Quantcast

«

»

Sep 11 2012

In Which I…Harbor Death Threats?

So, the reaction to my post on Isaac Asimov’s invitation to give a talk lauding sexual assault at Chicon III (and his turning it down because it would require him to get consent from the women who would act as his props on stage) is getting an interesting reaction. Most of it has been what I expected:

  • “Yes, it happened to me/someone I know.”
  • “Oh, Asimov? Really? Sad panda.”
  • “His female characters always seemed a little weird.”
  • “Wow/Grr. I can’t believe (though I do believe) people would behave like this.”

All pretty typical reactions. Not much of the denialism I was braced for. 

Then there were the reactions I didn’t expect, like the ones from Earl Kemp, issuer of the invitation himself.

First comment:

What a wonderful find. Thank you very much for posting this. It’s nice to be reminded of some of the good things. I admit I’ve forgotten this, but it certainly was Ike. (There are better stories about him but not here, not now.)

Yeah, good things. Uh-huh. Good for whom?

Then the second comment, after I’d verified that the first was coming from the appropriate geographical region to be Kemp and not someone trying to hurt his reputation (and after I’d learned a bit more about his reputation):

Stephanie, I’m missing something here. I tried to locate you but couldn’t find you. Would you care to take this private? Contact me?

I am very easy to locate and contact. I am who I am and there should be no doubt about that.

Nope. Not about to take things private. I don’t take anything private with someone who’s demonstrated they think sexual assault is entertainment and haven’t managed to learn better in the last half century. I get quite enough creepy on the public channels, thanks.

Then we get to the weird comments. Another SMoF or well-connected fan (I presume it’s this guy from the name) showed up to, well:

I see all the brave people here posting stuff about Earl Kemp, who they do not know, hoping his generation—and he too presumably—dies off. Using their anonymous “handles”, so no one knows who they really are.

How brave of all of you.

How about all those WW2 soldiers who kept pin-ups of girls in their barracks and wolf-whistled USO tours? Should the Nazis have won the war instead?

I kind of assume Kemp’s generation will not be the first to fail to die off, whatever anyone’s wishes in the matter. We’ll get to what prompted this comment in a moment. (Tim Pratt handled the Godwining quite well.)

Then we move over to File 770, where my posting of the letters is discussed as critique relevant to the current discussions in fandom. Kemp left a comment over there as well:

Mike, I’ve decided to ignore them after making two attempts to contact them. I am pissed off because they didn’t ask my permission to illegally reprint my letter.

I am further pissed off about the unknown background story. When those files turned up at the university I was shocked because I didn’t even know they had been stolen from me and sold several times before winding up in their collection. The univ backtracked the routes to see who/when/how it had happened.

I had my own plans for my own personal files. If anything they should have gone to the Eaton Collection, my choice. And they were not to be sold, but donated.

Add onto that the insults from peculiar people who don’t know anything about what they’re commenting on, add to that at least one legal death threat that, along with the stolen copyright letter, (and one stolen from the Asimov executor) are both worthy of legal prosecution.

I wish them all well in their oddly conceived world.

Earl

I particularly love the combination of “What they (meaning me?) did was totes illegal, but I’m going to ignore it, and it’s all been investigated by the university before the exhibit, but it’s totes illegal!”

There’s also a reference to a death threat here. I ignored it. I had no idea it was supposed to be something that happened here, as opposed to coming from somewhere else among the thousands of people who read that post or on one of the many blogs or fora that linked to it. Then Kemp’s champion, Andrew Porter commented there as well:

Stephanie Zvan—who assumes I must know her, though I’d never heard of her until I used Google—sounds like a charming person who permits posters on her blog to post veiled death threats against people of Earl’s age.

I sent details of this material to the people on m list of Usual Suspects—which includes FILE 770—and perhaps some sort of harassment charges can be brought.

It’s not an auspicious beginning. I have no idea why Porter thinks I think he should know me. I’ll chalk it up to some bizarre failure of reading comprehension. The rest of that sentence, however, I can’t do that on. Overnight, we’ve gone from “hope his generation dies” to “post veiled death threats”.

And this is somehow a form of harassment. “I don’t like you or what you’re doing (whatever you may be doing now instead of the period 50 years ago under discussion) so I’ll…do something vague regarding someone roughly your age”? Seriously. That’s the best I can do. Try it yourself in the comments if you’ve got some way to make this make sense. To help, here’s the original comment that is the only one Porter can be referring to:

Disgusting. Fucking disgusting.

I love Isaac Asimov’s short stories. But I had to put down a collection of them in extreme distaste recently because I can’t stomach the way he treats women characters. They’re cardboard props interested only in fashion, how their husbands feel, and whether another woman is going to out-gossip them. It’s not just careless, it’s like. . actively stupid and cheap.

The Stepford Wives was not an inspirational novel, Asimov.

And you, Earl Kemp—I can only say I’m glad your generation is close to extinction.

“I’ll murder the entire remnants of your generation in order to get rid of you”, maybe? Nope, I don’t get it. As I commented to Porter:

I promise you, Andrew, that old age is not posting comments on my blog. Seeing that the only mentions of death in the comments involve Asimov (who cannot be threatened) and a note that someone won’t miss Kemp’s generation when they age out, I’m not sure who else could be threatening anyone, veiled or otherwise. Would you like to be more specific about whom you’re publicly accusing?

It’s really kind of strange. I’m left with the conclusion that they’d really like me to shut up about this, but they can’t quite figure out why they should. Except that someone should make me because they want me to.

Yeah, that’s not going to happen either.

60 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-

    Things are just getting bizarre

  2. 2
    FelixBC

    Wow, it’s like talking to the distant past, walking around all dusty and creaky.

    The past is not dead. In fact, it’s not even past. (Faulkner, thanks google.)

  3. 3
    Xanthë, Amy of my threads

    One thing I should like to know regarding the similarly bizarre claim about ‘illegal publication’ is whether the letters by Kemp and Asimov have ever been published in any form before now, as images on the Flickr web site. To say US copyright law is a morass – especially so when we look back at what the state of play was in 1961 – does not give me confidence Kemp’s claim of misuse has any teeth. Horse, stable door, etc.

    As for veiled death threats? Good grief. The most that can be truthfully said about that comment is that it expresses a desire for time to take its natural course sooner rather than later. That’s not nice, but then, defending sexual harassment 50 years later isn’t acceptable either.

  4. 4
    gworroll

    If he thinks there’s a legal case, he should pursue it. Either that or STFU.

  5. 5
    David K. M. Klaus

    Wishing, even out loud, that someone were dead, whether one indivudual or a “generation” (however one is defining the word in context) is not a death threat.

    Before wishing anyone were dead again, however, let us remember what happened when King Henry II of England said “Will no one rid me of that meddlesome priest?”

    [In no wise am I insisting that anyone "shut up", not at all. I am just suggesting that people think more carefully about what they write so that unintended meanings will, one hopes, not be read into their statements.]

  6. 6
    Dr. Free-Ride

    By their logic, my asserting “I think it’s a good thing that humans have finite life-spans” is equivalent to saying, “I’m going to kill someone — and since you’re human, IT COULD BE YOU!”

    I cannot help but feel this does not speak well of their logic.

  7. 7
    Josh, Official SpokesGay

    Oh, for goodness’ sake. I hope you got lolz from it Stephanie for having to go to the trouble on my account.

    Yes, what I said wasn’t “nice.” It wasn’t meant to be. But it sure as hell wasn’t a death threat veiled or otherwise. A person has to work to torture it into that.

    It’s a truth that we all know; cultural and political change happens when generations die and are replaced by younger people with different views. I make no bones about longing for the day when an antique, obsolescent cohort of entitled pigs is no longer around to make the world a dismal place for women, pocs, LGBTs, etc.

  8. 8
    Forbidden Snowflake

    I’m left with the conclusion that they’d really like me to shut up about this, but they can’t quite figure out why they should.

    Shouldn’t there be “I” instead of the bolded word? I can’t make sense of the sentence as it is.
    Also, wouldn’t it be funny if Old Age did comment on your blog? “I’M GONNA KILL Y’ALL. AND I’M GONNA START WITH *THIS ONE*”. It would kind of sound like Mabus, I guess.

