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

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Will Shetterly interviews an SFWA Grandmaster

In light of the recent revelations concerning science fiction figures Marion Zimmer Bradley, Walter Breen, and Ed Kramer, Will Shetterly thought it advisable to interview Sam Delany, who in addition to being SFWA's most recently named Grandmaster, is also known to have publicly endorsed the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Be aware before you read it that it deals in fairly graphic detail with sexual deviancy and child abuse:
After Marion Zimmer Bradley’s daughter spoke out about child abuse by Bradley and her husband, Walter Breen, a member of NAMBLA, writers as different as Vox Day and Liz Williams brought up Samuel R. Delany’s comment about NAMBLA twenty years ago:

"I read the NAMBLA [Bulletin] fairly regularly and I think it is one of the most intelligent discussions of sexuality I've ever found. I think before you start judging what NAMBLA is about, expose yourself to it and see what it is really about. What the issues they are really talking about, and deal with what's really there rather than this demonized notion of guys running about trying to screw little boys. I would have been so much happier as an adolescent if NAMBLA had been around when I was 9, 10, 11, 12, 13." — Samuel R. Delany, Queer Desires Forum, New York City, June 25, 1994. 

Then I began to feel bad for not asking Chip Delany about this. In the 1960s, he was one of a small number of writers who made me believe fantasy and science fiction could be both great fun and great art. When he was the guest of honor at the Fourth Street Fantasy Convention, he was charming and learned and pretty much everything anyone could want in a guest of honor. I cant say I know him, but I can say I like him. I believe we should be able to talk about things which are taboowhat reveals our nature is not what we say, but what we do. This is especially true of storytellers, who regularly write about things they would never do. 

So I wrote Chip, which began a discussion that moved between Facebook messages and email. He has agreed to share it. What follows is a version that I lightly edited for clarity.
 As some readers may recall, I have observed that in addition to Delany's homosexuality, his endorsement of NAMBLA, his fiction is literally overflowing with deviancy, sex crimes, and the abuse of children. I view all three of those factors as red flags of varying degrees of seriousness indicating a potential predilection for pedophilia. I would encourage you to consider some of Delany's following statements that I have highlighted in that light:
  • I never met or knew Walter Breen (and only two or three times met Marion Zimmer Bradley, in the last two or three years of her life).... I got the impression from others who knew him that the gossip about Breen, especially in the first years I knew Paul (well before Stonewall), whether Breen was gay or straight, was a tempest in teapot. Currently it sounds like it’s not. But, again, I never knew Breen or saw him in my life.
  • I have no idea what NAMBLA has been doing for the last twenty years.
  • I had my first sexual experience with an adult when I was six, with a local Harlem building superintendent. And nothing hurtful happened at all. It would have been cruel and unusual punishment to incarcerate him for it.... The building superintendent, however, abused me not at all. To say that he did, is just incorrect.
  • I said and still maintain that 20 years ago [NAMBLA] was an intelligent and highly thoughtful institution.
  • Since I spent eighteen years of my life as a child, and nine years of that life as a pretty sexually active gay child, my complaint against the current attitudes is that they work mightily to silence the voices of children first and secondarily ignore what adults have to say who have been through these situations. One size fits all is never the way to handle any situation with a human dimension.
  • The current attitude toward pedophilia is a tragic attempt to drive nature out with a pitchfork, and at this point it is a self-reinforcing tragedy, encouraging the worst and punishing the best by making no distinctions at all
  • The consent of a seven-, eight-, or nine-year old is not the same thing as the consent of a seventeen- or eighteen-year old. And the “consent” of a three, four, and five year old means much less—especially if it’s negative. But it must count for something, otherwise you are just saying the child is not human and has no feelings or agency whatsoever—which, in itself, is abusive and counter-intuitive. And, I would maintain, immoral when another possibility presents itself.
  • I have heard fifty or sixty such tales from gay men of this nature. It had none of the affect of abuse. If anything, it had more the feel of an impromptu educational session.
On the basis of Mr. Delany's remarkably frank answers, I would maintain that he was physically, emotionally, and sexually abused as a child to the point that he is intrinsically unable to tell black from white or right from wrong with regards to sexual matters. However, it is to be regretted that Mr. Shetterly did not ask Mr. Delany anything about the elephant in the room, namely, what he, himself, did. We know Mr. Delany was sexually abused by an older man at the age of six. We know he is familiar with fifty or sixty similarly abused homosexual men. What we still do not know, and what Mr. Shetterly rather delicately avoided asking, is if Mr. Delany ever put his principles into action, and, as an adult, engaged in sexual relations with children under the age of legal consent.

Since most sexual abusers were abused themselves as children, (a fourth red flag, if you're still counting), at this point I doubt it would very much surprise anyone if he had. And lest you doubt that SFWA's support for Mr. Delany, let me remind you what SFWA President Steven Gould and former SFWA President John Scalzi had to say about Samuel R. Delany last December.
  1. "One of the perks of being SFWA president is the option of selecting the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America’s next Damon Knight Memorial Grand Master. One of the tragedies is we only get to select one a year. That said, from the grains of sand in my pocket, I am delighted to pull this star. Samuel R. Delany is one of science fiction’s most influential authors, critics, and teachers and it is my great honor to announce his selection. When discussing him as this year’s choice with the board, past-presidents, and members, the most frequent response I received was, “He’s not already?” Well he is now." (S. Gould)
  2. "The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America has named Samuel R. Delany its newest Grand Master.... I will say this: This is an award both well chosen and well deserved." (J. Scalzi) 
It would certainly be interesting to know if Mr. Gould and Mr. Scalzi still unreservedly support Mr. Delany.

Labels:

197 Comments:

Anonymous Penn State Part 2 July 15, 2014 1:11 PM  

So... when does someone call the FBI or some other authorities? I'm serious.

Anonymous Yawn July 15, 2014 1:18 PM  

I have observed that in addition to Delany's homosexuality, his endorsement of NAMBLA, his fiction is literally overflowing with deviancy and sex crimes.

Man, how did I miss that part? Oh, that's right, his books are so unreadably boring they fell out of my semi-conscious hands after I was only a few pages into them...

Blogger Quadko July 15, 2014 1:33 PM  

It is odd the way our brains work. We seek to repeat past experiences, especially from childhood, whether they were good or bad. It can be a strength of civilization and law, it can be a weakness of abuse and barbarism. And it means some things should not be experienced, so the 'just try it once' crowd isn't talking about innocent freedom, but has an ulterior motive in the "first one is free" drug dealer style.

Anonymous Heinlein's Ghost July 15, 2014 1:37 PM  

Delany has now made the choice clear- if you support SFWA you support NAMBLA. The Grand Dragon of SFWA is a radical pedophile advocate of the worst possible kind, and now Scalzi and the rest of those little semi-men and Jabba shethings are themselves NAMBLA advocates by association. The Cultural Marxists wrote the rules, now they can hang themselves with them. Email the highlights of that interview to all the SFWA's local community leaders, local libraries, the schools they teach in, any local churches or police organizations, local GOP chapters. Add in Bradley and Kramer for starters. Start playing by their rules for once. As to what crimes Delany might be guilty of, study up on some of the research published on victim's rights websites, especially the kind of deceptive and self-justifying language that convicted molesters use. I can't say that Delany is guilty of child rape but I can say for absolute sure that he uses the same exact rhetorical tricks that child rapists do.

Anonymous Peter Pan July 15, 2014 1:38 PM  

Sadly, I would guess that most left-wingers know these red flags are red flags... they just don't care because they directly or indirectly support the sexual deviancy.

Anonymous Max July 15, 2014 1:44 PM  

You know, when VD suggested crucifixion for progressives, I assumed he was joking - and that if he wasn't, he must be a bit mentally unhinged. The idea struck me as crazy - absurd. The ravings of a lunatic or madman. That was twelve days ago.

Today, if a proposal to crucify every person belonging to left-of-center parties were put on the ballot, I would with great regret pull the lever for it. I have friends and family members who belong to left-of-center parties; I just don't see another solution. Leftism is nothing but concentrated evil, and the only way to defeat evil is completely. It must be utterly destroyed, or it will simply dust itself off and rise again.

They want to FUCK our CHILDREN. Not all of them - not yet. Today, they're only pushing for "gay marriage" (plus polygamy and incest in a few isolated places), but we know where this is going. These things (I cannot in good conscience call them human) want to create a world where parents are prevented from protecting their children, because to do so would deny kids their right to fornicate with fifty-year-old men, and only a horrible pedophobe could be against such a beautiful act of love...

I am so filled with loathing and disgust. This is an abomination. They need to die. Enablers and all.

Blogger RobertT July 15, 2014 1:45 PM  

I once was a straightlaced CPA for the biggest firm in the world by day and a bohemian by night. During that time, for a while, I had a roommate who turned out to be gay. He moved out the day after I came home with a woman and he came home with a man and the ensuing dust up. He moved out the next day. He went on to own various decorating businesses, gay bars, found the gay rodeo cowboy hall of fame and die of aids. He didn't like me much after the dust up but we had common friends so I always seemed to know what he was up to. As far as I know, he wasn't deviant in the ways mentioned in this post, not that I read it all, but it always struck me that his whole life was focused on and around sex. Sex is important to me, but I didn't choose my career based on sex, or my vacations or any articles I wrote or anything else. If there's anyone who can get laid anywhere, anytime, it's a gay guy. I really don't understand the unrelenting focus.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2014 1:46 PM  

I didn't "delicately avoid" asking anything; I don't ask people if they're breaking the law based on their beliefs. I wouldn't ask someone who supported legalizing marijuana if they smoked it. That's because I don't want anyone I'm interviewing to have to consider lying out of self-interest—it'll color the rest of the conversation. If they're inclined to offer information about illegal activity, they'll offer it on their own. Chip writes forthrightly about many things. I can't imagine asking him bluntly would make him admit to something if he was guilty, and I can't imagine that a denial would convince anyone he was innocent. If I had heard rumors that he had abused a child, I would've asked if he wanted to address them, but I have never heard anything that implies that. All I know is what he said in our discussion and in The Motion of Light on Water—he does not characterize what happened to him as a child as abuse, but I would, and he likes having sex with many men. And that, I think, is enough for parents and guardians to know when deciding how safe their children are around him.

Blogger Antonio From Spain July 15, 2014 1:51 PM  

There was a time when I thought “live and let live”. It was a time when I would have never expected things like these to happen…

This reminds me of something that happened in Spain. The regional government of Catalonia had a site dedicated to sexual education for the young. Among other things it had video about a kid who was never interested in girls and then started having sex with men. A male conservative commentator called the female Socialist politician responsible for this “guarra” (swine). He was fined over €21,000.

You can see the video here where the commentator is interviewed about the fine. The images with the kid and the man are also shown in this video, from 2:46 to 3:25. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajf1d10lEvg

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2014 1:51 PM  

Max, the list of rightwing pedophiles is long. Pedophilia has nothing to do with your political position. And, I'm sad to say, neither does the desire to slaughter your opponents willy-nilly.

Anonymous Tex July 15, 2014 1:52 PM  

And that, I think, is enough for parents and guardians to know when deciding how safe their children are around him.

This reeks of Penn State. When the fuck does someone call the police? Do you need to see him fucking a boy in the shower then?

Anonymous Tex July 15, 2014 1:52 PM  

Pedophilia has nothing to do with your political position

Except when legalizing pedophilia IS your political position, you fucking retard.

Anonymous Anonymous July 15, 2014 1:54 PM  

Name six rightwing pedophiles, Mr. Shetterly.

Anonymous VD July 15, 2014 1:57 PM  

I didn't "delicately avoid" asking anything; I don't ask people if they're breaking the law based on their beliefs

That's a reasonable perspective, Will. Although unless he had done it in the last 10 years, he would have been protected by the Maryland statute of limitations, Will, which runs out at age 25. I wouldn't blame him for not answering the question; he does have his 5th Amendment rights, after all. And I don't blame you for not asking the question; along with Deidre Moen, you have proven to be one of the most responsible members of the science fiction community on this subject. But I still wish you had asked him, because in light of the number of red flags flapping around the gentleman, the indications are that the current SF community is repeating the same mistake their predecessors did with Breen, Bradley, and Kramer. Nobody ever saw fit to ask them either.

All I know is what he said in our discussion and in The Motion of Light on Water—he does not characterize what happened to him as a child as abuse, but I would, and he likes having sex with many men. And that, I think, is enough for parents and guardians to know when deciding how safe their children are around him.

I completely agree. But you know, and I know, that SFWA is going to go to the wall in attempting to look the other way as long as humanly possible, despite having launched a weeks-long investigation of my purported racism on the basis of a single tweet.

Blogger IM2L844 July 15, 2014 1:57 PM  

So... when does someone call the FBI or some other authorities? I'm serious.

Oh, they're aware, but the bid for normalization of progressive ideals has been largely successful throughout governmental agencies. Haven't you noticed?

Anonymous VD July 15, 2014 1:58 PM  

Tex, if you can't be civil to your fellow commenters, you can't continue commenting here. You can disagree with Will, even vehemently, without being vulgar.

Anonymous Falco July 15, 2014 1:59 PM  

at this point I doubt it would very much surprise anyone if he had.

Nice weasel words.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 15, 2014 2:00 PM  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN58GQwRoF4&t=2m25s

notice how Jackson almost jizzes right there in the interview, just talking about having children sleep near him.

later, he goes on to advocate having 'his children' sleep with OTHER adults.

you see what's going on here.



Will Shetterly July 15, 2014 1:46 PM
That's because I don't want anyone I'm interviewing to have to consider lying out of self-interest




just as with Michael Jackson and Zimmer Bradley and innumerable OTHER pedophiles, they LIE CONSTANTLY. always edging up to the edge of what they can admit too and then backing off and justifying and equivocating.

"MG: What she did is to tell stories; long and hard enough she would act them out. When women started approaching her saying stuff like "you saved my life; now I don't have to kill myself", she started wearing new faces around them and more and more of them would gather around her."


intelligence /= morality
intelligence /= wisdom

Anonymous VD July 15, 2014 2:02 PM  

Nice weasel words.

Thank you. I am reliably informed that it is extremely frustrating to my critics that I so resolutely resist handing them weapons with which to attack me.

Blogger Glen Filthie July 15, 2014 2:09 PM  

I hate to say it, but I think there are far more perverts and degenerates in the genre. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

Anonymous Alexander July 15, 2014 2:10 PM  

Weasels eat rats, moles, and rabbits. Hard to imagine an animal with a more charitable diet.

Anonymous Anonymous July 15, 2014 2:11 PM  

I'm sorry, my reading comprehension skills seem to have just shorted out. Does "And the “consent” of a three, four, and five year old means much less—especially if it’s negative." actually imply that if a 3-to-5-yr-old says "no" to a sexual encounter that it's okay to IGNORE their protests and sexually abuse them anyway?! Because that's what it sounds like! /horrified

Anonymous Kosimo July 15, 2014 2:12 PM  

>>Name six rightwing pedophiles, Mr. Shetterly.

1. Ted Nugent

Blogger IM2L844 July 15, 2014 2:13 PM  

Pedophilia has nothing to do with your political position.

Maybe not, but degrees of toleration of it certainly does.

Blogger Bob Wallace July 15, 2014 2:13 PM  

I strongly suggest people read Delany's sickening 1969 novel, "Hogg." It's all you need to know about him.

Anonymous Don July 15, 2014 2:14 PM  

Will I've only read your earlier stuff (The Cats Have No Lord, I read something else as well but it's not coming to mind right now) but you told a story first and as far as I could tell didn't interject any political beliefs into it. I just write this to let you know I appreciate your work and believe you are a fair man and a good writer.

I have had many conversations with pedophiles and even though it was always professional there was always a feeling of something 'off'. Some level of creepiness that I always felt. Did you get any of that 'creepy' feeling in your email exchange? I can't imagine speaking to a friend and finding out he supported NAMBLA. What do you think looking back at your exchange?

Blogger Dystopic July 15, 2014 2:16 PM  

This is deeply disturbing. Reading this, I am convinced that Progressives can and will justify anything they desire. Tom Kratman mentioned children roasting on spits as a possible endpoint for the trajectory of civilization.

This sort of thing makes me wonder if he is right.

Anonymous VD July 15, 2014 2:16 PM  

Does "And the “consent” of a three, four, and five year old means much less—especially if it’s negative." actually imply that if a 3-to-5-yr-old says "no" to a sexual encounter that it's okay to IGNORE their protests and sexually abuse them anyway?!

That does sound extremely problematic as presently structured and hard to believe. Will, any chance you can clarify that?

Anonymous Kosimo July 15, 2014 2:16 PM  

>>Name six rightwing pedophiles, Mr. Shetterly.

2. Ryan Loskam

"Ryan Loskarn, the former chief of staff to U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander who was charged with possessing and distibuting child pornography last month, was found dead in his home in Maryland of an apparent suicide, law enforcement officials said Friday."

Anonymous bob k. mando July 15, 2014 2:17 PM  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEt3-kuVl5Y


observe the behavior of the pedophiles in this interview. note WELL how many of the same arguments, assertions and equivocations you see them making that you also see from Michael Jackson and Delany.

notice the way the former sports coach almost jizzes as he waxes lyrical about 'classical art' @ ~3 min.

notice also the far more disturbing fact that the *person responsible for his therapy* sees nothing wrong with this @ 5:05.

Blogger stareatgoatsies July 15, 2014 2:18 PM  

Sadly, I would guess that most left-wingers know these red flags are red flags... they just don't care because they directly or indirectly support the sexual deviancy.

Peter, do you have a rule you apply which allows you to say this about SFWA members, but not about members of the Catholic Church? Back when they had more institutional and social power, and before the scandals, the lengths people would go to to defend child molesters in frocks was mind-boggling... One bizarre thing that came up surprisingly frequently, when the priests' superiors were asked to justify their negligence, was to implicate the children as being seducers of some sort.

Anonymous Trimegistus July 15, 2014 2:19 PM  

Pancake:

JESUS!

I went back and re-read, and then re-re-read Delany's quote above. If his words are accurately quoted, then, yes, he's pretty much saying out loud that it's okay to ignore their protests if they don't consent to sex, at least if they're young enough.

Mr. Shetterley, is that quote from Delany accurate? Did he say that?

Blogger Giraffe July 15, 2014 2:19 PM  

This reeks of Penn State. When the ____ does someone call the police? Do you need to see him _____ a boy in the shower then?

Maybe not. But what are you going to tell them?

"Hey you might want to take a close look at this guy"

Which they will probably ignore.

The police have to have something to take action upon.

(And as I recall, at Penn State, they did see someone doing that and didn't follow through on it.)

Anonymous VD July 15, 2014 2:23 PM  

Back when they had more institutional and social power, and before the scandals, the lengths people would go to to defend child molesters in frocks was mind-boggling.

Perhaps, but not here. I think you'll find that expelling every last homosexual from the priesthood and executing every confirmed child molester is the general opinion here. And you can apply that policy to the public and private schools, and the Boy Scouts, as well.

Predators go where the prey is. It's not a difficult concept.

Blogger Bodichi July 15, 2014 2:26 PM  

@ Stareatgoatsies

Why did the catholic church go against the bible with their unilateral and ungodly decisions to mandate celibacy amongst priests?

1 TIM 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach

Anonymous Anonymous July 15, 2014 2:29 PM  

Stareat

Not that I have any love for Catholicism but it is a question of motivation, Catholics were trying to protect “the church”, Joe Pa was trying to protect Penn State, their motivation was not to support Pedophilia.

There is an undeniable movement that is currently seeking to normalize and decriminalize Pedophila, people with that world view would be inclined to try to cover this sort of thing up.

As for me I am very content with dragging all pedophiles out in the street and shooting them, be they priest or SF writer.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 15, 2014 2:32 PM  

pancakeloach July 15, 2014 2:11 PM
actually imply that if a 3-to-5-yr-old says "no" to a sexual encounter that it's okay to IGNORE their protests and sexually abuse them anyway?! Because that's what it sounds like! /horrified




good catch. i had stopped reading by that point.

whether Delany admits to it or not, this has already been proofed and edited and resubmitted for his approval.

this is exactly the kind of thing where a pedophile will now retract something that he really meant to say.

the unspoken codicil to this assertion is that
IF you continue to molest a child of a three, four, and five year old mean
AND they eventually reach a point when they achieve some sort of pleasure or release
THEN 'it was okay and not really molestation'.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 15, 2014 2:36 PM  

rufusdog July 15, 2014 2:29 PM
Not that I have any love for Catholicism but it is a question of motivation, Catholics were trying to protect “the church”



absolutely NOT true.

the justification from the curia for their behavior was that their refusal to present the pedophilic priest for prosecution was that it was important to forgive their brethern and give them support.

Blogger scipio afircanus July 15, 2014 2:37 PM  

If this keeps up, the only place they will sell pink sci-fi is in XXX bookstores.

Then again, even those people have standards against child molesters.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 15, 2014 2:37 PM  

I'm sorry, my reading comprehension skills seem to have just shorted out. Does "And the “consent” of a three, four, and five year old means much less—especially if it’s negative." actually imply that if a 3-to-5-yr-old says "no" to a sexual encounter that it's okay to IGNORE their protests and sexually abuse them anyway?! Because that's what it sounds like!

Yeah, that whole bullet point was the most nauseating part. It appears to be Delany saying two abominable things. 1) that molesting children is good for the children, and 2) children aren't mature enough to say no to being molested.

Sifting through the lengthy miasmatic soup of Delany's actual responses on Shetterly's blog doesn't make it as clear. Delany meanders around and seems to contradict himself frequently. But I have a hard time avoiding the conclusion that at one point Delany made the claim kids - not 16 year old "kids" either, but very young, 5 or younger - having sex with adults is, or at least could be, a good thing, and that children need to be "protected" from a society that would deny them the opportunity to be so molested.

It's entirely possible he is simply trying to rationalize what happened to him as good and natural so that he doesn't have to face it. Maybe that's the mechanism by which such abuse corrupts its victims. But whatever the situation, I don't think he is right in the head.

Anonymous hygate July 15, 2014 2:38 PM  

I recently read a post that stated that leftist like to think that Dune couldn't be published today because of all the islamphobia we are currently seeing in the west.

Which is, of course, nonsense.

The reason Dune would not make it past the current gatekeepers is that Baron Harkonnen is gay and the bad guy.

Herbert's editor would make him rewrite it so that the Baron was in a committed, loving relationship and the Atreides and Fremen were revealed to be the reactionary homophobes they so obviously were.

Anonymous Kosimo July 15, 2014 2:38 PM  

>>Name six rightwing pedophiles, Mr. Shetterly.

3. Mark Foley

"The Mark Foley scandal, which broke in late September 2006, centers on soliciting e-mails and sexually suggestive instant messages sent by Mark Foley, a Republican Congressman from Florida, to teenaged boys who had formerly served as congressional pages."

Blogger John Wright July 15, 2014 2:43 PM  

@rufusdog

I am a vehement and loyal Catholic, and I would like the pedophile priests dragged out in the street and shot.

Actually, our method traditionally is to place them on a donkey in a paper miter, display them in the public streets before binding them to a stake, where, depending on the severity of the crime, the fire is either piled close, for a quick and merciful death, or piled not close, for a slow and lingering afternoon of burning to death.

You see, there are more pedophiles among schooltreachers than among Catholic priests, but our Church is held to a higher standard. In the 1970s and 1980s the Church in America handled the matter the way the psychologists and experts said it should be handled, but, as always, the experts were not just wrong, they were one hundred eighty degrees opposite from the truth.

We still get criticized for the Spanish Inquisition which the Church officially attempted to stop. So this scandal is not going away before Doomsday.

Of course, if anyone actually shot the priests diddling the teens, he'd be accused of homophobia.

Why is it so bad for we Roman Catholics to have such people in our leadership, but also somehow so bad for the Boy Scouts NOT to have such people in their leadership?

Anonymous Hmmm July 15, 2014 2:43 PM  

"The reason Dune would not make it past the current gatekeepers is that Baron Harkonnen is gay and the bad guy."

And also a pedo, we should note.

Anonymous hygate July 15, 2014 2:45 PM  

@Kosimo

Ted Nugent? I have never heard any rumors along those lines, and you did not give any supporting documentation, so what is the basis of your assertion?

Anonymous FP July 15, 2014 2:48 PM  

Pancake, you weren't the only who who balked when reading that.

"2. Ryan Loskam

"Ryan Loskarn, the former chief of staff to U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander who was charged with possessing and distibuting child pornography last month, was found dead in his home in Maryland of an apparent suicide, law enforcement officials said Friday.""

Which reeks of a setup. My immediate reaction to news stories where "the police reportedly found child porn on the suspects computer" is that its a lie or an attempt to demonize the suspect pre trial.

Blogger John Wright July 15, 2014 2:51 PM  

"Why did the catholic church go against the bible with their unilateral and ungodly decisions to mandate celibacy amongst priests? "

To prevent the Church from becoming an heredity priesthood (which Protestants, who have pastors but no priestly hierarchy, are in no danger of) and also to live up to the unambiguous words of the Gospel calling on those truly committed to godly life to become as eunuchs for the kingdom, etc.

One clue that convinced me that the Catholic Church was the one, true, apostolic and universal Church is that whenever the opportunity arises, such during discussions about pedophilia among science fiction writers, someone always leaps at the change to slander the Church. Always. Far beyond what any reasonable motive of natural things in the natural world could account for.

People don't act that way to merely human institutions.

That is also what convinced me the Jews are actually the Chosen People. The enmity toward them has no natural explanation.

Blogger Bodichi July 15, 2014 2:54 PM  

@ John Wright

"To prevent the Church from becoming an heredity priesthood (which Protestants, who have pastors but no priestly hierarchy, are in no danger of) and also to live up to the unambiguous words of the Gospel calling on those truly committed to godly life to become as eunuchs for the kingdom, etc."

By choosing the eunuch path, one is deliberately ignoring the command in Timothy. How does anyone negate that verse?

Anonymous Jack Amok July 15, 2014 2:54 PM  

Tom Kratman mentioned children roasting on spits as a possible endpoint for the trajectory of civilization.

They've already been caught burning babies in power plants in the UK and Oregon.


Predators go where the prey is. It's not a difficult concept.

Yes, and beyond that, as RobertT mentioned, sex isn't just a part of their lives. For these people, it is all-consuming. They make virtually all choices in their lives based on furthering their sexual desires. So not only will they choose careers and avocations based on access to kids, they will go to great lengths to be "good" at those careers and hobbies. You've all heard of "grooming" right? Well, the most intelligent of the predators spend the vast majority of their time grooming not their target, but everyone around their target. That makes them difficult to distinguish from healthy people who actually care about kids.

At least it does up until they disclose their true natures. Which is why standing around whistling and pretending not to notice when they declare themselves up front is so unforgivable.

Blogger IM2L844 July 15, 2014 2:56 PM  

Yes all child molesters should be executed along with their enablers, but the whole Catholic priest meme is a non-starter.

Sure, there are evil people who have absconded with various Christian monikers. Jesus, himself warned us about them as recorded in the gospel of Matthew 7:15: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

As a percentage of the population, however, Catholic priests are statistically much less likely to be child molesters than most other (there are probably a few exceptions; nuns for instance) demographic segments of the population.

Anonymous Don July 15, 2014 2:56 PM  

Mr Wright,

It reminds me of how Atheists are always against Christianity but pretty much ignore other religions. If it wasn't the truth they couldn't care less.

