Expecting working authors to enrage a not-insubstantial portion of their paying customers in order to show you that they share your politics is, I think, a silly thing.
This is exactly the "you're either with us or against us" thing we were talking about before.
i don't expect them to do anything.
i choose to spend my very limited money this way, they are allowed to do whatever they want.
edit: also, is it a witch hunt when on the other side there are actual nazis? this is not a difference of opinion about the 5 cent titanium tax not going too far enough.
yes it is still a witch hunt
the people hunting the witches at the time didn't exactly have a worse thing to accuse people of being
witch hunts weren't hunting actual witches. that's sort of the thing.
Expecting working authors to enrage a not-insubstantial portion of their paying customers in order to show you that they share your politics is, I think, a silly thing.
This is exactly the "you're either with us or against us" thing we were talking about before.
i don't expect them to do anything.
i choose to spend my very limited money this way, they are allowed to do whatever they want.
edit: also, is it a witch hunt when on the other side there are actual nazis? this is not a difference of opinion about the 5 cent titanium tax not going too far enough.
yes it is still a witch hunt
the people hunting the witches at the time didn't exactly have a worse thing to accuse people of being
witch hunts weren't hunting actual witches. that's sort of the thing.
If there were witches holding parades in towns across the US, flying on brooms in large groups across the town square during the day, cracking open the earth and summoning demons in front of the court house. Then it would be comparable.
We got people holding rallies in the town square screaming "Jews will not replace us" and giving the nazi salutes while wearing swastikas, and attacking synagogues.
Expecting working authors to enrage a not-insubstantial portion of their paying customers in order to show you that they share your politics is, I think, a silly thing.
This is exactly the "you're either with us or against us" thing we were talking about before.
i don't expect them to do anything.
i choose to spend my very limited money this way, they are allowed to do whatever they want.
edit: also, is it a witch hunt when on the other side there are actual nazis? this is not a difference of opinion about the 5 cent titanium tax not going too far enough.
yes it is still a witch hunt
the people hunting the witches at the time didn't exactly have a worse thing to accuse people of being
witch hunts weren't hunting actual witches. that's sort of the thing.
If there were witches holding parades in towns across the US, flying on brooms in large groups across the town square during the day, cracking open the earth and summoning demons in front of the court house. Then it would be comparable.
We got people holding rallies in the town square screaming "Jews will not replace us" and giving the nazi salutes while wearing swastikas, and attacking synagogues.
Did Jim Butcher do those things? No? Ok. Seems like there shouldn't be a problem.
You are just redefining the term witch hunt so that you can do everything associated with a witch hunt while saying "no this isn't a witch hunt, it's different"
"Witch Hunt" is a colloquial term for exactly what you're doing. Hunting through obscure bits and pieces of evidence to try to piece together whether someone is "with you" or "against you". It's exactly what McCarthy did in the 1950s and that is literally the textbook example of a witch hunt.
Expecting working authors to enrage a not-insubstantial portion of their paying customers in order to show you that they share your politics is, I think, a silly thing.
This is exactly the "you're either with us or against us" thing we were talking about before.
i don't expect them to do anything.
i choose to spend my very limited money this way, they are allowed to do whatever they want.
edit: also, is it a witch hunt when on the other side there are actual nazis? this is not a difference of opinion about the 5 cent titanium tax not going too far enough.
yes it is still a witch hunt
the people hunting the witches at the time didn't exactly have a worse thing to accuse people of being
witch hunts weren't hunting actual witches. that's sort of the thing.
If there were witches holding parades in towns across the US, flying on brooms in large groups across the town square during the day, cracking open the earth and summoning demons in front of the court house. Then it would be comparable.
We got people holding rallies in the town square screaming "Jews will not replace us" and giving the nazi salutes while wearing swastikas, and attacking synagogues.
secondly, this is some wonderful re-contextualization of history as well
the definition of "witch" in the 17th century was as well-defined as "nazi" is today, since "witch" was basically "doesn't follow the Word of the Lord (tm)"
Expecting working authors to enrage a not-insubstantial portion of their paying customers in order to show you that they share your politics is, I think, a silly thing.
This is exactly the "you're either with us or against us" thing we were talking about before.
i don't expect them to do anything.
i choose to spend my very limited money this way, they are allowed to do whatever they want.
edit: also, is it a witch hunt when on the other side there are actual nazis? this is not a difference of opinion about the 5 cent titanium tax not going too far enough.
yes it is still a witch hunt
the people hunting the witches at the time didn't exactly have a worse thing to accuse people of being
witch hunts weren't hunting actual witches. that's sort of the thing.
If there were witches holding parades in towns across the US, flying on brooms in large groups across the town square during the day, cracking open the earth and summoning demons in front of the court house. Then it would be comparable.
We got people holding rallies in the town square screaming "Jews will not replace us" and giving the nazi salutes while wearing swastikas, and attacking synagogues.
secondly, this is some wonderful re-contextualization of history as well
the definition of "witch" in the 17th century was as well-defined as "nazi" is today, since "witch" was basically "doesn't follow the Word of the Lord (tm)"
I haven't really been following any of the Butcher stuff here to make a specific comment on it, but uh, this, what is this post?
I'm trying to read this in a way that isn't "Nazis are just folks that don't want to follow the rules of the man" (or some even less charitable interpretation) and coming up blank.
Expecting authors to be on the cutting edge of progressive ideology is dumb. If that’s the standard for stuff you’ll read, I’m sorry to say but you’re cutting out about 99.9999999999% of everything ever written.
Including pretty much all the good stuff. Everyone’s got issues, the sooner we recognize that and stop obsessing over our artists being paragons of perfection the better.
I think there's a pretty big difference between "cutting edge of progressive ideology" and "actively supporting people you think are awful." I sure hope he isn't in that latter camp but as people have said, there's no real way for us to know at this point.
I've only read the first story in this so far, but I enjoyed it. Neat little western thing.
I think, by definition, if it were active we wouldn't be talking about ambiguity.
Well a person can vote for, or send money in support of, people without being very public about those things. If I were to find out that Butcher has funneled large amounts of money to some heinous organization, I would be less likely to buy his books even if he never talked about it publicly.
I certainly hope this isn't the case, I just meant that the bar for acceptable writers to most people is not some hard to achieve progressive standard that is never reachable.
Expecting authors to be on the cutting edge of progressive ideology is dumb. If that’s the standard for stuff you’ll read, I’m sorry to say but you’re cutting out about 99.9999999999% of everything ever written.
Including pretty much all the good stuff. Everyone’s got issues, the sooner we recognize that and stop obsessing over our artists being paragons of perfection the better.
I think there's a pretty big difference between "cutting edge of progressive ideology" and "actively supporting people you think are awful." I sure hope he isn't in that latter camp but as people have said, there's no real way for us to know at this point.
I've only read the first story in this so far, but I enjoyed it. Neat little western thing.
I think, by definition, if it were active we wouldn't be talking about ambiguity.
Well a person can vote for, or send money in support of, people without being very public about those things. If I were to find out that Butcher has funneled large amounts of money to some heinous organization, I would be less likely to buy his books even if he never talked about it publicly.
I certainly hope this isn't the case, I just meant that the bar for acceptable writers to most people is not some hard to achieve progressive standard that is never reachable.
Absolutely. If it is revealed that Butcher is in active, but quiet support of a hateful cause, that would change my view of him. Right now this is "but WHAT IF he is doing that?!" which is BS in my opinion.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Expecting working authors to enrage a not-insubstantial portion of their paying customers in order to show you that they share your politics is, I think, a silly thing.
This is exactly the "you're either with us or against us" thing we were talking about before.
i don't expect them to do anything.
i choose to spend my very limited money this way, they are allowed to do whatever they want.
edit: also, is it a witch hunt when on the other side there are actual nazis? this is not a difference of opinion about the 5 cent titanium tax not going too far enough.
yes it is still a witch hunt
the people hunting the witches at the time didn't exactly have a worse thing to accuse people of being
witch hunts weren't hunting actual witches. that's sort of the thing.
If there were witches holding parades in towns across the US, flying on brooms in large groups across the town square during the day, cracking open the earth and summoning demons in front of the court house. Then it would be comparable.
We got people holding rallies in the town square screaming "Jews will not replace us" and giving the nazi salutes while wearing swastikas, and attacking synagogues.
secondly, this is some wonderful re-contextualization of history as well
the definition of "witch" in the 17th century was as well-defined as "nazi" is today, since "witch" was basically "doesn't follow the Word of the Lord (tm)"
I haven't really been following any of the Butcher stuff here to make a specific comment on it, but uh, this, what is this post?
I'm trying to read this in a way that isn't "Nazis are just folks that don't want to follow the rules of the man" (or some even less charitable interpretation) and coming up blank.
that's because you're still trying to change the definition of the term so that what you're doing is not a witch hunt
when the Salem Witch Trials were going on, "witchcraft" meant things like this:
Good was a homeless beggar, known to seek food and shelter from neighbors. She was accused of witchcraft because of her appalling reputation. At her trial, she was accused of rejecting Puritan ideals of self-control and discipline when she chose to torment and "scorn [children] instead of leading them towards the path of salvation"
The people involved in the witch hunts knew what they were looking for at the time, just as much as y'all do now. To say that this is different because the people at the time didn't have any proof of "proper witchcraft" or whatever you want to call "flying on brooms in large groups across the town square" is looking at history and going "no that's different, we won't do anything quite so ridiculous"
The point of history is to look back and realize what was done wrong. We can look at the 17th century in Massachusetts, we can look at the House Un-American Activities Committee. Did either of those things end well?
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Why though? (the bolded)
Yes, some authors (mostly more successful ones who aren't exactly going to hurt from losing the potential customers in that area) stood up, but why is it every author's responsibility to do that? We're all required to be activists all the time, even at work, with complete disregard for the fact that we have homes that need to be paid for and families that need to be fed?
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible. And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
Briefly: An author complained that pulpy stories didn't win Hugos. They organized folks to vote for their own pulpy stories to try and win Hugos. The first year it didn't do much, the second it did a little bit better but the people got some flak for nominating their own works for it so it seemed less about pulpy stories and more about personal aggrandizement. They also included a flat out racist troll in their nominations. Next year another person organized for other peoples works to undercut that criticism. The day after they announced their list flat out racist troll put out his list that was nearly the same but covered every category. That year they dominated the nomination process with a whole lot of categories featuring only their slate candidates. That year most Hugos were voted to not be given out. Only one category did the asshole racist get his nominee a Hugo.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Why though? (the bolded)
Yes, some authors (mostly more successful ones who aren't exactly going to hurt from losing the potential customers in that area) stood up, but why is it every author's responsibility to do that? We're all required to be activists all the time, even at work, with complete disregard for the fact that we have homes that need to be paid for and families that need to be fed?
Because of exactly the reaction you see in this thread? You act like it's a win lose and it isn't. If you're being held up by a prominent group of assholes, *not* telling them to fuck off also costs you sales because people reasonably assume you're OK with it and want nothing to do with you because of that.
Expecting working authors to enrage a not-insubstantial portion of their paying customers in order to show you that they share your politics is, I think, a silly thing.
This is exactly the "you're either with us or against us" thing we were talking about before.
i don't expect them to do anything.
i choose to spend my very limited money this way, they are allowed to do whatever they want.
edit: also, is it a witch hunt when on the other side there are actual nazis? this is not a difference of opinion about the 5 cent titanium tax not going too far enough.
yes it is still a witch hunt
the people hunting the witches at the time didn't exactly have a worse thing to accuse people of being
witch hunts weren't hunting actual witches. that's sort of the thing.
If there were witches holding parades in towns across the US, flying on brooms in large groups across the town square during the day, cracking open the earth and summoning demons in front of the court house. Then it would be comparable.
We got people holding rallies in the town square screaming "Jews will not replace us" and giving the nazi salutes while wearing swastikas, and attacking synagogues.
secondly, this is some wonderful re-contextualization of history as well
the definition of "witch" in the 17th century was as well-defined as "nazi" is today, since "witch" was basically "doesn't follow the Word of the Lord (tm)"
I haven't really been following any of the Butcher stuff here to make a specific comment on it, but uh, this, what is this post?
I'm trying to read this in a way that isn't "Nazis are just folks that don't want to follow the rules of the man" (or some even less charitable interpretation) and coming up blank.
that's because you're still trying to change the definition of the term so that what you're doing is not a witch hunt
when the Salem Witch Trials were going on, "witchcraft" meant things like this:
Good was a homeless beggar, known to seek food and shelter from neighbors. She was accused of witchcraft because of her appalling reputation. At her trial, she was accused of rejecting Puritan ideals of self-control and discipline when she chose to torment and "scorn [children] instead of leading them towards the path of salvation"
The people involved in the witch hunts knew what they were looking for at the time, just as much as y'all do now. To say that this is different because the people at the time didn't have any proof of "proper witchcraft" or whatever you want to call "flying on brooms in large groups across the town square" is looking at history and going "no that's different, we won't do anything quite so ridiculous"
The point of history is to look back and realize what was done wrong. We can look at the 17th century in Massachusetts, we can look at the House Un-American Activities Committee. Did either of those things end well?
Well, if we are doing history lessons, I'm going to have to tell you that what you learned about the witch trials was bullshit. The real reason for the witch trials was conflict about using religion and the state to redress a loss in social status due to the shifting value of land and food crops.
The grandees in Salem for years were the inland farmers, who ruled the local church and community via their economic power. As the economy of Massachusetts changed to privilege those who made their living in shipbuilding and servicing the slave economies of the Caribbean, the old-time powerful suddenly found themselves indebted and losing power. So, they used the church to punish their newly prosperous neighbors.
Which brings up back to the real lesson of Salem - when an embittered group starts trying to take over an organization while talking about how they have the right to push back on their perceived or real loss of status, it is the duty of the community to oppose them.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Why though? (the bolded)
Yes, some authors (mostly more successful ones who aren't exactly going to hurt from losing the potential customers in that area) stood up, but why is it every author's responsibility to do that? We're all required to be activists all the time, even at work, with complete disregard for the fact that we have homes that need to be paid for and families that need to be fed?
Because of exactly the reaction you see in this thread? You act like it's a win lose and it isn't. If you're being held up by a prominent group of assholes, *not* telling them to fuck off also costs you sales because people reasonably assume you're OK with it and want nothing to do with you because of that.
But then if we dare suggest that anyone not buy works of people who are ok with racism and other forms of bigotry (if not outright harrassment), we get called out for being horrible people for not judging works by their content alone.
That said, if bigots choose to raise someones works above others as exemplary, that kinda calls the works themselves into question and asks for a closer look into what is in those works.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Why though? (the bolded)
Yes, some authors (mostly more successful ones who aren't exactly going to hurt from losing the potential customers in that area) stood up, but why is it every author's responsibility to do that? We're all required to be activists all the time, even at work, with complete disregard for the fact that we have homes that need to be paid for and families that need to be fed?
I've already answered that question. When your community locks arms to protect its members from harassment, and you stay silent, you will be judged fairly or unfairly. When the actual harassers are victimizing in your name, and you stay silent, you will be judged fairly.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Why though? (the bolded)
Yes, some authors (mostly more successful ones who aren't exactly going to hurt from losing the potential customers in that area) stood up, but why is it every author's responsibility to do that? We're all required to be activists all the time, even at work, with complete disregard for the fact that we have homes that need to be paid for and families that need to be fed?
Because of exactly the reaction you see in this thread? You act like it's a win lose and it isn't. If you're being held up by a prominent group of assholes, *not* telling them to fuck off also costs you sales because people reasonably assume you're OK with it and want nothing to do with you because of that.
But then if we dare suggest that anyone not buy works of people who are ok with racism and other forms of bigotry (if not outright harrassment), we get called out for being horrible people for not judging works by their content alone.
That said, if bigots choose to raise someones works above others as exemplary, that kinda calls the works themselves into question and asks for a closer look into what is in those works.
What if we didn’t give a damn about what bigots do or do not like and judge works on their own merits? Bigots like everything you like. Evil people enjoy the media you enjoy. Two people can read the same work and draw two extremely different conclusions (as anyone who has studied literature should know). It’s not on the author to tell people how to read or interpret their work. They can if they want, they’re under no obligation nor should they be.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Why though? (the bolded)
Yes, some authors (mostly more successful ones who aren't exactly going to hurt from losing the potential customers in that area) stood up, but why is it every author's responsibility to do that? We're all required to be activists all the time, even at work, with complete disregard for the fact that we have homes that need to be paid for and families that need to be fed?
I've already answered that question. When your community locks arms to protect its members from harassment, and you stay silent, you will be judged fairly or unfairly. When the actual harassers are victimizing in your name, and you stay silent, you will be judged fairly.
Does your moral crusade have an conscientious objector option?
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Why though? (the bolded)
Yes, some authors (mostly more successful ones who aren't exactly going to hurt from losing the potential customers in that area) stood up, but why is it every author's responsibility to do that? We're all required to be activists all the time, even at work, with complete disregard for the fact that we have homes that need to be paid for and families that need to be fed?
Because of exactly the reaction you see in this thread? You act like it's a win lose and it isn't. If you're being held up by a prominent group of assholes, *not* telling them to fuck off also costs you sales because people reasonably assume you're OK with it and want nothing to do with you because of that.
But then if we dare suggest that anyone not buy works of people who are ok with racism and other forms of bigotry (if not outright harrassment), we get called out for being horrible people for not judging works by their content alone.
That said, if bigots choose to raise someones works above others as exemplary, that kinda calls the works themselves into question and asks for a closer look into what is in those works.
What if we didn’t give a damn about what bigots do or do not like and judge works on their own merits? Bigots like everything you like. Evil people enjoy the media you enjoy. Two people can read the same work and draw two extremely different conclusions (as anyone who has studied literature should know). It’s not on the author to tell people how to read or interpret their work. They can if they want, they’re under no obligation nor should they be.
Are you familiar with the puppies? Because it's a bit more than just "likes your work" there.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Why though? (the bolded)
Yes, some authors (mostly more successful ones who aren't exactly going to hurt from losing the potential customers in that area) stood up, but why is it every author's responsibility to do that? We're all required to be activists all the time, even at work, with complete disregard for the fact that we have homes that need to be paid for and families that need to be fed?
I've already answered that question. When your community locks arms to protect its members from harassment, and you stay silent, you will be judged fairly or unfairly. When the actual harassers are victimizing in your name, and you stay silent, you will be judged fairly.
Does your moral crusade have an conscientious objector option?
This is the point when I mention that forumers who haven't been around for long should start Googling screen names and Gamergarble. Some geese have a long, long history of showing up and "just asking questions" while decrying censorship and suppression of free enquiry whenever people get upset about these issues.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Why though? (the bolded)
Yes, some authors (mostly more successful ones who aren't exactly going to hurt from losing the potential customers in that area) stood up, but why is it every author's responsibility to do that? We're all required to be activists all the time, even at work, with complete disregard for the fact that we have homes that need to be paid for and families that need to be fed?
Because of exactly the reaction you see in this thread? You act like it's a win lose and it isn't. If you're being held up by a prominent group of assholes, *not* telling them to fuck off also costs you sales because people reasonably assume you're OK with it and want nothing to do with you because of that.
But then if we dare suggest that anyone not buy works of people who are ok with racism and other forms of bigotry (if not outright harrassment), we get called out for being horrible people for not judging works by their content alone.
That said, if bigots choose to raise someones works above others as exemplary, that kinda calls the works themselves into question and asks for a closer look into what is in those works.
What if we didn’t give a damn about what bigots do or do not like and judge works on their own merits? Bigots like everything you like. Evil people enjoy the media you enjoy. Two people can read the same work and draw two extremely different conclusions (as anyone who has studied literature should know). It’s not on the author to tell people how to read or interpret their work. They can if they want, they’re under no obligation nor should they be.
Are you familiar with the puppies? Because it's a bit more than just "likes your work" there.
Yeah I know the idea of what happened. I think the point stands.
When it came time for fellow writers to support the women and minority nominees who were being actively harassed and threatened for writing fiction awesome enough to get nominated for a Hugo, the vast majority of the SF/Fantasy community of authors loudly and proudly stood up in solidarity with them. It was pretty awesome to see so many writers I liked do the right thing and reject the hatred festering in their community.
Except Butcher. He kept quiet and let his works be a standard that the harassers marched under. That's nothing to celebrate, even if he's not personally a believer in their politics.
You're arguing that Butcher is a villain due to the Banality of Evil, which Butcher isn't committing. He's not issuing orders to have Jewish people and homosexuals killed because it's his duty, but simply not commenting on his political beliefs. We have a guideline where I work that we don't discuss religion or politics at work. I feel that Jim is simply executing the same rule with his job.
Othering people because they don't espouse your belief have to stop, because you'll end up driving them right into the political camp you don't want them in. It isn't wrong for a person to decline to share their beliefs with you.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Why though? (the bolded)
Yes, some authors (mostly more successful ones who aren't exactly going to hurt from losing the potential customers in that area) stood up, but why is it every author's responsibility to do that? We're all required to be activists all the time, even at work, with complete disregard for the fact that we have homes that need to be paid for and families that need to be fed?
I've already answered that question. When your community locks arms to protect its members from harassment, and you stay silent, you will be judged fairly or unfairly. When the actual harassers are victimizing in your name, and you stay silent, you will be judged fairly.
Does your moral crusade have an conscientious objector option?
This is the point when I mention that forumers who haven't been around for long should start Googling screen names and Gamergarble. Some geese have a long, long history of showing up and "just asking questions" while decrying censorship and suppression of free enquiry whenever people get upset about these issues.
Ad hominems are always the best side-step, aren’t they?
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Why though? (the bolded)
Yes, some authors (mostly more successful ones who aren't exactly going to hurt from losing the potential customers in that area) stood up, but why is it every author's responsibility to do that? We're all required to be activists all the time, even at work, with complete disregard for the fact that we have homes that need to be paid for and families that need to be fed?
Because of exactly the reaction you see in this thread? You act like it's a win lose and it isn't. If you're being held up by a prominent group of assholes, *not* telling them to fuck off also costs you sales because people reasonably assume you're OK with it and want nothing to do with you because of that.
But then if we dare suggest that anyone not buy works of people who are ok with racism and other forms of bigotry (if not outright harrassment), we get called out for being horrible people for not judging works by their content alone.
That said, if bigots choose to raise someones works above others as exemplary, that kinda calls the works themselves into question and asks for a closer look into what is in those works.
What if we didn’t give a damn about what bigots do or do not like and judge works on their own merits? Bigots like everything you like. Evil people enjoy the media you enjoy. Two people can read the same work and draw two extremely different conclusions (as anyone who has studied literature should know). It’s not on the author to tell people how to read or interpret their work. They can if they want, they’re under no obligation nor should they be.
Then you are free to donate money to whatever horrible cause the bigots favorite author supports.
Point is, that money given to authors go, in part, to support any activities authors do, and if some author is specifically being raised as a standard by bigots, it might be time for a closer look.
Especially if the author remains silent about thesupport hey receive from the bigots.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Why though? (the bolded)
Yes, some authors (mostly more successful ones who aren't exactly going to hurt from losing the potential customers in that area) stood up, but why is it every author's responsibility to do that? We're all required to be activists all the time, even at work, with complete disregard for the fact that we have homes that need to be paid for and families that need to be fed?
Because of exactly the reaction you see in this thread? You act like it's a win lose and it isn't. If you're being held up by a prominent group of assholes, *not* telling them to fuck off also costs you sales because people reasonably assume you're OK with it and want nothing to do with you because of that.
But then if we dare suggest that anyone not buy works of people who are ok with racism and other forms of bigotry (if not outright harrassment), we get called out for being horrible people for not judging works by their content alone.
That said, if bigots choose to raise someones works above others as exemplary, that kinda calls the works themselves into question and asks for a closer look into what is in those works.
What if we didn’t give a damn about what bigots do or do not like and judge works on their own merits? Bigots like everything you like. Evil people enjoy the media you enjoy. Two people can read the same work and draw two extremely different conclusions (as anyone who has studied literature should know). It’s not on the author to tell people how to read or interpret their work. They can if they want, they’re under no obligation nor should they be.
Then you are free to donate money to whatever horrible cause the bigots favorite author supports.
Point is, that money given to authors go, in part, to support any activities authors do, and if some author is specifically being raised as a standard by bigots, it might be time for a closer look.
Especially if the author remains silent about thesupport hey receive from the bigots.
It just stinks of McCarthyism. Let’s just take a closer look into your activities, see if you have any COMMIE tendencies!
In much the same way, you can read any one thing in many ways, and it will be coloured by your bias. When it comes to finding themes in literature, you will generally find what it is you go in looking for.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Why though? (the bolded)
Yes, some authors (mostly more successful ones who aren't exactly going to hurt from losing the potential customers in that area) stood up, but why is it every author's responsibility to do that? We're all required to be activists all the time, even at work, with complete disregard for the fact that we have homes that need to be paid for and families that need to be fed?
Because of exactly the reaction you see in this thread? You act like it's a win lose and it isn't. If you're being held up by a prominent group of assholes, *not* telling them to fuck off also costs you sales because people reasonably assume you're OK with it and want nothing to do with you because of that.
But then if we dare suggest that anyone not buy works of people who are ok with racism and other forms of bigotry (if not outright harrassment), we get called out for being horrible people for not judging works by their content alone.
That said, if bigots choose to raise someones works above others as exemplary, that kinda calls the works themselves into question and asks for a closer look into what is in those works.
What if we didn’t give a damn about what bigots do or do not like and judge works on their own merits? Bigots like everything you like. Evil people enjoy the media you enjoy. Two people can read the same work and draw two extremely different conclusions (as anyone who has studied literature should know). It’s not on the author to tell people how to read or interpret their work. They can if they want, they’re under no obligation nor should they be.
Then you are free to donate money to whatever horrible cause the bigots favorite author supports.
Point is, that money given to authors go, in part, to support any activities authors do, and if some author is specifically being raised as a standard by bigots, it might be time for a closer look.
Especially if the author remains silent about thesupport hey receive from the bigots.
It just stinks of McCarthyism. Let’s just take a closer look into your activities, see if you have any COMMIE tendencies!
In much the same way, you can read any one thing in many ways, and it will be coloured by your bias. When it comes to finding themes in literature, you will generally find what it is you go in looking for.
Yes, not wanting to buy the next Orson Scot Cards books is just like McCarthyism.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Why though? (the bolded)
Yes, some authors (mostly more successful ones who aren't exactly going to hurt from losing the potential customers in that area) stood up, but why is it every author's responsibility to do that? We're all required to be activists all the time, even at work, with complete disregard for the fact that we have homes that need to be paid for and families that need to be fed?
I've already answered that question. When your community locks arms to protect its members from harassment, and you stay silent, you will be judged fairly or unfairly. When the actual harassers are victimizing in your name, and you stay silent, you will be judged fairly.
Does your moral crusade have an conscientious objector option?
This is the point when I mention that forumers who haven't been around for long should start Googling screen names and Gamergarble. Some geese have a long, long history of showing up and "just asking questions" while decrying censorship and suppression of free enquiry whenever people get upset about these issues.
Ad hominems are always the best side-step, aren’t they?
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Why though? (the bolded)
Yes, some authors (mostly more successful ones who aren't exactly going to hurt from losing the potential customers in that area) stood up, but why is it every author's responsibility to do that? We're all required to be activists all the time, even at work, with complete disregard for the fact that we have homes that need to be paid for and families that need to be fed?
Because of exactly the reaction you see in this thread? You act like it's a win lose and it isn't. If you're being held up by a prominent group of assholes, *not* telling them to fuck off also costs you sales because people reasonably assume you're OK with it and want nothing to do with you because of that.
But then if we dare suggest that anyone not buy works of people who are ok with racism and other forms of bigotry (if not outright harrassment), we get called out for being horrible people for not judging works by their content alone.
That said, if bigots choose to raise someones works above others as exemplary, that kinda calls the works themselves into question and asks for a closer look into what is in those works.
What if we didn’t give a damn about what bigots do or do not like and judge works on their own merits? Bigots like everything you like. Evil people enjoy the media you enjoy. Two people can read the same work and draw two extremely different conclusions (as anyone who has studied literature should know). It’s not on the author to tell people how to read or interpret their work. They can if they want, they’re under no obligation nor should they be.
Then you are free to donate money to whatever horrible cause the bigots favorite author supports.
Point is, that money given to authors go, in part, to support any activities authors do, and if some author is specifically being raised as a standard by bigots, it might be time for a closer look.
Especially if the author remains silent about thesupport hey receive from the bigots.
It just stinks of McCarthyism. Let’s just take a closer look into your activities, see if you have any COMMIE tendencies!
In much the same way, you can read any one thing in many ways, and it will be coloured by your bias. When it comes to finding themes in literature, you will generally find what it is you go in looking for.
Yes, not wanting to buy the next Orson Scot Cards books is just like McCarthyism.
I was referring quite explicitly to the “it might be time for a closer look” angle. It’s pretty ugly. Like, the guy hasn’t done you wrong but now you’re going to dig in and try to find evidence of wrongdoing or wrongthink. Live and let live, friend. If you spend your time searching for evil you will certainly find it, one way or another.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Well, you kinda get compared to the company you keep.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
Why though? (the bolded)
Yes, some authors (mostly more successful ones who aren't exactly going to hurt from losing the potential customers in that area) stood up, but why is it every author's responsibility to do that? We're all required to be activists all the time, even at work, with complete disregard for the fact that we have homes that need to be paid for and families that need to be fed?
I've already answered that question. When your community locks arms to protect its members from harassment, and you stay silent, you will be judged fairly or unfairly. When the actual harassers are victimizing in your name, and you stay silent, you will be judged fairly.
Does your moral crusade have an conscientious objector option?
This is the point when I mention that forumers who haven't been around for long should start Googling screen names and Gamergarble. Some geese have a long, long history of showing up and "just asking questions" while decrying censorship and suppression of free enquiry whenever people get upset about these issues.
Ad hominems are always the best side-step, aren’t they?
And both of you can knock off the snarky back and forth or feel free to take a break from the thread.
Plus, there's a pretty solid reason for why it hasn't come out. Jim has been fairly open with the fact that he just can't write unless he's in his own space. He moved in with his fiancee while he was building a new home for himself and it took 3 years when it was supposed to take something like 10 months.
He's just got a mental block that doesn't let his creative juices flow when he's not in "his" space and while it was true that it was his fiancee's home, he explained that it felt like her place and not theirs. The new place is finished and he's moved in (I believe), so he should probably be back to his ridiculous level of output soon enough.
Probably also before whatever the third Kingkiller Chronicle book is called. Doors of Stone?
Edit: If Jim couldn't write because he wasn't in 'his' space, for 3 years, I feel like whatever his level of income per-book is probably would have justified renting a place of his own to write in after a year or so of not writing...
Probably also before whatever the third Kingkiller Chronicle book is called. Doors of Stone?
Edit: If Jim couldn't write because he wasn't in 'his' space, for 3 years, I feel like whatever his level of income per-book is probably would have justified renting a place of his own to write in after a year or so of not writing...
probably, but that's only if you were in a position where you had information pointing to it being for-sure going to take a lot longer
I feel like you'd almost have to have never worked with contractors if you don't understand how "oh no, it's definitely going to be done next month" can easily stretch for long periods of time. Building a home from scratch is that times a hundred.
Not to mention he and his fiancee were probably having a perfectly fun time of it on their own and it's not like he owes anyone these books. If he had wanted to crank them out, he could have figured out a way to do that.
Posts
If there were witches holding parades in towns across the US, flying on brooms in large groups across the town square during the day, cracking open the earth and summoning demons in front of the court house. Then it would be comparable.
We got people holding rallies in the town square screaming "Jews will not replace us" and giving the nazi salutes while wearing swastikas, and attacking synagogues.
Did Jim Butcher do those things? No? Ok. Seems like there shouldn't be a problem.
"Witch Hunt" is a colloquial term for exactly what you're doing. Hunting through obscure bits and pieces of evidence to try to piece together whether someone is "with you" or "against you". It's exactly what McCarthy did in the 1950s and that is literally the textbook example of a witch hunt.
secondly, this is some wonderful re-contextualization of history as well
the definition of "witch" in the 17th century was as well-defined as "nazi" is today, since "witch" was basically "doesn't follow the Word of the Lord (tm)"
I haven't really been following any of the Butcher stuff here to make a specific comment on it, but uh, this, what is this post?
I'm trying to read this in a way that isn't "Nazis are just folks that don't want to follow the rules of the man" (or some even less charitable interpretation) and coming up blank.
Well a person can vote for, or send money in support of, people without being very public about those things. If I were to find out that Butcher has funneled large amounts of money to some heinous organization, I would be less likely to buy his books even if he never talked about it publicly.
I certainly hope this isn't the case, I just meant that the bar for acceptable writers to most people is not some hard to achieve progressive standard that is never reachable.
Absolutely. If it is revealed that Butcher is in active, but quiet support of a hateful cause, that would change my view of him. Right now this is "but WHAT IF he is doing that?!" which is BS in my opinion.
And in the case of celebrities, those who publicly follow/support you (and you don't denounce).
Not really familiar with the puppies/Hugo thing, but if you are suddenly being used as a standard by horrible people, you either need to denounce the horrible people, are be reasonably assumed to not think of them as horrible.
And from there the speculation on if you support their ideas is not really unreasonable.
As I mentioned above, that's especially true when the majority of your professional peers are taking a stand. Butcher's a dude who writes a lot about being a hero, but he was conspicuously silent at a moment when a lot of his fellow authors took the risk of losing sales, doxing, and real-life assault by standing with the authors being harassed by the trolls and fascists.
It sucks if he was drawn into this unwillingly by being put on the Puppy slate as an example of good, white, and male REAL literature. But anyone in the public eye needs to know that if they don't immediately go, "No, fuck you, take my name off this shit" when these assholes associate themselves with you, then they are going to get tarred and rightfully so.
There are times when life puts you into a corner, and it is how you react that defines you.
that's because you're still trying to change the definition of the term so that what you're doing is not a witch hunt
when the Salem Witch Trials were going on, "witchcraft" meant things like this:
The people involved in the witch hunts knew what they were looking for at the time, just as much as y'all do now. To say that this is different because the people at the time didn't have any proof of "proper witchcraft" or whatever you want to call "flying on brooms in large groups across the town square" is looking at history and going "no that's different, we won't do anything quite so ridiculous"
The point of history is to look back and realize what was done wrong. We can look at the 17th century in Massachusetts, we can look at the House Un-American Activities Committee. Did either of those things end well?
Why though? (the bolded)
Yes, some authors (mostly more successful ones who aren't exactly going to hurt from losing the potential customers in that area) stood up, but why is it every author's responsibility to do that? We're all required to be activists all the time, even at work, with complete disregard for the fact that we have homes that need to be paid for and families that need to be fed?
Briefly: An author complained that pulpy stories didn't win Hugos. They organized folks to vote for their own pulpy stories to try and win Hugos. The first year it didn't do much, the second it did a little bit better but the people got some flak for nominating their own works for it so it seemed less about pulpy stories and more about personal aggrandizement. They also included a flat out racist troll in their nominations. Next year another person organized for other peoples works to undercut that criticism. The day after they announced their list flat out racist troll put out his list that was nearly the same but covered every category. That year they dominated the nomination process with a whole lot of categories featuring only their slate candidates. That year most Hugos were voted to not be given out. Only one category did the asshole racist get his nominee a Hugo.
Tl;dr: We should all hate James Gunn because he accepted the Hugo for Guardians of the Galaxy.
Because of exactly the reaction you see in this thread? You act like it's a win lose and it isn't. If you're being held up by a prominent group of assholes, *not* telling them to fuck off also costs you sales because people reasonably assume you're OK with it and want nothing to do with you because of that.
Well, if we are doing history lessons, I'm going to have to tell you that what you learned about the witch trials was bullshit. The real reason for the witch trials was conflict about using religion and the state to redress a loss in social status due to the shifting value of land and food crops.
The grandees in Salem for years were the inland farmers, who ruled the local church and community via their economic power. As the economy of Massachusetts changed to privilege those who made their living in shipbuilding and servicing the slave economies of the Caribbean, the old-time powerful suddenly found themselves indebted and losing power. So, they used the church to punish their newly prosperous neighbors.
Which brings up back to the real lesson of Salem - when an embittered group starts trying to take over an organization while talking about how they have the right to push back on their perceived or real loss of status, it is the duty of the community to oppose them.
That said, if bigots choose to raise someones works above others as exemplary, that kinda calls the works themselves into question and asks for a closer look into what is in those works.
I've already answered that question. When your community locks arms to protect its members from harassment, and you stay silent, you will be judged fairly or unfairly. When the actual harassers are victimizing in your name, and you stay silent, you will be judged fairly.
What if we didn’t give a damn about what bigots do or do not like and judge works on their own merits? Bigots like everything you like. Evil people enjoy the media you enjoy. Two people can read the same work and draw two extremely different conclusions (as anyone who has studied literature should know). It’s not on the author to tell people how to read or interpret their work. They can if they want, they’re under no obligation nor should they be.
Does your moral crusade have an conscientious objector option?
Are you familiar with the puppies? Because it's a bit more than just "likes your work" there.
This is the point when I mention that forumers who haven't been around for long should start Googling screen names and Gamergarble. Some geese have a long, long history of showing up and "just asking questions" while decrying censorship and suppression of free enquiry whenever people get upset about these issues.
Yeah I know the idea of what happened. I think the point stands.
You're arguing that Butcher is a villain due to the Banality of Evil, which Butcher isn't committing. He's not issuing orders to have Jewish people and homosexuals killed because it's his duty, but simply not commenting on his political beliefs. We have a guideline where I work that we don't discuss religion or politics at work. I feel that Jim is simply executing the same rule with his job.
Othering people because they don't espouse your belief have to stop, because you'll end up driving them right into the political camp you don't want them in. It isn't wrong for a person to decline to share their beliefs with you.
Ad hominems are always the best side-step, aren’t they?
Point is, that money given to authors go, in part, to support any activities authors do, and if some author is specifically being raised as a standard by bigots, it might be time for a closer look.
Especially if the author remains silent about thesupport hey receive from the bigots.
It just stinks of McCarthyism. Let’s just take a closer look into your activities, see if you have any COMMIE tendencies!
In much the same way, you can read any one thing in many ways, and it will be coloured by your bias. When it comes to finding themes in literature, you will generally find what it is you go in looking for.
Yes, not wanting to buy the next Orson Scot Cards books is just like McCarthyism.
I was referring quite explicitly to the “it might be time for a closer look” angle. It’s pretty ugly. Like, the guy hasn’t done you wrong but now you’re going to dig in and try to find evidence of wrongdoing or wrongthink. Live and let live, friend. If you spend your time searching for evil you will certainly find it, one way or another.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
And both of you can knock off the snarky back and forth or feel free to take a break from the thread.
Oh...
That's damning with faint praise and you know it.
:-(
He's just got a mental block that doesn't let his creative juices flow when he's not in "his" space and while it was true that it was his fiancee's home, he explained that it felt like her place and not theirs. The new place is finished and he's moved in (I believe), so he should probably be back to his ridiculous level of output soon enough.
Edit: If Jim couldn't write because he wasn't in 'his' space, for 3 years, I feel like whatever his level of income per-book is probably would have justified renting a place of his own to write in after a year or so of not writing...
I mean I am finishing the Expanse books. The 8th and final book is on Amazon for pre-order coming out in December.
Its a completed series.
I am in shock.
Winds of Winter non jokingly isn’t ever coming out. Sanderson is waiting for that phone call.
probably, but that's only if you were in a position where you had information pointing to it being for-sure going to take a lot longer
I feel like you'd almost have to have never worked with contractors if you don't understand how "oh no, it's definitely going to be done next month" can easily stretch for long periods of time. Building a home from scratch is that times a hundred.
Not to mention he and his fiancee were probably having a perfectly fun time of it on their own and it's not like he owes anyone these books. If he had wanted to crank them out, he could have figured out a way to do that.