  9. 9
    Xanthë, Amy of my threads

    Oops, sorry Josh. Trying to avoid equivalence between mores of the past and now, I think I accidentally did imply one equivalence which I didn’t intend, that I might view your comment as ‘unacceptable’. Far from it. Dinosaurs defending sexual harassment in 2012 are closer to extinction than was the case in 1962 – and there’s no doubt the sexist attitudes of that generation deserve extinction. Unfortunately, the same attitudes are still around in the current generation, only slightly retooled.

  10. 10
    Josh, Official SpokesGay

    Xanthe, no criticism of you at all!

  11. 11
    Jason Thibeault

    They’re just going to have to get used to the fact that humans like to categorize other humans into “generations”, that these generations do in fact have some common tropes they’ve largely internalized that often die with the last member rather than being passed on, and 100% of all members of every generation will eventually die.

  12. 12
    Stephanie Zvan

    David Klaus, since you resorted to copypasta, I’ll add this everywhere I notice your comment:

    Your concern for clarity is commendable. You might want to note that the same results can be achieved by reading carefully.

  13. 13
    Ms. Daisy Cutter, General Manager for the Cleveland Steamers

    Josh, you generational Hitler, you.

  14. 14
    Josh, Official SpokesGay

    I’m the worst. When I’m done wiping everyone in that generation out I’m gonna keep using the same magic eraser sponge on innocent people.

  15. 15
    Sunil D'Monte

    What they’re doing is muddying the waters, so that the discussion becomes about copyright and netiquette and death threats rather than Asimov committing sexual harassment and assault and his peers encouraging it.

    The whole “product of his time” argument is weak too. As if ALL men of that time were going around harassing and assaulting women. They weren’t. 50 years from now, when people of THAT time wonder how people of THIS time could have blithely used slurs like “cunt”, they might try to justify it saying “Oh they were products of their time”. But are ALL of us today using slurs like “cunt”? No – we aren’t.

  16. 16
    HappiestSadist, Repellent Little Martyr

    Josh, you monster, how dare you mention that human have finite lifespans. Also, how very dare you not tell me that you’re the Grim Reaper himself, or at the very least an assistant Reaper. And bringing up that progress has been historically influenced by the dying out of generations that hold antiquated bigotries! You uncouth SpokesGay!

    Also, David Klaus, you’re not endearing yourself to anyone with your copypasta.

  17. 17
    Stephanie Zvan

    Happiestsadist, you’re not doing anything you shouldn’t, but you’ve given me an opportunity to bring this up:

    There’s likely to be some culture clash going on as fandom folks stop by. Some people are still LJ-only. Some are forum-only. Some are all newsletters and email. The subject at hand is close to pretty much all of them, though, and they should partake in the conversation even if it isn’t happening in their usual spaces.

    Everyone feel free to explain local custom, but let’s give some leeway to make for more focused discussions. And yeah, *sigh*, that includes tone trolling. If someone criticizes tone instead of arguments, just refocus them on making substantive critique. If they can’t, point it out and move on. Try to engage with people who can.

  18. 18
    HappiestSadist, Repellent Little Martyr

    Everyone was a noob to this place once, so I will definitely try to engage in good faith, give extra leeway, etc. Especially if they’re otherwise willing to engage in actual good-faith dialogue. My patience does wear thin for deliberately obtuse copypasta.

  19. 19
    jose

    I thought Susan Calvin was considered a good character?

  20. 20
    navigator

    I’m just confused. Either Asimov said it, or wrote it, or he didn’t. And it seems pretty clear that he did. So what’s the fuss? Another (previous) idol with feet of clay. And yes, we just keep hoping that incredibly offensive sexism will die out. Not yet, but we’re still waiting.

  21. 21
    Jason Thibeault

    In fairness navigator, that was in 1962 when there were significantly fewer repercussions for being blatantly publicly sexist. It just means the change we want to see didn’t happen back then.

    And you should know by now that there are no heroes. Every hero has feet of clay in some respect. Hell… every PERSON has feet of clay.

  22. 22
    Erin (formerly--formally?-- known as EEB)

    @Sunil D’Monte

    The whole “product of his time” argument is weak too. As if ALL men of that time were going around harassing and assaulting women. They weren’t. 50 years from now, when people of THAT time wonder how people of THIS time could have blithely used slurs like “cunt”, they might try to justify it saying “Oh they were products of their time”. But are ALL of us today using slurs like “cunt”? No – we aren’t.

    This comment is a thing of beauty and joy forevermore.

    I’m ashamed I never thought about it that way before, but after I read it, it just seems so obvious. What’s sad is that I talk a lot with people from that generation, and I know that it wasn’t universal, that there were a lot of people who were disgusted by that type of behavior. Not only that, there were people who spoke up and tried to change it. My grandfather, for instance, said he always smacked down (metaphorically) the guys at his contracting company that treated women badly, and was happy after his promotion because he had more of an ability to enforce it. (As he told Mom once, “Your generation didn’t invent the sexual harassment policy, you know.”) Now, maybe it was somewhat religiously motivated–Grandpa was Old-School Methodist, no drinking, smoking, card playing, dancing, or movies–but I think it was more that he loved and respected his mom (a single woman who raised 10+ kids in NYC) and my grandmother, whom he always regarded as an equal partner in their marriage (in spite of his super-conservative religious views, he hated patriarchal bullshit, which got him in trouble a few times).

    So while I’ve always known those attitudes weren’t universal, I guess I never really thought it through all the way. I just accepted the “that’s the way it was” comments in discussions about sexual harassment. It’s fascinating–and not a little embarassing–to realize I’ve been holding two completely opposite “truths” in my brain at the same time without making the connection.

    Never again! I am totally going to remember this and point it out the next time someone makes that sort of comment around me. Or when they point to Mad Men as conclusive evidence for their argument. ;)

  23. 23
    David K. M. Klaus

    > David Klaus, since you resorted to copypasta, I’ll add this everywhere I notice your comment:

    > Your concern for clarity is commendable. You might want to note that the same results can be achieved by reading carefully.

    Then why did you do the same just a couple of comments after mine on the File 770 weblog?

    Ms Svan, I didn’t “resort” to anything. I learned that to avoid confusion it was a good idea to quote the specific lines to which one was specifically commenting initially from fanzines as far back as 1976, then later on BBS threads, and after that, on Usenet. I commend your doing the same, although I would ask that you please not spam other weblogs everywhere you notice my making a comment as you did at File 770.

    I do read carefully, which is why I know what to copy in order to make my following comment(s) understandable.

  24. 24
    David K. M. Klaus

    Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doom:

    > David Klaus, you’re not endearing yourself to anyone with your copypasta.

    “Copypasta” is a slang term (obviously with derogatory implication) I have never seen before posting here. Yes, I do copy-and-paste where I think it necessary, to insure clarity. And I will continue to do so in order to continue to insure that clarity.

    And since I am not writing here to endear myself to anyone, I prefer to be clear in what I write, and why I’m writing it. The topic of sexual harassment is important, and clarity about what one is saying about it is important.

  25. 25
    Jason Thibeault

    David, you are actually being taken to task for copy-and-pasting the same comment in several locations, rather than engaging with the individual arguments at each location. Stephanie responded in kind by copy-and-pasting the response at each location.

    You are expected to cite the specific arguments via copy-and-paste when replying to someone, but not to copy-and-pasting your entire comment in multiple locations where they do not add to the arguments in question and in fact are derails in some locations. It would be like posting the identical comment to alt.philosophy and alt.binaries.midi and rec.sports.hockey.

  26. 26
    Peter the Mediocre

    Jose beat me to mentioning Susan Calvin.
    The fact that things dismissed as “cute” when done 50 years ago by a famous writer are now percieved as being assault says that society is changing. That’s a good thing.

  27. 27
    David K. M. Klaus

    Mr. Thibeault:

    The comment which elicited that reaction from Ms Svan was not a copy-and-paste comment. It was, I admit the same comment, used in three threads, in all of which the phrase “death threat” was misused, twice on this weblog and once on File 770. Since that answer, I thought, was the best I could give on the subject of misinterpretations of not-death-threats, I used it all three times. I derailed nothing, I abused nobody, and was relevant in all three instances. If that bothers other people, bothering them wasn’t my intention. I don’t know what else I can say to the objection except that unless somebody makes the same misinterpretation in some other thread and I happen to see it, I have no need to repeat it again.

  28. 28
    Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-

    That comment thread in file 770 is really, really bizarre.
    This whole affair is.
    I’m not even sure what Dave Locke’s stick is, apart from people having pointed to a really bad trait of one of his heroes.
    Or it’s probably the simple fact that a woman is allowed to speak her mind, on the matter of harassment of all!
    But I’m a troll anyway because I comment here and he says so ’cause he’s been around since the internet was invented.

  29. 29
    Lite Sneeze

    Love the references. First soldiers in WWII, then kings and priests in 12th century England. What’s next, Julius Caesar being stabbed to death in ancient Rome? Any other subject than women being sexually harassed, I’m daring enough to guess.

  30. 30
    StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    Isaac Asimov is my favourite SF author. I got hooked on reading SF because of him and I absolutely love his works.

    But I know he wasn’t perfect and was priviledged when it comes to gender and sexism and sometimes behaved badly without probably realising just how badly he was behaving. (Shrug.)

    The rest, I .. yeah, I don’t follow how they think it could possibly follow really.

  31. 31
    HappiestSadist, Repellent Little Martyr

    Mr. Klaus: Your response, though you may have intended it as a concise repetition of your point, however, is a very flawed, disputed, and inappropriate one. Repeating it isn’t giving any strength. You’re doing yourself rather a disservice, as though it may have been acceptable in other venues, is in many current ones considered spamming and very disrespectful.

    I would also suggest it would be a nice gesture to bother getting our host’s name right.

    And yes, I use slang terms. Also, contractions. (And no, copypasta is not derogatory. It is actually completely neutral.)

  32. 32
    Lauren

    StevoR@30

    But I know he wasn’t perfect and was priviledged when it comes to gender and sexism and sometimes behaved badly without probably realising just how badly he was behaving. (Shrug.)

    Yeah, like the lion probably doesn’t realize it’s chasing the gazelle.

    Of course predators know they’re predators. The problems or feelings of the prey are just immaterial to them.

  33. 33
    HappiestSadist, Repellent Little Martyr

    Exactly, Lauren. He wrote a story about a creepy grabby guy who realized that he was one. He knew, and didn’t care.

  34. 34
    poiqui

    Its true. Josh: The Official SpokesGay didn’t directly issue a death threat. What he did was directly tell an 84 year old man that he’d be glad when the old man’s generation entirely dies off.

    What a fucking hero you are Josh, way to go.

  35. 35
    Stephanie Zvan

    Who called Josh a hero?

  36. 36
    poiqui

    Me, sarcastically.

  37. 37
    Stephanie Zvan

    Then you’re talking to yourself. Stop using my blog to do it.

  38. 38
    A. Noyd

    poiqui (#34)

    What he did was directly tell an 84 year old man that he’d be glad when the old man’s generation entirely dies off.

    Which he did in response to the old man calling sexual assault a “good thing.” So. How, exactly, is what Josh said bad in any way?

  39. 39
    poiqui

    @A. Noyd says:

    Which he did in response to the old man calling sexual assault a “good thing.” So. How, exactly, is what Josh said bad in any way?

    Which he did in response to this disgusting, filthy post:

    Earl Kemp says:
    September 9, 2012 at 8:34 pm
    What a wonderful find. Thank you very much for posting this. It’s nice to be reminded of some of the good things. I admit I’ve forgotten this, but it certainly was Ike. (There are better stories about him but not here, not now.)

  40. 40
    Stephanie Zvan

    poiqoi, you’ve had three chances to contribute anything to this discussion. You’ve failed soundly, which I’ve also seen you do elsewhere. And I’m not in the mood for people being coy about sexual assault. Ta.

  41. 41
    A. Noyd

    David K. M. Klaus (#5)

    Before wishing anyone were dead again, however, let us remember what happened when King Henry II of England said “Will no one rid me of that meddlesome priest?”

    That might be a useful thing to remember when we are all kings with knights eager to gain a greater share of our regard. Realistically, however, there’s only so much caution we should expect a citizen of average influence to exercise in commenting before the burden of avoiding misunderstandings falls on the reader.

    As Josh pointed out, it takes work to read a threat into what he said. So unless you care to explain how it’s actually easy to see his comment as a threat (or even as a death wish implying someone should speeding things along), perhaps you should save your admonishments for those whose behavior genuinely requires adjustment.

    (#23)

    …I would ask that you please not spam other weblogs everywhere you notice my making a comment as you did at File 770.

    So, it’s quite all right if you spam all those blogs with your copypasta, but oh-so terrible if someone responds in the same fashion?

    (#27)

    The comment which elicited that reaction from Ms Svan [sic] was not a copy-and-paste comment. It was, I admit the same comment, used in three threads….

    *facepalm*

    Hey, you know what tends to bog down communication and allow for unintended meanings to be read into your statements? Ignoring common definitions of words in favor of your own, personal ones.

    (Also, try putting what you quote from others into <blockquote></blockquote> tags.)

  42. 42
    Ben Zvan

    Realistically, however, there’s only so much caution we should expect a citizen of average influence to exercise in commenting before the burden of avoiding misunderstandings falls on the reader.

    Which, unfortunately, is why Michele Bachmann hasn’t been arrested for treason…yet.

  43. 43
    David K. M. Klaus

    Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doom:

    Your response, though you may have intended it as a concise repetition of your point, however, is a very flawed, disputed, and inappropriate one. Repeating it isn’t giving any strength. You’re doing yourself rather a disservice, as though it may have been acceptable in other venues, is in many current ones considered spamming and very disrespectful.

    I don’t consider myself to have spammed since the comment was relevant in all three cases, and was concise and to the point. What I consider spamming was the slightly insulting repeated response by our host, especially on the weblog of someone who has been my personal real-life friend for 34 years (Mike Glyer).

    I would also suggest it would be a nice gesture to bother getting our host’s name right.

    I thought I was being respectful by addressing her with honorific and her last name. If I was mistaken in some way, it was unintentional and I apologize. Please correct me as to the how I should address her in a proper way. (Sincere, not sarcasm.)

    And yes, I use slang terms. Also, contractions. (And no, copypasta is not derogatory. It is actually completely neutral.)

    It seemed derogatory in context. If you say it wasn’t, I thank you for the correction.

    And I have no objections to slang or contractions, I was just noting it was slang. I have no animus toward you.

  44. 44
    David K. M. Klaus

    A Noid:

    That might be a useful thing to remember when we are all kings with knights eager to gain a greater share of our regard. Realistically, however, there’s only so much caution we should expect a citizen of average influence to exercise in commenting before the burden of avoiding misunderstandings falls on the reader.

    We all know there are, besides the decent, intelligent participants, also clinically sick people on the net, who might take such a suggestion literally. Colorado Theater Guy, for instance. The guy who flew a light plane into an IRS building in Texas. And so forth. Let us please not give them what they would mistakenly perceive as stimulus.

    As Josh pointed out, it takes work to read a threat into what he said. So unless you care to explain how it’s actually easy to see his comment as a threat (or even as a death wish implying someone should speeding things along), perhaps you should save your admonishments for those whose behavior genuinely requires adjustment.

    I said three times that it was not a death threat. How many more times must I say it?

  45. 45
    David K. M. Klaus

    A. Noyd

    ….Ignoring common definitions of words in favor of your own, personal ones.

    I was using dictionary definitions. Perhaps we read from different dictionaries?

    (Also, try putting what you quote from others into [blockquote] [/blockquote] tags.)

    I unfortunately managed to miss where it said that option was available by reading the list of permissable commands too quickly. It’s my fault and I apologize. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. (Again, sincere, not sarcasm.)

  46. 46
    Nick Gotts

    Before wishing anyone were dead again, however, let us remember what happened when King Henry II of England said “Will no one rid me of that meddlesome priest?” – David K. M. Klaus

    Since:
    a) That was quite clearly a request that someone kill the person referred to, while expressing a general wish that a generation die off is just as clearly not, and;
    b) Henry II, as a medieval king, was surrounded by armed thugs eager to do his bidding, while AFAIK Josh, OfficialSpokesGay, is not -

    I’m struggling to comprehend what the everlasting fuck you think you’re babbling about.

  47. 47
    Ms. Daisy Cutter, General Manager for the Cleveland Steamers

    Giliell:

    That comment thread in file 770 is really, really bizarre.
    This whole affair is.

    What you’re seeing over there is the clannishness and inflated self-regard of old-sk00l S/F fans.

    Locke is calling FTB commenters over there “trolls” and asserting that they “don’t know anything about what they’re commenting on,” and Kemp is referring to them as “mostly unknown and anonymous people,” because they view fandom — especially fandom in “the good old days” — as their personal sandbox. Other people criticizing the culture are taking a dump in their sandbox.

    You can see the same attitude on display in this Chill Girl post about Readercon. Locke shares the same attitude: Women who object to sexual harassment aren’t “tough” or “adult” enough for his precious subculture.

  48. 48
    Argle Bargle

    David K. M. Klaus #43

    I thought I was being respectful by addressing her with honorific and her last name.

    Her name is not Svan but Zvan.

  49. 49
    A. Noyd

    David K. M. Klaus (#44)

    We all know there are, besides the decent, intelligent participants, also clinically sick people on the net, who might take such a suggestion literally. … Let us please not give them what they would mistakenly perceive as stimulus.

    What Josh said wasn’t a suggestion and there’s no danger in taking it literally. Nothing more can be made of it without a serious stretch. Furthermore, anything might be perceived as some sort of stimulus by some mentally ill person. It’s not reasonable to attempt to anticipate what a deranged mind might make of our every utterance. And before you say some things make a more likely stimulus than others, I will grant that as trivially true. However, you have to make a case for Josh’s remark being particularly dangerous.

    I said three times that it was not a death threat. How many more times must I say it?

    I didn’t say you said it was a death threat. (Reading comprehension, what?) But you are saying others might mistake Josh’s statement—either for a threat or a suggestive death wish. Now, either these others would have to work to see it that way, in which case the burden is on them to read more carefully, or it’s an easy error to make, in which case there’d be a point to saying Josh should have exercised more caution. If it’s the former, then you’ve no business admonishing anyone but the comment’s readers. If it’s the latter, then you need to explain how it’s an easy mistake.

    (#45)

    I was using dictionary definitions.

    You were denying that your “same comment, used in three threads” was “copypasta” (or “a copy-and-paste comment” if you prefer), when, going by the common definition of “copypasta,” those are all the same thing. Whether or not you feel justified in your copying and pasting is irrelevant.

    You still haven’t explained why it’s okay for you to copy and paste the same comment multiple places but not okay for people to do the same with their replies to you.

  50. 50
    medivh

    @jose, #19:

    I thought Susan Calvin was considered a good character?

    I can’t speak for anyone else, Jose, but I thought she was as well rounded a character as anyone else when I was reading Asimov’s stories for the first time. You know, back when I was a teenager.

    But you go back and look, and she’s almost always the exceptional woman stereotype (as in “the exception to the rule that women are emotional”). Not to mention that she, of course, really wants children (shown in Lenny) and loses all semblance of critical thinking when she thinks she’s the object of sexual attention (shown in Liar!).

    This isn’t to say that Calvin was just a flawed human character. She was distinctly on the tropes side of women vs. tropes. All of her colleagues were normally emotional human men. But she, being the token woman, was either coldly robotic or overemotional.

  51. 51
    David K. M. Klaus

    Nick Gotts (formerly KG):

    a) That was quite clearly a request that someone kill the person referred to, while expressing a general wish that a generation die off is just as clearly not, and;

    b) Henry II, as a medieval king, was surrounded by armed thugs eager to do his bidding, while AFAIK Josh, OfficialSpokesGay, is not -

    It is regarded by the historians I have read that King Henry was exclaiming his frustration with Thomas Becket, not expressing a wish that the man who was once his close friend be killed, and that the knights who assassinated Becket misunderstood the meaning of what Henry was saying.

    I’m struggling to comprehend what the everlasting fuck you think you’re babbling about.

    I’ve stated it explicitly. I see no need to say it again.

  52. 52
    David K. M. Klaus

    Ms Zvan: I apologize for inadvertently misspelling your surname. My only excuse is that I didn’t realize I was doing it. I’ll endeavor to not do it again.

    Thanks to Mr. Rodney Nelson for letting me know of my error.

  53. 53
    David K. M. Klaus

    A. Noid:

    I’m not going to continue the discussion of not-a-threats and such. Your most recent comment is repetitious, I’ve answered it before, and this thread isn’t about me. Let us all please allow it to go back to the original discussion.

    You still haven’t explained why it’s okay for you to copy and paste the same comment multiple places but not okay for people to do the same with their replies to you.

    It is okay here in Ms Zvan’s weblogs. They belong to her and she sets the rules. My only complaint was when she did it in Mike Glyer’s weblog, which wasn’t hers, and in which Mike had no problem about what I wrote.

    Again, can we stop talking about me now?

  54. 54
    Josh, Official SpokesGay

    Oh my goodness. You do go on, don’t you Klaus?

  55. 55
    A. Noyd

    David K. M. Klaus (#53)

    I’m not going to continue the discussion of not-a-threats and such. Your most recent comment is repetitious, I’ve answered it before…

    No, you haven’t. You have not explained how what Josh said has any risk of being mistaken by reasonable people or that it’s worthwhile to worry that it could provoke some random psycho. Hell, you haven’t even shown how Josh’s statement was a suggestion. You’ve made hyperbolic analogies and repeated assertions, but you haven’t pointed out or explained what’s actually problematic.

    And if my previous comment was repetitious, it’s because you didn’t understand it the first time. If this comment is repetitious, it’s because you’re being evasive (or you still don’t get it). You have the magic power to stop me being repetitive by substantially engaging what I keep repeating.

    …and this thread isn’t about me. Let us all please allow it to go back to the original discussion.

    Whether or not there’s a problem with what Josh said is part of the original discussion. If you want things to be less about you, try supporting your arguments for once rather than spending most of your energy defending yourself when people point out your hypocrisy or your lapses in etiquette.

    It is okay here in Ms Zvan’s weblogs. They belong to her and she sets the rules. My only complaint was when she did it in Mike Glyer’s weblog, which wasn’t hers, and in which Mike had no problem about what I wrote.

    That’s not an answer; it just underscores your hypocrisy. What does it matter if File 770 isn’t Stephanie’s? Her OP is about the very same discussion there that you’re complaining she responded to you in. She was engaged in it well before you showed up to repeat yourself, so expecting that she ignore your participation is ludicrous. Furthermore, this Mike guy having no problem with your copypasta says nothing about why Stephanie was wrong to answer you in kind. And I don’t see your buddy Mike taking issue with Stephanie’s copypasta, either. So what the hell is your point? All you’re doing is claiming special rules apply to you. Because… oh look, a shiny!

    Earlier, you complained that copypasta is a derogatory term. It’s not, but you’re demonstrating why copypasta tends to get called out: People, like you, copy and paste the same thing multiple places hoping to find one blog or forum where what they’re saying goes unchallenged. That’s why honest people will make it a point to explicitly mention their copying and pasting (even adding links to the post’s prior appearances). You, however, are not even being subtle in your attempt to evade criticism.

    Again, can we stop talking about me now?

    You first.

    ~*~*~*~*~*~*~

    (Sorry if this double posts. I’m not sure what happened to the first attempt.)

  56. 56
    A. Noyd

    Not sure why, but my reply to #53 isn’t going through.

  57. 57
    David K. M. Klaus

    I haven’t been hypocritical. I apologized for my name-spelling errors and corrected them. The last two posts are flame-bait, and I’m not playing that game (“game” as defined in transactional analysis).

  58. 58
    HappiestSadist, Repellent Little Martyr

    Mr. Klaus: It is really actually hypocritical to condemn Stephanie for doing exactly what you yourself did.

    And your Becket analogy remains grossly, offensively off the mark.

  59. 59
    A. Noyd

    David K. M. Klaus (#57)

    I haven’t been hypocritical. I apologized for my name-spelling errors and corrected them.

    I can’t imagine what you think the second sentence quoted here has to do with the first. The hypocrisy accusation is in reference to your insistence that it’s wrong of Stephanie to reply to your copypasta in the other places you spammed it. (Hypocrisy is also there in your request for everyone else to stop talking about you, rather than stopping yourself, and in your rather astonishing inability to take criticism when you’re so high-handed in giving it.)

    The last two posts are flame-bait, and I’m not playing that game (“game” as defined in transactional analysis).

    It’s a strange universe you live in if you think repeatedly attempting to get something more substantial out of you than assertions, failed analogies, and special pleading counts as “flamebait.” Or is this another instance where you’ve switched up definitions?

  60. 60
    davidformosa

    This makes me think of the Max Plank quote

    Die Wahrheit triumphiert nie, ihre Gegner sterben nur aus.
    Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.

    Like Plank no one was proposing that the lives of these people be shortened, just that the finite nature of existence and the fact that those with old bad ideas will die before the younger generation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>