ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, May 10, 2015

We're not fighting fire with fire

We're fighting fire with artillery. Joshua W. Herring claims that we don't understand moderates like him, while at the same time completely failing to understand the Rabid Puppies or our objectives:
That completely misunderstands the reason that we (that is, those of us who have some sympathy for the Sad Puppies but almost none for the Rabid Puppies) advocate tolerance for the SJW crowd.

We are not under any delusions about how SJWs act. We’ve seen all the same evidence you have. It’s QUITE clear that the a great many feminism and/or "diversity" and/or gay rights activists don’t give a fig about tolerance or inclusiveness. Tolerance and inclusiveness are just tools they use to get what they really want; they aren’t virtues for them.

Thing is: they are for us.

It’s always the same problem with Vox. He claims to want to live and let live, but there’s never any evidence of it. And it’s always the same excuse: "they" won’t play nice, so why should he? This is sensible enough if reserved for extreme cases, but when absolutely every post on his blog that deals with SJWs is about the need to deny them a seat, the line between their tactics and his becomes impossible to draw.

Here’s the rub: if somebody doesn’t start playing nice, it just never happens.

And here’s the question: do you think it will be the SJWs who start playing nice? It won’t. We know that from all past experience. So, as the addage goes, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.

If you want tolerance and inclusiveness, you start by being tolerant and inclusive. It’s not that it doesn’t matter that "they" aren’t tolerant and inclusive, because obviously it would be nicer if they were. The fact that they’re not makes our job a lot harder. But our job is still to get to a community that’s tolerant and inclusive, and you just can’t do that with purges.
Who said anything about tolerance or inclusiveness? Our job is not to get to a community that is tolerant or inclusive. Our job, our duty, our calling, is to destroy SJWs and SJW ideology. We are not part of the Worldcon community. We don't support tolerance of SJWs. We don't support the inclusion of SJWs. We intend to destroy their influence and their ideology and to render the latter as popular and as viable in science fiction as National Socialism in Israel today.

I will not "live and let live" with SJWs for the obvious reason that it is not possible for anyone to live and let live with them. You cannot live and let live with anyone whose ideology is totalitarian, who genuinely believe they have a right to tell you what is, and what is not, okay for you to think, write, and say. You cannot compromise with anyone who believes they have a self-appointed right to dictate what others read, what others write, what others review, and what others publish. You cannot be tolerant of those who claim the right to decide what is "problematic" and what is "unacceptable" and what "there is no place for" in science fiction.

They have, somewhat successfully, established an Index Informatorum Prohibitorum that declares what ideas there are "no place for" in science fiction. You cannot teach them by example, any more than you can apologize to them and expect them to take it for what it is and accept it rather than take it as an admission of weakness and use it as a weapon against you. The Index, and its inquisitors, must be destroyed.

We will relentlessly oppose them. We will ruthlessly humiliate them. We will harry them and make their miserable lives even more miserable until they completely abandon their totalitarian ideology. Because they cannot leave others alone, we will not leave them alone. And we will win in the end.

We will never play nice with them. We will destroy every last vestige of their pernicious ideology. I have no problem with writers of the left who wish to write anti-X, but I am at war with SJW writers who claim that there is no place in science fiction for anyone writing X. And I don't care what X is, substitute the intellectual bugaboo of your choice there, whether it is racism, communism, misogyny, misandry, anti-Eskimoism, Eskimo supremacy, or anything else.

Like all moderates, Herring completely fails to understand how to accomplish anything but Noble Defeat and Losing the Right Way. Tolerance of totalitarianism is not a virtue, it is surrender. Accepting the inclusion of SJW entryists is not virtuous, it is submission. And while tolerance and inclusiveness may be virtues in the eyes of the moderates, we view them as little more than necessary evils that are not always possible.

The significant point is this: SJWs ARE the extreme case. Which is why the Rabid Puppy position is the sensible one.

As long as SJW ideology is accepted in mainstream SF/F and SJWs are welcome in their castle, we will besiege the walls. The non-SJWs in science fiction can either go down fighting us in the interest of a cause they theoretically oppose or they can cast out the ideologists and return to the Ellisonian concept of SF being a place where dangerous ideas are welcome again. All dangerous ideas, no matter how offensive they are to anyone.

And they can't cast us out because we reject their community in its presently diseased state and want no part of it until the SJW cancer is excised. An SJW is anyone who believes that the quality of a message's delivery vehicle can be judged primarily by the content of the message. An SJW is anyone who believes that any idea is intrinsically "problematic", "not okay", "unacceptable", or that there is "no place in science fiction" for a particular idea or individual accused of harboring that idea.

An SJW is an individual who fundamentally rejects the Ellisonian vision of science fiction as a place that welcomes dangerous ideas. All dangerous ideas.

For example, if you think there is no place for racism in science fiction, you are an SJW. It is no different than if you think there is no place for atheism or for women in science fiction. Either all ideas, however controversial, are welcome and legitimate, or the science fiction community is engaged in a straightforward power struggle to determine whose morals will be imposed on everyone else in the field.

Science fiction can either reject the SJW ideology and abandon all the imposed diversity thought-policing or accept a long and vicious war over which moral code shall be law. Rabid Puppies is presenting the SF community with two choices: either embrace and defend the idea of complete intellectual freedom in science fiction or fight us over the shape of the Science Fiction Code Authority of the future.

And everyone should understand that we Rabid Puppies will never, ever accept, under any circumstances, the ongoing SJW attempt to impose their code on everyone. That is not an option.

Labels: ,

200 Comments:

Blogger M. Bibliophile May 10, 2015 5:55 AM  

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

It just seems so familiar...

Blogger Sean May 10, 2015 6:02 AM  

Another area I think that he gets wrong is that I don't ever recall Vox preemptively going after anyone. His actions usually follow an initial,m and often repeated offenses. So in that way, my experience over the years is that Vox is very much a live and let live type.

And is tolerance really a virtue that we would want to keep? Tolerence in the modern sense really means acceptance. And if one wants to stay on the moral high ground, like this gentleman seems to want to do, acceptance of the SJW viewpoint should have no place in your heart because their viewpoint is hatred. I can think of no reference in the scriptures where we are told to put Satan's point of view on an equal plane as God's,

Blogger HickoryHammer #0211 May 10, 2015 6:23 AM  

The SJWs will no doubt start playing nice, and they will no doubt be sincere about it. It isn't going to happen until they are pushed nose to nose with oblivion though, and that's what were here to do. No mercy, no moderates.

Blogger Krul May 10, 2015 6:33 AM  

Two things:

1) Herring believes that "tolerance and inclusiveness" are virtues. In so doing he accepts that SJW equalitarian ideology is essentially true, but avoids being an SJW himself by pointing out the exclusiveness and intolerance of SJW practices. In other words, the SJW's are right in what they say about tolerance and inclusiveness, but they don't really mean it, while Herring and his fellow moderates really do mean it.

This is why moderates can't win. By accepting the truth of their enemies' stated position, they give away the game at the outset.

2) Herring wants to "play nice" with the SJWs. Of course we want to destroy them utterly by exposing them to the harsh light of reason that obliterates all lies and all liars, but Herring apparently doesn't even want to win. He just wants to "play nice". Well if that's the way he wants it, I'll simply recall such examples as Brendan Eich and the Masterpiece Cakeshop and mention that turnabout is fair play.

Blogger Salt May 10, 2015 6:34 AM  

So if we can’t crush them, and we know that they’ll never turn over a new leaf (at least, not any time soon), then how do we win? Unfortuantely, the answer to that is a little disheartening: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Sorry, folks, but there’s no other way

Who says they can't be crushed? We've been lax on that vigilence. They're inside the gates.

You can’t just banish your enemies and live happily ever after in Galt’s Gultch.

You can't? News to me. Joshua is the dangerous type. He'll compromise himself all the way into the gulag.

Liberty isn’t achievable in a neat "final solution."

Right. Like the cartoon from yesterday. Gas and a torch makes one hell of a mess.

Blogger Jew613 May 10, 2015 6:43 AM  

So Herring's solution is to embrace tactics that have failed for the past few centuries? What is it about moderates and their utter inability to actual learn from experience. There is nothing noble in being a loser, and its better to sink to your enemies level then 6 feet lower.

Blogger Salt May 10, 2015 6:51 AM  

What is it about moderates and their utter inability to actual learn from experience

Moderates suffer a watered down version of feelbad. Learning from experience means rejecting what doesn't for what does. Since they do not wish to be rejected themselves, they cannot reject even if experience says they should.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 10, 2015 7:03 AM  

For example, if you think there is no place for racism in science fiction, you are an SJW.

This is a rather vague statement. So if I believe it's only place is as a refutation to your ideas on race, am I an SJW? What exactly do you mean by having a place?

Anonymous zen0 May 10, 2015 7:06 AM  

The SJW process and the process used by Islam to insinuate itself into Western culture are similar, if not identical.

The tolerance that enables the empowerment of intolerance is inherently contradictory and self defeating.

Here’s the rub: if somebody doesn’t start playing nice, it just never happens.

What is this? A schoolyard?


Blogger VD May 10, 2015 7:15 AM  

What exactly do you mean by having a place?

Exactly the same thing that SJWs mean when they say "there is no place in science fiction for racism". For example, would you criticize a publishing house for publishing a racist book or an openly racist author? Would you argue that a novel should not receive an award because it is written by a racist or contains a racist hero?

Then you are an SJW. Substitute anything for "racist" and you will see my point. If we can declare that there is "no place" for racism, then we can just as easily assert that there is "no place" for capitalism, for Mahomatanism, for atheism, and an almost infinite set of ideas. You happen to find that particular idea offensive, others find other ideas equally offensive.

So if I believe it's only place is as a refutation to your ideas on race, am I an SJW?

Obviously. What other ideas are you willing to declare are similarly impermissible to science fiction. Homosexuality? Neo-Keynesianism? Atheism? Do tell.

Blogger rcocean May 10, 2015 7:16 AM  

Like most moderates, their moderation is always directed at the non-SJW, right side of the spectrum. Did Herring ever attack the SJW's for extremism - before the puppies came along? "Moderates" are full of people who just want to "peacemakers" they always feel themselves to be "the only adult in the room" the wise old grey beard who's going to get all those squabbling kids to get along.

Blogger rcocean May 10, 2015 7:19 AM  

LImbaugh points out the same phenomena in US politics. When the Democrats/liberals attack Republican/Conservatives on a daily basis, calling them racist/bigot/homophobes, the "Moderates" don't care. However, if the Republican/Conservatives return fire, the "Moderates" get all upset and start asking for peace and quiet, and to stop the name calling and fighting.

Anonymous farmer Tom May 10, 2015 7:23 AM  

Moderates want an negotiated compromise.

It's not possible.

Col. Ralph Peters--

"Negotiations... are the opium of the intellectual class.... Negotiations don't work with fanatics."

Blogger rcocean May 10, 2015 7:23 AM  

I'm an SJW. I feel there's no place in SF for phrases like "Bob, you owe me a blow job"

Anonymous Thobby (#58) May 10, 2015 7:25 AM  

>>Here’s the rub: if somebody doesn’t start playing nice, it just never happens.

>What is this? A schoolyard?

It doesn't work there either. I know. I listened to my mother and tried it.

Let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin with them; I've done my time.

Blogger Rantor May 10, 2015 7:33 AM  

The truth is the only moral high-ground. Anyone wanting to deny the truth is therefore immoral. In the end Christianity is that simple, Christ doesn't allow for shades of grey. Accept Christ or be damned. The fight is against principalities of darkness who masquerade as bringers of light, but the only light they have are the red glowing embers of hell.

Happy Lord's day everyone. Be faithful and of good cheer for our God is the only one that lives.

Anonymous The Original Hermit May 10, 2015 7:33 AM  

"There are going to be murderers and thieves for the foreseeable future. Some of them will even get away with it. That’s what life in an imperfect world entails. "

But. .. we know exactly where the murderers and thieves live. This isn't law and order where we have to follow protocol and do our best to find them. They're right in front of us, targets sighted. And some people just need killing.

Blogger Cataline Sergius May 10, 2015 7:37 AM  

The moderates can't seem to grasp the concept that you do not give a crazy person a seat at the table.

There is no point in accommodating a point of view, that has no basis in reality.

They've taken too much from us already. One of the few advantages we have, is that thanks to Twitter, the mask is off. We can all see just how damaged they actually are.

A while back I fisked a piece on Sad Puppies by Amanda Marcotte. I deliberately aped her style. I am not proud of it and I felt dirty afterward. However, the only comment I got was from a man, admonishing me for not playing nice with Amanda Marcotte. Good Lord, we are talking about Amanda Marcotte here. Look my blog is basically unread. I am declaiming before an empty well of the comitia there is only one member in my audience and he is a moderate chastising ME for being mean to an insane harpy.

Civilization is falling, it's time for the moderates to shit or get off the pot.

Blogger rcocean May 10, 2015 7:40 AM  

"Somebody has to play nice" - when was that advice ever given to the SJW bullies? Nope as long as they SJW bullies were beating up kids for their lunch money, the "Moderates" were OK with it. Now, that some kids are fighting back, its "Play nice".

Blogger Bogey May 10, 2015 7:41 AM  

Science fiction was pretty tolerant of the extreme left, now look where we are.

"Then you are an SJW. Substitute anything for "racist" and you will see my point."

I was about to insert something that was pretty controversial than I realized that there was a famous writer by the name of Vladimir Nabokov who did a book on that very same controversial subject. Granted he wasn't condoning it but rather spoofing Charles Chaplin.

Blogger JACIII May 10, 2015 7:45 AM  

Ideological moderates, not the ones withholding judgment for further data, are some of those susceptible to the emotional tug of rhetoric.

It's a feminine mindset: ignoring the probability of peril as long as possible to avoid entertaining a uncomfortable thought.

To many, inclusiveness and tolerance are comfortable concepts and when the serpent mouths them moderates use it for cover so they can put off having to deal with the viper in their midst.

The SJWs can boil that frog all day and won't even need to go easy as they increase the flame.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 10, 2015 7:45 AM  

For example, would you criticize a publishing house for publishing a racist book or an openly racist author? Would you argue that a novel should not receive an award because it is written by a racist or contains a racist hero?

Possibly to the first part of the first question; no to the second part. No to the second question. 1 out of 4, am I an SJW?

You happen to find that particular idea offensive, others find other ideas equally offensive.

I don't find your ideas on race to be offensive at all. I merely think they're wrong and a little stupid.

What other ideas are you willing to declare are similarly impermissible to science fiction. Homosexuality? Neo-Keynesianism? Atheism? Do tell.

By permissible, you've indicated beyond criticism as outlined above. Is criticism impermissible to science-fiction?

Blogger Bogey May 10, 2015 7:46 AM  

"We can all see just how damaged they actually are."

No kidding, every time I see Brianna Wu I think of what a damaged person she must be.

Blogger HickoryHammer #0211 May 10, 2015 7:47 AM  


Obviously. What other ideas are you willing to declare are similarly impermissible to science fiction. Homosexuality? Neo-Keynesianism? Atheism? Do tell.

They never admit their more controversial "bannable intellectual offenses" publicly. You'll only find out once they take control of a system or discipline. One thing's for sure, they are totallarian scum.

Blogger HickoryHammer #0211 May 10, 2015 7:49 AM  

They aren't opposed to racism per se either. They hate white men 100%.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge©2015 May 10, 2015 7:50 AM  

Two points
1. Quarantine a leper and bury the dead/ just don't pretend they aren't lepers or corpses.
2. All Islam is bad. There's nothing to tolerate.

Good post

Blogger Salt May 10, 2015 7:52 AM  

No kidding, every time I see Brianna Wu I think of what a damaged person she must be

According to biological science, you're having a gender identification issue with your pronouns.

Blogger Krul May 10, 2015 7:54 AM  

NorthernHamlet - "By permissible, you've indicated beyond criticism as outlined above."

*sigh*

Anonymous The Original Hermit May 10, 2015 8:01 AM  

For the nuance impaired, it's entirely consistent to say: "I like the story it was well written, but I don't like the message, however I will give ita good rating" and "u don't like the story or the message;, I will rate it poorly but Iwon't criticize the publisher for publishing it, they can publish whatever they want. "

Anonymous Gary May 10, 2015 8:03 AM  

This reminds me of an analogy.

Liberal politicians effectively define compromise as republicans throwing away their principles. When is the last time you heard of a liberal compromising their principles? Aside from the fact they have none.

Never.

SJW are a cancer to be opposed, exposed and rooted out at every opportunity. Do not give them an inch as they will knife you in a millisecond. I take great pleasure at black knighting and subtly undermining them whenever a chance presents itself.

Blogger VD May 10, 2015 8:03 AM  

"Possibly to the first part of the first question; no to the second part. No to the second question. 1 out of 4, am I an SJW?

I don't think so. You're just inconsistent, with some mild inclinations toward SJW ideology. That's normal enough.
I don't find your ideas on race to be offensive at all. I merely think they're wrong and a little stupid.

That's reasonable and not at all SJW.

By permissible, you've indicated beyond criticism as outlined above. Is criticism impermissible to science-fiction?

No, I have not. Criticism of the idea is permissible, indeed, encouraged. Attacking the legitimacy of expressing the idea, the right to express the idea, or the author for holding the idea goes well beyond criticism into attempted thought policing.

The rule is very simple. Do unto others' ideas as you would have done unto your own.

Blogger Remo - Vile Faceless Minion #99 May 10, 2015 8:03 AM  

Don't confuse being intolerant for simply not liking a book. I read the Turner Diaries years ago and I didn't like it because I thought the main character to be shallow, the plot unrealistic, the writing sub-par, and the world the author created to be unrealistic with stupid characters who would never act the way they did given the situation. I wouldn't give that book an award and I would vote against it *not* because its an offensive racist piece (which it certainly is) but because its a badly written book. We can all still thoroughly dislike books that are garbage without them having to be racist and vice-versa. This is a freedom an SJW isn't permitted.

Blogger Harsh May 10, 2015 8:08 AM  

By permissible, you've indicated beyond criticism as outlined above. Is criticism impermissible to science-fiction?

You're dangerously close to going full Owen.

Blogger James Sullivan May 10, 2015 8:10 AM  

"What is it about moderates and their utter inability to actual learn from experience."

Most moderates are cowards, pure and simple. A number of people here have used the schoolyard bully example and it's true.

Moderates aren't tolerant and accepting. They have as many biases and "triggers" (man, I hate that term) as anyone else. But they instinctively react with fear to bullies of any kind because they figure it could easily be them being victimized.

All they know is, they aren't the victim yet and if they just keep appeasing the bully, they won't be. Think "A Christmas Story". Did Ralphie's friends and school mates lift a hand to help Ralphie's when he'd had enough of Scut Farkas? Nope. Cowards, even when the bully is on the ground or on the run. Because they never know when he is going to return.

Only cowards would react so instinctively to such a minority amongst them. Bullies are usually outnumbered 10-1 or more. Cowardice is the bully's greatest weapon.

Blogger Bro. Longtail May 10, 2015 8:19 AM  

Winston,

This post was your 'We will fight them on the beaches," speech. Made me shed a tear and want to reach for my Army-issue machine gun (which I don't own, it was rhetorical, if the NSA are spying on this thread.)

Blogger James Dixon May 10, 2015 8:21 AM  

> We are not part of the Worldcon community.

Well, that's the worst of it. I am, as is Meredith. We're long time convention goers and have attended probably a dozen or more conventions over the years. Never Worldcon, simply because it's usually too far away and too expensive. But that's been a matter of time an money, not desire.

I wasn't lying when I said it was my award. I'll be 57 in a few months. I started reading SF&F when I was 11 or 12 (Heinlein and Norton). I went to my first convention at 19 or so. It was mine before most of the SJW's were born.

But Vox is right. The current struggle for the soul of SF&F allows no compromise. If the SJW's have their way, the only solution now will be to burn it to the ground.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 10, 2015 8:23 AM  

The rule is very simple. Do unto others' ideas as you would have done unto your own.

I hear your point... However, I have no issue with anyone that offers criticism for an instituition's decision to more broadly disseminate my ideas.

If we may continue a moment longer:
What about criticizing, for disseminating literary and uncivilized shit, whoever the Hell published Twilight?

Blogger Iowahine May 10, 2015 8:26 AM  

Why "an social?"

Blogger Iowahine May 10, 2015 8:26 AM  

Why "an social?"

Anonymous clk May 10, 2015 8:30 AM  

We are still talking about scifi books and video games right ?

Anonymous Stingray May 10, 2015 8:31 AM  

I suddenly heard Do You Hear the People Sing? while reading this.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 10, 2015 8:35 AM  

I have a question. That nobody has a right to tell anybody what to do is somewhat problematic. Isn't the SF field similar to the video-gaming industry. Vox said as a game developer that gamers should be able to create games that they want to create. I want to tie this into the SF debate here. I do not play video games and have not. What I want to do is bring up "Grand Theft Auto". This game is about robbing, murder, and other immoral activities.

In 1950's America, there was a board that oversaw Holywood productions. Under Christendom, there were censors that served both the monarchies and the Catholic Church. The Church has a saying, "Error has no right". Under both of these circumstances, Grand Theft Auto would have never been made.

Socrates argument against the Sophists was that they taught anybody anything without concern for the Telos or the effect. Essentially, the sophists taught things without Virtue; they were amoral. Socrates said that the poets ought to be censored. You can insert "gamer" and "SF writer" in that category. For Christians, we can not create things that are not connected to Christian morality.

So I am not sure about this stance. If we think into the future, in the reconstruction of Western society, are we to travel down the same path. Good and Evil are both totalitarin. You can't walk down the middle of these two. It is impossible. "Error has no right". The truth of this is in the saying "One bad apple destroys the bushel". That is an observation of wisdom. Evil corrupts. I believe peoples' stances need some tweaking or amelioration.

Blogger Iowahine May 10, 2015 8:35 AM  

It isn't about criticism; it's about advocating/agitating for and/or insisting upon the pre-emptive silencing (i.e., preventing dissemination of ideas) by the gatekeepers based on right or wrongness of idea, or the ideological position/identity of the author - as deemed by the gatekeepers.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 10, 2015 8:44 AM  

JACIII has if right, I would add that conservatives follow the model of Old Papa placating momma as she slides into spinning hamster wheel oblivion.

Can you battle Moderates with logic and reason, perhaps on a secondary level, the first level that must be made clear is that they will be responsible for the actions of the damaged radicals that they cover for in whatever debate.

Herring or whatever his name is must first and foremost be held responsible for allowing the SJW to be their idiot evil totalitarian selves.

Anonymous Sensei May 10, 2015 8:58 AM  

SJWism is a mind virus which can infect anyone. An infected individual needs to be cured or quarantined. What Herring is arguing boils down on some levels to the argument that we should allow Ebola-infected individuals into our homes, because if someone doesn't take the risky first step, they'll be homeless. Indeed they will, and that is a tragedy, but not the catastrophic tragedy that rampant Ebola would be.

Compassion cannot be simply abandoned by believers, but it's hard to help someone who won't be helped. If only there was a sort of mental quarantine in which one could place SJWs and see which ones showed potential for recovery...

Anonymous CunningDove May 10, 2015 9:10 AM  

Every single time I read something from these moderates about tolerance, I have this though:

The Background

The Evil Empire

The Illustration of this Idea

Blogger VD May 10, 2015 9:12 AM  

What about criticizing, for disseminating literary and uncivilized shit, whoever the Hell published Twilight?

There will always be bad books and people who like to read them. Why would you ever criticize a publisher for selling bad books to people who want to read them unless you want to control what they publish?

You seem intent on trying to discern some objective line between SJW and not-SJW. But at the end of the day, it comes down to your heart. Are you trying to control another human being's simple self-expression or not? And that is what we oppose.

Blogger Nate May 10, 2015 9:13 AM  

"Here’s the rub: if somebody doesn’t start playing nice, it just never happens."

/facepalm

Blogger Jim May 10, 2015 9:15 AM  

Moderates of good faith suffer from one of the same psychological habits that is endemic in SJW populations: projection. Just as the SJW sees everything as racist and misogynistic because they are incapable of understanding how anyone cannot be those things, so MoGFs project their basic decency onto the SJWs. Because the MoGFs would be swayed by kind words and compromise, they believe the SJWs will be as well.

And indeed, the SJWs are swayed. Right up until the MoGFs have served their purpose. Then the SJWs line them up against the wall. You just need to read about pretty much any of the many "democratic" revolutions in the 20th Century to see that dynamic play out.

Anonymous CunningDove May 10, 2015 9:16 AM  

Every single time I read something from these moderates about tolerance, I have this though:

The Evil Empire

The Illustration of this Idea

Blogger Nate May 10, 2015 9:22 AM  

This moderate response reminds me of the moderate response to the diaperhead shooting in texas.

"look we know the muslims aren't going to play nice! but if someone doesn't start playing nice it will never happen!"

See if we would just be nice the goatfucking ragheads totally would learn from our example.

SJWs have an eastern mindset when it comes to authority.

Anonymous PA May 10, 2015 9:23 AM  

- "You cannot live and let live with anyone whose ideology is totalitarian, who genuinely believe they have a right to tell you what is, and what is not, okay for you to think, write, and say."

Bravo.

Blogger Nate May 10, 2015 9:29 AM  

The amazing thing here... is everyone talks about how crazy we are... and how there is no place for us in a polite society... and how we're just bad bad bad and just so unreasonable...

And yet... we're the ones they are asking to play nice... because everyone knows that the SJWs can't be reasoned with.

OpenID douzeper20 May 10, 2015 9:29 AM  

@Mr. Wheeler no offense intended, are you Puritan? It's erroneous to assume that western morality is purely a christian construct, for this cheats due credit from the foundations of exceptionalism that the modern church has done its best to displace. Censorship is an extremely slippery slope, and, looking to Bradbury, if allowed to spread its ugly wings, will gladly wipe out everything of value. Criticism on the other hand, for example letting people know that you disapprove of these games and why, will allow another to make a semi-informed decision. To attempt to censor/redact/prevent-from-being-published a game because it fits your personal criteria for badthink would be doing the exact thing that is being done by the SJWs.

Blogger Sam Hall May 10, 2015 9:34 AM  

W.LindsayWheeler
" For Christians, we can not create things that are not connected to Christian morality. "

That is fine as long as you don't try to force other people to that standard.

Anonymous RS May 10, 2015 9:39 AM  

Anyone else find it weird that Wheeler almost always quotes pagan philosophers in support of Christian totalitarianism?

Blogger Nate May 10, 2015 9:41 AM  

Look people this isn't that hard. Its not about what you write. Its about what you do.

if author A and Publisher A wants to write and publish a book where the protagonist is an SJW who saves the world from evil not-SJWs which awesome snark double-plus witty wit.. that's fine. Rabid Puppies has no quarrel with this. We will laugh about it. But we're not going to attack anyone over it. After all... these books have been written for 4 decades now... and we have a 4 decade track record of not attacking them.

Now... if Author B and Publisher B want to get together and decide that they are only going to print SJW works.. and they will only hire SJW people... and they will make sure only SJW works win awards and get any press...

Well that's different.

Author A and Publisher A are not Rabid Puppy Targets.

Author B and Publisher B are Rabid Puppy Targets.


Are we clear now? Does anyone still have questions about this?

Blogger Cail Corishev May 10, 2015 9:42 AM  

You can't live and left live with evil. You can't compromise with it. You can't invite evil under your big tent and say, "It's okay, we'll have plenty of good over here and some evil over there and it'll all work out fine."

Now, I wouldn't say that every person on the SJW side is evil, but SJWism is evil. Its ends are evil, and it does evil deeds along the way.

And because someone will say we respond with evil: no. We respond with justice. Self-defense is not evil, nor is righting wrongs that have been done. If Vox destroys the career of that guy who dishonestly interviewed him, that's not evil, that's justice in response to evil.

If you can't tell the tactics apart, so what? Could you have looked at the tactics of a Crusader/Moslem battle and known who the good guys were? Of course not, swinging a sword and shooting arrows looks the same on both sides. Battle tactics have nothing to do with who's right; you have to look at causes to find that. Why is the battle happening, why now, why here?

OpenID mattse001 May 10, 2015 9:43 AM  

IMO, this is the essence of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I would assume Rabid/Sad Puppies will be attacked using the same methods as Israel/United States are attacked.
There can be no compromise with unreasonable people.

Blogger Jim May 10, 2015 9:44 AM  

Now... if Author B and Publisher B want to get together and decide that they are only going to print SJW works.. and they will only hire SJW people... and they will make sure only SJW works win awards and get any press...

For me, only the last one is the intolerable sin. People can do whatever they want in their little cliques. It's when they try to impose their cliquish rules on everyone else that they need to start losing teeth.

Anonymous clk May 10, 2015 9:47 AM  

"That is fine as long as you don't try to force other people to that standard."

So pious puppies is a non starter ?....

Blogger Cail Corishev May 10, 2015 9:51 AM  

If you want tolerance and inclusiveness, you start by being tolerant and inclusive. It’s not that it doesn’t matter that "they" aren’t tolerant and inclusive, because obviously it would be nicer if they were.

He recognizes that he's making a logical leap here, but he goes ahead and makes it because emotionally he can do nothing else. He knows they will never play nice, but thinks we should, because.... It's underpants gnomes:

1. We play nice.
2. ????
3. Peace!

He just hopes that if we play nice, they'll come around, even though he sees no evidence that that would happen. But admitting that there are some situations that have no peaceful solution through dialogue would be worse for a Nice Guy moderate than being illogical, so illogic it is.

Anonymous Chuckles May 10, 2015 9:58 AM  

'If you want tolerance and inclusiveness, you start by being tolerant and inclusive. It’s not that it doesn’t matter that "they" aren’t tolerant and inclusive, because obviously it would be nicer if they were. The fact that they’re not makes our job a lot harder. But our job is still to get to a community that’s tolerant and inclusive, and you just can’t do that with purges.'

Then I suggest that Joshua Herring starts by extending this approach to Vox and the Rabid Puppies as well as his beloved SJWs?

Blogger Masha K. May 10, 2015 9:58 AM  

Oh cripes. Did this guy advocate unilateral nuclear disarmament back during the Cold War? Or perhaps he supports Diane Feinstein's statement that when a criminal sees you're unarmed, he would put down his own gun? Because that's how "someone has to start being nice" reads to me.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 10, 2015 9:59 AM  

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Yes, can anyone think of a case where Jesus (or God in the Old Testament) "played nice" with an unrepentant sinner to try to entice him into goodness, or at least less evil?

Ignorant modernist Christians think Jesus just walked around healing and forgiving everyone, but that's not the case. He spent a lot of time condemning and talking about the fires of Hell and eyes of needles and so forth. He healed and forgave when people were already repentant and begging for it. Bring us a truly repentant former SJW, and you'll see the same thing here.

Blogger Salt May 10, 2015 10:03 AM  

From the film, Patton

We're not just going to shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads on our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun bastards by the bushel.

That is the flavor of the fight.

Blogger Nate May 10, 2015 10:10 AM  

"For me, only the last one is the intolerable sin. People can do whatever they want in their little cliques. It's when they try to impose their cliquish rules on everyone else that they need to start losing teeth."

Do note the use of the word "and" and not "or".

Those little distinctions make all the difference.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 10, 2015 10:12 AM  

What is this? A schoolyard?

That's part of the problem: yes it is. Because SJWs are such mealy-mouthed, weak personalities, and the guys on our side tend to be tough and confident, as soon as we land one punch, we look like the bullies to a moderate.

I've said this before, but a moderate observer is like the teacher who comes upon a fight just as the bigger kid knocks the smaller kid down -- it doesn't matter that the smaller kid has been calling the bigger kid names for months and getting his friends to gang up on him so they can kick him in the back of the shins until he bleeds. It doesn't matter that the smaller kid beat up the big kid's little sister yesterday and keeps putting itching powder in his jock strap. All that matters is "Strong Just Hit Weak" and that's wrong, so the teacher/moderate feeeeels the need to protect the weak from the strong. Nothing to do with justice or right; it's simply an emotional reaction.

To continue with my recent "It's all in Atlas Shrugged" theme, read any of the parts where Rearden thinks about how his family treats him, and how it doesn't matter because they're weak and he's strong, so he can take it. He has his own built-in moderate keeping him from objecting, until he finally realizes that mercy in the service of injustice is no virtue.

Blogger HickoryHammer #0211 May 10, 2015 10:13 AM  

Now, I wouldn't say that every person on the SJW side is evil, but SJWism is evil. Its ends are evil, and it does evil deeds along the way.

And because someone will say we respond with evil: no. We respond with justice. Self-defense is not evil, nor is righting wrongs that have been done. If Vox destroys the career of that guy who dishonestly interviewed him, that's not evil, that's justice in response to evil.

If you can't tell the tactics apart, so what? Could you have looked at the tactics of a Crusader/Moslem battle and known who the good guys were? Of course not, swinging a sword and shooting arrows looks the same on both sides. Battle tactics have nothing to do with who's right; you have to look at causes to find that.


All of this, and then some! The fact is that the SJW set won most of the culture war already for the last generation. Right now they are setting up the apparatus to crush dissenting opinions everywhere. Time for the care bare Christian brigade to step back and let some of the more worldly members of the tribe take up the fight, before they end up shackled slaves baking gay wedding cakes all day in a gulag somewhere. If you start complaining about Grand Theft Auto in a country where there have been 50million abortions in the last 40 years, you're the one with a priority problem. You already lost your portion of the war... it's over. Don't expect us to step aside and lose ours because it hurts your feelings.

Blogger 8to12 May 10, 2015 10:20 AM  

The unstated premise of his comments is: If we start playing nice, they they will start playing nice.

That premise is flawed. It assumes they are rational people who are willing to compromise. They aren't.

This is the same mistake the GOP makes with Democrats, conservatives make with the left, the left makes with Islam, and Chamberlain made with Hitler. Ideologues (be it Democrats, the left, Islam, or Hitler) don't want to find a middle ground. They want what they want.

Blogger FALPhil May 10, 2015 10:24 AM  

We will laugh about it. But we're not going to attack anyone over it.

Nate, I am pretty sure they would take our laughing as an attack. For them, it is a religious issue.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 10, 2015 10:24 AM  

Is criticism impermissible to science-fiction?

Non-SJW criticism: "I think the ideas in this book are dangerous and wrong, and I encourage people not to read it. I will be suspicious of this author and publisher in the future."

SJW gatekeeping: "I think the ideas in this book are dangerous and wrong, so I will try to get it pulled from shelves so that people cannot read it. I will try to get the author driven from polite society and blacklisted so that he's unable to get published again. If his publisher supports him, I will call for a complete boycott and try to drive that publisher out of business."

Does that make the difference clear?

Blogger Noah B #120 May 10, 2015 10:28 AM  

All of his writing is just rationalization for Joshua to avoid conflict. If he can't handle giving and receiving some harsh words, he would be doing everyone a favor by admitting as much to himself and getting out of our way.

Blogger Krul May 10, 2015 10:28 AM  

8to12 - "The unstated premise of his comments is: If we start playing nice, they they will start playing nice.

That premise is flawed."


That's one.

The other flawed premise is that we have something to gain by playing nice with them. In fact we don't have any motivation whatsoever to play nice.

I for one would prefer to annihilate them and the horses they rode in on, even if "playing nice" were an option. Which it isn't.

Blogger Salt May 10, 2015 10:32 AM  

It assumes they are rational people who are willing to compromise.

Compromise is not necessarily the rational thing to do, especially where what one is doing is rational and compromising leads away from it. Look at the world today. Is it now more rational because what was was compromised away?

Blogger Noah B #120 May 10, 2015 10:37 AM  

Joshua is a coward who wants to pretend that his cowardice is a virtue. We can't afford to tolerate, include, or compromise with people like him any more than we can afford to do so with SJW's.

Anonymous Frank Brady May 10, 2015 10:37 AM  

The only sin is to coerce others to do your will. Resisting that coercion by whatever methods are required to end it is always necessary and essential?

Blogger Frank Brady May 10, 2015 10:40 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Feyd May 10, 2015 10:41 AM  

Hey Vox,
Agree with most of your post. A care bear Christian here in case you don’t remember me. It's been a few years, have been doing most of my campaigning offline, and anyway some of the Elk didn't like a Keynesian posting here. Been on the web most of the weekend though, seeking to understand the unexpected and disastrous election result we've just had in Great Britain. And have noticed that you seem to have ascended to become enemy no 1 for the ungodly SJWs. Extreme SJWs are among the most harmful enemies within for those on the left who are committed to genuinely inclusive prosperity. Know that your efforts have the prayers of at least some of the members of that mighty force which is Christian Sociaslism. Keep fighting the good fight!
God bless,
Feyd

Blogger JACIII May 10, 2015 10:41 AM  

The truth is the only moral high-ground. Anyone wanting to deny the truth is therefore immoral. - Rantor

This is why the "SJW's always lie" meme is so effective. It's application methodically and irresistibly fixes them publicly, like a bug on a pin, to their compulsion to be dishonest. People will seek to challenge/test the meme against reality and they will find the lies. This is doom for those living behind lies: The SJW.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 10, 2015 10:42 AM  

VD

Are you trying to control another human being's simple self-expression or not? And that is what we oppose.

Perhaps I am looking for something more objective. However, I disagree that preventing SJWs from lobbying in the private sphere is any different than limiting their self-expression. You might not like the action they're lobbying for... but in the end, they're talking, nothing more. If organizations choose to listen and act, that's on the owner's of the organization. Remember, even some actions are considered protected under free speech.

Nate

Are we clear now? Does anyone still have questions about this?

Their organizations, their rules. By destroying what is theirs, you limit their free speech in a binary battle.

Cail

Does that make the difference clear?

I see the difference. I'm probably merely quibbling. We all mostly agree on this issue as you've outlined it.

Blogger Matt May 10, 2015 10:42 AM  

A moderate is always a coward.

Anonymous The other robot May 10, 2015 10:43 AM  

Like all moderates, Herring completely fails to [understand] how to accomplish anything but Noble Defeat and Losing the Right Way.

Blogger Danby May 10, 2015 10:44 AM  

Let's see if this makes it out o fmoderation:

Danby (Vile Faceless Minion #0301)
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 10, 2015 at 2:38 pm

I see the SJWs are here already telling you they don’t exist, and no they don’t exclude conservatives or Christians, it just somehow happened that way, that anyone who opposes them is a bad poopy head, And what paean to moderation would be complete without Alexandra Erin vomiting his nonsense all over the page?

Don’t label me! Don’t call me what I am! That’s mean! I feel unsafe! Oh won’t some White Knight rid me of the problematic puppies?!

See, the deal is Joshua, that your effort will make no difference.

Ours will. Ours already has.

Blogger Frank Brady May 10, 2015 10:49 AM  

Make that "and essential."

Anonymous Stickwick May 10, 2015 10:50 AM  

Here’s the rub: if somebody doesn’t start playing nice, it just never happens.

If somebody doesn't start putting cucumbers in their nose and spam on their head, it just never happens.

Anonymous Roundtine May 10, 2015 10:50 AM  

Physically remove the SJWs and all their ilk from polite society. Banish them.

Blogger VD May 10, 2015 10:52 AM  

"However, I disagree that preventing SJWs from lobbying in the private sphere is any different than limiting their self-expression. You might not like the action they're lobbying for... but in the end, they're talking, nothing more."

And what have we done besides talk? What have we done that is so objectionable? They can talk, and we're going to talk back twice as hard and ten times as effectively.

Blogger Krul May 10, 2015 10:53 AM  

Not the white flag.

The black flag.

Blogger VFM 188 May 10, 2015 10:58 AM  

NorthernHamlet asked "Is criticism impermissible to science-fiction?"

Answered in the post. Explicitly. The question is either disingenuous or ignorant...probably the former, given these words from the post: "I have no problem with writers of the left who wish to write anti-X, but I am at war with SJW writers who claim that there is no place in science fiction for anyone writing X."

Troll alert.

Anonymous The other robot May 10, 2015 11:00 AM  

Look people this isn't that hard. Its not about what you write. Its about what you do.

Correct. What software you can write. What machined parts you can make. What ideas you can think. Everything!

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 10, 2015 11:00 AM  

RS May 10, 2015 9:39 AM Anyone else find it weird that Wheeler almost always quotes pagan philosophers in support of Christian totalitarianism?

St. Paul quoted a pagan, Menander when he said, "Bad company corrupts good morals". That is a Wisdom saying. What does this say about art? "Bad art corrupts good morals"? The intellectual founder of Christianity is Plato who was the student of Socrates.

I wish again, people would have an agrarian learning and experience. A smidgen of bad hay, wet and moldy, will spread throughout the hay loft. Evil spreads. What St. Paul calls "the mystery of iniquity". Evil corrupts much like rust on a car. Allow rust, and it spreads. Allow evil, and it spreads like wildfire.

"Bad company corrupts good morals". Can SF literature be subversive? Can it be a point of entryism? Most certainly.

Blogger VD May 10, 2015 11:00 AM  

Troll alert.

No, Northern Hamlet has been around for a while. He leans Left, but he's not insane Left.

Anonymous FP May 10, 2015 11:05 AM  

"Here’s the rub: if somebody doesn’t start playing nice, it just never happens."

Indeed and you are so avant garde, such a diplomat for taking the first step. How very Jean Luc Picard of you (aka gentleman johnny). Yet even Picard had his line in the sand Mr. Herring.

The past ten or so years of politically correct nonsense have beaten out of me most moderate tendencies. Being called a racist for merely resisting my enslavement to the medical cartels and the fed government put things into perspective. You cannot make peace with the SJW.

Anonymous mistaben May 10, 2015 11:08 AM  

This post brought to you by the word of the day: "reprisal."

Blogger dc.sunsets May 10, 2015 11:09 AM  

Newspeak, newspeak everywhere.

Tolerance no longer means live-and-let-live, tolerance is coercion in the form of set-asides for (politically chosen) minorities (i.e., anything but normal white males) and destroying people's careers, occupations and ability to support themselves if they hold to principles to which you object.

The entire program of SJW's is to utterly destroy those not in lockstep with their folly. "Play nice" with such people, just because they use backstabbing and the coercive force of the state to pummel you instead of walking up and doing it themselves?

Those who use other people's fists to to their dirty work do not occupy the high moral ground; they are criminals, and should be treated as such.

Blogger Matt May 10, 2015 11:12 AM  

SJWs are terrified of public humiliation. To get them out of the way you must ridicule and humiliate until their ideas are seen as alien to this planet. They got into power by pushing their ideas and propaganda onto thr young. They waited until the time was right and then bombarded us all with their most ridiculous demands and beliefs. Now theyre eating each other alive. Fuel the fire and destroy them. In every sphere. If you see someone in your group behaving this way, humiliate them with truth and rhetoric. SJWs are Gammas through and through.

Blogger Noah B #120 May 10, 2015 11:12 AM  

"You might not like the action they're lobbying for... but in the end, they're talking, nothing more."

This may be true if you look only at SFF publishing and ignore the rest of the world around you. You'd have to be insane to do that.

Blogger VD May 10, 2015 11:15 AM  

Give Joshua some credit. He may be a moderate, but he's not stupid. Consider his response to an SJW trying to get him to drop the term.

The SJW label stays. Because the “boycott Ender’s Game” campaign was real, among a great many other examples. There really are people out there, on the left, who want authors who don’t toe their political line banned or boycotted. Those are SJWs, and the left does a piss poor job of calling them out for promoting censorship. So, the rest of us will have to do it, and the SJW label is one way to do that.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 10, 2015 11:16 AM  

VD,

And what have we done besides talk? What have we done that is so objectionable?

Nothing at all. I have no objection in that regard. I'm hoping you burn the awards to the ground myself.

No, Northern Hamlet has been around for a while. He leans Left, but he's not insane Left.

You know, I just checked, and it's been almost a decade. Damn, that gives one some perspective. Round of drinks on me at the next meet up.

Anonymous Culture War Draftee #151 May 10, 2015 11:16 AM  

What the devil is herring talking about? About the only real power the SJWs have over fandom is shaming people. So how does this "accommodation" work? Am I supposed to feel slightly ashamed instead of being in full-blown self-flagellation mode? What is "live and let live" in this context? We only denounce each other on alternate weeks? What is playing nice? Is Vox supposed to let TNH have a guest columns?

Herring is coughing up the dumbest crap from a weed-fueled college bull session like it's a goddam UN manifesto. Screw those morons and the moderate they rode in on.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 10, 2015 11:16 AM  

The problem with today's SJW's is that, as weak men or deluded women, they never learned the lessons of coercion & blowback on the grade school playground. They never learned that punching the big, tolerant guy day after day does not mean that his tolerance knows no limit.

These blue- or mauve-dyed clowns clearly revel in their newfound power, never learning that the very process of employing coercion fills a reservoir of back-splatter that inevitably blindsides them.

Pity these poor excuses for adults who reached the age of majority without essential understanding of cause and effect.

Anonymous liljoe May 10, 2015 11:21 AM  

Either all ideas, however controversial, are welcome and legitimate, or the science fiction community is engaged in a straightforward power struggle to determine whose morals will be imposed on everyone else in the field.

this is the crux of the matter, and summarized quite eloquently as usual here by our intrepid Mr. Day.

it's called the right of free association, a concept that is
seemingly lost on the current generation of busy bodies fretting and parsing and endlessly categorizing what is ok and not ok to speak, to write, to think etc. enough already. it's about time someone responded to the oppressive sjw mindset.

Anonymous Dan in Tx May 10, 2015 11:31 AM  

I realize it's already been said but I just can't help but say it again; damn these co called "moderates" are a bunch of pussys. They try to disguise it and make it sound like they are being more intellectual and mature but the cowardice bleeds through and they aren't fooling anyone. Also worth noting again, ever notice how they never seem to have any admonishment toward those they claim to disagree with on the left? Oh sure, they'll talk to those opposing the leftists about how they agree the leftists are bad but they will never openly oppose the leftists on the field of battle. They reserve all their tut tut admonishment for those whom they supposedly agree with. I consider it yet another example of the feminization of the modern western male.

Blogger IM2L844 May 10, 2015 11:35 AM  

What have we done that is so objectionable?

Don't take it personally, but it's you. To them it's all relative, so you saying something like "Same sex marriage is totally gay" means something completely different than it would coming from someone else. That's part of what makes this whole crusade so much fun.

Blogger Noah B #120 May 10, 2015 11:36 AM  

I realize it's already been said but I just can't help but say it again; damn these co called "moderates" are a bunch of pussys.

And we're only exchanging words with the SJWs, at least for now. I'd hate to see how these moderates would behave when lead starts flying.

Blogger Blackburn #0040 May 10, 2015 11:37 AM  

@Krul,

I clicked hoping to find this Black Flag

Pay attention to the words minions and think of moderates when you do.

Recovering moderate here. I engaged Owen too much on a previous thread. Cail Corishev called me out on it and I thank you for that. Threads like this are vitally important to inspire the minions, reach the neutral observers, and to help people like me that have been self-deluded into thinking we are on the right, but when the shooting starts we find we have moderate tendencies. Delta - capable of change.

Anonymous sawtooth May 10, 2015 11:38 AM  

Leftist "moderates" may be out there but when it comes to beseeching their more extreme leftist cohorts to compromise their own position, they are as quiet as timid, little mice.

It makes one suspect that "conservative" moderates are just agents for the other side.

Blogger Bobo #117 May 10, 2015 11:53 AM  

Herring has never been in a fistfight in his life. Guaranteed.

Blogger IM2L844 May 10, 2015 11:58 AM  

We're fighting fire with artillery.

This reminds me of the movie, Hellfighters, in which John Wayne and his team extinguish an oil well fire with explosives. Come to think of it, there are so many analogous aspects to it, it's uncanny.

Anonymous Tallen May 10, 2015 12:00 PM  

Pity these poor excuses for adults who reached the age of majority without essential understanding of cause and effect.

Pity is for the repentant.

Blogger VFM 188 May 10, 2015 12:02 PM  

Troll alert withdrawn. Without the backstory, a question from a left-leaner can look like probing from a troll.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 10, 2015 12:03 PM  

I see the difference. I'm probably merely quibbling.

We could quibble over exactly where the line is between personal advocacy and gatekeeping, and you'd probably get different opinions about that here. But that's irrelevant, because SJWs never stop anywhere near that line; they always go to the extreme.

The mention of OSC is illustrative. Card's anti-homogamy position was not reflected in the movie in any way. His financial deal was such that boom or bust would not affect one penny going into his pocket where it could be used for anti-homogamy advocacy, and that was well-known. The SJWs still tried to bring down the movie, even harassing the actors about it in interviews. And if Card had died the day before the movie opened, you would have seen an SJW party on Twitter as they crowed about karmic payback.

So we really don't have to worry about whether we draw the line in exactly the right place; they'll always go way past it.

Blogger Salt May 10, 2015 12:09 PM  

If SocJus has its way, this is what you'd have.

OpenID richard1j May 10, 2015 12:10 PM  

"What about criticizing, for disseminating literary and uncivilized shit, whoever the Hell published Twilight?"
Why should one criticize a publisher for making money?

Blogger maniacprovost May 10, 2015 12:12 PM  

If you want a clear line between SJW and honest criticism, here it is:
A critic can state that a book is poorly written, or offensive, or racism is u good. The critic engages directly with whichever aspect he finds objectionable. He can even refuse to hire or vote for the author.
An SJW sees that a character is capitalist and immediately blacklists the author for racist misogyny, attacks him as incompetent in every field of endeavor, annd brings the SJW tribe to bear for a hateful orgy of destruction, all quite dissociated from the idea that the SJW wishes to criticize. Nowhere is there any discussion or debate of the original idea, because ideas are personal.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 10, 2015 12:13 PM  

I'll put it in terms of the movie Serenity, since we all seem to be familiar with that. The Reavers have chased our little band of heroes down to the planet and into a dead end, destroying many of their friends along the way. When the battle seems lost, River comes out and does her 90-pound pixie warrior thing, killing all the Reavers within moments.

At this point, the moderate walks into the room and says, "Sheesh, what a bully. Couldn't you taken the high road, tried playing nice? Now you'll never know if dialogue could have worked. I know they weren't reasonable, but I can't approve of your tactics."

Anonymous The other robot May 10, 2015 12:17 PM  

I think Nick Mamatas must be gay.

Blogger Krul May 10, 2015 12:23 PM  

"That completely misunderstands the reason that we (that is, those of us who have some sympathy for the Sad Puppies but almost none for the Rabid Puppies) advocate tolerance for the SJW crowd."

Tolerance for SJWs, but no sympathy for Rabid Puppies.

Gee, when you put it that way it almost sounds suicidal.

Anonymous Scintan May 10, 2015 12:28 PM  

Reading Joshua's post and the comments, and then this post and the comments, there's a lot of stupidity in Joshua's piece, but two things jump out to me first when all of this is read together:

1.) People continue to use the word "moderate" in situations where it doesn't apply. In this case, the proper term is "appeaser", not "moderate". Moderates get a bad rap, because they get lumped in with so many negative groups.

2.) If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and we take Joshua at his wor, where the hell was the vigilance? This situation only exists because the Joshuas of the world completely failed. Had the Joshuas in SF been vigilant, the SJWs would not have gotten to were they are, the rabid puppies would not exist, and Joshua wouldn't have had a post to write. His failure to see and acknowledge that is a demonstration of his folly.

Anonymous sawtooth May 10, 2015 12:46 PM  

Didn't Pontius Pilote hand Christ over to the mob in the interest of "keeping the peace"?

Couldn't that be construed as the act of a soulless, moderate, bureaucrat who was afraid to take a stand?

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 10, 2015 12:47 PM  

Don't you know if someone stabs you in the back you should show them how to be nice by example? The OP believes like the blacks that shot the Epic Beard Man viral video & put it online, that the 67 year old guy with the zztop beard who managed to react & block a sucker punch should have stopped hitting the thug that attacked him when he started crying out at the first hit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h9zJtYyjKE

Blogger LP 999/Eliza May 10, 2015 12:48 PM  

Yes, the to and fro will continue via the power of the pen. A of pen of which sometimes burns like fire or is cold as ice.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 10, 2015 12:49 PM  

Why should one criticize a publisher for making money?

Because I can. Why would you criticize a slut for getting pregnant so she can fleece the father? Or a prostitute for spreading syphilis?

Blogger Chris Mallory May 10, 2015 12:53 PM  

Wheeler isn't a Christian. He is a pagan who prays to ancestors (Saints) and a female deity (Mary), not the Lord Jesus Christ. The Catholic Cult is the Whore of Babylon. It is just as evil as the moon cult of the Muslims.

Blogger Rabbi B May 10, 2015 12:57 PM  

"We intend to destroy their influence and their ideology and to render the latter as popular and as viable in science fiction as National Socialism in Israel today."

Yes, and isn't compromise always about admitting defeat and granting the other side victory? Whenever discord arises, you always have those who argue for tolerance, in the vain hope that close contact will somehow enable them to exert a positive influence on their opponents. However, as is more often the case, when any kind of contact or overtures are made or formalized, it is the weaker elements (i.e. the moderates) who conclude that the path of their opponents is equally legitimate.

It is futile to refute their arguments in a face-to-face confrontation. We have nothing to say to them and they are not interested in receiving instruction from us. They only wish to instruct us. They tout their tolerance and inclusiveness as a badge of honor, and yet they themselves are not tolerant enough to countenance silently our "toxic and disruptive" orientation.

Why? Due to the insecurity and tenuousness of their own position to which they will never admit. They can't help but see in our principled loyalty and commitment a reproach with bothers them. Even if we were to remain silent and never answer their "refined" mockery, they couldn't help but rage against the light that exposes them for what they are just by our mere presence.

Blogger Rabbi B May 10, 2015 12:57 PM  

Plato's allegory of the [warren] is apropos:

Plato has Socrates describe a gathering of people who have lived chained to the wall of a [warren] all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to designate names to these shadows. The shadows are as close as the [SJWs] get to viewing reality. He then explains how the [SJW] is like a prisoner who is freed from the [warren] and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the [other SJWs].

Socrates suggests that the shadows constitute reality for the [SJWs] because they have never seen anything else; they do not realize that what they see are shadows of objects in front of a fire, much less that these objects are inspired by real living things outside the cave. Socrates continues: "suppose...that someone should drag [the SJW] . . . by force, up the rough ascent, the steep way up, and never stop until he could drag him out [of the warren] into the light of the sun." The [SJW] would be angry and in pain, and this would only worsen when the radiant light of the sun overwhelms his eyes and blinds him. The sunlight is representative of the new reality and knowledge that the freed [SJW] is experiencing.

Slowly, his eyes adjust to the light of the sun. First he can only see shadows. Gradually he can see the reflections of people and things in water and then later see the people and things themselves. Eventually he is able to look at the stars and moon at night until finally he can look upon the sun itself. Only after he can look straight at the sun "is he able to reason about it" and what it is.

Socrates continues, saying that the freed [SJW] would think that the real world was superior to the world he experienced in the [warren]; "he would bless himself for the change, and pity [the other SJWs]" and would want to bring his fellow [SJWs] out of the [warren] and into the sunlight.

The returning [SJW], whose eyes have become acclimated to the light of the sun, would be blind when he re-enters the [warren], just as he was when he was first exposed to the sun. The [SJWs], according to Socrates, would infer from the returning [SJW's] blindness that the journey out of the [warren] had harmed him and that they should not undertake a similar journey. Socrates concludes that the [SJWs], if they were able, would therefore reach out and kill anyone who attempted to drag them out of the [warren].

Our most powerful and effective weapon is the light, and it is the one that they hate the most and of which they are most afraid.

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light.
(cf. Ephesians 5)

No compromise, indeed.

Anonymous The other robot May 10, 2015 1:00 PM  

Didn't Pontius Pilote hand Christ over to the mob in the interest of "keeping the peace"?

Now, where did I see that play out again recently? Oh, that's right. Baltimore.

Blogger bob k. mando May 10, 2015 1:06 PM  

Nate May 10, 2015 9:41 AM
Look people this isn't that hard. Its not about what you write. Its about what you do.
...
Are we clear now? Does anyone still have questions about this?



*raises hand*

who are you to tell me what to do or how to think?

Blogger HalibetLector May 10, 2015 1:09 PM  

> Moderates suffer a watered down version of feelbad. Learning from experience means rejecting what doesn't for what does. Since they do not wish to be rejected themselves, they cannot reject even if experience says they should.

I'm sure some moderates fall in that category, but those are rabbits in moderates clothing and will never be swayed. There are many more moderates that are men of reason and virtue, who stick to the path of tolerance and inclusiveness because they have been brainwashed since birth to believe that is the moral and virtuous path. Personally, it took me years lurking here to realize just how badly I'd been misled. That said, don't go easy on them. I'm not excusing them, just explaining them. They need repeated kicks in the ass before they'll consider that maybe they were lied to.

> Most moderates are cowards, pure and simple. ... Moderates aren't tolerant and accepting. ... A moderate is always a coward.

You go too far. Keep in mind all of the people VD and the ilk have converted to this cause were all at one point moderates. To say they're basically dishonest SJW cowards in disguise covers a small number of them, but they are by no means the majority. Most moderates are just living by the principles they were raised with. It takes time to show them that they're wrong. Some will never believe it. Some will.

Blogger ajw308 (#98) May 10, 2015 1:15 PM  

if somebody doesn’t start playing nice, it just never happens.
OK, Neville.

SJW's, and their ideology, are like zombies: The only was for civilization to survive is to keep them out and exterminate them on sight.

The Monster Island/Nation/Planet series captures this perfectly. There's a rational zombie in the book who want's the same thing as the humans and (SPOILERS AHEAD) there comes the time where he just can't help himself and he does what zombies do.

Crushing SJW's on first contact should be easier than shooting Hitler as a baby (one leg still in the birth canal to make it acceptable to the abortionettes).

Joshua W. Herring sounds Gammaish, the way hes squeamish about a fight.

Anonymous Elijah Rhodes May 10, 2015 1:17 PM  

The word “tolerance” has been perverted by the left to mean the opposite. When you tolerate something it means you allow it even though you disagree with it. You never use the word tolerance to describe something you agree with (If you like pasta you would never say "I tolerate pasta”), but that’s exactly what the left does. They call themselves tolerant only with regard to ideas they agree with, and label intolerant those of us who actually do exhibit tolerance. Up is down.

Leftism itself, and SJWism in particular, is based on lies. In fact, if you believe in the God of the bible, it is inescapable that God himself simultaneously gave us free will while commanding us not to lie. The Left wants to deny the former while embracing the later.

Those of us who support Rabid Puppies do so on that basis: That one should be absolutely truthful and allow the expression of free will. Anyone should be able to write the books they want to write. I, of course, have the right to not buy them, or to criticize them, but I have no basis, certainly not a biblical one, to deny another human the right of intellectual expression.

Blogger Crude May 10, 2015 1:18 PM  

Non-SJWs 'playing nice' is exactly why we're in this situation to begin with.

Blogger Joe Keenan May 10, 2015 1:18 PM  

Vox, Why not just let the Hugo's deconstruct themselves into oblivion? Why fight to save it? St Augustine pointed out a long time ago that a mans internal order or disorder is always projected outward. It naturally follows then, as disordered souls come to make up more and more of any society, the society will become more and more disordered; after all, the disordered personages will seek to "normalize" their disorder through fiat. In the macro society we see the promulgation of disordered laws which seek to apply social sanction to immoral acts in the belief that such niceties will ameliorate the pangs of conscience. On the micro level we see the same issue played out at the Hugo's; declaring meritorious, morally corrupt politically correct propaganda; that doesn't make it so. Why not put your efforts into advancing a new award and let the losers write of gay dragons?

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 10, 2015 1:29 PM  

Don't confuse being intolerant for simply not liking a book. I read the Turner Diaries years ago

Healthcare volunteers and national guard members coming back from Katrina is how I found out about the turner diaries, they said it came true. Becoming true should be a major + for sci fi. 2001 a Space Odyssey & Planet of the Apes both made in 1968, one came true

W.LindsayWheeler What I want to do is bring up "Grand Theft Auto".

What the left hates about it was all the female love interests are slim, Whitey is not the bad guy, and IMPOTANT RAGE is the perfect liberal superhero.

"Same sex marriage is totally gay" means something completely different than it would coming from someone else

A shotgun gay wedding means the shot gun is pointed at the clergy,florist & cake baker.

"If SocJus has its way, this is what you'd have." I guess this isn't the right place to point out I know someone with a hello kitty pistolgrip.

Blogger ajw308 (#98) May 10, 2015 1:29 PM  

@Salt, Patton understood how one had to act to remove the enemies motivation to fight. Fighting like that ends wars sooner, saving lives on both sides.

Blogger Corvinus May 10, 2015 2:02 PM  

So Herring's solution is to embrace tactics that have failed for the past few centuries?

Thread winner.

Blogger Corvinus May 10, 2015 2:10 PM  

He recognizes that he's making a logical leap here, but he goes ahead and makes it because emotionally he can do nothing else. He knows they will never play nice, but thinks we should, because.... It's underpants gnomes:

1. We play nice.
2. ????
3. Peace!

He just hopes that if we play nice, they'll come around, even though he sees no evidence that that would happen. But admitting that there are some situations that have no peaceful solution through dialogue would be worse for a Nice Guy moderate than being illogical, so illogic it is.


Heh. I suppose the Underpants Gnomes is one way of thinking about moderates' attitudes toward SJWs. But again, ultimately, he's simply embracing tactics that have repeatedly and catastrophically failed for the past several centuries.

I suppose it's instinctive for the non-SJW side to want to deal with SJWs as if they were fair players, but after repeated stabs in the back, and their continuous advancement through the culture to the point where most people think it's okay to penalize businesses who don't wish to service gay weddings, it should have gotten into our thick heads that we simply cannot do so.

Anonymous zen0 May 10, 2015 2:13 PM  

@ Joe Keenan

Why not put your efforts into advancing a new award and let the losers write of gay dragons?

Vox can answer for himself, but my impression is that this is not just about the Hugos.

Besides they can still write of gay dragons no matter what happens

Blogger Joe Keenan May 10, 2015 2:32 PM  

zen0, Earlier in his blog Vox indicates the decline of Sci-Fi/Fantasy sales. I can't quote chapter and verse, but it's not good. Why not let the losers steering this sinking ship sink? Sales are down because most of the world doesn't want to read about incestuous homosexual brothers who turn into dragons and ravage the countryside. To the 137 or so who do.....welcome to the Hugo's. Why try to save them? They're no the art, they're not the genre. What they are is hacks; and the numbers show that. They're vision is sterile. Dead. Good people putting their energy into saving a corrupt award is pointless. Publish and advance good writing, There is no counter to that.

Anonymous Sevron May 10, 2015 3:07 PM  

I can only answer for myself and my $40:

1) Because doing this hurts the SJWs immensely, and I love causing them maximum pain for minimum effort.
2) Because once upon a time, the Hugos meant something to us. It was ours in the beginning, and if this be the end, I want it to be ours when it goes. Think Darth Vader in "Jedi".
3) Because there is some non-zero chance we can still right this ship, and if all I have to do is spend $40, read some books, and vote my conscience, the price was negligible compared to the prize.

Blogger VD May 10, 2015 3:11 PM  

Why not just let the Hugo's deconstruct themselves into oblivion? Why not put your efforts into advancing a new award and let the losers write of gay dragons?

Because offense is more effective than defense. Retreat and build is a losing strategy because the SJWs simply follow you.

Anonymous Sir Wilshire (#320) May 10, 2015 3:30 PM  

This was a great post. I think it sums up well in one place many of things you've been saying about moderates' tactics in separate posts.

Anonymous Rick Moen May 10, 2015 3:41 PM  

Theo wrote:

either embrace and defend the idea of complete intellectual freedom in science fiction or fight us over the shape of the Science Fiction Code Authority of the future.

It's a fair point, though I greatly doubt those attempting to thought-police science fiction, particularly in the World Science Fiction Society (WSFS is not SFWA) have the influence you think they have. But, for the record, I completely agree with your stance that, if science fiction is to mean anything, it needs complete intellectual freedom (and freedom of association,ergo the enforced-shunning people can kiss my ass). You and your posse are an integral part of the SFF community, and anyone trying to lock you out doesn't speak for me.

I thought I was a moderate, by the way. If my actually meaning what I say when I assert that freedom of expression is for everyone makes me a radical, then I guess I'm a radical. But, as you-all like to say, I don't care. ;->

A lot of people in WSFS are pissed off at you at the moment, and they have some considerable justification, IMO. But you are not to be voted off the island if I have anything to do with it. No matter what David Gerrold thinks.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Blogger VD May 10, 2015 3:46 PM  

I thought I was a moderate, by the way. If my actually meaning what I say when I assert that freedom of expression is for everyone makes me a radical, then I guess I'm a radical. But, as you-all like to say, I don't care. ;->

Sweet Arthur C. Clarke, you sound more like a minion than a moderate, Rick!

A lot of people in WSFS are pissed off at you at the moment, and they have some considerable justification, IMO.

Certainly. I don't blame them. All I'm asking them to do is think about why this situation exists. If you're upset because a REACTION has taken place, it should be fairly obvious that you will not solve the problem by looking at the REACTIONARIES.

Perhaps you should take a good hard look at the parties that provoked the reaction.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 10, 2015 3:46 PM  

SciFi to me was another outlet for artistic dissent, till the SJW turned it into crap propaganda, and Herring wants to ensconce them in power, he is an idiot for doing that.

The SJW are total junk, Soviet commies circa 1982, tear down their influence.

Blogger Harsh May 10, 2015 3:59 PM  

I thought I was a moderate, by the way. If my actually meaning what I say when I assert that freedom of expression is for everyone makes me a radical, then I guess I'm a radical.

If you don't toe the party line, you're a radical according to the SJWs. The time for neutrality or moderation has long since passed.

Anonymous Rick Moen May 10, 2015 4:20 PM  

Theo wrote:

Sweet Arthur C. Clarke, you sound more like a minion than a moderate, Rick!

The unvarnished truth is that I'm on my side and WSFS's side, but I may or may not be on yours. However, you raised a key question that I felt deserved a fair answer, especially after David Gerrold's Facebook post, and my answer is that you're right, and thought-policing is a nasty habit that we should have nothing to do with.

I don't speak for other conrunners or for Worldcon (WSFS) fandom as a whole, nor for the Business Meeting regulars, but I know many of them, --and know pretty much all of the Business Meeting regulars. My sense is (errare humanum est) that the latter in particular have no truck with enforced conformity of view. We're too diverse, and too busy getting actual volunteer work done.

I do know some details of behind-the-scenes agitation against you and yours, and I'll point out once again that that was pretty much focussed on, and within SFWA. WSFS isn't SFWA. So, for example, PNH sometimes attends Business Meetings, but he's not even in the top 100 of the list of attendees I expect people would particularly listen to. He's just an (occasional) attendee. None of the other people who've tried to shiv you has any particular participation in WSFS that I've ever seen, let alone any particular influence.

The politics within WSFS tends to be competing regionalisms, groups of fans jockeying for bid position in upcoming years, getting experienced conrunners aboard to give their efforts credibility, etc.

In short, I believe you that you're reacting to real provocations. I just haven't seen compelling reason to think it has much to do with WSFS. Seems to me, WSFS is just in the middle of the crossfire. (If so, I'm not complaining about that. Collateral damage happens. You, for your part, are asked to understand if WSFS decides to take measures to try to not be in the crossfire in the future.)

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Blogger maniacprovost May 10, 2015 4:29 PM  

"WSFS is just in the middle of the crossfire"

I think the Hugo voting itself is the only part of Worldcon the puppies take issue with... Personally I have been impressed by the professionalism... Or amateur volunteerism... of the people running the show.

Anonymous Deirdre Saoirse Moen May 10, 2015 4:30 PM  

I support sf/f being a big tent. I support it including speech I don't care for and views I don't care for. I don't support limiting control of the field to cliques, no matter how much I may like the people in those cliques (or vice versa).

I think the majority of WSFS fandom is with you on that view, though they very much don't like the current situation regarding the Hugos.

I've actually been meaning to write a longer piece about my first amendment views, largely due to the Ellora's Cave defamation suit and the fact that some people have shunned me because I "support" Jane Litte/Jen Frederick. I support the First Amendment's side, which just happens to be the position Jane Litte is taking. (Jane Litte's attorney is Marc J. Randazza, and some might find his letter as 8chan's attorney as hilarious as I did. Google: randazza mazinga site:media.8chan.co )

I'm a pretty strict First Amendment person. I don't care that reddit (apparently, I haven't looked) has places where people openly discuss rape fantasies (as the rapist). I think some people may find discussing that cathartic or useful in avoiding actually being a rapist. Or they'll discover they can find a partner whose fantasies click with their own and both will be happier for it. And some will, unfortunately, go the other way.

I also support freedom of association. I learn from people who are different, and I learn from people who challenge me.

NorthernHamlet:
What about criticizing, for disseminating literary and uncivilized shit, whoever the Hell published Twilight?

I'm never going to argue that Twilight is great fiction, but I can say it got me through a very rough period when Rick was very ill. I saw the movie (during its initial release) at least 37 times and read the book at least 5.

The minimum I ask for from books is companionship in the moment. Twilight worked for that.

Deirdre

Blogger maniacprovost May 10, 2015 4:31 PM  

I meant for the most part, and as far as I've seen as a distant onlooker.

Blogger James Dixon May 10, 2015 4:36 PM  

> A lot of people in WSFS are pissed off at you at the moment, and they have some considerable justification, IMO. But you are not to be voted off the island if I have anything to do with it. No matter what David Gerrold thinks.

Thanks, Rick. It's nice to see principles from the supposed opposition.

Now, whether or not you have anything to say about the matter is what we're going to find out. Is there still a rational group capable of exerting control at WSFS or have they all gone the way of Gerrold?

Blogger VD May 10, 2015 4:39 PM  

In short, I believe you that you're reacting to real provocations. I just haven't seen compelling reason to think it has much to do with WSFS. Seems to me, WSFS is just in the middle of the crossfire. (If so, I'm not complaining about that. Collateral damage happens. You, for your part, are asked to understand if WSFS decides to take measures to try to not be in the crossfire in the future.)

I don't disagree. I think WSFS would do very well to do so. I'd merely hope they look at the whole of the situation, not merely those of us who are shooting back. I have repeatedly stated that I have nothing against WSFS or the Hugo Awards.

Blogger James Dixon May 10, 2015 4:56 PM  

> I've actually been meaning to write a longer piece about my first amendment views, largely due to the Ellora's Cave defamation suit

Ouch. First I'd heard of that, but a quick Google search was informative.

Again, Deirdre, you and Rich have been voices of reason amongst the supposed opposition. I appreciate your understanding of the issues involved.

Blogger James Dixon May 10, 2015 5:12 PM  

Sigh, my glasses obviously need cleaning, Rick, not Rich, and I completely missed the typo.

Anonymous Deirdre Saoirse Moen May 10, 2015 5:18 PM  

James Dixon
Now, whether or not you have anything to say about the matter is what we're going to find out. Is there still a rational group capable of exerting control at WSFS or have they all gone the way of Gerrold?

In general, WSFS (by which I mean the community that encompasses several Worldcons, not just this year's Worldcon) doesn't like lasting rules changes in the heat of the moment. I think that's a reasonable stance.

As an example, what divided fandom about the Breendoggle wasn't so much the fact that Breen was accused of being a pederast (and later he was convicted a second and third time for same), but rather what, in the absence of a recent arrest or conviction, WSFS was expected to do about it. (Also, there were statements at the time that he'd previously been arrested, but afaik there was no contemporary backup for those statements.)

Absent an arrest record or a restraining order, it's not clear to me that WSFS should have done anything formally. So, in the most divisive thing to happen in the last 52 years, WSFS had no official change of policy.

I do know that at least some cons honor the "I have a restraining order against this person" and not permitting the named party on the restraining order to be a member of the con if the protected party in the restraining order is a member. I don't find that an unreasonable accommodation.

Anonymous MendoScot May 10, 2015 5:20 PM  

People continue to use the word "moderate" in situations where it doesn't apply. In this case, the proper term is "appeaser", not "moderate"

Well said, Scintan. My experience is that self-declared moderates are often just enemy sympathizers pretending to take a balanced stance in order to grab the microphone and criticize the side they disagree with. Think of all the registered Democrats who call up Limbaugh (no, I don't listen to him) claiming to be Republicans. I read Herring (and GeRM) the same way.

Anonymous Rick Moen May 10, 2015 5:25 PM  

James Dixon: Again, I don't speak for the Business Meeting regulars, but I've gotten to know them somewhat over a couple of decades. It's a parliamentary body, but one with a very long memory and a lot of caution about making sudden moves of any kind. He'll be very amused if he sees this, but I can cite Old Guard stalwart SMOF Mark Olsen of Boston as an example. When I was new to Business Meetings, Mark and his wife Priscilla seemed like unreasoning reactionaries, and it's amazing how much more sensible they now seem, after decades of coming to appreciate their point of view.

Even though I don't speak for the regulars, I can confidently predict that any changes they make to reform the nomination process would be pointedly and even ostentatiously not pointed at Theo & friends, because WSFS takes impartiality seriously, which in turn is because if it didn't, the whole effort would collapse in feuding, of which there are decades of instructive examples in fandom. (Deirdre's example of the Breendoggle was perhaps the ugliest, but hardly the only one.)

And, I hope people who've considered the subject will agree, First Past the Post (FPTP) is a pretty wretched voting algorithm, and it was probably time to consider something better anyway. The final ballot uses IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) algorithm, with a second test called the No Award Showdown to ensure that the candidate winner exceeds the number of votes for No Award and isn't just eking through as best-of-the-worst. (I may be inexact in my summary, so see the WSFS Constitution for the exact rules.) Point is, the final ballot's two-step method is a serious, thoughtful way of arriving at a voter consensus, in exactly the way FPTP is not.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Blogger James Dixon May 10, 2015 5:29 PM  

> In general, WSFS (by which I mean the community that encompasses several Worldcons, not just this year's Worldcon) doesn't like lasting rules changes in the heat of the moment. I think that's a reasonable stance.

Agreed. And I hope it will continue.

> I do know that at least some cons honor the "I have a restraining order against this person" and not permitting the named party on the restraining order to be a member of the con if the protected party in the restraining order is a member. I don't find that an unreasonable accommodation.

It's not only not unreasonable, it's probably a legal requirement. The only other real option would be to not allow either party to attend.

Anonymous Rick Moen May 10, 2015 5:33 PM  

MendoScot, you might really like an analysis piece written by a bored security consultant obliged to sit through another HR-dictated seminar where Myer-Briggs got trotted out. The consultant invented a better classification scheme: 'First, everyone is either an Ally, or is not an Ally. Second, everyone is either an Enemy, or not.' He also subdivides people who are neither ally nor enemy and pretend to be merely bystanders: 'People who can be used as Weapons; People who can be used as Hostages.'

He goes on from there. I think Theo would like it, too.

You're right that the self-assigned term 'moderate' doesn't actually mean diddly. I correctly said that I "thought I was a moderate', but would be the first to admit that it doesn't actually mean anything.

I might just be a self-guided weapon. ;->

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Blogger VD May 10, 2015 5:42 PM  

Deirdre's example of the Breendoggle was perhaps the ugliest, but hardly the only one.

The thing is, people new to the whole thing look at how Worldcon did nothing about Breen, did nothing about MZB, but apparently ran screaming to every single media outlet that would listen about the fact that I followed the rules and recommended some books.

Now, you know and I know that it wasn't the WSFS people who were the architects of that particular media campaign, but most people don't know that.

Blogger Daniel May 10, 2015 5:44 PM  

Other than what can only be described as an SJW overreaction to new (to Worldcon) fans legally promoting works that were successfully nominated, I fail to see why 2015 is considered to be anything but a massive success.

Anonymous Deirdre Saoirse Moen May 10, 2015 6:22 PM  

James Dixon re: restraining orders:
It's not only not unreasonable, it's probably a legal requirement. The only other real option would be to not allow either party to attend.

There are other possibilities. For example, attending on different days. For a large convention, staying in one designated part of the convention. However, those solutions would require the con spend extra people points in ensuring the restraining order isn't broken (e.g., someone accompanying each party, each with radios). Unless the person the RO is against is particularly important, there typically aren't enough people points for that.

Blogger automatthew 0062 May 10, 2015 6:37 PM  

"Absent an arrest record or a restraining order, it's not clear to me that WSFS should have done anything formally."

Jesus! Can't you recognize perversion? Don't you think it would
be a useful item to add to your intellectual toolkit to be
capable of saying, when a half-ton of wet steaming pevert comes to
your conference, "My goodness, this appears to be a pervert?"

Douglas MacArthur Shaftoe

OpenID jeffwriting May 10, 2015 6:39 PM  

VD knows the path to 'victory' but, it will never be achieved because MPAI.
The person he quotes for this post is a typical, never ending belief. MPAI
The term 'useful idiots' is perfect

Blogger Eric May 10, 2015 6:53 PM  

Clear thinking contributes to clear writing. This was an impressively clear and powerful post.
Cheers

Anonymous Rick Moen May 10, 2015 6:59 PM  

@ automatthew 0062: If any preschooler could have had the moxie to tell the Pacificon II concom that, Deirdre might have. But I think she might at that age have had a little difficulty pronouncing 'intellectual toolkit'.

Anonymous Deirdre Saoirse Moen May 10, 2015 7:04 PM  

automatthew 0062
Jesus! Can't you recognize perversion?

There's perversion, and there's criminal behavior. What Breen was accused of was criminal behavior, and I think that not overreacting on rumors of criminal behavior is a good thing. Why? Because it can be turned against anyone, and there is already a formal legal process for handling criminal behavior.

(I have since heard that the county District Attorney was in fact trying to put together a case against Breen at that time, but the kids' parents kept backing down.)

(For your scorecard, I'm one of those lefties who think that whatever consenting adults wish to do in private is their business, not mine.)

Blogger James Dixon May 10, 2015 7:39 PM  

> However, those solutions would require the con spend extra people points in ensuring the restraining order isn't broken

I considered that Deirdre, but realized that most Cons don't have enough personnel to handle it that way.

Anonymous Rick Moen May 10, 2015 8:48 PM  

Beyond issues concerning Breen himself (subject of the Breendoggle) Theo raises an interesting point when he says 'did nothing about MZB'. Which is a matter good enough to put one in a wonderfully conspiratorial mindset, because suddenly you wonder which people knew and covered for her. It's an unsettling question; one doesn't want to damn third parties just because they were around, but cannot help wondering.

Blogger automatthew 0062 May 10, 2015 9:13 PM  

Deirdre: "There's perversion, and there's criminal behavior. What Breen was accused of was criminal behavior, and I think that not overreacting on rumors of criminal behavior is a good thing."

I'm not complaining because you (or, pace Rick, whoever was around at the time) failed to act based on rumors. I am accusing [whoever was and is responsible] for having broken pervert-meters. For refusing to use their eyes and ears and common sense. It is not hard to identify degenerates.

Except perhaps in a community where everyone superficially resembles them? Pace James Dixon.

Blogger Joe Keenan May 10, 2015 9:14 PM  

Vox, You're correct, the best defense is offense. Another strategic truism is, "Maneuver can defeat any defensive position." If the SJW want to retreat to their SFWA redoubt....let them. Then bypass them and sever their supply lines. Re-route the river, close down the roads. Let them drink their own piss. Why do you feel compelled to save these losers from themselves? These people not only covered up and rationalized away the behavior of people like Marion Zimmer Bradley and Walter Breen....they gave them awards! Sci-Fi/Fantasy does not need a reform, it needs an enema. Perverts have been writing perverted works and winning awards, this is because the perv writers advance the perspective of the perverted judges. Why seek the conversion of these pervs/? Expose them. A serious investigation is needed of the movers and shakers of Fantasy/Sci-Fi.

Anonymous Rick Moen May 10, 2015 9:51 PM  

automatthew 0062: Just to be clear on the distinction: Fandom's issue with Breen was, and its issue with MZB should have been, the unlawful and immoral abuse of children including their own. Some of you folks also have a problem with perversion, but that's a different discussion from the specific sort of extremely evil, criminal perversion Breen and MZB committed.

If anyone has evidence of who covered up for those two criminals, where, when, and in what fashion, please produce it, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free (to quote that Nazareth guy). Internet handwaves about the complicity of 'these people' is, as an old boss of mine used to say, 'almost useful', i.e., not actually useful at all.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Blogger Cail Corishev May 10, 2015 9:54 PM  

There's an interesting juxtaposition between two threads here. On one hand, when some authors with the right connections and opinions are rumored (or more) to be child molesters, there's a lot of concern for being prudent, letting the law take its course, and not acting too swiftly. Which is fine. But on the other hand, when a rural family of homeschoolers is accused of not providing feather beds for every child, the pitchforks come out and there's no time to wait for evidence before acting.

Now, I'm not accusing anyone posting here of that hypocrisy. But the contrast is a clear reminder that the left-leaning mainstream works that way -- some people get the benefit of the doubt, while others are guilty until proven innocent, and it's all down to who/whom.

Blogger MidKnight (#138) May 10, 2015 9:54 PM  

@Cail Corishev

I'll put it in terms of the movie Serenity, since we all seem to be familiar with that. The Reavers have chased our little band of heroes down to the planet and into a dead end, destroying many of their friends along the way. When the battle seems lost, River comes out and does her 90-pound pixie warrior thing, killing all the Reavers within moments.

At this point, the moderate walks into the room and says, "Sheesh, what a bully. Couldn't you taken the high road, tried playing nice? Now you'll never know if dialogue could have worked. I know they weren't reasonable, but I can't approve of your tactics."


Cail - ya got ta warn us before we read, in case we are drinking..



Ya know - all these moderates don't seem to understand the point of game theory - namely, the iterated prisoner's dilemma.

If you've been screwed over, then next time, hammer the guy, and keep hammering him, until HIS behavior changes. Not when he asks you to be nice, but when he starts actually treating you as well as expects you to treat him. THEN you stop. And stand by to hammer again if the lesson did not take.

That also coincides with traditional standards of justice by punishing the wicked and those who cause harm, as well as christian forgiveness of truly repenting people.

Imagine that.

Blogger VFM 188 May 10, 2015 11:34 PM  

This is an extremely important, powerful statement of principle by Vox Day. Unfortunately the comments have become obscure for the past dozen or two posts. I urge everyone to go back up to the top and read the original words of Day in their entirety. It constitutes something of a manifesto. An extraordinary call to action.

Anonymous George of the Jungle May 10, 2015 11:54 PM  

"Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." John Parker, Lexington Green, April 19, 1775

Blogger Daniel May 11, 2015 12:22 AM  

If anyone has evidence of who covered up for those two criminals, where, when, and in what fashion, please produce it, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free (to quote that Nazareth guy). Internet handwaves about the complicity of 'these people' is, as an old boss of mine used to say, 'almost useful', i.e., not actually useful at all.

...Only, they aren't handwaves. The perversion and culture of child predation has not only been allowed to continue, Anne McCaffery and others have gone to the wall to defend these SOBs, to the point of burning down the careers of whistleblowers.

The truth doesn't set you free - it gets you set on fire by the powerful names in the industry. When Chip Delany feels free to not only openly endorse NAMBLA but in recent interviews doubles down on "consensual" child abuse...when Octavia Butler is lifted up for her stories where child avatars consent to rape...when Ed Kramer dodges justice for decades with the help of the SF/F industry's most respected names for public character witnessing, we know all about how the truth works, Rick.

The truth is that the truth doesn't crucify these people like you think it should. Not on its own. The truth is that organized SF has a problem more widespread and serious than Penn State ever did, and that its refusal to face it even now is going to paint people with a very broad brush. Completely innocent people in fandom will be stained with this, because somewhere down the line "Live and let live" has degenerated into "No one talk about what happened here."

Anonymous Saturn Moons May 11, 2015 1:19 AM  

Man, I hate to say it but this entire post comes off squarely as the mad ramblings of a bitter, quixotic loser.

Pathetic.

I'll give you this, though, Vox: you sure do know how to enlist other BQLs I the promotion of yourself and your business...but at the expense of giving any appearance of being sane.

Blogger Cee May 11, 2015 2:29 AM  

Man, I hate to say it but this entire post comes off squarely as the mad ramblings of a bitter, quixotic loser.

Where does the totally reflexive "I hate to say this" qualifier fall on the list of Gamma tells?

C'mon. The vitriol in the rest of the post belies your social nice-talk. Just dig your balls out of your handbag and call him a bitter, quixotic loser without padding it.

Anonymous Ain May 11, 2015 2:59 AM  

rcocean: I'm an SJW. I feel there's no place in SF for phrases like "Bob, you owe me a blow job"

Now that's some social justice I can get behind.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop May 11, 2015 3:20 AM  

"The unvarnished truth is that I'm on my side and WSFS's side, but I may or may not be on yours.

"I do know some details of behind-the-scenes agitation against you and yours, and I'll point out once again that that was pretty much [focused] on, and within SFWA. WSFS isn't SFWA. So, for example, PNH sometimes attends Business Meetings, but he's not even in the top 100 of the list of attendees I expect people would particularly listen to. He's just an (occasional) attendee. None of the other people who've tried to shiv you has any particular participation in WSFS that I've ever seen, let alone any particular influence...

"In short, I believe you that you're reacting to real provocations. I just haven't seen compelling reason to think it has much to do with WSFS. Seems to me, WSFS is just in the middle of the crossfire. (If so, I'm not complaining about that. Collateral damage happens. You, for your part, are asked to understand if WSFS decides to take measures to try to not be in the crossfire in the future.)" -Rick Moen

Then get the WSFS out of the crossfire. One simple way would be to bar entry to any rapists, child molesters, or anyone who harbors them or Associates with them. How about motioning a constitutional amendment for the upcoming business meeting? A Motion to Bar Child Rapists and Their Associates* could easily become part of the standing Rules without offending anyone. Then families with children could feel that Worldcon is a safe space for them.

*For example, the entire membership of the SFWA.

Anonymous Rick Moen May 11, 2015 11:41 AM  

Daniel: I do remember hearing something about McCaffrey and the Breendoggle, e.g., maybe she said something against Pacificon II's exclusion of Breen, back in '64? However, you most certainly are handwaving, most outrageously so when you handwave about 'and others' ,and are ignoring the substance of the phrase 'has evidence of who covered up for those two criminals, where, when, and in what fashion': Which are the people who had actual knowledge that Breen and especially MZB abused children and did nothing (or worse)? That was the question.

Everyone knows fandom was split down the middle by the Breendoggle, but the problem concerning Breen was that there were accusations but a lack of evidence, and no prosecutions, and no public knowledge of MZB's involvement at all. Evidence (and criminal convictions in Breen's case) came much later.

It later turned out that there doubtless were individuals who had, right at that time, evidence of both Breen and MZB being culpable, and did nothing with it. One can wish for a nice warm spot in Hell for the whole lot. But which individuals were those? You tell me, as I would like to know, and just condemning (with no evidence of anything beyond wanting to avoid convict without evidence only ten years after the Army - McCarthy hearings) the late Anne McCaffrey and a large vague class of 'others' is totally unhelpful and comprehensively misses the point.

Forrest Bishop: You want to present a motion at the WSFS Business Meeting to bar the entire membership of SFWA as child rapists and their associates? I'm tempted to pay for your Sasquan attending membership and bring popcorn, but I have an infamously low sense of humour.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Anonymous Anarchopurplism May 11, 2015 1:52 PM  

This blog is an example of the free expression of ideas. There are some basic rules of civility, but mainly revolving around

Some of the SJW blogs are not as organized in terms of behavior. Many routinely allow incoherent name-calling, lies with repeated lies & often out-right slander. What is most notable is that they often do not allow comments or actively edit them. A true showing of their totalitarian tendencies.

Folks trying to understand the difference between Rabid Puppies & the SJW's should look at how the various parties manage their blogs.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop May 11, 2015 1:55 PM  

“Forrest Bishop: You want to present a motion at the WSFS Business Meeting to bar the entire membership of SFWA as child rapists and their associates? I'm tempted to pay for your Sasquan attending membership and bring popcorn, but I have an infamously low sense of humour.” -Rick Moen
Yeah. Sure. No problemo. If your offer were tendered it would be accepted.

I read through the WSFS Constitution, Standing Rules, past minutes, etc. before posting the above. There are a number of holes in it. I’m sure the civil and criminal lawyers amongst the Minions can pick them out. Nonetheless, a Motion at the Business Meeting is entirely feasible- as is a campaign before, during, and after that meeting.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer but sometimes I play one in Court, and I play to win. http://usurpthis.iwarp.com

It isn’t necessary to grill each and every SFWA Member ala McCarthy- every one of them is already either aware of the situation, or incompetent, or both. Legal concepts like “coven”, “conspiracy”, “collusion”, “sharp practice”, “deceptive trade practice”, and “moral turpitude” come to mind. So does our friend Rico.

For this year, attending SFWA Members can simply be issued badges/ribbons that read “Member…Science Fiction Writers of America…I ASSOCIATE WITH CHILD RAPISTS”. This is for the safety of the other Guests and their children. It also shows that Worldcon/WSFA has taken the necessary precautions based on incomplete information. In the event of a civil or criminal action, we wouldn’t want them in the crossfire, as you say, although they may still be subpoenaed as witnesses.

This Motion also is not intended to bar SFF writers from this or any future Worldcon. All they have to do is publicly renounce their SFWA Membership.

-Vile Faceless Minion #0167

Anonymous Anarchopurplism May 11, 2015 2:00 PM  

DISEASED BARBARIANS HAVE SEIZED CONTROL! THEY ARE INTENT ON DESTROYING EVERY MANNER OF OUR LIFE UNLESS WE BOW TO THEIR PC GOD.....BUH-ULLSHIT! REPORTS OF BOOK BURNING & BRAINWASHED PROGRAMS IN THE SCHOOLS HAVE COMMENCED!

QUICK! SOMEBODY CALL NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN!
*************************************************************************************

Not.....

Blogger Unknown May 11, 2015 6:18 PM  

Forrest Bishop: IMO, not nearly enough entertainment value in the motion that you haven't, come to think of it, bothered to write, to justify a US $210 subsidy from yr. present correspondent. So, TANSTAAFL. However, if you care to do your own work and pay your own way, go for it.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Blogger Deirdre Saoirse Moen May 11, 2015 7:20 PM  

Forrest Bishop:
For example, the entire membership of the SFWA.

FWIW, I'm a SFWA member (associate, so I can nominate, but not vote). Do I think the organization's perfect? No, of course not. Does it represent my values? Somewhat yes, somewhat no—pretty much like any random group of people.

I think the Emergency Medical Fund is a good thing. I think Writer Beware (about writer scams) is a good thing. I think the estates project (keeping track of whom to contact for reprints after an author's death) is a good thing. I think the investigations into royalty anomalies (Griefcom) are a good thing.

Unless I'm forgetting something else (possible, given everything else going on in my life right now), the rest is optional to me. A couple of those things work better because there's a corporation behind them with some history and oomph, but it doesn't absolutely have to be SFWA, either.

I delayed re-upping last year for several reasons, one of which was a disagreement about what the qualifications said on the website vs. what the rules actually were—and the failure to correct it pissed me off. I actually did re-up because I posted (in the context of the Ellora's Cave case) about Griefcom and felt if I was going to refer people to Griefcom, maybe I should help pay for it.

Being a member has always been a vanity thing for me; most of my writing income does not, and never has, come from writing SF/F.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop May 11, 2015 9:29 PM  

“A couple of those things work better because there's a corporation behind them with some history and oomph, but it doesn't absolutely have to be SFWA, either.”-D. Moen

Exactically. And de-vanitizing it goes a long way toward establishing a new organization. In addition to the numerous toxic, third-rate Writers in the SFWA, why would you care to be associated with known child rapists and their enablers?

How many are there, by the way?

Can this issue be any clearer?

SFWA is not a randomly-selected group of people because the requisite publishing outlets are not a random group.

Anonymous Deirdre Saoirse Moen May 12, 2015 1:36 AM  

I have no clue how many there are, but I do know that my own work on Marion Zimmer Bradley, well, I didn't get any flak for it from anyone in (or out of) SFWA save for one person who apologized later. I'm willing to grant that was just shock.

It has been disappointing to me that Shetterly's email exchanges with Delany didn't get broader circulation, but it's not surprising, at least not in retrospect.

As for the other questions: I'm stubborn. Explaining that requires too much context, and it's been an exhausting day.

Blogger Joe Keenan May 13, 2015 7:43 PM  

Deirdre, Thanks for the reference regarding Shetterly's interview of Delaney; that's one disturbing interview.

Blogger Joe Keenan May 13, 2015 7:57 PM  

Rick Moen, Breen was a convicted perv in 1954, MZB married him knowing his background. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_H._Breen Even a cursory examination of Breendoggle indicates a coverup of Breens actions. Only Moira Greyland's powerful testimony has brought this issue forward. If you start adding it all up, the "Community" looks pretty bad, Harlan Ellison grabbing Connie Willis's tit, Issac Asimov grabbing ass, Breen and MZB molesting, Delaney singing the praises of man/boy love. There's something wrong big time in "The Community," maybe, it does need to be investigated.

Blogger Joe Keenan May 13, 2015 8:08 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Unknown May 14, 2015 2:18 PM  

Joe Keenan, I'm aware of all that, and you'll note that it was my wife Deirdre who brought Moira Greyland's story out in public and made people face the fact that MZB turns out to have been another monster, not merely someone married to one. And the fact that you know about Breen's mysterious 1954 arrest in Atlantic City (which, FYI, was reportedly not generally known in 1964) and the rest is partly because Deirdre got Stephen Goldin's pages about Breen at SFF.net resurrected (though Goldin subsequently reposted them himself), and that has been a primary resource for everything else including the somewhat halfassed Wikipedia page you cite.

What I was pointing out concerning especially MZB, is that it's difficult determining who specifically had evidence and did nothing, as opposed to who didn't know, or who merely had a bad feeling. I was posing a specific question: Which people, what, when? My point being, it's a very difficult problem.

You say 'convicted perv', but nobody knows what exactly Breen was convicted of in 1954. (Being a 'perv' is not as such against any law, and I have to wonder about people obsessed with them.) The specific child-abuse suspicions in 1964 about Breen were brought in front of the Pacificon II concom, were enough to get him banned from the Worldcon, but were then controversial because of extreme shortage of evidence and no sign of criminal investigation (that people were aware of).

A few years ago, I learned the ass-pinching and breast-grabbing datum about the 'Good Doctor' Asimov, which was apparently in its day something nobody covered for but also nobody ever corrected, e.g., by decking the son of a bitch. (I was disappointed to hear he'd had that habit: He rode the train down to give a lecture in 1978 at my college in New Jersey and was wonderful, and he was a crackerjack science columnist, but feet of clay, eh?)

But note, times have changed: I was present when Harlan Ellison pulled that inexcusable stunt, and absolutely nobody has any truck with it, except of course Harlan. So, it's not the 1970s any more, and nobody thinks Good-Doctoresque ass-grabbing is just one of those things to warn women about.

I read Shetterly's interview of Delany that talks about the building superintendent and all that. It was long, intermittently interesting, conjured up the WWII time and place (some East Coast city) he was remembering pretty well, his preteen sexual escapade with the building super, and all that. He can sing the praises of anything he wants; we are the land of where people are supposed to be free to do so. If he breaks the law, throw the book at him.

You want to investigate hither and yon, go to town, my good man. Feel welcome to start by telling me who specifically know substantive evidence that MZB abused children, what they knew, and when. Not easy at all to know, is it? Thus my point. Vague handwaves are easy. And also pretty much also are functionally useless and just bullshit posturing.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Anonymous Deirdre Saoirse Moen May 14, 2015 3:16 PM  

Joe, I found it telling, and said as much, that none of the rest of the left bothered to try to get any clarification out of Delany about the NAMBLA newsletter statements he'd made, but when Shetterly does, hardly anyone bothers to read it (because: Shetterly).

I don't care who's done the scholarship if it's good work. I always try to note what holes there are in a given piece (e.g., what's NOT asked, or at least not printed) and take pretty much everything with a healthy dose of skepticism. And sometimes, one has to not ask those questions in order to get the interview at all.

I don't know if you followed the recent media storm about Mary Kay Letourneau and her Barbara Walters interview about her "relationship" (re: child rape) of Vili Fualaau when she was 34 and he was 12. (Mary Kay's wikipedia page has more about it.) They did eventually marry, which—I just don't get that.

So, where I don't respect getting the interview is where you call child rape a relationship even if the couple *did* go on to marry. It feels like the horror of the whole thing has been sanitized and blessed.

Anonymous Rick Moen May 14, 2015 6:09 PM  

A worthwhile thing to note about the 'NAMBLA newsletter statements [Delany] made' is that (from memory) all Delany said was that, at the time (60s or 70s, can't recall) NAMBLA's newsletter had some of the better commentary then available anywhere on societal issues concerning sexuality.

That utterly inoffensive, and possibly extremely well founded, statement is what the man has been primarily pilloried over, and that's really over-the-top ridiculous. I have no idea whether the man is guilty of various and sundry other crimes (and, as the Quakers say, 'and I'm not sure about thee), but condemning him because of reading material he found insightful goes beyond stupid, clear into shameful.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Anonymous VFM.0157 aka Forrest Bishop May 14, 2015 10:59 PM  

If you start adding it all up, the "Community" looks pretty bad, Harlan Ellison grabbing Connie Willis's tit, Issac Asimov grabbing ass, Breen and MZB molesting, Delaney singing the praises of man/boy love. There's something wrong big time in "The Community," maybe, it does need to be investigated... -Joe Keenan

Moen & Moen, Thank you so much for your contributions and clarifications, most especially "Joe Keenan, I'm aware of all that, and you'll note that it was my wife Deirdre who brought Moira Greyland's story out in public and [other actions noted]..." Very admirable, and I suppose not too many were aware of this.

As Rick Moen notes, trying to figure out who knew what when, who dunnit, and so on is just about impossible. But what is entirely possible is to make all SFWA Members, and anyone who cares to transact business with the SFWA, or uses the SFWA imprimatur in their promotions, or reads any literature by SFWA Authors, aware of this long and sordid history. How about putting a permanent statement on the front page of the website?

Blogger Joe Keenan May 15, 2015 7:49 PM  

I used to be a voracious reader of Fantasy/Sci-Fi but moved away from it decades ago, it just got too off the wall for me. When I returned to Fantasy it was in response to a thought provoking essay on Tolkien that led me to a deeper understanding of Tolkien's work and rekindled my interest in Fantasy and inspired me to catch up on the goings on in my once favorite genre. I came across your wife's article when I stumbled across a citation of it in a news article. Her work was/is top notch, I hope you are very proud of her

The other scandals mentioned (along with the SCA) inspired some reflection on my part; I wondered, what kind of people let pervs get away with pervy behavior? And, are pervy people attracted to Fantasy/Sci Fi? If so, why? I don't know where Asimov and Ellison are from, but their behavior is/was unacceptable everywhere at anytime. That their behavior was tolerated says a lot about the community. I believe pervs are attracted to Fantasy because the genre allows the creation of a secondary world within which they can rationalize their behavior, make it normal. Delaney went down this road, now (judging by the interview) he seems lost in a delusion of his own making. Earth to "Chip" no amount of pedantic rationalization justifies sex with children.

Regarding "ambiguity" or lack of specificity surrounding Breen, he died in prison because he was a convicted sexual abuser. He published a perv newsletter and book on pederasty, which mzb help edit. As his own daughter testified, both he and his bride were pervs. Any arguments from ignorance can normally be dismissed out of hand on their fallacious nature, however, perhaps in this case ignorance/ambiguity you contend surrounds this case should prompt investigation to resolve the ignorance and ambiguity?

Delaney's "pre-teen" sexual experience was pre-teen all right, 7 years pre-teen, he was a six year old baby. Regarding investigation, your specious suggestion I should do it is telling. All water under the bridge to you? From my view point it looks like something the State should investigate. As you yourself seem to imply, we don't know if people colluded to cover up sex crimes. That needs to be answered.

Blogger Joe Keenan May 15, 2015 8:06 PM  

Deirdre, As I mentioned above to Rick, I have only recently returned to reading FANTASY, I'm therefore at a loss to understand why someone would dismiss authors work. Seemed like a very good piece to me. Your correct to give props to truth, regardless where you find it. Truth is the Truth after all. Regarding, MJL, the kid was victimized in his youth, him emotional development impacted, a twisted understanding arising from this is understandable, Delaney shows the same Stockholm Syndrome like perspective in his interview. I agree regarding your point towards the sanitizing of child rape. Everyone, even a rapist, wants to feel good about themselves, the rapist reformatting the crime as a "relationship" helps in the feel good process. There's a relationship all right, one between a criminal and a victim. In closing, your work on this issue is top notch, you have much to be proud of. Good on ya!

Blogger Joe Keenan May 15, 2015 8:10 PM  

Rick, Just a heads up, normal guys do not subscribe to the North American Man Boy Love Assoc. newsletter for up to date info on sex research. They join to commiserate and interact with other pervs like themselves, to learn grooming tips, and internalize inane philosophies that justify their perversions.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts