Charles Gannon made a guest post about the Sad Puppies and the whole Hugo debacle On Monster Hunter Nation, Larry Corriea’s blog. Apparently, the article was originally posted to Whatever Scalzi, John Scalzi’s blog. Someone challenged Mr. Gannon to post it to a Puppy blog and see what he got. I read through his post and feel he made some very good points. Yes, the rhetoric needs to be toned down and calmer heads need to prevail. Ken Burnside made the same point a week ago on the Wrongfun podcast. That being said, there are issues. At one point, Mr. Gannon used the term “The Evil Other”. I’m not sure he has grasped the full significance of this label.
Would you talk to a Homophobic Neo-Nazi that tried to hijack a literary award? How about a racist who married a minority wife and had a child with her to hide his racism? These have actually happened! We know, it was talked about in such serious publications as Salon, Entertainment Weekly, The Daily Beast, The Guardian, and Slate. They had to get their information somewhere. Someone sent this information to them and they should have done due diligence. Otherwise they might not have as much credibility as people thought.
Now, those two characters, above, don’t even sound plausible in comic books. But these are not just insults that have been thrown at the Puppies. This is what many of the Science Fiction Establishment actually BELIEVE. With these beliefs, almost any action becomes allowable. What tactic should be disallowed when fighting Evil? Are you going to let a prestigious award go to a Nazi? Someone might think it validated his ideas, then you have more Nazis. Would you pay for a hundred more people to vote to prevent that? Would you tone back your rhetoric for any reason? You certainly wouldn’t apologize for calling them Nazis. That’s what they are. Good grief, we’re talking about Fascists, here! It cost 60 million lives to defeat them last time! Vox Day is sadly mistaken. Social Justice Warriors don’t always lie. When you are fighting for Good, there is no reason to lie. Social Justice Warriors tell the truth as they see it.
Of course, the problem is, the Puppies are not Nazis. Even Theodore Beale, the infamous Vox Day, doesn’t quite reach that level (probably). In the face of this, the Puppies can’t back down. Not won’t, CAN’T! They know. They tried. This is the biggest problem with telling the Puppies to moderate their responses. The Puppies don’t actually think the Establishment is Evil (maybe with some exceptions for a couple of editors and/or former editors). They’d love to have a civil discourse. If the other side wants more literary stories, that’s fine. The Puppies want more plot and adventure. Let the fans read them both and decide. But the Establishment, via Deirdre Moen and others, told its fans NOT to read the nominations this past year. That they should reject them on principle because slates are bad (Had your book been nominated, Mr. Gannon, your work would have been treated this way as well). It worked. 2,500 votes were slated “No Award” in several categories. And we’ve seen that any backing away or apology will only be met with a redoubled effort by the Establishment. If the Puppies apologize they get attacked for apologizing too because it shows they knew they were wrong when they said whatever they said in the first place. See how that works? There is no margin for compromise because that needs to be a two way street. The Establishment believes the Puppies are Evil and there can be no compromise with Evil. It’s ugly. And until one side modifies what it believes, it won’t get better. Those beliefs need to be addressed by those who want to be peacemakers.
Update: The article was edited by the author to include links to the original articles on Monster Hunter Nation and Whatever Scalzi.
James: I am doubly grateful for your comment here. Firstly, because it is reasoned and civil and involved (lifeblood of all discourse). But secondly, because I realize that in one important instance, a figurative euphemism was mistaken (by you and perhaps others) as a specific and literal label. And given the context of the topics in which I was operating, I didn’t see the possibility for that confusion, so my error. Here’s the passage in question:
And you must also be prepared to step back enough from your own cultural values to see that many of them are not objectively correct, but conditional to the experience that gave rise to them. Then, when you turn that same dispassionate lens upon the Other, you may begin to see the world as they do through their eyes. (I think I’m starting to channel Margaret Mead.) . . . Unfortunately, no single act is so likely to result in one’s being ejected from one’s own group as the process I outlined above, because few things threaten group cohesion as much as questioning its self-defining narratives. Which of course include the narrative of the Evil Other.
Okay, so here’s where I was coming from: in anthropology, the Other is often the evil other in the sense that “outgroup is dangerous.” Example: although the word gaijin in Japanese etymologically means foreign person, it has, at various points in Japanese linguistic history, attained highly negative connotations, to the point of meaning something that is different and inherently dangerous. (This trend has mediated in the recent centuries, I am told…but I am no expert).
It was in this context that I used the term “evil other,” capitalized as one will to signify ironic importance, such as, this was A Very Bad Idea. Because the other is not, intrinsically, dangerous. It is just different. That was my point: that there are a variety of basic group dynamic models (in psych-, soci-, anthrop-ology) that track how a group responds to any of its members forming relationships with “out-group” persons or ideas. This is not right/left, flyover/urbanite, old/new: this is adduced as a template with strong recurrence among different cultures and across history. It was presented here only as a means of saying: “If a member of group a makes the effort to understand a member of group b, they are potentially courting suspicion and ostracization from their group of origin.” That is one of the ways that many groups safeguard their cohesion: by excluding alternate perspectives/identities.
Only when I read your article, James, did I see the possibility of seeing the Evil Other as being somehow identified with Vox Day (or Requires Hate or any other individual who has been labelled as “evil” by persons in these debates). In retrospect, I should have anticipated this, but was deaf to how this might be (dare I say it?) worthy of a “trigger warning”–in that this was not a trigger at all. Even the use of “evil” was meant ironically, not seriously (obviously, outgroup is not inherently “evil”)
To the best of my recollection, I have labeled only two other human beings with whom I have had personal intereactions as being “evil.” I think in order to use that word, you must have a sufficiently deep and personal knowledge of what the other person thinks in a variety of situations, and that knowledge MUST be first-hand. This is, for me, dramatically different than calling a person (for instance) dangerous. Danger speaks to effects; “evil” speaks to inner nature and intent (and those are usually impossible to know expect in persons with whom we have extensive personal relationships). For instance, I have termed laudable people dangerous (such as pacifists who undermine national will at a crucial moment when battle must be joined), and I may certainly strongly disagree with their opinions. But I would not use the term “evil”: it is rightly said that the nature of a person is ultimately known only to themselves and whatever deity might or might not exist to perceive it.
James, thank you for pointing this out. I have tried to take great pains to speak accurately and within carefully prescribed boundaries of meaning, but I fear I failed here because I was tone-deaf to the contexts that are so strong in these debates (in which I am not regularly involved, or even aware).
LikeLiked by 4 people
Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
Another great post on the puppies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr. Gannon’s post was well meaning and clearly written. However, it presumed that in dialog, both interlocutors are speaking in good faith. If the other side is not speaking in good faith, then we needs must dust off Mr. Correia’s Internet Arguing Checklist and quit taking them seriously.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is precisely to the point. If all could decide that the group defamation of people based on their immutable biological characteristics is ALWAYS wrong, this divide goes away tomorrow. These screeds against men, whites and heterosexuals simply have to stop. By “immutable” the general groups affected are women, men, gays, straights, Arabs, Asians, Jews, Latinos, blacks and whites. Just knock it off. These silly ideas non-whites, women and gays can’t be racist, bigoted supremacists is nonsense. In fact saying so is itself racist and sexist.
The more I tried to approach the fracas as a thing that could be handled with passionate — but still reasoned — words, the more lies were told about me, the more raw hatred was directed at me, and the more obvious it was I was dealing with a deliberately-orchestrated media smear campaign conducted by people who were not only comfortable telling and spreading lies, they viewed the destruction of my career and my personal life as a perfectly acceptable goal. I know who the power players are. They have all the money and all the connections and all the influence. To them, I was nothing. Nobody. I was literally disposable. I was not a human being. I was a target. And still, they have the nerve to wrap themselves in the flag of their own fetid, hypocritical notions of virtue and propriety.
LikeLiked by 9 people
I appreciated both Mr. Gannon’s original essay and the comment above. I’ve been pretty outspoken amongst those who will listen that we need more civility, less hyperbole, and to stop resorting to the tactics of those we oppose as we attempt to make our case. There is no doubt that harsh, hateful, unkind and insufferable things were said by those James labels as The Establishment about numerous Sad Puppies. There’s zero room for interpretation in assessing the remarks made by both Nielsen-Haydens, Federer, and any number of others with regard to the character of Brad Torgersen or those of us who supported him. There’s vanishingly small chance the lies and hatred spewed by one online media outlet after another were not a coordinated attack. Once is accident, twice bad luck, three times is enemy action. Do I want “my team” to behave better? Absolutely. I want us to sit on the highest point of the moral high road, because I think we have a legitimate complaint, and I don’t want that lost in the bickering and mud-slinging that results when we stoop to the tactics used by The Establishment. But do I for one instant believe all that Coke drivel, the lies, the libel was accidental or just a little misinterpretation? Not for a second. We were out to nominate and award works we love. They were out to wreck careers and ruin reputations. And then, when that tactic wasn’t working, they descended to smarmy in jokes and snide comments that would be the envy of any self absorbed narcissistic teenager. No, I’m afraid the playing field is really not level, and the Establishment players simply cannot be trusted.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Indeed so – and there are those who are associated with the Establishment who have been so thoroughly and completely gulled by the vile rhetoric employed by the Establishment that they are convinced they are doing the right thing.
What I don’t know is who of those who repeat the filth are the Establishment movers and shakers, and who are their useful idiots. After watching SP3 unfold, I no longer care to find out: I’ll do what I consider is the right thing to do, and the establishment can gaze with awe and terror upon my upraised middle fingers, because no matter *what* they do, SP4 wins.
The 2016 Hugos get no-awarded to oblivion by the Establishment? We’ve got one awesome reading list and set of data to use to push the awards that matter most (the ones that start with $). There’s a huge influx of members and the margins are ridiculously narrow? Great, that’s a healthy award. SP nominees get an award? Great. We don’t get any nominees? There’s still one heck of a reading list to work with.
No matter what happens, SP4 wins.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Chuck Gannon, I too would appreciate more civility. However it requires all sides agree on that point and behave accordingly. Somehow I don’t foresee all those puppy kickers doing so. Should it happen I will celebrate it.
As for your contention that calling someone evil requires first hand knowledge, I disagree. While there are few people I think are evil, there are a few that come to mind. Alfonso Rodriguez is one. I’ve never met the man, and I’m not a supporter of the death penalty, but he’s someone that can only improve society by becoming fertilizer.
Otherwise, keep writing that great SF.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Kamas, and thanks for your comment. I will say that when I spoke of evil persons, I am not referring to those with proven, multiple heinous deeds. I am talking about persons who are not felons and who “walk among us.” Didn’t want to extend my already long comments with yet another excursis.
It is an interesting, if academic, question to wonder where the line between mental pathologies and evil actually lies. At the end of the day, if we could look truly inside the heads of these perpetrators of ghastly crimes, the more the acts were powered by volition compared to compulsion, the more I feel comfortable saying: “That person did not merely do evil; they ARE evil.”
But even if we had a telepathy machine, I still feel we’re pretty safe assigning punishment based on the crime. However, I am not so charitable as you are in re: to the maximum punitive punishments for certain offenders with multiple incidents of recidivism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] James Schardt delivers “A Response to Charles Gannon” at Otherwhere […]
They’d love to have a civil discourse.
Well, let’s see. Mr Gannon’s post is quite civil. Let’s give some extracts from the comments thread for one of the blogs mentioned:
– “In point of fact, barefaced lying has been a principal tactic of EVERY proglodyte movement,”
– “I happen to know that Charles Gannon is both a coward and a liar.”
– “And for that, [Vox Day] is anathema to the crowd that values Feelz over Realz. ”
– “The TEAOP and the Anti-Puppy SJW Hugoistas are spiritual and tactical twins: their way or no way.”
– “You could fertilize a multi-acre farm with all that bullshit.”
– “This is exactly the kind of thing I’d expect from someone with a Dr in front of their name. ”
– “Anti-intellectualism like “compulsory heterosexuality,” which, by the way is the core argument behind Ann Leckie’s genderblind SF. Ironically and stupidly, that argument is for a “return to nature.” Hahahahah. That’s right. Mating pairs of tigers are morons. There’d be far more gay tigers if the male one’s hadn’t constructed heterosexuality. That shows you how far gone these creepy people are. They are a cult of fringe lunatics.”
– “It would be nice to be proven wrong about regressives being suited for working at movie theaters, as masters of projection, but so far the evidence of my being wrong seems to be kind of thin on the ground.”
– “The reason SP exists is because there are people in our entertainment arts who have taken it upon themselves to tell us what kinds of fun are right, and what kinds of fun are wrong. Fans, authors, artists, editors, all of us are now exposed to a pretty much endless stream of culture war criticism. And you are expected to either knuckle under and become an “owned property” of the culture warriors, or you stand up for yourself and your work (as Frank Cho admirably does) thereby inviting a torrent of vitriol, lies, threats, and worse.”
– “We will never be welcome at the mean girls’ table. Even now, people on the puppy kicker side are demanding that authors denounce Sad Puppies fans, or else. Why? Because there is nothing, ever, that we can do to make them be civil to us, except to go away. Then, MAYBE, they’ll consider ignoring us.”
– “The only thing left to do then, is to flip that mean girls table over while they are sitting at it. And take their meals and feed them to hungry puppies.”
– “Also, conservatives trying to be “understanding” and civil to SJWs while SJWs proceed to destroy them at every fucking opportunity is why they have been defeating conservatives in every arena for the past 40 years. Adjust or die.”
– “I’m watching Europe begin to burn because of the ‘understanding and civility’ towards a culture that tries to destroy the West at every opportunity.”
– “Hooooly Crap. I read the comments. Thoughtful responses quickly gave way to drooling slather of hatey hate hate hate. The uncontested winner was this little nugget of SJW “logic”
– “Men, men, men, whites, heterosexuals. That’s all these freaks got and all they talk about. It is their precioussssss. Without it, they’d have nothing to do or say.”
– “The part that I haven’t gotten ahold of is how their fevered minds have somehow created a hive hookup and they share their twisted mental reality, like the Wraith from Stargate Atlantis. And like them, they are parasitical in nature, needing a strong host to suck dry over time, destroying it in the process. Or, to make a long story short, who the hell let the nuts in charge of the nut house?”
There may be worse in those comments – I can’t be bothered reading them all. I note Mr Gannon participating, and keeping his remarks quite civil.
On the other hand, I see far less vitriol on the Whatever comments thread, with perhaps the worst being this:
“The pups aren’t ISIS and they aren’t the KKK. They’re not even the Tea Party. They’re a bunch of whiney bigots who enlisted a bunch of other whiney bigots to game the rules and load the nominations for a Science Fiction award with the names of themselves and other whiney bigots or people they identified with on some tribal/bigotted level. That’s what they are. That’s what they did. There are no redeeming qualities about the Puppies. There is nothing positive the Puppies contributed to the Hugos or SF awards or science fiction as a whole. And there is a WHOLE lot that the Pups did that was bigoted and selfish, on top of which becoming allies with the gamergater bigots just adds to their mess.”
which is, while judgmental, better grounded in actual actions than
“Men, men, men, whites, heterosexuals. That’s all these freaks got and all they talk about. It is their precioussssss. Without it, they’d have nothing to do or say.”
So when you say that the Puppy’s “would love to have a civil discourse”, do you have any actual proof – since the recourse to vitriol seems to be the standard response to any sign of disagreement.
Really, because Irene Gallo calling us neonazis was civil? We were painted as racist, sexist, misogynist homophobes from the get go — in national media — before we’d done more than post our choices for the Hugos.
Sir, you are a fool. We tried in SP2 to have a civil discourse, we tried in SP3 to have a civil discourse, and when your side would have none of it, we fired back in kind.
Of course that made _us_ the bad guys.
As to gamergate. Sir, I am a journalist. What the game magazines were doing was payola, and it’s unethical. Sleeping with a reporter to get a favorable review is beyond unethical and into vile.
Or are female journalists not to be held to the same standards as men? Are female game designers not subject to the same criticism of their work as men? Or are they simply too weak to handle it?
As is typical of your ilk, when called on it you then painted the gamergaters as vile, racist, sexist, etc. etc.
And then you whined when they responded in kind.
LikeLiked by 3 people
” Sleeping with a reporter to get a favorable review is beyond unethical and into vile.”
Want to provide a link to this alleged review please? Or a cache /*anything* that there was such a review?
I don’t know whether you’re just repeating something that you’ve heard many times, or is this really something you believe in intrinsically. If it’s the former, just a quick pointer – there was no review of Zoe Quinn’s game by anyone on Kotaku. And any narrative of Gamergate’s origins that leaves out Eron Gjoni is clearly not reality-based.
Translation: “Wah! They call people like me on my antics! UNCIVIL! WAH!”
Let me clue you in on something pal: my remarks are based on reading literally thousands of Tweets and blog posts and reflect actual reality and the arguments the players themselves have made. Trying to make it look like I just made that stuff up out of my head to be insulting is silly and dishonest.
CPaca is a known troll from Mike Glyer’s site.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To add, let’s look at a comment from one of the cited blogs:
This was the comment that caused the host to (smartly) shut down the discussion, lest his side show more of its ass than had already been shown; and that was quite a lot, frankly. But this final comment is instructive, because it’s aimed at Chuck personally. The individual who typed this appears incapable of differentiation. To this individual, there is an aggregate mass of “shitweasels” who are all perpetrating on the same spectrum of shitweaseldom. (S)he appears to place Chuck on that spectrum — which, if you know Chuck at all, is such an asburd and specious notion, it’s boggling that anyone could make the claim. Even someone as ignorant (of Chuck, the person) as this commenter clearly is.
I give Chuck credit. He tried. He’s still trying. I have the benefit of having met and talked to Chuck at length, and if there is a more level-headed, truly centrist individual in the entire debate, you’d be hard-pressed to identify that person. I’d put L.E. Modesitt, Jr. and Chuck Gannon very much above the fray; as men who keep their own counsel, are very smart about human nature, and who aren’t fooled by partisan rhetoric; nor partisan bullying.
The quoted comment (above, from the other blog) is clearly from a partisan of the Victim Culture. It’s worth noting that Larry Correia and I got death threats too. We didn’t have to be rushed to the hospital as a result. Nor did we broadcast our Victimness (note the caps) by proxy (note also that the commenter is raging on behalf of a “friend”) at high-decibel level. The only thing that happened in my house in particular, was my wife did something she was going to do anyway: armed herself, and took professional instruction in the use of her chosen weapon.
Because in our house, Victimness doesn’t fly.
The Victim Culture is all about seeking to find offense. Anything and everything is an excuse to be offended. You cannot have a reasonable discussion with an individual who is only paying attention to your words to the extent that (s)he is hunting for the first excuse to flip out and have a Victim tantrum.
I’m old-school. I come from the Dignity Culture. Maybe we’re on our way out — the Victim Culture is certainly trying very hard to use the mechanisms of the institutions to drive out the Dignity Culture — but that doesn’t mean I have to truck with Victimness.
In fact, I’d say that the Victim Culture is dead set against having any dialogue whatsoever with the Dignity Culture. Thus the Victim Culture sees no need for fine-tuned arguments. Everything and everyone is “GamerGate” and “shitweasels” and the paint roller of tar rolls right over the top of Chuck Gannon — a man who could probably win an award for niceness, reasonableness, and conciliatory attitude.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“Victimness doesn’t fly”
(It’s victimhood, but whatever, English is malleable even if spell check complains)
The entire Sad Puppy situation started when authors who were nominated for an award didn’t win and then, instead of thinking “I must not have deserved to win” thought “I was the victim of SJWs.” I’m paraphrasing, of course. Here’s your version:
“Likewise, we’ve seen the Hugo voting skew ideological, as Worldcon and fandom alike have tended to use the Hugos as an affirmative action award: giving Hugos because a writer or artist is (insert underrepresented minority or victim group here) or because a given work features (insert underrepresented minority or victim group here) characters.”
Back to your current comment:
“In fact, I’d say that the Victim Culture is dead set against having any dialogue whatsoever with the Dignity Culture. Thus the Victim Culture sees no need for fine-tuned arguments.”
Gannon’s point, which you’re missing here, is that missing “fine-tuned arguments” is a quality both sides of the debate have shown in spades. And yet you continue to protest that it’s just the “Other guy” doing this. Do you do this simply because you feel it strengthens your argument? Or do you really not see how (for example) the Puppy interpretation of Gallo’s words (still being brought up? amazing) is exactly “Victimness.”
Try again friend. This dates back to an important Spring: May of 2012. That’s the month Gawker media’s Kotaku video gaming site published SFWA president John Scalzi’s dizzy post about “white privilege.” That’s the month Anita Sarkeesian started her Kickstarter which would attack all men on planet Earth. The month before that is the equally dizzy “Is ‘Game of Thrones’ Too White?” at Salon by the obsessively anti-white Hugo and Nebula nominee Saladin Ahmed. You don’t get to start WW II in the middle. Since then it’s been a daily flood of feminist bullshit and harassment which is nothing less than the group defamation of all men, all whites, and all heterosexuals. “Group defamation.” That’s what the word means in the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. You don’t get to give some groups rewards points and steal them away from others either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If the Puppies apologize they get attacked for apologizing too because it shows they knew they were wrong when they said whatever they said in the first place”
He was not attacked for apologizing in the link you have there. He was criticized over his choice of words suggesting that John Scalzi is a homosexual and using that as an insult.
His apology was _not_ for suggesting that being gay is a bad thing. His apology was that such an insult was “below the belt.”
The article you linked to suggests that since Torgersen is likely to be in a leadership position over gay service members, he shouldn’t continue to use their sexual orientation as an insult.
To phrase that as an “attack” is (once again) Victimness, which is apparently to be despised.
Ah, yes, I was waiting for this. When the article was written, Myke Cole probably did not know Brad had apologized. The attacks on the apology came in the comments not the article. I remember that because whenever the article was posted on Facebook the line below it was calling Brad a Psycho. It lead me to believe Myke was calling Brad a Psycho to clickbait the article. It turned out it was Facebook pulling one of the comments instead of the article its self. I was ready to apologize but I realized that would be pointless after reading their attacks on Brad’s apology.
Think about it. Brad tried to do the right thing and attacks on him were redoubled. The logic was dizzying. It wasn’t an insult to John Scalzi because Scalzi didn’t think it was an insult, just inaccurate. But it was an insult to gay people because Brad thought it was an insult. And Brad didn’t really apologize because he apologized to Scalzi and not gay people. Do you see where some might think you might simply be looking for something to offend you? Brad stated he was wrong to the intended party and it was not good enough. Nothing short of resigning his commission and refusing to ever write fiction again would have been acceptable. Do you think the rest of us didn’t see what was happening? Do you think it might have caused us to tailor our opinions and responses accordingly? This was one of the things that demonstrated to us that the politics of personal destruction were in play.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Do you see where some might think you might simply be looking for something to offend you?”
No. I see someone setting up a ton of straw men arguments and ignoring very real criticism about Brad’s words. The logic isn’t dizzying at all. Brad suggested (as an insult) that Scalzi prefers men. Brad’s apology was that the insult was “below the belt.” The only logical leap that’s made after that is that Brad thinks calling someone gay is an insult.
Brad’s here in this comment section. Brad: Do you think it’s an insult to call someone gay?
“This was one of the things that demonstrated to us that the politics of personal destruction were in play.”
This was one of the times you chose to play the victim instead of reading the actual words that were written.
And we’re back to Gannon again: Why is Brad’s apology “good enough” and Gallo’s apology never mentioned in your piece at all? Do you not think that the boycott represented “politics of personal destruction” on behalf of the Puppy contingent?
Because Brad’s apology was a real, heart-felt one. Gallo’s was “I’m sorry I offended you (got caught)” not “I was wrong.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Again Patrick, I don’t know whether you’re just repeating something that you’ve heard many times, or is this really something you believe in intrinsically. Gallo’s exact apology:
“About my Sad/Rabid Puppies comments: They were solely mine. This is my personal page; I do not speak on behalf of Tor Books or Tor.com. I realize I painted too broad a brush and hurt some individuals, some of whom are published by Tor Books and some of whom are Hugo Award winners. I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments.”
In the above, Ms Gallo: 1. Took responsibility for her actions, 2. Acknowledged her mistake, 3. Apologized for those she hurt. (also 1.5 – indemnified her employer, which any HR would have insisted on inserting!)
I’ve seen actual fauxpologies – ie weaselly terms like “oh if I offended anyone” or “mistakes were made”. This isn’t it. She’s owned up, and admitted that people were hurt by her actions.
Sigh. Open tag, close tag. The bit from “In the above….” onwards are my comments, not part of Ms Gallo’s apology
Really? Because I don’t see admission she was wrong. “I painted with too broad a brush.”
To broad a brush? She was full of shit from the beginning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Uhm, saying that is an acknowledgement of her mistake, and being specific about the nature of her mistake – that it was an overly broad statement.
And to be entirely honest, there is a reasonable argument to be made that this is not incorrect. You just have to Google some of the more egregious statements by Vox Day, & John C Wright ,among others.
They’ve both made statements that are homophobic and misogynistic, and Day has also made some clearly racist statements (as Eric Flint noted on many of his articles on the kerfuffle).
As such, Ms Gallo may simply have been being honest when she acknowledges that she has painted too broad a brush.
I suspect that what you want is some further form of abasement, or what Brad Torgersen called hiding a joy buzzer (i.e., exploiting an apology for further attack).
You have repeatedly shown yourself to be a bald-faced liar. There is no such thing as misandry or heterophobia in your world. If there were, I’d show you quotes from 100 SFF editors, publishers, award-nominated authors, etc. that show truth. No one’s interested in your sick double standards.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Big deal. Rising star Ann Leckie wrote a post accusing most “white cis dudes” of randomly attacking women, non-whites and gays. Ergo being a straight white man is not a good thing, and that’s exactly how she used her “cis” slurs – six times. Are you going to go after her? LOL. Not. I could list a thousand more examples, such as Tor blogger Alex McFarlane using “cis peeeeoooople” as an insult during the comments on her post about binary gender. Stop pretending you feminists have principles; you have none.
LikeLiked by 1 person
James, I started ignoring you when I found you and the Minnesota Neo Nazi’s both hate the Minnesota YWCA for the same reason.
Note: I’m not specifically calling you a Neo Nazi, I’m just saying the views expressed on your page are suspiciously similar to those espoused by NSM88
That MPLS YWCA at the time I wrote that was indistinguishable from the anti-white, anti-male, anti-heterosexual freaks in SFF. Amazing how you missed the essay taking down neo-Nazis with the words “neo-Nazi” in the actual title right next to the YWCA essay. In other words you’re a liar.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Straw men? I’m quoting almost directly from the comments on Cole’s article. I went and looked through them to ensure I was right. Please take the time to do the same.
“Why is Brad’s apology “good enough” and Gallo’s apology never mentioned in your piece at all?”
You may not know this, but I covered Irene Gallo’s comments in a previous article.
Brad apologized because he knew he had done something wrong. “I’m sorry I said what I said. I was wrong”.
Irene’s apology was “I’m sorry you were offended when I said what I said” Nothing in there says that what she said was wrong.
Now, as I said in my article, I think she feels she gave us all the apology we need or deserve. After all, you don’t apologize to Nazis for calling them Nazis. The fact we aren’t Nazis doesn’t seem to factor into her thinking. Add that to comments from a couple of Senior Editors at Tor and the Puppies got the distinct impression the publisher didn’t like us. While Tom Doherty’s apology was appreciated and was everything we felt Irene’s should have been, nothing we have seen has lead us to believe his staff has changed their minds about us being unrepentantly racist, misogynistic, homophobic Neo-Nazis. None of the Puppies feels any need to support the paychecks of people who think of us this way.
As for the boycott, the most common response from the Puppy supporters I recall was “I looked for all the Tor books I had purchased recently. I couldn’t find any.” Boycotts are kind of pointless if you aren’t buying the product anyways. This says the editorial and marketing staff at Tor is either missing or isn’t bothering to look at a potentially profitable market. Their loss. Someone is going to fill it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will reiterate that you seem willing to read only the best of subtext into Torgersen’s apology and the worst of subtext into Gallo’s. And then when it comes to the response to said apology:
“Straw men? I’m quoting almost directly from the comments on Cole’s article. I went and looked through them to ensure I was right. Please take the time to do the same.”
So random comments on the internet calling Brad a psycho are now evidence that all anti-slate folks will refuse to acknowledge an apology. Got it.
You’re also awfully quick to include yourself into the maligned group regarding Gallo’s statements instead of assuming she was talking about specific people in and around the Puppy pile. Brad has recently learned the term Victim Culture. You might want to see if that applies here. Do you have any reason to believe that Gallo knew who you were when made that statement?
Are we similarly allowed to take random comments from (let’s say) Vox Populi and treat them as Puppy Gospel?
‘As for the boycott, the most common response from the Puppy supporters I recall was “I looked for all the Tor books I had purchased recently. I couldn’t find any.”’
I would suggest you didn’t look hard enough. You don’t remember all those photographs of bookshelves? Of course the absolute failure of a Puppy boycott against Tor’s bottom line suggested that it would quickly be swept under the rug.
“Of course, the problem is, the Puppies are not Nazis. Even Theodore Beale, the infamous Vox Day, doesn’t quite reach that level (probably). In the face of this, the Puppies can’t back down. Not won’t, CAN’T! They know.”
The problem with statements like this isn’t that they’re not true; it’s that they’re equally true for both sides. Regardless of who started the name-calling, or, more importantly, who escalated it to the point of no return, both parties can now say that they’ve been called unacceptable things and can’t back down. There’s literally no resolution possible if this logic is accepted.
You left out “They know. They tried.” This is important. If you send a messenger with a flag of truce and the response is the messenger’s head being tossed back into your camp you are unlikely to send another.
David Gerrold made some noises about trying to bring a truce. I’m not sure how sincere he was. The first lasted only a few hours. David seemed to be offended we didn’t immediately trust him. I’m not sure he realized then or ever he was considered part of the problem after threatening Brad’s career. Frankly, half the Puppies probably only became aware of his offer after he was attacking us again. The second time was during the brew up around Lou Antonelli where, after months of being attacked for simply being on the ballot, Lou thought it prudent to contact the Seattle police. The Puppies chose to follow Mr. Antonelli’s lead on that and back off. Of course, we saw how sincere Gerrold was when he presented ASStrixs to the nominees. That was uncool. Lessons learned: Don’t trust the Establishment. Beware Gaslighting, Screenshot! Screenshot! Screenshot!
LikeLiked by 1 person
So you’re saying if a woman is continually beaten, she should never fight back? I mean, that’s about the same as equating the continual verbal assaults against SP and them finally striking back.
Both Myke and John knew what they were doing: virtue signaling. The Victim Culture is very, very big on virtue signaling. They knew the crowd they were playing to, and while Scalzi’s ate it up with a fork and a spoon, Myke kind of got dismantled by the current and prior servicemembers who went to his comments to tell him he was being very un-military — whether they agreed with his core complaint, or not.
Victim Culture is also very, very big on Rule #1 from Correia’s Internet Arguing Checklist: skim until offended.
There can be no reasoned dialogue with individuals who parse every conversation for the sole purpose of seeking to find something to cry “Eeeek!” over. And if there’s really nothing substantial to get upset about, Victim Culture goes to Rule #6: make shit up.
I’m pretty sure I understand Chuck’s arguments just fine. I may not necessarily agree with them all. But I certainly understand them. Which is another failure of Victim Culture. Victim Culture presumes that disagreement and comprehension are mutually exclusive concepts. Because nobody who understands the ideas put forth by the partisans of the Victim Culture could disagree with them! Unpossible!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oh, and Snowcrash is also a known troll from Mike Glyer’s site.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Brad Torgersen, folks. Everyone he disagrees with is a troll.
You didn’t respond to my question earlier, Brad.
Do you think it’s an insult to call someone gay?
No, I’m thinking you are a troll as well. You are not interested in dialog. In many ways, you are part of the problem for both sides, stirring the pot while others call for calm.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“call for calm.”
That’s what your post was? A call for calm? The post where you explain that the puppies can never let these horrible slights against them go without a response? The post where you and Brad continue to ignore the plank in your eye in favor of the mote in everyone else’s?
Yeah, I must just be a troll to point that stuff out.
Introspection is worthwhile. You should give it a try maybe.
Dr. Gannon’s Post was a call for calm. My post was pointing out that you guys hate us therefor backing away will be perceived as a sign of weakness and do nothing but bring further attacks. Look at your posts. You have proved my point. Nothing you have said has done anything to disprove the point I made in the article but you have attacked, attacked, attacked. Remember, internet arguing is a spectator sport. And if you don’t understand what that means you will continue having glorious screw-ups like the Hugo ceremony. It’s fun and cathartic at the time, but the next day you realize you just made yourselves look like jerks. Have a nice life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are both trolls. You continually move the goalposts and argue in bad faith. You misquote, misconstrue and flat out lie. What else should he call you?
sfrazer2015, it is painfully obvious what you are fishing for here, so much so that I can see why Brad’s ignoring you. Kafkatrap much?
I think it was George R. R. Martin who said it best, when he said, “I am not your monkey.”
And I agree with James’ comment above: spectator sport.
I actually think the Puppy-kickers were winning the PR fight, right up until Hugo ceremony night. That’s when they set their own ship on fire, and cheered as it burned to the waterline.
I’ve said it elsewhere: do Michael Rothman’s kids magically love Fandom yet?
That was your canary in the coal mine, right there. Young guys who were ripe for being impressed by Fandom, and then they realized (in the worst way) that they were more mature than most of the “adults” around them in the room.
Stay proud, Trufans!
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] Gazette) A Response to Charles Gannon — “Would you talk to a Homophobic Neo-Nazi that tried to hijack a literary award? How […]