Tag: rabbitology

The SFWA Board decides

Well, so long as the consideration of the evidence was careful….

After careful consideration of the evidence gathered by the Board-appointed investigator and your response, and in compliance with the existing Massachusetts By-Laws, the approved operations and procedures, and legal counsel, the SFWA Board has unanimously voted for your expulsion from the organization, effective immediately. This has been a difficult decision, but thorough examination of the evidence and the situation makes it clear that this action is necessary to best serve the interests of the organization and its members.

According to our records, you paid for your Lifetime Membership in October of 2002. As this period of time exceeds 10 years, you are not eligible for any pro-rata refund of your dues.

Sincerely,

Steven Gould
President
Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America

Fascinating. Notice that Steven Gould informs me “the SFWA Board has unanimously voted for your expulsion from the organization”, but he did not inform me that I was actually been expelled, nor did SFWA subsequently announce my expulsion, presumably because Gould knows “the existing Massachusetts By-Laws” state that as per Title XXII, Chapter 180, Section 18: No member of such corporation shall be expelled by vote of
less than a majority of all the members thereof, nor by vote of less
than three quarters of the members present and voting upon such
expulsion.

In any event, if you’d like to see the evidence that was so carefully considered by the SFWA Board yourself, you can download the two relevant documents:

And if you’re looking for my immediate response to what appears to be an elaborate charade on the part of the SFWA Board, all I can really say is this: rabbits gonna rabbit.

UPDATE: I was initially been under the impression that SFWA had expelled me from the organization. But after legal review, it was determined that the Board merely took the first step in the process since they have not yet held the full membership vote to confirm their decision that is required by the existing Massachusetts By-Laws.

    Pharyngulan facts

    I found the juxtaposition of this comment at Pharyngula with other ones from the same thread to be entertaining.

    “This is a science blog. We deal in facts not in long-disproven and corrosive fantasies.”

    Apparently these are the science facts concerning advertising that would improve an ad where a man pushes an elevator button and unleashes the sexy possibilities inherent in the elevator’s other occupant.


    “You push the ‘stop’ button and… The woman is Emma Peel. She immediately incapacitates you with several painfully well-placed karate chops. You crumple to the floor with a whimper. When the elevator door opens, Steed looks in, pokes you in the kidney with his umbrella then tells you, “Let that be a lesson to you, old chap.”

    Emma Peel is a fictional character from 1960s English television.

    “And then she just gives him a “WTF?” look, and he gets kinda uncomfortable and embarrassed, pushes the button to start the elevator again and wishes for the ground to swallow him up while he apologizes. Oh yeah, I’d like to see that. I could then imagine assholes really backing off even if I can’t kick their ass, and then the next step being not pushing that button at all. Like, the next scene of the commercial being the same guy imagining how he’d like to get stuck in the elevator with her, maybe glancing at the button for a second, and then just standing there until his floor. Boring, I know.”

    Science: it’s what a woman can imagine.

    “Of course there could also be the sci fi option of the woman morphing into some sort of predatory alien, werewolf, vampire who the idiot has just trapped himself in a confined space with. One of my colleagues is a confident, karate black belt who, I could imagine would give a guy who did this such a stare that he would probably wet himself.”

    Science: it’s what a woman can imagine. The interesting thing is the psychological projection.  Since she just about wets herself when men stare at her, she assumes that men must do the same.  Because confidence. And karate.

    “You push the stop button and suddenly the rest of the elevator continues, while the small square of floor you were standing on stops in mid-air. You’re now 129ft up in the air, with no way down, Asshole.”

    That would be a great commercial… if you’re selling female revenge fantasies to women.  I’m not sure it’s suitable for selling anything to men.

    But the fact that the Pharyngulans don’t understand the point of advertising isn’t surprising as they are mostly unemployed graduate students who couldn’t figure out that obtaining a science degree in a market oversupplied with them was unlikely to lead to worthwhile employment.  We’re not dealing with a particularly bright lot here.

    What is surprising is their insistence that the West possesses a rape culture, when there are genuine rape cultures in a number of the non-Western societies whose inhabitants most of the Pharyngulans favor importing for reasons one can only assume are science-based.

    Why the rabbits can’t think straight

    An English professor and evolutionary psychologist attempts to explain the inability of certain rabbits to successfully engage in honest dialectic and why they are limited to rhetorical discourse:

    Surveying the modern intellectual scene, the world of public discourse
    among the educational elites, I conclude that dishonesty does not only
    reduce the efficiency and effectiveness of thinking – but it actually reduces applied intelligence – probably by re-wiring the brain.

    What I am suggesting is that, although the fundamental efficiency of
    neural processing is an hereditary characteristic which is robust to
    environmental differences and changes (short of something like
    destructive brain pathology – encephalitis, neurotoxin, head injury,
    dementia etc) – habitual dishonesty (such as is mainstream among the
    modern intellectual elite) will generate brain changes, and a
    long-lasting (although probably, eventually, reversible) pathology in
    applied intelligence – such that what ought to be simple and obvious
    inferential reasoning becomes impossible.

    I mean impossible.

    Habitual dishonesty (most notable political correctness) is a form of
    learning; and learning strengthens some brain pathways and brain
    connections; while allowing other pathways and connections to wither and
    (perhaps eventually) perish.

    Therefore, even on those rare occasions when a typical modern
    intellectual tries to be honest and to think straight – they cannot do
    it, because their reasoning processes have been sabotaged by their own
    repeated habits of dishonesty – their attempts at honest thoughts will
    be inhibited, and instead channelled down the usual lying pathways…

    Thus, in modern intellectual life, honesty is punished and dishonesty is rewarded; honest brain pathways decay, dishonest brain pathways enlarge.

    After years and years of conditioning in dishonesty, the typical modern
    intellectual (whether journalist, scientist, lawyer, teacher, doctor or
    whatever) becomes physically unable to think straight.

    I’m far from the only one to observe that the trolls and anklebiters that seek to infest the blog are reliably dishonest.  But I had always thought it was a Machiavellian tactic and assumed that they knew they were lying.  After all, how many times can you have your positions methodically destroyed and still turn around and espouse it if one is not pathologically dishonest or simply playing a game?

    However, in reading comments by the same individuals made when safely ensconced in their warrens, I observed that they not only espoused the same positions there, but genuinely appeared to believe that they had acquitted themselves well despite making absolutely undeniable blunders.  That’s when I began to realize that there was something fundamentally wrong with the way their minds worked.  It’s not so much that they will readily tell lies and espouse nonsense, but that they will continue doing so even when the falsity of their positions has been exposed and is observable for all to see.

    This isn’t true of all rabbits. Rabbits like PZ Myers and McRapey know when they are shown to be wrong.  The avoidance patterns of their behavior and their swift reactions to when they are caught out betray this. They fear being seen to be wrong, which why they resolutely avoid public debate with anyone capable of calling them out and exposing them on their nonsense, but that very fear shows their awareness of it.  They may be dishonest at times, and will readily assume false postures, (e.g. “I’m done pretending to be nice”), but their dishonesty is not pathological and usually serves some sort of identifiable purpose.  This is very different from the behavior we often see from anklebiters here, where no amount of knowledge suffices to correct them and no rational purpose underlying their behavior can be discerned.

    I don’t know if Charlton’s theory is correct. But it is certainly an area where a considerable amount of scientific research would be justified, and let’s face it, some of these brains could only be improved by dissection.  On the other hand, as Markku pointed out, there may be a spiritual element involved, as CS Lewis described in The Great Divorce.

    “But, beyond all these, I saw other grotesque phantoms in which hardly a trace of the human form remained; monsters who had faced the journey to the bus stop-perhaps for them it was thousands of miles-and come up to the country of the Shadow of Life and limped far into it over the torturing grass, only to spit and gibber out in one ecstasy of hatred their envy and (what is harder to understand) their contempt, of joy. The voyage seemed to them a small price to pay if once, only once, within sight of that eternal dawn, they could tell the prigs, the toffs, the sanctimonious humbugs, the snobs, the “haves,” what they thought of them.”

    Rejecting the Lie

    A few people, both sympathetic and otherwise, have asked me why I am willing to hold and defend such controversial and upsetting opinions as I have done of late.  And providing more evidence that rabbits simply do not have the capacity to understand not-rabbits, the SFWA is absolutely rife with various theories concerning my supposed mental instability.

    After all, who but a deranged lunatic would think to challenge the received wisdom of the warren’s long-accepted consensus goodthink?

    As it happens, the reason is fairly straightforward.  If you will not stand up for the truth when pressed, you will not stand up for the Truth when persecuted.  Now, I may be wrong about the process of civilizational development and the extended period of time I believe it requires to fully transform tribes of primitive savages into an advanced and civilized culture; I have no problem changing my mind when a compelling case contra my position has been made.  I have, as the regulars here know, done precisely that with regards to free trade and open borders, among other things.  But I have not seen one single person, not one, even attempt to demonstrate that I am incorrect in any way.

    I’ve seen rants, I’ve seen outrage, I’ve seen anger, I’ve seen insults, and I’ve seen assertions that certain subjects are beyond debate. What I have not seen is anyone make a case, let alone a coherent or compelling one, that opposes the logic and observations I have presented.  This is because the Lie cannot compete with the Truth, it can only attempt to obscure it and silence those who dare to speak it.

    But the Lie never wins in the end.  The ongoing controversy somehow reminded me of this passage from Panzer Commander, a war memoir written by one of Rommel’s favorite officers, Col. Hans von Luck, which I found moving in the way it showed how even enemies at war can find common ground in the light of the Truth.  More importantly, it shows how even a rage that burns hotter and more violently than the rage of the SFWA’s delusional members cannot destroy the hunger of the human spirit for truth and Truth alike.

    “Smolensk looked as though it had been abandoned. Destruction in the industrial quarters and of the bridges over the Dnieper was immense. In the midst of the ruins, Smolensk cathedral pointed to the sky. It appeared largely unharmed. I followed the women and the old men and as I entered the cathedral, was deeply impressed by its beauty. It looked intact. The altar was adomed; burning candles and many icons richly embellished with gold bathed the interior in a festive light.

    As I went up to the altar with my companions, an old man, poorly dressed and with a flowing beard, spoke to me in broken German.

    “Gospodin officer, I am a pope who used to preach here before the Lenin-Stalin era; I have been in hiding now for many years, scraping a living as a shoemaker. Now you have liberated our city. May I say a first mass in this cathedral?”

    “How is it,” I asked, “that your cathedral is in such good condition?” His answer surprised me. America in tsarist times bought the church and all its treasures “Immediately after the Revolution, Russians who had emigrated from the Russians who, at the time, were in urgent need of American dollars. The cathedral is American property, which is why everything is-almost-unchanged.” 

    I have never been able to verify his statement, but it was not very important to me. Without referring to HQ, I gave the pope permission to celebrate mass the next day, for which he wanted to bring in an additional pope.

    The following day, I went to Smolensk again, having informed the divisional commander in the meantime; as a precaution, I took along an armored patrol.

    The sight that met our eyes when we arrived was breathtaking.

    The square in front of the cathedral was full of people moving slowly toward the entrance. With my orderly officer, I jostled my way forward. Already, there was not a corner left in the cathedral in which people were not standing, sitting, or kneeling. We remained standing to one side to avoid disturbing the service by our presence.

    I was not familiar with the Russian Orthodox ritual, but the ceremony that now began drew me more and more under its spell.

    Invisible behind the altar, one of the two popes began with a monotone chant, which was answered by a choir of eight voices standing in front of the altar. The chanting of the precentor and the choir filled the vast space of the church. The acoustics gave the impression that the chanting came from above, from heaven.

    The people fell on their knees and prayed. All had tears in their eyes. For them, it was the first mass for more than twenty years. My companion and I were greatly moved.”

    In rejecting NK Jemisin’s call for reconciliation within the SFWA, I declared there can be no reconciliation between the observant and the delusional.  Still less can there be any compromise between the Truth and the Lie.

    The liars can ban the services. They can revoke memberships, they can deny access, they can reject publications, they can close their eyes, and they can put their hands over their ears. But one thing they cannot do is make their lies real.  And sometimes, it is necessary to imitate the marshwiggle, stick one’s hand into the fire, and raise a stink capable of penetrating their illusions.

    Rabbit logic in action

    “Branding terrorists as LOSERS, not villains, not monsters, not fanatics, not foreigners, not religious fanatics —> a win.”
    – Ana Marie Cox

    This is a revealing and educational statement. It demonstrates both the priorities and the intrinsic solipsism of the average rabbit.  To a rabbit, the thought of being labeled an all-caps LOSER is the ultimate evil and everything from religious faith to national identity will be readily cast aside in order to avoid that dreadful fate.  Being a loser, after all, is only one step away from being cast forth into the outer darkness outside the warren. Living in fear as it does, the rabbit genuinely cannot imagine that the not-rabbit does not feel the same way.

    The rabbit believes that if the not-rabbit only understood, truly understood, that all the rabbits are calling the not-rabbit is a LOSER, (or RSHD), he will be so overcome with remorse and shame at his ostracism that he will stop slaughtering people, (or making John Scalzi feel bad about himself), in order to avoid the pain of that terrible, awful, unbearable state.

    The fact that this tactic has never, ever worked on a not-rabbit, (for example, the ritual denunciation of people willing to give their lives in suicide attacks as “cowards” doesn’t appear to have any effect in reducing the frequency of such attacks), because, as always, material results are much less important than the rabbit’s ability to feel it is a contributing and valued member of the warren who is Doing Something.

    When rabbits rule

    I find it remarkable that Orson Scott Card is not described as “a Mormon”, “an award-winning writer” or even “a best-selling author”, but merely as “an anti-gay writer“:

    DC Comics under fire for hiring anti-gay writer to pen Superman

    Ender’s Game author Orson Scott Card has called gay marriage ‘the end of democracy’ – and some comics fans want him fired.

    Superman fans are up in arms at the decision of the publisher to appoint a noted anti-gay writer to pen the Man of Steel’s latest adventures. Comic giant DC has commissioned Orson Scott Card, author of the award-winning and best-selling Ender’s Game sci-fi series, to write for DC’s Adventures of Superman series.

    The fascinating thing about this is that Card isn’t just any “best-selling” author.  Publisher’s Weekly has him as the #1 best-selling author in science fiction, with Ender’s Game outselling all other science fiction novels in 2012, and twice as many as the #2 novel, despite the fact that it was first published 18 years ago in 1994.

    1. Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card. Tor. 100,387
    2. Ready Player One by Ernest Cline. Broadway. 50,593
    3. Star Wars: Darth Plagueis by James Luceno. Lucas Books. 31,543
    4. The Ultimate Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams. Del Rey. 27,220
    5. Star Wars: Apocalypse by Troy Denning. Lucas Books. 26,140

    Apparently we are to believe that opposing gay marriage is a more notable and newsworthy accomplishment than being the most notable author in your genre for nearly two decades.  This is what happens when you give the Rabbit People their head.  They don’t care about anything, literally anything, except making sure that everyone abides by the dictates of the warren.

    Of course, Tor Books should be condemned in the strongest terms for harboring such a noted homophobe and bigot.  What can we conclude of the hateful bigotry of the Manager of Science Fiction at Tor, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, given that he continues to publish such a evil anti-gay writer?  Clearly Tor Books must do the right thing and immediately stop publishing Card’s work and return all its publishing rights to the author lest it be tainted by its support of homophobia.

    Rabbit logic

    One attempts to move on, but they keep pulling one back in.  And honestly, how can anyone not enjoy watching their tiny little rabbit minds so furiously at work?

    staranise says:    Asking for “debate” confuses me simply because it presupposes that it would accomplish something different from the current situation, in which any parties concerned have an unlimited personal platform to put forward their ideas and reasoning. It supposes that the parties are unfamiliar with each other’s positions and reasoning. This isn’t true, so there’s not much new to say. Nothing significant would change. Ah. Except, of course, RSHD would get happy pantsfeelings from being paid attention to.  The call for debate is the same as standing outside Scalzi’s house with a boombox over one’s head. It’s not going to work! Turn off the Peter Gabriel. Go home.

    John Scalzi says:    Guys, I think we can give the topic of a debate a rest.

    MMAH says:    Oh, and look–front page at Salon this morning, too.

    Yes, I’ve noticed many things confuse them.  What is particularly funny about this little dialogue is that I never challenged McRapey to a debate.  The challenge came from Ed Trimnell, who happens to be a critic of mine, and it would be Ed, not me, who is metaphorically standing outside in the rain.

    But to return to the rabbit logic, apparently I would get “happy pantsfeelings” from Ed’s call being answered and thereby having to spend a modicum of effort to kick around McRapey in front of a few thousand blog readers, but was devastated by the brilliant way in which McRapey and Ensign Wesley banded together in order to draw attention to me in the Guardian, the BBC, and Salon, among others.

    It’s rather like watching them try to add 2+2+2 and coming up with the answer “purple badger”.

    Very important international news

    Insightful investigative reporting on the part of The Guardian reveals that John “I am a rapist” Scalzi lied when he claimed that he was enjoying the attention of what he hitherto described as an adorable “mancrush”:

    John Scalzi is the author of several books, including the Old Man’s War series and Redshirts, published in the States by Tor and the UK by Gollancz. He’s also the president of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. Fed up of being constantly targeted on his website by one particular individual and his followers, Scalzi decided to take action, pledging US$5 every time “the Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit in question posts an entry on his site in which he uses my name (or one of his adorable nicknames for me)”.

    Scalzi put a ceiling on his “troll tip jar” of US$1,000, figuring that gave his bête noir 200 opportunities to abuse him over the coming year, and said he’d give the cash to four charities: RAINN, America’s largest anti-sexual violence organization; Emily’s List, dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women to office; the Human Rights Campaign, which works for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equal Rights; and NAACP: America’s oldest and largest civil rights organization.

    A novel enough way to tackle the trolls, for sure, but what happened next was somewhat astonishing: Scalzi’s friends, Twitter followers and readers asked if they could jump in with pledges too. Many of his friends are high-profile authors and industry types – Will Wheaton, the actor who played Wesley Crusher in TV’s Star Trek: The Next Generation, and a writer in his own right, was one of many who promised to match Scalzi’s US$1,000 pledge.

    By the early hours of this morning, UK time, the pledges for Scalzi’s chosen charities had grown to US$50,000.

    One of the triggers for the trolling of Scalzi seems to be a satirical blogpost he wrote in October last year attacking conservative politicians for their line on abortion control. It took the form of an open letter to them, in which he adopted the persona of a rapist….

    However, the Guardian doesn’t seem to have gotten the story quite right.  The reporter appears to be under the impression that Mr. Scalzi did not enjoy the attention, when we were repeatedly informed, in writing, that he did.  When was it, the inquiring mind wants to know, that “the “McRapey” comments became too much”?  And why were we never informed?

    The headline is certainly interesting: “Troll’s comments prompt author to pledge charity donation for every insult.”

    John Scalzi’s name is an insult?  I suppose that’s true enough in light of his antics.  But just to set a few things straight.

    1. I have never trolled or sock-puppeted Whatever.  I am not sure of the exact number, but excluding the 30 or so comments on the TIA Big Idea post, I believe I have posted fewer than 10 comments there since 2005.
    2. I have never encouraged anyone to visit Whatever, to leave comments there, or to troll there.  I have linked to various posts at Whatever; a look through the blog archives shows a grand total of 58 references since 2005.
    3. I do not wish to have what passes for John Scalzi’s stature in the science fiction field.  If I had any desire to write unoriginal and derivative takes on Heinlein, Dick, Piper, and Star Trek, I would do so.  As should be obvious from my 854-page epic fantasy novel, my sights are aimed elsewhere.
    4. Since when does “constantly targeted” mean “criticized 26 times in eight years?”  Of the 11,327 posts here on Vox Popoli, precisely 58 refer to John Scalzi in any way.  Of the 58 references, 32 of them are not even critical.
    5. It was really reprehensible of The Guardian to omit to report that in addition to raising $50,000 for the noble cause of not quoting, criticizing, or even mentioning John Scalzi, Mr. Scalzi also commissioned the painting of a dancing pink rabbit.

    What can we conclude from all of this?  Sheldon Cooper was right.  McRapey isn’t the problem.  We have to fight the real enemy!  Ensign Wesley must die.die.die!  Now, to be fair to the Guardian, it is entirely possible that the reporter, David Barnett, attempted to ask me for a comment before writing his story, but was unable to reach me as I was much too busy laughing.

    UPDATE: A sometime critic of mine who has challenged me to a debate with John Scalzi adds his thoughts on the increasingly hilarious matter:

    As Helen Smith demonstrated, John Scalzi likes easy and ideologically safe (politically correct) targets. This rule applies on those rare occasions when he responds to criticism, as well. Scalzi realizes that the best way to smear an entire group is to cherry-pick its worst members, and then present them as the representative norm. I noted earlier how he cherry-picks anecdotal cases of aberrant male behavior to build the case that women require his advocacy against sexism. In a similar manner, Scalzi strategically chooses which critics he responds to.

    He would not respond to Helen Smith, as this would place him in the difficult situation of having a woman expose his chicanery and call his bluff. Nor does he respond even to Vox Day—who swings back and forth between moderate positions and more extreme ones. But Vox Day frightens John Scalzi not because he is sometimes extreme, but because he is consistently articulate and often insightful. Scalzi does not want real dissent; he wants either sycophants, or babbling cardboard opponents whom he can casually demolish. The more likely a critic is to debunk his methods, the less likely John is to engage him or her in open debate.

    That is inarguably true, but on the other hand, John does commission rabbit paintings and solicit the burning of other people’s money in lieu of debate, which is considerably more amusing than mere rational discourse.  I certainly have no complaints.  I’m simply enjoying the dancing rabbits.

    UPDATE II:  This should be amusing.  I’ve already done two little interviews with publications in the USA and Canada doing stories on the affair.  Is there no end to the madness?  How is he so masterfully pulling the strings of the global media?

      It’s a bold strategy

      Let’s see if it pays off for him.  I’m left to reflect that it is just as well that Bane is dead.  This would have killed him.  There is no doubt in my mind that he would have died laughing on the spot.  The artist certainly did a magnificent job of capturing the essence.

      UPDATE: A Whatever rabbit likes the Gamma Rabbit almost as much as I do:  I kind of want to get this tattooed on me just to watch the gibbering howls of Alpha rage, which I would enjoy with a nice rum and coke.

      I kind of want him to do it too.  Better yet, I want John Scalzi to do it.  In fact, I will pledge ONE DOLLAR towards funding the cost of Mr. Scalzi getting the full-color Gamma Rabbit tattooed on his body.  Let’s see if he truly cares about diversity, gender equality, and the poor little gay black girls or not.  Is his commitment even skin-deep?

      Rabbits in the NFL

      Never give them any quarter.  None.  They never, ever stop trying to exert control over everything you think, say, and do:

      Comedian and radio show Artie Lange went from player to player at media day, as we understand it, asking outlandish questions until someone game him an outlandish answer.  That someone was 49ers cornerback Chris Culliver, who expressed strong opinions against the possibility of a gay teammate, creating a major distraction for his team.

      But the obvious apologies and retractions shouldn’t be the end of it, in the opinion of Seahawks punter Jon Ryan.  Ryan believes that Culliver should be suspended.

      “If Chris Culliver isn’t suspended by Goodell then I am absolutely embarrassed to be part of a league that accepts this type of behavior,” Ryan said on Twitter.

      Who cares if Jon Ryan is embarrassed or not?  It’s not behavior, it is free speech and freedom of thought.  Culliver was perfectly within his rights to speak about what he thinks and Ryan should quit the league if he’s such a delicate flower.  Ryan should also be given a lecture by Roger Goodell about who is responsible for the NFL’s disciplinary processes and who is not.

      If suspending people from their jobs for expressing their opinions is now the norm, then obviously it is fair for Christians to demand the suspension of everyone who dares to say anything that contradicts the Bible in any way.  It won’t be long before the Muslims will get into the game too, as they already are in London and some of the European cities.  It should be interesting to see how fast homosexuals abandon their public pressure tactics when they belatedly realize they are outnumbered by an enemy far more implacable than they ever imagined Christians to be.