Anonymous Rolf July 15, 2014 3:03 PM  

Don - I suspect most American's the ridicule religion target Christianity because it's safe, easy, local, and they have little exposure to or experience with other religions (major or minor). If a person knows nothing of Islam but what the Western PR arm of the mosque say ("it's a religion of peace!" they shout), then it's easy to ignore the beheadings, slavery, bombings, terrorism, and the rest they commit, because that's by brown people, against brown people, and far away. But targeting pedophile Catholic Priests is easy, safe, and builds your left-wing "street-cred." Targeting islamists can get you yelled at ("Islamophobe!") or killed.

Anonymous Alexander July 15, 2014 3:04 PM  

I appreciate Mr. Wright's choice of a traditional burning, but I personally would find impalement more appropriate.

Anonymous Porphyry July 15, 2014 3:08 PM  

Heh I agree with Mr. Wright. "That is also what convinced me the Jews are actually the Chosen People. The enmity toward them has no natural explanation." You can also tell because their vices are worse than ours. There's hardly anything worse than the reflexive self righteous defensiveness of a Jew.

Anonymous hygate July 15, 2014 3:08 PM  

Also, the Fremens' religion would have to be changed to some fundamentalist Christian sect, or perhaps Mormanism.

Cause if they are going to be the bad guys then they can't be Muslims.

That would be islamophobia!

Anonymous hygate July 15, 2014 3:11 PM  

Neo-nazis! That's it. Make the Fremen neo-nazis. Everybody hates Nazis!

Anonymous hygate July 15, 2014 3:13 PM  

Not really OT.

http://news.msn.com/pop-culture/archie-to-be-shot-saving-gay-friend-in-comic-book?ocid=ansnews11

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2014 3:16 PM  

VD, thanks for the request for civility. For anyone who doesn't know me, I'm a socialist who likes St. Peter's and Malcolm X's advice to respect everyone.

IM2L844, Toleration of pedophilia also doesn't have to do with politics. Well, unless you think of it is a form of libertarianism, which takes both right and left forms. The Log Cabin Republicans won the fight against DADT, after all. (Which is not meant to suggest they support sex with children, but only to point out that the right, like the left, can take different approaches to what forms of sex should be legal.)

Don, thanks for the comment about my writing. As for a "creepy feeling", I know what you mean, and I get that sometimes when reading some writers or talking with some people. But it's not dependable. In Chip's case, I'm honestly clueless. Much of his writing about sex creeps me out, but he does not. There are people whose writing about murder creeps me out, but they do not. I have no reason not to think he's exactly what he says he is, a gay person whose childhood experiences made him fantasize about men and whose adult experiences have been with men. Humans are complex, and even when there's evidence of crime, it can misinterpreted. Here, the only evidence is what he's written, and it's enough to make me think parents and guardians who might leave kids alone with him should know his views in order to make up their own minds.

Anonymous Max July 15, 2014 3:18 PM  

"Max, the list of rightwing pedophiles is long."

As is the distance 'twixt this point and mine, I fear. Do you somehow imagine that my intolerance for pedophiles stems from the mistaken belief that all pedophiles are leftists or that all leftists are pedophiles? If not, then I can't imagine why you'd bother bringing this up.

"Pedophilia has nothing to do with your political position."

Tex has already responded to this as I would have, so I'll merely quote him here: "Except when legalizing pedophilia IS your political position, you fucking retard."

This is the claim: that leftism must, eventually, inevitably, lead to support for the fucking of children by grown men. If the claim is wrong, then the urgency of eliminating leftism (and leftists) goes away as well. But I do not think it is wrong.

"And, I'm sad to say, neither does the desire to slaughter your opponents willy-nilly."

You seem to mistake reluctant support for an eager desire. It is my OPPOSITION to violence and bloodshed that has led me to believe what I do. Minimizing the suffering of innocents would seem to require that we eliminate what has proven to be the source of most suffering in the world. If the source were an asteroid in outer space, I would advocate blowing it up. That the source happens instead to be a group of people is unfortunate, but that does not alter the importance of taking action.

Anonymous Anonymous July 15, 2014 3:21 PM  


Thanks for helping Mr. Shetterly out, Kosimo.

My obvious point that I was hoping to get at is this:

When evidence comes to light of conservatives who engage in this behavior, they are expunged.

When evidence comes to light of liberals who engage in this behavior, they become Grand-Masters of the SFWA.

You've got me on Ted Nugent, who probably at some point screwed willing but underage groupies.

Ryan Loskarn expunged himself, by killing himself. He admitted that he was abused when young and irresistibly drawn to the images therefrom, which is exactly what we've discussed above happens to children when subjected to this aberrant behavior against any ability to consent, and which indeed happened to Mr. Delany.

And Mark Foley resigned and was thrown out of the Republican party.

So come on, three more and we'll see what happened to them. My point is sadly only two for three.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 15, 2014 3:22 PM  

John Wright July 15, 2014 2:43 PM
Why is it so bad for we Roman Catholics to have such people in our leadership, but also somehow so bad for the Boy Scouts NOT to have such people in their leadership?



and this is where ALL Catholics go, eventually.

tell me who has asserted that there can NEVER be pedophilia in the priesthood, John.

the PROBLEM is NOT that there have been abusive priests. the PROBLEM is the actions of their superiors.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A16-18&version=KJV

abusive priests are known by their fruits.

an abusive curia is known by the fruits of how they deal with abusive priests.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/secrets-of-the-vatican/

how did Pope Benedict or John Paul ( supposedly good ones ) deal with Marcial Maciel?

how have they dealt with the revelations that the Legion of Christ hierarchy was involved in the molestations?

simply the way in which those whistleblowers who came forth were treated ( not even the child molestations, per se ) demands that EVERY curate involved in this whitewashing be expelled from the priesthood. this includes cardinals.

and i haven't even gotten to the widespread gay scene WITHIN the Vatican which is detailed here ....



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEt3-kuVl5Y&t=43m

watch this guy back and fill. DID he get his son to masturbate him? maybe yes, maybe no. what cannot be denied is this: he finds the idea ( memory? ) intensely exciting.

Anonymous YIH July 15, 2014 3:26 PM  

The consent of a seven-, eight-, or nine-year old is not the same thing as the consent of a seventeen- or eighteen-year old. And the “consent” of a three, four, and five year old means much less—especially if it’s negative. But it must count for something, otherwise you are just saying the child is not human and has no feelings or agency whatsoever—which, in itself, is abusive and counter-intuitive. And, I would maintain, immoral when another possibility presents itself.
He's only sort of correct. My ex owns a modeling studio. Nothing glamorous, just routine stuff like what you see in sales flyers.
Adults in shoots is straightforward, do the shoot, then they sign the model release (the contract allowing the pic to be used in ads, mag spreads, ect) then they are paid.
With minors how that works depends on age; if the child is below the 'age of reason' (varies by local laws from 6-10) only the parent needs to sign the release. But if the child is over the 'age of reason' but a minor not only does the parent sign, the minor has to as well.
Without both, the contract is invalid and the shoot can't be used.
This sick bastard is trying to put that in a whole evil context. I remember The Bible mentioning something like he go for a swim the ocean - with stone swimwear.

Anonymous Max July 15, 2014 3:27 PM  

"That is also what convinced me the Jews are actually the Chosen People. The enmity toward them has no natural explanation."

Speaking as someone with a Jewish wife, I don't believe this is accurate. You don't have to AGREE with the natural explanation to understand that there is one: Jews possess a 12-15 point IQ advantage over other Caucasians and thus tend to obtain positions of power and influence in their societies. Jews also possess an innate (genetic) and fierce sense of loyalty to their tribe/race, which causes them to act for the benefit of other Jews and in opposition to the interests of other Caucasians. This tendency produces resentment in those Caucasians who are harmed in the process.

Literally the exact same process plays out in the relationship between blacks and whites in America. If you examine anti-white racism amongst blacks and anti-semitism among whites, I think you'll find that they have a lot in common.

Anonymous Harold Carper July 15, 2014 3:28 PM  

This is why God said to kill them.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 15, 2014 3:29 PM  

luagha July 15, 2014 3:21 PM
You've got me on Ted Nugent, who probably at some point screwed willing but underage groupies.



check the age of Ted's "2nd wife".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nugent,_Ted#Family
In 1978, Nugent began a relationship with seventeen-year-old Hawaii native Pele Massa. Due to the age difference they could not marry so Nugent joined Massa's parents in signing documents to make himself her legal guardian

the question of 'pedophilia' wouldn't arise in most jurisdictions ( she was old enough to marry, in many US states ) but having himself assigned her 'guardian' has a definite squick factor.

Anonymous Anonymous July 15, 2014 3:30 PM  

Mr. Wright,

I consider Catholics to be brothers in Christ, I think they get some things wrong, but that is humanity, sinful and flawed. I would never expect any human institution to be perfect…I wouldn’t trust myself to even grasp what perfection would be!

Where the Catholic Church deserves fierce rebuke is the covering up that was done for the pedophile priests. Certainly there will always be pedophiles in places they can gain access to children, add to that the trust that some would grant a priest and it makes sense a pedophile would be attracted to the priesthood. There will always be wolves among the sheep, BUT, when discovered the way to resolve the matter is not to transfer the wolf to a different flock and act like nothing happened, you drag the mangy bastard out of the flock and put him down.

Anonymous Porphyry July 15, 2014 3:33 PM  

"I wouldn’t trust myself to even grasp what perfection would be!" Someone has clearly never had an encounter with the ultimate being.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2014 3:36 PM  

"Does "And the “consent” of a three, four, and five year old means much less—especially if it’s negative." actually imply that if a 3-to-5-yr-old says "no" to a sexual encounter that it's okay to IGNORE their protests and sexually abuse them anyway?!"

I'm 99.9% sure he meant that in the opposite way, that because young children have less power to consent, their "no" should be interpreted even more strongly than, say, a sixteen-year-old's when charging a rapist. There's nothing in what he said in the conversation that I see as support for ignoring a child's protest.

And to make this pragmatic, parents should teach their kids that it's okay to say no to adults, because some pedophiles will accept a child's no.

Anonymous Alas July 15, 2014 3:40 PM  

Literally the exact same process plays out in the relationship between blacks and whites in America.

It is not literally the exact same process.

You argue,

"Jews also possess an innate (genetic) and fierce sense of loyalty to their tribe/race, which causes them to act for the benefit of other Jews and in opposition to the interests of other Caucasians."

Whites - tragically - do not have a fierce sense of loyalty to their tribe or race (just the opposite!), and thus do NOT act for the benefit of whites and in opposition to the interests of blacks who are harmed in the process.

Whites have tied themselves in knots and forked over vast amounts of treasure for many decades helping blacks. And the result? We earn hatred, resentment, and violence for our pains.

Anonymous Anonymous July 15, 2014 3:45 PM  

A 100% certainty this Delaney wretch is a boy molester. There should be a public call for 'its' victims to speak up.

Anonymous Max July 15, 2014 3:45 PM  

"Toleration of pedophilia also doesn't have to do with politics."

Nonsense. Is it also your position that tolerance of homosexuality doesn't have to do with politics? Answer yes and provide your reasoning, or answer no and be exposed for the fool you seem to be.

"Well, unless you think of it is a form of libertarianism, which takes both right and left forms."

That you can manage to find a connection between "the right" and libertarianism and then also find a connection between libertarianism and tolerance of [any particular sexual perversion] does not somehow imply that you have demonstrated support support for [any particular sexual perversion] to be a position of "the right." This is the most eye-rollingly awful example of guilt-by-association that one can imagine, yet here you seem to present it as if t'were valid.

Support for the tolerance of pedophilia is a left-wing position. To the exent that "libertarianism" (or any other "ism") provides support for such tolerance, it is a left-wing ideology. To the extent that it opposes such tolerance, it is a right-wing ideology. This is not complicated.

Hitler called himself a socialist. This does not imply that socialism is a right-wing ideology, nor does it imply that Hitler was a left-winger. Hitler was a man of the right, but not all right-wingers are "pure" or exclusively right-wing, just as not all left-wingers are "pure" or exclusively left-wing. Stalin was a man of the left, but he seized and held power using right-wing tactics.

"The Log Cabin Republicans won the fight against DADT, after all. (Which is not meant to suggest they support sex with children, but only to point out that the right, like the left, can take different approaches to what forms of sex should be legal.)"

I believe I've adequately explained what's wrong with this claim: The Log Cabin Republicans are not pure right-wingers, and their support for sodomy is a left-wing position.

If anything I've said here is wrong, I'd appreciate having it pointed out and explained so that I may correct my thinking on the subject. Thanks.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2014 3:47 PM  

Max, okay, emend my earlier comment to "And, I'm sad to say, neither does the desire to slaughter your opponents reluctantly."

Anonymous Daniel July 15, 2014 3:47 PM  

Will,

Thank you for asking at least some of the right questions. Your exposure of this mindset as has been shielded in the SFWA for at least half a century is critical. Also, watch your back. The SFWA leadership were unjust and unkind to honest folks like Nancy Collins during the Kramer scandal, and I suspect you now have a few more enemies in the organization than you had before this interview.

Finally, I'm very glad to be betrayed by cynicism. Based on your comments regarding the Harris pedophile reports, I took you for a member of a certain school of enabler: the sort who earnestly and unintentionally provides the reasonable sort of cover for these abuse rings (either through incredulity or plausible non-abusive alternatives). I see now that I was wrong: that you clearly have the interest to be methodical in your inquiries, and your interview with Chip is invaluable.

Please keep up the good work and the inquiries. The more people asking the right questions, the better.

Thanks.

Anonymous Max July 15, 2014 3:49 PM  

"It is not literally the exact same process."

lol, nit. ;-P Fair enough, though I hope it's clear what I meant. Would you agree that a SIMILAR process plays out between blacks and whites in America?

"Whites - tragically - do not have a fierce sense of loyalty to their tribe or race (just the opposite!), and thus do NOT act for the benefit of whites and in opposition to the interests of blacks who are harmed in the process."

I will concede that this has increasingly become the case, but historically at least, it was not always so. And I suspect that a lot of anti-white sentiment amongst blacks stems from the fuel of ancient wrongs, which are then used to paint the present in an unflattering light.

