The Latest SFWA Controversy

Alessandra Kelley said:

Isn't that the man who argued that women's rights were evil, that women working was worse than rape, and that women's rights to vote should be rescinded, not just in SFWA but in all actual governmental elections?

I heard that there was a writers' site that supported his SFWA candidacy. Yikes.

Click to expand...

Wasn't he also the one that said throwing acid in a woman's face was justified in that it encouraged others to stay inside the home?

And this guy got 46(?) SFWA members to vote for him. Apparently, whatever else they thought of him, the above was not something that bothered them enough to sway their opinion.

Alessandra Kelley said:

That's their prerogative, I'm sure. I mean, if they feel that way.

But to align themselves with a person like that, who advocates the abortion of nonwhite babies and the denial of all women's rights, even the right to gainful employment, and wishes all white girls to be married young so they can start having as many white babies as possible as early as possible ...

To ally themselves with a person like that simply to tweak a group they do not like seems ill-considered.

Click to expand...

Consider the name of the blog. Write Agenda. Seems to imply the cranks/con-men running the scam view themselves to be running in opposition with the traditional publishers (whom they decry as being right-wing, possibly) and offer their "libertarian" pablum. They might be well aligned.

Alessandra Kelley said:

.

To ally themselves with a person like that simply to tweak a group they do not like seems ill-considered.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has ever accused Robert Fletcher or Strategic Book, the staples behind Write Agenda, of being sane.

amergina said:

I think that writer's site was the Write Agenda. They pretty much hate SFWA, AbsoluteWrite, Writer Beware, etc.

Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. There's a "writer's site" that hates all the other writers' sites that exist to educate and inform writers so they don't get scammed? So the "write agenda" is, in essence, a group of writers who want to be scammed by crooked and incompetent agents and vanity publishers and shady e-publishing services that masquerade as legit operations and so on?

Well, that is their right to free speech in action, I guess. But it's my right to think they are incredibly stupid. Or, hmmm, maybe they're not a writer's site at all, but they actually represent said scammers and their interests? (scratches temple thoughtfully) Still, it is really disturbing that they also support the racist, sexist and homophobic venom that this guy spews. Evidently, supporting sleazy business practices also makes you support a scary social agenda that extends way beyond what normally is associated with libertarianism.

This should not surprise me.

And on a different note, which computer games has this guy been involved in designing? I want to make sure I never buy any of them.

Alessandra Kelley said:

who advocates the abortion of nonwhite babies and the denial of all women's rights, even the right to gainful employment, and wishes all white girls to be married young so they can start having as many white babies as possible as early as possible ...

Click to expand...

OJCade said:

Wasn't he also the one that said throwing acid in a woman's face was justified in that it encouraged others to stay inside the home?

Click to expand...

Well that just made up my mind for me if even half of that is true. I thought he was just some emotional 3 year old with mummy issues, (which I can deal with, even if it makes my eyes cross.) But that...

I don't care what club he's in, if he's in it, I ain't joining. Because any club with him in it (and hasn;t kicked him into touch with a polite or not so polite mention of where the exit is) has serious problems.
To paraphrase Rocky II -- I don't need that kind of man anywhere fucking near my life. Not because I think he can beat me, but because I just do not need that shit.

Mr Flibble said:

I don't care what club he's in, if he's in it, I ain't joining. Because any club with him in it (and hasn;t kicked him into touch with a polite or not so polite mention of where the exit is) has serious problems.

Click to expand...

Except that they have stopped him from posting in the Forum because of his comments.

Orson Scott Card is a member of SFWA, and I'm fine with that. He's a writer who meets the pro publishing requirements.

If they can deny membership to people who are bigots, then what ground will they have to object when the leadership changes and SFWA is run by bigots? I have no reason to suspect that will happen, but it's not impossible.

Membership has to be based on external criteria, like publications.

I ain't posting to his site, Mr Flibble, but Pharyngula can give you the gist of it. Similarly here.

Medievalist said:

Membership has to be based on external criteria, like publications.

Click to expand...

Rubbish. You can absolutely have external criteria, but you also need, for the good of your organisation, to be able to disassociate yourself from, say, the dregs of humanity so as to not tar your own organisation with the same brush. SFWA doesn't do this. Instead, it allows them to stand for president.

They have now. Suspended him. Not told him where to go. (He said the stuff about acid attacks over a year ago...and no one thought this might be worth looking into? Plenty of people seem to have known about it)

OSC is a member, and while I don't agree with his position, I don't recall him ever saying that acid spraying gays was a good idea (Note: I haven't read much of his little rants, but I don't recall him advocating violence).

If they can deny membership to people who are bigots, then what ground will they have to object when the leadership changes and SFWA is run by bigots? I have no reason to suspect that will happen, but it's not impossible.

Click to expand...

If there aren't any bigots IN the SFWA how can it be run by bigots? Can a spambot get to be admin here? Can just any arsehole join SWFA? How bad do they have to be?

Sorry. Really. But line gotta be drawn somewhere /picard The line must be drawn here. /end picard. Is my line.

Mr Flibble said:

If there aren't any bigots IN the SFWA how can it be run by bigots? Can a spambot get to be admin here? Can just any arsehole join SWFA? How bad do they have to be?

Sorry. Really. But line gotta be drawn somewhere /picard The line must be drawn here. /end picard. Is my line.

Click to expand...

I used to post at large secularist board, and there was a member who was a paedophile, and did nothing but promote sex with young kids. IIRC, he even went into detail - once - about how to "theoretically" stretch them physically so as not to cause extreme damage.

For a time the board went the free speech route, but when he started advertising the place to his fellow paedos, as a place for legitimate discussion/advertisement of their predilections, enough was enough.

He got banned. Sometimes you can't do anything else without becoming complicit.

Mr Flibble said:

They have now. Suspended him. Not told him where to go. (He said the stuff about acid attacks over a year ago...and no one thought this might be worth looking into? Plenty of people seem to have known about it)

Click to expand...

It's not reasonable to suspend someone from posting on SWFA forums for things they've said elsewhere. His ability to post to the private members only forums has been suspended because of things he posted on the forum that violated the forum standards/TOS.

Mr Flibble said:

If there aren't any bigots IN the SFWA how can it be run by bigots? Can a spambot get to be admin here? Can just any arsehole join SWFA? How bad do they have to be?

Click to expand...

You'll have noted I was speaking hypothetically. If people's membership can be denied even though they meet the published criteria for membership, then what other reasons might be accepted under different leadership for denying membership of otherwise acceptable members?

The thing is, the criteria for joining a professional organization of any sort—SFWA, The Literary Guild, the MLA, the WGGB—are based on professional accomplishments. Not on whether or not you're a thoughtful or kind person. Under that kind of criteria for a writer's organization, any number of fabulous writers would be refused admission.

For one thing, there would be all manner of problems with 501 charity status and U. S. Federal law if SFWA essentially said you have to meet these professional criteria in order to be a member, oh, and we have to approve of your politics, public statements, etc.

I appreciate your stance, however, and am not meaning to browbeat you at all.

OJCade said:

Rubbish. You can absolutely have external criteria, but you also need, for the good of your organisation, to be able to disassociate yourself from, say, the dregs of humanity so as to not tar your own organisation with the same brush. SFWA doesn't do this. Instead, it allows them to stand for president.

Click to expand...

Not if they want to be a 501 charity they can't.

You'll note he was stopped from posting on the private forums.

But how does it look for a writer's organization to deny membership to someone for something they posted on their own Web site?

This may come down to a fundamental difference between US and UK and how we view things

It's not reasonable to suspend someone from posting on SWFA forums for things they've said elsewhere. His ability to post to the private members only forums has been suspended because of things he posted on the forum that violated the forum standards/TOS.

Click to expand...

It's reasonable to ban someone for bringing the whole organization into disrepute.

You'll have noted I was speaking hypothetically.

Click to expand...

Indeed, as was I. But we aren't speaking hypotheticals here.

If people's membership can be denied even though they meet the published criteria for membership, then what other reasons might be accepted under different leadership for denying membership of otherwise acceptable members?

Click to expand...

Any group has the absolute right to administer who joins and who does not. A small section on 'bringing the society into disrepute' would cover it.

The thing is, the criteria for joining a professional organization of any sort—SFWA, The Literary Guild, the MLA, the WGGB—are based on professional accomplishments. Not on whether or not you're a thoughtful or kind person. Under that kind of criteria for a writer's organization, any number of fabulous writers would be refused admission.

Click to expand...

But, and this is the crucial part -- would they admit ANYONE who met that simple requirement? They don't ask that members not involve in hate speech, or incitement to hatred, or anything else?

If that's so -- really, totally boggled.

Seriously, I cannot even see how you can defend this person being a member (and not *just* a member -- he was on the Nebula jury a couple of time) If that is acceptable to the SFWA, then it is an organisation I do not wish to join

Again, this could be a US/UK thing. It's different over here. If you get an arsehole (I don't mean just your usual arsehole, but someone really abhorrent and actually advocating hate etc, like an EDL member in a Muslim group) in your club, you tell him to get bent rather than put off future members. I've been a member of several societies who have done exactly that. I see no problem with it.

For one thing, there would be all manner of problems with 501 charity status and U. S. Federal law if SFWA essentially said you have to meet these professional criteria in order to be a member, oh, and we have to approve of your politics, public statements, etc.

Click to expand...

Surely advocating a felony (acid attacks) as a good thing wold clear that?

I mean, seriously, you have to put up with this in a society? If so, that's just another reason for me not to join. Beacuse I *don;t* have to put up with it, and I'm not going to put myself in the position of having to. Why should I?

If you are a public member of a society then while you should be allowed to espouse your views, going past that into advocating/supporting crime/violence is a whole 'nother matter.

Medievalist said:

But how does it look for a writer's organization to deny membership to someone for something they posted on their own Web site?

Click to expand...

In this case? It looks sane.

It looks as if women's rights is something SFWA gives more than lip service to.

Medievalist said:

It's not reasonable to suspend someone from posting on SWFA forums for things they've said elsewhere. His ability to post to the private members only forums has been suspended because of things he posted on the forum that violated the forum standards/TOS.



You'll have noted I was speaking hypothetically. If people's membership can be denied even though they meet the published criteria for membership, then what other reasons might be accepted under different leadership for denying membership of otherwise acceptable members?

The thing is, the criteria for joining a professional organization of any sort—SFWA, The Literary Guild, the MLA, the WGGB—are based on professional accomplishments. Not on whether or not you're a thoughtful or kind person. Under that kind of criteria for a writer's organization, any number of fabulous writers would be refused admission.

For one thing, there would be all manner of problems with 501 charity status and U. S. Federal law if SFWA essentially said you have to meet these professional criteria in order to be a member, oh, and we have to approve of your politics, public statements, etc.

I appreciate your stance, however, and am not meaning to browbeat you at all.

Click to expand...

It's always frustrating when practical considerations interfere with moral beliefs. But I think that most of the time when the two conflict, the moral side should trump the practical. So if there's no practical way for the organization to exclude offensive members, maybe the moral solution is to not join?

(I'm not much of a joiner, so this wouldn't be a difficult decision for me. I can appreciate that it's much more difficult for others. But I still think that it's important to take moral stands, sometimes...)

Mr Flibble said:

I mean, seriously, you have to put up with this in a society?

Click to expand...

I suspect that with enough legal support it might be doable. I know of one case that, as I understand it (I have not seen records), many years ago a member was voted out in a vote by the entire membership, with an overwhelming majority in favor of removing membership. But in that case the person was engaging in unacceptable actions as a representative and member of SFWA.

It's problematic because the offensive posts in this instance are on his own privately owned site. They aren't presented as SFWA's opinions. They are his private opinions.

It would be difficult legally, and I think the backlash would be horrific.

I'd suggest writing president@sfwa and ask. John Scalzi is reasonable. He'd also know the answer. And I think he'd take you seriously if you explained that you're not sure you want to join.

Medievalist said:

It's problematic because the offensive posts in this instance are on his own privately owned site. They aren't presented as SFWA's opinions. They are his private opinions.

Click to expand...

That he is sharing publicly about the SFWA just lately. He's telling women to GTFO and worse. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

It would be difficult legally, and I think the backlash would be horrific.

Click to expand...

I hate that this is so where you are. But a society should be able to control who it lets in and who it does not. If you can't oust people espousing hate, then you're sunk.

I'd suggest writing president@sfwa and ask. John Scalzi is reasonable. He'd also know the answer. And I think he'd take you seriously if you explained that you're not sure you want to join.

Click to expand...

I am no longer not sure. And as you said, he's going soon. But perhaps I will if I can marshal my argument enough.

I really am sorry, but I just cannot countenance joining a society that by doing nothing (or doing the least they could only when there was a backlash) condones this. I just can't do it. It would go against every single thing I believe in. *

Like I say, maybe it's US/UK thing. Or maybe it's just me. And I really am sorry, but my conscience won't allow it. Mainly because of how my stomach is telling me how sick it feels.

Joining would be like agreeing with him. And I can't do that.

*If you want o go constitutional, he has the right to say it -- and I have the right not to join a society that doesn't eject him for it.

Medievalist said:

Except that they have stopped him from posting in the Forum because of his comments.

Orson Scott Card is a member of SFWA, and I'm fine with that. He's a writer who meets the pro publishing requirements.

Click to expand...

I loathe and despise OSC's views on homosexuality. I wish he'd get a microgram of compassion or empathy or just plain Christian love-thy-neighbor into his head. But I would not support a writer's guild excluding him from membership only because of his sinful opinions published on his own blog under his own name.

I wouldn't even support excluding the racist sexist homophobic dipsh*t (RSHD) from SFWA based on his home-published opinions either, and they're light years worse than OSC's.

The best response to loathsome speech is more speech.

I do support an organization suspending posting privileges to a message board for violating the Terms of Service, which is what SFWA did with the RSHD. Yeah, them.

OJCade said:

Rubbish. You can absolutely have external criteria, but you also need, for the good of your organisation, to be able to disassociate yourself from, say, the dregs of humanity so as to not tar your own organisation with the same brush. SFWA doesn't do this. Instead, it allows them to stand for president.

Click to expand...

First they came for the RSHD and I said nothing because I am not a RSHD....

SFWA has members with political opinions all over the map. I think it would drive off more members than not to start using non-SF-writing reasons to deny membership or the privileges of membership. Not to mention the irony of denying membership to a writer's organization for the content of one's writing on one's personal site.

Not respecting one's fellow SFWA members on SFWA's private message board is a different ball of wax. Suspending posting privileges seems an adequate response. I'd not really support denying his membership.

Not that I have an opinion with much weight behind it. I'm not a SFWA member nor likely to become one any time soon.

Medievalist said:

For one thing, there would be all manner of problems with 501 charity status and U. S. Federal law if SFWA essentially said you have to meet these professional criteria in order to be a member, oh, and we have to approve of your politics, public statements, etc.

Click to expand...

Yup. 501(c)(3) organizations aren't supposed to be political. Though they probably could get away with booting the RSHD based on his behavior in the forums without tooooo much backlash from the IRS.

Backlash from members, on the other hand, might be larger. If the RSHD had become president, how soon before he used those shiny powers?

ULTRAGOTHA said:

I wouldn't even support excluding the racist sexist homophobic dipsh*t (RSHD) from SFWA based on his home-published opinions either, and they're light years worse than OSC's.

The best response to loathsome speech is more speech.

I do support an organization suspending posting privileges to a message board for violating the Terms of Service, which is what SFWA did with the RSHD. Yeah, them.

First they came for the RSHD and I said nothing because I am not a RSHD....

Click to expand...

Yep. That's the part that worries me. It does set a precedent that I could see being abused all too easily.

Mr Flibble said:

Well that just made up my mind for me if even half of that is true. I thought he was just some emotional 3 year old with mummy issues, (which I can deal with, even if it makes my eyes cross.) But that...

I don't care what club he's in, if he's in it, I ain't joining. Because any club with him in it (and hasn;t kicked him into touch with a polite or not so polite mention of where the exit is) has serious problems.
To paraphrase Rocky II -- I don't need that kind of man anywhere fucking near my life. Not because I think he can beat me, but because I just do not need that shit.

Click to expand...

I know exactly how you feel. My first reaction was "This guy is a member of SFWA? Why would I ever want to be a member of a professional society that had people like him in it." I guess this treads that delicate line between people (like Orson Scott Card) having a right to their sociopolitical opinions, even if said sociopolitical opinions are at the expense of a chunk of humanity. Any opinion can be said to be hurtful or demeaning to someone, I suppose.

The bigger question I have, though, is whether or not a society that is there to promote professional standards and create opportunities for all their members should create a forum for viewpoints that marginalize some of their members. I'd be very uncomfortable if I were a member of, say, an association of professional educators or biologists (which I have been at various times in my career as a biologist and college instructor), and there were members doing this kind of stuff and they were publishing sexist stuff in the society newsletter.

And it also comes down to the issue of professional standards. Professional societies do sometimes stipulate that members are supposed to hold to a certain standard of conduct in their public lives at least. How far this extends is something that is constantly being re-negotiated. I don't think blogging about one's sociopolitical views should be grounds for dismissal, even if those views cross the lines of what most consider to be respectful to all people. But when someone goes so far as to advocate violence against groups of people, well, this gets dicier in my mind. There are laws against hate speech and using inflammatory language to incite violence. Professional organizations can and do ban members for breaking the law, even if it is not at one of their functions.

But it is something you have to be very clear about. Overall, it makes me nervous to kick someone to the curb for something they do outside of the professional setting itself. Perhaps, in the future, they could have stricter rules about forum behavior?

ULTRAGOTHA said:

First they came for the RSHD and I said nothing because I am not a RSHD....

Click to expand...

Has the SFWA become the government of a nation state while I wasn't looking?

That quote (the original, anyway) referred to those Germans, specifically the intellectuals I think, who looked away from persecution by the state in Nazi Germany.

It seems to me false equivalence to apply it to a private club, essentially saying that said club must support all manner of undesirables, unless... what? Said private club decides that it would prefer not to have you as a member, so could you please not come to dinner anymore?

It's hardly transport to the camps now, is it? The point of "first they came for" is to promote citizens standing up to state persecution, not to force people to accept everything willynilly in their own private associations.

Mr Flibble said:

*If you want o go constitutional, he has the right to say it -- and I have the right not to join a society that doesn't eject him for it.

Click to expand...

Don't confuse our First Amendment with what SFWA is allowing. The First Amendment only controls what the government may and may not do.

SFWA, as a private organization, has no Constitutional obligation to allow any sort of speech at all. They can ban anything or anyone they want under the Constitution.

They'd be dealing with IRS rules governing charitable organizations. Though searching just now on the IRS web site, I didn't see them under 501(c)(3) organizations and I didn't find anything on the SFWA website to say one way or another. So I'm not sure which IRS regulations they'd be dealing with.

But if we justify ejecting someone on the grounds we think he's loathsome, how can we then criticise him for trying to eject women on the grounds he thinks they're loathsome?

OJCade said:

Has the SFWA become the government of a nation state while I wasn't looking?

Click to expand...

I plead guilty to hyperbole. But the underlying sentiment remains even for a private organization.

If you can exclude a member for off the wall right-wing political beliefs that have nothing to do with the reason the organization exists, then you can exclude a member for off the wall left-wing political beliefs that have nothing to do with the reason the organization exists.

The best response to hateful speech is more speech. Or a RSHD fund-raiser to support gay- and women-friendly charities.