled by radicals/liberals then the net result is good is bad, bad is good ... freedom is bad, individualism is evil etc..

I am skeptical and wary of the characterization that libertarianism is extremist. That men & women who desire and choose to be free are radicals and extremists to be reviled & annihilated.

I know my later points are not what was said, but I think these points are the eventual result of permitting crucial elements of the dialogue based on something other than the truth. Lies.

Again, I realize, Nate, that you were not saying this.

But to infer that Libertarianism is just left of anarchy isn't accurate.



Anonymous David of One July 15, 2013 1:41 AM  

"At this point I released ..." should have said "At this point I realized".

I'm tired. Time for sleep.

Goodnight.

Anonymous VD July 15, 2013 3:16 AM  

Vox mentioned that he was allowing anonymous comments in the SFWA posts. IIRC

Yep.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2013 9:24 AM  

Nate, there are three versions of that story, but I don't see any name-calling in any of them. Do you think “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” is an insult?

Sigyn, I went to one of my favorite sources, the Geneva Bible, and saw these notes;

1 Peter 2:17 He divideth the civil life of man, by occasion of those things of which he spake into two general parts: to wit, into those duties which private men owe to private men, and especially the faithful to the faithful, and into that subjection whereby inferiors are bound to their superiors: but so, that Kings be not made equal to God, seeing that fear is due to God, and honor to Kings.
1 Peter 2:17 Be charitable and dutiful towards all men.
1 Peter 2:17 The assembly and fellowship of the brethren, as Zech. 11:14.

"Respect everyone" or "honor all" falls under "those duties which private men owe to private men" and means "Be charitable and dutiful towards all men."

Anonymous Sigyn July 15, 2013 9:37 AM  

The previous sentence, using the translation you linked to, is "Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves."

Will, a passage is not one verse. Here is the entire section (and I'm using NASB because it's closest to word-for-word, though as with any translation, it's not going to be 100% accurate).

I'm not saying you MUST be wrong, but I am saying that it's not perfectly clear, so using it as some kind of nuke to tell people "be polite to everyone" is dishonest and misleading. Few verses stand alone in the Bible, especially the New Testament. Context is critical.

Galatians 3:28 makes it clear that in God's view, we're all equal.

Equality within the Church is not relevant to whether we're called to "be polite to everyone".

"When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.'

Would you please stop cherry-picking single verses out of their context? That was talking about the lead-up to the Crucifixion, not His whole life.

Anonymous Sigyn July 15, 2013 9:38 AM  

Sigyn, I went to one of my favorite sources, the Geneva Bible,

I don't care if you went to Boston in the fall. It's not in the Greek.

Anonymous Mr. A July 15, 2013 9:40 AM  

"Would you please stop cherry-picking single verses "

Seems to be this Will guy's whole schtick -- from Scripture to political theory to history.

Boring...

Blogger His Lady July 15, 2013 9:41 AM  

Heck of a thing to deal with at this hour of the morning, but we were warned to be ready for it.

Anonymous Sigyn July 15, 2013 9:42 AM  

"His Lady" is me. Sorry.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2013 9:57 AM  

Sigyn, "pantas" means "all". You may qualify it, perhaps in the tradition of your church, but the text doesn't. It just says to honor or respect all or everyone, and it follows a sentence about being free. I completely agree that context matters, but sometimes the context is to build on a previous thought, and sometimes it's to change to a new one. I read this section as a movement from discussing freedom to a discussion of how to deal with people who have more worldly power than you.

Ah, well, I should've stuck to my plan not to return. The general discussion is heading elsewhere, so I'll try to do that, too.

Blogger tz July 15, 2013 10:04 AM  

To the ACLU, apparently this is NOT censorship

Anonymous Sigyn July 15, 2013 10:53 AM  

Will. Seriously. I already addressed "pantas". It's "all parts of a specified whole", not "all of everything". Everywhere it turns up in the New Testament, it is referring to a specified group.

Ah, well, I should've stuck to my plan not to return.

<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%204:3&version=NASB>We were warned about this, too</a>.

Anonymous Sigyn July 15, 2013 10:54 AM  

...Gah. Let me try that again. Didn't close the quotes. Sorry, Vox, preview is my friend...


Will. Seriously. I already addressed "pantas". It's "all parts of a specified whole", not "all of everything". Everywhere it turns up in the New Testament, it is referring to a specified group.

Ah, well, I should've stuck to my plan not to return.

We were warned about this, too.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2013 11:55 AM  

Sigyn, I do suffer from SIWOTI disease. Here's Strong's definition of pantas:

Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

Thayer's is more amenable to your reading:

1. individually
each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2. collectively
some of all types

But you'll note that pantas does not qualify anything in the Greek here. James' translators added "men" and acknowledged their addition. You even seemed to recognize that in your original statement to me: "The word translated "everyone" is pantas, which specifically refers to "every part of a [specified] whole". "All of them", in essence. Who "them" is can be interpreted a number of ways...."

The fact that them is not specified should tell you that all means all. But if you want to look at the context, look at the previous sentence: Peter is talking about free people. So if you believe the Bible supports slavery rather than deliverance from slavery, you could make an argument from omission that Peter thinks it's okay to treat your slaves without honor or respect. But then, if you value context, you have to weigh that with Paul's claim that there are no slaves or masters. I'm with the abolitionist Christians: the Bible's ultimate message is anti-slavery.

Blogger Markku July 15, 2013 1:12 PM  

2. collectively
some of all types


You may notice that it is exactly types of men that have been listed in the passage.

"whether it be to the king" ... "Or unto governors" ... "masters" ... "Likewise, ye wives" [Remember, no chapter breaks in the original letter, and especially note the word "likewise" that ties this to what has just been said] ... "ye husbands"

So, the context would support the interpretation that what it means is that the person's station in life is to be of no consequence in whether or not you should honor him.

OR, it might mean literally each and every individual, no matter how dishonorably they have conducted themselves before that. But that you can't tell merely from the fact that there is no word that pantas modifies.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2013 1:39 PM  

Markku, I hope you don't mind the NIV; I like it, but I'll happily use another translation. For context, here's 1 Peter 2:16-18:

16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor. 18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

2:16 is about being free, slaves only to God.

2:17 moves from the general advice for free people to specific cases: Showing proper respect is for everyone, love is for the family of believers, fear is for God, honor is for the emperor.

2:18 advises slaves to submit, and given that the only successful slave revolt in history was Haiti's, that seems like solid advice, but there are other passages which speak of the importance of freedom, so to always seek freedom continues to be solid Bibilical advice.

If pantas is not modifying anything, it seems odd to claim that it must be modifying something, but you're not sure what. Unmodified, following a discussion of freedom, all means all.

Blogger Markku July 15, 2013 2:11 PM  

Pantas is exactly one of those words where an English speaker (and probably most modern languages too) gets confused. I've had this same discussion with Jehovah's Witnesses in another context numerous times.

Act 21:28 shouting, “Fellow Israelites, help us! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere [pantas pantachou - notice there is no word that pantas modifies] against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place.”

Were they saying he is teaching every single individual in the world? Obviously not, but rather there is no location nor type of individual that he would exclude. He is teaching all kinds of men.
---
Mat 26:33 Peter replied, “Even if all [pantas, no word it modifies] fall away on account of you, I never will.”

All obviously cannot include Peter.
---
So the man went away and began to tell in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him. And all the people [pantas, no word it modifies] were amazed.

Each and every single man in Decapolis was amazed?
---
Luk 3:15 The people were waiting expectantly and were all [pantas, no word it modifies] wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Messiah.

Each and every single one was wondering about that?
---
Do you need more? If you do, I have more.

Lots and lots and lots more.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2013 6:32 PM  

Markku, all of those have a context:

Acts 21:28 is about teaching everyone he meets everywhere he goes.

Mat 26:33 is rhetorical: even if all others fall away, I will not.

Mark 5:20: The man began telling what Jesus had done, and all the people who heard him were amazed.

Luke 3:15: All of the people who were waiting were wondering.

But look again at 1 Peter 2:16-17:

16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

The people who should live as free people and as God's slaves are being told to show respect to everyone. The advice about respecting everyone is followed by a narrowing of focus: love your local community and/or your fellow Christians. Then God is mentioned, and the ruler of the state is mentioned almost as an afterthought, because the emperor wasn't part of the family of believers and sure wasn't God.

Blogger Markku July 15, 2013 7:36 PM  

Markku, all of those have a context:

Context, yes. But do you agree that the lack of a word modified by pantas is completely irrelevant, and there are numerous occurrences of it without such a word, where it doesn't mean every single individual?

If yes, we are completely dependent on context for the interpretation. Which brings us back to my previous argument; Peter has just listed several different positions for human beings (kings, governors, husbands, wives...) which is consistent with the interpretation that it means we should give respect to all kinds of men. So that for example, we aren't allowed to disrespect a slave just because he is a slave.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2013 7:52 PM  

Markku, Peter starts with free people, then says to respect all, then says to love the community. He has not begun to speak of different positions yet--he does that when he moves on to God above all, the emperor, and slaves.

Hmm. I'm thinking I'm missing your stress. If you're interpreting that as respect *all* kinds of people and I'm interpreting it as respect *all* people, we may be close enough to stop quibbling here.

Blogger Markku July 15, 2013 7:57 PM  

You made this claim:

"If pantas is not modifying anything, it seems odd to claim that it must be modifying something, but you're not sure what. Unmodified, following a discussion of freedom, all means all."

So, do you now admit that even when pantas is not modifying any word, and is referring to human beings according to the context, it doesn't always mean each and every individual?

---

As for the idea that context only refers backwards and not forwards I'll investigate tomorrow. I'm pretty sure I almost remember several places where it is evident that the general principle is stated first, and then clarified with examples. And that I'll remember the actual verses when I think about it some more.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2013 8:46 PM  

"do you now admit that even when pantas is not modifying any word, and is referring to human beings according to the context, it doesn't always mean each and every individual?"

1. I said it seems odd to claim that the unmodified word should be modified. It still seems odd.

2. I still think my interpretation is correct: The "all" is not modified. The proper interpretation of this is what most Bibles use, a variation on "respect all" or "honor everyone".

But I do agree it's always good to look at the context, and the context here is between people who are free and the community of believers.

I'm just saying that if your interpretation of "all kinds" is similar to my interpretation of "all", that's good enough. I like arguing less as I get older.

Blogger Markku July 15, 2013 8:57 PM  

2. I still think my interpretation is correct: The "all" is not modified. The proper interpretation of this is what most Bibles use, a variation on "respect all" or "honor everyone".

NIV, which is what you yourself chose, also says "all" in those verses that I quoted, where it couldn't possibly mean each and every one. In other words, it is not merely good to look at the context, but context is the only thing that could possibly tell you what it means in this case.

As for what that context is, remains for me to argue, as I have not yet proven that context also applies forwards and not just backwards.

Blogger Markku July 15, 2013 9:13 PM  

This "pantas" thing, by the way, is important due to John 1:3

Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Jehovah's witnesses make the exact argument I am making here, and it sounds very convincing because textual analysis indeed proves conclusively that "pantas" doesn't always mean what we traditionally understand as "all".

However, it seems that for precisely this ambiguity John continues "and without him was not any thing made", to clarify that in this particular instance it means LITERALLY all.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2013 10:46 PM  

Markku, I think we're closer than we seem. Yes, context matters, in English and in Greek. If I'm talking about dogs, "all" will probably refer to dogs. But where there's no reason to assume all does not mean all, as in the case of 1 Peter 2:17, why seek for a limitation that Biblical translators do not bother to make? Or if you must seek, why not accept that the subject on both sides of "honor everyone" is about equals, not about superiors?

I think in John 1:3, we're dealing with rhetorical redundancy for emphasis. Some points, you just hit harder than others.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts