Tag: SFWA

Who doesn’t understand what?

The current SFWA president provides a fascinating retweet from the previous SFWA president.

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi 20 Jul
As a general rule, a person too stupid to understand satire shouldn’t try to use it as an affirmative defense.
Retweeted by Steven Gould

Now, logic suggests that there are two possibilities here.  The first is that a member of Mensa doesn’t understand satire.  The second is that John Scalzi is a foolish ass who didn’t stop and think before he asserted his belief in a dimwitted reader’s interpretation of one of my posts.

Whatever could the answer be?  Remember, leftist attacks often involve psychological projection of their own deficiencies.  Consider the similarities between McRapey’s claims that I don’t understand satire and his response to my explanation for the readily observable fact that women write very little hard science fiction more than eight years ago:

“John, you think it makes more sense to postulate that despite my
obvious familiarity with the hard SF works of various women, I am
dedicated to a theory of genetic female inferiority while simultaneously
being in denial of the existence of books I own, than to admit you
failed to grasp an obvious rhetorical device.”

It’s possible, Vox. On the other hand, I have a degree in philosophy
from the University of Chicago (specializing in the philosophy of
language), and therefore have ample training in rhetoric, so I doubt
that rhetorical deficiencies on this end are the issue.

McRapey can’t be wrong, you see, because credentials.  Credentials and ample training.

There is no middle ground

Season of the Red Wolf fails to note two vital things in his attempt to call a pox on both houses.  First, I am neither a conservative nor a reactionary.  My positions stand on their own from first principles, they are not formed in reaction to anything. Second, he does not, (and I suspect cannot), make a case against either my position on either gays or women beyond the usual pointing, shrieking, and not bothering to go into details because his position is self-evident:

All this brings me to Theodore Beale aka Vox Day, the voice for ‘conservative sanity’ in the Science Fiction genre community. So he thinks. Yes Beale does have on occasion some sensible things to say, about the moral relativist and cultural relativist far Left insanity that pervades the SF genre community, and the odious liberal gate-keeping of the commercial and ‘artistic’ award circus. However Beale is – to put it as politely and diplomatically as possible – not the most reasonable alternative to the status quo. It’s not that he’s a little cranky, or odd, who isn’t in the genre community? Who isn’t period? It’s that his um opinions on women and homosexuality are simply eyebrow raising. There is no other way to put it.

Now I don’t care for RationalWiki any more than I care for Wiki on controversial issues. RationalWiki’s bias to so-called enlightenment values that are not always such is apparent and in-your-face. It appears to have a clear anti-religious and scientific materialist agenda, an agenda that hews to the liberal status quo across the board, and RationalWiki may well suffer from moral and cultural relativist delusions that Western liberalism suffers from as a whole. I mention this because this is Beale’s page at RationalWiki. However there are some quotes there attributed to Beale – I am talking about what he has to say about women and homosexuality – that make one wonder if they are for real or at least intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Well they are for real and no they are not intended to be sarcastic.

Here are some of his choice remarks on gays for example.

I am not going to bother going into details on why the above is just misguided, disturbing and contradictory. Either you see it or you don’t. Homosexuality is “a combination of nature…” and yet it is “a birth defect”. And ‘civilized society’ needs to treat it as such. The path down which this kind of thinking leads is not one I care to go down… Beale appears to be sincere in that he intends no personal malice or hatred to homosexuals – he makes it clear he doesn’t see homosexuality as bad per se. And yet Beale does give comfort and justification to those who are hateful to homosexuals. However Beale may vociferously deny it and not intend it at all. This is why Beale’s self-deceptive thinking on this front is so dangerous and beyond the pale. [PS No I am not gay myself, although I know some people think so]

On women in science and well, women, he is arguably misogynistic. And no I don’t take seriously the claims of militant feminists here at all, since the latter have no credibility whatsoever (witness the Malzberg and Resnick witch-hunt after all); but Beale’s more mainstream critics and his own *actual remarks* here speak for themselves (I mean one just needs to quote Beale without comment):

Now if Beale were just reacting and mocking the idiotic extremes of far Left feminism (and militant feminism in the academy for that matter), and its anti-male prejudice and out-and-out imbecility (as exemplified by the Malzberg-Resnick kerfluffle), I would and do concur. The militant feminists are the flip side of the coin to old-fashioned misogyny and excessive patriarchy in our society. However the problem with Beale is that he appears to go further than that, and his remarks on women as a whole appear to be persistently and consistently troubling, a little over the top.

The thing is Beale easily alienates or risks alienating (one assumes) half the genre community with his breezy, negative remarks on the female sex. One would think he would want as many readers as possible, as much support as he could get from SFFWA voters, when everything is rigged against you. Does Beale not realize that there are as likely to be as many genre females who are infuriated with moronic Leftism and its hold on the genre, as males? Or does Beale think that women are disproportionately in favor of selling the political status quo? Even if he does believe that, does he really want to alienate the women who don’t care for how feminism has lost its way (when it comes to militant feminism, plenty of women just roll their eyes); and women who don’t care for the Left’s and the genre Left’s love affair/apologetics for reactionary Islam? Well that’s the message Beale could easily be construed as sending out.

More recently Beale has gotten into a spat with N K Jemisin, radical US feminist genre writer over the latter’s controversial speech in Australia (just google it if you can be bothered). One wonders when Jemisin will be visiting Egypt or the Sudan or any nation in the Persian Gulf to let us know about what she thinks of how women and girls are treated there by Sharia law, but as they say when hell freezes over…  Yet Beale’s response to Jemisin  in some parts falls into the same trap, the same mold, they are both reacting off one another with stereotypes, superficial finger-pointing and offensive generalizations that are fallacious. He is reactionary, she is well a far Leftist (enough said).

Another thing that I cannot leave out, is that Beale is in bitter dispute with the SFWA given that he accuses the latter of unfair discrimination and negative attacks against Beale’s person at the latter’s (private) forums, and similar issues. Given the snakes’ nest and vile gossipy nature of the SFWA, and the latter’s odious far Left political bent on top of all that; well I’m not on the side of the SFWA here. However I don’t know what has gone on behind the scenes and thus I cannot comment on this with any real knowledge whatsoever, so will leave off. If anybody is so interested, Beale has quite a lot to say about it at his blog.

The thing is conservatives who cheer him on either haven’t noticed his uh problematic side, or they don’t care to notice, or they simply share his reactionary tendencies. We have common enemies after all, and you know let’s not look to closely at our embarrassing relatives who are effective leaders and sell lots of books… The enemy of my enemy is my friend, goes the thinking on both sides of the Isle. And this is symptomatic of why there is no hope for conservative SF. And conservatism really. The same lack of concern of prejudice, that infects the Left like a cancer. Misogyny? Yawn. Well depends on how you look at it. Gays shmays. Whatever. The far Left are misogynistic too, horribly so. This is especially the case with far Left feminists, but who knows that? Given liberal militant feminists’ running cover for reactionary Islam (as liberals are wont to do as a whole), and the latter’s in-your-face misogyny; well this shows up a core of  self-loathing, of masochism, of a strong anti-female streak within the militant feminist Movement. The ironies with the Left are beyond compare. That’s a whole other thing, beyond this article’s general scope. Just read the authentic feminist Phyllis Chesler’s Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman and The Death of Feminism. Not that these feminists ever will. None of the Left’s misogyny and the genre Left’s misogyny (that they don’t begin to recognize at all, along with the anti-Semitism) excuse such misogyny if it comes from conservative circles, in and out of the genre community. And so partisans on both sides of the isle will point fingers at the other and close ranks. We have dragons to fight after all, and you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. So it goes. Yeah well count me out.

In other words, Gould had no real competition. Although Fordham U prof Paul Levinson has served as president of the SFWA, and Levinson is a political crackpot. I’m sure there are plenty of genre pro writers and wannabe writers who don’t care for the status quo and the business-as-usual approach from Gould, but Beale as the alternative is no viable alternative.

And as I make clear further up, Scalzi is guilty of PC identity politics and its explicit racism, and likewise doesn’t have the tiniest problem whatsoever with extreme Jew-hatred from the genre community. Ditto Scalzi’s successor, Court Jew Steven Gould. So how is Scalzi better than Beale? How is Gould? Other than the fact that Scalzi’s identity politics prejudice and enforcement of deafening silence to Jew-hatred from genre writers is just going along with the zeitgeist of our times; that is the genre Thought Police’s prejudices are respectable prejudices and Beale’s are not. Scalzi (and Gould) aren’t any better than Beale and neither are the formers’ supporters.

The thing is though that Beale’s reactionary slant isn’t the way forward, heck by definition reactionary thinking is going back to the past and past mistakes. It’s answering the horrible prejudices of Scalzi and his ilk with Beale’s own neuroses. And it makes no sense to say that Beale’s prejudices are preferable to Scalzi’s or vice versa. Yet Scalzi’s race-baiting has its seal of approval from liberal America, from the White House itself, from a dumb media, the Ivy League. And it’s all branded as anti-racism, anti-prejudice. That’s what makes Scalzi and the genre Thought Police’s prejudices so very scary.

What Season is missing here is that the truth is the truth, regardless of whom it might happen to give “aid and comfort”.  If science makes him uncomfortable because it proves that all humans are not equally homo sapiens sapiens or indicates it will be possible to genetically prevent fetuses from developing into homosexuals, that just means reality makes him uncomfortable, it doesn’t mean that the science doesn’t exist or must be incorrect.

I am not saying that SF/F should go back and blindly imitate the masters of the past. Who among us can reasonably hope to equate the achievement of Tolkien, let alone surpass it?  But SF/F could do, and is doing, considerably worse than rejecting the lessons and examples set by the classics and embarking on a politically correct course that is neither scientific nor literary.  In fact, if one accepts the definition of art as that which is true to the artist’s feelings, most modern SF/F is manifestly not even artistic, being rife with cowardice, self-deceit, and derivation.

I don’t pretend to be THE alternative to the status quo, I am merely one alternative to it.  And I would encourage Seasons to read A Throne of Bones before blithely dismissing that alternative; it is as foolish to judge my novels by my blog posts as it is to judge Neil Gaiman’s novels by his choice in female companions.  In answer to his questions:

1. “Does Beale not realize that there are as likely to be as many genre
females who are infuriated with moronic Leftism and its hold on the
genre, as males?”

I disagree.  That’s simply not true. Such women do exist.  But there are far fewer of them because they observably have not fled the SF/F genre in the same numbers as men.

2.  “Or does Beale think that women are disproportionately
in favor of selling the political status quo?” 

Yes, I think women disproportionately lean politically left and tend to prefer fiction about romance to fiction about science or ideas.  So, naturally, they are more accepting of the current SF/F status quo than men; men don’t buy novels about necrobestial love triangles in space.  Women do.

3. “Even if he does believe
that, does he really want to alienate the women who don’t care for how
feminism has lost its way (when it comes to militant feminism, plenty of
women just roll their eyes); and women who don’t care for the Left’s
and the genre Left’s love affair/apologetics for reactionary Islam?” 

I don’t wish to alienate them, but I don’t care if I do.  I don’t believe feminism “lost its way”, I believe feminism, in all its forms, however, mild, is an ideology that is observably and materially more evil than Fascism or National Socialism.  If people refuse to read my fiction because they disagree with my politics or my ideology, that is certainly their prerogative.  I don’t care in the slightest so long as they don’t attempt to pronounce judgment upon it without actually reading it.

I write what I write. Perhaps my blend of traditional high fantasy and modern “realistic” fantasy will prove influential, or perhaps it will not. Most of those who have read it have enjoyed it. Most of those who are negative about it have not.  In the end, a work of fiction must always stand on its own, without the benefit or the disadvantage of its author’s views.

For the record

I would like to thank everyone who helped with my response to the SFWA Board report, regardless of whether they helped publicly, privately, or anonymously.  I’ve now completed what turned out to be a mere 32-page response in the end, thanks to my need to avoid violating discussion forum confidentiality by providing links rather than direct quotes of various statements made in the forums.  Also, as per the formal process, I have sent some 200 or so statements relevant to the matter to the Canadian Regional Director to be entered into the official record.

I also appreciate the staunch support that so many readers here have shown me in the face of the many false and absurd accusations contained in the report. As I’ve attempted to point out from the beginning, this affair is merely a microcosm of what can happen in nearly any organization in America today.  If your church, or your scout troop, or your neighborhood association, doesn’t deal firmly with the interlopers and busybodies who like nothing better than to invade organizations and “improve” it by constantly interfering with the other members, you may well find yourself on the business end of a similarly selective witch hunt.  If that happens, I hope my response here has provided you with a useful model with which to begin your own.

Even though I have been denied access to the discussion forums, I am still obliged to respect their confidentiality. So, while I can’t present the evidence here, SFWA members who are interested may find the following links to be useful in deciding whether personal attacks made in SFWA spaces have historically been considered an offense meriting official sanction or are simply part of the normal intra-organizational discourse.

SFWA 3.0’s target market

It’s truly not fair to say that there is no market for the necro-bestial love triangles and transgendered Regency romances of color in space so beloved of the new SFWA.  The market definitely exists, as evidenced here:

it’s funny tho when ppl give u shit for not reading or wanting to get
into “classic novels” like im sorry why do i wanna read about the
ramblings of some crusty old white dude who doesn’t even know what 
clitoris is when i can read about time traveling interracial lesbian
romances in space

As to whether that is a market that merits pursuing to the exclusion of works in the mode of crusty old white dudes such as Asimov, Card, Heinlein, Herbert, Tolkien, Lewis, and Verne is a question I quite happily leave to fine SF/F publishers such as Tor Books, Night Shade Books and Golden Gryphon Press.

The defense isn’t resting

Blogging will likely be a little light today, since I’m in the process of putting together all the information I’ve gathered into a coherent response to the SFWA Board.  Anyhow, I also found these particular quotes to be interesting, considering the way in which the SFWA president has handled the complaint process in a manner not dissimilar to his previous approach to differing opinions.

Steven Gould ::: (view all by) ::: March 05, 2005, 12:15 PM:

Does this mean we can’t make fun of Vox Day (Or VD as I like to call him) for his distressing use irrational arguments?  Of course we can. It’s like finding one of those dishes of leftovers in the back of the refrigerator that is busy creating it’s own little ecosystem. You comment on it, you drop it in the trash, and you don’t swallow it. 

Steven Gould ::: (view all by) ::: March 05, 2005, 09:57 PM:

Vox Day  From Dictionary.com:

Hack
5. Slang. To cope with successfully; manage: couldn’t hack a second job.

Yeah, you can’t front on that, Laura.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What language is this guy speaking? Is he from this dimension?… Why are we wasting so much time on this guy? When they came up with the phrase ‘kneejerk’ reactionary, they were thinking of him. 

Steven Gould ::: (view all by) ::: March 06, 2005, 10:39 AM:

Vox Day: “I do find it more than a little ironic that the very people who entered the fray making personal attacks are such delicate flowers about enduring them in return. People disagree with me. Fine. People think it’s appropriate to attack me, and not my ideas. Also fine. But it seems a little much for people to expect to be able to do so without taking any return fire.”
~~~~~~~~

Hmmmm. Listen to another series of overwritten, not-on-topic responses or wax the cat? Hear kitty, kitty….

As a person of color, I find it incredibly amusing that the painfully white Mr. Gould clearly did not understand the term
“you can’t front on that”.  In 2005.  And I find it tremendously hurtful that he would so insensitively imply that I am some sort of alien, presumably illegal.

Response Part XIII

At long last, we reach the effective end of Matthew Johnson’s epic saga of exaggerations, false interpretations, inept logic, and outright lies, with an appendix in which he attempts to justify using the comments on this blog as evidence of my horrific thoughtcrimes:

Appendix I. Inclusion of blog comments

This Appendix examines the question of whether to give weight to comments made on Beale’s blog by people other than himself. A key question is whether or not Beale actively manages the content of the comment threads on his blog by removing comments: if he does so, it follows that he has permitted all other comments to remain.

In considering the question, it’s worth looking at the precise meaning of the term “moderate” in the context of Blogger, the blogging platform used by Beale. As this article by Blogger explains (https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/42537?hl=en), turning on Comment Moderation in that platform means that all comments have to be actively approved by the operator of the blog before they are published. Beale’s blog is not moderated in this sense, possibly because the large volume of comments on his posts would make it impractical.

However, there is evidence to suggest that Beale actively manages the comments on his blog. To begin with, his post “Rules of the blog” lays out conditions under which he will delete comments: If you refuse to either answer a question or admit that you cannot answer it, then you will not be permitted to comment here and all of your subsequent comments will be deleted. (See Fig X.1)

Cross-comments and off-topic comments will usually be deleted. If your comment gets deleted, deal with it. (Ibid.)

There are at least five people who have been banned that insist on trying to comment here from time to time under different names; just ignore them as someone will get around to deleting their comments as well as the comments of those who respond to them soon enough. (See Fig X.2)

You will not call me a liar without providing any evidence of my lying, nor will you attempt to attribute to me words I have not written or actions I have not performed. If you do, your comments will be deleted and you will probably be banned. (Ibid.)

Any insertion of evolution or Creationism into a post that is not directly and specifically related to either subject will be deleted. (See Fig X.3)

If you are one of the small group of persistent anklebiters who insist on making the same tedious and incompetent attacks over and over again, I will simply delete your comments. This group includes, but is not necessarily limited to Beezle, Cabal, Cisbio, Dan Picaro, and the weirdo who keeps posting about his ancestors being fish. (See Fig X.4)

Attempts to claim that my refusal to further engage with a commenter whose arguments have repeatedly been demonstrated to be flawed are the result of cowardice or an inability to respond are false and will be deleted. (Ibid.)

There are, therefore, clearly stated rules on what is not permissible content on Beale’s blog. Since Beale does not forbid threats or defamatory comments, it would seem that they are allowed under his rules. He restates his willingness to delete comments in a later blog, “In which we are amused,” in which he explains how comments work on the site: It’s even easier to Remove Content using Blogger’s comment template than it was with CoComment… so don’t operate under the mistaken impression that it’s going to be any harder for me to keep the usual suspects from getting out of hand than it was before. (See Fig X.5)

Along with his stated intention to manage comment content on his blog, there is evidence that Beale actively does so. He threatens commenters with deletion:

Obvious, you will address me here as Vox if you wish your comments to remain. (See Fig X.6)

and blocks commenters when he disapproves of their content:

Beale: You can start commenting again as soon as you demonstrate that you can produce something besides ignorant and reflexive anklebiting, Obvious. It didn’t escape anyone’s attention how you fell silent and didn’t admit that you were wrong when I referenced the information about the introduction of 16-bit color and dynamic lighting models. If you can’t bring anything original to the table, no one is interested in what you have to say.

Commenter: Really? (See Fig X.7)

Beale: Yes, really. If you’re just going to ignorantly snap at ankles, you’re not going to be allowed to participate. Take a position, for crying out loud. Stand up for what you believe, don’t just yap in reflexive response to things about which you know nothing. Look at DH. He probably agrees with me about as much as you do. But he has a lot more to say than simply offering snarky negativity. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing. Or being wrong. But for the love of all that is left and right, don’t be so bloody tedious. And it wouldn’t hurt if you’d drop the passive-aggressiveness either. It doesn’t make your arguments convincing, it makes them sound like they’re coming from a petulant teenage girl. (See Fig X.8)

Deletion due to content seems to be common enough on the blog that commenters expect it: Vox is certainly ging [sic] to delete this but your comment is too amusing… (See Fig X.9)

The above comment was, in fact, deleted: it survives in the comment thread because another commenter quoted it. (We can be certain that it was deleted by Beale and not the commenter because when a commenter deletes his or her own comment it looks like Fig X.10. The commenter whose comment was deleted participates further in the thread and does not dispute the attribution of the quote, so we can assume that it is genuine.)

Therefore it would seem that Beale actively manages the content in the comment threads on his blogs, meaning that while he may not necessarily agree with the content of those comments that are not deleted, he does consider them to be appropriate for publication. In addition to the above, there are two comments that should be given particular weight: the rape threat against NK Jemisin (which was published through the SFWAAuthors feed; see Section A.3.3, Rape threat against SFWA member by blog commenter) and the allegation that Teresa Nielsen Hayden has herpes (which he reproduced in one of his own posts; see Section B.1.1, Personal attacks).

Here Matthew Johnson is clearly attempting to use my very light comment moderation, (which is entirely focused on allowing for a very broad range of discourse), and portray it as my only allowing content of which I approve.  He is doing so because he is attempting to manufacture a way to make me responsible for the two comments by blog commenters that he claims “should be given particular weight”.

Never mind that the one comment is not, as he falsely asserts it to be, a rape threat at all, while the second comment is clearly satirical given that it purports to be written by a Sonoran Desert Toad.  Given Mr. Johnson’s evident inability to detect satire, one can only wonder why he has not yet published a lengthy investigative report concerning former SFWA president John Scalzi’s self-described predilection “to force myself on women
without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually.”

In any event, I am simply not responsible for any comments made here or anywhere else by anyone besides myself.  I don’t block even one in one hundred commenters, whether I agree with them or not, not even when they are directly attacking me.  By way of example, here is one of 65 comments made in the last year alone by a single commenter, most of which were made in this vein and were not deleted.
Phoenician February 04, 2013 6:54 PM 
“Odd, isn’t it? Scalzi
would tuck his little manhood away and put on some fishnets for a
little publicity yet he most likely won’t take on Vox for what
would amount to a lot more publicity if crushes his biggest foe.” 
“Biggest foe”?  Bwahahahahahahahahhahhah!! Do you
people have no sense of your own *ridiculousness*?
“Some sad wanker who has achieved
fuck all in life except helping his father evade taxes starts
preening about “Alphas” and “rabbits”, a bunch of
sycophantic losers slime up to him because his posturing feeds their
neuroses and insecurities, and now you’re claiming that he’s the
“biggest foe” of someone who actually has a life?
“Dude, VP isn’t the “biggest
foe” of anyone or anything except his own grasp on reality. He’s
a sad loser, fawned on by other sad losers.”

As it happens, I neither agree with that comment nor consider it to be appropriate for publication. It is vulgar, factually incorrect, and illogical, but as it was on topic and clearly expresses Phoenician’s genuine opinion, I saw no justification for eliminating it.  The same is true of the two comments about which Matthew Johnson is complaining, although the one written by the Toad also happened to be more than a little funny as well.

My primary concern in moderating the discussions here is to foster genuine intellectual discourse.  That means ensuring that the commenters keep their attacks on each other within reasonable bounds, answer questions that are addressed to them, not repeat the same statements over and over again, and refrain from going too far off-topic.  While I feel an amount of responsibility for defending those who come and participate in the discussion here, I have no concern at all for those who are not participating in the discourse.  I feel no more responsibility to intervene when one commenter expresses a negative opinion about an SFWA member than when another commenter expresses one about a German politician or a Japanese game developer.

According to this report, the SFWA Board is not only asserting the right to supervise my speech, they are asserting the right to supervise the speech of every single individual who comments on my site or the site of any other SFWA member.

In light of how nearly every other SFWA member with a site moderates much more heavily than I do, and how many attacks on SFWA members can be found on those sites, I think the Canadian Regional Director is opening a particularly pernicious Pandora’s Box here in attempting to hold me responsible for the statements of my commenters.  And he may even be putting SFWA itself in jeopardy, considering the hundreds of personal attacks that can be found in the SFWA’s own forums, both at sfwa.org and sff.private.sfwa.lounge.
This finally brings to a close my posting of the SFWA Board report, as I already made the most pertinent bits of Appendix II public in my first post.  However, in the interest of responding to the anonymous comments by SFWA members and non-members in included in that Appendix, I would like to request that any SFWA member or ex-SFWA member who would like his anonymous opinion to be included in my response to the Board report, or any non-member who is potentially eligible for SFWA membership and would like the same, email me or leave a comment here.

Response Part XII 

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding
the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted
work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by
any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies
for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
copyright. 

Hiding from the light

MIT is trying to conceal its involvement in the Aaron Swartz affair:

Lawyers representing MIT are filing a motion to intervene in my FOIA
lawsuit over thousands of pages of Secret Service documents about the
late activist and coder Aaron Swartz…. MIT claims it’s afraid the release of Swartz’s file will identify the
names of MIT people who helped the Secret Service and federal
prosecutors pursue felony charges against Swartz for his bulk
downloading of academic articles from MIT’s network in 2011.

MIT argues that those people might face threats and harassment if
their names become public. But it’s worth noting that names of third
parties are already redacted from documents produced under FOIA.

I’ll post MIT’s motion here once it’s filed.

I have never, in fifteen years of reporting, seen a non-governmental
party argue for the right to interfere in a Freedom of Information Act
release of government documents. My lawyer has been litigating FOIA for
decades, and he’s never encountered it either. It’s saddening to see an
academic institution set this precedent.

I find it
fascinating to observe how organizations appear to be increasingly disposed to try keeping their
actions against individuals hidden from the public view.  I recently
received an email from the Canadian Regional Director complaining about
how I’d characterized his previous communications with me:

“The membership numbers in the online directory represent our best data. We do not track membership numbers by specific dates.

“I
note that you have misrepresented my answer to your last request on
your blog. Failure to correct this will be considered in reviewing your
response.

“As previously instructed, all further correspondence in this matter should be directed to me.”

As
requested, I replaced what I’d previously written with a direct quote
to avoid any possibility of misrepresentation. However, note that this is what he
claimed to be a misrepresentation of his answer:


“Mr. Johnson informed me that the membership numbers in the online
directory represent the organization’s best data and that SFWA does not
track membership numbers.”

Of course, if that is
misrepresentation, what is one to make of the numerous, shall we say,
less than entirely accurate representations contained in Mr. Johnson’s report to
the SFWA Board?  Will his failure to correct them also be considered by the Board?  Based on his last sentence, I fear I will
likely not be hearing back from the Secretary concerning the number of
members in the organization on the three dates requested, Article V,
Section 5 (c) of the SFWA bylaws notwithstanding.

Response Part XII

Section C.2 is the last part of the report proper, although there is interesting material in the first Appendix that is well worth reading.  It’s mostly a rehash of previous statements, although the bit on “attitudes” is moderately entertaining.

2. Threats of nuisance litigation

Mr. Beale has repeatedly threatened to harass SFWA through nuisance litigation. Mr. Beale has made explicit his intention to sue both in the SFWA online forums (in a post later removed by moderators): “A lifetime membership in SFWA is presently valued at $5,000.00. Although the bylaws presently contain a formula that is intended to deprive a lifetime member of the greater part of that officially established value, that particular section is highly unlikely to hold up if challenged in any court of law. I’m sure you will understand that the SFWA cannot simply steal property worth $5,000.00 from its members regardless of what the bylaws state or how unanimous the opinion of its board members may be.” (Ibid.)

and also on his own blog: “The board can make that determination [whetheror not to expel him] and hope that it will stand up in court.” (See Fig C.7)

He has also suggested that his intent is to harass SFWA through nuisance litigation:

“Once the lawyers get their hooks in, they’re very, very good at keeping the billable hours going.” (See Fig C.8)

“My lawyer broke his leg a few weeks ago. He’s bored.” (See Fig C.9)

Intentions and attitudes towards SFWA

Mr. Beale has made his attitude towards the organization clear through his blog posts. On the most obvious level, he frequently refers to SFWA through derogatory plays on the meaning of the acronym, such as “Seriously Fascist Women’s Association” (see Fig C.10), “Spitefully Fascist Writers of America (Fig C.11) and “Seriously Fat Women Authors” (see Fig C.12).

More significantly, he has made clear that he sees little value in SFWA or membership in the organization: “SFWA is already sunk so far deep into the mire that it’s hardly possible to bring it further into disrepute.” (See Fig C.13)

Commenter: VD, any value with the SFWA?
Beale: “Considerable entertainment value, but other than that, not so much.” (See Fig C.14) “The appeal [of membership] is the mere fact of my membership infuriates all the right people.” (See Fig C.15)

He has also stated openly that he not willing to compromise, avoid conflict with the organization of other members, or accept sanctions if they are imposed:

“In rejecting NK Jemisin’s call for reconciliation within the SFWA, I declared that there can be no reconciliation between the observant and the delusional.” (See Fig C.16)

“I’ll never back down to them.” (See Fig C.17)

Finally, Beale’s attitude may be summed up in this exchange where he explains his motivations for seeking conflict with SFWA:

Commenter A: The point isn’t to win, the point is to carry out the threat, and to make the threat if it’s warranted. Even if it was to come to Vox’s expulsion from SWFA, then a lawsuit, Vox wins as long as he doesn’t back down. (See Fig C.18)

Commenter B: How is that a win? (See Fig C.19)

Beale: It all depends upon what the objective is. If, for example, I wished to set up a rival organization, it might be more effective to encourage the existing one to burn itself down first. Or perhaps I’m deeply wounded, emotionally, and I’m simply lashing out in the only way I know how. Or it could be the objective is to win three Nebula prizes running as part of a settlement. Or perhaps I think this is the way to become president of the organization since I couldn’t win in a free election. Or it could simply be an instinctive desire to sow chaos. (See Fig C.20)

Once more, Matthew Johnson freely admits that he violated discussion forum confidentiality, and again, I have no intention of nuisance litigation.  I merely intend to stand upon my legal rights according to state law and the organizational bylaws.

As for the idea that I have a bad attitude about the organization, well, I’ve spent the last eight years being publicly attacked by some of the most influential people in the organization as well as by two presidents of the organization, a vice-president, and various and sundry Board members.  Then I’ve had a witch hunt launched against me for something that literally hundreds of members have done and been repeatedly accused of doing things I simply haven’t done.  I’ve read the author of this report tell one lie after another, even as numerous members of the organization publicly claim I am things I simply am not.

To paraphrase Brad Torgenson, this is the organization that is supposedly helping my writing career?  That is supposedly defending my interests?

It is totally false to claim I will not accept sanctions if imposed.  I already have.  My blog was removed from the @sfwaauthors Twitter feed and I publicly acknowledged that was a correct and fitting sanction. However, I will admit that I do not have a particularly positive attitude about the
SFWA.  And I will also admit that I would be vastly amused to see the
Board expel a member for possessing a low opinion of SFWA.

Response Part XI 

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding
the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted
work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by
any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies
for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
copyright. 

Response Part XI

Section C.1 of the SFWA Board Report shows that Matthew Johnson’s dark predictions about my behavior have not come to pass.  It also betrays his failure to understand that I have a right to defend myself against the Board’s false and hypocritical accusations despite their attempts to deny me the ability to do so.

1. Declarations of unwillingness to follow SFWA bylaws and procedures

Section A looked at occasions where Mr. Beale may have actually violated SFWA bylaws and procedures. This part of the report will look at his general attitude towards those bylaws and procedures, in particular public statements where he has said that he does not consider himself bound by them and does not intend to observe them.

Archiving Forum material for later publication

Mr. Beale has repeatedly stated that he has made copies of material on the online Forum and intends to publish it: “I’ve already got the entire SF Forum on record, so it would be fascinating to see them attempt to defend various statements by certain authors while claiming that mine were worthy of expulsion.” (See Fig C.1)

Commenter: You can make public the entire contents of the forum you archived, without having to worry that they’ll kick you out.
Beale: Certainly, were I no longer bound by confidentiality. (See Fig C.2)

Note that Beale does not say he has archived all of the discussions relevant to his case, or that he will only publish those: he says that he has archived “the entire SF Forum” and will publish, in his commenter’s words (which he affirms) “the entire contents of the forum you archived.” In another comment he states clearly that he will not consider himself bound by confidentiality “if I was not a member with access to the forums” (see Fig C.3).

To remove all ambiguity, Beale also published this exchange:

Commenter: Archived all the discussions?
Beale: Yep. (See Fig C.4)

Since this material was posted in publicly accessible blog posts bearing the tag “SFWA”, it may be reasonable to view it as constituting a threat the he will publish a large archive of confidential SFWA material if he feels he is wronged by the organization. It’s also worth noting his syntax – “the confidentiality agreement would no longer bind me if I was not a member with access to the forums” [italics mine]: because there is no comma after “member,” the most obvious meaning of this would be that he would respond to a loss of access to the forums with publication of this confidential SFWA material, whether or not he were formally expelled.

Refusal to abide by bylaws and Board sanctions

Mr. Beale has stated clearly that he does not intend to abide by the SFWA bylaws if the Board votes to expel him. In particular, he has said that he does not accept the section of the bylaws specifying the formula for repaying a Lifetime Active member who is expelled: “Any expelled Life member is entitled to more than the bylaws indicate due to the official valuation put on a Life membership. If they attempt to remove it they will without question create real financial damages.” (See Fig C.5)

As the last sentence of that excerpt suggests, Mr. Beale has been clear that he intends to sue SFWA on this basis if he is expelled. His threats of nuisance litigation are examined more closely in the second part of this section. He makes a similar claim in a post on the SFWA online forums in which he suggests, essentially, that the organization has no legal right to expel him: “A lifetime membership in SFWA is presently valued at $5,000.00. Although the bylaws presently contain a formula that is intended to deprive a lifetime member of the greater part of that officially established value, that particular section is highly unlikely to hold up if challenged in any court of law. I’m sure you will understand that the SFWA cannot simply steal property worth $5,000.00 from its members regardless of what the bylaws say or how unanimous the opinion of its board members may be.” [emphasisadded] (See Fig C.6)

One thing at a time.  As is obviously his wont, the Canadian Regional Director has again let his imagination run away with him in this section.  First, I have not done anything more here than point out the obvious, which is that once I am no longer an SFWA member, either due to resigning my membership or being expelled from the organization, the confidentiality that binds SFWA members will no longer bind me.  I fail to see how anyone could possibly dispute that.

I have not declared any “unwillingness to follow SFWA bylaws and procedures”, to the contrary, I have repeatedly claimed that the current SFWA Board is not following them itself.

I do have access to the entire historical forum and that was obviously a wise precaution on my part, as without access to the archive, it would have been much more difficult for me to write my formal response to the complaint.  Gould’s action in denying me access to the forums was hardly unpredictable. However, Johnson makes another stupidly dishonest mistake by falsely claiming that my agreement that I “can make public” the entire forum means that I “will publish” the entire contents.  A professional writer knows  that “I can” is not synonymous with “I will”.

As it happens, I can and will assure the SFWA Board and everyone else that I’m not going to publish the entire contents of the forum regardless of what happens.  Most of it is FAR too tedious to make for interesting reading by anyone.  But just as the Board has asserted that the discussion forum confidentiality rules do not apply to its members, I assert they do not apply to non-SFWA members.

Johnson also misinterprets what I said, which should be obvious at this point because I’ve already been denied access to the forums by the unilateral action of the SFWA president and yet I haven’t posted anything from the forum that was not in the report. I have not done so because, contra the false assertions by Johnson and Gould, I continue to respect discussion forum confidentiality.  In fact, by this point, it should be clear that I respect it more than the SFWA Board does, as Johnson again admits to violating discussion forum confidentiality in this section: “He makes a similar claim in a post on the SFWA online forums… (See Fig C.6)”.

Archiving the forum was necessary because I’ve used it to document 16 instances of an SFWA member providing a link in an SFWA space to an external attack on a member, (which is the primary complaint against me), and 48 instances of attacks on an SFWA member made in an SFWA space, (which is how some have erroneously characterized the complaint).  A number of these direct attacks in SFWA spaces are even openly declared to be attacks, either by the attacking member or by the moderator who has deleted the attack.

These 64 direct and indirect attacks include those made by three members of the present Board as well as 10 made by members who have openly called for my expulsion from the organization.

As for the SFWA bylaws, I certainly don’t intend to continue abiding by them if I am no longer a member.  Does anyone know any non-members who do?  However, I would not go so far as to say that I intend to sue SFWA if I am expelled; obviously if the SFWA were to properly expel me for just cause according to the relevant state laws and bylaws, and refrain from inflicting any financial damages on me, I would have no legal grounds for a lawsuit.  I have no intention of filing any nuisance lawsuits; I will only consider legal action if the Board gives me substantive cause through its improper behavior.

Unfortunately, the very poor quality of this oft-deceitful report does not lend itself to the idea that the Board has been dotting its “i”s and crossing its “t”s properly.  Some of the legal work that has been done on its behalf is actually quite solid, and it is clear that someone legally competent was advising SFWA at some point in the recent past, but it is also apparent that the current Board is not running all of its actions and statements past him.  As one of my lawyers commented, it is as easy to see when a non-lawyer is using legal terms he has picked up as when someone tries to use Google Translate in an attempt to pass for a native speaker. This report is an apt demonstration of how even very good lawyers can only do so much when the clients they are advising are incompetent and dishonest.

Response Part X

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding
the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted
work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by
any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies
for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
copyright. 

Response Part X

Section C purports to be evidence of what Matthew Johnson imagines to be my “bad faith”.  Which I find to be more than a little ironic, considering his near-complete failure to provide any of the considerable exculpatory evidence available in his “comprehensive” report.

C. Actions which demonstrate bad faith

This section of the report examines actions by Mr. Beale which, while not individually as serious as those described in parts A and B, may be taken as cumulative evidence that his interactions with SFWA have not been in good faith.

Two general issues will be addressed in this section:

1. Declarations of unwillingness to obey SFWA bylaws and procedures

1.1 Archiving Forum material for later publication
1.2 Refusal to abide by bylaws and Board sanctions

2. Threats of nuisance litigation

As well, the final part of this section will look at posts and comments made by Beale in which he makes statements regarding his intentions and his attitude towards SFWA.

In related news, the SFWA Board has voted on my 17 June complaint, which concerned Nora Jemisin’s apparent violation of discussion forum confidentiality in her speech in Australia,  Lee Martindale’s implied threat to commit criminal violence against me in the event of my election, and Laura Resnick’s threat to kill me, dismember me, and serve the remains to her dinner guests.

SFWA President Steven Gould moved that the Board “disallow the complaint filed by a member against multiple members to continue through the complaint process for insufficient grounds” and the measure passed 6-0.

Just to make it clear that I have not violated any confidentiality rules, please note that I received the results of the Board vote from parties other than the SFWA Ombudsman. I am still awaiting the result of my 11 July complaint concerning the actions of Mr. Gould and Mr. Johnson.

Something else I found interesting related to the charge in B.3 concerning the supposedly negative effect of my membership in the organization.  Given the necessity of an objective metric to ascertain the validity of Mr. Johnson’s charges, I asked him how many members the organization had on June 13th versus July 15th.  Mr. Johnson informed me: “The membership numbers in the online directory represent our best data. We do not track membership numbers by specific dates.”

Given that the online directory still contains several members who left the organization some time ago, this makes it clear that the Board will have little choice but to dismiss that aspect of the complaint for what are, in this particular case, legitimately “insufficient grounds”.

And in the meantime, former SFWA president McRapey appears to have taken the news that rehashed Jane Austen is still acceptable “science fiction” in the eyes of SFWA 3.0 a little too enthusiastically.  That, or he’s simply not dealing well with his copious free time now that he’s left Steven Gould to clean up, however ineptly, the Augean detritus that three years of McRapey’s “leadership” left behind.

Either way, he has let it be known that he would henceforth prefer to be known as Jane Scalzi in a courageous attempt to play life on a more challenging difficulty level.  I know everyone in the Dread Ilk will join me in wishing him well in his transition.

UPDATE: Mr. Johnson’s statement is absolutely fascinating in light of Article V, Section 5 (c) of the SFWA bylaws.

Response Part IX

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding
the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted
work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by
any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies
for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
copyright.