Anonymous VD July 15, 2014 3:49 PM  

Jews possess a 12-15 point IQ advantage over other Caucasians and thus tend to obtain positions of power and influence in their societies.

Not true. It's only Ashkenazi Jews, which in genetic terms is to say Italian-Jewish half-breeds, who have any IQ advantage. And their average intelligence is lower than several White subsets much larger than the Ashkenazi population.

Jews also possess an innate (genetic) and fierce sense of loyalty to their tribe/race, which causes them to act for the benefit of other Jews and in opposition to the interests of other Caucasians.

There is no evidence that it is genetic, but this is the actual reason. Whites were similarly more successful back when they excluded Jews the way Jews now exclude Whites, Asians, and others.

Anonymous VD July 15, 2014 3:52 PM  

I'm 99.9% sure he meant that in the opposite way, that because young children have less power to consent, their "no" should be interpreted even more strongly than, say, a sixteen-year-old's when charging a rapist.

That's what I assumed too. But, considering some of the other outlandish things he said concerning consent and morality, it is possible that he meant it exactly how it reads. You might consider asking for clarification.

Anonymous Anonymous July 15, 2014 3:55 PM  

I'm 99.9% sure he meant that in the opposite way,

But the whole NAMBLA thing makes it just a bit hard to be sure doesn’t it…

Here, the only evidence is what he's written, and it's enough to make me think parents and guardians who might leave kids alone with him should know his views in order to make up their own minds.

You desperately need to grow a set. That is your take away…but you are the same guy who wouldn’t address the elephant in the room, so at least you are being consistent.

Anonymous Don July 15, 2014 3:55 PM  

Vox - Which subgroups have higher IQ's?

Anonymous Max July 15, 2014 3:56 PM  

"Max, okay, emend my earlier comment to 'And, I'm sad to say, neither does the desire to slaughter your opponents reluctantly.'"

I'm disappointed that you've chosen to respond to what I see as the least interesting of my remarks. But I suppose it makes sense if your (possibly sub-conscious) goal is to perceive/portray me as a frothing-at-the-mouth extremist rather than a thoughtful and extremely intelligence person who happens to have reached a conclusion that you believe must necessarily stem from someone who is "a bit mentally unhinged . . . crazy - absurd . . . a lunatic or madman."

Anonymous Max July 15, 2014 4:01 PM  

"Not true. It's only Ashkenazi Jews, which in genetic terms is to say Italian-Jewish half-breeds, who have any IQ advantage."

Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought otherwise - I know this to be true and only meant to refer to Ashkenazi Jews.

"And their average intelligence is lower than several White subsets much larger than the Ashkenazi population."

Really? Which? I've never heard this before, and I think of myself as fairly well-versed in the HBD literature.

"There is no evidence that it is genetic, but this is the actual reason. Whites were similarly more successful back when they excluded Jews the way Jews now exclude Whites, Asians, and others."

Well, I guess it depends on what your standards for "evidence" are. I'm a pretty strong believer in hbdchick's theory about the relationship between consanguinity/cousin marriage and tribalism, so I take it for granted that racial in-group bias is a heritable trait. But I agree that this is very far from "proven" in a scientific sense.

Anonymous Carefulwhatyouaskfor July 15, 2014 4:02 PM  

I'd like to see any institution on the left be subject to a TENTH the media scrutiny that the Catholic church was and is subject to on the issue of pedophilia.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2014 4:05 PM  

Daniel, thanks. I'd forgotten about my comment about Rolf Harris. It was only an agreement with Fred Smith's "A lot of famous people who exude humour and bonhomie, particularly comedians, are notably unpleasant people off-stage." It wasn't meant to imply that I thought Harris was innocent or guilty. I only meant that people should understand that performers can give so much onstage that they may seem unpleasant offstage simply because they're exhausted.

Anonymous Anonymous July 15, 2014 4:06 PM  

Jews generally have grown up for X thousands of years with the historical knowledge that they can be killed for their birth heritage and no attempt to pass/convert/abandon their Jewish heritage will be accepted when it comes time to kill Jews.

When that is pushing one towards fierce tribal protectionism, it's hard to separate it out from possible genetic causes.

Blogger The Deuce July 15, 2014 4:08 PM  

I have heard fifty or sixty such tales from gay men of this nature. It had none of the affect of abuse. If anything, it had more the feel of an impromptu educational session.

Gosh, what are the chances, given that everybody knows that homosexuality has nothing to do with molesting children, and being molested as a child has nothing to do with one's likelihood of becoming a homosexual?!

Anonymous Alas July 15, 2014 4:12 PM  

Would you agree that a SIMILAR process plays out between blacks and whites in America?

It's not a similar process at all. In one case, the smarter minority gets an advantage and creates resentment among the majority. In the other, the dumber minority is dependent on the majority for any advantages it enjoys, and bites the hand that caresses it.

I suspect that a lot of anti-white sentiment amongst blacks stems from the fuel of ancient wrongs, which are then used to paint the present in an unflattering light.

Actually, no. The sentiment is the product of that LACK of white solidarity I mentioned. The white "elite" (and their allies in a certain other group) energetically stoke black resentment against the white proles they hate.

Blogger stareatgoatsies July 15, 2014 4:14 PM  

such during discussions about pedophilia among science fiction writers, someone always leaps at the change to slander the Church.

It's how members, and senior officers in particular, of an organization react to allegations and suspicions of pedophile activity that is being discussed here. The pedophiles themselves are a subset of that discussion. It's not slander if it's not false. There are people who like to blame every ill in the universe on leftism/liberalism, so the Catholic Church is an obvious rebuttal. The pedophile Catholic priest is a punchline for people of my generation (late 20s). They've done themselves a lot of damage by how they handled it not only historically, but up to quite recently when they no longer had the institutional power to keep a lid on the various revelations. Not to mention the disillusionment of the laity.

Perhaps, but not here.
I agree, but talk on the internet is cheap. It's when someone faces being ostracised, losing all the benefits of membership and possibly reprisals, and still speaks out, that they deserve credit for their statements. There are some examples of that in the CC in Ireland; I don't know how many; I heard a story though of a local woman who was considered a bit wacko for her vendetta against a priest who was later convicted on multiple counts.

Anonymous Fake Herzog July 15, 2014 4:16 PM  

Bodichi,

I'm always glad to help out Catholic superstar/sci-fi impresario John Wright! Here is a nice guide to Catholic celibacy which speaks to your question about Timothy (as well as other Biblical arguments made by our evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ):

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood

VD,

You are wrong about the Ashkenazi Jews -- they are the one ethnic/racial group with the highest IQ recorded to date:

http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub.pdf

Higher even than Asians!

Blogger IM2L844 July 15, 2014 4:17 PM  

Toleration of pedophilia also doesn't have to do with politics. Well, unless you think of it is a form of libertarianism, which takes both right and left forms.

Of course it does, Will. Politics and philosophy are inextricably intertwined. We are all more tolerant of political positions that more closely align with our philosophical perspectives. All political perspectives are, at their root, philosophical in nature and a philosophy is, at its core, a belief system that incorporates morals and various degrees of tolerance or intolerance.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2014 4:24 PM  

Max, Poe's Law applies. When you say you reluctantly want to crucify a group that includes me, I think you're probably speaking metaphorically, but I remember that as soon as he had the power, Hitler put the communists in concentration camps first. And while we might have a discussion, I doubt we'll change anyone's mind here, so it's no big.

VD, I don't plan to do a follow-up. Chip said he'd like to be able to use the material, so maybe he'll come up with something a little clearer. For me, it's time to find the next distraction, and right now, I want it to be something with as much fun and as little controversy as possible.

Blogger Joshua Dyal July 15, 2014 4:24 PM  

When evidence comes to light of conservatives who engage in this behavior, they are expunged.

When evidence comes to light of liberals who engage in this behavior, they become Grand-Masters of the SFWA.


The examples above also are flawed (the Ted Nugent one, for example, is almost completely a non sequiter) but they also make the assumption that being Republican means one is conservative.

Anonymous VD July 15, 2014 4:27 PM  

I only meant that people should understand that performers can give so much onstage that they may seem unpleasant offstage simply because they're exhausted.

I didn't take it as a defense of Harris myself.

You are wrong about the Ashkenazi Jews -- they are the one ethnic/racial group with the highest IQ recorded to date:

No, I'm not. It's not even remotely surprising that a numerically insignificant group would score well against much larger populations. Now try reading what I wrote again. There is no contradiction between what I wrote and what you're citing.

Anonymous VD July 15, 2014 4:29 PM  

For me, it's time to find the next distraction, and right now, I want it to be something with as much fun and as little controversy as possible.

Fair enough. You've already done more to shed light on the situation than the entire SFWA, with the sole exception of Deidre. Thanks for your efforts, it was well and fairly done.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 15, 2014 4:30 PM  

I'm 99.9% sure he meant that in the opposite way...

I read it the other way, that he was saying 6 year olds saying "no" (negative consent) don't really know what they're turning down. That statement about negative consent was followed by a claim traditional (patriarchal) law was immoral in how it treated children for not having agency. Delany then says:

"Basically, in patriarchal society we never give children positive rights—only negative ones. That is to say they are “protected” (by the state) and the administrator of those rights is always the parent."

Earlier, he had written:

"But in cases of children under whatever age you set, if you declare consent legally meaningless, I'm sure you can see that those children are simply no longer protected *from* the law. And the idea that the law treats the victims notably better than it treats the offenders means you are naive and and have no experience of the court systems and its attempts to deal with the young—especially children who are seen, by their parents, by the police, or by their community, as involved in something illegal or immoral. "

There, right there. He's saying children need protection "from" the law when they are engaged in something considered illegal or immoral by their parents. He's apparently more concerned with preventing parents from interfering with the molestation of their child than with the molestation itself.

Ask him for a clarification, sure. But nothing he's already written has been free of obfuscation. Perhaps that lack clarity is just a reflection of his own damaged mind, but I can't see any response from him that actually clarifies the issue, not after reading the many paragraphs Mr. Shetterly already provided. I expect any answer will be full of ifs and buts, dancing around the actual question and refusing to condemn grown men soliciting sex from 6 year olds.

Anonymous Max July 15, 2014 4:31 PM  

"It's not a similar process at all. In one case, the smarter minority gets an advantage and creates resentment among the majority. In the other, the dumber minority is dependent on the majority for any advantages it enjoys, and bites the hand that caresses it."

It seems like your words are self-contradictory. In one breath, you state that [group A] gets an advantage over [group B] and [group B] resents [group A] in both cases, and in the next breath you state that "it's not a similar process at all." That there exist differences between the processes in no way demonstrates that there are not also some similarities.

"Actually, no. The sentiment is the product of that LACK of white solidarity I mentioned. The white "elite" (and their allies in a certain other group) energetically stoke black resentment against the white proles they hate."

Again, you aren't really addressing the point I made; your comment is almost entirely orthogonal to mine. I agree that white/Jewish elites are stoking black resentment, but I believe they're using actual historic events as fuel.

Blogger Tommy Hass July 15, 2014 4:33 PM  

"That is also what convinced me the Jews are actually the Chosen People. The enmity toward them has no natural explanation."

.......really John?

It has never ocurred to you that they are, on average, odious people that consider those who aren't one of them like beasts? Have you even looked at the Talmud? It speaks with far more contempt about non believers than the Quran ever did.

Anonymous Sigyn July 15, 2014 4:35 PM  

When you say you reluctantly want to crucify a group that includes me, I think you're probably speaking metaphorically, but I remember that as soon as he had the power, Hitler put the communists in concentration camps first.

Thread is now officially Godwinned.

Is there any point in going back over the "Hitler was not a right-winger" lesson again? Or would it just be shouting down a well?

Anonymous bob k. mando July 15, 2014 4:38 PM  

Fake Herzog July 15, 2014 4:16 PM
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood



wow. that's some impressive lying going on there. and from a domain that accords to itself "catholic.com" no less.

Anonymous Anonymous July 15, 2014 4:38 PM  

"I read it the other way, that he was saying 6 year olds saying "no" (negative consent) don't really know what they're turning down."

I read it a similar way. I read it as if to say, "A six year old doesn't know that he doesn't get to have all the candy from the candy aisle. The adult makes that choice for them." And then proceed to the sex.

Blogger James Dixon July 15, 2014 4:39 PM  

> You are wrong about the Ashkenazi Jews -- they are the one ethnic/racial group with the highest IQ recorded to date:

He didn't say the white subsets were ethnic or racial, did he?

Anonymous Max July 15, 2014 4:39 PM  

"Max, Poe's Law applies. When you say you reluctantly want to crucify a group that includes me, I think you're probably speaking metaphorically, but I remember that as soon as he had the power, Hitler put the communists in concentration camps first."

I am not speaking metaphorically. I really do think that the world would be a better place if you and people like you were killed. This isn't a position I would express publicly under my actual name, of course. The reason I'm making a point of saying so here is that the extremity of it shocks even me, and I'm sort of hoping someone like you can "talk me off the ledge," because I don't want to believe we're so far gone that Hitlerian strategies have become justifiable.

"And while we might have a discussion, I doubt we'll change anyone's mind here, so it's no big."

Perhaps you are immune to evidence and argumentation, but I am not. I don't particularly care whether I manage to change your mind - my interest is in reaching as precise and accurate an understanding of the world as possible. If you can assist me in that endeavor, I sincerely implore you to do so.

Blogger Joshua Dyal July 15, 2014 4:41 PM  

Because I believe in the precept of innocent until proven guilty, giving someone the benefit of the doubt, and because there is no evidence that I'm aware of that Samuel Delaney has ever molested any children, I consider the notion of whether or not he's a criminal to be entirely too speculative and gossipy for my taste.

However, there's sufficient basis in what he actually did say to condemn the man as a reprobate that should be shunned from any association or any organization or community that values its reputation in any way whatsoever. Why does the SFWA have to wait until criminal charges are brought up to censure Delaney and withdraw their award when he's already, in his own words, laid out a theoretical and philosophical framework to justify the act of child molestation?

How they can expel one member because he called another member a half-savage, and yet continue to laud and reward another one who's writes repeatedly about underage sodomy, and who wrote the bizarre snuff book Hogg (which contrary to the recommendation above, I recommend you avoid at all cost--the Wikipedia plot summary is sufficient to condemn it) surely condemns the SFWA more than anything else that they could say at this point.

Anonymous Anonymous July 15, 2014 4:42 PM  

My gypsy mind-reading powers tell me that Tommy Hass is going to break out the fake Talmud websites in a minute.

If you want to learn something about what jews really believe and what the Talmud really says, you should start here:

http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Literacy-Revised-Ed-Important/dp/0061374989/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405456838&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=jewish+literacy+101

An excellent, simple book and a easy to read with quick chapters.

Anonymous Max July 15, 2014 4:43 PM  

"Thread is now officially Godwinned."

To be fair, if you'll check VD's post on 7/3 and my first comment in this thread, I think you'll find that his reference to Hitler was entirely justified.

"Is there any point in going back over the "Hitler was not a right-winger" lesson again? Or would it just be shouting down a well?"

I'm certainly open to hearing arguments in defense of the proposition that Hitler was a leftist, but I don't expect to find them persuasive. That said, there was a time when I thought the opposite, so it'd be foolish of me to turn down an opportunity to hear the case. Would you please be so kind as to either make it or link to someone else doing so?

Blogger Joshua Dyal July 15, 2014 4:50 PM  

Is there any point in going back over the "Hitler was not a right-winger" lesson again? Or would it just be shouting down a well?

It would, but you could point out that the Nazis actually purged their own party of rivals for power before they founded any concentration camps. The purging of communists was the same deal; they were ideologically similar rivals for power. The notion that the Nazis hated the communists because of ideological differences is absurd. Even a casual glance at the Nazi platform exposes that as a lie.

Blogger Joshua Dyal July 15, 2014 4:51 PM  

I'm certainly open to hearing arguments in defense of the proposition that Hitler was a leftist, but I don't expect to find them persuasive. That said, there was a time when I thought the opposite, so it'd be foolish of me to turn down an opportunity to hear the case. Would you please be so kind as to either make it or link to someone else doing so?

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405457454&sr=8-1&keywords=liberal+fascism

Anonymous ChicagoRefugee July 15, 2014 4:56 PM  

Okay, Zelaney's a sleaze-bag, but I think some here are mis-reading the quote about negative consent. (As I did on a first read.) In California right now, they are trying to transplant rape/sexual crime definitions from the university to the legislature/state law. Chief among these, they are trying to legislate a standard of "positive consent," meaning that the (usually a) woman must affirmatively say "Yes," as opposed to not saying "No."

With this in mind, "negative consent" doesn't mean they objected, it means they didn't object, didn't say "No." Implied consent by lack of objection.

Anonymous VD July 15, 2014 4:58 PM  

This is not a post about Hitler. Or, for that matter, Jews. Drop both topics, please.

Blogger Zaklog the Great July 15, 2014 4:58 PM  

@ Bob K. Mando

While I am currently contemplating conversion to Catholicism (unintentional alliteration for the win!), and therefore clearly cannot have an overall negative view of the RCC, I must agree to some extent with what you say. The real scandal is not the existence of priests abusing their office to sexually abuse children. Wicked men will find their way into positions like that. The real scandal was the failure to discipline properly and protect children from known offenders.

I agree with Mr. Wright, however, that a scandal of equal, if not much larger, proportions, could be found in our nation's public schools if the press wanted to look. But our press hate Christians and love public schools, so . . . that's a bit of investigative reporting that we'll never hear.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 15, 2014 4:59 PM  

Sigyn July 15, 2014 4:35 PM
Is there any point in going back over the "Hitler was not a right-winger" lesson again? Or would it just be shouting down a well?



as i've noted before, it's entirely dependent on what philosophical axis you're using to define right/left.

if you're using internationalism vs nationalism then, yes, Hitler was 'Right'.

if you're using totalitarian vs individual ( as we would do ) then Hitler was "Left". as with my discussion with Kratman, if you're going to define International Totalitarianism as Left and National Totalitarianism as Right ...
THEN there is *no direction* of movement by which you can leave Totalitarianism in a single axis system. you would only arrive at something like "Constitutional Totalitarianism" at the mid-point.

the great benefit of the Pournelle Axes are not that they are the perfect two axes on which to define all political theory.

it's that they open the door to the concept that there are MULTIPLEX philosophical and political theories on things can be defined.

once again, everyone should read 'Flatland'. it can blow your mind open in this regard.

the L vs R trope is ( i believe intentionally ) used to obfuscate the terms of the debate by constantly shifting the actual philosophical axis being used ... but not defining that shift.

that's how the US news media can report on Russia post-Glasnost that the 'conservatives' ( that is to say, hard core Communists, but 'bad' because the media can use a term with negative connotations ) were doing everything they could to fight Gorbachev.

that's why in that film on India, the 'Left Communists' can join with the 'Right Communists' in a United Front government to violently put down the 'Maoist Communists'.

'Maoist Communist' is the only term in the above sentence about which one can even express moderate confidence about what it means. on what philosophic or political basis is one to characterize a version of Communism as more 'Left' or 'Right' than another?

this actually annoys me that Vox invented the neologism "National Libertarian".

i have previously stated ALL of the tools and facts necessary to extrapolate that 'national' vs 'international' Libertarian would be a 'thing'. i just never thought it out for myself.

*facepalm*

Anonymous Max July 15, 2014 5:04 PM  

Joshua,

I've read Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, and it did not persuade me of the point in question. I'll link to and quote liberally from an argument in the opposite direction, and I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know whether/why you (don't) find it convincing:

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/09/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html

To an orthodox reactionary, Hitler is basically the poster child for what happens if you break the steel rule. Fascism is reaction, but laced with cancerous tumors of democracy - "right-wing populism," as people say these days. If it loses it loses; if it wins, the tumors grow. An improvement on Communism, but not much of one.

Just about all of Hitler's shtick, right down to the name of his party, was ripped off from the Left. Who introduced nationalism to the Continent of Europe? The Hapsburgs, or Garibaldi? Under this camouflage, which never convinced anyone with a college education, Nazism was never in any way leftist. Rather, it was a demotic corruption of the old Prussian tradition.

Even before WWI, the tradition of Frederick had become heavily contaminated with romantic-populist jingoism. By the '30s, the German right was armed with all the nastiest brass-knuckles that the international left could supply. Everything evil that the Nazis ever did, the Bolsheviks had done first. Everything there was to learn from George Creel, Goebbels knew.

Contra Jonah Goldberg, even contra Kuehnelt-Leddihn (whose jockstrap Goldberg is not fit to carry), Hitler was not a leftist. He was a rightist. Leftism is like a club: you can't just say you're a leftist, and be one. You have to actually be accepted into the club. You have to be part of the Left, and if you're not you are part of the Right - ie, the set of all those competing, unjustly of course, with the Left.

On a social network graph, it's very obvious who is and who isn't. And National Socialism was never, ever part of the graph. It had very few friends, connected very weakly, in the US and Britain. Compare it to Leninism, and you'll see the difference instantly. Hitler and I are not in the club, and nor are you - and if you are, you won't be for long.

(Since the Right is a negative set, unorganized by definition, rightists cannot be expected to share any consistent pattern of attributes, or to cooperate effectively on any positive project. Thus, they tend to lose - an almost infallible historical marker of rightism.)

Since most people are neither historians nor philosophers, the fact that Hitler was on the extreme Right, and this Reaction is also on the extreme Right, raises some natural concerns. Again: the only way to face these concerns is to (a) provide a complete engineering explanation of Hitler, and (b) include an effective anti-Hitler device in our design.

The reactionary's basic answer to the Hitler Question is the Law of Sewage. (This is not my invention, but I don't know where I got it. Heinlein, perhaps?) The Law is: if you put a drop of wine in a barrel of sewage, you get sewage. If you put a drop of sewage in a barrel of wine, you get sewage. You'll find that this rule applies perfectly to many fields of human endeavor.

Thus, Nazism contains a great deal of reactionary wisdom, because those who created it were quite familiar with the old Continental tradition of government. However, the Nazi movement originated as a democratic political party. Thus Nazism combined the venom of democracy with the experience and efficiency of Prussia, an understandably dangerous combination.

Anonymous Sigyn July 15, 2014 5:05 PM  

In my defense, Vox headed off the explanation (which is just as well, because I have a baby to snuggle right now). "Liberal Fascism", like Joshua recommended--and I'm done.

Does Max have a long pedigree here, by the way?

Anonymous Max July 15, 2014 5:05 PM  

"This is not a post about Hitler. Or, for that matter, Jews. Drop both topics, please."

Apologies. I posted the above comment before seeing the one quoted above. Feel free to delete (obv).

Anonymous Max July 15, 2014 5:08 PM  

"Does Max have a long pedigree here, by the way?"

I've been reading VD's blog for awhile, but I don't often read the comments, let alone post any myself (though I have a few times before).

Anonymous Fake Herzog July 15, 2014 5:17 PM  

bob,

I don't want to drag this comment thread further off topic (Vox already asked me to drop the Jew IQ discussion, even though I'd love to know even one of the white sub-groups he's thinking of that have a average IQ that beats the Ashkenazi average), but it is annoying when I provide a nice link with detailed arguments for why the Catholic Church chooses to have celibate priests and your only response is "that's some impressive lying going on there"!!!

In other words, it would have been nice if you had identified some specific lies or pointed out the articles flawed reasoning.

Anonymous Stickwick July 15, 2014 5:20 PM  

OT, but has to do with the enpinkening of SF/F: Marvel's new Thor is a woman. Why? Because the previous, male Thor was unworthy of Mjolnir.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 15, 2014 5:24 PM  

Zaklog the Great July 15, 2014 4:58 PM
I agree with Mr. Wright, however, that a scandal of equal, if not much larger, proportions, could be found in our nation's public schools if the press wanted to look.



here's the problem:
pedophiles in the public schools/Boy Scouts/etc regularly lose their jobs, are put on trial, are convicted and serve time in jail.

in order to have 'similarity' to the problem of the RCC *curia*, school admins would have to do everything they could to hide the evidence of the abuse, attempt to silence the victims and transfer the perp to another jurisdiction with easy access to more victims without notifying anyone in the new area about the KNOWN proclivities of this strange new authority figure they've just gotten.

one thing you can say about the pub.ed. bureaucrats, at least they fear enough for their own hides that they usually nail peds to the wall just as fast as they find out about them. ( the male vs female perp punishment disparity is a problem with our 'justice system', not the schools )


that's what is dishonest about what the normally esteemable Mr. Wright and all the rest of Catholics here are doing.

we don't have a problem with the fact that pedophile priests exist ( beyond the specific priest in question ).

we have a serious fucking problem with the FACT that the curia have a well established AND world wide habit of hiding and enabling and even honoring these pedophile priests.

that we are regularly accused of hypocrisy on the former while what we are complaining about is the latter is simply ... not very honest.

there are MULTIPLE priests / bishops / even cardinals involved in every single one of these pedo-priest coverup cases. there HAVE to be, in order to transfer the priest in question between diocese.

and ALL, EVERY SINGLE ONE of those pieces of shit should have been defrocked for aiding and abetting the pedos.

is that what is happening? no?

there where is the righteousness of the Roman church?

that's why the Penn State thing blew up so big. the problem wasn't Sandusky, per se. it was the FACT that the Penn hierarchy was covering up for him.

you notice the difference between Penn State and the priesthood? the Penn state admins paid / are paying with their jobs and reputations. some of them are likely going to jail.

Anonymous Daniel July 15, 2014 5:36 PM  

It wasn't meant to imply that I thought Harris was innocent or guilty. I only meant that people should understand that performers can give so much onstage that they may seem unpleasant offstage simply because they're exhausted.

Yes, I truly see that now. This is not a defense of my reading of it -- my reading of it was wrong -- but when the SFWA falls silent on such an incendiary and relevant (to the public and their membership) on the issue, it is easy for innocuous or unrelated comments regarding pedophilia by SFWA members to be damned with a broad brush.

I say this only to condemn the SFWA silence and - for example - John Scalzi's permanent habit of posting things for specific reasons with the caveat of having "no reason at all." When they engage in those shenanigans, they not only lie and deceive, but they cast an undeserved cloud of suspicion on their own members. Now, any time an SFWA member comments on this subject in particular without overtly condemning pedophilia, I assume they are in the Anne McCaffery camp of apologist.

It isn't fair, and it isn't right, and I'll try to do better in the future.

Anonymous NateM July 15, 2014 5:36 PM  

OT

Meanwhile from the latest big idea.

"I hate knights.

How is it that the biggest bunch of self-involved bullies in all of European history became the most prominent heroes in fantasy literature? These are the same brutish and brutal thugs who murdered, raped, and pillaged their way across Europe and the Middle East in the name of God (thanks a lot, Pope Urban II). Which pre-Madison Avenue public relations firm managed to convince us that knights – I mean, fucking knights - were the paragons of honour and virtue in the Middle Ages?"

If this doesn't sum up pink SciFi s obsession with warping convention and history to meet their worldview...

Anonymous bob k. mando July 15, 2014 5:44 PM  

Fake Herzog July 15, 2014 5:17 PM
In other words, it would have been nice if you had identified some specific lies or pointed out the articles flawed reasoning.



did you read the page yourself? are you incapable of comparing the passages in the Bible with how that page characterizes them? are you actually so silly that you consider one of the Apostles to have been the same thing as a Disciple or an everyday member of the local church hierarchy?

the NON-Apostolic authorities in the Church are instructed to have wives and children. FOR A REASON. go on. read the chapter. Paul is quite explicit in his *reasoning* as to why these things are to be *requirements*.

frankly, i'm not interested in doing a full takedown on that page, starting, as it does, with the assumption that i don't know that the RCC didn't institute the celibate priesthood until after 1000ad.

