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

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Mailvox: what would you do?

David of One is curious what I would have done if I had found myself in Steven Gould's position:
It isn't hard to imagine, Vox, you having had become president of that foul organization only to discover ... to realize at some formal function that you were in the midst of a great number of unwashed and perverse "artists". Such an occasion and realization that you were in the company and leader of eaters of the dead that relish the flesh of the living young. In truth such is the case now of modern day vampires of the living with the exception you are not, by God's grace and love, a leader amongst perverters of the the mind, body and soul. Such would surely be the making of a real life horror story.

I cannot help but ask you what you would have thought and done if such a situation were to have actually occurred during the annual formal function when such a realization might have occurred?
I would have held my tongue, smiled and concealed my realization, and done my best to learn as much as possible while I was in their midst. Then I would have quietly launched inquiries and hired private investigators with the organization's money to look into the backgrounds of the most suspicious parties.

Once I was in possession of the necessary information, I would have spoken directly to the various parties and given them the opportunity to come clean, with the warning that the relevant information had already been sent to the relevant authorities. I would also have made sure that multiple parties beside myself were in possession of it; those who keep information to themselves create an incentive to be silenced in one way or another.

(In case it is not clear, neither I nor Daniel are researchers. We are merely the initial outlets for those who know considerably more than we do about all of this sort of nasty thing.)

After they either came clean or declined, I would have released a statement to the organization and to the media, with links to the full report. Then I would have asked the SFWA Board, and the membership, to vote on expelling the various individuals and stripping them of all honors.

SFWA instead voted to elect the man who selected Samuel Delany as a Grand Master. That's on their heads, and on their consciences.

Labels: ,

55 Comments:

Blogger dh December 29, 2015 12:08 PM  

You mean you wouldn't write that it was "an award well chosen and well deserved"?

Blogger Neanderserk December 29, 2015 12:11 PM  

AMEN!

Anonymous KoranBurningFaggot December 29, 2015 12:54 PM  

You have no idea what people are willing to share with you when they think you are one of them. There was a co worker that got transferred to night shift with me at a hospital I wouldn't want to be caught dead at, that I only worked the weekend nights at. I gave he a friendly greeting the first time I meet him and he said "did you hear about the 2 homeless women I had staying at my house", I said "I bet its a funny story as I have had a homeless woman stay with me for a bit", in my case it was an retired widowed school teacher whose house across the street from the house I was renting was destroyed, & my landlord asked me to let her stay in the guestroom until an insurance adjuster came by(even worse my boyfriend at the time had been one of her students). The guy told me about how he picked up the hookers from near by where he was transferred from & took them home only to have them show up at work saying he sexually abused them. He was not fired because the women changed their stories.

OT: It turns out there is one antique gays don't like.
http://bearingarms.com/breaking-colt-1911s-california/

Bring out your dead voters
http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/12/28/us-voter-database-leak/

Blogger GK Chesterton December 29, 2015 12:55 PM  

You should run again on a purge plank.

Blogger Chris Nelson December 29, 2015 1:30 PM  

As a reader in the genre, what is your responsibility?

I argue that you don't knowingly, directly or indirectly, reward those that either participated or covered up actions that you condone.

You draw the line according to your principles. There are plenty of choices of entertainment and pastimes that do nor require financial support of monsters.

I'm not sure if checking out a book from a library or purchasing such a book store by an author that may have known and not spoken up about these events is acceptable. It would be a large task to vet everyone in the genre, hopefully most of the foul are obvious. Maybe we need a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval or something...

Anonymous Hugh Gentry December 29, 2015 1:39 PM  

Trump is the candidate the Republicans deserve.

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article46766275.html

Anonymous joe doakes December 29, 2015 1:40 PM  

I agree with your proposal but I can imagine the Other Side claiming this proves they were right about Sad Puppies: we're not against judging authors instead of their stories, we just want to replace SJW standards with our own fundamentalist standards.

Blogger Elocutioner December 29, 2015 1:44 PM  

Vox's entryism would be glorious.

Anonymous Faceless December 29, 2015 1:52 PM  

@7

Didn't they take great pains to try to dissociate Rabid Puppies from Sad Puppies? Hoping to shove some daylight between the flame-throwing care bear, the International Lord of Hate, and the Evil Lord of Evil?

Rabid Puppies had far less lofty goals; have fun and vote for our consensus slate.

We have no obligation to support pedophiles, pederasts, or their enablers just to prove we're some sort of establishment-GOP fair losers.

They say you can't be part of polite conversation if you don't celebrate gay marriage and gender reassignment surgery and having to ask everybody for their pronouns up front. Our counter proposal is that you shouldn't be part of polite conversation if you're okay with rape and sexual abuse. They've charged the right with rape for every tiny slight - textual rape, aural rape, etc - to try to convince themselves that everybody's doing it because that's how the left always sells evil.

Blogger tweell December 29, 2015 1:59 PM  

I have had the 'fun' of discovering people with child porn twice so far. Once was as a teacher at a tech school, one of my students was entertaining himself. I threw him out, copied his browsing history + files, reported it to the school administration... and was fired the next day. I turned over the evidence to the local police and noted the school was trying to cover the incident up, the school expelled that student shortly thereafter.

The second time was filling in for a network admin as a reservist, finding his files loaded with nasty kiddie pics. His superiors made a half-hearted try to cover things up, but after seeing some of the 'collection' (and reminded that the reason I was there was because the admin was camping with a youth group) called police in and arrested him. He was an abuser, and his children/stepchildren were in some of the pics with him. I got to testify at the trial, and he's rotting in prison for life + lots. If the state ever releases him, Leavenworth is waiting.

Your putative approach makes sense to me. This would be dealing with people from many different areas, and law enforcement does much better when given proof. Allegations can be safely ignored, evidence, on the other hand...

Blogger F. Axe #437 December 29, 2015 2:21 PM  

You could always turn them over to the VFM for information extraction and public cellular deconstruction.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 29, 2015 2:31 PM  

@2

VD as Anderson?

.... I can totally see that.

Blogger Chris Nelson December 29, 2015 2:36 PM  

Nobody in this genre is a saint, but that doesn't mean we support monsters and those that attack us. Somewhere on the scale you must draw a line unless you support libertines.

If Delany had created art as good as "David" by Michelangelo, should we celebrate his works while ignoring the rest of his odorous output and his nature?

What if our dollars used to purchase some entertainment in the form of a book are then used to purchase a "beach boy" for some lusty author with powerful connections that shield him? If we are aware of that fact beforehand, why enable him or her? Do we support folks that support the author, know his behavior?

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 29, 2015 2:42 PM  

@2

Actually, VD is Maxwell "THIS IS AN INQUISITION!" Larry might be Anderson.

Anonymous Ain December 29, 2015 2:55 PM  

@10 "This would be dealing with people from many different areas, and law enforcement does much better when given proof. Allegations can be safely ignored, evidence, on the other hand...

It's the right way to handle it. Nothing gets out to become rumor fodder if it turns out to be unfounded, but more importantly, it's a commitment to making sure the situation gets handled if it's real.

Anonymous Scintan December 29, 2015 3:03 PM  

As a reader in the genre, what is your responsibility?

As a reader, you have no responsibility.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 29, 2015 3:09 PM  

ISIS has a rape handbook has Tor bought the rights to it?

Blogger Chris Nelson December 29, 2015 3:14 PM  

"As a reader, you have no responsibility."

So you want to reward pervs and crowd-source their "entertainment" while playing the role of Pilate?

Blogger Aziz P. December 29, 2015 3:22 PM  

what if the investigators had not been able to find anything legally actionable (basically, a Clarkian fog of uncertainty)? I like the strategy you outlined but it hinges on the assumption that there was sufficient evidence to indict.

Blogger Student in Blue December 29, 2015 3:25 PM  

So you want to reward pervs and crowd-source their "entertainment" while playing the role of Pilate?

A reader is not necessarily a customer.

Anonymous Sparklehorse December 29, 2015 3:34 PM  

No piranha? No acid bath? Not so much as a fucking woodchipper?

Pussy.

Blogger Chris Nelson December 29, 2015 3:35 PM  

"A reader is not necessarily a customer."

So at what point of abstraction are the readers hands clean? Is it at the point of no-gain to the originator and their supporters? Would a library book be sin free?

Anonymous Scintan December 29, 2015 3:49 PM  

So you want to reward pervs and crowd-source their "entertainment" while playing the role of Pilate?

Pay attention to what is written. Words mean things.

Blogger Chris Nelson December 29, 2015 4:02 PM  

"Pay attention to what is written. Words mean things."

Why pay attention? As a reader I have no responsibility, right?

Anonymous Scintan December 29, 2015 4:06 PM  

Why pay attention? As a reader I have no responsibility, right?

Here, you haven't been just a reader. You've been an active participant in the discussion, via the written word.

Again, words mean things.

Blogger bearspaw December 29, 2015 4:07 PM  

@21
Vox Day, Pres., would have limited options at his disposal. However, the ELoE has only the limits of his imagination in meting out justice.

Blogger TheRedSkull December 29, 2015 4:21 PM  

Sin means missing an archery target. This isn't target practice anymore; it's war. Quit with the spit and polish and fight.

Anonymous Adam1 December 29, 2015 4:32 PM  

David the One/Daniel- Is this the same person?

Blogger ajw308 (#98) December 29, 2015 4:40 PM  

Would a library book be sin free?
People would see you reading it. My money's not spent on Tor books at the local used bookstore. One can still get splashed with crap standing to close to the line. Besides there's many good books out there who's authors aren't slimy or like hanging with slimy people.

Blogger Student in Blue December 29, 2015 4:52 PM  

@22. Chris Nelson
So at what point of abstraction are the readers hands clean? Is it at the point of no-gain to the originator and their supporters? Would a library book be sin free?

That's not the argument you were making prior to this:

So you want to reward pervs and crowd-source their "entertainment" while playing the role of Pilate?

I'm pretty sure selectively quoting from Hogg and comparing it to quotations of adulation for the author is not rewarding pervs or crowd-sourcing their entertainment.

Yet you are still reading it. You are still playing the part of a reader of that material. But you're not rewarding pervs nor sending them money.

Regardless, you're convinced that by simply reading it you have some sort of obligation or responsibility, because you're confusing reader with supporter. They can overlap, and do so numerous times, but they are not the same thing.

Blogger LP999 DUNE no Doom December 29, 2015 5:00 PM  

Exposing the pervamps, remaining against their efforts is of the good and the light.

Blogger Chris Nelson December 29, 2015 5:25 PM  

"I'm pretty sure selectively quoting from Hogg and comparing it to quotations of adulation for the author is not rewarding pervs or crowd-sourcing their entertainment."

You misunderstand. I'm not faulting folks that are reading scat material from scat authors either unknowingly or for investigative purposes. I understand why the quotes in the article were there. Folks need to know the depravity. (Sadly I've seen too much of this dark world to be too shocked. Doesn't mean I like the producers or audience of this stuff.)

If I knowing read Hogg, knowing what it is, then I'm a consumer of scat. If I purchase it, knowing what it is, without any reasonable higher justification, then I'm a supporter of scat. (I don't have to read the whole Hogg, no pun intended. I knew what the book was before I read the article.)

The reader isn't always the consumer, but the reader almost always has choices, especially when it comes to entertainment. If the reader is an student, researcher or investigator then they may have read or have an responsibility to read such material. (The actual book.)

So I'm not mad at the article, I'm livid at Delany, his ilk and their supporters.

Blogger Student in Blue December 29, 2015 5:43 PM  

The reader isn't always the consumer, but the reader almost always has choices, especially when it comes to entertainment. If the reader is an student, researcher or investigator then they may have read or have an responsibility to read such material. (The actual book.)

Those responsibilities stem from being a student, a researcher, or an investigator, not from the quality of being a reader. That is the distinction being made here, that it is not being a reader that confers responsibilities and obligations, instead such things as being an upright Christian do.

And the word was supporter, not consumer.

Anonymous kawaika December 29, 2015 5:59 PM  

"I agree with your proposal but I can imagine the Other Side claiming this proves they were right about Sad Puppies..."

Who cares? Their side thinks you make deals with the Baron of Hell instead of blasting him.

Blogger SirHamster December 29, 2015 6:28 PM  

If Delany had created art as good as "David" by Michelangelo, should we celebrate his works while ignoring the rest of his odorous output and his nature?

I say that a man given over to his perversions to destruction will not have the talents to create a "David".

Creative power and beauty are things from God; the ugly from these anti-God types reflects a heart fully rejecting God, His Law and His blessings.

A good tree produces good fruit. A bad tree will not.

Blogger Rusty Fife December 29, 2015 6:33 PM  

@7

Yes, they can claim we are just excluding on different standards. However, THEY are the ones that set that particular precident.

It's called counter punching.

Anonymous Scintan December 29, 2015 7:11 PM  

If I knowing read Hogg, knowing what it is, then I'm a consumer of scat. If I purchase it, knowing what it is, without any reasonable higher justification, then I'm a supporter of scat. (I don't have to read the whole Hogg, no pun intended. I knew what the book was before I read the article.)



While trimming the edges, you're continuing to argue a blatantly false claim. The act of freely reading is not necessarily a demonstration of support. Just to point to one obvious example, if I read Mein Kampf knowing what it is, and without having been obliged to do so, that does not mean I support Hitler, or his activities.

Blogger weka December 29, 2015 7:40 PM  

Operation disrespectful nod won't work with tor. Boycott them and when they are gone, sow the fields with depleted uranium

Blogger Chris Nelson December 29, 2015 7:43 PM  

"While trimming the edges, you're continuing to argue a blatantly false claim. The act of freely reading is not necessarily a demonstration of support."

Are there personal limits to your freely reading? If so what are they?

"Just to point to one obvious example, if I read Mein Kampf knowing what it is, and without having been obliged to do so, that does not mean I support Hitler, or his activities."

(Now you go Godwin on me.)

Mein Kampf isn't entertainment reading. Knowing it's nature you probably wouldn't read it for pleasure. It probably has some historic significance and value considering the circumstances.

Anonymous Holmwood December 29, 2015 8:24 PM  

You're playing silly buggers [no pun intended] Chris Nelson. Snarking around the edges doesn't translate to an argument. In this case, striking back with Godwin is irrelevant.

"Mein Kampf isn't entertainment reading."
Indeed. By implication though, particularly noting your happy use of "scat" Delaney is?

-Holmwood

Anonymous Scintan December 29, 2015 8:50 PM  

Are there personal limits to your freely reading? If so what are they?

Whatever strikes me as readable at any given time, so long as it's legal, is a possibility. I don't automatically cut anything out. That would make no sense.

(Now you go Godwin on me.)


Actually, I went topical on you, given that Mein Kampf is just now being legally re-released in Germany, for the first time since the end of WWII.

Mein Kampf isn't entertainment reading. Knowing it's nature you probably wouldn't read it for pleasure.

Reading without obligation is reading without obligation. It will always be for some form of pleasure, pretty much by definition.

Blogger Banshee December 29, 2015 9:11 PM  

Re: "Nobody in this genre is a saint" --

Actually, there's St. Thomas More, the author of Utopia. (And a very odd sort of reverse social criticism that is.)

Blogger Chris Nelson December 29, 2015 9:36 PM  

"Snarking around the edges doesn't translate to an argument."

I'm not trying to snark. I'm trying to find what various people of different communities find acceptable in entertainment media that is this genre. What is too far? Who is too far? How do you choose? Do people even read the ingredients on The Box?

"By implication though, particularly noting your happy use of "scat" Delaney is?"

I use scat instead of other terms, it comes from my hunting and trapping days. It's not "happy", it's descriptive. (Yes, I know the other definitions.) I could consult Roget if I wanted to be flowery.

Blogger Edward Isaacs December 29, 2015 9:46 PM  

Morally speaking, a worker has a right to be paid for his work. Financially supporting people who known to do evil things with their money is not just permitted but obligatory, if you are directly reaping the benefits of their work. This obligation holds unless you have a more important duty which for whatever reason requires you not to pay them temporarily, such as if you were so broke that you had to make a choice between paying a contractor on time and feeding your own family for a week.

Consider this example: if you visit a prostitute, morally, you must pay her for her time. Otherwise you are guilty not only of fornication but of fraud as well. It makes no difference that she may use the money to further her "career", such as by purchasing cosmetics and contraceptive devices. What if she would likely use your money for an abortion? Clearly you should seek to stop her from doing so by any reasonable and morally licit means, but you still ought to pay her.

At any rate, that a man may be guilty of unspeakable sins does not mean that you are therefore permitted to steal his books.

Could there be a duty not to purchase a notorious sinner's works? In other words, a morally obligatory boycott? Ordinarily not, if use of the work itself is not sinful. (For instance, you have a moral obligation to "boycott" prostitutes.) In most cases prudence would weigh the good to be gained by the purchase of the work against the weight of the (possible) evil that could result from the ill use of this purchase money, the probability that such evil would result with and without this amount of money, and the question of whether *this specific* purchase could make a difference at all. (One of the principles of boycotts is that they can't be morally binding unless they have reasonable prospects of success.)

At any rate I don't believe that it's possible make a universal proclamation about whether or not we have a moral obligation not to financially support a writer who lives immorally. It has to be a case-by-case basis, and the prospective purchaser has to ask himself: What is the good to be gained from the purchase, and would not purchasing this book result in a greater good?

Blogger Chris Nelson December 29, 2015 10:09 PM  

"Whatever strikes me as readable at any given time, so long as it's legal, is a possibility. I don't automatically cut anything out. That would make no sense."

There's a lot of crud that's legal to eat, but I don't knowingly put it in my body. Same applies to reading, watching and listening. I've experience a broad spectrum of works, some very dark and disgusting. I've had a broad life, some of it was also dark and disgusting. (I wasn't responsible for that, not all hands we are dealt are flushes.)

I'm not immortal in the physical world and there's more quality experiences to enjoy than there are days. I've seen extreme evil and filth in a mostly grey world, I don't feel the need to wallow in it nor taste it with a spoon.

I'm curtailing my consumption of the genre for my betterment. Darn near tapped out the good stuff. Don't want to vet every author. Time is better spent exploring the real physical world, both projects and duties call.

Y'all do want you want, I'm just curious why.

Blogger Student in Blue December 29, 2015 10:10 PM  

@Chris Nelson

Again, it is not reading that confers obligations and responsibilities, but some other aspect of the person doing the reading.

Reading is a neutral activity. The contents being read may not be neutral, but the activity has no innate morality to it.

Blogger Chris Nelson December 29, 2015 10:23 PM  

"At any rate I don't believe that it's possible make a universal proclamation about whether or not we have a moral obligation not to financially support a writer who lives immorally."

It is clear that we have multitudes choices and can be discriminating in those choices. There's a cornucopia of books and authors in the genre and we are more knowledgeable of their nature than before. (But maybe every single one is just a Delany or a Cosby...)

Blogger Chris Nelson December 29, 2015 10:28 PM  

"Reading is a neutral activity. The contents being read may not be neutral, but the activity has no innate morality to it."

Replace "Reading" with another action word "Viewing." Now consider the variability of "contents". Dig deep and dark...

Anonymous Scintan December 29, 2015 10:33 PM  

There's a lot of crud that's legal to eat, but I don't knowingly put it in my body. Same applies to reading, watching and listening.

Who's supposed to give a shit what you eat or read? The issue you asserted was responsibility, not personal preference. If you want to eat something, and you've got no medical issues which require you not to eat that something, go ahead and eat it. If you want to read MZB/Clarke/Delaney/insert evil author here, read MZB/Clarke/Delaney/insert evil author here. There's no responsibility not to do either of those things.

Again, words mean things. This is grade school level stuff.

Blogger Thucydides December 29, 2015 10:40 PM  

I am somewhat curious about how people slide. Consider George R.R. Martin. While he is certainly a buffoon and provides cover for evil now, he did once have a certain amount of talent (see short stories like Sandkings and The Way of Cross and Dragon).

What is it exactly about SJW's is so appealing that people willingly go over?

Blogger Chris Nelson December 29, 2015 11:03 PM  

"This is grade school level stuff."

I guess we went to wildly different grade schools. I'm not that apathetic.

Anonymous kawaika December 30, 2015 12:31 AM  

Tut, tut, moderate pessimist.

Blogger Nick S December 30, 2015 1:07 AM  

What is it exactly about SJW's is so appealing that people willingly go over?

Social Justice contains a superficial promise of fair play and equality that tugs on people's emotional heartstrings...until one thinks it through. The truth is not so assuasive.

Blogger Student in Blue December 30, 2015 9:34 AM  

@48. Chris Nelson
Replace "Reading" with another action word "Viewing." Now consider the variability of "contents". Dig deep and dark...

You have poor reading comprehension.

Okay, "viewing pornography". Viewing in and of itself confers no RESPONSIBILITIES or obligations. Any responsibilities or obligations comes from WHO YOU ARE.

Anonymous Shut up rabbit December 30, 2015 12:24 PM  

@50 A study of the leading anti-Gamergate SJWs reveals that they all have some dark, dirty secret in their past and presumably they believe fighting for "social" justice will somehow absolve them.

Regular justice will just judge them and find them wanting so they need to build an imaginary world in which despicable people like them are somehow the "good guys".

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts