At times it’s interesting to get under the hood of the writing business and see how the sausage is made, to mix cliched metaphors. This issue happens to concern horror writers, so it has particular meaning for me at this time.
In short, an English horror author named David A Riley was set to be on the jury for the anthology segment of the upcoming Bram Stoker Awards. As it turns out, Riley was once a member of a far-right, nationalist political party in the UK called the National Front. A Tumblr blog was created to curate some of Riley’s online commentary, titled David Andrew Riley Is a Fascist. Wikipedia’s entry on National Front can be found here.
When outraged members protested Riley’s appointment to the jury, Horror Writers Association President Lisa Morton issued a tepid statement on Facebook that satisfied nobody. As is so often the case, the most arresting thing wasn’t the statement, but the ensuing discussion. Three distinct elements stood out and are worth examination.
First, what you’ll find throughout the discussion is a great deal of virtue-signaling. Virtue-signaling is the same as moral preening (my favorite euphemism) or polishing one’s moral bona-fides. When you loudly proclaim on social media how awful something is to display how virtuous you are for proclaiming on social media how awful something is, that’s virtue-signaling. The thread is chock-a-block with virtue-signaling about how awful Riley’s views are, how the organization mustn’t be tarred with his brush, how the HWA is”problematic” for not sprinting away from Riley fast enough (as if the mob can ever be outrun), concern-trolling about the HWA’s reputation, and other instances of moral preening.
Second, the thread has really big buts. The biggest but is, of course, “I believe in free speech, but…” A clever reader always ignores everything before the but in any statement containing a but. Anyone who puts his big but into the free speech discussion is not on the side of free speech, but is actually in favor of criminalizing speech he finds offensive (see what I did there?). As someone who worked at the bleeding edge of First (and Second) Amendment issues in publishing for over thirteen years, I find the big buts disturbing, but they’re there, and they stink like hell.
Finally, this comment from Kate Jonez (highlighted at File 770) caught my attention:
Like many other organizations the HWA has chosen to support free speech. This forces them to accept situations that many members would prefer not to accept. The HWA can and has removed jurors who can be documented as instigating violence or making threats, but vetting jurors’ political background is outside the scope of a writers’ organization. Who else should be removed? Should the HWA remove people who’ve spoken out against Syrian refugees, anyone who has a negative position on Affirmative Action, anyone been accused or convicted of domestic violence, anyone who has voted against gay marriage? I personally would be happy never to hear opinions from people holding these views. I don’t think people who think this way are capable of making informed decisions any more that white supremacist/fascists are.
As horrifying as this quote is, what you won’t find is anyone disagreeing with it. To the SJW, the quality of your work doesn’t matter. It’s your opinions that matter, and if you have the wrong opinions, well, you’ve got to go. Disagreement is hate. To Kate Jonez, if you disagree with the unqualified good of Affirmative Action, you can’t be trusted to judge a book properly.
I disagree with the unqualified good of Affirmative Action. I have spoken out against accepting more Syrian refugees into my country. I suspect that many of my views would make Kate Jonez horribly unhappy if she were to hear them, and according to her and her fellow travelers, I’m incapable of making informed decisions.
Keeping O’Sullivan’s Law in mind, the lack of pushback against Kate Jonez’s thinking is disturbing, but not surprising, and the HWA is likely to continue in this direction. Riley’s case is the canary in a coalmine. What we’re going to see is an expansion of what’s considered badthink to include all manner of opinions that stray from SJW boilerplate. It’s inevitable. Your writing career will be put in jeopardy if you express the wrong opinions, if it hasn’t already.
First they came for the Hugos…well, you know the drill.
Riley has since resigned from the Stoker jury.
Later this week I will publish an interview I conducted with David A Riley that discusses this dust-up. It’s really quite illuminating.
The funniest thing about this feminist cult of equality is how much they hate the idea of rules and definitions which might benefit all. Why have that when you can claim oppression status so you can never be a racist, misandrist or heterophobe? It’s convenient. You are never wrong and the other side is never right, just like our Constitution preaches. If I had a thousand bucks for every Tweet in the sci-fi community lighting up whites, men and heterosexuals at all hours of the day and night, every day and for years on end, I could build a bridge to the moon using gold bars.
That’s…that’s a lot of gold bars.
Joking aside, the social justice cult in comics, SFF, horror and gaming has just nominated a woman for an award who once wrote this: “White male privilege cares ONLY about white male privilege, and there is no goal except maintaining that position of power.
Now, I don’t know about you, but the sole source of such an opinion can only be the inside of that woman’s head. It is also racist and misandrist. She has also held VONA workshops for “writers of color” from which whites are banned.
There is a clear double standard here when it comes to the concept of supremacy and group defamation. If you’re on the right side you get awards nominations. If you’re on the wrong side you get boycotted. Yet another women known for her history of anti-white comments recently called for the boycott of the Borderlands 6 horror anthology because there were too many men in the book. She also cursed that man out on Twitter. She did that the exact same day she was promoting her “PoC Destroy Horror” anthology which whites cannot participate in.
About that incident, Catherine Grant wrote:
“What deserves more discussion, however, is this question: How long is horror going to accept the ‘words on a page are all I look at’ excuse from editors as a blanket defense for remaining in their comfort zone? Does anyone actually believe that ‘the best stories’ are mostly from white men? The clichéd answer of ‘I don’t care if you’re black or white or green or purple,’ only holds weight if there is action behind that claim and the final TOC is reflective the slush pile of most anthologies and magazines.”
My own rhetorical question might be “Does anyone actually believe that ‘the best scorers’ in the NBA are mostly black?” Guess what? They are. Secondly, how can this feminist cult claim a lack of bias when they are often outright supremacists? And does anyone really believe a “final TOC” will be an accurate race-sex pie chart? Look at middle-weight boxing, romance fiction, rap and many other cultural expressions in America. Where does one find this as “reflective?” The easy answer is nowhere, and that’s especially true if you make segregated spaces out of one side of your mouth while attacking random TOCs.
Yes, but Marjorie Liu has the RIGHT opinions, and hence is to be celebrated. It’s not hate if you hate the right people, don’t you know. Hatred is a virtue if you’re hating the unmitigated evil of men, particularly white men, who are the sole cause of pain in the world.
Two of the best ways to combat the SJW takeover of popular entertainment is to first expose the disgusting, imbecilic rhetoric spewing from SJW enclaves, and second to refuse to consume their offerings. Don’t read their stuff and make sure you tell the world why you’re not reading their stuff. Don’t watch their movies or TV shows. Show them that they’re powerless without an audience.
This quote from my blog is not about the incident you’ve mentioned. Please remove it from this bullshit argument. Kthanx.
No.
David, I made a huge effort at pushback against this at File770 without any support from like-minded people. A couple of other posters questioned the statements supporting suppression of free speech but quickly dropped out as opposition mounted. If the discussion had been a little less one-sided, then I might have accomplished something against the ideology . As it was I pretty much carried the whole load, and they’re still trashing my position today 4/20 on File770.
Hi, Lela:
Good to hear from you.
I have to give you lots of credit for going in there and mixing it up, knowing you’re in the minority.
However, I have to question your assertion that you might have “accomplished something.” If your intent was to change minds, there is no possible way you could succeed. Arguments don’t change minds. Time and information change minds. When you combine that with the knowledge that people who haven’t reasoned themselves into a position can’t be reasoned out of it, you have to know that your efforts, while admirable, would be ultimately futile. You might as well try to convince a schizophrenic that the black helicopters he keeps seeing aren’t really there. To him they’re there.
It’s why I don’t go to places like that. There’s no point in talking to those people, and my time is better spent creating content.
Probably you’re right. They seem to be talking based on “emotional reasoning” instead of “logical reasoning.” Still, I think if it’s clear that there is more than a single voice in opposition, it’s more likely to make an impression and lead to a real discussion. There really needs to be some kind of opposition to this trend. Otherwise we could be back to the Hollywood blacklist days in no time.
http://www.jamesmaystock.com/essays/Pages/SFFRacistQuotes2.html
A damning, if gigantic series of quotes. There’s no context that can mitigate their hostile racism.
And yet, and yet, and yet.
Publicize it. Make potential readers aware of what they’ve said.