Blogger Quadko July 15, 2014 5:48 PM  

NateM: Haha! Nice quote. Author might as well say "Why, I went into fiction writing so I wouldn't have to know history!" Who knew you had to know King Aurthur and French Chevalier romances to be able to contextualize modern Fantasy! So hard, so hard. She (it was a she, yes?) just wants to write books about handsome horsemen watching damsels rescuing themselves and rewarding them with good alpha lovin'. What's that got anything to do with Camelot?

Anonymous Daniel July 15, 2014 5:51 PM  

OT: NateM - you might like to re-state that comment over at the somewhat more relevant (if slightly less chatty) new post at the Castalia House blog.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2014 6:04 PM  

"I really do think that the world would be a better place if you and people like you were killed."

Yes, I gathered as much. Though I'm a socialist, I'm more interested in the libertarian vs. authoritarian axis of the political compass, because I prefer societies where the powerful don't think exterminating people for disagreeing with them is a good idea.

Blogger automatthew July 15, 2014 6:14 PM  

"I prefer societies where the powerful don't think exterminating people for disagreeing with them is a good idea"

Straw man, and you're smart enough to know it. The justification for extermination is based on the behavior of the targeted set of people, not the mere fact of disagreement on political principles.

Another disingenuity here is identifying your interlocutor as being one of the powerful.

You see a frog wishing to wipe out scorpions, and you instinctively side with the scorpion. It is your way.

Anonymous Trimegistus July 15, 2014 6:33 PM  

It strikes me that the whole Catholic priest topic, along with H*tler and the inevitable Joo-haters, could be seen as a deliberate attempt to hijack and derail the discussion here. At least, if someone was deliberately trying to do that, I can't see how their posts would be any different from those of Max, Tommy et al. (Note, by the way, the failed attempt to bait Mr. Wright into an argument about priests marrying, which was quickly dropped in favor of more reliably inflammatory topics.)

I'm becoming more and more convinced that these idiots are in fact agents provocateurs, doing their best to sabotage any real discussion or learning here.

Anonymous Anonymous July 15, 2014 6:34 PM  

it is a question of motivation, Catholics were trying to protect “the church”

It helps to have a clue about the reigning secular attitude about abnormal psychology at the time in the 1970s and 1980s, which most people don't. The idea that anything could be solved with enough therapy was very much in vogue. Another popular idea was that teenage boys (and girls, but especially boys, because NAMBLA isn't a new idea) having "sexual confusion" could be helped through it via experimentation -- that a normal boy might naturally have some homosexual fantasies which could be driven out by trying it, basically. In addition, it was commonly thought that forcing a kid to testify in such cases might do more damage than justice was worth.

Also, the idea of getting a big pile of money by suing an institution for something one of its members did privately hadn't really caught on yet, so there wasn't as much incentive in going public.

Put those factors together, and you get a situation where no one thought it would be helpful to publicize these cases. Some homosexuals had risen high enough to protect each other, but many other people contributed to the cover-up for other reasons. Bishops didn't want the embarrassment, of course, and trusted the shrinks that molesters could be fixed with therapy and sin no more. The police believed the boys would be better off if it went away quietly so they didn't have to testify. The boys and their parents didn't want to have to tell everyone the kid had been buggered. Everyone agreed that the best thing would be to send the molester and the kid to therapy and keep it quiet for both their sakes. They were quietly dealt with for the exact same reasons they were quietly dealt with when they happened in other churches, public schools, and elsewhere: some rationalization, but also a lot of honestly trying to protect everyone.

Unfortunately, the truth was that therapy didn't fix the offenders at all, so they kept at it. That's because most of them weren't pederasts in the first place, so they weren't even treating the right deviancy; they were homosexual men who were attracted to post-pubescent boys. I knew a few boys who were molested in high school starting around age 15 or so, some of which continued into adulthood. That's normal for homosexuals, but we're not allowed to know that now, so we have to pretend they were all diddling little kids -- which was actually very rare, just as rare as in the general population.

Homosexuals targeting teenage boys is sick enough (especially when their positions of authority made it possible for them to pick likely targets); but this guy wanting 9-year-olds and younger to be able to give consent is on a whole different level.

Anonymous Anonymous July 15, 2014 6:45 PM  

In 1978, Nugent began a relationship with seventeen-year-old Hawaii native Pele Massa.

We're talking about a man who writes eagerly about wishing for a smorgasbord of pre-pubescent boys to choose from, and you bring up a man marrying a 17-year-old girl. That's simply running interference. Sure that's what you want to do?

Anonymous NateM July 15, 2014 6:46 PM  

Quad: a better title for his book: Gammalot

Daniel: I will certainly look that way, thanks

Blogger Quadko July 15, 2014 6:59 PM  

Gammalot
Dear Vox, please consider a writing a new fantasy comedy series under this title. By all means make it a collaboration with Wright, or elseone as you see fit. First one to be dedicated to NateM.

Anonymous Max July 15, 2014 7:01 PM  

"Yes, I gathered as much."

You did? "When you say you reluctantly want to crucify a group that includes me, I think you're probably speaking metaphorically..."

"Though I'm a socialist, I'm more interested in the libertarian vs. authoritarian axis of the political compass, because I prefer societies where the powerful don't think exterminating people for disagreeing with them is a good idea."

I don't expect you to read these links, but I feel obligated to at least provide you with an opportunity to:

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/05/what-if-theres-no-such-thing-as-chaotic.html

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/06/olxi-truth-about-left-and-right.html

Anonymous Max July 15, 2014 7:05 PM  

"It strikes me that the whole Catholic priest topic, along with H*tler and the inevitable Joo-haters, could be seen as a deliberate attempt to hijack and derail the discussion here. At least, if someone was deliberately trying to do that, I can't see how their posts would be any different from those of Max, Tommy et al. (Note, by the way, the failed attempt to bait Mr. Wright into an argument about priests marrying, which was quickly dropped in favor of more reliably inflammatory topics.)

I'm becoming more and more convinced that these idiots are in fact agents provocateurs, doing their best to sabotage any real discussion or learning here."

*eyeroll*

Anonymous Shibes Meadow July 15, 2014 7:17 PM  

Franco knew how to deal with communists, Catholic-haters, corrupters of youth, and those who associate with and defend same. The next Franco will, as well.

Anonymous Scintan July 15, 2014 7:38 PM  

I shouldn't have to point this out, but Kosimo has apparently made it necessary:

There is not a 1:1 correlation between sexual attraction to people who are younger than the age of consent and pedophilia. Pedophilia involves prepubescents, not a random legislated age.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 15, 2014 7:49 PM  

i think it's hilarious that Kosimo has only gotten to three Repubs. i'm pretty sure i could get the 1/2 dozen 'right wing' pedos within a half hour.

but i'm not going to do that because it rather misses the point. only on the Left do you have entire .orgs ( NAMBLA being only the most famous ) devoted to the normalization of molesting children.

had ANY Repug been found to have a live in boyfriend running a child prostitution ring out of his basement ... he'd have certainly paid with his career. at a minimum.

Bawney Fwank? still a member in good standing of the Demoncrats.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2014 8:25 PM  

I thought I would bow out entirely here, but the notion that NAMBLA is or was a liberal organization amused me, so I googled and found the following list at https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130506175238AACS7zR

NONAME answered 1 year ago
well lets see jerry sandusky was a registered repub
Republican congressional aide Jeffrey Nielsen was arrested for having sex with a 14-year old boy.
Republican aide, Alan David Berlin, was arrested on charges that he wanted to engage in sex acts with a 15 year old boy while dressed in a panda costume.
Fox News producer Aaron Bruns pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 10 years for possessing child pornography.
Republican activist and former presidential campaign chairman Jeffrey Claude Bartleson was arrested on charges of sexually molesting a 5-year old boy.
Republican activist and former chairman of the Christian County Republicans Royce Fessenden pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree child molestation and one count of second-degree statutory sodomy.
Republican parole board officer and former legislator George Christian (Chris) Ortloff pleaded guilty to attempting to lure 11- and 12-year-old girls to have sex with him.
Republican legislative aide Robert R. Groezinger pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography.
Republican legislator Robert A. McKee pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography.
Republican chief of staff Eric Feltner pleaded guilty to showing pornography to a 13-year old girl.
Republican presidential campaign official Matthew Joseph Elliott was convicted of sexual exploitation of a child.
Source(s):
You do understand the difference between being a pedophile and being gay don't you.

Anonymous Sigyn July 15, 2014 8:46 PM  

You do understand the difference between being a pedophile and being gay don't you.

You do understand the difference between being a Republican and being conservative, don't you?

Anonymous Dan July 15, 2014 9:00 PM  

Highest iq is the swiss right?

Blogger Will Shetterly July 15, 2014 9:00 PM  

That line was on the original post. Sorry I didn't cut it. I don't think anyone's claiming all conservatives are Republicans.

There's another list (and the last I'll bother to share, since I was only asked for six) at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Republican+pedophiles and if you want to exclude some of them as not-conservatives, that's your right.

Blogger Zimri July 15, 2014 9:04 PM  

Which Swiss though? There are three-and-a-half kinds of Swiss. (That last half being the Romanch.)

Blogger JACIII July 15, 2014 9:09 PM  

Are you going to assert that pedo's who like to screw children of the same (homo) gender (sexual) aren't homosexual, Will?

Blogger Zimri July 15, 2014 9:18 PM  

Will: well done, you've proven that evil scum exist in both major parties. I'll keep that in mind next time I don't vote for the nominated Republican in the election (as in '12).

But back to the OP. The point isn't the individual perverts, despite luagha above gaily hopping into your trap (the Dark Enlightenment acolytes will take care of him). The point is which ideology supports the perversion.

And it's which ideology would benefit most from having the perverts out there: is it the ideology which supports the nuclear family? or is it the ideology that the nuclear family is too weak, and that only the State can protect the children?

Blogger Zaklog the Great July 15, 2014 9:36 PM  

@Will Shetterly You do realize the difference between committing an act of evil and demanding that society be reshaped so that act is no longer called evil, right?

Anonymous bob k. mando July 15, 2014 10:01 PM  

Will Shetterly July 15, 2014 8:25 PM
You do understand the difference between being a pedophile and being gay don't you.



a - no, i don't. why don't you have Samuel ( i think sex between adults and 6 year olds is wonderful ) Delany explain it to me until i get it?

b - your list is childish.
a pro would have simply listed the Franklin Credit Union coverup.
http://www.franklincase.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=9

if you really wanted to put the fox amongst the chickens, you'd link pictures of Jeff Gannon and George Bush:
http://i41.tinypic.com/dz8lcl.jpg#george%20bush%20and%20jeff%20gannon%20483x487

but then all you'd find out is that most of us won't vote Repug anyways.

Blogger IM2L844 July 15, 2014 10:46 PM  

You do understand that pedophilia and homosexuality are not, by necessity, mutually exclusive deviances and that neo-conservatism has it's roots in Marxism don't you, Mr. Shetterly?

Anonymous The other skeptic July 15, 2014 11:43 PM  

CDC says that 1.6% indentify as fudgepackers and carpet munchers.

Anonymous rho July 16, 2014 1:05 AM  

Will Shetterly, thanks for the work you put in for this. It was very fair and pretty comprehensive. It's easy to go on a tear and hurl invective and bombast--it's good to see that sober gentlemanliness ofttimes gets better results.

Two things that I noticed: first, Delaney's tale of his first sexual experience as a child of six noted that his companion came from a fatherless home. Delaney's own father was abusive as well. That's a sample size too small to make reliable projections, but I found it very interesting.

Second, Delaney's original quote in support of NAMBLA appears to come from his reading of their newsletter. Considering his past, I'm not surprised he found some form of wisdom there, it being a kind of confirmation bias at work. But, the other thing I would note is that even in an organization as dodgy as NAMBLA, their official publication is going to be written and/or edited by the most erudite and articulate members. I'm quite sure it had very compelling articles detailing perceived problems and reasoned arguments. I wouldn't be surprised if it contained some hilarious comic strips as well. After all, it will likely represent the brightest their community has to offer.

But the official organ is not the organization. It's the propaganda wing of the organization. One wouldn't, and shouldn't, judge GM or GlaxoSmithKline on their corporate newsletters alone. If Delaney accepted the newsletter as sufficient proxy for all of NAMBLA's intentions, he did so because it was either convenient to do so, or because he was intellectually lazy.

Anonymous Anonymous July 16, 2014 1:07 AM  

Thanks for answering. As we already got into before: arrested, punished, expunged. You even go into their punishments.

On the left/liberal/democrat/etc side? Gerry Studds, proud of it, only punished by censuring and losing a chairmanship. Though he got a different one back later. He was applauded by supporters in his home district for his actions.

I think I've made my point about the different treatment. Although I should read more about that Franklin case, and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980959/posts looks like an amusing list of those who were egregious enough to actually be punished.

Anonymous Rabbit July 16, 2014 1:12 AM  

**I had my first sexual experience with an adult when I was six, with a local Harlem building superintendent. And nothing hurtful happened at all. It would have been cruel and unusual punishment to incarcerate him for it.... The building superintendent, however, abused me not at all. To say that he did, is just incorrect.**

Is it too late to put this idiot in a time machine to take my place in the public schools I attended? Since he claims to enjoy this sort of thing so much and I'm crying myself to sleep 3 times a week because of it, I think that would be a really good idea. Of course, he wouldn't have just one building superintendent to deal with, but a whole mob of sadistic brats, but I guess that would just be more 'fun' for him. Meh.

Anonymous Bruce July 16, 2014 2:30 AM  

Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress has a sympathetic character having sex with a child prostitute in the first chapter. He described John Dewey marrying his fourteen year old student with approval. Heinlein defended MZB and her husband. "Freedom begins when you tell Mrs Grundy to fly a kite." He meant it. Two open marriages, long career as a hound. Heinlein supported gay rights.

You can have gay rights, or you can allow cops to card ages at the average gay bar's chicken room. Pick one. Heinlein did. Will Shetterly has. The Democrats have. Will Shetterly's list of Republican kiddy-humpers could be easily extended, but he knows perfectly well that it's the result of a long-term effort by Democrats in the media. And he knows perfectly well that most politicians are morally challenged. WD Auden's view that 'the Lolita personality is common in 14-year-old boys' is the conservative, cautious end of gay thought, as Will Shetterly knows perfectly well.

Anonymous rho July 16, 2014 4:28 AM  

VD, why did you erase your post on immigration?

Anonymous VD July 16, 2014 4:58 AM  

VD, why did you erase your post on immigration?

See the post I put up as a replacement.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 16, 2014 11:19 AM  

For those who are trying to find a connection between politics and pedophilia, Ed Kramer was a Libertarian.

rho, you're welcome. I pretty much agree with you. My only quibble is with "If Delaney accepted the newsletter as sufficient proxy for all of NAMBLA's intentions, he did so because it was either convenient to do so, or because he was intellectually lazy." I don't think he was saying he thought it was sufficient proxy. I think he just thought it was interesting on its own terms. I could imagine reading a newsletter from a group of neo-Confederates or neo-Nazis finding it interesting simply because its writers sometimes found unusual information. Obsessed people can write things worth reading, even when you reject the belief that drives their obsession.

Bruce, sigh. Re: "Will Shetterly's list of Republican kiddy-humpers could be easily extended, but he knows perfectly well that it's the result of a long-term effort by Democrats in the media. And he knows perfectly well that most politicians are morally challenged. WD Auden's view that 'the Lolita personality is common in 14-year-old boys' is the conservative, cautious end of gay thought, as Will Shetterly knows perfectly well."
Shall I say "Bruce knows perfectly well that the moon is green cheese"? You might as well claim I know perfectly well the Log Cabin Republicans are Democrats.

IM2L844, re: "You do understand that pedophilia and homosexuality are not, by necessity, mutually exclusive"

Of course. The majority of pedophiles, like the majority of the population, is heterosexual; the minority, like the population, is bi or homosexual. Dunno why you think I might think otherwise, but I'm not looking back to see what confused you.

"neo-conservatism has it's roots in Marxism"

No. Some neocons were Trotskyists, but then, wasn't John Wright an atheist once? I was a liberal before I became a socialist, and an atheist before I became a unitarian Christian. People change their belief systems for many reasons. If you're really interested in neoliberalism and neoconservatism, I recommend David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 16, 2014 12:00 PM  

I could imagine reading a newsletter from a group of neo-Confederates or neo-Nazis finding it interesting simply because its writers sometimes found unusual information.

But Will, you realize that would only be an analogy for Delany's NAMBLA subscription if in addition to reading neo-Nazi newsletters you had a history of writing books following the adventures of Himmleresque characters, and that we were discussing an interview where we're not quite certain but it sure seemed like you were implying concentration camps aren't always that bad...

Blogger IM2L844 July 16, 2014 1:04 PM  

I was a liberal before I became a socialist

A natural progression kind of like going from being a sexually abused child to becoming a homosexual deviant to becoming pedophile.

and an atheist before I became a unitarian Christian.

Not exactly a chasm between the two.

Anonymous Bruce July 16, 2014 1:10 PM  

Will, sigh. I can certainly see why a decent person who supports gay rights would want to think you can have gay rights without letting the average gay bar's chicken room host nine year old boys. Good luck.

Anonymous Facts July 16, 2014 1:20 PM  

100% of NAMBLA members are gay men.

100% of NAMBLA members advocate legalized pedophilia.

Does these two facts have anything to do with Hilter being a socialist faggot? I have no idea, but I'm sure Will will find a way to lecture us about Hilter and democratic socialism as a way to blatantly handwave away the above two facts about NAMBLA.

Blogger IM2L844 July 16, 2014 1:22 PM  

The majority of pedophiles, like the majority of the population, is heterosexual; the minority, like the population, is bi or homosexual.

No, it does not parallel the general population. Proportion is a key concept here that can't be glossed over. Pedophiles are disproportionately homosexuals.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 16, 2014 1:24 PM  

"I can certainly see why a decent person who supports gay rights would want to think you can have gay rights without letting the average gay bar's chicken room host nine year old boys." You might as well argue that all heterosexual men want to have sex with girls. The world simply does not neatly divide into two, and in the world of sex, there's not "heterosexual adults who only want to have sex with adults of the opposite sex" and "everyone else".

Anonymous Facts July 16, 2014 1:26 PM  

"The majority of pedophiles, like the majority of the population, is heterosexual"

Provide a source.

Here is one that directly counters your assertion:

Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.

Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).

The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.

Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.

Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote "intergenerational intimacy."

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3

Here's another:

"n her thesis also written for the Regent University Law Review Reisman cited psychologist Eugene Abel, whose research found that homosexuals "sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls. "

Abel also found that non-incarcerated "child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender whose targets were males."

"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abel,s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."" http://www.wnd.com/2002/04/13722/

Blogger Will Shetterly July 16, 2014 2:24 PM  

Facts, I just did a general googling you may wish to repeat: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=are%20most%20pedophiles%20heterosexual%3F&safe=off

The very first hit was http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html Relevant to the general discussion, it has this: "Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted)." Also: "Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% of cases in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994)."

It's worth a read. Had I read it before I made my comment, I probably would've said to be more precise, "The majority of pedophiles, like the majority of the population, is not homosexual".

Anonymous Facts July 16, 2014 2:31 PM  

Interested readers can compare our sources.

Hopefully they use this data to make wise choices about the safety of their children.

Anonymous Facts July 16, 2014 2:37 PM  

I will also note your many many attempts here to misdirect readers away from the NAMBLA agenda. (North American Man/Boy Love Association )

Hopefully parents will also keep this fact in mind -- and make wise choices about the safety of their children (assuming Will Shetterly is your real name and assuming Google will archive this thread).

Anonymous bob k. mando July 16, 2014 2:52 PM  

somebody help me out.

when they first started trying to normalize homosexuality in 60s/70s they made regular references to social norms of the ancient Greeks, a society in which the aristocracy abided by ... certain practices.

anybody got any idea what social practices were instituted when queers had complete control of the society?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality#Ancient_Greece
"Relations between adult males were generally ridiculed."




Facts July 16, 2014 2:37 PM
assuming Will Shetterly is your real name


he has published numerous books and his handle hotlinks to his google+ page and his blog. it's him.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia July 16, 2014 3:06 PM  

Sexual Abuse: A Major Cause Of Homosexuality?

It is a well-documented fact that many many homosexuals were sexually abused when young. (This paper will conclude with a list of some books which support that statement.)

In other words, there is an abundance of evidence that many many homosexuals were born heterosexual but were disoriented by sexual abuse.

Indeed, there are many more cases of sexual abuse than there are cases of homosexuality. As one large study discussed in a 1997 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found, on average 12.8% of women and 4.3% of men recall being sexually abused.1 (How many do not recall it?)

According to Dr. James E. Soukup, author of a book which deals with several subjects including sexual abuse: "In one national study in 1985, 27 percent of the females interviewed and 16 percent of the males reported to have been sexually abused as children. Other studies indicate that these figures are too low. It is suggested that eighty percent of all sexual abuse is not reported."2

The Associated Press noted in late 1998 that, according to an analysis of 166 studies covering the years 1985-97: "As many as one in five boys is sexually abused....It [also] concluded that sexual abuse of boys is underreported and undertreated....Earlier studies have shown that 25 percent to 35 percent of girls are sexually abused."3

(According to a JAMA review of literature re the sexual abuse of boys, only 10%-33% of male abuse victims ever tell anyone about that abuse.4 The review also found that: "Abused [male] adolescents, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused."5 And regarding female abuse victims, one study found that 38% of adult women ages 18-31 who were sexually abused when young [between ages 10 months to 12 years] did not remember that they were sexually abused when young.6)

According to an article in Newsweek: "University of New Hampshire professor David Finkelhor, widely considered the premier researcher on crimes against children,...finds that 21 percent of all girls and at least 3 (but more likely 10) percent of boys are sexually victimized by age 17."7

eWhatever the true percentages are of male and female sex abuse victims, considering how high the suggested/reported numbers are compared to the percentage of the population that is homosexual (only 1%-2%), we can see that sexual abuse can theoretically account for every case of homosexuality.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia July 16, 2014 3:07 PM  

[CONTINUED]

Too, there currently is no definitive proof that anyone is born homosexual. Several studies by homosexual researchers claimed to find some possible biological bases for homosexuality. But other scientists easily pointed out the flaws in those studies, and the results of those studies have yet to be replicated by others. In the words of pro-homosexual Newsweek magazine: "In the early '90s, three highly publicized studies seemed to suggest that homosexuality's roots were genetic....More than five years later the data have never been replicated."8 (This fact has been almost totally ignored by the biased, untrustworthy, dominant liberal media.) And in the May/June 2008 issue of Psychology Today we have this: "No one has yet identified a particular gay gene....There is no all-inclusive explanation for the variation in sexual orientation, at least none supported by actual evidence....[T]here are many different mechanisms [involving both nature and nurture], not a single one, for producing homosexuality."9

So how can anyone claim, in good conscience, that homosexuals are born that way and have no choice? When someone says they are homosexual, our first response should be to try and find out if he/she was sexually abused and, if so, to then punish the abuser. Our next response should be to provide therapy to homosexuals to help them cope with their problems.

Those who push the born-homosexual line are effectively ignoring the sexual abuse of children. What kind of "people" want to let pedophiles get away with sexually abusing little kids?

(If sexual abuse happens to a one-year or two-year old child, he or she may not remember it later in life because it happened at such a young age. However, the trauma can govern the rest of the victim's life. Some homosexuals will swear they were never sexually abused, but they have no way of knowing for sure.)

Skilled psychologists and psychiatrists like Masters and Johnson, Charles Socarides, Joseph Nicolosi, Benjamin Kaufman, Elizabeth Moberly, Jeffrey Satinover, and Gerard van den Aardweg, have had success changing homosexuals into heterosexuals. (They have been successful because most if not all homosexuals were probably born heterosexual.)

Dr. Reuben Fine, Director of the New York Center for Psychoanalytic Training: "It is paradoxical that even though the politically active homosexual group[s] denies the possibility of change, all studies from Schrenk-Notzing on have found positive effects, virtually regardless of the kind of treatment used....If the homosexual patients were motivated, whatever procedure [i.e., treatment] is adopted, a large percentage will give up their homosexuality."10

Those who oppose using therapy to change homosexuals into heterosexuals are, in effect, trying to keep homosexuals locked into homosexuality. Those who oppose such therapy do not want homosexuals to have a choice, a way out of homosexuality. That's un-American, inhumane, intolerant, and meanly oppressive.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia July 16, 2014 3:07 PM  

[FINAL]

In addition, considering all the solid scientific evidence that many homosexuals are mentally disturbed to one degree or another because of sexual abuse (or dysfunctional parents or other negative developmental influences many homosexuals experienced), it is clear that those psychiatrists and psychologists who say homosexuality should NOT be on the officially approved list of mental illnesses are seemingly incompetent malpractitioners. They appear to be more interested in being "politically correct" than in the truth. Incompetent malpractitioners should have their licenses to ply their professions revoked.

(A book written by Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, titled Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis, explains how the decision to remove homosexuality from the officially approved list of mental disorders was based on power politics and intimidation by homosexual groups NOT science.)

One last note: Homosexuals do not want you to know that many of them were sexually abused when young, because many people who were so abused go on to molest others. And homosexuals do not want you to know that they are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals are.11 (Note of clarification: While that is a fact, there is no proof at this time that it is because of their homosexuality, but rather because so many of them were sexually abused themselves.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia July 16, 2014 3:08 PM  

Footnotes at the linked web page.

Anonymous Facts July 16, 2014 3:22 PM  

Plus there is NAMBLA - run by gay men with the express purpose of legalizing child rape of boys.

And apparently getting influence and traction in places like SFWA and with certain other science fiction authors.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 16, 2014 4:11 PM  

Facts, my bad; I forgot that groups always favor the in-group sources over objective ones. If anyone would like a response to the Family Research Council, there's one here: http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/alvinmcewen/family-research-council-distorts-researchers-work-decade-after-he-demanded Perhaps most pertinent: "the fact that Dailey cited Groth is significant, not only because Groth’s work refutes one of the premises of Dailey’s study, but also because in 2002, Groth wrote a letter demanding that his work be removed from Dailey’s paper"

Blogger Will Shetterly July 16, 2014 4:13 PM  

Groth's actual research results: "my studies have indicated that homosexual males pose less risk of sexual harm to children (both male and female)—from both an absolute and a percentage incidence rate—than heterosexual males."

Blogger Will Shetterly July 16, 2014 4:20 PM  

Facts, as for your smeary "many attempts here to misdirect readers away from the NAMBLA agenda", please reread what I have actually said, and what VD has said in response to me. Maybe you think the only problem with pedophilia is NAMBLA. I think the problem is greater. If I played the way you do, I might imply that you think girls are fair prey for men, and therefore only object to preying on boys. Mind you, I will trust that you think it is also wrong to prey on girls, but really, you need to assume less when you read and pay attention to what is actually said. Since you're a fan of VD's, you might start with his "Learning to read: a new policy".

Blogger Will Shetterly July 16, 2014 4:25 PM  

Obviously, I disagree with VD on many things, but I rather like this phrase: "the idiotic practice of skimming until offended". It's all too common on the web, and it's practiced by people of every political position.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 16, 2014 4:26 PM  

Will Shetterly July 16, 2014 4:11 PM
I forgot that groups always favor the in-group sources over objective ones.



'objective ones'? you go immediately to something called "Alternet" which cites the SPLC as 'objective'? who is this Groth AND why are we supposed to assume that he is NOT biased?

we were told that Kinsey wasn't biased ... and yet, once we gain access to his underlying data, all of his 'research' is junk.

you beclown yourself far more effectively than i ever could.

Anonymous Facts July 16, 2014 4:27 PM  

Future readers can and will make up their own judgments.

Anonymous Facts July 16, 2014 4:30 PM  

"the idiotic practice of skimming until offended" like you did with FRC research?

Blogger Will Shetterly July 16, 2014 4:35 PM  

Facts, I have said that pedophilia creeps me the hell out any number of times; it's not hard for future readers to find. You clearly think sex between men and boys is wrong, as I do. Do you also think, as I do, that sex between men and girls is wrong?

Blogger Will Shetterly July 16, 2014 4:50 PM  

Bob K. Mando, if you follow the link, you will see that Groth is one of the people cited by the FRC's Timothy Dailey. To spell this out for you, Groth did the research, Dailey got it wrong, yet y'all prefer Dailey. Sigh. It's probably time for me to flounce, because when I'm debating people who prefer the distortion to the original, I must have something better to do.

If you care to know a little more about the FRC's history of distorting science, you could also read this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alvin-mcewen/the-family-research-counc_b_542008.html

“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Anonymous Facts July 16, 2014 4:54 PM  

If there was a pro-pedophile political group made up of heterosexual men trying to legalize the rape of 6 year old girls, then maybe you'd have a point. But alas, there is only gay NAMBLA and their gay political agenda, parts of which you are sympathetic to, no?

I will leave you to your desperate googling for "objective" sources that back your naked assertions and invalidate the multiple sources listed above by myself and King Conan.

Anonymous Facts July 16, 2014 4:59 PM  

“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

Is it a fact that SPLC and Alternet are "objective" sources -- or is this claim just your weasely opinion?

Blogger Will Shetterly July 16, 2014 5:08 PM  

Facts, why won't you go on record as saying that you think all forms of pedophilia are wrong? Do you approve of men preying on girls?

Yes, I am sympathetic to "the gay political agenda" or as I prefer to call it "equal rights". What consenting adults do is their own business.

Well, by the standards of the Minnesota goodbye, I get three responses after saying I'm going, but I hope I won't make use of any more.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 16, 2014 10:46 PM  

Will Shetterly July 16, 2014 4:50 PM
Bob K. Mando, if you follow the link, you will see that Groth is one of the people cited by the FRC's Timothy Dailey.



i understand that perfectly well.

Will Shetterly July 16, 2014 4:50 PM
To spell this out for you, Groth did the research, Dailey got it wrong,


to spell this out for you, Groth disagreeing with Dailey's interpretation of the facts does NOT mean what you 'think' it means.

Freud is often asserted to be the father of modern psychology and an 'objective researcher'. yet it has been proven that he falsified ( whether from whole cloth or simply exaggerating the beneficial results ) almost all of his research and results.

Michael Mann is asserted to be a good and objective researcher. yet every time anyone can get their hands on his ( or any other enviro organ ) raw data, we find gross abuses, arbitrary data exclusion, irrational 'smoothing', NOAA data stations which violate all standards for placement, etc, etc, etc.

'Secrets of the Temple' by William Greider ( who is nominally an 'objective' reporter with decades of experience in the field ) is filled with interesting data, facts and stories about the forming and functioning of the Federal Reserve.

however, Greider is also a committed socialist and Freudian and every time he shifts from 'reporting' to 'analysis' he immediately crashes off the rails into overt lunacy. as a fer instance, at different points in the book he equates money to feces and elsewhere he equates money to a penis symbol ( through Freudian psychology ). meaning, if you adhere to any logic at all, that your penis is equivalent to feces.

Groth and his research MAY be objective. Dailey MAY have abused data from Groth's work.

however, unless you can provide me with a Groth biography which demonstrates that he is neither marxist nor a Freudian i have no reason to make the assumption that he is any more objective than Kinsey, who also misrepresented much of his work.

IF you can point me to where Dailey MISQUOTES DATA from the Groth paper that would be sufficient in itself. but i'm not going to bother trying to data mine an overtly Leftist website trying to figure out if they've even made that assertion, much less whether they've proven it.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 17, 2014 12:18 AM  

"unless you can provide me with a Groth biography which demonstrates that he is neither marxist nor a Freudian"

Learn from everyone. Otherwise, you will only have available to you the material provided by the people who share your blinders. And lest you think I'm being hypocritical, note that I'm at VD's blog right now, and politically, he and I are about as far apart as I can imagine.

Really, you won't get cooties going to a "Leftist" site. There are leftists who think I've gotten cooties coming here, but they're also people who are afraid to venture outside the walls they've built for themselves.

Anonymous CorkyAgain July 17, 2014 12:47 AM  

It seems perfectly obvious to me that the reason certain people lash out against the Catholic Church whenever topics like pedophilia come up is because the Church is seen as the main source of opposition to such things.

It's a tu quoque, and an example of the Left's favorite tactic of accusing their opponents of hypocrisy.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 17, 2014 1:02 AM  

Facts, as for your smeary "many attempts here to misdirect readers away from the NAMBLA agenda", please reread what I have actually said...

For my part, while I'd prefer you be more demonstrative in your condemnation of NAMBLA, you certainly haven't been trying to distract anyone from the issue of pedophilia. You conducted an extensive interview with Delany that made it quite clear the guy is not to be trusted around kids, which is far more than almost anyone else on your side of the political aisle has done, so you get credit for that from me, at least.


Anonymous Rabbit July 18, 2014 12:46 AM  

Conan: Your article is crap. Firstly, the fact that trauma might cause homosexuality cannot be construed to mean that nobody can be born that way, any more than the fact that some people lose a limb due to accidents can be construed to mean that nobody is born missing limbs. Secondly, if homosexuality were due entire to abuse by pedophiles, there would not be homosexual behavior in animals. Thirdly, recognizing that some people might be born homosexuals does not equate to trying to ignore the sexual abuse of children, any more than recognizing that some people are born without limbs equates to trying to believe that nobody ever loses a limb in an accident. Lastly, your 'therapy' option (which is itself offered under the false assumption that nobody is born a homosexual) assumes that what has been done to them can be undone. There are a large number of psychological problems caused by abuse that can't be undone and operating under the assumption that they can is cruel.

Anonymous Bruce July 18, 2014 2:54 AM  

>"You might as well argue that all heterosexual men want to have sex with girls."

When I walk into the better sort of bar, I see 18-24 year old girls on the pole. What few gay bars I've been all had 9-14 year old boys dancing on the bar in disco shorts. Perhaps Will Shetterly's gay friends all prefer 18-24 year old Chippendales, and are so repulsed by younger stuff, that they lead him to think gay rights is easily separable from the ped stuff. Heinlein did not. Auden did not. Delaney does not. Give or take Blue Dogs, the Democratic Party does not. Perhaps all their moons are made of green cheese.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 18, 2014 10:49 AM  

Jack, thank you. Ultimately, I don't spend much time denouncing NAMBLA for the same reason I don't spend much time denouncing the Westboro Baptist Church: they're politically irrelevant, they're a symptom of a greater problem, and they crave attention.

Bruce: "What few gay bars I've been all had 9-14 year old boys dancing on the bar in disco shorts."

I've only been in a few gay bars with gay friends, so maybe someone set off the warning that a straight guy was coming and they hid everything that might upset me before I arrived. Still, not doubting that you have more experience with this sort of thing than I do, I've never seen underage people in gay bars. Where were these bars that had dancing children? Did you report them? Most states, and maybe all, have laws about bars, delinquency, and minors.

As for your notion about Democrats supporting pedophilia, citation, please.

Anonymous Bruce July 18, 2014 1:37 PM  

I've been in three gay bars that I know, Olongapo 1989, someplace in San Francisco in the eighties, someplace in Green Bay Wisconsin in the late nineties. I don't have great gaydar- the boys dancing on the bars were my clue. Report them to the NPA in Olongapo? Or to San Francisco police? Maybe, maybe in Green Bay, but you either make gay stuff legal or you don't. It wouldn't be hard for your gay friends to be nicer people than the gays I knew in the Navy. Or to leave the chicken rooms out of your visit.

As for D pro-peds, would you say Putin's view (gay stuff is ok, except for kids), was criticised by the US D establishment because of a) US/Russian friction, b) as but a cover for his evil homophobia, c) because you either make gay stuff legal or you don't? The law is an ass, and clumsy, and filled with inertia; sex scandals are either so icky no decent people can bear to think about them, so filled with swearing contests with obviously traumatized and therefore unreliable witnesses that no legal proof is possible, or so trivial no grownup cares. Generally all of the above at once. De minimis non curat lex. Heinlein had a point about Mrs Grundy. So we've made gay stuff legal, and ped stuff de facto legal with it, and Democrats believe it's progress.
Jerry Pournelle likes to bring up the time two US Congressmen were caught humping the teenage pages, D a boy, R a girl. R apologized and lost re-election, D said 'I like boys, screw y'all' and won. It's not just D clout in the media, it's D voters.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 18, 2014 2:34 PM  

Will Shetterly July 17, 2014 12:18 AM
Learn from everyone.



once i have established that someone is willfully lying, there is no longer any purpose in paying attention to them ... beyond keeping up with whatever lies they happen to be telling today.

i note well that you refused to address a SINGLE one of the 'objective researchers' who have been historically proven to be liars.

you want to 'learn' from those not in your corner? you may want to keep up with the Mann defamation case:
http://www.steynonline.com/6475/year-three-begins



Will Shetterly July 17, 2014 12:18 AM
Really, you won't get cooties going to a "Leftist" site.



OMG. yes Will, you are ever so superior to these blinkered conservatives. if only we would deign to remove our blindfolds, then we could see the world in it's true, vibrant colors!

because, you know, i have no idea what www.wsws.org is. nope, never been there, never used it for reference.

nor have i ever read The Iron Heel. nor commented on it's thematic similarities to Atlas Shrugged ( which was published 50 years after Heel ). hur dur.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 18, 2014 10:51 PM  

Bruce, that's not a citation; that's an opinion.

Bob, I did say there are blinkered lefties too. And more power to you for checking wsws.org! I'm a bit ashamed to admit I haven't gotten to The Iron Heel yet.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 18, 2014 10:53 PM  

Bruce, I forgot to say we do agree the law is a ass.

Anonymous Bruce July 19, 2014 2:57 AM  

Citation- Gerry Studds wiki page. Of course Blue Dogs are D too. Citation- Will Shetterly blog, Delany interview. Citation- really? Politics is pure scholarship purged of opinion now?

Blogger Will Shetterly July 19, 2014 10:22 AM  

Bruce, I'll probably address your other points when I have more time, but the reference to Gerry Studds make me check on him. Pedophilia is "a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children". Studds was "the first openly gay member of Congress. In 1983 he was censured by the House of Representatives after he admitted to an inappropriate relationship with a 17-year-old page". Sex with an underage person by the laws of some states, yes. Pedophilia, no.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 19, 2014 1:43 PM  

Bruce, here are the two key bits from your assertion: "What few gay bars I've been in all had 9-14 year old boys dancing on the bar in disco shorts. ... Give or take Blue Dogs, the Democratic Party does not." So really, cite an example of Democrats supporting sex with 9-14 year old boys. What you've done so far is along the line of "2+2=4 and oranges are fruits, so Democrats are wombats." The one example you offered of a Democrat who had sex with someone legally underage was with a 17 year old, not a "9-14 year old", and he was censured for it.

I'm a socialist, so I'm really not defending liberals. I object to bullshit claims about anyone, and I've called out socialists and liberals as well as conservatives for making unfounded assertions.

I'm also continuing to think your claim about visiting chickenhawk bars and not reporting them is odd, because I sure as hell would've. Where is it legal to have dancers under the age of 14 in bars?

Anonymous Bruce July 21, 2014 2:48 AM  

>"I object to bullshit claims about anyone."

My bullshit, green cheese moon, logically incoherent claim that you either make gay stuff legal or you don't, and ped stuff goes with it, is shared by Delany, Heinlein, WH Auden, and me. I'm the weak link all right- don't know the subject well, and it's icky. Delany, Auden, Heinlein, weren't icked out, and knew the subject.

I don't claim every D party member supports pedophilia. Between R and D, D is the pro-gay party. You don't think gay and ped go together, I (and Delany, and Auden, and etc) do. Stubbs was re-elected after he was censured. The people who voted for him supported his behavior. I certainly agree that doing someone a little underage isn't the same as full-on pedophilia.

"Where is it legal to have dancers under the age of 14 in bars?" Beats me. Might even be technically illegal in Bangkok now. Might have been illegal in Olongopo in 1989, or San Fran, or Green Bay. Olongopo was an extreme case, irrelevant to the US situation; the NPA ran the fighting pimps unless the oligarchs did. Like Tombstone under the Earp clan and the rustlers. No real rule of law about much else either. I get that you see my view (and Delany's, and Auden's, etc) as a gross insult to lots of decent people who are gay and abominate pedophilia.

It's been a long comments section, and I appreciate your patience with my bullshit.

Blogger Will Shetterly July 21, 2014 9:31 AM  

Your last line made me grin.

I will never understand why some human beings can't see a difference between sex with adults and sex with children, but I suppose that's why pedophilia exists.

The Republicans have the Log Cabin Republicans, who are the most effective gay political group I know of. They ended DADT, after all.

Well, I've overextended the Minnesota Goodbye, so maybe this'll be it. Peace.

Anonymous Rick Moen July 23, 2014 12:04 AM  

Mr. Beale, thank you for the kind comments about my wife Deirdre Saoirse Moen, whom I likewise hold in high eteem on grounds of good character among other sterling qualities (though I might be biased). One very small correction: I'm the Moen. Deirdre's surname is 'Saorise Moen', though she's welcome to be Moen any time she wishes, and Clan Moen's glad to have her under any surname including a double-barreled Hiberno-Scandinavian one.

Regards,
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Anonymous Rick Moen July 23, 2014 12:40 AM  

I really ought to be able to type 'Saoirse Moen' after all these years, shouldn't I? Not to mention 'esteem'. Plainly I should not type in such a hurry.

Regards,
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts