Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by cronicler, Nov 29, 2014.
The first image was a response to you. That constitutes a discussion. Stop abusing your position.
Yes that's totally what you did. Oh wait no!
Also a single pithy image does not constitute a discussion.
You're free to ignore me or anyone else you want. You are not free to then treat this thread as your personal blog and space to troll. Don't try to disingenuously rules-lawyer this: that's exactly what you're doing.
If I ever post in this thread again please remind me to kill myself thankyou.
Yay, another bunch of non-offensive posts disappear. Seriously tempted to write a bunch of jokes that would inevitably progress to a point that would be line with Godwin's law, but nevermind.
Anyway, here are some news for another battlefield that is in my area of interest, the Sci-Fi:
Have fun and remember, never drink and drive!
I'm removing posts by Akratus until it's clear he intends to treat this topic as more than his personal trolling ground. Gave him a chance by replying to his last post. Instead of trying to show some good will, he immediately came back with more trolling. /shrug
Hah, I like how Milo Yiannopoulos is trying to turn himself into the personal champion of reactionary complaints that people refuse to stand by racism and sexism. Because, yes, that's what this is actually about. I've been following this whole deal in SFF for a couple years now, and it's mostly people upset that others are talking about racism and sexism in SFF -- both in literature and the community. It's a threat to the status quo, and status quo-beneficiaries don't like it when that is threatened, where "threatened" means "these people hold different opinions on these people/these works and they're talking about it."
The only actual action taken against anyone in that whole OH NO CENSORSHIP whinefest was against Theodore Beale/Vox Day, who was kicked out of SFWA for using the organization to spread his racist hate-speech aimed at another SFWA member. And yes, the dude is an unabashed white supremacist and misogynist. It's not even subtle. But Milo tries to whitewash that by not describing what he actually did, and then noting that "Beale is himself Native-American." I could describe why that's a bunch of nonsense, but you can just read his insanity over at the ever-wonderful-and-somehow-not-completely-inaptly-named Rational Wiki.
That is kind of a trend in Milo's stories: he never actually explicitly mentions why people are upset with other folks, only describing the offenses in the vaguest and most ridiculous-sounding terms. Because if he actually did describe what was going on, people might come to the conclusion that the people upset with those other folks might actually have a point. But hey, serious journalist right?
If people like Larry Correia, Mark Lawrence and even Theodore Beale want to continue to write the stuff they've been writing, absolutely no one is stopping them from doing so. They're certainly selling enough -- well, Correia and Lawrence are, at least. Beale never sold a ton. They're just going to have to live with the fact that people are going to judge their stories and other writings based on their own criteria, which for many people these days includes issues of social justice. That this evolution of a portion of their readership's views does not correspond with the author's views is not actually a problem. It's just the price you pay when you publicly produce works.
What the fucking fuck. This guy is half a freaking lunatic. Talibans are justified in assassinating women who want to educate themselves? Race is correlated with intelligence? Women prefer mass murderers to decent men? What in the actual fuck.
I wouldn't say this guy should be censored (he does stop just short of hateful speech, but doesn't cross it) but I wouldn't want anything to do with him or by him. He's far worse than all the Anita Sarkeesians of this world.
But... But... CULTURAL MARXISM!!!111one
Milo said it himself. It's a culture war going on. Some people don't want to think about their own behaviour and will follow everyone who tells them that it's all fine.
Well this thread still exists and there is no other place to put this so...
Hey, it's what Milo and friends call it. If you'd actually read and understand what you post here you'd know that.
Wait, I forgot that you're a chucklemonger. Good joke, brah.
Doesn't that New Statesmen article demonstrate that the complaints aren't purely partisan?
I'm not saying it's not a culture war. I'm saying I laugh when I hear people call it a culture "war". It's idiotic.
Oh yeah, people on all sides are going to disagree with specific incidents, as with Jonathan Ross. Ross is a bit of an odd example, though, because while that was a fairly high-profile incident, it didn't really have all that much to do with the social-justice-split in SFF. See for instance Charles Stross explaining why he didn't want Ross there: having a controversial host who's always in the tabloids doesn't do much for SFF fandom while they're trying to address issues (a lot of them diversity-related, admittedly) that have plagued the community for a long time. It happened during that split over diversity and social justice, and it was intertwined with it in some ways, but it's not a great example of the split over diversity and social justice.
A better example would be the disagreement over H.P. Lovecraft as the personification of the Howard award, given his incredibly virulent racism. Or Racefail, which was an early incident where people complained over racism and the portrayal of race within SFF. Or the general discussion of diversity in SFF, among fans, creators and in the cultural products themselves ("writing the other" is a popular topic).
The whole Jonathan Ross thing is awesome. I like how Seanan McGuire spent like four tweets being scared that Ross might make a fat-joke at her expense if she's nominated for an award.
Well, good thing my favourite authors are doing very well on the diversity front (despite being nasty privileged white men), so I should be safe from hearing that I'm a bad person for reading such garbage
Or maybe the lynching of Mike Resnick and Barry Malzberg had something to do, or maybe SFWA attacking Amazon at the side of the big 6 (traditional publishing houses) to the detriment of the writers, or maybe SFWA treating indy (self published, in most cases various e-formats over various "approved" minor boutique outlets) writers as untouchables (in the Hindu sense) or maybe arguing that "a story needed to be "enjoyable and decently crafted" first and all the rest (ideological stuff, advanced nuances of wordcraftmanship and et al) were the minor sauces on the side" instantly caused one to be labelled as regressive ""White Supremacist Cis Hetero Patriarchy Imperialistic Supremacist" (And no, I'm not fucking kidding with that mind ducking label. Various versions and variations of it are spewed constantly.) had something to do with the Sci-Fi meltdown?
Why are you conflating the treatment of indie writers within SFWA (which has gotten much better in recent years -- they're certainly not treated as untouchables) with the push for diversity in SFF as a whole? Those two things aren't remotely the same thing.
I'm not sure which specific incident you're referring to when people insist that stories need to be enjoyable and decently crafted, but in general backlash tends not to come because of statements like that, but because of the context within which they're made. Generally speaking, people use statements like that to justify ignoring social justice and other representational issues. The people pushing for more diversity and better accounting of social justice issues within SFF would agree that stories need to be enjoyable and well-crafted, but there's no reason why that need come at the expense of diversity or other issues. Which is why when someone says that awards or reviews or anything else should just be about good writing and not diversity, they are supporting the status quo and marginalizing genuine concerns for no real reason.
Mind you, this is how I've seen conversations like this go. Perhaps your specific example is different, but I can't judge without your actually linking it.
I feel like there is alot of unneeded censorship in this thread just because Akratus is responding in a way that utilizes text less than Sander would like.
And who, are you, the proud lord said, that I must bow so low?
Only a cat with a different coat, that's all the truth I know.
It's not censorship, the posts are readily available. It's less about censoring Akratus' opinion than forcing Akratus to actually voice an opinion. Just posting links without any commentary is completely pointless and does not contribute to a discussion.
Then why was it not a problem up until now? I don't care about such a rule being enforced but at least be consistent. Besides, some of my posts had legitimate points, yet were removed all the same.